The reality is that after Sept. 11, we entered a two- or three-year period of what you might call Bush-Cheney policy. The country was blindsided. Intelligence officials knew next to nothing about the threats arrayed against them. The Bush administration tried just about everything to discover and prevent threats. The Bush people believed they were operating within the law but they did things most of us now find morally offensive and counterproductive.Of course, this doesn't fit in with the media's love for conflict. But it is the more accurate assessment of the situation. If the press covered this aspect, the American public would be much better informed.
The Bush-Cheney period lasted maybe three years. For Dick Cheney those might be the golden years. For Democrats, it is surely the period they want to forever hang around the necks of the Republican Party. But that period ended long ago.
By 2005, what you might call the Bush-Rice-Hadley era had begun. Gradually, in fits and starts, a series of Bush administration officials — including Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, Jack Goldsmith and John Bellinger — tried to rein in the excesses of the Bush-Cheney period.
[Edit]
When Cheney lambastes the change in security policy, he’s not really attacking the Obama administration. He’s attacking the Bush administration. In his speech on Thursday, he repeated in public a lot of the same arguments he had been making within the Bush White House as the policy decisions went more and more the other way.
[Edit]
What Obama gets, and what President Bush never got, is that other people’s opinions matter. Goldsmith puts it well: “The main difference between the Obama and Bush administrations concerns not the substance of terrorism policy, but rather its packaging. The Bush administration shot itself in the foot time and time again, to the detriment of the legitimacy and efficacy of its policies, by indifference to process and presentation. The Obama administration, by contrast, is intensely focused on these issues.”
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Cheney Actually Debating Bush
The Cheney / Obama dueling press conferences got a good amount of coverage. And although I am tempted to spend more time dissecting Cheney's argument, I think moderate conservative columnist David Brooks did a better job than anyone.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Book Report: Development as Freedom
I set out to read the popular books on development, with the goal of forming my own view on what needs to be done. At the time, Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom was not on that list. But, as can happen in New York, someone on the C train noticed I was reading The End of Poverty and told me I should read Development as Freedom also. As he explained the book, I agreed to check it out, but thought I wouldn't like it so much. I didn't see what freedoms had to do with development and I thought the book sounded too liberal for me. I was wrong.
Development as Freedom has drastically changed my world view and is now probably the book that most formed my view on development. The only book I have yet to finish in this series is Muhammad Yanus' Creating a World Without Poverty, which is good but I think its application is more narrow than the other books.
Sen's main point throughout the books is that the goal of development is to create a situation in which all people have basic freedoms / rights / capacities, among which include the freedom from starvation and malnutrition, freedom from preventable death, the right to be literate and numerate, the right to participate in your government, and the right to employment and / or a living wage.
Here is a quote from the book that sums up Sen's argument: "Poverty must be seen as a deprivation of basic capabilities rather than a lowness of income."
However, the efforts of development, and the metrics used to measure success focus almost entirely on GDP or income. While income is one way to help people achieve their basic freedoms, it is not enough, and more importantly one income level will not ensure the same freedoms for all people. Instead of focusing on one of the many means to achieve the ends of freedom for all people, we should be focusing on the ends and all the different ways we can achieve them - or conversely all the ways that people are currently deprived of these capabilities to achieve their freedoms.
This may seem obvious enough, but after reading the other books, this is actually fundamentally different than the other books out there. Now, this book was not easy to read, which is probably one reason why it isn't among the popular books on development right now. However, slogging through it pays off. Sen shows many of the ways countries can and have expanded the freedoms / rights / capacities of their people. He then shows how expanding these freedoms improves individual lives but also leads to GDP growth.
Sen shows why countries should expand access to education before GDP growth (which can then create conditions for growth). He articulates how increasing women's agency also increases money spent on the family and improves child mortality, and especially improves the treatment of girls. He articulates the importance of democracy, especially that famines do not happen in democracies. (In fact, his analysis is that famines are a result of people losing the ability to buy food more than an actual lack of food. Therefore governments can subsidize incomes to prevent famines, and democracies will do that because the politicians will want to avoid losing their jobs.)
The book also contains great analyses of human rights, markets and of social choice. He takes on arguments that human rights are pre-legal rights (and therefore meaningless) and that they do not apply in the East. In his analysis of markets, he argues that people have a basic right to trade in the market (which is denied in communist governments), but governments have a responsibility to educate people so they can participate in markets and to create a system where markets are are fair and efficient. And finally, he looks at, and tears down, the argument that we cannot improve situations through government action because there are always unintended consequences that will thwart our efforts.
As you can see, the book is thorough - and far more so than I am even showing. There is little if any argument against his case that he has left out or left standing. If you have the time and the interest, this book is a must-read. I think it will fundamentally change how you think about development (even here in the US, where Sen compares freedoms and capabilities like mortality and literacy, instead of incomes, of African-Americans and others in developing countries), as it did for me.
Development as Freedom has drastically changed my world view and is now probably the book that most formed my view on development. The only book I have yet to finish in this series is Muhammad Yanus' Creating a World Without Poverty, which is good but I think its application is more narrow than the other books.
Sen's main point throughout the books is that the goal of development is to create a situation in which all people have basic freedoms / rights / capacities, among which include the freedom from starvation and malnutrition, freedom from preventable death, the right to be literate and numerate, the right to participate in your government, and the right to employment and / or a living wage.
Here is a quote from the book that sums up Sen's argument: "Poverty must be seen as a deprivation of basic capabilities rather than a lowness of income."
However, the efforts of development, and the metrics used to measure success focus almost entirely on GDP or income. While income is one way to help people achieve their basic freedoms, it is not enough, and more importantly one income level will not ensure the same freedoms for all people. Instead of focusing on one of the many means to achieve the ends of freedom for all people, we should be focusing on the ends and all the different ways we can achieve them - or conversely all the ways that people are currently deprived of these capabilities to achieve their freedoms.
This may seem obvious enough, but after reading the other books, this is actually fundamentally different than the other books out there. Now, this book was not easy to read, which is probably one reason why it isn't among the popular books on development right now. However, slogging through it pays off. Sen shows many of the ways countries can and have expanded the freedoms / rights / capacities of their people. He then shows how expanding these freedoms improves individual lives but also leads to GDP growth.
Sen shows why countries should expand access to education before GDP growth (which can then create conditions for growth). He articulates how increasing women's agency also increases money spent on the family and improves child mortality, and especially improves the treatment of girls. He articulates the importance of democracy, especially that famines do not happen in democracies. (In fact, his analysis is that famines are a result of people losing the ability to buy food more than an actual lack of food. Therefore governments can subsidize incomes to prevent famines, and democracies will do that because the politicians will want to avoid losing their jobs.)
The book also contains great analyses of human rights, markets and of social choice. He takes on arguments that human rights are pre-legal rights (and therefore meaningless) and that they do not apply in the East. In his analysis of markets, he argues that people have a basic right to trade in the market (which is denied in communist governments), but governments have a responsibility to educate people so they can participate in markets and to create a system where markets are are fair and efficient. And finally, he looks at, and tears down, the argument that we cannot improve situations through government action because there are always unintended consequences that will thwart our efforts.
As you can see, the book is thorough - and far more so than I am even showing. There is little if any argument against his case that he has left out or left standing. If you have the time and the interest, this book is a must-read. I think it will fundamentally change how you think about development (even here in the US, where Sen compares freedoms and capabilities like mortality and literacy, instead of incomes, of African-Americans and others in developing countries), as it did for me.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
One Budget Lesson
So I have spent roughly six years now as a budget analyst (and have now moved away from that to work on policy). If I could teach one lesson about government budgeting, it is this: You cannot close budget gaps by eliminating waste. I understand that it sounds good - that the public eats it up. But it just isn't true. The only way to close significant budget gaps is to cut services.
I did not like Obama's claims about paying for his programs by eliminating waste - by taking a scalpel to the budget. And I don't like that he is still making similar claims. I understand that is part of a larger effort, but it is part of a broader position that Obama is taking.
And yes, this means that I agree with Paul Krugman. It happens.
I did not like Obama's claims about paying for his programs by eliminating waste - by taking a scalpel to the budget. And I don't like that he is still making similar claims. I understand that is part of a larger effort, but it is part of a broader position that Obama is taking.
And yes, this means that I agree with Paul Krugman. It happens.
At Last - Talking About Affordable Housing and Homelessness
I'm not sure who noticed, but for almost three years now, there have been two topics that I have not written about at all: affordable housing and homelessness. That would be particularly curious since during that time, those were the two policy areas I was working on at the NYC Independent Budget Office. Of course, the reason was that at that time I did not want to provide my political opinion at night on subject matters that during the day I was providing objective and non-partisan analysis (never opinions however). The reputation of the Independent Budget Office depended on people seeing us as non-partisan.
Now, let's be honest. Nobody thoughtful can really call themselves completely non-partisan. The policies we support are clearly guided by our own sense of morals and justice. At the same time though, I think that looking at my small body of work from the IBO, you would see no opinions and only conclusions that are supported by the data. So even though I will now reveal my opinions on these issues, there should be no doubt that the work carried out there was impartial and objective.
You might then wonder though why I feel empowered to talk about these issues now that I am working for the Speaker's Office. The answer is that although her positions are also based on analysis and understanding of the issues, her role is one where partisanship is expected. Also, it should be clear that any positions I take here are mine and that if you want to know what she thinks on these issues, you can write her a letter.
With all that aside now, let's get to the issues.
I'll start with homelessness. One of the most important developments in homelessness policy has been the "Housing First" model. The model is based on a few studies that show that a small number of chronically homeless individuals are using extreme amounts of city services. These individuals, that have been on the streets for many years, will spend time in shelters, jails, drug treatment facilities, mental health facilities and emergency rooms - and all in one year. Therefore, it is much cheaper for the government, and more humane also, to provide those people with housing that gives them the support they need.
The difference between previous models is that in the past, individuals were required to be sober and given strict curfews in order to be in shelter. What they have found however is that by housing these individuals first (and giving them support services), their substance abuse decreases and they are more likely to take medication they need. Many of the most chronically homeless have serious and persistent mental illnesses and/or substance abuse problems. Therefore, they need to be housed first to provide the stability needed to help deal with these problems instead of dealing with the problems (which is unlikely) as a condition of receiving housing.
I also cannot say enough about the right to shelter in New York City. Granted, homeless shelters can be dangerous and have some policies that deter usage. Shelter usage is a choice and some choose not to use them. Those issues should be looked at more systematically. However, I cannot comprehend a city government that allows a condition to exist where there are not enough beds for those that want them. The right to shelter should exist everywhere.
Now, what can I say about affordable housing? I think the work we are doing at the City Council is great and I don't have the energy to repeat it all. In general I'll say that I firmly believe that all people have a right to live in decent housing. Since the market cannot provide housing that is affordable to all people, government needs to provide subsidies.
The issues that are developing now around affordable housing include the foreclosure crisis in single-family homes, which will likely soon be followed by foreclosures in multifamily rental buildings. These buildings were purchased in the same environment as single family home mortgage pools - with unrealistic assumptions and very little capital. This is going to be a major issue that affects many renters - people who are not at fault for the reckless deals of their landlords.
I could also go on to talk about public housing, but I think I will save much of that for another time. In brief though, I think public housing can work, when it is well maintained and not isolated. New York City's model has worked because the housing is part of the city. However, public housing will always face funding issues, as the tenants living there lack the power that other groups lobbying for money (deserved or not) have. Bush and Congress during Bush's administration severely underfunded public housing. Let's hope Obama and this Congress do better.
Now, let's be honest. Nobody thoughtful can really call themselves completely non-partisan. The policies we support are clearly guided by our own sense of morals and justice. At the same time though, I think that looking at my small body of work from the IBO, you would see no opinions and only conclusions that are supported by the data. So even though I will now reveal my opinions on these issues, there should be no doubt that the work carried out there was impartial and objective.
You might then wonder though why I feel empowered to talk about these issues now that I am working for the Speaker's Office. The answer is that although her positions are also based on analysis and understanding of the issues, her role is one where partisanship is expected. Also, it should be clear that any positions I take here are mine and that if you want to know what she thinks on these issues, you can write her a letter.
With all that aside now, let's get to the issues.
I'll start with homelessness. One of the most important developments in homelessness policy has been the "Housing First" model. The model is based on a few studies that show that a small number of chronically homeless individuals are using extreme amounts of city services. These individuals, that have been on the streets for many years, will spend time in shelters, jails, drug treatment facilities, mental health facilities and emergency rooms - and all in one year. Therefore, it is much cheaper for the government, and more humane also, to provide those people with housing that gives them the support they need.
The difference between previous models is that in the past, individuals were required to be sober and given strict curfews in order to be in shelter. What they have found however is that by housing these individuals first (and giving them support services), their substance abuse decreases and they are more likely to take medication they need. Many of the most chronically homeless have serious and persistent mental illnesses and/or substance abuse problems. Therefore, they need to be housed first to provide the stability needed to help deal with these problems instead of dealing with the problems (which is unlikely) as a condition of receiving housing.
I also cannot say enough about the right to shelter in New York City. Granted, homeless shelters can be dangerous and have some policies that deter usage. Shelter usage is a choice and some choose not to use them. Those issues should be looked at more systematically. However, I cannot comprehend a city government that allows a condition to exist where there are not enough beds for those that want them. The right to shelter should exist everywhere.
Now, what can I say about affordable housing? I think the work we are doing at the City Council is great and I don't have the energy to repeat it all. In general I'll say that I firmly believe that all people have a right to live in decent housing. Since the market cannot provide housing that is affordable to all people, government needs to provide subsidies.
The issues that are developing now around affordable housing include the foreclosure crisis in single-family homes, which will likely soon be followed by foreclosures in multifamily rental buildings. These buildings were purchased in the same environment as single family home mortgage pools - with unrealistic assumptions and very little capital. This is going to be a major issue that affects many renters - people who are not at fault for the reckless deals of their landlords.
I could also go on to talk about public housing, but I think I will save much of that for another time. In brief though, I think public housing can work, when it is well maintained and not isolated. New York City's model has worked because the housing is part of the city. However, public housing will always face funding issues, as the tenants living there lack the power that other groups lobbying for money (deserved or not) have. Bush and Congress during Bush's administration severely underfunded public housing. Let's hope Obama and this Congress do better.
Kindergarten Education
Before I met my fiance, I completely supported standardized testing, even at early ages. Now, while I still think that in general it is useful to have broad measures to compare students and schools to each other, I have learned that these tests at an early age are misguided.
The argument is well-summed up here in this short article in the Times Sunday Magazine, but basically the point is that at young ages, kindergarten and first grade at least, kids really need lots of free play time. The time spent in dramatic play helps develop not only social skills, but also literacy skills as kids learn how to create compelling fictional stories.
I do think that diagnostic tests are necessary at young ages so we know which kids are falling behind so we can help them catch up before it is too late. What is important to determine then is when is too late. What age should kids be learning to read? I think there is a crazy pressure to get kids reading earlier and earlier without any thought as to whether that is good or necessary.
While I think it is important that NCLB put an emphasis on having standardized tests, the emphasis has gone too far. There is a belief that these tests should have much wider application than merely providing more information. The tests are being used for admission to schools, as a basis for teacher pay changes, and for school funding. They end up taking on a life of their own. The extent to which the tests are used at early ages are a good example of this.
We need to take a step back and rethink the tests and what they are trying to achieve. Do kids need to working on reading and math so early, or should they be engaging in dramatic play? If we want teacher pay to be flexible, maybe we should base it on performance reviews (as many jobs are). Those reviews can take test scores into account, but should not rely solely on them. Let's hope the debate will move forward about where tests are useful, and where they are not.
The argument is well-summed up here in this short article in the Times Sunday Magazine, but basically the point is that at young ages, kindergarten and first grade at least, kids really need lots of free play time. The time spent in dramatic play helps develop not only social skills, but also literacy skills as kids learn how to create compelling fictional stories.
I do think that diagnostic tests are necessary at young ages so we know which kids are falling behind so we can help them catch up before it is too late. What is important to determine then is when is too late. What age should kids be learning to read? I think there is a crazy pressure to get kids reading earlier and earlier without any thought as to whether that is good or necessary.
While I think it is important that NCLB put an emphasis on having standardized tests, the emphasis has gone too far. There is a belief that these tests should have much wider application than merely providing more information. The tests are being used for admission to schools, as a basis for teacher pay changes, and for school funding. They end up taking on a life of their own. The extent to which the tests are used at early ages are a good example of this.
We need to take a step back and rethink the tests and what they are trying to achieve. Do kids need to working on reading and math so early, or should they be engaging in dramatic play? If we want teacher pay to be flexible, maybe we should base it on performance reviews (as many jobs are). Those reviews can take test scores into account, but should not rely solely on them. Let's hope the debate will move forward about where tests are useful, and where they are not.
Dick Misses the Point
Torture remains in the news, and I think the debates we are finally having are healthy although they should have happened a long time ago. However, there is only one right answer - the obvious one: torture is wrong and a moral society should never practice it.
In order to justify what they did, former VP Dick Cheney has been saying recently that the methods worked, which therefore justifies their use.* If we follow that argument to its logical conclusion, all interrogation techniques, whether "enhanced" or ultra-enhanced or downright evil should be employed if they garner results.
However, as a moral society, we don't believe that. Even if the methods could provide more information, we do not condone torture. Which is why Bush made up the phony name for the methods he condoned. So all of Dick Cheney's statements miss the point entirely. What matters is not their effectiveness, but whether the methods were cruel and inhumane treatment.
That answer to that argument is much more clear - it was torture. The methods we are talking about include throwing prisoners against a wall, handcuffing them to a pipe over their head to make them stand for days, and waterboarding. Throwing prisoners against a wall is no different than any other physical punishment. So if we do not condone punching someone in the stomach or face, then we should not condone this.
The handcuffs above the head is less obvious, until you consider what happens after long periods in this position. The body becomes weak and the person hangs from the handcuffs. Now, we would not actually hang a prisoner by the handcuffs, so allowing a procedure that results in that makes no sense.
Finally, waterboarding is no different to me than dunking someone's head under water or strangling them for the same amount of time. In fact, John McCain went so far to compare it to pulling the trigger of an unloaded gun against someone's head.
What is amazing is how the administration used tactics that were similar to ones that are obviously torture, hoping that the unfamiliarity of the procedure would prevent people from seeing what it really is. Further, they created new names for the procedures, knowing that they were not regular interrogation techniques, but also knowing that calling it torture would not fly. So they used the Orwellian phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques" (in Israel they apparently used the term "moderate measure of physical pressure") when in the end, as everyone knows, it was torture.
And when it comes to torture, this quote (by the president of the Israeli Supreme Court when they were having similar debates, Aharon Barak) sums it up: "This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it."
*It will be interesting to see how the debate plays out about whether these methods did result in significant new information. I maintain though that torture doesn't make people tell the truth, but forces the person to say whatever will make the torture stop. Sometimes that is the truth but sometimes it is what they think the torturer wants to hear. If the prisoner doesn't know anything, they then have the incentive to make things up to get the torture to stop.
In order to justify what they did, former VP Dick Cheney has been saying recently that the methods worked, which therefore justifies their use.* If we follow that argument to its logical conclusion, all interrogation techniques, whether "enhanced" or ultra-enhanced or downright evil should be employed if they garner results.
However, as a moral society, we don't believe that. Even if the methods could provide more information, we do not condone torture. Which is why Bush made up the phony name for the methods he condoned. So all of Dick Cheney's statements miss the point entirely. What matters is not their effectiveness, but whether the methods were cruel and inhumane treatment.
That answer to that argument is much more clear - it was torture. The methods we are talking about include throwing prisoners against a wall, handcuffing them to a pipe over their head to make them stand for days, and waterboarding. Throwing prisoners against a wall is no different than any other physical punishment. So if we do not condone punching someone in the stomach or face, then we should not condone this.
The handcuffs above the head is less obvious, until you consider what happens after long periods in this position. The body becomes weak and the person hangs from the handcuffs. Now, we would not actually hang a prisoner by the handcuffs, so allowing a procedure that results in that makes no sense.
Finally, waterboarding is no different to me than dunking someone's head under water or strangling them for the same amount of time. In fact, John McCain went so far to compare it to pulling the trigger of an unloaded gun against someone's head.
What is amazing is how the administration used tactics that were similar to ones that are obviously torture, hoping that the unfamiliarity of the procedure would prevent people from seeing what it really is. Further, they created new names for the procedures, knowing that they were not regular interrogation techniques, but also knowing that calling it torture would not fly. So they used the Orwellian phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques" (in Israel they apparently used the term "moderate measure of physical pressure") when in the end, as everyone knows, it was torture.
And when it comes to torture, this quote (by the president of the Israeli Supreme Court when they were having similar debates, Aharon Barak) sums it up: "This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it."
*It will be interesting to see how the debate plays out about whether these methods did result in significant new information. I maintain though that torture doesn't make people tell the truth, but forces the person to say whatever will make the torture stop. Sometimes that is the truth but sometimes it is what they think the torturer wants to hear. If the prisoner doesn't know anything, they then have the incentive to make things up to get the torture to stop.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Universities Are Okay
This Opinion piece about the University system seems to be popular on the Times website, so I figured I would comment. I don't find the piece that compelling. The author seems to claim that because PhD dissertations have a tendency to be too narrowly focused and obscure, then we need to transform the whole system. I agree with what he says about dissertations. The pressure to produce something new and unique when so many topics have been covered and re-covered will lead to insane specialization. However, I do not see the same overspecialization with professors. My memory of college was that my professors were doing interesting research.
I also remember (despite underfunding by the UMass system) interesting classes that changed with the times to cover developing topics. And his point that colleges should be conducting interdisciplinary work suggests that this work isn't going on. My experience is that between the interdisciplinary work that does on at universities, along with the real-world focused work at think-tanks, and conferences sponsored by government or private groups leaves a situation that does not lack for interdisciplinary work and study.
I am not sure why this article got so much attention, but I imagine people will forget about it in a few days. The crises he imagines doesn't exist as far as I can see.
I also remember (despite underfunding by the UMass system) interesting classes that changed with the times to cover developing topics. And his point that colleges should be conducting interdisciplinary work suggests that this work isn't going on. My experience is that between the interdisciplinary work that does on at universities, along with the real-world focused work at think-tanks, and conferences sponsored by government or private groups leaves a situation that does not lack for interdisciplinary work and study.
I am not sure why this article got so much attention, but I imagine people will forget about it in a few days. The crises he imagines doesn't exist as far as I can see.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Specter Changes Parties!
Wow. This is crazy. But it definitely makes sense. He has long been a moderate Republican, and with the GOP moving to the right instead of center, it is no wonder he feels alienated.
Little known fact: When I was in graduate school we had a three week course, part of which consisted of a simulation where we all took on roles in the federal government. A female classmate from Azerbaijan was President Bush and a liberal friend of mine was VP Cheney, in case you were wondering. I was Senator Arlen Specter. This was in the Summer of 2002, so we were working on passing legislation regarding the developing War on Terror. It was good times.
Actually, someone basically changed parties in our simulation as well - although from the different side. At the time, Dems had a majority in the Senate (both real and in simulation). However, a person from the Cato Institute (played by another liberal friend of mine) convinced Senator Jay Rockefeller to vote with the GOP. We got all of our legislation through.
I had also had an agreement with senators Kennedy and Durbin to support my military tribunal bill. In the end they abstained because they couldn't vote against it (because of our agreement), but one of the liberal interest groups (ACLU I think) threatened them so they couldn't actually vote for it. It passed thanks to their abstention and Rockefeller's support.
You have to love the high drama of politics - whether it is simulated or real!
Little known fact: When I was in graduate school we had a three week course, part of which consisted of a simulation where we all took on roles in the federal government. A female classmate from Azerbaijan was President Bush and a liberal friend of mine was VP Cheney, in case you were wondering. I was Senator Arlen Specter. This was in the Summer of 2002, so we were working on passing legislation regarding the developing War on Terror. It was good times.
Actually, someone basically changed parties in our simulation as well - although from the different side. At the time, Dems had a majority in the Senate (both real and in simulation). However, a person from the Cato Institute (played by another liberal friend of mine) convinced Senator Jay Rockefeller to vote with the GOP. We got all of our legislation through.
I had also had an agreement with senators Kennedy and Durbin to support my military tribunal bill. In the end they abstained because they couldn't vote against it (because of our agreement), but one of the liberal interest groups (ACLU I think) threatened them so they couldn't actually vote for it. It passed thanks to their abstention and Rockefeller's support.
You have to love the high drama of politics - whether it is simulated or real!
Saturday, April 04, 2009
This Seems Bad
There is an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal supporting the Obama plan, but arguing that it needs to go even further. If the situation really is as bad as it is presented in this Op-Ed, than we need to drastically overhaul the banking system. The author is asking the government to use really significant resources - much more than already committed - to save the banks. If they need this much help to stay alive, then they will need lots of help (i.e. significant regulation) to prevent them from getting in this situation again.
Reading this post, you might think I did not know about the crisis. While I am well aware of the situation, this particular Op-Ed made the situation really seem dire and the banks really desperate. I feel that I am not doing a good job of articulating how this article made me feel. It sounds like the author is saying that the banks need this, this, this, this and this, in order to survive. It is appalling that banks got to this point yet feel they don't need regulation.
Maybe it is because I am writing this late at night that I am having this reaction. Or maybe my anger has finally emerged over the reckless behavior and our current situation.
Reading this post, you might think I did not know about the crisis. While I am well aware of the situation, this particular Op-Ed made the situation really seem dire and the banks really desperate. I feel that I am not doing a good job of articulating how this article made me feel. It sounds like the author is saying that the banks need this, this, this, this and this, in order to survive. It is appalling that banks got to this point yet feel they don't need regulation.
Maybe it is because I am writing this late at night that I am having this reaction. Or maybe my anger has finally emerged over the reckless behavior and our current situation.
Dambisa Moyo on Development
Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian economist who has worked for the World Bank, has published Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa, a book on development that makes similar arguments as William Easterly's White Man's Burden. Both believe that government to government aid for developing countries is actually hindering development and creating dependency instead of empowerment and self-sustainability.
I had planned to attend a discussion featuring Moyo and Easterly. I did not end up going, but fortunately the organizers have posted videos of the discussion. Moyo's rhetoric is one of empowerment for Africa. She rightly criticizes how Bono and others have become spokespersons for Africa and she asks where the African leadership is. Bono's (and others) heart is in the right place. There is tremendous suffering and I think it attention to these issues is warranted. However, it is not his place to be their spokesperson. Furthermore, the tone of the celebrities and the focus only on the problems perpetuates the myth that Africans are inferior and need our help.
I remember my feeling after reading The Bottom Billion, where Paul Collier states that growth is the only answer. I felt that growth takes too long and the problems were too great and needed immediate solutions. What I am beginning to believe now is that there are no quick solutions. Growth that comes through empowerment and markets, though it may be slow, is the only way for developing countries to achieve self-sufficiency and lift their populations out of poverty. We are not Africa's saviors - Africa has to save themselves. Let's hope people start listening to Moyo.
I had planned to attend a discussion featuring Moyo and Easterly. I did not end up going, but fortunately the organizers have posted videos of the discussion. Moyo's rhetoric is one of empowerment for Africa. She rightly criticizes how Bono and others have become spokespersons for Africa and she asks where the African leadership is. Bono's (and others) heart is in the right place. There is tremendous suffering and I think it attention to these issues is warranted. However, it is not his place to be their spokesperson. Furthermore, the tone of the celebrities and the focus only on the problems perpetuates the myth that Africans are inferior and need our help.
I remember my feeling after reading The Bottom Billion, where Paul Collier states that growth is the only answer. I felt that growth takes too long and the problems were too great and needed immediate solutions. What I am beginning to believe now is that there are no quick solutions. Growth that comes through empowerment and markets, though it may be slow, is the only way for developing countries to achieve self-sufficiency and lift their populations out of poverty. We are not Africa's saviors - Africa has to save themselves. Let's hope people start listening to Moyo.
Choice is an Intrinsic Good
Much of the focus on charter schools is on whether they do or will increase performance. While performance is important, it is not the only reason for charter schools. Charters provide something for public school students that private school students already receive: the freedom to choose.
Part of what makes choices so great is the freedom it can provide. In the private school market, parents and students have the ability to choose between traditional or progressive schools, art schools or engineering schools, single sex or co-ed schools. I do not believe that one model of school is better than the other, but that each model can be effective for certain types of students. Some children may do better in a single-sex environment. Some students will do much better in a school that supports their artistic creativity. It is only fair that public school students have this same freedom.
Some of the early studies of charter schools have shown at most modest improvements in performance. But even when there was no detectable increase in performance, parental happiness over their charter schools has been high. To me, this signifies that parents are happy that they have this option.
By giving more people the ability to choose their model of education, we give them control over their (or their child's) future. We hope this will lead to better performance. But at least we are giving them the freedom to decide for themselves what type of school they want. If we ignore this, we ignore one of the biggest reasons for charter schools.
Part of what makes choices so great is the freedom it can provide. In the private school market, parents and students have the ability to choose between traditional or progressive schools, art schools or engineering schools, single sex or co-ed schools. I do not believe that one model of school is better than the other, but that each model can be effective for certain types of students. Some children may do better in a single-sex environment. Some students will do much better in a school that supports their artistic creativity. It is only fair that public school students have this same freedom.
Some of the early studies of charter schools have shown at most modest improvements in performance. But even when there was no detectable increase in performance, parental happiness over their charter schools has been high. To me, this signifies that parents are happy that they have this option.
By giving more people the ability to choose their model of education, we give them control over their (or their child's) future. We hope this will lead to better performance. But at least we are giving them the freedom to decide for themselves what type of school they want. If we ignore this, we ignore one of the biggest reasons for charter schools.
Freeman Dyson
I have longed for intelligent critiques of global warming but until last week's Sunday Times cover story, had not really found anything. Last week's article was about Freeman Dyson, a relatively famous scientist who started out in physics but is now more of a generalist. He is noted for his ability to gain in-depth understanding of different complicated sciences.
Hearing his critiques, as they were explained by the author of the article, did not change my mind. Some I found a bit absurd, but others did provide some interesting questions.
One of his critiques that I found to be pretty absurd was his belief that we should focus on more important issues, like poverty, famine and war, and deal with global warming when we know more about it. The problem with this argument is that the effects of global warming, if predictions are true, will be borne most by those that are most vulnerable.
We already see that the Sahara desert is growing and the Sahel region of Africa is expanding north. This has caused scarcity of resources in these areas which will only increase as warming continues - leading to famine and conflict. Further, wet areas are projected to get wetter, which will again be borne by those most vulnerable. If we make progress now on poverty issues but not global warming, we'll likely have greater poverty issues in the future.
Furthermore, that critique assumes we can only accomplish one thing at a time, which I do not agree with at all. This argument comes up in many different policy areas, and it never makes sense to me.
Where he prompts good questions is his use of biology in global warming. He is right that the prediction models focus mainly on atmospheric changes and do not seem to incorporate how biological changes could interact with the changes (they track biological changes without incorporating them). In fact, he says that higher carbon may be better for plant and animal species. At one point he says how increases in plant and animal diversity came at times of much higher carbon levels.
Before I go on, I think we need some serious clarification about historical carbon levels. Al Gore and others claim that carbon levels now are far higher than they have been in the last 20,000 years. So is Dyson claiming that is wrong, or is he saying that carbon levels were higher but looking farther back? To me, this is probably the most important question of global warming.
Dyson also has interesting and optimistic proposals for ways to use biology to help decrease carbon levels, and it will definitely be worth learning more about that (trees that can capture carbon).
Finally, the article portrays the way that dissenters are treated. In some policy areas, those who dissent are dismissed not by debating their points on the merits, but by suggesting that their intentions are bad. This happens in policy on the Middle East, and comes up here too. I agree that in cases where oil companies are paying for shoddy research, it makes sense to question the motives. But Dyson seems to have no motivation other than to be contrarian and challenge people's assumptions. The world needs more, not less, of these people - even when they are wrong.
Hearing his critiques, as they were explained by the author of the article, did not change my mind. Some I found a bit absurd, but others did provide some interesting questions.
One of his critiques that I found to be pretty absurd was his belief that we should focus on more important issues, like poverty, famine and war, and deal with global warming when we know more about it. The problem with this argument is that the effects of global warming, if predictions are true, will be borne most by those that are most vulnerable.
We already see that the Sahara desert is growing and the Sahel region of Africa is expanding north. This has caused scarcity of resources in these areas which will only increase as warming continues - leading to famine and conflict. Further, wet areas are projected to get wetter, which will again be borne by those most vulnerable. If we make progress now on poverty issues but not global warming, we'll likely have greater poverty issues in the future.
Furthermore, that critique assumes we can only accomplish one thing at a time, which I do not agree with at all. This argument comes up in many different policy areas, and it never makes sense to me.
Where he prompts good questions is his use of biology in global warming. He is right that the prediction models focus mainly on atmospheric changes and do not seem to incorporate how biological changes could interact with the changes (they track biological changes without incorporating them). In fact, he says that higher carbon may be better for plant and animal species. At one point he says how increases in plant and animal diversity came at times of much higher carbon levels.
Before I go on, I think we need some serious clarification about historical carbon levels. Al Gore and others claim that carbon levels now are far higher than they have been in the last 20,000 years. So is Dyson claiming that is wrong, or is he saying that carbon levels were higher but looking farther back? To me, this is probably the most important question of global warming.
Dyson also has interesting and optimistic proposals for ways to use biology to help decrease carbon levels, and it will definitely be worth learning more about that (trees that can capture carbon).
Finally, the article portrays the way that dissenters are treated. In some policy areas, those who dissent are dismissed not by debating their points on the merits, but by suggesting that their intentions are bad. This happens in policy on the Middle East, and comes up here too. I agree that in cases where oil companies are paying for shoddy research, it makes sense to question the motives. But Dyson seems to have no motivation other than to be contrarian and challenge people's assumptions. The world needs more, not less, of these people - even when they are wrong.
Why Only Darfur?
This book review in the Times really struck a chord with me. If I understand it, the author of the book takes exception to the public's obsession with the genocide in Darfur. He believes that it is based on a lack of real understanding of the history and dimensions in Sudan, and maybe also based on racism.
I do not disagree that the public often latches on to some issues, while ignoring other equally or more troubling situations. We rally around Darfur but pay little attention to the major tragedies in Somalia and the Congo. Actually, while the world watches Darfur, it pays little attention to the conflict in southern Sudan.
While I do think there is something particularly damaging to the fabric of humanity when one group attempts to eliminate another group, that cannot be our benchmark for when we choose to show concern. And our analysis of those situations should be done objectively, where instead we have a history of bias towards whichever side we supported.
I do not disagree that the public often latches on to some issues, while ignoring other equally or more troubling situations. We rally around Darfur but pay little attention to the major tragedies in Somalia and the Congo. Actually, while the world watches Darfur, it pays little attention to the conflict in southern Sudan.
While I do think there is something particularly damaging to the fabric of humanity when one group attempts to eliminate another group, that cannot be our benchmark for when we choose to show concern. And our analysis of those situations should be done objectively, where instead we have a history of bias towards whichever side we supported.
Book Report: The End of Poverty
I posted my review of Jeffery Sach's book The End of Poverty January of 2008 at a short-lived Human Rights blog I tried to start. Here is what I said about his book:
More recently I read The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs. Although he also recommends increasing growth, Sachs is inspiring and impatient. He thinks we can end extreme poverty in our generation as long as we actually follow through on promises we have already made - namely 0.7% of GDP for foreign assistance.If you have read my book report on Easterly's book, you'll notice that my position has changed. I am much less enamored with Sach's position, especially his lack of humility and his belief that he / we can save Africa.
His proscriptions are extremely thorough, and you only wish the world would follow through. Looking at the landscape of current development movements, it seems as though at least two of his biggest recommendations are being acted on; help fighting malaria (including work on vaccines, increasing availability of bed nets, and better access to treatment), AIDS, and tropical diseases as well as debt forgiveness (he does a great job of showing why this is so important) are big issues right now. With any luck, two of his other big recommendations - drastically improving infrastructure so that landlocked countries can have access to ports and increasing agriculture production - are hopefully not far behind (and this article on Malawi shows how one country has made strides on this last point).
Overall, his analysis is even more convincing than Collier's. The countries that still experience extreme poverty do so because of tropical diseases, food scarcity caused by low agriculture output, and lack of access to ports. Each of these things can be corrected. And he really reinforces the reality that in a world with as much wealth as there is, extreme poverty is unacceptable.
Eat Less or None at All?
Someone suggested I read this article from Audubon Magazine about the effects of meat eating on global warming. The article describes the parts of the meat-raising process that increases green-house gasses. It also compares free-range and caged meat, and finds that free-range is not better for mitigating global warming (an interesting finding, but not the reason people turn to free-range).
In light of the significant effects on global warming, the author concludes that vegetarianism is the solution. But he allows that eating less meat would help. Here are the last two paragraphs from the article:
A few friends have followed similar plans as mine to eat less meat. They have each decided to cut back to meat once a day and then to cut back to less than once a day. None of those people would have given up meat. This movement will gain a lot more momentum focusing first on eating less meat.
In light of the significant effects on global warming, the author concludes that vegetarianism is the solution. But he allows that eating less meat would help. Here are the last two paragraphs from the article:
We could also, as a nation, just eat a lot less meat as an alternative to full vegetarianism. Anthony McMichael, a leading Australia-based expert on climate change and health issues, has crunched the numbers. He estimates that per capita daily meat consumption would need to drop from about 12 ounces per day in America to 3.1 ounces (with less than half of it red meat) in order to protect the climate.While I can understand his decision, I don't think being a vegetarian is easier to explain or defend. And although he does not get to this point, it certainly is not easier to encourage people to become vegetarians then to encourage them to eat less meat.
I suppose I could measure out 3.1 ounces of meat per day, cook it, eat it, and still feel morally okay. But frankly I’d rather just go without. I’d rather be a vegetarian. It’s easier to explain. It’s easier to defend. And I just plain like it.
A few friends have followed similar plans as mine to eat less meat. They have each decided to cut back to meat once a day and then to cut back to less than once a day. None of those people would have given up meat. This movement will gain a lot more momentum focusing first on eating less meat.
Stiglitz: Not Just a Globalization Expert
I have tended to trust the Obama administration when it comes to plans to fix the financial crisis. It has been hard for me to evaluate the crisis since I do not fully understand Wall Street. I assume many of our politicians are having the same problem. Fortunately though, economists like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz are providing thoughtful critiques from a liberal perspective. In fact, Joseph Stiglitz's column in the NY Times may have convinced me that the Obama administration's most recent plan for the banks is a bad idea.
The plan will allow investors to buy up troubled assets with most of the money backed by the government. Here is Stiglitz's critique in his own words:
The plan will allow investors to buy up troubled assets with most of the money backed by the government. Here is Stiglitz's critique in his own words:
Paying fair market values for the assets will not work. Only by overpaying for the assets will the banks be adequately recapitalized. But overpaying for the assets simply shifts the losses to the government. In other words, the Geithner plan works only if and when the taxpayer loses big time.My first reaction to my lack of understanding was to blame myself instead of the industry. But that was wrong; it is a major problem when the public cannot fully understand how an industry works and worse, how a solution is going to work. Without public understanding, we cannot have good policies that prevent further meltdowns. We need plans that make sense, and we need to make sure that in the future we can understand what Wall Street is doing.
[Edit]
So what is the appeal of a proposal like this? Perhaps it’s the kind of Rube Goldberg device that Wall Street loves — clever, complex and nontransparent, allowing huge transfers of wealth to the financial markets. It has allowed the administration to avoid going back to Congress to ask for the money needed to fix our banks, and it provided a way to avoid nationalization.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Pork as a Symbol
When I posted recently about the bonuses at AIG, I did not spend any time talking about how the outrage over that issue was over the symbolic gesture of the bonuses and that the actual cost of the bonuses were low compared to the government bailout. The point I would have made is that symbols can be important, even if they are not in proportion to the actual issue itself.
Pork barrel spending is another example of this, and can be even more salient when you consider the difficult times governments are facing. Take New York State for example. The state budget just agreed on by the only three people who matter was $131.8 billion, or $79.2 billion of state operating funds (not counting federal funds). The deficit before the new budget was announced was $17 billion. Total pork spending in the budget was $170 million. Therefore, total pork spending was one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the total budget, or two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) of the state funded budget, or just one percent (1%) of the previous deficit. Even though the pork spending is such a small share of overall budget numbers, it seems appalling that the state legislature would choose to allocate limited funds to special projects in their districts, and allocated there because of their power not because of need.
John McCain recognizes this at the federal level, which is why he focuses on it so much. However, one can go far, and make a symbolic issue appear to be more than a symbol. McCain seemed to present eliminating pork as a way to significantly cut government spending. As you can see in the above example, cutting the pork spending would not have helped the state get close to dealing with its budget gap, and the ratios are similar at the federal level.
The point is that symbolic issues are important in the messages they send about priorities. But exaggerating them can backfire, because people see that dealing with that issue will not solve the underlying problem. The state's pork spending is absurd, but not as big a deal as the way the budget was made (behind closed doors) and the appearance that they avoided tough choices.
Pork barrel spending is another example of this, and can be even more salient when you consider the difficult times governments are facing. Take New York State for example. The state budget just agreed on by the only three people who matter was $131.8 billion, or $79.2 billion of state operating funds (not counting federal funds). The deficit before the new budget was announced was $17 billion. Total pork spending in the budget was $170 million. Therefore, total pork spending was one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the total budget, or two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) of the state funded budget, or just one percent (1%) of the previous deficit. Even though the pork spending is such a small share of overall budget numbers, it seems appalling that the state legislature would choose to allocate limited funds to special projects in their districts, and allocated there because of their power not because of need.
John McCain recognizes this at the federal level, which is why he focuses on it so much. However, one can go far, and make a symbolic issue appear to be more than a symbol. McCain seemed to present eliminating pork as a way to significantly cut government spending. As you can see in the above example, cutting the pork spending would not have helped the state get close to dealing with its budget gap, and the ratios are similar at the federal level.
The point is that symbolic issues are important in the messages they send about priorities. But exaggerating them can backfire, because people see that dealing with that issue will not solve the underlying problem. The state's pork spending is absurd, but not as big a deal as the way the budget was made (behind closed doors) and the appearance that they avoided tough choices.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Book Report: The White Man's Burden
I finished another of the popular books on international development: The White Man's Burden by William Easterly. The main point of the book is how infrequently the money we spend actually delivers results. Therefore, instead of thinking that we can / need to save the developing world, we need to do what we can to help them help themselves. Before I started reading the book, I expected that I would appreciate its position but still disagree with it. Instead, I strongly agree with his call for humility in our aid efforts.
The more one learns about development assistance, the more obvious the extreme waste becomes. Part of that waste stems from aid that is most often delivered through corrupt governments. But aid is also wasted on programs that are not evaluated and not designed with feedback from, or deep knowledge of, the people we are helping. It is when Easterly highlights these flaws that he is most convincing.
He does not have grand solutions, but what he does propose could work. Particularly, he suggests allowing the IMF and World Bank to support private institutions, particularly in countries with terrible governments. He also recommends supporting smaller proven efforts by local actors. Finally, he proposes fewer conferences and frameworks but more serious evaluations.
Where Easterly is less convincing is when he uses the argument that because a certain policy has not worked it is clear it never will work. This logical statement does not account for the fact that those policies in the past may have been implemented poorly.
A perfect example of this is military intervention. The West has a terrible history of using military intervention. Past US military interventions include supporting authoritarian governments according our own interests (particularly during the Cold War) or ineffective interventions in the face of major crises (post-Cold War). However, I would strongly argue that if done correctly and for the right reasons, military interventions could be very successful. Instability is a major obstacle to development and often creates environments of continued instability (this was a conclusion of Collier's book and Nicholas Kristof argues this point in his review of Easterly's book in the New York Review of Books). Without successful interventions, countries in conflict may end up stuck in conflict with dire consequences for civilians caught in the middle.
Before I conclude, I need to mention that Easterly is not opposed to humanitarian aid such as medical and food aid (although he argues that these programs should also be strictly evaluated and conducted with real feedback). Instead it is the development aid he thinks needs to be reconsidered.
Overall the book is well written (although I did skim through many of his anecdotes and historical examples) and convincing. Unfortunately, I think his views do not play as well politically, since he is essentially calling for more modest goals and local control over Western money. With books like Dead Aid now coming out though, maybe his views will gain traction.
The more one learns about development assistance, the more obvious the extreme waste becomes. Part of that waste stems from aid that is most often delivered through corrupt governments. But aid is also wasted on programs that are not evaluated and not designed with feedback from, or deep knowledge of, the people we are helping. It is when Easterly highlights these flaws that he is most convincing.
He does not have grand solutions, but what he does propose could work. Particularly, he suggests allowing the IMF and World Bank to support private institutions, particularly in countries with terrible governments. He also recommends supporting smaller proven efforts by local actors. Finally, he proposes fewer conferences and frameworks but more serious evaluations.
Where Easterly is less convincing is when he uses the argument that because a certain policy has not worked it is clear it never will work. This logical statement does not account for the fact that those policies in the past may have been implemented poorly.
A perfect example of this is military intervention. The West has a terrible history of using military intervention. Past US military interventions include supporting authoritarian governments according our own interests (particularly during the Cold War) or ineffective interventions in the face of major crises (post-Cold War). However, I would strongly argue that if done correctly and for the right reasons, military interventions could be very successful. Instability is a major obstacle to development and often creates environments of continued instability (this was a conclusion of Collier's book and Nicholas Kristof argues this point in his review of Easterly's book in the New York Review of Books). Without successful interventions, countries in conflict may end up stuck in conflict with dire consequences for civilians caught in the middle.
Before I conclude, I need to mention that Easterly is not opposed to humanitarian aid such as medical and food aid (although he argues that these programs should also be strictly evaluated and conducted with real feedback). Instead it is the development aid he thinks needs to be reconsidered.
Overall the book is well written (although I did skim through many of his anecdotes and historical examples) and convincing. Unfortunately, I think his views do not play as well politically, since he is essentially calling for more modest goals and local control over Western money. With books like Dead Aid now coming out though, maybe his views will gain traction.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Is China Really the Bad Guy?
This article in the NY Times about China cutting back on deals with developing countries in Africa sparked a question. The point of the article seems to be that countries with poor human rights records found they could ignore Western demands by working with China - trading their natural resources for development assistance. With commodity prices falling and economies crashing, these countries are no longer getting aid from China.
What is interesting is how the article draws a distinction between China's decision to work with countries with poor human rights records without conditions while the US sets conditions. Before we feel good about ourselves, I ask this question: Is there any difference between aid that comes with conditions that are never enforced and therefore never met, or aid that comes without conditions?
I guess it is clear that William Easterly is influencing me. But can we really act righteous when all our loan conditions do nothing to change the countries with poor human rights records?
What is interesting is how the article draws a distinction between China's decision to work with countries with poor human rights records without conditions while the US sets conditions. Before we feel good about ourselves, I ask this question: Is there any difference between aid that comes with conditions that are never enforced and therefore never met, or aid that comes without conditions?
I guess it is clear that William Easterly is influencing me. But can we really act righteous when all our loan conditions do nothing to change the countries with poor human rights records?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Democracy - It Ain't Easy
I remember some of the arguments I had with some more liberal friends (you know who you are) back during the early parts of the Iraq War. At the time, I was supporting the continuation of the Iraq War and they were opposing it. (I am not sure whether I supported the invasion - I think at times I did and other times did not. My knowledge of world issues was very limited then.)
I believed, influenced by Thomas Friedman, that we could easily create a democracy in Iraq. If I remember my friends' arguments, they believed that Iraqis were not ready for democracy and that it would not work if it was forced on them instead of them fighting for it themselves. (If I have misrepresented your arguments, please correct me.) I completely rejected that, believing everyone can become democratic.
Looking back, not just after six years in Iraq, but looking at other democracies around the world, I realize that I still believe everyone can have a democracy. What I realize though was that my expectations were extremely naive. Democracies cannot sprout overnight. Democracies need time to grow, to learn from mistakes, and to evolve. They also need stability and a strong middle class.
When we look around the world, we see democracies that have had far more time than Iraq to settle. In these countries, we still see significant growing pains. Pakistan continues to deal with threatened autocratic rule, disrespect for the rule of law and corruption. None of their leaders are free of one or all of these charges. We saw what can happen with contested elections in a relatively stable country like Kenya. South Africa right now seems to face a choice between an ineffective leader and AIDS denier (Thabo Mbeki) and a corrupt leader who is also facing serious rape charges (Jacob Zuma).
If you look at American history, you see similar growing pains. It took us two tries to chose the right form of government (see Articles of Confederation). We fought a bloody civil war. And we have had our own long fight with corruption, which is a fight we will never fully win, as Rod Blagojevich proves.
So I look back at my support then of the war, and I am embarrassed about my naivete. However, I can partly excuse myself since I was just starting to learn about the international world and form my own theories. What is scary is that we had a president who knew so little about the world that he believed creating a democracy was easy. Worse, he still believes it.
While I no longer think democracy is easy, this does not mean I will give up hope. It does mean that we need to change our expectations and our policies. We need to help foster the growth of democracies without the expectation that they will form overnight. This can mean helping increase stability and growth of a middle class. We also need to avoid grand plans like Iraq in the future. And in a place like Afghanistan, we need to be prepared for the long haul.
I believed, influenced by Thomas Friedman, that we could easily create a democracy in Iraq. If I remember my friends' arguments, they believed that Iraqis were not ready for democracy and that it would not work if it was forced on them instead of them fighting for it themselves. (If I have misrepresented your arguments, please correct me.) I completely rejected that, believing everyone can become democratic.
Looking back, not just after six years in Iraq, but looking at other democracies around the world, I realize that I still believe everyone can have a democracy. What I realize though was that my expectations were extremely naive. Democracies cannot sprout overnight. Democracies need time to grow, to learn from mistakes, and to evolve. They also need stability and a strong middle class.
When we look around the world, we see democracies that have had far more time than Iraq to settle. In these countries, we still see significant growing pains. Pakistan continues to deal with threatened autocratic rule, disrespect for the rule of law and corruption. None of their leaders are free of one or all of these charges. We saw what can happen with contested elections in a relatively stable country like Kenya. South Africa right now seems to face a choice between an ineffective leader and AIDS denier (Thabo Mbeki) and a corrupt leader who is also facing serious rape charges (Jacob Zuma).
If you look at American history, you see similar growing pains. It took us two tries to chose the right form of government (see Articles of Confederation). We fought a bloody civil war. And we have had our own long fight with corruption, which is a fight we will never fully win, as Rod Blagojevich proves.
So I look back at my support then of the war, and I am embarrassed about my naivete. However, I can partly excuse myself since I was just starting to learn about the international world and form my own theories. What is scary is that we had a president who knew so little about the world that he believed creating a democracy was easy. Worse, he still believes it.
While I no longer think democracy is easy, this does not mean I will give up hope. It does mean that we need to change our expectations and our policies. We need to help foster the growth of democracies without the expectation that they will form overnight. This can mean helping increase stability and growth of a middle class. We also need to avoid grand plans like Iraq in the future. And in a place like Afghanistan, we need to be prepared for the long haul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)