« January 14, 2007 - January 20, 2007 |
Main
| January 28, 2007 - February 3, 2007 »
January 21, 2007 - January 27, 2007 Archives
Life Tenure
Mark Kleiman compares Sam Brownback's view that we should have "term limits for judges" to Alberto Gonzalez's belief that the constitution's guarantee of habeas corpus doesn't guarantee anyone in particular that right as examples of conservatives "shredding the constitution."
I think that's grossly unfair. Brownback is proposing changing a procedural element of our constitution. He's not asserting that the president has some general right to fire judges he thinks have been on the bench for too long. He's not even proposing to alter any of the rights-granting portions of the constitution -- he's proposing a procedural change. And not, I might add, a silly procedural change. Life tenure for federal judges seems like a bad idea to me -- something that probably made more sense during the Founding generation when people didn't live as long. But even if you think Brownback's proposed modification is a bad idea, there's clearly a world of difference between wanting to alter the structure of the constitution through legitimate means, and Bush/Gonzalez-style run-amok illegality.
New Entrants
Speaking of Sam Brownback, he's running for president. My guess is that he's going to prove to be a much stronger primary challenger than he's currently given credit for -- he makes much more sense as a GOP nominee than John McCain or Rudy Giuliani or some such. Also getting in the race is Bill Richardson. Nobody seems excited about his candidacy, but on rough outline a popular governor of a Southwestern state who also has foreign policy experience sounds an awful lot like a solid presidential candidate.
Good Weekend
What better way to follow up a Friday evening birthday celebration than by hosting a Saturday night birthday party for your roommates. Then you wake up the next day to one of the great sports Sundays of the year -- Sunday NBA on ABC premieres, followed by Conference Championship games.
Nevertheless, the AFC championship is just hours away and I still don't know what to do. With Pat Riley "on leave" from the Miami Heat, the Colts and the Patriots are now the two most loathsome teams in professional sports. I desperately want them both to lose. If New England wins, we'll need to hear once again about how quarterback/superhuman Tom Brady "knows how to win the big games." If Indianapolis wins, the one strike against Peyton Manning's career will be lifted and his insufferable face will no doubt be smeared across my television screen even more frequently. I'm hoping for injuries. Many, many injuries.
UPDATE: Let me also note that watching a full week of NFC coverage focusing on how nice it would be for those nice football players from New Orleans to win after their city's gone through so much what with that flood and all has given me a powerful hatred for the Saints -- go Grossman go! The Bears just hit N.O. like a category six football storm: Woo!
Are The Playoffs Different?
4th and 1 on the New Orleans four, and the Bears decide to go for it. Naturally, I approve. Neither of the announcers on TV agree with me. Interestingly, both announcers seemed to assert that the fact that this was an NFC Championship game increased the case for kicking the field goal rather than playing for the touchdown. But why would that be? I'm genuinely asking . . . thinking about it the relevant considerations in going for it seem to be simply the score, the time remaining, the yardage to the end zone, and the yardage needed for the first down. Are the playoffs different?
Around and Around It Goes
One thing I found myself thinking about last week was how quickly lots of liberals -- myself included, really -- have tended to be willing to accept the notion that John Kerry was some kind of uniquely unappealing candidate for national office in terms of his personal qualities. But of course before Kerry was super-lame, there was Al Gore and he was . . . super lame. And now here I am catching up on my Corner reading and look how personally unappealing Hillary Clinton turns out to be. And Nancy Pelosi, too! It's no surprise that conservatives try to turn every leading Democrat into not only an ideologically objectionable figure but a personally mock-worthy one as well. It is surprising how willing people are to internalize this stuff.
No matter who it is the Democrats nominate, that person is going to wind up mocked as obviously the wrong the choice; obviously just an absurd person who absurd primary voters picked over dozens of more appealing choices. Even Bill Clinton, you'll recall, was supposed to be some kind of gross "slick willy" figure.
Extremely Quiet Americans
Jeff Stein, a CQ reporter who used to be an intelligence officer in Vietnam, recounts how back during that war he had a daily routine to see if his spy had new information for him: "I’d drive by a soccer stadium in Danang, the large coastal city where I lived, and I’d look for a particular mark on the wall. If it was there, I’d go to a prearranged place at a set time for a clandestine meeting with a go-between." Danang wasn't the capital of South Vietnam, and "The war was raging in the jungles and rice paddies less than 10 miles away, and communist agents were everywhere in the city," nevertheless "security was good enough that they weren’t likely to risk exposing themselves by kidnapping or killing me." Even under those conditions, however, the US government never really got a grip on the situation and, of course, the American military effort was doomed to failure.
In Iraq, our intelligence is fantastically worse than that and "according to several well informed intelligence sources, hundreds of CIA operatives have become virtual prisoners in the Green Zone, the sprawling American enclave whose high walls and guards separate the U.S. embassy, military command and related civilian agencies from the raging sectarian violence in Baghdad’s streets." Stein quotes a former CIA Operations official as saying Agency personnel in Baghdad "spend their days playing cards and watching DVDs" because the insecurity makes it impossible for them to do their jobs. But, obviously, the military can't provide security without intelligence. Nevertheless, soldiers and spies alike keep being sent to Iraq to, in essence, wander in circles. Except they're wandering in circles in potentially lethal situations, dying and being gravely injured, inflicting serious wounds on others and destroying their property in attempts to defend themselves -- killing and dying for a clearly hopeless mission.
Via Henly who has further remarks.
Grading the Graders
David Brooks offers grades on the first 100 hours of the new congress, including this:
Prescription drugs: D. While they were the opposition, Democrats fulminated that the Republicans were so deep in the pockets of Big Pharma that they wouldn’t even let the government negotiate lower drug prices. But governing is harder than kvetching, and the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the Democratic plan would have a negligible effect on prices for the elderly.
The plan allows the government to negotiate, but doesn’t take the politically difficult step of giving it any leverage to actually lower prices. A symbolic gesture.
I agree with that. But am I to infer from this that Brooks would favor a toothier measure? The de facto price controls the right's economists have warned us about? I sort of doubt it, but I'd be interested to know.
Scapegoat at the Bat
In a true profiles in courage moment, John McCain announces that he'll stand tall against our failed national security policies by raking General George Casey over the coals at the hearings on his forthcoming appointment as Chief of Staff of the United States Army. I have no particular brief for Casey, who obviously did not bring this country fabulous successes in Iraq and who carried more than his share of water for George W. Bush over the years. Nevertheless, this is a raw deal in the extreme.
Highly-ranked career Army officers aren't like you and me and presumably Casey will just stand willingly and let the right scapegoat him in exchange for which he'll serve out his career and retire with little fuss. And if Casey's happy with that well then on some level it's no concern of mine. The larger political game, however, is perfectly clear -- we're supposed to believe that there was nothing wrong with the war except the bungling of the fool Casey and that the Great Leader Petraeus will save us all. It's probably the best play the war's supporters have left, but one did tend to believe that on some level McCain would have more respect for our armed forces and the officers who serve in them than to personally spearhead this sort of tawdry smear.
Why Oh Why Can't We Have Better Classicists
Victor Davis Hanson espies signs of progress all the world 'round and notes that "If the administration could get their proverbial rock of Sisyphus finally over the top, they would be surprised at how many Middle Eastern governments might profess newfound and opportunistic support, and, at home, how many pundits will readjust and now profess sorta, kinda, maybe not to have been so critical all along."
Um . . . I think Hanson may want to reacquaint himself with the Sisyphus character. If I could only square the circle, I'd be recognized as a major mathematician. Seems like as good a time as any to relink to Julian Sanchez's old Prospect satire imagining Bush pondering Camus.
I Don't Understand
Richard Just remains convinced that Iran is, in fact, likely to launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike on Israel, and at the same time disclaims possession of any knowledge about Iran or Iranian affairs and denies having a view as to the appropriate policy remedy for this threat. Frankly, I'm confused and don't really know what kind of argument one can mount under those circumstances.
UPDATE: I mean, really, anyone who doesn't think Iran is going to launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike on Israel isn't taking this issue seriously? Kenneth Pollack? Ray Takeyh? Really? Are there any real experts on Iran who agree with the Halevi/Oren/Just position on this? In my experience, stoking paranoia about an Iranian nuclear first strike has been an idiosyncratic project of The New Republic that not even The Weekly Standard has gone in for.
The Voyage of the Mimi
Okay, time for an informal survey. How many people know what The Voyage of the Mimi -- the classic 1980s-vintage educational series starring a young Ben Affleck -- is? I and many acquaintances regard it as a critical Generation Y cultural landmark, like Thundercats or the Oregon Trail, but a frighteningly large number of people don't seem to know anything about it and think it's weird that I know the theme song.
We watched it in my school in, I think, fourth grade and while I'm not sure I recall any of the core whale-related knowledge it was seeking to impart, I'm fairly certain that to this day I understand the basic principles underlying the construction of a solar still to collect condensation and provide drinking water in case you're ever stranded in the wilderness.
Blog for Choice Day
I'm afraid I don't have a very interesting answer to the question of why I'm pro-choice, but suffice it to say that since fetuses lack the cognitive functions that are constitutive of moral personhood, it's not wrong to kill them. One can introduce some additional complications into the equation but it's basically that simple. That legal abortion encourages premarital sex is feature, not a bug.
Senator Clinton
I try on this blog to always refer to New York's junior senator as either "Hillary Clinton," "Senator Clinton," or "Clinton," and never "Hillary." I'd thought about blogging on this question of nomenclature and labeling the "Hillary" alternative sexist, but I suppose that's complicated by the fact that Clinton and her aides encourage the "Hillary" usage (a less ambiguous case is referring to the Secretary of State as "Condi") but now that J. Goodrich and Mark Schmitt mention it, I may as well chime in as well -- unless you make a habit of being on a first-name basis with US Senators, don't call her "Hillary."
Public Financing
I'm not much of a "goo-goo," but I think it's hard to deny that our country would be much better served by a real system of public financing for campaigns. Along with reducing the power of big donors of the political system, a public financing situation would great mitigate the problem of uncompetitive elections. Gerrymandering has attracted a lot of indignation recently, and to some extent rightly, but realistically that's only a small piece of the puzzle. Any district of any shape or size has a median voter and it should be possible to run a competitive campaign in even a very conservative or a very liberal district. The problem, usually, is money -- there's only so much to go around, and it naturally tends to focus on a relatively small number of "winnable" seats. Public financing would guarantee that for every real candidate there was real money for a real campaign and incumbents everywhere would need to be on their toes.
That, of course, is exactly what incumbents don't like about public financing. I wish Zach Roth had been a bit clearer on that point in his otherwise excellent article on how public financing could really kill the GOP machine. To get it done, Democratic leaders would need to decide that they care more about the health of their political movement than they do about their personal job security, and that's naturally a hard sell. Meanwhile, the vague gesture in the direction of public financing that we already have -- the voluntary checkbox scheme for funding presidential elections -- is going deeper into collapse with every passing cycle.
Diplomacy for Torture
I think you've got to give this controversy to the Bush administration. After all, Maher Arar is an innocent man who we had kidnapped and shipped off to be tortured -- I'd put him on the terrorism watch list, too, as this is clearly a guy with some legitimate beef.
The specifics of the Arar case aside, the perplexing irony here is that the Bush administration's partner in torture in this case was none other than the nation of Syria. Yes, that Syria, the country too dastardly for us to conduct diplomatic talks with regarding the future of Iraq. The country whose government we keep issuing vague verbal threats to overthrow. One of the key dominoes on the board of the neocons' crazy game. I think it requires a genuinely sick group of individuals to have such a strong and robust opposition to attempts at diplomacy and international cooperation, especially with "bad" regimes, that can nonetheless be overcoming not in the interests of avoiding war but solely and exclusively for the cause of promoting the torture of innocent people.
UPDATE: See MJ Rosenberg for another side of the ened for engagement with Syria.
The Third Man
Trying to think of something novel to say about last night's debut of the Melo-Iverson Supernuggets, what I've got is that insofar as this team proves successful (beating Memphis is neither here nor there) it'll be because you're really looking at a three-headed monster here, not a duo. Marcus Camby is, when healthy, a very good true center in an era when true centers are in short supply. Last night he offered 17 points on 6-11 shooting. He pulled down 17 boards. He blocked three shots, had two steals, three assists, and zero turnovers. And he's the anchor of the defense. And defense is crucial to Denver's success. They rank high on points scored and points allowed measures because they play at a super-fast pace, but at least up until the debut of the superstar duo they've been better at defensive efficiency than offensive efficiency.
The point, at any rate, is that not only is that a lot of production, but it's production very few guys in this league can offer. Only Dikembe Mutombo in limited minutes and acknowledged star Dwight Howard have higher rebound rates, Camby's better than Howard on the defense end, and while he's not a stellar scorer he's not an offensive liability either.
Worthwile Ethiopio-American Initiative
Petey draws my attention to this example of the Bush administration appearing to do something clever in the Horn of Africa by arranging for the safe passage of Sheik Sharif Ahmed formerly of the Islamic Courts Union to Kenya and encouraging the Transitional Federal Government in Somalia to work with him. Ahmed was one of the more moderate figures inside the ICU but also a very high-ranking official with perhaps a large following among the ICU rank-and-file. Clearly, I think, the Bush administration's instincts are correct here. The question is whether it will work.
Continue reading "Worthwile Ethiopio-American Initiative" »
Famous Last Words
Jason Zengerle today:
Worst op-ed of the (admittedly still young) year? Liz Cheney's Hannity-esque effort on Iraq in today's WaPo. It's a really thing of wonder.
And it really is a sucky op-ed. That said, I'm not sure how it differs in substance from what I believe is The New Republic's most recent editorial on Iraq from November just after the election:
Many Democrats have embraced a proposal called "phased redeployment," a politically expedient way of saying immediate withdrawal. Their proposal, which calls for departures beginning in four to six months, doesn't allow the time and space for the arduous work that a political settlement requires--the kind of agreement that will ultimately allow us to leave with the least damage to the Iraqi people and our own interests. Proponents of "redeployment" might argue that the president will enact any new course as ineptly as he did before--a very reasonable fear. But, having achieved new majorities, the Democrats must use their oversight capability to ensure that this does not happen. This can no longer be a one-party war.
Obviously, this is written with a more TNR-style sneer than a Hannity-style one, and those are different brands of sneer. The substantive points, however, strike me as very similar. And more important, the policy objective -- supporting Bush and his open-ended military commitment to Iraq -- are actually identical.
New MY Content
I'm up with Daniel Drezner in a new episode of BloggingHeads TV. We take on such crucial issues as is Payton Manning loathsome and why I'm sick of the 2008 primaries already. Also, more harping on this Iran business. Dan agrees that Iran is not going to launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike on Israel -- is he another cavalier liberal? Blinded by anti-semitism perhaps?
Speaking of which, I have a new column defending Wesley Clark against the Lobby That Shall Not Be Named and I'm going to be on Washington Post Radio at 12:10 today to talk Iran.
Strange Praise
Much like the Iranian exiles Anne Applebaum praises today, I think the Holocaust did, in fact, take place and that Holocaust deniers are bad people. The lead of Applebaum's column, however, is fairly strange. She analogizes these Iranian exiles to the exiled Bolsheviks of pre-WWI Russia, and criticizes those who doubted the Bolsheviks could bring revolution to Russia. The German government eventually decided that since Lenin and his party supported surrender in the first world war, that Germany should sponsor the Bolsheviks, and provided transportation for Lenin to return to Russia along with funds and other forms of support in the very early days of the revolution. Lenin took over Russia, signed the treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany, and managed to set into motion in Russia a series of incredibly horrifying events that Applebaum herself has documented.
Nevertheless, she appears to be arguing that this German policy toward Russia should serve as a model for America's approach to Iran. Why not count on exiles? After all, they might turn out to be just like the Bolsheviks! An odd, odd woman.
"Barrios Means Neighborhoods"
Still the best campaign slogan ever, from back when he was running for Massachusetts state senate the first time. You've probably never heard of him, but Jarrett Barrios is going to be president one day. And now he has a blog. This comes via Matt Stoller who remarks "Barrios was always a favorite MA legislator." I don't know much about his legislative career, but he has crazy charisma, and I think that's primarily what counts in politics.
So far, Barrios is most famous for his involvement in the effort to legislate against Fluff sandwhiches. This struck many as extreme at the time, but with smoking restrictions and trans fat bans spreading across the nation like wildfire, you'll be surprised by what sort of public health measures count as mainstream by the time of the 2032 presidential election. Demolition Man here we come.
Arab Spring!
Look, ma, freedom is on the march:
Fires at scores of barricades sent billowing black smoke against a pale blue sky. Across the capital, only mopeds, some carrying Hezbollah cadres with walkie talkies, navigated the roadblocks along usually clogged streets that were empty. On the airport highway, a half-dozen barricades blocked traffic, forcing some travelers to drag their luggage by foot. Government supporters and foes squared off across the barricades, hurling rocks, sticks and insults in clashes that sometimes lasted hours.
GatewayPundit rounds up right blogistan's reactions -- shockingly this wave of protests isn't being wildly celebrated by hawks and civil disobedience is no longer equivalent to the dawning of democracy. Hezbollah's protest babes aren't hot enough I guess?
Health Care Leninism
Paul Krugman offers a good run-down of the two major schools of thought on health care, and then concludes with his take on where Bush's proposals are going:
Now here's the thing: in the name of consumer-directed health care theory, Bush is proposing changes that would essentially encourage people to move into the individual market — which wastes a lot of money, and doesn't and can't work for those most in need — while undermining the employer-based system, which isn't wonderful but is still essential. In particular, healthy high-income people would be encouraged to drop out of employment-based plans, leaving behind a sicker risk pool, driving up rates, and pushing employer-based care in the direction of an adverse selection death spiral. The plan we're supposed to learn about tomorrow doesn't sound big enough to have catastrophic effects, but it's a step in the wrong direction.
I can't get that worked up about Bush's plans. I agree with Krugman and liberals everywhere that consumer-directed health care won't work. But suppose it does? Well, that'd be a pleasant surprise. And if it doesn't, it'll be easier to build a rational universal system on the ashes of a wrecked employer-based system than it'll be to cobble one together using employer-based health care as a foundation. On most topics, I think there's very good reason to be skeptical of "things have to get worse before they get better" kind of thinking, but there are, I think, good reasons to make an exception on the health care front.
SOTU: Sexing Mutombo
George W. Bush is a very bad president. He manages to screw up the simplest things. For example, he gave a big speech last night in praise of Houston Rockets backup center Dikembe Mutombo, formerly a star with the Denver Nuggets and the Atlanta Hawks and an integral component of the Philadelphia 76ers team that made it to the NBA Finals back in the day. It was a good move since Mutombo is, obviously, more than worthy of praise. Somehow, though, Bush managed to miss the most salient facts. Mutombo is actually leading the league in rebound rate, pulling down an insane 23.6 percent of missed shots while on the floor.
This while he's forty years old. The shocking thing is that the stellar performances this season of Mutombo and fellow ex-star turned backup Alonzo Mourning could arguably be dragooned into an argument about the need to raise the Social Security retirement age. Alternatively, one could simply contemplate the unfairness of Mutombo and Mourning being allocated to two of the very few teams who actually have top-notch starting centers. Certainly after watching Brendan Haywood repeatedly fail to throw it down during the Wizards sorry, sorry first quarter tonight, I'm wishing we had either of those guys.
UPDATE: If I were president, I would have taken the opportunity to note that whatever shotcomings Dwane Casey may have as a coach firing him is hardly going to get at the root -- cough, McHale, cough -- of Minnesota's problems. Indeed, I think Bush ought to call for the Wolves-Bulls trade that would give Kevin Garnett the shot at championship contention he so richly deserves.
Department of Irony
Wesley Clark raises the role of wealthy right-wing Jews in pushing toward a military confrontation with Iran and get smeared as an anti-semite. I defend Clark. Jon Chait in the virtual pages of The New Republic attacks me. But, obviously, rich right-wing Jews like the owners of The New Republic have nothing to do with the drive toward a military confrontation with Iran, right?
I will grant Chait this, insofar as Clark was trying to say that rich rightwing Jews could cause a war with Iran all on their own he's clearly overstating things. We're talking about an influential group of people, but not an all-powerful one. That said, Chait's being willfully naive if he thinks the groups I cited as pushing for military actions against Iran aren't actually pushing for such action. It's true that one can be concerned about the prospect of a nuclear Iran and also concerned about the prospect of American or Israeli military strikes. I put myself in that category. What you need to do to get into that category is express concern about both things. That's not what JINSA or AIPAC or the rest of them are doing -- they're laying the groundwork for the initiation of war.
I Made a Movie
Inspired by Josh Marshall, I've created a video response to the State of Union, focusing on Iran rather than the NBA-related issues also raised by the speech.
Because I was super-lazy, I recorded this in low resolution on my iSight rather than going upstairs to recover my better digital video camera. I'm also wearing an Adidas hoodie because that's what I put on when I came home from the gym, and I'm actually wearing the hood for no good reason other than sheer eccentricity.
Baby Einstein
Sara Mead asks:
Am I the only person who found it odd and somewhat unseemly that the President of the United States used a portion of his State of the Union Address to essentially advertise a line of baby toys? Does this mean they qualify as being based in scientifically-based research? (Cuz I'm skeptical: more TK)
This actually seems like a promising endeavor. How to close the gap between the 16 percent of GDP that the GOP is willing to take in in taxes and the 25 percent of GDP that the country needs in spending? Mark Schmitt says you need higher taxes than that, but this is desperately inside the box thinking. Figure the government can run a deficit of, say, four percent of GDP safely on a sustainable basis. Then all you need is an additional 5 percent of GDP in product placements. It's not just State of the Unions, it's those backdrops for normal presidential speeches, it's that seal on the podium, the wings of Air Force One, the sides of USPS trucks, everything. If public transportation authorities can sell advertising, why not the whole federal government?
Nothing to See Here
I know Petey thinks monomania is an unattractive quality in a blogger, but it does seem to me that somebody should pay attention as the Iran war drums keep beating. Here's Amir Taheri in The New York Post and here's Benny Morris in The New York Sun (see Robert Farley's refutation) and here's New Republic editor Martin Peretz's endorsement of the latter.
UPDATE: Here's moderate warmonger Patrick Clawson from WINEP writing in the World Jewish Digest. Clawson, to his credit, recognizes that the international blowback from unilateral Israel or American strikes would, at this point, be extremely severe and advocates not bombing but rather laying the diplomatic and logistical groundwork for future bombing.
Wedding Bells Demographics
Kate Zernicke had an interesting article in last weekend's NY Times week in review on the demographics of contemporary American marriage, updating some of our stereotypes for the brave new world in which most people are unmarried.
The well-known fact is that college educated people marry later than do the less-schooled. The big counterintuitive fact is that college educated women are substantially more likely to get married than are less-educated women. Among young men you don't see a schooling gap, but it emerges as men get older and takes the same shape. Educated people marry other educated people which, among other things, contributes to inequality. It would be interesting to see more about race here. Zernicke writes, "black women are significantly less likely to marry than white women, but among blacks, women with a college education are more likely to marry than those who do not." But how much of the lower marriage rate among less educated women is due the fact that there's a disproportionately large number of African-American women in that pool.
Comment is Free?
I don't get the joke, but it's the title of The Guardian web opinion thingy. I have a SOTU reaction item up on it now.
John Kerry
The junior senator from Massachusetts says he won't run for president. I know that everyone, myself included, has sort of treated Kerry's 2008 aspirations as a bit absurd and under the circumstances it's probably better that he spare himself the humiliation. That said, it seems to me that there's no reason whatsoever to believe that Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, or Mark Warner would actually do a better job of being president and at least a some reason to think Kerry (who, after all, has dramatically more experience in governing) would be better than any of them.
Obviously, though, very little about our presidential nomination process is designed to generate nominees who are likely to make good presidents.
Webb for Veep?
Mike Tomasky balance a ticket nicely if the nominee is Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I did another half-assed video saying it's a bad idea!
As you'll see, no hoodie. I only have the one and I can't wear it everyday, so if you want more hoods you'll need to get me that Christmas present you meant to send back in December.
Score Points!
You might think there was nothing left to be said about Ruth Marcus' crazy SOTU column (see Klein, Drum, Cohn, etc.) but you'd be wrong. Marcus argues that "Democrats -- if they care more about addressing health-care needs than scoring political points -- ought to be finding ways to improve and build on the Bush proposal, not condemning and mischaracterizing it." As others have noted, there's really no reason to think that's true.
The deeper point -- one that cuts closer to the unique dementia of the permanent pundit class in Washington -- is that even were Democrats to genuinely face a zero-sum choice on this issue scoring political points would be the right choice. Most Americans, like virtually all Democrats, define the "health insurance problem" in the United States as consisting of the fact that many Americans have no health insurance, others have too little health insurance, and others find paying for their health insurance to be extremely burdensome. The Bush administration, by contrast, defines the problem as many Americans having too much health insurance and therefore using too many health resources.
Under the circumstances, insofar as you agree with Democrats about what the health insurance problem is, a big part of the problem is the Bush administration. The only way to make progress on the problem is to replace the Bush administration with one that has the correct view of what the problem is. Scoring political points is the way to do that.
Monomania-mania
Here's the Financial Times's Gideon Rachman on high-level Israeli officials, American hawks, and John Edwards getting together at the shop and here's his take on the Israeli view of things: "they clearly think that it is most likely that Israel and the United States will soon be faced by the decision over whether to take military action. They hope the US will do it. But the strong implication is that Israel will take action alone if necessary. But they are far from sanguine about the potential regional consequences, in terms of a wider war, terrorism and so on." Well, I'm not sanguine either, which seems like one of several good reasons not to do it.
Here's what John Edwards told the audience. It's not quite as bad a talk as I was initially led to believe. That said, with the United States and Israel drifting in the direction of a disastrous Iran policy Edwards is rather clearly choosing not to push against the drift. How much of this is political expediency and how much is convictions?
UPDATE: Stoller is harsh but fair: "The issue for John Edwards has always been credibility. Why should we trust a man who sold us out on the war vote? His answer is that he's changed. But has he?" I agree. I understand the political realities here, but I'd be much more inclined to give Edwards slack on this had he shown better judgment in the past.
Opportunity Costs
I was upset to see that this little girl's SOTU response was slightly more popular than mine but then I actually watched it and it's pretty awesome:
Well said.
Netroots and the Clintons
Matt Stoller says the netroots have a deep-seated loathing of Hillary Clinton and her elitist triangulating ways. Atrios says the foundation of the netroots worldview has to do with outrage at press coverage of Whitewater and a separate post complaining about Fox News and the "Clinton rules of journalism."
All of which reminds me that I meant to link to Ed Kilgore's post on the netroots and Clintonism, though not to answer his questions which seem to me to have been phrased in a loaded way. The thing of it is, however, that both the Stoller post and the Atrios posts speak to important strands of netroots thinking. You can find a ton of mean stuff written about Bill and Hillary Clinton on the blogs, but it's still the case that the progressive internet movement substantially has its roots in endeavors (MoveOn, MediaWhoresOnline, the Daily Howler) whose original purposes were to defend the Clinton/Gore administration and their DLCish policy agenda from the right-wing's attacks. And, indeed, since this started with looking at Stoller in contradistinction to Atrios, it's worth revisiting this section of Matt's big recent essay:
Beginning with the Clinton impeachment in 1998, identity liberals who had voted but not really gone beyond that in their direct political activity began to sign petitions, give money, and engage in activism. As the shocks not only got worse – the impeachment was followed by what was essentially a legal coup in 2000, the attacks of 9/11, and then the disgraceful Democratic complacency during the Iraq debate in 2002 – liberals began to not only vote but use innovative political strategies to take and institutionalize power.
9/11 and Iraq are today's signature issues, but the origins institutionally and emotionally are the battles in defense of Clinton (1998) and Gore (2000) and I don't think the implications and meaning of this are well understood.
Better Classicists Needed
Well, it's hard to say. Maybe we just need classicists with better political judgment. But Victor Davis Hanson's continuing inability to see the parallels between Iraq and the Athenian campaign in Sicily is pretty damn weird. I mean, clearly, there are differences -- we have airplanes, they spoke Greek, etc., etc,. etc. but it's still pretty freaking obvious.
Plus Ça Change
David Brooks, April 10 2004:
Come on people, let's get a grip.
This week, Chicken Littles like Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd were ranting that Iraq is another Vietnam. Pundits and sages were spinning a whole series of mutually exclusive disaster scenarios: Civil war! A nationwide rebellion!
January 25, 2007:
Iraq is at the beginning of a civil war fought using the tactics of genocide, and it has all the conditions to get much worse. As a Newsweek correspondent, Christian Caryl, wrote recently from Baghdad, “What’s clear is that we’re far closer to the beginning of this cycle of violence than to its end.” As John Burns of The Times said on “Charlie Rose” last night, “Friends of mine who are Iraqis — Shiite, Sunni, Kurd — all foresee a civil war on a scale with bloodshed that would absolutely dwarf what we’re seeing now.”
September 18, 2004:
As we saw in El Salvador and as Iraqi insurgents understand, elections suck the oxygen from a rebel army. They refute the claim that violence is the best way to change things. Moreover, they produce democratic leaders who are much better equipped to win an insurgency war.
January 25, 2007:
The weakness of the Bush surge plan is that it relies on the Maliki government to somehow be above this vortex. But there are no impartial institutions in Iraq, ready to foster reconciliation. As ABC’s Jonathan Karl notes in The Weekly Standard, the Shiite finance ministries now close banks that may finance Sunni investments. The Saadrist health ministries dismiss Sunni doctors. The sectarian vortex is not fomented by extremists who are appendages to society. The vortex is through and through.
So having heaped scorn a few years ago on doves who were later proven right -- not necessarily shown to be all-wise, all-knowing sages on all subjects, but who certainly demonstrated a greater degree of understanding of the nation of Iraq and the dynamics of the war there -- does Brooks have a less scornful view of those same people and their ideas today? Of course not: "The Democratic approach, as articulated by Senator Jim Webb — simply get out of Iraq 'in short order' — is a howl of pain that takes no note of the long-term political and humanitarian consequences."
The Hagel Factor
I've written several times about the enigmatic figure of Chuck Hagel, a guy who seems to have a better grasp on foreign affairs than many of our Democrats but who's much longer on good talk than useful action. Brent Budowsky urges him to leave the GOP, saying "if Senator Hagel leaves the Republican Party and becomes a Democrat or political independent, he changes the course of American history."
I doubt that's true on several levels, but it's worth saying that the timing is wrong. Switching parties wouldn't have any particular impact at this point beyond what voting for some pieces of Democratic legislation would have. And more to the point, Hagel actually isn't a "maverick" and never really has been; he's a quite orthodox conservative (beyond social issues I've heard him discuss, e.g., Social Security in precisely the manner one would expect from a somewhat informed rightwinger) who simply has foreign policy views at odds with the current madness. What he ought to do is run for president. He'd probably lose (duh) but with so many hawks in the GOP field you never know, and at a minimum it would force some thinking in conservative circles as to what, exactly, the conservative commitment to this kind of run-amok adventurism is supposed to be.
Beyond Parody
New Republic editor in chief Martin Peretz manages simultaneously demonstrate ignorance of widely known historical facts and achieve the impressive feat of making Tom Friedman look smart:
Poor Tom Friedman. He is looking for a Muslim Martin Luther King. There is none, Tom. If one were living on earth, they'd break his windows. Imprison him. Or kill him. Finished.
Imagine that! A society where a figure like King could be imprisoned or even killed! Those Muslims sure are vicious and evil.
I wonder if Jon Chait and others concerned about Wesley Clark's alleged anti-semitism feel it's a problem that one of America's leading political magazines is owned and operated by a man whose political opinions appear to be primarily driven by bigotry against Arabs and Muslims; keep your eyes on The Plank for a response.
Pa-Pau!
With Pau Gasol apparently on the market and Kevin Garnett apparently not, it seems logical for the Chicago Bulls to contemplate moving some of the assets oft-mentioned in a Garnett context for Pau instead. Thus, Chris Sheridan: "The Bulls are currently puttering along at five games over .500 and sitting fifth in the weak Eastern Conference, needing a capable low-post scorer like humans need oxygen." It's true, of course, that Chicago lacks low-post scoring, but it's not obvious to me that this is a requirement for being a good team. Look at the league in order of offensive efficiency and you'll see that the second-best team is the Wizards, who have no interior offense whatsoever (they lack interior defense but Chicago has that). Number three is Dallas, which doesn't really have a low-post scorer either. Then you get the Lakers, where Andrew Bynum provides some low-post scoring along with much promise, but is hardly a dominant presence at this point. Then it's San Antonio, then Utah, then Detroit, then Milwaukee, then Seattle, and then the Knicks round out the top ten.
There's not an obvious pattern here -- some top-notch offensive teams have major low-post threats, some of so-so low-post games, some have none whatsoever. Chicago's offense isn't middling because it's all from the perimeter, it's middling just because it's middling -- Ben Gordon is no Gilbert Arenas. Which isn't to say that Chicago shouldn't make a deal for Gasol if they can get a good offer, he's a great player, etc., etc., but Chicago really needs any kind of improved offensive player.
Clark, Anti-Semitism, Etc.
Jon Chait, somewhat surprisingly, takes the bait here. My response below the fold.
Continue reading "Clark, Anti-Semitism, Etc." »
Why Empty Rhetoric Matters
I'm going to have to disagree with Atrios about the desirability of presidential candidates committing to something reasonably specific on health care. The need for specifics comes in not during the politics of the election campaign, but the politics of the legislative process. One of the reasons the Clinton health care initiative was derailable was that Clinton campaigned and won and a promise to devise a plan for universal health care, not on a particular plan (there were other problems, obviously, and the task was intrinsically difficult, etc., but this was one of the flaws of his legislative strategy). The best way to get something done, would be to propose something, be viciously attacked for it throughout a presidential campaign, then emerge victorious and demand action after inauguration.
That said, where I do agree with Atrios is that it's very early yet in this process. I have no particular desire to see the contenders roll out platforms and agendas at this point. It's in everyone's interest for everyone to stay vague and for everything to stay low-key for quite some time now. There's no particular point in outlining a governing agenda for 2009-10 in early 2007.
The Good Kind of Surge
"Arenas surges past Carter as All-Star". Of course, with the chip factor gone he'll probably average 17 points on 5-23 shooting for the rest of the season, but still it's nice to see excellence recognized.
Still About the War
Chuck Schumer's shown some enormous political skills as DSCC chair in the 2005-2006 period, but this is terrible. "I think Iraq will not be as strong an issue in the 2008 elections," he said, "I think the surge will fail and the president will have no choice but to begin removing troops." This is wishful thinking twice over. Wishful on the merits that the Iraq War is somehow going to wrap itself up nicely. And wishful on the politics as well wishful that Democrats will have the chance to go back to talking about what they're all comfortable talking about -- health care, small children -- rather than what the country most wants to hear about. But as Atrios says this is "Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong."
"And Iran too," remarks Kevin Drum commenting on the same article, "be prepared."
Quite so. 9/11 obviously didn't "change everything" but it equally obviously did change politics in this country enormously. It took us out of the 1990s dynamic where voters didn't really care about world affairs and returned us to the dynamic that prevailed throughout the bulk of the 20th century where one foreign policy issue or another tended to play a very prominent role in campaigns. There's no particular reason to think this will stop any time soon, but it's certainly not going to stop while two shooting wars are happening and the legendarily stubborn George W. Bush is in the White House. America's policies vis-a-vis the Middle East and the broader Muslim world are, whether one likes it or not, going to be absolutely central in 2008.
More Monomania
One of several things that's gone wrong with this debate already is that to the extent that you care about the possibility of Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb you should become more inclined to favor bombing Iran. The presupposition there is that bombing Iran will prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb.
There is, however, no reason to believe this. The correct calculation is that you need to consider how much the damage done will set the Iranian nuclear program back -- X. Then you need to subtract from X how much the program will be speeded-up by the political empowerment of Iranian hawks likely to increase funding for the program. Then you need to further subtract from X how much the program will be speeded-up by decreased levels of international cooperation in preventing Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. This second point is crucial. The reason Iran doesn't have a bomb today is that it's hard to buy or make the stuff you need to get the job done. How hard this is has everything to do with how seriously a whole bunch of countries -- basically all the nuclear countries (Russia, China, India, Pakistan) plus all the right countries (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, Western Europe) -- take the job of preventing Iran from acquiring the relevant material.
Right now, these countries are taking that job quite seriously. In the past, they've taken it less seriously. In the future, they may take it even less seriously. At the moment, one of the main reasons the world is doing a very good job on this front is precisely because they don't want to see anything crazy happen. Something crazy like the United States or Israel with US support, launching a clearly illegal, unprovoked war against Iran. Launch the war, and part of the incentive to clamp down on Iran goes the other way. And what's more, sponsoring acts of unchecked aggression are just the kind of thing that makes other states and foreign populations disinclined to police their own commerce in support of your security agenda.
In short, bombing Iran and the following cycle of retaliation and counter-retaliation, will certainly lead to a lot of people dying. It will certainly lead to lost arms. Severed legs. Severe scarring. Bad burns. Mothers weeping for their dead children. Children weeping for their dead fathers. Houses destroyed and damaged. Permanent hearing loss induced by deafening noises. People go blind. People will be brain damaged by head trauma. That we know. The odds of a diplomatic resolution to the various issues in the US-Iranian bilateral relationship ever emerging will almost certainly plummet. And as a bonus, it might delay Iran's acquisition of a nuclear bomb by a quantity of time that's both unknown and unknowable, or else it might speed said acquisition up.
Conditional Shuffle
One tragic consequence of the Peretz/MLK post yesterday was that it put me in the awkward position of defending Tom Friedman. Fortunately, in today's offering America's most influential foreign affairs journalist is still playing what Greg Sargent has dubbed the "conditional shuffle" responding to Bush's proposals by listing scenarios under which he could support them rather than facing the reality that Bush is
Photo by 
Photo by 
Photo by 
