I know I am late to the party on this one, but I finally got around to watching Jon Stewart's interview (January 11, 2010 - in three parts) of John Yoo - infamous author of the "torture memo". I remember hearing that Stewart apparently blew the interview, and he apologized afterwards.
After watching it, I think it was a great and thoughtful interview. Granted, I am sure Stewart and many of his liberal viewers were hoping for John Yoo to get skewered and end up as contrite and apologetic as Jim Cramer. But that is an unrealistic expectation. Instead, what you had was a great debate (although it might have been better with someone with more expertise than Stewart to battle Yoo) on executive power. And it seems to me that the type of debate they had is rare on TV - it was considered, pretty long, and most of all, respectful.
I appreciated hearing John Yoo's point of view that a strong executive is necessary to have a government capable of responding to developing situations. And he conceded that it is necessary even when president's are likely to make mistakes sometimes. Juxtaposing Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation with Bush's GWOT is instructive (actually Yoo compared it to Nixon and Watergate, which was a bad comparison since Nixon's actions were clearly illegal).
Not only did Stewart conduct a good interview, but I think the point he was trying to make was a good one. He was trying to say that these circumstances are no different than other wars and that the president's powers shouldn't change and neither should our values. Torturing criminals might save lives in certain circumstances (at least if you think torture gives you good information), but we do not condone that. So Yoo's logic about this being an unprecedented situation is false.
Although the interview was good, Jon Stewart did miss a few key points.
First, Stewart should have disagreed with Yoo in how much power an executive does and should have. Yoo thinks a president at war is only restrained from doing things that are not necessary for winning the war. Instead, I think it is our laws and our principles that are checks on presidential power.
In support of this point, Stewart could have pointed to history to show why this should b the case. Some president's have violated our basic principles in the name of war to enact policies that violated our laws and principles and were clearly mistakes. Internment of Americans of Japanese dissent is one such mistake. A government where the president's power is checked by our principles - as enacted in our laws - is necessary to prevent these types of overreaches. And I would argue that the Geneva Convention was just such a law that should have checked against Bush's overreach.
Second, we might understand a need to have policies that set different levels of interrogation than we have for American criminal suspects. However, to the extent that these are new situations and new powers. they should be created through law. Instead, John Yoo thought they could be determined by drafting a legal memo. Others, like Jack Goldsmith, rightly thought this needed to be done through Congressional legislation. Stewart should have pressed this point.
Finally, and maybe most importantly, Jon Stewart did not go after Yoo for the policies that were condoned and considered to be short of torture. Again, we can understand different rules and processes for terrorists, but to claim that what the Bush administration did (forced standing for days, extended sleep deprivation, food deprivation, physical violence, and water boarding) was short of torture is absurd. Yoo should have had to justify why water boarding is okay, but dunking someone's head in a bucket of water, submerging them in a pool, or holding a gun to their head is not torture.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
But What Caused It?
A lot has been written about the financial crisis - what caused it, why was it so bad, and how do we get out. I hear that the best written explanation of the mechanics of the housing financial tools that played a part in the collapse is The Big Short by Michael Lewis (certainly Moneyball and Liar's Poker were well written). Too Big to Fail (think Game Change for the financial crisis) describes what everyone did and said as the crisis was unfolding, but is not as great at explaining the mechanics.
But for good detailed economic analysis of this recession, I have been relying mostly on Paul Krugman. His latest piece in the New York Review, co-authored with Robin Wells (the two are married) is probably the best analysis I have read about what really caused the financial crisis.
Krugman and Wells explore the four most common theories for the cause of the collapse.
- Low interest rate policy of the Federal Reserve
- Global savings glut
- Complicated financial products
- Government policy (ie Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac / CRA)
You might be surprised to hear that Krugman and wells say that the global savings glut is the primary cause of the real estate bubble and subsequent collapse. I just had an argument with one of the few conservatives I know about this, and I had come down decidedly on blaming Wall Street and complicated financial instruments. My conservative friend clearly blamed the government.
Krugman and Wells dismiss the low interest rate policy due to a real estate bubble that existed in Europe as well, where central banks were not keeping rates as low. They dismiss complicated financial products because all European real estate and American commercial real estate also had bubbles, and neither of those used these American products. And they dismiss government policy, which they have been dismissing for a long time, because Fannie and Freddie made less of the really troubled loans than other private institutions and there is no link between CRA-qualifying loans and high rates of default.
The global savings glut is explained as follows:
If I read the article right, the authors do blame financial institutions for letting a bubble take down the entire economy. Financial institutions were able to borrow much more than they could really back up through lax government rules and borrowing through repurchase agreements that were not government guaranteed, subjecting the firms to crises of confidence. Krugman and Wells say that loans like Repo agreements accounted for 60 percent of the banking system yet was largely unregulated.
If their analysis is correct, the next questions are how do we get out of the recession and how do we prevent this from happening again. Their next article in the NY Review will tell us how to get out. I need to learn more about the Wall Street reform to see if we are preventing this from happening again.
But for good detailed economic analysis of this recession, I have been relying mostly on Paul Krugman. His latest piece in the New York Review, co-authored with Robin Wells (the two are married) is probably the best analysis I have read about what really caused the financial crisis.
Krugman and Wells explore the four most common theories for the cause of the collapse.
- Low interest rate policy of the Federal Reserve
- Global savings glut
- Complicated financial products
- Government policy (ie Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac / CRA)
You might be surprised to hear that Krugman and wells say that the global savings glut is the primary cause of the real estate bubble and subsequent collapse. I just had an argument with one of the few conservatives I know about this, and I had come down decidedly on blaming Wall Street and complicated financial instruments. My conservative friend clearly blamed the government.
Krugman and Wells dismiss the low interest rate policy due to a real estate bubble that existed in Europe as well, where central banks were not keeping rates as low. They dismiss complicated financial products because all European real estate and American commercial real estate also had bubbles, and neither of those used these American products. And they dismiss government policy, which they have been dismissing for a long time, because Fannie and Freddie made less of the really troubled loans than other private institutions and there is no link between CRA-qualifying loans and high rates of default.
The global savings glut is explained as follows:
Historically, developing countries have run trade deficits with advanced countries as they buy machinery and other capital goods in order to raise their level of economic development. In the wake of the financial crisis that struck Asia in 1997–1998, this usual practice was turned on its head: developing economies in Asia and the Middle East ran large trade surpluses with advanced countries in order to accumulate large hoards of foreign assets as insurance against another financial crisis.The authors say that this savings glut lead to low long-term interest rates (different from the short-term rates controlled by the Fed) and the low rates were primarily directed into real estate.
If I read the article right, the authors do blame financial institutions for letting a bubble take down the entire economy. Financial institutions were able to borrow much more than they could really back up through lax government rules and borrowing through repurchase agreements that were not government guaranteed, subjecting the firms to crises of confidence. Krugman and Wells say that loans like Repo agreements accounted for 60 percent of the banking system yet was largely unregulated.
If their analysis is correct, the next questions are how do we get out of the recession and how do we prevent this from happening again. Their next article in the NY Review will tell us how to get out. I need to learn more about the Wall Street reform to see if we are preventing this from happening again.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Behind the Scenes!
I don't know if you have noticed, but I am suddenly really into books that give behind-the-scenes accounts of current events. I loved The Nine and Game Change and Too Big to Fail is really good so far. And now, I am getting pretty excited about Bob Woodward Obama's Wars.
A year ago I would not have considered reading a Bob Woodward book. At the time, his books seemed gossipy and too "inside baseball". I wanted books about policy, not petty politics. But while I still like policy books, I am pushing a lot of other books aside to read these inside accounts.
I think the new interest in this sort of book has two sources. First, the books are usually pretty breezy, as non-fiction goes. This means that after an intense day at work, I can still manage to read and comprehend these books on my commute home.
But more importantly, I think seeing the inner-workings of other elected officials - or organizations that have a public impact - is fascinating now that I work for an elected official. I can compare what is happening in these books to what is happening at work. As I continue to get my bearings in a political institution, these books provide additional lessons. And I can't seem to get enough of it.
(By the way, I love that some of the coverage talks about the decision to work with Woodward or not. Some people have thought by bringing him in, they could control the story. But you can also see that shutting him out doesn't keep him from getting information. Washington is abuzz to see how Obama will be portrayed.)
A year ago I would not have considered reading a Bob Woodward book. At the time, his books seemed gossipy and too "inside baseball". I wanted books about policy, not petty politics. But while I still like policy books, I am pushing a lot of other books aside to read these inside accounts.
I think the new interest in this sort of book has two sources. First, the books are usually pretty breezy, as non-fiction goes. This means that after an intense day at work, I can still manage to read and comprehend these books on my commute home.
But more importantly, I think seeing the inner-workings of other elected officials - or organizations that have a public impact - is fascinating now that I work for an elected official. I can compare what is happening in these books to what is happening at work. As I continue to get my bearings in a political institution, these books provide additional lessons. And I can't seem to get enough of it.
(By the way, I love that some of the coverage talks about the decision to work with Woodward or not. Some people have thought by bringing him in, they could control the story. But you can also see that shutting him out doesn't keep him from getting information. Washington is abuzz to see how Obama will be portrayed.)
Monday, September 20, 2010
I Like the Filibuster - Mostly
There is a lot of grumbling over the use of filibusters in the Senate this term from frustrated Democrats. While I hate the hyper-partisan atmosphere, I can't get myself too worked up over the filibuster. (New York Review of Books has a good - and one-sided - article on the filibuster which I found unconvincing.)
The Democrats had an extremely ambitious agenda after eight years of Bush and they were definitely seeking to move much or all of it through in two years. Here is a list of the major legislation they were seeking:
- Health care expansion
- Financial services reform
- Climate change
- Immigration reform
You'll note that I did not include tax reform or education - the former because I don't find it that significant since it seems to change with every administration and the later because Obama's reforms are not so liberal.
Since the four I listed are pretty significant changes, I am not upset that we were denied progress on two of these four even though I support all four. I think Democrats were a bit too ambitious and voters seem to be hitting the brakes. Without the filibuster, Democrats might have made even more progress and engendered even more of a negative reaction.
One possible counter argument that I can imagine is that if the Senate were not dominated by minority power, we wouldn't need to wait so long for any change. As it is now, when there is an opportunity for change, we are not satisfied with incremental change because we doubt we'll be able to get further increments in the future. So instead we go big, which creates serious minority party opposition.
While i think this is possible, I think it is more likely that without the check in the Senate, the party in power would seek major changes and appeal to their base. My fear in that case then is with whipsaw policies - going back and forth as the winds change. Imagine privatizing social security one year, then reversing it the next. Or enacting health care reforms only to see them repealed. While we have some of this now (taxes and benefits for the poor certainly wax and wane) I worry about this for bigger policies.
The one place I think the filibuster should be curtailed is on presidential appointments below the level of cabinet or Supreme Court. I think Republicans have stalled on Obama's appointments in a way that is shameful - although I am hearing that Obama also hasn't been very forceful or even attentive on this matter. These appointments have little impact when approved but major impact when they are all stalled. Filibuster ability is unnecessary in those cases.
Beyond that one reform though, I like the role of the Senate as more deliberate and slowing change. I think it works both ways, preventing ill-considered Republican and Democrat changes. I am confident that progress happens over time and that in time, 60 Senators do agree to move ahead.
In fact, I think that in a time with slightly less partisanship, we could have balanced immigration reform and incremental climate change action. If we see that time, we might forget all about the filibuster. The question is, when will we ever move beyond the insane hyper-partisanship.
The Democrats had an extremely ambitious agenda after eight years of Bush and they were definitely seeking to move much or all of it through in two years. Here is a list of the major legislation they were seeking:
- Health care expansion
- Financial services reform
- Climate change
- Immigration reform
You'll note that I did not include tax reform or education - the former because I don't find it that significant since it seems to change with every administration and the later because Obama's reforms are not so liberal.
Since the four I listed are pretty significant changes, I am not upset that we were denied progress on two of these four even though I support all four. I think Democrats were a bit too ambitious and voters seem to be hitting the brakes. Without the filibuster, Democrats might have made even more progress and engendered even more of a negative reaction.
One possible counter argument that I can imagine is that if the Senate were not dominated by minority power, we wouldn't need to wait so long for any change. As it is now, when there is an opportunity for change, we are not satisfied with incremental change because we doubt we'll be able to get further increments in the future. So instead we go big, which creates serious minority party opposition.
While i think this is possible, I think it is more likely that without the check in the Senate, the party in power would seek major changes and appeal to their base. My fear in that case then is with whipsaw policies - going back and forth as the winds change. Imagine privatizing social security one year, then reversing it the next. Or enacting health care reforms only to see them repealed. While we have some of this now (taxes and benefits for the poor certainly wax and wane) I worry about this for bigger policies.
The one place I think the filibuster should be curtailed is on presidential appointments below the level of cabinet or Supreme Court. I think Republicans have stalled on Obama's appointments in a way that is shameful - although I am hearing that Obama also hasn't been very forceful or even attentive on this matter. These appointments have little impact when approved but major impact when they are all stalled. Filibuster ability is unnecessary in those cases.
Beyond that one reform though, I like the role of the Senate as more deliberate and slowing change. I think it works both ways, preventing ill-considered Republican and Democrat changes. I am confident that progress happens over time and that in time, 60 Senators do agree to move ahead.
In fact, I think that in a time with slightly less partisanship, we could have balanced immigration reform and incremental climate change action. If we see that time, we might forget all about the filibuster. The question is, when will we ever move beyond the insane hyper-partisanship.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
2010 Primary Craziness
I want to write a quick post about last night's primaries here in New York State. Overall, I would say I am mostly satisfied with the outcomes. And there was plenty of excitement.
Let's start with the GOP governor's race. Paladino. Crazy. But don't be fooled. This is one of those races where a candidate won because his opponent was so bad. Lazio was hoping to ride an earned advertising wave based on his Mosque opposition to make up for his anemic fund raising. Unfortunately, that issue won him national media attention, but not much favor among NYS Republicans (despite it being popular among that group). He blew the race big time.
What is going to be really interesting come November is whether these far right candidates, like Paladino, Christine O'Donnell, Rand Paul, and Sharron Angle, can win in a general election. In one corner, you have unpopular Democrats who seemed to go a bit too far toward government expansion during a recession and have lost the independents. In the other corner, you have some real wingnut conservatives. Moderate liberals who went too far versus extreme conservatives. It is going to be an interesting November.
Now let's look at corruption and ethics issues. I would say in New York State it was a little more positive than negative. Sure Charles Rangel won in the primary. Then again, his next closest challenger struck most as little better. But that can be forgiven since Pedro Espada lost and Hiram Monserrate did not win in his race for the Assembly. In those two races, I have gained more faith in voters than I lost seeing Rangel win. And hey, maybe when Rangel finally retires, he'll support someone really deserving, like Joyce Johnson (who really should have a better Google presence). Also, Bill Perkins won reelection - although part of me wonders if I had him wrong or maybe oversimplified the situation. So I am at peace with that outcome as well.
To conclude - New York State (so long as it doesn't actually elect Paladino) took a step forward last night. But nationally, we have some interesting races to look forward to. Buckle up.
Let's start with the GOP governor's race. Paladino. Crazy. But don't be fooled. This is one of those races where a candidate won because his opponent was so bad. Lazio was hoping to ride an earned advertising wave based on his Mosque opposition to make up for his anemic fund raising. Unfortunately, that issue won him national media attention, but not much favor among NYS Republicans (despite it being popular among that group). He blew the race big time.
What is going to be really interesting come November is whether these far right candidates, like Paladino, Christine O'Donnell, Rand Paul, and Sharron Angle, can win in a general election. In one corner, you have unpopular Democrats who seemed to go a bit too far toward government expansion during a recession and have lost the independents. In the other corner, you have some real wingnut conservatives. Moderate liberals who went too far versus extreme conservatives. It is going to be an interesting November.
Now let's look at corruption and ethics issues. I would say in New York State it was a little more positive than negative. Sure Charles Rangel won in the primary. Then again, his next closest challenger struck most as little better. But that can be forgiven since Pedro Espada lost and Hiram Monserrate did not win in his race for the Assembly. In those two races, I have gained more faith in voters than I lost seeing Rangel win. And hey, maybe when Rangel finally retires, he'll support someone really deserving, like Joyce Johnson (who really should have a better Google presence). Also, Bill Perkins won reelection - although part of me wonders if I had him wrong or maybe oversimplified the situation. So I am at peace with that outcome as well.
To conclude - New York State (so long as it doesn't actually elect Paladino) took a step forward last night. But nationally, we have some interesting races to look forward to. Buckle up.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Book Report: A Short History of Nearly Everything
Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything is not so much a policy book. However, I will include it here because it has affected my world view. There are three things that I learned that hit home with me.
First, science is sometimes wrong. This should not be an excuse to dismiss science, but to instill a little bit of humility. The world is a complicated place and we only understand the tip of the iceberg, to use an apt cliche. This is more true in areas where we are developing new information and trying to break new ground.
Second, the world has been around a really long time. We have been around a tiny fraction of that time (if the earth's history were the equivalent of one day, humans would represent 1 minute and 17 seconds and our recorded history just a few seconds). This is just to make you feel a little less significant - to knock you down a peg.
Third, we are here, in this moment, due to a whole lot of luck. The end of the last ice age allowed humans to develop agriculture and thereby expand and we are lucky to not have another one (temperatures would decrease 10F). Too many genetic mutations to count evolved species, which eventually lead to us. I cannot express to you though how random and non-linear that process was. The end of the dinosaurs allowed mammals to flourish. The composition of the earth's crust, with a liquid outer core, produces the magnetic field that likely protects us from otherwise deadly radiation from the sun. And finally, although we suffer from periodic natural disasters, we have been free so far from major disasters that have affected the earth - like meteors or massive volcanoes like the one under Yellowstone Park.
I highly recommend this book. You will learn a lot about science and the history of how we know what we know. And hopefully it will make you even more curious about how scientific knowledge is developing. One thing is for certain though, you will be thoroughly entertained the whole time. Bryson has a dry wit and a good eye for the interesting part of each story.
First, science is sometimes wrong. This should not be an excuse to dismiss science, but to instill a little bit of humility. The world is a complicated place and we only understand the tip of the iceberg, to use an apt cliche. This is more true in areas where we are developing new information and trying to break new ground.
Second, the world has been around a really long time. We have been around a tiny fraction of that time (if the earth's history were the equivalent of one day, humans would represent 1 minute and 17 seconds and our recorded history just a few seconds). This is just to make you feel a little less significant - to knock you down a peg.
Third, we are here, in this moment, due to a whole lot of luck. The end of the last ice age allowed humans to develop agriculture and thereby expand and we are lucky to not have another one (temperatures would decrease 10F). Too many genetic mutations to count evolved species, which eventually lead to us. I cannot express to you though how random and non-linear that process was. The end of the dinosaurs allowed mammals to flourish. The composition of the earth's crust, with a liquid outer core, produces the magnetic field that likely protects us from otherwise deadly radiation from the sun. And finally, although we suffer from periodic natural disasters, we have been free so far from major disasters that have affected the earth - like meteors or massive volcanoes like the one under Yellowstone Park.
I highly recommend this book. You will learn a lot about science and the history of how we know what we know. And hopefully it will make you even more curious about how scientific knowledge is developing. One thing is for certain though, you will be thoroughly entertained the whole time. Bryson has a dry wit and a good eye for the interesting part of each story.
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Drinking the Sand
"People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand." - Michael J. Fox as Lewis Rothschild in The American President
I was watching Meet the Press this morning for the first time in a really long time. I was disappointed in two people. First, I was disappointed in Lindsey Graham who did nothing but spout superficial and erroneous talking points. But I was more disappointed with David Gregory who is not living up to the show that Tim Russert ran and was letting Graham get away with it. There was no depth from Graham and no requirement for depth from Gregory.
However, Lindsey Graham did say at least one thing that was true and I have been thinking about for a while. He said Democrats are not talking about the Health Care bill or the Stimulus bill. He is right and he is especially right when it comes to President Obama. I am getting more disappointed in him by the day and mostly because he is not out there fighting for what he believes in.
Democrats passed a health care bill that even got relative support from Ben Stein. It was marginally unpopular when it was passed and seems to be getting more unpopular as time goes on. Democrats seem scared to talk about this bill because it is unpopular and can be considered a big government expansion. The bill will not go away and will not get more popular unless they stick up for it.
The health care bill, although probably more complicated than it needed to be (I'll get to that another time), did things that are important. It expanded care to people without insurance and will prevent people from being excluded due to pre-existing conditions. I believe these things were worth doing and Democrats apparently did also. If they are worth doing, they are worth defending.
As the quote above shows though, if we aren't talking about it, people will listen to whoever is. Right now, only Republicans are talking about it and they have only negative things to say. Democrats feel that a fight over the right size of government is a losing fight. That is ridiculous. We believe that there are things government can and should do and many of these things the public supports.
The same thing goes for the stimulus. Why is Paul Krugman the only one out there defending Keynesian economics? The public perception is that because the stimulus did not stop the job losses, it did not work and therefore Keynesian policies do not work. President Obama is choosing to take the road that the stimulus is working, but slowly. Unfortunately, no one is buying this. Maybe he doesn't need to go as far as Krugman is, but he needs to defend Keynes and maybe needs to acknowledge that the stimulus was too small, not too big. And there are plenty of economists who will defend him.
I disagree with David Brooks, Obama does not need to avoid the debate over the right size of government. He needs to enter it. He and the rest of the party need to stop letting Republicans set the terms of the debate and need to argue for what we believe in. Short of that, we are likely in for a really ugly November.
I was watching Meet the Press this morning for the first time in a really long time. I was disappointed in two people. First, I was disappointed in Lindsey Graham who did nothing but spout superficial and erroneous talking points. But I was more disappointed with David Gregory who is not living up to the show that Tim Russert ran and was letting Graham get away with it. There was no depth from Graham and no requirement for depth from Gregory.
However, Lindsey Graham did say at least one thing that was true and I have been thinking about for a while. He said Democrats are not talking about the Health Care bill or the Stimulus bill. He is right and he is especially right when it comes to President Obama. I am getting more disappointed in him by the day and mostly because he is not out there fighting for what he believes in.
Democrats passed a health care bill that even got relative support from Ben Stein. It was marginally unpopular when it was passed and seems to be getting more unpopular as time goes on. Democrats seem scared to talk about this bill because it is unpopular and can be considered a big government expansion. The bill will not go away and will not get more popular unless they stick up for it.
The health care bill, although probably more complicated than it needed to be (I'll get to that another time), did things that are important. It expanded care to people without insurance and will prevent people from being excluded due to pre-existing conditions. I believe these things were worth doing and Democrats apparently did also. If they are worth doing, they are worth defending.
As the quote above shows though, if we aren't talking about it, people will listen to whoever is. Right now, only Republicans are talking about it and they have only negative things to say. Democrats feel that a fight over the right size of government is a losing fight. That is ridiculous. We believe that there are things government can and should do and many of these things the public supports.
The same thing goes for the stimulus. Why is Paul Krugman the only one out there defending Keynesian economics? The public perception is that because the stimulus did not stop the job losses, it did not work and therefore Keynesian policies do not work. President Obama is choosing to take the road that the stimulus is working, but slowly. Unfortunately, no one is buying this. Maybe he doesn't need to go as far as Krugman is, but he needs to defend Keynes and maybe needs to acknowledge that the stimulus was too small, not too big. And there are plenty of economists who will defend him.
I disagree with David Brooks, Obama does not need to avoid the debate over the right size of government. He needs to enter it. He and the rest of the party need to stop letting Republicans set the terms of the debate and need to argue for what we believe in. Short of that, we are likely in for a really ugly November.
Politics Night: The Role of Government
For the second politics night, we discussed the appropriate role of government. We emphasized early on that this would be a normative not positive discussion.
Before I get started, I want to say that I think it is important to undertake this sort of exercise. Conservatives often attack liberals for thinking government should be the solution for every problem. While this charge is overstated, it is true at times. We should do a much better job at seeing a problem, seeing a way for government to make it better, but then also recognizing that maybe government should not get involved in that situation or in that way. In other words, liberals should be better at exercising restraint.
I will add though that conservatives should also be better about thinking of ways government could make things better, instead of reflexively saying government is bad and ignoring the real problems that exist or pretending they will fix themselves.
I think there are three appropriate roles for government. First, government exists to protect and encourage market transactions. It does this by creating laws and a legal system that promote trust among market participants. Without these protections, the economy would likely stagnate. You see in developing countries that without trust and an ability to address grievances of market transactions, small business owners are afraid to expand. I argue that of the reasons I list here, this is the least controversial and the longest lasting role of government. In fact, I think that libertarians would agree with this role for government and only communists might disagree.
Second, government exists to solve specific market failures, like overuse of public goods and negative externalities. This includes public education and environmental protection. Many libertarians seem to disagree with this role for government, which baffles me. If you have a basic understanding of economic theory, you would understand that markets are not perfect. They have flaws, and government should help deal with those flaws. For example, without government and the EPA, companies would be free to pollute - and mostly in areas near low income residents - and not include the costs of remediation in their product.
Third, government exists to provide people with their civil and human rights. The civil rights are identified in the Constitution and its amendments. Human rights though are a more recently proclaimed role of governments. A market system is efficient but not equitable. Government therefore exists to help deal with the inefficiencies. Now, I do not mean to suggest wealth redistribution. Instead I think an advanced society should be able to provide a minimum standard of living - which is a human right - to all of its people, including housing, food, and health care.
There are some things government does that do not neatly fit into one of these categories. For example, the Federal Reserve adjusts interest rates to affect the overall economy and the federal government will provide fiscal stimulus in times of recession. Maybe these could be lumped into the negative externality column, since the collective decisions of individuals can affect the economy as a whole. I am on the fence about whether it fits there or regulating the overall economy is another category entirely.
And there are some things I think I support but definitely to do fit into any of these buckets. Seat belts is the best example of this. I know that seat belts laws save lives. And people would not have worn them without the law. So society was made better because of this law. However, it doesn't sit that well with me since we are restricting an individual's choice in a way that only affects them. The only thing I can think of is consumer protection. This isn't one of my categories. It probably fits within the first one, although I imagine expanding it that much would make that category more controversial. As you can see, I am still working through this one.
I know some will want to debate the order I used for this list. For example, one person said that protecting markets is far less important than protecting human rights and so should be the first category. I don't think we are choosing among the categories - all are necessary roles for government. So order seems less important to me. We can have that discussion, but I think what is far more important is what categories are here and what are missing.
Before I get started, I want to say that I think it is important to undertake this sort of exercise. Conservatives often attack liberals for thinking government should be the solution for every problem. While this charge is overstated, it is true at times. We should do a much better job at seeing a problem, seeing a way for government to make it better, but then also recognizing that maybe government should not get involved in that situation or in that way. In other words, liberals should be better at exercising restraint.
I will add though that conservatives should also be better about thinking of ways government could make things better, instead of reflexively saying government is bad and ignoring the real problems that exist or pretending they will fix themselves.
I think there are three appropriate roles for government. First, government exists to protect and encourage market transactions. It does this by creating laws and a legal system that promote trust among market participants. Without these protections, the economy would likely stagnate. You see in developing countries that without trust and an ability to address grievances of market transactions, small business owners are afraid to expand. I argue that of the reasons I list here, this is the least controversial and the longest lasting role of government. In fact, I think that libertarians would agree with this role for government and only communists might disagree.
Second, government exists to solve specific market failures, like overuse of public goods and negative externalities. This includes public education and environmental protection. Many libertarians seem to disagree with this role for government, which baffles me. If you have a basic understanding of economic theory, you would understand that markets are not perfect. They have flaws, and government should help deal with those flaws. For example, without government and the EPA, companies would be free to pollute - and mostly in areas near low income residents - and not include the costs of remediation in their product.
Third, government exists to provide people with their civil and human rights. The civil rights are identified in the Constitution and its amendments. Human rights though are a more recently proclaimed role of governments. A market system is efficient but not equitable. Government therefore exists to help deal with the inefficiencies. Now, I do not mean to suggest wealth redistribution. Instead I think an advanced society should be able to provide a minimum standard of living - which is a human right - to all of its people, including housing, food, and health care.
There are some things government does that do not neatly fit into one of these categories. For example, the Federal Reserve adjusts interest rates to affect the overall economy and the federal government will provide fiscal stimulus in times of recession. Maybe these could be lumped into the negative externality column, since the collective decisions of individuals can affect the economy as a whole. I am on the fence about whether it fits there or regulating the overall economy is another category entirely.
And there are some things I think I support but definitely to do fit into any of these buckets. Seat belts is the best example of this. I know that seat belts laws save lives. And people would not have worn them without the law. So society was made better because of this law. However, it doesn't sit that well with me since we are restricting an individual's choice in a way that only affects them. The only thing I can think of is consumer protection. This isn't one of my categories. It probably fits within the first one, although I imagine expanding it that much would make that category more controversial. As you can see, I am still working through this one.
I know some will want to debate the order I used for this list. For example, one person said that protecting markets is far less important than protecting human rights and so should be the first category. I don't think we are choosing among the categories - all are necessary roles for government. So order seems less important to me. We can have that discussion, but I think what is far more important is what categories are here and what are missing.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Book Report: Physics for Future Presidents
Physics for Future Presidents is the best book I have read on Global Warming. It really analyzes the data and objectively states what we know and don't know. (Compare this to Super Freakonomics, which throws in random pieces of information, usually out of context, to undermine the case for global warming - or at least the case for urgent action - while also admitting that it is real. Read this book and ignore Super Freakonomics.)
This book also has a really good explanation of nuclear technology and radiation, chemical and biological weapons, and space. In this post though I will focus on global warming. Here is some of the relevant information on climate change from the book. I will go so far as to say that what is listed below are facts beyond dispute.
Carbon
- The earth's atmosphere contains 0.038% - or 380 parts per million - carbon dioxide. Nitrogen and Oxygen make up 99% of atmosphere and do not absorb infrared radiation.
- In the late 1800s there was only 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
- There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than anytime in the last 20 million years.
Climate
- The earth has definitely been warming over the last 150 years.
- The hockey stick graph is wrong - it contained poor analysis. Temperatures are not the warmest they have been in the last 1,000 years. But they are the warmest they have been in the last 400 years.
- Temperatures have increased 2F in the last century.
- The earth's temperature over the last 14,000 years has been mostly stable since the last ice age, which was around 12,000 - 10,000 BC. There has historically been an ice age every 10,000 years - some think this is due to a wobble in the earth's axis caused by Jupiter and Venus.
- The 600,000 year CO2 and temperature graph (made famous by Al Gore and a lift truck) is misleading. We do not know which way the causation goes. CO2 may have increased due to the temperature increases. In fact, increase in CO2 seems to lag the temperature increase by 800 years.
Ocean Changes
- Sea level rises can be attributed more to water expanding as the temperature of the ocean increases than to melting ice.
- Antarctic ice is melting. It was originally thought that Antarctic ice would increase, as water vapor increased in the air and more snow fell on Antarctica. Instead, more rain is falling.
- The ocean pH is changing. It is becoming more acidic (actually it is becoming more neutral but the point being that it is moving on the scale to be less basic and more acidic). Increasing acidity interferes with formation of external shells and skeletons for ocean life.
- Permafrost is thawing in some places.
IPCC Conclusions
- The IPCC says there is a 10% chance that humans are not responsible for temperature changes and a 90% chance that we are responsible.
- Temperatures are predicted to rise another 3F - 10F in the next 50 years.
- The predominant reason for the uncertainty is water vapor and cloud cover. There is a chance that temperature increases, which will increase water vapor in the air, might also increase cloud cover, thereby moderating temperature increases.
My Conclusions
- We may not be 100 percent sure that we are causing global warming, but we are sure enough that we should take precautions. It makes no sense to say that we need to wait until there is no doubt before we act. Think of any other example (heart attack) where you were 90 percent sure something bad was going to happen but you refused to act until you were certain.
- Although the models are imperfect, we are confident that temperatures will continue to rise. Again, we need to plan for this and find ways to try to prevent it.
This book also has a really good explanation of nuclear technology and radiation, chemical and biological weapons, and space. In this post though I will focus on global warming. Here is some of the relevant information on climate change from the book. I will go so far as to say that what is listed below are facts beyond dispute.
Carbon
- The earth's atmosphere contains 0.038% - or 380 parts per million - carbon dioxide. Nitrogen and Oxygen make up 99% of atmosphere and do not absorb infrared radiation.
- In the late 1800s there was only 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
- There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than anytime in the last 20 million years.
Climate
- The earth has definitely been warming over the last 150 years.
- The hockey stick graph is wrong - it contained poor analysis. Temperatures are not the warmest they have been in the last 1,000 years. But they are the warmest they have been in the last 400 years.
- Temperatures have increased 2F in the last century.
- The earth's temperature over the last 14,000 years has been mostly stable since the last ice age, which was around 12,000 - 10,000 BC. There has historically been an ice age every 10,000 years - some think this is due to a wobble in the earth's axis caused by Jupiter and Venus.
- The 600,000 year CO2 and temperature graph (made famous by Al Gore and a lift truck) is misleading. We do not know which way the causation goes. CO2 may have increased due to the temperature increases. In fact, increase in CO2 seems to lag the temperature increase by 800 years.
Ocean Changes
- Sea level rises can be attributed more to water expanding as the temperature of the ocean increases than to melting ice.
- Antarctic ice is melting. It was originally thought that Antarctic ice would increase, as water vapor increased in the air and more snow fell on Antarctica. Instead, more rain is falling.
- The ocean pH is changing. It is becoming more acidic (actually it is becoming more neutral but the point being that it is moving on the scale to be less basic and more acidic). Increasing acidity interferes with formation of external shells and skeletons for ocean life.
- Permafrost is thawing in some places.
IPCC Conclusions
- The IPCC says there is a 10% chance that humans are not responsible for temperature changes and a 90% chance that we are responsible.
- Temperatures are predicted to rise another 3F - 10F in the next 50 years.
- The predominant reason for the uncertainty is water vapor and cloud cover. There is a chance that temperature increases, which will increase water vapor in the air, might also increase cloud cover, thereby moderating temperature increases.
My Conclusions
- We may not be 100 percent sure that we are causing global warming, but we are sure enough that we should take precautions. It makes no sense to say that we need to wait until there is no doubt before we act. Think of any other example (heart attack) where you were 90 percent sure something bad was going to happen but you refused to act until you were certain.
- Although the models are imperfect, we are confident that temperatures will continue to rise. Again, we need to plan for this and find ways to try to prevent it.
Book Report: Three Cups of Tea
I was skeptical about Three Cups of Tea when I first started hearing about it. In summary, Greg Mortenson, after an unsuccessful bid to climb K2, started building schools in Pakistan and then Afghanistan. And the theme is that schools are a much better weapon against extremism than wars. Knowing that much, I figured I knew it all. I agreed with the message of the book so did I really need to actually read it?
It turns out, after much convincing from my lovely wife, that yes, I needed to read it. The book is well written and moves pretty quickly. And throughout, you learn two major things. One, you learn more about the diversity of Pakistan and of Islam. You learn that many Islamic religious leaders do want children educated in science, math and reading. The problem is not with the religion, but with one sect pushed by the Saudis.
The second thing you learn is how important local knowledge is when providing aid to developing countries. Greg Mortenson was able to succeed because he learned and respected the local customs. And more importantly, he learned to trust the local leaders. At times, they would ask for something that he thought was less important than what he wanted to provide. After giving in, he saw that they did know best, and what they asked for was what they needed.
While at a basic level, this is just a story about a person whose development projects have been amazingly successful. But there are also broader policy implications. A while ago, I decided to read four major books on development (by Jeffrey Sachs, William Easterly, Paul Collier, and Amartya Sen). I was most convinced by both Sen and Easterly. (Acutally, Collier's was pretty convincing as well. Sachs was the only one I found I disagreed with.)
Mortenson's method fits more with Easterly and Sen than it does with Sachs. Easterly says that large development projects do not actually work. Their approach is top-down and rigid. This project is bottom-up, it gets buy-in from the local population, and delivers only what they say they need. According to the authors, this method is far more efficient - Mortenson is able to build a school for a fraction of the cost that the Pakistani government or the UN would have to pay.
It fits with Sen's philosophy because it focuses on delivering a right - education primarily but his project also funds health and other issues - instead of seeking to increase GDP.
The last thing I will say is how the book impacted me. For the last few years, I have felt that I do not do enough to help those in need. After I visited Zambia, I thought I wanted to move into development work. So I assumed that this book would make me want to search for a way to be as productive as Mortenson. Instead, it made me a little more comfortable doing the work I am doing. One of Mortenson's main challenges was raising money. In order for him to be successful, he needs people back in the US to fund his work. I am a little happier knowing that, while I do have a job that allows me to help more people than before, I can also serve the role of funding people like Greg Mortenson.
It turns out, after much convincing from my lovely wife, that yes, I needed to read it. The book is well written and moves pretty quickly. And throughout, you learn two major things. One, you learn more about the diversity of Pakistan and of Islam. You learn that many Islamic religious leaders do want children educated in science, math and reading. The problem is not with the religion, but with one sect pushed by the Saudis.
The second thing you learn is how important local knowledge is when providing aid to developing countries. Greg Mortenson was able to succeed because he learned and respected the local customs. And more importantly, he learned to trust the local leaders. At times, they would ask for something that he thought was less important than what he wanted to provide. After giving in, he saw that they did know best, and what they asked for was what they needed.
While at a basic level, this is just a story about a person whose development projects have been amazingly successful. But there are also broader policy implications. A while ago, I decided to read four major books on development (by Jeffrey Sachs, William Easterly, Paul Collier, and Amartya Sen). I was most convinced by both Sen and Easterly. (Acutally, Collier's was pretty convincing as well. Sachs was the only one I found I disagreed with.)
Mortenson's method fits more with Easterly and Sen than it does with Sachs. Easterly says that large development projects do not actually work. Their approach is top-down and rigid. This project is bottom-up, it gets buy-in from the local population, and delivers only what they say they need. According to the authors, this method is far more efficient - Mortenson is able to build a school for a fraction of the cost that the Pakistani government or the UN would have to pay.
It fits with Sen's philosophy because it focuses on delivering a right - education primarily but his project also funds health and other issues - instead of seeking to increase GDP.
The last thing I will say is how the book impacted me. For the last few years, I have felt that I do not do enough to help those in need. After I visited Zambia, I thought I wanted to move into development work. So I assumed that this book would make me want to search for a way to be as productive as Mortenson. Instead, it made me a little more comfortable doing the work I am doing. One of Mortenson's main challenges was raising money. In order for him to be successful, he needs people back in the US to fund his work. I am a little happier knowing that, while I do have a job that allows me to help more people than before, I can also serve the role of funding people like Greg Mortenson.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
An Ideal Marriage?
Ross Douthat wrote an intersting, but wholly wrong column on gay marriage. He seems to be saying that heterosexual marriage at its best offers more than homosexual marriage at its best. It's nice that he isn't saying gay marriage is bad. However, I completely disagree with that. He and everyone else that take this similar position have it all wrong.
Actually, before I comment on the part of his argument I did find interesting, let me deal with a few things that were actually pretty stupid. First, Douthat seems to lump gay marriage in with serial monogamy, and no fault divorce. This is absurd. These things have nothing to do with each other. Second, he seems to suggest that one ideal will replace another. Instead, we are likely to see not one ideal (serial monogamy versus lifelong partnerships) but a realization that both / all are acceptable ways to live ones life.
Now for the interesting part of his argument. Douthat says that society should hold up ideal relationships for everyone to strive for. I agree. However, his ideal form of marriage includes many characteristics that are superficial and unimportant. Ideal family situations should have parent(s) that are loving and supportive and have enough time to provide effective care. This can be a single parent or two-parent, same sex or opposite sex, household. Gender and biological connection are irrelevant.
His article reminded me of a conversation I had with a former co-worker. She was saying to me that she wanted her son would marry someone of the same ethnicity (she and her husband had immigrated from another country). She said marriage was hard work, and having different cultures mixing would just create another challenge that a marriage doesn't need.
I can imagine someone using Douthat's logic to say that ideal marriages are between people of the same ethnicity or race. Since that is the case, society has an interest in promoting that ideal and therefore refusing to confer the ultimate title of marriage to all that do not conform. We long ago rejected this argument against interracial marriages (although a justice of the peace in Louisiana still holds this position).
It is heartening to see people move away from the truly intolerant language on an issue like gay marriage and struggle to find more reasonable ways to oppose it. It means the debate is moving in the right direction. However, you can see the strain in the logic, and it becomes clear that this argument is flawed as well.
Actually, before I comment on the part of his argument I did find interesting, let me deal with a few things that were actually pretty stupid. First, Douthat seems to lump gay marriage in with serial monogamy, and no fault divorce. This is absurd. These things have nothing to do with each other. Second, he seems to suggest that one ideal will replace another. Instead, we are likely to see not one ideal (serial monogamy versus lifelong partnerships) but a realization that both / all are acceptable ways to live ones life.
Now for the interesting part of his argument. Douthat says that society should hold up ideal relationships for everyone to strive for. I agree. However, his ideal form of marriage includes many characteristics that are superficial and unimportant. Ideal family situations should have parent(s) that are loving and supportive and have enough time to provide effective care. This can be a single parent or two-parent, same sex or opposite sex, household. Gender and biological connection are irrelevant.
His article reminded me of a conversation I had with a former co-worker. She was saying to me that she wanted her son would marry someone of the same ethnicity (she and her husband had immigrated from another country). She said marriage was hard work, and having different cultures mixing would just create another challenge that a marriage doesn't need.
I can imagine someone using Douthat's logic to say that ideal marriages are between people of the same ethnicity or race. Since that is the case, society has an interest in promoting that ideal and therefore refusing to confer the ultimate title of marriage to all that do not conform. We long ago rejected this argument against interracial marriages (although a justice of the peace in Louisiana still holds this position).
It is heartening to see people move away from the truly intolerant language on an issue like gay marriage and struggle to find more reasonable ways to oppose it. It means the debate is moving in the right direction. However, you can see the strain in the logic, and it becomes clear that this argument is flawed as well.
Ben Stein on Health Care
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)