On Experience

With the presidential elections right now mostly between Obama and Clinton, and since I just got official news that Richardson has dropped out, it seems appropriate to talk about experience. Hillary has spent much of this campaign claiming she has more experience than the rest of the field. What has bothered me was that if we were really voting on experience, we would have chosen Richardson without question. During his not-yet-complete two terms as governor of New Mexico, he was wildly popular, oversaw growth (especially by attracting businesses), cut some taxes, and watched as some major state indicators improved (including education). On top of that, he has been Secretary of Energy, US Ambassador to the UN, and a volunteer negotiator to Iraq, North Korea and Sudan.

But experience isn’t the main criteria. It is popularity / name recognition. Then, once we look at the popular ones, we can compare their experience. Okay, so let’s compare Hillary and Obama. Hillary has served one full term in the Senate, and when the presidential inauguration comes around, she’ll have completed two more years – for a total of eight. Barak Obama will have served four years in the Senate when inauguration day comes around. So Hillary has a small advantage there – nothing worth bragging about.

Before being Senator, Obama served eight years in the Illinois Senate. Hillary served eight years as first lady. So here is my question: Is being First Lady substantially better experience than serving in a state senate? I do think it depends on the First Lady. In this case, I don’t know of any major items that would help her claim of experience except her work on Health Care reform. I don’t want to minimize that just because it failed. I do believe it was valuable experience. But that is the only thing I can think of. Instead, it seems like she is suggesting that she was involved in the decision-making process in some capacity. I don’t doubt that her and Bill discussed policy and politics nor do I doubt that she provided valuable advice. But even so, I am still not convinced that giving good advice to the President when consulted can be used to back up the claim that she has far more experience than Obama.

Any way I analyze it, the three candidates we are left with are all relatively inexperienced. I only wish that people would realize this and we could move past it and focus on the things that really separate these candidates: their ideas, their beliefs, and their character.

On New Hampshire

I wrote a really long post about New Hampshire, and it mostly focused on bashing Hillary. I have decided instead to start anew and this time be more concise. So, as far as New Hampshire goes, I was upset to see Hillary win. I was afraid she won back that air of inevitability, but I don't think that is actually the case yet. Either way, I really don't like Hillary.

There are two main reasons I don't like Hillary. First, if her campaign is a referendum on Bill's presidency (and it has to be if she is claiming her time as first lady as "experience" that sets her apart from Obama), then I don't think they deserve another term in the White House. I can't for the life of me think of anything significant they / he did while President. Besides offering a really nice apology to Rwanda and finally getting involved in the Balkans (better late then never), I am at a loss. There was also welfare reform, which I don't oppose, but I don't know how successful that really was, nor was it his doing if I remember right. Granted the economy was very strong, but I would say he / they did a good job of not ruining the growth as opposed to being responsible for it. So why should we reelect a team that produced very little after eight years in office? The only explanation I can come up with is that we just want someone who won't ruin the world as Bush has done. But I think we need to set our expectations higher.

The other reason I don't like her just has to do with her personality. I realize that a truly informed person wouldn't base their decision on something as nebulous as personality. But in reality, a candidate can be as wonkish as they want, and have lots of detailed policy ideas going into office, but that all washes away once they try dealing with Congress and once the world changes and forces events on them. So in the end, I have to trust the person I am going to vote for; I have to trust that I know their core beliefs and trust that they will make good decisions. That's why I used to support McCain (before it really sunk in how socially conservative he is). And that's why I don't support Hillary. This Maureen Dowd column gets at some of the reasons. But basically I think she is too strategic, and not real enough. (It is true thought that this charge didn't really stick to Bill much because of how charismatic he is.)

Despite how much I am beating up on Hillary, the truth is that I will definitely vote for her in the general election if she wins the primary. But I would much rather see Obama there.

Okay, so much for being brief.

Finally, a Repalcement for Safire

I was thrilled when I read that the Times was hiring the neo-conservative editor of the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol, to write a weekly column for the paper. I have missed William Safire since he stopped writing political columns, and although I think David Brooks is pretty good, he just feels too moderate to really count as the paper's token conservative. (This quote in a Slate article on the same subject sums it up nice, "Brooks tries to persuade his readers of his views gently, as if he's a guest in the house. Kristol lives to brawl and make enemies.")

The fact is that I think we need someone at the Times who is going to shake up liberals like me. I rarely agreed with William Safire, but it was important to know what he, and others like him, were saying. And most times it made me more sure of my position and got me more riled up against the conservatives like him. But I rarely missed one of his columns.

What I don't get is why people would be upset about it. That there should be at least one conservative voice at a liberal paper seems like common sense. But it seems that there are people that would rather the paper remain pure and only hire liberals (or at worst inoffensive moderate conservatives). This way, they'll never have to actually hear from intelligent conservatives. And painting Kristol as on the fringe is ludicrous. He is a standard neo-con, and his views are pretty widely shared by Republicans - including many of those in the party's presidential primary.

The bottom line is that those that are scared to let the opposition talk do so because they are not confident enough in their own message. They are afraid that by giving him a platform at a liberal newspaper, he'll convince liberals to become neo-cons (sorry, but Friedman already tried that). I have no problem letting Kristol speak because I know that if we make our case right, next time we'll be able to prevent another Iraq. And if not, it's our fault, not Bill Kristol's.

Update: Kristol's first column was on Monday. It neither enraged me nor made me think differently about my opinion. Basically, it was pretty plain. But I am still glad it is there. And I am sure that in the coming Mondays his columns will do what aggressive conservative columns are supposed to do to me - and for me.

Dyersville?

So, I haven't posted here in a while. Since I started blogging at the Human Rights Committee, I haven't made the time to continue blogging here. But since I have a few minutes, I thought I would get down my thoughts about the recent Iowa caucus. (I meant to write about who I supported before the first primaries, but that just didn't happen)

Overall, I am pleased. Right now, I am a fan of Obama, mostly because I am not a fan of the other contenders, or former contenders. I can run through them all if you'd like:

* Biden is now out - but hopefully he'll be considered for secretary of defense or national security council (positions he would be much better at then president)

* Richardson is more experienced than any of the three remaining candidates but his Iraq plan is lunacy - maybe he'll get a good appointment also

* Edwards - I just don't like his tone - his aggressive posturing towards big business and the right is both a turn off to me and I am not convinced it is the most effective strategy for progressive reform

* Hillary - as much as I would like a female president she seems a little too hawkish (I think I have changed over the last few years) and I am never sure whether her positions are genuine or strategic. On top of that, I think she is running on Bill's legacy too much, both to boost the level of "experience" she can claim and to simply hearken back to the good old days of the 1990's.

* Obama - He is young, inspiring, and super intelligent. He may not be a policy wonk, which leaves him a little fuzzy on specific plans, but in the end, I trust his judgment more than any of the other candidates. And right now, that is all I can ask for. Because truly, no matter what someone says in the debates, their positions can change quickly if you elect someone who isn't smart or consistent (think back to Bush's plans for isolationism during the 2000 Presidential debates).

Plus, I think I am ready for a change. I am sick of the Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton cycle.

As for the Republicans, the only one I would maybe consider is McCain. He stood by his belief of increasing troop levels (something he has been saying for years) and that has produced results. But in the end, I still think I want a Democrat for president.

What Have We Learned?

On the blog for the Human Rights Committee that I am a part of, I talked a little about the situation in Pakistan where General Musharraf has declared emergency rule and imprisoned 500 people from the opposition party. What I want to talk about here though is the broader foreign policy involved.

Throughout our history, we have used our power to judge and influence foreign governments. Countries we support get financial aid, and those we don't can be ignored, sanctioned or sometimes overthrown. What I want to talk about is when and why we support certain governments.

Our main criteria for support include economy (socialist of market), friendliness to US and US businesses, and democracy. Since it is obvious that a country with a market economy, functioning democracy, and friendly relations with US and our businesses would warrant our support, and a lack of all three would not, I will not bother discussing them. What is more interesting to me are the countries in the middle.

In many situations, we have countries that, if democratic would choose either socialism or to spurn the US (I am lumping both of these together because I think they are similar in that by being either socialist or not supporting our interests, a country runs contrary to our interests) and if not democratic would support a market economy and welcome American businesses. The question is, which of these alternatives should the US push for.

To date, we have obviously chosen the later; we are willing to support (if not create) governments that are not democratic - and can in fact be very brutal - so long as they are pro-US and have market economies. I think that if we look to history it is clear that not only is it better for our reputation to support democracies even when they oppose us (like Venezuela), but it is in our interest. Iran is of course the glaring example of this, but we could also look to Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. In fact, the argument could be made that Chavez's anti-American rhetoric is so popular because of our history in South America (Chile, for example).

Unfortunately, our leaders are much better at working for short-term gains instead of focusing on the long term. A leader like Musharraf will pay immediate dividends as a supporter of the GWOT (supposedly) and as always there is less risk in dealing with someone you know as opposed to someone you don't. But in the long term, our reputation and our security will be much better served with a population in Pakistan that remembers that we supported their democracy instead of allowing a military dictator to continue.

I want to finish though by noting that this issue extends beyond Pakistan. Political parties affiliated with strong Islamic groups are making grounds in countries like Palestine and Egypt. I think that we would do better to support the governments that get elected rather than supporting democracy only when it leads to the outcome we favor.

No Bipartisan Revolt?

A friend and I discussed the history of the strong executive in an email exchange last week. It is no secret that the Bush administration has been expanding presidential powers since they took office - mostly through the effort of VP Cheney. As I have thought about this, I often wondered if I would object as much if it were a Democrat seeking greater powers. In fact, my friend got us started on the debate by referencing Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals. After reading that book, I was glad Lincoln was firmly in charge instead of Congress.

Granted, to some degree that was during a war, where most people would support a much stronger president. Now, Bush claims that there is a Global War on Terrorism, one that is everlasting therefore allowing his expanded powers to be everlasting. Before I start an argument over semantics, lets avoid discussing whether the GWOT is a useful title for our current situation. In fact, for simplicity sake, let's just agree that it is a war (after all, we still use the term cold war - so obviously the word war can apply to diverse situations). Even if we allow it to be labeled a war, we should ask whether it is a war that requires expanded presidential powers.

My personal feeling is that a strong executive, one that is not responsive to Congress, is only necessary under grave threat and for as short a time as possible. Although threats are serious, I don't think it is enough that we should allow a President to choose not to follow Congressional laws. If I am intellectually consistent though, I have to agree that I would say the same thing if a Democrat were in office, which is the question I asked a few paragraphs ago. And I believe that I would argue the same points then. The fact is, Democrat or Republican, no president should issue signing statements that declare they don't really have to follow the law that was just passed (as Bush did with the torture law for example).

What I truly don't understand though is why it hasn't become a bipartisan issue. Why haven't Republicans in Congress bristled at a President that rules without them? I can't fathom how a Republican would allow a president in the same party to make them effectively irrelevant, just because they generally agree (on the torture signing statement, maybe they thought he was doing them a favor - they could support an overwhelmingly popular bill that they didn't agree with while their buddy the President would make it clear he wasn't really going to follow it). But in general he has taken power away from Congress, and Republicans have done little about it. This I find truly baffling.

Elect Rudy, Get 4 More Years of Bush

I actually think my headline is a bit of an understatement. Recent quotes from Rudy suggest that many of his foreign policy positions are more hard-lined, and therefore at this point worse for our country, than President Bush's policies. First, Guliani thinks water boarding might not be torture depending on how it is carried out (apparently he doesn't realize that it is a specific procedure carried out in a specific way). Thankfully, McCain responded and set him straight. Also, Rudy has made it clear that he supports Israel completely and considers Palestine to be nothing but terrorists. And he says that history will judge the Iraq War as the right decision. Finally, his rhetoric on Iran has been more belligerent than Bush, if you can believe that.

All of this is terrible policy. Aggressive interrogation practices don't necessarily yield better information and on top of that, it further hurts our image abroad. A hard-lined support for Israel does the same thing. In fact, if one wanted to increase anti-Americanism and increase the number of people willing to do us harm, they would be hard-pressed to think of two better ways of doing it. Bush, thanks to Secretary Rice, has finally realized that our total support for Israel is one of the main rallying points of anti-Americanism in the Middle East.

Rudy believing that invading Iraq was the right decision means he would likely make a similar decision if he is president. Which brings us to Iran, where the harsh rhetoric only strengthens their president by allowing him to talk about America instead of Iran's rapidly declining economy at least, and at most could lead us to a war with them (a war that would cost us).

My guess is that since Rudy knows he won't win the primary by talking about his views on gun control, gay rights, or abortion, he figures the best thing he can do is reinforce his credentials as the President of 9/11 - namely showing how tough he is. It depresses me how much I see this happening during the primaries. The problem is that I think he probably believes what he is saying. And the last thing we need is four years of foreign policy that is more aggressive than Bush's - especially when he doesn't seem to have learned any lessons from Bush.

Can't Manage

If we are going to be honest we need to admit that the Democrats have been such a letdown in Congress. And I don't mean this from a policy perspective. Most of the things they have fought for I agree with (increased funding for some social welfare priorities for example). But from an effectiveness perspective they have been useless. On Iraq they have done very little that is meaningful and even their comments are vapid and useless.

Even worse though has been their handling of the budget. Part of the reason Democrats were swept into power in Congress is because Republicans, who are supposed to be fiscally responsible, were seen as wasteful. But now, because Democrats can't agree on a budget and can't decide how to proceed in the face of Bush's veto threats, Republicans are once again able to cast themselves as protectors of restrained spending and Democrats are once again given the label "tax and spend". The 2006 elections were a gift, and the current leadership of the party is letting that gift spoil.

My New Venture

Although I haven't been posting here nearly as much as I want to, I will be posting even less here in the future. I have joined a human rights advocacy committee - part of the Young Professionals for International Cooperation - and I started a blog for that committee. Anything I write about human rights will be posted there. I hope you will check it out. I will continue to post some things here related to domestic policy and parts of foreign policy that don't quite fit under human rights.

To Rebel?

There was an article in the NY Times yesterday where a reporter was sitting in on debates between officers in the US Army. The debates were about the Iraq War and whether generals should have said more in the lead-up to the war about troop levels. The main argument in the debate seems to fall around when you are supposed to follow orders and when you should speak out in hopes of changing policy. I have been thinking about their arguments recently, because it both is meaningful in terms of having civilian control of the military but also because it applies to my work as a public administrator.

For many liberals, this issue doesn't seem hard at first. The generals should have spoken out and prevented the war from happening (or calling for many more troops, which would have had the same effect). One of the officers in the article though mentioned that if the military prevented any policy it disagreed with by fighting it in the press, the civilian leaders would no longer be in control of the military. Imagine a different scenario where a president wants to get involved to end a genocide but his or her military leadership drums up opposition to prevent it. This is unfathomable; Colin Powell was opposed to intervening in Bosnia.

This issue plays itself out in settings outside the military as well. I was trained in public administration, and one of the issues we talked about was when you are supposed to go along with an administration you don't agree with, and when you should resist or resign / quit. As civil servants, this is a big issue. Of course in class we watched a video about the Japanese Ambassador to Germany who signed papers allowing many Jews to leave Germany. This is a grand example, and although it was tremendously brave, doesn't help with the less obvious examples. Many of us might think Iraq is an obvious example, but we can think about working for EPA for example under President Bush. Liberals working there might want to fight his policies that are ruining our environment, but if everyone followed that lead, president's would be powerless and civil servants would run government. At some point, people have to be willing to work for a leader even if they don't agree with him or her.

The point of this rambling post is that we need to be careful what we wish for. A more outspoken military leadership might prevent meaningful interventions (or otherwise stand in the way of good policy).

Myanmar

The most recent article I read about Myanmar turned my anger into depression. It seems that the military is a big part of the culture, and decreasing its role seems unlikely. At the same time though, it shouldn't be impossible to give it a role similar to ours. The need for a strong US military is rarely questioned in mainstream America. But it doesn't rule the country or violently crack down on protests (although the police does sometimes).

What's worse is that it seems like sanctions won't do a thing, and there is little hope that any UN or American peacekeeping force would be tolerated. So, with the help of China, we'll probably get some concessions from the military junta that makes it look like it is opening up, and then soon enough things will go back to normal - where normal means monks get beaten and arrested when they call for democracy.

UPDATE:
You have to love The Onion, and not just for its crude but random humor. It's political satire is so often spot on. Take this one for example:

First Lady Laura Bush said Tuesday that the White House was ready to slap sanctions on the Burmese military government if it did not move toward democracy. What do you think?

Ian Brannon,
High School Administrator
"I didn't care about Darfur. Good luck getting me to give a shit about Burma."

So true - and so depressing. Although the fact that Laura Bush is talking about it suggests that the American public is likely to be more sympathetic towards monks in Burma than Africans in Sudan.

Our New Best Friend

Many conservatives were supportive of Bush's "go-it-alone" approach to foreign policy. Unfortunately, it looks like the result was that we traded partners like France, Germany, and the UN for China. I wonder if that was part of the plan.

Granted, part of the reason they are a partner is they have the leverage we need in dealing with countries like North Korea, Iran, and Myanmar; leverage that we wouldn't have going through the UN. Still, this (along with the Iraq War) shows the limits of "Cowboy diplomacy".

I would say that it is comforting to see China being so active, but in the end, they are doing it because it is in their interest.

No Hope in Congo

Summary:
There has been an epidemic of rapes recently in the Congo. The Rwandan genocide of 1994 may be one of the causes.

I wonder if President Clinton realizes the long term consequences of our acceptance of the genocide in Rwanda. Sure, he has apologized for it, and maybe he thinks he really meant it. But if he thinks the situation is behind him - and behind the world - he is wrong.

In Congo, there is a serious epidemic of rape (an odd phrase since one rape is too many, and two might be enough for me to consider it an epidemic). Here is the NY Times on the story: According to the United Nations, 27,000 sexual assaults were reported in 2006 in South Kivu Province alone, and that may be just a fraction of the total number across the country. We know that women have been victims during conflict; rapes were a part of the genocide in Rwanda and are a major concern in Darfur and refugee camps for those feeling the violence in Darfur. But the sheer numbers in the Congo, particularly the Eastern region is horrifying.

The reason I link this to the genocide in Rwanda is that one of the groups carrying out the rapes were members of the Hutu militias responsible for the genocide. Since then they have apparently fled Rwanda into Congo. The NY Times article suggests that the psychological damage from the genocide might be playing a part in the particular savageness of these crimes.

To me, the bigger reason is the lawlessness in the region. The largest UN peacekeeping mission is in Congo(17,000 troops), but it isn't nearly big enough. Until the world gets seriously invested in protecting the victims of conflict and post-conflict situations, we will continue to hear horrifying stories like this.

Not Interested

I've got to say, I don't really understand all the attention we give to President Ahmadinejad of Iran. He is far weaker in his own government than we make him out to be. So why do we pay so much attention to him, when all it does is make him more popular and make him look strong? It isn't smart strategy. If I were the Bush administration, I would make sure to say things like, "We are disappointed that the President of Iran is saying this, but in the end, we listen to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for information about the policy direction of Iran." It also makes us look dumb to care so much about what he says because it makes us look like we don't know that he is mostly powerless.

Yup, I Like Vouchers

Summary:
Guess what? I now support vouchers. Two studies are showing that some voucher programs are demonstrating early positive results. And I can no longer find reasons to defend why low income students should be kept out of private schools when their public schools are failing.

The New York Sun published an article about new research that shows vouchers improved public schools in Milwaukee. The research was done by Federal Reserve Economist Rajashri Chakrabarti, and is available here. Further, RAND Corporation released a study that also investigates effects of school vouchers. Their conclusion is that it is too early to judge for sure whether these programs have or have not worked, but some programs have shown promising results, and program design is very important to the success of the school choice program.

I have two comments about these studies. One is that when more research like this comes out, liberals need to trust its findings and change their opinions just like they expect conservatives to do when studies show evidence that contradicts their beliefs. I don't actually expect either side to do this, but I feel the need to say this anyway. The fact is, liberals (including myself) yell and scream when conservatives say that people on welfare are just lazy, despite overwhelming evidence that most want to work but face significant obstacles (need for childcare, no jobs nearby, no easy way to get to jobs that are far away, etc). So if our goal is to improve education opportunities (as opposed to just trying to preserve funding for public schools regardless of results), and if it seems some voucher programs do improve achievement, than we need to adjust our thinking and support them.

My second point though is on the philosophy of school choice. I am finding it harder and harder to defend the opinion that we need to force people who can't afford private schools to remain in traditional public schools. The current argument seems to be that public schools are sacred institutions and we need to preserve them at all costs. It is hard to see public schools this way when so many schools are failing so many people.

There is often debate about whether education is valued in some of the communities where performance is worse. It doesn't seem hard to understand though why people would stop believing in education if they were in a place where the public schools were terrible and there were no other options available. Many of the studies I have seen show high parental satisfaction rates with charter schools and voucher programs - even when performance isn't improving. So obviously parents want options.

So after reading the results of these two studies, I am ready to support vouchers (I already support charter schools) in low income areas with low performing schools. The program should be specifically targeted to those in the failing schools, and should be direct subsidies instead of income credits. Anyway, I suggest everyone reads at least the press release of the two studies - or if you have to choose one, read the RAND press release.

It's About Time

So who else is excited that the NY Times finally ended TimesSelect? See, now when you read my posts, you can actually read the Nicholas Kristof and Thomas Friedman columns that I link to. You're excited aren't you?

I would link to a column now to celebrate, except Kristof in on book leave, and Friedman's recent columns haven't been great.

I'm with Bremer

Summary: I don't think Bremer's decision to disband the Iraqi army was necessarily a bad one. And the problem in Iraq isn't this issue, the problem is that we didn't go in with enough troops and didn't plan for the occupation.

I have so much I want to write about, I don't quite know where to start. I guess I will begin with something quick. Recently, L. Paul Bremer 3 has been defending his decision to disband the Iraqi army and move forward with de-Baathification. In hindsight, both decisions seem to have been very poor choices. But I don't know if this was obvious as they were being carried out. Before I get into it though, I want to be clear that I think these failed strategies point to the bigger problem that the Bush administration clearly didn't plan for what to do with Iraq after they ousted Saddam.

I have to say, I think it would have been hard to keep the Iraqi army together after our initial run to Baghdad. The army was a symbol of Saddam's brutal oppression, especially to Shiites. And the group whose support we needed from the beginning was the Shiites. They are the majority in the country, and they have reason not to trust us. After the first Gulf War, we encouraged them to rise up, and then refused to intervene when Saddam crushed them. Leaving the army in place would have sent a very bad sign, and might have caused an even stronger Shiite resistance than we see now.

In the end, the reason this failed isn't so much a few policies that didn't work. It failed because we went in without enough troops and without much thought planning about how to handle the country once Saddam was gone. We need to focus on that, and not get lost arguing about some of these smaller issues - especially one like this where neither option is a very good option.

Rousseau and Hobbes (Nope, No Calvin)

Summary:
An article in the NY Times magazine puts a new spin on religious extremism in the Middle East by comparing it to the West's religious history. The author suggests that our move towards secular liberal democracy might be unique and we cannot expect the Middle East to jump on board. If so, what kind of governments are we willing to tolerate?

I am getting caught up on my back issues of NY Times Sunday Magazine and finally finished this article. It puts religious extremism in the Middle East in the context of the West's own religious history. The author's main point seems to be that our own history is similar to what the Middle East is going through, but our conversion to secular liberal democracy is unique. We therefore can't expect the Middle East to follow that path, especially at so fast a pace.

In showing how similar the current situation in the Middle East is to our own history, the author tries to make us recognize that religious extremism is a natural human impulse. He talks about how we use terms like fascism to describe the extremism we are witnessing, and we blame it on the economic and political systems that lead people to messianic views of religion. This point is compelling, except that it ignores Hobbes' description of why religion took hold in the Middle Ages; life was chaotic (solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short...) and religion gave people comfort. Similarly, people in the Middle East are turning towards a form of religion that is empowering. So I don't think we can discount how overall life conditions affect the strength of religious devotion and the lengths to which believers will go in its name.

The author's conclusion is that we can't expect secular liberal democracy to develop and we will have to accept non-secular governments in the Middle East, even some who base their laws on Sharia. The author sites Muslim writers like Tariq Ramadan (who was prevented from taking a teaching position at Notre Dame by the US government) who are pushing for more modern interpretations of Islam but are not suggesting that Muslims disavow Islamic law. This is a very different position from people like Thomas Friedman who say that liberal democracy is the only hope for the Middle East.

This article seems to illuminate two really difficult issues. One is whether or not other countries / cultures have to follow the West's development path. If so, the next question is whether they have to follow all our steps or can we help them jump ahead to our stage. This is an obvious issue in development, but I see it here too. Can we help the world achieve secular liberal democracy, or do we need to step back and let them figure it out?

The other broad issue is the tension between relativism and universalism. While we think about whether cultures will follow our path, we should also think about whether they have to? We believe secular liberal democracy is the best form of government - but should we impose it on everyone else (even if try methods less violent than Iraq)? If not, what kind of governments are we willing to tolerate? The author of this article suggests we might have to accept governments based on Sharia, but with more modern interpretations of the Koran. I don't believe that you have to be either be a universalist or a relativist. There is a middle ground - no matter what adjunct professors at graduate school say. There are some things we cannot accept, like rules that completely subjugate women.

I think both of these issues lie at the crux of our foreign policy (that is, if we care about having a thoughtful and consistent foreign policy). What do we accept, and what should we do to move governments towards what we find acceptable?

Overthrow: A Synopsis

Summary:
Stephen Kinzer lays out all of the situations when the American government has overthrown a foreign government. It is indeed a long list: Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iran, Chile, South Vietnam, Guatemala, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In most of the situations, our reasons seem incredibly unjust. Unfortunately, the book is far too superficial to feel completely confident in all of its conclusions. Either way though, in the end our actions rarely resulted with us achieving our aims in the long run and in many of the situations we should feel ashamed for what we did.

The idea of the book is brilliant. It means to show how badly America has been at regime change and how many times our reasons for intervening were both bunk and unjust. Unfortunately, the book lacks solid detail and analysis, and gives the feeling that the author wanted to rush through the book so he could fit everything in. Overall it makes a good point, but for the individual cases, I feel that I would need to do more research to draw any real conclusions. (This is of course the exact opposite feeling you get from Samantha Power's book - you don't feel like she left anything out.)

The author notes that he has left Indonesia, Brazil, the Congo, Mexico, Haiti and the Dominican Republic off the list because for the first three the US didn't play the decisive role in the overthrow and in the last three the US invaded but did not overthrow the governments. Kinzer also does a good job of giving us a list of villains, including John Foster Dulles, Henry Kissinger, and everyone in the George W. Bush administration.

Kinzer breaks the book into three sections based on the types of intervention. The first section describes overthrows that were based largely on imperialistic grounds. This isn't how it was justified to the public, but based on the evidence Kinzer gives us, there is little doubt the reasons were to expand our power and protect American business. The following countries fall into this list: Hawaii (now a state), Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Nicaragua, and Honduras. Of these countries, Cuba, the Philippines, Nicaragua and Honduras have had a tumultuous history since our intervention and were much more peaceful beforehand.

The second part shows covert action against supposed leaders leaning towards communism. Countries included in this section are Iran, Chile, South Vietnam and Guatemala. In each of these countries though, threat of communism was either misinterpreted or a veil to disguise imperialist reasons.

Presidents and others had no doubt the Soviets were manipulating Mossadegh [Iran], Arbenz [Guatemala], and Allende [Chile]. That turned out to have been wrong. The three leaders had differing views of Marxism - Mossadegh detested it, Arbenz sympathized with it, Allende embraced it - but they were nationalists above all.

In Guatemala and Chile, various American business interests (United Fruit, telephone, railroad, and others) would have been hurt by the popular socialist / nationalist governments. And in Iran, Mossadegh, their popular leader, wanted to take back control of the country's oil wealth from foreign companies. Our current poor relations with Iran can be traced back to the moment we overthrew Mossadegh. And our history in Chile, where we overthrew a popularly elected president and supported a violent far-right government, is something we should forever be ashamed of. Vietnam was of course unlike the other three in that we were overthrowing a leader while we were aiding that country in war - we hoped to get a leader who would be better in the war against North Vietnam.

The third section focuses on actual invasions. Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq all fall into this section. We know much about the later two; I think most would say that our invasion of Afghanistan was just, but we turned our attention to Iraq far too soon, and Iraq was neither just nor has it been managed well. The first two also might be argued as somewhat legit (Noriega and the New Jewel leaders were ruining their countries), but again, poorly managed and unstable following our intervention (the looting in Panama is all too similar to Iraq).

What we see throughout the book, and still present today, is American aggression towards countries that attempt to exercise independence and empowerment. On the flip side, America exhibits tolerance for oppression and violence by leaders of countries that support us and give free reign to our businesses. Our role in Iran has had disastrous effects on our foreign policy, we are still paying for preventing elections in Cuba, and we should be seriously ashamed by what we tolerated in Chile and elsewhere in the name of propping up governments that would be anti-communist and pro-American (but not democratic). We should have learned our lesson before Iraq, and we should mind it when we deal with someone like Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan.

Red Scared

Summary:
Communism v. Capitalism is really equality (fairness) v. efficiency. In gov't, want more fairness. In business you want more efficiency so you can have a higher overall standard of living. But market failures lead to necessity of gov't intervention to fix some inequities.

A coworker and good friend of mine likes to make a show of her support for communism around me. I think in part she plays it up because it gets me all agitated - apparently people get a kick out of seeing me in an excited state. Each time she brings it up I make it clear that I think communism is unrealistic - that the theory obviously doesn't understand human nature. The point being that communism can never work without being propped up by authoritarian government.

What I really should point out though is that even if communism was implemented democratically, it would still be bad policy. In my mind, free market and communism represent opposite extremes of efficiency versus equity / fairness. I believe that government should be much closer to the extreme of equity and fairness, which is why I firmly believe in a government of collective decision-making (democracy).

In the business world though, I lean more towards efficiency because with more efficiency, you can have a higher overall standard of living. Communism has never been able to achieve the level of comfort and average wealth that free markets have. This is the case in part because in a free market you have a select group of people managing the assets and making decisions. The basic idea of communism is the opposite - collective ownership of the means of production. In this scenario, all workers make all decisions collectively and share the risk and reward. While collectives and co-ops can be successful, on the whole I think they are far less efficient. On a bigger scale where profit motives disappear, efficiency decreases.

I will acknowledge that I am oversimplifying economic theory significantly in places, but I think the overall point still stands. And I know I am not breaking any new ground necessarily, but if I were I would likely be in a Econ PhD program.

Now, one more point before I conclude. While I clearly celebrate the virtues of free market capitalism, we must also acknowledge what a lot of the strict free marketeers won't: Markets aren't perfect. There exist glaring market failures that government has a role in correcting. One obvious example of this is the environment. While our economy puts a price on land, it doesn't put a price on air. Without government intervention, businesses would not have worked to decrease their environmental impact in the 80s and 90s (we still have a long way to go). And without further intervention, businesses will not decrease their green house gas emissions.

Another example of a market failure is unemployment. While a certain amount of employment is necessary for a stable and efficient economy (theory holds that "Natural Unemployment" protects against wage inflation), any decent sense of fairness requires that government intervene to take of those that are left out. This is why social welfare programs are necessary.

There will always be a trade-off between fairness and efficiency. And like a good moderate, I believe that the only way to be successful is to keep both in mind. An efficient system allows us all to have the best life we can - to enjoy both comforts and necessities. And a fair system helps us take care of people and problems that the market doesn't value.