March 02, 2005

Or Maybe Freedom Isn't On the March

Posted by Brian

As an alien who will presumably have to apply for residence in the US one of these days, I found this post at TalkLeft somewhat disturbing.

Homeland Security is requiring immigrants in 8 cities who are in the process of applying for residency to wear electronic monitoring ankle bracelets 24/7.

These people have never been accused of a crime. There are 1,700 of them to date. Homeland Security says monitoring will prevent those ordered deported from running and hiding. But, a 2003 Justice Department report (pdf) blamed inadequate record keeping by immigration officials as the reason for problems deporting non-detained aliens.

I’m ever so glad the GOP is such a strong supporter of small government and individual liberty.

More seriously, it’s times like this that I think Adam Morton may be right - our complacency about the morality of institutions of citizenship and borders could very well look like a serious moral shortcoming when history casts its judgment on our era.

March 01, 2005

It's Schmitt Time Again

Posted by Kieran

Go read. That’s all.

Life Imitating Art

Posted by Kieran

Rep Sam Johnson, the other day:

Speaking at a veterans’ celebration at Suncreek United Methodist Church in Allen, Texas….Johnson said he told the president that night, “Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on ‘em and I’ll make one pass. We won’t have to worry about Syria anymore.”

Randy Newman, some years ago:

No one likes us
I don’t know why
We may not be perfect
But heaven knows we try
But all around even our old friends put us down
Let’s drop the big one and see what happens We give them money
But are they grateful?
No they’re spiteful
And they’re hateful
They don’t respect us, so let’s surprise them
We’ll drop the big one and pulverize them.

Maybe the GOP should hire Newman as a foreign policy consultant. Johnson’s decision to deliver the remarks in a church was a particularly nice touch. I wonder if he knows where the road to Damascus actually is.

February 22, 2005

Living up to conservative principles

Posted by Ted

Good point from Mark Schmitt:

Back when the Medicare bill was on the floor and I was just starting this blog, I argued that the Democrats, rather than proposing a $1 trillion prescription drug benefit, should have proposed something that cost less and did much more, such as the Clinton bill of 2000, which at the time cost $253 billion and even three years later would certainly not have cost more than the $400 billion claimed cost of the Bush bill, while doing much more. Such an alternative would have put the handful of real conservatives, who were being told by their leaders that if they didn’t vote for the Republican bill, the Democrats would sweep in with something even bigger, in a very awkward position. But now that the real cost of the Bush bill is $1.2 trillion, I realize that I was wrong: the Democrats were perfectly responsible, and did propose a bill that cost less and did more than the Bush bill. And because it contained some real cost controls, its cost was not likely to escalate much beyond that.

(Background on the $253 billion bill here.) And I haven’t excerpted any of the David Brooks-bashing! Come on, you’ve got to click over for that!

February 21, 2005

Kelo v New London

Posted by Belle Waring

The Supreme Court will soon hear a case which could decide the limits of the power of eminent domain. The question in the case is whether the government of New London, CT can seize homeowners’ property and give it to private developers in a bid to “revitalize” the town. (Link to AP story).

Fort Trumbull is not besieged by blight, poverty or crime and New London is not building a highway or government building, and the residents’ appeal asks if “public use” allows governments to seize unblighted taxpayer property solely to encourage private development.

…New London officials say the taxes generated by redeveloping Fort Trumbull ultimately will benefit the public, and the state Supreme Court ruled that was enough to justify the condemnation.

That line of reasoning seems incredibly weak, and the potential for abuse, enormous. The Connecticut Supremes also relied on a rather dubious (and notorious) precedent:

The state Supreme Court majority in Kelo relied heavily on a 1981 Michigan Supreme Court ruling - Poletown Neighborhood Council vs. City of Detroit - which it cited as a “landmark” eminent domain case. But several months after the Connecticut Supreme Court issued its ruling in Kelo, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed its Poletown ruling. (Link to Hartford Courant article)

The Reason Foundation is assisting the plaintiffs. I think it’s obvious the Supreme Court should reverse the state Supreme Court, but I’m curious to see how the justices decide. Am I rooting for Scalia on this? Does anyone know how the justices are predicted to vote? (I seem to remember Eugene Volokh had a betting pool for Supreme Court decisions…)

February 18, 2005

Some dare call it treason

Posted by Henry

I don’t know if we have any readers who don’t also read Fafblog; if there are any out there, they should check out his intervention in the recent blogospheric debate on treason.

Treason isn’t just providin aid an comfort to the enemy. It’s providin not-aid an discomfort to America. Treason is hurting America’s feelings.

Now you may think “oh well Fafnir America’s a big country it can take care a itself” but in fact it is very sensitive. When you say its mom’s ugly or criticize its foreign policy or kick sand on its face at the beach it is just as hurt as if you’d sold its state secrets. Like every emotional young superpower America needs love and care from its citizens. We’ve put together a brief guide to treason so you can understand it a little better.

Q: Which of the following is treason?
1. Not wishing the President a happy birthday even when he is clearly wearing a party hat and a “Kiss The Birthday Boy” shirt
2. Questioning the progress, purpose, or justification of the Iraq war
3. Providing material aid to a hostile enemy of the United States
4. Telling America “Hey America yo mama’s so fat by the time she bends over it’s Daylight Savings Time.”

Answer: All of them are treason but number four is the worst treason of all on account of America is real sensitive about the fatness of its mama.

February 17, 2005

International jurisprudence, Dublin style

Posted by Maria

It’s all happening in Dublin these days. In January, Michael Ignatieff gave the first annual Amnesty lecture in Trinity College - since published by The Dubliner magazine. Ignatieff tried to explain and in some sense justify American exceptionalism in matters multilateral, particularly the ‘judicial narcissism’ that prevents US judges from incorporating foreign jurisprudence and international legal norms.

Meanwhile, no less a personage than Antonin Scalia put the idea of judicial isolationism to the test only last Friday night, which he passed in the company of a horde of boisterous Dublin barristers.

Ignatieff rightly draws attention to the tendency of US courts to ignore foreign jurisprudence, calling it judicial narcissism. This trend led by Scalia can “effectively shut(s) off the US from a global legal conversation, one that is increasing in sophistication.” But Ignatieff’s real question is how can America’s “exemptionist, double standard, isolationist practices go hand in hand with the most active democracy and human rights promotion in the world”?
He answers in a realist mode, doing that classic lefty thing of bending over so far backwards to see the other side’s point of view as to become a human pretzel. America’s foreign policy is no different from other countries’, Ignatieff says, in that it primarily serves national interest. Europeans and Canadians serve their own national interests, but because they are weak or small their interest is better served by pursuing multilateralism.

Ignatieff sees a paradox when the US acts in support of multilateralism, by voluntarily limiting its potential range of action, e.g. Roosevelt’s support of the UN Charter and G.W. Bush’s engagement in pre-Iraq war debates at the UN (yes, really…). This paradox is explained by that tactic of last resort, the appeal to a cultural explanation. The underlying idea - rightly or wrongly - seems to be that as America invented democracy, Americans are primarily engaged in exporting democracy not importing it.

But as any Politics undergraduate who’s read Hobbes’ Leviathan can tell you, Ignatieff has left out an important part of the rationale behind multilateralism. Countries (or individuals, or corporations, etc.) hand over some sovereignty, i.e. volunteer to curtail their range of autonomy, not just to pool their power - though that’s very important. They also benefit directly from the curtailment of others’ activities, be they German militarisation, unlimited proliferation of nuclear weapons, the negative externalities of industrial pollution, and so on. Engaging in multilaterism is a genuine trade-off, in that countries make positive gains from their and others’ limitation of action.

Which is something that has been swept aside by the current US administration’s blind concentration on the limiting aspects of multilateralism in favour of the benefits of unilateralism. This is especially important as the immediate cost of unilateralism - in the human and financial cost to the US of the war in Iraq and in North Korea’s assumption of nuclear capability, for example - is only beginning to be obvious. In a world where unilateralism rules, and the US is badly stretched militarily, there is no incentive for other countries to hold back. The costs to the US and the rest of the world - or, more accurately, the gains foregone - of unilateralism will continue to pile up for a long time to come.

Anyway, poor old Justice Scalia’s experiences in Dublin last week speaks a little to the cheeky persistence of foreigners in pressing the claims of democracy. Apparently, one particular barrister - with possibly a few pints too many on board - gave Scalia a friendly thump on the shoulder and loudly asked him; ‘So you’re on the American Supreme Court? What’s all this craic about hanging chads?’

Another barrister cornered Scalia to discuss the difficulty of dealing with the Continuity IRA, suggesting we just round them all up and ship them out to >Rockall, an island of dubious ownership and governance, and let them rot there. Scalia was in warm agreement, though when the barrister got to the bit about the orange jump suits, the eminent judge muttered something about needing to find the cocktail sausages and shuffled off.

It reminds me of a story Chris Patten used to tell of going up to Henry Kissinger at a London reception a few years ago, placing a hand on his shoulder and saying, loudly, ‘citizen’s arrest’! Kissinger didn’t seem to get the joke either.

February 16, 2005

Hands across America

Posted by Ted

Letters are what we get:

Regarding destroying the sun and all—you missed a good one. Power Line’s “Hindrocket” finished off a pessimistic quote on the Iraqi elections from Jimmy Carter by noting: “Jimmy Carter isn’t just misguided or ill-informed. He’s on the other side.”

I gotta say, I’m a conservative and all (of the old-fashioned, pre-Bush type), and I dislike Carter as much as the next conservative, but openly accusing an ex-president of treason is way, way, way, way, way out of @#$@#ing line.

Why, oh why, do left-wing blogs not keep this kind of odious insanity ever before the public eye, like right-wing blogs with their Democratic Underground posts and their Ward Churchill obsession? The past year’s worth of John Derbyshire’s commentary alone would be enough to tar all of wingerdom with the taint of racist, xenophobic idiocy from now until the midterm elections. And this is from the so-called “in-flight magazine of Air Force One.”

The sooner you guys take a breather from pointy-headed debates over “issues” and devote some time to good, old-fashioned propaganda, the quicker we can crush the caricature of conservatism that is the “right-wing movement’ and get back to real left-right debate in this country.

J

I should note that (1) I’ve got to disagree about taking a breather from pointy-headed debates. Personally, I’d like a little from Column A, and a little from Column B; I think that folks like Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum are having a real effect in the debate about Social Security privatization. (2) I don’t know J, and can’t personally vouch for his conservative credentials, and (3) I think we do a reasonable job with the odious insanity. But, “reasonable” doesn’t mean “effective”.

Related post from Digby.

UPDATE: Here’s a good collection from MyDD.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Discover the Network! I’ve been wondering about the connection between the well-known liberals Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Ayatollah Khomeini and Barak Obama. Now I know!

ON A ROLL: David Horowitz, you’ve done it again! So I clicked on Katrina vanden Heuvel, an unambigious liberal and presumably a juicy target. Here’s the beginning of the profile:

· Editor and co-owner of the leftwing magazine The Nation
· Limousine leftwing daughter of William J. vanden Heuvel, who worked for the founder of the CIA and for Robert F. Kennedy, and Jean Stein, whose father founded MCA-Universal.

· Married to New York University Russian scholar and Gorbachev enthusiast Stephen F. Cohen

· Fluent in Russian. Worked as reporter for state-run Moscow Times in U.S.S.R.

AAAH! Teh foregin language knowledge! RUN!

(Incidentally, the Moscow Times is a private English-language newspaper that started in 1992.)

AAAND: Commentor abb1 made the reasonable point that the Moscow Times might have existed in a different incarnation prior to 1992. To confirm, I spoke to Katrina vanden Heuvel, who told me that she worked for a few months in 1989 for the Moscow News covering the first multiparty elections.

February 07, 2005

Pop Quiz

Posted by Kieran

From the Guardian, a sample from the test administered to recruits to the Iraqi Police Force:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person is: a) torture; b) interview techniques; c) interrogation techniques; d) informative and reliable.

How sad that the United States now has an Attorney General who would get this question wrong.

Power to the people

Posted by Henry

David Brooks has another op-ed expressing the emerging right-wing wisdom that Dean’s chairmanship of the DNC shows that the lunatics have taken over the asylum of the Democratic party. In Brooks’ account:

Howard Dean, in his fervent antiwar phase, mobilized new networks of small donors, and these donors have quickly become the money base of the party. … They tend to be to the left of the country, especially on social and security issues. They may not agree with Michael Moore on everything, but many enjoyed “Fahrenheit 9/11.” Perhaps they are among the hundreds of thousands of daily visitors to Daily Kos and other blogs that savage Democrats who violate party orthodoxy. …

Many Republicans are mystified as to why the Democrats, having lost another election, are about to name Howard Dean as party chairman and have allowed Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy to emerge unchallenged as the loudest foreign policy voices. … The answer, as Mickey Kaus observes in Slate, is that the party is following the money. The energy and the dough are in the MoveOn.org wing, which is not even a wing of the party, but the head and the wallet. Only the most passionate and liberal voices can stir up this network of online donors from the educated class.

This analysis is quite wrongheaded. Brooks is right that the Moveon wing (if wing it be) is playing a newly important role in the party, but he fundamentally misunderstands its motivations. Moveon’s supporters have been quite ruthless in their willingness to dump the ‘most passionate and liberal voices’ in favour of centrist candidates when those centrist candidates seem to have a better chance of winning elections. More willing than lefties like me would prefer, but that’s another debate. Nor do Republicans sound especially credible when they complain about power in the Democratic party following the money. Which is more democratic in principle: a party dominated by networks of grassroots activists, or a party dominated by Tom DeLay and plugged-in business lobbyists? The question surely answers itself.

It strikes me that Brooks’ real complaint (and the complaint of many other Republicans) is that Democrats are finally figuring out that the job of an opposition party is to oppose. As the Democrats find themselves increasingly locked out of influence on legislation and the corporate donation structure, the balance of power is shifting from traditional insiders to a new, hungrier group of people, who aren’t especially worried at disrupting previously-existing cosy relationships, especially because those relationships aren’t paying many political dividends any more. The Democratic blogs that Brooks complains about have done a fine job (especially Talking Points Memo) in marshalling opposition to plans to privatize Social Security, and in figuring out straightforward ways to articulate why a very complicated set of policy proposals are a bad idea.

There are serious risks to the Moveon strategy, but they’re not the ones highlighted by Brooks. Mark Schmitt is the person who has perhaps thought most seriously about this - see this very interesting series of posts. As one of Schmitt’s correspondents points out, a ‘transactional model’ of party organization is perhaps going to be unable to get people to commit to sustained activity and scutwork; hence the continued importance of trade unions. But there are also some very clear advantages. For the first time in a generation, the organizational interests of the Democratic party are consonant with the goals of the broader movement interested in political reform (less corrupt relationships in Congress; fairer procedures for drawing up House districts). This creates some real political opportunities for reform.

February 04, 2005

Sigh (this post is probably a big waste of your time, and mine)

Posted by John Holbo

First, many thanks to all who have bought stuff through the Amazon links. Tomorrow I'm sending another US$150 check to the Singapore Red Cross for Tsunami reconstruction efforts. Please feel free to continue helping by buying ... if you were gonna buy anyway.

Andrew Sullivan gets letters. Boyo does he:

I am utterly convinced to the point of certainty that the 'failure of the people on the right to see the serious problems in the way we've administered the occupation' was based on not wanting to give into the left's countless methods to undermine the success of a George Bush-led anything. They will take a contrarian position no matter what the topic. They will lie and distort their own past stated positions, The ends justify the means, and all. The same people who claim to have been for the Afghanistan action in order to justify their exceptional opposition to the Iraq action were, for the most part, against Afghanistan. They lie with ease; they don't want us to win anything; they want America to be publicly chastened, especially by our European intellectual 'superiors'. Conceding anything to this crowd, right or wrong, feels like it will lead to giving them something they don't deserve, the higher ground, and, worse, carte blanche to take us back to a pre-911 ostrich-like security strategy. We know things aren't going perfect. But we never expected that standard in the first place.

I had anaphor trouble when it came to figuring out who 'they' are. I was all the way up to 'their exceptional opposition' before I figured out it was lefties being accused of having an end justifes the means attitude. (But then I'm a lefty so I'm probably lying as I tell you this.)

Sullivan concurs, in wise yet regretful tones: "That may well be empirically true. But it's depressing nonetheless." That is, he agrees that it's true that the behavior of the American left (most of the 49% who voted for Kerry?) is explicable as due to a widespread, overwhelming desire to be shamed before Europeans? Democrats love to feel intellectually and morally inferior? This is true to such an extent that, if Republicans were to admit error, the terrorists might win? Because the terrorists win if Americans are shamed before Europeans? I like to be ashamed in front of a European as much as the next guy, I hope, but ...

Glenn Reynolds tops Sully in the mock-regretful Contumely sweeps with this post Henry linked. I am in awe. The awfulness of it is like a stone sitting on my tongue. I am speechless. Fortunately I can still type. Reynolds' theory appears to be that the left - the Democrats? most of the 49% of the population who voted Kerry? - are either morally indistinguishable from or held hostage by the likes of Ward Churchill. (Oh, when will the wingers see and say: we have met the fever-swamp, and it is we.)

But Michael Moore sat in the box with Carter! But, um, Rush Limbaugh got a manly handshake and squeeze from Bush 1.0 up on the campaign hustings back in 1992. Where's the outrage? (Does Glenn Reynolds believe Rush is a sane and responsible commentator on the American political scene?) But that was long ago! There wasn't even internets! But the last time Carter was President there wasn't even betamax. Who cares if he didn't kick Moore out of the box? (Honestly, aren't there problems in the world somewhere?)

But (splutter!) Naomi Klein! a leftist criticizing the left! Doesn't that prove that the left are bankrupt Euro-slave Symbionese Liberation Army remnant look-alike dead-enders, plus Wavy Gravy if he's still alive? Yes, it's true that the right has tighter message discipline, if that's what you mean. Witness the late linguistic pirouettes with social security privatization personal acounts personization soylent security. My favorite Grover Norquist quote: “The conservative press is self-consciously conservative and self-consciously part of the team. The liberal press is much larger, but at the same time it sees itself as the establishment press. So it’s conflicted. Sometimes it thinks it needs to be critical of both sides.” Something similar is true of the right blogohemisphere (or so it seems to me). From the fact that the left is more often openly self-critical, it hardly follows that it is less truly self-critical, as Reynolds deployment of the Klein quote seems intended to suggest. To put it another way, if a lot of serious rightwing breast-beating ensued it might be a sign that the the right was seriously imploding. But on the left it is more normal, hence not a sign of implosion. (Hey, if he can say disdainful things, can't I?)

But the right blogosphere is self-correcting! "The right has done a better job of muzzling and marginalizing its idiots, while the Left has embraced them." I would be very grateful if Reynolds would volunteer to start each morning with a visit to (say) Media Matters, then report back to his readers on every little embarrassing thing he learns. Or he could just for starters criticize Charles Johnson for maintaining a less than mannerly comments section. Maybe he could volunteer to clean it himself on odd days.

But wouldn't that take an awful lot of the professor's time?

But this doesn't sound like an undue burden to Reynolds when he is meditating on Democratic obligations. Letters, he gets letters:

I keep hearing people saying "X is not the authentic face of the left." Yet I don't hear them repudiate all of the X's out there. I don't hear them stand up and announce that X is wrong. I don't hear them explaining how they're going to take the Democrat Party back from the X's. And I DO hear them defending or excusing all of the X behavior.If the left/Democrats mean what they say, they have it in their power to stop the decay of the Democrat power. Stand up, speak out, and take the Party back from all the X's.

As Reynolds wisely but regretfully observes: "Yeah. There's an endless supply of guys like Churchill. And I'd love to believe that they're marginal figures. But then I see the embrace of Moore, and the behavior of major Democrats like Boxer and Kennedy ... "

OK, let's put senator Kennedy to one side. We'll get back to him. Moving along, the Boxer thing is Kos thing. Kos shouldn't have said what he said about the dead mercs, but the fact that he said it is not of great significance.The fact that Kos really REALLY dislikes mercenaries and disapproves of American military use of mercenaries - their employment makes him full of rage - does not make the fact that Kos really dislikes mercenaries the beating heart of the Democratic soul. Seriously, who thinks Kos' attitude to mercenaries is a determining factor in the overall posture of the left, or the Democratic party? Reynolds pretends that Kos is unpatriotic but I'm sure he knows better. He'd be an idiot not to know Kos is a patriot in a perfectly straightforward sense. (I truly don't believe the Instapundit is an idiot, often as he annoys me.) And Boxer is connected to Kos. Okey. We're done with Kos.

What that leaves us with is that lefties are morally obliged to denounce folks like Ward Churchill - even though, long as this list would be (big country) this would clearly leave little time for squaring off against Republicans. Let's call this the No Enemies To The Right prescription for the left. It has a self-evident moral obligation to be unified squarely against subsets of itself. (Who is defending Ward Churchill, may I ask? What major Democratic politician agrees with the things he says, and says so? Who would be such an idiot as to announce they are taking back the Democratic party from Ward Churchill, who thinks the Democratic party is a crypto-fascist conspiracy?)

And what in fact does Reynolds feel the right's symmetrical obligations to self-criticism might be in this department? (There are lots of folks who comment over at LGF who are as far gone to the right as Churchill is to the left.) None, so far as I can tell. At any rate, Reynolds is allowed to write about what interests him, without trying to be fair and balanced, on the hypothesis that probably the NY Times will make it right by leaning way left. The right is free to outsource dissent, as it were, leaving it to the left to critique the right. But of course those criticisms are ignored because the left is assumed to be nothing but an irrational, seething mass of Bush-hatred. So it would seem no one is doing this little job of criticizing the right.

Furthermore, it would be very very wrong for the left to do what it is perfectly appropriate for the right to do, namely not self-criticize. Reynolds is explicitly advocating a firm double-standard, otherwise it would make no sense for him to say his side has no duty to slam crazy talk radio wackos all the time, but the left has a duty to attack Michael Moore en masse, day in, day out. Does Reynolds really think Ward Churchill is not getting media coverage commensurate with his World-Historical stature as thinker and activist? (Consistency, folks! Let's have consistency! Don't demand more from the other side than you are willing to demand of your own side.)

And you know what: Glenn Reynolds' doesn't believe that the American left is represented by Ward Churchill, plus remnants of Ken Kesey's Merry Tricksters. He's not dumb. Does Andrew Sullivan think the Democratic party is some sort of fifth column insurgency of self-loathing Europhile jihadis, muttering to themselves incessantly: WWSSD, WWSSD? [What would Susan Sontag do?] No one could actually think anything so implausible. It's just fun to do the whole contempt plus mock-regretful tut-tut thing. (Been there myself.) It angries up the blood. But you stay lazy all the same.

What a waste of time this all is, including this very post. (Sigh.)

OK. Three questions for the right blogosphere. No, really, I'd like answers.

1) What does Glenn Reynolds refer to when he says 'the Left', in posts like the one linked? (Let's just start with this little semantic splinter that's been bothering me for some time.) Does the Left = the Democratic party?

2) If it is the case that nothing that the left is coming up with at the moment is the least bit intellectually serious - just Bush-hatred plus dug up hippy fossils: a "seething-yet-shrinking mass of self-hatred and idiocy" - what would the serious stuff be, hypothetically? You could, of course, say: there is no possibility that any reasonable person would oppose George Bush, either domestically or on foreign policy. But this is not plausible. So what would a strong opposition look like that looked nothing like what we've got? (Hint: the answer is: it would like look like what we've got.)

3) Ted Kennedy. He makes "an absurd and borderline-traitorous speech on the war." [Link to speech.] Is this acceptable? Quite frankly I see no hope for compelling politicians for forego absurdity. This would result in a lot of dead air time. The Republican party in particular - oh, never mind about that. And there are already laws on the books against treason. Kennedy:

We must learn from our mistakes. We must recognize what a large and growing number of Iraqis now believe. The war in Iraq has become a war against the American occupation.   

We have reached the point that a prolonged American military presence in Iraq is no longer productive for either Iraq or the United States. The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Suggesting we should learn from our mistakes is treason? (I admit it would mark a change in policy. But treason?) No, seriously folks. I happen to agree with the criticism of Kennedy's speech that the case for thinking this way is significantly weakened in the aftermath of the successful election. (Never have so many partisans/guerillas done so much damage and stayed so hidden with tacit support and sympathy from so few. So it would seem. Strange assymetrical warfare we are engaged in.) So events have overtaken Kennedy's pessimism in a happy way. And of course no one wants to rain on the Iraqi parade by belittling the joy of a free election. (Well, a few people do. They're too partisan.) Nevertheless, it is hardly self-evident what the US course should be in Iraq over - say - the next 5 years. I should say there is room for dissent, at least in an intellectual sense. It is possible to be of the reasonable opinion that the Bushies have made many mistakes. For one thing, it is obviously possible to be of the intelligent, informed, reasonable opinion that the whole thing has been a catastrophic mistake, a distraction from - for example - fighting the war to keep things like 9/11 from happening again. (Yes, the election is truly nice. But there have also been significant costs.) This pattern seems likely to continue. That is, the Bushies will continue to make major military decisions that some people will think are bad. They will not think this because they mindlessly hate Bush, but because they are mindful of how it could all turn out badly - something the Bushies may not be sufficiently mindful of. It's certainly possible.

In Kennedy's case, the most reasonable assumption (surely) is that he dislikes Bush and is happy enough to hammer him (who thinks politicians are required to take no pleasure in smiting their political enemies?); but he also sincerely thinks Bush has made mistakes. As a Senator, it is his job to say so, if he thinks so. (Does anyone actually think Kennedy is secretly sympathetic to the Baathist remnants of the former regime? That's just not plausible.)

Fred Barnes wrote a Spectator piece last week, suggesting the White House should define "what's out of bounds in dissent on Iraq." This is an interesting idea. I get the sense that lots of the right blogosphere thinks that lots of lefty dissent - maybe most of it - is currently way out of bounds. This is not because the dissent is unreasonable (although some people pretend it must be) but because it is felt that, once the President sets his course, it is giving aid and comfort to the enemy to suggest there is anything seriously wrong with the course, because this produces the impression that we might falter, which would be worse. (It's this sense of 'aid and comfort' that fuels the borderline treason charge.)

Now right bloggers will say they are staunch supporters of free speech, but that isn't really the issue. Given that everyone (or most everyone) has the legal right to say that they think the war is going badly and some course other than the President's would be better, is it morally right to express this opinion - if you are a Senator, if you are a private citizen? Or do you have a moral duty to bite your tongue for the duration? (Even if the war lasts a generation?) The objection to what Kennedy says, if it is serious, is not that Kennedy is necessarily wrong, or that he necessarily has an intolerable motive in saying these things. (I take it to be obvious that he doesn't self-evidently have an intolerable motive. And the fact that he is mistaken in sizing up the military situation, if he is, would hardly bring him near the line of treason.) The only possible serious objection to Kennedy is that, even if he is right and has a good motive, it is still immoral for him to speak his mind. This is unacceptable (albeit maddeningly legal) dissent on the Senator's part. (He can think it, and dammit we aren't allowed to muzzle him, but he should keep his thoughts to himself.)

I take this objection to be absurd, but I can't think what other ground for objecting to the bare existence of Kennedy's speech there could be. Bush knew what form of government the United States has before he chose to go to war. The existence of a vocal opposition should not be surprising given this form of government. Bush should have planned for - among other things - the possibility that some people would disagree with his course of action. If he planned a war that can't be waged by a democracy, because it requires all the critics of the war to shut up, then he should have changed his plan; or overthrown democracy as a sensible precaution before constructing it abroad (I kid, I kid); or not gone to war.

To sum up. Reynolds and others on the right say the left is a mindless, writhing mass of ressentiment. I always quote Trilling about how this view gets the situation exactly upside down and backwards: the conservative impulse does not at the present time express itself "in ideas but only in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." But going around like this denigrating the other side's mental capacity does not actually move the ball forward. (Not that nobody's right. Obviously I'm right. But why should you take my word for it?)

Here's some rules for the right that would make the game better. Don't call anyone a big hippy unless they're a big hippy. (Certainly don't call half the voters big hippies; that's dumb.) Don't rely on poetic justice as fairness as an excuse not to consider uncomfortable evidence and arguments. That is, don't hallucinate that refusing to self-criticize is some virtue of the right, because you have a somewhat nebulous sense that the left started it (out of a desire to be shamed by Europeans, or for any other reason.) It's OK for the right blogosphere to ignore bad news if the media ignores good news? No, that doesn't make sense. Even if it were completely true that the media ignores good news that wouldn't make sense. Turnabout is fair play cannot convert a form of irrational unfair-mindedness into a form of rational fair-mindedness. Finally, if your objection to anti-Bush foreign policy talk is nothing specific to do with the talk itself but just a blanket sense that all such talk is at present morally illegitimate - even if possibly intelligent and plausibly patriotic - then please just say this is your view and have done with it. Say you think Kennedy has no moral standing to speak his mind unless he agrees with the basic course Bush is pursuing. Don't erroneously hint that the ground for your objection is that these critics are unpatriotic or even necessarily wrong.

There. I said it. I rolled the stone of the ridiculousness of Reynolds' post off my tongue to the best of my ability. Ah, feels better. But what a waste of my time, probably.

Social Security Three-Step

Posted by Kieran

Matt Yglesias explains what Bush’s three-step plan for Social Security entails, in terms adapted to the meanest understanding. It’s a very good post, and you should read it. Regular observers of the present administration will not be surprised to find that by the end, Matt is saying things like this:

If you are in the top one or two percent of the income pyramid, this may be a good deal for you anyway since phase one allows you to keep your income taxes lower. The other 99-98 percent of us are getting the shaft. … This is also good for you if you are a manager or major stockholder in a company that will be managing the private accounts. It also might be good for you if you own a great deal of stock already (i.e., you’re rich!) and this program winds up increasing the share of national wealth invested in the stock market.

Funny how analyses of recent domestic policy always tend to conclude along those lines. It’s almost like there’s a pattern or something.

February 03, 2005

Roosevelt and Bush

Posted by Kieran

In the conclusion to his state of the union address last night, President Bush invoked Franklin Roosevelt’s words from his second inaugural: “each age is a dream
that is dying, or one that is coming to birth.” Here’s a bit more from that speech by FDR:

Instinctively we recognized a deeper need-the need to find through government the instrument of our united purpose to solve for the individual the ever-rising problems of a complex civilization. Repeated attempts at their solution without the aid of government had left us baffled and bewildered. For, without that aid, we had been unable to create those moral controls over the services of science which are necessary to make science a useful servant instead of a ruthless master of mankind. To do this we knew that we must find practical controls over blind economic forces and blindly selfish men.

We of the Republic sensed the truth that democratic government has innate capacity to protect its people against disasters once considered inevitable, to solve problems once considered unsolvable. We would not admit that we could not find a way to master economic epidemics just as, after centuries of fatalistic suffering, we had found a way to master epidemics of disease. We refused to leave the problems of our common welfare to be solved by the winds of chance and the hurricanes of disaster. …

In fact, in these last four years, we have made the exercise of all power more democratic; for we have begun to bring private autocratic powers into their proper subordination to the public’s government. The legend that they were invincible-above and beyond the processes of a democracy-has been shattered. They have been challenged and beaten. …

In that purpose we have been helped by achievements of mind and spirit. Old truths have been relearned; untruths have been unlearned. We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. Out of the collapse of a prosperity whose builders boasted their practicality has come the conviction that in the long run economic morality pays. We are beginning to wipe out the line that divides the practical from the ideal; and in so doing we are fashioning an instrument of unimagined power for the establishment of a morally better world.

As they say on the internets, read the whole thing.

January 29, 2005

Reality based Republicans

Posted by Henry

I heard Chuck Hagel speak at the World Affairs Councils meeting in Washington DC yesterday (C-Span link here ), and thought it was pretty interesting. The content was vague, as is typical for US politicians warming up for a run at President, but in tone. Hagel was very clearly setting out his stall as the anti-Bush on foreign policy issues. He began his talk by talking about the need to focus on the allies, then spoke of how US public diplomacy had “lost its way,” of how our experience in Iraq should give us pause about trying to impose democracy by force etc etc. Most interesting in the short term, he hinted at some openness to the idea of Senate hearings on the disaster in Iraq, speaking at length about how Senator William Fulbright had come in for enormous criticism from his own party for holding hearings on Vietnam back in the day, but had been vindicated over the longer run. In Hagel’s words, we “should not be party to a false consensus on Iraq, or any other issue.” I’ve no idea of whether anything will come of this - but Hagel seemed to me to be presenting a possible opening for Democrats and reality-based Republicans.

January 28, 2005

January 27, 2005

It's your money

Posted by Ted

Something’s been bugging me about private accounts. Correct me where I’m wrong here.

It’s difficult for me to imagine that any version of Social Security private accounts would offer account holders complete flexibility with their assets. Managing and ensuring the safety of millions of small accounts will be expensive under the rosiest assumptions. The fees don’t have to look like Chile’s, but they’re going to be considerable1. It seems reasonable to assume that any sensible administration would limit costs by limiting investment options to a small number of funds, something like a 401K plan.

The most appropriate investment vehicle would be a broad-based index fund such as the Wilshire 5000, which invests in pretty much every public company in the US, weighted for market capitalization. Index funds have a history of better returns than actively managed funds, and the broad footprint of the investment would minimize market distortions from the impact of (eventually) trillions in new investments. Most importantly, it keeps the government out of the business of picking winners and losers. The temptation to misuse trillions of investment dollars for political leverage will be awesome. A blind investment strategy also minimizes the reciprocal pressure on businesses to scramble to please the current administration in order to get under the umbrella of investments in a managed SS fund.

As an investment strategy, this would work pretty well for most Americans. However, a mandatory savings program isn’t for most Americans, it’s for all Americans. Since it’s a forced program, administrators will have to answer the question, “Why is my money being taken out of my paycheck to support X?”2

For example, a large number of Americans believe that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder. Look at this list of boycott targets by a pro-life group (Word document). It includes Citibank, Ford, Johnson & Johnson, Kraft, Nabisco, Prudential, and Target. People who engage in these boycotts will harbor a reasonable resentment about the money taken out of their paycheck and invested in these companies. After all, they believe that they are being forced to support baby-killers. Could they be denied?

We could accomodate them with a pro-life fund which doesn’t include the pro-choice rogue’s gallery, as determined by (say) the NRLC. (You could anticipate a problem here- since this could cost a firm millions or billions in market capitalization, they would try to get off the list. In this hypothetical, I’d expect that the NRLC would be awash in donations from penitent companies within the week.)

Will we accomodate people who don’t want to invest in tobacco companies? How about pacifists who wouldn’t invest in defense companies? Cultural conservatives who don’t want their money in entertainment companies? If GloboChem is accused of discriminating against African-Americans, there will be a movement from Operation PUSH to divest. Will it be accomodated? What about environmentalists? What about Bill O’Reilly’s campaign against Pepsi for hiring Ludacris? It never ends, and everyone can’t be accomodated.

Without forced investments, none of this is much of an issue. Investor boycotts and divestures are perfectly legitimate forms of protest, and people can avoid businesses for any reason they like. But if we’re going to force people to invest, we’ve got to answer a few questions. Will there be special “conscience” funds available? How we we decide whose conscience to accomodate? And how will the makeup of these funds be determined?

(Stocks are not the only asset, of course. There could be an all-purpose fund for conscientious objectors that invested solely in, say, municipal bonds. That would serve as a pressure valve, but I strongly suspect that well-organized interest groups would agitate against losing out on stock market gains in their retirement accounts because of their conscience.)

The new private accounts’ administrators could potentially be walled off from political pressure about investment strategy. It would take a lot of political fortitude and wisdom, but it could happen. (In a world where Dr. Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader, refuses to contradict abstinence-only education materials that says that sweat and tears can transmit HIV, I’d say “not bloody likely”, but that’s just me.) Or they could respond to the loudest, best-organized voices, wreaking havok in the stock market with every change of power. Or, it could give in to temptation and use its stock-picking power to reward and punish.

In the best-case scenario, a private accounts program would be a bottomless pit of wedge issues and a moral irritant to many individuals. The worst-case scenario, in which a Tom DeLay-type figure has the power to pick stocks with public money, is just unacceptable. It’s something to watch closely.

1 I bring this up because I believe that one possible answer, letting individuals choose their own stocks with their private accounts, would be much too expensive to administer.

2 But my taxes already support programs and expenditures that I don’t like. How is this any different? Fundamentally, it’s not different. Most people feel that we have the right to have the government accomodate us, through the normal political process, on the subject of how our tax dollars are being spent. All I’m saying is that these same pressures and assumptions are going to apply to any investment decisions made, literally, in each of our names.

Conservative Cultural Engineering Again

Posted by Henry

More on trade-unions as the Bush administration tries to restrict collective bargaining at the Department of Homeland Security, and ask Congress “to grant all federal agencies similar authority to rewrite civil service rules governing their employees.”

Yesterday, union leaders decried provisions that would curtail the power of labor unions by no longer requiring DHS officials to negotiate over such matters as where employees will be deployed, the type of work they will do and the equipment they will use. They also object to provisions that would limit the role of the independent Federal Labor Relations Authority and hand the job of settling labor-management disputes to an internal labor relations board controlled by the DHS secretary.

After going back and forth on this, I’m coming to the conclusion that this is of a piece with tort reform and the privatization of social security. They’re all part of a massive experiment in conservative cultural engineering, which aims to transform the Democratic party into a permanent minority by eviscerating the political power of its key constituencies (trade unions, trial lawyers) and transforming ordinary citizens into a new investing class. As I’ve said before, I don’t think that this will work - but I’ve no doubt that the administration can do some serious damage to Democrats’ ability to raise funds, and (much more important) get volunteers out on the streets to canvas for votes. I’ve no doubt that the Democratic party could live without the trial lawyers - but if the administration succeeds in crippling unions, it will very seriously hamper Democrats’ ability to win back the Presidency and other offices in 2008. I suspect that many middle class bloggers simply don’t realize how important unions are in organizing and getting out the vote in the Midwest and elsewhere. As Sam Rosenfeld has said, it’s frustrating that the Democratic leadership in the Senate isn’t saying anything about strengthening labour law - improving the bargaining position of unions is clearly in the long term organizational interests of the Democratic party.

Update: Sam Rosenfeld has more to say on this story too.

January 25, 2005

HRW on the meatpacking industry

Posted by Henry

There was a minor kerfuffle among left-bloggers a couple of days ago about the dearth of blogging on trade union issues. Nathan Newman suggested that it reflected the lack of interest of middle class liberals in trade unions. This is part of the story but only part. I suspect that the lack of media coverage of union issues, or, sometimes, of good information from the unions themselves, are equally important in explaining why people don’t blog on this as much as they should. Bloggers tend to rely on their morning newspapers to find out about the world - when those newspapers don’t cover union issues, bloggers are unlikely to focus on them. Which is why I hope that this recent NYT story describing a Human Rights Watch report on the US meatpacking industry gets the attention that it deserves from lefties, and indeed from union-friendly conservatives.

The report also concluded that packing companies violated human and labor rights by suppressing their employees’ efforts to organize by, for example, often firing employees who support a union. The report asserted that slaughterhouse and packing plants also flouted international rules by taking advantage of workers’ immigration status - in some plants two-thirds of the workers are illegal immigrants - to subject them to inferior treatment.

Original Human Rights Watch report available here (interested readers should also check out Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation, which has a trenchant and detailed discussion of how meatpacking firms abuse immigrants).

Update: Nathan Newman suggests that bloggers should sign up for email updates from American Rights at Work, an organization which I hadn’t heard of, but which seems to be doing excellent work on union-related issues.

January 22, 2005

How To Ascribe Super-Powers To Words

Posted by Belle Waring
I know it’s considered poor sport to shoot fish in a barrel, but what on earth is David Brooks talking about?
With that speech [i.e., the inaugural offering], President Bush’s foreign policy doctrine transcended the war on terror. He laid down a standard against which everything he and his successors do will be judged.

When he goes to China, he will not be able to ignore the political prisoners there, because he called them the future leaders of their free nation. When he meets with dictators around the world, as in this flawed world he must, he will not be able to have warm relations with them, because he said no relations with tyrants can be successful.

His words will be thrown back at him and at future presidents. American diplomats have been sent a strong message. Political reform will always be on the table. Liberation and democratization will be the ghost present at every international meeting. Vladimir Putin will never again be the possessor of that fine soul; he will be the menace to democracy and rule of law.

Because of that speech, it will be harder for the U.S. government to do what we did to Latin Americans for so many decades - support strongmen to rule over them because they happened to be our strongmen. It will be harder to frustrate the dreams of a captive people, the way in the early 1990’s we tried to frustrate the independence dreams of Ukraine.

It will be harder for future diplomats to sit on couches flattering dictators, the way we used to flatter Hafez al-Assad of Syria decade after decade. From now on, the borders established by any peace process will be less important than the character of the regimes in that process.

I mean, I love Austin as much as the next girl (well, OK, a lot more than the next girl), but it has always been my distinct impression that the scope of things you can do with words has been, hmm, let’s say, overstated by his would-be popularizers. Naming ships? Hell yeah. Transforming U.S. foriegn policy by shaking democracy-supporting fairy dust on everything? Not so much. Or maybe we’re on a 40’s crooner tip, with the classic “Wishing Will Make It So”? Seriously, though, does Bobo believe this, or what?
Note to outraged defenders of liberty: I think it would be great if the U.S. stopped coddling dictators in the name of stability or anti-terrorist bona fides, but that’s because I’m a silly, utopian leftist. What’s your excuse?

UPDATE: from the Washington Post, “Bush Speech Not a Sign of Policy Shift, Officials Say; Address Said to Clarify ‘The Values We Cherish’” Right.

January 20, 2005

Is Iran next? And if so, how?

Posted by Ted

Last night, I attended a presentation by Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow on the Council on Foreign Relations, on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It was put on by the Houston World Affairs Council about Iran’s nuclear program. (Short plug- Houstonians with sufficient interest in public affairs to read blogs really ought to look into HWAC. It’s one of the best deals in town.)

Shorter Ray Takeyh: Iran is unlikely to stop weaponizing its nuclear program. From our perspective, all options stink.

Longer Ray Takeyh after the break.

He started by addressing the question of why Iran wants nuclear weapons. He says that the Iran-Iraq war left a deep impact on the Iranian psyche. They lost 50,000 lives to Saddam’s chemical weapons, which left them determined to hold a means of retaliation. The overthrow of Saddam doesn’t change their position entirely. The region might be left seriously unstable, or they might end up with a heavily-armed US client in Iraq, serving somewhat the same function as Iran did in the 70s. In either case, nuclear arms would provide a retaliatory capability that would help ensure continued access to the Persian Gulf.

Furthermore, Iranians saw that when the United States presumed that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, we invaded. Chemical and biological weapons were not sufficient deterrents to forestall an invasion. North Korea, on the other hand, won concessions with its nuclear arms. There’s no serious talk of invasion. The lesson seemed clear.

There are two large schools of thought in Iran regarding the nuclear program, which he referred to as “nuclear breakthrough” and “nuclear hedging.” Advocates of nuclear breakthrough believe that an Islamic republic is under constant threat. Conflict with the US in inevitable, and they need to be militarily self-reliant as soon as possible to face this eventuality. They have no trust in international treaties, pointing out the passivity of the world when Saddam used chemical weapons in the 80s. If this course leads to sanctions, they’re willing to pay that price. They argue that sanctions will fade away, as they did against Pakistan and India, because the world will realize that the genie can’t be put back in the bottle.

Advocates of nuclear hedging place the nuclear issue in the context of all of Iran’s interests. They fear that Iranian nuclear weapons would provoke their neighbors to lean towards the US. The provocation would lead to sanctions, which they’re not willing to shrug off. Iran suffers from terrible unemployment, maybe 19%. Every year, 1,000,000 people enter the job market, and only 400,000 of them get jobs. There’s no way out of this hole without foreign investment and access to capital markets. UN sanctions would be crippling. They wouldn’t give up the nuclear program, but would use it as a chip to get concessions from the rest of the world.

Iranians are not discussing the “Libyan option”, giving up their program entirely. He had some interesting thoughts about how nuclear weapons are quickly becoming enmeshed in Iranian nationalism and identity. They quickly become too popular to give up. When he was teaching in Pakistan, he had students give him keychains shaped like nuclear missiles as token gifts. He saw clock radios shaped like nuclear missiles in Pakistani stores.

Furthermore, like any big program, it attracts a constituency of scientists, contractors, and so on, who have a direct interest in its continuation. He noted that Candidate Clinton campaigned against SDI, but President Clinton funded it every year. He thinks that, if Iran hasn’t already hit the political point of no return, they will very soon.

Someone asked if the liberal Iranian student movement might lead to disarmament. Just the opposite; the dissident students are big proponents of nuclear arms. They’ve conducted multiple demonstrations in support of the nuclear programs. He mentioned a conversation with one of the student leaders, who said that he hated the mullahs, he hated their character and their rules, and he was afraid that they were going to trade their nuclear program away.

So what to do? There have been countries that have backed down from nuclear programs- South Korea, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina. The answer has to be some combination of carrots and sticks. If we use nothing but sticks, we just exacerbate the fears that drive the program in the first place.

- We could do nothing, and let them develop arms. This would effectively be the end of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, if two signatories develop nuclear arms. We’d have the extremely difficult task of renegotiating a new non-proliferation framework.

- We could offer a North Korea-style deal, offering concessions in return for heavy inspections and locks on their nuclear materials. This leads to all sort of uncomfortable ambiguities, as we’d never really know what we were missing. Bush has already rejected this option, so Takeyh didn’t discuss it much.

- The IEIA is currently in negotiations with Iran, trying to expand their inspections. They are likely to be limited in their effectiveness, because Iranians are unlikely to trust any security guarantees Europeans offer against the Americans. He doesn’t believe that it’ll be referred to the Security Council as long as the head of the IEIA refuses to say that Iran is militarizing their nuclear program.

- The military option of limited strikes would be very difficult. Iran’s nuclear facilities are hardened, urbanized, and underground. Bombing them would require tolerance for a high level of civilian casualties and precise intelligence. Given the Iraq experience, it would be nearly impossible to claim the latter.

He was asked whether Israel might decide to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, as they did to Iraq’s nascent nuclear program in 1981. Takeyh is apparently going to publish an article with Ken Pollack, arguing that this is next to impossible. Even in the best of all worlds, Israel doesn’t have the capacity to do it. According to Pollack, they only have 25 appropriate planes. Taking out underground institutions requires heavy bombers, which can’t take off from aircraft carriers or ordinary airfields. In fact, according to Takeyh, American heavy bombers would have to take off from Missouri. There’s a closer airfield in Dar es Salaam, but we’d need permission from the British. (This sounded strange to me; I’m just passing it on.) Given the likelihood of redundant institutions, it’s unlikely that anyone could have much confidence in the ability of airstrikes to stop the nuclear program.

He didn’t discuss the option of another Iraq-scale invasion, and no one asked about it. Whether that’s because they’re so obviously unfeasible, or because we didn’t have time to cover them, I couldn’t say.

January 17, 2005

What to do

Posted by Ted

I’m going to take advantage of my God-given right to quote my betters. From Kevin Drum:

I happen to think that liberals have basically won the church-state argument, and all that’s left is fighting over scraps that aren’t worth it. It just feeds the religious right’s feeling of righteous besiegement while gaining almost nothing in practical terms. Who really cares if Roy Moore plops a Ten Commandments monument in front of his courthouse?

Still, even though I feel that way personally, someone is going to take this kind of stuff to court. There’s just no way to stop it. And if I were a judge, what choice would I have then? The damn thing is pretty clearly unconstitutional whether it offends me personally or not. Ditto for Intelligent Design, which any honest judge would conclude after only cursory research is nothing more than creationism with a pretty face.

In the end, then, even though I agree with Nathan that some of the fringe issues being litigated today are probably counterproductive for liberals (though I’m less sure I agree with him about some of the core rulings of the 60s), I’m still not sure where this leaves us.

Ain’t that the truth. I’m looking at P.J. O’Rourke this morning, a writer whom I’ve always liked. (via Pandagon.) The self-described fun-loving Republican Party Reptile wrings a whole outraged column out of the Ten Commandments case from the summer of 2003. (Time flies, huh?) It’s part of his general thesis that the true opponents of Republicans are “jerks.” O’Rourke doesn’t seem to like the fact that jerks1 wouldn’t let Moore install the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse. Or, maybe he’s just responding to the wailing of jerks when exposed to the Ten Commandments in any capacity, wailing so high-pitched that only hackish2 conservative pundits can hear it.

I’m not a Bush supporter. Rightly or wrongly, I don’t think of myself as a jerk. I wouldn’t have minded if the case hadn’t gone anywhere. What would O’Rourke like me to do? Picket the courtroom?

1 Incidentally, let’s not pussyfoot around about who’s to blame here. The jerks in question are the Southern Poverty Law Center, District Judge Myron Thompson, the Alabama Supreme Court, Alabama’s Court of the Judiciary, and every single judge except Moore who touched this stupid case in any capacity. I hope that they are all ashamed of themselves.

2 “The jerks have begun praising marriage lately. But only if the bride and groom each have a beard.” P.J. O’Rourke, channelling Ann Coulter. Shamefully hackish.

January 10, 2005

Saddam comparisons

Posted by Henry

Jim Henley says it in plain English.

All together now: Saddam was worse! In terms of body count in Iraq this is true, though the man had a big head start on us, so we ought to be allowed a couple of decades to catch up. But what about the world ? Is it better? And are we? We have gone from a time in which the tyrant of an oil patch with a broken army and 23 million inhabitants practiced a tyranny which all decent people abhorred, to a time in which the largest and most powerful country in the history of mankind justifies torture and contemplates assassination teams - we should call them terror squads - as official policy. And the people who most consider our virtue unchallengeable are the quickest to publically avow our need to torture and murder.

January 06, 2005

One in the bag for Jon Stewart

Posted by Henry

CNN cancels Crossfire.

Mr. Klein said the decisions to part company with Mr. Carlson and to end “Crossfire” were not specifically related, because he had decided to drop “Crossfire” regardless of whether Mr. Carlson wanted to stay on.

Mr. Klein said he wanted to move CNN away from what he called “head-butting debate shows,” which have become the staple of much of all-news television in the prime-time hours, especially at the top-rated Fox News Channel.

….

Mr. Klein specifically cited the criticism that the comedian Jon Stewart leveled at “Crossfire” when he was a guest on the program during the presidential campaign. Mr. Stewart said that ranting partisan political shows on cable were “hurting America.”

Mr. Klein said last night, “I agree wholeheartedly with Jon Stewart’s overall premise.” He said he believed that especially after the terror attacks on 9/11, viewers are interested in information, not opinion.

Update: Giblets laments our great loss.

So Giblets is sitting down in front of the library TV with a box of commandeered Cheezoids to enjoy the intellectual repaste that is CNN’s Crossfire when he sees a news item telling him that soon there will BE no Crossfire! Outrage, perfidy, treason! What will replace it? Coverage of actual news? Can you even CALL it “news” without whack-a-mole sound effects, cartoonish repetition of talking points and a prompted studio audience? Delirium, lunacy, madness!

January 04, 2005

The Dude Abides

Posted by Belle Waring
NORML founder and longtime head Keith Stroup is stepping down in favor of younger leadership. Keep fighting the good fight, dude. The following quote is dry, but charming:
Meanwhile he’d begun smoking pot and marching in antiwar demonstrations, sometimes simultaneously.
No. Way.
I never knew they’d gotten this close:
In 1975, five states — Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine and Ohio — removed criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of the weed. In 1976, Jimmy Carter, who during his campaign had advocated decriminalizing pot, was elected president. In 1977, Stroup visited the White House to meet with Carter’s drug policy adviser, Peter Bourne. Soon NORML would be playing the White House in softball. It seemed like high times for NORML. Publicly, Stroup predicted that pot would be legal in a couple of years. Privately, he and his NORML pals joked about forming an advocacy group for another drug they’d begun to enjoy — cocaine.
OK, coming clean here, I favor legalization of all drugs, so I’m not mocking him. And who knew that about Carter? A candidate who took the Peter Tosh line got elected in my country?!
Then Stroup got busted and stuff. In the words of the Beastie Boys, “Customs jailed me over an herb seed/Don’t rat on your boys, over some rat weed.” Wait, but why are government officials quoting The Big Lebowski?
Tom Riley, official spokesman for federal drug czar John Walters, agrees. “Keith and people like that have banged their heads against the wall for years saying ‘Legalize pot.’ But they’re farther behind now than they were 20 years ago.” Riley says Stroup’s career reminds him of a line from the movie “The Big Lebowski”: “The ’60s are over, Lebowski. The bums lost. My condolences.”
We’ve appointed John Waters Drug Czar? Oh, Walters. But yeah, and that guy’s never toked up? Riiight. The Dude Abides. I mean, just say no. [Link to picture of Nancy Reagan in Mr. T’s lap.] Finally, I’d just like to echo the plaintive query of a thousand stoners: “how can you make a plant against the law?” “Workings of Democracy for $100? By passing a law.” “Dude, that packs meager.” It does, people. It packs meager. When I’m Drug Czarina, all this is going to change. (It’s like being Drug Czar, but way more tiaras.)

December 23, 2004

Sinful Inequalities

Posted by Henry

John DiIulio of ‘Mayberry Machiavellis’ fame has a short article on ‘Attacking “Sinful Inequalities”’ in the current issue of Perspectives on Politics.

Bible-believing Christians are supposed to heed the call to “be not afraid” of any worldly challenge. Whether you are a person of whatever faith or no faith, if you believe that inequality is a moral problem, and you are convinced that it is a real problem in America today, you should not be afraid to say so - and not be afraid to recommend whatever policies or programs you believe might make a real and lasting difference. In the post-1980 debate over inequality, at least as I have experienced it, it is liberals, not conservatives, who have normally lacked the courage of their true convictions, some for fear of being accused of favoring “big government” or having other thoughts out of season.

December 14, 2004

Buying blue

Posted by Eszter

I was interviewed for a Chicago Tribune piece about the new Web sites that have spurred up encouraging people to buy blue.1 The idea is to get people to spend money in the stores of companies whose political action committees and employees support Democratic candidates and causes. It’s an interesting idea, but it’s completely unclear whether: 1. people’s purchasing behavior is that connected to their political ideology; 2. the blue side will use the compiled information more than the red side (after all, the information can also be used to boycott companies instead of supporting them). Regardless, it is certainly interesting to see where people are channeling their political frustrations.. and how quickly news has spread of these sites.
[Accessing the article requires registration. Bugmenot may be worth checking.]

1 I’m glad to see that the reporter quoted me in the right context, which is not always a given. Unfortunately, she got my departmental affiliation wrong. My primary appointment is in the Department of Communication Studies.

December 11, 2004

Voting error in the 2004 elections

Posted by Eszter

A friend of mine, Philip Howard, has been taking a very innovative approach to teaching his class on Communication Technology and Politics at the University of Washington this Fall. He and his students have been collecting data about the use of communication technologies in the elections and writing reports about their findings.

The team has released reports on topics from the legalities of voteswapping to the political uses of podcasting. The latest article looks at voting error due to technological errors, residual votes and incident reports. They have collected data on these for all states for the presidential, the gubernatorial and the senate races. They weight the incident-report data by total voting population, eligible voter population and registered voter population. They find that in some cases - see state specifics in the report by type of error - the margin of error was greater than the margin of victory.

What a great way to get students involved, to teach them important skills and to contribute helpful information to the public. They make their data available for those interested in the details. You can download spreadsheets with information off their site. They also offer an extensive list of resources including a pointers to academic literature from the past twelve years on technologies and campaigns.

UPDATE: I should have mentioned that they are posting reports now as white papers and are eager to receive feedback. It looks like they will continue to analyze the data and welcome suggestions.

December 08, 2004

National Council of Churches Statement on UCC ad.

Posted by Harry

The National Council of Churches has issued a nice statement on the refusal of NBC and CBS to air the bizarrely controversial advertisement by the United Church of Christ.

Advocacy advertising abounds on TV: agribusinesses, drug manufacturers, gambling casinos, oil companies, even some government agencies regularly expose viewers to messages advocating their products and programs, in the interest of shaping public attitudes and building support for their points of view.

Are only the ideas and attitudes of faith groups now off limits? Constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and freedom of speech, not to mention common fairness, beg for leadership by the FCC to assure that America’s faith community has full and equal access to the nation’s airwaves, to deliver positive messages that seek to build and enrich the quality of life.

If you watch evening network TV you may well, I suppose, think that such an ad would be completely out of place — there are no grisly murders, no-one has sex with someone they don’t know, there is no irrational anger, and the bouncers do not physically assault the people they turn away. Even the humiliation of the rejected congregants is mild compared with that heaped on numerous participants in reality shows. I suppose that is what makes the ad so controversial. Or perhaps it is part of a conspiracy to improve UCC’s visibility. If you want to help pile on to the networks, UCC has some suggestions here. Oh, and if you’re not American, and don’t live in the States, please watch the ad; it’ll cheer you up.

December 07, 2004

Left2Right

Posted by Brian

There’s been a lot of hubbub, both here and elsewhere in the blogworld, about the Becker-Posner blog. But if it’s intellectual firepower in a group blog you’re after, you should be reading Left2Right. Here’s its mission statement, which should be good for setting off a round of debates.

In the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, many of us have come to believe that the Left must learn how to speak more effectively to ears attuned to the Right. How can we better express our values? Can we learn from conservative critiques of those values? Are there conservative values that we should be more forthright about sharing? “Left2Right” will be a discussion of these and related questions.

Although we have chosen the subtitle “How can the Left get through to the Right?”, our view is that the way to get through to people is to listen to them and be willing to learn from them. Many of us identify ourselves with the Left, but others are moderates or independents. What we share is an interest in exploring how American political discourse can get beyond the usual talking points.

The contributors so far include Elizabeth Anderson, Kwame Appiah, Josh Cohen, Stephen Darwall, Gerald Dworkin, David Estlund, Don Herzog, Jeff McMahan, Seana Shiffrin, and David Velleman. Wowsa. And many other names you may have heard of, from Peter Railton to Richard Rorty, are listed as being part of the team. This should be worth following.

December 03, 2004

Freedom on the March

Posted by Kieran

The news services report the latest effort by legal officials of the U.S. Government to get Americans to agree that the use of torture by the military is no big deal:

WASHINGTON U.S. military panels reviewing the detention of foreigners as enemy combatants are allowed to use evidence gained by torture in deciding whether to keep them imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the government conceded in court Thursday. The acknowledgment by Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle came during a U.S. District Court hearing on lawsuits brought by some of the 550 foreigners imprisoned at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The lawsuits challenge their detention without charges for up to three years so far.

Attorneys for the prisoners said some were held solely on evidence gained by torture, which they said violated fundamental fairness and U.S. due-process standards. But Boyle argued in a similar hearing Wednesday that the prisoners “have no constitutional rights enforceable in this court.”

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon asked whether a detention would be illegal if it were based solely on evidence gathered by torture, because “torture is illegal. We all know that.” Boyle replied that if the military’s combatant status-review tribunals “determine that evidence of questionable provenance were reliable, nothing in the due-process clause prohibits them from relying on it.”

I look forward to some analysis of this exchange by a good lawyer. (A good lawyer with some sense about what issues are worth their time, I mean.) It seems to me that the government wants to let military tribunals do whatever they like. Boyle’s claim seems to be that in balancing the reliability of any piece of evidence against its “questionable provenance” (i.e., whether it was beaten out of a detainee), the status-review tribunal should not only lean towards reliability but also get to pick and choose how questionable a “provenance” is too questionable.

Torture is a moral problem first and foremost, and Jim Henley’s argument for why the U.S. shouldn’t be pursuing it (“Because we’re the fucking United States of America”) is the right one.1 If you’re thinking of bringing up ticking nuclear bomb cases in the comments, go have a read of Belle’s earlier post about them first. Such cases are useful for thinking about limits, but they’re the wrong way to focus the debate in this case, because they have nothing to say about the institutionalization torture within the machinery of the state. That process is more a matter of political and organizational sociology: the tendency of bureaucrats, for example, to want to arbitrarily extend their powers and escape systems designed to oversee them. Its consequences are, at least to begin with, something for the strategic foreign-policy crowd to deal with. Even if moral arguments mean nothing to you (i.e., you are a sociopath) there is still an overwhelming realist case for not routinizing torture because of the risks it exposes your own people to down the road.

It still amazes me, by the way, that people who don’t trust the government to assess their taxes properly don’t seem to mind giving it the power to arbitrarily detain and torture them.

1 As Arthur Silber points out, this is a special case of the more general anti-torture argument that goes “Because we’re human beings”.

November 29, 2004

Attrition in Iraq

Posted by Kieran

Brian Gifford of Pub Sociology has an Op-Ed piece in todays Washington Post arguing that the pressure on the U.S. military in Iraq is much greater than simple comparison to casualty rates in previous wars would suggest:

To better understand the difficulty of the fighting in Iraq, consider not just the current body count but the combat intensity of previous wars. During World War II, the United States lost an average of 300 military personnel per day. The daily figure in Vietnam was about 15. Compared with two per day so far in Iraq, the daily grinds of those earlier conflicts were worse than what our forces are currently experiencing.

On the other hand, improved body armor, field medical procedures and medevac capabilities are allowing wounded soldiers to survive injuries that would have killed them in earlier wars. In World War II there were 1.7 wounded for every fatality, and 2.6 in Vietnam; in Iraq the ratio of wounded to killed is 7.6. This means that if our wounded today had the same chances of survival as their fathers did in Vietnam, we would probably now have more than 3,500 deaths in the Iraq war.

Moreover, we fought those wars with much larger militaries than we currently field. The United States had 12 million active-duty personnel at the end of World War II and 3.5 million at the height of the Vietnam War, compared with just 1.4 million today. Adjusted for the size of the armed forces, the average daily number of killed and wounded was 4.8 times as many in World War II than in Iraq, but it was only 0.25 times greater in Vietnam — or one-fourth more.

These figures suggest that our forces in Iraq face a far more serious threat than the public, the media and the political establishment typically acknowledge or understand. Man for man, a soldier or Marine in Iraq faces a mission nearly as difficult as that in Vietnam a generation earlier. This is in spite of the fact that his contemporary enemies do not field heavy armored vehicles or aircraft and do not enjoy the support and patronage of a superpower such as the Soviet Union. …

The focus on how “light” casualties have been so far rather than on what those casualties signify serves to rationalize the continued conduct of the war and prevents us as a nation from confronting the realities of conditions in Iraq. Even more troubling, daily casualties have almost tripled since before the first attack on Fallujah in April. Conditions are getting worse, not improving. To be sure, American forces are winning the body count. That the insurgency is nonetheless growing more effective in the face of heavier losses makes it difficult to imagine an exit strategy that any reasonable person would recognize as a “victory.”

There is a tension in warblogger rhetoric between the wish to emphasize the great sacrifices that soldiers are making in Iraq and the desire to deride those who worry about the casualties. The former leads them to emphasize the hellish nature of battling guerilla forces in urban settings, but the latter demands they argue that fatality rates are trivial compared to Vietnam or other much larger wars. Brian treats the fact that the U.S. military is the best-equipped, best-trained and best-supported ground fighting force in the world as more than just rhetoric. As he argues, this should force us to see the casualty numbers in a new light.

November 25, 2004

Elections, election...

Posted by Chris

I linked last week to an op-ed by John Allen Paulos about the conclusions that might (or might not) be drawn from the recent Presidential election. Now he’s written a piece about the possibility of election fraud , which draws on work by Steve Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania. His conclusion in part:

The election has prompted extensive allegations of fraud, some of which have been debunked, but many of which have not. In several cases non-trivial errors have been established and official tallies changed. And there is one more scenario that doesn’t require many conspirators: the tabulating machines and the software they run conceivably could have been dragooned into malevolent service by relatively few operatives. Without paper trails, this would be difficult, but probably not impossible, to establish. Hard evidence? Definitely not. Nevertheless, the present system is such a creaky patchwork and angry suspicions are so prevalent that there is, despite the popular vote differential, a fear that the election was tainted and possibly stolen.

In completely unrelated news US Secretary of State Colin Powell declared of the Ukrainian elections :

We cannot accept this result as legitimate because it does not meet international standards and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse. We have been following developments very closely and are deeply disturbed by the extensive and credible reports of fraud in the election. We call for a full review of the conduct of the election and the tallying of election results.

November 24, 2004

Because the Base wouldn't want to see a fairy up there

Posted by Kieran

Lynne Cheney Tops National Christmas Tree.

November 20, 2004

Further Analysis of Electronic Voting Patterns

Posted by Kieran

Mike Hout and some colleagues at Berkeley have a working paper called “The Effect of Electronic Voting Machines on Change in Support for Bush in the 2004 Florida Elections”. A summary is also available as well as the data itself. Hout is a well-respected sociologist, so if he thinks the data for Florida show some anomalies he’s worth listing to. Hout et al try to estimate whether the presence of touch-screen electronic voting made a difference to the number of votes cast for Bush, controlling for various demographic characteristics of the counties as well as the proportion of votes cast for the Republican Presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000. Here’s the punchline:

As baseline support for Bush increases in Florida counties, the change in percent voting for Bush from 2000 to 2004 increases, but at a decreasing rate. Electronic voting has a main, positive effect on the dependent variable. Furthermore, there is an interaction effect between baseline support for Bush and electronic voting, and between baseline support for Bush squared and electronic voting. Support for Dole in 1996, county size, median income, and Hispanic population had no significant effect net of the other effects. Essentially, net of other effects, electronic voting had the greatest positive effect on changin percent voting for Bush from 2000 to 2004 in democratic counties. … Summing these effects for the fifteen counties with electronic voting yields the total estimated excess votes in favor of Bush associated with Electronic Voting; this figure is 130,733.

Hmm. I’m going to go mess around with the data for a while and see what we can see.

Update: OK, I’ve looked at the data, and so have others. I think the case is not proven. More below the fold.

Update 2: Mike Hout has added a comment below.

While mucking around with this, I see from the comments that Andrew Gelman (Statistics, Columbia) has done the job for me. He presents a very nice discussion of these patterns on his blog. You should read all of his post. Here’s a figure, similar to one on his blog, that shows the percent swing to Bush in Florida counties in 2004 against the Percent Republican vote in 2000 in the same counties. (A PDF version is also available.)

Counties using electronic voting machines are shown in red. You can see that Broward and Palm Beach counties (which have very large populations and lean strongly Democratic) swung much more toward Bush than was typical for counties where Republicans won less than 47 or 48 percent of the vote in 2000. It turns out that these two counties are driving the findings of Hout et al’s model. I ran a model identical to Hout et al’s, but with a variable (“pb-brow”) added to distinguish Broward and Palm Beach Counties from all the others. Here are the results:


Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) -2.13e-01 9.49e-02 -2.24 0.0289 *
b00pc 1.03e+00 3.25e-01 3.17 0.0025 **
b00pc.sq -6.62e-01 2.83e-01 -2.34 0.0230 *
size -2.88e-08 7.21e-08 -0.40 0.6908
etouch 2.98e-01 3.26e-01 0.92 0.3638
b00pc.e -8.82e-01 1.13e+00 -0.78 0.4373
b00pcsq.e 6.02e-01 9.71e-01 0.62 0.5377
d96pc -1.58e-01 1.19e-01 -1.33 0.1881
v.change -4.41e-08 3.21e-07 -0.14 0.8912
income -7.89e-07 7.64e-07 -1.03 0.3064
hispanic -5.21e-02 3.10e-02 -1.68 0.0988 .
pb-brow 2.14e-02 5.23e-02 0.41 0.6831
—-
Signif. codes: 0 `***’ 0.001 `**’ 0.01 `*’ 0.05 `.’ 0.1 ` ’ 1

Residual standard error: 0.0215 on 55 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-Squared: 0.539, Adjusted R-squared: 0.447
F-statistic: 5.84 on 11 and 55 DF, p-value: 3.55e-06

As you can see, putting in a dummy for Palm Beach and Broward Counties makes the significant effect of “etouch” (i.e., whether a county had electronic voting) go away. Now the only variables significant at conventional levels are the ones measuring the percentage voting for Bush in 2000. (Note that there’s also a hint of an effect for ‘Hispanic,’ as befits their ambiguous role in deciding the election.)1

So, all of the e-voting action is explained by two counties. The question is what’s happening in those counties. Andrew Gelman again:

One possibility, as suggested by Hout et al., is cheating, possibly set up ahead of time (e.g., by loading extra votes into the machines before the election or by setting it up to switch or not count some votes) … but an obvious alternative explanation is that, for various reasons, 3% more people in those counties preferred Bush in 2004, compared to 2000. As can be seen in the graphs above for 2000, 1996, and 1992, such a swing would be unusual (at least compared to recent history), but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen! … It would make sense to look further at Broward and Palm Beach counties, where swings happened which look unexpected compared to the other counties and compared to 2000, 1996, and 1992. But lots of unexpected things happen in elections, so we shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that e-voting is related to these particular surprises.

In other words, if there is cheating it’s not centralized cheating where all the e-voting machines mess up in the same way. If you believe that the machines were rigged, focus on the ones in Palm Beach and Broward county. But it seems more likely that these results show the Republican Party Machine was really, really well-organized in Palm Beach and Broward, and they were able to mobilize their vote better than the Democrats. The general swing toward Bush in Florida seems consistent with this story.

Notes

A version of the analysis presented here is available in PDF format. The two models can be compared directly in that document.

1 Again, this analysis isn’t original to me: see Andrew Gelman’s post for more details.

November 19, 2004

Mickey Mouse Politics

Posted by Henry

Duncan Black has it about right:

The Dems should be going after the techno-lib vote by fighting against the Intellectual Property grab which is currently going on. Give people their porn, their Napster, and their unfettered Tivo. And, yes, I am respectful of genuine intellectual property rights but DMCA, the Mickey Mouse Preservation Act copyright extension and the inevitable progeny of both will soon make it impossible to say or do anything without handing over a license fee.

To which I can only add that the Democrats should be doing this anyway, because it’s the right thing to do. Just because the movie and music industry are ‘our’ plutocrats doesn’t mean that Democratic politicians should be supporting their attempted land grab. One of the few real rays of hope for the modern left is the public domain and Creative Commons movement. The left should be supporting what it’s doing - helping to create a free space for collective and individual endeavour. Handing the strangling cord to entrenched interests probably isn’t good politics; it’s certainly bad policy.

November 18, 2004

A mathematician reads the election

Posted by Chris

John Allen Paulos has a useful piece in today’s Guardian on the meaning of the US election and the tendency people have to draw sweeping conclusions about the US electorate from the numbers:

Excuse my mathematician’s obsession with coin flips, but consider this. There is a large bloc of people who will vote for the Republican candidate no matter what, and a similarly reliable Democratic bloc of roughly the same size. There is also a smaller group of voters who either do not have fixed opinions or are otherwise open to changing their vote.

To an extent, these latter people’s votes (and thus elections themselves) are determined by chance (external events, campaign gaffes, etc).

So what conclusion would we draw about a coin that landed heads two or three times out of four flips (or about a sequence of two or three Democratic victories in the last four elections)? The answer, of course, is that we would draw no conclusions at all.

November 17, 2004

Alabama's Constitution.

Posted by Harry

Alabama’s Amendment 2 is due for a recount on November 29th, because the vote was so close, but most commentators apparently expect it to be defeated. For those who weren’t paying attention, Amendment 2 would revoke the post-Brown constitutional amendment passed to mandate segregated education, impose a poll tax, and, most cruelly, specify that Alabama’s children have no right to a state funded education. Of course, revoking it would not guarantee a right to a state-funded education, but a central, and spurious, argument in the campaign against Amendment 2 was that revoking it would provoke lawsuits claiming that the state’s unequal provision of education was unconstitutional. Leading the charge against the Amendment: the Christian coalition. Russell Arben Fox has a lengthy and excellent discussion of the case and its implications. Although myself an atheist, I have found Russell’s post-election thoughts very helpful. His thesis, which I share, is that progressives would do better to relate to evangelicals and their ilk in new and different ways. The Amendment 2 story is good ammunition for those who disagree with us. Is there an upside? I can’t think of one, though it is notable, that, again, Governer Bob Riley is more-or-less on the side of human decency.
(I’ve turned off comments because you should be discussing this at Russell’s place).

November 10, 2004

Help the Democrats and have fun too!

Posted by Daniel

I promised I’d have plenty of unsolicited advice for the Democrats this week, and I do. However, after reading round the web about all the things that are wrong with “the Left” and how they’re not in touch with the “real America” (no links provided, they’re not exactly hard to find), I got a bit depressed. So I invented this game to cheer myself up.

I call it “Six Degrees Of This Googlewhack Is A Serious Problem For The Left”.

It kind of combines the fun of the Kevin Bacon game with the fun of Googlewhacking, and at the same time helps you generate yet more self-flagellating theories about the election results, which must be fun or people wouldn’t do it so much.

The idea is that, it seems, you can connect almost anything to the phrase “this is a serious problem for The Left” in much less than six steps of argument. So the name of the game is to start with a googlewhack from the site and end via a chain of fairly close reasoning with an argument that the Democrats need to consider your googlewhack in depth.

Thus, gesticulate tatties is a googlewhack (or at least it is until this page gets indexed), and it links to the Life and Opinions of Sir Andrew Wylie. On page 14 of this document, there is the line:

No man in his senses would ever expect to see an ignoramus bush, far less a doddered holly-bush, take up a pen to write a book

which is clearly an example of an aristocrat, who is British, referring to President Bush as an ignoramus. This is the sort of high-handed patronising attitude that the Real America hates, and is therefore A Real Problem For The Left

Meanwhile, liposome yarmulke not only has undertones of anti-semitism, but the actual googlewhack is to a spam page pushing cheap Viagra. As long as the Democrats don’t have a credible healthcare plan or a definite policy on parallel importation of pharmaceuticals, they will always be the party of Hillarycare and this is therefore A Real Problem For The Left

And so on. There is perhaps some small kudos for any CT reader who can find a Googlewhack so obscure and nonpolitical that it can’t be used as a stick to beat the democrats with. There is also slightly more kudos for anyone who spots an “in the wild” application; a breast-beating “death of the Left” essay that looks like its original kernel was a googlewhack. Have fun.

November 09, 2004

Senate obstructionism

Posted by Henry

Adam Posen at the IIE has an interesting article in today’s FT about the political motivations and consequences of Bush’s economic policy.1 For me, the key quote:

However, the Bush administration is putting its political staying power ahead of economic responsibility - indeed it is weakening the independence of those very institutions on which Americans rely to check economic radicalism. For example, the current Republican congressional leadership is trying to override the constitutional design whereby the Senate acts as a brake on the executive branch and on the self-interest of “majority faction”. Bill Frist, senate majority leader and George Allen, the Republican senate campaign committee chair, said their unprecedented direct campaign against Tom Daschle, the defeated Senate minority leader, should warn moderate Republican and Democratic senators not to be “obstructionist”, even though that is precisely what the Founding Fathers intended the Senate to do.

… Markets tend to assume that the US political system will prevent lasting extremist policies so, even now, observers discount the likelihood of the Bush administration fully pursuing - let alone passing - this economic agenda. If the thin blue line of Democrats and the responsible Republican moderates in the Senate bravely fulfil their constitutional role, perhaps the damage will be limited. If not, we can foresee the US economy following the path to extended decline of the British economy in the 1960s and 1970s and of Japan in the 1990s.

I think that there’s an important message for the anti-Bush opposition here, if it can only articulate it clearly and simply. The current administration claims to be both conservative and strict constructionist; it’s neither. In fact, it’s trying to short-circuit the basic constitutional checks and balances of the US political system in order to ram through its agenda. The US apart, presidential democracies are extremely fragile, in large part because presidents tend to grab all power to themselves. This is exactly what the Bush administration is doing, both in its sweeping constitutional arguments about the extent of presidential privilege, and in its efforts to impose strict discipline on the Senate. This is something that shouldn’t only be worrying to lefties - it’s something that should be of deep concern both to serious conservatives, and to libertarians who are worth their salt.

1 No hyperlink because it’s behind their paywall.

November 07, 2004

The Visual Display of Quantitative Information

Posted by Henry

As a complement to Kieran’s post, Michael Gaster, Cosma Shalizi’s and Mark Newman’s electoral map where area is proportional to population is fascinating, as well as weirdly beautiful - like butterflies exploding. Gaster-Shalizi-Newman also have a really interesting analysis of the distribution of votes for for the Republican candidate - go read it now.

Update: according to Cosma, the histogram on his site showing 300 odd counties with 99% Democratic support was the result of a coding error - however the map is accurate.

November 06, 2004

Keeping track of stuff

Posted by John Quiggin

In the aftermath of the elections, it doesn’t look as if anyone in government will be calling on me for frank and fearless advice1 any time soon. So this seems like a good time to get my records in order. My piece on time management elicited some follow-up discussion along these lines, notably here, with followup here . For those who are looking for moderately constructive routine activities in the wake of recent catastrophes, here are some (not very organised) thoughts.

I’ve never found a satisfactory “one size fits all” solution, though I’ve acquired lots of experience in the associated search. For my main bibliographic file, I’m using a Mac-only product called Bookends, the product of a one-man show called Sonny Software. I tend to go for obscure products like this2. The industry standard at the moment is Endnote, but I had some problems with this (can’t remember exactly what) and decided not to adopt it when I shifted from Procite a couple of years ago. When I get time, I plan to work out how to use BiBTeX - Bookends produces output in this format. The physical copies of papers I’ve accumulated are stored in filing cabinets, and marked in Bookends. I’m also trying to keep my PDF files in a similar fashion, but I’m well behind on that.

Email is another gigantic database in itself. I’ve been using Eudora, which has pretty good filtering and search capabilities, but I’m now dipping my toe into Google’s Gmail - I’m just a bit worried about Google having access to all my mail, black and otherwise.

Then I’ve got a bunch of Filemaker databases. As well as the usual contact lists and so on, I’ve got a system of two linked databases which is supposed to keep track of my articles, where they have been submitted and rejected, and so on. As I’m both quite active and somewhat out of the mainstream in economics (both geographically and ideologically), I tend to get a lot of rejections, and I live in fear that I’ll resubmit a paper to a journal where it’s already been rejected. The system also lets me know how long things have been in process, so I can send polite reminder notes in cases of extreme slowness (I normally wait a year, but unlike some authors I’ve heard of, I don’t mark the event with a birthday card).

If I can summarise my views on this kind of organisational stuff, they are

  • Something is better than nothing
  • The best is the enemy of the good
  • Filing is good if it provides a constructive activity during dry spells, downtime and so on, bad if it becomes a displacement activity. If you’re involved in any way with blogs you already have more than enough avenues for displacement activity.

Anyway, back to my new working paper database, which is going to make all my stuff available on RePEc

1 They’ll get it anyway, of course, but only in my spare time, and only through channels like blogs and opinion columns

2 I also like Nisus Writer as an alternative to Word.

November 05, 2004

Sore Winners

Posted by Kieran

I put my post about how to best represent county-level election data on my own weblog as well. Yesterday it got linked to from this thread on the CSP Gun Talk Forum. Apparently, trying to present the data honestly is a problem:

Re: Don’t let “them” get away with it! Posted By: those Sore Losers
They are rewriting history as we speak …….. !!!
Look at the map below >>>
then Go to the link below the map for the real shock >>>

Then they provide their own analysis:

The only reason New Mexico and Colorado have any blue counties is because of all the idiot Kalafornicators that moved there. The only reason south Texas is blue is because of all the illegal mexicans that live there. It is sad the dimocrap city slickers want to force their pitiful way of life on the rest of us country folks…….maybe we need to wall off the large metro areas of the country…..chris3

The Nucular Option

Posted by Henry

Over the last couple of days, I’ve been hearing speculation that the Bush administration was going to use the “nuclear option” to get judicial nominations through the Senate; that is, to junk the rules that allow a large minority of senators to filibuster judicial candidates.

Now, via Josh Marshall, we have some evidence that Republicans are thinking in precisely those terms.

“As it stands today [Democrats] can block [a nominee],” said C. Boyden Gray, former legal counsel to President George H.W. Bush. But I also believe that the president and majority leader may well decide to change the rules given the elections … The president has a very strong political support, potential support, for asking for and getting this change.”

As Josh says, the next few years will probably see

an effort to use a narrowly secured majority not only to govern, even govern aggressively, but to make institutional changes that strip away the existing powers and rights of large minorities. These formal and informal checks and balances constitute the governmental soft-tissue that allows our political system to function.

Or, to describe it in terms that genuine conservatives should find compelling.

Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority …

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

As the Federalist Papers suggest, the US federal system was intended to provide a “republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government.” A bunch of purported conservatives is embarked on the enterprise of stripping out from that system the balancing mechanisms that protect minorities, and engineering district boundaries so as to ensure themselves a permanent majority even if the electorate should turn against them. It is not a pleasant spectacle.

Moral Values Again

Posted by Kieran

Jim Henley expresses some skepticism about the post election analysis saying that the Democrats need to do more about moral values if they want to win the next election:

[I’m] calling qualified bullshit on the suddenly popular notion that liberals need to come up with “a plausible spiel on morality,” essentially dressing their existing beliefs in the language of religion so as to reach Christians who currently vote Republican … Among other things, this will raise conservative-Christian comfort levels with liberal politicians and make liberal policies attractive in the terms with which said voters view the world.

This is naive and even condescending. Conservative, values-minded Christians aren’t looking for validation. They’re looking for specific policy outcomes that their strongly-held beliefs entail - among them, the prohibition of abortion and the marginalization and if possible elimination of homosexuality. They are not empty urns waiting to be filled with liberal policies dissolved in honeyed words about faith.

… Bush and Rove’s faith talk may be every bit the “spiel” Kieran Healy says it is. Doesn’t matter. The question for evangelicals and what Sullivan calls “religious moderates” isn’t the sincerity of politicians, it’s whether those politicians deliver on their issues.

This is fair enough. I wrote that phrase, “a plausible spiel on morality” in a bit of a rush the morning after the election, and Russell Arben Fox and others picked up on it in the comments thread. I think my original post ran together a few different and half-formed thoughts. So, uh, here are some more.

First, I was annoyed at the pollsters and the media who made nothing of the importance of “moral values” (however you want to construe it) in the run-up to the election. I think I was right to be annoyed, and I still don’t know why, seeing as it was there in the polling, that more wasn’t made of it by the people paid to analyze such things.

Second, when I said a “plausible spiel on morality”, what the hell was I talking about? I didn’t mean that it was just a question of finding a way to do a good ole Praise the Lord song-and-dance routine better than the Repubs. Rather, I felt that it was just ridiculous that an Administration that busies itself with apologias for torture — to pick one example from many — has gotten itself into the position where it owns the language of morality, religious, secular or otherwise. The language of moral politics is almost inevitably framed in Christian terms in the U.S., but Christian morality is itself perfectly well-able to issue condemnations of torture or the death penalty or hate-based policy initiatives, or what have you. So why haven’t the Democrats been able to do this?

Third, Jim is right to say that for a substantial portion of the electorate, delivering on the issues is what matters. If those issues are — in Jim’s phrase — “the prohibition of abortion and the marginalization and if possible elimination of homosexuality,” then the Republicans are welcome to them. I wasn’t suggesting that it’s worth the Democrats’ while to pander on these matters. But that doesn’t mean that Democrats with an interest in the matter — like Sullivan — shouldn’t try hard to reclaim the language of moral conviction from those people. This is particularly important because I believe that the available evidence shows that such polarization as exists is being driven by changes in the political system rather than the electorate.

Even for a blog post, these thoughts are pretty half-baked. I want to hear more about what people think on each of these points.

November 04, 2004

What happened in Clark County?

Posted by Daniel

Just tying up a few loose ends as the US election fervour comes to an end … I bet nobody else was planning to audit this one so I might as well …

After all the brouhaha and kerfuffle over the Guardian’s Clark County Project, it turns out that the citizens of Clark County voted exactly the same way as the rest of Ohio: 51% Bush, 48.5% Kerry. You might possibly argue that there was a slight “anti-Guardian effect” because last time round Clark was slightly more Democratic than the rest of Ohio (50-46 for Gore when the state was Bush by half a percentag point), but if you did, I think I’d say you were data-mining.

Update I promise I wrote that sentence before I saw someone had done it.

Red Counties, Blue Counties and Occupied Counties

Posted by Kieran

Via Pandagon I see that Michelle Malkin smugly presents us with a map (from USA Today) showing the apparently overwhelming predominance of Bush-supporting counties in the United States. That’s the top panel in the figure below. Looks like the GOP is overwhelmingly dominant, eh? Well, no, of course. It takes about ten seconds on Google to find the bottom panel of the figure, which shows you about how many people live in each county. The comparison is instructive. Of course, there are still a bunch of well-populated areas that Bush carried, but we know that already because, you know, he won the election.

Note also that the USA Today map has quite a few missing observations, shaded in grey, presumably because the final results weren’t available when they drew the map. Missing observations seem predominantly to be counties with large urban populations. Most of these (like Cook County, IL, and Palm Beach County, FL!) should probably be colored blue, as a comparison with the 2000 results shows. CT readers are probably too sensible to fall for invidious comparisons like this to begin with, but it does seem that the likes of Michelle Malkin think that complete dominance of the Prairie Dog and cowpat vote is what really matters. She should check to see how Leroy Chiao voted — maybe the GOP can claim the Solar System vote, too.

Update: Thanks to some pointers in the comments, below the fold I’ve included two other figures. The first is a cartogram from the New York Times that scales the states by their electoral college votes, and the section is a terrific map from Robert Vanderbei that gives a continuous rather than a binary representation of the county vote data, allowing us to see that “purple America” is more common than red or blue America.

New York Times Cartogram of Electoral College Votes.

Robert Vanderbei’s “Purple America” Vote Data Map.

A bigger version is available here and an even bigger version can be had from Robert’s website.

More on religion and elections

Posted by Eszter

Judging from the comments to yesterday’s post on religion and politics, people seem to be quite interested in the topic. So I thought I’d post a pointer to this NYTimes article that discusses a paper by three economists about “Why Republicans and Democrats Divide on Religious Values”.1

1 I’d say more, but I have a flight to catch.

Shining city on a hill

Posted by Chris

Since 9/11 American nationalists have not been shy to tell us about the marvellous things that the United States have brought to the world. And I agree with them. The US Constitution, the struggle against slavery, the struggle for civil rights, the greatest city in the world (New York), the blues, jazz, soul. I could go on and on. I might even, on a generous day, include Hollywood. I love those Americas, and I always will. I’d like to thank them for standing against the strident nationalists and George W. Bush.

— The thirteen original states that brought us the Constitution voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry. [1]
— The states that didn’t secede and which fought against slavery voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry.
— Black America which brought us in Martin Luther King, one of the greatest moral exemplars of modern times as well as the blues, jazz and soul voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry.
— California, home of the modern motion picture industry, voted for Kerry.

These are the great American achievements: the United States’ lasting contribution to freedom, culture and progress. Sadly, that America, the America of which Americans have the most reason to be proud and foreigners have the most reason to admire, just lost. Again.

1 UPDATE This is ambiguous and, on one resolution of the ambiguity, false. Since some commenters are incapable of doing charitable disambiguation themselves, let me do it for them: an electoral college based on the original 13 states would have voted in Kerry by an landslide.

Would Gephardt have won ?

Posted by John Quiggin

Most of the post-election discussion I’ve seen has focused on the impact of religion, and quite a few commentators have suggested that the Democrats need to shift their policies to appeal more to religiously-motivated voters. This approach would entail some fairly substantial compromises in the search for marginal votes.

If we’re the mood for pragmatic populism, there’s a policy option that might well have delivered the Democrats the election, without the risk of fracturing the Democratic base as an appeal to the religious right would have done. That option is protectionism, of the kind espoused during the campaign by Gephardt1. Gephardt had his electoral problems, but I think he could have carried Ohio and his home state of Missouri, as well as having a good chance in West Virginia and even Indiana. He might have lost some coastal states but overall he would have had a better chance of a majority in both the popular vote and the electoral college.

I don’t think protectionist policies are beneficial or even particularly effective, but I don’t share the quasi-religious abhorrence of tariffs and other trade restrictions many economists have had drilled into them from their earliest youth. In the current environment, the big threat to the world economy isn’t the possibility of a trade war, but the danger that the imbalances created by the US trade and budget deficits will bring the whole system crashing down2. Unlike Kerry, Gephardt favored the complete repeal of the Bush tax cuts, the crucial first step towards a resolution of the imbalances. This position would have been bitterly attacked by the Republicans, but those attacks would have shifted the ground to the economy, the issue where Bush was weakest.

There are good arguments against going in this direction. It would certainly have cost the Democrats a lot of support among the policy elite, who backed Kerry almost uniformly, for what that was worth. But this is a good time to take a clear-eyed look at all the options, rather than focusing exclusively on the first one that catches our attention. If it’s necessary to compromise in order to win, religiously-motivated voters aren’t the only fish in the sea.

1 Kerry tilted in this direction, but not enough to have much of an impact, favorable or otherwise.

2 Even in the Great Depression, the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 was only a secondary factor, at most. Competitive devaluations in other countries had much the same effect. The central cause was the failure of the financial system.

November 03, 2004

The next four years: realistic version

Posted by John Quiggin

While I’ve tried to be open to more optimistic possibilities, it’s far more likely that the second Bush Administration will be more of the same, and worse. The problem for the winners is that the consequences of the Administration’s policies, still debatable in 2004, will be grimly evident by 2008, and there will be no one but Republicans to take the blame. In purely partisan terms, as I argued several times before the election, this was a good one to lose.

It’s impossible to predict in detail how things will turn out in Iraq, or on foreign policy more generally. But Bush’s first term made one thing clear. If there’s a way to stuff things up, these guys will find it. I expect there will be some initial talk on both sides about rapprochement with Europe, but it won’t last long: if the assault on Fallujah turns out as bloody as appears likely, that could easily be enough to any such process to an end.

Things are much clearer on the economic front. As I mentioned in my previous post, Reagan’s first term saw the implementation of crackpot “supply-side” theories in which tax cuts would produce long-run budget surpluses, but when they produced huge deficits instead, the orthodox Republicans took control and raised taxes, among other measures to bring the deficit under control. In the Bush administration, by contrast, not only have the crackpots become the orthodoxy, but they don’t even bother (much) with Laffer-curve theories about an eventual return to surplus. The current view is that sustained deficits are entirely harmless. It’s virtually certain that the first-term tax cuts will be made permanent, and probable that there will be some additional cuts, as well as relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax. On the spending side, I expect there will be some severe cuts in non-defence discretionary spending, but there’s not a lot to cut, especially if you exclude areas like agriculture, that have strong Republican protection, and the policy initiatives of the last Congress, like the prescription drug policy.

An even bigger problem, not mentioned at all in the campaign as far as I know1 is the trade deficit. The deficit has grown steadily, exceeding 5 per cent of GDP in recent months. Although it’s a mistake to view the trade and budget deficits as twins, the combination of a budget deficit and minimal household savings implies the need for a balancing deficit on the current account, if any net investment is to be financed. Without a rapid reversal, sustained high trade deficits will translate into exploding current account deficits, as compound interest works its magic. This implies the need for a further large depreciation of the dollar, and an increase in interest rates or both. For the moment, interest rates have been held down by the willingness of Asian central banks to buy Treasury notes. But this can’t last.

In the absence of a serious attempt to bring the trade and budget deficits under control, a substantial increase in interest rates is inevitable, and that will almost certainly imply a slowdown or recession.

1 Except maybe in relation to outsourcing

Flipping coins

Posted by Daniel

It has struck me that it is probably more cost-effective for me to make this point once, in a front page post on CT than to try to add it to every single comments thread in the Democrat blogosphere. OK, lads, it hurts to lose. But can I ask a couple of questions which seem to be unrelated to the topic of “whither the Democrats”, but which in fact are.

1. If a coin has a bias such that it comes up heads 52% of the time, how many flips of the coin would you need to make to be reasonably confident that it was not a fair coin? A) 1 B) 2 or C) a lot more.

2. If you flip a coin four times and it comes up heads, heads, tails, tails, then does it make even the slightest bit of sense at all to spend the next month thinking about what major structural changes need to be made to the coin if it is ever to come up heads again?

Moral Values

Posted by Kieran

What were the most important issues for voters in the election? If you were reading the polls, and listening to the media chatter before the election, the answer would have seemed clear: Iraq or the War on Terror and the state of the economy. In news coverage of the campaign, in the Presidential debates and in the blogosphere blather, the election was fought on these issues. But from about 10pm last night onwards, and increasingly so this morning, commentators suddenly started talking about the importance of moral values in the campaign. It was all over the news this morning.

The exit poll data show that 22% of the electorate thought that “moral values” was the most important issue in the election, and these voters went for Bush nearly 80% to 20%. The ratio is reversed for the 20% who thought that the Economy was the most important issue. In the case of Iraq and Terrorism, it’s interesting to see, first, that these are two separate options.1 People who said “Iraq” (15%) went for Kerry 75% to 25%, while those who said “Terrorism” (19%) went for Bush 85% to 14%. But the main issue for voters was moral values and it seems to me that there was basically no sustained media analysis on this point prior to the election. I want to know why. Were the pollsters keeping quiet about it? Was it an error in their categorization? For instance, did they lump a bunch of things including moral values into an “Other” category early on and then just focus on the Economy vs Iraq/Terror trope for the campaign?

So it seems to me, in short, that Amy Sullivan’s analysis has been vindicated by the results. She first articulated it in June of 2003, well before it was clear who was going to win the Democratic nomination and reiterated it more than once recently. Right now the Democrats don’t have a plausible spiel on morality. I don’t mean that they’re less likely to be moral people, just that they don’t have a coherent way of talking to their own base — let alone the electorate — about what they stand for in religious terms. The fact that it is just a spiel can be seen from the fact that — as Sullivan has also pointed out — the upper reaches of the Bush Administration are not exactly staffed with devout Christians and the President, unlike Kerry, hasn’t been to Church in years.

Late in the day, Kerry’s began to talk about his faith a lot more explicitly in his stump speech. It does seem like his campaign was starting to see the importance of the issue to voters. But I didn’t see this question getting the kind of coverage the data show it merited.

1 I want to know whether voters are just asked to say what their view is, or whether they’re presented with a laundry list of choices. I imagine it would have to be the former.

Voting in Gambier

Posted by BillG

Gambier is a tiny town in rural Knox County, about 90 minutes northeast of Columbus. It’s where Kenyon College is and where my son cast his first vote. He tells me that there were only two machines for 1300 registered voters. There was an unprecedented turnout and one of the machines was frequently going out of service. Waits were up to 9 hours long.

Doubtlessly, needlessly long lines disenfranchised some Ohio voters. This is inexcusable. Does it help explain the apparent Bush victory? I doubt it.

What I saw on the street in Columbus was that the Republicans were better funded, better organized, and smarter about mobilizing their voters. I bet they also knew more about their people than the Democrats. The Democrats were polling, whereas the Republicans conducted a census. The Republicans were probably more successful in tailoring communications to individual voters and I’m sure they had a plan to get each one to the poll.

What will the Republicans do next with this machine? Rove and Norquist have been candid about plans for a political realignment. They are likely to have some success. Can the Democrats continue to block hard right judicial appointments? I also expect organized political pressure to bring the media into conformity.

The slow boring of hard boards

Posted by Henry

Mark Schmitt suggests that there’s a ray of hope for the Democratic party.

But politically, it at least avoids a situation where Kerry would have borne the responsibility and blame for Iraq or for raising taxes. All accountability now rests with Bush and his party. Everything that’s been swept under the carpet until after the election will come creeping out. And the best use of all the resources of people, brains, money, and coordination that’s been built this year, in addition to developing a stronger base of ideas, is to find ways to hold Bush, DeLay et. al. absolutely accountable for their choices. I really believe that this will be like Nixon’s second term, and thus the seeds of a bigger long-term change than could have occurred just by Kerry winning the election.

I think he’s right - the emphasis over the next four years has to be on organizational groundwork, “the strong and slow boring of hard boards,” and holding the new administration responsible for its (likely) failings. As Schmitt says, the Democratic party has better organizational foundations, and less reliance on big donors than it has had in decades - if it can build on this, it has some prospects. However, I fear that a second Republican administration will do serious and perhaps fundamental damage to the fabric of the US political system. Both the aspirations of the current administration to an imperial presidency that is accountable to no-one, and the DeLay policy of systematically gerrymandering Congressional districts while denying the minority policy any voice in policymaking, mark serious setbacks to democracy, which are likely to be greatly reinforced over the next four years. It’s going to be very hard to roll this back.

The poisoned chalice and a tiny ray of hope

Posted by John Quiggin

If Kerry does win after all, it will be under the worst possible circumstances. A minority of the popular vote, a hostile Congress and the need to prevail in a vicious legal dogfight in Ohio. The Republicans will be out for impeachment from Inauguration Day, if not before that. At this stage, a Kerry victory would produce the worst of all possible worlds - responsibility without power.

All things considered, I’d prefer a Bush victory at this point. That said, I think a second Bush Administration will be a disaster in all respects, economically, socially and internationally. To those who supported and voted for him, I’ll say “be careful what you wish for”.

The future looks awful, but I thought I’d sketch out the optimistic scenario, which is, roughly speaking, a repeat of Reagan’s second term.

In his first term, Reagan was, in many respects, worse than Bush has been. His buildup of nuclear weapons, undertaken with the support of advisers such as Perle, ran a severe risk of destroying the entire world. In economic policy, he discarded the mainstream Republican economic advisers and went for what George Bush senior called “voodoo economics”, massive tax cuts undertaken on the basis of the supply-side economic theories of people like Arthur Laffer and Jude Wanniski. This produced a peak deficit equal to 6.2 per cent of GDP in 1984, considerably higher than the peak under Bush so far.

In his second term, Reagan ignored his foreign policy advisers and signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Gorbachev. Whereas Perle and others saw Reagan’s rhetoric about bargaining from a position of strength as mere words, covering the creation of a nuclear capacity that could fight and win the inevitable showdown with Russia, Reagan actually believed it, and when he found a suitable partner in Gorbachev he put it into practice. START I, initiated by Reagan and Gorbachev, followed in 1991.

Meanwhile, on economic policy, Reagan listened to his mainstream advisers and took steps to wind back the deficit. He left the US with a big increase in public debt, partially unwound under Clinton, but the outcome was far better than it would have been if he hadn’t changed course.

At about the same time, the Plaza Accords produced a concerted policy of depreciating the overvalued US dollar and reducing the trade deficit.

What are the chances that we’ll see something similar from Bush? In foreign policy, this would entail a shift towards bilateral or multilateral peacemaking, and in domestic policy, a serious attempt to balance the budget and the trade account. In my judgement, the likelihood is close to zero. But I’d be interested to hear what others have to say.

Punch-drunk

Posted by Ted

I’m going to bed; all your base are ably handled elsewhere. Just one thing…

It’s admirable that so many citizens were willing to wait for hours to cast their vote. But they shouldn’t have to. Four-hour lines shouldn’t function as inspiring symbols of human perseverance. They’re bugs in a voting system from which we have every right to expect better.

I can’t predict how this election is going to play out, but I suspect that we’ll all be too burned out to generate much interest in election reform for next time. That’s a shame.

Election Night Open Thread

Posted by Kieran

I know you’re all getting your election night news from CT anyway, so chat away if you like. The BBC has a nice flash application that’s feeding off AP Projections and the latest returns to give a good overall battleground map. CSPAN has a good map as well.

For the key swing states, there’s The Florida Department of State Count Page and the Ohio Secretary of State Count Page.

Update: So things are moving along nicely. It’s 7pm, I’m on my 3rd cocktail, and the closest thing to solid food I’ve seen since lunchtime is a bowl of Ben & Jerry’s New York Super Fudge Chunk. I feel just like Wonkette, except without the pathological desire to get fired from whatever job I have at the moment or the desperate, aching need to sell out to any television network whatsoever. The Food Network. CMT. Please. I don’t care. I can’t keep attending panels and affecting a superior attitude to these losers.

Update 2: The Republican legal strategy in Ohio seems to be premised on the idea that the fewer votes that are allowed to be cast, the less voter fraud there will be. This is like the old Argentinian strategy that, in order to keep the support of the silent majority, you have to keep the majority silent.

Update 3: It’s turning into a real nail-biter. Big Republican turnout in Michigan. Arkansas and Missouri to Bush. No clear resolution in Florida, and Ohio has Bush ahead. Florida is gearing up to count absentee votes till Thursday and the Republicans are already tying up the courts in Ohio in an effort to suppress the vote. It’s going to be a long night — possibly lasting till later this week. On the other hand, people are still in line to vote in places like Columbus and Oberlin. So I’m not giving up yet.

Update 4: I wonder whether you could do a county-level analysis of where the electronic voting machines were, to see whether that predicted any discrepancies between the exit poll data and the results as recorded. Tricky. (Mini-update: looks like the final exit polls were a negligibly different from the result, so never mind about that.)

Update 5: Well, looks like it’s going to be Bush — though Kerry is right not to concede until the votes have been counted in Ohio. It’s frankly amazing that the country is so evenly divided. I mean, what’s it going to take to break the deadlock in this country?

November 02, 2004

Kerry 317?

Posted by Brian

Barring a Red Sox sized miracle comeback, Kerry will win this one. Red Sox sized miracles happen (just ask the Red Sox!) but it’ll be tough for Bush. Even if Kerry gets to 270 projected electoral votes (if he does), there’ll still be something to watch tonight though. I’m going to pay particular attention to whether he reaches two particular numbers - 297 and 317. The significance of 297 is that once he’s there, two state’s results will have to be overturned to make it a Bush victory. The significance of 317 is that once he’s there, three state’s results will have to be overturned to make it a Bush victory. At that point we can put away the lawyers, because there aren’t going to be three results overturned.

My credence that he’ll get to 317 is around 20%. He’d have to hold Ohio and Florida and pull off an upset somewhere - Colorado, North Carolina or Virginia seeming to be the main targets. It’s hard to make intuitive judgments about disjunctions like this one because obviously Kerry is behind the 8-ball in every one of those states. But I give some credence to the possibility he can pull off one of them. If not, Court TV might be in for a ratings bonanza.

By the way, the Rep_L52 contract at Iowa is seriously underpriced. Nobody is exit polling Texas, and if Bush is running up the score there as much as Zogby is saying, he’s got way more than a 20% shot at the popular vote.

Voting in Columbus

Posted by BillG

Bush people were everywhere on our street this morning. German Village has narrow, brick-lined streets, and traffic backed up for blocks as they came in. Leaders with walkie-talkies were marshalling them to their assignments. They respected my lawn sign and were contrite when I complained about the W04 placard that had been placed on my windshield. This is an amazing effort.

Voting itself was anti-climatic. I got in line at 6:30AM, voted at 8:00AM. No challengers or operatives in the poll itself. Very quiet and neighborly (as befits Ohio). Ohio law forbids even wearing buttons in the polling place.

More Market News

Posted by Brian

This one might be rational. As of this instant (4.16 et) Tradesports has Kerry slightly ahead of Bush. I think he should be much further ahead - at this stage he only needs one of Ohio and Florida to win and he’s a slight favourite in both. But it’s another data point.

UPDATE: As Daniel says in comments, both Tradesports and IEM can’t handle the server load today. Post any updated numbers from either site in comments here - if you can get through to those sites.

Third Parties

Posted by Henry

Mark Schmitt on the appeal of third parties:

Finally, a less-predictable endorsement, for all of you in New York: Please vote for your candidates on the Working Families Party line, Row E. You don’t live in a battleground state, and your votes for Kerry and Schumer may not have much immediate impact on the outcome of those races. But you can make a difference by supporting the idea of an independent political organization that is aligned with the Democratic Party when its values are right, and not when they aren’t. For example, Working Families enabled an alternative to the Democratic nominee in the special election for City Council in Brooklyn last spring, who ultimately won, and Working Families offers alternatives to the corrupt system of judicial selection in Brooklyn. Further, when the labor and community activists of the Working Families Party can approach, for example, Senator Clinton and point out that the number of votes she received on their line was greater than her margin of victory, that’s a message that no ordinary constituency group can deliver. WFP is only five years old, and it’s still in many ways an experiment. If it works, perhaps we’ll see interest in other states in opening up to “fusion” parties — those that can endorse Democrats or Republicans sometimes, or their own candidates if they need to. This is a reform that will dramatically open up the electoral system and also create strong, modern organizations of the type that are winning this election for Kerry. Voting on the Working Families line sends a message to the New York political system, and also beyond.

Vote

Posted by Kieran

The humblest individual who co-operates in the government of society acquires a certain degree of self-respect; and as he possesses authority, he can command the services of minds more enlightened than his own. He is canvassed by a multitude of applicants, and in seeking to deceive him in a thousand ways, they really enlighten him. He takes a part in political undertakings which he did not originate, but which give him a taste for undertakings of the kind. New improvements are daily pointed out to him in the common property, and this gives him the desire of improving that property which is his own. He is perhaps neither happier nor better than those who came before him, but he is better informed and more active.
Democracy in America, Book I, Ch. 14.

Eight per cent swing to Kerry!

Posted by John Quiggin

The results for Dixville Notch are in !. Bush 19, Kerry 7. In 2000, Bush got 21 to Gore’s 5. There was a similar swing in Hart’s Location. Repeated nationwide, this swing would give Kerry a thumping victory1.

1 As bases for spurious predictions go, I’d rank this one somewhere between the Washington Redskins home games and Ray Fair’s econometric model.

1-866-OUR-VOTE

Posted by Eszter

The organization Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility is cosponsoring some important vote protection initiatives.

A U.S. toll-free telephone hotline at 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1 866-687-8683) and a great set of Web sites at http://voteprotect.org and http://verifiedvoting.org, help citizens to vote and have their votes counted as intended. Voting questions and problems can be reported, tracked, and responded to by thousands of specially trained operators, attorneys, and technologists, now and beyond November 2nd.

There is also a “do-it-yourself” 24/7 incident reporting form on the Web at http://voteproblem.org, as an alternative recording method, without real-time follow-up.

The more people hear about and use the Web sites and hotline at 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1 866-687-8683), the better the world can trust U.S. elections to be.

Columbus 11/1/2004

Posted by BillG

Drove back to Columbus today, listening to Bill Clinton’s My Life on CD. It’s only six CDs, an abridgement and - judging from the reviews - an improvement of the book. The reader is… Bill Clinton. He is, of course, a terrific storyteller (double entendre intended).

When I got home, I found a Republican encampment across the street from my house. Apparently the law firm that owns the building is giving them the parking lot, and perhaps office space. Lots of strangers milling around. There are over 30 cars with W stickers, and 6 white vans (there are probably more about, because one van is numbered ‘10’).

Is this HQ for South Columbus? Or just for my precinct (we and they are about a block north of the church where we vote)?

I’m not suggesting that there is anything wrong with this. Just experiencing shock and awe at the resources they are deploying.

November 01, 2004

Mystery figure identified

Posted by Chris

The hitherto anonymous votemaster at the excellent electoral-vote.com website has outed himself . He is Andrew Tanenbaum, professor of computer science at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam and already mildly famous as the author of MINIX (an important precursor of Linux).

October 31, 2004

In Pittsburgh, on the border

Posted by BillG

I drove from Columbus to Pittsburgh yesterday. For non-US readers: Pittsburgh is the major city in western Pennsylvania (PA). Kerry probably needs PA to win, and he must do well in Pittsburgh to carry PA.

We used to live right on the border between the largely Jewish Point Breeze neighborhood and Homewood, the African-American neighborhood that John Edgar Wideman writes about. I mean literally on the border: every family south of us was white, and my next door neighbor and most other families to the north were black. A terrific place to live. I once saw August Wilson walking down the street. Our neighbor Sarah is Henry Aaron’s sister-in-law, and my son played chess with him when he visited. Well-kept secret: there are American cities where blacks and whites get along just fine.

Anyway, John Kerry signs are dense on both sides of the border. No surprise: If he can’t carry the East End of Pittsburgh, I want my contributions refunded. However, when you cross in to Homewood, there are suddenly multiple signs on each block saying “Protect your vote. If you have a problem, call {number redacted}.” People are ready.

Redskins Lose!

Posted by Kieran

In every Presidential election-year since 1936, if the Washington Redskins lost their last game before the election, the incumbent lost as well. In today’s game, the Packers beat Washington 28 - 14. A late rally by the Redskins in the 4th Quarter couldn’t save them. This is the strongest spurious evidence yet that Kerry’s going to win on Tuesday.

October 30, 2004

Captain Josh Rushing

Posted by Ted

In the terrific documentary Control Room about the Al-Jazeera network, one of the most appealing figures was Marines spokesman Captain Josh Rushing. With the possible exception of Ken Pollack’s The Threatening Storm, I don’t think that I saw or read a more persuasive spokesman for the war in Iraq. He engaged often-critical Al Jazeera journalists in a fair-minded way, without giving up a point. He simultaneously radiated candor and a deeply-felt belief in the righteousness of the cause. My fiancee said that she wished she could hire him.

He’s recently left the Marines, and he’s given his first interview to Fresh Air today on NPR. You can listen to it online. I haven’t heard it yet, but I suspect that most people who saw Control Room would be interested in what he has to say.

UPDATE: That was really something. He’s deeply pro-military, but critical of the way the war has been conducted. If the election wasn’t days away, I suspect that he’d be in for the full-strength “slime and defend” treatment. More below.

Here are my real-time notes, which I might revise after listening again:

He feels “duped” about the intelligence. He says it hit him when Colin Powell admitted that the intelligence had been deliberately manipulated.

He used to spend all of his spare time online in chat rooms; he would tell people who he was and try to clear up misperceptions about the war.

He says that Fox reporters would ask him what points he wanted to get across before the interview, and they would essentialy script the interview before the cameras started rolling.

Al Jazeera would ask extremely combatative questions, often based on false premises, and then simultaneously show an unrelated bloody scene to make it seem that he’s responding to the scene.

He loved “Iraq for Dummies”; he read it on the plane, and it made him look like an expert by the time he arrived in Iraq.

He thinks there was too much White House influence in the communications corps. They brought in a White House insider, a civillian from the Bush campaign. They promoted him to two-star rank, so that he outranked the colonel who would normally have been in charge of communications. Several other Bush adminstration officials opened an office next to theirs, and it changed the way they operated.

The communications corp have been proud of being non-partisan and straight shooters, but he thinks that they were compromised. He was occasionally accused of being a political flack by a reporter. During the war, he would have argued with that. Afterwards, he’d have to agree that sometimes they were carrying water for the administration. He cites a scene in the film about looting- they were promoting the message that Iraqis were responsible for protecting themselves from looting, which he personally thought was absurd. Since they had just taken over the city, of course they were responsible for security.

He says that his personal values say that you should admit mistakes. He believes that there’s a culture now that says that you never admit a mistake. Says that culture goes all the way to the White House, citing the second debate when Bush couldn’t think of a single mistake. “I find that kind of hubris disturbing, and I think the rest of the world finds it a little arrogant- even beyond arrogant, even delusional at some point.”

Doesn’t think that he’s alone. Cites the survey that says that most in the military are Republican, and says that’s been true for a long time, but in the past year he’s heard more criticism of the Administration than he’d ever heard before.

Very frustrated because he was told “You can’t speak to the press about Control Room”. When Abu Ghraib broke, he was quoted in a piece in the Village Voice about how the horror of war. He says he would have liked to have given America the message that it wasn’t just him- there were legions of people like him, who would have said exactly the same thing. But he was accused of grandstanding, which he found very hurtful.

Ohio Vote Challenges: 10/29/04

Posted by BillG

I will try to summarize the current state of play in the Ohio voter challenges. If an attorney will read this summary and post about any errors in the comments, he would be doing me and any readers a real service. Thanks to the great commenters on my last post for some of these pointers.

There has been an impressive effort to register new voters here. My colleague Deena has been canvassing African-American neighborhoods for months. (By the way, she reports that many felons have the false belief that they cannot vote. In Ohio, however, felons can vote unless they are currently incarcerated. Given the statistics about the proportions of African-Americans who have felony convictions, there may be a substantial disenfranchisement right there.)

According to Mark Niquette of The Columbus Dispatch (see his fine article), the Republican counter was to send a letter to each new registrant. (Gotta wonder: the Republicans have also been registering voters and must have lists of those they registered. Were Republican new registrants sent letters?) If the letter was returned to the sender, the Republicans took that as evidence of possible voter fraud, and filed a challenge. This gambit was clever. It’s likely, however, that this method of finding fraud has a high rate of false negative errors (that is, it would miss cases of true but sophisticated voter fraud) and a high rate of false positive errors (it identifies valid voters as frauds, e.g., because of Post Office delivery errors, moves that lack forwarding addresses, or errors in recording voter addresses). If you have done mail survey research, you know that the cumulative rate of these false positive errors is significant.

Anyway, the Republicans generated an amazing 35,000 challenges this way, which suggests that the denominator of new registrations may be huge. A challenge apparently has to be made by another registered Ohio voter, not an organization, so lists of registrations to be challenged were parcelled out to Ohio Republicans.

A challenge ordinarily leads to a hearing. Summit County is in NE Ohio, and contains Akron (check the county website, which proclaims the region to be ‘The High Point of Ohio’ — you may have to drive through to appreciate their sly humor). The Summit County hearing quickly identified many false positive errors and led the Republicans to withdraw the challenges in embarrassment. Statewide, the Democrats sued (successfully, at least for the moment) to stop the hearings on the grounds that the challengers had insufficient evidence. After all, the individual Republicans were filing challenges about complete strangers based on what headquarters told them about a returned piece of mail.

One of the (many) things being litigated now is what will happen to the challenged voters on Tuesday. (“Challenged voter?” sez Kathi, “That’s you in a nutshell.” Me: “You’re changing the subject.”) The fact that the hearings were stopped didn’t make the challenges go away. We are still in the first inning of this one.

October 29, 2004

A Tiny Fraction of the Total

Posted by Kieran

I know this is late in Blog Time, but this Pentagon response to the debacle of the looted high-explosives cache is too good to pass up:

The Pentagon also notes that it has destroyed 400,000 tons of munitions from thousands of sites across Iraq, and that the explosives at Al Qaqaa account for “one-tenth of 1 percent” of that amount.

Now let’s say I move house next month, pack everything into a trailer and drive to, oh, Florida. I arrive to discover I have left my 9-month-old daughter behind in Tucson. Not to worry! She weighs less than 20lbs and this is but a tiny fraction of the total weight I successfully shipped across the country. A negligible error!

October surprise

Posted by Daniel

About two hours after the Osama video hit the newswires, and the good old Iowa Electronic Markets have marked down the two DEM04 contracts from about 48% to 44%. Ouch.

By the way, there might be a small prize for the first CT reader to find an online use of the “see, Kerry agrees with Bin Laden” talking point that is no doubt being lined up on the Mighty Wurlitzer …

What the...

Posted by Ted

Zizka has a great tagline on his blog: “Uncool when uncoolness is necessary.” We’ve reached that point. This is a goddamn outrage. GOP apparatchiks in Ohio may face prosecution for making false claims in their challenges to hundreds of new voter registratrations. Their challenges were thrown out at the initiative of the Republican members of the Board of Elections, proving that not every single thing on Earth is about politics. Completely unacceptable.

And this… I really hope that it’s revealed to be a parody, or a forgery, or something. Even the Kossacks are suspicious. It’s so over the top, it’s like seeing a recruiting poster for COBRA.

The view from here

Posted by BillG

Election notes from Columbus, OH. Last week, John Kerry was in Katzinger’s, the deli around the corner from my house. Tonight he and Bruce Springsteen are at Ohio State University (OSU).

10/28/04 2:33 PM EST. I get a robot phone call from Ken Blackwell, the (Republican) Ohio Secretary of State. Big deal: Clinton called last night. If Ohio is Florida 2004, Blackwell will be Katherine Harris. I know you are thinking, “Das eine Malals Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce,” but Harris nailed farce, so Ken has his work cut out for him. He reminds me that I can only vote in my correct precinct and asks if I know where this is (Me: “Yes.” Ken: “Excellent. Goodbye”). Some Ohioans view this an attempt to suppress the vote by getting people to worry about where they should go. That seems paranoid.

6:25 PM. At the OSU rally (30,000 present). A large group (1K?) of students for Bush marches in. Some of them were bused here, because later I see them being bused out. They are kept behind barriers at the periphery of the crowd, but everyone can hear their chants. The girls keep doing a fainting shriek that is surprisingly difficult to ignore. Kathi (a psychiatrist - and my research partner - and wife!) asks “How can anyone with a brain vote for Bush?” Me: “Empirical question. Let me go get one of them and we’ll take him to the MRI machine.” I get The Look. “Hey, 8 Tesla. If something’s in there, we’ll find it.” Bush will speak on Friday at the Nationwide Arena, where our NHL team plays. A much more expensive and, of course, controllable venue.

6:37 PM. The local pols speak. One of them says that the issue in this election is “the arrogance of one-party rule.” The PA plays “Keep on Rockin in the Free World.” I want to believe that this is a movement to restore democracy, and that it would survive either candidate’s victory. I’m encouraged that comments about process (“Did anyone have to sign a loyalty oath to get in here?”) play as well or better than points about jobs.

7:45 PM. Columbus’s Democratic Mayor takes the stage. “I’m Mike Coleman, and I am Mayor of the epicenter of the election.” He points out that the 2000 election was decided by 500 votes in Florida, and there are 50,000 students at OSU, so right here, right now “You can change the world.” We all look at each other — we’re on the fulcrum.

8:00 PM. BRUCE! I read the other day that Bush rocks his crowds - compared to whom? Springsteen’s a terrific speaker to boot. He closes with “No retreat, baby, no surrender!” What a step up from Clinton’s Fleetwood Mac or - christ - Dukakis’s Neil Diamond.

8:15 PM. Bruce introduces Kerry. Supposedly, Kerry’s crowds lack intensity. Not this time! Kerry is brief, clear. Not as good as Bruce, and he knows it and isn’t bothered by it. I am thrilled that the line “I will be a President who believes in science” gets a huge response from the crowd. No mention of the munitions. He promises that every child in America will get health insurance. As a professor of pediatrics, I find this breathtaking. How pathetic is that? Less impressively, he promises to make America energy independent. He makes a complicated point about property tax funding and equality of educational opportunities, and to my surprise the crowd really responds. The reason, I think, is that OSU gets a lot of bright kids from farm counties who describe Columbus as “the big city.” (You can rip tendons keeping a straight face here.) They meet suburban kids who went to schools that had everything, and draw the appropriate conclusions.

9:12 PM. We are walking down High St. to our car. A bus full of students for Bush drives by with their heads out the window yelling slogans. Do they follow the Kerry campaign? This bus is all white males in white shirts and ties. Perfect. Not an OSU look, to put it mildly, so it must be how the right wing does nose rings. Hypotheses about incestuous sexual preferences are exchanged.

October 27, 2004

Protect the Vote

Posted by Kieran

Gallimaufry tells you how.

October 26, 2004

Those dastardly Clintonites....

Posted by Chris

Many of the British blogs are currently debating whether Charlie Brooker’s joke (or “joke”, depending on your pov) about Presidential assassination was funny, not funny, tasteless, stupid, etc. Michael Brooke , commenting at Harry’s Place offers some much needed context for the benefit of people who’ve never actually held a copy of the Guardian’s listings supplement in their hands.1

… it appeared on page 52 of their pocket-sized listings guide, in equally pocket-sized print, in a slot normally occupied by facetious demolitions of TV programmes (which was certainly the spirit in which I read it this morning). Unfortunately, this distinction is somewhat blurred by the more egalitarian online version.

Such attempts to minimize the affair would cut no ice with FrontPage magazine! They begin their coverage thus:

The Left’s campaign of hate and defamation against the American president has hit a new low: a major media organ of the international Left, edited by an associate of Bill Clinton, has called for President Bush’s assassination.

And after foaming at the mouth for a few more paragraphs they finish:

This final American connection lays everything in place: The president’s leftist opponents – foreign and domestic – feel they have a sacred duty to rig elections around the world to their liking. And if their advice is scorned, they have the right to pursue what Clausewitz called “politics by other means”: physical warfare. The development is not a healthy one for democracies on either side of the Atlantic.

1 The Guardian’s listings supplement is not just ephemeral, it is, in my experience, almost useless. It is supposed to be regionally sensitive, so that you don’t have to wade through all the Cardiff cinema listings if you live in Edinburgh. Unfortunately, the Guardian appears to have a policy of distributing the various editions randomly, so there is very little chance that the one actually on sale locally pertains to that region.

October 25, 2004

Post 9/11, pre 3/03 world

Posted by Ted

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a bloodthirsty terrorist. He was well-known before the war in Iraq. In fact, we knew that he had a base in Kurdish controlled northern Iraq, where we operated freely. Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN leaned heavily on Zarqawi to make the case for war. But it begged the question: why didn’t we take out Zarqawi’s base before the war?

The Pentagon drew up detailed plans in June 2002, giving the administration a series of options for a military strike on the camp Mr. Zarqawi was running then in remote northeastern Iraq, according to generals who were involved directly in planning the attack and several former White House staffers. They said the camp, near the town of Khurmal, was known to contain Mr. Zarqawi and his supporters as well as al Qaeda fighters, all of whom had fled from Afghanistan. Intelligence indicated the camp was training recruits and making poisons for attacks against the West…

But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn’t take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq. Ultimately, the camp was hit just after the invasion of Iraq began.

Did waiting until a full-scale invasion offer any advantages? Administration spokesman Jim Wilkinson says yes:

“It was more effective to deal with the facility as part of the broader strategy, and in fact, the facility was destroyed early in the war.”

The WSJ article doesn’t include his explanation of why such an attack would have been more effective. But it seems relevant that, according to President Bush, he had not made the decision to go to war with Iraq in June 2002, when the Pentagon drew up its plans.

In September 2002, he said, “Of course, I haven’t made up my mind we’re going to war with Iraq.”

In early March 2003, Bush said that war could be avoided. He said, “I’ve not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed — and others have placed — that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country.”

As late as March 17, 2003, Bush made a televised address in which he said that Saddam could prevent a military conflict by abdicating his leadership of Iraq. He said, “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.”

If we can accept Bush’s statements as truthful, it seems that between June 2002, when the Pentagon created its plans to destroy Zarqawi’s base, and March 2003, when Saddam missed the 48-hour ultimatum, there was a possibility that there would be no major invasion of Iraq.

If the President had finally decided against war, would his Administration have continued to leave Zarqawi and his camp unmolested? We can’t know. Maybe they would have decided that Zarqawi’s terrorist camp and its personel constituted a threat, independent of Saddam Hussein.

But even if we make the assumption that the Administration would eventually have authorized an attack on Zarqawi, with or without war, what possible advantage could have been gained by waiting?

Mobilizing the Base

Posted by Kieran

A guy went by me the other day wearing a T-Shirt that read, “I bet you’ll vote this time, Hippy.”

An afterthought on Bush vs Gore

Posted by John Quiggin

I was thinking about the prospects for the US election and also about the probability of casting a decisive vote and it struck me that a situation like that of Florida in 2000 would have had a quite different outcome in Australia. In a situation where there were enough disputed votes to shift the outcome (and no satisfactory way of determining the status of those votes), the Court of Disputed Returns would probably order a fresh election. It seems to me that this is a better way of resolving problematic elections than attempts to determine a winner through court proceedings1, though I’d be interested in arguments against this view.

In view of the long delay between election and inauguration, this solution would seem to be particularly appealing for the US. However, it seems clear from this page that the American constitutional tradition does not allow for such a possibility, preferring such devices as drawing the winner from a hat, if nothing better can be found. I wonder if there is a reason for this, or if it is just one of those things that doesn’t come up often enough for people to think about fixing it?

1 Obviously, once the situation arises, one side or the other will see an advantage in going through the courts, or allowing state officials to decide,and will oppose a fresh election. But ex ante, it seems as if agreeing to a fresh election in such cases would benefit both sides.

October 21, 2004

My kingdom for a cab

Posted by Ted
A Bangladeshi immigrant put himself in the driver’s seat by paying a record US$360,000 at a city auction on Monday for a New York taxi medallion, which is required by the city to own a taxicab. Most cabdrivers in the city work for taxi fleets or lease time from a medallion owner. Mohammed Shah, 44, mortgaged his house in the New York borough of Queens to help finance the purchase of one of 116 new taxi medallions sold to the highest bidders.

Madre dios. I’ve never lived in New York City, but I’m pretty sure that the city isn’t drowning in a sea of cabs. You don’t need to be a blue-skinned libertarian to see that artificial scarcity has some real consequences.

I know that Mayor Bloomberg’s got a lot on his plate, and I know that it’s unfair to personalize the NYC bureaucracy in the form of one man. But, still… he’s a shrewd businessman who came to office with relatively few political debts. From my distant perspective, he seemed to spend an awful lot of capital on necessary tax hikes and unnecessary smoking bans.

He was probably the last, best hope to phase out rent control and crazy cab restrictions, wasn’t he? Damn.

In Cambodia, I imagine

Posted by Kieran

David Post complains that John Kerry was not at the game to see the Red Sox beat the Yankees:

AND WHERE WAS JOHN? … I’m surprised that there hasn’t been much talk about why we didn’t see Kerry at any of the games. He’s the junior senator from Massachusetts; he’s got a bona fide reason to snap his fingers, get the front row seats, put on his sox cap and jacket, and root like an ordinary human being. What, he doesn’t want the national TV exposure?? Was he worried about alienating Yankee fans? I guess one shouldn’t make too much of what is “just a ballgame,” but really: to his constituents, this is the most important thing going on at the moment; he’s lived and worked in Massachusetts all his life; is he the only person in that category who wouldn’t take free tickets to see these games? I honestly don’t get it, and it does make me wonder about the guy.

Note the pincer movement here. On the one hand, Kerry should have been at the game because that’s what “an ordinary human being” would do. On the other hand, Kerry is not a regular guy, because he’s a senator, is running for President, and he could have snapped his fingers to get front row seats. So, either he snaps his fingers or he doesn’t. He chose not to, for whatever reason, and so leaves himself open on the flank David attacks: “who wouldn’t take free tickets… does make me wonder about the guy” and so on. But say Kerry had snapped his fingers and gotten front row seats, his face on the Jumbotron and the inevitable TV News coverage. What then? It’s obvious. He’d have opened himself up to whinging on just the opposite grounds, viz, “Isn’t it typical of an elitist Senator who hasn’t been to a game all season to just snap his fingers, get front row seats, and try to use the Red Sox’s historic victory as a campaign rally? A classier guy — any ordinary human being, really — would have stayed away and let the fact that the Sox beat the curse have the limelight.” Heads I win, Tails you lose.

October 20, 2004

Linkage

Posted by Henry

Two must read pieces by David Glenn and Mark Schmitt (discussion below fold).

First, David Glenn turns a book review at Dissent of Jason DeParle’s The American Dream into an extended meditation on welfare reform and the left. It’s one of the richest and most thought-provoking short articles I’ve read this year.

DeParle’s thick description of one extended family’s life is worth careful reflection precisely because it does not map neatly onto left-liberals’ usual arguments about jobs, wages, and caregiving. There is nothing here that could be distilled into a policy tract. DeParle offers a highly complex response to the welfare debates that tore apart the Democratic Party a decade ago.

The second reason why leftists should reflect on the social crisis is that it occupies so much of the psychic energy of the poor themselves. When I reported on a campaign to unionize home-health-care workers in Milwaukee in 2001, accompanying workers as they knocked on one another’s doors, I noticed how quickly conversations would move from anxiety about wages to anxiety about crime.

Second, Mark Schmitt tells us why the American conservative tradition is “shattered and bankrupt.”

Tax cuts are not conservatism. They are not a coherent worldview. They were a part of the conservative philosophy, but not an end in themselves. Stripped out of the larger framework of smaller government, of modesty about the possibilities of change, of respect for tradition and history, and of the sense that central government can be oppressive as easily as it can be liberating, tax cuts amount to nothing more than a material benefit for a few, and a long-term liability for everyone else. Put another way, imagine that the animating ideas of liberalism were reduced to this promise: “We will create a new cabinet-level agency every single year.” That’s not a vision that can attract deep loyalty, and neither is the promise of a tax cut every year.

When Schmitt notes that

Bush-DeLayism’s greatest betrayal of conservatism is in its rejection of this modesty about social scheming. Because of its corruption and incompetence, their practice has consisted of ever more complicated schemes of incentives and penalties to change behavior

he’s articulating a point that I tried to make myself recently (but expressing it much better).

Like Schmitt, I don’t think that the decay of conservatism is any cause for celebration. The American conservative tradition has been linked to some deeply unpleasant causes (most notably the defence of institutionalized racism), but the conservative temperament, the “urging to be modest about the degree to which human behavior can be modified by law or other collective decisions, and to be respectful of the role that tradition, custom, religion, greed, etc. play in all of human life” has something real to contribute. It’s a shame that this has degenerated into rampant political hackery.

It's not too late

Posted by Ted

Bush is pushing Congressional leaders to pass the 9/11 Commission bill as soon as possible. The bill is in conference now. Katherine has a good post about the language re: outsourcing torture in the House bill. (The Senate bill has no such language.) It’s an exemplar of the saying, “Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays virtue”. Under the House bill, we’d still ship suspects to countries where they could expect to be tortured (like we did with Maher Arar). But we’d first get worthless assurances that the suspect wouldn’t be tortured (like we did with Maher Arar). Outsourcing torture is not only immoral, it’s irrational- since when do we trust Syria? Says Katherine:

It had occurred to me that even if one accepted that torture was good policy, it did not make much sense to rely on countries like Syria and Egypt to interrogate suspects under torture for us and faithfully describe their confessions. At a minimum, they were likely to exploit it to harm domestic opponents as well as dangerous terrorists.

We have an opportunity to contact the members of conference committee to politely let our concerns be heard. Here they are.

House Democrats:

Robert Menendez (NJ)
Jane Harman (CA)

Ike Skelton (MO)

House Republicans:

David Drier (CA)
Pete Hoekstra (MI)

Henry Hyde (IL)

James Sensenbrenner (WI)

Duncan Hunter (CA)

Senate Democrats

Joe Lieberman (CT)
Carl Levin (MI)

Dick Durbin (IL)

Jay Rockefeller (WV)

Bob Graham (FL)

Frank Lautenberg (NJ)

Senate Republicans

Susan Collins (ME)
George Voinovich (OH)

Norm Coleman (MN)

John Sununu (NH)

Pat Roberts (KS)

Mike DeWine (OH)

Trent Lott (MS)

October 19, 2004

Ask the audience or Condorcet goes to Washington

Posted by Chris

What is the US Presidential election about? Well, one possible answer is that it is about which of George W. Bush and John Kerry would make the best President of the United States. Now there’s certainly room for disagreement about the relevant qualities to be best President, but much of the media and blogospheric discourse is couched in such a way as to appear to be discussing a matter of fact: best translates as “most competent”, “wisest” etc. I’m going to assume — for the purposes of this post alone and contrary to my saner instincts — that a matter of fact is indeed involved. Given that simplifying assumption, the matter of determining who would be the best President by a democratic vote is something we might justify by invoking Condorcet ’s jury theorem. According to the jury theorem (which I cite in Zev Trachtenberg’s formulation [1])

the probability that majority is correct ( Pm ) is given by the formula
v h-k/(v h-k+e h-k
), where number of voters = n = h+k , where h is the number of voters in the majority, v is the probability that each voter will give the correct answer, and e is the probability that each voter will give the wrong answer.

This has the remarkable consquence that just in case we expect each voter’s competence slighly to exceed the tossing of a fair coin (say we expect each voter to be right 50.1 per cent of the time), and just in case we can interpret “each voter” to mean “the average voter”, then with an electorate of, say, 100 million, the probability of a majority getting the result right approaches one. Of course, there’s a flip side to this: if the each voter has a < .5 probability of getting the right result, the majority will almost certainly be wrong!

So what should we think, ex ante , about the competence of the average American voter? The votemaster at the excellent electoral-vote.com opines:

Are the voters stupid? It is not considered politically correct to point out that an awful lot of voters don’t have a clue what they are talking about. A recent poll from Middle Tennessee State University sheds some light on the subject. For example, when asked which candidate wants to roll back the tax cuts for people making over $200,000 a year, a quarter thought it was Bush and a quarter didn’t know. And it goes down hill from there. When asked which candidate supports specific positions on various issues, the results were no better than chance. While this poll was in Tennessee, I strongly suspect a similar poll in other states would get similar results. I find it dismaying that many people will vote for Bush because they want to tax the rich (which he opposes) or vote for Kerry because they want school vouchers for religious schools (which he opposes).

(Lest Carol Gould or her apologists think that this post reflects the anti-Americanism of a sneering Brit, let me say (a) I’m quoting an American and (b) that I’m far from convinced that citizens of the UK would fare much better than the people of Tennessee were their competence to be evaluated in a similar poll.) [2]

1 Trachtenberg, Making Citizens p. 281 n. 6

2 A commenter to a recent post of mine asked, sarcastically, whether the I thought flipping a coin would have been superior to having the Supreme Court decide on the outcome in 2000. Actually, I do think flipping a coin would have been a better method then. Whether it would be a better method than having the US electorate decide is questionable, although if voter-competence is such that individuals are more likely to get the wrong answer than the right one, it would yield a better chance of choosing the best President. Observant and thoughtful readers will also notice that, since Al Gore won a majority of the popular vote in 2000, I ought to believe that either Bush was the right answer then or that average voter competence has declined below the .5 level in the past four years….or perhaps I should believe that voter competence then as now exceeds .5 and that Kerry will inevitably triumph, or …..you do the permutations.

October 18, 2004

With God on Our Side

Posted by Henry

Anyone who gets the Sundance Channel should check out the Documentary “With God on Our Side,” showing at 7pm ET this evening. I haven’t seen it yet (nor do I get Sundance) - but I feel confident in recommending it, as it’s produced by David Van Taylor, who was responsible for A Perfect Candidate, the best documentary on American politics that I’ve ever seen.

Conservative Cultural Engineering

Posted by Henry

“Lexington” of the Economist can sometimes be pretty weird, but his most recent column is more than weird - it’s somewhere out there in the Gamma Quadrant.

His argument is pretty straightforward on its face- that the Democrats are on the losing side of history. They’re out of ideas, badly organized, and liable to be permanently marginalized by the Republicans if they get back in. Lexington does have a point about the Democrats’ idea deficit (although he carefully avoids commenting on whether the “fertile” swell of Republican ideas is actually producing anything in the way of common sense policy reform). His argument on the differences between Republican and Democratic organizations is far harder to buy - while there clearly is a difference in organizational styles, he doesn’t provide any real arguments why the Democrats’s looser form of organization and cooperation with 527s is a bad idea apart from the vague notion that it’s turning the Democrats into a loose coalition of single issue groups. This is plain wrong - the successful 527s’ “single issue” is dislodging Republicans from power. Lexington’s real gripe, which he doesn’t clearly articulate, is that these groups are moving the Democrats a little bit towards the left by changing the sources of party funding. But his real weirdness is in his argument about the Republican master strategy of transforming the Democrats into a permanent minority.

The second reason why the Republicans have more to gain from a victory in November is that they think they can use a second Bush term to turn themselves into America’s de facto ruling party. Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, may be exaggerating when he says that “the Democratic Party is toast” if Mr Bush wins. But the Republicans have put emasculating the Democrats at the very heart of their second-term agenda. They plan to reduce its footsoldiers by contracting out hundreds of thousands of federal jobs, to reduce its income through tort reform (which may slim down the lawyers’ wallets) and right-to-work laws (which will allow workers to opt out of union dues). And they plan to boost the number of people who own shares—and hence a stake in the success of the capitalist system—by beginning to privatise Social Security.

The Republican aim is to do to the Democrats what Mr Blair has so successfully done to the Tories in Britain: marginalise them so completely that they degenerate into a parody of a political party.

Lexington has been inhaling too much of Norquist’s fairy dust. Surely he’s right that Republicans would dearly love to privatize social security, slim down the federal government by contracting out hundreds of thousands of federal jobs &c&c. They may even try to do it. But the notion that this would in any sense be popular, let alone that it would create a permanent new class of private-enterprise loving shareholding Republican-voting citizens is ridiculous. If they try to shove this agenda through, they’re going to meet extraordinary popular resistance. Assuming that Lexington is right, the Republicans (or some among them) would like to engage in cultural engineering on a massive scale - creating a new class of conservative voters. There’s a precedent for this, and it isn’t what Labour did to the Conservatives in the 1990’s - it’s what the Conservatives tried to do to Labour in the 1980’s. By crushing unions, privatizing state industry, trying to shift the North England economy from manufacturing to retail commerce, introducing market reforms to the welfare state, and flogging off public housing, the British Conservatives systematically tried to create a new class of Tory voters that would permanently marginalize Labour. The result was the transformation of the Conservatives into a near-permanent minority - thirteen years later, British voters still don’t trust the Conservative party anywhere near the public services. There’s plenty to worry about if GWB gets a second term - but it simply isn’t credible that the Republicans are going to be successful in creating a permanent majority through social engineering.

Ignatieff on Hersh

Posted by Chris

Former (?) liberal hawk Michael Ignatieff reviews Sy Hersh’s Chain of Command in the New York Times:

The war on terror began as a defense of international law, giving America allies and friends. It soon became a war in defiance of law. In a secret order dated Feb. 7, 2002, President Bush declared, as Hersh puts it, that ”when it came to Al Qaeda the Geneva Conventions were applicable only at his discretion.” Based on memorandums from the Defense and Justice Departments and the White House legal office that, in Anthony Lewis’s apt words, ”read like the advice of a mob lawyer to a mafia don on how to . . . stay out of prison,” Bush unilaterally withdrew the war on terror from the international legal regime that sets the standards for treatment and interrogation of prisoners. Abu Ghraib was not the work of a few bad apples, but the direct consequence, Hersh says, of ”the reliance of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld on secret operations and the use of coercion — and eye-for-an-eye retribution — in fighting terrorism.”

October 16, 2004

Land of the free

Posted by Chris

Via John B at Shot by Both Sides , I see that US citizens or permanent residents who buy Cuban cigars abroad (say in the UK) and consume them there, are liable to criminal penalties of up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison and civil penalties of up to $65,000. So my British-based American friends who amble down to the local tobacconists and buy one of Havana’s best to smoke in their own living room will be in jeopardy of arrest on their next trip back home (if suitably denounced). [1]

From the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s Cuban Cigar Update :

The question is often asked whether United States citizens or permanent resident aliens of the United States may legally purchase Cuban origin goods, including tobacco and alcohol products, in a third country for personal use
outside the United States. The answer is no. The Regulations prohibit persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from purchasing, transporting, importing, or otherwise dealing in or engaging in any transactions with respect to any merchandise outside the United States if such merchandise (1) is of Cuban origin; or (2) is or has been located in or transported from or through Cuba; or (3) is made or derived in whole or in part of any article which is the growth, produce or manufacture of Cuba. Thus, in the case of cigars, the prohibition extends to cigars manufactured in Cuba and sold in a third country and to cigars manufactured in a third country from tobacco grown in Cuba.

Here’s what to do if you spot an American having an illicit puff:

Suspected embargo violations may be reported telephonically to OFAC’s Enforcement Division at (202)622-2430 or via facsimile at 202 622-1657.

1 Since the ban also hits permanent residents, Henry, Harry, Brian and Kieran had better be careful on their trips home!

Oh, the Humanity

Posted by Kieran

Ted beat me to this, mostly. But I wanted to say this: I’m sure if we trawl through our 1990s archives we’ll find that the high-minded and their lofty correspondents

Reader Keith Rempel gets at the heart of what’s wrong here, and articulates what I couldn’t: “Kerry was using Cheney’s daughter to harm her father. … ANOTHER UPDATE: “More thoughts here: ‘thou shall NOT speak of another’s kid in any way that could POSSIBLY be construed as negative’ … MORE: … James Somers emails: “Kerry crassly exploited Cheney’s daughter for use against Bush and thus, by extension, Cheney. Perhaps you have to be a parent to understand what that means.”

were right out there on the front lines defending Chelsea Clinton from anything that might have been construed as insulting at the time. (We can leave aside — as perhaps too complex to grasp — the point that it is not actually an insult to mention that someone who has worked in various professional and political contexts doing outreach work with the gay community is, in fact, gay.) I’m waiting to see if the parallel to Chelsea strikes any of the people over at The Corner who are waving the flag of ‘common decency’ in defence of Mary Cheney at the moment. But, of course, I forget: when they’re insulted it’s an offense to common decency and civility, but when we’re insulted it’s just more political correctness and evidence that the left is too sensitive and has no sense of humor.

Mary Cheney II

Posted by Ted

I’ve got to quote Andrew Sullivan again:

Some of the subtler arguments I’ve heard overnight say the following: it’s not that homosexuality is wrong; it’s just that many people believe that and Kerry therefore exploited their homophobia to gain a point. I don’t buy it, but let’s assume the worst in Kerry’s motives for the sake of argument. What these emailers are saying is that Kerry should hedge what he says in order to cater to the homophobia of Bush’s base. Why on earth should he? The truth here is obvious: Bush and Cheney are closet tolerants. They have no problem with gay people personally; but they use hostility to gay people for political purposes, even if it means attacking members of their own families. What they are currently objecting to is the fact that their hypocrisy has been exposed. To which the only answer is: if you don’t want to be exposed as a hypocrite, don’t be one.

There are at least two bloggers (Jason Kuznicki at Positive Liberty and John Cole) whose disapproving reaction to this little tempest isn’t blatant opportunism. I’m sure that there are more.

I’d just like to draw a little Venn diagram, if I could.

A: Outraged Kerry-bashers who think that they feel insults to gay dignity more keenly than Andrew Sullivan or the Log Cabin Republicans.

B: Giggly Kerry-bashers who write posts like this or this (search for “When do they kiss?”)

OVERLAP: People I see no reason to take seriously.

October 15, 2004

Torture

Posted by Ted

The 9-11 Commission bill is going to conference, where Senators and Representatives will negotiate the differences between the two bills to come up with a final version to send to the White House. Katherine has a good post about the language re: outsourcing torture in the House bill.

We will have an opportunity to contact the members of conference committee to politely let our concerns be heard. Here they are; we’ll have more about this later.

House Democrats:

Robert Menendez (NJ)
Jane Harman (CA)

Ike Skelton (MO)

House Republicans:

David Drier (CA)
Pete Hoekstra (MI)

Henry Hyde (IL)

James Sensenbrenner (WI)

Duncan Hunter (CA)

Senate Democrats

Joe Lieberman (CT)
Carl Levin (MI)

Dick Durbin (IL)

Jay Rockefeller (WV)

Bob Graham (FL)

Frank Lautenberg (NJ)

Senate Republicans

Susan Collins (ME)
George Voinovich (OH)

Norm Coleman (MN)

John Sununu (NH)

Pat Roberts (KS)

Mike DeWine (OH)

Trent Lott (MS)

Dirty Politics as a Vocation

Posted by Kieran

Read and learn. The old pig-fucker strategy emerges for the last month of the campaign, with the added twist of getting the party operatives to plant fake evidence.

October 14, 2004

Mary Cheney

Posted by Ted

On the subject of Mary Cheney, the labor saving device of “pointing to other bloggers” saves me from the obligation to trying to top this response from Lawyers, Guns and Money:

Reynolds breathlessly claims that “Lynne Cheney is letting Kerry have it for dissing her daughter.” How, might you ask, did Kerry “dis” Mary Cheney? Let’s look at the relevant part of the transcript:
KERRY: We’re all God’s children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was, she’s being who she was born as.
What a monster! How could he….er, actually, this doesn’t “dis” Mary Cheney in the slightest—it’s positive in tone and substance—unless you think there’s something wrong with being gay. So are Reynolds and Kaus just rank bigots? Perhaps, but their argument on its face is almost as stupid as bigotry itself. According to Mickey, with the assent of Reynolds, the fact that Bush’s base consists of a large number of rank homophobes means that mentioning the publicly acknowledged reality of someone’s sexuality should be out of bounds—indeed, “creepy”. The intolerance of the Republican base, therefore, is a reason to vote against Democrats. Wow, fake libertarianism doesn’t get any more fake than that!

Democrats certainly do not have a flawless record on gay rights. I’m thinking of the “hairdresser” commercial from the 2002 Montana race, or attacks on Andrew Sullivan about his personal life, or Clinton’s decision to sign the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (which Kerry voted against.) Every time I hear Kerry and Edwards stress that marriage is “between a man and a woman,” it takes a little bit of wind out of my sails.

Some of this is just realistic politics, but I can still look back and see an array of Democratic moments that should make gay-positive voters wince. I just don’t see how this is one of those moments.

Andrew Sullivan has a lot to say about this. Key quote:

The only way you can believe that citing Mary Cheney amounts to “victimization” is if you believe someone’s sexual orientation is something shameful. Well, it isn’t. What’s revealing is that this truly does expose the homophobia of so many - even in the mildest “we’ll-tolerate-you-but-shut-up-and-don’t-complain” form.

Motive and opportunity

Posted by Ted

Re: the alleged voter fraud in Nevada-

Is there any rational reason why new voters should be asked to declare their party when they register? Voter registration drives are the healthy by-products of political campaigns. The registrars are likely to be enthusiastic partisans, and the tempation to toss out new voters for the other guy will always be there.

Not every state makes new voters declare a party when they register. I know from experience that Washington and Texas don’t do it. In Texas, you effectively declare your party by voting in one primary or the other. Your party affiliation doesn’t appear on your registration form or your voter card. I’ve done some voter registration for MoveOn.org, and for all I know, I did nothing but register Republicans. I had no opportunity to throw out Republicans, because I didn’t know who they were. It seems like a good system.

Am I missing something obvious?

Marrying Up

Posted by Kieran

Over at Volokh, recent addition Jim Lindgren is making me regret once more their loss of Jacob Levy. Here he is complaining about the supposedly appalling moderator bias that caused Bush to lose last night’s debate (again):

Given Theresa (“no blood for oil”) Heinz Kerry, the only hard question John Kerry got all night was “I’d like to ask each of you, what is the most important thing you’ve learned from these strong women?”—and Kerry got to listen to Bush’s answer first. UPDATE: — OK, so Kerry should have answered the question about what he learned from his strong wife in this way (I’m recylcing a joke I heard last spring): [What KERRY might have said]: I developed my economic plan for the country from interacting with both my wives. Now I just need to find a rich country for the US to marry.

Clearly, Jim feels that whereas marrying into money is unseemly, being born into it is evidence of one’s good judgment. Is the parallel lesson that the US can spend the next 40 years drinking, partying and wasting Dad’s money on incompetent schemes, but still have things work out great?

October 11, 2004

Kerry on Education

Posted by Harry

I realize that hardly anyone votes on education issues in Presidential campaigns, so this may be only of academic interest, but I’ve been looking at the Kerry campaign’s plan for education (k-12, I don’t know much about higher education policy issues), and thought I’d give my tentative take on them for what its worth. There’s some good and some bad and some obscure. Just to demonstrate my non-partisanship I’d say much the same of Bush’s promises and, believe it or not, of Bush’s record – in fact, my suspicion is that if you really cut through the detail of the two programs the most significant thing in both is the same thing – promises of a great deal more Federal funds – promises that I happen to believe in both cases, but which don’t really bring me deep joy.

Anyway, the first thing to note is the one thing that is not an issue here, despite Kerry’s promise in the NEA TODAY that ‘you will never see a voucher proposal coming from my office as President’, is vouchers and choice. (Sorry, the interview doesn’t seem to be online, but I assume that the quote doesn’t need verification!) Both campaigns mention choice, and Kerry is on board with the right kind of charter programs, but Bush downplays choice, understanding that his important constituencies don’t care much about it. Vouchers, in particular, are not going to win votes for the Republicans, because floating voters, and most existing Republican voters, have no interest in them, and because the people who are interested – urban Black voters – are not about to defect to the Republicans over the issue.

Kerry’s website was revamped after the convention, and the most peculiar, not to say ludicrous, promise – that the Feds would make sure every teacher has voicemail – was removed. This is to Kerry’s credit, but I admit that it still worries me a bit that anyone could have even thought it up, let alone thought that it was something to make public as a priority.

On to the main points.

He highlights a plan to increase graduation levels by 1 million students a year. The plan targets the children least likely to graduate, and provides funds for making high schools smaller and less impersonal (a typical urban high school has 2-4000 kids in 4 year groups), as well as encouraging urban schools to adopt more academically rigorous curricula by giving States incentives to adopt demanding standards. I’m planning a separate post on school size, so will leave that issue aside.

The plan emphasizes enhanced after-school activities and increased early years provision. Both of these might make a difference to graduation rates, but neither will make a huge difference. One of the problems here is that both candidates, like politicians generally, assume that schools can do much more than they really can to improve achievement; so many of the determinants of achievement are outside the control of individual schools or even school districts. The other problem is that whether increased early years or enhanced after-school activities will make any real impact on achievement depends on their quality. That, in turn, depends on the un-legislatable beliefs and intentions of those who administrate and work in them. They will enhance achievement if they succeed in providing high-need children with experiences which are more like the out-of-school experiences of more advantaged and higher achieving children; this is the not-really-hidden agenda of academics and policymakers who advocate these sort of interventions. But if parents, administrators, and providers really see these programs as enhanced day care to subsidize labor market participation, and use them to get children watching TV, playing games, eating snacks, and generally doing the kinds of things they would be doing at home, there’s no reason to believe they will help much with achievement or graduation.

His other main plank is a ‘new deal with America’s teachers’. The new deal sensibly targets salary bonuses to teachers filling positions in high-need schools and hard-to-fill subject areas, and promises efforts to address the serious retention problem (almost 50% of new teachers leave within 5 years of starting the profession, and the figures are much worse in high need schools). Less sensibly, in a time of severe teacher shortages, it requires more rigorous certification tests for new teachers. The problem here is not that teachers shouldn’t meet high standards: they should. But, given the shortage, more rigorous tests which I would otherwise welcome, will simply result in more teachers entering the profession having failed the tests.

The most controversial part of the plan is giving bonuses to teachers for ‘raising children’s achievement’. Because the labor market in education is so highly regulated by union contracts school principals have little experience or expertise in evaluating the job performance of teachers. So teachers rightly distrust any measure which gives principals power over their pay or promotion; in the foreseeable future such a plan is doomed to failure. But any scheme which bases merit pay on objective standards, like measured improvement in students’ scores, would be absurd. Children improve at uneven rates; their improvement is always due to the interaction of many factors of which any given teacher is only one; and no teacher should teach enough students to generate a sample size big enough to give statistically significant differences between teacher performances. No-one would be happier than me if Kerry were proposing to revolutionize the management of schools so that there would be incentives to hire competent managers, but I suspect the proposal is either ill-formed, or a ruse to raise salaries under the pretence of providing performance-related pay. There’s a lesson here from Britain. When the Labour government introduced performance-related pay (into a system which already made much more allowance than the US system for rewarding perceived talent through promotions and pay raises) they were widely criticized by teachers on the correct grounds that they didn’t have good mechanisms for determining quality-of-performance. But, as it has turned out, the measure has effectively acted as an almost-across-the-board increase in salaries at the very points in the career when teachers are experienced enough that it is important to retain them. This may be what Kerry has in mind; but if so it is at best un-forthright to present it as merit-pay.

As I say, almost no-one votes on these issues, and if Kerry loses it is all moot. No-one should think, though, that he will repeal NCLB, or even make substantial modifications to it; the most to expect there is more money for it. And if he does win, I hope that, as with all his other policies, no-one is tempted to give him a free ride. Embrace the good, reject the bad, and clarify the obscure!

October 10, 2004

Kerry in the Debates

Posted by Henry

I’m too biased to be able to judge well who won or lost in the second debate; G.W. Bush makes my skin crawl. What did strike me was the different strategies that the two candidates employed. Kerry seemed to be trying to do two things, quite deliberately, in his answers. First, he was very obviously trying to combat the Republican talking-point that he’s a pessimist. He referred to himself explicitly as an optimist at one point, and several of his answers were all about his hopes for the future. Second, he seemed to be reaching out to Republican-leaning undecided voters who were disenchanted with Bush - at every possible opportunity, he mentioned Republicans like Hagel, Lugar and McCain who have criticized the administration in one way or another. Bush, in contrast, seemed to me to be more interested in shoring up his core vote among conservatives. As I say, I came into this with a bias - still, these are the things that jumped out at me while I was watching the debate (apart from Kerry’s fluffing the response to Bush’s answer about mistakes, which many others in the blogosphere have written about already).

October 08, 2004

You take the good, you take the bad

Posted by Ted

A. Friday fun link: Back in the day, after the death of Suck but before the rise of the Poor Man, Modern Humorist was arguably the most consistently funny site on the web. They had a fake preview for Radiohead’s Kid A that’s still on my list.

B. Friday not-so-fun links: Eric Alterman and Paul McLeary’s column on the torture provisions in H.B 10.

Congressman Markey’s amendment (which would have stripped out the torture provisions) did not come up for a vote. An amendment to substitute the Senate version of the bill came up last night. As Katherine notes:

The Senate version of the bill has a stronger national intelligence director with budgetary and personnel authority, strengthens anti-nuclear programs, and generally follows the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations much more closely than the House bill. It does not contain the anti-immigration or torture-outsourcing legalization provisions of the House bill. It passed the Senate by a 96-2 vote. All members of the 9/11 commission support the Senate version, as does the 9/11 Families Steering committee.

This amendment failed on a near party-line vote. Eight Republicans voted for the amendment, 212 against. If I understand correctly, the bill is likely to pass with the torture provisions intact, but there’s still hope for the conference committee. If I’m right, I’ll post the members of the committee as soon as I know them. If I’m wrong about any of this (which I might be), I’ll correct as soon as possible.

It’s times like these when Mickey Kaus’s whizzy “I’m a Democrat who hates Democrats!” act looks a lot less cute.

UPDATE: Katherine notes that the House is still going to vote on the Hostettler amendment, which tones down the language on outsorucing torture without eliminating it. Among other things, it instructs the Department of State to “seek diplomatic assurances” that a suspect not be tortured. This would probably make the deportation of Arar retrospectively legal (ANOTHER UPDATE: maybe not), as Syria assured us that he would not be tortured.

Markey is asking his colleagues to vote no on both the Hostettler amendment and final passage.

October 06, 2004

I'm George Bush, and I do not approve of this message

Posted by Ted

The White House has unambiguously stated that it does not support the “extraordinary rendition” provisions.

The president did not propose and does not support this provision. He has made clear that the United States stands against and will not tolerate torture and that the United States remains committed to complying with its obligations under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Consistent with that treaty, the United States does not expel, return or extradite individuals to countries where the United States believes it is likely that they will be tortured.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES

Counsel to the President
Washington

I’m probably naive- we’ll find out soon enough. But that’s a clear, praiseworthy denunciation of the provisions in question. This leaves Hastert, Hostettler, and other supporters of these provisions without a fig leaf, doesn’t it? The 9/11 commission doesn’t want it, the Justice Department doesn’t want it, and President Bush doesn’t want it. It violates common decency, conservative principle, and 200 years of history. How can they stand up for them?

(I’m really not interested in nailing the White House for a flip-flop. If it’s true that they caved because of political pressure, good for them. Maybe they caved because of principle. Maybe it was a miscommunication. Either way, it’s a blessing, and they deserve praise for it.)

It also gives pro-Bush bloggers a hook to promote this story. President Bush denounces torture! But the provision still needs to be defeated. Pile on, guys!

October 05, 2004

Telling stories with pictures

Posted by Daniel

Deja vu.

All over again?

My First is in Quick, but not in Thick

Posted by Kieran

David Brooks today:

Every few weeks I hear about a new twist in American strategy or tactics. It always seems promising, but conditions don’t improve. On the other hand, officials in this administration don’t have a thought in their heads about not sticking this out.

I know there’s a word for this. Just give me a minute and it’ll come to me. Alternatively, the CT time machine can bring us back to last September:

The U.S.’s day-to-day problems in Iraq may end up resembling Northern Ireland rather than Vietnam: car bombings, political assassinations, a general effort by terrorists to violently undermine civil society and resist the occupying power. The cost in terms of soldiers’ lives would be much lower than in Vietnam, but if there’s no viable way to extricate yourself the feeling of the situation may be much the same.

The most dangerous game

Posted by Ted

Is the extraordinary rendition provision in the 9-11 Commission bill just a particularly amoral piece of political gamesmanship? Katherine has the update, and Jeanne D’Arc has the commentary.

When I read conservative bloggers, I learn that many of Kerry’s opponents just consider him an inferior candidate to George W. Bush. But some consider him to be a genuinely bad person- unpatriotic, dishonest, with no principles except for the love of power. And yet, there’s a pretty good chance that Kerry’s going to be the next President. If this bill passes, Kerry will appoint a Secretary with the unreviewable power to declare someone a terrorist suspect, and have them deported and tortured.

Surely they don’t trust him to use this power with wisdom and restraint. And yet, they seem more interested in joking about the words “global test.”

Would you trust Janet Reno with the power to torture? I wouldn’t.

National humiliation

Posted by Ted

Unbelievable.

One of the most-cited gotchas from Thursday was Bush’s assertion that “the A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice.”

But CNN reports that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, appearing on Late Edition, “said Bush did not misspeak when he said that the network of Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan — the founder of Pakistan’s nuclear program who was caught selling secrets on the global black market — had been ‘brought to justice.’

“Khan is living in a villa and was pardoned this year by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. None of Khan’s co-conspirators have been brought to trial.”

Here’s how Rice explained it, from the Late Edition transcript.

“A.Q. Khan is out of business and he is out of the business that he loved most. And if you don’t think that his national humiliation is justice for what he did, I think it is. He’s nationally humiliated.”

Via Respectful of Otters. Why is it harder for Rice to say “The President misspoke” than “We think selling nuclear secrets is a trifle”? “National humiliation” is an appropriate punishment for choosing to appear on reality television. For selling nuclear secrets, it’s rather inadequate.

Paul Bremer is Shrill?!

Posted by Belle Waring

From the Washington Post: “Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels”. Maybe we should just start making lists of people who are well-informed about economics, the situation in Iraq, civil liberties, etc. and aren’t shrill. It would save the Shrillblog time.

The former U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion said yesterday that the United States made two major mistakes: not deploying enough troops in Iraq and then not containing the violence and looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on.

“We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness,” he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. “We never had enough troops on the ground.”

Now, though, Karl Rove has his balls in a vise everything is fine: “I believe that we currently have sufficient troop levels in Iraq,” he said in an e-mailed statement. He said all references in recent speeches to troop levels related to the situation when he arrived in Baghdad in May 2003. He added “please don’t hurt my family, Karl” that he “strongly supports” President Bush’s reelection.

October 04, 2004

Time-share

Posted by Ted

Recently, Christopher Hitchens wrote a typically deeply-principled piece in which he accused “most… Democratic activists” of rooting for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would be deeply ashamed anyone supposedly on my side cheering for death and injury to Americans and civilians. Unfortunately, Mr. Hitchens doesn’t help me identify these traitors. He neglects to identify a single Democrat by name, or point to a single incriminating quote. I guess Slate isn’t giving him enough space, or something.

It’s much easier to identify Republicans who have, quite literally, voted for torture. They’re the Republicans in the House Judiciary committee. On party-line votes, they have defeated Democratic attempts to strip out provisions that would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to deport anyone suspected of terrorism to a country where they could expect to be tortured. This power would not be subject to judicial review. (Katherine at Obsidian Wings has much, much more about specific cases of extraordinary rendition.)

Many of these Representatives are in safe seats, but not all of them. Indiana Rep. John Hostettler is identified by OurCongress.org as especially vulnerable.

I would be pleased if Rep. Hostettler was forced to answer some questions about his votes for torture. I suspect that the best way of making this happen is by contacting the newspapers in his district. Letters to the editor normally have to be accompanied by the name, address and phone number of the writer. They have to be short, and they have to be polite.

The Indianapolis Star has a special Letter to the editor page.

The Evansville Courier can be reached at letters@evansville.net.

The The Times-Mail can be reached at mikel@tmnews.com.

Supporters and detractors of the war in Iraq can agree that the world was a better place after we shut down Saddam’s torture chambers. If we follow up by procuring a time-share option in the torture chambers of Syria, Egypt, etc., history will not be kind to us.

UPDATE: Liddy asks why don’t I include a link to Hostettler’s opponent, Jon Jennings. Good question.

October 03, 2004

He's Baaack! And He's Shrillllll!

Posted by Kieran

Tom Friedman returns in his new guise as Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Sassanian Senmurv’s Sub-Deaconry Baldachin Polisher in the Noble, Ancient and Hermetic Order of the Shrill:

Sorry, I’ve been away writing a book. I’m back, so let’s get right down to business: We’re in trouble in Iraq. I don’t know what is salvageable there anymore. … This war has been hugely mismanaged by this administration, in the face of clear advice to the contrary at every stage, and as a result the range of decent outcomes in Iraq has been narrowed and the tools we have to bring even those about are more limited than ever. … For all of President Bush’s vaunted talk about being consistent and resolute, the fact is he never established U.S. authority in Iraq. Never. This has been the source of all our troubles. We have never controlled all the borders, we have never even consistently controlled the road from Baghdad airport into town, because we never had enough troops to do it. … Because each time the Bush team had to choose between doing the right thing in the war on terrorism or siding with its political base and ideology, it chose its base and ideology. More troops or radically lower taxes? Lower taxes. Fire an evangelical Christian U.S. general who smears Islam in a speech while wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army or not fire him so as not to anger the Christian right? Don’t fire him. Apologize to the U.N. for not finding the W.M.D., and then make the case for why our allies should still join us in Iraq to establish a decent government there? Don’t apologize - for anything - because Karl Rove says the “base” won’t like it. Impose a “Patriot Tax” of 50 cents a gallon on gasoline to help pay for the war, shrink the deficit and reduce the amount of oil we consume so we send less money to Saudi Arabia? Never. Just tell Americans to go on guzzling. Fire the secretary of defense for the abuses at Abu Ghraib, to show the world how seriously we take this outrage - or do nothing? Do nothing. Firing Mr. Rumsfeld might upset conservatives. Listen to the C.I.A.? Only when it can confirm your ideology. When it disagrees - impugn it or ignore it.

Whew! Did ole Airmiles finally run into Daniel in a 1st Class Transit Lounge somewhere? Perhaps Tom is realizing that, thanks to the Bush Administration, he may get the twenty year occupation he told Oprah viewers to gear up for last year.

October 01, 2004

Update on torture

Posted by Ted

Katherine has a significant post on the potential legalization of outsourcing torture. Opponents of the provision include the American Bar Association, the 9/11 Commission, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. This isn’t over.

The office of Edward Markey has sent a letter to President Bush on the provisions of the bill in question. UPDATE: The whole letter is below the fold. Here it is in .pdf form.

October 1, 2004

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I am writing to you about the “9/11 Commission Recommendations Implementation Act of 2004,” H.R. 10. As you may know, the House Republican Leadership has inserted provisions into this bill which would facilitate the extradition or deportation of certain foreigners from the U.S. to countries where they may face torture.

The provisions I am referring to are contained in sections 3032 and 3033 of H.R. 10. These provisions would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to revise regulations prescribed pursuant to the obligations the U.S. assumed under the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Under the bill, the Secretary would be required to exclude certain aliens from the protection of section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (U.S.C. 1231 (b)(3)(B)), including rendering aliens deemed ineligible for withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The provision limits judicial review of the new regulations that would be required under the bill to facilitate the deportation of aliens to countries where they may be tortured, stating that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review the regulations adopted to implement this section, and nothing in this section shall be construed as providing any court jurisdiction to consider or review claims raised under the Convention or this section, except as part of review of a final order of removal pursuant to section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252).”

Section 3032 also would change the burden of proof on the alien detainee seeking to challenge a proposed deportation in a manner, which appears to violate the U.N. Convention Against Torture and the Senate’s understanding when it ratified the treaty in 1994. That Senate understanding stated in part:

II. The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:

(2) That the United States understands the phrase, “ where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,” as used in Article 3 of the Convention, to mean “it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.”

Existing INS regulations, following the Senate understanding and the requirements of the Convention against torture, follow a “more likely than not standard.” In stark contrast, section 3032 (3) states that: “the burden of proof is on the applicant…to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he or she would be tortured…” Human rights groups have publicly voiced their concerns that the “clear and compelling evidence” standard may be extremely difficult or even impossible for a detainee to satisfy.

The provisions further authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to remove an alien to “any country whose government will accept the alien into that country” (Section 3033). In essence the Secretary is given virtually unfettered power to send a detainee to any country, regardless if the detainee is not a citizen of that country and regardless if the country has a known record of torture. The U.S. already has sent detained foreigners to countries that – according the State Department’s Annual Human Rights Report – practice torture, including Syria and Egypt. The best known example of this occurred in September 2002 when Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, was detained and later deported to Syria where he was imprisoned and tortured. Authorities never found any terrorist connections, and he has never been charged or convicted with any crime relating to any terrorist activity.

I have long been concerned about current rendition practices and earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 4674, a bill that would bar the U.S. from deporting, extraditing, or otherwise rendering persons to foreign nations known to engage in the practice of torture. My bill currently has 23 cosponsors and has been endorsed by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other human rights organizations. Next week I intend to offer an amendment to strike the outsourcing of torture provisions from the Republican 9/11 Commission bill and replace it with my bill.

Mr. President, on June 22, 2004, following the revelations of the abuses at the Abu Graib prison in Iraq, you made a strong statement condemning torture. At that time you stated:

“Let me make very clear the position of my government and our country. We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not part of our soul and our being.”

Just yesterday a newspaper quoted a Justice Department spokesperson as saying that the Department supported these provisions. In light of your strong statement against torture and the Justice Department’s apparent endorsement of the provisions, I respectfully request your views on Sections 3032 and 3033 of H.R. 10. In light of the impending House floor vote on this bill on the week of October 4th, I request that you please let the Congress know now – before the vote — where you stand on this issue before we take up and approve a provision that would legitimize the outsourcing of torture to other countries. I would also respectfully request your reviews on my proposed legislation, H.R. 4674, which would restrict extraordinary rendition to countries that practice torture.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Markey
Member of Congress

Framed

Posted by Ted

I watched the debate with my friend Rob “Get Donkey” Humenik. Afterwards, I thought that I’d better get home and start rooting for the home team, but… it looks like Kerry did just fine without my little squeakerbox.

I think that both candidates made our democracy look good. It was a serious debate for serious times, without leaning on cute punchlines or gimmicks. Bush was gracious enough to sidestep a direct invitations to attack Kerry’s character, and another invitation to say that Kerry’s going to get us all killed. Kerry was smart enough to immediately say that the most serious security threat to the nation was nuclear proliferation.

I wish that there was some discussion of torture, and more discussion about North Korea and Iran. I wish that Kerry had pointed out that he did not get to look at the same intelligence as Bush. I wish that he had taken the opportunity to explain the $87 billion. I wish, I wish, I wish. But in the end, I’m basically another Kerry hack who’s very happy with the way the debate played out.

Matthew Yglesias has assembled some of Bush’s misleading statements, and Julian Sanchez asks, “Yeah, what about Poland?”

Personally, this was my favorite part:

KERRY: 95 percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected.

Civilians get onto aircraft, and their luggage is X- rayed, but the cargo hold is not X-rayed.

Does that make you feel safer in America?

This president thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security. Those aren’t my values. I believe in protecting America first.

And long before President Bush and I get a tax cut — and that’s who gets it — long before we do, I’m going to invest in homeland security and I’m going to make sure we’re not cutting COPS programs in America and we’re fully staffed in our firehouses and that we protect the nuclear and chemical plants…

Let me just quickly say, at the current pace, the president will not secure the loose material in the Soviet Union — former Soviet Union for 13 years. I’m going to do it in four years. And we’re going to keep it out of the hands of terrorists.

LEHRER: Ninety-second response, Mr. President.

BUSH: I don’t think we want to get to how he’s going to pay for all these promises. It’s like a huge tax gap.

Kerry was unwilling to say that homeland security came for free. He framed the trade-off as tax cuts that primarily benefit the rich vs. more effective homeland security. And Bush agreed!

September 30, 2004

Republicans against torture

Posted by Henry

Sebastian Holsclaw is a regular commenter here - while I’ve had some serious differences with him, he certainly deserves some kudos for this post on Obsidian Wings explaining why his fellow Republicans should disavow the proposed legislation that would facilitate extraordinary renditions. I only hope that others on the right side of the blogosphere start to pick up this message.

Party-line vote

Posted by Ted
The Bush administration is supporting a provision in the House leadership’s intelligence reform bill that would allow U.S. authorities to deport certain foreigners to countries where they are likely to be tortured or abused, an action prohibited by the international laws against torture the United States signed 20 years ago. The provision, part of the massive bill introduced Friday by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), would apply to non-U.S. citizens who are suspected of having links to terrorist organizations but have not been tried on or convicted of any charges. Democrats tried to strike the provision in a daylong House Judiciary Committee meeting, but it survived on a party-line vote.

The provision, human rights advocates said, contradicts pledges President Bush made after the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal erupted this spring that the United States would stand behind the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Hastert spokesman John Feehery said the Justice Department “really wants and supports” the provision.

Kudos to the Washington Post for picking up on this. If this is defensible, I’d really like to hear a defense. Until then, I’m going to contact my Representative again.

September 29, 2004

Outsourcing Torture redux

Posted by Ted

What Belle said: Please, please contact your Representatives about this bill. I’m including the email that I sent to my Rep under the fold. Feel free to use any or all of it.

I implore you to support Massachusetts Congressman Edward Markey in his efforts to explicitly outlaw the practice of “extraordinary rendition”, in which a terrorist suspect is extradited to another country where he will be tortured. Markey’s bill can be found at http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/rendition-bill.pdf.

The torture of suspects is forbidden under the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Degrading and Inhuman Treatment. But we need not depend on the U.N. for guidance on the basic moral question of whether torture of human beings is an acceptable practice. The practice of government-sponsored torture is utterly incompatable with our American ideals.

If Markey’s bill is not passed, Section 3032 and 3033 of H.R. 10, the “9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act of 2004,” introduced by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), will effectively legalize extraordinary rendition. These sections would exclude any suspected terrorist from the protections of the U.N. Convention, therefore allowing them to be deported to a country that will engage in torture. The provision would put the burden of proof on the person being deported or rendered to establish “by clear and convincing evidence that he or she would be tortured.” This is clearly an impossible standard for a suspect being held in secret to overcome.

The law would place the power of extraordinary rendition in the hands of the Secretary of Homeland Defense. Furthermore, it would bar the courts from having jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s regulations. Much of the genius of our Constitution lies in its limits on government power. The threat of terror requires serious, aggressive countermeasures. However, it does not require that we abandon the wisdom of our fundamental principles, or the sanity of our system of checks and balances.

Again I ask, in the strongest possible terms, that you please support Congressman Markey’s bill.

Outsourcing Torture

Posted by Belle Waring

Erstwhile (and deeply missed) blogger Katherine has returned to Obsidian Wings with a very important post. Under cover of the “9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act of 2004”, House Republicans are attempting to pass a law which would legalize “extraordinary rendition” — the practice of deporting foriegn-born suspects to a country which practices torture, in order to get information our government feels it cannot extract legally. From a press release sent to Katherine by the staff of Rep. Edward Markey (a Massachusets democrat who has sought to ban such extraordinary rendition):

The provision would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue new regulations to exclude from the protection of the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, any suspected terrorist - thereby allowing them to be deported or transferred to a country that may engage in torture. The provision would put the burden of proof on the person being deported or rendered to establish “by clear and convincing evidence that he or she would be tortured,” would bar the courts from having jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s regulations, and would free the Secretary to deport or remove terrorist suspects to any country in the world at will - even countries other than the person’s home country or the country in which they were born. The provision would also apply retroactively. This provision was not part of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations, and the Commission actually called upon the U.S. to “offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors.”

It’s difficult for me to express what a terrible, immoral piece of legislation this is. This is a shameful and cowardly attempt to sneak language legalizing the outsourcing of torture into a bill claiming to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. Katherine urges bloggers to link to this post, and US readers to contact their representatives and object to this harmful measure (Markey is sponsoring an amendment to remove this provision). If the blogosphere really has any ability to break stories, we should be spending our firepower here. I’m willing to bet this law won’t get passed if it is publicized before passage, but it might get through in some hasty, last-minute bill passing if it is overlooked. Don’t let it happen.

The debate I'd like to see

Posted by Eszter

If you ever need to reach me, don’t bother trying at 10pm (CST, Mon-Thu) because I am likely watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I am obsessed with that show not only because the entire cast is incredibly funny, but also because Jon Stewart is so well informed and quick on his feet. He did a great job talking tonight (Tue) with Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition and chair of the Southeast region Bush-Cheney campaign. It was an interesting glimpse into what it would be like to have Jon Stewart take part in a presidential debate. I am not referring to the laughs we would get out of it, but the witty and sharp comments that would keep everybody on their toes. Even Al Gore, in his NYTimes op-ed today about debating George Bush, quotes Stewart. Bummer that Bush likely won’t go on TDS, it would be interesting to watch him interact with Jon Stewart. But as someone from the Bush campaign who recently visited the show commented: why would Bush bother showing up on TDS?

To spice things up a bit this Thursday, I will be watching the presidential debate with a group of students in Northwestern’s Communications Residential College where my colleague David Zarefsky, an expert in argumentation and Presidential rhetoric, will lead a discussion about the debates right after.

September 28, 2004

All Things Depressing

Posted by Kieran

Three stories I heard on NPR on the way to Daycare which made me want to drop myself off there and play for the day while sending my baby daughter off to the office instead:

  • This kid whose doctor and parents are reluctant to take her off the Zoloft they suggested she start taking, even though she’s been asking to stop for a year. Some of the doctors quoted in the report are a bit frightening. “Oh, we don’t know when to take them off the stuff — some of my patients have been on them since they were seven and now they’re in their 20s,” or words to that effect. Mom and Dad insist they are just waiting for a “less stressful time” in their daughter’s life to stop her course of anti-depressants. But guess what? She’s a junior in high school, is looking at colleges, next year’s senior year and then it’s the transition to University and … you see how it goes. That’s the kind of parent I want to be! “Honey, the problem isn’t your shitty high school, it’s serotonin re-uptake malfunctions in your brain.”
  • John Kerry is starting to refer to himself in the third person, like Bob Dole did in ‘96. A sure sign of fatigue. Bush’s glib one-liners about Kerry are better than Kerry’s rebuttals. I’ve come to agree with Matt that the debates are going to be a rough ride for Kerry.
  • Perhaps saddest of all was hearing the father of Sgt Ben Isenberg of Oregon talk about his son’s death in Iraq. Sgt Isenberg was killed when his Humvee ran over a home-made mine. His father quietly explains how the war in Iraq is a “spiritual war” and that people “need to just dig into their Bible and read about it — it’s predicted, it’s predestined.” He says his son understood he had to go to Iraq because “our current President is a very devout Christian … [who] had the knowledge, and understood what was going on, and it’s far deeper than we as a people will every really know, because we don’t get the information that the President gets.” What can one say in the face of such belief? The President is simply unworthy of the trust these people have placed in him.

September 27, 2004

Dubya Channels Calvin, or Vice Versa

Posted by Kieran

Man of Action

September 24, 2004

Lead on, David Brooks

Posted by Kieran

On CNN’s Newsnight last night, David Brooks took his favorite rhetorical trope — that there are two kinds of people in the world — to its realpolitik conclusions:

You’ve got to have a political strategy and you’ve got to have a military strategy. … You’ve got to use our Iraqis, the Iraqis who want a democratic Iraq to give them something concrete, win them over. But then you’ve got to have a military strategy too and those are the people who, like Zarqawi, who just want to spread death and destruction. So, what you do is you win over the people you can, town by town and then you kill the people you can.

Brooks was ready to fly to Iraq and lead the army from house to house in Iraq using his magic glowing finger to distinguish the Iraqis we must kill from those we must win over, he did not go on to say.

Hobsbawm deported

Posted by Chris

In shock news veteran Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm has been deported from the United States. After the historian’s name appeared on a no-fly list, his UA flight was diverted 600 miles to Maine, the elderly scholar was removed and, after questioning by FBI agents he was placed on the first available flight to the UK. Homeland Security officials said “we’ve been watching this guy for a while, we had new intelligence….”

Hobsbawm has long been a controversial figure, in a notorious interview with Michael Ignatieff he appeared to justify the Soviet Gulag :

Ignatieff: “In 1934, millions of people are dying in the Soviet experiment. If you had known that, would it have made a difference to you at that time? To your commitment? To being a Communist?”

Hobsbawm: “This is the sort of academic question to which an answer is simply not possible. . . . If I were to give you a retrospective answer which is not the answer of a historian, I would have said, ‘probably not.’”

Ignatieff: “Why?”

Hobsbawm: “Because in a period in which, as you might imagine, mass murder and mass suffering are absolutely universal, the chance of a new world being born in great suffering would still have been worth backing. Now the point is, looking back as an historian, I would say that the sacrifices made by the Russian people were probably only marginally worthwhile. The sacrifices were enormous; they were excessive by almost any standard and excessively great. But I’m looking back at it now, and I’m saying that because it turns out that the Soviet Union was not the beginning of the world revolution. Had it been, I’m not sure.”

Ignatieff: “What that comes down to is saying that had the radiant tomorrow actually been created, the loss of fifteen, twenty million people might have been justified?”

Hobsbawm: “Yes.”

Seeking to justify Hobsbawm’s deportation on the grounds that he was a threat to the security of the United States, guys-with-websites all across the internet cited Hobsbawm’s remarks by way of justification. Prominent US liberal bloggers, such as Juan Cole , Mark Kleiman and Kevin Drum also mentioned the repulsive remarks and said that in their view, the fact that Hobsbawm had made the remarks had left them indifferent in the face of Homeland Security’s actions. As one of them said: “If you excuse the execution of dissidents, you and John Ashcroft deserve one another.” “Screw him,” was another’s comment on the affair.

September 22, 2004

Grilled Lobster on Sugarcane

Posted by Belle Waring

Is it just me, or does this Samizdata post sound oddly as if it were written by the Medium Lobster?

I hardly know where to begin on this one (from Fox News).

While Bush has been campaigning as the best candidate to deter terrorists and protect the nation, Kerry portrayed him as out of touch with the situation in Iraq.

“With all due respect to the president, has he turned on the evening news lately? Does he read the newspapers?” Kerry said. “Does he really know what’s happening? Is he talking about the same war that the rest of us are talking about?”

This man thinks the Commander-in-chief should formulate war strategies according to what it says on CNN, and he is standing for president of the United States?

With all due respect to the Democratic candidate, has he never heard of military intelligence? Does he even know what the blogosphere is? Is he talking about the same universe that the rest of us are talking about?

Damn right, we are talking about different wars. This is the real one. And it’s not available in any newspapers.

I recommend very strongly that you follow the link and learn that John Wayne movies about Vietnam are an awesome place to learn about press bias. And, if you read the comments thread, you learn that the liberal media travelled back in time from the 70’s and caused the US to lose the Vietnam war by raising geo-political concerns about open war with China. Also, can we think of a new name for libertarians who think it’s a good idea to invade other countries and overthrow their governments, like maybe “shmibertarians”? Thanks.

Cat Stevens banned from the US

Posted by Chris

Yusuf Islam — the former singer once known as Cat Stevens — has been banned from the United States . And not just banned, they actually diverted the plane 600 miles to Maine to remove him from it. He’s made some equivocal statements in the past, but more recently has been forthright in his condemnation of terrorism . Perhaps there’s something we don’t know, but, on the surface, this looks like a bad mistake. Ordinary Muslims will be bound to see this as hostility to their religion as such rather than just to extremists and terrorists.

September 21, 2004

Party oligopoly

Posted by Henry

Kevin and Matthew have good posts on redistricting, although like Brian, I’m a little unsure whether intra-party competition is always such a good thing (in Ireland, where we have a PR-STV system, the result is intense localism - politicians perceive their main duty as “bothering civil servants” to get favours for their constituents). There’s another problem though, that’s less often raised by smart centrist Democrats - the enormous institutional barriers that stand in the way of third parties. Ballot access rules in many states are deliberately and systematically skewed to make it difficult for third parties to gain a place on the ballot sheets. In its own way, this is every bit as anti-democratic as gerrymandering - not only does it make it more difficult for third parties to gain elected office, but it also makes the main parties less sensitive to voter dissatisfaction (voters don’t have other political alternatives that they can credibly threaten to vote for). Unlike redistricting, this is the result of a tacit oligopoly between the two main parties, and is thus, I suspect, even less susceptible to reform. This is not to say by any means that these official barriers are the only impediments to third party influence in the US, but they’re surely a significant part of the story.

Not only would I like to see left third parties better able to influence the Democrats, but I suspect it would be a good thing for American politics if there were a viable Libertarian party. Certainly, some of the financial and political excesses of the Bush administration might have been curtailed if there had been a credible likelihood of libertarian-leaning voters going elsewhere. Given all the above, I have mixed feelings when I read about Nader’s success in getting on the ballot in various states. I’m hugely unimpressed with him as a candidate, I don’t want him to attract votes, and I’m perfectly aware that the Republicans have probably engaged in as many dodgy manoeuvres to get him on the ballot as the Democrats have to try to get him off. Nonetheless, a small piece of me can’t help feeling happy whenever the courts adopt (as I think they should adopt) a broad and flexible standard as to who should and should not be able to get on the ballot.

September 19, 2004

The facts, ma'am, just the facts

Posted by Daniel

By way of a break from everything about the US elections in the blogosphere, here’s a post about the US elections.

Swift Boats blah, forged memos blah, Kerry campaign blah blah. The latest thing I’m hearing is that some polls are biased against Kerry (I’ve linked to a comparatively sane version of the thesis here; the other kind is not exactly hard to find). Forget about all that, give me something I can work with. One of the most important lessons that experiences teaches you when you start hustling economic data for a living is the importance of picking an indicator and sticking to it. If you choose a number that you regard as representative and look at its evolution over time, you’ll end up getting a feel for the reality that it represents. If, on the other hand, you start chopping and changing the way you look at things, you will, with probability 1, confuse yourself.

The CT fave indicator is the Approval-Disapproval Spread Point Chart. Henry linked to Nasi Lemak’s version to illustrate a point about optical econometrics. I used something similar as the basis of my abortive trading system on the Iowa Electronic Markets. Paul Krugman linked to it once but I can’t be bothered chasing up the link. It’s a good indicator. It was Lee Atwater’s number of choice, and it captures something important about the public perceptions which underly voting behaviour. Sure, it isn’t a direct question about voting intentions, and it doesn’t capture some of the horse race flavour of the headline polls, but I think it would be a mistake to dump it now.

(There will now be a pause while everyone clicks over to Dr. Pollkatz to look at the chart)

Have a look. The really ropey period for Kerry in the polls has coincided with a flattening out and perhaps even a small increase in the Bush A/D spread. It almost looks like this line is having one of its periodic bounces - one might label this one “Republican Convention”, the other two being “Iraq War” and “Saddam Captured”

Anything to do with the Swift Boats would not affect people’s perceptions of George Bush. Similarly, biases in pollsters’ treatment of registered voters for the two parties ought not to show up in the A/D spread figures where the same adjustments aren’t made. Therefore, I would advance the argument that these two phenomena are explanations which cannot explain the whole dataset, and should therefore be discarded in favour of theories which can.

In fact, looking at the data, I am attracted by the following four bald assertions:

1) The recent Bush rally is both within the normal variability of the data and not out of line with past rallies. It just feels so much more important because it’s closer to the election date.

2) The rally is, however, genuine. It’s not likely to be an artifact of polling, and it’s too spread out in time to be linked to any particular blogospheric news story of interest.

3) It is notable that the Bush A/D spread has flattened out more or less exactly when it reached the zero line. This is unlikely to be a coincidence.

4) The temptation is very strong, as noted above, to label the most recent spike upward the “Republican Convention” effect.

I can’t prove any of these, so to some extent I am talking out my arse, and am contributing to the quadrennial pile of election-related bullshit. However, all four of them are at least consistent with the data, which I hope puts them in the top quintile of that pile.

September 17, 2004

Don't They Know There's a War On?

Posted by Belle Waring

I think the Instapundit must still read Andrew Sullivan’s site. Does he just skip the parts about how our venture in Iraq is a total disaster? (Honesty compels me to mention that I was a supporter of this invasion, and so am either a) uniquely qualified to pronounce on its disastrousness or b) a certified idiot who should be mumbling apologies at all my anti-this-war-now brethren rather than parading my original bad judgment as a badge of honor. You decide.) I mean, the US military can’t guarantee security in the Green Zone?

At a briefing earlier this month, a high-ranking US officer in charge of the zone’s perimeter said he had insufficient soldiers to prevent intruders penetrating the compound’s defences. The US major said it was possible weapons or explosives had already been stashed in the zone, and warned people to move in pairs for their own safety. The Green Zone, in Baghdad’s centre, is one of the most fortified US installations in Iraq. Until now, militants have not been able to penetrate it.

I’m very sorry to say this, but we are f%$#ed. I don’t mean particularly to pick on the Instapundit, but he is both a big name and representative. Where is the pro-war blogosphere on this? Is it really all about the pseudo-kerning? Can Hugh Hewitt honestly not think of anything, anything at all the US Congress might better do with its time than hold hearings on “Rathergate”? This is becoming surreal. John comes home from work, not having had time to read the news yet, and asks me over dinner, “what happened in the world today?” Admittedly, I do say, “those memos were fake.” But mostly I say things like, “lots and lots of people got killed in Iraq today and things are looking very very bad.” From Christopher Allbritton:

I don’t know if I can really put into words just how bad it is here some days. Yesterday was horrible — just horrible. While most reports show Fallujah, Ramadi and Samarra as “no-go” areas, practically the entire Western part of the country is controlled by insurgents, with pockets of U.S. power formed by the garrisons outside the towns. Insurgents move freely throughout the country and the violence continues to grow. I wish I could point to a solution, but I don’t see one. People continue to email me, telling me to report the “truth” of all the good things that are going on in Iraq. I’m not seeing a one. A buddy of mine is stationed here and they’re fixing up a park on a major street. Gen. Chiarelli was very proud of this accomplishment, and he stressed this to me when I interviewed him for the TIME story. But Baghdadis couldn’t care less. They don’t want city beautification projects; they want electricity, clean water and, most of all, an end to the violence….
In the context of all this, reporting on a half-assed refurbished school or two seems a bit childish and naive, the equivalent of telling a happy story to comfort a scared child. Anyone who asks me to tell the “real” story of Iraq — implying all the bad things are just media hype — should refer to this post. I just told you the real story: What was once a hell wrought by Saddam is now one of America’s making.

Could we please have a national debate about this war?

UPDATE: In Hewitt’s defense, I wrote this last night. Now there is one sentence on his blog about Iraq. Of course, it points to this post explaining how all the casualties the US suffered this month were the right sort of casualties, the kind that indicate how little the situation in Iraq is descending into chaos.

SECOND UPDATE: Henry rightly pointed me to these posts by Orin Kerr, Volokh conspirator, who is bucking this trend.

THIRD UPDATE: if, like some commenters, you want to hear at length about how I was totally wrong on Iraq, and what I should have thought instead, then you can read about it here.

September 15, 2004

Marty Peterson

Posted by Ted

I recently went to see a speech and Q&A session by Marty Peterson, deputy executive director of the CIA. Some notes:

He was defensive about the record of the CIA, and obviously felt that they had come under a number of unjustified attacks. (The word “defensive” has a negative connotation that I don’t mean to convey here.) He specifically cited Kenneth Pollack’s article in the January Atlantic Monthly as a fair critique, and said that he wished that all discussions could be held on that level. He was obviously frustrated with the search for the “silver bullet”, such as firing George Tenet, that would make everything OK.

He was also defensive about the CIA record regarding missing WMDs in Iraq. In his recounting, the CIA underestimated Saddam’s missile programs, which were more advanced than anyone realized; they overestimated his biological and chemical weapons programs, which he described as “more capabilities than functioning programs”; and they were approximately right regarding his nuclear weapons programs, which hadn’t restarted. In response to a question, he said that he doubted that Saddam had smuggled out WMDs to other countries before the war.

He made the point that the CIA wasn’t involved in the policy decision to invade Iraq, without expressing an opinion about whether it was the right decison. In general, I felt that he was making a good-faith effort to be non-partisan.

There were a number of criticisms of the CIA that he felt ignored the realities of intelligence, or the constraints under which they worked. He engaged in a lengthy, if somewhat predictable, discussion of the inherent difficulty and uncertainty involved in intelligence work. (“Only in the movies do secret agents sneak in and steal the plans. In real life, there are no plans to steal.”) He felt that excessive peace dividend cuts in the 90s had starved the CIA of resources. (Interestingly, he said that the underfunding reversed in 1998.) He also said that it takes him a year to hire an agent, and six or seven years to train and season him or her to the point that they can be trusted to try to recruit a foreign intelligence source. So the hiring boom that’s currently underway won’t pay off for years to come.

He resented being asked to answer for policies that the CIA didn’t create, and being judged for past actions based on the standards of the day. At one point, he said that he only asked for two things- sufficient resources to do his job, and a clear set of rules that he could expect to be judged by. “In thirty years, I’ve never had either of those.”

He’s not a fan of the proposed reorganization of the nation’s intelligence services. He mentioned a point when another higher-up at the CIA (I don’t remember who) was discussing the issue with Congress. The CIA guy asked, if there was another catastrophe, who would be held accountable? None of the Congressmen could answer the question. (A cynic might ask who was being held accountable for September 11th, but I suppose that that’s why the reorganization is necessary.)

A detailed discussion of his preferences in intelligence reform was probably not in the cards, as he wasn’t even allowed to say how many employees the CIA has. As general principles, he favored (a) short lines of communication and (b) taking our time to think about things. He clearly was concerned that intelligence reform was being rushed to fit an election-year schedule.

He voiced his approval for the Patriot Act several times. He said several times that it was a very important law and that it made his job easier. Specifically, he praised the ability to share information with the FBI and local law enforcement. He cited a case where CIA agents seized a number of computers from a terrorist cell abroad. He said that the hard drives would be investigated, and there might be leads that pointed back into the United States. Before the Patriot Act, he said, there was nothing more that they could do with that information. Now, he can relay it to FBI and law enforcement agents, they can check it out, and sometimes return useful information about foreign targets. In response to a question, however, he acknowledged that privacy issues were legitimate concerns (“I don’t want anyone looking at my library books, either.”) He said that balancing privacy with investigative powers was a policy decision he couldn’t make.

He’s very concerned about China and Taiwan. He says that China is investing heavily in their military, and that we can tell that they’re doing drills that show that they’re learning how to use their new hardware. He thinks that the end result of this activity is likely to be a crisis over Taiwan. He mentioned a converstation with the former Prime Minister of Singapore, who said that China and Taiwan, not North Korea, was the East Asian security issue that he was most worried about.

Speaking for himself, Peterson listed the danger spots that had him most worried. They were North Korea (he says that he believes that they have at least one nuclear weapon), Pakistan (he praised Musharraf’s participation in the war on terror, but is concerned that he might be assassinated) and Saudi Arabia (he’s concerned about a coup there, too.)

This speech was sponsored by the Houston World Affairs Council. Upcoming speakers include Lech Walesa and Hernando de Soto. My fellow Houstonians might want to look into this organization.

September 14, 2004

Richard Morrison

Posted by Ted

One of the tragedies of living in Houston is the knowledge that Tom DeLay has his seat here. My friend Charles Kuffner, proving again that he’s one of the few bloggers who matter, has an interview with Richard Morrison, the Democrat who is trying to defeat Tom DeLay in his suburban Houston district. He’s also written a bit of a primer about the race. Apparently the most reliable poll shows DeLay at 49% and Morrison at 39%.

Interested Americans have the option of donating to Morrison here.

September 13, 2004

Vote for Greer and Michels (Wisconsin only)

Posted by Harry

If you are a Democrat living in Wisconsin I’d like to encourage you to vote, tomorrow, for Tim Michels in the US Senate primary, and, if you live in the Second District, for Ron Greer in the Congressional primary. The Democratic candidates in the general election are Russ Feingold and Tammy Baldwin respectively. At present Russ Darrow seems the Republican most likely to cause trouble for Feingold; Michels is not (quite) as wealthy, has worse name recognition, and is more immoderate: I think Feingold would find it easier to beat Michels, so I’d like to see him win the primary. Greer makes Alan Keyes look like a raving pinko (in both senses of pinko). His opponent, Dave Magnum, seems fine in many ways (‘fine’ here being a relative term, in a world in which pretty much everyone is pretty awful), and is much more likely to give Baldwin a real fight. If you care about Kerry winning, by the way, a Greer candidacy is more likely to trigger lefty voter turnout in this district than Tammy alone or than Kerry himself (unless he turns out to be the Manchurian candidate).

All registered voters are allowed to vote in the Republican primaries; it’s just that in doing so you disqualify yourself from voting in the Democratic primary. In several Wisconsin congressional districts nothing is at stake in the Dem primaries, so there is no opportunity cost.

Of course, in a better electoral system parties would not allow their opponents to participate in candidate selection. But between them the Republican and Democratic Parties and the State of Wisconsin have given you this power, so I am encouraging you to use it.

September 12, 2004

9/12

Posted by Eszter

There were the personal tragedies of 9/11 for the family and friends of those who died.. and then followed all the other tragedies. Michael Froomkin links to this disturbing film.

September 10, 2004

Dick Cheney on Employment

Posted by Kieran

By now you’ve probably read this story about what Dick Cheney said yesterday:

Indicators measure the nation’s unemployment rate, consumer spending and other economic milestones, but Vice President Dick Cheney says it misses the hundreds of thousands who make money selling on eBay. “That’s a source that didn’t even exist 10 years ago,” Cheney told an audience in Ohio. “Four hundred thousand people make some money trading on eBay.”

John Edwards said this morning that “If we only included bake sales and how much money kids make at lemonade stands, this economy would really be cooking.” I see three possible responses from Cheney.

  • Say you’ve changed your mind and that women’s domestic labor should be counted as part of the formal economy. Job-creation problem solved.
  • Issue a corrected transcript of the speech, with one of the following corrections: “Four hundred thousand”; “trading on eBay NASDAQ”; or “That’s a source that didn’t even exist 10 years ago I just pulled out of my ass right now, because I think you’re all idiots.”
  • Glance out the window, turn to Scooter Libby and say, “Let them sell tchochkes.”

Stealing the election

Posted by Henry

Kosuke Imai and Gary King have just published an article in Perspectives on Politics that’s controversial - but quite important. King is a noted methodologist, who’s made very considerable strides in the application of models of ecological inference in the social sciences. On behalf of the New York Times, Imai and King applied their methodology to the disputed election results in Florida. The results are eye-opening.

(1) If overseas absentee ballots had not been counted illegally, there is a very small chance that Gore would have won the election outright. In Imai and King’s account (where they admit that there is some room for alternative interpretation), the chance that Gore actually should have won the election on this alone is around 0.2%.

(2) More to the point: if the recounted votes in Miami Dade and Palm Beach had not been rejected by Katherine Harris, Gore would have won with 82% probability. In Imai and King’s words

To put it one way, the massive differences in probabilities from 0.002 to 0.82 for a Gore victory were due to the decisions made by Katherine Harris.

Finally, and most damningly, Imai and King find “strong and independent support” (albeit indirect) for the proposition that:

the propensity of local election officials to violate the law and accept bad ballots was substantially greater in counties where Bush strategists believed there was more absentee ballot support for their candidate and tried to convince election officials to accept bad ballots.

One should note some caveats - ecological models are still as much art as science. Still, Imai and King have done their homework - they present a strong body of evidence to support the contention that Republican efforts to manipulate the count had a decisive impact in Florida in 2000.

September 09, 2004

Secrets of the Bush Presidency

Posted by Kieran

As Kitty Kelly’s hatchet-job on the Bush family nears publication, lots of people are linking to these additional revelations about George W. Bush by the Poorman. And you know what? So am I, because they’re great. Go read, especially if you are a staff writer for the Kerry campaign.

September 07, 2004

Stupidity and ideology

Posted by Chris

David Aaronovitch in today’s Guardian , defending the idea that poor people in the US might have good reason to vote for George W. Bush:

But suppose, for a moment, that the Kansas voters aren’t so dumb. Suppose, first, that they don’t buy the economic prospectus unwittingly along with the social populism, but consciously because they actually agree with it - because (and this hurts) it does actually tie in with their concrete experience. In other words, their consciousness is not false at all. Why might a poor person be opposed to tax increases and social benefits? Possibly because they hope to be richer themselves, maybe because they believe that high benefits are a disincentive to work and conceivably they believe both because that is exactly what they see happening around them - folks getting rich and folks idling.

I’m sure that Aaronovitch underestimates the importance of stupid people in determining elections. There are, after all, a lot of stupid people about (even here in Yoorp). Nevertheless, we can ask whether the beliefs Aaronovitch attributes to the Bush-voting-Kansas-poor are rational, given what we know about social mobility in the US, the extremely small section of society that benefits from Bush’s tax cuts etc. It is also rather odd that he decries the idea their beliefs might be the product of false consciousness on the grounds that they are rather the product of their lived experience. But the Marxist-educated Aaronovitch ought to know that it is a highly characteristic feature of ideological beliefs that they involve extrapolation by the believing subject from the immediate and local features of their experience to beliefs about the social world as a whole. So Mrs Thatcher’s belief that national economies should be managed on the model of a greengrocer’s shop in Grantham certainly “tied in with her conscious experience” and was ideological for all that. Why is Aaronovitch writing this stuff?

September 03, 2004

iRate, iRrational, iRritating

Posted by John Holbo

[Down]load the flying bats!

First get iTunes. Then go to the Apple music store. Scroll down; right under Eric Stoltz’ celebrity playlist is an RNC link, taking you to a bunch of free ‘audiobooks’ of the speeches. (You can also go to music store->audiobooks and get the Dem’s convention speechs. They just aren’t on the front page right now.) Oddly enough, “Bat out of Zell” Miller didn’t make the cut. No speech from him. Hmmm. Maybe they just haven’t gotten it up yet and tomorrow it will be available. (Anyone up for a little iPod ad parody photoshopping of Zell?)

Primat der Aussenpolitik

Posted by Henry

How is the Iraq debacle affecting Bush’s popularity? This is the subject of another intriguing APSA paper, co-written by Erik Voeten and Paul R. Brewer.1 Like most papers being presented at APSA this week, it’s a work in progress – for one thing there’s a couple of months’ more data to be collected – but it makes some very interesting arguments.

A couple of key points emerge. First, public opinion on the war is affecting Bush’s popularity – but the relationship is complicated. The paper suggests that public opinion on the war can be disaggregated into three different evaluations – (1) of whether the war was a good idea in the first place, (2) of whether the President is doing a good job in prosecuting the war, and (3) of whether the war is going well. According to the paper, evaluations of whether the war was a good idea in the first place should have the strongest relationship with Bush’s popularity. However, they’re also the most strongly rooted of the three, and thus the most difficult to change. Evaluations of whether the war is going successfully or not, are the most likely to be changed by events – but also have the weakest effect on Bush’s popularity. A 1% change in the number of respondents who think the war is going well corresponds to a.29% shift in the evaluation of Bush’s performance in Iraq, and only a .17% shift in the the number of respondents who think the war was worth it.

The data suggest that there is a strong relationship between support for the war and Bush’s approval rating. A 1% increase in support for the war equates to a .74% increase in Bush’s approval rating (and vice versa). However, support for the war seems perhaps to be becoming less important in relative terms – there is some tentative evidence suggesting that economic confidence is now becoming an increasingly important influence on Presidential approval ratings.

The paper is an empirical investigation rather than a political brief, but it’s hard to avoid the temptation of trying to draw political lessons from it. First, it suggests that the war is hurting Bush’s popularity – but that in order to really make substantial gains, the Democrats would have to convince waverers not only that the war is going badly, but that it was a misconceived project in the first place. Given the rather remarkable level of cognitive dissonance that many war supporters seem prepared to tolerate, this is a tall order. However, as Erik and Paul note, a major event in the war could have quite substantial positive or negative consequences for Bush’s support. Second, while the war is still a key political issue driving support (or the lack of it) for the administration, the economy may be starting to play a more important role. Structural explanations of public opinion have their limitations of course – they can’t capture the more evanescent political controversies that may affect elections. Even so, there’s good reason to believe that the war and the economy are going to continue to have a powerful effect on people’s voting intentions – and on current form, that can’t be good news for Bush.

1 Full disclosure - Erik is a colleague of mine at GWU and a grad-school mate of Kieran and Eszter’s.

September 02, 2004

No more years ?

Posted by John Quiggin

A while ago, I discussed the idea that the forthcoming US election would be a good one for the Democrats to lose, eventually reaching the conclusion that the damage that would be caused by four more years of Bush would offset any political benefits from finally discrediting the Republicans.

Now Niall Ferguson looks at the same question from the other side. Like me1, he thinks this would be a good election for either party to lose. But, since he’s taking the Republican side of the debate, the damage that a second Bush term would cause is an argument in favor of his case. He concludes
moderate Republicans today may justly wonder if a second Bush term is really in their best interests. Might four years of Kerry not be preferable to eight or more years of really effective Democratic leadership?

1 Though not for exactly the same reasons. He puts more weight on criticisms of Kerry than I think can be justified, and less on the extent to which painful economic adjustments are already inevitable.

Mad as Zell

Posted by Ted

I’ve got to give today’s MVP in debunking to Fred Kaplan at Slate.

Here, one more time, is the truth of the matter: Kerry did not vote to kill these weapons, in part because none of these weapons ever came up for a vote, either on the Senate floor or in any of Kerry’s committees.

This myth took hold last February in a press release put out by the RNC. Those who bothered to look up the fine-print footnotes discovered that they referred to votes on two defense appropriations bills, one in 1990, the other in 1995. Kerry voted against both bills, as did 15 other senators, including five Republicans. The RNC took those bills, cherry-picked some of the weapons systems contained therein, and inferred that Kerry voted against those weapons. By the same logic, they could have claimed that Kerry voted to disband the entire U.S. armed forces; but that would have raised suspicions and thus compelled more reporters to read the document more closely.

What makes this dishonesty not merely a lie, but a damned lie, is that back when Kerry cast these votes, Dick Cheney—who was the secretary of defense for George W. Bush’s father—was truly slashing the military budget…

I’m not accusing Cheney of being a girly man on defense. As he notes, the Cold War had just ended; deficits were spiraling; the nation could afford to cut back. But some pro-Kerry equivalent of Arnold Schwarzenegger or Zell Miller could make that charge with as much validity as they—and Cheney—make it against Kerry.

The whole thing is great.

P.S. In the comments to a thoughtful Obsidian Wings post, a few people have said that delegates were chanting “Hang ‘em” when Kerry or Edwards (or maybe just Edwards) were mentioned. Can anyone confirm or deny? Is there a reasonable story behind this?

Wibbly Wobbly

Posted by Kieran

Zell ‘I am a Democrat because we are the party of hope’ Miller says John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure. Except maybe that guy who delivered Clinton’s keynote a decade or so ago and is delivering Bush’s now. What’s his name again?

Miller could have used some bits of the Bush Twins Speech to better effect than they did. “And as to my fifty year career in the Democratic Party … Well, when I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible!” Would’ve played much better.

Anyway, all in all a ringing endorsement of the the cardinal conservative virtues of steadfastness, loyalty, constancy and, in the words of another well-known Democrat a “partisan,” “crude” and “gob-smackingly vile” effort “jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric.” Vote for Bush because Zell Miller told you Kerry flip-flops and we shouldn’t change horses in midstream.

September 01, 2004

Easy call

Posted by Ted

The non-political Vietnam Veterans of America have condemned the Purple Hearts band-aids worn as jokes by some Republican delegates.

Vietnam Veterans of America has received reports of delegates at the Republican National Convention disseminating and wearing “Purple Heart” band-aids in mockery of one of nation’s most distinctive honors, the Purple Heart medal…

The spirit of the award recognizes the personal sacrifice of our troops without regard to the severity or nature of the wound. It is the wounding itself that merits the honor. To demean the decoration and the sacrifice it symbolizes demeans all veterans and the patriots who honor them.

With our nation’s sons and daughters at war to protect global freedom, demeaning military service in this way is especially hurtful. Vietnam Veterans of America urges all Americans to decry this type of outrageous, disrespectful, and infantile behavior.

(Bitter rant with links to Bush-supporters who thought this was funny deleted)

Good.

Via Oliver Willis

Hastert and the franking rules

Posted by Harry

As a fellow prohibitionist I decided to send an email to Mr Hastert asking him either to assure me that he has turned over the evidence he has of Mr. Soros’s wrongdoings to the relevant authorities or, if there is no evidence, to withdraw his accusations as prominently as possible. I got this very odd message after I send my email:

Due to Congressional franking rules I cannot send a personal response to people outside the 14th District of Illinois. Your opinion is still important to me though and will be registered.

What on earth does this mean? The Speaker of the House is not allowed to correspond with people outside his district? Can this be right? I am not asking this frivolously, or to make a partisan point against the Speaker, since my experience of US electoral and campaigning laws is sufficient to know that it is labyinthine and bizarre in the extreme; incredible as it is I’m entirely willing to believe it. I ask so that some of the experts out there can explain what it means.

Link roundup

Posted by Ted

Fred Clark has two excellent posts (here and here) about the Republican vision of the “ownership society.” I can’t help but quote this:

Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., began his speech Tuesday at the Republican National Convention by talking about his father. “My dad, a family doctor in Tennessee for 50 years,” he said.

That would be Thomas Frist Sr., the founder of Columbia/HCA — a giant chain of more than 500 for-profit hospitals, outpatient centers and home health care agencies. HCA is worth about $20 billion.

So your basic Tennessee country doctor then.

Or this:

… The Republicans’ agenda … potentially involves a historic restructuring of the American system of government. Roughly two-thirds of taxable income is paid to workers in the form of wages and benefits. The other third goes to reward capital, or accumulated savings, in the form of corporate profits, dividends and interest payments. If Bush’s economic agenda was fully enacted, the vast bulk of these payments wouldn’t be taxed at all, and labor would end up shouldering practically the entire burden of financing the federal government.

In a new book, “Neoconomy: George Bush’s Revolutionary Gamble with America’s Future,” Daniel Altman, a former economics reporter for the Times and The Economist, describes what such a system might look like. “The fortunate and growing minority who managed to receive all their income from stocks, bonds and other securities would pay nothing — not a dime — for America’s cancer research, its international diplomacy, its military deterrent, the maintenance of the interstate highway system, the space program or almost anything else the federal government did. … Broadly speaking, that fortunate minority would be free-riders.”
That is President Bush’s goal and agenda for the next four years. Sound good to you?

Laura Rozen asks:

Why is the National Review promoting as one of its “Editor’s Picks” a book on Islam by the spokesman for the indicted Bosnian Serb war criminal Radovan Karadzic? Are they crazy? If you will remember, Karadzic is charged with genocide of Bosnia’s Muslims.

Tariq Ramadan has a column about his visa denial. If you didn’t follow Daniel’s link to Scott Martens on this subject, it’s well worth your time.

Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, recently suggested that George Soros, financier and funder of liberal causes, might have gotten his money from illegal drug cartels. Soros has demanded that Hastert either back up his accusation or apologize. Hastert, manfully, will do neither.

John Feehery, a spokesman for Hastert, said, “George Soros has an agenda. He supports the legalization of drugs, and the statement stands. [Hastert] has been fighting Soros on this for years because it is a character flaw. The Speaker thinks legalizing drugs is wrong.”

Soros was unavailable for comment.

Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) say that no company official in Soros’s investment fund is involved in a criminal proceeding or a party to a civil proceeding.

I support drug legalization. Last night, I went out to dinner with some friends. Did the money come from drug barons? We just don’t know.

UPDATE: Hastert won’t apologize, but he doesn’t believe what he said. “Of course the Speaker doesn’t think he gets money from drug cartels,” said Hastert’s spokesman. He just suggested it because…. it’s funny? What?

August 31, 2004

Sanitized for your protection

Posted by Ted
“The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect ‘domestic security.’ Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent.”

That’s a quote from a Supreme Court ruling in 1972. It’s also apparently a state secret, as the Justice Department tried to black it out on a court document.

It’s part of a complaint brought by the ACLU (.pdf file). One aspect of the Patriot Act is a gag provision that prohibits anyone who receives a National Security Letter (a request for information) from “disclos[ing] to any person that the [FBI] has sought or obtained access to information or records.” The ACLU is contesting this, and their legal documents are subject to redacting by the Justice Department. This quote from the Supreme Court was one of many portions redacted.

If you’ve ever thought about becoming a member of the ACLU, this might be a good time.

Why do they hate America ?

Posted by John Quiggin

What kind of limpwristed surrender monkey would deride one of his own country’s most important military honours as being a bogus scheme cooked up for political purposes? Morton Blackwell, Republican of Virginia (and dozens of other delegates to the RNC). (hat tip, commenter Peter Murphy)

Personally, I blame Kieran. He was obviously the one who gave them the idea.

Update Just looking around, I haven’t found anyone on the Republican side of the aisle who is at all upset by this. The fact that it might not play well politically has obviously sunk in with the convention organisers, who’ve tried to call a halt, but there’s no-one denouncing this guy in the way that, say, Ted Rall copped it from lots of people on the left, including CT. Perhaps commenters would like to point me to those I’ve missed. (Please don’t bother with arguments that Rall is worse than Morton. I agree that he is. OTOH, Rall is a cartoonist and Morton, along with dozens of likeminded people, is a senior figure in a major political party).

August 30, 2004

Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert

Posted by Ted
HASTERT: You know, I don’t know where George Soros gets his money. I don’t know where — if it comes overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from. And I…

WALLACE: Excuse me?

HASTERT: Well, that’s what he’s been for a number years — George Soros has been for legalizing drugs in this country. So, I mean, he’s got a lot of ancillary interests out there.

WALLACE: You think he may be getting money from the drug cartel?

HASTERT: I’m saying I don’t know where groups — could be people who support this type of thing. I’m saying we don’t know. The fact is we don’t know where this money comes from.

Readers are invited to share some of the other things we don’t know. If we’re creative enough, maybe the Speaker of the House will share them with the world next Sunday.

Via Kevin Drum. Welcome back.

UPDATE: Suggested by R. Robot, here’s a useful chart comparing George Soros to Reverend Moon.

A little more on Tariq Ramadan

Posted by Ted

Richard Silverstein at Tikun Olam has a few posts (here and here) about the decision of the State Department to deny a visa to Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan was to begin teaching in the fall at Notre Dame. (See also Chris’s post on the subject.) A spokeswoman for the State Department:

said Mr. Ramadan’s visa was revoked under a legal provision that bans espionage agents, saboteurs and anyone the United States “knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity.” She said she could not provide any details about Mr. Ramadan’s case.

I don’t know much about Ramadan, and no scholar is owed a visa. However, I’ve just read Daniel Pipes critical article about why Ramadan should be denied a visa (linked by Silverstein). His evidence alone doesn’t sound like it’s strong enough to keep him out of the country.

It’s maddening. I don’t like second-guessing this sort of decision, and it’s absolutely possible that there is good reason to suspect Ramadan. If that were true, the State Department probably shouldn’t be sharing their suspicions in great detail. But… if there’s real reason to suspect this scholar will engage in felonies while teaching at Notre Dame, why would the State Department invite Ramadan to reapply for another kind of visa?

August 29, 2004

A test of the efficient markets hypothesis

Posted by John Quiggin

Australian PM John Howard has called an election for 9 October. I’ve discussed the political issues here, but CT readers will also be interested in the implications for the efficient markets hypothesis. Centrebet , which didn’t do brilliantly last time, has the (conservative) Coalition at $1.55 and Labor at $2.30. If I’ve done my arithmetic properly, and allowing for the bookies’ margin, I get the implied probabilities as 0.60 for the Coalition and 0.40 for Labor. The polls have Labor ahead, but looking at all the discussion, I’d say that the consensus view is that the election is a 50-50 proposition, and that’s also my subjective probability.

How good a test of the efficient markets hypothesis will this be? Bayesian decision theory provides an answer1. If our initial belief is that the EMH is equally likely to be true or false, and the Coalition wins, we should revise our probability for the EMH up to 0.55. If Labor wins, we should revise it down to 0.45.

1 The workings are easy for those who know Bayes’ theorem and accept the modern subjectivist interpretation , but they won’t make much sense to those who don’t.

August 28, 2004

Liar

Posted by Belle Waring
Donald Rumsfeld doesn’t bother to read Pentagon reports, even the ones he commissions himself. Or Donald Rumsfeld is a liar.
The reports, one by a panel Mr. Rumsfeld had appointed and one by three Army generals, made clear that some abuses occurred during interrogations, that others were intended to soften up prisoners who were to be questioned, and that many intelligence personnel involved in the interrogations were implicated in the abuses. The reports were issued Tuesday and Wednesday.

But on Thursday, in an interview with a radio station in Phoenix, Mr. Rumsfeld, who was traveling outside Washington this week, said, “I have not seen anything thus far that says that the people abused were abused in the process of interrogating them or for interrogation purposes.”

A transcript of the interview was posted on the Pentagon’s Web site on Friday. Mr. Rumsfeld repeated the assertion a few hours later at a news conference in Phoenix, adding that “all of the press, all of the television thus far that tried to link the abuse that took place to interrogation techniques in Iraq has not yet been demonstrated.” After an aide slipped him a note during the news conference, however, Mr. Rumsfeld corrected himself, noting that an inquiry by three Army generals had, in fact, found “two or three” cases of abuse during interrogations or the interrogations process.

[Sir, there seems to be smoke coming out of your trousers…]

In fact, however, the Army inquiry found that 13 of 44 instances of abuse involved interrogations or the interrogation process, an Army spokeswoman said. The report itself explicitly describes the extent to which each abuse involved interrogations….

Mr. Rumsfeld also misstated an important finding of an independent panel he appointed and is led by James R. Schlesinger, a former defense secretary, saying in the interview with KTAR radio, “The interesting thing about the Schlesinger panel is their conclusion that, in fact, the abuses seem not to have anything to do with interrogation at all.”

But the first paragraph of the Schlesinger panel report says, “We do know that some of the egregious abuses at Abu Ghraib which were not photographed did occur during interrogation sessions and that abuses during interrogation sessions occurred elsewhere.”
.

What his excuse? “That The New York Times would find the secretary’s misstatement and the subsequent effort to set the record straight is of interest is a shameless example of news that is sought during the dog days of August in Washington,”…Pentagon spokesman, Eric Ruff said.

Misstatements. My people call them “lies”.

August 27, 2004

The political economy case for Kerry

Posted by John Quiggin
Brad de Long gives a rather unenthusiastic case for thinking Kerry will be a better economic manager than Bush. The first and most convincing of his proposed reasons is that
The Bush administration always does much worse than you anticipate, no matter how low your expectations are
The others are the quality of his team and the fact that he will restore proper processes.

The reason Brad doesn’t display more enthusiasm is that Kerry hasn’t given much ground for it. Kerry has a plan to cut the deficit in half, but then, so does Bush1.

I’d like to offer an argument based on political business cycles to suggest that Kerry has to do better than Bush.

It’s unclear how long the present budget and current account deficits can run on without generating a serious crisis, but a sufficiently wild-eyed optimist could give it five years. As we’ve seen, the Bush Administration has no shortage of wild-eyed optimists. So it’s reasonable to expect that, if Bush gets back in, he’ll go an as before, planning to leave any problems to his successor.

By contrast, Kerry is presumably hoping to be his own successor, that is, to serve a second term, and not to encounter a major economic disaster while in office. No-one remotely in contact with reality imagines that current policies (or the soft options spelt out so far in Kerry’s plan) will stave off budgetary crisis beyond 2012 [the baby-boomer Social Security wave starts in 2010]. So Kerry will have to bite some bullets, fairly early in his term of office. I offered some tactical suggestions on this a while ago.

1 And if you believe Bush’s plan, you might be interested in the IPO of my new dotcom, which will replace the Brooklyn Bridge with a virtual exchange, eliminating the need for anyone to actually cross the East River.

August 23, 2004

First they came for the grocers...

Posted by Ted

George Bush:

“I can’t be more plain about it,” Bush said. “I hope my opponent joins me in condemning these activities of the 527s (political groups that sponsor to ads). I think they’re bad for the system.”

Uggabugga links to a list of 527s and asks, “Why does the Bush campaign object to ads that the Oregon Grocery Association might run? What are they doing that is objectionable?”

Sorry to keep harping on this, but it’s pretty incredible that a serious candidate would talk like this. I doubt that five people in a hundred would agree with Bush’s position if it was presented in a cooler-headed context. The right of people to organize and speak out is right at the heart of the First Amendment.

And yet, this has been Bush’s talking point: ban all the ads from unregulated groups. The Sierra Club. The Club for Growth. The League of Conservation Voters. GOPAC. The National Association of Realtors. They’re all bad for the system, and none of them should be allowed to advertise at all. Bush thinks that the government should have this kind of power; he claims that he thought that he had already banned these groups from speaking.

Incredible.

Mankiw: Bush Economy not as bad as Worst Crisis in History of Capitalism

Posted by Kieran

Greg Mankiw’s Op-Ed made me feel much better, no matter what Brad DeLong thinks.

Pleasant Surprise

Posted by Kieran

This morning I cut myself while shaving. It was just a superficial wound, but as I was coming out of the bathroom the doorbell rang and there was this army officer in full dress uniform at the door. He presented me with a Purple Heart. I expressed some surprise but he just said “Standard medal-issuing procedure, Sir,” adding that his job had been made much easier by “the new Homeland Security Surveillance Cameras.” I asked him did he want to come in for a cup of coffee, but he said he had to run down to Number 27 to award a Silver Star to a woman who’d just caught the pancake-batter bowl before it went all over the kitchen floor.

Is This a Joke?

Posted by Belle Waring
I know it’s hard to fire people who work for the government and all, but why does Teresa LePore still have a job?
Palm Beach County has introduced an absentee ballot that requires voters to indicate their choices by connecting broken arrows, sparking criticism that it is even more confusing than the infamous “butterfly ballot” used in the 2000 election. Theresa LePore, the elections supervisor who approved the 2000 butterfly ballot, opted for a ballot design for the Aug. 31 primary that asks voters to draw lines joining two ends of an arrow. LePore said she selected the ballot after tests showed it was easier for voters.

Jesse at pandagon has more.

August 21, 2004

Swift Boat Bloggers for Denying the Bleedin' Obvious

Posted by Kieran
David Adesnik posts here and here about the whole Swift Boat Veterans thing. The posts are funny:
I still haven’t gotten to the heart of the matter, which is who is telling the truth, the Vets or the Times. … While it is hard to trust anyone’s memories of events that happened thirty-five years ago, it is extremely hard to trust such memories when they’re coming form individuals who had different memories of the same events quite recently … contemporary records confirm Kerry’s account and Louis Letson, the army doctor who says Kerry lied, admits that “I guess you’ll have to take my word for it” … According to Larry Thurlow, one of the Swift Vets who witnessed the events in question, there was no enemy fire. However, the WaPo recently got a hold of the citation for Thurlow’s Bronze Star (which he won during the same battle). In it, there are multiple reference to enemy fire. … As I said before, I haven’t come to any firm conclusions about the Swift Vets accusation. My mind is still open and I’ll be happy to look at further evidence. But so far, things are looking pretty good for John F. Kerry.
Amazing. In his earlier post David even chastises those politically naive people who complain that the Ads are being funded by unscrupulous rich Republicans:
But more importantly, who do you expect to fund anti-Kerry attack ads? The College Republicans? No, of course not. It’s going to be rich and well-connected GOP backers who take it on themselves to be the President’s hatchet men.

Sooo, the charges contradict the contemporary written records, they contradict previous statements by the SBV people praising Kerry’s conduct, and hard-headed political observers like Oxblog know the only reason we’re hearing any of these guys is that they’re being financed by “hatchet men” for the Bush campaign. But don’t expect us to make up our mind in favor of Kerry! For exit-strategy purposes, David’s conceding that “things are looking pretty good” for Kerry but still, this is not the time to “come to any firm conclusions.”

Look, if you don’t like Kerry or have no confidence in the New York Times as a news source, or don’t see anything wrong with unsupportable hatchet-jobs, let’s just come out and say it, OK? But honestly — the kind of faux “open-mindedness” that refuses to draw warranted conclusions from the evidence is better left to the Tortoise and Achilles.

August 20, 2004

Volokh on McClellan

Posted by Ted

Eugene Volokh has more on Scott McClellan’s call for an end to “all of this unregulated soft money activity.” Says Eugene:

You can call it “soft money,” but it’s speech, of the sort that political movements such as the antislavery movement, the temperance movement, the civil rights movement, and many other movements (good and bad) have engaged in. Without such speech, who gets to speak effectively, in the large traditional media? The media itself; the parties; and the politicians who have the infrastructure to raise hard money in $2000 chunks; and a few super-rich people (unless they’re shut up, too). People who care deeply about a subject, enough to pool even tens of thousands of their dollars with others who care equally strongly, would be shut out.

UPDATE: Aaron Schwartz emails a link to Bush himself on Larry King Live. McClellan wasn’t off the reservation; Bush is saying (a) I want to get rid of unregulated, independent soft-money political speech, and (b) I didn’t understand the law I signed.

G. BUSH: Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves.

There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed a law that I thought would get rid of those, and I called on the senator to — let’s just get anybody who feels like they got to run to not do so.

KING: Do you condemn the statements made about his…

G. BUSH: Well, I haven’t seen the ad, but what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people, and they’ve said some bad things about me. I guess they’re saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air. I think there ought to be full disclosure. The campaign funding law I signed I thought was going to get rid of that. But evidently the Federal Election Commission had a different view.

UPDATE: Julia has more.

Comedy is not pretty

Posted by Ted

The New York Times has looked into the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

There were a lot of folks on the right who knew better than to lie down with these dogs. They knew that they were promoting a huge pile of horseshit, but they were desperate to believe that there was a pony in there somewhere. What they found is a charge that Kerry misreported being in Cambodia, thirty-six years ago, by as many as five whole weeks. Devastating.

They wanted mainstream media attention for this campaign. I do hope that they enjoy it.

(UPDATE: OK, sometimes comedy is pretty.)

A few highlights below.

The group decided to hire a private investigator to investigate Mr. Brinkley’s account of the war - to find “some neutral way of actually questioning people involved in these incidents,” Mr. O’Neill said.

But the investigator’s questions did not seem neutral to some.

Patrick Runyon, who served on a mission with Mr. Kerry, said he initially thought the caller was from a pro-Kerry group, and happily gave a statement about the night Mr. Kerry won his first Purple Heart. The investigator said he would send it to him by e-mail for his signature. Mr. Runyon said the edited version was stripped of all references to enemy combat, making it look like just another night in the Mekong Delta.

“It made it sound like I didn’t believe we got any returned fire,” he said. “He made it sound like it was a normal operation. It was the scariest night of my life….”





The group also offers the account of William L. Schachte Jr., a retired rear admiral who says in the book that he had been on the small skimmer on which Mr. Kerry was injured that night in December 1968. He contends that Mr. Kerry wounded himself while firing a grenade.

But the two other men who acknowledged that they had been with Mr. Kerry, Bill Zaladonis and Mr. Runyon, say they cannot recall a third crew member. “Me and Bill aren’t the smartest, but we can count to three,” Mr. Runyon said in an interview. And even Dr. Letson said he had not recalled Mr. Schachte until he had a conversation with another veteran earlier this year and received a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte himself.

Mr. Schachte did not return a telephone call, and a spokesman for the group said he would not comment….






The group says Mr. Kerry himself wrote the reports that led to the medal. But Mr. Elliott and Mr. Lonsdale, who handled reports going up the line for recognition, have previously said that a medal would be awarded only if there was corroboration from others and that they had thoroughly corroborated the accounts.

“Witness reports were reviewed; battle reports were reviewed,” Mr. Lonsdale said at the 1996 news conference, adding, “It was a very complete and carefully orchestrated procedure.” In his statements Mr. Elliott described the action that day as “intense” and “unusual…”





According to a citation for Mr. Kerry’s Bronze Star, a group of Swift boats was leaving the Bay Hap river when several mines detonated, disabling one boat and knocking a soldier named Jim Rassmann overboard. In a hail of enemy fire, Mr. Kerry turned the boat around to pull Mr. Rassmann from the water.

Mr. Rassmann, who says he is a Republican, reappeared during the Iowa caucuses this year to tell his story and support Mr. Kerry, and is widely credited with helping to revive Mr. Kerry’s campaign.

But the group says that there was no enemy fire, and that while Mr. Kerry did rescue Mr. Rassmann, the action was what anyone would have expected of a sailor, and hardly heroic. Asked why Mr. Rassmann recalled that he was dodging enemy bullets, a member of the group, Jack Chenoweth, said, “He’s lying.”

“If that’s what we have to say,” Mr. Chenoweth added, “that’s how it was.”

A damage report to Mr. Thurlow’s boat shows that it received three bullet holes, suggesting enemy fire, and later intelligence reports indicate that one Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded, reaffirming the presence of an enemy. Mr. Thurlow said the boat was hit the day before. He also received a Bronze Star for the day, a fact left out of “Unfit for Command.”

August 19, 2004

What'd I sign?

Posted by Ted

Atrios has a good question:

I really don’t understand why there hasn’t been more attention paid to this, from little Scott McClellan:
We’ve called on Senator Kerry to join us and call for an end to all of this unregulated soft money activity.

What exactly does this mean? Should all expenditures be “regulated?” Regulated how? Should my friends and I not be able to throw some dollars together and buy ads?

I mean, I’m a tepid supporter of various Campaign Finance Reform endeavors, but I didn’t realize that president had such extreme views. Or does he? Can someone pin him down?

The quote isn’t out of context- I’ve got the whole exchange under the fold. McClellan repeatedly says that the President calls for an end to all unregulated soft money activity. Surely he can’t mean that?

McClellan also says “the President thought he got rid of all of this unregulated soft money activity when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law.” Incredibly, he seems to be making the argument that Bush doesn’t understand the laws he signs. Even I know that campaign finance reform did nothing of the sort.

But let’s take McClellan seriously for a second. Are we supposed to believe that Bush thought he was signing away the right of Americans to engage in “unregulated soft money activity”? I mean, we Timberites pay money for our bandwidth. We engage in political speech. And we’re completely unregulated.

Did Bush think that he was outlawing this?

Here’s the exchange:

Q There’s a new ad by MoveOn.org that talks about — that criticizes Bush’s record in the National Guard. What’s your response to that, and what do you say to Harkin, who called Cheney a coward for not serving?

MR. McCLELLAN: We have been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative political attacks from these shadowy groups that are funded by unregulated soft money. And the President has condemned all of the ads and activity going on by these shadowy groups. We’ve called on Senator Kerry to join us and call for an end to all of this unregulated soft money activity. And so we continue to call on him to join us in condemning all these ads and calling for an end to all of this activity.

Q What about Senator Harkin, who called the Vice President a coward?

MR. McCLELLAN: That’s just more negative political attacks by the Kerry campaign and the supporters of the Kerry campaign.

Q But, Scott, the MoveOn.org ad, back to that. Senator Kerry denounced the ad specifically, saying it’s not indicative of their — the way they feel about the Bush service in the National Guard. He specifically denounced the ad, which is something that they’re saying the Bush-Cheney campaign has not specifically done about the Swift Boats ad.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let’s be clear here. What the senator did was, he said one thing at the same time his campaign was doing another. His campaign went out there and essentially promoted this false negative attack at the same time Senator Kerry was saying he condemned it. The President has condemned all of this kind of activity, and he should join us in doing the same and calling for an end to all of it. Apparently he was against soft money before he was for it. And the President thought he got rid of all of this unregulated soft money activity when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law. And so it’s another example of — the senator’s latest comments are another example of him saying one thing and doing another.

August 14, 2004

Time Machine

Posted by John Holbo

It seems to be funny facts day here at CT (except it’s sad that Julia Child died, although 92 is not so sudden for someone so stuffed with butter and cream.) Anyway, via Colby Cosh, I found my way to this NY Times election 2000 Florida recount-o-matic web tool, allowing you to set different rules for ballot acceptability to see how it might have all gone differently.

Cosh writes of his experience in the time machine:
My hasty thought process - I was just taking the Times “web widget” for a spin - was that on optical ballots, only filled ovals, rather than “any marks indicating choice”, should qualify for counting. I figured that if you can’t follow a simple, visual set of voting instructions, you can’t really complain about disfranchisement. In cases where more than one person examined each ballot, I figured that unanimity was a reasonable standard to expect. And when it came to punch-card ballots I could allow holes with “chads detached at three corners” to serve as a signal of voting intention, but two corners seemed to be leaving the door open a little wide. So I, playing god, made my choices and hit “Show Results”.

By the best known guess, if the statewide Florida vote had been counted according to my reasonable-seeming criteria, the final result would have been:

George W. Bush: 2,915,247
Al Gore: 2,915,245
Bush margin of victory: 2

Not to be outdone, I lowered the bar, reasoning thusly: the point is not to immunize yourself against complaints of disenfranchizement. The point is to determine, best you can, who more people wanted to be President. (Yes, in the context of a hypothetical legal challenge this isn’t obviously the point. But as a rule for deciding elections it makes a certain sense. Just thought-experimentin’ here.) So I allowed ‘any marks indicating choice’ for optical, ‘at least two agree’ for independent observers, and ‘chads detached at one corner’. I couldn’t bring myself to lower myself into dimple territory. Result: Gore by 60 votes.

This might be fuel for unkind jokes - I do recall them - to the effect that Democrats are too dumb to punch their ballots properly. So I went back and reset the machine’s controls mercilessly. Disdaining Cosh’s tolerance of 3-corner detachment, I insisted on nothing less than the Full Punch Monty, along with actually colored in circles and complete unanimity on the part of recounters. Result: Gore by 134 votes.

What this obviously shows - as many Republicans know or at least suspect - is that the Democratic party consists of a morlock-like underclass, incapable of punching a simple ballot, and an eloi-like intellectual elite, whose fanatic, statist punctiliousness compels them to leave not a chad corner dangling on election day. Caught between the degenerate morlocks and hyper-evolved eloi is the ‘regular guy’, a Red Stater, who prefers beer to chardonnay, who has been known to leave the occasional chad danging by a single corner in his haste to get home to watch NASCAR, and whose hard-earned wages the eloi are trying to transfer to the morlocks.

August 13, 2004

Sensitive

Posted by Ted

Liberal Oasis has a good collection of quotes from our sensitive Republican friends.

Julian Sanchez adds,

I swear, stuff like this is almost enough to make me want to become one of those partisan Democratic hacks that Matt refuses to be. It ought to be crystal clear to everyone—it surely is to Cheney—that Kerry meant by a “more sensitive” war on terror exactly what Bush did when he used the same word: It’s a point about more deft diplomacy, not a suggestion that we watch Steel Magnolias with Osama and talk about our feelings.

Via Tapped, who point out the shoddy job that the press has done in pointing out the dishonesty in Cheney’s remarks. The Washington Post, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times all fail to print Kerry’s entire quote in their articles about Cheney’s attack. With these guys, it doesn’t matter if what they’re saying is true; it only matters if it’s useful. It would be nice if the major media outlets didn’t keep falling for it.

August 12, 2004

Imagine

Posted by Ted
WASHINGTON- In an unusual joint press conference, President Bush and Senator John Kerry announced the nomination of Rep. Christopher Cox of California to serve as director of the CIA. The joint nomination virtually ensures Cox’s confirmation, at a time when Administration officials have warned the public to expect attacks. “In this time of uncertainty, we need stability in our intelligence agencies. I promised to reform our intelligence capabilities, and I intend to keep that promise,” said President Bush. “That’s why I’ve been in communication with Senator Kerry on this nomination…”

If you don’t like Christopher Cox, pick someone else. I wouldn’t dream of any President extending this kind of consideration for most appointments, but the CIA director is an unusual case. Porter Goss is a poison pill in a position where we can least afford one. There seems to be some agreement that Porter Goss’s open partisanship makes it almost inevitable that he will be dismissed in the event of a Kerry victory. That’s not good.

Maybe Goss will turn out to be an excellent head of the CIA. But his nomination has more than a whiff of positioning, and he’ll have no traction until November (if Bush wins) or January (if Kerry wins). If we’re sincerely expecting attacks, and we’re sincere about wanting to reform our intelligence, then we’ve got to have CIA leadership that can get to work, regardless of which way the votes fall.

Maybe I’m daydreaming, but it seems like we’ve missed a great opportunity for statesmanship. You may say that I’m a dreamer. But I’m not the only one.

August 11, 2004

The Political Slime Machine

Posted by Henry

Steven Johnson has written one of the smartest political essays that I’ve read in a long while, using a simplified version of complexity theory to explain why the Dean campaign went bad. Johnson argues that the Dean campaign was based on a simple positive feedback loop in which more volunteers and donations led to increased publicity, leading to yet more volunteers and donations usw. However, its radical decentralization and lack of complex communication meant that it wasn’t able to cope when the environment changed, and the feedback was interrupted, it couldn’t adapt. Like slime moulds and pheronome-induced ant trails, the Dean campaign was “great at conjuring up crowds … [b]ut … lousy at coping.”

Johnson suggests that other forms of emergent behaviour cope better with changes to the environment, but that they don’t scale very well. They’re probably not suited to large-scale national campaigns in complex polities like the US. This seems to me to be a useful corrective to some of the hype about new kinds of campaigning and fundraising. They are having important effects on politics - but it is unclear (at best) whether they can radically reshape politics at the national level. Johnson suggests that the political lessons of emergence apply more clearly and easily to Jane Jacobs style urbanism and local politics. It’s a fascinating little essay, which packs a lot of punch into seven pages. Go read.

August 10, 2004

Yellowcake analysis

Posted by Henry

Joseph Cirincione and Alexis Orton at the Carnegie Endowment have just put out a very useful short analytic brief on Iraq’s putative efforts to obtain uranium in Niger.

Their conclusion:

The numbers tell us that Iraq’s alleged interest in Niger uranium - even if true - never represented an immediate or significant threat to the United States. Simple math and common sense confirm that the claim should never have appeared in administration statements as evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapon program.

Liar

Posted by Ted

Either Bob Somerby has invented a transcript out of whole cloth, or he has caught Vice-President Dick Cheney lying on tape.

CHENEY: John Kerry is, by National Journal ratings, the most liberal member of the United States Senate. Ted Kennedy is the more conservative of the two senators from Massachusetts.

(LAUGHTER)

It’s true. All you got to do is go look at the ratings systems. And that captures a lot, I think, in terms of somebody’s philosophy. And it’s not based on one vote, or one year, it’s based on 20 years of service in the United States Senate. (emphasis added)

That’s not a matter of interpretation; that is a baldfaced lie. The National Journal ranking that Cheney is referring to is based on one year, 2003. Kerry and Edwards missed a lot of votes in 2003, because they were out campaigning. When the National Journal looked at their lifetime voting records, both Senators were in the middle of the Democratic pack. Here are the ten most liberal Democratic senators currently serving, according to the National Journal:

1. Mark Dayton, D-Minn. 2. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md.
3. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
4. Jon Corzine, D-N.J.
5. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
6. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
7. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
8. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
9. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
10. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt

When Republicans say that Kerry was ranked as the most liberal Senator, that’s an extremely misleading claim, but it’s technically true (for one year, according to one publication). When Cheney said that the ranking applied for 20 years of Kerry’s service, that’s not even technically true.

It’s fun to see Jon Stewart humiliate Rep. Henry Bonilla on this issue (the video is on the right). It’s not nearly as fun to realize that Kerry’s opponents get away with it constantly in front of professional journalists.

P.S. Googlebomb for most liberal senator. Pass it on.

August 09, 2004

Two men enter, one man leaves

Posted by John Holbo

So I wander for no particular reason to Hugh Hewitt’s blog and he’s quoting an approving review of his new book from the print edition of the National Review.

“Hugh Hewitt is a law professor and a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. He also has a great deal of joie de vivre, which is on display in his new book, If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It (Nelson, 259 pp., $19.99). The book is every bit as partisan as its title suggests, but the author comes across as a genuinely nice guy; he believes in personal friendships and civility across party lines, while recognizing with equal clarity that politics is a ‘death match, and your opponents are playing to win.’ Hewitt’s defense of partisanship - as opposed not just to bipartisan accomodationism, but to excesses of ideological purity - is refreshing, and especially timely in a campaign season that will ask the American people to choose between pretty stark alternatives. ‘It’s a war,’ he writes. ‘The stakes are too high to demand special attention and self-defeating gestures.’”

Now I haven’t read Hewitt’s book, don’t listen to his show. I’ve read some of his journalism. I can’t see the rest of the NR review. So this is substantially a priori. It strikes me that if the good people of your country are threatened by an army of implacable decepticon killers - the Democrats - you’re a bit of a quisling if you are ever going out of your way to shake their hands. And a deathmatch is a terrible time to pursue personal friendship. On the other hand, if in fact there are any legitimate grounds for treating some Democrats civilly - even befriending a few - then strongly implying otherwise with your title is hardly going to make you come across as a genuinely nice guy. (It’s obviously not just Kerry, according to Hewitt, otherwise it wouldn’t be necessary to crush the democrats EVERY time.)

And, yeah, it’s all some kinda metaphor: deathmatch. But what is it a metaphor for? (In what sense is Hewitt NOT an ideological purist if he thinks he’s in a deathmatch? You don’t negotiate or split the difference in a deathmatch.)

It could be that Hewitt’s book is more civil than his title indicates. I do understand how and why publishers are wont to throw out slabs of dripping red meat, title-wise. Hewitt has had Matthew Yglesias on his show, which shows good taste. He’s no Michael Savage or Ann Coulter. But you would think it would occur to the author of the review - or to Hewitt, upon reading the review - that the review at least appears to have been written by a disordered mind (even if some unstated fact about the book’s moderate content makes judgments based on its cover deceptive.) This praise reads like a throbbing, Orwell-grade migraine headache of cognitive dissonance. Love is hate, war is peace, snark is civility. A tendency to talk this way is not usually considered to be a good sign.

What’s that you say? Who cares if NR publishes puff-praise of fellow right-wingers? A tough question, but a fair one.

I guess I’m a little curious why Hewitt is apparently so obsessed with Democratic ‘cheating’. I mean, yeah, there used to be machine politics and the whole vote early and often tradition in the big cities. I studied history in school. But the Republicans have been such hands-down winners in the dirty fighting and all-around incivility sweepstakes in recent years that this really seems like the pot calling the reasonably clean white object black. Does anyone out there happen to know what Democratic malfeasance Hewitt deems so heinous it demonstrated the congenital deceitfulness of the breed? Despite the fact that Hewitt seems to think Democrats will profit by engagement with his ideas - “Buy one for your yourself and two for the undecided or Democratic voter in your life” - I find the title off-putting to the point of being unwilling to purchase one for myself. I cannot help feeling somehow he is going to help himself to premises I won’t be willing to grant. I suppose I would be willing to accept a free copy.

Seriously, where are the reasonable Republicans these days? (Like Ted said.) What reasonable REPUBLICAN thinks now - of ALL times - is the time for all good Republicans to abjure all ‘well, how did we get here?’ self-criticism and just hold every inch on every front? What a terrible strategy for the GOP.

August 07, 2004

Vote Kerry

Posted by Belle Waring

Could the Bush administration have burned an active al Qaeda double agent? Could they possibly have done something so stupid and/or amorally calculating? I almost can’t believe it, but this Juan Cole post (and linked Reuters article) is devastatingly convincing. I keep thinking that my estimation of the administration’s competence and good will has reached rock bottom, when a new trapdoor opens and I fall into some yet ranker underground oubliette.

August 06, 2004

Dem Panic Watch: Rainbow coalition special

Posted by Ted

Honest libertarian Jane Galt looks at the new jobs number and says, “I think we in the media should start practicing saying ‘President Kerry’.”

Honest self-proclaimed liberal Republican William Saletan has read the polls in some detail. My favorite part:

Look at the data going back to February. Over that period, Bush’s top score in the ABC trial heat is 48. In the CBS and ARG polls, it’s 46. During that time, Newsweek has repeatedly asked respondents, “Would you like to see George W. Bush re-elected to another term as president, or not?” The percentage saying Bush deserves re-election hasn’t risen above 46. The percentage saying he doesn’t deserve re-election hasn’t fallen below 50. During the same period, Zogby surveys have repeatedly asked voters, “Do you think George W. Bush deserves to be re-elected as president of the United States, or is it time for someone new?” The percentage saying Bush deserves to be re-elected hasn’t risen above 45. The percentage saying it’s time for someone new hasn’t fallen below 51.

Honest liberal Billmon also looks at the new jobs report and says:

High unemployment, high energy prices, inflation-driven wage gains that still fail to keep up with prices. Gee, where have we seen that picture before? Jimmy Carter shakes his head sadly and says, “Don’t ask.”

Further:

I just can’t help but point out that the latest Fox News poll shows a five-point swing towards Kerry among registered voters, and a three-point swing among Fox’s definition of “likely voters,” following the Democratic convention - the same one the Fox talking pinheads spent four days trying to redefine as a liberal hate rally.

Meanwhile, Bush’s approval rating has dropped to 44% - a record low for the Fox poll. That’s down three points from before the convention. His disapproval rating has risen to 48% - a record high - from 45% before the convention…

I fully expect to see the smoke pouring out of Bill O’Reilly’s ears as he rails against those biased liberals at Fox News.

You Call That Military Service?!

Posted by Belle Waring

I bet many of you are indignant about Kevin Drum’s recent dismissal of the Swift Boat Veterans Who Served Sorta Near Kerry For Truth. So indignant that only white-hot Gibletsian rage could cool your indignity. Actual quote:

GIBLETS: Kerry get down here immediately this is Giblets! We are bein attacked by… monkeys! Viet Cong cyborg monkeys! An we need your help!
JOHN KERRY: “I’m John Kerry, blah blah blah! I cannot help you Giblets because I am too busy gettin intentionally shot in the arm so I can get out of Vietnam!”
GIBLETS: Damn you Kerry that is like desertion from duty! Like way worse than say skippin out of your service in the Alabama National Guard!
JOHN KERRY: “Well screw you Giblets and screw America too! Now I will smoke pot and commit atrocities and plan for a day when I can raise taxes on everybody!”
GIBLETS: Nooo! Daaamn youuu Kerry!
FAFNIR: Giblets why are you talkin to a picture of John Kerry taped to a Barbie doll?
GIBLETS: Goway Fafnir you are messin everythin up!

Read the whole thing: advantage blogosphere!!!

August 05, 2004

Timeline

Posted by Ted

JuliusBlog has assembled a timeline of terror alerts, along with the bad news for the Bush Administration that preceeded them. They’ve done a good job of finding links and backup.

My take: It looks like a pattern- bad news for Bush is followed by a terror alert or the announcement that a terrorist has been captured- but I don’t think that I buy it. Any administration will consistently face a stream of bad news, large and small, bogus and legitimate. Even if the dates had been chosen by throwing darts at a wall calendar, a dedicated researcher could probably come up with a timeline that looked much like this.

I don’t think that it’s too hackish to say that a lot has gone wrong for Bush in the last year, but many of the most harmful stories were not met by a timely terror warning or capture announcement. I’m thinking of Richard Clarke, Valerie Plame, and the first release of pictures from Abu Ghraib.

I just don’t want to see this approach turned around on President Kerry, I guess.

August 04, 2004

What to think

Posted by Ted

Ken Layne is back from a long hiatus, and he’s smelling opportunism in the Sunday terror alert. He begins:

After getting through the insane security at CitiBank Headquarters — caused by four-year-old Evidence of Terror Plans released Sunday to scare the bejesus out of you — you get to say “Hi” to Laura Bush in the lobby! That’s neat. (emphasis added)

It’s neat when schedules work out that way.

Oh, and the Immediate Alert Scary-Ville terror info? Now they’re saying it actually refers to an attack planned for Sept. 2. You know, the last day of the Republican Convention in New York, when Bush gives his big speech?

This stinks. Go ahead and say, as Tom Ridge did this morning, “This is not about politics. It’s about confidence in government.” If you have to deny it’s about politics — while your party is actively campaigning in the locked-down buildings of New York City filled with teevee cameras and photographers and frazzled employees who wonder if today’s Terror Day — then you have done a Poor Job of showing us otherwise.

I didn’t know that. I’ve been content to be agnostic about this; I genuinely sympathize with the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” dillemma that the Administration faces.

But, yeah. If Homeland Security seriously believed that the CitiBank building was under direct threat- an “enemy target area”, specifically- what was Laura Bush doing there? Wouldn’t it put her safety at risk, while making the building a more attractive target?

Liberals and their unfair stereotypes

Posted by Ted

“I felt I should do my part to counter the prevailing notion in my neighborhood that Republicans are all obnoxious blowhards.”

Catherine Seipp, Beyond the Valley of the Bush-Bashers, in National Review Online

“I’m glad to be reminded that not everyone on the left is a Stalin apologist.”

Catherine Seipp, same article

via Roy Edroso

July 27, 2004

Crooked Timber Financial Newswire

Posted by Daniel

You haven’t seen it reported elsewhere, but on the Iowa Electronic Markets”, Kerry overtook Bush a couple of days ago. I don’t know if this is a “convention pop”; needless to say it would be pretty bad news for market efficiency if it were. In related news, the Kerry vote-share contract I bought a while ago is now back into profit, and I am still long. If/when I can be bothered reproducing the files, I will update my system’s equity curve - to be honest it doesn’t look that great, although one might argue that the system did the right thing in keeping me long.

July 22, 2004

Disgusting

Posted by Ted

Dwight Merideth had an excellent post the other day called “The Top 10 Ways To Change The Tone in Washington (For the Worse).” He could not have anticipated that the White House would have such a spectacular topper:

The White House helped to block a Republican-brokered deal on Wednesday to extend several middle-class tax cuts, fearful of a bill that could draw Democratic votes and dilute a Republican campaign theme, Republican negotiators said.

The White House blocked a package of tax cuts, targeted at middle- and lower-income taxpayers, because the bill was moderate enough to attract Democratic votes. They chose to fail, by their own principles, rather than allow a small amount of concilliation with the other party. I have a hard time thinking of a more effective way to give the finger to the principle of bipartisanship.

Michael Froomkin says, “This may be one of the most cynical ploys in US politics I ever read about. And I read a lot.” Paperwight has much more; he makes a good comparison to the Republican refusal to accept a Democratic deal to confirm most of Bush’s judicial appointments. And, he notices that the White House is attempting to soothe tempers by allowing more pork in the budget.

These guys have got to go.

July 21, 2004

Pandering to the wrong base

Posted by Ted
Mr. Bush noted: “The enemy declared war on us. Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president. The next four years will be peaceful years.” He repeated the words “peace” or “peaceful” many times, as he has done increasingly in his recent appearances. (emphasis added)

A few weeks ago, Kevin Drum asked, just what is it that people who support Bush on security grounds think that Bush will do and Kerry will not? Gregory Djerejian at the Belgravia Dispatch answered, in part:

To Kevin’s query: “(b)ut does anyone think there are any more wars coming up in the near future?”I’d answerwe’re in the middle of a war right now….
There’s, er, a lot going on—and I’m not confident that Kerry a) fully gets the stakes and b) will field a national security team that will be up to the challenge.

I’ve seen some version of this sentiment on a lot of pro-Bush blogs, and I think that it enjoys a lot of support. But how can it hold if Bush has decided to go around making the ludicrous promise that the next four years will be peaceful?

Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan

Dem Panic Watch

Posted by Ted

(Ron Burgundy is off tonight.)

From Radley Balko:

If you plug the latest battleground state poll results from Real Clear Politics into the L.A. Times’ handy interactive electoral map, the race right now stands at Kerry 322 and Bush 216.

Charlie Cook, via Mark Kleiman:

This race has settled into a place that is not at all good for an incumbent, is remarkably stable, and one that is terrifying many Republican lawmakers, operatives and activists.

Tony Fabrizio of the Republican polling firm Fabrizio McLaughlin & Associates, via Ryan Lizza:

Fabrizio found that undecided voters in 2004 are overwhelmingly anti-Bush and pro-Kerry. By almost every criteria they look like Kerry voters, according to the memo… As the memo notes, “Clearly, if these undecided voters were leaning any harder against the door of the Kerry camp, they would crash right through it.”

Ruy Teixeira:

And in the last four Gallup polls, independents are averaging a 14 point margin against Bush. To make up that deficit, Republicans would have to not only equalize their turnout with Democrats—against historical patterns—but actually beat the Democrats by about 4 points as a proportion of voters.
I don’t think this is remotely plausible. Such a scenario is only possible with high mobilization of Republicans that is not counterbalanced at all by mobilization of Democrats. That just isn’t going to happen this year (memo to Rove, Dowd and loveable ole Grover: we’re not in 2002 any more); to think it might is a complete fantasy.

UPDATE: From the Washington Post:

John F. Kerry and the major Democratic Party committees have collectively outraised their Republican counterparts this year, blunting one of the GOP’s biggest and longest-standing political advantages, new Federal Election Commission reports show.

For the first time since 1992, the Democratic candidate and the national and congressional fundraising committees combined to outraise their GOP counterparts over a six-month span of an election year, FEC data compiled by The Washington Post found. (emphasis added)

July 20, 2004

House Party

Posted by Ted

1. I went to see Outfoxed at a MoveOn house party this weekend. A good time was had by all. The house was easy to identify; it was the one surrounded by cars with pro-Kerry, anti-war or anti-Bush bumper stickers.

One car, in particular, was just plastered with at least 30 or 40 liberal bumper stickers. I happened to meet the woman who drives it, and she said that she’s had the bumper stickers on the car since the 2000 election. In all that time, living in Houston, she’s never had anyone say anything rude or critical to her. Not one middle finger, one “why do you hate America”, or anything.

2. Another woman at the party mentioned offhand that under Bush, we now spend over half of the federal budget on the military. This isn’t even close to being correct. She was an activist, and surely considered herself quite well-informed.

3. Some people that I know well had a MoveOn house party in Houston to discuss Fahrenheit 9/11 after its premiere. A couple of guys brought lawn chairs and rifles and sat on public property across the street, watching people drive up. They apparently weren’t breaking any laws by doing this, but the police sent them on their way when some people who had come for the house party crossed the street to argue/fight with them. (I don’t know which.)

David Brooks, are you listening? You can coast on this stuff for a week.

When Cheney Is On The Mic, It's Like a Cookie, They All Crumble

Posted by Belle Waring

The New Yorker has the inside scoop on what really ocurred when Dick Cheney threw down on Sen. Patrick Leahy, (D.-Vermont):

As a quick-thinking senatorial aide switched on the Senate’s public-address system and cued up the infamous “Seven Minutes of Funk” break, Mr. Leahy and Mr. Cheney went head-to-head in what can only be described as a “take no prisoners” freestyle rap battle….

Unfortunately, as other senators (along with assorted aides and support-staff members) were casting their votes to decide the winner, using the admittedly subjective but generally accepted “Make some noise up in here!” protocols, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Leahy took the proceedings to what one aide accurately described as “the next level.”

Edward M. Kennedy (D.-Mass.) was the first to notice that the two men were circling each other, Mr. Cheney brandishing a switchblade and Mr. Leahy the jagged neck of a broken bottle.

“Oh, snap!” Mr. Kennedy recalls thinking at the time. “It’s getting kind of hectic up in this piece.”

Man, some of those professional writers are almost as funny as the Fafblog!

July 17, 2004

Neck and neck

Posted by Chris

Online bookies BlueSquare now have Kerry and Bush neck and neck at 5/6 , which represents a significant shortening of Kerry’s odds. (Compare their odds on the next British general election, which have Labour 2/7 on.)

July 16, 2004

More on Moore

Posted by Chris

I just got back from seeing Farenheit 9/11. There’s a little voice saying I should pick away, argue about this point or that point, qualify, criticize. Others can do that. Moore makes one point quite brilliantly: that those who suffer and die come overwhelmingly from families and communities that are, shall we say, somewhat poorer than the politicians who chose to go to war, or the executives of the corporations who hope (hoped?) to profit from Iraqi reconstruction. Something like that is true of all wars, and if Moore were just making a general pacifist case then it would have been a weaker film. Instead, he was saying, or I took him to be saying , that those who expect others to bear the risks and costs of their projects better have a convincing justification for them. Self-defence might be one such justification, but plainly not in this case.

Those who have made the “humanitarian” case for war have never addressed the dirty little issue of who runs the risks and who does the dying. Rather, they’ve sought refuge in pointing out the plain truth that Saddam’s Iraq was an evil tyranny and that the world is a better place without it. So it was and so it is. But would or could this war have been fought if the children of the wealthy were at as much risk of dying as the children of the poor? One rather suspects not. It may be unpalatable to think that there’s a moral link between being willing to wage wars for democracy and human rights, and being willing to introduce conscription, but maybe those who have taken a leftist/liberal-hawk line on Iraq should be calling for a citizen army too. I’ve never read them doing so.

FMA roundup

Posted by Ted

The defeat of the Federal Marriage Amendment has led to some awfully good writing.

Fred Clark from the Slacktivist, a left-wing Christian, approaches the question “Why do some Christians hate gays but love bacon?” It’s a beautiful thing.

I’m not a fan of Thomas Frank. His adaptation of his thesis, The Conquest of Cool, is surprisingly good, but his pieces for the Baffler remind me of present-day Christopher Hitchens: sneering, blindingly angry, and unpersuasive to the unconverted. However, he’s managed to pop out a tight editorial for the NY Times. He argues that the failure of the FMA was intentional, part of a continuing effort to reclaim victim status for conservatives.

Losing is prima facie evidence that the basic conservative claim is true: that the country is run by liberals; that the world is unfair; that the majority is persecuted by a sinister elite. And that therefore you, my red-state friend, had better get out there and vote as if your civilization depended on it.

John Scalzi points out that the effort to “defend marriage” would actually have the effect of breaking up thousands of existing marriages.

So it’s pretty simple: If you actually want to defend marriage, you have defend all the legal marriages, and that includes the ones with two men in them, and the ones with two women. Otherwise you’re explicitly saying that the government has the right to void any marriage of any couple, so long as two-thirds of the House, Senate and states go along. Who wants to be the first to sign up for that?

Finally, MoveOn is running a fundraiser specifically for opponents of vulnerable supporters of the FMA. I love this idea.

A different kind of road trip

Posted by Eszter

Here’s a way to go on a fun and useful road trip this summer: drive to swing states to register Democrats to vote. Driving Votes provides all the necessary forms and helps you coordinate with others.

July 13, 2004

Knock on wood

Posted by John Holbo

There has been some discussion - by Matthew Yglesias and Kevin Drum, for example - of the issue of rescheduling elections in the event of a terrorist attack. On the one hand, concern about the administration’s motives in making this proposal; on the other hand, something to be said for laying out clear procedures beforehand. A quick point. The only good such a measure could possibly aim at would be ensuring public confidence and faith in the fairness of an election conducted under extraordinary circumstances. The only thing that could undermine that faith would be concern that extraordinary measures were being taken for partisan political gain. Partisan political appointees can hardly restore faith by fiat. So it isn’t just that a broad bi-partisan commission would be safer for democracy, as Kevin and Matt and others have reasonably remarked. Rather, it’s the case that no other arrangement would hold out any conceivable benefit. You would do just as well muddling through with no procedures in place. So even if you assume Bush and co. will act with the best of wills - an assumption made for argumentative purposes only - there is simply no point to the proposed measure as it stands.

July 12, 2004

The Limits of Politics

Posted by Henry

Megan McArdle responds to my previous post about third parties, suggesting that Barbara Ehrenreich (and I) have “about as tenuous a connection to reality as the folks who brought us Pepsi Clear.” Her counter-argument:

  • That ‘first-past-the-post’ voting tends to produce two party systems.
  • That presidential systems are much more prone to two-partyism than parliamentary ones.
  • That the reason why Ehrenreich’s (or indeed McArdle’s ideas) don’t become policy isn’t because they’re blocked by the system, but because most Americans disagree with them.
  • Therefore: third-partyism is an exercise in futility.

These arguments are exactly the sort of thing that we political scientists like to claim that we know something about (I note in passing that Megan’s confident assertion of these empirical relationships sits somewhat awkwardly with her belief that political science doesn’t have much to do with falsifiable predictions). On the first of these claims, there’s evidence from the literature to suggest that McArdle is sort of right (but not in a way that really helps her overall argument). On the second, there’s evidence to suggest that she’s fundamentally wrong. On the third, she seems to be on thin ice (if she’s making a limited claim) or falling through into the river beneath (if she’s making a strong general argument).

McArdle’s first claim is that ‘first past the post’ voting leads to two-party systems. This is a version of what political scientists call Duverger’s Law, which states in its original formulation that “the simple-majority single-ballot system favors the two-party system.” And indeed, there’s a fair amount of evidence to suggest that this law has real explanatory value, although there are many counter-examples.

This brings us on to McArdle’s next point. If there are important counter-examples to this general tendency, then McArdle’s big claim about American politics could be in trouble - the US could very easily be one such counter-example. Thus, McArdle makes a second claim - that the pesky counter-examples of countries with first past the post voting and more than two parties, are parliamentary democracies, not presidential ones like the US.

in those systems [parliamentary democracies], there is always the possibility that the winning party will not win quite enough votes to form a government, and thus your little party will get to be the coalition partner reaping political rewards out of its weight class—as the Greens in New Zealand, and the NDP in Canada. So in some ways, the parliamentary system actively rewards third party formation.

In the United States, on the other hand, being the guy in the little third party won’t get you the presidency, and will be a positive handicap in the legislature, because our legislature, for various reasons, doesn’t have anything like the party discipline of British-style parliamentary systems. Thus, our opposition often gets to help shape policy. This means that there is a large benefit to voting for the dominant opposition party.

This claim, while not implausible on its face, is unfortunately disconfirmed by the available evidence. Let’s take the general claim - that presidential systems are more likely to have competition between two (and just two) parties than parliamentary ones. In a forthcoming article in Comparative Political Studies, Terry Clark and Jill Witrock find strong evidence that precisely the opposite is true. On the basis of a regression analysis of electoral results in post-Communist Europe, they conclude that Duverger’s law is considerably weaker in countries with strong presidencies: these countries are more likely than countries with parliamentary systems to have several parties. As they note, there is a secondary literature strongly suggesting that this effect has more general application than Eastern Europe. Thus, it is in countries with strong presidential systems where we may expect Duverger’s law to apply weakly, if at all.

Indeed, when we look at the specific case of the US, this expectation is partly confirmed. Duverger’s law does not lead to a dearth of third parties. As the eminent political scientist, William Riker remarked in a classic article on Duverger’s Law, the US political system provides strong incentives for third parties to throw their hats in the ring, explaining what Riker describes as the “almost constant supply of third parties” (p.765). Hiroshi Okayama has a very interesting recent paper that speaks further to this, drawing on evidence from post-Civil War politics. While these parties may not last, they may have very substantial political effects.

McArdle’s final assertion is that the reason that Barbara Ehrenreich’s ideas (or indeed McArdle’s own) don’t have popular traction isn’t because of the system - it’s because a majority of the population disagrees with them. This claim is somewhat naive if it’s supposed to be a generalizable argument. If McArdle is arguing that political structures can’t restrain popular sentiment, there’s ample evidence to contradict her (cf, for example the lack of a death penalty in many countries where it would receive overwhelming popular support). If she’s arguing instead that the specific issues that Ehrenreich favours are incompatible with US public opinion, she needs to provide much stronger evidence than her (currently unsupported) assertions to make that claim stick. She may be right about some of Ehrenreich’s policy goals - but she’s probably wrong about others - and she needs to say what basis she’s arguing on. Contra McArdle , a majority of US citizens could probably be persuaded of the benefits of universal health care. The reasons that this isn’t on the agenda have more to do with the weight of special interests in US politics than public opinion. More generally, Cass Sunstein’s idea of constitutive commitments is a good way to get a handle on the question of what policies are feasible, and what aren’t in US politics. The general point still stands - some proposals that Ehrenreich (or indeed McArdle) would like to see on the public agenda are probably quite compatible with these commitments and would be on that agenda under different political structures.

Finally, it’s hard to see how any of this has bearing on the question of whether leftists can “use a third party to pull the Democrats back to where we want them.” Harry makes the counter-argument in comments, and does so, I think, convincingly.

Defensive dismissal of the likes of Ehrenriech is calculated to suppress debate within the DP both about whether it should be the place for the left, and what direction it should take. Given the rules of the game the most likely outcome of any serious and moderately successful left organising effort outside the DP is that it will get absorbed into the DP, and change the DP’s internal politics (a bit) as a result. Taking as your staring point the idea that the DP is your home (if you are on the left) is a sure-fire way of diminishing your influence on it.

BE knows all this. So, I suspect, does Brad De Long. BE is a left-of-center social democrat in European terms. Brad is a moderate conservative/Christian Democrat in European terms. The DP is very much in the hands of people with Brad’s basic outlook, which is one reason that the Nader issue still hasn’t gone away, despite the all the whining of the DPers who wish they could take the left as much for granted as they do, eg, African Americans. If the left isn’t willing to consider alternative to the DP they can forget about influencing it.

Update: See Daniel Geffen for further argument.

July 11, 2004

Third Parties as Infantilism

Posted by Henry

Brad DeLong tells us that Barbara Ehrenreich’s version of left-wing politics are an ‘infantile disorder.’ In support of this claim, he quotes in extenso from a Nation piece that she wrote in 2000, advocating support for Ralph Nader rather than Al Gore. Brad is being both condescending and obtuse - I have difficulty in seeing any evidence whatsover of infantilism in the piece that he quotes. Ehrenreich has two points to make. First - that if you’re really committed to major reform of the US political system, voting for the Democrats isn’t going to do it. The only way to create a real alternative is to build an alternative social movement - and alternative party - on the ground, which necessarily is going to involve conflict with the institutional interests of the Democratic party. Second - even if we are stuck in a two party system for the foreseeable future, the way for leftists to get their voice heard by the Democrats isn’t to roll over and play nice - it’s to credibly threaten to vote for somebody else unless the Democrats start pushing for the things that you care about.

There are some very good counter-arguments against voting for Nader, and they’re even better in this election than the last one. Because of basic personality flaws, he’s an improbable candidate for real social change (although I should say that I know and like some of the people who work for him). He’d be a bad President. This time around, he doesn’t have the support of the Greens, or much in the way of supporting organizations (apart from the Republicans). Thus, voting for him wouldn’t do anything to help build a viable alternative political movement. Finally, the alternative to a Kerry Presidency is demonstrably too horrible to be contemplated. Still, Ehrenreich is posing a very serious question that Brad doesn’t start to answer. If you believe (as Ehrenreich does, and as I do) that the current two party system in the US is systematically flawed, and produces deeply inequitable results, then why should you vote, year in, year out, for candidates who have no intention of changing things? The ‘lesser of two evils’ argument may cut it this year; it isn’t going to cut it forever.

Update: for a different defence of Ehrenreich, see Kevin Drum.

Update2: It seems that Brad wasn’t being quite as condescending as I thought - his ‘infantile disorder’ jibe is a nod to Lenin. I still reckon that he doesn’t establish much of a case that Ehrenreich is in fact being infantile.

July 10, 2004

Rooseveltian Rhetoric

Posted by Henry

I’ve spent the last couple of days at the annual meeting of SASE, the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics. Cass Sunstein gave one of the keynote speeches - a summary of his much blogged book on Roosevelt’s ‘Second Bill of Rights.’ There was one interesting aside in his talk. While talking about Roosevelt’s talent for speaking plainly and directly to the interests of ordinary Americans, Sunstein claimed that Roosevelt’s modern rhetorical heir was John Edwards. I’m not entirely convinced - I’ve an inherent suspicion of anyone whom the Economist keeps on talking up. Still, even if Edwards proves to be a disappointment in office (insofar as Vice-Presidents are ever successes), he’s already made an important contribution to US public discourse. By finding a language to express the class divisions in US society - and avoiding, somehow, the usual, tired accusations of ‘class warfare’ - he’s done us all a real service.

July 07, 2004

More on Moore's "deceits"

Posted by Chris

Matt Yglesias has been doing sterling work on the double standards employed by Michael Moore’s critics. So, as a supplement to my two earlier posts on the same topic, I’d like to draw attention to his latest. He cites Volokh Conspirator Randy Barnett, who has read Kopel’s Fifty-six deceits in Farenheit 911. Barnett observes:

I was struck by the sheer cunningness of Moore’s film. When you read Kopel, try to detach yourself from any revulsion you may feel at a work of literal propaganda receiving such wide-spread accolades from mainstream politicos, as well as attendance by your friends and neighbors. Instead, notice the film’s meticulousness in saying only (or mostly) “true” or defensible things in support of a completely misleading impression.

Matt comments, fairly and reasonably:

The funny thing, though, is that if I wrote “The 56 Deceits of George W. Bush” (as, indeed, many people have done) then some very intelligent Volokh Conspirator (as, indeed, many of the conspirators are) would doubtless have written a post in response (as, indeed, I’ve read at the Conspiracy) arguing that most of the alleged “lies” weren’t lies per se (and, indeed, they’re mostly misleading juxtapositions of technically true information) and that these sorts of ad hominem attacks don’t really prove that the presidents’ policies are actually wrong.

Quite.

July 06, 2004

When is Assassination in Order?

Posted by Harry

On Parliamentary Questions the other day they played a clip of David Owen, recorded in 2003, admitting without embarrassment that when he was Foreign Secretary he seriously considered ordering the assassination of Idi Amin. There was no explanation of why the idea was rejected (it was a clip in a game show), but my immediate, and non-reflective, reaction was that it was the first good thing I had heard about Owen (whom I couldn’t stand when he was a real politician, even before reading Crewe and King’s fantastic biography of the SDP in which he emerges as a deeply unlikeable and destructive character). Without giving it a lot more thought, which I can’t do right now, I can make a very rough judgement that certain objectionable leaders are legitimate candidates for assassination (Hitler, Amin, both Duvaliers, Stalin) whereas others are not (Khomeni, Castro, Rawlings, Botha). I could tell a story about each, and probably be dissuaded on each of them (except Hitler). But I couldn’t give anything approaching necessary and sufficient conditions for candidacy. What makes a leader a legitimate target of an assassination attempt?

Clarification: as jdw says below we are talking about a government authorising the assassination of a foreign leader, rather than a citizen assassinating his/her own country’s leader, the assumption being that governments require more justification.

July 02, 2004

The wrong man

Posted by Ted
A Florida Division of Elections database lists more than 47,000 people the department said may be ineligible to vote because of felony records. The state is directing local elections offices to check the list and scrub felons from voter rolls.

But a Herald review shows that at least 2,119 of those names — including 547 in South Florida — shouldn’t be on the list because their rights to vote were formally restored through the state’s clemency process….

State elections officials acknowledge there may be mistakes on the list but insist they have built in safeguards to make sure eligible voters are not removed by local election offices. They say they have warned election offices to be diligent before eliminating voters, and have flagged possible cases in which voters on the list may have regained their rights….

Of the 2,119 people who obtained clemency, 62 percent are registered Democrats, and almost half are black. Less than 20 percent are Republican. Those ratios are very close to the same in the list of 47,000 voters who the local elections officers are supposed to review and possibly purge from the registration rolls.

As it turns out, justice delayed is, in fact, justice denied. The list was released yesterday, and the Miami Herald has already found this. I feel a case of the shrill coming on.

Via Body and Soul.

Double standards

Posted by Chris

I see that the Poor Man already covered this . No matter, it is worth the repetition. Krugman on responses to Farenheit 9/11 :

There has been much tut-tutting by pundits who complain that the movie, though it has yet to be caught in any major factual errors, uses association and innuendo to create false impressions. Many of these same pundits consider it bad form to make a big fuss about the Bush administration’s use of association and innuendo to link the Iraq war to 9/11. Why hold a self-proclaimed polemicist to a higher standard than you hold the president of the United States?

June 30, 2004

I'm pretty sure that this isn't what Jesus would do

Posted by Ted

According to the blog Non Prophet, James Dobson’s socially conservative activist group, Focus on the Family, has included Michael Moore’s home address in their daily email to supporters.

What legitimate purpose could this possibly serve? What have Moore’s neighbors, wife and daughter done to merit the danger that FOTF have foolishly put them in? Simply disgusting.

UPDATE: Several commentors have noted that this hasn’t been independently confirmed, which is fair. I’m calling Focus on the Family this morning to see if they can confirm or deny it; stay tuned.

ANOTHER UPDATE: This is for real. I’ve just spoken to a representative of Focus on the Family who has confirmed that Focus on the Family did, indeed, give out Moore’s home address. The person that I spoke to didn’t want to be quoted. I’ve asked the media relations department to see if they have any comment that they are willing to make, and I’ll update with any comment that they have.

Like living with a six-year-old

Posted by Ted
PETER: I, uh, I don’t like my job. I don’t think I’m gonna go anymore.
JOANNA: You’re just not gonna go?

PETER: Yeah.

JOANNA: Won’t you get fired?

PETER: I don’t know. But I really don’t like it so I’m not gonna go…

JOANNA: So what are you going to do about money and bills?

PETER: Y’know, I never really liked paying bills? I don’t think I’ll do that either.

Source: Republican Party Platform

How much room for compromise is there with the legions who lose their minds when they hear this:

Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Sen. Clinton said. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

For this, she’s called a Marxist. Excuse me, but isn’t “taking things away from you on behalf of the common good” an unflowery but straightforward description of taxation? I don’t see why this description should be remotely controversial. I don’t like paying taxes either, but what, exactly, is the other option? Is anarcho-libertarianism on the ballot?

There are more reasonable people who acknowledge that taxes aren’t going away. They just want to protect the Bush tax cut from any proposed rollbacks. They’d rather close the deficit with spending cuts. And which party, exactly, do they believe is going to enact these spending cuts? From Slate:

It’s all the more extraordinary that when Bush got asked about his spending habit on Meet the Press, this was his answer:
If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined.

That isn’t even close to being true. Under Bush, overall discretionary spending (i.e., with defense spending included) has increased every single year. It’s now 31 percent higher than it was when Bush arrived.

But perhaps Bush meant to say, “domestic discretionary spending.” Well, that, too, has increased every single year of Bush’s presidency, and, as previously noted, is now 25 percent higher than it was when Bush arrived.

It seems almost gratuitous to add that in the last year of President Clinton’s term, discretionary spending was up not 15 percent, but 3 percent, and that domestic discretionary spending was up not 15 percent, but 5 percent.

The Bush tax cuts are the largest cause of an unsustainable structural budget deficit. Even Bruce Bartlett in the National Review acknowledges that some tax increases will be necessary. When I hear someone argue against the repeal of any of Bush’s tax cuts, they’ve basically got to use one of the following rationales:

(a) I believe that large, structural, long-term deficits don’t matter.

(b) I believe that we are on the verge of the greatest period of economic growth in American history.

© The Republican party, whom I trust more than the Democrats to reduce spending, has actually grossly expanded domestic spending while enjoying total control of the federal government. Nonetheless, I believe that my small-government ideals are about to become a reality.

(d) I believe that the United States will soon become a Saudi-level oil exporter, and the oil revenues will cover the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of programs that we’re not willing to pay for in taxes.

(e) The government should pay for goods and services in wishes and fairy dust.

Is there an (f)? Comments are open.

Andrew Sullivan, who wrote such a childish snit that he issued a rare semi-apology the next day, says:

I’d cut spending before I touched any tax increases. Why cannot Hillary end agricultural subsidies, abolish corporate tax shelters, or means-test Social Security and Medicare? That would be for the common good. But it’s easier to raise taxes.

As a bad liberal, I would agree with any of those policy prescriptions, including the means-testing of benefits. (I doubt that they would come close to closing the deficit, but that’s another story). Still, it takes a special kind of pundit to castigate Hillary for her failure to single-handedly enact them.

Sully, your team has the ball. They don’t share your goals. They haven’t pursued your initiatives. Quite the contrary; they’ve dramatically increased agricultural subsidies, fought to protect corporate tax shelters, and added a massive drug benefit for Medicare.

I don’t mean to promote Democrats as the small-government party. I think that they would have done a much better job with tax shelters, and I think that their version of the drug benefit would have done a more rational job of controlling costs. On the other hand, they weren’t exactly laying down in the street to stop the farm bill, and they would probably have proposed a more generous drug benefit if they had been in power. History is showing pretty clearly that the only method of slowing the growth of government is not Republicanism, but gridlock. (Vote Kerry.)

In the end, we’ve basically got one party which generally accepts that we need to collect enough taxes to pay for the government that actually exists. And, we’ve got another party only seems willing to collect enough taxes to pay for the government that it wishes existed, but isn’t willing to fight for. Judging from the comments that I’m reading on other blogs (and the comments that I anticipate here), a lot of voters are much more concerned with Hillary’s choice of pronouns and the deconstruction of the phrase “common good” than they are with paying our damn bills. It’s no way to run a country.

Unfondly Fahrenheit

Posted by Henry

I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night, and like Kevin Drum, wasn’t greatly impressed. Not because it was one-sided or took cheap shots - in fact the cheap shots were pretty good (at least the funny ones were). The problem was that the movie’s underlying premises were completely incoherent and padded out with some pretty weak speculation. There were several conspiracy theories jostling for room - Bush as tool of American big business, Bush as catspaw of Saudi oil interests, Bush as lackey of the security establishment, Bush as cigarette industry flunkey, Bush as dimwitted doofus, and so on. While they weren’t incompatible, precisely, there wasn’t much of an effort to draw them together, or, in most cases to provide real evidence to back them up. The footage, all in all, was vastly more entertaining (and sometimes enlightening) than Michael Moore’s commentary on it.

There’s a real story to be told about how Bush took a country to war on mostly bogus premisses; while bits of that story did come out here and there in the movie, they didn’t properly connect, because the whole was so shoddily put together. As Kevin says, Fahrenheit 9/11 uses innuendo to connect Bush and the Saudis in just the same way that Bush himself used innuendo to connect Iraq and al Qaeda. It reminded me still more of Glenn Reynolds’ blogging - the same weird blend of weakly sourced conspiracy theories and gross political prejudices. I still reckon that the lead-up to the Iraq war deserves a good, savage, biting, funny documentary - but it should be made by someone who’s more honest and intelligent than Michael Moore.

In Order to Destroy the Village, We had to Sue it

Posted by Kieran

Eugene Volokh gravely considers the danger that a number of people designated by the government as enemy combatants — or rather, a number of Al Qaeda agents, or rather, 50,000 alleged enemy soliders of some foreign power — might avail of Rasul v Bush and file an avalanche of habeas corpus writs claiming they aren’t really enemy soldiers.1 Thus, he fears, one of the fundamental tenets of the rule of law, affirmed this week by the Supreme Court, becomes a deadly weapon in the hands of our litigious enemies. I see a mini-series, Stalag Law, set in the not-too-distant future. In a nation suffocated by habeas writs inappropriately filed by malicious captured soldiers from their hotel-like detention centers, a tiny remnant of the 82nd Airborne Paralegal Division fights to clear the appalling backlog of cases …

Brad DeLong and (more appropriately) the Medium Lobster have already given this the treatment it deserves. I just want to add that this is the same Eugene Volokh who declared himself unwilling to discuss the topic of actual lawyers employed by an actual government of the United States searching for a legal rationalization for actual torture that members of that administration actually authorized. Look, like I said, blog about whatever you want. But here’s a hypo for you: Let’s say that you’re a respected legal scholar with strong interests in the protection of individual freedoms from the dead hand of the state. And let’s say that your government is found to have tortured people. And let’s say that its lawyers produce threadbare rationalizations saying that’s no big deal. And let’s say that in response you avoid the topic because it’s disgusting and because “if I had a choice in how to invest my scarce time, I’d rather not invest it here.” And let’s say that, instead, you choose to focus on the possibility that a captured foreign army might sue its way to victory within the U.S. courts. What conclusions might your readers draw given such (admittedly far-fetched) circumstances?

1 “Your honor, I swear, I have no idea why all 50,000 of us are dressed in similar uniforms.”

Dear Ralph

Posted by Eszter

Please get out of the presidential race.

Visit the site to support one of Nader’s causes if he leaves the race. If he doesn’t, the contributions will be diverted to organizations working directly to defeat Bush (you choose from five options).

June 28, 2004

Then Again, He Was Endorsed By The International Iron Worker's Union

Posted by Belle Waring

Once again, we must turn to Fafblog for thoughtful political analysis. Giblets considers the various Democratic vice-presidential contenders:

Dick Gephardt. Gephardt would have an amazing pull with loser voters, voters who like losing the House to opposing parties, voters who have a long history of being supported by decrepit and dying labor institutions in failing political campaigns, just people who generally like to lose. He could swing loser states, such as Wyoming or Rhode Island, or put states with a large loser population, such as Nevada or Alabama, into play. The upside to having a Kerry-Gephardt ticket is it would take all those people who go into shock in the voting booth thinkin’ “Oh dear god we nominated Kerry?!” and push them just far enough over the edge with “Oh dear god we nominated Kerry and Gephardt?!” that it would sort of jar them into a feeling of complacent somnambulism that would render them susceptible to voting for Kerry-Gephardt anyway. The downside to this is that such a hypthetical waking sleepstate could also get them to vote for Nader.

This is so, so very true. I’m afraid we must all bow down before the superior nous of Giblets. Gephardt? Gephardt??!! Please, God, don’t let the Democratic party snatch certain defeat from the jaws of potential victory by choosing Dick Gephardt as the VP candidate. Pleasepleaseplease. Anybody but Gephardt. If the DP makes me cast a vote for a Kerry/Gephardt ticket I’m going to…well, crap, just put out like a straight-ticket ho. They could put a can of processed cheese food on the ballot against Bush, and I would vote for it. But I’m not going to enjoy it! And no ticket with Gephardt on it is going to win, ever in a million years! How can this blindingly obvious fact be so clear to Giblets yet obscure to Kerry? Maybe they are just toying with us. Maybe. Then when they pick Vilsack, instead of saying, “who the hell?” we will all just be so grateful they didn’t pick Gephardt that we’ll get all fired up, like, “Hey, that Vilsack, he sure does…have a lot of consonants in his name! Frickin’ awesome!”

June 26, 2004

Noblesse d'Etat

Posted by Henry

Atrios reports that the White House have lodged a complaint with the Irish Embassy over the “disrespectful’ interview by an Irish journalist discussed yesterday. Mere journalists apparently aren’t allowed to interrupt the President when he’s trying to make a point. Nor are Presidents supposed to have to defend their policies against vigorous critique. Kieran posted on this rather bizarre feature of US public discourse last year - as he says, it smacks more of feudalism than democracy. Indeed, as in feudalism, the respect only goes one way - the vice-president seems to feel quite entitled to tell his critics to go fuck themselves, and not to apologize for it afterwards.

June 25, 2004

Making History

Posted by Henry

Via Bookslut, this account of an interesting dust-up at Foreign Affairs , the influential foreign policy journal run by the Council of Foreign Relations. Kenneth R. Maxwell, who was the journal’s book review editor resigned last month, claiming that the magazine had bowed to pressure from Henry Kissinger, and shut down a debate on its letters page about America’s role in the assassination of former Chilean foreign minister, Orlando Letelier and his wife in Washington DC by “Operation Condor.” Jeremy Adelman, who succeeded Maxwell, has just resigned too after only three weeks in the job. The editor of Foreign Affairs, James Hoge, has admitted receiving at least one phone-call from the head of the Council of Foreign Relations conveying Mr. Kissinger’s displeasure; if Maxwell is to be believed, Hoge also received repeated phone calls from Henry Kissinger. However, Hoge has denied that this had anything to do with his editorial decision to cut short debate.

Henry Kissinger’s historical legacy is very slightly more complicated than it might seem at first glance. Critics like Christopher Hitchens fail to acknowledge his very real contribution to the understanding of international relations - some of his early academic writings (“A World Restored,” “The Troubled Partnership”) are first rate. Nonetheless, his political career seems to have combined a particularly unpleasant variety of Realpolitik with a gruesome eagerness to condone lies, murder, torture and other human rights violations. The greater part of his subsequent writing can be seen as a sustained effort to whitewash the record. Kissinger’s memoirs are mendacious and untrustworthy, even by the usual standards of statesmen’s self-justifications. Like Winston Churchill, he intends to ensure that history is kind to him by writing it. Given Kissinger’s track record, I’m not at all surprised that he seems to have used his clout to try to shut down debate about one of the nastiest aspects of his record as Secretary of State. I am surprised, and disappointed, that Foreign Affairs seems very possibly to have knuckled under.

June 23, 2004

Big Dog bites Man

Posted by Kieran

You should watch David Dimbleby’s interview with Bill Clinton. After a bunch of Monica questions, Clinton ticks Dimbleby off for being just like every other journalist who were — how to put it? — so obsessed with Lewinsky’s blowjobs that they didn’t realize how they were helping Ken Starr to screw people. (Jump to 28:25 or so in the interview to see this). Dimbo looks a bit shocked:

Clinton: Let me just say this. One of the reasons he [Kenneth Starr] got away with it is because people like you only ask me the questions. You gave him a complete free ride. Any abuse they wanted to do. They indicted all these little people from Arkansas, what did you care about them, they’re not famous, who cares that their life was trampled. Who cares that their children are humiliated … Nobody in your line of work cared a rip about that at the time. Why, because he was helping their story… Now that doesn’t justify any mistake I made. But look how much time you spent asking me these questions, in this time you’ve had. That’s because it’s what you care about, because that’s what you think helps you and helps this interview… And that’s why people like you always help the far-right, because you like to hurt people, and you like to talk about how bad people are and all their personal failings.

Dimbleby: I don’t —

Clinton: Look, you made a decision to allocate your time in a certain way, you should take responsibility for that, you should say ‘Yes, I care much more about this than whether the Bosnian people were saved, and whether he brought a million home from Kosovo … [or] than whether we moved a hundred times as many people out of poverty as Reagan and Bush’.

The BBC’s own write-up write up of the interview quotes some of the best bits, but they try rather too hard to frame it as Bill Goes Ballistic:

Wagging his finger and getting visibly agitated, Mr Clinton expressed anger at the media’s behaviour. … But despite the shaky start, Mr Clinton quickly recovered his composure and was questioned for a further 30 minutes by Mr Dimbleby.

Watch the interview for yourself (starts about 12:00 in) and decide whether Clinton loses his composure, looks shaky or is noticeably agitated. As far as I can see, Clinton hardly raises his voice and does little more than sit up in his chair. It’s also noticeable that he hardly drops a syllable, hems, haws, or mangles a word as he speaks. Say what you like about the guy and his legacy, he knows how to fight his corner. I don’t see the current incumbent being subjected to that kind of persistent questioning in six or seven years — or even right now, come to think of it.

June 17, 2004

Shorter Dick Cheney

Posted by Ted

Howl, howl, howl, howl.

UPDATE: Mark Kleiman might point out that this is a pretty good summary of Rumsfeld’s behavior as well. Who am I to argue? What kind of an outfit illegally orders that a prisoner be held off the books for over a year, and then forgets to interrogate him?

ANOTHER, NON-SNARKY UPDATE: Interesting point from Michael Froomkin:

People like me, who have been highly dubious about the US acceding to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court due to the real and troubling encroachment on our traditional conception of national sovereignty are really going to have to think long and hard about changing sides on this one, or at least accepting jurisdiction with regards to some of our treaty obligations. The last few months argue strongly that the US cannot always be relied on to observe its international law obligations as much as I would have thought and hoped.

I doubt that too many people will join Professor Froomkin in thinking long and hard, but these revelations will have the unfortunate effect of changing the terms of the debate. As Anne Applebaum* points out, it’s hard to see how those in power have sufficient incentives to follow stories as thoroughly as they deserve.

  • corrected; thanks to Russell Arben Fox

June 16, 2004

The Communion Question

Posted by John Holbo

I’ll assume you are an educated person who’s already read Josh Marshall’s post about … what to call it? Bush’s Al-Sadrist gambit: locked in a death-struggle with the forces of democratic reconstruction in your country? See if you can get zealous souls to lay down suppressing fire from the holy places. If you succeed, fine. If the holy places end up getting shelled when the targets lose patience, you cry religious persecution (even if it was pure self-defense) and make hay out of that. It’s win-win.

Let’s consider this issue of Bush’s attempt to “nudge the American bishops toward greater ‘activism’.” To wit: denying communion to Catholic political candidates who take church-disapproved stances on gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research.

I gather there are legal issues. Old render unto Caesar thing. Threats to tax-exempt status. I don’t understand this stuff so let’s move on.

A spot of devil’s advocacy: whyever would you even so much as think it was OK for the Catholic Church to start dictating to Catholic politicians how they can and cannot govern the country?

Let’s try to make it vivid. I’m old, so I remember way back in the 80’s when Karen Finley was a shocking performance artist. She declared that the reason she hated the Catholic church - or had left it, or didn’t like it, or resented it, or whatever it was - was because ‘she could never be Pope.’ Because she was a woman, one inferred. And this slight to her dignity was intolerable. On the other hand (one was tempted to point out) she was also chocolate-covered and had a yam stuck up her … Anyway, it didn’t look as though she was exactly grooming herself for papal ascendancy, or particularly wanted the job, or was in any way temperamentally suited for it.

Of course, you might say this confuses cause and effect. And you would certainly be right. But never mind how Ms. Finley’s mind works. From an orthodox Catholic point of view, the response to such a woman may well be: look, we aren’t exactly a ‘come as you’ are outfit. Or, rather we ARE, but we aren’t a ‘feel free to stay as you are outfit.’ We have rules. If that isn’t for you - well, don’t let the cathedral door hit your yam-filled … anyway … on your way out to join the Unitarians. This isn’t the middle-ages so we won’t burn you in the town square as a heretic witch, but you don’t get to haggle, let alone dictate doxastic terms to the hierarchy. That’s not how it goes.

I take it lots of Catholics feel this way and get impatient with demands for women priests, etc., on this account. Catholic Church: love it or leave it. Anyway, it’s this brittle-hard thought that seems most plausibly applicable against the abortion-tolerating likes of John Kerry. If he can’t follow a few simple rules of the club, he’s out of the club.

What is wrong with this line of devil’s advocacy? (Pardon me if the solution is perfectly obvious to you, but I haven’t seen anyone state it in pedantic fullness with reference to this recent debate.) One could point out that it seems suspicious to burrow into the Bible, then look Republicans and Democratics up and down, then find only the Democrats coming up short.

If you are happy with this answer as to why this whole communion-denying thing is wrong, you can stop right here. On the other hand, if you are morbidly determined to delve deeper, as I am, then the problem is that the church is on the verge of telling John Kerry not just what he is permitted to believe, but what he is permitted to permit others to believe, or at least which of their beliefs he is permitted to permit them to act upon. And many of those legislatively dictated to by the church in this way, by Catholic politician proxy, will not themselves be Catholics.

This threatens to make religious intolerance into religious duty for Catholic politicians.

But can’t the church demand not just that Kerry believe whatever it says, but do its bidding absolutely and unquestioningly? Well, yes. At this point I could ask whether we have learned nothing from the Thirty Years War. Have we all forgotten those pictures of what it was like at Magdeburg? Oh, but I see the Wikipedia hasn’t gotten to that battle yet. OK, you’re forgiven. But it wasn’t just the Protestants taking lumps. Couple kidney shots to Mother Church and, mirabile dictu!, religiously tolerant political liberalism is born - not from principle, but in practice - from a divine mother of exhausted Catholicism, no longer willing to die just to kill Protestants, and a noble father of Protestantism, no longer willing to die just to kill Catholics. As the saintly Mill writes:

But when the heat of the conflict was over, without giving a complete victory to any party, and each church or sect was reduced to limit its hopes to retaining possession of the ground it already occupied; minorities, seeing that they had no chance of becoming majorities, were under the necessity of pleading to those whom they could not convert, for permission to differ. It is accordingly on this battle-field, almost solely, that the rights of the individual against society have been asserted on broad grounds of principle, and the claim of society to exercise authority over dissentients openly controverted. The great writers to whom the world owes what religious liberty it possesses, have mostly asserted freedom of conscience as an indefeasible right, and denied absolutely that a human being is accountable to others for his religious belief. Yet so natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever they really care about, that religious freedom has hardly anywhere been practically realized, except where religious indifference, which dislikes to have its peace disturbed by theological quarrels, has added its weight to the scale.

But let’s go back a step. Why is a Catholic politician’s opposition to abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage, the equivalent of religious bigotry or intolerance? Why isn’t it a case of: society has to arrive at collective judgments about certain ethically-fraught issues, and Catholics get to put in their two cents right alongside everyone else’s. Lots of people oppose these things on religious or (just barely possibly) other moral grounds. If some of these people get elected, which wouldn’t be terribly surprising, are they supposed to not vote their consciences? Must they fabricate some ersatz ethical persona to be their liberal public face? Are they supposed to check religion at the door? (And isn’t it a tad early to start worrying about full-blown religious war?)

Let’s subdivide the question. There are concerns about principle. Higher order commitments to tolerating religious difference, freedom of conscience, so forth. What are you committed to when you do a crazy thing like swear an oath to uphold the Constitution? And there are concerns about slippery slopes. If you open fire from the holy sites, exactly what sorts of harms do you invite - to your targets, to yourself, to the holy sites?

Many sources of ticklishness hereabouts. The distinction between freedom of conscience and freedom of action. Presumably the bishops do not propose to criminalize pro-choice beliefs, beliefs in the permissibility of stem-cell research, the desirability of gay marriage. They merely mean to force Catholic politicians to work to criminalize acting on these beliefs. And they want to kick those who do not out of the church. Is this incoherent or inconsistent with the structure of political liberalism? Not obviously, I think.

The question is also ticklish for the way it draws attention not just to what you believe but your reasons why. From a politically liberal point of view - and I don’t mean liberalism in the Democratic party sense - it is hardly reasonable for me to expect you to accept my belief that P on the grounds that Q, if Q is a thing my religion hands down from on high, and you don’t accept my religion. Turning the point around: if I can’t demand that you believe my religion, then I can’t demand that you acknowledge my religious reasons, then I can’t demand that you believe what I believe exclusively on the basis of my religious reasons.

But how are we to sort out actual reasons for believing things about abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage? The human heart is a complicated place. People often aren’t exactly sure why they have the moral convicitions they do, after all. We don’t ordinarily forbid people to vote their conscience even if they aren’t able to produce a satisfactory, self-critical anatomy of their conscience.

This issue is considerably simplified, however, by the circumstances of the present case: if the bishops proposing to deny candidates their wine and wafers aren’t absolutely sure that their reasons for doing so are purely religious, then they do not have sufficient grounds to deny wine and wafers. (If the issue is even in part that the bishops are Republicans at heart, that wouldn’t be a sufficiently Catholic reason for withholding communion from Democrats, I take it.) But if the reasons here are purely religious, then surely that is a sufficient reason for the church not imposing beliefs based exclusively on these reasons on other citizens who do not accept the religion, hence do not accept the reasons.

But does it follow - here we are back at this point again - that religious politicians shouldn’t vote their consciences, if they can’t cook up non-religious reasons for what their religious consciences tell them? Can’t they make the weight of their opinion felt in a democratic vote even, especially if they are elected officials? Must their opinions count for less, because these pious folk are liberally obliged to bite their tongues?

This is a delicate point to explain. Put it this way. The machine of religious Catholicism and the machine of political liberalism frankly do not interlock in totally, manifestly satisfactory fashion. Matthew Yglesias makes the point in characteristically cut-to-the-chase style:

What’s the deal with non-Catholic leaders holding these respectful meetings with the Pope. I mean, as I see it, there are roughly two possibilities on the table here. Maybe the Pope really is the head of the One True Church outside of which no salvation is possible. If you believe that, then clearly you ought to treat the man with a great deal of respect. But then again, if you believe that, then you really ought to join his church. If you don’t believe that - because you’re an atheist, Protestant, Jew, what have you - then the Pope is kind of just an eccentric old man surrounded by strangely deluded toadies. Anything for votes, I guess. But really, to sit around and listen to the Pope critiquing your foreign policy is just absurd, and it doesn’t get any less absurd just because your foreign policy is terrible.

The honest answer to the question of how these two machines - Catholicism and liberalism - get functionally interlocked is that there’s a thick bit of compressible rubber, if you will, that pads the points of contact where you would expect friction and grinding. The rubber is composed, I suppose, of legs - legs made rubbery through exhaustion from bloody religious war, as per the Mill passage. Quite a stock of this rubber built up in the 17th Century. I think we are still working through that stock, and it’s absolutely crucial to a functioning liberal democratic state that it not run out.

So anyway, it’s a bit embarrassing to say you are doing what you are doing because you don’t have the stomach to fight to the death with an old guy in a funny hat. So you sort of make like you have deep respect for him, and have this higher-order commitment to tolerance and all; and, after a couple centuries of putting on this little act, it sinks in. You actually do really respect him and you really do have this higher-order commitment to tolerance; even if it’s not exactly clear what else about your beliefs has been adjusted in the meantime to allow for this, in all logical strictness.

So anyway, what’s a poor Catholic politician to do?

How do you decently serve two masters: commitment to democratic liberalism; obedience to the church? It seems to me the way this vague dissonance works itself out, in healthy practice - rubber compressing and expanding - is that you reserve the right to assert your religious values, even over your fellow citizens, if you really, really believe it, and it’s really, really important. On the other hand, you commit to letting other people, non-church members, not only believe some things that the church forbids, but actually act on such beliefs. If it’s not so important. For example, even though absolutely everyone absolutely ought to come to mass on Sunday, it isn’t illegal for them not to, nor should it be.

The three issues that are presently on the table - abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage - offer an instructive array of contrasts along this important/not-so-important axis. I understand that some people really do sincerely believe that abortion is murder. I have a hard time quite believing that they really do believe that. I sort of suspect what’s really going on in their heads is a cranky loathing of a culture of sexual permissiveness is wandering from it’s proper station and hallucinating that it is a sincere belief that abortion is murder. That said, I do not have any great difficulty believing that people deeply and sincerely oppose abortion as a very grave ethical affront to the dignity and respect of the human person. Or something like that. I can see that they sincerely believe it’s not a private choice. And I can see that they think the number of abortions performed makes this a serious issue - too serious for them to sit on their hands. So their religious faith in the grave sinfulness of this practice obliges them to go forth and impose their more enlightened values on the heathen to the best of their ability. I really wish they wouldn’t, but I can see why they might feel obliged. And I do see that liberalism has this escape clause, although we all hope it doesn’t get much use. If a thing is intolerable, don’t tolerate it - even if this threatens to shred the fabric of liberalism.

Now, stem cell research. I fail to see how anyone could fail to see that the proof that stem-cell research constitutes ethically intolerable meddling with the human person … is subject to long and uncertain interpretation. (And if someone wants to cut the proof short by means of Leon Kass’s wisdom of repugnance, then they must submit to an equal and oposite recital of how repugnant I find Kass’ wisdom - ergo, on Kassian grounds, I am instructed to reject it out of hand.) Even if there is some case to be made that stem-cell research is an affront to the dignity of the human person, it ought to be clear how reasonable people can see it otherwise. And it sure isn’t murder. So stem cell research seems like almost a model candidate for liberal toleration. The church can forbid Catholic scientists from engaging in stem cell research. But Catholics should generally be tolerant of other people having other beliefs on the subject, so Catholic politicians should seriously consider voting to allow other people to do something they themselves regard as absolutely impermissible, and which they might get denied communion for engaging in themselves.

What about gay marriage? Not so conceptually complex as stem cell research. It’s easy to understand what entities are involved without taking advanced biology. Unlike the abortion case, it’s pretty hard to see that allowing this practice will do any damage except to the souls of those immediately involved. (Yes, it will have incidental effects on others. But everything effects everything, after all. That’s not a good reason to deny people some sort of private sphere, even if its surface is somewhat fictionally-conceived.) The politically liberal part of the church-meets-state deal generally mandates allowing people who do not belong to your religion to do things to their own souls which you regard as moderately harmful, so long as they aren’t harming other people.

Whatever complaint the Catholic church has against gay marriage cuts equally hard against Protestantism, if it comes to that. Catholics are committed to the view that Protestantism is distinctly non-optimal for your soul. Actually, the case against Protestantism, from a Catholic point of view, is possibly stronger than that against gay marriage. Because (despite what you may have heard) there are no gay activists going door to door. But there are Protestant missionaries spreading the word. From a Catholic point of view, this must be regarded as spiritually regretable. Yet it is tolerated.

Of course, the likes of Stanley Kurtz are out there trying to drum up statistics from Scandinavia about how traditional marriage is wrecked by gay marriage. But it is hardly acceptable for bishops to start denying their flock communion on the basis of highly debatable Scandinavian sociology. Yet it is acceptable, though perhaps unfortunate, for politicians to make decisions about legislation on the basis of debatable Scandinavian sociology.

So it seems to me that a Catholic politician could take any number of stances on these issues, consistent with strong commitment to his/her church and strong commitment to liberal democratic tolerance, freedom of conscience, and so forth.

You could be staunchly pro-life on the grounds that this is a serous enough issue that you simply have to push your private faith in the public sphere.

You could be staunchly pro-choice on the grounds that, although you as a Catholic are strictly forbidden, you ought to respect the non-Catholic beliefs of others who sincerely regard abortion as permissible. The Kerry position, I take it.

You could be staunchly anti-stem cell research on the grounds that you just plain find it repugnant. (Not an intellectually admirable ground, but there is no law against legislators being Kassians.)

You could be staunchly pro-stem cell research on the grounds that, even though your church forbids you to engage in it, you can see that it is a complicated issue about which other people reasonably think and feel differently; so you have no business meddling in their private business.

You could be staunchly anti-gay marriage because you read the National Review more than is good for your poor head. And because you find the thought of gay sex icky. (See above about how legislators are not legally obliged to be mature and enlightened souls, like us liberals.)

You could be staunchly pro-gay marriage because, even though your church severely forbids you to get one for yourself, lots of gay people aren’t Catholics and what they do in their bedrooms, and the sorts of mutual contracts they make, are really none of your business to interfere with, legislatively. (Voting in favor of gay marriage could be, for a Catholic politician, exactly like a strict teetotaller voting to lift prohibition on the grounds that he knows his neighbor wants to drink beer, and he doesn’t think he has a right to stop his neighbor from making that bad decision in the privacy of his own home.)

In short, it ought to be left to the private consciences of Catholic politicians to decide how they want to vote, and they are hardly forbidden from finding some way to express their religious faith in politics. (The church tells them what they personally have to believe and do; but they have to decide whether and to what extent they should force that stuff on their non-Catholic fellow citizens.) Josh Marshall links to a Catholic News article - now, oddly, the link has turned non-functional - in which one priest or bishop or official (can’t remember) makes an impassioned plea on behalf of private conscience along these lines, i.e. against the whole ‘denying communion’ idea.

But now the hard-line Catholic smirks: so you want all our politicians to turn Protestant, after all? Letting their consciences, rather than the church, be their guide?

Well, no. That’s not the right way to read it, although this is a natural enough misunderstanding. Think of it this way. When you have a thing like the Catholic church interlocking with a thing like modern liberal democracy, there is no avoiding the need for religious persons, and especially religious politicians, deciding when to tolerate and when to say that something has become so intolerable that one must act, possibly illiberally, on the basis of faith. The spongy rubber of living and letting live will mostly stay pretty spongy, but at a few points it may indeed be so cruelly compressed that it becomes hard and the machines start grinding away at each other. But there are excellent reasons for the Catholic church to delegate decisions about determining when this has happened - when push has come to shove - to politicians. Partially it’s just more seemly if the politicians make the decisions. Then, even if they are imposing their religion on fellow citizens who are not their coreligionists, they can at least pretend they were only acting on the basis of debatable Scandinavian sociology, or some other acceptably secular motive.

But mostly the reason to let the politicians decide, rather than the church hierarchy, is that - as aforementioned - the Catholic hierarchy is inherently hard and rigid. If you tell a hard, rigid thing to take over the job of a bit of spongy rubber, this amounts to abolishing the spongy rubber, because the hard and rigid thing just can’t substitute. As it stands, Catholic politicians are doing to touchy work of accommodating an illiberal structure to a liberal political environment. If this is taken out of their hands, either the hierarchy needs to liberalize or … there is going to me a lot more painful grinding of gears: top-down deliveries of dogma vs. liberal freedom of conscience.

If the church is going to start telling politicians not just what they have to believe, in order to stay members in good standing, but what they have to go out and make other people - non-church members - believe and do, there must be limits, or the liberal bargain breaks down. The church can’t just impose every last doctrinal detail of official Catholic faith on everyone in the United States. Even President Bush wouldn’t like it if the church got so solidly behind him that it tried to force him to go to Catholic mass on Sunday. But what will be the principle of self-restraint on the basis of which this church will advocate forcing some of its doctrines, not others, on non-Catholics? The church is not well-engineered to self-restrain in this liberal way. Conceivably a very few absolutely life-and-death issues could be singled out for attention, with the caveat that absolutely all the rest are to be allowed to slide. If the bishops came out and said they are going to force politicians to toe the line on abortion because abortion is according to the Pope himself a sort of ethical holocaust in progress … well, I would feel sorry for John Kerry on that day. But, on the other hand, no one says you can’t stand up for your religious beliefs - or be made by your church to stand up - if they tell you there’s some sort of ethical holocaust going on. [UPDATE: It occurs to me that you couldn’t plausible exclude staunch, papal opposition to the death-penalty from the category of ‘life and death issues’. So there is probably no way to muster plausible spiritual consistency here without frustrating the partisan spirit of the proposal.]

But once you start just throwing everything in the pot - stem-cell research, gay marriage, which are not life-and-death by any stretch of the imagination - then it looks like the church itself has just gone and made Republican hot-button issues into holy dogma, i.e. they’ve just joined the Republican Party. (Bye, bye, tax-exemptions.) This notion that the church ought to be on call when the GOP’s immediate tactical needs are proclaimed, ex cathedra - call this the Rovian heresy - is well expressed in a bit Josh Marshall quotes:

Karl Maurer, vice president of Catholic Citizens of Illinois, a conservative grass-roots group, said he would add sodomy and gay marriage to that list. Some liberal grass-roots groups have said they believe the church’s teachings against war and the death penalty are worthy of equal treatment.

“Once you open this door, what’s going to come rolling through it?” asked Deal W. Hudson, editor of the magazine Crisis and a key Catholic ally of the Bush administration. “Pretty soon, no one would be taking Communion.”

Hudson said he believes the denial of Communion should begin, and end, with Kerry. Even better, he said, would be if priests would read letters from the pulpit denouncing the senator from Massachusetts “whenever and wherever he campaigns as a Catholic.”

Alternatively, the church could be consistent and just demand that Catholic politicians demand the whole farm. But that gets us back to forcing everyone to go to mass on Sunday, which is clearly absurd.

Well, I’ve rattled on, haven’t I? One last thing. To what degree is this really a slippery slope, down which we are really likely to slip if the Catholic church really starts getting heavily into politics by withholding communion from politicians - or even from voters? If pro-choice, pro-stem-cell reserach, pro-gay marriage forces start taking heavy incoming fire from the church, are they going to fire back, and what form will that fire take?

Obviously we are in no serious danger of fighting in the streets, let alone religious war. But it does seem reasonable to point out to any Catholics who support these denials of communion that a predictable result will be probably permanent discomfort at the joints where the church touches the legal order of the liberal democratic state. The church is not a liberal institution, nor does it wish to become one. Nor does it wish to exile itself from modern society. Nor does it wish to overthrow the Western tradition of liberal democracy, these last couple centuries, and advocate a sharp turn to absolute theocracy. This means the church has no resort but to cultivate what will probably be somewhat cognitively dissonant padding - semi-Catholic absolutist/semi-liberal - between itself and the liberal state. At present this cushion resides largely in the inevitably somewhat conflicted minds of Catholic politicians and voters. If the church forbids its presence there, by denying communion to those who do not resolve the muddle consistently in favor of Catholic dogma - where will it go? I suspect most Catholics don’t really want for some people to start thinking Catholics are unfit for public office in virtue of their faith, which makes them unable to honestly swear to uphold the Constitution. Even less do most Catholics want for many people to think this because it becomes sort of true, even though it didn’t used to be true at all, back in good ol’ JFK’s day.

Or maybe Karl Rove has done the numbers and figured out it’s going to be OK. It’s all good.

June 15, 2004

Inside the Beltway

Posted by Henry

I’m spending some time in Washington DC, where I’ll be starting a new job this September in George Washington University’s Dept. of Political Science and Elliott School of International Affairs. There was a Kerry fundraiser yesterday where Bill Clinton was speaking - I went along with my wife because I thought it would give some interesting insights into how Clinton was going to sell Kerry’s candidacy on his upcoming book tour. As it did.

Clinton spoke for about 15 minutes. There were three main points to his speech. First was a slightly defensive apologia for Kerry’s lack of public profile - Clinton spoke about how difficult it was to get media space for a challenger at this stage of the Presidential campaign. Second was a thinly-veiled attack on Bush. Clinton spoke at length about how John Kerry would be a President who was comfortable with people who were smarter than him, and who were prepared to contradict him when he was wrong. This seemed to me to be a smart use of Clinton’s experience in running the Oval Office. It didn’t come across as raw partisanship (the criticism was implicit), but pointed up by contrast the plain, simple badness and incoherence of the executive policy-making process under GWB. Third, Clinton tried to sell Kerry as a caring Democrat, by talking about Kerry’s commitment to helping deprived youth during Clinton’s Presidency. This wasn’t very convincing - there wasn’t any specific information, or even anecdotes, about what exactly Kerry had done. All in all, it served to confirm my overall impression that the Democrats are still having difficulty in selling Kerry as a positive quantity, rather than as an alternative to the (undoubtedly execrable) incumbent. Some of this could be my bias as a non-US lefty who has no emotional commitment to the Democrats, but it seemed to me that Kerry still has a lot of work to do if he’s going to maintain his narrow lead, let alone extend it.

June 13, 2004

Eugene Volokh hits the Eject Button

Posted by Kieran

Eugene Volokh says he’s not going to comment about the torture memo, which has already been discussed in detail by a number of well-known law bloggers. Eugene says he doesn’t want to talk about it partly because it’s outside his main areas of legal expertise, but mostly because he finds the topic

not just difficult but also sickening. Torture is disgusting. … Does the need to save people’s lives justify torturing suspects? How many lives? Would it take hundreds of thousands (as in the hidden nuclear bomb scenario)? Thousands? Dozens? A couple? I don’t know the answers, and while I have no doubt about the importance of the questions, I don’t enjoy thinking about them. The whole topic is sad and horrible, whatever the right answer is. … It’s not a rational reaction; it’s a visceral one. I’m not proud of my squeamishness, but there it is. I know that just because something is sickening doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. Sometimes people need to do disgusting things to avoid greater harms. … But if I had a choice in how to invest my scarce time, I’d rather not invest it here.

I was surprised to read this, for two reasons.

First, Eugene is well known for his willingness to consider pretty much anything with a cheerful open mind and a bunch of snappy hypos. Remember the big discussion about the legality of consensual incest from around the time of the Great Rick Santorum debate? I still get two or three hits a week on my blog for that search term because I wrote a short post about it, and I don’t think those people are looking for legal information. Similarly, he’s been happy to engage in extremely detailed arguments with nutbar theorists about the supposed equivalence of Income Tax Payers and Slaves. In the past this has led me to wonder whether there was anything his sanguine and judicious personality would find beyond the pale. Now I know.

The other reason for my surprise, though, was that I remembered Eugene has blogged about torture in the past — two years ago he had a couple of posts about it, here and in more detail here. Back then, the idea of the U.S. government authorizing the torture of suspects was just a matter of hypothetical speculation and he went at it with characteristic thoroughness but rather less enthusiasm than usual. Saying his thoughts were “very tentative” he ran down through the potential benefits of torturing suspects and tried to balance them against the many “good arguments against the use of torture, even in extraordinary circumstances.” His conclusion was that “that torture can indeed be effective, if properly done, in some circumstances” but that his reasoning left him “Sad, unsatisfied, and afraid.”

I’m afraid of the government acquiring the power to torture even the worst of the worst, since historically such powers have often been broadened and abused. At the same time, I’m obviously afraid of the terrorists — and more broadly I’m afraid that we might need to be tough, to the point of brutality, in order to save our lives and the lives of our compatriots. I have no answer, though I hope that some of these observations may help others to arrive at one.

I think that Eugene’s post from 2002 shows, in outline, what the torture memo might have looked like had it been written by government lawyers who were genuinely concerned with the question at hand rather than with writing a brief on how the President could circumvent the law. Although it doesn’t examine the constitutionality of torture and the limits of executive authority to authorize it in a time of war, it honestly explores the utilitarian calculus of torture without indulging what Mark Kleiman has called “the human capacity for courage in the face of pain felt by strangers.”

It’s a lot easier to speculate about the pros and cons of torture in the abstract than when it’s clear to all that your government has actually been torturing people to no great purpose and its legal staff has been looking for ways to rationalize its actions. While “ticking bomb cases” are all very well for uncovering your own moral intuitions about torture, they have essentially nothing to say about the institutionalization of torture within the machinery of the state.

At the end of the day, Eugene doesn’t have to write about anything he doesn’t want to. He doesn’t have to take the trouble to publicly explain his decisions, either. And although he says he’s “not proud of [his] squeamishness” I think there is no shame in being viscerally repelled by the prospect of state-sponsored torture, even when — hypothetically — there might be utilitarian benefits to be gained from it. But I can’t help feeling disappointed that we’re not going to hear from him — probably the most prominent and smartest right-leaning lawyer with a weblog — on this, a case where we have an actual effort to legally justify torture by the U.S. state in real circumstances. The right blogosphere has been a bit quiet about this issue in general, though again I acknowledge that people are free to choose their own topics, especially when it comes to blogs run as hobbies.1 It’s just that some commentary from the lawyers at the Volokh Conspiracy would probably have been more worthwhile than what we’ve heard from some other prominent right-leaning law bloggers, who have have restricted themselves — on the topic of the Abu Ghraib torture2 — to the argument that Saddam Hussein, the Palestinians and the French torture people too.

1 Harley and most recently Tacitus are honorable exceptions. So is Andrew Sullivan, to be fair to him, though between the Texas Gop platform at home and torture abroad, I’m wondering what it’ll take to make him finally leave the Republican party. I’m not holding my breath.

2 Reynolds has been on vacation since the torture memo was published, and has blogged about a few things but not that.

WTF?

Posted by Kieran

I know I’m way late with this, but I must have missed it on my travels last month. The Gadflyer brings me the story that the Rev Sun Myung Moon had himself crowned Emporer of the United States and declared the Messiah at a ceremony in the Dirksen Senate Office Building in the presence and with the enthusiastic participation of a bipartisan contingent of Members of Congress. No, really. Did this even make the newspapers?

June 06, 2004

Days Like This

Posted by Belle Waring

My mom, still right about everything. In a previous post, I explained her immediate skepticism about the Brandon Mayfield arrest. From the NYT today:

…the F.B.I. at one point told federal prosecutors that Spanish officials were “satisfied” with their conclusion. But in interviews this week, Spanish officials vehemently denied ever backing up that assessment, saying they had told American law enforcement officials from the start, after their own tests, that the match was negative. The Spanish officials said their American counterparts relentlessly pressed their case anyway, explaining away stark proof of a flawed link — including what the Spanish described as tell-tale forensic signs — and seemingly refusing to accept the notion that they were mistaken….
Carlos Corrales, a commissioner of the Spanish National Police’s science division, said he was also struck by the F.B.I.’s intense focus on Mr. Mayfield. “It seemed as though they had something against him,” Mr. Corrales said, “and they wanted to involve us.”

The FBI continues to maintain it was just a random mistake by an examiner who didn’t even know Mayfield’s name, much less his religion, that initially led them to focus on Mayfield. I continue to maintain that’s total BS. Finally, does this fingerprint examiner have a family? Because I bet they would really, really like more time to be spent with them.

Statistical Update: This 2001 Washington Post article lists some widely varying estimates as to how many Muslims live in the US. The highest number was produced by a group of Muslim organizations and has been the subject of some doubt (numbers in millions).
Mosque Study Project: 6 to 7
2001 Britannica Book of the Year: 4.1
National Opinion Research Center: 1.5 to 3.4
CUNY Religious Identification Survey: 2.8
Reading the article, the methodology of the Mosque Study Project was obviously pretty bad. The total U.S population, according to the census bureau, is 293, 425, 566. So it seems as if probably more than 1% but substantially fewer than 2% of Americans are Muslims. I think that in the original article the FBI said the computer provided them with 50 close matches, from which Mayfield’s print was chosen as the best by an examiner (again, allegedly, without reference to his personal details).

June 02, 2004

Defining Deviousness Down

Posted by John Holbo

I think Michael Rappaport is straining to find the silver lining in this intelligence cloud.

Consider this an open thread about this important story, with optional special reference to the question: is it a source of consolation if it turns out the whole spy game is usually just seeing how many clowns you can cram into a riddle, wrapped in a question, locked inside an enigma?

May 30, 2004

A Government of Laws and not of Men

Posted by Kieran

Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor whom Richard Nixon attempted to fire in the Saturday Night Massacre has died at the age of 92. I use a video about those events in my social theory class, when we read Weber, because it nicely illustrates Weber’s views about authority and bureaucracy.

As the video goes on, you can draw an organizational chart of the official relationships between the main players — Nixon, Agnew and Haig in the White House; Cox, Elliott Richardson, William Ruckleshaus and Robert Bork at the Justice Department — and see how Nixon’s efforts to fire Cox were, in effect, an effort to act like he was the King rather than the President. Nixon didn’t have the authority to fire Cox even though he had the authority to fire Cox’s superiors. After Attorney General Richardson and his deputy Ruckleshaus had refused Nixon’s demands and themselves been fired, Robert Bork — then Solicitor General and third in line at Justice — agreed to do the job. Weber’s analysis of office-holding is nicely illustrated in Richardson’s refusal: “Methodical provision is made for the regular and continuous fulfilment of these duties and for the execution of the corresponding rights … When the principle of jurisdictional ‘competency’ is fully carried through, hierarchical subordination — at least in public office — does not mean that the ‘higher’ authority is simply authorized to take over the business of the ‘lower.’ ” In the video, Bork is interviewed about his decision and in his defence says “Cox had done nothing wrong, but the President can’t be faced down in public by a subordinate official.” When paired with Cox’s famous statement that night — “Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people” — you get a perfect articulation of the difference between traditional and legal-rational authority in a democracy.

The interesting thing is that you don’t have to stop there. Because it’s clear from the video that Richardson’s great personal integrity (Nixon called him a “pious son of a bitch”) carried him through Nixon’s efforts to pressure him, and the following day Richardson got a standing ovation from the staff at Justice as he formally announces his resignation. So two other Weberian ideas — that office-holding is a vocation, and that charisma can persist in bureaucracies — are also relevant.

It’s an effective way to teach this bit of Weber, because he isn’t the most charismatic writer in the world himself, and although the students have heard of Watergate, the details of the constitutional crisis that culminated in the Saturday Night Massacre are new to them.

May 29, 2004

Physician, Heal Thyself

Posted by Kieran

Glenn Reynolds responds to criticism from Matt Yglesias:

Instead of blaming the messenger, perhaps a bit of soul-searching would be in order.

You said it, mate.

May 28, 2004

One true love

Posted by Ted

Last week, Daniel Drezner asked, “Who will the neo-neos go with — Bush or Chalabi? My money is on Chalabi.”

I hope that he made that bet:

Richard Perle, until recently a powerful adviser to U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, described U.S. policy in post-war Iraq as a failure.

“I would be the first to acknowledge we allowed the liberation (of Iraq) to subside into an occupation. And I think that was a grave error, and in some ways a continuing error,” said Perle, former chair of the influential Defence Policy Board, which advises the Pentagon…

“We didn’t have to find ourselves in the role of occupier. We could have made the transition that is going to be made at the end of June more or less immediately,” he told BBC radio, referring to the U.S. and British plan to transfer political authority in Iraq to an interim government on June 30.

Don’t get me wrong: I haven’t suddenly discovered the previously unsung wisdom of Richard Perle because he’s started criticizing the administration. He’s been wrong since the beginning.

What I’m marvelling at is the fact that Perle is willing to attack the Administration on the record, calling the Administration’s policy a “grave error” and the current situation an “occupation”, because they didn’t follow his plan to hand the country to Chalabi just after the statue of Saddam fell.

Amazing. Will a widely-denounced tell-all book be next?

(via The Poor Man.)

Rumsfeld Speaks

Posted by Kieran

The incomparable Fafblog interviews Donald Rumsfeld:

FAFBLOG: Great to have you here Donald Rumsfeld! Lets get right to it an start by askin: what is with this torture thing, and how long have you known about it?
DONALD RUMSFELD: Good gosh, that’s a tricky one there. Was it torture? Were detainees indefinitely held for days with bags over their heads? Yes. Were testicles electrocuted? You bet. Were orifices molested, flesh ripped by dogs, and nostils raped? Almost certainly. But torture? Hard to say.
FB: Wow - that IS hard to say.
DR: It sure is.

There’s plenty more.

May 26, 2004

The Paper of Record

Posted by Kieran

The New York Times hangs Judith Miller out to dry though it doesn’t mention her by name, preferring to spread the blame for its credulous reporting on Iraq around to other reporters and editors, whom it doesn’t name either. At least they come out and say, in an official capacity, that they were spun like a top by Chalabi and his buddies, and that if they’d been less excitable then they might not look so bad now.

May 25, 2004

115,000 troops

Posted by Ted

Bush, last night:

Our commanders had estimated that a troop level below 115,000 would be sufficient at this point in the conflict. Given the recent increase in violence, we will maintain our troop level at the current 138,000 as long as necessary.

Last Thursday’s testimony of General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

Myers gave one of the most candid official assessments yet of events in Iraq, which marked a further turn away from the administration’s stance that a smaller US force coupled with Iraqi security forces could secure Iraq. He said General John Abizaid, commander of US forces in Iraq, was assessing what additional forces may be needed on top of the 135,000 American troops already there.
Tim Cavanaugh, who called this the “best Clinton moment” in Reason:
I can see Mike McCurry now, explaining that the President was actually using the pluperfect tense, so his comments were literally true.

Free stickers

Posted by Eszter

Since I’ve been blogging about political stickers and T-shirts, I thought I would post a pointer to the free stickers MoveOn is giving away. (One could actually argue that saying “Mission Nothing Accomplished” actually understates the myriad of problems that have been “accomplished”.)

Compare and Contrast

Posted by Kieran

The front page summary of the lead story on CNN’s US edition reads:

In a speech outlining the future for Iraq, President Bush warned Americans there would be “difficult days ahead and the way forward may sometimes appear chaotic,” but added: “No power of the enemy will stop Iraq’s progress.” Bush outlined five steps to Iraqi self-government in the first in a series of addresses in the weeks before the handover of power to Iraqis.

The subheading reads ‘Albright: More Specifics Needed’. Meanwhile, the front page summary of the lead story on CNN’s European edition reads:

With approval ratings at new lows over Iraq and increasing doubts over his handling of the war, President Bush has outlined his five-step plan for the war-torn nation. Additionally, he says the U.S. will demolish the controversial Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad in consultation with a new Iraqi government.

Here the subheading reads, ‘Bush approval near record low’. Gotta cater to your audience.

Momma Said There'd Be Days Like This

Posted by Belle Waring

My mother was visiting here in Singapore when Brandon Mayfield was first arrested in Oregon. The FBI claimed to have found his fingerprint on a plastic bag associated with bomb materials turned up by Spanish investigators of the Madrid train bombings. Mayfield is a white American convert to Islam, and was tangentially associated with one of the men convicted in an Oregon terrorism case (Jeffrey Battle), having represented him in a custody dispute. He claimed not to have been outside the US in nearly ten years, a claim made all the more plausible by the fact that he does not currently have a valid passport.

Mom’s verdict: this is a total set-up. The FBI has been monitoring this guy for a while and now they want to pin something on him. But Mom, I said stupidly, granting that fingerprint matching is not a particularly exact science, and wrong ID’s do happen, what are the odds that the wrong match would happen to be a convert to Islam with any connection, no matter how tenuous, to any alleged terrorists? And she said, exactly. You just wait and see. Well, once again, she was right (though, as of a few days ago, he was still barred from talking about the case or leaving his house without permission from the authorities). Here is a quote from the official FBI apology to Mayfield (I’m actually pleased and suprised that they did apologize, so, 10 points for the FBI):

The submitted images [of the latent prints from Spain] were searched through the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS).

An IAFIS search compares an unknown print to a database of millions of known prints. The result of an IAFIS search produces a short list of potential matches.

A trained fingerprint examiner then takes the short list of possible matches and performs an examination to determine whether the unknown print matches a known print in the database.

Using standard protocols and methodologies, FBI fingerprint examiners determined that the latent fingerprint was of value for identification purposes.

This print was subsequently linked to Brandon Mayfield. That association was independently analyzed and the results were confirmed by an outside experienced fingerprint expert.

Soon after the submitted fingerprint was associated with Mr. Mayfield, Spanish authorities alerted the FBI to additional information that cast doubt on our findings.

As a result, the FBI sent two fingerprint examiners to Madrid, who compared the image the FBI had been provided to the image the Spanish authorities had.

Upon review it was determined that the FBI identification was based on an image of substandard quality, which was particularly problematic because of the remarkable number of points of similarity between Mr. Mayfield’s prints and the print details in the images submitted to the FBI.

Note that the FBI all along spoke of “a fingerprint”, while the Spanish now say that the fingerprints of an Algerian man, Ouhane Daoud were found:

Spanish authorities, however, expressed doubts from the start about the FBI’s fingerprint match. Yesterday, officials in Spain released a statement saying the fingerprints belong to an Algerian, Ouhnane Daoud. The Europa Press news agency reported Daoud had a residency permit to live in Spain and had a police record. “The extensive and meticulous work of the Spanish scientific police has determined completely that the fingerprint identifications are of the medium and thumb fingers of the Algerian’s right hand,” Spanish authorities said.

From the same article: “Newsweek, which broke the story, quoted an unnamed U.S. counterterrorism official as saying the fingerprints were an “absolutely incontrovertible match.” So, the FBI was looking at a constellation of the medium and thumb prints of a single person’s hand, and claiming to have found a match with only one of those prints. Likely? Was he wearing some kind of Mission Impossible fingerprint mask, but only on his thumb?

Seriously, does anyone believe that the FBI innocently ran this through a general database and just happened to mistakenly come up with a Muslim advocate for one of the “Portland Seven”? Not to get all Ockham’s razorish on you, but isn’t it much more plausible that the FBI had a hard-on for Mayfield and tried to pin a heinous crime on him? The most charitable explanation is that the FBI ran the prints against a special secret list of suspicious Muslims, and Mayfield’s was the closest match. But is that so great? And, given that Mike Hawash and co. faced the threat of indefinite detention without access to counsel (the Padilla treatment), how secure are you feeling about their guilty pleas now?

I know the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact, and it doesn’t seem unreasonable for the FBI to focus on adherents of Islam rather than, say, Lutherans when fighting extremist Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem as if the government knows how to “only sort of” violate your rights. The dial goes all the way to eleven, right from the start. Sorry, Mom. I’ve learned my lesson. Next time, I promise not to trust the government.

(Timberite fans of my mom’s no-nonsense hatin’ on the government should be aware that she’s also a total babe.)

UPDATE: Mayfield was indeed already under FBI surveillance prior to the bombing: “In a report prepared more than three weeks ago by Spanish police about the lead involving Mayfield, he was described as a U.S. military veteran who was already under investigation by U.S. authorities for alleged ties to Islamic terrorism.”

Hat Tip: my mom.

May 24, 2004

Taking the subway?

Posted by Eszter

You better have a good reason.. and be able to produce identification as well. [Via IP.]

All gone to look for America ...

Posted by Daniel
From Instapundit
And here’s a question: Freedom of the press, as it exists today (and didn’t exist, really, until the 1960s) is unlikely to survive if a majority — or even a large and angry minority — of Americans comes to conclude that the press is untrustworthy and unpatriotic. How far are we from that point?

And over at USS Clueless:

When I’ve read news reports lately about some kinds of obnoxious protests, I have mused to myself, “Perhaps it’s time to issue shoot-to-kill orders to security guards.” Perhaps if some people who made grandstanding protests ended up dead, it might cause others to start really thinking about the consequences of their behavior.

There used to be a shining city on a hill … what the hell happened to it? I’m pretty sure that there might be some “consequences” in allowing the United States of America to become the sort of place where newspapers are censored and demonstrators are shot dead for being “obnoxious”. I think I’d be prepared to pay quite a high price to avoid finding out what they were.

Update Should probably make it clear that den Beste steps back from the brink of actually recommending that protestors be shot. But it’s not obvious he’d object over much if they started doing it.

May 21, 2004

Design for Kerry

Posted by Eszter

A propos election designs, check out Designs on the White House. Their goal is to generate great T-shirt designs for the Kerry campaign and then sell them to support the campaign. There will be some public voting and then voting by a list of judges (which for some curious reason does not include any Timberites;). They have sevaral themes: Best Pro-Kerry Shirt (positive spin, no mention of Bush), Best Anti-Bush Shirt (negative spin, must mention Bush), Best Issue Shirt - Domestic, Best Issue Shirt - Foreign, Funniest Shirt, Best Retro Shirt, Best Get Out The Vote Shirt and Most stylish. Be sure to check it out and also get those creative juices flowing and submit your own designs/quotes!!

I noticed the W has made it on to their list. Great minds think alike. (Hey, I can say that, it wasn’t my idea, it was a friend’s.) Oh, and for those interested in some W wearables immediately, here they are. I have added some circular Ws and some baby options in response to commentators’ requests.

UPDATE: As expected, others had thought of and implemented the W design a while ago. Take your pick: one, two, three, four. Thanks to a reader for pointing me to these sites.

Whisperers are communists

Posted by Maria

The New America Foundation has put together a Cartoon Guide to Federal Spectrum Policy. It is very amusing and quite compelling, though more technically minded people than me can assess the argument made there; that industry lobbyists are using meaningless technical mumbo jumbo to avoid sharing radio spectrum, and that licensing of spectrum is increasingly a barrier to entry and innovation. Well worth a look.

May 20, 2004

Unbelievable

Posted by Ted

Steve at No More Mister Nice Blog is correct- this really is astounding:

It’s McCain vs. Hastert on meaning of sacrifice

A 2-month-old House-Senate standoff over the 2005 budget burst into public acrimony Wednesday, when House Speaker Dennis Hastert questioned Sen. John McCain’s credentials as a Republican and suggested that the decorated Vietnam War veteran didn’t understand the meaning of sacrifice. …

On Tuesday, McCain gave a speech excoriating both political parties for refusing to sacrifice their tax cutting and spending agendas in a time of war. At the Capitol on Wednesday, Hastert shot back: “If you want to see sacrifice, John McCain ought to visit our young men and women at Walter Reed (Army Medical Center) and Bethesda (Naval Hospital). There’s the sacrifice in this country.” …

First: Hastert isn’t making sense. McCain is not asking for cuts in the military budget. He’s asking for legislators to put their other legislative wishes, specifically tax cuts and new spending, on hold in response to the deficit. Hastert seems to think that the federal government has no obligation to balance revenues and expenditures, as long as he can point to the existence of wounded soldiers.

If Hastert believes what he’s saying, he should quit his post and go write for the Wall Street Journal editorial page. He certainly has no business in my government.

Second: I’m not the first, and I won’t be the last, to read this and say, “McCain spent five and a half years in a Viet Cong prisoner of war camp. Where the hell does Hastert get off lecturing him on sacrifice?”

Third: Why are the grown-ups in the Republican party the ones who get spanked?

UPDATE: Digby has a little more on the man being lectured on “sacrifice”.

May 17, 2004

No, There Are Like, All These Punk Rock 'Hipublicans' Now. Really.

Posted by Belle Waring
I recommend that you check out Wonkette’s dissection of the American Conservative Union’s 40th anniversary party. If I were the conservatives, I would have ‘accidentally’ neglected to send Ms. Cox an invitation, but we can all be glad that they were less prudent. Go on, it’ll give you that “thank god I’m on the left because conservatives are a bunch of big lamers” frisson that’s so cheering when all is bleak. (No, seriously. Who’s the coolest famous conservative in America? Jonah Goldberg. That’s just sad, people.) Highlight:
9:30PM No after party? Sure, there’s an after party. It’s in the bar, and the tab is being picked up by the ACU. A dozen twenty- to thirty-somethings, drinking beer. Luminaries (LaPierre, a Virginia congressman whose name I forget, Grover) come over to have hands kissed, say hi. As the night wears on, another difference between attendees at this event and the journo-types who dominated the others (WHCD, RTCA) emerges. . . how to put this delicately? Hmmm. OK: I have not had my rack checked out so brazenly and so often since I stopped going to Cozumel for Spring Break. What is it with the cultural conservatives? They’re all Ken-Starring me and shit.

In the immortal words of Nelson Muntz, “ha ha.”

UPDATE: Sophomoric and partisan, you say? A similar party by a Democratic group would be equi-lame, you say? It’s a fair cop. But you have to admit the Jonah Goldberg thing did sting a little.

May 14, 2004

Who knew?

Posted by Ted

[Removed. Upon reflection, I couldn’t back this up. I apologize.]

May 13, 2004

Bad Apples Also Grow in Afghanistan

Posted by Belle Waring
This NYT article about reported abuses in Afghanistan similar to those at Abu Ghraib is worth reading in full. But this in particular struck me, because the US military is frankly admitting to abusive procedures as a matter of policy:
Mr. Siddiqui [a former Afghan police colonel detained by US forces for 22 days] said he was stripped naked and photographed in each of the three places he was held. Sometimes, as in Bagram, it appeared to be part of a detailed identification procedure.

There he was photographed full length, naked, from the front, back and two sides, he said. Something was inserted into his rectum during that procedure, he said, but he does not know what it was or why it was done. “I was feeling very bad,” he said.

General Barno [commander of US forces in Afghanistan] said that this may have been to search for hidden items, but that the practice of strip searches and fully naked identification photographs was being reviewed and changed. “We’re concerned as well about the cultural impact of doing that,” he said.

Oh, you are, are you? How thoughtful. “Fully naked identification photographs”? Is that so we can spot the terrorists when a big group of naked Afghanis come running towards us? “I remember him, strawberry birthmark on the right buttock, dresses left. Take him out, boys.” WTF? WTF!!?? What the hell is happening to my country?

May 12, 2004

Today's good deed

Posted by Ted

Terry Welch, who is serving as an Army public affairs specialist in Afghanistan, has a very reasonable request. He says that what Afghan children want, more than anything, are pens. Pens are cheap. Below the fold is his letter, including a link to OfficeMax and his address.

As many of you know, I am currently in the apolitical position of Army public affairs specialist in Afghanistan. I only recently arrived, after waiting for 2.5 months at Ft. Riley, Kansas, but that’s another issue. I’m writing you all today because I’m going to take many of you up on your offers and rudely ask a favor of those who made no offer.

When I first mentioned on my blog that I was going to be deployed, a large number of you asked how you could help me, what I would need for Afghanistan. The truth is, there’s not much. However, I just went on my first mission with a civil affairs group and found a way you might be able to help me out.

It seems that the children of Afghanistan want nothing more than they want a pen.

It was explained to me that the villages through which I traveled (near Kandahar, where I’m based) are so poor that a pen is like a scholarship to these children. They desperately want to learn but, without a pen, they simply won’t. It’s a long story. I won’t bore you with it. Trust me, though, when I say that it would be a big deal if even a few of you could put up the call for pens for me. Anyone interested in helping out could either send some directly to me or go to these sites and send them, where you can find them for as cheap as $.89 a dozen.

(OfficeMax link)

You can send them to me at this address:

Terry L. Welch
105th MPAD
Kandahar Public Affairs Office
APO AE 09355

UPDATE: OfficeMax requires a phone number for the recipient to place an order. Any phone number will work.

May 11, 2004

Time for him to go

Posted by Ted

(I’m going to start with the punchline, in case you don’t click through: please consider signing the DCCC petition asking for Rumsfeld’s dismissal).

I recently saw a post on a conservative blog asking whether liberal bloggers were going to accept Rumsfeld’s apology. I know the answer to this one: It Doesn’t Matter. The Administration doesn’t have to worry about us. They need to worry about what they’re doing to minimize the firestorm raging among Iraqis and Muslims. The pictures could hardly have been scripted better to alientate and inflame the people that we’d like to have on our side. Dealing with this terrible stain is of incalculable importance right now.

Donald Rumsfeld has said that he accepts reponsibility, and there are a lot of people arguing that Rumsfeld should resign, not all from the left. Daniel Drezner says that he should resign, in part, because of his poor record of handling postwar Iraq. (So does Dwight Merideth, among others.) The Economist says that he should go, in part, because of his arrogant refusal to allow prisoners to be held to the Geneva Convention, or any standards or oversight at all, created a culture that led to Abu Ghraib. The Army Times says that he should resign because of the appallingly poor handling of the reports of prisoner abuse by his office. Jane Galt thinks that only real accountability can help repair the damage. Jacob Levy says that getting rid of Rumsfeld would be an acknowledgement of past error that would improve the Administration’s credibility. George Will points out that there are no indispensable men, and gently points out that Rumsfeld’s greatest contribution to the War on Terror at this point may be to cease to be the official most identified with it. I very strongly agree.

(UPDATE: William F. Buckley, too.)

What if, instead, the President and Vice-President decided to tell the world that we owe Rumsfeld a “debt of gratitude”, that Rumsfeld is “the best secretary of defense the United States has ever had”, and that people should “get off his back.” What effect would that have?

Arab commentators reacted with shock and disbelief on Monday over President Bush (news - web sites)’s robust backing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld against calls for his resignation….

“After the torture and vile acts by the American army, President Bush goes out and congratulates Rumsfeld. It’s just incredible. I am in total shock,” said Omar Belhouchet, editor of the influential Algerian national daily El Watan.

“Bush’s praise for Rumsfeld will discredit the United States…and further damage its reputation, which is already at a historic low in the Arab world,” he added…

What people saw, they said, was the true image of the occupation: humiliation of an occupied people, contempt for Islam, sadism and racism.

“After Mr. Bush’s decision to keep Rumsfeld, all their apologies seem like lip service,” Dubai-based political analyst Jawad al-Anani told Reuters. “Mr. Rumsfeld would have certainly lost his job if the prisoners were American.”

“The United States is spending so much money by setting up Alhurra television and Radio Sawa to improve its image in the Arab world…How can it reconcile that with keeping a man who has insulted every Arab through the abuses of Iraqi prisoners,” added Anani, a former Jordanian foreign minister.

Please consider signing the DCCC petition.

(Updated to correct date)

Bias you can use

Posted by Kieran

I’m currently trapped in deepest Derbyshire, where very few people seem to have heard of the internet and the news is dominated by the recent death of the Duke of Devonshire. But I just caught this great opening paragraph from the Seattle Times which is worth repeating:

President Bush extended Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a full-throated endorsement yesterday for a “superb job,” then went into Rumsfeld’s Pentagon office for his first private glimpse of Iraqi prisoner-abuse pictures never seen in public.

Why Do the Old Ladies Keep Turning Into Generals?

Posted by Belle Waring

Is it just me, or are the increasingly implausible encomiums of Rumsfeld coming out of the Bush administration starting to sound a little Manchurian Candidate-esque?

George Bush: Mr. Secretary, thank you for your hospitality, and thank you for your leadership. You are courageously leading our nation in the war against terror. You’re doing a superb job. You are a strong Secretary of Defense, and our nation owes you a debt of gratitude.

Dick Cheney
: As a former secretary of defense, I think Donald Rumsfeld is the best secretary of defense the United States has ever had.

Bennett Marco: Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.

Maybe someone should ask the president if he’d like to pass the time by playing a little solitaire, just to see what happens.

May 08, 2004

Previous convictions

Posted by Chris

I’ve just been over to Electrolite, where Patrick Nielsen Hayden has posted this stunning excerpt from the New York Times :

… the man who directed the reopening of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq last year and trained the guards there resigned under pressure as director of the Utah Department of Corrections in 1997 after an inmate died while shackled to a restraining chair for 16 hours. The inmate, who suffered from schizophrenia, was kept naked the whole time.

The Utah official, Lane McCotter, later became an executive of a private prison company, one of whose jails was under investigation by the Justice Department when he was sent to Iraq as part of a team of prison officials, judges, prosecutors and police chiefs picked by Attorney General John Ashcroft to rebuild the country’s criminal justice system.

The article is full of other examples of routine abuse in US prisons, for example:

In Arizona, male inmates at the Maricopa County jail in Phoenix are made to wear women’s pink underwear as a form of humiliation. At Virginia’s Wallens Ridge maximum security prison, new inmates have reported being forced to wear black hoods, in theory to keep them from spitting on guards, and said they were often beaten and cursed at by guards and made to crawl. … [S]ome of the worst abuses have occurred in Texas, [where] guards were allowing inmate gang leaders to buy and sell other inmates as slaves for sex.

May 07, 2004

Staying the course.. or not

Posted by Eszter

The debate I went to last weekend (Resolved: That John Kerry should replace George Bush in the White House) was quite interesting and had some especially good tid-bits. Here is one: The Negative suggested that at other times when the country was at war during the presidential elections the country stayed the course and it should do so this time around as well. The Affirmative responded that had people realized in 1864 that there was no slavery or had people noted in 1944 that there were no concentration camps then perhaps the results of the elections would have been different.

May 06, 2004

Negroponte must go

Posted by Ted

I don’t have much to say about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners that isn’t obvious; I’m just another guy who’s depressed and heartsick at the images on my screen. Just one point:

I don’t know what the Administration was thinking when they appointed John Negroponte, infamous for his role in Honduras in the 80s, as the ambassador to the new Iraq. I don’t know what they thought he could accomplish. I have my suspicions, but they might be unfairly colored by my general impression of the Administration.

At this point, hopes are irrelevant. Negroponte will be a massive detriment to the mission in Iraq. His story will be told again and again in the Arab press, and he will be a crystallizing symbol for anti-American forces who don’t believe in American goodwill. If the Administration wants to demonstrate its concern for the hearts and minds of Iraq, it will be necessary to find a replacement for Negroponte. (Among others.)

UPDATE: Tim Dunlop beat me to this point. The more, the merrier.

UPDATE: As is usually the case, Dwight Merideth has some thoughts that are well worth reading.

UPDATE: More from Jacob Levy on Rumsfeld:

Whatever credibility Rumsfeld had left has now been fatally undermined. It’s time to demand that he take responsibility and resign; he can no longer do his job anyways. The failure of the White House to understand that seems to be tied to a sense that, while Bush can judge Rumsfeld, no one else has any business doing so. Utterly obtuse.

May 05, 2004

Suckage

Posted by Henry

Max Sawicky is right - Ted Rall sucks. And he sucks even more than usual in this hysterical diatribe, charmingly entitled “An Army of Scum (Or, We’re Looking For a Few Good Homosexual Rapists).”

According to Rall, the US army is equivalent to the SS.

Now it’s official: American troops occupying Iraq (news - web sites) have become virtually indistinguishable from the SS. Like the Germans during World War II, they cordon off and bomb civilian villages to retaliate for guerilla attacks on their convoys. Like the blackshirts who terrorized Europe, America’s victims disappear into hellish prisons ruled by sadists and murderers. The U.S. military is short just one item to achieve moral parity with the Nazis: gas chambers.

You don’t have to be an apologist for Abu Ghraib to recognize this as nonsense. Even if it turns out that there are systematic abuses in US interrogation of prisoners, there’s no comparison between the US army and Hussein’s crowd, let alone the SS. I imagine that the shrill and obnoxious tone of Rall’s recent writing is not entirely unconnected to the fact that he has a book coming out this week. He’s the Ann Coulter of the left - a shameless self-publicist trying to build a career out of moral superiority, cheap shots and relentless, vicious stereotyping. To be avoided at all costs, in other words.

May 02, 2004

My Cold Dead Hands and Yours

Posted by Kieran

John just pipped me to a post on torture in Iraq. I had been thinking how, just last week, even quite sensible people were endorsing the idea that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be giving interviews in the Arab media because — in Eugene Volokh’s words — “the very likely effect of statements such as this is to magnify the resolve of those who are trying to defeat us”. This was watery stuff when it first appeared, and seems a bit beside the point in the light of the images we’ve seen this week.

More generally, it seems to me that American war hawks continue to show little ability to put themselves in the position of the occupied Iraqis and ask how they might respond themselves in such circumstances. I find this odd because you’d think that a strong tradition of personal liberty and local autonomy backed in part by private gun ownership would predispose you to have that sort of sympathy. But, with some exceptions these sentiments are getting overridden by others.

April 27, 2004

How much is Google worth?

Posted by John Quiggin

According to this report, the widely-predicted Google IPO is likely to value the equity in Google at more than $20 billion - others suggest $25 billion. I immediately wondered whether Google was really worth $25 billion.

I started on a standard financial analysis. Although, as a private company, Google doesn’t have to publish annual reports, it’s been estimated that Google has annual revenues of $500 million and profits of $125 million so that the return on equity is about 0.5 per cent. We can expect that to grow reasonably fast in the next few years, but the scope for expansion in Google’s core business is far from limitless. Most people in the developed world are already online and most of the heavy users already use Google (Eszter might have more to say on this). Moreover, there’s no strong reason to suppose that Google will be around in, say, 20 years time. I find it hard to draw a plausible earnings path that would yield a present value of $25 billion at any reasonable discount rate.

That’s a problem for the investors, though. The Google example started me thinking about the more general problem of economic valuation in the Internet era. I started by looking at this piece by Simson Garfinkelhat tip - Tyler Cowen. As well as reporting potential competition from Akamai (relevant in considering Google’s longevity), Garfinkel estimates that Google operates a network of 100 000 servers, but that clever design allows the use of very cheap computers as servers. Let’s and suppose an average of $500 a piece. This implies that the main piece of capital equipment operated by Google is worth around $50 million1 - a hefty sum, but a tiny fraction of the estimated equity value (and presumably there’s some debt in there as well) .

Next, it’s of interest to look at capital-labour ratios. Google apparently has about 1000 employees, which would suggest a total labour cost of the order of $100 million per year - a little on the low side as a proportion of revenues of $500 million, but not implausible. On the other hand, the number of employees is minuscule in relation to the valuation above, which implies a capital stock of $25 million per worker. I feel sure that this kind of ratio would imply some pretty strange organizational policies.

Then there’s the question of how much Google is worth in economic terms. I would think the correct answer must be lot more than the present value of its revenues. I use Google all the time, but unless text ads have a subliminal effect for which Google is being paid, I’ve never contributed a penny to its revenues, and quite possibly never will.

The general problem is that, in an economy dominated by public goods, like that of the Internet, there’s no reason to expect any relationship between economic value and capacity to raise revenue. Things of immense social value (this blog, for example!) are given away because there’s no point doing anything else. On the other hand significant profits can be made by those who can find a suitable choke point, even if they haven’t actually contributed anything of value. Assuming for the moment that SCO prevails in its attempts to extract revenue from Linux users, it won’t be because SCO’s code was better than some free alternative but simply because it was widely distributed before anyone found out it was copyrighted.

If the Internet continues to grow in economic importance, the central role of public goods in its formation will pose big problems for capitalism, though not necessarily to the benefit of traditional forms of socialism.

1 Thanks to commentators danny yee and thijs for correcting parametric and arithmetic errors in the original version of the draft, and thereby greatly strengthening my point.

April 26, 2004

Referendums

Posted by John Quiggin

The problem with, and the virtue of, referendums is that, in the absence of armed guards at the ballot box, you can never be sure of the result. The curious politics of the European Union are such that referendums are of particular importance. The big news at present relates to the twin referendums just held in Cyprus, on the UN plan for reunification, and the commitment by Tony Blair to hold a referendum on the EU ‘constitution’.

The Cyprus outcome was the opposite of the result predicted (and feared) by many until quite recently. The Turkish Cypriots voted for reunification, rejecting the arguments of separatist leader Rauf Dentktash (until recently, an apparent permanent fixture). Meanwhile the voters in the internationally-recognised Greek Cypriot republic voted against, apparently on the basis that they could get a better deal after they are securely inside the EU.

Although disappointing, the result is not nearly as bad as the opposite possibility - continued support for separatism among the Turkish Cypriots, which would have represented a significant challenge to the whole international order and made the admission of Turkey to the EU most unlikely. The manoeuvrings of the Greek Cypriot politicians who undermined support for the deal are simply a standard example of shortsighted hardball politics. They want reunification but have made the judgement that they can extract a better deal once they are in the UN and the Turkish Cypriots are on the outside.

The question naturally arises as to how to react when a referendum goes the ‘wrong’ way. If the right to make choices in a referendum is taken seriously, the voters should not be punished for exercising their right to choose. On the other hand, choices have consequences. The obvious consequence of the choices made at the weekend is that there’s no reason for governments in the EU or outside it to trouble themselves any further with the sanctions that have been imposed on the Turkish Cypriots until now. It would be absurd to recognise the government they have just voted in favor of abolishing, but for all other purposes, the residents of the Turkish portion of Cyprus should be treated as normal members of the international community. As a necessary side effect, the removal of these disabilities will weaken the bargaining position of the Greek Cypriot government next time reunification is discussed, but that’s not the reason for removing them.

Presumably, the judgement made by the Greek Cypriot leaders is that the possession of a single vote in an EU where every member has a veto will be worth more than the sympathy of the international community, including fellow members of the EU. This leads naturally to the second referendum being discussed on the proposed ‘EU constitution’, which would, among other things reduce the scope of such vetos.

After staving it off as long as possible, Tony Blair has finally agreed to hold a referendum in the UK, and he was right to do so. The central problem with the EU is the lack of democratic accountability arising from a structure with a powerless parliament, under which all decisions are effectively made either by the unelected European Commission or by national governments in the Council of Ministers. The solution is either to keep the EU relatively weak and ineffectual, by maintaining national vetos over most issues, or to make the system more like a bicameral legislature, with some form of majority voting in both the Parliament and the Council. The expansion, by introducing lots of new members (including several that have already shown themselves willing to act irresponsibly) makes the first option less attractive, but not necessarily unworkable. The natural consequence of losing automatic national vetos will be to increase concern with the functioning of the Parliament, and this will ultimately promote democratic accountability.

It’s obvious, though, that democracy can’t be promoted by denying it, and it’s therefore highly desirable that the changes should be subject to referendums in any country where there is a strong body of opposition. The UK obviously fits this description.

There are several possible outcomes to such a process. First, somewhat improbably [1], all the referendums could pass, in which case there is no problem. Second, the proposal could be rejected in a few countries on the basis of more-or-less extraneous concerns, as happened with Ireland and the Treaty of Nice. In this case, the referendums can just be held again. Third, the proposal could be rejected in several countries, following a debate that was clearly focused on the main issues (the proposal itself and the general issue of European integration). In that case, it would be time to call a halt, and leave existing arrangements in place for a while. If they produced the predicted problems, voters might be willing to reconsider the issues in a few years time. Otherwise, it would be necessary to scale back the ambitions of the European Project to something more like a Free Trade Area and less like a United States of Europe.

The final case, and the one of most interest for Blair, is the possibility that only one country (the UK is the most likely candidate) rejects the referendum, and that this position is not amenable to change through the holding of a second referendum. In the short run, the probable consequence is a “two-speed” system, with the eurozone being the obvious basis for a core group within which further integration could take place.

In the long run, though, a federation (or, more accurately, a confederation) like the EU must include a mechanism for withdrawal and exclusion as well as for new admissions. If one member is permanently at odds with the others on fundamental issues, that member should be invited to leave. It’s therefore somewhat disingenuous of those advocating a “No” vote to claim that it isn’t a vote against British membership of the EU. Most of those advocating a “No” vote are not concerned with the details of the proposal, but would take the same position on almost any proposal to make a union of 25 countries functional. The ultimate consequence must be either British withdrawal or (if voters in other European countries take the same view) a substantial weakening of the EU.

1 This isn’t impossible. All but one (I think) of the new entrants held referendums, and all were successful. So if the stakes are high enough, the likelihood of frivolous or petulant “No” votes is greatly reduced.

April 24, 2004

Taxation and conscription

Posted by John Quiggin
A while ago, I made the observation that
since most libertarians envisage a minimal state with no real taxing powers but a continuing responsibility for defence, reliance on conscription would be almost inevitable. From the libertarian viewpoint, any form of taxation constitutes slavery1, and fairness is not a proper concern of policy, so there can be no particular objection to the press gang as opposed to, say, voluntary recruitment financed by involuntary income taxes.
I was speaking in the context of the Aubrey-Maturin novels, set during the Napoleonic Wars, but the issue has come up again in relation to contemporary debates about the draft. Julian Sanchez has a very good discussion of the issues from a libertarian viewpoint, rejecting Nozick and arguing that rights over property are derivative of, and potentially far more qualified than, rights over one’s own labour.

My own view is broadly similar to Julian’s. Conscription may be justified in the kind of total war situation that also requires “conscription of wealth”, but not as a cheap way of filling the military.

1 Nozick is clear on this, and a lot of other libertarians say much the same thing, though usually more foggily. As noted below, however, it’s always a mistake to refer to “the” libertarian viewpoint.

April 21, 2004

The September Project

Posted by Eszter

Where will you be on September 11th?

Jay Nordlinger defends Iran-Contra

Posted by Ted

Jay Nordlinger, of the National Review, on hypocrisy:

I had a memory: It was of Ronald Reagan and his dealing with the hostage situation in Lebanon. An AP reporter was held captive there — name of Terry Anderson. He had a sister named Peggy Say, and she became kind of a spokeswoman for the hostages’ families. Every day, she’d be out in front of the White House, sockin’ it to Reagan, saying how he was hard-hearted and callous and rigid and all the rest of it. And the media were in broad agreement with this. Reagan had a ridiculously inflexible position: No negotiations with terrorists.

But, lo, it was revealed that Reagan was a softie, that he was, indeed, flexible, that he was engaged in some maneuvering to free those hostages, so concerned was he about the individuals’ fates.

And the media (along with the rest of the Left)? They turned on a dime. Now they were super-principled about terrorists. Now any dealing for the release of those hostages was a travesty and an outrage.

Is Nordlinger honestly and truly trying to say that the President should have the authority to secretly cut deals rewarding terrorists? It appears that he is.

I can’t honestly say that I remember the attitude of the media regarding the hostage situation in Lebanon before Iran-Contra broke. I have a better recollection of the Iran-Contra scandal, or as Nordlinger prefers to call it, “some manuvering.”

Members of the Reagan Administration secretly sold arms to Iran, in contradiction to stated U.S. policy and in possible violation of arms-control agreement, in exchange for American nationals who had been kidnapped by pro-Iranian terrorist groups in Lebanon. The terrorists learned that the kidnapping Americans could lead to fabulous prizes. That is what appeasement looks like, and the reason that it’s bad policy should be obvious.

Some of the proceeds were funneled to the Nicaraguan Contra rebels. In an article about John Negroponte, the newly-nominated ambassador to Iraq and former point-man on the Contras, Matthew Yglesias writes:

As the CIA, which oversaw the Contra operation, eventually admitted, the rebel force “engaged in kidnapping, extortion, and robbery to fund its operations.” Wishing to avoid combat with the Nicaraguan army, it became, in essence, a terrorist group, attacking civilian targets in an effort to disrupt Nicaragua’s economy and society.”

The independent counsel concluded that:

the sales of arms to Iran contravened United States Government policy and may have violated the Arms Export Control Act1

the provision and coordination of support to the contras violated the Boland Amendment ban on aid to military activities in Nicaragua;

the policies behind both the Iran and contra operations were fully reviewed and developed at the highest levels of the Reagan Administration;

although there was little evidence of National Security Council level knowledge of most of the actual contra-support operations, there was no evidence that any NSC member dissented from the underlying policykeeping the contras alive despite congressional limitations on contra support;

the Iran operations were carried out with the knowledge of, among others, President Ronald Reagan, Vice President George Bush, Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger, Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey, and national security advisers Robert C. McFarlane and John M. Poindexter; of these officials, only Weinberger and Shultz dissented from the policy decision, and Weinberger eventually acquiesced by ordering the Department of Defense to provide the necessary arms; and

large volumes of highly relevant, contemporaneously created documents were systematically and willfully withheld from investigators by several Reagan Administration officials.

following the revelation of these operations in October and November 1986, Reagan Administration officials deliberately deceived the Congress and the public about the level and extent of official knowledge of and support for these operations.

In addition, Independent Counsel concluded that the off-the-books nature of the Iran and contra operations gave line-level personnel the opportunity to commit money crimes.

The Iran-Contra scandal led to 14 indictments (two overturned on appeal) and 11 convictions. (The first President Bush pardoned seven of them.) The independent counsel was appointed by Reagan’s Attorney General Edwin Meese, not the media.

Reagan himself apologized for it. On March 4, 1987, he said,

A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions tell me that’s true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower Board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake.

I can’t even pretend to believe that Nordlinger is serious about this. Let’s pretend that he’s being honest at the beginning- that “the media” pilloried Reagan because they thought that “no negotiations with terrorists” was ridiculously inflexible. He seems to believe that the media should have smiled at all of Iran-Contra, because doing otherwise would be hypocritical.

I haven’t made my disrespect for National Review much of a secret, but this is just a joke.

It didn't happen

Posted by Ted

From today’s Washington Post:

The Pentagon deleted from a public transcript a statement Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made to author Bob Woodward suggesting that the administration gave Saudi Arabia a two-month heads-up that President Bush had decided to invade Iraq.

At issue was a passage in Woodward’s “Plan of Attack,” an account published this week of Bush’s decision making about the war, quoting Rumsfeld as telling Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, in January 2003 that he could “take that to the bank” that the invasion would happen…

Woodward supplied his own transcript showing that Rumsfeld told him on Oct. 23, 2003: “I remember meeting with the vice president and I think Dick Myers and I met with a foreign dignitary at one point and looked him in the eye and said you can count on this. In other words, at some point we had had enough of a signal from the president that we were able to look a foreign dignitary in the eye and say you can take that to the bank this is going to happen.”

We are hearing about this because the Administration directly contradicted a celebrity Post reporter about a hot news story, and the reporter kept his own records.

What haven’t we heard about?

UPDATE: Some insightful commentary on this story, and Woodward generally, from Ranting Profs.

April 20, 2004

To think that an old soldier should come to this

Posted by John Holbo

I trust you agree with me that advertising is a fascinating subject, for it concerns essentially the nature of the beast. Yet reading its entrails is so tricky. Tonight a passage from David Ogilvy’s Confessions of an Advertising Man, first published in 1963. In a chapter entitled “Should Advertising Be Abolished?”:

Should advertising be used in politics? I think not. In recent years it has become fashionable for political parties to employ advertising agencies. In 1952 my old friend Rosser Reeves advertised General Eisenhower as if he were a tube of toothpaste. He created fifty commercial in which the General was made to read out hand-lettered answers to a series of phony questions from imaginary citizens. Like this:

Citizen: Mr. Eisenhower, what about the high cost of living?

General: My wife Mamie worries about the same thing. I tell her it’s our job to change that on November 4th.

Between takes the General was heard to say, “To think that an old soldier should come to this.”

Whenever my agency is asked to advertise a politician or a political party, we refuse the invitation, for these reasons:

(1) The use of advertising to sell statesmen is the ultimate vulgarity.

(2) If we were to advertise a Democrat, we would be unfair to the Republicans on our staff; and vice versa.

However, I encourage my colleagues to do their political duty by working for one of the parties - as individuals. If a party or candidates requires technical advertising services, such as the buying of network time to broadcast political rallies, he can employ expert volunteers, banded together in an ad hoc consortium.

Now Ogilvy was a cynical man, otherwise he would not have become the giant of the industry he was. But he really was not too cynical, to judge from this and other passages.

Anyway, what is interesting to me here is that, as recently as the 1960’s, an advertising man could seriously maintain that electoral politics should - and by implication can (Ogivly is too practical to use ‘should’ without an implied can) - be advertising-free. Today, of course, we content ourselves with hinting that perhaps some corner of electoral politics should be reserved, if only recreationally, for something besides phony, focus-group tested inanities on cards.

Obviously the ‘old soldier come to this’ problem only arises for Kerry. Whatever Bush was up to in the early 70’s … well, I’ll leave it at that. Seriously, here is my question for you: it is tempting to say that the world has changed a lot, and for the worse, politics becoming supersaturated with advertisement where once that was not the case. On the other hand, it isn’t that Ogilvy’s attitude is really all that different than ours. So you might say: our thoughts on the subject really haven’t changed that much. Everyone agrees that political advertising is pretty vulgar, mostly. And if our thoughts haven’t really changed, how much effect can all the advertising have had? So have things changed a lot, or not so much? Discuss.

April 19, 2004

The friend of my enemy is (x)

Posted by Ted

Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election - to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.

60 Minutes, “Woodward Shares War Secrets”, 4/18/04

The Saudi government has been the principal financial backer of Afghanistan’ s odious Taliban movement since at least 1996. It has also channeled funds to Hamas and other groups that have committed terrorist acts in Israel and other portions of the Middle East.

Worst of all, the Saudi monarchy has funded dubious schools and “charities” throughout the Islamic world. Those organizations have been hotbeds of anti-Western, and especially, anti-American, indoctrination. The schools, for example, not only indoctrinate students in a virulent and extreme form of Islam, but also teach them to hate secular Western values.

They are also taught that the United States is the center of infidel power in the world and is the enemy of Islam. Graduates of those schools are frequently recruits for Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda terror network as well as other extremist groups.

Ted Galen Carpenter, “Terrorist Sponsors: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China”, 11/16/01

When the Clinton administration cornered Osama bin Laden in the Sudan in 1998, the Saudis refused to allow his extradition back home, where he could be neutralized. Instead, the Saudi intelligence chief – Prince Turki – reportedly offered bin Laden $200 million to go to Afghanistan, on the condition that he not target the Saudi royal family. Bin Laden honored his promise – there has not been a single attack by Al-Qaeda against the Al-Saud family.

Laurent Murawiec, “Saudi Arabia’s Links to Terrorism”, The Middle East Forum, 11/19/02

Within weeks of the September 11 terror attacks, security officers at the Fleet National Bank in Boston had identified “suspicious” wire transfers from the Saudi Embassy in Washington that eventually led to the discovery of an active Al Qaeda “sleeper cell” that may have been planning follow-up attacks inside the United States, according to documents obtained by NEWSWEEK.

U.S. law-enforcement officials familiar with the matter say there is no evidence that officials at the Saudi Embassy were knowingly financing Al Qaeda activity inside the country. But documents show that while trying to trace a tangled money trail beginning with the Saudi Embassy, investigators soon drew startling connections between a group of Saudi nationals receiving financial support from the embassy and a 34-year-old microbiologist and MIT graduate who officials have since concluded was a U.S. operative for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, “Tangled Ties”, Newsweek, 4/8/04

I’m waiting for an ad that simply puts the matter plainly: who do you think Al Qaeda wants to win the election?… Which candidate would our enemies prefer?

O the shrieking that would result should such an ad run. You can’t even ask those questions, even though they’re the most relevant questions of the election.

James Lileks, “The Bleat”, 3/4/04

(For the record, I thought that Lileks’ framing was useless. It’s not at all obvious that our best policy is to guess the preferences of our enemies and then do the opposite. Sometimes our interests align- the terrorists wanted American troops out of Saudi Arabia, and we pulled troops out of Saudi Arabia.

I’m just saying that this little game of claiming that “the terrorists want Kerry to win!” just got a lot less fun for the Right. If (I repeat, if) the government of Saudi Arabia intended to manipulate the markets to try to elect Bush, and Saudi Arabia is the largest backer of Islamic terrorists, then…

I should also point out that this attempted defense, from someone who knows damn well the history of Saudi ties to terror, is just pathetic.

UPDATE: I should note that the White House says that it has recieved assurances from the Saudi royals that the price of oil will remain between $22-$28 a barrel, but that such discussions were unrelated to the American election. Perhaps this will prompt Woodward to show what evidence he has to back up such an assertion.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Although I should say, whatever this is, it’s not a clear denial. Maybe I spoke too soon.

Botching the Job

Posted by Kieran

Bouncing off of a column by David Brooks, Matt Yglesias and Patrick Nielsen Hayden make the point that supporters of the war can’t run away from the problems of its aftermath just because they personally might have done things differently, because frankly anyone who knew anything about both the Bush administration and the complexities of a war in Iraq could have predicted that it was going to be a mess. That means that post-hoc bellyaching that they didn’t do it my way is a bit beside the point:

David Brooks offers the first of what I think will be many retrospective I was wrong but I was right anyway articles. The implication here is that though Bush may botch everything in Iraq, Brooks was nevertheless correct to have supported the war because he, after all, was not in favor of botching things.

Last July, I said essentially the same thing in the context of the then-crumbling pretext for the war:

Dan [Drezner] can be relied on to have made as well-argued and well-supported case for war as possible, but at this point I really don’t care what it was, for the same reasons the hawks had no time for the “Not In My Name” line. The substance of the President’s case for war is what matters … If that case was built on a series of lies — immediate threat, 45-minutes to deployment, uranium from Niger and all the rest of it — then that is something to get exercised about.

Seeing pundits like Brooks try to wriggle away like this reminds me of a joke that David Lewis makes somewhere, viz, “You say you have a counterexample to my argument, but you must be misunderstanding me, because I did not intend for my argument to have any counterexamples.”

April 14, 2004

Bile? You're choking on it!

Posted by Ted

John D. Negroponte is apparently expected to be appointed to the position of ambassador to Iraq after June 30 handover to whoever. (The “D.” stands for “Death squads”). Matthew Yglesias has links and commentary here, here, here, and here. I’d be surprised if Beautiful Horizons didn’t have something on it soon. Me, I’ve got to spend the morning washing my hands over and over and over again.

UPDATE: Grammar Police has more. Also, check comments on this post for an especially good one from Keith M. Ellis.

Wednesday morning quarterback

Posted by Ted

Ezra Klein has a take on Bush’s press conference that seems right to me:

Bush stood up there for an hour and ran for President the same way he did 4 years ago; as if he wasn’t the President. The advantage of being the challenger is you get to talk about visions and ideals and intent and desire. When you’re President, you have to defend a record. That apparently isn’t so with George W. Bush. He stood there for an hour answering questions as if no policy he put into place required an honest defense, no consequences from his actions merited note. Rather, he casually threw aside whatever the situation was, expressing sympathy for the suffering contained therein and reiterating how much he loved freedom and how the bad guys don’t.

To me, the most dismaying Q&A wasn’t the part where Bush couldn’t come up with any mistake he had made, or his inability to explain why he and Cheney were insisting on appearing together before the 9/11 commission. It was this:

QUESTION: Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th? BUSH: We’ll find that out soon. That’s what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He’s figuring out the nature of the entity we’ll be handing sovereignty over.

That’s the whole answer, and it’s not good enough. June 30 is 77 days from today. Both of these statements cannot be true:

(1) We don’t know who we’re handing soverignity to on June 30.

and

(2) We have done a reasonable job of planning Iraq’s transition to a stable, democratic state.

Finally, I’d like to register my disgust for this little song-and-dance:

BUSH: Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don’t believe Iraq can be free; that if you’re Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can’t be self-governing or free. I’d strongly disagree with that. I reject that. Because I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul, and if given a chance, the Iraqi people will be not only self-governing, but a stable and free society.

I expect that kind of slur from instant pundits, not from the President of the United States. Appalling.

Fair and Balanced

Posted by Belle Waring

I laughed when I saw this AP headline: “Bush Speech Elicits Applause, Dread.” I guess that about sums it up.

News from Abroad

Posted by Kieran

I’m getting my first sustained dose of UK-based broadcast news for a while, and it’s interesting to watch the coverage of recent events in Fallujah and Bush’s press conference last night. Round-the-clock coverage of David Beckham notwithstanding, the higher quality of the news — in everything from the evident literacy of the reporters to the standard of graphic design — is obvious. A chunk of warbloggers in the U.S. and elsewhere routinely bellyache about the bias of the BBC, so let’s leave Auntie aside. Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch but doesn’t much resemble Fox, its American counterpart. Reports from Iraq have sounded pretty cynical: propaganda footage of a firefight was presented with the comment “This is what a ceasefire looks like in Fallujah,” and the Pentagon’s statement that the city “was not yet under control to our satisfaction” was called, I think, a “typical piece of understatement.” Meanwhile, though Sky’s report on Bush’s press conference reduced the President’s performance to soundbites, the reporter said something like “By his standards this was a relatively assured performance,” and we got a good chunk of the floundering response to the question, “What was your biggest mistake after 9/11?” On the other hand, some suggest that Murdoch himself isn’t too happy with this sort of attitude.

April 13, 2004

Fact-check, v.2

Posted by Ted

I haven’t seen this anywhere but Unfogged, so I’m going to take the liberty of restating his post:

The famous August 6th briefing contained this sentence:

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. (my emphasis)

But commisioner Roemer said the following when Rice was testifying:

We have done thousands of interviews here at the 9/11 Commission. We’ve gone through literally millions of pieces of paper. To date, we have found nobody — nobody at the FBI who knows anything about a tasking of field offices.

We have talked to the director at the time of the FBI during this threat period, Mr. Pickard. He says he did not tell the field offices to do this.

And we have talked to the special agents in charge. They don’t have any recollection of receiving a notice of threat.

Nothing went down the chain to the FBI field offices on spiking of information, on knowledge of al Qaeda in the country, and still, the FBI doesn’t do anything.

Roemer brought this up before the briefing was released- he had read it, but the press had not. The apparent discrepancy has slipped past everyone but Ogged. 70 full-field investigations is a significant investment of manpower. It’s the kind of thing that the commission should have been easily able to verify, but Roemer is saying that they haven’t. Ogged charitably suggests that it may just be a difference in classification, but I find that hard to believe. Not if the number “70” bears any relationship to reality.

Unfortunately, his subsequent question (“Isn’t that some of the responsibility of the national security advisor?”) just put Rice on the defensive about her responsibilities vs. the FBI’s. It’s a shame, because there’s an important point there: was the person who prepares the President’s Defense Briefing deceiving the President?

I do hope that we get an answer to that.

UPDATE: Dave Neiwert points to a Newsday article addressing the “70 investigations” number.

FBI spokesman Ed Coggswell said the bureau was trying to determine how the number 70 got into the report…. Coggswell Friday said that those 70 investigations involved a number of international terrorist organizations, not just al-Qaida. He said that many were criminal investigations, which terrorism experts say are not likely to focus on preventing terrorist acts. And he said he would “not characterize” the targets of the investigations as cells, or groups acting in concert, as was the case with the Sept. 11 hijackers.

April 08, 2004

A few Rice links

Posted by Ted

Von at Obsidian Wings has an interesting point about Rice’s testimony.

It seemed that the Democrats were more partisan in their questioning than the Republicans. That is, the Democrats on the panel aggressively challenged Rice (as you might expect). The Republicans, however, didn’t defend — or help — Rice nearly as much as I had expected. Indeed, some of them even launched mild attacks on Rice (Kerry’s comment about “swatting flies,” for example, seemed to resonate).

What to conclude? Well, if you take a dim view of human nature (as I do), you don’t conclude that the Republicans were behaving honorably and in a nonpartisan manner. (Though perhaps they were.) You conclude that there may be something in the classified documents that casts doubt on Rice’s defense.

We may know more when the PDB is released. (And it will be released.)
  • Atrios, as you might imagine, has much more. This would be a good time to burnish my moderate credentials, by saying that both sides will have something to take from this. That’s true, of course, but I don’t see how the net effect can be anything but negative for the Administration. I see a number of movement conservatives complaining about Kerrey and Ben-Veniste. I didn’t watch the testimony- maybe they came across as real jerks- but complaining about them isn’t going to earn a lot of votes.
  • This seems like news: Bob Kerrey, on the August 6th, 2001 memo titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US”:
“In the spirit of further declassification, this is what the August 6th memo said to the president: that the FBI indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking. That’s the language of the memo that was briefed to the president on the 6th of August.”
  • From MSNBC
Under questioning, Rice acknowledged that she had spoken too broadly once when she said that no one had ever envisioned terrorists’ using planes and crashing them into buildings. She said aides came to her within days and reported that there had been memos about that possibility, but she said she had not seen them.

To paraphrase Dave Barry, at least when Dick Cheney says something like this, you know he’s lying. But with Rice, you get a sinking feeling that she might be telling the truth.

CLAIM: “While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaida, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaida initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke.” FACT: Rice’s statement finally confirms what she previously – and inaccurately – denied. She falsely claimed on 3/22/04 that “No al-Qaida plan was turned over to the new administration.” [Washington Post, 3/22/04
  • Finally:
Members of the audience, including some relatives of Sept. 11 victims, applauded as Ben-Veniste demanded that the entire report be declassified, pointedly adding that even its title had been kept secret until it was revealed at Thursday’s hearing. All nine other members of the commission, including the five Republicans, echoed Ben-Veniste’s call.

If I was a Republican with any kind of influence, I’d be telling the White House to get that memo out tomorrow evening, rather than trying to claim privilege over it. For what it’s worth.

Fictional leaders

Posted by Chris

I recently bought the DVDs of the first three series of The West Wing, which make for far too compulsive viewing. Watching it, the same thought occured to me as has occured to many others: namely, how much better President Josiah Bartlet is than any recent real-life incumbent. But it isn’t just Bartlet, 24’s President David Palmer would also get my vote (if I had one) over most post-war Presidents. Fictional Presidents seem to incarnate the ideal virtues of the office. Not so fictional British Prime Ministers, who seem to be either Machiavellian (Francis Urquhart ) or ineffectual (Jim Hacker ). Perhaps only Harry Perkins comes close to matching an ideal in the way that Bartlet and Palmer do. I’m not sure what this says about our different political and televisual/cinematic cultures and I’m sure there are more examples of fictional leaders to play with. Suggestions?

Tomorrow's punditry today

Posted by Ted

Be the first on the block to blog Condi Rice’s testimony, thanks to Stuart Benjamin of the Volokh Conspiracy:

Play bingo at home (or, if you want, make it into a drinking game: one drink for each iteration of one of these words).

Of her demeanor, Rice supporters will say she was: “poised,” “confident,” “authoritative,” and/or “polished.”

Of her demeanor, Rice detractors will say she was: “defensive,” “visibly annoyed,” and/or “brusque” ; bonus (if they feel strongly) “petulant” and/or “schoolmarmish”

On the quality of her arguments, Rice supporters will say: “persuasive,” “convincing,” “firm,” and/or “powerful”; bonus (if they feel strongly) “overpowering”

On the quality of her arguments, Rice detractors will say: “unpersuasive,” “weak,” “vacillating,” and/or “shaky,”; bonus (if they feel strongly) “incoherent”

Overall, Rice supporters will describe her performance as: “a home run,” “putting doubts to rest,” “answering all the questions,” “showing Clarke to be a liar,” and/or “letting us get on to the people’s business”; bonus (if they are really partisan) “refuting the demagogues on the other side”

Overall, Rice detractors will describe her performance as: “raising more questions than it answers,” “a missed opportunity to inform the American people,” “vindicating Richard Clarke,” and/or “raising troubling questions about this Administration”; bonus (if they are really partisan) “you’re the demagogue” (followed by: “am not!”; “are too!”; “am not!”; etc.)

April 06, 2004

April 25 in DC

Posted by Eszter

Brought to you by right-wing eye.

April 03, 2004

Sharing fingerprints

Posted by Chris

The UKs’ slowness in bringing in passports with biometric data means that Britons (along with quite a few others) will be routinely fingerprinted and photographed on entry to the US under the VISIT program . Clicking a few links got me to the Privacy Impact Assessment: Executive Summary for this (pdf file), which reveals the comforting information that

If necessary, the information that is collected will be shared with other law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, local, foreign, or tribal level, who are lawfully engaged in collecting law enforcement intelligence information and who need access to the information in order to carry out their law enforcement duties.

… at tribal level?

US political debate as seen from outside

Posted by Chris

Whilst I was in the US, people kept asking me about Tony Blair and his future. My response usually involved some speculation about Gordon Brown coupled with noticing that the bookies are still giving long odds on the Tories (much longer than on Kerry defeating Bush ). The subtext here was about the war though.

I didn’t mix with anything like a cross-section of the American public, just with a bunch of leftie academics and Democrats, basically. And everyone I spoke to was implacably and bitterly opposed to what they saw as an immoral war. I have to confess that though I increasingly agree with my friends that the war was a bad thing, I was surprised by their certainty, which I attribute to two things. First, the intersection between the war and political allegiance is very different in the US. Whereas the debate on the war in the UK took place in part within the left and around the relative importance of the human rights issue, in the US the perception on the left seems to be that anything that the current administration advocates or gets up to should be opposed. (In a nutshell they are seen by many Democrats as little better than a gang who have hijacked the republic for their own nefarious purposes and will hold onto it by any means necessary.) Second, I’m sure that the relative quietness of the British-controlled sector in the south of Iraq means that the war plays differently here from the US where every day seems to bring news of more horrors from the Sunni triangle and where there’s a real fear that the Bushies have put the US in a position from which there’s no way forward and no way back.

One attitude I kept getting from people was that more or less any compromise on policy is OK just so long as Bush is defeated. Bush is so bad that anything else would be better. I pointed out that this was the same logic that had eventually led to the British left lining up behind New Labour in 1997, and that the Tony Blair whom they now so revile is the beneficiary of just such an anyone-who-can-beat-the-Tories approach. Some irony there? Maybe.

In conversation after conversation, I kept being reminded of an experience from over twenty years ago, when Richard Nixon visited the Oxford Union. The British left lined up behind banners denouncing the bombing of Cambodia and other Nixon crimes and meekly chanted some slogans. US expatriate students, really fairly close to Nixon on any European political spectrum, threw themselves at the motorcade with considerable anger and aggression. Here I got a similar sense that the sheer intensity of feeling exceeded the real political distance by a very long way. Not that there is no distance: there is, and it matters for all of us. But bitterness and certainty of this degree is something that has been absent from British politics for a while now.

April 01, 2004

Flags and posters

Posted by Chris

My visit to the US was my first since 9/11 and, thankfully, the tonality of New York doesn’t seem to have changed all that much. I’m sure, though, that many foreign visitors are struck by the sheer number of US flags on display. This was less noticeable in Manhattan, but a drive around Brooklyn revealed many such flags on private houses. From a British point of view this is odd, since the union jack has been appropriated by the far right since forever and someone flying one on their house would be considered some kind of nut. But the US context is clearly different and I understand people’s need for such patriotic affirmation. More disturbing, though, was a poster about security I encountered at Newark (now renamed “Liberty”) airport. The poster assured travellers that various agencies were working to protect the security of “all Americans”. Very comforting, no doubt, if you happen to be one. It really is unimaginable that a similar poster at a British or European airport would speak of “all Britons” or “all Europeans” — it would seem weird and exclusionary. Such a poster would say “all passengers” or “all our customers” or some such.

CAN-SPAM

Posted by John Quiggin
Among the offerings in today’s special edition of TidBITS, the long-running online Macintosh magazine, I found this item particularly appealing.
Canned Spam Can Can Spam with CAN-SPAM — Hormel is expected to announce today their campaign to can spam using their canned Spam with the aid of the CAN-SPAM legislation. Starting today, Hormel will print the phone number, email addresses, and other information about unsolicited email senders on cans of Spam along the lines of the “Have you seen me?” photographs published on milk cartons. Canned Spam buyers who help to can spam by canning spammers can receive cans of Spam as a reward.
Other important news includes a report that the US Department of Homeland Security is responding to the threat of Windows-specific cyberterrorism, most notably through Trojans such as Phatbot by standardising on Macs.

March 31, 2004

Bunnies vs bilbies

Posted by John Quiggin

Following up Belle’s post, In Australia, as Easter approaches, the big question is: Bunny or Bilby? To give as fair and balanced a presentation as possible of the main issues, the rabbit is a voracious alien pest1 marketed in chocolate form by greedy multinationals, while the bilby is an appealing, and endangered, native marsupial made available for Easter celebration by public spirited Australians, helping to raise both awareness and much-needed funds. We report, you decide.

1 Matched only by the fox

Psephological Concussion

Posted by Henry

One of the better indicators of statistical significance is the so-called “interocular trauma test.” It’s only satisfied when you have results that are so glaringly obvious that they hit you between the eyes. “Nasi Lemak,” a barely anonymous political scientist, uses pollingreport.com data on Bush’s approval ratings to come up with two graphs that pass this test with flying colours. Of course, trends can change over time, but there sure looks to be something important happening here …

March 30, 2004

Welcome to John and Belle

Posted by John Quiggin

I’m pleased to announce that John Holbo and Belle Waring have joined our group and will be posting regularly on Crooked Timber from now on. John and Belle are famous for the catchphrase “and a pony!”, but apart from that I’m not going to attempt to summarise them.

Like me, and some other members of the group, they’ll be maintaining their own excellent blog as well.

March 28, 2004

The Zarqawi scandal

Posted by John Quiggin

As Richard Clarke’s unsurprising revelations continue to receive blanket coverage around the blogosphere and elsewhere, I’ve been increasingly puzzled by the failure of the Zarqawi scandal to make a bigger stir. As far as I can determine, the following facts are undisputed

  • Abu Musab Zarqawi, leader of the group Ansar al-Islam is one of the most dangerous Islamist terrorists currently active. He is the prime suspect for both the Karbala and Madrid atrocities and the alleged author of a letter setting out al Qaeda’s strategy for jihad in Iraq. Although he has become increasingly prominent in the past year, he has been well-known as a terrorist for many years
  • For some years, until March 2003, Ansar al-Islam was based primarily at Kirma in Northern Iraq, in part of the region of Iraq generally controlled by the Kurds and included in the no-fly zone enforced by the US and UK. In other words, the group was an easy target for either a US air attack, a land attack by some special forces and/or Kurdish militia or a combination of the two
  • Nothing was done until the invasion of Iraq proper, by which time the group had fled

These facts alone would indicate a failure comparable in every way to the missed opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden before S11. But the reality appears to be far worse.

According to the MSNBC report that broke the story, three plans were drawn up for attacks on Zarqawi and all were killed by the National Security Council
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

There are various hypotheses about the precise grounds, all highly discreditable, but the most plausible is that a watertight plan would have required co-operation between US air forces, and Kurdish ground forces. This would have been most unpalatable to the Turkish government, which was being courted, up to the last minute, as a partner for the Iraq war. So nothing was done, and by the time the camp was attacked at the beginning of the war, Zarqawi and most of his followers were gone.

An alternative, equally discreditable, explanation is that the Administration wanted to keep Zarqawi’s group in existence as a count in the indictment of Saddam, relying on the claim that Zarqawi had received treatment in a Baghdad hospital as ‘proof’ of Saddam’s links to terrorism, a claim that was unlikely to stand up to the kind of close examination that would follow an attack on the group.

Although it’s a peripheral point, there were also credible reports that Ansar al-Islam was engaged in the manufacture of ricin, a poison used in assassination. Ricin is scarcely a weapon of mass destruction but, if the Administration had applied the same criteria to Zarqawi as to Saddam, it would certainly have provided sufficient justification for a pre-emptive strike. It is, however, a peripheral point. The justification for attempting to kill Zarqawi and eliminate his group is and was the fact that he is a terrorist, not a legalistic quibble about his choice of killing technology. Similar attacks have been made in a number of countries under both Bush and Clinton, most notably including Clinton’s attempt on Osama.

When the story first broke about a month ago1, it was widely covered by critics of the war, at least some of whom pointed out the seriousness of the implications. Brad de Long, for example, argued that it constituted grounds for impeachment of Bush and other members of the Administration. (There was some dispute about the legal feasibility of this, but none about the morality).

On the other hand, the warbloggers have been almost uniformly silent. The few who have mentioned the issue have mostly made the ludicrous claim that Zarqawi’s activities, undertaken in an effectively US-controlled part of Iraq, constituted proof that ‘Iraq really did have WMD’s’. I have found the single honorable exception of Andrew Sullivan, and I expect there are some others, but not many.

And there it rests. As far as I can tell, there’s been no follow-up story and no action on the political front. A failure that would appear to be, at best, a disastrous blunder and, at worst, a deliberate betrayal of the struggle against terrorism has simply been ignored while Washington plays the familiar game of “He Said, She Said”.

1 Even before the war, Dan Drezner wondered why the group had not been attacked.

March 25, 2004

Elvis and bin Laden

Posted by John Quiggin

The idea that the war in Iraq is a necessary part of the struggle against terrorism is probably the biggest single factor in the case supporting the war. Both political leaders and pro-war bloggers have made repeated claims that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein constitutes progress in the “War against Terror”. A variety of arguments in support of this view have been proposed, most notably the ‘flypaper’ or ‘bring ‘em on’ theory that, by encouraging terrorists to fight in Iraq, the war made the rest of the world a safer place.

The most widely reported opinion poll in Australia is the Newspoll, which provides results for Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited papers (he has about half the Australian market). There was widespread discussion recently about a Newspoll showing that 65 per cent of people thought the war in Iraq had increased the danger of a terrorist attack in Australia1,

However, the really striking result was ignored. This concerned the proportion of people who accepted the claim, made repeatedly by the government here, that the invasion of Iraq substantially reduced the danger of terrorist attack. Only 1 per cent of respondents said that the invasion had made a terrorist attack “less likely”. The view that the war made an attack “a lot less likely” got an asterisk (less than 0.5 per cent). You can read the details here (PDF file).

This is substantially less than the proportion of people who are reported (in other surveys) to believe that Elvis is alive or that aliens are controlling government policy. In fact, by coincidence, another story a couple of days later reported an opinion poll for a mayoral election in which an Elvis ‘tribute artist’ has 8 per cent support.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen an opinion poll in which the position of the government on a central issue of foreign policy is supported by a fraction of the population too small to be reported.

1 The question doesn’t distinguish between the interpretations ” our participation in the Iraq war has raised Australia’s profile as a target” and “the Iraq war has increased the risk of terrorism everywhere”. I have previously argued that the latter view is the right one.

March 23, 2004

Relatives in West Virginia

Posted by Brian

Most politicians have got the memo that says book-burning is a no-no, but it seems that not all of them realised that this was meant to extend to other forms of written expression as well. It seems an Abercrombie & Fitch t-shirt with the slogan “It’s all relative in West Virginia” (picture below fold) has upset the West Virginia governor Bob Wise (D).

“I write to you today to demand that you immediately remove this item from your stores and your print and online catalogues,” Wise wrote [to Abercrombie & Fitch]. “In addition, these shirts must be destroyed at once to avoid any possibility of resale and proof be given thereof.”(link)

I can see why some people would find the t-shirt offensive. And to be fair the governor is not advocating a law against it. But government officials campaigning for the destruction of written material because of what is written still makes me worried.

Story via Jonathan Ichikawa1.

Here’s the actual t-shirt.

1 Who apparently wants the world to know that he runs a Brown philosophy student blog.

March 22, 2004

September 11 - Immediate Response

Posted by Brian

Atrios links to this pretty good Wall Street journal article on the many conflicting accounts about the government’s immediate response to the September 11 attacks. Much of the confusion is probably due to the inevitable difficulty in remembering precise timelines, but I’d bet that at least some of the time some people are deliberately making things up.

One thing I didn’t know was that Cheney’s office is still sticking to the story that there was a credible threat to Air Force One that day. I thought that story had been officially inoperative for years now.

March 21, 2004

A suggestion for the Democrats

Posted by John Quiggin

Pulling together a few different threads from recent posts, I came up with the following idea. It seems certain that Nader will be on the US Presidential ballot in November and that, while he will get less votes than in 2000, he might get enough to swing the outcome in some states. Also, as I understand things, each state has more-or-less unfettered control over the procedures used to select members of the Electoral College. With 50 states, I assume there must be at least one state where the Democrats control the legislative process (including, if required, the governorship) but which is potentially marginal in the Presidential election. In such a case, it would seem rational to introduce instant runoff voting.

A particularly attractive option for the Democrats would be one in which each candidate could, if they chose, nominate an allocation of preferences. This would mean that party-line voters could just pull a single lever as usual. On the other hand, Nader would be faced with a significant problem. If he allocated preferences to the Democrats, then his power to harm them is gone. If Nader allocated preferences to the Democrats, I imagine that his first-preference vote would increase in the states where IRV was in force, and decline everywhere else.

If Nader failed to allocate preferences (I assume the other option is beyond consideration) he would be forced to state that the two parties were equally bad, which I imagine would alienate potential supporters everywhere. Presumably the Democrats would still get most second preferences.

Nader’s current line, quoted here, is that
he is running again to offer a choice to Americans not served by Democrats or Republicans. He said Republicans had earned a D-minus and Democrats a D-plus.
, which leaves room for either interpretation (either “both are bad but the Democrats significantly less so”, or ” both so bad that any marginal preference for the Democrats can be disregarded”. The adoption of IRV, even in a single state, would deprive Nader of the room for ambiguity provided by this assessment.

Of course, widespread adoption of IRV would be beneficial to third-party candidates like Nader in the long run, since they would be able to gather support without worrying about the problem of “splitting the vote”. But I can’t see why the Democrats should be so devoted to the two-party system as to throw away a chance of a fairer fight against Bush.

March 18, 2004

Medicare

Posted by Ted

The Gadflyer version of Political Aims doesn’t seem to have a way to link to individual posts, which is a shame. This one from Amy Sullivan on the Medicare bill is a doozy:

Let’s review. The Medicare bill only passed the House after Republican leaders:
a) broke all institutional precedent and held the vote open for a record three hours, instead of the traditional fifteen minutes; b) used the extra time to “convince” a handful of representatives who had already voted against the bill to change their votes;
c) possibly threatened and/or bribed at least one representative;
d) broke the additional precedent of barring non-Members from the floor of the House during a vote by allowing HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson to “have a little talk with” some recalcitrant representatives; and now
e) lied about what they knew the final cost of the measure to be.
No wonder they’re spending federal tax dollars trying to convince us all that it was such a great idea. There’s absolutely no way the thing would have passed if the truth had been on the table. This isn’t a little political spat. This is pattern and practice. And it’s important. So pay attention.

P.S. Another post worth reading on the subject. The punchline is that the actuary was ordered not to present his findings on the bill for two reasons. The first, of course, was that he showed that the costs for the bill were higher than the House leadership was promising. The second is that they showed that the Republican plan “could increase premiums for those who stay in traditional programs by as much as 25 percent.”

March 15, 2004

Leave my grandparents out of it

Posted by Harry

This Morning Edition editorial by Ruben Navarette is infuriating. I was ready to be charmed — he says that John Kerry and the Democrats should shut up about George Bush’s failure to be a war hero in the Vietnam War. These were, he says, decisions made by young men thirty years ago, and are not properly thought about as character issues. I agree — the Vietnam War was an unjust war, unjustly carried out, and I have no animus to my elders who tried to avoid fighting in it. People make odd decisions in the youth, and these do not have to be brought up against them later in life. George Bush’s successful avoidance of any kind risk to self in the service of his country when his country was entirely in the wrong is irrelevant to my evaluation of him.
But then: the little sh** has the audacity to compare Generation X’s experience of the War on Terror with our grandparents’ experience of the Second World War. Why? Because both our generations, unlike the boomer generation between, have experienced the tragedy of American lives being lost on American soil.

Well, I suppose that is one way in which the experiences are alike. It is also true that neither experience occurred in the 3rd century. But while my generation (W/X) cheerfully rides around in its SUVs, gorges itself on fast food, sends a volunteer army to a war that has nothing to do with terrorism, and continues with life as normal (except in airports) it might do well to reflect on the real experience our grandparents faced in a society completely geared up to fight a war against the worst threat civilization has ever faced. I assume that Mr. Naverette’s grandparents didn’t live through years rationing, like mine did, and nor did they live in constant fear of German bombs. But I assume they were drafted to fight, did war work, missed and feared for their husbands for years at a time, bought war bonds, sacrificed pay raises, promotions, and knew that losing the war was both a real possibility and a potential disaster for much of humanity (if not, perhaps, how much of a disaster it would be for some of humanity). Even the rich were expected to share the sacrifice — the top marginal income tax rate went up past 90%, more to demonstrate that the war was a collective effort than to pay for it.
I don’t mind hearing Gen Xers complaining about babyboomers. But do so properly. Don’t bring our grandparents — who, unlike us, made huge and real sacrifices to win the one war that really mattered — into it.

March 09, 2004

Money talks

Posted by Henry

It’s extraordinary how quickly the blogosphere has become a significant channel for political donations; Atrios has raised $25,000 in five days for the Kerry campaign. I’ve no doubt that this will be a big issue of debate at the blogging panel that Dan Drezner and I are organizing for the APSA meeting this September. My spur-of-the-moment impression - to the extent that this favours one side, it’s going to favour the Democrats. Regardless of whether the blogosphere tilts left or tilts right (your guess is as good as mine), the most-read blogs on the liberal-left side of the spectrum are much more closely aligned with the Democratic party apparatus than the blogs on the right are with the Republican machine. They also have the precedent of MoveOn, and of the Dean movement to build on. Rightbloggers, even the ones who support the administration, tend to self-identify as libertarians rather than Republicans, and maintain a little distance from the formal aspects of the Republican party. I could be wrong, but I don’t see Glenn Reynolds hosting appeals for donations to the Republican National Committee, let alone Eugene Volokh. Andrew Sullivan might have up to a month or so ago, but not today.

How big a deal this is remains to be seen; my guess is that its consequences will be significant, but not enormous. Where it will have an impact is in terms of the agenda-setting power of the few bloggers who can and will raise large amounts of cash for the cause. If Atrios can keep on getting people to donate that kind of money, the powers that be in the Democratic party are going to start taking him quite seriously indeed. Especially if the FEC starts cracking down on soft-money contributions to 527s. Developing, as they say.

March 08, 2004

DC 5/11: Day of Inconvenience

Posted by Ted
In what appears to be an attempt to defuse some of the controversy, NEWSWEEK has learned, White House officials have privately signaled to the commission that Bush will not rigidly stick to the one-hour time limit. When time is up, Bush won’t walk out if there are still more questions, an aide said.

That was his plan? After sixty minutes with two members of his own party, whom he appointed to investigate 9/11, he was planning on turning his back and walking out on them? [UPDATE: The co-chair is a Democrat appointed by Daschle. Sorry about that.]

Boy, that moment would look great on a National Review commemorative plate. Can you imagine such a scene? I can.

IMAGINING SUCH A SCENE

A play in one act

(curtain opens on four men in suits in a well-lit conference room.)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT: …so I know you’ve studied the tapes. I doubt that I’m telling you anything you don’t know. But it turns out that he was eating so much because he had to. He needed it in order to turn into a butterfly.

(pause)

That’s why the caterpillar was so hungry, you see.

THOMAS H. KEAN, 9/11 COMMITTEE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. President. We still have a number of questions, and we certainly appreciate your cooperation-

BUSH: Unprecedented co-operation, I think you meant to say.

KEAN: Unprecedented co-operation. Of course.

LEE H. HAMILTON, CO-CHAIR: Mr. President, it would help us a lot if you could help us reconstruct the sequence of events, from your perspective, during August of 2001. You were receiving daily security briefings with Condoleeza Rice, is that correct?

ALBERTO GONZALES, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Mr. President, you don’t have to answer that question.

BUSH: Hold on.

(pause)

Lee, I’m changing your nickname. You’re no longer Fletch Armstrong.

HAMILTON: Of course not, Mr. President.

BUSH: Now you’re Turkey Tails.

HAMILTON: Certainly, Mr. President. If I could just ask, we’ve had conflicting reports about your contact with…

(electronic alarm is heard, to the tune of Alice Cooper’s “School’s Out”)

BUSH: (stands up) And that’s an hour! See ya!

KEAN: Mr. President, we want to respect your time, but we still have a number of questions, and we were hoping that you would consider-

BUSH: Sorry, fellas, I’ve got a plane waiting. There’s a pile of boxes waiting for me in Ohio, and they’re not going to squint at themselves. T.T.F.N., boys! (BUSH leaves)

(BUSH re-enters) I mean… I’ll just be a’wrangling on… to the… pokey…

Crap.

(BUSH leaves again)

In the interest of fairness and balance, I’m pleased to submit another vision of the fateful day. This is a portion of an untitled teleplay by Lionel Chetwynd.

(Camera finds BUSH in a shaft of light, shackled to the ground at the bottom of a pit. Surrounding him, beret-wearing members of the 9/11 COMMISSION jeer from the dimly-lit seats above.)

BUSH: Please, I’m begging you! At this moment, the forces of Harakat ul-Mujahideen may be planning another attack on security forces in Srinagar. There’s been a lot of chatter about Mujahedin-e Khalq planning another attack on soft targets in Tikrit. And Dianne Thompson and Jeanne Hopkins of Cupertino, CA are about to be legally joined in matrimony in San Francisco.

I will do everything that I can to co-operate with this commission- nothing is more important to me than getting to the bottom of the 9/11 attacks. But can’t you see- there’s no time for this right now. I’ve got to do my sworn duty to protect this country!

(Committee members shout, pelt BUSH with baguettes and copies of “Dude, Where’s My Country?”)

COMMITTEE MEMBER (in Aramaic): SILENCE, impudent one! We’re more interested in special interests in Washington than in the security of the American people! That’s why we joined this 9/11 Commission!

BUSH: (quietly) Damn you.

(Door to pit breaks down, flooding in light. SIX TERRORISTS storm in, as COMMITTEE MEMBERS uselessly flail their arms in fear.)

TERRORIST: Bush! You have disrupted our close and ongoing ties to Saddam Hussein’s regime! You must pay!

BUSH: Time to take out the trash.

(BUSH pulls chains from ground, uses them to whip attacking terrorist. Blocks ninja star from TERRORIST with wrist cuffs. TERRORIST jumps BUSH from behind. BUSH flips him, knocks him to the ground, breaks his neck, and takes his gun.)

BUSH: From your cold, dead hands.

(That’s enough Lionel Chetwynd- ed.)

Making Instapundit look like Indymedia

Posted by Chris

Thanks to Michael Brooke , I’ve been reading Adam Yoshida ‘s surreal rantings on and off for the past few weeks. They really are marvellous, although today’s speculation about whether John Kerry was a KGB sleeper may in fact be a coded message that Yoshida himself is a deep-cover satirist for the left. Sample quote:

If one picture emerged of George W. Bush, in 1970, of raising his arm in what vaguely appeared to be a Nazi salute, the media would cover it for weeks. Why, then, has no one in the mainstream media probed John Kerry’s ties to an evil which, at the very least, is the equal of Nazism?

Why indeed? And why doesn’t TechCentralStation hire this guy?

Grounds for impeachment

Posted by John Quiggin
I don’t have much to add to Brad de Long’s take on this MSNBC story asserting that Bush stopped plans to bomb the camp of terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi because
the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
This assertion is sourced to unnamed “military officials”, and may be hard to verify, but if true it would surely constitute grounds for impeachment, as well as a conclusive refutation of the case for the Iraq war.

Trapped ?

Posted by John Quiggin
Brad de Long picks up my post on opportunities and outcomes (see also this crossposting with further discussion), in which I argued that the achievement of meaningful equality of opportunity in a society with highly unequal outcomes would require extensive government intervention to prevent the development of inherited inequality, and says that I’m falling into Irving Kristol’s trap, which he describes, accurately enough, as
an ideological police action designed to erase the distinction between Arthur Okun and Mao Zedong, and delegitimize the American left.
I agree that many people, particularly critics of social democracy like Kristol ,use the outcome/opportunity distinction in a dishonest way. This is particularly true in the American context, since anyone honestly concerned with the issue would have to begin with the observation that the United States performs just as badly on equality of opportunity (as measured by things like social mobility) as it does on equality of outcome (see the book by Goodin et al, reviewed here for one of many demonstrations of this). So if Kristol were genuinely concerned about equality of opportunity he’d be calling for at least as much intervention as the liberals and progressives he’s criticising.

On the other hand, there is a genuine debate within the social democratic/socialist movement1 which I was addressing. On the basis of fairly limited knowledge, I identified Blair and Brown as proponents of equality of opportunity and outcomes respectively. In a long comments thread, no-one picked me up on this point, so maybe my judgement on this was accurate. My comments were addressed to the fairly large group of social democrats who genuinely think that, as long as you equalise opportunity, for example by providing good-quality schools for all, it’s not a problem if income inequality increases. To restate my point, that might be true for one generation, but in the second generation the rich parents will be looking to buy a headstart for their less-able children, for example by sending them to private schools where they will be coached in examination skills and equipped with an old school tie. Given highly unequal outcomes in the previous generation, it’s much harder to prevent the inheritance of inequality, and the achievement of equality of opportunity requires more, and more drastic, intervention rather than less.

In the real world, no-one advocates either perfect equality of outcomes or perfect equality of opportunity. My point is that, in the same real world, these two are complements, not substitutes. The more progress you make on equalising outcomes in one generation, the easier it is to equalise opportunities in the next. I don’t expect Irving Kristol to embrace this insight with hosannas, but then it’s a long time since I expected anything positive from Irving Kristol.

1 I’ll post more on this distinction soon, I hope.

March 07, 2004

Ideas and interests

Posted by John Quiggin

One of the justifications I make for the time I spend blogging is that it gives me a chance to try out arguments I use in my work. With that in mind, I’d very much appreciate comments on this short summary of the role of ideas and interests in explaining policy outcomes.

Economists seeking to explain policy outcomes use three main theories, sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly. These may be referred to as the public interest theory, the private interest theory and the ideological theory.

The public interest theory is rarely stated explicitly, but is implicit in much of the normative analysis of policy options. The central hypothesis of the public interest theory is that governments adopt policies that will maximise social welfare, subject to random error cause, for example, by ignorance about the issues. The utilitarian case for democracy is based on the argument that a government responsible to a democratic electorate will have an incentive to weight the interests of all voters equally, and will therefore promote the public good.

The private interest theory is commonly presented in conscious contrast with the public interest theory. The central hypothesis is that political outcomes are determined by interactions between interest groups, and that the relative weight of interest groups will determined by factors such as the effectiveness of their organisation, rather than by their significance in relation to some well-specified social welfare function. Marxism (at least in its simple ‘vulgar’ form) and public choice theory share this central hypothesis, along with some versions of liberal pluralism.

The ideological theory is most commonly associated with Keynes’ dictum that soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil…” (General Theory, page 570)” On this view, it is changes in beliefs about the merits of policies such as privatisation, as opposed to changes in the actual costs and benefits or in the relative weight of competing interest groups, that do most to explain changes in policy outcomes.

Unless ideas are regarded as evolving independently of the real word, the ideological theory tends to reduce, in the long run, to some mixture of public interest and private interest theory. If ideas about the desirability of policy are adjusted in response to evidence (cf Keynes - when the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?) then the public interest theory will be valid in the long run. If changes in ideas are determined by the rise and fall of dominant interest groups (as in many Marxist models, and in Schumpeter) private interest theories will be valid in the long run, even though people may believe themselves to be acting in the public interest.

March 06, 2004

Revealed preferences redux

Posted by Henry

Another, quite spectacular example of revealed preference theory in action. This time, it’s David Brooks, who uses Bush and Kerry’s privileged backgrounds to prove that Americans prefer to be ruled by blue-bloods.

we don’t actually want to be governed by people like ourselves. We want the bloodlines.

It all goes back to primate social structures, you see.

This is almost so asinine an argument as not to be worth the refutation. Brooks doesn’t admit the possibility that ‘blue bloods’ might have structural advantages that go beyond commoners’ genetically hardwired instinct to yank forelocks in the presence of their superiors - money, connections anyone? Nor does he bother trying to explain how his thesis can be reconciled with viable Democratic candidates (Edwards) from humble backgrounds, or, indeed, Presidents like Clinton. Like Dan Drezner, I was quite pleased when the NYT gave Brooks a slot; some of his longer stuff is well argued and interesting. However, his op-eds have been a huge disappointment; sugary candy-fluff for the most part, but with a hard, bitter little center. The Times could and should do better.

The equity premium and the mixed economy

Posted by John Quiggin

Brad de Long correctly summarises the argument of my papers with Simon Grant. If you accept that the equity premium (the large and unexplained difference between the rate of return expected by holders of private equity and the rate of interest on low-risk bonds) is explained in large measure by the fact that capital markets do not do a good job in allocating and spreading risk, the the natural solution to all this is the S-World: Socialism: public ownership of the means of production This is because risk can be more effectively through the tax system, and through governments’ capacity to run deficits during economic downturns than through private capital markets. A very robust implication of the observed equity premium is that a dollar of investment returns received during a recession is worth two dollars during a boom - this provides governments with a huge arbitrage opportunity.

But we economists love our ceteris paribus (all other things equal) clauses. At least one commentator noted my qualification that this argument applies “unless there are large differences in operating efficiency between private and public enterprises”. Since, in a wide range of businesses, public enterprises have not performed very well (my own home state of Queensland experimented with state-owned butcher shops in the 1920s) this seems to leave us in the realm of “on the one hand this, on the other hand that”. Fortunately there is a simple empirical test which enables us to balance these considerations, at least in relation to proposed privatisations. If the advantages of privatisation outweigh the difference in the cost of capital, and assets are sold in a competitive market, then the government should come out ahead by selling assets and using the proceeds to repay debt, thereby reducing obligations.

In fact, this is rarely the case. In most cases, the interest savings from selling public assets are less than any reasonable estimate of the earnings foregone. And if you don’t like using estimated earnings you can look at cases where assets were valued for privatisation, but then not sold. Again governments came out ahead from not selling in most cases. It was this empirical observation, rather than theoretical analysis that led me to the conclusion that the equity premium provides a case for public ownership.

On the other hand, the kinds of enterprises where government ownership is common are, in general, those where you would expect the balance of considerations to lean towards public ownership. They are capital intensive, so a lower cost of capital is important and excess labor costs (for example, due to overstaffing) are not. In addition, they are often subject to fairly tight regulation for natural monopoly or essential-service reasons, which reduces the reward to entrepreneurial innovation.

The record of government ownership in other large-scale businesses is mixed (I mean this literally, not as a euphemism for ‘bad’). Brad notes that the US government made a pot of money by rescuing Chrysler in the 1980s, and the British government did the same for Rolls-Royce. But plenty of rescues have turned out badly (from memory, British Leyland didn’t do to well). And in these cases, the cost of acquisition was not great - the case for governments buying profitable enterprises outside the infrastructure sector (broadly defined) is not so strong.

The argument is clear-cut in the case of entrepreneurial businesses that don’t rely on outside equity. For such businesses, the incentive effects of having the residual flow to an owner-manager outweigh any considerations of risk sharing. Hence, as far as the considerations outlined above are concerned, there is no case for public ownership.

So, it turns out that the equity premium provides a case for the mixed economy, rather than for comprehensive socialisation. Given the generally successful performance of mixed economies (most notably between 1945 and 1970), there’s nothing paradoxical or surprising about this.

March 05, 2004

How far

Posted by Ted

I’m in a social group called “Thinkers and Drinkers”, who meet every two weeks to debate. I submitted a question yesterday that I thought would be pretty controversial. I was surprised when it wasn’t, and I’d be very interested in thoughts from our readers.

It’s a two part question, with a hypothetical to set up the actual question. Here’s the hypothetical part:

There are a number of books with titles like “The Hitman’s Handbook”, which ostensibly tell you how to kill someone and get away with it. Let’s say that someone reads one of these books, takes its advice, and kills someone. That person is caught, convicted, and sent to jail. Then the family of the victim sues the publisher in a civil suit. The ACLU is defending the publisher on First Amendment grounds.

No one would doubt that the murderer, and the publisher, are morally in the wrong. The question is, given that there’s a world full of hurt out there, is it wrong for the ACLU to offer its time and money in support of the publisher?

The discussion group, which is largely made up of center/ center-left, religious, young female professionals, uniformly came down in defense of the ACLU. There was widespread agreement that publishers can’t be held responsible for the actions taken by people who read their books, and that a victory would set a dangerous precedent. We refused to see a distinction between fiction that could inspire people to commit crime and explicit how-to books. It would be easy to lightly mask a how-to book with a fictional veneer, and we didn’t want courts trying to interpret that distinction. We all agreed that this book doesn’t make anyone commit murder- that only the murderer, and people who actively aid him, could be held responsible.

In real life, as I learned from Radley Balko, there’s a horrible case involving the National Man-Boy Love Association. Two men read a NAMBLA publication and abducted a ten-year old boy. They murdered him, molested his corpse, and hid his body. They were caught and sent to prison for life. The parents are suing NAMBLA for $200 million in a civil case, arguing that NAMBLA has aided and abetted felonious conduct. The Massachussets ACLU is defending NAMBLA.

The publication in question is absolutely revolting. Deroy Murdock writes in the National Review:

Frisoli cites a NAMBLA publication he calls “The Rape and Escape Manual.” Its actual title is “The Survival Manual: The Man’s Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships.” “Its chapters explain how to build relationships with children,” Frisoli tells me. “How to gain the confidence of children’s parents. Where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught…There is advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight. It’s pretty detailed.”

NAMBLA’s decision to publish this document is pretty much indefensible. But, I asked the group, could they still support the decision of the ACLU to defend NAMBLA?

As I said, I thought that this would be controversial. Radley, who is pretty much a perfect libertarian, couldn’t do it. He said:

I know that the ACLU exists to protect the most objectionable of speech, and I think the ACLU’s on the right side when it defends the likes of Nazis, Black Panthers, militias, or anti-abortion militants… But there’s nothing remotely political about the NAMBLA pamphlet. It’s a how-to guide to rape. Even if the ACLU were privy to unlimited resources, it ought to have let this one go. And of course it isn’t. There’s only so much money to go around, only so many cases its lawyers have time to litigate. And that makes the ACLU’s decision to take this particular case all the more shameful.

His commentors were torn (there’s a good discussion on his site). But our discussion group was not- the firm consensus remainded supportive of the ACLU. They rejected the argument that a publication could aid and abet a criminal act, and hung on to the arguments they made about the “Hitman Handbook”.

I asked, doesn’t this mean that we’re saying that we’re saying that our society has no right to prevent the publication of child-molestation how-to books? The uncomfortable consensus was that, yeah, that’s right.

Personally, I think that I’m on the ACLU’s side on this, but I don’t have to like it. What do you think?

UPDATE: Henry points to this Eugene Volokh article on thie question.

Stocks, bonds and social security

Posted by John Quiggin

Brad DeLong has had a string of posts referring to the possibility that some or all of the US Social Security fund should be invested in stocks rather than, as at present, in US Treasury bonds, of which the most pertinent is this one. This idea first came up in a major way in Clinton’s 1999 State of the Union speech, and has since had some play on the Republican side, especially now that privatization individual accounts seem to be off the agenda.

The key fact that makes the idea attractive is the equity premium, the fact that, historically the rate of return to investment in stocks has been well above that in bonds. This used to be explained by the fact that stocks were riskier than bonds. But ever since the work of Mehra and Prescott in the 1980s it’s been known that no simple and plausible model of the social cost of risk that would be generated by efficient capital markets can explain more than a small fraction of the observed premium. The immediate response, that of finding more complicated, but still plausible models hasn’t gone very far. The alternative explanation is that capital markets don’t do a very good job of spreading risk. For example it’s very hard to get insurance against recession-induced unemployment or business failure, even though standard models imply that this should be available.

Simon Grant and I have done a fair bit of work on this, with some specific attention to the Social Security issue. In this paper (large PDF file), published in the American Economic Review, we argued that substantial gains could be realized by investing Social Security funds in the stock market. We didn’t put a number on it, but I don’t find Brad’s half-embraced suggestion of $2.4 trillion in present value implausible.

An important point, though, is that investing in stocks will generally not be the best way to go, at least if the amount invested is large. A government agency holding, say 20 per cent of the shares in Ford and General Motors, would seem to have big problems. Leaving aside the specific institutional issues of the US Social Security fund, the obvious implication of the equity premium is that, unless there are large differences in operating efficiency between private and public enterprises, government ownership of large capital-intensive enterprises like utilities will be socially beneficial. The case is strengthened if monopoly or other problems mean that the enterprises have to be tightly regulated in any case. Again, Simon Grant and I have written this up, this time in Economica (PDF version available here)

The pursuit of happiness

Posted by John Quiggin

My view of the US is probably overly influenced by Hollywood, but I had the impression that the right to marry your high school sweetheart was a crucially important instance of the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness set out in the Declaration of Independence. If so, it seems as if there’s a contradiction between this and this.

March 04, 2004

Line of the day

Posted by Ted
Apparently, the new Bush ads — which use images of Ground Zero — have upset some of the relatives of the victims of 9/11 tragedy, or, as Karen Hughes calls them, “Democrats.”

Wonkette

The Gay Divorcee

Posted by Kieran

Divorce was declared illegal in Ireland by the Constitution of 1937. A referendum to repeal the ban was proposed in 1986 and soundly defeated. Almost two-thirds of the electorate voted against it. In November 1995 a second divorce referendum was put to the country. That one passed, by a margin of just over nine thousand votes in a total valid poll of 1.62 million. I had just started graduate school at Princeton that Autumn and remember the slightly frozen expressions of fellow grad students when I told them about the constitutional debate raging at home. Most of them were under the impression that Ireland was an advanced capitalist democracy located in Europe, fabled continent of liberal attitudes toward sex and generous social provisions for all. I decided not to upset them further with stories of my college years, which coincided with the time of the Great Condom Wars in Ireland.1

The rhetoric of the Irish divorce debate is strikingly similar to what we’re hearing today about gay marriage in the United States.

In the gay marriage debate, many argue that a fundamental fact about the institution of marriage is that it is between a man and a woman. Less than ten years ago in Ireland, just shy of half the voting population took the view that, both as a matter of definition and a point of law, marriage was fundamentally for life. Then as now, they argued that it was the foundation of the social order. Divorce was a plague — a favorite phrase of the Catholic hierarchy, which asked the faithful to vote No. The institution of the family would be destroyed by it. There would be a disastrous backlash, with women and children suffering immensely. And of course it was a grave offence against natural law. The posters for the No campaign had slogans like ‘Hello Divorce, Goodbye Daddy’ and “You Will Pay.” The “social fabric” would be torn apart if it were permitted.

On the “Yes” side, the idea that it was only fair and sensible to let people have a second chance was the main plank of the campaign. After all, Irish marriages didn’t stop failing just because divorce was illegal. The country already had a system of family courts, a body of law governing separated spouses, and so on. The simplest and best argument for legal divorce — that in the eyes of the state marriage is a special kind of contract between two people that can be dissolved if one of them so wishes — didn’t have much traction, as I remember, mainly for that reason. The right to divorce is not the right to leave your spouse, it’s the right to remarry someone else. The “No” side thought separation ought to be enough. In the end, Ireland passed the most restrictive divorce law in Europe. Couples seeking divorce must live apart (though not necessarily in different houses) for a minimum of four years before becoming eligible to seek a divorce.

Ireland is in many ways a very different society from ten years ago, with legal divorce only one of the engines of change. I imagine there are many people who voted No at the time who think that the country’s social fabric has been pretty much shredded. The thousands of people who now obtain divorces every year are likely to disagree. I think it’s plausible that in terms of sheer pressure on the social order, the legalization of divorce is a much more serious event than the prospect of gay marriage. Civil divorce reconfigures property rights, redistributes assets and income, creates a multiplicity of new kin ties and makes one of the most important life choices much more open-ended for everyone. And on each of these dimensions, legalizing divorce directly and indirectly affects far more people than legalizing gay marriage. In short, those who campaigned then against legalizing divorce in Ireland had a much stronger case than those who campaign now against legalizing gay marriage in the United States. While the moral arguments are essentially the same in both cases,2 the potential consequences for the social order are clearly more far-reaching when it comes to divorce. If you think a society can sustain the stress that divorce puts on it, then you should think the same about gay marriage. If you don’t, then you should forget about the problem of gay marriage and get to work rolling back the much more serious threat of legal divorce.

1 Go back another ten years and you get things like the Family Planning Act, which allowed the sale of contraceptives by prescription only, to married couples only, for “bona fide” family planning purposes only. This was the famous Irish solution to an Irish problem. And don’t even ask about ten years before that.

2 If you think that moral or visceral abhorrence of the idea of divorce just can’t be as strong as abhorrence of the idea of homosexuality, I refer you back to the Irish case.

March 03, 2004

Some unsolicited advice for John Kerry

Posted by John Quiggin

My post a week or so ago considering (and ultimately rejecting) the hypothesis that the 2004 election might be a good one for the Democrats to lose raised plenty of eyebrows, but the ensuing debate helped to sharpen up my thinking on the underlying issue, that of the unsustainability of current US fiscal policy and the appropriate Democrat response.

In the original post drew the conclusion that the only campaign strategy that would give a Democrat, once elected, any real chance of prevailing over a Republican congress, was that (supported by Dean, Gephardt, Kucinich and Sharpton) of repealing the entire Bush tax cut and starting from scratch. To the extent that primary voters considered this issue, they didn’t see it this way. With the possible exception of Lieberman, Kerry was the candidate most supportive of the tax cuts.

Like Bush, Kerry promises to cut the deficit in half over four years. He proposes to scrap the cuts for those earning more than $200 000, but to expand them for ‘middle-class families’, a group normally taken to include about 95 per cent of the population1. When other spending proposals are taken into account, the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution) estimates that Kerry’s proposals will yield a net increase in the deficit of $165 billion over four years , or $40 billion a year. (Of course, Bush will almost certainly spend more once the unbudgeted costs of higher defense spending and even more tax cuts are factored in). As I show below, this is relative to a baseline of around $550 billion.

I think it’s safe to say this won’t happen. The problem for Kerry, then, is when to discover the deficit. There are three basic options:

1 It’s evidence of the startling lopsidedness of the Bush tax cuts, and the explosion of income inequality over the past two decades, that there is, nonetheless, a substantial revenue gain from repealing the cuts for the rich and ultra-rich. About half the benefits of the Bush tax cuts go to those on incomes over $200 000 per year.

Update: Brad de Long points to Kerry’s appointment of Roger Altman as his budget priorities advise as evidence that Kerry will choose Option 1. Kevin Drum is underwhelmed. He supports Option 2 and expects Option 3, or worse.

1. Discover it now, dump the current fiscal policy and campaign on full repeal of the Bush cuts. As I argued in my previous post, this would give a newly-elected Kerry the mandate to push the policy through Congress. This strategy would incur a fair bit of short-term political pain, but Kerry’s early and overwhelming win in the primaries gives him some time and political credit to spend.

2. Discover it immediately after the election. This is the strategy usually adopted by newly-elected Australian governments who want to dump their campaign promises. The idea is that on Day 1, you appoint a Commission of Audit. In a month or two, the Commission reports back with the shocking news that the previous government’s figures, on which you naively relied, were a massive exercise in book-cooking. You then introduce an emergency Budget. This strategy works well in a Parliamentary system where the government has a majority in the Lower House where budgets are determined. To make it work in the US system, you’d need to win well enough to get a Democrat majority or at least a workable majority with moderate Republicans. As I understand things, however, a Democrat majority is unlikely and moderate Republicans are an extinct species.

3. Discover it slowly over time. The key point in favour of this strategy is that the Bush tax cuts expire automatically (in 2006 I think). But this is the strategy most likely to lead to deadlock, for which the President will probably take most of the blame, and which will produce the most painful economic adjustment

If you accept my summary of the options, I think it’s pretty clear that Option 1 is the way to go.

Notes

To get an idea of the scale of the problem, go to the Congressional Budget Office and add up from Table 1-1 and Table 1-3
1. The baseline budget deficit projection for 2008 ($278 billion)
2. The effect of extending the Bush tax cuts ($125 billion including debt service)
3. Alternative Minimum Tax relief ($43 billion including debt service)
4. Discretionary appropriations growing in line with nominal GDP ($102 billion including debt service)
for a total starting point deficit of $548 billion, assuming no adverse economic shocks or spending requirements.

Kerry’s partial repeal would save only about $50 billion

For completeness, here’s the section of Kerry’s economic policy headed Restore fiscal discipline to Washington
By borrowing from future generations to give tax relief to those who need help the least, George W. Bush’s economic policies have, for the first time in history, forced the federal government to spend $1 billion more EACH DAY than it takes in. John Kerry believes that we need a smaller and smarter government that wastes less money. He has put forward a sensible plan that will at least cut the deficit in half in his first term, while investing in economic growth and investing in workers. To restore fiscal discipline and strengthen our economy, Kerry will repeal Bush’s special tax breaks for Americans who make more than $200,000. He will cut excesses in government and reign in out of control spending. And he will implement the McCain-Kerry commission on corporate welfare to undermine the special interest groups that make it hard to cut tax loopholes and pork barrel spending projects.

February 28, 2004

If you're copy-editing, you're correcting for HITLER!

Posted by Ted

What can you say about a story like this?

(“This way to the libertarian recruitment center” comes to mind, actually.)

You and what army

Posted by Ted

Good catch from Uggabugga:

We took a quick spin around the Internet looking at religious-conservative sites to see what their reaction was to Bush’s proposal of a constitutional amendment about marriage. What did they have to say at 8:30 PM EST? (on Tuesday, the day the of Bush’s announcement of support for the FMA- Ted)
* Coral Ridge Ministries: no mention * Christian Broadcasting Network: no mention
* The 700 Club (subset of CBN): no mention
* Focus on the Family: a tiny link to a short statement
* Concerned Women for America: no mention (but an old link to a page defending the term “marriage”)
* Family Research Council: Yes, a featured summary on the front page, and a link to a short statement

That’s a pretty tepid response. Where was the coordination by the White House?

It could very well be that socially conservative organizations just don’t have their act together when it comes to the web. I was struck at the failure of the American Family Association to drum up more support for their poll on gay marriage. Sure, a lot of liberal (and socially liberal) organizations and pages linked to the survey, but so did social conservative organizations and pages. They’ve got their mailing lists, and the support of a network of online socially conservative activist groups. Still, the most conservative option, opposing civil unions and gay marriage, lost 2-1.

Still, interesting.

Corrections

Posted by Ted

For the record:

Wesley Clark didn’t spread the rumor about John Kerry.

We also spoke to a couple other reporters and pieced together what happened: at a press conference at a Nashville restaurant, Clark made a passing reference to an upcoming National Enquirer story about Kerry’s past. The story wasn’t about an intern at all, and Clark brought it up in the context of his own campaign plans. He was staying in, he said, in part because the expected story might damage the Kerry campaign. According to one reporter, it appeared Clark didn’t have any idea what the allegations might be.

There’s a commercial on Bush’s campaign website that claims that Kerry took “more special interest money than any other senator.” That’s a very difficult statement to defend. (The commercial is still there.)

When you combine money from paid lobbyists and PACs—which makes sense, since they’re both conduits for “special interests”—Kerry actually ranks ninety-second out of 100 U.S. senators. That doesn’t make him pure, but it makes him purer than most serious candidates for the White House. And it puts him on a different planet from President Bush, who accepted more money from lobbyists last year alone than Kerry has in the last 15.

There was a commonly circulated story that Saddam Hussein used to murder people by lowering them into industrial plastic shredders. It should not add any luster to the terrible dictator’s reputation to point out that this story was thinly sourced at best. (via No More Mister Nice Blog)

Clwyd said this shredding machine was in Abu Ghraib prison, Saddam’s most notorious jail. Indict refuses to tell me the names of the researchers who were in Iraq with Mahon and Clwyd; and, I am told, Mahon, who no longer works at Indict, “does not want to speak to journalists about his work with us”. But Clwyd tells me: “We heard it from a victim; we heard it and we believed it.”

This is all that Indict had to go on - uncorroborated and quite amazing claims made by a single person from northern Iraq. When I suggest that this does not constitute proof of the existence of a human shredder, Clwyd responds: “Who are you to say that chap is a liar?”…

An Iraqi who worked as a doctor in the hospital attached to Abu Ghraib prison tells me there was no shredding machine in the prison. The Iraqi, who wishes to remain anonymous, describes the prison as “horrific”. Part of his job was to attend to those who had been executed. Did he ever attend to, or hear of, prisoners who had been shredded? “No.” Did any of the other doctors at Abu Ghraib speak of a shredding machine used to execute prisoners? “No, never. As far as I know [hanging] was the only form of execution used there.”

Clwyd insists that corroboration of the shredder story came when she was shown a dossier by a reporter from Fox TV. On June 18, Clwyd wrote a second article for the Times, citing a “record book” from Abu Ghraib, which described one of the methods of execution as “mincing”. Can she say who compiled this book? “No, I can’t.” Where is it now? “I don’t know.” What was the name of the Fox reporter who showed it to her? “I have no idea.” Did Clwyd read the entire thing? “No, it was in Arabic! I only saw it briefly.” Curiously, there is no mention of the book or of “mincing” as a method of execution on the Fox News website, nor does its foreign editor recall it.

Visible Libertarians

Posted by Kieran

I’m trying to remember the source of a quote, and the quote itself — roughly, it says “Individualism is a transitional stage between two kinds of social structure.” It sounds like something Simmel would say, or maybe Amos Hawley. Libertarianism has always seemed to me to depend for its realization on features of the social structure that it officially repuditates. It wouldn’t be the first ideology of which that was true. But I’m not going to defend that idea here. All I want to say is that I think we’d all be better off if Jim Henley got the kind of traffic that Glenn Reynolds gets, and maybe Julian Sanchez got Virginia Postrel’s job at the Times.

February 26, 2004

Arabesque

Posted by Kieran

We continue to search for sources of insight into America’s geopolitical position in the Middle East. Following up on the Pontius Pilate angle (which some people took a little too seriously), we stick with the cinema. PreReview reviews movies the reviewer hasn’t seen, usually because they’re not out yet. Here is a snippet of a review of Hidalgo, the forthcoming Viggo Mortensen disaster:

Viggo Aragorn … goes to Arabia with Hidalgo, his horsey best buddy to race against a bunch of Arabs who are BOUND BY HONOR except when they are DOUBLE CROSSING

This summarizes the basic view of many neocons pretty well, especially the Huntingtonian ones.

Aunt Fancy is spinning in his grave tonight

Posted by John Holbo
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

So much not to like. Yet our outrage is such - and rightly so - that we may flail about to find yet more holes through which to vent. Yesterday folks were pointing out that the proposed FMA would be the first amendment to exclude, rather than include - if you see what I mean. Thought about adding my voice to that choir. Then: nah, people are sinful. Ergo, someone proposed an amendment back in the 19th century that never made the cut but was way worse. We’ll read about it in the blogs tomorrow. And Jack Balkin does not disappoint. And, since President Buchanan is somewhere in Belle ‘Bucky’ Waring’s family tree (great, great, great grand-second-uncle or something?) - it’s all in the family. She’s not a direct descendant, mind you, because Buchanan never, erm, married. Ahem: “Buchanan’s long-time living companion, William Rufus King, was referred to by critics as his “better half,” “his wife,” and “Aunt Fancy”.”

But I digress.

I would be curious to know whether Bush can legitimately be deprived of this laurel: first sitting President to support a Constitutional amendment without knowing - hence without caring - what it says.

I trust I am not misunderestimating. As we know, the silly thing is written in such a way that no one can say with confidence whether - if and when released into the wild - it would let the states decide about same-sex civil unions, or expressly forbid them from deciding. (See also: Volokh vs. Ponnuru. And the Instaprof still hopes his guy isn’t such a bad guy.)

To be a little more specific (and pace Balkin): it defies credibility - nay, it takes credibility home and makes it like a thing illegal between consenting adult males in many jurisdictions - that this pair of sentences, the FMA, is not ill-composed by design. Its drafters despair of convincing the benighted to approve irrational hatred on the plain merits. Their best shot is a thing that muddles through, disguised as a defense of federalism, then judges will read and notice it is an attack on federalism. A lot for Gary Bauer to love, if there is any chance this theocratic Trojan Horse might penetrate the Constitutional gates. A lot for Bush-Rove to love, unless it all blows up in their faces (pleasepleasepleaseplease). Hard to keep all these folks happy under the tent - squabblesome, demanding, fractious things. An ambiguous-by-design amendment proposal might be the ticket. It doesn’t just drive a wedge into the ranks of Dems, it papers over cracks in the Rep coalition. It allows you to say one thing while in effect saying the opposite - one out of each side of your mouth. Of course, eventually it will have to decided which one thing it says. But that is some judge’s problem.

So the drafters are fanatical not cynical; Bush is probably cynical not fanatical. But there have been bad men before. Passing the buck to judges is possibly a temptation that has passed this way. Has any sitting President ever before placated a strained base by advocating a Constitutional amendment without knowing what it means? More evil amendments have been proposed, fair enough. But has a proposed Constitutional amendment ever before been this badly written by design?

Pilate

Posted by Kieran

Just as an aside to Belle’s post, I think that once people have finished scrutinizing it for blood-libel, the relevance of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ to current U.S. policy in the Middle East awaits detailed exploration. In fact, I’m surprised that commentators have yet to discuss the foreign policy lessons to be learned from Pilate and his occupying Roman legions. As I’ve said before, for all his failings Pilate was at least attempting to bring a tradition of republicanism in politics, pluralistic tolerance of religion in civic life, and heavy investment in public infrastructure to a priest-ridden, monotheistic, intolerant Middle-Eastern troublespot. History might remember him better had he not had the massive bad luck to run up against a blowback problem the size of the Son of God during his governorship.

February 25, 2004

Department of the Bleeding Obvious

Posted by Daniel

Via the Volokh lads, news that those tiresome Internet purveyors of laboured satire at Adbusters have made the startling discovery that, in general, Jews are more likely to have strong opinions about Israel than, say, Norwegians. Oy gevalt, as they say up the road from me in Golders Green, who’d have thought it. Christ knows what may happen next week when they spot the connection between the Northern Irish republican cause and the Church of Rome. Jesus.

Actually, what might be a lot more use than Adbusters’ idea would be a list of American pundits who aren’t Jews and have never set foot in Israel, but nevertheless think that they’re qualified to act as spokespeople for the Zionist cause worldwide. (Or for that matter, people who haven’t visited Europe since student days but still regard themselves as experts on trends in anti-Semitism there). I can think of a few names off the top of my head, and I daresay CT commenters can think of others …

Four more years?

Posted by John Quiggin

The announcement that Ralph Nader will again run for the Presidency raises the (almost) unaskable question -are there any circumstances under which we should hope for, promote, or even passively assist, the re-election of George W. Bush as against either of the remaining Democrat contenders? I feel nervous even raising this question, but I think it’s worth a hard and dispassionate look.

Regardless of their political persuasion, most people will agree, at least in retrospect, that it would have been better for their own side (defined either in ideological or in party terms) to have lost some of the elections they won. Most obviously, this was the case for the US Republican Party in 1928. Hoover’s victory, and his inability to cope with the Depression, paved the way for four successive victories for FDR and two generations of Democratic and liberal hegemony, which didn’t finally come to an end until the Reagan revolution in 1980. The same was true on the other side of poltiics in Australia and the UK, where Labour governments were elected just before the Depression, split over measures of retrenchment demanded by the maxims of orthodox finance and sat out the 1930s in Opposition, watching their own former leaders implement the disastrous policies they had rejected, but had been unable to counter.

So, is 2004 one of those occasions? The case that it is rests primarily on arguments about fiscal policy. Bush’s policies have set the United States on a path to national bankruptcy, a fact that is likely to become apparent some time between now and 2008. Assuming that actual or effective bankruptcy (repudiation of debt or deliberate resort to inflation) is unthinkable, this is going to entail some painful decisions for the next President and Congress, almost certainly involving both increases in taxation and cuts in expenditure. On the expenditure side, this will mean a lot more than the obvious targets of corporate welfare and FDW1. Either significant cuts in the big entitlement programs (Social Security and Medicare) or deep cuts in everything else the government does will be needed, even with substantial increases in taxes (to see the nasty arithmetic read these CBO projections, and replace the baseline with the more realistic Policy Alternatives Not Included in CBO’s Baseline)

1 Fraud, Duplication and Waste

As far as I can see, the only way to avoid four years of grinding bargaining would be the Big Bang approach of repealing the Bush tax cuts en bloc while the electoral mandate was fresh. Gephardt and Dean proposed this (along with, I think, Kucinich, Braun and Sharpton), but Edwards and Kerry propose repealing only the cuts on incomes above $200 000 a year. Whichever of them wins the Democratic nomination, it seems likely that the pressures of the campaign will lead them to soft-pedal the bad news on tax and spending options, making it more difficult to push even partial repeal through a Congress that will probably have a Republican majority in at least one House.

Given that the deficit has yet to register as a major issue with many (most ?) voters, , it will be very hard to shift the blame back onto Bush and the Republicans if the problem is deferred until 2005 or 2006. It’s easy to imagine scenarios leading to an electoral catastrophe in 2008 and the election of a Republican even worse than Bush. Conversely, a re-elected Bush could be a second Herbert Hoover, discrediting the Republicans for decades to come.

Of course, similar arguments were made in 2000, notably on behalf of Nader, and they turned out to be totally wrong. More generally, the folk wisdom about birds in the hand and in the bush (sic) is applicable. And it’s always easier for an outside onlooker to advise taking the long-term view in cases of this kind, though in this case, we all have to live with the consequences.

Looking at the damage another four years of Bush would do in all areas of domestic and foreign policy, I can’t conclude that the putative long-term benefits of demonstrating the bankruptcy of his ideas are enough to balance the inevitable and immediate damage his re-election would cause. Still, I look forward to a Democratic victory with trepidation rather than the unalloyed enthusiasm I ought to feel.

February 24, 2004

Hey, gang! Let's put on a culture war!

Posted by Ted

I’m reading a lot of blogs, both liberal and conservative, and seeing copious abuse rained on Bush for his support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. (See especially John Scalzi for a remarkably eloquent defense of equal rights for gays here, here, and here. Also, see the Declaration of Independence*, where it says something about how all men are created equal.)

This is right and good. I agree with Andrew and Michael that this could be a major disaster for Bush. Even DeLay is slowly distancing himself from the FMA.

But it’s entirely appropriate to ask for more from the Democratic candidates. It seems to me that they’re missing a huge opportunity. I think that these points would be fairly uncontroversial:

1. There’s a significant trend in the United States is toward legal recognition of same-sex marriage. We may very well be all-but-there by election day. Here’s Nick Confessore:
The one thing that most polling shows on the issue of gay marriage is that the prejudice against it is rapidly dying off. According to that same Gallup poll I mentioned earlier, 39 percent of those respondents aged 18-29 support full marriage rights for gays, versus 24 percent of those aged 30-49 and just 15 percent of those 50 and older. Add up those in the younger bracket who support either gay marriage or civil unions, and you’ve got 59 percent. In a decade or so, full marriage rights for gays may well command a strong majority of Americans.

Many conservatives acknowledge this, although not all.

2. Democrats have enjoyed tremendous goodwill as a result of the stance that the national leadership took in the 1960s regarding civil rights.

If I’m right, then the national Democratic leadership has an unusually clear opportunity to get on the right side of history with a clear statement about fairness and equality.

In a few years, I’ll be able to say that the left led the way on the question of gay marriage. But as of today, I won’t be able to say the same thing about the national Democratic party.

Make me proud, John. Or, if you won’t, John.

* Not the Constitution. How embarassing.

Keynes and Bush

Posted by Henry

Keynes famously quipped “When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?” G.W. Bush’s riposte - Why sir, I change the facts.

Nader and the Dems

Posted by Harry

I drafted the following post yesterday, when it had a more anti-Nader feel to it. But two people subsequently approached me about my thoughts about Nader, and told me they supported him standing, giving pretty good reasons, so I have modified my thoughts in the light of that (an indication, perhaps, of how fluid my views are right now). However, one of them said she would have to be a closet Nader supporter, because she didn’t want to deal with the unreasoned anger she felt that open support would make her vulnerable to in her workplace, which, I think, supports my main point.

UPDATE interesting stuff here from unrepentant 2000 Nader supporters Chun the Unavoidable and Russell Arben Fox. See also Chuck at the Chutry Experiment. And a fun rant from Timothy Burke

I supported Nader in 2000, and still have no qualms about having done so. It’s easy now to forget how things looked in the months prior to the 2000 election. Bush looked none too good, but nor did Gore. A recession was clearly about to happen, and, barring some unforeseeable catastrophe, the incoming President would lose congress for his party in 2002, and then lose the Presidency in 2004. Gore’s program was not that different from Bush’s, and it was a good bet that the winning President would not get to replace an outgoing Supreme of contrary political leanings in his first and only term.

And, on the other side of the coin, there was a real prize in the 2000 Nader campaign – Federal funding for Green candidates if he won a sufficient percentage of the vote. Now, I’m less then wholly enthusiastic about the Greens, but if they had federal funding it would transform them, as most of the non-Democratic Party left would have flooded in, and so would, at local and regional levels, some of the Dem left. Some people even thought that Nader’s run would leave a stronger organizational base behind even if he failed to reach the threshold. I was sceptical of that, but it was not an absurd view.

I have never found the ‘vote for someone you believe in’ principle compelling — we should allocate our vote in such a way that maximizes the expected probability of it contributing to a good all things considered outcome. This sometimes means holding your nose and voting for a Democrat. It may sometimes mean voting for a Republican. But in this race I thought, and still think, that there was a very good case to be made that voting for Nader was the best thing to do.

Of course, it didn’t work out. As I say, I was willing to countenance a Bush victory, and was right to do so. But in the end Nader was not to blame for the Democratic Party defeat. The Democratic Party was. It deliberately selected a candidate whom outsiders could see was very weak; and that despite the fact that they had a potentially strong candidate on offer (Bradley) and despite the fact that the Republicans had not yet selected a weak candidate, and had an incredibly strong candidate available. When Bradley conceded defeat McCain was still very much in the running – is there anyone out there who really thinks McCain wouldn’t have wiped the floor with Gore, Nader or no Nader?

The predicted defeat of the incumbent party in the midterms did not, of course, transpire. Why? September 11th and, again, the Democrats. They were in complete disarray after Sept 11th, and were completely unable to develop a coherent strategy. It has taken the Iraq debacle to prompt them into anything seeming like coherence, and although I’d still be surprised by a Bush defeat (not least because the Dems are, again, demonstrating less than stellar candidate choice), Iraq has given them the only opening they might have. But I don’t think 2000 Naderites should feel responsible for not predicting September 11th or the Dems’ reaction to it. I feel unrepentant, and I’m bemused by the mea culpa website.

But I find it hard to support Nader this time round. I’m sure he’ll focus on enriching the debate, rather than chasing votes. He says, with some reason, that he expects to draw more votes from Bush than from the Democrat nominee. Its certainly true that he can openly throw mud at Bush that the Democratic candidate won’t dare to throw, unless he finds that it sticks. So he can be a kind of stalking horse, and its entirely possible that the final Democratic candidate will be grateful for that. I have to admit, too, that I would probably vote for him, but that’s easy for me to say because I don’t have a vote and anyway I live in a State that even Gore managed to win last time despite Nader getting 4% of the vote. And I think it’s good not to give the Dems a free ride. Every time they say ‘no-one could be worse than X (where X is the Republican candidate)’ and it is rarely true

But, as someone who is not a Democrat, and thinks that building a third party to the left of the Democrats is, in the long term, essential to the development of a real social democratic voice in the US, I fear that a Nader run, even if it helps the Democrats, will set back the third party cause. Already senior Democrats are heaping vituperation on him. Even in 2000 I heard a lot of that from the Democrat rank and file, lots of whom seemed to hate him more than Bush, and in 2004 it is going to be much, much worse. The isolation of what John calls the Jacobin from the Democratic Party left (what there is of it) is a major barrier to the development of a serious social democratic alternative, whether one with its own party, or one without a party. Nader’s run this time will worsen that isolation, and will do so without the prospect of a resource-laden prize to compensate. As far as I can see Nader has no realistic machine building goal here, and the main consequence will be a decline in civility on the left. Worse, most progressives who support building a third party alternative will be in the invidious situation of supporting and working for a Democratic nominee despite Nader’s run — most of his 2000 supporters will abandon him, and this will move them psychologically closer to the Dems and distance them form other third party efforts.

Now Nader will only be indirectly to blame for all this, because it will be the predictable backlash against him and his run, rather than his run itself, that will have the undesirable effect. And I’m not sure his supporters will be to blame at all – he’s running, he’s saying lots of things that are right, and will have two opponents who are basically wrong, and no individual’s decision to support Nader is going to significantly worsen the backlash.

I wish Nader had decided not to run. Given that he is running, I am not calling for people not to support him, just saying why it would be better if he hadn’t run. But, if anyone is paying attention, the thing for leftists on both sides of the Nader/Dem divide to do is to minimize the damage it does to mutual relations.

February 20, 2004

Spoiling for a fight?

Posted by Henry

Corey Robin has an interesting article in this month’s Boston Review, arguing that prior to September 11, the intellectual wing of the US conservative movement had been in the doldrums because there weren’t any new battles to fight.

He quotes from interviews that he conducted with William Buckley and Irving Kristol in 2000, where Buckley describes the fight for free markets as “rather boring,” and Kristol says

I think it would be natural for the United States . . . to play a far more dominant role in world affairs. Not what we’re doing now but to command and to give orders as to what is to be done. People need that. There are many parts of the world—Africa in particular—where an authority willing to use troops can make a very good difference, a healthy difference … there’s the Republican Party tying itself into knots. Over what? Prescriptions for elderly people? Who gives a damn? I think it’s disgusting that . . . presidential politics of the most important country in the world should revolve around prescriptions for elderly people. Future historians will find this very hard to believe. It’s not Athens. It’s not Rome. It’s not anything.”

As Robin argues, September 11 changed everything; empire-building has suddenly become intellectually respectable again on the right. Robin’s article goes on to make a rather implausible argument about the contradictions between empire building conservatism and free market conservatism. Still, he captures something important; something that has always struck me as weird about American conservatism. Usually, we think of conservatism as an effort to keep things the way they are. However, there’s an important strain within US conservatism that is interested not only in revolution, but in permanent revolution. The struggle itself is what is important, not a successful resolution, which is dull, and somehow slightly distasteful. The everyday politics of policy and markets just aren’t very interesting. Some conservatives never seem more comfortable and happier than when they are engaged in an epic struggle between good and evil.

Now it should be acknowledged that plenty of lefties have the same set of intellectual pre-dispositions. I reckon that the prospect of a good fight is what won Christopher Hitchens over to the pro-war side; plenty of anti-war protesters feel invigorated by the struggle against the ‘evil American imperium.’ Let’s take that as stipulated. But if Green is right (and he has some good arguments on his side), there’s something deeply unserious about the response of many conservatives to September 11 and its aftermath. They’re less interested in putting the world to rights, than in the struggle and glory involved in putting the world to rights. Which might help explain why their foreign adventures don’t seem to be working out very well. Fighting the good fight may be character building, but it doesn’t necessarily make for good policy.

February 19, 2004

Mark Steyn

Posted by Ted

Ann Coulter is not really a pundit; she’s a political insult comic. When she lied about Max Cleland’s Vietnam injuries in her column last week, I heard about it, but didn’t comment. Life’s too short. (Besides, Tbogg, Arthur Silber, and Senator Jack Reed did a good job with it.)

Mark Steyn has repeated the story, using Ann Coulter as a source.

As Ann Coulter pointed out in a merciless but entirely accurate column, it wasn’t on the “battlefield.” It wasn’t in combat. He was working on a radio relay station. He saw a grenade dropped by one of his colleagues and bent down to pick it up. It’s impossible for most of us to imagine what that must be like — to be flown home, with your body shattered, not because of some firefight, but because of a stupid mistake.

It’s not clear where Coulter got her story; she cites no source. Steyn cites Coulter. If you can’t trust Ann Coulter, as the saying goes, who can you trust?

It’s rather more clear where Max Cleland got his story:

On April 8, 1968, I volunteered for one last mission. The helicopter moved in low. The troops jumped out with M16 rifles in hand as we crouched low to the ground to avoid the helicopter blades. Then I saw the grenade. It was where the chopper had lifted off. It must be mine, I thought. Grenades had fallen off my web gear before. Shifting the M16 to my left hand and holding it behind me, I bent down to pick up the grenade. A blinding explosion threw me backwards.

Here’s the Washington Post on the incident:

On April 8, 1968, during the siege of Khe Sanh, he stepped off a helicopter and saw a grenade at his feet. He thought he’d dropped it. He was wrong. When he reached down to pick it up, it exploded, ripping off both legs and his right hand. He was 25.

Here’s Esquire: “Cleland lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam when a grenade accidentally detonated after he and another soldier jumped off a helicopter in a combat zone.”

Steyn and Coulter both agree that Max Cleland is no hero. Steyn say that “Mr. Cleland at last no longer demurs to be passed off as a hero wounded in battle — because that makes him a more valuable mascot to the campaign. Sad.” Coulter says, “Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam. “

The United States military would disagree. As Truthout notes:

In a separate incident four days before he lost three limbs, Cleland won a Silver Star - one of the highest honors for combat courage the U.S. military gives out. The congressional citation which came with the medal specifically said that during a “heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack Captain Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions.” The citation concluded, “Cleland’s gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army.”

Ann Coulter is a clown. Every time you mention her, your body loses 21 grams. But Mark Steyn is a respected voice. Look at his website to see some of the places he’s been published. When the popular blog Right-Wing News did a poll among conservative bloggers about their favorite columnist, he was far and away the first choice. He got more votes than the next ten columnists combined. Instapundit has quoted or linked to him in 104 separate posts, by my count.

If any of you folks are reading… any second thoughts?

February 18, 2004

Don't Be Afraid

Posted by Kieran

“Barbara Chamberlain, 79, also of Milwaukee, backed Edwards for the same reason,” the Associated Press reports from Wisconsin, “‘I have hope for him beating you-know-who,’ she said.”

Oh come, Barbara, you’ll just have stop living in fear and come out and say it — “Voldemort.” Now, doesn’t that make you feel better?

February 16, 2004

Left-Wing Conspirators

Posted by Kieran

Via Atrios and RMPN I found a beta version of FollowTheNetwork.Org. Apparently the brainchild of David Horowitz, it purports to be “a guide to the political left” and takes the form of a big database of people, funders, media, government and so on. The design of the site suggests that the left is a huge, interconnected web of shadowy figures and money flows. The database entries make for interesting reading. Trawling around in it (note that the site is in beta, so these links may stop working soon) I find that you can “follow the network” for people like these:

  • Jamal Ahmen Al-Fadl. Described as “bin Laden lieutenant, Sudanese … Helped Sudan’s ruling NIF build world’s then-largest complex of terrorist training camps.”
  • Ben Ali Zinedine, ” President General of Tunisia’s democratic government.”
  • Osama Bin Laden, “Saudi Arabian financier … Issued fatwa calling for Muslims to kill Americans and Jews everywhere in the world. CIA notified Congress of this.”
  • Ahmad A. Ajaj, ” Associate of first WTC bombers. From Houston. Pizza deliveryman. ‘Mysterious connections and unlimited funds.’”
  • Mohammed Ali, “Special operations chief for Osama bin Laden in USA.

I could go on. And that’s just the database of individuals. There’s also the list of groups, where you can find invaluable information on terrorist groups like Hamas, Habitat for Humanity and the Harvard Alumni Association. And like any good blacklist, everyone is invited to submit any information they might have.

Update: Blogger Jack Balkin is on the list, as another “‘Progressive’ Academic.” What are we at CT? Chopped Liver?

Update 2: It seems like the Follow The Network has been taken offline, but those helpful people at RMPN have a Mirror Site for you all to play with.

February 15, 2004

Guantanamo

Posted by Brian

I usually agree with Mark Kleiman’s posts, even in cases where I wouldn’t have agreed before reading them. But I think he’s seriously mistaken about the Guantanamo detainees.

First, Mark thinks that there should be a serious distinction between how US citizens and others are treated at Guantanamo.

When it comes to American citizens or those captured on American territory, habeas corpus ought to apply, since we certainly don’t face the “rebellion or invasion” that would justify its suspension. … But I can’t see what happens to the others as anything resembling a problem about civil liberty or the rule of law.

This leads to a very bizarre set of outcomes. Because John Walker Lindh was captured by his own country’s troops, he gets a lawyer and a trial. Because David Hicks was captured by another country’s troops, he gets neither of those things for two years, and then only a lawyer provided by the military. (To be fair, the lawyer seems to be doing a good job in difficult circumstances.) If Hicks is guilty of what he seems to be accused of, if, then he doesn’t deserve much sympathy. But it’s very hard to justify differential treatment because Americans rather than Australians got to him first. (Full disclosure: I tend to get rather skittish about claims that Australians don’t deserve full legal protection from government mistreatment.)

Second, Mark says that it has not “even been charged that the Guantanamo internees are being actively maltreated.” Obviously this is not intended literally - there are thousands of crank websites where such charges are made. (My evidence for this is mostly inductive - for any political claim you can think of there are thousands of crank websites where it is endorsed.) I take it Mark means that this has never been charged by anyone worth taking seriously. But I don’t think that’s true. Although Amnesty mainly talks about the lack of legal protection for detainees, they also say that the prisoners are being detained in ‘inhuman’ conditions.

Finally, a point Mark makes in passing is worth I think taking much more seriously than he does. We simply do not know that each of the prisoners being held in Guantanamo are guilty. All we have to go on is the word of the current administration. And from the gang that can’t shoot straight, that’s simply not good enough.

This is not normally a problem with POWs. Normally, soldiers wear uniforms, so you can tell pretty much straight away whether the guy is an enemy soldier or not. This isn’t true for the people we captured in Afghanistan. We don’t know how to classify them, and I don’t trust this administration to do the classifying any more than I trust their economic forecasts.

In particular, remember that in Afghanistan our primary enemy was not al-Qaeda. Our primary enemy was the Taliban regime. We were at war with the Taliban because of their relationship to al-Qaeda, but that does not mean they are the same entity. Many of the people we captured will have been fighting for the Taliban, not al-Qaeda, and our war with the Taliban is over. Many more will not have been fighting for anyone, but will simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, or will have been dobbed in by people eager to settle old scores or collect reward money. I’d be surprised if David Hicks is one of the innocents, but he might be. Again, the word of the current administration doesn’t give me the greatest confidence on this score.

It might be objected here that since the our war with the Taliban never led to “a surrender or peace treaty”, we should still be regarded as at war with them. I don’t think this is tenable. The US never formally surrended in Vietnam, but I don’t think anyone would say that would have justified the Vietnamese in holding US POWs indefinitely. When John Kerry and John McCain did their 1985 investigation into whether there still were POWs in Vietnam, I don’t think anyone argued, “Well if there are it is legitimate since we haven’t surrendered.” If the war is over, the POWs get released, unless they have committed war crimes.

Alternatively, it might be argued that the war against the Taliban is not over, since there are still outbreaks of fighting in Afghanistan. This is a more plausible claim, but I don’t think it works. The Taliban regime has fallen, and their forces have been scattered. There may be sympathisers left for the regime, just as there were sympathisers left in the South after the US Civil War, and in Germany after WWII. And, for that matter, in South Vietnam after the fall of Saigon, or in Yugoslavia after the fall of Milosevic. Those sympathisers can be violent towards those charged with keeping the peace. Since in this case those charged with keeping the peace were woefully under-resourced so US forces could be moved to Iraq, this must be a hellish experience for troops still in Afghanistan. But it doesn’t mean that the war we fought there in 2001 is still ongoing. We won, the Taliban regime is fallen, and those prisoners who were fighting for the Taliban, rather than al-Qaeda, should to be charged with war crimes or released.

As I said, Mark acknowledges this in passing: “So perhaps we need a process by which a relatively impartial judge examines the evidence.” I don’t see the justification for the ‘perhaps’. In any case, he goes on, “But I don’t see that as a requirement either of our domestic law or of international law.” That may be true - he knows a lot more about the law than I do. If so, all the worse for the law. If there is no moral justification for keeping these people locked in cages without a trial or any fair way to determine who is a combatant for an active enemy and who isn’t, then the absence of a law requiring us to fulfil our moral duties should be no excuse.

February 13, 2004

Recounts

Posted by Brian

Looks like being an election official in Florida just got easier.

The Department of State has notified elections supervisors that touchscreen ballots don’t have to be included during manual recounts because there is no question about how voters intended to vote.

While touchscreen ballot images can be printed, there is no need and elections supervisors aren’t authorized to do so, Division of Elections Director Ed Kast wrote in a letter to Pasco County Supervisor of Elections Kurt Browning.

So we’re just going to trust the computers. Given how reliable we all know computers to be, this is about as democratic as selecting candidates by lots. (Just for the record, I think it’s an interesting theoretical question about how democratic that is. It’s how we pick juries after all, and they are often considered an important part of the democratic process.)

Counting votes is a very hard business, so you can see why they’d want to speed it up. In Australia, with roughly the same population as Florida, spread over a much larger area, with I think twice as many voters, and a more complicated voting system, we manage to count every ballot by hand in 3 or 4 hours. To be sure, we don’t have as many elections at once as Floridians do, but you’d think for top-line elections they could try for a change running elections as well as we do. (Hat tip: kos.)

February 09, 2004

They're behind you!

Posted by Chris

Christopher Hitchens in Slate (via Norman Geras ) :

I’m a single-issue person at present, and the single issue in case you are wondering is the tenacious and unapologetic defense of civilized societies against the intensifying menace of clerical barbarism. If in the smallest doubt about this, I would suggest a vote for the re-election of George Bush, precisely because he himself isn’t prey to any doubt on the point.

Unlike many of his supporters it would seem, who think clerical barbarism would be an excellent idea…. Brian Leiter should be congratulated for his assiduous reporting of the activities of the Texas Taliban . The sayings of Pat Robertson , friend of Bush’s Attorney General, are worth a special mention.

February 07, 2004

Women politicians

Posted by Eszter

This makes so much more sense to me than this. I certainly appreciate the goal of getting more women in the White House and other political positions, but I think it’s a stretch to suggest that the gender of a candidate trumps all other factors including a candidate’s position on all issues. (I came across the EMILY’s List Web site by clicking on this ad in the NYTimes.)

February 06, 2004

Spinology

Posted by Kieran

Randy Barnett links approvingly to a column in the Seattle Times arguing that John Kerry should shut up about his war record:

Voters honor the service and patriotism of military veterans. Indeed, so much so that they can be quickly turned off by use of such symbols cynically to evade scrutiny and accountability.

That’s why Kerry’s best move now might be to shut up about Vietnam. He’s about two applause lines away from convincing voters that he’s trying to cash in on a war that cost thousands of his fellow volunteers and draftees their lives.

Which is all well and good, but in my view also solidly in the tradition of “Impartial and Reasonable Advice to Democrats from Your Friends, the Republicans.” This week’s advice: Now that Kerry is the front runner, it’s time he stopped talking about his Vietnam record, for his own good. No, really! Not because someone else’s service record rather pales in comparison. I’m afraid it won’t wash. I don’t care if Kerry mentions his life in the military every other sentence, because we all know what “cashing in on a war” really looks like.

Activistism

Posted by Daniel

Fully aware that I haven’t written that review of “After the New Economy” that I said I would, here’s an article by CT favourite Doug Henwood and some of his mates on the subject of a worrying tendency toward mindlessness on the part of some activists on what we laughingly call “the left”. Just to provide some context, the article was written after the Afghanistan war and before the Iraq one, which is why some of the references look a bit weird.

For what it’s worth, I think I don’t agree with a single word of it; I don’t think that the lefties are as anti-analysis as the authors suggest and I don’t think that there would be many benefits to their getting into more theory since a) it would tend to create “party lines” and we all know how well they work b) it would just mean a switch from being dismissed for having no positive ideas to being dismissed as closet Stalinists and c) I don’t think that people relate to single-issue politics in that kind of way anyway. I also question whether the anti-sweatshop movement is really a good model, as my experience of it has included a lot of people with such a vehement obsession over particular branded sports goods companies that I ended up suspecting it was largely populated by foot fetishists. On the other hand, Doug spends more time in the company of the American Left than I do, and his professional responsiblities as a contributing editor to the Nation probably mean that he has fewer opportunities to steer clear of its loonier element than I do, so here we go. To link to the article as part of a general exercise in condemnation of “The Left” would b unsporting, by the way.

{UPDATE]: Rereading it, “not one single word” is a silly exaggeration on my part; there are some points that are very good. In particular, it is an entirely valid criticism of certain types of activists that they don’t think systemically; they honestly believe that Nike are running sweatshops just to be nasty, or as Doug says, that Greenspan creates recessions when employment is too low by accident. This is the type of thinking which gave us the single-company anti sweatshop campaigns of the 1990s, which today have resulted in a Southeast Asian clothing industry consisting of a few lovely air-conditioned palaces making clothes for Nike, in the context of a rest of industry that has hardly changed at all.

February 05, 2004

Election Markets

Posted by Brian

As Daniel noted a while back on CT, the election markets that have opened so far aren’t efficient enough to prevent arbitrage opportunities. This point now seems to have been noticed by more mainstream commentators.

But whatever the reason, there is a significant pricing difference between these two markets [Tradesports and the IEM] — an arbitrage opportunity that you’d expect some savvy trader to take advantage of. Yes, the contracts are constructed a bit differently, but surely there’s a way to go long Bush on Iowa, short him on Tradesports, and make some surefire coin.

The pinko Money magazine attributes the inefficiency to sheer irrationality on the part of the traders in each market. If that’s right then the added evidential value of these markets is roughly the same as star charts.

February 03, 2004

Punk the National Review

Posted by Ted

The National Review, one of America’s premiere journals of conservative opinion, has started publishing letters from anonymous readers who claim to have had unpleasant experiences with leading Democratic candidates. (Here’s one on Kerry and one on Clark.) If you possess an email address and an eye-opening story, you’ve passed the rigorous fact-checking that has made National Review and the Penthouse Forum world-famous.

In honor of this editorial decision, I would like to propose my first contest ever:

Punk the National Review

The rules are simple:

- Send the National Review an email with an imaginary story of your first-hand experience with a Democratic presidential candidate or elected official.

- Send it to me at the same time- I don’t want anyone to claim retrospective credit. (ted at crookedtimber.org) (UPDATE: Be sure to blind carbon copy, or send it separately- it’ll give the game away if it’s a regular CC.)

- Up to three readers who get a letter published in the National Review (either in the Corner or in a story) will get a $10 gift certificate for Amazon.com from me.

- The contest runs from right now until March 31. If more than one letter is published, I will let readers judge the most outrageous letter that hit the virtual pages of the National Review. The winner of this contest will receive a $20 Amazon gift certificate. If more than three letters are run, all published letters will be eligible for this prize.

Good luck to all of you.

February 02, 2004

Good Polling News?

Posted by Brian

Via Mark Kleiman, Rasmussen Reports has the following poll out:

Bush vs Generic Democrat
Bush 42%
Democrat 49%
Other 3%
Unsure 6%

There’s two big questions about this before we draw any conclusions. First, are Rasmussen any good? Second, are these polls (incumbent vs generic) more or less reliable than head to head polls, e.g. Bush vs Kerry? For what it’s worth Rasmussen has Kerry winning that one 46-44 right now, though obviously 49-42 would be a much better position to be in.

January 29, 2004

Tax and spend

Posted by Henry

David Bernstein has a couple of very weird posts, railing against the liberals in his head for not liking George W. Bush. His main proposition: that liberals stereotype their opponents, and hate them when they don’t live up to their stereotypes. Seems to me that Bernstein is engaged in a wee bit of stereotyping himself. Chez Bernstein, liberals are obsessed with massive spending increases, clumsy protectionism, and boondoggles in space; all good reasons to love George W. The fact that they don’t demonstrates their fundamental irrationality (in fairness, Bernstein says that conservative Clinton-hatred was irrational too).

Bernstein’s non-argument rests on the premise that there’s no good reason for liberals not to like Bush - he’s overseeing a massive increase in government spending. I don’t need to belabour the obvious - there are many, many legitimate, policy-related reasons why liberals may believe the Bush administration to be a disaster. There are even more reasons for social democrats like myself. Under Bush, the relationship between who bears the brunt of the tax burden, and who gets the benefits of government spending is tilting further, so that politically well-connected corporations are prospering at the expense of of poor and middle-income taxpayers. That’s not something that any liberal or social democrat worth their salt is going to want to sign up to, and Bernstein knows it. The only explanation that I can think of for these truly strange posts is Bernstein’s own discomfort with Bush. He doesn’t like the Bush administration much, but isn’t much happier with the company that he’s starting to keep. I guess he’s afraid he might get liberal-cooties or something.

Update: Michael Froomkin has similar thoughts; see also Brad DeLong.

January 24, 2004

Pantouflage

Posted by Henry

CT extends its hearty congratulations to Congressman Billy Tauzin (R-La), who’s demonstrating his sincere attachment to free market virtues by retiring from politics and selling himself to the highest bidder. For the last couple of weeks, there’s been a bidding war between the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) for Tauzin’s services. The MPAA had paid its outgoing head lobbyist, the unlamented Jack Valenti, more than $1 million a year. Apparently this wasn’t nearly enough for Tauzin, who held out for a substantially larger sum - and got it from PhRMA. As it happens, PhRMA is a particularly unpleasant organization - it played a dishonorable role in the AIDS drugs licensing for Africa controversy a few years ago, and has been up to its eyeballs in other controversies and backroom arrangements, up to and including the recent Medicare porkfest. Needless to say, Tauzin has been assiduous in his efforts to protect the interests of big pharma and the content industry over the last couple of years; it’s hard to believe that his grossly inflated salary is unconnected to services previously rendered. The phenomenon of Congressman-turned-lobbyist is hardly a new one; but the openness and extent of the greed on display is unusual, even for Washington. A sign of the times.

January 22, 2004

Maher Arar updates

Posted by Brian

Katherine at Obsidian Wings has several more excellent posts on the Maher Arar case. Here’s the editorial

We don’t know all the details or explanations, but we know that something terrible happened. Our government took a man from an airport in New York City and handed him over to Syria, where he was tortured for 10 months. I think I’ve made a decent case that he was probably innocent; that this was done with the knowledge and approval of fairly important government officials; and that this was not some freak accident or isolated occurrence. …

As Ted Barlow said last November, “I support the vigorous investigation and prosecution of terrorists and terrorist suspects. But if this isn’t over the line, then there is no line.” It is not acceptable to me for my country to send people to be tortured on scant evidence, or on evidence gained from other torture sessions.

Since whatever happens to Canadians can happen to Australians, and whatever can happen to Australians can happen to me, I have a selfish interest in taking this a bit seriously. (On that note, I saw in yesterday’s Washington Post that David Hicks has finally got to have one meeting with a lawyer. (Actually it’s three meetings with a military appointed lawyer according to this story.) After two years in custody. Hooray for due process!) Of course hideous behaviour by governments is hideous behaviour by governments whether the victims are people like me or not, but when they are it’s a little easier to feel appalled by it all.

Back on Arar, today it seems that Juliet O’Neill has (or perhaps will be) arrested over this story she wrote on Arar’s case. In more ficticious news the Feds have arrested Robert Novak for his role in leaking Valerie Plame’s name.

January 21, 2004

A Poor Cousin of the Middle Class

Posted by Henry

Patrick Nielsen Hayden says about this NYT story

State of the union. The great feminist science fiction author Joanna Russ once remarked to me, “Homophobia isn’t there to keep homosexuals in line. Homophobia is there to keep everyone else in line.”

Caroline Payne is in her condition in order to keep the rest of us in line.

What he said. I feel angry and ashamed.

Update: via Kip of Long Story Short Pier in comments, comes this charming response from the so-called “Independent Women’s Forum.”

I must have a heart made of granite, but I just can’t feel sorry for Caroline Payne, the off-and-on welfare mother/credit-card binger who’s supposed to an example of our nation’s beleaguered working poor, the “millions at the bottom of the labor force who contribute to the country’s prosperity” but don’t get anything back, as writer David K. Shipler puts it in “A Poor Cousin of the Middle Class,” this week’s sob story in Sunday’s NYT magazine—in which Caroline whines about her $6.80-an-hour job at a convenience store.

From the way I read Caroline’s saga, it’s prosperous America that’s been handing out tens of thousands of dollars worth of freebies to Caroline over the years (Shipley is coy about her age), and Caroline who’s given very little back. One big reason that Caroline hasn’t moved up the economic ladder looks pretty simple to me: She refuses to wear her (free, Medicaid-supplied) dentures (check the photo). Sorry, Caroline (and oh-so-politically correct Shipler, who remarks sarcastically that Caroline is “missing that radiant, tooth-filled smile that Americans have been taught to prize as highly as their right to vote”). This may sound harsh, but if you want a job that entails interacting with the public or supervising employees, you gotta have teeth. Ask George Washington

This doesn’t leave me angry or ashamed. It leaves me disgusted. There’s something vicious and depraved (in the strongest sense of the word) in the unwillingness of many US conservatives and libertarians to admit that people can get screwed by the market through no fault of their own. D-squared is fond of quoting Galbraith’s dictum that “the project of the conservative throughout the ages is the search for a higher moral justification for selfishness” - this seems appropriate here. I still think that a principled conservatism is possible in theory - I just don’t see much evidence of it in the US today. A little, but not much.

Democracy in America

Posted by Kieran

Tina Fetner waxes Tocquevillian about her participation in the Iowa Caucuses:

Well, I did it. I participated in the glorious process that is the Iowa Caucus. It was my first time, and I was so excited about this down-home version of participatory democracy. What a pile of crap it turned out to be.

Timing the State of the Union

Posted by Micah

Patrick Belton, over at OxBlog, has this analysis of President Bush’s State of the Union address:

If the amount of time given over to a single idea reflects its relative importance in the State of the Union speech (a reasonable assumption), then the most important themes in tonight’s speech, in descending order, are: the need to commit adequate resources to the military for the war on terror (87 seconds); that government will act against single-sex marriage (84 seconds); the administration’s commitment to strengthening families and religious communities, and to combat juvenile use of drugs (78 seconds); the government’s commitment to education and excellence for each child in America (72 seconds); that the world without Saddam is a better and safer place (69 seconds). The closing matter took 78 seconds, centered around the idea that we are living in historic times.

So, at least on this view, what we should take away from Bush’s speech is roughly: we live in historic times in which our major priorities are fighting terrorists, gays and atheists. And who says there’s no culture war in America?

UPDATE: While I’m at it, the funniest moment in the speech had to be when Bush said:

Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year.

(APPLAUSE)

A big bonus for the speechwriter who left a fat pause after that sentence!

January 20, 2004

Drug prices and the logic of collective action II

Posted by Maria

Just by way of a quick follow up to a post from last November, today’s Guardian reports that US Pharma is still pushing hard to label and defeat as protectionist the bulk drugs buying power of the Australian government. Worryingly, it sounds as if Australian PM John Howard may blink.

Unexpected support for the Australians (and indeed Canada and Europe too) comes from Maine and Florida, where state governments are trying to lower the price they pay for drugs, and also a cracker of a letter from Rosa DeLauro (D, Connecticut) to Robert Zoellick which goes;

“We are deeply opposed to the trade office being used by the US pharmaceutical industry to achieve its strategic objective of raising worldwide drug prices to the level now paid by US consumers”.

DeLauro focuses a lot on affordable drugs for the elderly in the US, and would probably like to see more attention on keeping drugs prices down in America rather than pushing them up elsewhere.

James Glassman, however, argues that to keep markets free from government interference, the US government should use trade agreements to force other countries to pay more for US drugs. The old free-rider argument comes up again;

“U.S. policy-makers should focus attention not on the fact that Americans pay more for drugs, but on the fact that Canadians pay less because they are freeloading on Americans. U.S. consumers provide the funds necessary for pharmaceutical firms — nearly all of them now U.S.-based — to make the investment in research to develop new drugs. But the rest of the world benefits from those drugs.”

But it still seems to me that you can’t accuse the rest of the world of free-riding on US R&D until you’ve established whether a)drug prices in the US are artificially high or b)prices abroad are artificially low. (Another issue, much discussed on the thread for my November post, is how much foreign government funded R&D occurs and what role that might have in pricing) Arguably, the US prescription drugs market is at least as skewed as those attacked by free-marketeers like Glassman, but skewed in a direction that favours big pharma rather than consumers.

Secondly, I am still, and perhaps will always be, amazed at people who style themselves as free-market supporters but don’t mind any amount of market manipulation or extraction of monopoly rents as long as they’re done by large private firms, or by the government on behalf of large private firms. The free market isn’t a value in and of itself, it’s a means to an end; timely, efficient and best-priced distribution of goods and services. But market distortion happens all the time. Some might say it’s a fact of life. The only question worth asking about government intervention is when, how and for whose benefit?

January 16, 2004

Pickering

Posted by Henry

Jack Balkin on the Pickering appointment.

I don’t have much of a problem with Bush appointing judges he believes in to recess appointments. Presidents should appoint the best people possible to the federal judiciary. My problem, rather, is that the fact that Bush believes so strongly in Pickering says something deeply troubling about Bush’s politics.

January 15, 2004

Framing effects

Posted by Daniel

A wonderful example of framing effects in action. I hear that the USA is going spend $1.5bn on promotion of marriage.

First thought: A billion and a half! That’s a HUGE amount of money! How the hell are you gonna spend that kind of money on marriage counselling?

Second thought: Fifteen bucks per household isn’t going to buy you a lot of marriage counselling.

January 13, 2004

March of the Frogs

Posted by Ted

A few thoughts on Paul O’Neill vs. the person who leaked Valerie Plame identity:

1. An investigation of O’Neill seems like an easy call to me. He did hand over massive volume of documentation to a journalist, and it’s entirely reasonable that the government would want to know what he had. We just can’t have every government official grabbing classified information on the way out the door.

2. It seems that there’s not much reason to believe that an investigation will reveal wrongdoing on O’Neill’s part. World O’Crap seems to have a good argument for why he’s probably is in the clear. The documents in question were apparently provided by the Treasury, not snatched by O’Neill. But I can’t pretend that I understand the relevant law.

For what it’s worth, O’Neill says that the documents were sent to him by the general counsel for the Treasury Department. I find it hard to believe that O’Neill and Suskind would have published this book without making sure that they were protected on this front. Who knows.

3. I honestly don’t understand some of the stormy rhetoric I’m hearing from the right. O’Neill is being investigated. It took less than 24 hours. If O’Neill did anything wrong, you can be assured that he’ll be prosecuted. Seriously, what else do you want?

If you expect liberals to go to the board and write “I will not make a fuss about Valerie Plame” 500 times, it’s not going to happen. We don’t know if O’Neill revealed any classified information. The question is, “was there a violation of the law?” In contrast, we already know that someone revealed the identity of Valerie Plame. The question is, “who did it?” And the fact that it took 74 days before there was any interest in the second question doesn’t smell any sweeter today.

January 12, 2004

I do not understand blogger triumphalism

Posted by Ted

The Paul O’Neil book is an instructive case. President Bush has been accused by his ex-Treasury Secretary of being disengaged, over his head, and led by advisors who put political calculations over the good of the country (cough, Mars mission). Furthermore, O’Neil says that the Bush administration had made its decision to invade Iraq almost immediately after the inauguration.

Glenn Reynolds sees the issue as such:

As I understand it the big hype is that he says (1) that Bush can talk a lot in meetings; and (2) the Administration wanted to topple Saddam before 9/11.

First of all, Glenn has point (1) exactly backwards (which he later admits). O’Neil says that Bush was unengaged and unresponsive, sitting through large and small meetings without questions or comments. Reynolds’ comprehension of stories he doesn’t want to hear doesn’t give one a lot of confidence in the rest of his analysis. And, in fact, confidence is not warranted.

Re: point (2), the new right-wing story line seems to be that the Bush Administration had always been upfront about their intention to attack Iraq and depose Saddam. Hmmm.

To support this… controversial theory, Reynolds quotes from the 2000 Presidential debates:

MR. LEHRER: With Saddam Hussein, you mean?

GOV. BUSH: Yes, and —

MR. LEHRER: You could get him out of there?

GOV. BUSH: I’d like to, of course, and I presume this
administration would as well.

That’s how to keep a secret — say it out loud during the Presidential debates, and nobody will notice!

I paid pretty close attention to the debates, and I really didn’t remember Bush proposing an invasion of Iraq. Is that the way it happened? Let’s go to the transcript for the full quote:

GOV. BUSH: I’d like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. But we don’t know — there’s no inspectors now in Iraq. The coalition that was in place isn’t as strong as it used to be. He is a danger; we don’t want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it’s going to be hard to — it’s going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.

Was Bush revealing that he intended to attack and depose Saddam Hussein? In a word, no. In this debate, candidate Bush was proposing that we use the existing coalition to contain Saddam and keep the pressure on.

Bush’s quote, if read in its entirety, shows the exact opposite of what Reynolds is trying to argue.

Bad form, that.

In January 2003, Bush was asked if his administration had been planning a war against Iraq before September 11th. Did Bush take advantage of the opportunity to mention his forethought?

“Actually, prior to September 11, we were discussing smart sanctions. We were trying to fashion a sanction regime that would make it more likely to be able to contain somebody like Saddam Hussein. After September 11, the doctrine of containment just doesn’t hold any water… the strategic vision of our country shifted dramatically… because we now recognize that oceans no longer protect us, that we’re vulnerable to attack. And the worst form of attack could come from somebody acquiring weapons of mass destruction and using them on the American people… I now realize the stakes. I realize the world has changed. My most important obligation is to protect the American people from further harm, and I will do that.”

If Reynolds is correct today, then Bush was lying then. (Via Tom Tomorrow, who is pretty appalled at this up-is-downism.)

Here’s Colin Powell on February 24, 2001, talking frankly about the need to invade and wipe out Saddam’s weapons:

Sanctions exist — not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein’s ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction … And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.

Umm…. well, maybe Powell was out of the loop. What about straight-shootin’, rough-ridin’ Donald Rumsfeld? He had been agitating for the deposition of Saddam for years before the election; surely he’d back up Reynolds’ assertion that the intention to invade was there before September 11th.

The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq’s pursuit” of weapons of mass destruction, Mr Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light - through the prism of our experience on 9/11.”

Glenn later quotes a reader email:

MORE: Reader Jason Gustafson emails: “So, basically, President Bush is being accused of wanting to fight terrorism before 9/11?”

Yeah, that seems to be O’Neill’s bombshell. Just call Bush a “premature anti-terrorist,” I guess!

You see, Iraq = terrorism. Oh, sure, the War College’s Strategic Studies Institute might not think so. But do they have a blog? Didn’t think so.

I repeat: I do not understand blog triumphalism.

(I should make a pre-emptive note: no sensible person would object to the fact that the Administration had a plan to fight a war with Iraq in early 2001. To do so would only be prudent. The Pentagon makes plans to attack just about every country on Earth.

However, there is a significant difference between plans to attack and intention to attack. We almost certainly have a plan to attack Great Britain, which is unobjectionable. However, if we had the intention to attack Great Britain, this would be a very significant problem. It is easy ‘n’ fun to pretend that these are one and the same, but a moment’s thought reveals that they are not.

Opponents of the Iraq war are making the assertion that the Administration had the intention to attack early in 2001, before 9/11 and before any attempt at intelligence analysis.

Mr O’Neill was also quoted in the book as saying the President was determined to find a reason to go to war and he was surprised nobody on the National Security Council questioned why Iraq should be invaded.

“It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it,” Mr O’Neill said.

“The President saying ‘go find me a way to do this’.”

This is very different from having a plan in case of war. I hope that having dealt with this here, I won’t have to swat it down in the comments.)

UPDATE: Rick DeMent at The Rant has some related thoughts, including an excerpt from James Baker’s pre-9/11 CFR energy report about smart sanctions. His conclusions sound right to me:

Now there are two ways to look at this that seem plausible to me. The first is that the administration was planning on getting the sanctions lifted and then in the wake of 9/11 reevaluated the situation and felt that that would be a bad idea and now felt that and invasion would be a better idea in order to counter the threat of terrorism. But the only thing that really changed on the ground was the attack on American soil. To believe this notion you would have to think that the Administration sort of woke up and said to themselves, “Wow this terrorism stuff is really serious.” But this would totally contradict the notion that terrorism was a big issue to the administration before 9/11.

Another way to look at it was that the administration realized that there was no politically tenable way to way to get the Iraqi sanctions dropped now. It would look pretty bad giving Saddam the soft glove treatment as we waged our “war on terrorism”. Rather it was a perfect opportunity to do what many had thought would be the easier option even if political realities before 9/11 would not allow it; invade, whip a western style government on Iraq friendly to the US and US investment and be done with it.

It seems to me that nether one of these ideas put the administration in a particularly good light.

Maher Arar

Posted by Brian

Katherine at Obsidian Wings has three good posts up (one two three) about the Maher Arar case I mentioned yesterday. I’m feeling a little guilty about that post because I let my outrage over the administration’s treatment of allied citizens get in the way of proper scepticism about the story. Obviously I don’t know that Arar was innocent, for example, though if what’s reported is true it’s still outrageous even if he’s guilty. I’m still of the old-fashioned school of thought that says a fair trial and all that is a good thing even for the most vicious of criminals. But we need to know a lot more about the case before leaping to conclusions, and Katherine is doing a very valuable service in putting together the available evidence from all sides.

UPDATE (13/1): Katherine has three more links up (four five six) which are again recommended.

January 10, 2004

Catholic Bishop denies communion to pro-choice legislators

Posted by Harry

I can’t tell how far this story has got out of Wisconsin, but it is pretty amusing. Bishop Burke of La Crosse has issued a statement denying communion to legislators who vote pro-choice. You can imagine that quasi-Catholic legislators are annoyed, and so are their Democratic colleagues. There’s been lots of nonsense on the radio about the threat to separation of church and state, revealing that people really don’t understand the point of separation, which is to protect religious believers from discrimination by the state and other faiths, not to protect them from their own church (we have laws against murder, etc, to do that). The legislators are free to leave the church if they disagree with it, or if they want to take a job which requires them to act against its policies. Burke is simply illuminating the reality of the choice. Good luck to him.

January 09, 2004

Moondoggle

Posted by Kieran

An interplanetary trial balloon is floated as the AP reports President Bush “will announce plans next week to send Americans to Mars and establish a permanent human presence on the moon”. “Bush won’t propose sending Americans to Mars anytime soon;” the report says, “rather, he envisions preparing for the mission more than a decade from now.” So it’s not clear whether there will be an explicit JFK-like commitment with a deadline (“The goal, before this decade is out…”) or just increased funding with Mars as the long-range but indefinite target. The report notes that “Bush has been expected to propose a bold new space mission in an effort to rally Americans around a unifying theme as he campaigns for re-election.” I can think of more important things that Americans might rally around besides a manned mission to Mars, and better reasons for space exploration than a feel-good election-year promise.

Will the project be funded by a series of aggressive tax cuts? Will it alienate voters who think the Earth is 4,000 years old? Will the Free State Project Libertarians ditch New Hampshire and realize that this is the chance they’ve been waiting for to really start again from scratch? Questions, questions.

January 07, 2004

Coffee Time

Posted by Kieran

A bit late to the David Brooks party, Josh Chafetz of OxBlog seems to be suffering from a clear case of jetlag. Daniel, Kevin Drum, Mark Kleiman, Matt Yglesias and Josh Marshall have more on this.

December 30, 2003

Plame on

Posted by Ted

John Ashcroft has recused himself from the Valerie Plame investigation. Patrick Fitzgerald, the current U.S. Attorney in the Nothern District of Illinois, will be in charge of the investigation

Here’s a press release with a brief bio of Patrick Fitzgerald. He’s been involved in the prosecutions of heroin smugglers, organized crime leaders, and a number of terrorists. More recently, his office prepared the indictment of former Illinois governor George Ryan. We’ll surely learn a lot more about him in the days to come, but at first glance, he seems like the real deal.

Mr. Fitzgerald, if by some unlikely chance you ever read this: I’d like to apologize in advance for what the blogosphere and much of the media are about to attempt to do to you. If you try to do your job, you will learn the meaning of “slime and defend.” Good luck.

UPDATE: Here’s a story gallery about Patrick Fitzgerald from the Chicago Tribune. He sounds like a genuinely vigorous prosecutor:

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Chicago’s new U.S. attorney, who delivered the biggest message to corrupt Chicago politicians, insiders, grafters and boodlers this town may have ever seen. Fitzgerald’s first big indictment was of insurance executive Michael Segal for alleged insurance and mail fraud. Fitzgerald wasted no time in going after the biggest fish in town, to the shock and astonishment of just about everyone. Segal is not just a pal, but the pal, the top of the heap. His indictment makes the prosecution of Chicago aldermen look like the issuance of parking tickets. This is a hugely symbolic act; its effect will be like watching the bugs scurrying for cover after the rock has been lifted.

This sounds good, too.

UPDATE II: Josh Marshall’s first look tells him that Fitzgerald is neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

For what it’s worth, I looked Fitzgerald up on OpenSecrets to see if he has donated to a political candidate. I don’t think that he has.

There’s a $1000 contribution to Republican representative John E. Sweeney in 2000 from Patrick J. Fitzgerald Jr., who lives outside of Albany. But I doubt that it’s the same guy. In 2000, Fitzgerald (the prosecutor) was the co-chief of the Organized Crime and Terrorism Section for the Southern District of New York, so it would be unusual if he lived upstate.

All the nice boys love a cowboy

Posted by Daniel

New Year, old obsession … Steven Den Beste takes a rare break from telling us that France is shit to analyse US politics. Take a glance at the URL and you will see where he is coming from. Thankfully, he steers clear (just) of the usual and rather unpleasant analysis which seems to treat white male votes as the only “real” votes and support based on “minority” votes as in some way second-rate or not of the highest quality. But he does massively overstate the importance of white males, and the extent to which a 66-33 split of white male votes in favour of the Republicans is a disaster for the Democrats. Factoid: Al Gore did not so far from this in the 200 election (he actually got 36% of the white male vote) and the race was about as even as it could possibly be. A “36 point margin [ie a 68:32 split -dd] over Howard Dean” isn’t an “insurmountable obstacle”; it’s a two point swing away from the neutral point of the 2000 election and quite the sort of thing that could get lost in differential turnout rates. The rule of thumb always used to be that a Republican candidate had to do at least 60% among white males to have a prayer, because of the inbuilt slant of all the other demographics and Ruy Teixeira thinks that the bar is, if anything, raising year after year.

A Bush lead among white women is much more worrying, because that’s a genuine swing movement, but that doesn’t offer nearly as many opportunities for riding out old hobby-horses about the “far left” and the conclusions aren’t nearly so palatable for those of us in the pale and hairy camp. My personal assessment is that the Democrats are indeed, all to hell, but tending to the nation’s largest and whiniest minority hasn’t really got all that much to do with it.

All of which assumes, of course, that you can generalise over a category as large as “white males” (c: 110m Americans). Which you can’t, not unless you don’t mind writing sentences like this one:

To a great extent, this is because white men as a group prefer cowboys to metrosexuals.[1]

Which you have to admit, could be taken a number of ways …

(by the way, when is some TV network going to have the stones to produce “Black Eye for the White Guy”?)

[1] I added the links for satirical effect, although I doubt anyone was wondering.

December 22, 2003

Ten Day Turnaround

Posted by Kieran

Well, that was fast.

December 20, 2003

Cry Me a River

Posted by Kieran

An article in the New York Times reports that the (white) relatives of Strom Thurmond are all upset since (black) Essie Mae Washington-Williams told the world last week that Thurmond was her father. Her mother had been a teenage maid in Thurmond’s household when Strom was in his early twenties. The article doesn’t have much in the way of commentary, but it doesn’t have to because you just have to listen to them damn themselves out of their own mouths.

They say, variously, that the announcement “was like a blight on the family”; that “For the first time in my life, I felt shame;” that “My family always had help around the house. But it just seems Strom would have been above that” (?!); that the publicity was “embarrassing and awkward”; that if Washington-Williams had been white “it would be a whole other situation,” because criticism wouldn’t have been as harsh (you don’t say); that they “don’t know why this lady is doing this”; that she had better be “coming out for the right reasons”; and that anyways at least she was “humble,” if you know what I mean. Thurmond’s nephew, Barry Bishop, said “For something to be done so publicly … well, we’re just not comfortable dealing with things in that way.” You never spoke a truer word, Mr Bishop. Finally, Thurmond’s niece, Mary T. Thompkins Freeman, said she wasn’t sure whether she wanted to meet Washington-Williams just yet. “If I do, I’m not going to go with open arms,” Ms. Freeman said. “It’s too much to accept right now.” Yes, dear. This must be such a burden for you all.

December 17, 2003

Return of MEChA

Posted by Ted

During the California recall, Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante was harshly criticized for his refusal to renounce his involvement as a student in the Chicano student group MEChA. Critics frequently called MEChA a hate group, the equivalent of the Klu Klux Klan, or “fascist hatemongers”.

Bustamante handily lost the election, and MEChA as an issue didn’t seem to make much of an impact and many voters. But MEChA as an organization is still a presence on over 300 campuses.

There was much debate here on LoserNet about the truth of the accusations against MEChA. (Lots of background from me, Pejman, and Tacitus. In short, I thought that they were being unfairly accused, and Pejman and Tacitus thought that they really were a racist group.) We spent a fair amount of time going back and forth about the documents we could find using Google. But I thought that the debate suffered from a lack of input from or contact with actual MEChA members. Few people had had any direct contact with MEChA. (A few exceptions: Kevin Drum had a MEChA chapter at his high school, and Sappho had a personal experience at college.)

About a month ago, I thought that I’d try to contact some actual, current members of MEChA to see how they would respond to some of the controversies about their group. I sent out a lot of emails, mostly to dead email addresses culled from infrequently updated chapter web pages. Unfortunately, I’ve only ended up getting two complete responses, but they’re good ones. The first is from the MEChA chapter at New Mexico State University. (UPDATE: Not all responses are from NMSU; the questions were distibuted to other chapters as well.) A representative of the chapter distributed my long list of questions to members and assembled the responses, so it’s not any one person’s response.

The second response is from an individual who started his email by saying:

I want to emphasize that MEChA IS NOT A HATE/SEGREGATIONALIST/SEPARATIST GROUP

I’ve edited these responses slightly for spelling and typos, but I haven’t added or deleted anything. I have no independent ability to fact-check these responses.

1. During the California recall, Cruz Bustamante came under heavy attack from many on the right for his membership as a student in MEChA. MEChA was commonly described by conservative critics as a hate group, the Chicano equivalent of the Klu Klux Klan.

How would you respond to these charges? Since a genuine hate group would presumably deny that it was a hate group, what contrary evidence would you present to these critics in an effort to convince them?

A. MEChA is not a hate group. However, since these conservative critics have access to media such as Fox News or those on radio such as Rush Limbaugh, it is easier for them to get their voices heard.

Also, in the past, one thing that has hurt MEChA is a fear of infiltration. Therefore, for many years, MEChA has been to a certain extent reclusive to many, especially media. I hope that in some of the later questions I can answer the question as to how we are not a hate group, or an exclusionary group.

B. There has never been an incident in which a member of MEChA was charged or indicted for a hate crime. There were those in the 1960s who engaged in radical activities, but any intentions were aimed toward
institutions/establishments, not people.

2. How would you describe the goals of the nationwide MEChA organization? How would you describe the goals of your chapter? Are they different?

A. The goals of both are to educate not only “Chicanas/Chicanos” but everyone else. Promote higher education, while maintaining your roots. Just because you get a college degree, and might have an office doesn’t mean you should forget your history.

Another goal is to rid society of the stereotypes that plague all people, regardless of color or sexual orientation.

B. There is no “nation-wide” MEChA organization. The main goal of MEChA is to promote higher education while promoting and learning cultural history.

3. How tight or loose is the national MEChA organization? Is there a strong central authority, are chapters left alone to do what they want, or is it somewhere in between?

A. It is a tight organization; however, each chapter has its liberties. Because each chapter faces its own problems, it only makes sense to allow them to have their liberties.

B. There is no nationwide organiztion. There is a national conference held each year. Because there are so many chapters, it was agreed to develop “regions.” In order to gain input from chapters across the US, a coordinating council was established to help organize the conference. For the most part MEChA chapters are autonomous and work in the interests of their respective communities.

4. How often are there nationwide MEChA conventions or gatherings? What happens at nationwide MEChA conventions? Could you describe the national leadership- is there a president or a leadership committee, are they current students or alumni, is there a nationwide newsletter, etc.

A. Nationals are held once a year, but there are many meetings both regionally and nationally leading to the preparation of the national conference. Depending on whatever issues are affecting our people/communities, usually are discussed. The leadership is a committee of four current members, two males and two females, each from a different region. There is no national newsletter. However, the hosting chapter is responsible for keeping the chapters updated on the process.

B. As with any organization, there is a need for leaders. The national coordinating council consists of about 10-12 members(two members from each region mentioned above) The chairpersons of the council are one male and one female(to emphasize gender equality.) The national conferences usually consist of workshops on community organizing, leadership and team building, cultural history. At the same time, there are meetings held to discuss and plan national plans of action to address common issues facing communities across the US such as poverty, education, civil rights, etc.

5. If you had to characterize the official attitude of MEChA on racial issues, what would you say? How would you characterize the attitude of the other members of your chapter towards white people?

A. To many MEChistas, race is not an issue. Chicanismo is now more a state of mind rather than a state of being. Skin color, religion, sexuality, none of that is important.

B. There is no “official” attitude. However, MEChA is all inclusive: members are welcome regardless of ethnicity, nationality, gender/gender preference, handicap, age, or color of skin.

6. What sort of activities does your chapter of MEChA put on? For example, what activities are you putting on this semester/quarter?

A. We have many guest speakers from around the country. We have a film festival, have a raza youth mentoring/tutoring service, as well as participating in a campus and city clean up. We have had Aztec Dancers, hosted many conferences, had food, toy, clothing, and blood drives. And many numerous activities, all of which go on year round, in Fall, Spring and Summer semesters.

B. Celebrations of Mexican holidays along with other organizations, food/toy drive for impoverished communities, leadership/teambuilding workshops

7. How would you describe MEChA’s role in campus life? Is it often involved in controversy? If so, what kind of controversies has it been involved in?

A. We are not often involved in controversy; however we are very active in the campus life. A few years ago, MEChA helped the Black Allied Student Association petition the university against a fraternity for flying a confederate flag, at a football game as well as at there on campus house. The fraternity continued to fly the flag, even after BASA had asked them to please take it down. This became a heated debate on campus and MEChA was the only other student organization to come to BASA’s aid.

B. MEChA is welcomed by our academic institution to participate in various activities on and off campus. The only “controversy” was addressing free speech on campus so that free speech areas are not limited to students.

8. Is your chapter of MEChA involved in politics as an organization? (This can be at the campus, local, state or national level.) If so, what political activities do you engage in? If the chapter does not officially engage in politics, do members do so on their own?

A. Although MEChA is a non-partisan organization, we have had a role in local politics. We had a mayoral and city council forum. We are very active politically, we just think that issues are more important than party affiliations.

B. MEChA as a chapter does not engage in politics. Individual members have helped with campaigns for people running for Mayor, state rep/senator, school district

9. How large is your chapter?

A. Currently our membership is 21. However, that fluctuates. It has been as high as 34, and as low as 12.

B. About 20.

10. Do you have any members of your chapter who are not Chicanos? If so, how many? How many members do you have who don’t speak Spanish? Is there any sort of policy or guidelines? As a white person, how would I be greeted if I were to express interest in joining MEChA?

A. We have a two Native Americans as well as Filipino-Americans, an African-American and an Irish-American. As for non-Mexican-Americans, which is typically considered to be Chicano, there are seven from other Latin American countries. Five don’t speak Spanish. Anyone is welcome regardless of race, as long as they are willing to help out with their share of the work we do on and off campus.

B. There are members in the chapter who do not identify as Chicanos, but are in it for various causes. Not all members speak Spanish. The only guideline is to have a 2.0GPA and a $10 membership fee. As mentioned before, members are welcome regardless of ehtnicity, nationality, color of their skin, etc

11. How do you recruit members?

A. We actively recruit at all our functions, and we also set up information booths at different times of the year throughout campus. Also the Chicano Programs allows us to set up at any activities they have and we are also allowed to put information in their offices.

B. Word of mouth, class presentations.

12. If a member of MEChA was dating a person of a different race, would that be controversial among members of your chapter? What if they were to marry a person of a different race?

A. Not at all. A few of our members are involved with people of a different race. It is not looked down upon or controversial.

B. Nobody would find it controversial. We would be happy for them.

13. What proportion of the members of your chapter would you say are politically left of center? What proportion are right of center? What proportion aren’t very interested in politics?

A. Many of our members most often are left of center. However, we feel that the issues are what are important, not the parties. Although given some of the right wing media has been the most critical and vocal against MEChA, it is easier to lean to the left.

B. A great majority are not interested in “left/right wing” politics. However they are interested in the “politicking” that affects our communities (legislation for funding, school district bonds, etc.).

14. Do members of your chapter tend to have any common academic or personal interests, other than Chicano issues? (For example, some campus groups attract a large proportion of pre-law students, some attract education majors, some attract people with an interest in music, and some attract people who just want a social outlet.)

A. All of the other organizations within Chicano Programs are based on academic majors. MEChA is open to students of all different majors, regardless of your college anyone can join. This makes for an interesting mix. It allows us to share our knowledge with one another, and makes it less competitive.

B. There are a wide range of interests outside of MEChA, politics, and civil rights. There members who are also involved in Christian groups, indigenous organizations, musicians, artists.

15. During the recall campaign, Cruz Bustamente was repeatedly called upon to repudiate MEChA, and he refused to do so. If he had repudiated MEChA, how would it have changed your opinion of him? Do you think that it would have affected his standing among Chicano voters, or do you think that it wouldn’t have caused much concern?

A. Well, although we closely followed the recall, I don’t know how it would have changed my opinion of him. Actually, we don’t know to much about Mr. Bustamante here in southern New Mexico. I do think it would have hurt him with “Chicano” voters, but it may have helped him with the “Hispanic” vote.

B. Personally, I think only people from California really cared about Bustamante.

16. What is the symbolism behind the lighted stick of dynamite held by the eagle on the MEChA crest?

A. To my understanding, it means that we as a people are about to “blow up.” Using the term as slang, it means that Chicanos and Chicanas are ready to become active in their community.

B. It symbolizes an explosion of knowledge.

17. Are you familiar with the group “El Voz de Aztlán”? What is your opinion of this group? How would you describe the relationship between MEChA and El Voz de Aztlán?

A. Many organizations are automatically associated with MEChA, because of the term Aztlán. However there is no affiliation. El Voz is one of these many groups. Even though there are some MEChistas that belong to some of these other groups, doesn’t mean that there is a relationship on a national level.

B. We have never heard of them

18. One of the founding documents of MEChA was “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán”. A number of MEChA chapters link to this document from their homepage. Are you familiar with this document? What is the role of this document in your chapter? What is your understanding of the role of this document in the national organization?

A. The documents are embraced differently by different chapters. Some use them as a foundation, other don’t use them at all. I would say the split is 50-50.

Remember that many of those documents were written in the 1960s, a decade of unrest and major civil rights turmoil. I think that if those documents were written today they would be vastly different.

B. As far as most people can come to consensus, it is a POEM. It plays NO role in our chapter.

19. One line from the preface to “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán” was frequently quoted: “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.” Many critics said that this was your motto, and that it was a racially exclusionary statement that was best translated as “For the Race, Everything. For Those Outside the Race, Nothing.” Is this accurate? If not, what is your motto? What is a good English translation of “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada,” and how is the phrase used in your chapter and the nationwide organization?

A. The motto of MEChA is “La Union Hace La Fuerza,” which loosely translated means “Strength in Unity”. I had never heard that other “motto” until the media came out with it during the recall and I have been in MEChA since my freshman year in high school, I am in grad school, finishing in May. That is ten years that I have been involved with MEChA.

B. There is only one race. The human race. Its intended meaning is that we do everything for our communities. We do nothing for those who are against our communities. The phrase is not used by anybody for any reason.

20. What does “Aztlán” mean to you? Are there other meanings?

A. Aztlán is the native homeland of the Aztecs, prior to the migration south to Mexico. A sense of belonging to the United States. Many of us have heard people say go back to where you came from. This is proof that this is where we came from, this is where we belong.

B. Aztlán is not mythical. In indigenous history, Aztlán is the original homeland of a people who migrated south to establish indigenous communities in Mexico. Aztlán can be referred to as the present-day soutwestern US and Northeastern Mexico.

21. Some critics have charged that when MEChA refers to “Aztlán”, it refers to the Southwestern portion of the United States. They charge that MEChA would like to claim this land mass away from the United States. They charge that MEChA would either like to make this area part of Mexico, or make it into a new, exclusionary Chicano state.

They point to the MEChA constitution, which says in the preamble, “Chicano and Chicana students of Aztlán must take upon themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlán.”

What does the MEChA constitution mean when it refers to “liberating Aztlán”?

A. To me it is a state of mind. If we don’t allow people to force assimilation on us, then we remain liberated.

B. There is no wish to take land and establish a “Chicano state.” The liberation of Aztlán refers to the liberation of ideologies so that people can find and realize their own identities and philosophies.

What do you personally think of this idea? What do you think the members of your chapter would think about this idea?

A. I don’t think that anyone is ready to declare war on the U.S. Also, just a bit of historical background. The official map to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, recognized by both the U.S. and Mexican Governments, shows in what is today modern day Utah, as the “Ancient Homeland of the Aztecs.” This map can be found at the library of congress in Washington D.C., however it may be difficult to find, as it is located in the basement with many other old maps. I have seen it myself and was able to make a black and white copy of it. When I get a chance I will send you the official name of the map.

22. The Sierra Times had a quote from a member of MEChA:

“Asked about his group’s ideology and intentions, Miguel Perez of Cal State-Northridge’s MEChA chapter replied: “The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlán. Communism would be closest [to it].” Once Aztlán is established, continued Perez, ethnic cleansing would commence: “Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power.”

What is your reaction to Miguel Perez’s statement? As far as you know, would MEChA officially support the idea of establishing a state anywhere in the world in which Chicanos had legal superiority over Anglos and other ethnicities? Would you or any of the members of your chapter of MEChA support the establishment of such a state?

A. I don’t know of anyone who has ever expressed an interest in ethnic cleansing. I don’t support this, and neither do any of our members.

B. That’s a radical way of THINKING. There is no clandestine movement to establish this “state.” Personally, I think Perez is misguided.

23. Some critics have charged that MEChA is an anti-Semitic organization. They point to an incident at CalPoly in 1998 where a printed MEChA conference program began by welcoming the participants to “Cal Poly State Jewniversity” and including a reference to the city of “Jew York.”

What is your reaction to that? Do you have any Jewish members? Has your chapter had any noteworthy contact, either positive or negative, with Jewish groups, synagogues, etc?

A. Our chapter, to my knowledge, doesn’t have any Jewish members currently. There have been some in the past, but religion has never been an issue. There is not a big Jewish community in our town, so it makes it difficult for us to network with any synagogues.

B. It is obviously another misguided mind blurting out what they might think is “harmless” lingo. I can see where it would be offensive to people whether they are Jewish or not. We do not have Jewish members because there aren’t any Jewish people interested in MEChA.

24. Would you be opposed to an organization which had the same sorts of goals and activities as MEChA, but was centered around Anglos rather than Chicanos? Why or why not?

A. If Anglos had been discriminated upon by other people for as long as Chicanos, Black, and any other minority have, then no, I would have no problem with it. I think the importance of groups like MEChA is to help those who have been oppressed throughout history.

B. There are such organizations. They are called fraternities and sororities. We have also worked with them on various activities.

25. I imagine that when this is posted, conservative critics will say that the answers that you provide are self-serving- that you are concealing the extremist views that are a part of MEChA’s current thinking. What would you say to those critics? Is there any sort of evidence that you can provide outside of your own words?

A. Well, according to that argument, every interview is self-serving. Are they not self-serving when they only present one side of the story?

The only evidence that can be provided is that of the community. The communities know the hard work that MEChA has put in. Going to tutor middle school and high school kids. Helping them fill out college applications, and financial aid papers. Raising food and money for those less fortunate. Taking coats and toys to the kids when it gets cold and the holidays are around the corner. As a proud mechista, I say to those who question my involvement, what I am doing today isn’t to help me, but rather those who come after me. I hope that what I’ve done today helps my children and that they do something to help the generation that follows them.

B. I really don’t care what they think.

December 15, 2003

Trollbait

Posted by Henry

A couple of the trolls from Chris’s thread on Sen might like to check out the most recent issue of the Onion; I reckon that “economist Harold Knoep” provides a fairly precise encapsulation of their biases.

December 13, 2003

Another Important Endorsement

Posted by Kieran

Dean wraps up the youth vote.

December 12, 2003

Sen's Development as Freedom

Posted by Chris

I’ve been reading Amartya Sen’s magnificent Development as Freedom this week. A more bloggable books would be hard to find: startling facts and insights jostle one another on every page. Even when you already know something, Sen is pretty good at reminding, underlining and making you think further about it. So this, for example on the life prospects of African Americans:

Even though the per capita income of African Americans in the United States is considerably lower than that of the white population, African Americans are very much richer in income terms than the people of China or Kerala (even after correcting for cost-of-living differences). In this context, the comparison of survival prospects of African Americans vis-a-vis those of the very much poorer Chinese or Indians in Kerala, is of particular interest. African Americans tend to do better in terms of survival at low age groups (especially in terms of infant mortality), but the picture changes over the years.

In fact, it turns out that men in China and in Kerala decisively outlive African American men in terms of surviving to older age groups. Even African American women end up having a survival pattern for the higher ages similar to that of the much poorer Chinese, and decidedly lower survival rates than then even poorer Indians in Kerala. So it is not only the case that American blacks suffer from relative deprivation in terms of income per head vis-a-vis American whites, they are also absolutely more deprived than low-income Indians in Kerala (for both women and men), and the Chinese (in the case of men), in terms of living to ripe old ages.

Shocking, for the strongest economy on earth to create these outcomes (which, as Sen reminds us, are even worse for the black male populations of particular US cities).

UPDATE: Thanks to Noumenon for a link to this item . I closed the comments thread because I didn’t want to spend my weekend fighting trolls. But email suggests that there are some people who have worthwhile things to say so I’m opening it again (though I won’t be participating myself).

In a word

Posted by Kieran

I agree with Jesse. That man is unelectable.

December 11, 2003

The 50/50 gerrymander

Posted by Ted

Gary Farber has a thought experiment posted about a mandate requiring Congressional districts to be drawn to create districts that are as competitive as possible.

That is, the goal in drawing district lines would be that all districts be as evenly divided between likely Republicans and Democrats as is predictable. You know, the opposite of the way gerrymandering has been functioning, overall, since the days of Eldridge.

It’s obviously not going to happen, but it does set one a’thinkin.

The House is filled with representatives in completely safe seats- they represent districts whose residents are so overshelmingly Republican or Democratic that the representative can operate without fear of being defeated by the other party. To an unpleasant extent, they don’t really have to answer to the public as long as they stay in the good graces of their party. The obvious advantage of Gary’s proposal is that it would sharply reduce the safety of these seats. When every seat is competitive, party loyalty would presumably weaken, as representatives would be significantly less likely to stick with the party in the face of public opinion. (The Senate tends to look less like kindergarden, because Senators are less likely to be totally safe from a challenge from the other party.)

Sometimes I worry that the House is losing the ability to even try to solve the problems that face the United States. This kind of radical shake-up would change our current system, forcing compromise as a default mode. Tom DeLay’s unbendingly partisan and conservative strategy can be described in many colorful ways, but one of them is “re-election strategy”. He can keep his seat forever without offering an inch to moderates, Democrats or liberals. Gary’s plan would change that; DeLay have to offer something to moderates or lose his seat. So would Nancy Pelosi. Right now, they just have to win, by hook or by crook. This plan would mean that they’d have to negotiate, and hopefully produce outcomes that would be in the interest of the most people.

However, the increase in moderation would be paid for by some awfully unrepresentative districts. Quite a few communities in the United States genuinely swing right or left without any help from gerrymandering. Before I started thinking about this, I would think that a Platonic ideal of a districting map would be blind to party voting patterns; it would be built around keeping communities together. If we achieved that, there would be a lot of natural safe seats. (I can’t imagine how to achieve competitive gerrymanders in Utah, for example.)

Furthermore, it’s not as if liberal and conservative districts are laid out in a checkerboard. On the contrary, Democratic voters are more likely to live in densely-populated cities, and Republican voters are more likely to live in less-populated rural areas. Truly competitive districts would have to be created with some awfully wiggly gerrymanders exploding out of cities.

I wouldn’t envy the job of a representative of one of these 50/50 districts. In Houston, let’s say that you’re turning Tom DeLay’s safe suburban Sugarland district into a 50/50 one. So you lop most of Sugarland off and make a snake into a poorer Hispanic district in southern Houston. The partisan gerrymanders do have a saving grace to them; a representative knows what the interests of his district are. How do you represent this new district?

Flash forward into the future 20 years. Let’s say that the gerrymanders are a fabulous success, and the House is filled with moderates. Wouldn’t that seriously distort the meaning of a history of a district voting Republican or Democrat? A popular long-serving representative would gradually force himself out of the district he was representing, as the new gerrymanders cut out his base and grabbed more territory from the other party.

Then there’s the old “who watches the watchmen” angle; who do we trust to create these gerrymanders?

I’ve probably said five dumb things already, but it’s late. On balance, I’d have to say that I’d be opposed to this plan, but the right commentator might be able to shake me out of it.

December 09, 2003

Gore and Dean

Posted by Kieran

According to William Saletan, Al Gore’s influence over people’s hearts and minds is so strong that his endorsement of Howard Dean threatens to undermine the entire democratic process. Because Gore has asked that Democrats fall in behind Dean, victory is assured — at the cost of voters’ rights to express themselves at the polls.

With that sort of power at his command, it’s a pity that Gore didn’t think to endorse himself during the 2000 election campaign. It would have saved him a lot of trouble.

Those Canadians are so UnAmerican

Posted by Brian

From the National Post.

[A]n American from San Diego is quoted saying: “What bugs me about Canadians, if I may, is that they wear that damn patch on their bags, the Canadian flag patch. That way, they differentiate themselves from us.”

Rural

Posted by Brian

David Brooks, who lives in Washington, DC (and has done so for decades I’d guess), attacks Howard Dean, who has lived and worked in Vermont for decades, for describing himself as ‘rural’. Brooks, all the while, is happy to apply that term to himself (perhaps sarcastically). I think Brooks’s view (as far as one can ever read a coherent view into David Brooks) is that where one lived at age 7 is the sole determiner of the appropriateness of this kind of geographic classification. That’s a view, I guess, but not a very plausible one. I don’t have any particular fondness for Dean, but ‘attacks’ like this only make him look good.

(UPDATE: I see Josh Marshall had this one 30 minutes before I did - and with actual data to back up his claims. I should not try and compete with real journalists.)

December 08, 2003

Disenfranchising felons

Posted by Chris

Via PoliticalTheory.info I came upon a report from a US think-tank called Demos on the disenfranchisement of felons in the United States (PDF). This varies significantly from state to state, and, unsurprisingly, blacks are far more likely to be denied the vote than whites. Just out of curiosity I took some numbers from the report and fed them into Excel to generate a rank ordering of states by the proportion of persons (from the total population rather than the electorate) denied voting rights on these grounds. The table is below the fold:

STATE   Disenfranchised felons per 1000 of population


Florida         5.11
Alabama         5.06
Virginia        4.39
New Mexico      4.31
Mississippi     4.22
Delaware        4.17
Kentucky        3.65
Wyoming         3.61
Georgia         3.50
Iowa            3.44
Nevada          3.32
Arizona         2.87
Washington      2.70
Texas           2.52
Maryland        2.45
Arkansas        1.89
Rhode Island    1.86
New Jersey      1.70
Tennessee       1.60
Oklahoma        1.51
Missouri        1.48
Alaska          1.47
Connecticut     1.46
D.C.            1.33
South Carolina  1.30
Idaho           1.24
Wisconsin       1.01
North Carolina  0.88
California      0.85
Louisiana       0.84
Minnesota       0.84
New York        0.69
Nebraska        0.55
Colorado        0.54
Michigan        0.50
West Virginia   0.49
Kansas          0.47
Ohio            0.42
Hawaii          0.42
Utah            0.40
Illinois        0.38
Montana         0.36
South Dakota    0.36
Indiana         0.35
Oregon          0.33
Pennsylvania    0.30
New Hampshire   0.20
North Dakota    0.18
Maine           0.00
Massachusetts   0.00
Vermont         0.00

I’ll leave further commentary to those more knowledgeable about US politics.

December 06, 2003

Isn't PageRank marvellous?

Posted by Tom

Given that the result of a Google query consisting solely of the string ‘miserable failure’ is this, I think it truly is.

(Via Atrios.)

December 03, 2003

Plame Kerfuffle

Posted by Kieran

Although it’s great that Ted and Henry get to point out what’s wrong with the likes of Instapundit’s take on the Plame Vanity Fair story, I’d be much more entertained in a world where Wilson was on the side of the Bushies. Because then all this would have to be part of a cunning plan of appalling subtlety, and I expect we’d be hearing — in hushed but confident tones, delivered via anonymous email correspondents — that the woman in the car was not Valerie Plame at all.

I write fan fiction for you!

Posted by Ted

That could have gone better, reflected the defendant. The pictures were all over the internet, and he had all but admitted on the stand that he was the only one who could have taken them. The trial had turned into a media circus, and the press was ready to hang him.

The judge came out of his chambers after only a few hours’ deliberation. No one could have predicted what would happen next.

“Will the defendant please rise”, called the bailiff. This is it, I’m done for, thought the defendant.

The judge spoke. “You have been accused of breaking and entering in order to photograph the plaintiff while sleeping. Furthermore, without her permission, you posted those pictures on your personal website. Several witnesses saw you leaving her house on the night that the photos were posted, and you have admitted that you are the only person with access to your camera, or to your website.

“Normally, these would be serious offenses.

“However, we must consider all the circumstances in this case. The plaintiff in this case has admitted to posing for a number of pictures which are unmistakably date-stamped as occurring after the break-in. In fact, several of these photos were for stories about this very case.

“If the plaintiff was truly interested in her privacy, it is clear that she would not have made this choice. Sorry, missy — if you’re really interested in privacy, you don’t do this sort of thing. Unless, perhaps, you’re a self-promoter first, and a victim second.

“I therefore pronounce this case bogus. You’re free to go.”

The judge was mobbed by reporters as he tried to retire to his chambers. One reporter managed to break past the struggling bailiff and ask, “Your Honor, you attended the University of Tennessee law school, am I correct?”

November 26, 2003

Race for funds

Posted by Eszter

This map should be of interest to those who are curious about financial contributions to the US presidential candidates.. and those who like to compare numbers and dissect graphs. Be sure to try out both county and state-level illustrations. And don’t miss the differences in scale of contributions depending on the candidate. [via Neat New Stuff]

November 22, 2003

In Black and White and Red

Posted by Kieran

What must it be like to see the world from inside David Bernstein’s head?

QUOTE OF THE DAY: A London attorney:”You will never change the hearts and minds of terrorists by bombing them.”

That’s OK, I‘ll settle for their death. I don’t think we changed the hearts and minds of too many Nazis during World War II, either.

It must be like living in a Mondrian painting. Seeing as Godwin’s law has already been violated here, let me just point, first, to the famously demoralizing effects of the Blitz on Londoners; and, second, to the fact that the likes of Al Qaeda would happily settle for our deaths, too. The gut reaction of that London attorney is, frankly, the reason we’re the good guys. Anyway, Matt explains, in a form adapted to the meanest capacity, the real-world difficulties of killing all the terrorists without (a) killing other people as you go or (b) creating more terrorists.

November 20, 2003

Buzz from the Alternate Blogosphere

Posted by Kieran

Left-wing bloggers were put on the defensive today as a report in The Weekly Standard revealed that The Finland Station, a left-leaning website known for its political commentary and analysis, is in fact a wholly-owned subsidiary of DCI Group, a political consultancy paid to run “Astroturf” campaigns for the likes of the Sierra Club, the ACLU, the SEIU and Howard Dean. Articles from prominent left-wing bloggers such as Atrios, Chris Bertram, and Josh Marshall have been featured on TFS in the past. The Weekly Standard demonstrated that TFS often chose its issue areas based on the consulting deals its owners had made with various clients, timed articles to coincide with astroturf campaigns, and ran pieces by representatives of its clients alongside articles by freelance commentators — including well-known left-wing bloggers. For example, in conjunction with a campaign paid for by the Free Software Foundation, TFS printed a column promoting free software as the New Socialism. Such columns were then picked up and cross-promoted by the foundation without mentioning the flow of money between the parties.

Embarrassed lefty bloggers have angrily defended themselves. “I was never leaned on to present a particular view,” said Chris Bertram. “Besides,” he went on, “it’s the calibre of the bridge pilings that matters, not the source of the money. Just ask Spiro Agnew. I mean ideas. Calibre of the ideas.” Other commentators felt the same. “First of all,” said Henry Farrell, “No-one on this earth tells me what to think or write. And if you read my stuff I think you’ll find it’s hard to argue with that,” he continued. Meanwhile Atrios said he had “no time for silly conspiracy theories, unless they are about ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. I’m definitely open to those.”

Predictably, commentary from the right side of the blogosphere has been harsh. “The article never suggested that the bloggers were being leaned on, bribed or otherwise corrupted” said Megan McArdle. “In fact it went out of its way to say otherwise. It’s more that the bloggers were just convenient bits of ideological scenery. By putting forward their ideas sincerely, they allowed TFS to slip in its pro-union, anti-freedom astroturf by-the-by. So they contributed to an agenda that was often already bought and paid for. Ayn Rand would have been appalled by such weakness.” Glenn Reynolds agreed. “This is just typical left-wing misdirection,” he said. “These commentators were effectively part of a lobbying outfit. You might even say they were objectively pro-Howard. All their whining now won’t change that.” Pejman Yousefzadeh was even harsher in his critique. “It’s a disgrace,” he shouted. “The problem with TFS’s operation is so obvious even a 15-year-old Model UN delegate from the Federal Islamic Republic of the Comoros Islands would see it immediately. It’s got nothing to do with secret meetings or money under the table or undue pressure — typical left-wing tactics, I might add — and everything to do with inadvertently lending your own hard-won credibility as an independent thinker and commentator to an operation whose main purpose turns out to be to publicize policy positions paid for by your boss’s clients. But I wouldn’t expect any of those lefties to wonder whether their integrity had been hijacked by profiteering political mercenaries — integrity is a conservative virtue, after all.”

Outrage

Posted by Ted

I don’t know how I missed this story.

- Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen, is on the terrorist watch list. This is apparently because of his association with another terrorist suspect, who is currently in custody. Arar has denied any connection with terrorism.

- He was traveling to Canada, where he’s lived for 15 years and has a family. He stopped in John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, where he was detained by U.S. authorities.

(Please do click through if you’re not familiar with this story.)

- Arar was put in an American jail and questioned by U.S. authorities for about twelve days. According to Arar’s statement, after five days he got to place a phone call, and at one point he was able to speak to a Canadian consul and a lawyer for thirty minutes. However, there was no lawyer present during questioning, and no formal hearing conducted.

- Arar was told that he was being deported to Syria on the basis of classified information that they couldn’t share with him. Arar says that he was tortured for ten months. Syria officially denies that they torture prisoners, but I can’t see that the United States denies it. According to the Washington Post,

A senior U.S. intelligence official discussed the case in terms of the secret rendition policy. There have been “a lot of rendition activities” since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, the official said. “We are doing a number of them, and they have been very productive.”

Renditions are a legitimate option for dealing with suspected terrorists, intelligence officials argue. The U.S. government officially rejects the assertion that it knowingly sends suspects abroad to be tortured, but officials admit they sometimes do that. “The temptation is to have these folks in other hands because they have different standards,” one official said. “Someone might be able to get information we can’t from detainees,” said another.

You can read Arar’s description of his treatment here.

- After ten months, Arar was released back to Canada, without the U.S. government bringing any charges.

- Arar’s case has become a very large story in Canada. U.S. officials are insisting that they did nothing wrong. Canadian politicians have threatened to stop sharing information with the United States.

Arar describes several points at which he was asked to tell the names of his friends, family and associates. He was brought into custody on the basis of his connection to one suspected terrorist, whom he later met in prison in Syria. I find myself wondering what will happen to the people that Arar named if they ever have a layover in the United States.

I support the vigorous investigation and prosecution of terrorists and terrorist suspects. But if this isn’t over the line, then there is no line.

November 15, 2003

Hypocritical? Moi?

Posted by Kieran

Evidence of a new irregular verb courtesy of an interview with Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America, full-time Washington lobbyist and mother:

Would you like to see American products like television shows flourish in Baghdad as well?

Oh, no. I hope they don’t show ”The Osbournes” over there … Shows like that wouldn’t exist if mothers stayed home with their kids and supervised what they watched.

But you yourself are a working mother. Do you think you could have been happy as a full-time housewife?

Probably not. Probably it would not have been enough for me. I always had a desire to make a difference. That is why I love the legislative process, where you can make a difference.

Thus we have,

I am out there making a difference;
You should really be at home with the kids;
She is undermining the moral foundations of our society.

Such double standards are nothing new in the world of Ladies Against Women, of course, but the barefaced cheek of it is still irritating.

November 13, 2003

How not to do PR

Posted by Brian

From Jeb “Compassionate Conservative” Bush:

It looks like the people of San Francisco are an endangered species, which may not be a bad thing. That’s probably good news for the country. (AP Nov 12: link via Atrios)

As the old cliche goes, some of my best friends are San Franciscans, so I’d be a little disappointed if someone wished them to be endangered. Fortunately that wasn’t what Jeb really meant.

Bush spokesman Jacob DiPietre later explained the governor’s thinking: “The Cabinet was talking about endangered species and everyone knows that Republicans are an endangered species in California.”

So Jeb thinks it’s a good thing that Republicans are endangered in California. Well that’s OK then. I certainly don’t have any Republican friends out there. I suspect the only thing in danger though is Mr DiPietre’s credibility.

November 12, 2003

March for choice in April

Posted by Eszter

A March for Freedom of Choice is being organized by several big organizations for this coming April in DC. There’s a Meet-up day next week for those interested in getting involved.

Salon has an informative piece today about some of the bills in the pipeline that would curtail abortion rights. If you’re not yet really concerned about the state of reproductive rights in the U.S. then go read it. And see you in DC on April 25th.

Rhetorical Moderation for Thee...

Posted by Kieran

But not for me. David Bernstein today:

EGREGIOUS MISUSE OF THE LEGACY OF NAZISM:
Soros believes that a “supremacist ideology” guides this White House. He hears echoes in its rhetoric of his childhood in occupied Hungary. …

Yes, the Nazis were at war, and the United States is now at war. … What all this has to do with a “supremacist ideology” in today’s U.S. is beyond me, and I’m sure beyond Soros as well. Just goes to show that the fact that someone is a brilliant businessman and philanthropist doesn’t mean he always exhibits common sense.

David Bernstein yesterday:

But my ultimate concern is that the radical Left would like to bring to society as a whole the kind of authoritarianism they are constantly trying to, and sometimes succeeding in, bringing to universities … [their] ultimate goal, to be achieved through “harassment” law, hate speech rules, and changes in First Amendment jurisprudence, is to have the government enforce PCism throughout society. … By 2003, Robert Martin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario, commented that he increasingly thinks that “Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy.”

Just goes to show that [fill in the blank yourself]. On mature recollection, Bernstein has edited his post to tone down — I mean, clarify — its more wild-eyed bits, in response to several critical comments.

November 10, 2003

NRO More

Posted by Kieran

I dropped by NRO’s The Corner a minute ago. I know, I know. John Derbyshire carries the conservative banner of civility-in-blogging by casually stereotyping jews and blacks in the service of a bit of backhanded homophobia. But I’m sure this is just more evidence that the left has no sense of humor. Meanwhile, Rod Dreher runs something under the headline “Pakis Against Bobby.” I hope Rod is just being pig ignorant here. And Kathryn Jean Lopez produces a one-sentence post. (Scroll down to “Bring the Cots.”) Parsing it is left as an exercise to the reader.

November 04, 2003

Crying "racist"

Posted by Ted

Dwight Merideth has a swell post on Democratic opposition to confirming minority conservatives to the bench. Democrats have confirmed twelve of Bush’s Hispanic court nominees and denied one (12/1). They have confirmed seven African-American nominees and have not yet confirmed Brown. (7/1). Read the whole thing for many more details. When will this reign of terror end, I think we can all hear the American people asking.

Dwight is responding to Jane Galt, who says that Democrats are trying to keep conservative minorities off the appellate bench. Others have gone much further. The most vile example of the “Democrats are racist” meme that I found without really looking came from William Sjostrom’s smear of Illinois senator Dick Durbin (via Jack O’Toole). Sjostrom notes that Durbin opposes Brown, and says:

Durbin is a long-standing stooge of the Chicago Democratic machine, which always believed blacks could be around as long as they were the shoe-shine boys or the maids, unless they were as crooked as the white Democrats. Then they could be precinct captains, and do nothing at the DMV.

When Dick Durbin sees Brown, all he can see is an uppity black woman who doesn’t know she is supposed to be either cleaning his oven or helping the local boys steal votes.

If you think that I’m leaving out any relevant evidence, context, or links, click through. That’s his whole argument.

Most people think that charges of racism, which ruin reputations and careers, should be handled with utmost care. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, for example, are often bitterly criticised for making unsupported, politically motivated accusations of racism. On a few occasions, I have expressed my intense dislike for Al Sharpton for this reason.

William Sjostrom doesn’t write as if he believes this is a problem. If he has more evidence for his accusation that Durbin is a racist, he has so far kept it to himself.

One of Durbin’s most important crusades has been about AIDS in Africa. It seems from this article that he was inspired to work on AIDS partially by his African-American advisor, Natacha Blain. I have a friend who worked on Durbin’s campaign, and he has nothing but good things to say about the Senator. My friend is Asian-American. Durbin has a 100% voting record with the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda. As far as I can tell, Durbin has never been accused of racism in his career in public service. (Perhaps I will be corrected.)

Yet Sjostrom can see through this, based on Durbin’s opposition to Janice Brown. I doubt that he would like to have this standard applied to the members of his preferred party.

Dwight has a list of Bush’s African-American nominees for the bench, collected by commentor alkali, who have been confirmed. If Durbin is unable to see Brown as anything other than an “uppity black woman” who is “supposed to be cleaning his oven,” I thought that it would be interesting to see how he voted on Bush’s other black candidates for the bench. It would also be interesting to see how much Democratic opposition met these other “uppity” black candidates. Here’s the news:

Reggie B. Walton: Yea (Unopposed confirmation)
Julie A. Robinson:Yea (Unopposed confirmation)
Legrove D. Davis:Yea (Unopposed confirmation)
Percy Anderson:Yea (Unopposed confirmation)
Lavenski R. Smith: Yea (three Nays on a cloture motion)
Henry Edward Autry: Yea (Unopposed confirmation)
Morrison C. England Jr: Yea (Unopposed confirmation)

All but one were unopposed. And Dick Durbin voted for every one of them.

William Sjostrom, do you really believe that Dick Durbin is a racist who thinks that blacks are only fit for domestic jobs? Do you have any evidence for this serious accusation? Or will you apologize?

November 03, 2003

Janice R. Brown Speaks

Posted by Kieran

While reading Eric Muller’s defence of David Bernstein, I came across another of his posts:

Is it just me, or does this speech by Janice R. Brown seem a little, well, unhinged?

(Allen Brill has a chronology if you want to know who Janice Brown is.) Several of Muller’s commenters assure him that it’s just him and the speech is “entertaining and thought-provoking.” Clayton Cramer comments that it’s “splendid and thoughtful.” Well, that clinches it for me.

Actually, “unhinged” is a strong word, and I don’t think Janice R. Brown is insane. Also, I’m not in an position to parse her views on the Lochner decision. But as to her more general social theory… Well, the speech is a heady and unstable mix of libertarian obiter dicta, Randian bromides, culture-war cliches and, um, Procol Harum lyrics. No, really.

The whole thing is held together by the unbreakable bonds of conservative martyrdom. Speaking a few months before conversatives might reasonably have been said to control of all three branches of government, Brown says,

There are so few true conservatives left in America that we probably should be included on the endangered species list … But they need not banish us to the gulag.

Lucky for you, the liberals spared you … this time. And why?

We are not much of a threat, lacking even a coherent language in which to state our premise.

Sadly, Brown’s speech does on to confirm this claim. We are living, she claims, in a period of “cultural disintegration” where “words are ceasing to have any meaning” and “The question is: how do you feel.” What is to blame for this? The unfettered rise of market capitalism, with all the superficiality and commodified meaninglessness it brings, maybe? No, silly, it’s the fault of “the sheer tenacity of the collectivist impulse — whether you call it socialism or communism or altruism,” in conjunction with human nature:

In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate.

Although human nature makes us rush toward the dead hand of government and enslave ourselves to socialism, we learn a few paragraphs later that it also is the main reason capitalism must triumph:

The founders viewed private property as “the guardian of every other right.” But, “by 1890 we find Alfred Marshall, the teacher of John Maynard Keynes making the astounding claim that the need for private property reaches no deeper than the qualities of human nature.” A hundred years later came Milton Friedman’s laconic reply: ” ‘I would say that goes pretty deep.’” As John McGinnis persuasively argues: “There is simply a mismatch between collectivism on any large and enduring scale and our evolved nature.

I like the idea that the absolute worst one can say about that crypto-socialist Alfred Marshall was that he was the teacher of that noted revolutionary communist, John Maynard Keynes.

On we steam:

Ayn Rand similarly attributes the collectivist impulse to what she calls the “tribal view of man.”

Oh god. Ayn Rand. Fourteen year olds of the world unite! The car keys shall be yours by sheer force of will! Objectivism requires it!

Democracy and capitalism seem to have triumphed.

Indeed they have, and surely nowhere moreso than in the United States. This raises problems for the theses put forward above. What to do? Who to blame?

But, appearances can be deceiving. … Marxism has been “shamed and ridiculed everywhere except American universities” but only after totalitarian systems “reached the limits of their wickedness.”

When in doubt, blame the professors. This does not address the fact that capitalism and democracy seem to have triumphed and we are living with the consequences, but Brown is getting to that. It turns out that capitalism did not triumph after all:

Of course … you might think none of that can happen here. I have news for you. It already has. The revolution is over. What started in the 1920’s; became manifest in 1937; was consolidated in the 1960’s; is now either building to a crescendo or getting ready to end with a whimper.

Far from being the most advanced form of market capitalist democracy, the United States is in fact a haven of something else. Could it be … Socialism?

At this moment, it seems likely leviathan will continue to lumber along, picking up ballast and momentum, crushing everything in its path … The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.

It seems the actually-existing socialism of the U.S., in contrast to actually existing socialism everywhere else, has managed to produce not a world that’s drab at best and totalitarian at worst, but rather an end-times party of positively dionysian proportions. How did they manage it? If this is socialism the Russians are going to want it back.

And what, in particular, is to blame for this? The answer is, of course, The New Deal. You might have thought it was a set of government policies that, along with the Second World War, helped save captialism from itself. In fact, it was the hellspawn of Robespierre and Lenin:

Out of that [French] revolutionary holocaust — intellectually an improbable melding of Rousseau with Descartes — the powerful notion of abstract human rights was born. At the risk of being skewered by historians of ideas, I want to suggest that the belief in and the impulse toward human perfection, at least in the political life of a nation, is an idea whose arc can be traced from the Enlightenment, through the Terror, to Marx and Engels, to the Revolutions of 1917 and 1937. The latter date marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution.

Even if you’re prepared to give up the New Deal, you might retain some hope that the Enlightenment — associated with the likes of Adam Smith, for instance — was A Good Thing. But you would be wrong:

To the extent the Enlightenment sought to substitute the paradigm of reason for faith, custom or tradition, it failed to provide rational explanation of the significance of human life. It thus led, in a sort of ultimate irony, to the repudiation of reason and to a full-fledged flight from truth — what Revel describes as “an almost pathological indifference to the truth.”

All this is bad enough. However:

But there are even deeper movements afoot. … We find ourselves … in a situation that is hopeless but not yet desperate. The arcs of history, culture, philosophy, and science all seem to be converging on this temporal instant. … Hold on even while we accept the darkness. We know not what miracles may happen; what heroic possibilities exist. We may be only moments away from a new dawn.

Oh my. So there you have it. A clear outline of why free-market capitalism is inevitable in the light of human nature yet has been displaced in the United States because of the collectivist impulse ingrained in human nature and the crypto-revolution of The New Dealers which created the socialist leviathan of the American state that now crushes everything with its dead hand while allowing people to do what they like, engaging in mindless decadence with no respect tradition, custom or the standards of truth and rationality, thanks in large part to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program and its gruesome offspring TANF, those bastard children of Enlightenment, the Terror, October 1917 and The New Deal (again), but do not fear because there is yet a chance that we can be propelled in millenarian frenzy into a world where free markets rule an economy comprised of Objectivist agents who nevertheless are imbued with the Feudal virtues of respect for the moral authority of their betters, committed to traditional pre-Enlightenment values and immune to the social and cultural transformations that tend to be associated with capitalism. Then we shall be happy.

November 01, 2003

Clearchannel says, Clock a Cyclist

Posted by Kieran

Kevin Drum is annoyed at the fun-loving DJs of Clear Channel, who recently encouraged drivers to assault cyclists in various humorous ways. But really, Kevin — DJs don’t kill people, you know. Bicycles do. In fact, along the same lines as David Bernstein recently argued, one of the many little-known benefits of Lochner vs New York was the major reduction it brought about in deaths due to bicycles under the control of reckless 12-year-olds who were not working 14 hour days in Manhattan garment factories.

Update: Eric Muller defends Bernstein from further criticism from an angry Nathan Newman.

October 30, 2003

Visions and the Envisioning Visionaries who Envision Them

Posted by Ted

Mark Kleiman points out that Luskin’s threatened suit against Atrios is a blatant attempt at harrassing a critic by threatening to reveal his identity. However, we ought to be equally angry at the National Review if they allow Luskin to pursue the lawsuit while he’s on their payroll.

I agree with Mark. However, he’s got to keep in mind that the original vision that William F. Buckley had for the National Review explicitly addresses this eventuality:

* To stand athwart history yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so;
* To become the premier voice for self-reliance, small government, anti-communism, and the state-sponsored punishment of sodomites;
* To openly stand up for the cultural and intellectual superiority of White over Negro until, say, the 70s or so;
* To eventually hand the reins over to chuckle-headed hacks and legacies whose lack of journalistic principles, knowledge of economics, policy, or basic math, or motivating principle apart from loyalty to the GOP leadership will make this publication a bad joke;
* To one day publish a fantasy about the murder of the only child of a politician that we don’t like;
* To justify, by any means possible, revealing of the identity of CIA agents;
* And to have our writers threaten frivolous lawsuits against people who hurt our feelings

The National Review has brilliantly lived up to his dream.

UPDATE: There’s been a lot of talk about John “Eminem” Derbshire’s Chelsea Clinton column in the comments. I should mention that there was quite a controversy about the column at the time. Check out the classy way that he dealt with it.

October 24, 2003

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos

Posted by Ted

Hee hee hee….

I have certain questions for the candidates that only TV campaign ads can answer. Such questions as:
Have you ever had a picnic with minority schoolchildren?

Do you like to quickly walk down hallways while surrounded by people holding clipboards and laws?

Can you go to a factory, put on a hard hat, shake hands with other people in hard hats, and look at a blueprint while pointing off into the distance as if you know how to extrapolate things from a blueprint?

October 23, 2003

Bush Capital Hosts Bush President

Posted by Kieran

Dubya joined me in Canberra last night (in a manner of speaking), but I have yet to see this obvious headline used in any newspapers. Security is tight. F-18s are buzzing overhead. I’m used to that from living in the flight path of Davis-Monthan AFB back in Tucson. There, sorties go out several times a day to further harrass the prickly pears on the Barry M. Goldwater Bombing Range out in the southwestern part of the state, flying over my department on the way. Low-flying A-10s really bring the concept of “air superiority” home.

Back in Canberra, we were walking around Lake Burley Griffin yesterday evening and saw a boat of navy frogmen inspecting the underside of the Commonwealth Avenue bridge, presumably looking for explosives, as Bush’s motorcade would have had to drive over it to get to Parliament House and the U.S. embassy. Personally, I’d be more worried that his drivers would get lost on Canberra’s carefully planned road system which consists of elegantly interlocking giant roundabouts, some of which are inside other even larger roundabouts.

October 16, 2003

Shenanigans!

Posted by Ted

Via Atrios, this is not a joke.

Concerned about the appearance of disarray and feuding within his administration as well as growing resistance to his policies in Iraq, President Bush - living up to his recent declaration that he is in charge - told his top officials to “stop the leaks” to the media, or else.

News of Bush’s order leaked almost immediately.

Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he “didn’t want to see any stories” quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used.

UPDATE: This is not a joke, either.

October 13, 2003

The (timely) death of outrage

Posted by Ted

Jesse has made a good point:

A month or two ago, there was a widely-shared understanding on much of the right that Bustamante was a bad choice for governor of California because he refused to repudiate his membership as an undergrad in the Latino student group MEChA. Few people argued that Bustamante himself was a racist, but it was widely agreed that MEChA was a dangerous, hateful group of extremists. MEChA was commonly described as a “hate group,” the Latino equivalent of the Klu Klux Klan. Glenn Reynolds famously called them a group of “fascist hatemongers.” Some accused them of wishing to seize the American Southwest for Mexico. Mechistas were often accused of hating white people, and occasionally accused of hating Jews. We spent a lot of time arguing about the translation of “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada” and the correct reading of El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán.

Bustamante has lost the election, but MEChA didn’t go anywhere. There are still 300 active chapters all over the United States. All across the country, active chapters of MEChA go about their business. In general, I don’t think they’re doing anything wrong, although my reading led me to believe that some chapters were overly touchy and PC. Quite a few people strenuously disagreed with me.

If I thought that there were 300 chapters of the KKK on college campuses agitating for a violent revolt in order to claim their own Aryan nation, I’d see this as a continuing issue even after an election was over. So… if people believed what they were saying, where did the concern about MEChA go?

October 09, 2003

AAARRRGH!

Posted by Ted

Instapundit links to Mark Steyn on the Valerie Plame outing and says “Read the whole thing.” So, I read the whole thing, and I found one of the most intellectually dishonest pieces I’ve read since… since Monday or so.

It’s another “Isn’t the real issue…” piece. In this case, the “real issue” is why Wilson was sent to Niger.

Steyn says:

An agency known to be opposed to war in Iraq sent an employee’s spouse also known to be opposed to war in Iraq on a perfunctory joke mission.

Wilson went to Niger in February 2002. The war in Iraq was just a twinkle in the administration’s eye. The war in Afghanistan (which Wilson supported) had recently finished. Bush made his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, in which he named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the “Axis of Evil”. He had not approached Congress, the United Nations, or the American people for support of a war on Iraq. The push wouldn’t come for a few months.

I’ve been following this story pretty closely. If anyone could find a statement from Wilson opposing the war on Iraq prior to his trip to Niger in Feb. 2002, I daresay that I would have heard about it. I’ll be embarassed if I’m wrong, so please go ahead and embarass me.

Here’s some information that Steyn thinks the reader has no need to know when answering the confusing, confusing question Why was Wilson sent to Niger?

  • The only defense of Bush’s “16 words” is that Bush said Africa, not Niger, and he was relying on British intelligence. No one denies that Wilson was right- Niger didn’t sell yellowcake to Iraq. All of the complaints about him tend to ignore this fact. David Kay’s report backs this up.
  • Wilson was a former diplomat in Niger.
  • He worked in Africa from 1976 to 1988. Other African assignments include Togo, South Africa, Burundi, the Congo, and the State Department Bureau of African Affairs.
  • From 1988 to 1991, he served in Baghdad as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy. During “Desert Shield” he was the acting Ambassador. He was the last official American to meet with Saddam Hussein before the launching of “Desert Storm.”
  • He was responsible for the negotiations that resulted in the release of several hundred American hostages. He helped evacuate thousands of foreigners from Kuwait, negotiated the release of more than 120 American hostages and sheltered nearly 800 Americans in the embassy compound.
  • For his role in these negotiations, George H.W. Bush wrote to him, “Your courageous leadership during this period of great danger for American interests and American citizens has my admiration and respect. I salute, too, your skillful conduct of our tense dealings with the government of Iraq. The courage and tenacity you have exhibited throughout this ordeal prove that you are the right person for the job.”
  • Wilson’s mission in Niger wasn’t a joke. The story resists a cute soundbite like “drinking sweet mint tea”, but he looked at the safeguards that surround Niger’s uranium industry and concluded that the alleged sale couldn’t have taken place. Start on page 14 and read.
  • Wilson’s report wasn’t the only one from Niger. There was also the Ambassador’s report, and a report from “a four-star Marine Corps general.”

No, what’s relevant is Wilson’s hairstyle. It’s kind of long, you see.

Steyn’s piece is larded with Wilson-bashing, as is the style at the time. Great stuff, like “Wilson comes over like a total flake — not a sober striped-pants diplomat but a shaggy-maned ideologically driven kook whose hippie-lyric quotes make a lot more sense than his neocon-bashing diatribes for leftie dronefests like the Nation.” Steyn doesn’t point out the little-known loophole in the law that makes it legal to release the identity of undercover agents if they have a liberal spouse. I guess it speaks for itself.

When Clifford May said that everyone knew about Plame, he at least had the excuse of ignorance. Mark Steyn has no such excuse when he writes,” Even if you accept that it’s technically possible to leak something that’s widely known around town…” It wasn’t widely known around town. Her relatives didn’t know. He neighbors didn’t know. The CIA asked for a formal investigation, and Bush himself called it “a very serious matter”. It’s hard to giggle this off, but I’m impressed at the effort.

He slips in “and published in the guy’s Who’s Who entry” as if the name “Valerie Plame” is the secret. Smart people who play stupid are extremely irritating. One more time:

“There is a person named Valerie Plame”- not a secret
“There is a person named Valerie Plame who works for the CIA”- big honking secret.

Steyn pretends not to understand why the Administration would want to discredit Wilson by revealing the identity of his wife; he argues that this information actually enhances his credibility. It doesn’t matter whether you think it was a good idea: obviously it wasn’t, but it happened. Novak himself says that he got the information from two senior Administration officials.

Steyn criticizes the NY Times for a headline that says that he “What I Didn’t Find in Africa”, when Wilson only visited Niger. Then he says,

One alleged colleague says he’s worked with her for 30 years, which seems unlikely, as she’s only 40 and if the Company was that good at spotting early talent it would be in a lot better shape.

Steyn seems to be questioning the integrity of Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, FOX News commentator, and registered Republican. No surprises there. But Johnson said “three decades”, not 30 years. 80s, 90s, 00s. No mystery.

Finally, Steyn says,

But her time as a NOC looks to have ended five years ago

Says who? If Steyn has access to the records of NOC CIA staff, someone should take it away immediately. If not, he’s just speculating.

Steyn does not improve his credibility when he says “the rogue State Department” is “acting like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the House of Saud”. He does not enhance his credibility by saying of Wilson, “Imagine Michael Moore and his ego after dropping 300lbs on the Atkins diet and you’re close enough.” He does not enhance his credibility when he lists the terrorists’ forces as “the Western media, the UN and the moth-eaten French pantomime mule of Messrs Chirac and de Villepin.”

Mark Steyn, everybody. This is what we’ve come to.

Dworkin on the "war on terror"

Posted by Chris

Via Larry Solum , I see Ronald Dworkin’s Rights and Terror (pdf). Dworkin provides both a useful catalogue of the Bush administration’s restrictions on the rights of both citizens and non-citizens of the US since September 11th. He concedes that many of those detained fail to fit into the models provided either by the traditional laws of war or the criminal law. It is incumbent on us, therefore, to think through what justice requires in this new situation. The Bush administration, though, has not done so.

The Bush administration and their supporters say that a new structure, which they call a new balance, is necessary. But they propose not a new structure but none at all: they assume the privileges of both models and the constraints of neither.

October 08, 2003

The real story

Posted by Ted

Daniel Drezner is getting angrier about the Plame case. This is the Bush quote that got him worked up:

I mean this town is a — is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don’t know if we’re going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there’s a lot of senior officials. I don’t have any idea. I’d like to. I want to know the truth. That’s why I’ve instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators — full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we’ll find out who the leaker is — partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we’ll find out.

Jack O’Toole writes:

Okay, let’s try to sort all this out with a thought experiment. In our scenario, it’s September of 2001, and this is what we’re hearing from our president:
“I don’t know if we’re going to find out who killed all those Americans in New York and Washington,” Bush said. “I don’t have any idea. I’d like to. I want to know the truth.”

But, Bush said, “International terrorism is a large thing, and there’s a lot of terrorists.”

Pretty ridiculous, huh? You can’t even imagine it. The Man from Crawford just doesn’t talk like that when evil is loose in the land, when serious crimes involving our national security have been committed. So isn’t it reasonable, important even, to ask why he’s suddenly talking that way now?

Incidentally, for those poor confused souls who aren’t sure that Plame really was undercover, there’s a Washington Post profile that might help clear that up:

Her activities during her years overseas remain classified, but she became the creme de la creme of spies: a “noc,” an officer with “nonofficial cover.” Nocs have cover jobs that have nothing to do with the U.S. government. They work in business, in social clubs, as scientists or secretaries (they are prohibited from posing as journalists), and if detected or arrested by a foreign government, they do not have diplomatic protection and rights. They are on their own. Even their fellow operatives don’t know who they are, and only the strongest and smartest are picked for these assignments.

But isn’t the real story… um…

October 07, 2003

What have you done for me lately?

Posted by Ted
Polls have shown public opinion toward President Bush souring over his handling of the economy and Iraq. But an item tucked away in last week’s CBS News/New York Times poll adds insult to injury. Despite three tax cuts in as many years, only 19 percent said Bush’s policies made their taxes go down. Forty-seven percent noticed no effect, while 29 percent perceived that their taxes have gone up. (my emphasis)

Wow. I would have thought that the “taxes went down” number would be at least 40%, which seems to be a floor for conservative/ Republican opinions. (The precise wording of the question is “Do you think the policies of the Bush Administration have made your taxes go up, go down, or have the policies of the Bush Administration not affected your taxes?”) Here’s a story about the poll, and here are the details.

This is remarkable, too:

“Which do you think is a better way to improve the national economy —- cutting taxes or reducing the federal budget deficit?”

Cutting taxes: 28%
Reducing deficit: 59%

I also found this CBS/ NYTimes poll.

When asked “President Bush has asked Congress for $87 billion for the next year to rebuild Iraq. Do you think the U.S. should or should not spend this amount of money rebuilding Iraq?”

26% said we should spend it, 66% said we shouldn’t.

Among Republicans, 42% said we should spend it, 47% said we shouldn’t.

Q: “As a result of the U.S. military action against Iraq, do you think the threat of terrorism against the United States has increased, decreased, or stayed about the same?”

25% said the threat of terrorism increased
17% said the threat of terrorism decreased
55% said it stayed about the same

Again, I should emphasize that polling a year before the election probably has no predictive ability. If the economy picks up, all of this could change. But right now, it seems that two of the most significant parts of Bush’s legacy, the war on Iraq and the tax cuts, are not just controversial but actually unpopular. In a significant way, Bush won’t be able to run on his record.

October 03, 2003

Turning that frown upside down since 2002

Posted by Ted

I agree with Daniel Drezner that scandal-blogging is exhausting. So here are some happy thoughts:

  • Shortly after the war in Iraq, when no WMDs were immediately discovered, there was a fair amount of speculation among lefties that someone would simply plant evidence. This has not happened. It’s damning with faint praise, sure, but I can just imagine how embittering the debate would have been if there was a plausible but unprovable suspicion of planted evidence.
  • Some of the folks who were smirking about how Bush was going to pull a “rope-a-dope” on those silly Democrats with their concerns about WMDs will have to take a look in the mirror, if they have one.
  • I have the suspicion that the pungency of the phrase “slime and defend” is such that it shamed a few people out of attacking Wilson today.
  • The folks in The Corner said many more sensible than foolish things about Rush’s comments on ESPN, and about his pathetic “First Amendment” defense.
  • Reading Spencer Ackerman and Clifford May debate the White House leak of Plame’s identity is great fun. It reminds me of an old Conan O’Brian skit called “Right Side/ Wrong Side”. Conan would adopt the popular side of a non-controversial issue (like “Is it right to beat children?”), force Andy to adopt the other side, and berate him for it. Here’s an example of Ackerman responding to May:
“Attacking Larry Johnson—an ex-counterterrorism official—as someone who would compromise intelligence assets is as out of nowhere as it is deeply offensive. He hasn’t been an active CIA officer since the late ’80s. You can’t point to a single intelligence asset he compromised, on PBS or elsewhere. In fact, he’s a Fox News contributor, and, as I understand, seriously angered by the Plame outing and those who would apologize for it. The next time you see him in the Fox green room, I encourage you to make your arguments to him. If he’s heard them already, I’d advise you to walk away from him very quickly.

Similarly, you “source” your innuendo that Wilson is somehow conflicted in talking about Iraq to his affiliation as an adjunct scholar with the Middle East Institute, which you say is in bed with the Saudis. I’ll play along for now and assume that whenever Prince Bandar walks by, Wilson genuflects. Well, if you want to start arguing that Saudi connections compromise the honest assessment and conduct of foreign policy, let me direct you to the offices of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and a slew of other Washington officials.”

UPDATE: In comments, tripp adds:

Some good news, the weather in Iraq is cooling off, so it is more comfortable for our troops and the Iraqi’s without AC.

October 02, 2003

Jonah, sometimes dreams really do come true

Posted by Ted

Tuesday:

WHAT’S MISSING? [Jonah Goldberg]

Oh, I know: Character assasination. If something similar to this Joe Wilson flap (and I still believe it deserves only flap status) occured during the Clinton years, we’d be hearing a barrage of attacks on Wilson’s motives — not just from barking dogs like Conason, but from the White House too.

Thursday:

The White House encouraged Republicans to portray the former diplomat at the center of the case, Joseph C. Wilson IV, as a partisan Democrat with an agenda and the Democratic Party as scandalmongering. At the same time, the administration and the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill worked to ensure that no Republicans in Congress break ranks and call for an independent inquiry outside the direct control of the Justice Department.

“It’s slime and defend,” said one Republican aide on Capitol Hill, describing the White House’s effort to raise questions about Mr. Wilson’s motivations and its simultaneous effort to shore up support in the Republican ranks.

“Slime and defend.” Boy, it sets your patriotic heartstrings a-quivering to hear that, doesn’t it? I guess this guy kind of looks like an elephant if you squint hard enough.

Andrew Northrup weighs in:

For all other Americans out there, please take a picture of this, because this is how your government, executive and legislative, responds when confronted with information that top officials have acted criminally against the interests of the country: they do nothing. And then, months later, when a shitstorm erupts, they try to shoot the messenger. Party uber alles. This is who is running the War on Whatever. Again, pay really close attention here, voting public, because there’s going to be a test on this in 13 months.

What do Wilson’s motivations have to do with the charges that his wife was exposed by a senior administration official? Over at Daniel Drezner’s blog, I posted this in the comments:

Here’s why Wilson is irrelevant: If he was selling poisoned milk to schoolkids, or if he was rescuing cats from trees, none of that changes the essential charge that a member of the White House staff outed a covert agent. That’s against the law. There’s no “the agent’s spouse was a extremist” clause.

Having said that…

Wilson’s unpaid trip to Niger was in February 2002. It predates any of his controversial statements. It even predates any serious debate about war in Iraq. Wilson donated money to political campaigns over the years. 71% went to Democrats, which would indicate that he’s a Democrat. 29% went to Republicans, which would seem to indicate that he’s not an extremist.

Why was Wilson sent to Niger? Here are some potential reasons:

He had been a State Department officer in Niger in the mid-1970s. He was ambassador to Gabon in the early 1990s. And in 1997 and 1998, he was the senior director for Africa at the National Security Council and in that capacity spent a lot of time dealing with the Niger government. Wilson was also the last acting US ambassador in Iraq before the Gulf War, a military action he supported.

For his work in Iraq, he was sincerely praised by George H.W. Bush. Bush wrote to him, “Your courageous leadership during this period of great danger for American interests and American citizens has my admiration and respect. I salute, too, your skillful conduct of our tense dealings with the government of Iraq….The courage and tenacity you have exhibited throughout this ordeal prove that you are the right person for the job.”

Seriously, give me your best shot in the comments. I’ll be away for a lot of the day, so I won’t even argue back. But I’ve yet to hear someone put the two together in a convincing way.

PLAME ON

Posted by Ted
  • Liberal Oasis has a series of quotations from John Ashcroft, who turns out to be a huge fan of special prosecutors.
  • A story about the ties between Ashcroft and the administration:
“On Wednesday, Justice Department officials would not rule out the possibility of Mr. Ashcroft appointing a special counsel, or recusing himself from the case.

“We’re leaving all legal options open,” said Mark Corallo, a Justice Department spokesman.

And the associate of Mr. Rove said of the attorney general, “He’s going to have to recuse himself, don’t you think?”“

  • And, via Unfogged, this story would appear to assuage remaining good-faith doubt about whether Plame was undercover or not. (Bad-faith doubt, of course, is more tenacious than Jason Voorhees.)
“Valerie Plame was among the small subset of Central Intelligence Agency officers who could not disguise their profession by telling friends that they worked for the United States government.

That cover story, standard for American operatives who pretend to be diplomats or other federal employees, was not an option for Ms. Plame, people who knew her said on Wednesday. As a covert operative who specialized in nonconventional weapons and sometimes worked abroad, she passed herself off as a private energy expert, what the agency calls nonofficial cover.

But that changed over the summer, when her identity as a C.I.A. officer was reported in a syndicated column by Robert Novak.”

Note: this story also does a number on the “everyone knew she was C.I.A.” defense.

PLAME OFF

Posted by Ted

My conscience has been telling me that I should write about something in addition to Ambassador Wilson’s wife. So here are a few thoughts:

  • Ross from Bloviator has two posts (here and here) about the growing population of Americans without health insurance. 2.4 million more people were uninsured in 2002 than in 2001.
“The CBO believes that in looking at 1998 data from two different studies (the last best data sets available) between 21-31 million people (~9%-13% of the nonelderly) were uninsured for the whole year, 40 million or so (~18% of the nonelderly) were uninsured at the time of the 1998 Census “snapshot,” and about 60 million people a year (~25%) went uninsured for at least part of the year.”
  • I’m not a huge fan of the Chemical Brothers, but I think that their video for “Let Forever Be” is one of the five best I’ve ever seen. Maybe even three best.
  • I think that Arthur Silber has a good take on Rush Limbaugh’s alleged drug abuse. I wouldn’t cheer a sting operation to catch an ordinary citizen who was abusing pain pills. And if the sting was conducted by the National Enquirer (I can’t tell from the Drudge headline), that’s really, really low.

October 01, 2003

The next few notes on the Mighty Wurlitzer?

Posted by Daniel

It seems like so much longer than four days since Henry wrote:

But I’m disturbed by the tone of triumphalism coming from a few left blogs and their commenters. It’s understandable that some see this as an opportunity to stick it to the warbloggers. It’s still a mistake. This story is too important to be turned into a cheap gotcha. There’s a growing groundswell of outrage on the right as well as the left. People should be building on this, rather than using the affair to score short-term ‘told you so’ points.

But it isn’t. Anyway, I think we can agree that by now, that this water-source has been well and truly pissed in, so I feel less guilty than I ought in taking what is, after all, a pretty decent opportunity to stick it to the warbloggers. One has to say, the opposition have performed pretty dreadfully on this one. Bereft of any unifying theme from the top, they’ve failed mightily to improvise material. Below I offer a few suggestions …

It’s true, though, isn’t it? Starting off with “It’s all too complicated”, moving on to “How do we know that she was even in the CIA?” and thence to “I hear that bloke Wilson was a liberal!”, the starboard half of the weblog world (with a couple of honourable exceptions) has had a hard time coming up with a response to the situation which maintains at least arms-length contact with acknowledged facts but which doesn’t end up with some pretty nasty implications for their party. I’m disappointed, frankly; I’m pretty sure our lot would have done much better, if only because of the practice over fifty years of explaining how Stalinist Russia wasn’t really a socialist state.

Anyway, I thought I’d lend a hand by making a few suggestions for “Talking Points” for the right wing half of the blogosphere. Sort of as recompense for all the helpful advice they’ve been offering to Democrats on how to get elected by never criticising George Bush. I had a cake with my coffee today, so I managed to come up with six possibilities. Ten points to our readers for spotting any of my six in a live use somewhere, plus five points for identifying the ringer (as in, an argument which has already been actually used somewhere on the right wing blogosphere) that I slipped in for fun. Here goes:

1. The “Libertarian-Contrarian”

“Has anyone thought of this as a big-government issue? I mean, if the CIA knows my name (and they certainly do), why shouldn’t I be allowed to know their names?”

2. The “Shoot the Messenger”

“I tell you one thing; if Valerie Plame’s cover wasn’t blown by a tiny off-hand mention in the Bob Novak column, all the self-righteous lefty ‘patriots’ have made damn sure that it is now!”

3. The “Blind Faith”

“One thing is clear, however; this issue doesn’t go to the heart of government, or anything like it. Bush has addressed the problem, and when he finds out who leaked, he’s going to act in his usual manner; boldly and decisively”.

4. The “Barking Conspiracy Theory”

“Given all we know about the KGB (Aldrich Ames, etc), is it plausible to think that Saddam’s Mukhabarat didn’t have even one double agent within the CIA? And what if that agent was Valerie Plame? Makes a lot more sense to ‘destroy her career’ now, doesn’t it, huh?”

5. The “Back to the Playground”

“Does anyone else think this is really lame? The left are just coming across like little snitches, always tattling to teacher.”

6. The “I Could Tell You, But I’d Have To Kill You”

“I have a suspicion that something is about to come out which will make all the lefties baying for blood right now look very stupid indeed”.

7. The “Hey! Look! WMDs!”

Hey! Look! WMDs!

Ambassador Wilson's Wife

Posted by Brian

This seems a little late to matter now, but NBC has adopted the following policy regarding references to Amb. Wilson’s wife. (See end of this piece.)

NBC News has decided not to report the name of the woman whose identity was revealed in Novak’s column. MSNBC.com has removed her name from its coverage.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst who Kevin Drum quotes goes out of his way to follow the same policy in the extracts Kevin has. It’s hard to believe that anyone who had an interest in her activities could have missed the story by now, or could pick it up from any of us, but it’s not obviously a bad policy.

September 30, 2003

Two more points

Posted by Ted

Two quick hits:

1. Greg Greene makes a strong argument that the independent counsel statute was a bad law, and we shouldn’t be pining for it. I’m pretty sure that I agree; the general de-armament of US politics is good for all sides in the long term, and the independent counsel sure looked like bad government a few short years ago.

2. Tim Dunlop helps clear up the confusing question, “who thought (Wilson) could be trusted with the Niger mission to begin with.” (Answer: the office of the Vice President).

I’m starting to get very angry about attacks on Joseph Wilson. Even if he’s wrong about everything, it doesn’t justify going after his wife, and it certainly isn’t relevant to the criminal inquiry about the release of classified information.

But if this is how the game is played, it’s worth drawing a little attention to this:

(Wilson) had been a State Department officer (in Niger) in the mid-1970s. He was ambassador to Gabon in the early 1990s. And in 1997 and 1998, he was the senior director for Africa at the National Security Council and in that capacity spent a lot of time dealing with the Niger government. Wilson was also the last acting US ambassador in Iraq before the Gulf War, a military action he supported. In that post, he helped evacuate thousands of foreigners from Kuwait, worked to get over 120 American hostages out Iraq, and sheltered about 800 Americans in the embassy compound. At the time, Novak’s then-partner, Rowland Evans, wrote that Wilson displayed “the stuff of heroism.” And President George H. W. Bush commended Wilson: “Your courageous leadership during this period of great danger for American interests and American citizens has my admiration and respect. I salute, too, your skillful conduct of our tense dealings with the government of Iraq….The courage and tenacity you have exhibited throughout this ordeal prove that you are the right person for the job.”

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds just put up:

THE REAL WILSON SCANDAL: Forget Valerie Plame, the big scandal is why anyone in the Bush Administration would ever have tasked a guy with Wilson’s views with an important mission.

Um, no. The big scandal is that someone leaked the identity of an undercover CIA employee, the CIA has asked for an investigation, and a senior administration official says that the source of the leak was two senior administration officials. Bob Novak, who published the leak, has confirmed that.

We’re talking about a criminal investigation of felony charges. There’s no doubt that there was a leak (again, Novak got Valerie Plame’s identity from somewhere). The only question is who did it. And we’re supposed to forget about it?

I hope that this is a joke.

Adventures in set theory

Posted by Daniel

Related to Ted’s point below, could I just clarify that there are only two ways in which it can be true that X is “not a covert CIA operative”.

1) X is not a CIA operative
2) X is a CIA operative who is not covert

If you are making the claim “X is not a covert CIA operative”, then it may be helpful to your audience if you explain which of the two claims above you are making. I can draw a Venn diagram if it makes things clearer.

Piece of cake

Posted by Ted

If I were to say:

Nobody at Domino’s called me to sell me Cinnamon Sticks. In July I was speaking to a Domino’s employee about a large pizza when he told me that I could get free Cinnamon Sticks with my order. Another Domino’s employee told me the same thing.

then no one in their right minds would try to summarize me by saying:

Ted Barlow says the Cinnamon Sticks didn’t come from Domino’s.

Right?

Two quick takes

Posted by Ted

1. Andrew Northrup is a phat, phat young man. (That’s what you kids say, right? Phat?)

2. Every day, Jim Henley wins my heart anew.

Come to think of it, a fun Washington fact I learned years ago from my buddy Toiler, who really is an analyst for the CIA. If someone asks him where he works, he has to tell them he works for the CIA. He is not to lie or dodge the question. Why? So he won’t ruin it for the people that do have to lie or dodge the question.

This is about the millionth reason to believe that Valerie Plame really was employed in the Agency’s clandestine services division: in all the times that Wilson, who surely knows the rules, and spokesmen for the White House and CIA have been asked about Plame’s employment, they have not said, “She’s an analyst.” But if she were indeed an analyst, that’s what they would say. So, can we please retire the Administration apologist defense “we don’t know whether Plame was really a ‘covert’ employee or not”?

He’s got a bunch of good posts; just keep scrolling. I’m especially partial to this one.

If I ever turn libertarian, I’m buying him a pizza. Arthur Silbur, too.

Astroturf

Posted by Henry

Via BoingBoing, an interesting story about the new Transport and Security Administration (TSA). CAPPS II program, which aims to hoover up personal data from all airline passengers. The TSA has appointed a certain David S. Stempler, head of the Air Travelers Association, as passenger advocate in the CAPPS II process. The trouble is that there’s no evidence that the “Air Travelers Association” consists of more than a fancy website, a customer loyalty program, a couple of flacks, and a bunch of letterheaded stationary. Moreover, there’s strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that the “Air Travelers’ Association” has close and intimate connections with Cendant Corporation, a data processing company that stands to make a lot of money if CAPPS II is implemented. In other words, it looks as though the “passenger advocate” may well be a corporate shill.

This is a perennial problem for interest group politics in the US. It’s very hard to tell “real” grassroots organizations from fake ones; private interests often set up astroturf associations to peddle a particular line and pretend that it’s emanating from a real constituency. Even when the US government wants to know who’s for real and who’s not (doubtful in the present instance), it’s hard put to distinguish the genuine from the ersatz. Many European countries do things differently; they give quasi-official status, and a privileged voice, to interest associations that they consider to be “genuine.” This has its own problems - it often gives rise to worryingly comfortable relations between governments and consumer watchdogs. But it’s still an improvement on the US approach.

Recently, however, US consumer groups have begun to organize - thanks to the EU. The EU and US set up a cross-Atlantic organization called the Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue a few years back, to push the common interests of EU and US business. The Europeans insisted that there be a similar organization for consumer associations too, the Trans-Atlantic Consumer Dialogue, or TACD. Since its inception, TACD has not only represented EU-US consumer interests, but has served as an umbrella group to organize US consumer groups into a quasi-official lobby. Amazingly, nothing of the sort existed before (many US consumer associations had fallen out over NAFTA, and weren’t talking to each other). TACD also serves as a sort of vetting procedure for genuine consumer associations - if you’re a member of TACD, you’re undoubtedly the real thing. That said, it’s not surprising that the TSA didn’t invite a “real” consumer organization to provide an advocate. If you want to provide the appearance of consultation, but not the reality, astroturf groups have their advantages.

September 29, 2003

Undeniable

Posted by Ted

I’ve read the transcripts of today’s press conferences (this one and this one), and it seems clear to me that Scott McClellan chose his words very carefully to avoid saying that Rove told him that he’s not the source of the leak. This certainly doesn’t prove that Rove is one of the leakers, but it’s pretty conspicuously not a denial.

Some people would consider this a long, nitpicking post. (Heck, I consider it a long, nitpicking post, but I don’t know another way to write it.) If you’re one of those people, and you know who you are, don’t continue reading.

Here’s an excerpt from Talking Points Memo. My comments are in parenthesis and italics. If I’m reading McClellan correctly, he’s continually making two points:

- I talked to Karl Rove
- The accusation that Karl Rove leaked this news is false/ “ridiculous”.

He repeatedly states these two points close to each other. But when directly asked the question “Did Karl Rove tell you that he was not the source for the leaks?”, he will not say yes.

QUESTION: Ambassador Wilson has said that he has information that Karl Rove condoned this leaking, and I’ve seen your comment that that’s absolutely false —

McCLELLAN: It is ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. (He doesn’t say false. In fact, he corrects the questioner who says “false”. What he says is “ridiculous,” which is not the same thing, and not an answer.)

QUESTION: What do you —

McCLELLAN: And keep in mind, I imagine that only a limited number of people would even have access to classified information of this nature.

QUESTION: So he doesn’t have information?

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

McCLELLAN: Yes, go ahead. And, Helen, you may always follow up. Go ahead.

QUESTION: What, then, do you think the — given that you say Rove condoning this is ridiculous, what do you think Ambassador Wilson’s motivation is for leveling such a scurrilous charge?

McCLELLAN: I can’t speculate about why he would say such a thing. I mean, I saw some comments this morning, where he said he had no knowledge to that effect. But I can’t speculate why he would say that.

QUESTION: Did Rove say, “ridiculous”?

McCLELLAN: I did, for him. (So what did Rove say, then? Did Rove say anything at all?)

QUESTION: Did you speak with him about it?

McCLELLAN: Yes, I’ve spoken to him. (Later, he seems to reveal that he spoke to Rove weeks ago, and he hasn’t spoken to him on the subject since.)

QUESTION: But he told you, “ridiculous”?

McCLELLAN: No, I said — I told some of your colleagues that it was ridiculous. And, remember, I said this back — what, July and September this issue came up, and said essentially what I’ve said now. (This is key. He says, I’ve spoken to him, and he said… what? Nothing. He changes the subject back to “this is ridiculous.” He never says what Karl Rove told him.)

QUESTION: Can you characterize your conversation with him about this?

McCLELLAN: I talk to him all the time, so —

QUESTION: About this?

McCLELLAN: No, about a lot of issues.

QUESTION: But can you characterize your conversation about this subject with him?

McCLELLAN: I don’t think there’s anything to characterize. I mean, I think that what I said speaks clearly, that the accusations just simply are not true. (He refuses to talk about their conversation, and he deliberately steers away from saying how he knows that the accusation is not true. What he doesn’t say is “And I know this because Rove denied it to me.” This is also the first time that he seems to shift from “ridiculous” to “not true”. Does he mean it, or is he just playing a word game, defining “the accusations” as some set of accusations that includes a false item?)

……

QUESTION: You spoke directly with Rove about this?

McCLELLAN: I have spoken — I speak to him all the time, on a lot of things.

QUESTION: He categorically denied to you —

McCLELLAN: I just told you, it’s simply not true. (Again, he says “not true”. He refuses to answer the question about whether Rove told him that it was not true or not. To avoid that question, he answers a different one.)

QUESTION: Yes, but you refuse to say whether or not it was Rove who told you it’s untrue.

McCLELLAN: No, no, I spoke to Rove. I spoke to him about — no, I spoke to him about these accusations, I’ve spoken to him.

QUESTION: And Rove told you that they were not true —

McCLELLAN: That’s why I would be telling — (“Would be telling”? He seems to be shifting into hypotheticals to avoid an answer.)

QUESTION: — or is it just you —

McCLELLAN: That’s why I would be telling you what I did. (“I would be telling you”, rather than “That’s why I told you”)

QUESTION: — or is it just you who is telling us?

McCLELLAN: No, I have spoken to him and been assured. And that’s why I reported to you and reported to the media that it is simply not true. I like to check my sources, just like you do.

Now, here, after repeatedly refusing to answer the question over and over again, he says something that comes perilously close to saying that Rove told him- “I have spoken to him and been assured.” Is he saying that Rove told him that he wasn’t the leaker? Not exactly, but I’ll bet that we’ll be arguing just this point with our right-wing friends before the week is over.

If it is supposed to mean that Rove told McClellan that he didn’t do it, McClellan certainly doesn’t amplify on it in his second press conference later on in the day. Rather, he backs away from it, saying that he hasn’t spoken to Rove recently. His statements about how “ridiculous” the accusations are seem to come from his intimate knowledge of Rove’s character; they certainly don’t come from Rove himself.

MR. McCLELLAN: I’ve made it very clear, from the beginning, that it is totally ridiculous. I’ve known Karl for a long time, and I didn’t even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct. (Whoa! That’s a non-denial if I’ve ever heard one! He’s back to “ridiculous”! He didn’t even have to ask him? What’s up with that?)

Q Have you read any book about him lately?

Q — have a subsequent conversation with Mr. Rove in order to say that you had this conversation —

MR. McCLELLAN: I have spoken with Karl about this matter and I’ve already addressed it.

Q When did you talk to him? Weeks ago, or this weekend?

MR. McCLELLAN: What I said then still applies today, and that’s what I’ve made clear. (“What he said then” was weeks ago. Furthermore, what he said then was “the accusation is ridiculous”, not “the accusation isn’t true”, and definitely not “I spoke to him and he said he wasn’t the source.”) What he said was-

A: That’s just totally ridiculous. But we’ve already addressed this issue. If I could find out who anonymous people were, I would. I just said, it’s totally ridiculous.

Q: But did Karl Rove do it?

A: I said, it’s totally ridiculous.

Q I have one other follow up. Can you say for the record whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson’s wife, but merely did not talk to anybody about it? Do you know whether for a fact he knew —

MR. McCLELLAN: I don’t know whether or not — I mean, I’m sure he probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has.

Q When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, did you ever have this information, could you have talked to him?

MR. McCLELLAN: We’re going down a lot of different roads here. I’ve made it very clear that he was not involved, that there’s no truth to the suggestion that he was.

Q Well, I’m trying to ask how —

MR. McCLELLAN: And, again, I said I didn’t — it is not something I needed to ask him, but I like to, like you do, verify things and make sure that it is completely accurate. But I knew that Karl would not be involved in something like this. (He’s gone back to strategic ignorance. He knows, in his heart, that Rove wouldn’t do this, and his faith is so strong that he doesn’t need to ask.

Q And that conversation that you had with Karl was this weekend? Or when was it?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry? No, I’ve had conversations with him previously. I’m going to leave it at that. (Previously? Previously when? How does he know? He doesn’t say; the only evidence that he gives is his own judgement of Rove’s character.)

Faced with the direct question over and over, McClellan repeatedly fails to say that Rove told him that he wasn’t the source of the leak. One logical conclusion is that Rove did not, in fact, tell McClellan that he wasn’t the leaker, and McClellan knows better than to ask.

If I was the White House press officer, I would have gone into Rove’s office and said something like, “Karl, people are going to ask me if you were the source of the leak. On one hand, I can tell them that those rumors are ridiculous, that you wouldn’t be involved in something like that. On the other hand, I can tell them that you have told me that those rumors are false, and that you didn’t leak Valerie Plame’s identity. Which strategy do you think would be better? Strictly from a communications point of view, you understand.”

It seems likely to me that they chose the former strategy, because Rove just can’t deny that he was the source. Time will show if I’m right.

UPDATE: Edited slightly to remove double negative

D- D- D- Defense

Posted by Ted

Brad DeLong has a good post asking, “Where are the grown-ups in the Republican party?”

Hanyes Johnson and David Broder wrote a book called The System about the rise and fall of Clinton’s health care plan. (Incidentally, DeLong reviews the book here.) One of the most interesting threads is about the struggle between “Bob Dole Republicans” and “Newt Gingrich Republicans” for the soul of the party. Sheila Burke was one of Bob Dole’s advisors who found herself at the pointy end of the Gingrich Republicans:

By June, Sheila Burke found herself experiencing abuse of a kind she had never known before, all as a consequence of “the Right being ginned up.” The True Believer mentality was at work, she thought. “They support nobody who doesn’t totally agree with them,” Burke said then. “It’s not about governing, which is what we do.” She paused, and repeated for emphasis, “It’s not about governing. That’s not how they think.”

The System, page 385.

I’ve been thinking a lot about that quote this weekend as the Plame/ Wilson story developed.

There’s a mess of good commentary, from Calpundit, Daniel Drezner, Atrios, Mark Kleiman, Oliver Willis, Josh Marshall, Billmon, Tom Tomorrow, Quiddity Quack, and many others.

It’s very interesting to see the lines of defense that are being thrown up. One main line of defense seems to be throwing poo at Clinton (see Jane Galt’s comments), at Ambassador Wilson (“What possible benefit… when what they could have said is what the British did say, which is that Wilson was gullible and inept?”- Glenn Reynolds. Also see Clifford May), at filthy hippies (“I suppose I should just be happy to see such solicitude on the behalf of a reputed CIA agent from people who aren’t usually so solicitous”- Glenn Reynolds), or at opponents of the war in Iraq (“I rather doubt that most of the people who are so exercised here were condemning that hero of the antiwar left, Philip Agee, who really did put lives in danger”- shooting for the stars, that’s funnyman Glenn Reynolds. My emphasis). I doubt that anyone needs me to explain why these approaches are not terribly helpful.

Another line of defense seems to be that it’s no big deal; it is presumed that Plame is not in personal danger because she’s probably retired or a desk analyst somewhere. This is the meme that says that the only threat is to Valerie Plame’s travel schedule.

Hogwash. The relevant law doesn’t say that revealing classified information is only a crime if it can proved that it threatens someone’s life. Arguing that “no one got killed” is irrelevant and stunningly amoral. However, I’d like to put to bed the theory that Valerie Plame wasn’t a real CIA agent:

She is a case officer in the CIA’s clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents.

The most popular line of argument seems to be sheer disbelief. It just doesn’t seem likely that senior Administration officials would take this kind of risk for such a small reward. Again, Glenn Reynolds:

It doesn’t make sense to me. First, if you want to “intimidate” someone, committing a felony at which you can be caught — and which doesn’t hurt the target — doesn’t seem to be the way to do it. What possible benefit was there to the Bush Administration in saying that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

I talked about this story to my apolitical fiancee yesterday, and she had the same thought. “Why would they do that?”, she asked.

I can see the logic. The risk/ reward ratio of exposing Plame seems wildly out of whack. It’s a risk that I wouldn’t dream of taking; the behavior is so outrageous that I can’t blame the press for sitting on this story.

The thing is, it doesn’t matter what we would have done in their place. There are a couple of facts that have to be explained-

* Robert Novak got Valerie Plame’s identity somehow.

  • The CIA has performed its own investigation and formally asked for a Justice department investigation.
  • A senior Administration official (probably CIA director George Tenent, but who knows) says that two senior Administration officals contacted at least six journalists trying to spread the story, in violation of the law.
The aides said Bush has no plans to ask his staff members whether they played a role in revealing the name of an undercover officer who is married to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, one of the most visible critics of Bush’s handling of intelligence about Iraq.

(Tim Dunlop has some interesting quotes from back in the day about how Dubya used to feel about people who leaked classified information.)

In order for the White House to be totally exonerated, Bob Novak has to be deliberately lying, and George Tenet has to be opportunistically using the false story in order to smear the White House. Surely no one believes that this is what happened.

Barring that, the absolute best outcome for the Administration seems to be that they collar two low-level staffers. No journalist comes forward and says that they were approached by different Administration officials. These people go to jail.

The White House claims that the multiple news stories identifying the leakers as senior officials are all wrong. Then they shut up, refusing to say any more or comply with subpoenas.

They will then have to explain why they did absolutely nothing about felony leaks of classified information for more than two months, whereas they complied with a request for phone logs from the Weekly Standard within a day or two.

As far as I can see, this is the best case. Republicans of conscience may want to reconsider if they want to go down with this ship.

UPDATE: Mark Levin at NRO has another line of defense: Joseph Wilson brought this on himself:

Why would the CIA choose Wilson as the administration’s fact-finder on the Niger uranium issue knowing that his wife’s activities might become exposed? Well, in the same Robert Novak column that reveals the identity of Wilson’s wife, Novak reports that it was Plame herself who recommended her husband for the job!

Shouldn’t it have occurred to someone in CIA management that sending the husband of an agency operative on a highly sensitive, high-profile mission could jeopardize that operative’s activities?

While I’m all in favor of investigating national-security-related leaks, we’ll never know if foreign-intelligence agencies, among others, had already learned of Plame’s position thanks to the attention her husband drew to himself by taking the Niger fact-finding assignment in the first place. Like it or not, Wilson bears some responsibility for his wife’s predicament.

Holy moley. This is a deeply disingenuous argument. I suspect that everyone involved felt pretty all right about sending Wilson because (a) he was an ambassador with a great depth of relevant experience, and (b) they never dreamed that someone would cynically expose his wife to try to discredit him.

It’s also worth pointing out that the trip to Niger happened months before the uranium issue became politicized. No one could have known before the trip whether the claim was true or false (that’s why he took the damn trip), no one could have predicted that the sixteen words would appear in the State of the Union, and no one could have predicted that it would become a political issue.

Wilson made a choice to inject himself into the national debate when he wrote the “sixteen words” editorial. But should all administration critics assume that they will be the target of smear campaigns? Could he have any reasonable suspicion that his wife would be a target?

Apparently that’s the argument, and it stinks.

September 28, 2003

Gotcha!

Posted by Henry

Like most everybody else in the blogosphere this morning, I’ve been reading about the Plame affair. It’s potentially an enormous story - if the facts are as they appear to be, there are at least two senior White House officials who deserve to be hauled off to jail. But I’m disturbed by the tone of triumphalism coming from a few left blogs and their commenters. It’s understandable that some see this as an opportunity to stick it to the warbloggers. It’s still a mistake. This story is too important to be turned into a cheap gotcha. There’s a growing groundswell of outrage on the right as well as the left. People should be building on this, rather than using the affair to score short-term ‘told you so’ points. If nothing else, a more constructive attitude will make it more likely that the story will stick around, and receive the sustained public attention that it obviously deserves.

Update: See also Kevin Drum’s plea to conservatives - angry, but carefully worded and targetted.

Update 2: But of course, some will never be convinced … for a sampling, see Belle Waring

September 26, 2003

Popularity

Posted by Brian

Josh Marshall reports that the WSJ got snippy with him for being so pessimistic about Bush’s polling numbers. Really, the Journal says, there’s nothing to worry about at all in the polling. As they read the trends, it is still ‘likely’ that Bush’s support level will stay above 25% between now and next November. In a spirit of bipartisan agreement, I would like to add that I too think it is likely that Bush will win more than 25% of the votes cast next Presidential election. If 25% is the over/under line, I’m betting the over. Unless the odds on under are good enough.

September 22, 2003

People, get ready

Posted by Ted

As Terry at Nitpicker reveals, Robert Novak and Matt Drudge are stepping up to the plate to smear Wesley Clark on factually untrue grounds. This is really awful.

Here’s Novak:

Clark was a three-star lieutenant general who directed strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On Aug. 26, 1994, in the northern Bosnian city of Banja Luka, he met and exchanged gifts with the notorious Bosnian Serb commander and indicted war criminal, Gen. Ratko Mladic. The meeting took place against the State Department’s wishes, and may have contributed to Clark’s failure to be promoted until political pressure intervened. The shocking photo of Mladic and Clark wearing each other’s military caps was distributed throughout Europe.

Matt Drudge has this photo front and center at his page right now, with the caption “GENERAL CLARK WORE BOSNIAN WAR CRIMINAL’S MILITARY CAP”.

How could Wesley Clark smile for a photo and exchange gifts with an indicted war criminal? Well, he didn’t. Here’s the chronology:

Aug. 26, 1994: Clark and Mladic meet, and the photo (sorry, the “shocking” photo) is taken.

July 6- July 21, 1995: Bosnian Serbs under the command of Mladic begin their assault on the safe area of Srebrenica, killing or expelling 15,000 Bosnian Muslims. Many surrender, after being falsely promised prisoner of war status, and are slaughtered in mass graves.

November 14, 1995: For the Srebrenica massacre, Mladic is indicted for genocide and crimes against humanity.

Novak is seriously distorting the facts to make his claim. To say that Clark took this photo and exchanged gifts with an indicted war criminal is just not true. It’s like blasting the producers of the “Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out” Nintendo game for using a convicted rapist as their spokesperson. When they made the game, he wasn’t a convicted rapist.

Then there’s this, from Novak’s column:

Clark attributed one comment to a Middle East “think tank” in Canada, although there appears to be no such organization.

Novak is wrong. A quick Google search reveals the appearance of such organizations, such as the B’Nai Brith Canada Institute for International Affairs, the Inter-University Consortium for Arab and Middle Eastern Studies, the Canadian-Arab Federation, the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, and the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

This is a shameful column, and it’s only going to get worse. I know this is an old point, but it’s worth making again: Al Gore is not the President because no one fought hard enough against garbage like this. No one else is going to do it but us.

Robert Novak’s email is: novakevans@aol.com

Matt Drudge’s email is: drudge@drudgereport.com

The letter to the editor at the Sun-Times address is: letters@suntimes.com

September 20, 2003

Low standards in high places

Posted by Henry

Technical standards are dull stuff for the most part; engineers or techies talking to other engineers or techies about the appropriate ways to implement this or that. While the politics of standard-setting is interesting in its own right1, it usually isn’t a very political kind of politics. Here comes a prominent exception.

Via Cory at BoingBoing: the Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) has issued a call to arms over voting machine standards. According to the EFF, various vested interests are trying to push through a weak standard for voting machines in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). If the EFF is right, this isn’t just an argument over technical issues; it has potentially serious consequences for politics and vote-fraud.

So what exactly is going on here?

To understand the politics of this, it’s necessary to start with a bit of background information. The IEEE, like other standard setting organizations in the US, is a private organization. As a consequence, unless you’re a paid-up member of the IEEE, you’re not going to have much input into IEEE standards. This said, once you’re a member, you should have a reasonably good chance to influence proceedings; discussions among members are usually driven by the desire to find a consensus that everyone can live with. Finally, even if the IEEE has no official ‘power’ to make others comply with its standards, it possesses quite considerable informal clout. Not least, standards set by private organizations such as the IEEE may very substantially influence government regulations.

So what’s happening with voting machines standards? According to the EFF, a committee within the IEEE is putting forward a standard for voting machines that doesn’t properly address security risks.

the standard fails to require or even recommend that voting machines be truly voter verified or verifiable, a security measure that has broad support within the computer security community.

Further, the EFF suggests that the usual procedures of consensus-building did not take place. Indeed, the committee in question had

serious procedural problems … including shifting roadblocks placed in front of those who wish to participate and vote, and failure to follow basic procedural requirements. We’ve heard claims that the working group and committee leadership is largely controlled by representatives of the electronic voting machine vendor companies and others with vested interests.

The draft standard has now gone out to vote among IEEE members; the EFF is trying to mobilize them against it. If the standard goes through, there’s a real risk that it could be adopted across the US; the IEEE

sits on an advisory committee to the forthcoming Election Assistance Commission established by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

In other words, even if the IEEE standard doesn’t have the force of law, it may very easily come to exert a compelling influence on future government regulation.

I’m not familiar with the specifics of this story, but the EFF is usually pretty reliable on issues of this sort - it has intimate and deep connections with all levels of the tech policy community. If the EFF says that there’s something fishy going on, it’s very likely right.

That said, I doubt that there’s any vast, right-wing conspiracy behind these moves to create a toothless standard. More likely, this is just the usual politics of regulation; companies with dodgy products watering down the standards so that they can stay in the marketplace. Certainly, there’s evidence that Diebold, an extremely prominent manufacturer of voting machines is making products with gaping security holes. One may reasonably surmise that companies with similarly flawed products are going to oppose any standard that would declare their products to be unsafe to use. Whether they’ll get away with it is another matter..

1 Or at least, interesting to political scientists; see the work of Walter Mattli, Tim Buethe, Raimund Werle, Philip Genschel and Christoph Knill among others. This use of the word ‘interesting,’ is, of course, quite a restrictive one .

September 19, 2003

Controlled comparisons

Posted by Henry

Dan Drezner has a new piece up in Tech Central Station. He suggests in passing that the EU, which used to be considered a trade liberalizer, is now an economic and political mess.

Policy processes that generate illogical macroeconomic rules, incoherent foreign policies, insane agriculture subsidies, and interminable constitutional proposals have not showered Brussels with economic glory.

Fair enough. But what about US ‘policy processes’ under the Republicans?

  • Illogical macroeconomic rules. Check
  • Incoherent foreign policies. Check.
  • Insane agricultural subsidies. Check.
  • Interminable constitutional proposals. Check.

In theory, the EU should find it much easier than the US to make a mess of things. It’s composed of fifteen argumentative sovereign states, each with its own turf to defend. But appearances deceive: US Republicans to be labouring under no comparative disadvantage at all. They’re screwing things up with quite extraordinary vigour and gusto. Kudos. I seem to remember that once upon a time, people thought that the Republicans too would be trade liberalizers. Word on the street is that they’re not only protectionists, they’re incompetent protectionists. Anyway, I’d take eurosclerosis any day of the week, if the alternative were the shambling monstrosity that is Bush’s macro-economic policy.

A Bodyguard of Lies

Posted by Ted

Jack O’Toole catches Andrew Sullivan assuming that his readers are too lazy or dumb to click a link.

Here’s Andrew Sullivan this morning on Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark:
Reading this essay by Wesley Clark, I have to say I’m not reassured that he has what it takes to wage a war on terror. If he had been president, the war in Afghanistan would probably not have taken place, let alone the war against Saddam. [Emph. added]

And what did Gen. Clark actually say in his essay about the war in Afghanistan?

Instead of cutting NATO out, we should have prosecuted the Afghan campaign with NATO, as we did in Kosovo. Of course, it would have been difficult to involve our allies early on, when we ourselves didn’t know what we wanted to do, or how to achieve it. The dialogue and discussions would have been vexing. But in the end, we could have kept NATO involved without surrendering to others the design of the campaign. We could have simply phased the operation and turned over what had begun as a U.S.-only effort to a NATO mission, under U.S. leadership. [Emph. added]

Winston Churchill famously said that the truth is so precious that it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.

It seems that much of the right, from George Will (here and here) to Andrew Sullivan to Rush Limbaugh, feels the same way about the Bush presidency.

UPDATE: Ogged points out:

But he’s not lying this time. His point, which he spends the bulk of his post arguing, is that “with NATO” is “probably” the same as “not at all.” That’s likely wrong: Clark doesn’t rule out going alone, he merely expresses his preference—but it’s not a lie.

Ehhhh… I see his point, but I dunno. Andrew is arguing that Clark wanted to hand over operational control, and sacrifice our ability to choose targets and tactics. Here’s Andrew:

Can you imagine having to get every special ops target in Afghanistan approved by 19 different countries, including those who opposed any action against the Taliban? Can you even begin to imagine constructing a case for any action in Iraq under similar auspices? It simply wouldn’t have happened.

Yes, that certainly sounds bad, but it bears no relation to the essay he’s talking about:

In the end, we could have kept NATO involved without surrendering to others the design of the campaign. We could have simply phased the operation and turned over what had begun as a U.S.-only effort to a NATO mission, under U.S. leadership.

Both Andrew and Clark are speaking in hypotheticals, so the word “lie” is maybe a little harsh. Nonetheless, Clark has the facts on his side, and Andrew doesn’t. NATO was distinctly on our side in Afghanistan- they had called upon the common defense clause for the first time in history. (NATO is, of course, heavily involved in the current effort of policing Afganistan.) And who was it, again, that “opposed any action against the Taliban”?

European reaction to the US and British attacks on Afghanistan has so far been positive. France, Germany, Italy and Russia have all stated their support for the alliance…

In France, President Jacques Chirac has said that he will make French troops available to the alliance. Speaking in a televised address, President Chirac said that France had opened its airspace to the US military aircraft and French ships are providing logistical support to US naval forces in the Indian Ocean. However, the French President was adamant that this was as far as French participation would go.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi put his country on a state of alert following the strikes. However, he said that he supported the attack. “Italy is on the side of the United States and of all those who are committed to the fight against terrorism,” he said. He also pledged material help and troops if needed.

The German government has said that it supports “without reservation” the US-led attacks on “terrorist targets in Afghanistan”. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said that Germany will contribute to the action if they are asked and in line with their abilities.

Russia has also pledged its support for the attacks saying that international terrorism should face justice. A foreign ministry statement read on television said that the Taliban regime had become an “international centre of terrorism and extremism”. The statement concluded, “It is time for decisive action with this evil”.

Sullivan’s take seems ludicrous if you read the link or just remember the events of two years ago.

The Emerging Democratic Majority

Posted by Ted

Donkey Rising has some amazing results from a recent poll:

It’s been remarked that Bush’s poll ratings in most respects seem to be returning to about what they were prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That’s true and in some cases they’re actually worse. The public is now 10 points less likely to think Bush is honest and trustworthy; 7 points less likely to think he is moderate, not extreme, 6 points less likely to think he is for working and middle class families and 5 points less likely to think he “cares about people like you”. In addition, the public is 12 points more likely to think he has a go-it-alone policy that hurts our relations with our allies.

Similarly, when comparing the ratings on which parties are trusted to do a better job on the issues, Democrats now have the same leads or better that they had prior to 9/11 and Republicans are not doing much better today than they did then. Democrats are favored by 35 points on the environment today (33 points before 9/11), by 26 points on Medicare (26 points previously), by 24 points on health care (21 previously), by 20 points on retirement and social security (16 previously), by 20 points on prescription drugs (22 previously), by 20 points on the federal budget and deficits (just 3 previously), by 12 points on the economy (3 previously) and by 11 points on education (7 previously). For the Republicans, they are favored by 6 points today on taxes (but were favored by 12 points before 9/11) and by 22 points on keeping America strong (but they were running a 16 point lead even before 9/11).

The conclusion is inescapable. Much of the Bush’s political capital from 9/11 has been dissipated. More than anyone would have thought a year ago, the 2004 election seems likely to be fought on the actual merits and demerits of the entire Bush presidency, not just the two months after 9/11. And, in DR’s opinion, that’s pretty bad–extremely bad–news for Bush.

I spent some time looking at the results, and there’s a lot here to make someone like me smile. (Detailed results here, slideshow here.) It was commissioned by Democrats, but it still seems like a useful survey. I don’t see a leftward bias in the sample: 19% of them describe themselves as liberal, 41% as moderates, and 38% as conservatives.

A few things got my attention:

- Between July 2002 and September 2003, the percentage of people who said that they would vote Bush or lean Bush in the next Presidential election never topped 52%. I thought that it would have been higher right after “Mission Accomplished”.

Democrats couldn’t exactly crow- it wasn’t until August 2003 that “the Democratic nominee” got within striking range. (In September, it’s 47% Bush, 45% Democratic nominee.) Still, the landslide talk was probably always misplaced.

- Respondents were asked which of these statements came closer to their views:

“America’s security depends on building strong ties with other nations.”

or

“Bottom line, America’s security depends on its own military strength.”

50% agreed with the first statement, while 39% agreed with the second.

- On the other hand, the argument that Bush is too conservative in his appointments to the federal courts is an apparent loser. Only 37% agree, while 46% disagree.

- In the most recent poll, for the first time, about as many people said they opposed Bush’s tax cut plan (45%) as favored it (44%).

- From November 2001 until the end of 2002, more respondents said that Republicans were better on the economy than Democrats. That has reversed in a big way- in the most recent poll, 48% of respondents said Democrats were better on the economy. Only 35% said Republicans.

- On the federal budget and deficit, in the most recent poll 47% said that Democrats were better. Only 27% said Republicans.

(I think that this discrepancy is worth highlighting. I’ve been told so many times that Democrats have no credibility on budgetary issues that I had started to believe it. It’s also worth highlighting because 80% of respondents say the federal deficit is a serious problem, compared to 69% who say high taxes are a serious problem.)

- As previously noted, the biggest weakness is the discrepancy between Republicans and Democrats on who does a better job on keeping America strong. 50% say Republicans, 29% say Democrats.

If only there were a Democratic candidate who could overcome that weakness…

September 18, 2003

Rubber Duckies

Posted by Kieran

Jacob Levy revives the debate about the tax system and the poor — or, as the Wall Street Journal called them when it kicked off the argument, those lucky duckies who make up the “non-taxpaying class”. Jacob wants to argue that the underlying form of the WSJ’s argument is very common — indeed, almost inescapable — in political philosophy. He says it goes as follows:

If we subject everyone to the same rules, institutions, or conditions, then there will be political demand to make them fair or otherwise tolerable. If we only subject some people to them, then some may be unfairly singled out or burdened; there will be opportunities to divide the citizenry, play the interests of some against those of others, and to undermine the overall desirable outcome. … The final thing to notice about this kind of reasoning is that some form of it is common to virtually all political philosophies. Stated at a sufficiently general level, it is the standard classical liberal argument for the rule of law, for not being ruled by an aristocracy exempt from the legislation it writes, and for hoping that justice will be blind.

Over at Volokh, Jacob describes this column as his “most contrarian to date”. I worry that he’s putting his talents to waste looking for a neat angle on things. If you end up making the case that the bottom 20% of income earners (that’s people who make $15,000 a year or less) are logically equivalent to “an aristocracy exempt from … legislation” then you have a choice. You can conclude you have a solid new argument for calling someone a welfare queen, or you can wonder whether something’s gone wrong somewhere.

Jacob’s piece is a victim of its own sophistication. It jumps to a much higher level of argument than the WSJ piece was working at, and it abstracts the question away from some empirical data that the editorial deftly and deliberately ignored. The original editorial was able to make its case by detouring around two inconvenient facts. The first is that, in terms of the total federal tax burden, the U.S. system is only modestly progressive. (Here’s a summary.) Some defenders of the piece (though not Jacob) argued as though the WSJ’s neglect of this information meant that it couldn’t be mentioned by critics, either. That was an interesting objection both logically and politically: logically, because it granted the WSJ special dispensation to beg the question; and politically, because you don’t normally see conservatives arguing that some taxes shouldn’t be counted when calculating what the government expropriates from you. Perhaps they think that, in the case of the poor, it isn’t real money.

Second, the editorial glides over the fact that U.S. income distribution is remarkably skewed. Most Americans remain quite unaware of just how skewed, something that Paul Krugman complained about recently. So the WSJ knows it can safely sound shocked when it finds “the top 5% coughed up more than half of total tax revenue.” That would be federal income tax revenue, again. One could just as easily say “The richest 5% earned 32% of all income and paid 41% of all federal taxes. Meanwhile the bottom 20% paid only 1.1% of all federal taxes, earning a princely (should I say aristocratic?) 3.3% of all income.” Not exactly the stuff of tax revolts. The WSJ’s position is that the current tax system is horribly progressive, with the lucky-ducky poor paying nothing and the rich paying everything. In fact, as Kevin Drum pointed out in January, relatively low federal income tax rates on the poor are what keep the tax system from looking very flat, or even regressive. It’s this calculated blindness that irritated people so much when the editorial was published.

It’s possible to use Jacob’s approach to reading the editorial to come to quite different conclusions. As the WSJ says, fewer and fewer people are paying more and more of the tax:

Workers who pay little or no taxes can hardly be expected to care about tax relief for everybody else. They are also that much more detached from recognizing the costs of government.

Why is this happening? Well, mainly because fewer and fewer people are making more and more of the money. (Let’s not even get started on the severity of wealth inequality, which is much more important, and much worse.) So what? The other day, Kevin Drum asked Paul Krugman “Purely on an economic basis, what’s wrong with income inequality? Does it hurt? And why?” To his credit, Krugman denied the premise: he said, “Well, I think you can’t do it on a pure economic basis, you have to think how it plays through the social system and the political process…” Kevin was looking for a value-free way to condemn inequality, but there isn’t one. The WSJ, though, implies a fairly solid rationale. If large numbers of people don’t earn enough to pay much income tax, they probably don’t have much of a stake in society. Things are made worse if the gap between the top and the bottom gapes like the Grand Canyon. A kind of pincer movement ensues. A big chunk at the bottom are detached from civil society and politics. A tiny, tiny minority at the top barely pay taxes at all. A small minority pay most of the tax because they have the largest share of income. These people tend to be more politically engaged. But they’re so ignorant about the shape of their own society — focused on their share of the tax burden, but unaware of their share of income — that they feel like they’re getting a raw deal. That makes for nasty politics. Class-war politics, even.

The WSJ is right: the more people who contribute to the cost of running the state, the better that is for the life of the country. The only provisio is, “assuming they can afford to do so.” So the Journal is really documenting negative consequences, like social exclusion and the politics of resentment, that flow from severe economic inequality and find their expression partly through fights about the tax system. In this regard, the WSJ editorialists have a lot in common with Paul Krugman.

Now, I don’t believe that’s the right way to read the “Lucky Duckies” editorial. But that’s because I believe it to be a piece of ideology — something written by smart but disingenuous people in order to mislead readers about what’s there in the data. For that reason, I don’t think it’s worthy of the subtle tools Jacob brings to bear on it, and it also makes me less inclined to follow the dialogue that’s going to develop between Jacob and Russell Arben Fox, who engages Jacob’s argument on its own terms. Beyond a certain point, it seems to me, the price you pay for the fun of being contrary just isn’t worth it.

September 17, 2003

What's the hurry?

Posted by Micah

Bruce Ackerman has an op-ed piece in the New York Times today arguing that the Ninth Circuit should not delay the vote in California. I have to admit that I was a bit surprised by Ackerman’s willingness to limit the possibilities raised by the equal protection claims upheld in Bush v. Gore. Here’s his argument:

This time around, the candidates in California have already invested heavily in a short campaign. Their competing strategies have been designed to reach a climax on the Oct. 7 election date. If they had known they would have to compete until March, they would have conducted their campaigns very differently. By suddenly changing the finish line, the three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disrupts the core First Amendment freedom to present a coherent political message to voters . . . Worse yet, the decision disrupts the First Amendment interests of the millions of Californians who have participated in the recall effort. State law promised them a quick election if they completed their petitions by an August deadline.

It also offered them a fair election. It seems reasonable for a court to postpone an election long enough to permit the installation of fair voting systems, rather than going through with error-prone machines and then trying to sort out the mess afterwards.

What about Ackerman’s First Amendment argument? It always helps to have the text around. So the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The core of the First Amendment may be the protection of political speech. But even if that’s right, it’s a big stretch to say that its core is the freedom to present a coherent political message to voters. That’s either rhetorical flourish or wishful thinking. Ackerman is asserting a First Amendment right to have an election run on time. I’m sure it would be a good thing to have prompt elections, and there may be statutory law requiring it. But, if there’s a constitutional claim involved here, it is the right to have one’s vote counted equally in a fair election. Ackerman thinks that this claim isn’t strong enough to override his First Amendment concerns. I think those concerns are overstated, at best. But even if they aren’t, this is an opportunity to see whether the Supreme Court was serious about the equal protection arguments of Bush v. Gore. It’s worth waiting for a decision about whether the Court meant what it said about guaranteeing fair elections.

September 16, 2003

One of us

Posted by Henry

The New Yorker reveals that Wesley Clark has outed himself not only as a Democrat, but as a sf fan.

“I wanted to be an astronaut,” Clark said. “That was back when we had a real space program. We all wanted to invade the red planet, right out of Ray Bradbury’s ‘Martian Chronicles.’”

The Oxonian looked puzzled, and Clark asked, “Are you familiar with Ray Bradbury?” He was not. “Not a science-fiction fan? What about ‘Lord of the Rings’? ”

September 15, 2003

False witness and the Vice-President who provides it

Posted by Ted

You’ve probably seen the quote from Dick Cheney that Sept. 11 is “over with now, it’s done, it’s history and we can put it behind us.” In context, it’s obvious that he doesn’t mean that we should forget 9/11. Obviously, the White House observed a memorial, as is appropriate.

No, it’s much worse than that. In context, what he’s doing is arguing that any public investigation of September 11th will hurt the war on terror. Specifically, he’s responding to a question about the abundant evidence of Saudi involvement in 9/11. If we let that evidence influence our approach to terrorism, it would be bad, for some reason.

Except for that misleading quotation, I’ve got to give credit to Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus for this report. They do what Tim Russert repeatedly failed to do during his interview of the Vice-President: when Cheney said something false or misleading, they provide the correct information. It’s astounding. I hope that Milbank is writing a book.

UPDATE: For the record, here are some of the misleading statements that Cheney used to defend the Bush administration’s conduct re: Iraq. These are all from Sunday’s interview:

- We still have reason to believe that Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11th hijackers, met with Iraqi intelligence agencies in Prague months before the attack. (The FBI concluded that Atta was in Florida at the time of the alleged meeting. The meeting is not supported by the CIA, Czech intelligence, or the actual Iraqi intelligence officer in question.)

- Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government had an ongoing relationship throughout the 90s. (They had eight meetings, primarily in the early 90s.)

- Cheney was correct to dismiss the views of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, who said we will need, quote, ‘several hundred thousand for several years.’ (Shinseki did not mention “several years” in his testimony.)

- David Kay used to run UNSCOM. (David Kay did not run UNSCOM; he spent one year the chief inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency.)

- Before the war, Saddam posessed “500 tons of uranium.” (Highly misleading; it was the waste product of a nuclear reaction that Saddam wouldn’t have been able to refine.)

- “A gentleman” had come forward “with full designs for a process centrifuge system to enrich uranium and the key parts that you need to build such a system.” (Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi, had denied that the nuclear program had been reconstituted after 1991. I’m pretty sure that Cheney is overstating when he talks about “full designs” and “key parts”, but I don’t know enough to swear to it.)

- Two trucks found in northern Iraq were mobile biological weapons labs. (The government had previously backed down on this claim after Pentagon investigators couldn’t back it up.)

- British intelligence has revalidated the statement in Bush’s SOTU address that Saddam was trying to acquire uranium in Africa. (British intelligence is re-investigating that claim. They haven’t revalidated it, although they say that the judgement that it had occurred was “reasonable”.)

- Iraq was the “geographic base” for the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. (The report doesn’t say it, but I’m pretty sure that we attacked Afghanistan because it was the geographic base of the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks. (NOTE: Cleaned up because of sloppy proofreading.))

Before the cock crows, you will deny the "flypaper" theory three times

Posted by Ted

Jim Henley at Unqualified Offerings has the best post I’ve seen in the highly competitive field of flypaper-theory-debunking.

I can’t improve on it. But I’m going to make a prediction that I feel pretty good about: a year from now, no one will be very proud of the flypaper theory.

September 14, 2003

"If a trend cannot continue indefinitely, it will stop."

Posted by Ted

Over the weekend, the New York Times is publishing two longer pieces about the coming fiscal crisis in Washington. There’s the Paul Krugman piece previously noted by Henry, and “Dizzying Dive to Red Ink Poses Stark Choices for Washington” by David Firestone.

Both are detailed and well worth reading. My favorite succinct take on it, however, is a editorial by Matt Miller from August. Andrew Tobias has the whole thing, but I can’t help but quote:

Start with basic but poorly understood facts. Seven programs make up 75 percent of all federal spending: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military pensions, civil service pensions, defense and interest on the debt. That’s “big government.”

Republicans aren’t trying to cut a dime of it but are calling for big increases in every one of these programs. According to the White House, interest on the national debt alone will soar by 66 percent over the next five years, thanks to the red ink oozing from President Bush’s budget ….

Over the next five years, President Bush figures the “big 7” programs will cost, on average, about $1.8 trillion a year.

Over the same period, he says, the revenue the government will collect, not counting Social Security taxes (which both parties say shouldn’t be used for current spending, though it is), will average $1.35 trillion a year — $450 billion a year less than just the “big 7” on which Republicans want to spend more…

This, then, is today’s spectacle: “Family values” Republicans are sticking the kids with the bill for current spending while railing fraudulently against the “big government” they support.

Then they attack Democrats for offering the radical idea that we ought to pay for the spending we all agree we want (before we even begin fighting about other things — like covering uninsured, or helping poor children get better teachers).

This BusinessWeek article isn’t bad, either:

Only three solutions are possible. Washington can cut retirement and health benefits for seniors. Want to take odds on that one? Or Congress and the President can raise taxes — a lot — on those Americans still working 20 years from now. Or the Treasury can borrow the money.

The last two are easier, of course, if the economy is growing fast enough. But the more debt the government sucks up — money that will be unavailable for business to invest — the harder that will be.

Neither is this one:

The parallels (between Vietnam and Iraq) on the economic front are more instructive. As with Iraq, the Administration and the Pentagon played down the initial cost of war in Vietnam, underestimating by some 90% the eventual $500 billion price tag. In the 1960s and 1970s, Democrat and Republican Administrations pursued a policy of guns-and-social-spending to minimize the economic pain of waging an unpopular war, and the budget deficit started its long climb higher to the politically toxic levels of the 1980s and early 1990s. This time around, the Administration’s policy is guns-and-tax cuts. And, once again, the red ink in mounting.

The critical economic difference between then and now is that inflation won’t take off in the 2000s the way it did in the 1960s and 1970s. The Federal Reserve won’t make the mistake of monetizing the federal budget deficit by tolerating high inflation rates. The global bond market vigilantes will make sure the Fed holds to an anti-inflation course. But the result, as measured in jobs and wealth will be the same: The underlying rate of economic growth will slow down, making everything from paying for retirement to funding research and development more costly.

“Starve-the-beast” tacticians are sure that the pain for permanent structural deficits will come at the expense of social programs they don’t like, usually Social Security and Medicare. I wish I knew where their faith came from. It’s long seemed obvious to me that the oversized baby boomer generation, like every generation before it, will use their abundant economic power and time to continue to make retirement benefits untouchable.

The AARP is the largest, most powerful interest group in the nation. They (almost) make the NRA look like a bunch of bloggers. Why would anyone think that they would lose influence as the pig-in-the-python Baby Boomers start retiring? It boggles my mind.

It takes real effort to avoid shrieking in the face of this looming, entirely avoidable catastrophe. If Paul Krugman seems a little shrill every once in a while, I’m happy to give him a little slack.

September 13, 2003

Taxation

Posted by Henry

Paul Krugman has a long and devasting critique of the Grover Norquist agenda in the NYT magazine. Expect the usual talking points from Sullivan and co. - ‘shrill,’ ‘sloppy’ - but don’t expect any serious counter-arguments.

And, proving that conservatism can be something more than blind advocacy of tax cuts, Tacitus gives forth on the decision to reject tax-reform in Alabama:

prisons and cops — and yes, even public education — are legitimate functions of government at that level, and so I have to ask whether underfunding them is really the conservative thing to do … All in all, the whole episode and the anti-tax rejoicing in the aftermath points to an increasing cognitive dissonance in Republican circles. The notion of taxation as an evil in itself is useful as a tactical tool, but it’s not useful as an analytic tool: you don’t get good governance if you focus on cutting taxes in the absence of any consideration of legitimate budgetary needs or any effort to concurrently reduce spending. But that’s exactly what’s happening, in the Congress and in Alabama. It’s worrisome and I daresay wrongheaded

September 10, 2003

Simply the worst

Posted by Ted

Mark Kleiman has a timely reminder that Al Sharpton is a horrible person.

If you just manage to hang around for long enough in politics, you can achieve some kind of undeserved quasi-respectability. If Al Sharpton spent his time apologizing to his victims instead of demeaning the Presidential race, the world would be a better place.

September 08, 2003

Think of a wonderful thought...

Posted by Ted

From Donald Rumsfeld:

Mr. Rumsfeld did not mention any of the domestic critics by name. But he suggested that those who have been critical of the administration’s handling of the war in Iraq and its aftermath might be encouraging American foes to believe that the United States might one day walk away from the effort, as it has in past conflicts.

From Christopher Durang:

You remember how in the second act Tinkerbell drinks some poison that Peter is about to drink in order to save him? And then Peter turns to the audience and he says, “Tinkerbell is going to die because not enough people believe in fairies. But if all of you clap your hands real hard to show that you do believe in fairies, maybe she won’t die.”

So, we all started to clap. I clapped so long and so hard that my palms hurt and they even started to bleed I clapped so hard. Then suddenly the actress playing Peter Pan turned to the audience and she said, “That wasn’t enough. You did not clap hard enough. Tinkerbell is dead.” And then we all started to cry. The actress stomped off stage and refused to continue with the production. They finally had to lower the curtain. The ushers had to come help us out of the aisles and into the street.

You hear that? CLAP LOUDER!

More from Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Arthur Silber, Kevin Drum, Atrios, and Tim Dunlop.

Department of Cheap Shots

Posted by Brian

From the campaign trail:

Schwarzenegger, campaigning in a heavily Hispanic Los Angeles suburb, said his pronunciation of “California” was just one of the words Davis didn’t like to hear. “He doesn’t like ‘lost jobs,’ he doesn’t like that word,” Schwarzenegger said.

Of course, Arnie comes out of this exchange looking much better than Gray Davis, whose pathetic appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment started it all. Davis should be feeling ashamed of himself, but instead he’s reverting to the time-dishonoured ‘it was all a joke’ defence.

Right-Wing Postmodernism Again

Posted by Kieran

While we’re over at John Quiggin’s blog, we can add another example to his discussion of right-wing postmodernism. (Thanks to Kevin Drum for having the fortitude to read the Corner.)

September 06, 2003

Good news for a change

Posted by Henry

Teresa Nielsen Hayden posts on a story that I’ve been interested in the last few days; how some conservative Alabama Christians have come out in favor of higher, less regressive taxes in the state. This may be a flash in the pan; for one thing it’s unlikely that these Christians are going to be successful in persuading Alabama’s public to sign on to tax reform. But it’s potentially important nonetheless. Grover Norquist and his ilk have been uncannily successful in boiling down a rich and complex tradition of thought into a single, sloganistic programme of all tax-cuts, all of the time. It’s nice to see some principled conservatives reacting against this.

The TAP article that Teresa cites to sees these Christians as reminiscent of Dorothy Day; I think that may be going a step too far. These people aren’t interested in substantial redistribution of wealth so much as in ensuring that the poor have the basic minimum of opportunities which will allow them to look after themselves; decent education, access to justice, perhaps some form of public health care. Still, a superior moral justification for selfishness it ain’t. I wish them luck.

Sub Pop

Posted by Ted

We all know that polls taken more than a year before the election are going to have virtually no predictive power. But this analysis caught my eye:

Some 41 percent of all registered voters say they will definitely vote against Bush; just 29 percent say they will definitely vote for him. So Bush must woo about seven in ten swing voters — not a difficult task for a popular incumbent, but far from a certainty.

Does it make sense to call him a “popular incumbent” in the sentence immediately after the one that says that 41% of likely voters will vote against him, and 29% will vote for him?

September 04, 2003

Nixon goes to China

Posted by Ted

A little while ago, Kos asked for good things Bush has done. (Specifically, he asked for three good things.) Whatever your list looked like, there’s a new addition:

WASHINGTON D.C. – President George W. Bush signed into law the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 today, marking the first time the U.S. government has ever passed a law to deal with sexual assault behind bars…

The law calls for the gathering of national statistics about the problem; the development of guidelines for states about how to address prisoner rape; the creation of a review panel to hold annual hearings; and the provision of grants to states to combat the problem.

Also due for praise are the sponsors of this bill, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) in the Senate and Frank R. Wolf (R-Va) in the House.

Iain at Grim Amusements is a little less hopeful, noting that it’s an unfunded mandate and that states will have an incentive to minimize evidence that the situation exists. Still, I agree with Glenn Renolds that “It’s not like it’s going to solve the problem, but at least it puts it on the table.” Kudos.

Gold Standard

Posted by Ted

Out of curiosity, I started looking at the affiliations of some high-ranking members of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly. I struck paydirt right away with the National Chairman, Massey Villareal.

No, as far as I know, he isn’t a former member of MEChA. But he is a current member of another extremist organization: The Texas GOP.

MEChA has been widely attacked on the basis of this document: El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan.

So, in the interest of equal time, I’m pleased to take a look at the Texas GOP platform from 2000.

And I didn’t even have to translate anything to do it! Good thing, too- the official Texas GOP platform “supports the immediate adoption of American English as the official language of Texas and of the United States of America.”

(Incidentally, I’m using the 2000 platform because I think that it would be unfair to contend that President Bush should renounce the 2002 Texas GOP platform, which has some new planks. For example, it now contains the statement “The Republican Party of Texas reaffirms the United States of America is a Christian Nation,” and it calls for the abolition of the income tax. A summary of the 2002 platform is here; the whole document can be accessed from the Republican Party of Texas official homepage.

However, it seems that the rules of engagement demand that I ask if Mr. Villarreal, Tom DeLay, or Rick Perry supports or renounces this platform.)

Here are some highlights from the 2000 official Texas Republican platform:

The Federal Government:

Monetary System – The Party calls for the United States monetary system to be returned to the gold standard.

Repeal of Federal War Powers Act –A perpetual state of national emergency allows unrestricted growth of government. The Party charges the president to cancel the state of national emergency and charges Congress to repeal the War Powers Act and to declare an end to the previously declared states of emergency.

We urge that the IRS be abolished and the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution be repealed.

Minimum Wage – The Party believes the minimum wage law should be repealed.

The Environment:

WE OPPOSE: the theory of global warming
WE OPPOSE: EPA management of Texas’ air quality issues

Gay Rights:

We urge the immediate passage by the Texas Legislature the “Defense of Marriage Act”, which would deny recognition by Texas of homosexual “unions” legitimized by other states or nations.

The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Texas Sodomy Statutes- The party opposes the decriminalization of sodomy.

In support of our armed forces, we encourage… 2) the disqualification from service of homosexuals, 3) the immediate discharge from service of HIV positive individuals

Americans with Disabilities Act – The Party supports amendment of the Americans with Disabilities Act to exclude from its definition those persons with infectious diseases, substance addiction, learning disabilities, and behavior disorders and thereby reducing abuse of the Act.

(Note: This provision would prohibit people with AIDS from applying for protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act)

Separation of Church and State

Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the Unites States and the concept of the separation of Church and State and dispel the myth of the separation of Church and State. (emphasis added)

The United Nations

The Party believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to, the United Nations. We support House Resolution 1146, “The American Sovereignty Preservation Act” which would remove the United States entirely from the control of the U.N.

Women in the Armed Forces

In support of our armed forces, we encourage, 4) the exclusion of women from combat roles… 9) separation of men and women in basic training as is the practice of the Marine Corps

Education

We support the requirement that schools teaching sex education must teach directive abstinence until heterosexual marriage with an uninfected person as the only safe and healthy means of preventing sexually transmitted diseases, the spread of AIDS, and pregnancies in unwed students, and is also a way to build strong and lasting relationships. Sex education classes, if conducted, should be separated by sex and must teach that the use of condoms does not make sex safe. (emphasis added)

The Party believes that scientific topics, such as the question of universe and life origins and environmental theories, should not be constrained to one opinion or viewpoint. We support the teaching equally of scientific strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories—as Texas now requires (but has yet to enforce) in public school science course standards.

Stem Cells:

Fetal Tissue Harvesting – The Party supports legislation prohibiting experimentation with human fetal tissue and prohibiting the use of human fetal tissue or organs for experimentation or commercial sale.

The connection between the Texas Republican Party and the Texas Republican platform (which is revised every two years) is manifestly stronger than the connection between MEChA and El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan. The connections between the Texas GOP and George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, Rick Perry, and Massey Villareal are also obviously much stronger than the association between Cruz Bustamante and MEChA.

Readers who can point to links where George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, Rick Perry or Massey Villareal have formally denounced the Texas GOP are encouraged to post them in the comments.

Of course, there are those who would say that it’s ridiculous to try to associate these public figures with the extremist policies in the Texas GOP platform. Just because I can find this kind of document on the Internet doesn’t necessarily mean that it has anything to do with these individuals. Some would say that I would need a “reason” to assume that, for example, George W. Bush believes that sodomy tears at the fabric of society. If I were to seriously start demanding that Bush publicly renounce this statement, or if I were to go around claiming that the motto of the Texas GOP is “Sodomy tears at the fabric of society” they’d think I was being asinine.

To these people, I nod my head vigorously and smile, saying “DING DING DING DING DING!”

My God ... He's Right

Posted by Kieran

I am blinking in the glare of Right on the Left Beach’s analysis of my fellow bloggers and me:

Lefties just cannot stand back and take an honest look at their agenda and supporters and admit the truth — they would rather be living under Stalin’s Soviet Union than the United States headed by President George W. Bush — they will defend without logic any lefty miscreant that supports the lefty agenda. Lefties crave power at all costs.

I’d write more, but I am craving power at all costs right now. Coffee! I mean craving coffee at all costs. Yes, that’s it.

Coming up later, a new installment of our ongoing series, “Defending Stalin and All His Works.” This week we’re focusing on the long-term social benefits of Show-Trials and Lysenkoism. This will be followed at three by our “Miscreant of the Month” pledge drive.

September 03, 2003

A little more on MEChA

Posted by Ted

I don’t think that I have too much more to say about MEChA; there are a lot of people who I’m not going to convince. But I wanted to share this comment on Kevin Drum’s site from “J” :

Why won’t Bustamante make a statement against separatism or fascism or racism? First of all, it hasn’t been exactly established that this is a MEChA stance. I read the Juan Non-Volokh piece, and in his fisking of Barlow, he also made one mistake that I noticed immediately. He linked to the Berkeley MEChA website, which links to that Aztlan plan that everyone is quoting. However, and there probably is no way Non-Volokh could have known this, Berkeley MEChA is actually not the official MEChA of Berkeley — they split off from the regular MEChA. The regular MEChA branch, however, doesn’t have a website. The Berkeley MEChA is decidedly more radical. You can check out the Office of Student Life listing of student groups and see that there are two MEChA’s listed (this website is for last semester, neither MEChA has registered for the Fall yet). What this says to me is that each MEChA branch is likely to have its own statement of purpose, so someone needs to investigate the branch that Bustamante actually belonged to before they demand that he renounce anything.

I certainly didn’t know that. Hat tip to Henry, who tipped me off.

September 02, 2003

Stories

Posted by Ted

About a month ago, there was a press release from Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club. They had filed a FOI act claim against Dick Cheney’s secretive energy task force. Among the documents that they had obtained were maps of Iraq’s oilfields and a document entitled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” Some people took this as proof that the war on Iraq had been planned before September 11, 2001, in order to transfer control of Iraqi oilfields to American companies. After a few small mentions in the mainstream media, the story died, except on left-wing blogs.

I don’t know why the story didn’t hit the national news. Maybe it was because Dick Cheney’s office stonewalled, and the press couldn’t get enough information to make it a worthwhile story. Maybe the media is so cowed by right-wing carping that they won’t pursue stories about right-wing malfeasance without either airtight evidence or a lot of momentum from the press pack.

But I’d like to believe that the story died because honest reporters looked into the allegations and saw that it was a bullshit story. There is nothing suspicious about an energy task force gathering information about major oil wells, no matter where they are. Oil is a commodity, Iraqi oil was on the market under the oil-for-food program, and it would have been very strange if Cheney’s group had neglected this. Furthermore, when you read the “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts” document, it seems to be all about non-US companies who began working with the Iraqi oil company under the oil-for-food progam. There are no American companies on the list.

I bring this up because the same news outlets whose commitment to truth and honesty brought you such bullshit stories as “Paul Wellstone’s memorial was nothing but a political rally,” “Bill Clinton’s staff vandalized the White House on the way out,” and “Gen. Wesley Clark is a deranged liar” are proud to bring you a new one:

“Cruz Bustamante is refusing to repudiate his association as a student with the racist group MEChA. Why is the media ignoring this story?”

Now, the MEChA question actually seems to come up quite a bit in stories about Bustamante. But I can’t deny that major media haven’t given the question the prime-time treatment. Why is that? Again, I don’t know. I’d like to think that it’s because the media have examined the charges, called some members of MEChA, and decided that a full-court press is inappropriate.

You see, this is a bullshit story.

Let’s look a little closer.

First of all, is MEChA, in fact, a racist organization? (Or as Glenn Reynolds put it, is MEChA a group of “fascist hatemongers”?)

It seems to me that this question rests on a more basic question: “Is MEChA, in any meaningful sense, an organization?” According to Rodolfo F. Acuna:

MECHA is a student organization with no formal central body, it has no national office, it has no budget, and it has no constitution. Each MECHA chapter has a set of bylaws that the student affairs office must approve. These bylaws state that the organization is open to all students no matter their race, sexual orientation, gender or religion.

Now, the distinction between a “constitution” and a “set of bylaws” leaves some room for fudging. It does seem apparent, though, that a chapter of MEChA at UCLA can be quite different from a chapter at Yale. But both groups are forbidden to discriminate by race, which seems like a strange bylaw for a racist organization of fascist hatemongers. Since so many conservatives have said that MEChA is the moral equivalent of the Klu Klux Klan, I can only assume that the Klan is open to everyone, regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender or religion.

(UPDATE: Rodolfo Acuna is wrong (and by extension, I’m wrong) that MEChA has no constitution. Tacitus points to this document, which certainly appears to be a constitution.)

(Side note: I was a member of a music fraternity at Northwestern. Unlike MEChA, this organization has a national office and a constitution. Nonetheless, some the chapters are very different from each other. For example, some chapters are quite proudly redneck, and some are predominantly gay. I should also say that many, many members would be horrified if someone was to quote me and then conclude that the group is a liberal organization.)

I don’t know how trustworthy Rodolfo Acuna is. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that it makes sense to think of MEChA as a nationwide organization, rather than a group of student organizations who share a name.

Is MEChA a hate group?

There are certain organizations who keep close tabs on hate groups. The most well-known is Tolerance, a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center. They don’t consider MEChA to be a hate group. (And they’re not blind to Latino extremism; they do consider Voz de Aztlán to be a hate group.)

The Hate Directory does not include MEChA in its lengthy list of hate groups. Neither does The Ross Institute

I don’t know anything about the Hate Directory or the Ross Institute. It is possible that their lists are just a product of their own bias, or of the obscurity of the MEChA organization.

However, there are about 300 chapters of MEChA all across the country. If MEChA is a “fascist hatemongering” organization, it has spread its horrid tentacles into 300 colleges and high schools. I’m a little surprised that the fascism and hatemongering of this organization only came to anyone’s attention when they could be used to discredit a Democratic politician.

The actual members of MEChA seem to be a little surprised to hear it described as a hate group.

Even during the campus tumult of the ’60s and ’70s, MEChA, which stands for Movimieto Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (Chicano student movement), was more dedicated to peaceful political activity at the colleges than to revolution in the streets, its supporters say.

“MEChA has always been a group to incorporate Latino students into the college experience,” said Fernando Guerra, head of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University, which has a chapter on campus.

“It’s bizarre to assume this is some kind of radical group, seeking to overthrow part of the United States,” said Mike Madrid, who has worked on Latino affairs for the state Republican Party. “It was part of the Brown Beret and Chicano studies movement, but it’s mainly a social group and has been for years. To suggest it’s involved in paramilitary training or some underhanded conspiracy is ludicrous.”

….

Plenty of Latino politicians and businesspeople were involved with MEChA during their college days, said Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund.

“MEChA was basically the Hispanic student organization on campuses,” said Vargas, who was a MEChA member at Stanford in the 1980s. “Anybody who had a sense of social activism and community involvement probably found their involvement through MEChA.”

For many, the group was a springboard into politics.

“For me, and many, many others, we were running for student government,” Bustamante said Thursday. “That’s how I got here.”

Of course, not everyone will trust these Latino activists to be fair and balanced. They probably wouldn’t trust Tacitus’s commentator, either:

When I was in high school, I joined MEChA for one semester. It’s actually pretty funny in retrospect because I’m not Mexican. But I grew up in Highland Park (Northeast Los Angeles) and almost EVERYONE I knew was Mexican, or Chicano, as was hip at the time. I was/am Dominican, but all my friends were Mexican, so I was a Mexican when it came to the culture and customs of the neighborhood. At that time (late 70’s) MEChA, at my high school, was more a positive organization than it is today. There were many Mexican gangs in the area, and MEChA counseled to “Get an education. Stay away from gangs. Stay away from drugs. Don’t drink. Be responsible. Make something of yourself.”

I only stopped going to the meetings because they interferred with my sports teams. But back then it was a very positive experience.

I’d hate to think that someone could demean what I’ve accomplished by using my membership in MEChA 20+ years ago to “smear” me.

Ed

Gosh, Ed, where did you get that idea?

Is the official slogan of MEChA “For the Race, Everything. For Those Outside the Race, Nothing”?

I don’t know. I did a google seach on “For the Race, Everything. For Those Outside the Race, Nothing” and MEChA. Maybe someone can correct me, because I couldn’t find a MEChA site which used that phrase. They seem to think that their slogan is “La union hace la fuerza (Unity creates power)”.

I did get a lot of hits, though, from such diverse sources as:

Capitalism magazine

The Conservative Crust

Michelle Malkin

NewsMax

And FrontPage Magazine

So who knows? On the one hand, you have the actual websites of the actual group in question. On the other hand, you have the honor and integrity of NewsMax, FrontPage Magazine, and Michelle Malkin. I guess, as Jack Shafer would say, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

I should say that conservative commentators didn’t just make up this phrase, although they may have mistranslated it. It comes from a document called El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan that is prominently linked by several MEChA chapters. Mickey Kaus says that a better translation might be “By means of the Race, everything. Outside the Race, nothing.” or “On behalf of the Race, everything. Outside the Race, nothing.” In some ways, I’m not totally comfortable with the tone of the document in question. But I’m not sure how much it has to do with the character of MEChA 30 years ago, or the character of the organization today.

My honest opinion, after a lot of surfing and reading, is that some MEChA chapters seem to exhibit a brand of identity politics that I don’t approve of. They seem to be very touchy and very PC. Some chapters seem to be social clubs for Latino students. Some chapters seem to be very positive, stressing individual achievement and educational outreach to Latinos at risk. Nothing makes me think that this is a racist, fascist, or hatemongering organization.

Even if MEChA itself isn’t a hate group, isn’t it closely associated with hate groups like Voz de Atzlan?

Good question. Tacitus has spent a lot of time concentrating on MEChA “fellow travellers”.

Mechista fellow-travellers are people like Professor of Chicano Studies at the University of New Mexico Charles Truxillo, who proposes the formation of an Aztlán-style polity called La Republica del Norte “by any means necessary.” … Mechista fellow-travellers are also people like Hector Carreon and Ernesto Cienfuegos, who vigorously tout the idea of Aztlán via their website. I wouldn’t click on this link at work — Aztlán.net is a hate site as surely as any Aryan Nations site is. Their target of choice? The Jews, of course….

A quick tour of their site will reveal that Voz de Atzlán is, indeed, a loathsome racist group. Of course, Southern Poverty Law Center seems to believe that there are only about a dozen members (link via Orcinus). Cruz Bustamante, needless to say, has never been one of them.

As far as I can tell, Voz de Atzlán doesn’t link to MEChA, and I haven’t find a MEChA page that links to Voz de Atzlán. (I’m not saying they don’t exist; there are hundreds of chapters out there, and I’m not reading them all.)

If Bustamante is a “fellow traveller” with Voz de Atzlán, it makes sense that they would be generally supportive of Bustamante, right?

LA VOZ DE AZTLÁN NEWS BULLETIN
August 11, 2003

…Once again, Mexican-Americans are caught in a quandary within the two party dictatorship. Cruz Bustamante of the Democratic Party does not seem to be a viable alternative. He appears to be a mere hispanic “replica” of the incompetent and crooked Gray Davis who is called “Our Jewish Governor” by the Jews of California.

Well, maybe Bustamante isn’t sufficiently hard-core for la Voz. Fair enough. But at the very least, surely Bustamante’s fellow travellers in Voz de Atzlán would encourage Latinos to support Bustamante in the recall?

La Voz de Aztlán Editorial
Los Angeles, Alta California
August 7, 2003

…There is no question that the incompetent and corrupt Gray Davis will be ousted. Most Californians would like to recall the entire current legislature as well. We are fed up with the entire bunch of sleazy politicians. They have sold out the interests of the people to greedy special interests. It is time to “terminate” all of them. Perhaps, “The Terminator” who is already a millionaire and not a professional politician can accomplish this on behalf of the people.

Wait, that makes it sound like they’re supporting Schwarzenegger. Not Bustamante.

Funny, I don’t remember hearing that before.

As a point of comparison, are the ties between MEChA and Voz de Aztlán weaker or stronger than… say…. the ties between the NRA and “Patriot” anti-government militias? (Hint: Weaker.) Would conservative commentators jumping on the anti-MEChA bandwagon agree with a hypothetical left-wing movement which demanded that Republican candidates distance themselves from the NRA? (Hint: No.)

For that matter, are the ties between MEChA and Voz de Aztlán weaker or stronger than the links between the Republican party and David Duke? As you may know, David Duke ran for the Louisiana State Legislature, and won, as a Republican. Running as a Republican, Duke won 43.5 percent of the vote in an unsuccessful 1990 U.S. Senate race and won 700,000 votes in a 1991 race for the governorship of Louisiana.

I rush to point out that David Duke’s candidacy was in no way endorsed by the GOP organization, and they certainly had no use for him. Well… maybe “no use” isn’t quite the right term. They got some use out of David Duke’s mailing list. In 1995 and in 1997, Republican Mike Foster paid $152,000 for mailing lists of David Duke’s supporters. (Foster, understandably but illegally, kept the purchases secret. He was fined $20,000 by the Louisiana Board of Ethics for “failing to accurately … report campaign expenditures.”)

Mike Foster was George W. Bush’s campaign manager in Louisiana in the 2000 presidential elections.

Bustamante has been asked about his 30-year old ties to MEChA. He hasn’t renounced them. Many on the right are very upset about that.

What happened when George W. Bush was asked about his contemporary, continuing ties to Mike Foster, a man who had bought lists of white supremicist-backers for his own campaign and broke the law to conceal it? Did Bush show the moral clarity he’s famous for?

When asked a few weeks ago whether Foster, who is now Bush’s Louisiana campaign chair, should have purchased a mailing list of racists to target for votes, Bush said, “Here’s my position. Gov. Foster is a good and decent man. He’s an honorable fellow. I respect him a lot. I’m fortunate to have him as a friend and ally.”

When asked if he would have purchased a mailing list, Bush said, “I don’t know all the facts. I don’t know what the facts are. I do know I trust Mike Foster, and know he’s a good man.”

I’m just saying.

Last question. Bustamante could have defused this controversy by distancing himself from MEChA earlier on. Why didn’t he?

Good question, and I don’t know the answer. Maybe, as Mickey Kaus and others have asserted, it’s a way to energize Latino voters. Maybe, as Glenn Reynolds has insinuated, Democrats “care more about winning than they do about racism.”

Or maybe it’s this. Michelle Malkin points out that other former Mechistas include California State Assembly Speaker and Los Angeles mayoral candidate Antonio Villaraigosa, State Assemblyman Gil Cadillo, State Sen. Joe Baca, and Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva. I’m not familiar with those politicians. However, I’m a bit of a political junkie, and I’ve never heard of any of them making any attempt to cede the Southwestern United States to Mexico. At first appearance, all they seem to have in common are Latino surnames.

If I were of a conspiratorial mindset, I’d start to think about this: Cruz Bustamante is a moderate Democrat with a thirty year political career. As far as I know, no one even tried to accuse him of Latino extremisism on the basis of his record in public service. He’s so moderate that he’s endorsed Joe Lieberman for president.

And yet many on the right are trying to tie him to a repugnant extremist philosophy. The only evidence that they have is his involvement, thirty years ago, in an organization that no one considered extremist a few weeks ago. (I can’t blame them; it’s more fun than trying to justify voting for an actor with no budget plan, no ideas, and no political exprience.)

I might start to think that the right was engaged in a cynical smear job, blurring the difference between mainstream and extremist Latino organizations in order to hurt a winning Latino Democrat. I’d start to think that just about anyone who was a member of a Latino student group in college could be tarred in exactly the same way. I might think that if they succeed with Bustamante, they’ll do it the next Latino Democrat, and the next one, and the next one.

So here’s one theory. Maybe his experience with MEChA was completely benign. Maybe Bustamante hasn’t distanced himself because he’s reflected on his experience with MEChA, and he’s doesn’t see any reason why he should. Maybe he has decided that when people with no principles start telling him to jump, he’s not obligated to ask, “How high, sir?”

Maybe, in his politically tone-deaf way, Bustamante is acting like a man.

But I’m just guessing.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds has pointed out that I had typed “Bustamente” instead of the correct name, Bustamante. I regret the error, and it has been corrected.

I should point out that I am Ted Barlow, not Crooked Timber, and I can’t assume that the other members of this blog share my conclusions of Bustamante and MEChA.

August 27, 2003

Hitchensian nastiness

Posted by Chris

Christopher Hitchens has a review of Robert Dallek’s John F. Kennedy biography in the Times Literary Supplement. Hitchens doesn’t exactly hold back from laying into the Kennedy cult, and I would have expected him to be highly critical of Kennedy’s record in office. I have to say, though, that I found the manner of Hitchens’s revelling in Kennedy’s physical ailments somewhat arresting. I won’t go through the whole catalogue here, but Hitchens’s judgement is this:

Obviously, a good deal of “spin” is required to make an Achilles out of such a poxed and suppurating Philoctetes. The difference was supplied by family money in heaping measure, by the canny emphasis on a war record, and by serious attention to the flattery and suborning of the media.

And when I read the following, I was somewhat shocked:

But the furthest that Dallek will go [in agreeing with the Hitchens view that Kennedy’s ailments made him unfit to be President] here is to admit – following Seymour Hersh’s earlier book The Dark Side of Camelot – that Kennedy’s back-brace held him upright in the open car in Dallas, unable to duck the second and devastating bullet from Lee Harvey Oswald. This is almost the only connection between the President’s health and his fitness that is allowable in these pages, and I presume that it is its relative blamelessness which allows the concession.

“Relative blamelessness”? I’m not sure where the “relative” comes into play here. It must mean something like “somewhat blameworthy, but not as blameworthy as some of Kennedy’s other disabilities.” It is, at any rate, a poisonous phrase which would certainly attract Hitchens’s disapprobation in other, all too easily imagined, contexts.

UPDATE: The link above has now become non-functional. The curious had better consult the print edition.

August 25, 2003

Flight risks

Posted by Henry

I’ve just returned to the US after a long holiday in Ireland, and had an interesting, if unpleasant, experience on my way back. When I tried to check in to my American Airlines flight at Heathrow, the ticket agent, and then her supervisor, refused to give me a ticket. US immigration authorities require that all non-visa travellers to the US have a return or onwards flight to be allowed to enter the country. I had an onward flight to Toronto, where I teach and work, but for some reason, the American Airlines people wouldn’t accept it. At first, they claimed that I needed to have a return flight to London, and London alone to satisfy US immigration requirements. Then they changed their story, and claimed that because I was going to be returning to the US later (my onward flight was a return from Washington DC to Toronto), US immigration authorities wouldn’t accept it. I strongly suspect that the real reason was that I had an electronic ticket, and they weren’t very familiar or comfortable with them. Certainly, when I went through US immigration, the official had no problems whatsoever in letting me through.

So far perhaps, unsurprising - another instance of heightened security measures, twitchy airline employees etc. The interesting bit is what comes next. The American Airlines supervisor tells me that each time someone gets sent back by US immigration officials, American Airlines has to pay a $3000 fine. However, they’ll let me get on the plane on one condition - I have to buy a fully refundable one-way ticket back to London. This is to satisfy US immigration authorities that I have a return flight so that they don’t fine the airline - but as soon as I pass through immigration, I can go to an American Airlines desk, and get the ticket torn up and refunded. In other words, the airline was abiding by the letter of US immigrations regulations as it understood them, but flouting these regulations’ intention - and requiring me passively to cooperate with what it was doing if I wanted to board the flight. The airline supervisor gave me to understand that this was their standard practice.

This policy is obviously very problematic for travellers - I’d have been stuck in London if I hadn’t had a credit card with enough of a limit to pay for this temporary ticket. I was able to buy it in good conscience because it was clear that the airline was wrong in its interpretation of US immigration requirements - my original onward flight to Toronto would have sufficed perfectly well for US immigration authorities, so that I wasn’t seeking to evade the law in doing what American Airlines told me to do. But the airline’s policy says something more profound about current US aviation security policy. In part thanks to the unwillingness of the US administration to expand federal government employment, US authorities are relying more and more on airlines and other private actors to act as gatekeepers for them, threatening whopping fines if the airlines don’t cooperate. But sanction-and-control only goes so far because airlines, like other business actors, are motivated by the bottom line. Thus, in many situations they’re going to comply with the formalities of the regulations, so as to minimize their legal exposure, but look for ways to circumvent the intentions of the rule, so as not to turn paying customers away. I suspect that this isn’t only true of airlines - I’d be interested to know more, say, about banks’ compliance with Treasury rules on money flows, where I imagine that there might well be similar legalistic dodges and evasions.

August 24, 2003

Nickel and Dimed redux

Posted by Chris

Jon posted last month about the controversy surrounding the adoption of Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed at the University of North Carolina. I notice the latest issue of the Progressive has a column by Ehrenreich about her experience of the argument, and how it was for her on North Carolina talk radio.

August 20, 2003

Job Creation

Posted by Brian

When I first saw this line on the new Bush campaign website, I thought it must be another parody.

Ruth supports President Bush because… of his work for job creation and economic growth.

You know, if my job creation record looked like this, I think I would be trying to pretend I’d had other priorities the last 30 months or so.

August 19, 2003

Polls and Margins

Posted by Brian

I was a little puzzled by something Kos said in discussing the latest polling from New Hampshire. The poll has Dean at 28% and Kerry at 21%, among a sample of 600 voters. The poll officially has a margin of error of 4%, so Kos was unwilling to call it a clear lead for Dean. This policy strikes me as rather conservative.

One might try reasoning as follows. It’s conceivable, given the poll numbers and the MOE, that Dean is as low as 24%. And it’s conceivable, given the poll numbers and the MOE, that Kerry is as high as 25%. So it’s conceivable, given the poll numbers and the MOE, that Kerry is above Dean.

I think this really is how poll readers often reason, and it’s clearly invalid. What would justify the last step is that if it was conceivable that Dean was at 24% and Kerry was at 25%. But that doesn’t follow from the data we have. From knowing two things are individually conceivable, it doesn’t follow that it’s conceivable they are true together. Example: given what I know about tomorrow’s weather (next to nothing) it’s conceivable that it will rain, and it’s conceivable that there won’t be a cloud in the sky all day. But it’s not conceivable, even given my puny knowledge, that it will rain while there isn’t a cloud in the sky all day.

Now there’s not many analogies between the poll reader’s argument and my weather argument, except their common logical form, so one may wonder if there is a better way to justify the conclusion that we can’t know Dean is ahead of Kerry. Here was the best test I could come up with. It’s pretty crude, and I’d be interested in knowing whether there’s something with a greater theoretical justification that produces more plausible results.

I tried to see how probable it was that Dean would have a 7 point lead over Kerry given (a) a poll like this one, with 600 randomly chosen voters, and (b) the assumption that they are tied at around 25%. If I’ve run the simulations correctly, the probability of this is around 0.8%, or 0.008. Now comes the dubious step. (This step is known in some circles as the Prosecutor’s Fallacy.) Since the probability of the results given a tie between Dean and Kerry is 0.008, we’ll infer that the probability of Dean and Kerry being in a tie is 0.008. There’s really no theoretical support for that move, but it is hard to see how to get usable information from polls without doing something like that. So we conclude it is really very unlikely that Dean is not ahead of Kerry.

Is there a better way to get a usable number from the data? If not, is there any way to justify the last step, using perhaps some kind of independently justifiable priors?

August 05, 2003

License plate politics

Posted by Micah

I was in Washington, DC, over the weekend and noticed this license plate for the first time. Apparently, it came out a couple years ago and is now the default (though optional) license plate for the District.

dcplate.jpg

The story is that Clinton had this plate put on the presidential limousine just as he was leaving office, and Bush (who got only 9% of the vote in DC) had it promptly removed.

DC residents—almost 600,000 of them—pay federal taxes but have no representation in Congress. Conservatives don’t like the idea of granting DC residents representation. The main reason is that DC, which has a very large African American community, would elect liberal representatives. There are a number of possible solutions to the problem. Jonah Goldberg argues for the elimination of the federal tax in DC—he misleadingly calls it Representation without Taxation. (Even if there’s no taxation, where’s the representation?) Alternatively, there’s been some recent discussion about adding a voting seat for Washington, which would no doubt go to the Democrats, in exchange for an additional seat in Utah, which would go Republican. Not ideal, but certainly better than the status quo.

Tangentially, the idea of using license plates to make political statements has been finding its way into American courts. There were some stories about this back in February focusing on attempts by pro-lifers in some southern states to put “Choose Life” on their plates. Pro-choice advocates couldn’t decide whether to lobby for “Choose Choice” plates or to file suit to prevent the use of license plates for political purposes. States seem just as confused. Are they endorsing the messages put on license plates or simply providing a forum for political speech? Dahlia Lithwick has a nice piece in Slate discussing the first amendment issues raised by these questions. Read it here.

August 04, 2003

Michael Walzer interview in Imprints

Posted by Chris

A puff for one of my other collaborative projects: Imprints. The latest issue is now out and contains much of interest. The online content this time is an interview with Michael Walzer which ranges over many issues: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the morality of humanitarian intervention, Israel and Palestine, anti-Semitism, memories of Rawls and Nozick, the permissibility of torture, blocked exchanges and commodification, the narcissism of Ralph Nader, and much more. Read the whole thing - it is both enlightening and provocative.

When Bad Analogies Go Rancid

Posted by Kieran

So I trot over to Instapundit for the first time in several months and find the latest version of “The absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” defence for the lack of Iraqi WMDs. (It’s been interesting to see the Hawks all become experts on the subtle metaphysics of causation, events and omissions, incidentally. They sound quite Hegelian with that line.)

OBVIOUSLY, THE ANTHRAX-BY-MAIL ATTACKS NEVER HAPPENED — otherwise surely the FBI would have found something by now … And they’ve had access to the entire country for months! Years, even.

Er, they did find something, just after the attacks. I believe it was anthrax. It arrived in the mail. It killed some people. The FBI also know the places in the country where weaponized anthrax can be made. They’ve been in and out of them for 18 months. And could you remind me of the parallel Iraqi WMD attack on the United States? Sorry, what was your point again?

See ya in another few months.

First they Came for the Standby Passengers...

Posted by Kieran

… but I got a courtesy upgrade to business class, so who cares?

I’m waiting to hear why right-thinking, law-abiding folks should not be in the least bit worried about this recent discovery.

Washington has admitted the existence of a list, possibly hundreds or even thousands of names long, of people it deems worthy of special scrutiny at airports. … [This list] is entirely separate from the relatively well-publicised “no-fly” list, which covers about 1,000 people believed to have criminal or terrorist ties that could endanger the safety of their fellow passengers.

The strong suspicion of such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is suing the government to try to learn more, is that the second list has been used to target political activists who challenge the government in entirely legal ways. The TSA acknowledged the existence of the list in response to a Freedom of Information Act request concerning two anti-war activists from San Francisco who were stopped and briefly detained at the airport last autumn and told they were on an FBI no-fly list.

The activists, Rebecca Gordon and Jan Adams, work for a small pacifist magazine called War Times and say they have never been arrested, let alone have criminal records. Others who have filed complaints with the ACLU include a left-wing constitutional lawyer who has been strip-searched repeatedly when travelling through US airports, and a 71-year-old nun from Milwaukee who was prevented from flying to Washington to join an anti-government protest.

(Via Nathan Newman and Electrolite.)

July 31, 2003

Staying regular

Posted by Henry

The Economist (subscription required) has a rather silly editorial this week, deploring Congress’s efforts to push back FCC deregulation of the media industry. If you believe the Economist, the FCC was a disinterested champion of economic stability, while its “interested opponents” were shouting nonsense “about “grave threats to diversity of opinion in America, and even democracy itself.” Worse, the decision is a symptom of a wider malaise; “political meddling in regulatory policy is on the rise,” and the real problem is that “regulators, far from being unduly immune to the business of politics, are not sufficiently independent of the politicians.”

Even by the Economist’s bombastic standards, this is a fact-deficient piece of free-market puffery - its account of the politics behind the FCC battle is laughably inaccurate. But that’s by the way; what’s interesting is the broader lesson that the Economist wants to draw from the affair. It claims that politics and regulation shouldn’t ever mix. In making this argument, the Economist demonstrates a profound incomprehension of the actual relationship between politics and regulation. In fact, Congress’s 400 to 21 vote to smack down the FCC is a perfect example of how politics should work to correct regulators. But to see exactly why, it’s necessary to trudge through a little political science.

The Economist makes a rather grand claim - politicians should have nothing to do with regulation, because they’re too prone to engage in porkbarrel politics. It asks, rhetorically,

But why should regulators be political at all? Once the broad legislation is in place, the job of detailed day-to-day regulation, which is both highly complex and technically demanding, is best done wholly free of political interference. A good analogy is with central banking: within a broadly agreed political framework, it works best when the detailed decisions on monetary policy are taken independent of any outside political pressure.

This sounds quite convincing, because it’s half true. But the half that isn’t true is the important half. Roughly speaking, laws, which politicians draft, set out the important principles, while regulations, which regulators and bureaucrats draft, implement those laws in detail. Regulation involves things like quotas, quality standards, and very specific rules for very specific circumstances. As the Economist says, these rules are complex and technical. They’re also exceedingly tedious - I learnt most of my French from spending months wading through European Commission regulations on phytosanitary standards and the like (don’t ask). But - and this is the crucial bit that the Economist glosses over - these tedious details are often highly political. Millions and tens of millions of dollars can turn on technical-sounding and abstruse details of regulation. The levels of allowable pollutants in water may literally be a life-and-death matter. Regulation is politics - it’s just very complex politics.

David Epstein and Sharyn O’Halloran suggest that politicians will rely on specialized bureaucrats to draw up rules regarding matters that are too complex and technical for the politicians to decide on themselves. But politicians inevitably run a risk when they delegate authority to regulators. They don’t know that the regulators are going to implement politicians’ intentions faithfully; a regulating agency might have an agenda of its own. Indeed, regulatory agencies are often ‘captured’ by the constituencies that they’re supposed to be regulating, so that rather than, say, regulating the electricity industry in order to benefit consumers, they regulate the electricity industry in order to benefit the electricity industry. Sometimes, relationships between regulators and regulatees can get very cosy indeed. In order to mitigate this problem, politicians are likely to implement safeguards, and to reserve the right to make policy themselves if it appears that the regulatory agency in question has gone off the rails.

And, to return to the Economist article on the FCC, this is exactly what happened last week. The FCC, under Michael Powell, took a decision that manifestly favoured large, well-connected corporations in the media industry over the public interest, despite tens of thousands of protests. A well-organized grassroots campaign convinced politicians that this was a lousy decision, which ought to be overturned. And so (it appears) it has been. The Economist is quite simply wrong; not only does regulation involve politics by other means, but every once in a while, politicians need to interfere, to ensure that regulators do their job.

July 29, 2003

Frustration is not a Strategy

Posted by Kieran

Kevin Drum reports an exchange he had with Michael Totten. In a TechCentralStation column Michael says “The Palestinian Authority should be given one last chance to eliminate terror.” If they “fail,” the U.S. must classify the PA as a terrorist organization, “Declare ‘regime change’ in the West Bank and Gaza the official United States policy” and basically get rid of everybody:

The first phase would not be complete until the enemies of peace are defeated, deported, imprisoned, or killed. These include Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Yasser Arafat’s Fatah, the Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. It may also include the Palestinian Authority.

Kevin complains that, despite paying lipservice to the complexity of the problems, hawks often backslide into these kinds of kill-em-all policy proposals. Having grown up in Ireland, I can sympathise with the “Scorch the Earth and Salt the Fields” reaction. It’s a natural expression of justifiable anger and frustration. But the hawks never seem to pause to think how they might react if they and their kin were the targets of the kind of policy Totten advocates.

It is possible to destroy an entire terrorist organization, if it’s of the right sort. You can exterminate freefloating gangs like Bader-Meinhof, say. But outfits like the IRA and Hamas bear an entirely different relation to the society they inhabit. The the idea that you can just “defeat, deport, imprison or kill” everyone in these organizations is a Boys’ Weekly fantasy. It assumes the number of people you need to kill is fixed. Irish history is stuffed with examples of British administrators or soldiers who thought they could just get rid of “the rebel element” one way or another. Usually their policies had precisely the opposite effect. Lieutenant General Sir John Maxwell was the military commander who made sure the leaders of the 1916 Rising were executed one by one. I believe he said at the time that he intended his actions to ensure that “no whisper of rebellion would be heard in this country for a hundred years.” John Dillon, a politician who’d worked his whole life for a political solution to Irish self-determination, saw things more clearly:

You are letting loose a river of blood … What is happening is that thousands of people in Dublin, who ten days ago were bitterly opposed to the whole of the Sinn Fein movement and to the rebellion, are now becoming infuriated against the Government on account of these executions …

This sort of approach often has the side-effect of making agents of a supposedly legitimate democratic state do some of the same sort of things as the terrorists they are supposed to be supressing. The news that the U.S. Army has has been kidnapping the wives and children of Iraqi army officers (and even leaving ransom notes: “If you want your family released, turn yourself in”) fits with this pattern.

It ought to go without saying that the Middle East of 2003 and Ireland in 1916 are different in all sorts of ways, but to fend off any “moral equivalence” jack-in-the-box I suppose it needs mentioning. In a way the differences are precisely the point. You can’t treat these kinds of problems as if they can all be solved simply by pulling up the same weed. You have to make peace with your enemies, not your friends. That’s why it’s hard.

The bingo amendments

Posted by Micah

I think Henry’s post below about Will’s arrogance concerning EU constitutionalism is spot on. I was only planning to comment (again, see below), but I can’t resist piling on. Noting that the EU draft constitution contains language saying that “preventive action should be taken” to protect the environment, Will asks, “what in the name of James Madison is it doing in a constitution?” Of course, the obvious answer is that a constitution is, in part, an aspirational document. And aspiring to protect the environment is a legitimate goal of every state—and not merely a fleeting policy preference.

But, in fairness to Will, surely he could have picked some better examples. To find some, he might have turned to American state constitutions. Here are two of my favorites. The Oklahoma state constitution specifies the flashpoint of kerosene. But if EU politicians think that’s a bit too mundane, they can always look for inspiration to the 287 sections and 706 amendments of Alabama’s constitution. In particular, they might want to check out Amendment 612: Bingo Games in Russell County, or, of course, the bingo amendments for Jefferson, Madison, Montgomery, Mobile, Etowah, Calhoun, and St. Clair. Forgive me for leaving off the links for Walker (549), Covington (565), Houston (569), Morgan (599), Lowdnes (674), and Limestone (692) counties. If you read the Alabama state constitution carefully, you’ll find that you’re allowed to play bingo in those counties, too. Oh, and don’t forget about the the City of Jasper.

Tacit knowledge

Posted by Henry

There’s a lot of buzz in the blogosphere about a DARPA project which aims to predict terrorist attacks, assassinations and coups, through creating a futures market, in which traders can speculate on the possibility of attacks; the NYT picks up on it too. Most of the commentary is negative, but Josh Chafetz likes the idea, and invokes Hayek.

As I explained at length in a post on Hayek last year, complex systems function by finding ways to aggregate diffuse knowledge into simple indices, which then allow actors in the system to take advantage of knowledge that they don’t actually have (e.g., no one knows exactly what Americans’ breakfast cereal preference orderings are, but by watching the information-aggregating index that we call “price,” producers can generally ensure that, when you go to the supermarket, you’ll find the brand you want. Compare that to the shortages of some items and overproduction of others that centrally planned economies have produced). A futures market in terrorist attacks, while it sounds grisly, may help us to aggregate diffuse knowledge in a way that will prove superior to expert knowledge.

Seems to me though that Chafetz is wrong. As Chafetz suggests, Hayek makes some rather interesting arguments about the ability of markets to pick up on diffuse, tacit knowledge, and make it usable. And Hayek’s not the only one saying this; Michael Polanyi and GLS Shackle develop roughly similar ideas. But the key point is that Hayekian markets aggregate knowledge. They don’t create it. People tend to be tolerably well informed about their own tastes, and buying habits. Markets will do a good job of taking this diffuse knowledge and communicating it to producers. The general public is likely to be rather less well informed about the likelihood of coups, assassinations and general alarums, and thus the sum total of their tacit knowledge is likely to be an incoherent mess, or a product of shared cognitive biases, rather than a useful index of information. And indeed, DARPA’s “market” is aimed at the general public; it seems that random punters can sign up to participate on a first-come first-served basis. Whatever minimal amount of useful information is in there will almost certainly be drowned out by the noise.

This isn’t to say that information markets of this sort can’t be useful - but they need to involve people who have useful tacit knowledge to begin with. One of the problems with hierarchy is that valuable information sometimes doesn’t make it from the bottom of the organization to the top, because middle management blocks it, or because the boss doesn’t want to know. Anonymous information markets can potentially solve this problem. They might allow the people at the bottom of the ladder, who often have the best sense of what is actually going on, to share their information anonymously. Assuming that their decisions to buy and sell are kept confidential, management can’t punish them for not sticking to the corporate line. For example, one could create an information market that would allow anonymous CIA analysts to express their skepticism about Iraqi WMDs by shorting WMD “stocks” without fearing reprisal from on high. This would actually be a rather useful exercise. I wonder why DARPA isn’t funding it?

July 26, 2003

Reason, Truth and History

Posted by Kieran

Dan Drezner weighs in about the reasons for the war in Iraq and, in particular, whether a President might be justified in lying to the country in order to invade. Steven Den Beste believes that the nation wasn’t told the real reason for invading, but that the ends justify the means. Josh Marshall thinks that this is unjustifiable.

Dan argues as follows:

1) They’re both wrong on the ethical question. Marshall and Den Beste assert deception because they both assume a monocausal argument for why the U.S. went to war. The truth is much messier.

Quick, why did the Northern states fight the Civil War — to end slavery or to preserve the Union? Did Germany decide to enter World War I because of its fear of Britain’s existing power, its concern over Russia’s emerging power, or its reliance on a grand strategy that stressed offensive military operations? …
bq. Scratch an honest historian or international relations scholar, and s/he will tell you that all of these answers have some validity. States often go to war for a melange of reasons that go beyond self-defense. …

This is why I can’t accept the “Bush lied” meme. I agree with Marshall and Den Beste that the administration emphasized the WMD issue more than the others. However, Saddam’s treatment of his citizens and the desire to spread democracy to the Middle East were mentioned on a fairly regular basis. There is a clear dividing line between lying and spinning, and the administration’s explanations for why an invasion of Iraq would be a just war fall into the latter category.

On the ethical question then, I guess I side with Den Beste.

Dan begins by saying both Den Beste and Marshall are wrong on the ethical question, but a few paragraphs later he says Den Beste is right. I think he does this because he moves the goalposts along the way. A historical explanation for why any large event — the U.S. Civil War, World War I — happened will most likely be complex and highlight multiple factors. Historians will happily debate them ad nauseam. However, Bush’s critics are not looking in the first place for an explanation of this sort. They want to know what the President’s reasons were for going to war: the reasons he was obliged to give the country as a democratically elected leader. The answer to that question is simpler and more direct than the grand historical issue. This is why Marshall can properly ask:

So, why is this little matter of the uranium statements such a big deal? Because it is a concrete, demonstrable example of the administration’s bad faith in how it led the country to war. To date that bad-faith has been all too apparent on many fronts.

The cold eye of history will judge the war, the reasons for it and its ultimate success or failure. But we don’t live in the light of hindsight. We’re stuck here now, uncertain of the future but lucky enough to live in a political system where leaders are bound at least in principle to give us good reasons for their actions, especially when it comes to something like a war. The likes of Den Beste can put on their cowboy hats, assume they’re part of the in-crowd and confidently assert that the big picture, or the drift of history and geopolitics, or the situation in the long-run, is sufficient to overcome scruples about misleading the public. But one of the chief projects of conservative thought over the past fifty years has been to dismantle the idea that a leader, a social class, or a nation can confidently assume that History is on its side. It’s odd to see the conservatives themselves, of all people, now moving toward the view that the need to adhere to the telos of history trumps the notion of democratic accountability in day-to-day politics.

July 24, 2003

Reaping what you Sow

Posted by Kieran

This piece of disingenuous nonsense from Volokh Conspirator Randy Barnett has already been kicked around by Henry and Brian, so I’m not going to write about it. But I’m pleased to see that Head Conspirator Eugene Volokh agrees with pretty much everything Henry has been saying.

Eugene attacks a Slate column which argues that conservatives in general — Ann Coulter, right-wing intellectuals, the White House, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all — are a monolithic unit differentiated only by their willingness to say what they really believe. Coulter is just a more loud-mouthed version of Ari Fleischer, and the Volokh Conspirators are separated from the wingnuts only by the occasional “empty semantic difference.” Eugene is properly outraged that someone would be so stupid or spiteful as to lump responsible conservatives like him in with Ann Coulter. He persuasively argues that when someone does this “it’s hard to give much credit to the rest of his moral — or logical — judgment.” Too true, Eugene. You should send Randy an email with a link to your blog or something — he’d really benefit from reading it.

Spoils of Victory

Posted by Brian

Like Henry I was bemused by Randy Barnett’s MSNBC effort. I was thinking of teeing off on some of the details, but Fisking is so 2002. And Henry’s and Tim Lambert’s responses are better than anything I could have done. So instead I’ll just mention something that arose almost in passing in the article.

The Supreme Court “decided the election” (rather than reversed a rogue Southern state Supreme Court and restore the rulings of local, mainly democratic, election officials).

I guess there is a typo here, and ‘democratic’ should be ‘Democratic’. Either way, there is something very odd about the fact that we can tell the political sympathies of electoral officials from their past public pronouncements.

In many sporting contests the winner one year gets an advantage the next time around. In the America’s Cup, the winner gets home field (home seas?) advantage. (And we’re all looking forward to Swiss ocean racing as a result.) In the World Cup and Champions League the winner traditionally gets a free pass to the final 32, though I’m not sure this is still the rule. But in American elections something more dramatic happens - the winner one year gets to be the umpire next time around.

The politicisation of the management of elections, including the politicisation of boundary drawings, is one of the most striking features of American politics. And, in many cases, one of the least attractive. (I of course think the Republicans are worse offenders than the Democrats, but I would think that wouldn’t I?)

It doesn’t have to be this way. In Britain (if I’ve read the relevant act correctly) anyone who has even made a donation over 200 pounds to a political party in the last ten years is ineligible to be an electoral commissioner, as are all party members. In Australia there’s no similar legislative bans on affiliations of commissioners, but I’ve never heard any complaints about biases of commissioners. And the commission, not Parliament or the executive, sets boundaries, decides on whether recounts will happen (and they do whenever an election is even close), designs ballot papers (and they look the same all over the country) and so on.

Compare this to the American system where all through the Florida recount the newspapers could easily report the political affiliations of every official who ever had to make a crucial decision. It’s hard to believe that this improves the integrity of the process. But it’s also hard to know what to do about it. Possibly because the parties are so incohesive (at least relative to world standards, though not I take it to historical norms in America) it seems everyone who is connected to governmental work in any way is affiliated to one party or the other.

I think it would be obviously desirable to have independent electoral commission, but I can’t imagine it happening any time soon.

July 23, 2003

Siren songs

Posted by Henry

Tyler Cowen has a couple of posts suggesting that there is a serious libertarian argument against initiatives like the US government ‘do-not-call’ list for telemarketers. His argument is that government shouldn’t be in the business of restraining peoples’ spontaneity.

(warning: lengthy argument follows)

To quote the core of Cowen’s argument:

Take those people who have put themselves on the list. Do they really not want to be called? Maybe they are afraid that they really like being called. That they will buy things. That they will be impulsive. Arguably those people have a rational controlling self, and an impulsive buying self, to borrow some language from Thomas Schelling. Why should we assume that the rational controlling self is the only one who counts (do you really want a life devoid of spontaneity?)? Why should our government be in the business of altering this balance in one direction or the other? Isn’t the market a better mechanism for balancing the interests of the conflicting selves? How many of you out there will be consistent? How about a government list for people who do not want to be allowed into casinos? Do not want to be allowed to buy cigarettes at the local 7-11? Do not want to be allowed to order dessert?

Cowen seems to have gotten a lot of email from people who argue either _a_ that telemarketers are evil (which is self evidently true, but beside the point), or _b_ that they themselves never buy from telemarketers. But this doesn’t address Cowen’s two main claims. First, he suggests that the government shouldn’t favour our propensity for self control over our propensity for spontaneity. Second, he states that the market likely provides a better mechanism for balancing spontaneity and rationality than the government. Even if he’s advancing these arguments half in jest, they’re worth thinking about, as they involve some tricky questions for political theorists, philosophers, economists, and others who pontificate on such matters.

Turning to the first point. For starters, no libertarian I, but it seems to me that when Cowen (correctly) argues that people aren’t consistent in their preferences, he’s jumping up and down on some very thin ice for libertarians. Ideas about individual autonomy, and how it’s best expressed through free choice in certain political and economic contexts, usually rest on the implicit claim that there is an individual there, who knows more or less consistently what she wants. If you start positing different ‘selves’ within the individual, with different ideas of what they would like and how to get it, you’re coming dangerously close to saying that people don’t really know what they want. And this, in effect, is what Cowen is arguing. If we want to “balance” rationality and spontaneity, then we want to limit the circumstances under which we can make rational long term choices that constrain us, and prevent us from behaving spontaneously in the future. In short, some kinds of choice should (sometimes) not be open to individuals, even if those choices are likely to harm no-one but the individual herself (and, even then, these choices will only ‘harm’ one aspect of the individual, her spontaneous self as opposed to her rational, controlling self). This seems to me to be a rather tricky argument for a libertarian to make, and to sustain. In fact, it’s the reverse image of some of the arguments made against libertarians - for example that addictive drugs should be illegal, because once we start shooting up, we may not be able to stop. Anti-libertarian arguments of this sort appeal to our long term self-interest as opposed to our short term, ‘spontaneous’ interest in getting high. Cowen’s argument does the reverse, suggesting that our ability to make long term choices should be limited lest it constrain our spontaneity. But, as should be apparent, the two arguments aren’t that far off each other - they both state that we should ‘limit’ one form of choice, in order to facilitate the other. And I suspect that they’re both, in the end, antithetical to libertarianism.

Second, let’s look at the claim that governments provide an inferior means of balancing spontaneity and long term interests than markets. There seem to me to be two claims; one implicit and one explicit. The first doesn’t hold, as far as I can see, and Cowen doesn’t actually provide any evidence in support of the second.

The first more or less implicit claim, is that the do-not-call list is problematic because it’s the government that is organizing it. This seems to me to be a non-starter. The government isn’t constraining choice here, it’s enabling it. More precisely, it is offering a new choice to consumers which they previously didn’t have - of telling telemarketers not to call them. If the government is “altering the balance,” it is doing so by opening up choices rather than shutting them down - i.e. it isn’t restricting the kinds of liberties that libertarians get het up about. It’s not coercing consumers to sign up. The only people who are being coerced are the telemarketers, who are being coerced only to respect the right of others to choose not to be called by them. To put it another way; would libertarians find the scheme objectionable if it was being run entirely by private actors? Say, for example, if the Direct Marketing Association had put together a really workable do-not-call list (rather than the half-arsed effort that it had). I suspect that libertarians would see this as laudable evidence of market forces at work. But the effects on individual consumer choice would be precisely the same.

The second claim that Cowen makes is that markets are a better way of balancing our controlling selves and our spontaneous selves than governments. He doesn’t adduce any real arguments or evidence for thinking that this is likely to be so, and I suspect that he’d have trouble in finding them. 1 In order to evaluate the respective merits of different means to balancing, you’d really have to have some valid and convincing metric for “deciding” the appropriate balance between the different claims of long term enlightened self interest, and short term spontaneity. And damn me if I know of any way of doing this in an intellectually defensible way. I suspect that Cowen’s claim, if you look at it closely, boils down to something like the following. “Markets are more likely than not to favour spontaneity over long term rationality. By and large, I prefer free scope to be given to spontaneity, rather than careful long term planning, when the two come into conflict. Therefore I, and people like me, should prefer markets over government.” Which is all very well and good, but isn’t going to convince people with dissimilar preferences.

Now this is a rather lengthy response to a throwaway argument, but I think there are some interesting issues buried in here. How well does libertarian claims about social order work, if you assume that people are subject to certain kinds of inconsistency? My suspicion, as articulated above, is that they don’t work well at all. How do libertarians deal with individual forms of choice that are deliberately meant to foreclose future choices that the individual might make? Surely, some libertarian, somewhere, has dealt with this set of problems. The only person I know who has done serious work on this is erstwhile analytic Marxist, current day unclassifiable leftie, Jon Elster. Two of his books, Ulysses and the Sirens and Ulysses Unbound, show that these problems are endemic to many important forms of choice.

1 Broader efficiency claims for markets rest, of course, on assumptions about the consistency of preferences, which Cowen has junked at the beginning of his post.

Update: Ogged has further criticisms.

Addendum: Reading over Cowen’s post again, it strikes me that precisely the argument that he’s making over the do-not-call list can be made with regard to the sale of pension plans on the market. Pension providers, by giving us the choice of signing up to schemes where we put away a chunk of our disposable income every month, are altering the balance between our rational controlling selves and our spontaneous selves. As already noted, the actual nature of the provider (government in Cowen’s example; a private firm in mine) is a red herring - the important bit for the argument is how their provision of something affects individual choice.

Addendum II - David Glenn emails to point to this very interesting paper by Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler, which starts from similar arguments about limitations in human rationality and consistency, to argue on behalf of a “libertarian paternalism.” Good, thought-provoking stuff.

July 20, 2003

Rhetorical Equivalence

Posted by Kieran

Slowly recovering from jetlag here in Canberra, I’ve been catching up with some of the blogchatter about Yellowcake and the infamous sixteen words. I’m struck by a peripheral aspect of the debate. Before the invasion, many anti-war protestors used the slogan “Not In My Name” or something similar. That line was derided by pro-war commentators as epitomising the supposedly self-indulgent or solipsistic attitiude of the anti-war movement. So it’s interesting that, in the wake of the controversy over the State of the Union speech, hawks like Daniel Drezner respond like this:

I understand why Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, and others are so exercised about the “sixteen little words” meme. The uranium question — and the blame game that has erupted along with it — manages to undercut two pillars of strength for the Bush team. …

I can’t get exercised about it, however. My reasons for supporting an attack on Iraq had little to do with the WMD issue. The uranium question was part of one rationale among many the administration gave for pushing forward in Iraq. I’m not saying this should be swept under the rug, but the level of righteous indignation that’s building up on the left is reaching blowback proportions.

Dan can be relied on to have made as well-argued and well-supported case for war as possible, but at this point I really don’t care what it was, for the same reasons the hawks had no time for the “Not In My Name” line. The substance of the President’s case for war is what matters, and it had everything to do with “the WMD issue.” If that case was built on a series of lies — immediate threat, 45-minutes to deployment, uranium from Niger and all the rest of it — then that is something to get exercised about.

July 16, 2003

Spook Central

Posted by Maria

Does America need a new agency to combine law enforcement and intelligence functions, AKA spy on American citizens?

An invited think-piece in last week’s Economist (Friday 11 July) puts the case for creating yet another US intelligence agency. The six former intelligence and law enforcement heavyweights who wrote the piece say the new Terrorist Threat Information Center which will integrate and analyse information provided by law enforcement and intelligencies is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough. The FBI, they say, is too law enforcement focused, and doesn’t do enough domestic intelligence gathering. They want to create an elite and effectively autonomous agency within the FBI to do domestic intelligence gathering and counter-terrorism. The piece acknowledges that the public won’t like the idea of a secret police, but says that ‘rationally drafted legislation, the extension of Executive Orders, congressional oversight and a well-informed American media’ should meet public concerns. Well, aside from the fact that all of the above have failed to meet public concerns regarding the Total Information Awareness project (Oops, ‘Terrorist Information Awareness’), I think there are some real problems with this proposal.

First off, the NSA’s FAQ lists 13 different federal organisations that already form the US ‘intelligence community’. And those are the ones we know about. Then there are little coteries like
Rumsfeld’s high level clique in the DoD whose ideologically-driven analysis seems to have gotten the government into all sorts of difficulty. Then add in the uncertainty of the massive institutional re-organisation and accompanying turf wars which comprise the Department of Homeland Security as we know it today. From a purely organisational point of view, it looks like the US needs more and better integration of its existing intelligence gathering and analysis organisations, and their government clients, and not the creation of an entirely new agency.

But the meat of this issue is an assumption the Economist article’s authors only imply; a new and unpleasant need for the US government to spy on its citizens. Or, to put it another way, to spy on them in a way that is more like how it spies on foreigners. Constitutional lawyers can tell us more about the likely Fourth Amendment limits to domestic intelligence gathering, but what worries me most is the blurring of boundaries between law enforcement and intelligence work, and its implications for justice and human rights. (This is happening in Europe as well, it’s just that the institutions and processes involved mean it’s behind closed doors.)

After 9/11, the US government realised that to deal with terrorists who operate at least partly within the US, much better coordination and information sharing was needed between law enforcement whose focus is domestic, and intelligence agencies that mostly focus outside the US. So, since 9/11 we’ve seen more information and analysis sharing between the two types of organisations, typified in the creation of the TTIC. The logic has gone the other way too, with law enforcement agencies taking on powers and using national security exemptions that were previously the preserve of the intelligence community. This blurring of the boundaries between intelligence and law enforcement agencies has come about because of a clear cut need, but it is creating some unexpected and rather unpleasant consequences.

In general, law enforcement and intelligence agencies operate in very different realms; domestic versus foreign, under enacting legislation and greater congressional/parliamentary oversight versus executive orders and much less oversight, and with procedures and institutional information (e.g. staffing levels, types and names of operations) being in the public domain versus being kept secret. Law enforcement agencies must aim ultimately to bring perpetrators to justice, and so have to follow the rules all the way to the end of a fair trial. Intelligence agences don’t work within these strictures, and don’t operate with the assumption that information they use for investigation will ultimately be made public in judicial proceedings.

Mixing these two very different types of organisation, and their operational imperatives, is causing lots of incongruity, and we’re seeing unsatisfactory hybrid institutions emerge, such as special military tribunals in offshore legal limbos. Yesterday’s Washington Post reported that the Department of Justice has refused to produce a key witness in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, citing reasons of intelligence and national security. Despite the view of a dissenting judge who argued that the other judges had not taken the delicacy of intelligence matters into due consideration, the trial may well collapse. At the same time, Tony Blair is in deep trouble regarding the Britons to be tried by military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay because he is a) unlikely to get a concession from his closest ally to try them in the UK and b) unlikely to successfully bring that case to trial in the UK in any case as it would not meet basic (civilian) legal requirements. Of course human rights groups in the UK argue that if these people couldn’t be tried in the UK, then they’ve no business being held at all. But the military and intelligence imperatives are quite different to those of a justice system: get information out of the internees, and use it to improve intelligence, then hang onto the internees indefinitely so they can’t spoil things by telling their friends what they’ve said, but in a way that stops anyone else from getting at the intelligence. The moral of the story is, when hard-won intelligence is at stake, there is no real chance of a fair trial. Maybe this seems ok when foreigners are in question, but would the American public accept it if US citizens were in the dock?

So the idea that the US should have a new secret police to seems to me to be a very bad one. The very nature of intelligence gathering means that in a domestic setting, it will go far beyond what is constitutionally and politically acceptable, and combining intelligence gathering with policing seems to preclude fair trials. Integrating information sharing and analysis is a fine idea. But a quasi-intelligence, quasi-law enforcement agency would further expose the glaring conflict between human rights and national security.

Australia/America

Posted by Brian

Via Virulent Memes, I see that an American-Australian academic is recommending Australia merge with the U.S. This kind of suggestion comes up a lot, though for some reason the suggestion always seems to be that Australia would become the 51st state. Wouldn’t it be better if the six Australian states stayed as separate states? Not sure.

The article doesn’t mention the obvious reason this merger won’t happen any time soon. Australians aren’t about to give up universal public health insurance, and Americans aren’t about to vote to bring that in. More generally, once they hear anything about it Australians aren’t going to voluntarily become part of the American health care system. (Would anyone?) Maybe there is some way Medicare could be converted to a state-based system and keep working, but I suspect this would be an insurmountable problem in the medium term.

What’s more interesting to think about is what the consequences would be politically if Australia joined America. I’ve always thought that Australians would vote overwhelmingly Democratic. The point isn’t that Australians are particularly left-wing, it’s just that (urban) Australian conservatives seem more like right-wing Democrats than like Republicans. (By ‘conservatives’ here I mean people who vote Liberal, not the self-labelled conservatives one sees on the op-ed pages. Some of them would be Republicans.) They believe in balanced budgets, don’t care for religious arguments in politics, have at least some sympathy for libertarian values, are pragmatists about gun control, are usually pro-choice, and so on. In other words, practically everything the DLC believes in. These people aren’t going to vote for Dennis Kucinich, or perhaps even Dick Gephardt (b/c of the union connections) but they would I think vote for Clinton, and probably Gore, much more than Bush. Obviously this is analysis is so simplistic to barely count as half-baked (maybe quarter-thawed?), but if it’s right maybe there are partisan reasons to push for a merger!

July 15, 2003

Billy Bloggs dead; moped for sale

Posted by Daniel

It came to my attention that Condoleeza Rice is attempting to explain to us that 16 words of outright falsehood isn’t really all that much in the context of a two hour speech, not all of which has yet been proved to be untrue. How wonderful; I never realised before that she had much of a sense of humour. I have never been a great fan of this kind of reasoning, ever since an unscrupulous waiter once convinced me (I was young and drunk) that one obviously putrid, blackish-green prawn wasn’t really all that much in the context of a very generous paella. Three bloody days on the pot I was because of that one.

Anyway, it gave me an idea for a competition; how much can you say, how grandiose and extraordinary a claim can you make, in 16 words? “Let there be light” is only four, so I’m guessing that things could get pretty extreme. “Let there be light and I did not have sex with that woman Miss Lewinsky” is fifteen words, and fits the spirit of the joke whose punchline forms my title above.

In terms of a blanket condemnation of as many things as possible, I’m going for “The set of all sets of sets of sets of sets of cardinality aleph(1) is evil” as my entry; if anyone thinks that they can better it, have at ye. I might award prizes, but most likely only the glory.

I also want to claim dibs on “The smallest claim which is too large to be expressed in fewer than sixteen words”, by the way.

July 13, 2003

Lean, Handsome, Deliberate

Posted by Henry

Kevin Drum complains about the writing style in an Esquire piece on Wesley Clark. The offending quote:

Look into his eyes. They’re not eyes so much as scanning devices—not quite predatory, no, but sort of an odd combination of jittery and calm, of patient and imploring, alert and exhausted, set back there in the hollows and shadows of his lean, handsome, deliberate face.

And Kevin’s comment:

At first, you just skip past this stuff, but when you actually think about it you start to wonder how the hell do they make this stuff up? Seriously, can you imagine yourself ever looking into somebody’s eyes and coming up with that paragraph to describe them? Me neither.

He’s not the first to complain about the vapidity of this descriptive approach, Myles na gCopaleen (aka Flann O’Brien, aka Brian O’Nolan) asks in the Irish Times (sometime in the 1940’s, ‘50’s or 60’s) whether:

you derive amusement from this funny way of writing English? It is very smart and up-to-date. It was invented by America’s slick glossy Time and copied by hacks in every land. For two pins I will write like that every day, in Irish as well as English. Because that sort of writing is taut, meaningful, hard, sinewy, compact, newsy, factual, muscular, meaty, smart, modern, brittle, chromium, bright, flexible, omnispectric.

Myles na gCopaleen is essential reading for all bloggers; the Best of Myles compilation is available in a limited edition (handprinted on camelskin vellum and bound between freeze-dried rashers) from Amazon for a small consideration. O’Nolan was an enemy of cant, hypocrisy and pabulum; his “catechism of cliche,” included in the Best of Myles, is of particular relevance for bloggers. One of these days, I might get around to writing an updated version; as Kieran has already shown, there’s scope for it.

July 12, 2003

Getting Pedantic about the SOTU

Posted by Brian

In Josh Marshall’s excellent reporting on the uranium claim in the State of the Union one of the frequent qualifications he makes is that what Bush said was “technically true”. Even if it worked, this would be a fairly pedantic defence if the White House insisted on it. At least in Australia it’s misleading the House that’s the hanging offence, not necessarily lying to it, and presumably the SOTU should be held to as least as high a standard as daily question time. But in any case the defence doesn’t hold up. For what it’s worth, Bush’s line wasn’t even technically true.

Josh has been attributing to Bush the line that the British said Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Africa. And that may have been true. (I’ll drop the ‘technically’ from now on, since I’m not sure there’s any difference between technical truth and truth simpliciter.) For instance, Josh today said:

Saying that the British said this was technically true. Thus the speech was technically true.

But this isn’t in fact what Bush said. From CNN’s transcript of the SOTU:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. (my emphasis)

In any version of English I’m familiar with, ‘learned’ is factive. You can’t learn something that’s false. I might come to believe that Sydney is the capital of Australia. I might even come to believe this on the basis of good information. (Or on the basis of a letter from someone offering $18,000,000 if only…) But I can’t learn this unless Sydney really is the capital of Australia.

I think the claim that ‘learned’ is factive should be fairly obvious, but if an argument is needed note that whoever learn something comes to know it, and one can only know what is true.

There’s an interesting question about what the status of a claim like The British learned that blah blah blah is if blah blah blah is false. Some people, too heavily influenced by Wittgenstein I fear, think that the sentence is just defective and is neither true nor false. (Many will put this by saying the sentence has a presuppositional failure.) I think that the sentence is just false. Either way, the sentence isn’t true, and unless ‘technically’ is a non-factive modifier, it isn’t technically true either.

If the claim about the British was put in to qualify the claim about Saddam, it backfired rather badly. If Hussein at some other (recent) time tried to buy uranium from Africa (and who knows, he probably did, I mean I’ve tried to buy African uranium from time to time for my DeLorean and I think Saddam had fewer purchasing options than I) then the unqualified claim would have been true. But since the British had no knowledge of this other transaction, what Bush actually said would still be false.

As I said, I’m not sure how much any of this matters. And to be fair to the administration, they don’t seem to be resting heavily on the pedantic defence. (Though see the fifth paragraph of this story for a possible exception.) That’s to their credit. The only point I had was that we don’t need to qualify our criticisms of them by worries about the ‘technical truth’ of the crucial sentence.

UPDATE (35 minutes later): Via Lambert on Atrios’s site I found that Tenet’s confession fudges this point, claiming that the speech said that the British said that Saddam had attempted to acquire uranium. Again, to be fair, Tenet doesn’t try to rest anything on this. (Contrary to the impression you might get from a quick read through Lambert’s post.) Tenet quite properly says the standards in the SOTU should be higher than this, and I suspect that the fudge here was an honest mistake.

SECOND UPDATE (36 hours later): Via Unfogged I found that Rumsfeld and Rice are now using the ‘technically true’ line at least as part of their defence. Ogged is right that there’s little point arguing the point put here in public - the important political issue is whether Bush misled the public, not whether he lied to it. I think it’s good to know all the details, including the fact that really it wasn’t even technically true. But if for some reason I was going on Meet the Press to talk about the issue, I wouldn’t spend much time on that detail.

July 11, 2003

Form letters

Posted by Henry

Grumpy US readers, who would like Congress to push the administration harder on what it did and didn’t know about WMD, should breeze over to Brett Marston’s blog for a nice example of how to bother your Congressperson, by framing the problem in terms of Congress’s powers and responsibilities. Tho’ readers with Republican congressional representatives may want to skip the bit on Republican hypocrisy and Clinton-bashing in their own letters.