Marshall Plans for All

It seems to me that calls for a "new Marshall plan" of some sort or another are frequent enough that it's a bit odd for John Edwards' campaign to be implying that Mitt Romney's ripping them off when he calls for "a new type of Marshall plan” that "“ould assemble resources from developed nations to work to assure that threatened Islamic states had public schools, not Wahhabi madrassas, micro-credit and banking, the rule of law, human rights, basic healthcare, and competitive economic policies."

On another level, Team Edwards is even selling itself short. Their proposal for a "Marshall Corps" -- at least as it was explained to me as a group of civilian experts who the president would be able to deploy where needed -- is significantly more interesting (albeit at this point still somewhat vague) than Romney's rather banal and totally undefined proposal for some new foreign aid program.

Comments

Your blog system is now barring comments with a single hyperlink...

Posted by Petey | June 21, 2007 10:12 PM

Yeah but if he can start a back-and-forth with Romney he might be able to generate a little much needed press.

Posted by Jack | June 21, 2007 10:30 PM

Do you think we could put together some type of Marshall plan that would ensure that American states would have public schools, not Christian fundamentalist madrassas, micro-credit and banking, the rule of law, human rights, basic healthcare, and competitive economic policies?

Nah . . .

Posted by rea | June 21, 2007 10:44 PM

How is the idea of a "Marshall Corps" different than the current call for a "citizen corps?" Got to the State Dept web site and look for CRS and see what you get. It appears to be exactly what Edwards is calling for, just underfunded and under-prioritized.

Posted by DS | June 21, 2007 11:03 PM

If only lefties were as skeptical about grandiose 'benevolent hegemon' ideas as they now are about air strikes. The crux of the problem is that most of the misery in the third and fourth worlds is perpetuated by governments that are corrupt, incompetent, or odious, or all of the above. Foreign aid to countries like these -- as decades of experience in Africa and elsewhere have demonstrated -- helps to pay for French boarding schools for the dictator's daughter, but doesn't do much to lift his people out of poverty. It also doesn't buy any love from those people, who see us funding the dictator they hate.

Since some of the motivation behind these schemes seems to come from high school-level concern, e.g., "they don't like us!" (but they all want to sit at our table), perhaps a high school analogy is in order. America is like the captain of the football team, the valedictorian, and the student government president all wrapped into one. No matter how many car washes for charity we organize, no matter how many runts we save from bullies, there will always be a few punks who resent us and hate us. That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to do good works, but we shouldn't have any illusions about what the effects of our charity will be either.

Posted by Fred | June 21, 2007 11:54 PM

The funny thing is that economic growth in the post-WWII countries was inversely correlated with the amount of Marshall Plan aid:

Japan got zero and grew the fastest
West Germany got a little and grew the next fastest
Then France
And Britain got the most and stagnated economically

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 21, 2007 11:55 PM

Indeed, the U.S. was not involved at all in the reconstruction of postwar Japan and West Germany. Thank you for enlightening us Steve Sailer.

Posted by Korha | June 22, 2007 12:07 AM

"The funny thing is that economic growth in the post-WWII countries was inversely correlated with the amount of Marshall Plan aid..."

Makes you wonder what Israel's economy would look like without all the aid we give them.

Posted by Harry | June 22, 2007 12:07 AM

Well, nobody fell to Communism, which was kind of the goal of the whole enterprise.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 22, 2007 12:09 AM

Indeed, the U.S. was not involved at all in the reconstruction of postwar Japan and West Germany.

To lawyer up and be fair you can indeed claim that Japan got zero aid through the Marshall Plan. That over a quarter of their post-war exports during the Korean War came from SCAP is completely non-related.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 22, 2007 12:16 AM

America is like the captain of the football team, the valedictorian, and the student government president all wrapped into one. No matter how many car washes for charity we organize, no matter how many runts we save from bullies, there will always be a few punks who resent us and hate us. That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to do good works, but we shouldn't have any illusions about what the effects of our charity will be either.

I think you're forgetting the Bueller model of international relations.

"Oh, he's very popular Ed. The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, waistoids, dweebies, dickheads - they all adore him. They think he's a righteous dude."

Posted by Jack | June 22, 2007 12:35 AM

It's mostly forgotten that Germany and Japan were required to pay 'occupation costs', and Germany at least paid reparations. Net wealth transfer to those countries may have been negative.

In Japan the occupation costs were buried under an obscure title in the budget. That Japan was paying for its occupation was an official secret subject to censorship. Aid to Japan of course was highly publicized.

Posted by David Tomlin | June 22, 2007 1:23 AM

rea:

Do you think we could put together some type of Marshall plan that would ensure that American states would have public schools, not Christian fundamentalist madrassas . . .

Have you ever in your life set foot in a Christian fundamentalist private school? Have you read a single first-hand account of what they are like?

I attended such a school for my two years of junior high school. In may case it wasn't for religious reasons. I wasn't a fundamentalist, and it happens I ceased being a Christian during this time. I went because it was the best available alternative to a public school I didn't particularly like.

There was a chapel service once a week, and a bible study class three days a week. Except for that the classes were much like those in public schools. The texts were the same (probably required for accreditation). The quality of teaching was on the whole somewhat better in my opinion. I recall with particular fondness the English teacher who introduced me to Shakespeare with a unit on Macbeth.

Oh, yeah, they made fun of evolution. But the idea that kids are intellectually stunted for life if evolution isn't taught in high school biology is pretty silly, since many students don't even take biology in high school. Back in public school, I took physics and chemistry for my high school science classes.

That the average American Christian fundamentalist school is the equivalent of a madrassa is just ignorance and bigotry.

Oh, and are you seriously suggesting that people send their kids to fundamentalist schools because public schools aren't available?

Posted by David Tomlin | June 22, 2007 2:05 AM

In may case . . .

Sorry, that's 'in my case'.

Posted by David Tomlin | June 22, 2007 2:07 AM

Why???

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/politics/22edwards.html

June 22, 2007

In Aiding Poor, Edwards Built Bridge to 2008
By LESLIE WAYNE

John Edwards ended 2004 with a problem: how to keep alive his public profile without the benefit of a presidential campaign that could finance his travels and pay for his political staff.

Mr. Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution, creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and — unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students — the main beneficiary of the center's fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show.

A spokesman for Mr. Edwards defended the center yesterday as a legitimate tool against poverty.

The organization became a big part of a shadow political apparatus for Mr. Edwards after his defeat as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004 and before the start of his presidential bid this time around. Its officers were members of his political staff, and it helped pay for his nearly constant travel, including to early primary states.

While Mr. Edwards said the organization's purpose was "making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation," its federal filings say it financed "retreats and seminars" with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues. Unlike the scholarship charity, donations to it were not tax deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors — as political action committees and other political fund-raising vehicles do — and there were no limits on the size of individual donations....

Posted by Jennifer | June 22, 2007 5:35 AM

It seems highly likely that Edwards himself stole the "Marshall Corps" idea from Wes Clark's proposal in 2004. It was Clark's very first policy roll-out after jumping into the campaign in September 2003. See here:

http://clark04.com/issues/serviceplan/

Calling Americans to Service in a Time of Need
General Clark's Plan for a Civilian Reserve
General Clark has called for Americans to rally around a New American Patriotism grounded in the belief that citizenship entails responsibilities as well as rights. General Clark challenges all Americans to be willing to sacrifice for their country by joining his proposed Civilian Reserves. The Civilian Reserves would use the latest technology to ensure that Americans with needed skills could be mobilized rapidly to address pressing needs. In addition, as a complement to the Civilian Reserves, General Clark's plan would reverse the cuts made by President Bush and instead expand opportunities for national service to address day-to-day challenges like crumbling schools and securing the homeland.

Posted by Clark04 Alum | June 22, 2007 8:19 AM

Mr. Tomlin:

Yes, I am familiar with Christian fundamentalist private schools. They exist, at least in my community, for three reasons: (1) to ensure that students don't learn the foundations of science, (2) to reinforce the notion that the Christian fundamentalists are distinct from, and superior to, the community at large, and (3) to ensure that (white) Christian fundamentalist kids don't have to go to school with lower class blacks and Hispanics.

They are, in their own way, every bit as pernicious as the Saudi Wahhabi madrassas.

Funny how the right can see the untility of public schools in bringing about a modern secular society in Islamic countries, but not in their own.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Posted by rea | June 22, 2007 8:37 AM

Posted by rea | June 22, 2007 8:37 AM :"They are, in their own way, every bit as pernicious as the Saudi Wahhabi madrassas."

Really? American Christian schools have to the best of my knowledge not produced one suicide bomber, not one single defender of Female Genital Mutilation, not one terrorist. Every bit as pernicious as the people who brought us gang rape as a legal punishment in Pakistan or 9-11? Come on, you cannot expect anyone to take you seriously when you lack any sense of perspective at all. What is the worst that Christians are going to do in America - make sure that people who do not believe in Dinosaurs can teach their kids not to believe in dinosaurs? Cry me a river.

Posted by rea | June 22, 2007 8:37 AM :"Funny how the right can see the untility of public schools in bringing about a modern secular society in Islamic countries, but not in their own."

Funny how the left cannot see that the decaying ruins of Christianity pose no threat to anyone much while the Jihadis are murdering people. Funny how the Left has become so self-absorbed they think that the pain of suffering Falwell on Cable TV is equivalent to someone like Ms Mai who was gang raped because her brother loved the wrong woman. Ironic isn't really?

Posted by rea | June 22, 2007 8:37 AM :"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

In the good old days that was a sensible text. These days it is more, "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thine own eye, but considerest not the beam that is in the eye of a Wahabi?"

Posted by HeiGou | June 22, 2007 10:18 AM

Funny how HeiGou has to qualify by stating that Christian schools haven't produced any suicide bombers, because we all know that Christian schools have produced plenty of regular bombers and murderous snipers. In fact, the Christian Pro-Coat Hanger movement just held a ceremony to honor two of the murders they most revere.

David Tomlin, further upthread, similarly betrays his own ignorance and bigotry when he denies the essential similarity between our Christian schools and madrassas. In reality they are just the same- some are good, some are bad, most are just elementary schools.

There is, however, one major difference- the madrassas arise in a situation where there aren't enough regularly certified teachers, school buildings, or the structure to provide teachers and school buildings. American Christian schools arise from the desire evade integration, the desire to teach things that a qualified curriculum regards as baloney, and the desire to starve the existing public schools and deny an education to people who aren't white.

Posted by serial catowner | June 22, 2007 11:23 AM

Posted by serial catowner | June 22, 2007 11:23 AM:"Funny how HeiGou has to qualify by stating that Christian schools haven't produced any suicide bombers, because we all know that Christian schools have produced plenty of regular bombers and murderous snipers. In fact, the Christian Pro-Coat Hanger movement just held a ceremony to honor two of the murders they most revere."

Plenty? You mean seven victims of anti-abortion violence (not all of which has been Christian)? Paul Jennings Hill did go to a Christian school. I assume some of the others did too. But in the scale of beams and motes, this is a mote, not a beam. Funny how you ignore the wholesale revulsion of the mainstream Churches as such acts as well.

Posted by serial catowner | June 22, 2007 11:23 AM:"David Tomlin, further upthread, similarly betrays his own ignorance and bigotry when he denies the essential similarity between our Christian schools and madrassas. In reality they are just the same- some are good, some are bad, most are just elementary schools."

Oh really? Can you please name a single madrassa which would provide a decent all round education equivalent to an elementary school in depth and breadth of knowledge? I mean forgot Georgetown, let's stick with post-kindergarten.

Posted by HeiGou | June 22, 2007 11:48 AM

David Tomlin, further upthread, similarly betrays his own ignorance and bigotry when he denies the essential similarity between our Christian schools and madrassas. In reality they are just the same- some are good, some are bad, most are just elementary schools.

Fair point. I don't know much about madrassas, so perhaps I overgeneralize about them. But the principle criticism of madrassas is that many of them give a primarily religious education, graduating students with very little secular education. Any American private school that did that would lose its accreditation and be shut down.

Posted by David Tomlin | June 22, 2007 1:23 PM

Why???

Why what, Jennifer? Why does the NYT have it in for Edwards? I have no idea.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 23, 2007 10:47 AM