I have been meaning to write about the health care bill (and the financial reform bill). But I need to do a lot more reading to make sure I understand what it will do. By the way, I completely agree with and understand the criticisms that the health care bill is too large and complex for most people to understand. After all, our government should be transparent and can only be so if its policies are simple and understandable. But as I have seen, it takes a not insignificant time investment to really get my head around it.
In the meantime, for all those conservatives that read this blog - you know who you are, you send me absurd emails about how Obama wants to ruin the country (instead of Bush who did it by accident) - I thought I would share Ben Stein's take on the health care bill. I do this because some of you are very fond of the famous monotone conservative's position on issues. Enjoy.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
What to Say and When to Say It
I've noticed in a lot of foreign policy debates, there seems to be a belief, often unspoken, that if the US government supports a certain position, they should necessarily express that position. It is a belief that the world always wants to hear what the US says and that our speaking will always have a positive effect. This is wrong.
The real test should be - once you determine the government's position - whether speaking out will help or hurt the group of people you support. Iran is the perfect example of this. Many seem to suggest that the reason Obama has not been more supportive of the green revolution protesters is that he wants to work with the Iranian government to stop their nuclear program.
Instead, it seems the Obama administration understands that US public pressure can sometimes hurt movements. In Iran for example, the more the US supports the green revolution, the easier it is for Iranian government to paint it as a US funded operation to take down the government. Therefore, US support undermines the protesters.
There are other considerations of course. For example, if there is a protest that is not getting public attention, US support and condemnation of repression, would raise awareness of the issue. The protesters might be painted as pawns of the US but the world would also pay more attention.
There are always many factors to consider. I just wish more of the people commenting on foreign policy understood this.
The real test should be - once you determine the government's position - whether speaking out will help or hurt the group of people you support. Iran is the perfect example of this. Many seem to suggest that the reason Obama has not been more supportive of the green revolution protesters is that he wants to work with the Iranian government to stop their nuclear program.
Instead, it seems the Obama administration understands that US public pressure can sometimes hurt movements. In Iran for example, the more the US supports the green revolution, the easier it is for Iranian government to paint it as a US funded operation to take down the government. Therefore, US support undermines the protesters.
There are other considerations of course. For example, if there is a protest that is not getting public attention, US support and condemnation of repression, would raise awareness of the issue. The protesters might be painted as pawns of the US but the world would also pay more attention.
There are always many factors to consider. I just wish more of the people commenting on foreign policy understood this.
Islamic Center Update
The debate over the Islamic Center in downtown Manhattan has gotten out of hand and almost nobody looks good. President Obama's support was weak (supports their right but won't speak about the wisdom of building there). This Wall Street Journal Op-Ed says all the right things but has a conclusion that doesn't fit with the rest of the piece - calling for it to move somewhere else. In fact, the only bright spot has been John Stewart and the Daily Show for mocking all those opposed.
So many people are tired of this debate and might accept if the Islamic Center moved. However, if the center acquiesced and moved, it would empower the groups that are opposing new mosques in places across the country. After all, if Islam equals terrorism, who would want a mosque in their neighborhood.
There have been a lot of comparisons between 9/11 and the community center to Nazis and the Holocaust and Japan and Pearl Harbor. Although maybe it shouldn't need to be said, I'll say it anyway. The main difference between those examples is that the Nazi party was without a doubt responsible for the Holocaust and the Japanese government at the time did call for the attack on Pearl Harbor. So not wanting a Japanese flag at Pearl Harbor might makes sense.
However, the religion of Islam was not responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The people who carried out the attacks were acting in the name of Islam - but most agree they were acting under a corrupt interpretation of Islam.
Of all the articles and opinions, this op-ed in the WSJ by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is probably the most destructive to the debate. Now, I don't know a whole lot about Hirsi Ali. I have read some reviews of her books, but never read the books themselves. I know people who have read the books and been inspired, but from the little I know, I have been concerned about her anti-Islam message. So the Op-Ed doesn't surprise me.
What is most regrettable about her op-ed is that it talks about a clash of civilizations, but is vague on exactly what she means. A column like this should be very explicit, lest it mislead people and come off more extreme and violent than it means to be (or maybe it means to be). I understand the column to say that we cannot hope to mix and live in tolerance with Islam. Instead, there are always clashes of civilizations, this is one, and we need to win. I think the only way we win is not by changing hearts and minds, but by destroying or eradicating Islam.
Again, her column is hopelessly vague, so maybe it is not as extreme as I think. But if so, she needs to be way more specific. (I have been noticing a lot of articles lately, on a variety of issues, that have a lot of words but make vague points and no recommendations.)
If her column is saying that, then I would very strongly disagree. So many seemingly intractable clashes have been worked through in time. Catholics and Protestants live in peace even in Northern Ireland and Europe moved passed its anti-semitism. You might argue that the last example is a bad one. I would disagree. There were those saying a conflict was brewing between Jews and non-Jews. While the Nazi party tried to eliminate the Jews, they were unsuccessful and now that clash is a thing of the past. It is an important lesson in history, but not now a clash of civilizations.
Where I might agree with Hirsi Ali, if this were what she were saying, is that there will always be clashes of some kind because there are always people that seek violence and destruction for one reason or another. What we must realize, is that we are opposing those people and those means, but not the ideologies they pervert and use to justify their means.
So many people are tired of this debate and might accept if the Islamic Center moved. However, if the center acquiesced and moved, it would empower the groups that are opposing new mosques in places across the country. After all, if Islam equals terrorism, who would want a mosque in their neighborhood.
There have been a lot of comparisons between 9/11 and the community center to Nazis and the Holocaust and Japan and Pearl Harbor. Although maybe it shouldn't need to be said, I'll say it anyway. The main difference between those examples is that the Nazi party was without a doubt responsible for the Holocaust and the Japanese government at the time did call for the attack on Pearl Harbor. So not wanting a Japanese flag at Pearl Harbor might makes sense.
However, the religion of Islam was not responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The people who carried out the attacks were acting in the name of Islam - but most agree they were acting under a corrupt interpretation of Islam.
Of all the articles and opinions, this op-ed in the WSJ by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is probably the most destructive to the debate. Now, I don't know a whole lot about Hirsi Ali. I have read some reviews of her books, but never read the books themselves. I know people who have read the books and been inspired, but from the little I know, I have been concerned about her anti-Islam message. So the Op-Ed doesn't surprise me.
What is most regrettable about her op-ed is that it talks about a clash of civilizations, but is vague on exactly what she means. A column like this should be very explicit, lest it mislead people and come off more extreme and violent than it means to be (or maybe it means to be). I understand the column to say that we cannot hope to mix and live in tolerance with Islam. Instead, there are always clashes of civilizations, this is one, and we need to win. I think the only way we win is not by changing hearts and minds, but by destroying or eradicating Islam.
Again, her column is hopelessly vague, so maybe it is not as extreme as I think. But if so, she needs to be way more specific. (I have been noticing a lot of articles lately, on a variety of issues, that have a lot of words but make vague points and no recommendations.)
If her column is saying that, then I would very strongly disagree. So many seemingly intractable clashes have been worked through in time. Catholics and Protestants live in peace even in Northern Ireland and Europe moved passed its anti-semitism. You might argue that the last example is a bad one. I would disagree. There were those saying a conflict was brewing between Jews and non-Jews. While the Nazi party tried to eliminate the Jews, they were unsuccessful and now that clash is a thing of the past. It is an important lesson in history, but not now a clash of civilizations.
Where I might agree with Hirsi Ali, if this were what she were saying, is that there will always be clashes of some kind because there are always people that seek violence and destruction for one reason or another. What we must realize, is that we are opposing those people and those means, but not the ideologies they pervert and use to justify their means.
Politics Night: Inception (Not the Movie) and Obama
I have realized for quite a while that, although I love the blog, it just isn't enough debate for me. I crave the old lunchroom while also knowing I could have it even better than that. So I finally found enough people that also want to talk politics and started Politics Night. The idea was to choose a topic, have dinner and maybe some drinks, and debate.
The first topic was the presidency - so far - of Barack Obama. I won't summarize everyone's position; they can do that for themselves if they so choose. I will say though that only one person among four Democrats thought Obama was doing a good job. I was not that person.
I can't fully explain why I am not very satisfied with Obama as president. I can name some things that bother me (which I will do in a moment) but the different parts do not seem to add up to the total amount of disappointment I feel.
I will say first off that although I am happy that health care passed, I was not overly impressed with his role. I understand that his administration wanted to learn from Clinton's mistakes. They did not want to hand Congress a fully drafted plan and expect them to pass it. Unfortunately, I think they overcompensated and went too far towards deference and made Obama seem uninvolved and distant.
I also think that his fights over health care took way too long. Congress was debating the issue and nothing else for a year all while the country was, and still is, in the worst recession since the Great Depression. This did make Congress and the President seem out of touch. I know it seemed like it was then or never for health care, but I fear Democrats will pay a price for that.
I believe Obama should have pushed off health care and spent all of this time and capital on the economy. He got a stimulus passed that appears to have been too small - then moved on to health care. Instead, he should have passed the stimulus, then monitored it and drilled home the message that we might need more. He does not have the political capital now to add more stimulus - especially when he has said that it was going to be enough. Since presidents pay a sever price, even if it isn't their fault, for a bad economy, that should have been his one and only concern.
Another related issue that seems to be hurting Obama was brought up in a recent article in the Times that I really liked. It made the point that Obama looks like a legislative President and legislators are rarely popular. I know it sounds contradictory to say he was both uninvolved and too involved. But here is the thing - Obama, while not weighing in enough during the health care debate, you knew he was watching and his staff was involved. And I can't really name another issue he was working on or pushing for during that time. If he had been off in the Middle East negotiating peace or something similar while Congress was debating, he might not be tied to it as much.
And this gets me to my final point - that Obama doesn't seem willing to fight for things - using his speeches - now that he is president. He was watching health care, but not fighting too hard. He hasn't said much about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, although his administration is working on changing it. His defense of the Islamic Center in downtown Manhattan was tepid. And he seems quiet on Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, climate change, etc.
I get the feeling that he is loath to say things that might be unpopular, although maybe he is just more focused on administration. If that is the case - I appreciate having a president that is in the nitty-gritty of running the country. However, I also want my president to stand up and fight for things he or she believes in (popular or not). And the funny thing is that is who I thought I was electing - a person who would disagree without being disagreeable. Instead, it seems Obama is doing the opposite.
They say politicians campaign in poetry and govern in prose. I disagree - there should be plenty of room for poetry and prose when you are governing. I thought - I think we all thought - that Obama was capable of doing both. Maybe soon he'll show us we were right. Hopefully long before 2012.
The first topic was the presidency - so far - of Barack Obama. I won't summarize everyone's position; they can do that for themselves if they so choose. I will say though that only one person among four Democrats thought Obama was doing a good job. I was not that person.
I can't fully explain why I am not very satisfied with Obama as president. I can name some things that bother me (which I will do in a moment) but the different parts do not seem to add up to the total amount of disappointment I feel.
I will say first off that although I am happy that health care passed, I was not overly impressed with his role. I understand that his administration wanted to learn from Clinton's mistakes. They did not want to hand Congress a fully drafted plan and expect them to pass it. Unfortunately, I think they overcompensated and went too far towards deference and made Obama seem uninvolved and distant.
I also think that his fights over health care took way too long. Congress was debating the issue and nothing else for a year all while the country was, and still is, in the worst recession since the Great Depression. This did make Congress and the President seem out of touch. I know it seemed like it was then or never for health care, but I fear Democrats will pay a price for that.
I believe Obama should have pushed off health care and spent all of this time and capital on the economy. He got a stimulus passed that appears to have been too small - then moved on to health care. Instead, he should have passed the stimulus, then monitored it and drilled home the message that we might need more. He does not have the political capital now to add more stimulus - especially when he has said that it was going to be enough. Since presidents pay a sever price, even if it isn't their fault, for a bad economy, that should have been his one and only concern.
Another related issue that seems to be hurting Obama was brought up in a recent article in the Times that I really liked. It made the point that Obama looks like a legislative President and legislators are rarely popular. I know it sounds contradictory to say he was both uninvolved and too involved. But here is the thing - Obama, while not weighing in enough during the health care debate, you knew he was watching and his staff was involved. And I can't really name another issue he was working on or pushing for during that time. If he had been off in the Middle East negotiating peace or something similar while Congress was debating, he might not be tied to it as much.
And this gets me to my final point - that Obama doesn't seem willing to fight for things - using his speeches - now that he is president. He was watching health care, but not fighting too hard. He hasn't said much about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, although his administration is working on changing it. His defense of the Islamic Center in downtown Manhattan was tepid. And he seems quiet on Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, climate change, etc.
I get the feeling that he is loath to say things that might be unpopular, although maybe he is just more focused on administration. If that is the case - I appreciate having a president that is in the nitty-gritty of running the country. However, I also want my president to stand up and fight for things he or she believes in (popular or not). And the funny thing is that is who I thought I was electing - a person who would disagree without being disagreeable. Instead, it seems Obama is doing the opposite.
They say politicians campaign in poetry and govern in prose. I disagree - there should be plenty of room for poetry and prose when you are governing. I thought - I think we all thought - that Obama was capable of doing both. Maybe soon he'll show us we were right. Hopefully long before 2012.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Gettleman and Africa
If you have read an article in the NY Times about east Africa, it was almost definitely written by Jeffrey Gettleman. His coverage of the Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, et al has been amazing and one of the few places you can get good information about the conflicts and troubles in those areas.
He wrote a piece in Foreign Policy a while ago I finally got around to reading. It describes how Africa's wars are different. The piece is well considered and haunting. I'm not sure I agree with everything, but it is a must read when considering Africa's conflicts.
He wrote a piece in Foreign Policy a while ago I finally got around to reading. It describes how Africa's wars are different. The piece is well considered and haunting. I'm not sure I agree with everything, but it is a must read when considering Africa's conflicts.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Naomi Campbell and Her Blood Diamonds
With the testimony of Naomi Campbell at the International Criminal Court about her gift of blood diamonds, the issue has come back into the public's consciousness.
First, there was an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal ($) - a piece of pro-diamond garbage. The piece was so disingenuous it almost made me sick. Hopefully most people realized the author was far from objective considering he is a diamond consultant. And even if some people gave him the benefit of the doubt, hopefully they realized his arguments were complete sophistry.
(He says that diamonds do not contribute to conflict - at least no more than many other minerals. If his point is that we should be concerned about how other resources also provide money to warlords and allows them to continue horrible acts of violence, then I would agree. Instead, I gather his point is that we shouldn't think at all about how our consumption feeds violence in parts of Africa, Asia and South America.)
One thing he says that people concerned about blood diamonds would agree with is that the Kimberly process is largely ineffective. This article in Foreign Policy sums it up. Unfortunately, the WSJ opinion author concludes that because the Kimberly process does not work, we should give up and just buy diamonds as before oblivious to the death and destruction. The FP article fortunately looks for ways to improve the process so that people can continue to buy grossly overvalued diamonds (thanks to what is actually very clever advertising going back decades) with less impact on conflict. Let's hope people actually heed the call for change.
First, there was an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal ($) - a piece of pro-diamond garbage. The piece was so disingenuous it almost made me sick. Hopefully most people realized the author was far from objective considering he is a diamond consultant. And even if some people gave him the benefit of the doubt, hopefully they realized his arguments were complete sophistry.
(He says that diamonds do not contribute to conflict - at least no more than many other minerals. If his point is that we should be concerned about how other resources also provide money to warlords and allows them to continue horrible acts of violence, then I would agree. Instead, I gather his point is that we shouldn't think at all about how our consumption feeds violence in parts of Africa, Asia and South America.)
One thing he says that people concerned about blood diamonds would agree with is that the Kimberly process is largely ineffective. This article in Foreign Policy sums it up. Unfortunately, the WSJ opinion author concludes that because the Kimberly process does not work, we should give up and just buy diamonds as before oblivious to the death and destruction. The FP article fortunately looks for ways to improve the process so that people can continue to buy grossly overvalued diamonds (thanks to what is actually very clever advertising going back decades) with less impact on conflict. Let's hope people actually heed the call for change.
Kagame's Second Turn and Rwanda's Progress
There have been a bunch of articles looking backwards and forwards at Rwanda as the presidential election approaches. The consensus seems to be that Paul Kagame is becoming more repressive and stifling opposition - sometimes violently. At the same time however, he is also showing success rebuilding and improving the country. Corruption is low compared to the rest of Africa, violence is also relatively low and his iron fist may be helping to eliminate the distinction between Hutu and Tutsi (if anything can). Aid donors are happy and international investment is up.
Jan and I have been having a few conversations about this idea already. Now, this country hardly poses a threat to America. And in this case, we have someone who is autocratic but also seemingly doing a good job for the country apart from the repression of opposition. So not so similar to Cuba / Venezuela / Egypt / Palestine. But it does get at the issue about when we support democracy and when to we let autocratic rulers do their thing.
On Rwanda, I am completely torn. The country experienced a horrific genocide and was involved in the war in the Congo. So maybe a strong ruler is necessary to repair the country. Then again, at what point is Kagame's repression too much? And will he ever be able to stop? What happens when his reforms stop producing results, but he is unwilling to leave? For now I think we are content to let him do his thing, but soon we might face some tough questions.
Jan and I have been having a few conversations about this idea already. Now, this country hardly poses a threat to America. And in this case, we have someone who is autocratic but also seemingly doing a good job for the country apart from the repression of opposition. So not so similar to Cuba / Venezuela / Egypt / Palestine. But it does get at the issue about when we support democracy and when to we let autocratic rulers do their thing.
On Rwanda, I am completely torn. The country experienced a horrific genocide and was involved in the war in the Congo. So maybe a strong ruler is necessary to repair the country. Then again, at what point is Kagame's repression too much? And will he ever be able to stop? What happens when his reforms stop producing results, but he is unwilling to leave? For now I think we are content to let him do his thing, but soon we might face some tough questions.
On Robert Byrd and Prejudice
I want to use the opportunity of Robert Byrd's death to write about a bigger issue - prejudice and forgiveness. It is part of the public record that elected officials like Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond, and George Wallace* were strong supporters of segregation and other racist policies. It is also clear that all three changed their views and expressed sorrow for their previous positions. All three were forgiven and enjoyed further tenures in government after segregation and racism fell out of favor.
While I am a believer in forgiveness, and I also find it comforting that people are able to change their views and admit they were wrong, I find their long legislative careers extremely troubling. The ease with which people forgave their racist views sets the example that politicians will not be held accountable for harboring biased views as long as they eventually turn around after public opinion does.
This has repercussions for current debates - specifically gay rights. Politicians can see by looking at Byrd and Thurmond that they can advocate to maintain obvious civil rights violations now and not be punished for that position later on. Opposing gay rights is both in their short term and long term interests.
It would be much better for this movement and others (tolerance towards Muslims for example) if people were held accountable in the future once the public mood changed. At least then, an elected official would have to balance their short term interests against their long term interests.
If we can be more aware of the incentive this creates against defending minorities whose rights are being violated, than we can decide to forgive but not reelect politicians that were on the wrong side of a very important issue.
*I recommend the documentary George Wallace: Settin' the Woods on Fire. It takes the position that Wallace was not a racist in his early years. Instead, it was his ambition - to become governor - that made him take up the popular white southern cause of segregation and to become its biggest proponent. That doesn't let him off the hook of course. But it does present an interesting (although maybe not surprising) issue - that in seeking power, politicians will exploit fears they don't hold themselves.
While I am a believer in forgiveness, and I also find it comforting that people are able to change their views and admit they were wrong, I find their long legislative careers extremely troubling. The ease with which people forgave their racist views sets the example that politicians will not be held accountable for harboring biased views as long as they eventually turn around after public opinion does.
This has repercussions for current debates - specifically gay rights. Politicians can see by looking at Byrd and Thurmond that they can advocate to maintain obvious civil rights violations now and not be punished for that position later on. Opposing gay rights is both in their short term and long term interests.
It would be much better for this movement and others (tolerance towards Muslims for example) if people were held accountable in the future once the public mood changed. At least then, an elected official would have to balance their short term interests against their long term interests.
If we can be more aware of the incentive this creates against defending minorities whose rights are being violated, than we can decide to forgive but not reelect politicians that were on the wrong side of a very important issue.
*I recommend the documentary George Wallace: Settin' the Woods on Fire. It takes the position that Wallace was not a racist in his early years. Instead, it was his ambition - to become governor - that made him take up the popular white southern cause of segregation and to become its biggest proponent. That doesn't let him off the hook of course. But it does present an interesting (although maybe not surprising) issue - that in seeking power, politicians will exploit fears they don't hold themselves.
Islamic Center and Ignorance
The debate over an Islamic Community Center in lower Manhattan seems like it will never go away. My position is simple. The only reason one could oppose an Islamic community center in downtown Manhattan is if you hold the whole religion of Islam responsible for what happened on September 11, 2001. In other words, you would have to think that it was regular Muslims - not radical Muslims corrupting an otherwise decent religion - that attacked us. If however you don't believe that the religion as a whole attacked us, then you wouldn't see an Islamic Community Center that represents moderate Islam as offensive of the memories of the victims (many of which were Muslim by the way).
Many Republicans want to appeal to their base by opposing it, and they are all trying to walk absurd lines to oppose it without seeming to oppose Islam. Some are trying to tell moderate Muslims not to be offended (ie Rudy Guliani and Sarah Palin). Others are just upset about how liberals are framing the debate - as if pointing out that Republicans are not conforming to one of our founding principles is an unfair debate tactic (Wall Street Journal). Some are saying that our principles should only be adhered to if dictatorships also adhere to them (Gingrich). Finally, Rick Lazio now seems to have gone off the deep end by suggesting 100 Islamic centers in New York is a security issue.
Despite the anger and sadness about the ease with which many people have been able to take a position that is at best wholly illogical and at worst bigoted, there have been some highlights. Mayor Bloomberg's speech has been widely hailed for its message of tolerance. President Obama has finally weighed in with support of the center. But the brightest light has been Fareed Zakaria.
The Anti-Defamation League has sided with those opposing the mosque. They also tried to walk a cautious line - by saying that the people attempting to build the mosque have the right to build there, but it isn't right that they do. Instead, the right thing would be for the mosque to be somewhere else in deference to the feelings of some of the victims' families - even if those feelings are unreasonable and bigoted. Essentially, an organization that opposes bigotry is saying bigotry is understandable if the bigot is a victim and furthermore, the victim / bigot's wishes should be respected.
This position is absurd and has cost an otherwise respected institution serious credibility. Fareed Zakaria has taken a stand and sent back an award he received from them because of the position they have taken. His step sends the strongest message to that organization about why their position was wrong. They seem unable to change course to gain back their credibility. However, it is voices like Fareed Zakaria's that are fortunately overpowering the ADL and the Republican party.
Many Republicans want to appeal to their base by opposing it, and they are all trying to walk absurd lines to oppose it without seeming to oppose Islam. Some are trying to tell moderate Muslims not to be offended (ie Rudy Guliani and Sarah Palin). Others are just upset about how liberals are framing the debate - as if pointing out that Republicans are not conforming to one of our founding principles is an unfair debate tactic (Wall Street Journal). Some are saying that our principles should only be adhered to if dictatorships also adhere to them (Gingrich). Finally, Rick Lazio now seems to have gone off the deep end by suggesting 100 Islamic centers in New York is a security issue.
Despite the anger and sadness about the ease with which many people have been able to take a position that is at best wholly illogical and at worst bigoted, there have been some highlights. Mayor Bloomberg's speech has been widely hailed for its message of tolerance. President Obama has finally weighed in with support of the center. But the brightest light has been Fareed Zakaria.
The Anti-Defamation League has sided with those opposing the mosque. They also tried to walk a cautious line - by saying that the people attempting to build the mosque have the right to build there, but it isn't right that they do. Instead, the right thing would be for the mosque to be somewhere else in deference to the feelings of some of the victims' families - even if those feelings are unreasonable and bigoted. Essentially, an organization that opposes bigotry is saying bigotry is understandable if the bigot is a victim and furthermore, the victim / bigot's wishes should be respected.
This position is absurd and has cost an otherwise respected institution serious credibility. Fareed Zakaria has taken a stand and sent back an award he received from them because of the position they have taken. His step sends the strongest message to that organization about why their position was wrong. They seem unable to change course to gain back their credibility. However, it is voices like Fareed Zakaria's that are fortunately overpowering the ADL and the Republican party.
Monday, August 09, 2010
MPAA Ratings
I watched This Film is Not Yet Rated. I was a bit skeptical - mostly because of how aggressive and confrontational it seemed. But it was actually a good movie and made some really interesting points.
The movie investigates the Motion Picture Association of America's movie ratings system and finds it to be secretive and full of contradictions. We shouldn't be surprised at the problems the movie raises. Anytime an industry tries to regulate itself, it will often fail when the needed regulations threaten its bottom line.
It seems clear from the movie that the MPAA ratings system has a few significant flaws. The first is of course its lack of transparency. A system that exerts such significant control over a major communication medium should make it clear who is making its decisions and how they arrive at those decisions.
Given the lack of transparency, the MPAA is free to allow conflicts to corrupt the process. It seems clear that studio films are given more guidance and support in navigating the ratings.
What seems to be the biggest problem with the ratings system though is that it tolerates significant graphic violence in an R rating but is highly sensitive to sex and downright censors any homosexual sex or intimacy. This strikes me as completely backwards. As a society, we should be much more concerned with how our treatment of violence influences violent behavior than we are about treatment of sex influences our sexual behavior since violence can have much bigger impacts on peoples' lives than sex.
The movie suggests a reason for why the MPAA might treat sex this way. It seems that the MPAA is risk averse - its goal is to avoid criticism. It seems clear that the loudest voices would be / are conservative christian groups whose main concern is with what they consider aberrant sexual behavior (usually intimacy between same sex couples or sexual positions that deviate from missionary). In fact, the bias in favor of religious groups is clear when the viewer learns that the MPAA includes representatives from the Catholic and Episcopalian churches on their appeals baord.*
To the extent that this analysis is accurate, it is concerning both because religious groups representing views that are likely to be in the minority have an undue influence on our movie choices (coming close to censoring) and because it isn't clear to the public that the rating agencies have this bias.
The solution would be a rating system that is much more transparent - which means it would need to be less simple - and separated from the studios. HBO uses its own rating system, which is actually both more simple and more complicated than the MPAA. Because it is independent of the MPAA, it can air TV shows like the L-Word, which would otherwise likely receive an NC-17 rating. There is another rating system though that accomplishes this, and Netflix is using it: Common Sense Media. It is far more descriptive about what is contained in the movie (and tv shows and music videos). Granted, this wouldn't work for the lazy parent, but seems like a much more transparent, consistent, and independent system.
*Another explanation could be that our society overall tolerates violence more than sex and the ratings reflect that. The movie does a good job of making this explanation seem less likely.
The movie investigates the Motion Picture Association of America's movie ratings system and finds it to be secretive and full of contradictions. We shouldn't be surprised at the problems the movie raises. Anytime an industry tries to regulate itself, it will often fail when the needed regulations threaten its bottom line.
It seems clear from the movie that the MPAA ratings system has a few significant flaws. The first is of course its lack of transparency. A system that exerts such significant control over a major communication medium should make it clear who is making its decisions and how they arrive at those decisions.
Given the lack of transparency, the MPAA is free to allow conflicts to corrupt the process. It seems clear that studio films are given more guidance and support in navigating the ratings.
What seems to be the biggest problem with the ratings system though is that it tolerates significant graphic violence in an R rating but is highly sensitive to sex and downright censors any homosexual sex or intimacy. This strikes me as completely backwards. As a society, we should be much more concerned with how our treatment of violence influences violent behavior than we are about treatment of sex influences our sexual behavior since violence can have much bigger impacts on peoples' lives than sex.
The movie suggests a reason for why the MPAA might treat sex this way. It seems that the MPAA is risk averse - its goal is to avoid criticism. It seems clear that the loudest voices would be / are conservative christian groups whose main concern is with what they consider aberrant sexual behavior (usually intimacy between same sex couples or sexual positions that deviate from missionary). In fact, the bias in favor of religious groups is clear when the viewer learns that the MPAA includes representatives from the Catholic and Episcopalian churches on their appeals baord.*
To the extent that this analysis is accurate, it is concerning both because religious groups representing views that are likely to be in the minority have an undue influence on our movie choices (coming close to censoring) and because it isn't clear to the public that the rating agencies have this bias.
The solution would be a rating system that is much more transparent - which means it would need to be less simple - and separated from the studios. HBO uses its own rating system, which is actually both more simple and more complicated than the MPAA. Because it is independent of the MPAA, it can air TV shows like the L-Word, which would otherwise likely receive an NC-17 rating. There is another rating system though that accomplishes this, and Netflix is using it: Common Sense Media. It is far more descriptive about what is contained in the movie (and tv shows and music videos). Granted, this wouldn't work for the lazy parent, but seems like a much more transparent, consistent, and independent system.
*Another explanation could be that our society overall tolerates violence more than sex and the ratings reflect that. The movie does a good job of making this explanation seem less likely.
Shrink Government and Help the Poor?
There is an article in the NY Times about Republican Congressional candidate Tim Scott who is likely to become the first black Republican elected to Congress from the Deep South in over one hundred years. While that is somewhat interesting, I am more interested in his overall philosophy.
Tim Scott seems to be of the class of Republicans that want to help those less fortunate but don't think the government should do it. Here is a quote from the article that really got me thinking:
What I don't understand though about these conservatives that are actually compassionate is how they can stand being in a party where a significant portion believe that government should be doing less not because local community groups need to do more but because they want to keep their own money and not help the undeserving poor.
These conservatives that do want the poor to be helped need to understand, and I am surprised that they do not, that when they work together with other conservatives to shrink the size of government, there will be nothing close to sufficient money to help those in need. They are joining a party to shrink government without considering what happens to the people that need support.
It would make more sense to me if these people joined with Democrats, who also largely feel the desire to help the poor, and try to influence the party to raise the same amount of money but give more to local groups and less to big unresponsive government agencies.
Tim Scott seems to be of the class of Republicans that want to help those less fortunate but don't think the government should do it. Here is a quote from the article that really got me thinking:
"If you really believe in something and that the government shouldn’t do it, you better be busy," he said.First, let me say that I can understand the feeling that the government isn't always the best at providing services. While this feeling is exaggerated, there are good reasons to feel this way. I might agree that local non-profits, if adequately funded, could provide better services for those in need than government social service agencies.
What I don't understand though about these conservatives that are actually compassionate is how they can stand being in a party where a significant portion believe that government should be doing less not because local community groups need to do more but because they want to keep their own money and not help the undeserving poor.
These conservatives that do want the poor to be helped need to understand, and I am surprised that they do not, that when they work together with other conservatives to shrink the size of government, there will be nothing close to sufficient money to help those in need. They are joining a party to shrink government without considering what happens to the people that need support.
It would make more sense to me if these people joined with Democrats, who also largely feel the desire to help the poor, and try to influence the party to raise the same amount of money but give more to local groups and less to big unresponsive government agencies.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Good Discussion About Wikipedia
I just want to share this really good discussion about Wikipedia and its strengths and weaknesses. It comes through an interview with one of the founders of Wikipedia who left because of a disagreement over how the site should proceed and operate.
And just to give you a sense, here is the best quote, in response to a question about how readers should use Wikipedia as compared to an Encyclopedia Britannica:
And just to give you a sense, here is the best quote, in response to a question about how readers should use Wikipedia as compared to an Encyclopedia Britannica:
“What Wikipedians themselves would say—and I agree with them on this one—is that Wikipedia has finally awakened in people an understanding that even carefully edited resources can frequently be wrong and have to be treated with skepticism and that ultimately we are responsible for what we believe. That means constantly going back and checking what we thought was established or what we thought we knew. Wikipedians often say that you should never trust any one source, including Wikipedia.
That's not anything new; it's always been the case that you should check your source against another source. It's just that the way that the Internet has exposed the editorial process has, for more critical-minded people, made it absolutely plain just how much responsibility we ourselves bear to believe the right thing.”
Friday, June 25, 2010
Not History but the Future
In a previous post, a friend and I had a largely academic debate about what to consider when evaluating whether to support growing democracies. Despite all of our back and forth and a seeming resolution, I still feel like I don't know whether the argument was over semantics and word usage or whether there was a real difference of opinion about American foreign policy. Well, there is no better way to find out than to explore real world examples. Here it goes.
I can think of four examples where supporting a democracy could be debated, as there is a case to be made about whether democracies in those places are in America's interests. You'll remember that my friend and I debated about whether we should consider "American interests" when deciding whether to support a democracy. I get the general sense that my friend is more comfortable considering that than I am - although I think we agreed that it should be considered - or at least shouldn't be ignored. The four countries that I want to consider are Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Egypt, and Venezuela.
Let's start with the last one first. Venezuela is currently a democracy. However, because of Hugo Chavez's public antagonism towards the US and their supply of oil that the US is a big consumer of (in fact, I think we are one of the few countries that can process the oil they extract), it is conceivable that a dictator there that is friendly to the US could be in America's interests.
I do understand that this example is a bit imaginary, since it is unlikely that we would actually support an overthrow there. But since it might be in our interest, should we support such a thing? I would argue no. Since the democracy that exists there, while antagonistic, is not actually harming us in any significant way, we should absolutely not interfere and deny people their rights to self-government.
Okay, that was easy. How about Egypt? This one is more real, since there is currently a dictator there that supports the US. Our current policy it seems is to tread carefully with Egypt. We do not speak out - at least not loudly - against Mubarak's regime. This is in part to maintain his cooperation, but also because we fear the Muslim Brotherhood winning in elections.
There is the possibility of instability from an Egypt that is more radical. However, and I imagine this is where my friend and I disagree, I have an abiding faith in democracy and its ability to moderate radical parties. Governments that create instability and attract the condemnation and punishment of the international community are unlikely to stay in power. I would predict a Muslim Brotherhood that is publicly aggressive in words only.
This leads me perfectly to Palestine. The Bush administration made the decision to support Palestinian elections. Many look back and think that was a mistake. I disagree - I think the mistake was in not giving Hamas the opportunity to fail. Instead, they are the de facto rulers of Gaza, but are able to blame their failures on the international community which immediately rejected the will of the people.
Finally, let's look at Saudi Arabia. This one is much harder to predict because the government is so repressive, it is impossible to know what type of government the people actually favor. Whatever government is selected, the biggest concern to America is over oil. I don't imagine they would refuse to sell us oil. However, they would likely be much less willing to increase production when prices rise, as the current government does. Here, I would be inclined to support the democracy, assuming that as that option began to present itself, we might know a little more about what it might look like. Again, I think it is my faith in democracy that leads me to think we could tolerate a democratic Saudi Arabia.
I think in all examples though, I don't see anything scary enough to justify denying a people's ability to live free. And maybe that is my overall point - that to deny someone's rights to live in a democratic society, there had better be something that is really putting American lives and safety at risk. In the past, I think we valued freedom in other countries so little, that we would deny that freedom if it gave us even a slight benefit or slight increase in stability. We should value other people's freedom far more than we have.
Before I wrap up though, there is one thing that really gives me pause and that is the possibility that by allowing a democratic election, we don't allow a democracy to grow, but instead give another group - one that is less favorable - the opportunity to become the new tyrant. There are examples of this happening (think Zimbabwe among others). And among the examples we discussed above, Hugo Chavez has certainly tried this, although unsuccessfully so far. And it is possible that the Muslim Brotherhood might also go this route. In this case though, the concern is not with an unfriendly democracy, but a democracy that does not last.
I don't quite know how to handle this. It seems overly paternalistic to tell a country they are not ready for democracy. However, we have seen how hard it is to get rid of unfriendly non-democratic leaders.
I think my only answer would be to say that I would rather air on the side of democracy. I would rather tell a country that we tried to let democracy grow but it failed than to say that I didn't think it was a good time for them - that they weren't ready - to choose their own government and live in a free society.
I can think of four examples where supporting a democracy could be debated, as there is a case to be made about whether democracies in those places are in America's interests. You'll remember that my friend and I debated about whether we should consider "American interests" when deciding whether to support a democracy. I get the general sense that my friend is more comfortable considering that than I am - although I think we agreed that it should be considered - or at least shouldn't be ignored. The four countries that I want to consider are Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Egypt, and Venezuela.
Let's start with the last one first. Venezuela is currently a democracy. However, because of Hugo Chavez's public antagonism towards the US and their supply of oil that the US is a big consumer of (in fact, I think we are one of the few countries that can process the oil they extract), it is conceivable that a dictator there that is friendly to the US could be in America's interests.
I do understand that this example is a bit imaginary, since it is unlikely that we would actually support an overthrow there. But since it might be in our interest, should we support such a thing? I would argue no. Since the democracy that exists there, while antagonistic, is not actually harming us in any significant way, we should absolutely not interfere and deny people their rights to self-government.
Okay, that was easy. How about Egypt? This one is more real, since there is currently a dictator there that supports the US. Our current policy it seems is to tread carefully with Egypt. We do not speak out - at least not loudly - against Mubarak's regime. This is in part to maintain his cooperation, but also because we fear the Muslim Brotherhood winning in elections.
There is the possibility of instability from an Egypt that is more radical. However, and I imagine this is where my friend and I disagree, I have an abiding faith in democracy and its ability to moderate radical parties. Governments that create instability and attract the condemnation and punishment of the international community are unlikely to stay in power. I would predict a Muslim Brotherhood that is publicly aggressive in words only.
This leads me perfectly to Palestine. The Bush administration made the decision to support Palestinian elections. Many look back and think that was a mistake. I disagree - I think the mistake was in not giving Hamas the opportunity to fail. Instead, they are the de facto rulers of Gaza, but are able to blame their failures on the international community which immediately rejected the will of the people.
Finally, let's look at Saudi Arabia. This one is much harder to predict because the government is so repressive, it is impossible to know what type of government the people actually favor. Whatever government is selected, the biggest concern to America is over oil. I don't imagine they would refuse to sell us oil. However, they would likely be much less willing to increase production when prices rise, as the current government does. Here, I would be inclined to support the democracy, assuming that as that option began to present itself, we might know a little more about what it might look like. Again, I think it is my faith in democracy that leads me to think we could tolerate a democratic Saudi Arabia.
I think in all examples though, I don't see anything scary enough to justify denying a people's ability to live free. And maybe that is my overall point - that to deny someone's rights to live in a democratic society, there had better be something that is really putting American lives and safety at risk. In the past, I think we valued freedom in other countries so little, that we would deny that freedom if it gave us even a slight benefit or slight increase in stability. We should value other people's freedom far more than we have.
Before I wrap up though, there is one thing that really gives me pause and that is the possibility that by allowing a democratic election, we don't allow a democracy to grow, but instead give another group - one that is less favorable - the opportunity to become the new tyrant. There are examples of this happening (think Zimbabwe among others). And among the examples we discussed above, Hugo Chavez has certainly tried this, although unsuccessfully so far. And it is possible that the Muslim Brotherhood might also go this route. In this case though, the concern is not with an unfriendly democracy, but a democracy that does not last.
I don't quite know how to handle this. It seems overly paternalistic to tell a country they are not ready for democracy. However, we have seen how hard it is to get rid of unfriendly non-democratic leaders.
I think my only answer would be to say that I would rather air on the side of democracy. I would rather tell a country that we tried to let democracy grow but it failed than to say that I didn't think it was a good time for them - that they weren't ready - to choose their own government and live in a free society.
Triangles Everywhere
A while ago I wrote about the triangle between Sunni Arab countries, Shiite countries, and Israel and the potential for two to gang up on the other. Once I looked at that situation as a triangle, I started to see triangles in other places.
In this post, I will talk about a triangle in Iran. The three sides of the triangle are the theocracy, democracy, and the military. Iran tries to mix a theocracy with a democracy and has a military to protect both. As in any triangle, two sides can and do join together to overpower the other.
What has happened in Iran is that the theocracy felt threatened by the democracy and has chosen to join with the military to significantly weaken the democracy. President Ahmadinejad did this by giving important positions to people in the military, creating a government largely run by the military and dependent on Ahmadinejad for their positions.
So what they have created is a theocratic military state (masking as a religious republic). The question then is how long the theocratic military state can last before the democracy (maybe paired with some of the theocracy) rises up and regains power.
The key in any situation like this is the strength of the military. In Turkey, the military considers itself protector of the democracy and regularly steps in to prevent the democracy from having too much religious influence. But one can argue that the military is so strong that it is denying real democracy by denying complete choice.
But wherever you have a strong military, you risk the military becoming the only side - becoming unstoppable. Iran risks this very thing. While the military has always been strong, I think the question among some people right now is whether the stronger of the two partners is the military or the theocracy. Is Ayatollah Khamenei creating a monster he can no longer control?
In this post, I will talk about a triangle in Iran. The three sides of the triangle are the theocracy, democracy, and the military. Iran tries to mix a theocracy with a democracy and has a military to protect both. As in any triangle, two sides can and do join together to overpower the other.
What has happened in Iran is that the theocracy felt threatened by the democracy and has chosen to join with the military to significantly weaken the democracy. President Ahmadinejad did this by giving important positions to people in the military, creating a government largely run by the military and dependent on Ahmadinejad for their positions.
So what they have created is a theocratic military state (masking as a religious republic). The question then is how long the theocratic military state can last before the democracy (maybe paired with some of the theocracy) rises up and regains power.
The key in any situation like this is the strength of the military. In Turkey, the military considers itself protector of the democracy and regularly steps in to prevent the democracy from having too much religious influence. But one can argue that the military is so strong that it is denying real democracy by denying complete choice.
But wherever you have a strong military, you risk the military becoming the only side - becoming unstoppable. Iran risks this very thing. While the military has always been strong, I think the question among some people right now is whether the stronger of the two partners is the military or the theocracy. Is Ayatollah Khamenei creating a monster he can no longer control?
Don't Apologize
A lot has been made, specifically from the far right, about President Obama acknowledging America's mistakes in the past. Now most people who are concerned about this are so far to the extreme that they will never see reason. But in case there are some that would agree with this unless they were forced to actually think about it, I will explore.
Let's start from the beginning. The first question I ask myself (and the crazy uber-patriotic folks on the right) is whether the US has made any mistakes in foreign policy in the past. Unless you think America, like God, is omnipotent and never makes mistakes, the obvious answer is yes.
The next question is whether countries should apologize or otherwise atone for their sins. If the answer is no, we shouldn't apologize, then no other country should have to apologize for any of their mistakes or crimes. Of course though we call on other countries to acknowledge their mistakes and crimes.
If you answer both of these questions reasonably - that we have made mistakes and that countries that make mistakes should acknowledge them and learn from them - then it makes sense to do what President Obama has done on occasion.
Unfortunately, America has a vocal jingoistic segment that somehow feels apologizing is unpatriotic. Hopefully these people are patriotic enough to refuse to apologize to their friends and family, as that would be afront to their pride. In which case, they will have poor relationships and deservedly so. For America, I would rather we recognize the mistakes we have made and learn from them. And while doing so, maybe the countries that were affected will feel comfortable that we might not make the same mistake again.
Let's start from the beginning. The first question I ask myself (and the crazy uber-patriotic folks on the right) is whether the US has made any mistakes in foreign policy in the past. Unless you think America, like God, is omnipotent and never makes mistakes, the obvious answer is yes.
The next question is whether countries should apologize or otherwise atone for their sins. If the answer is no, we shouldn't apologize, then no other country should have to apologize for any of their mistakes or crimes. Of course though we call on other countries to acknowledge their mistakes and crimes.
If you answer both of these questions reasonably - that we have made mistakes and that countries that make mistakes should acknowledge them and learn from them - then it makes sense to do what President Obama has done on occasion.
Unfortunately, America has a vocal jingoistic segment that somehow feels apologizing is unpatriotic. Hopefully these people are patriotic enough to refuse to apologize to their friends and family, as that would be afront to their pride. In which case, they will have poor relationships and deservedly so. For America, I would rather we recognize the mistakes we have made and learn from them. And while doing so, maybe the countries that were affected will feel comfortable that we might not make the same mistake again.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Last Point About Hillary
Another old post that I never published. Interesting considering what we know now - that Clinton was very close to refusing the position.
I don't want to spend too much time on this, but Thomas Friedman did make an interesting point about whether or not to choose Hillary. Basically he said the Secretary of State is only effective when foreign leaders believe they are talking to the President through the Secretary of State. In this position, seemingly more so than other cabinet positions, those dealing with the secretary of state need to know that Obama trusts Hillary and that Hillary supports Obama's policy positions.
I am not writing Hillary off - she has proven time and again that she can mold her personality to fit whatever role she finds herself. This is what has made her effective as First Lady, Senator, and presidential candidate (she might not have won, but I still think she ran a good campaign).
This gets to the Team of Rivals issue. It seems that a lot of people have read Doris Kearns Goodwin's book and think Obama should mimic Lincoln and bring rivals into his cabinet. Now there will always be contrarians who don't really get the point*. It isn't whether a president can bring in differing view points while maintaining a perfectly functioning cabinet. Instead the issue is whether the president (Obama) will be better able to control rivals (ie people within his party who might try to thwart his plans due to ego or real differences) by keeping them in his cabinet and whether he can also use their talent effectively in their positions. In Lincoln's case, I would argue that he did effectively deal with the personalities in his cabinet - Chase especially - and also relied heavily on the talented Seward and Stanton.
The biggest lesson though is where to put which rivals. Stanton and Seward were loyal and headed the two most important positions during the Civil War: the State Department and War Department, respectively. The point I am trying to make is that if you want to bring Hillary in to try to keep her close and manage her, it might be better to try that with another post. Only if Obama thinks they can truly work together should be give her State Department.
*Note: The author of this article misrepresents the Emancipation Proclamation as being a fait accompli when Lincoln brought it to his cabinet. Whether to issue it was already decided by Lincoln. But Seward was able to convince him to wait until after a Union victory before issuing it so that it was issued from a position of strength. Lincoln heeded the advice and issued it following the victory at Antietam.
I don't want to spend too much time on this, but Thomas Friedman did make an interesting point about whether or not to choose Hillary. Basically he said the Secretary of State is only effective when foreign leaders believe they are talking to the President through the Secretary of State. In this position, seemingly more so than other cabinet positions, those dealing with the secretary of state need to know that Obama trusts Hillary and that Hillary supports Obama's policy positions.
I am not writing Hillary off - she has proven time and again that she can mold her personality to fit whatever role she finds herself. This is what has made her effective as First Lady, Senator, and presidential candidate (she might not have won, but I still think she ran a good campaign).
This gets to the Team of Rivals issue. It seems that a lot of people have read Doris Kearns Goodwin's book and think Obama should mimic Lincoln and bring rivals into his cabinet. Now there will always be contrarians who don't really get the point*. It isn't whether a president can bring in differing view points while maintaining a perfectly functioning cabinet. Instead the issue is whether the president (Obama) will be better able to control rivals (ie people within his party who might try to thwart his plans due to ego or real differences) by keeping them in his cabinet and whether he can also use their talent effectively in their positions. In Lincoln's case, I would argue that he did effectively deal with the personalities in his cabinet - Chase especially - and also relied heavily on the talented Seward and Stanton.
The biggest lesson though is where to put which rivals. Stanton and Seward were loyal and headed the two most important positions during the Civil War: the State Department and War Department, respectively. The point I am trying to make is that if you want to bring Hillary in to try to keep her close and manage her, it might be better to try that with another post. Only if Obama thinks they can truly work together should be give her State Department.
*Note: The author of this article misrepresents the Emancipation Proclamation as being a fait accompli when Lincoln brought it to his cabinet. Whether to issue it was already decided by Lincoln. But Seward was able to convince him to wait until after a Union victory before issuing it so that it was issued from a position of strength. Lincoln heeded the advice and issued it following the victory at Antietam.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Cuba
An old post I never published:
So I have been spending some time learning more about Castro and his Cuba lately, thanks to a NY Times Sunday Magazine article and American Experience: Fidel Castro. Basically, I wanted to know more so that I could actually judge him fairly - and understand what our policy towards Cuba is and what it should be.
Now that I have done that, I see that Castro's Cuba is a really good place to go to debate US anti-communist foreign policy. First, let's start with an analysis of Cuba under Castro. There are two components to his government. One, is the political component in which he was the sole authority and dissent was punished. Clearly, there is nothing to like about those policies.
Second is the economic component. At its most simple, I think we can look at Cuba's social services - where education and health for the poorest has increased - and economic production. There appears to be much to admire about Cuba's focus on training doctors and sending those doctors throughout the world. But their overall economy is and has been a mess. It seems clear, and economic theory predicts this, that there is a trade-off between economic growth and economic policy that is redistributionist / socialist.
What does this all mean for foreign policy? If the US truly hopes to create a world that allows basic freedoms and rights to all people, what policies should it tolerate? For governing, that decision seems a little more clear. Governments that deny participation by its people, dictatorships for example, should not be tolerated.
What about economics? Here, I don't think the answer is as clear. If socialism can be achieved through democracy, than I see no reason why it should be challenged or fought.
Basically, what I am suggesting is a foreign policy that opposes all dictatorships but supports all participatory governments. Sounds simple enough, right? But this hasn't been our policy. Instead, we have chosen to support capitalist systems over socialist / communist systems no matter what. We supported horribly repressive capitalist dictatorships in Chile, Iran (under the Shah), and Vietnam (during the war) just to name a few.
So I have been spending some time learning more about Castro and his Cuba lately, thanks to a NY Times Sunday Magazine article and American Experience: Fidel Castro. Basically, I wanted to know more so that I could actually judge him fairly - and understand what our policy towards Cuba is and what it should be.
Now that I have done that, I see that Castro's Cuba is a really good place to go to debate US anti-communist foreign policy. First, let's start with an analysis of Cuba under Castro. There are two components to his government. One, is the political component in which he was the sole authority and dissent was punished. Clearly, there is nothing to like about those policies.
Second is the economic component. At its most simple, I think we can look at Cuba's social services - where education and health for the poorest has increased - and economic production. There appears to be much to admire about Cuba's focus on training doctors and sending those doctors throughout the world. But their overall economy is and has been a mess. It seems clear, and economic theory predicts this, that there is a trade-off between economic growth and economic policy that is redistributionist / socialist.
What does this all mean for foreign policy? If the US truly hopes to create a world that allows basic freedoms and rights to all people, what policies should it tolerate? For governing, that decision seems a little more clear. Governments that deny participation by its people, dictatorships for example, should not be tolerated.
What about economics? Here, I don't think the answer is as clear. If socialism can be achieved through democracy, than I see no reason why it should be challenged or fought.
Basically, what I am suggesting is a foreign policy that opposes all dictatorships but supports all participatory governments. Sounds simple enough, right? But this hasn't been our policy. Instead, we have chosen to support capitalist systems over socialist / communist systems no matter what. We supported horribly repressive capitalist dictatorships in Chile, Iran (under the Shah), and Vietnam (during the war) just to name a few.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
It Begins (?)
A colleague and I were debating education policy the other day at work. If we can transfer that debate here, this blog might actually live up to its name and purpose!
This post is going to be about big picture education ideas, so if you want more specifics from me, look here (be warned, it is probably far more detail than you want). But the big ideas we will talk about get at fundamental philosophies of public education.
Let me start with the least controversial idea (at least in the context of a debate between two avowed liberals). I think if we really want to improve education, we need to spend a lot more money. There is a reason people with means spend $30,000 on private education. They clearly feel that the education is worth that much money. In an ideal world, we would be able to spend that much money per student on public education. And based on how private schools spend their money, we use that money to get much smaller class sizes, more teacher support, and more subjects.
But we don't live in a perfect world. Unfortunately, we live in a world with trade-offs and budget constraints. So while I will always advocate for more money for education, I recognize that significant increases are unrealistic in the near term.
While we are not, and cannot, spend as much as we need on education, we need to have policies that give all families the freedom to make educational decisions that are best for their children. And the best way to give families choice is through charter schools and vouchers.
Before I continue, I should say that I do not believe that charter schools and vouchers will necessarily improve the community public schools. My faith in choice and markets is not that blind.
Instead, I believe all families should have the ability to take their kids to other schools - be they charter, secular private, or parochial - when the local community school is failing them. In situations where the local public school is not delivering, middle and upper income families find ways to get their kids out of those schools. High income families usually find private schools while middle income families move to another neighborhood. Lower income families however are often trapped because they cannot afford either option.
The really big problem is that they don't have to be trapped. We could give them the opportunity to attend a comparably priced private school or charter school. Many liberals however believe that by letting poor kids leave public schools, we are hurting the failing public school by taking motivated kids out of the school. I do not think it is fair to require low income students to stay in a bad school in hopes that it won't get worse when we don't require middle or upper income kids to do the same.
That line of thinking seems to rest on the assumption that the government's goal is to protect public schools. I disagree completely. I think the government's goal is to educate children. Allowing children and families the choice over how they are educated fits perfectly within that goal. Protecting public schools that do not provide a good education does not.
I also think, although this argument is on shakier ground, that by giving families choice over their education, you can make them more motivated. After all, if a family's only choice is a terrible public school, what motivation do they have to spend a lot of effort on education. Instead, I can imagine families being more motivated and engaged when they have the choice between the local school, charter schools, and private schools. I of course cannot back this up - it is just a theory of mine.
Some on the left are concerned that vouchers would violate the establishment clause of the constitution since they would allow children to use public money to attend parochial schools. I don't think this argument has any merit whatsoever. Providing funds for children to attend private schools of their choice cannot reasonably be construed as the government establishing the religion of any or all of the parochial schools the children choose.
I am also not convinced that charter schools or vouchers will hurt public schools - at least financially. Most public schools (especially in city and county-wide school districts) are funded based on per pupil formulas. When children move out, the school's budget decreases. So the same thing happens whether a child moves to a different town or uses a voucher to attend a private school. We aren't up in arms about schools losing money every time their population decreases, so we shouldn't think it would be a catastrophe when the same principle is used with vouchers.
The only way that I could see vouchers hurting public schools was if the vouchers were not means tested. If we start subsidizing families that were going to send their kids to private school anyway, it is likely that significant money would leave public education.
I do recognize the problem with "skimming off the top." It is likely that the better and more motivated students would leave the poor performing public schools. But I feel that freedom and choice for the family is a greater concern. And again, I don't see why we should hold low income motivated students hostage at bad schools.
The bottom line is that I believe that all families should have the ability to choose the nature of their kids education. (On a slight tangent, this is why I oppose a national curriculum, even if I was confident that it would be a progressive curriculum. While I want my kids educated in that way, I think parents should be free to chose a different form, even *gasp* one that uses rote learning.) And so it is with vouchers. Low income families should have the same ability to chose what type of education their child gets as middle and higher income families do. They should not be anchored to failing schools in a misguided belief that we need to protect public schools. Giving every kid, or as many as we possibly can, the best education possible is government's goal.
This post is going to be about big picture education ideas, so if you want more specifics from me, look here (be warned, it is probably far more detail than you want). But the big ideas we will talk about get at fundamental philosophies of public education.
Let me start with the least controversial idea (at least in the context of a debate between two avowed liberals). I think if we really want to improve education, we need to spend a lot more money. There is a reason people with means spend $30,000 on private education. They clearly feel that the education is worth that much money. In an ideal world, we would be able to spend that much money per student on public education. And based on how private schools spend their money, we use that money to get much smaller class sizes, more teacher support, and more subjects.
But we don't live in a perfect world. Unfortunately, we live in a world with trade-offs and budget constraints. So while I will always advocate for more money for education, I recognize that significant increases are unrealistic in the near term.
While we are not, and cannot, spend as much as we need on education, we need to have policies that give all families the freedom to make educational decisions that are best for their children. And the best way to give families choice is through charter schools and vouchers.
Before I continue, I should say that I do not believe that charter schools and vouchers will necessarily improve the community public schools. My faith in choice and markets is not that blind.
Instead, I believe all families should have the ability to take their kids to other schools - be they charter, secular private, or parochial - when the local community school is failing them. In situations where the local public school is not delivering, middle and upper income families find ways to get their kids out of those schools. High income families usually find private schools while middle income families move to another neighborhood. Lower income families however are often trapped because they cannot afford either option.
The really big problem is that they don't have to be trapped. We could give them the opportunity to attend a comparably priced private school or charter school. Many liberals however believe that by letting poor kids leave public schools, we are hurting the failing public school by taking motivated kids out of the school. I do not think it is fair to require low income students to stay in a bad school in hopes that it won't get worse when we don't require middle or upper income kids to do the same.
That line of thinking seems to rest on the assumption that the government's goal is to protect public schools. I disagree completely. I think the government's goal is to educate children. Allowing children and families the choice over how they are educated fits perfectly within that goal. Protecting public schools that do not provide a good education does not.
I also think, although this argument is on shakier ground, that by giving families choice over their education, you can make them more motivated. After all, if a family's only choice is a terrible public school, what motivation do they have to spend a lot of effort on education. Instead, I can imagine families being more motivated and engaged when they have the choice between the local school, charter schools, and private schools. I of course cannot back this up - it is just a theory of mine.
Some on the left are concerned that vouchers would violate the establishment clause of the constitution since they would allow children to use public money to attend parochial schools. I don't think this argument has any merit whatsoever. Providing funds for children to attend private schools of their choice cannot reasonably be construed as the government establishing the religion of any or all of the parochial schools the children choose.
I am also not convinced that charter schools or vouchers will hurt public schools - at least financially. Most public schools (especially in city and county-wide school districts) are funded based on per pupil formulas. When children move out, the school's budget decreases. So the same thing happens whether a child moves to a different town or uses a voucher to attend a private school. We aren't up in arms about schools losing money every time their population decreases, so we shouldn't think it would be a catastrophe when the same principle is used with vouchers.
The only way that I could see vouchers hurting public schools was if the vouchers were not means tested. If we start subsidizing families that were going to send their kids to private school anyway, it is likely that significant money would leave public education.
I do recognize the problem with "skimming off the top." It is likely that the better and more motivated students would leave the poor performing public schools. But I feel that freedom and choice for the family is a greater concern. And again, I don't see why we should hold low income motivated students hostage at bad schools.
The bottom line is that I believe that all families should have the ability to choose the nature of their kids education. (On a slight tangent, this is why I oppose a national curriculum, even if I was confident that it would be a progressive curriculum. While I want my kids educated in that way, I think parents should be free to chose a different form, even *gasp* one that uses rote learning.) And so it is with vouchers. Low income families should have the same ability to chose what type of education their child gets as middle and higher income families do. They should not be anchored to failing schools in a misguided belief that we need to protect public schools. Giving every kid, or as many as we possibly can, the best education possible is government's goal.
Still Hyper-Partisan
I have already said that I am growing tired of the hyper-partisanship. Unfortunately, I am not sure who to blame, whether it is actually more than usual and whether there is really any way around it. First, let's start with who to blame.
You won't be surprised to hear that I give a fair amount of the blame to Republicans. There definitely seems to be political calculation to deny Democrats any victories instead of trying to moderate their policies. I think the Republican voters deserve a fair share of the blame - as they attack anyone who has worked with a Democrat and refuse to acknowledge the necessity of the bank bailout.
While the Republicans seem to reject everything - I am not convinced Democrats are willing to compromise. The health care summit reinforced to me, instead of changing my mind, that Democrats are not willing to compromise. They are clearly perfectly happy to pass something that is more liberal, without any Republican support, and then try to paint Republicans as "the party of no."
I also want to say that I am unimpressed with President Obama's ability to be bipartisan. But then again, maybe I shouldn't have expected much based on his campaign. Obama said we could "disagree without being disagreeable." But you don't achieve that through rhetoric (even so, he hasn't done much to tone down the rhetoric), but by creating a different environment.
I was watching a Biography of Ronald Reagan recently and saw a clip of House Speaker Tip O'Neill congratulating Reagan on winning one of their fights (I think it was a budget or tax bill). The battle was over, and the Speaker accepted defeat and remained cordial. That video is anecdotal evidence of how we hear Washington, DC during and before the 1980s described. We hear that Congress used to fight their fights during the day, but would still be friendly across the aisle at night.
This doesn't seem to happen anymore. There are apparently far fewer friendships across the isle and our fights never end even after the legislation is passed. The culture wars of the 1990s and 2000s might be partly to blame. But Obama could do a better job at reversing this - something he campaigned on. He could create good relationships with Republicans even if they disagree. Unfortunately, it seems Obama isn't as personable as we want to think. He wasn't friendly with McCain, and so the campaign wasn't friendly at all. And he doesn't seem to be friendly with current Republicans either.
On top of that, President Obama has decided he wants to be transformational, specifically by expanding government. He wanted to pass major health care reform and wants to pass financial services reform, major global warming legislation, and immigration reform. It is harder to cool the tempers of partisanship while also being transformational.
Granted, part of the anger towards Democrats expansion of government is from the financial bailout, which is actually mostly a Bush program - one that Obama clearly agreed with also. Now, maybe it would have been wiser to lay low during the financial crisis - not work on health care - and make some small progress on government at a time when voters would be extra sensitive to further spending. That's probably what I would have done. But I guess I am not destined to be a transformational leader.
You won't be surprised to hear that I give a fair amount of the blame to Republicans. There definitely seems to be political calculation to deny Democrats any victories instead of trying to moderate their policies. I think the Republican voters deserve a fair share of the blame - as they attack anyone who has worked with a Democrat and refuse to acknowledge the necessity of the bank bailout.
While the Republicans seem to reject everything - I am not convinced Democrats are willing to compromise. The health care summit reinforced to me, instead of changing my mind, that Democrats are not willing to compromise. They are clearly perfectly happy to pass something that is more liberal, without any Republican support, and then try to paint Republicans as "the party of no."
I also want to say that I am unimpressed with President Obama's ability to be bipartisan. But then again, maybe I shouldn't have expected much based on his campaign. Obama said we could "disagree without being disagreeable." But you don't achieve that through rhetoric (even so, he hasn't done much to tone down the rhetoric), but by creating a different environment.
I was watching a Biography of Ronald Reagan recently and saw a clip of House Speaker Tip O'Neill congratulating Reagan on winning one of their fights (I think it was a budget or tax bill). The battle was over, and the Speaker accepted defeat and remained cordial. That video is anecdotal evidence of how we hear Washington, DC during and before the 1980s described. We hear that Congress used to fight their fights during the day, but would still be friendly across the aisle at night.
This doesn't seem to happen anymore. There are apparently far fewer friendships across the isle and our fights never end even after the legislation is passed. The culture wars of the 1990s and 2000s might be partly to blame. But Obama could do a better job at reversing this - something he campaigned on. He could create good relationships with Republicans even if they disagree. Unfortunately, it seems Obama isn't as personable as we want to think. He wasn't friendly with McCain, and so the campaign wasn't friendly at all. And he doesn't seem to be friendly with current Republicans either.
On top of that, President Obama has decided he wants to be transformational, specifically by expanding government. He wanted to pass major health care reform and wants to pass financial services reform, major global warming legislation, and immigration reform. It is harder to cool the tempers of partisanship while also being transformational.
Granted, part of the anger towards Democrats expansion of government is from the financial bailout, which is actually mostly a Bush program - one that Obama clearly agreed with also. Now, maybe it would have been wiser to lay low during the financial crisis - not work on health care - and make some small progress on government at a time when voters would be extra sensitive to further spending. That's probably what I would have done. But I guess I am not destined to be a transformational leader.
Early June Update on 2010 Elections
First of all, I don't see the Democrats dropping below 50 seats (I think we'll win Cali and Washington). So at least it will be split with the Vice President breaking any ties. In fact, though, Democrats could go as high as 52 (Pennsylvania, which I am doubtful about but the Times shows leaning Democrat, and Connecticut which might get better after it gets worse for the Democratic front runner who misled voters about his military history). Illinois doesn't look good right now and neither does Arkansas.
The house is a bit harder to tell, but seems safe to remain with the Democrats. In order to lose the House, Dems would have to win less than 54 of the 64 seats that the Times says are leaning Democrat and all of the toss-ups.
Of course, there is a lot of time.
I also want to say I don't know if I would mind a switch of power in one or both houses. It might lead to some decent compromises and might actually bring out (or force) Obama's bipartisan spirit. Then again, that wasn't the case in Albany, so maybe it is hopeless. I don't have a good frame of reference since I was a little young during Clinton's presidency. After 1994 he worked with Congress on Welfare Reform, but Newt Gingrich and the Republicans were really divisive. I should also consider that a Republican Congress, or even one house, would make it much harder for Obama to fund some of the necessary social programs like housing vouchers.
So maybe I would mind. I don't know. All I know is that I am really tired of the ridiculous rhetoric. More on that later.
The house is a bit harder to tell, but seems safe to remain with the Democrats. In order to lose the House, Dems would have to win less than 54 of the 64 seats that the Times says are leaning Democrat and all of the toss-ups.
Of course, there is a lot of time.
I also want to say I don't know if I would mind a switch of power in one or both houses. It might lead to some decent compromises and might actually bring out (or force) Obama's bipartisan spirit. Then again, that wasn't the case in Albany, so maybe it is hopeless. I don't have a good frame of reference since I was a little young during Clinton's presidency. After 1994 he worked with Congress on Welfare Reform, but Newt Gingrich and the Republicans were really divisive. I should also consider that a Republican Congress, or even one house, would make it much harder for Obama to fund some of the necessary social programs like housing vouchers.
So maybe I would mind. I don't know. All I know is that I am really tired of the ridiculous rhetoric. More on that later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)