I heard someone say recently that it isn't fair to tax money twice. This person is of course referring to taxes on dividends and investments. The theory is that the income from the company is already taxed, and that income is then used to pay dividends to investors. So the investors should not then be taxed.
I feel like there is some nuance as to when the income is actually being taxed twice - in other words only when it is dividends and not when the stock value appreciates and the stock is sold, but I need to think that through some more. But that isn't even the real point. The real issue is over how we understand fairness.
Now, on one level, I could just say that we have different understandings of this very subjective term "fair" and leave it at that. But you know I can't really do that. So let's look at what is fair or unfair about taxing investments.
First of all, who would this tax be unfair to? Who gets hurt by being taxed twice? The money is being taxed twice, but money is inanimate, so it can't feel oppressed or burdened. So it must be unfair to the investor. The person who is investing is typically wealthy, so why is it unfair to tax their money? Is it more fair to tax what someone earns through work than what someone earns without doing work but by giving someone money? I would think it the other way around. I would rather tax the investor than the worker - the teacher, the police officer, the farm worker, the construction worker, the miner, etc. Or I would rather tax them both and at the same progressive rates.
In fact, let's compare apples to apples. Say there is someone who goes to work everyday as a Wall Street trader and makes $5 million a year in salary and bonuses. And there is someone else who has a trust fund or made a ton of money they earned previously and makes $5 million a year from investments. Why should the investor who stays home everyday while his money is working pay less taxes? I can't think of a good reason.
But does the person really think it is unfair to the investor? Maybe what they really mean is that it provides a negative incentive to the investor. I am sure there are some more detailed analysis by economists on how a higher tax rate - or a tax at all - on investments will affect the level of investment. But let's look at one simple example instead.
Imagine someone with net worth of $250 million. Let's say his name is Bitt Nomrey. Now, would he refuse to invest that money just because there were taxes on the income? A 15% tax rate didn't stop Mitt Romney from investing. Would a 30% tax rate stop him?
Sure if the taxes were 90% he might not invest. But if the taxes were the same as our current income tax rate, he would definitely invest the money. He makes income, pays some taxes, but still retains the overwhelming amount of what he earned from the investments.
So I ask again, who is this unfair to? Or how does it affect investor choices?
Showing posts with label Dear Conservative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dear Conservative. Show all posts
Monday, May 28, 2012
Sunday, June 19, 2011
On Growth
Dear Conservative,
I find Republican plans to grow the economy so frustrating. They are a one-trick pony with little understanding of what makes capitalism function.
Their one trick is of course tax cuts. In their mind, all capitalist systems need is less taxes and a government always gets out of the way. Granted, I think this is mostly an attempt at pandering to a base that is rabidly anti-government, but I am disappointed at how they either pander against their better judgment or don't have the judgment enough to know that government serves an important function.
The truth is that our capitalist system has been as successful as it has been because of certain government investments. Over the long-term, our government has invested in research, infrastructure, including roads, power, railroad, ports, as well as significant investment in education and the creation of a legal system and security that is necessary to protect confidence in a capitalist system.
As we are mired in a major recession, it is enraging that Republicans are in a race to the bottom as each trots out programs that will cut the most taxes and therefore have to gut government spending and program. They claim they are proposing pro-growth policies, but if they actually understood capitalism, they would favor the right kind of government spending to promote growth, instead of pretending that all government spending, excluding the military, is bad spending.
A real pro-growth policy would increase spending on these items: education, infrastructure and research - and maintain spending on our legal system. By investing in education, we'd further improve the quality of our workforce and make it more likely that new inventions and innovations start here. And big gains could be made in inner cities were education outcomes are so poor.
By investing in infrastructure - whether it is a smart grid or otherwise improved electricity transportation or rail, roads and ports - we'll be allowing our businesses to be more productive than they otherwise would be. We can set the groundwork for more cost-effective power distribution and usage and decrease costs for businesses. And whether it is high-speed rail or other forward-thinking and smart transportation items, we can similarly make our businesses more productive. And research can help our firms develop new technologies and medicines that will change the world - and bring profits to domestic firms.
All of these things should be considered public goods - things that otherwise would be under-produced in our capitalist system. And one of government's best roles is in providing public goods. Unfortunately, the Republican party is too ideological to see any role for government, which means the miss opportunities for actual pro-growth policies and actually helping our economy for the future.
I find Republican plans to grow the economy so frustrating. They are a one-trick pony with little understanding of what makes capitalism function.
Their one trick is of course tax cuts. In their mind, all capitalist systems need is less taxes and a government always gets out of the way. Granted, I think this is mostly an attempt at pandering to a base that is rabidly anti-government, but I am disappointed at how they either pander against their better judgment or don't have the judgment enough to know that government serves an important function.
The truth is that our capitalist system has been as successful as it has been because of certain government investments. Over the long-term, our government has invested in research, infrastructure, including roads, power, railroad, ports, as well as significant investment in education and the creation of a legal system and security that is necessary to protect confidence in a capitalist system.
As we are mired in a major recession, it is enraging that Republicans are in a race to the bottom as each trots out programs that will cut the most taxes and therefore have to gut government spending and program. They claim they are proposing pro-growth policies, but if they actually understood capitalism, they would favor the right kind of government spending to promote growth, instead of pretending that all government spending, excluding the military, is bad spending.
A real pro-growth policy would increase spending on these items: education, infrastructure and research - and maintain spending on our legal system. By investing in education, we'd further improve the quality of our workforce and make it more likely that new inventions and innovations start here. And big gains could be made in inner cities were education outcomes are so poor.
By investing in infrastructure - whether it is a smart grid or otherwise improved electricity transportation or rail, roads and ports - we'll be allowing our businesses to be more productive than they otherwise would be. We can set the groundwork for more cost-effective power distribution and usage and decrease costs for businesses. And whether it is high-speed rail or other forward-thinking and smart transportation items, we can similarly make our businesses more productive. And research can help our firms develop new technologies and medicines that will change the world - and bring profits to domestic firms.
All of these things should be considered public goods - things that otherwise would be under-produced in our capitalist system. And one of government's best roles is in providing public goods. Unfortunately, the Republican party is too ideological to see any role for government, which means the miss opportunities for actual pro-growth policies and actually helping our economy for the future.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
What Would Tell Me I am Wrong?
Dear Conservative,
I know you and I have a different perspective on how to improve the economy. I strongly believe that we need more fiscal stimulus and you believe that we don't and need to focus on cutting the budget instead. I get frustrated that the evidence is on my side and that you can't be looking at the evidence clearly to arrive at your position. It makes me crazy that you aren't challenging your assumptions.
So let me show you how it's done by challenging my assumptions. Here is the way I see it. We have high unemployment that isn't improving in any real way. So the two options for fixing that are monetary policy or fiscal policy.
Normally, to use monetary policy, the Federal Reserve would lower interest rates. This has the effect of making saving money less attractive than investing and spending money, having an expansionary effect. However, monetary policy will not work because interest rates cannot get any lower - they are at the zero bound (liquidity trap). In other words, it would take a negative interest rate to get people to decide to spend instead of save. So the only option is fiscal policy.
But what would it take to convince me that I am wrong? Any number of things. If unemployment were decreasing. Or if someone could show me that monetary policy would work (some say if we announced a policy to let inflation increase and promised to maintain it for a certain number of years). Or that fiscal policy will do more harm than good.
It seems conservatives (you) are trying to say that we should try neither monetary or fiscal policy - that things will get better if government gets out of the way. I thought the great depression proved that wrong.
There is also a mindset that if we cut budget deficits, the magic confidence fairy will allow for growth. But there is no evidence that current short-term budget deficits are causing investor concerns. Inflation and interest rates on government bonds remain low.
They (you) are also saying that fiscal policy will cause more problems, that more fiscal stimulus and the higher deficits that would go along with it will increase bond rates. But again bonds are very low right now.
In other words, I am convinced that I have already thought about what would convince me that I am wrong and none of those things hold. We are in a recession, and we need to take action to get out of it. Unfortunately, monetary policy won't work. And you won't let us pass fiscal stimulus. Maybe you should reconsider your position.
Update:
Further evidence that convinces me that I am not wrong: surveys by the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Small Business (hat tip, Jared Bernstein) shows that the economy or weak sales (respectively) are the biggest problems facing small businesses. Now, the NFSB finding speaks for itself, but the Chamber finding, where "the economy" is the biggest problem, needs some explaining. You'll see that the Chamber survey isn't really an attempt to figure out what businesses need, but to create a document they can use when lobbying Congress for tax cuts. Even with such a biased survey, businesses were more concerned with the economy - which I read as depressed sales (demand) - than with taxes.
I know you and I have a different perspective on how to improve the economy. I strongly believe that we need more fiscal stimulus and you believe that we don't and need to focus on cutting the budget instead. I get frustrated that the evidence is on my side and that you can't be looking at the evidence clearly to arrive at your position. It makes me crazy that you aren't challenging your assumptions.
So let me show you how it's done by challenging my assumptions. Here is the way I see it. We have high unemployment that isn't improving in any real way. So the two options for fixing that are monetary policy or fiscal policy.
Normally, to use monetary policy, the Federal Reserve would lower interest rates. This has the effect of making saving money less attractive than investing and spending money, having an expansionary effect. However, monetary policy will not work because interest rates cannot get any lower - they are at the zero bound (liquidity trap). In other words, it would take a negative interest rate to get people to decide to spend instead of save. So the only option is fiscal policy.
But what would it take to convince me that I am wrong? Any number of things. If unemployment were decreasing. Or if someone could show me that monetary policy would work (some say if we announced a policy to let inflation increase and promised to maintain it for a certain number of years). Or that fiscal policy will do more harm than good.
It seems conservatives (you) are trying to say that we should try neither monetary or fiscal policy - that things will get better if government gets out of the way. I thought the great depression proved that wrong.
There is also a mindset that if we cut budget deficits, the magic confidence fairy will allow for growth. But there is no evidence that current short-term budget deficits are causing investor concerns. Inflation and interest rates on government bonds remain low.
They (you) are also saying that fiscal policy will cause more problems, that more fiscal stimulus and the higher deficits that would go along with it will increase bond rates. But again bonds are very low right now.
In other words, I am convinced that I have already thought about what would convince me that I am wrong and none of those things hold. We are in a recession, and we need to take action to get out of it. Unfortunately, monetary policy won't work. And you won't let us pass fiscal stimulus. Maybe you should reconsider your position.
Update:
Further evidence that convinces me that I am not wrong: surveys by the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Small Business (hat tip, Jared Bernstein) shows that the economy or weak sales (respectively) are the biggest problems facing small businesses. Now, the NFSB finding speaks for itself, but the Chamber finding, where "the economy" is the biggest problem, needs some explaining. You'll see that the Chamber survey isn't really an attempt to figure out what businesses need, but to create a document they can use when lobbying Congress for tax cuts. Even with such a biased survey, businesses were more concerned with the economy - which I read as depressed sales (demand) - than with taxes.
Friday, May 06, 2011
Dear Conservative: Stimuls or What? Update
Dear Conservative, (Update)
(This was a crappy post and so I want to re-write it.)
I am baffled by the Republican (your) response to this recession. The economic data tells us that fiscal stimulus is the only solution. We are up against the zero bound for interest rates, rendering monetary fixes useless (unless we change inflation expectations, which isn't going to happen and why QE2 was so ineffective).
So explain to me why another stimulus is a bad idea. Either you don't think government should do anything (which puts you farther right than Greenspan and Bernake) or you only support monetary policy and so are okay with ineffective policy and ultimately a lasting recession.
Maybe you don’t feel quite prepared to talk about this; that you aren’t that well versed on economics - specifically liquidity traps - and so for now you trust your party. Fine. Let’s do this. We’ll read two books. One by liberal Paul Krugman. The other by Fed Chairman (appointed by George W. Bush) Ben Bernake. Deal?
(This was a crappy post and so I want to re-write it.)
I am baffled by the Republican (your) response to this recession. The economic data tells us that fiscal stimulus is the only solution. We are up against the zero bound for interest rates, rendering monetary fixes useless (unless we change inflation expectations, which isn't going to happen and why QE2 was so ineffective).
So explain to me why another stimulus is a bad idea. Either you don't think government should do anything (which puts you farther right than Greenspan and Bernake) or you only support monetary policy and so are okay with ineffective policy and ultimately a lasting recession.
Maybe you don’t feel quite prepared to talk about this; that you aren’t that well versed on economics - specifically liquidity traps - and so for now you trust your party. Fine. Let’s do this. We’ll read two books. One by liberal Paul Krugman. The other by Fed Chairman (appointed by George W. Bush) Ben Bernake. Deal?
Monday, March 07, 2011
Dear Conservative: Compassion
Dear Conservative,
I bet you wonder sometimes why I am a liberal. Maybe you think about how I was raised and wonder where things went wrong.
If you do think that, I would actually argue that things are the other way around; my liberalism fits perfectly with the way I was raised. Your conservatism however does not.
Let's look at the recent battles that conservatives have decided to pick. Since December, Republicans have said that people making $250,000 are not that rich and need protection (ie lower taxes), teachers making $50,000 make way too much money, and social programs for the poor are too generous. In other words, they protect the rich and attack the poor.
I would argue that my upbringing, which included lessons about sharing, selflessness and helping those in need, and not passing judgment has lead me to oppose conservatives.
Believing in sharing and selflessness means that I am not overly greedy about my money; taxes are necessary as long as they are fair. Since I was taught to helping those in need, I support funding for social programs. And having an attitude that is non-judgmental means I don't judge or blame poor people for their condition but instead want to help.
So after reading this, how do you feel about your party? Your party argues that rich people are victims and the low and middle class people have more than they need. It seems to me you have two possible responses: that I shouldn't have been taught so much about sharing and helping, or that you should follow those teachings and be a better advocate for poverty programs.
I bet you wonder sometimes why I am a liberal. Maybe you think about how I was raised and wonder where things went wrong.
If you do think that, I would actually argue that things are the other way around; my liberalism fits perfectly with the way I was raised. Your conservatism however does not.
Let's look at the recent battles that conservatives have decided to pick. Since December, Republicans have said that people making $250,000 are not that rich and need protection (ie lower taxes), teachers making $50,000 make way too much money, and social programs for the poor are too generous. In other words, they protect the rich and attack the poor.
I would argue that my upbringing, which included lessons about sharing, selflessness and helping those in need, and not passing judgment has lead me to oppose conservatives.
Believing in sharing and selflessness means that I am not overly greedy about my money; taxes are necessary as long as they are fair. Since I was taught to helping those in need, I support funding for social programs. And having an attitude that is non-judgmental means I don't judge or blame poor people for their condition but instead want to help.
So after reading this, how do you feel about your party? Your party argues that rich people are victims and the low and middle class people have more than they need. It seems to me you have two possible responses: that I shouldn't have been taught so much about sharing and helping, or that you should follow those teachings and be a better advocate for poverty programs.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Dear Conservative: Homeless
Dear Conservative,
It has been a while since I last addressed a post to you. But I feel I have an issue to raise: government spending - specifically social services spending.
Let me start by saying that I mostly understand the desire to reign in government spending. After all, being fiscally responsible is necessary in any facet of life. The problem though is how that desire is actually carried out.
First of all, when fiscal conservatives like yourself call for less government spending, rarely are you talking about the parts of government that are clearly public services - police, fire, transportation, water and sewer, or even military. Sure, in those areas you want to eliminate waste, and stick it to the unions sometimes, but you aren't really looking for deep cuts there. And let's be honest, both parties want to eliminate waste, which is why both parties employ budget analysts.
Instead, you are more often after services that don't benefit everyone but instead benefit those that need assistance. I gather that this feeling comes from two places. First, you think free money is a disincentive to work.
Let me comment on that briefly. I will acknowledge that people respond to incentives and so free benefits can be a disincentive to work. I imagine you would also concede though that some people want to work for its own sake but cannot find work (if not, I'd love to introduce you to the real world sometime).
If we accept both premises, than we accept that a policy that provides no help will hurt people that want to work but cannot and a policy that helps everyone will help some people avoid work. In this case, I would rather help those that might be undeserving than not help those that we would both agree are deserving. We'll never have a perfect policy - but ask yourself which way would you rather be wrong?
I would also say that you probably underestimate how many people want to work but cannot - I assume most people want to work even if they can stay home and make the same amount of money. Almost everyone values a job for its own sake - just like you and I do.
The second reason you want to see cuts in social services is that you think we are too generous in our services and could cut back while still providing basic services. That is the position of yours that I want to address because it is the most flawed.
Let me give you one example where we are not too generous and instead are far too stingy. Close your eyes and take an imaginary trip with me on the streets or subways of New York City. While we are walking, let's look for (as opposed to our usual habit of ignoring) the street homeless.
Okay, have you found a homeless individual yet? Let's see if we can describe him or her. Among other things, I assume you'll notice that the person's mental state is in some way troubled. You might in fact use the word crazy, although I would suggest the term mental illness*.
A quick survey of the research suggests that 25 percent of the homeless single adult population suffers from a severe and persistent mental illness. I think the number is higher among the chronically homeless in New York City. But let's focus on that 25 percent. Right now, those individuals are living on the street not because they are lazy or somehow value the freedom of the street, but because they need medical help. Unfortunately, we do not provide enough funding for the housing and health services they require.
I hope you see the point I am trying to make. The fact is that once you really look at the world around you - or maybe the world not around you - you will see how many people are in terrible situations that are not of their choosing. I am pointing to chronically homeless individuals, but we could also look at the foster care system, public assistance, affordable and safe housing, juvenile detention, and education. In each of these areas, more funding would help people that even you would agree are deserving and in need of help.
See, I am writing this to you because I know you share my values. I know that you are inspired to help those that are in need. I call it social justice but maybe you respond more to Jesus, who said that those that have helped the least among us have helped Jesus, and to them await the rewards of heaven. There are so many people in this world that need a hand - that need food, clothing, shelter or health support. Government is not always the solution, but when nothing else is working, we need to pool our collective resources and help.
*What if on your imaginary tour you came across someone that did not seem to have a mental illness? I would argue that the other 75 percent are unable to afford a place to live and are meanwhile choosing to avoid the shelters due to perceived or actual danger.
It has been a while since I last addressed a post to you. But I feel I have an issue to raise: government spending - specifically social services spending.
Let me start by saying that I mostly understand the desire to reign in government spending. After all, being fiscally responsible is necessary in any facet of life. The problem though is how that desire is actually carried out.
First of all, when fiscal conservatives like yourself call for less government spending, rarely are you talking about the parts of government that are clearly public services - police, fire, transportation, water and sewer, or even military. Sure, in those areas you want to eliminate waste, and stick it to the unions sometimes, but you aren't really looking for deep cuts there. And let's be honest, both parties want to eliminate waste, which is why both parties employ budget analysts.
Instead, you are more often after services that don't benefit everyone but instead benefit those that need assistance. I gather that this feeling comes from two places. First, you think free money is a disincentive to work.
Let me comment on that briefly. I will acknowledge that people respond to incentives and so free benefits can be a disincentive to work. I imagine you would also concede though that some people want to work for its own sake but cannot find work (if not, I'd love to introduce you to the real world sometime).
If we accept both premises, than we accept that a policy that provides no help will hurt people that want to work but cannot and a policy that helps everyone will help some people avoid work. In this case, I would rather help those that might be undeserving than not help those that we would both agree are deserving. We'll never have a perfect policy - but ask yourself which way would you rather be wrong?
I would also say that you probably underestimate how many people want to work but cannot - I assume most people want to work even if they can stay home and make the same amount of money. Almost everyone values a job for its own sake - just like you and I do.
The second reason you want to see cuts in social services is that you think we are too generous in our services and could cut back while still providing basic services. That is the position of yours that I want to address because it is the most flawed.
Let me give you one example where we are not too generous and instead are far too stingy. Close your eyes and take an imaginary trip with me on the streets or subways of New York City. While we are walking, let's look for (as opposed to our usual habit of ignoring) the street homeless.
Okay, have you found a homeless individual yet? Let's see if we can describe him or her. Among other things, I assume you'll notice that the person's mental state is in some way troubled. You might in fact use the word crazy, although I would suggest the term mental illness*.
A quick survey of the research suggests that 25 percent of the homeless single adult population suffers from a severe and persistent mental illness. I think the number is higher among the chronically homeless in New York City. But let's focus on that 25 percent. Right now, those individuals are living on the street not because they are lazy or somehow value the freedom of the street, but because they need medical help. Unfortunately, we do not provide enough funding for the housing and health services they require.
I hope you see the point I am trying to make. The fact is that once you really look at the world around you - or maybe the world not around you - you will see how many people are in terrible situations that are not of their choosing. I am pointing to chronically homeless individuals, but we could also look at the foster care system, public assistance, affordable and safe housing, juvenile detention, and education. In each of these areas, more funding would help people that even you would agree are deserving and in need of help.
See, I am writing this to you because I know you share my values. I know that you are inspired to help those that are in need. I call it social justice but maybe you respond more to Jesus, who said that those that have helped the least among us have helped Jesus, and to them await the rewards of heaven. There are so many people in this world that need a hand - that need food, clothing, shelter or health support. Government is not always the solution, but when nothing else is working, we need to pool our collective resources and help.
*What if on your imaginary tour you came across someone that did not seem to have a mental illness? I would argue that the other 75 percent are unable to afford a place to live and are meanwhile choosing to avoid the shelters due to perceived or actual danger.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Looking for a Friend?
Robert Novak died last month and you might be surprised to learn that I am saddened by his death. Although he was probably a little more pugnacious than I really like, in general I appreciate the smart and thoughtful political commentators.
More importantly for me personally though is that in thinking about his death, I realized again my lack of conservative friends. I truly enjoy debating politics, and while I enjoy debating people farther to the left than I am, I also like debating people to the right of me (note: my definition of debate is an honest and open exchange of ideas).
So, any conservatives out there looking for a friend?
More importantly for me personally though is that in thinking about his death, I realized again my lack of conservative friends. I truly enjoy debating politics, and while I enjoy debating people farther to the left than I am, I also like debating people to the right of me (note: my definition of debate is an honest and open exchange of ideas).
So, any conservatives out there looking for a friend?
Monday, July 07, 2008
Dear Conservative
Dear Conservative Friend / Family Member,
I always hoped that my liberal postings would rile you up and force you to respond. In fact, my posts are more often than not written for / to you. But I think I was being too subtle. So now, I am going to write some posts directly to you.
On a recent road trip with two such conservatives (you know who you are) we had two lively debates. One was about urban poverty and the other about the Iraq War. My position on the war has changed to believing that being there was a mistake and that now is a good time to start withdrawing. The two conservatives disagreed, of course.
I'll admit that pulling out will be delicate. There is the possibility that violence could escalate again. I don't want to spend too much time debating this point though because whoever is President when troops begin to come home will have to watch what happens in Iraq and respond accordingly.
The main issue I want to debate is about whether we should have invaded, and when we should in the future. Each situation will be different from the one before it, but I think we can come up with reasonable guidelines while still being flexible enough to change if we have to. Our country would be much better off if we used our foreign policy to actually express our core principles. Too often in the past our foreign policy has been either morally bankrupt or completely hypocritical.
When it comes to deciding whether to invade, the primary reason has been and should remain whether the other country poses an imminent threat. Afghanistan obviously falls into this category. Iraq does not. Even if you allow for the fact that many intelligence services believed Saddam had a weapons program, nobody really thought there was an imminent danger to the US; a long term concern maybe, but not an imminent threat.
I know some would argue that you shouldn't wait until he has the weapons - which is when he will be more dangerous. I agree. But I think it is clear in retrospect that we could have waited longer. We could have given the weapons inspectors more time - given containment more time to work. Deciding when someone is an imminent threat isn't a science, but I don't think anyone believes we were at that point with Saddam.
It seems for some, a reason to continue believing the invasion was right is that we need a democratic role model in the Middle East. Granted, we need to acknowledge that this wasn't one of the main reasons for the invasion, but became the main reason when WMD's didn't materialize. Even so, the argument should be taken seriously. In fact, for a long time, I was right behind Thomas Friedman favoring this argument. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for me anymore. We talk a good game when it comes to democracy, but we don't follow though. We tolerate Saudi Arabia - a very oppressive monarchy, and we ignore the results of Palestinian elections because we don't like who they chose (without even wondering why they chose them). If we are going to support democracy, we have to do it everywhere if we are to retain moral credibility.
Someone said in regards to this argument that Iraq was low hanging fruit. Maybe, but was it the lowest? Could we have supported a democracy in the Middle East without losing more than 4,000 American soldiers, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees? I think we could have done a better job in Afghanistan (where Al Qaeda is making gains again), supported Lebanon - including stopping Israel's disastrous invasion, recognized Hamas' victory in Palestine - while keeping them on a short leash, and been tougher with Saudi Arabia. All of this could have been done without the disastrous consequences we see in Iraq.
This gets to my main point. Besides invading when there is an imminent threat, I think the only other time we should get involved is when the situation is bad enough that we can't likely make it worse and could conceivably make it much better. Iraq, at the time of the invasion, wasn't a model of human rights and democracy, but wasn't as bad as many other places around the world and certainly not as bad as it was before, and directly after, the first Gulf War. Under this reasoning, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but we would get involved in places like Rwanda, the Balkans, Sudan, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. I think if we were fighting to create more democracies and protect those under horrible dictatorships, as some (with memory problems) argue Iraq is about, there are better places to start.
What may end up happening over the next decade is Iraq could improve slowly, mirroring in some ways South Korea. If that happens, people might forget these disastrous years, as many forget the ups and downs of the Korean War. In fact, tens of thousands of Americans and South Koreans died, and we are still paying to have troops in South Korea. Yet this draws little protest and South Korea is seen as a success.
If this is the case, then I probably won't have a strong response. While I still believe that the costs to the Iraqis so far has been great - partly because of our mismanagement, I think that through containment and time, we might have achieved the same goal for the Iraqi people at a smaller cost to them and us.
So what do you think, unnamed conservative friend / family member? Care to weigh in?
I always hoped that my liberal postings would rile you up and force you to respond. In fact, my posts are more often than not written for / to you. But I think I was being too subtle. So now, I am going to write some posts directly to you.
On a recent road trip with two such conservatives (you know who you are) we had two lively debates. One was about urban poverty and the other about the Iraq War. My position on the war has changed to believing that being there was a mistake and that now is a good time to start withdrawing. The two conservatives disagreed, of course.
I'll admit that pulling out will be delicate. There is the possibility that violence could escalate again. I don't want to spend too much time debating this point though because whoever is President when troops begin to come home will have to watch what happens in Iraq and respond accordingly.
The main issue I want to debate is about whether we should have invaded, and when we should in the future. Each situation will be different from the one before it, but I think we can come up with reasonable guidelines while still being flexible enough to change if we have to. Our country would be much better off if we used our foreign policy to actually express our core principles. Too often in the past our foreign policy has been either morally bankrupt or completely hypocritical.
When it comes to deciding whether to invade, the primary reason has been and should remain whether the other country poses an imminent threat. Afghanistan obviously falls into this category. Iraq does not. Even if you allow for the fact that many intelligence services believed Saddam had a weapons program, nobody really thought there was an imminent danger to the US; a long term concern maybe, but not an imminent threat.
I know some would argue that you shouldn't wait until he has the weapons - which is when he will be more dangerous. I agree. But I think it is clear in retrospect that we could have waited longer. We could have given the weapons inspectors more time - given containment more time to work. Deciding when someone is an imminent threat isn't a science, but I don't think anyone believes we were at that point with Saddam.
It seems for some, a reason to continue believing the invasion was right is that we need a democratic role model in the Middle East. Granted, we need to acknowledge that this wasn't one of the main reasons for the invasion, but became the main reason when WMD's didn't materialize. Even so, the argument should be taken seriously. In fact, for a long time, I was right behind Thomas Friedman favoring this argument. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for me anymore. We talk a good game when it comes to democracy, but we don't follow though. We tolerate Saudi Arabia - a very oppressive monarchy, and we ignore the results of Palestinian elections because we don't like who they chose (without even wondering why they chose them). If we are going to support democracy, we have to do it everywhere if we are to retain moral credibility.
Someone said in regards to this argument that Iraq was low hanging fruit. Maybe, but was it the lowest? Could we have supported a democracy in the Middle East without losing more than 4,000 American soldiers, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees? I think we could have done a better job in Afghanistan (where Al Qaeda is making gains again), supported Lebanon - including stopping Israel's disastrous invasion, recognized Hamas' victory in Palestine - while keeping them on a short leash, and been tougher with Saudi Arabia. All of this could have been done without the disastrous consequences we see in Iraq.
This gets to my main point. Besides invading when there is an imminent threat, I think the only other time we should get involved is when the situation is bad enough that we can't likely make it worse and could conceivably make it much better. Iraq, at the time of the invasion, wasn't a model of human rights and democracy, but wasn't as bad as many other places around the world and certainly not as bad as it was before, and directly after, the first Gulf War. Under this reasoning, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but we would get involved in places like Rwanda, the Balkans, Sudan, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. I think if we were fighting to create more democracies and protect those under horrible dictatorships, as some (with memory problems) argue Iraq is about, there are better places to start.
What may end up happening over the next decade is Iraq could improve slowly, mirroring in some ways South Korea. If that happens, people might forget these disastrous years, as many forget the ups and downs of the Korean War. In fact, tens of thousands of Americans and South Koreans died, and we are still paying to have troops in South Korea. Yet this draws little protest and South Korea is seen as a success.
If this is the case, then I probably won't have a strong response. While I still believe that the costs to the Iraqis so far has been great - partly because of our mismanagement, I think that through containment and time, we might have achieved the same goal for the Iraqi people at a smaller cost to them and us.
So what do you think, unnamed conservative friend / family member? Care to weigh in?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)