Since I don't feel that I was entirely convincing in the previous post I'd like to elaborate on my point regarding personal weaknesses entering through back door, and add one other consideration.
In advocating that the role of a representative is to advocate the hypothetical position of the perfectly informed average-man, it is supposed that the representative should know what that is. The representative, while in a position to be considerably more informed than the average person, is still limited by imperfect knowledge. The sum of their knowledge is everything they have learned, experienced, and concluded over the course of their lifetime. So if the representative were to make their best effort to imagine an "average person" with perfect knowledge they would be obligated to project onto that person all of the knowledge that they, the representative, have acquired. While I believe that each individual person bears some unique psychological traits, I also believe that the information they've gained through their education and experiences is critical to their positions and decisions. It is not that hard to imagine that a representative would calculate that given all of their personal knowledge and experiences an "average person" would think more or less as they themselves do. And so you end up right back where you started. In this sense pretending to advocate in terms of the "average person" rather than your own personal position seems a bit dishonest.
I suppose that it could be proposed that the representative restrict the knowledge that they project onto the "average person" to only those few details directly pertinent to the issue at hand. This seems equally dishonest. If the representative had done extensive research into economic systems, and through this research had determined that supply-side economics is a bunch of crap, should they not project this onto the "average person"? Is that not an element of perfect knowledge? How is this to be managed? I think different representatives would draw this line differently; they would choose different points along a continuum, and in every case personal values, biases, and follies would enter the picture. As far as I can tell, foisting this duty onto our representatives sets an impossible standard for them, and leaves them with no good options. It does not shield us from whatever flaws the representative carries, and simply adds an additional layer of bullshit between the representative and their constituents.
My additional consideration goes toward the ideal of the Jeffersonian meritocracy. Jefferson felt that each person had different strengths and weaknesses and that through a free, equitable, and competitive system, each should rise to the level of their ability in the field of their strength. Does it not make sense that some people would be better equipped than others in leadership and public speaking? In determination of public policy? In grinding the gears of the political system to achieve effective results? In guarding the public from their transient impulses? Do you see no differences in these regards between George W Bush and John McCain? Between Russ Feingold and Michael Moore? Are we not better served by mining the populace to find those most qualified and naturally talented in the duties of a representative to serve in that role rather than the "average man"? If you are willing to trust the public to decide on policy matters, do you not trust the public to decide on these distinctions? The system as it stands surely has flaws in deciding these matters, but are we not better served attempting to correct those flaws than overthrowing it for one that still contains the same flaws and, in my view, adds deeper and more intractible flaws? I believe it should not be considered elitist or evil to think that elected public servants may be more capable than the average citizen, but rather that this should be recognized as one of the goals and strengths of a representative system.
Friday, November 14, 2003
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Re: Apocalypse Now
You think funny baby names is bad, what about a crazed people bent on destroying all things McDonald?. Al-Qaida's claim of 100,000 dead is especially troubling since 100,000 plan to protest Bush's speech in London a week from now, and escpecially because Al-Qaida purportedly bought uranium in the Congo. How's that for an apocalypse?
Re: The Will of the People
I am torn on this issue more than any other. To me this debate encapsulates a host of issues related to paternalism versus populism. I do not know how to appropriately address the balance between the will of the people and the--well, will of the people. I trust the ideals of populism but I also recognize its natural deficits.
At the end of the day, the Jeffersonian idea that the power should rest with the people sits most comfortably with me. At the same time, I openly recognize that people don't always make the best choices given the information they have. For some reason, though, it seems more palatable to me that the people should err than the government in its attempt to correct for the errs of its constituents. At least the error does not run twice as deep, and it can not be so plainly coopted for nefarious goals. I can forgive an err of the public, but I can not so easily forgive the same of the republic.
At the end of the day, the Jeffersonian idea that the power should rest with the people sits most comfortably with me. At the same time, I openly recognize that people don't always make the best choices given the information they have. For some reason, though, it seems more palatable to me that the people should err than the government in its attempt to correct for the errs of its constituents. At least the error does not run twice as deep, and it can not be so plainly coopted for nefarious goals. I can forgive an err of the public, but I can not so easily forgive the same of the republic.
Apocalypse Now
Yes, it appears the end of the world is at hand. On the other hand, I'm wondering how Blatz would go over... Ryan, you can use that if you want.
Re: The Will of the People
If everyone has the same information, why should the representatives substitute their own interpretations, biases, and follies for those of their constituents? Unless one is to argue that the ability to get elected to Congress magically bestows upon the representatives an intelligence and foresight which their constituents lack, the representative should simply follow the will of the people in a world with perfect information.
It could also be supposed that the constituents selected their representative at least in part because of her intelligence, judgment, background, and experiences, with the expectation that the representative would employ all of these tools in furtherance of serving her constituents. Further, it might be interpreted that the consistently greater interest that the public shows in the character and background of candidates rather than their policies is an indication that the public expects these things to be relevant to the duties of public service at least as much as implementing policies consistent with the constituency is.
And in any case (rehashing the old discussion), no representative has perfect knowledge of what the constituency would choose if they had perfect information, and in making that determination all of the representative's interpretations, biases, and follies enter through the back door anyway. People have the right of it now, taking it as part and parcel of the candidate and dealing with it up front through the electoral process.
It could also be supposed that the constituents selected their representative at least in part because of her intelligence, judgment, background, and experiences, with the expectation that the representative would employ all of these tools in furtherance of serving her constituents. Further, it might be interpreted that the consistently greater interest that the public shows in the character and background of candidates rather than their policies is an indication that the public expects these things to be relevant to the duties of public service at least as much as implementing policies consistent with the constituency is.
And in any case (rehashing the old discussion), no representative has perfect knowledge of what the constituency would choose if they had perfect information, and in making that determination all of the representative's interpretations, biases, and follies enter through the back door anyway. People have the right of it now, taking it as part and parcel of the candidate and dealing with it up front through the electoral process.
Shooting In the Dark
The latest word from Iraq is that we're going on the offensive to destroy the resistance. We seem to have some remarkably thick skulls in Washington. We apparently haven't come up with a single new strategy for dealing with guerrilla attacks since Vietnam. We thought in that case that if we applied enough excessive force the enemy would have to cave eventually. However, we couldn't effectively separate the enemy from the populace, and the amount of 'collateral damage' we inflicted on them turned the war decisively in favor of the enemy. Our experience in Somalia was not terribly different either. We responded to a few guerrilla attacks with invasive offensive operations, but had a hard time targeting the right people, killed a bunch of the wrong people by mistake, and were then sent out the back door with a boot print on our ass. Now it looks like we intend to step in it again. Clearly, if we had good intelligence we would have nailed the bad guys before this. So if we're going on the attack it can easily be deduced that we are going to be striking out based on bad intelligence and we will most certainly make mistakes and kill innocents, possibly as many as we kill bad guys.
The deal is, given modern political realities (ie. genocide is a definite no-no), guerrilla wars are phenomenally difficult to win. Your opponents can effectively conceal themselves at all times except when they attack, while you are separated and visible, and at all times vulnerable to attack. Your enemy gets to choose the time and location for every battle, which gives them a decisive tactical advantage. In the old days this would be countered by wholesale destruction. The superior army would rape, pillage, and slaughter their way through the enemy populace until they submitted or were destroyed. This is not generally considered acceptable these days. The only effective counter then, appears to be to build up enough public support that the locals isolate the militants from themselves and leave them exposed to you. However, this means that you cannot strike out blindly and must patiently accept casualties while continuing to be engaged and friendly with the local population in order to build goodwill. Given the realities of morale and the human limits of your troops on the ground who don't like to be engaged and friendly while they're being shot at and killed, this is not often possible. No matter your military superiority, it is not always possible to defeat a determined guerrilla campaign. I can't think of a single case where a modern military has done so.
So the first rule to winning a guerrilla war is not to get into one. It cannot be stressed often or strongly enough, that we could very likely have avoided this if we had built a broad UN-based coalition the same way Bush Sr had for the first Gulf War. If anything good comes out of this, hopefully it will be the realization that the politics of the situation are at least as important as the military aspects of it. Winning on the battlefield is of no benefit if you don't also win in the living room. This may be the biggest flaw in the neo-con political theory. The value of military might ain't what it used to be. This is the dirty secret hidden behind the Powell Doctrine and the Rumsfeld Doctrine, and all of the other post-Vietnam military theories. Any pissant little country can send us home with our tail between our legs if they're stubborn enough.
The bad guys are starting to think they can win, and it's not hard to see why. They're building up momentum and we're standing there like a deer in head-lights wishing we could figure a way out. Unless we can think of some creative solution, and quickly, it may not be long before Iraq passes the point of no return.
The deal is, given modern political realities (ie. genocide is a definite no-no), guerrilla wars are phenomenally difficult to win. Your opponents can effectively conceal themselves at all times except when they attack, while you are separated and visible, and at all times vulnerable to attack. Your enemy gets to choose the time and location for every battle, which gives them a decisive tactical advantage. In the old days this would be countered by wholesale destruction. The superior army would rape, pillage, and slaughter their way through the enemy populace until they submitted or were destroyed. This is not generally considered acceptable these days. The only effective counter then, appears to be to build up enough public support that the locals isolate the militants from themselves and leave them exposed to you. However, this means that you cannot strike out blindly and must patiently accept casualties while continuing to be engaged and friendly with the local population in order to build goodwill. Given the realities of morale and the human limits of your troops on the ground who don't like to be engaged and friendly while they're being shot at and killed, this is not often possible. No matter your military superiority, it is not always possible to defeat a determined guerrilla campaign. I can't think of a single case where a modern military has done so.
So the first rule to winning a guerrilla war is not to get into one. It cannot be stressed often or strongly enough, that we could very likely have avoided this if we had built a broad UN-based coalition the same way Bush Sr had for the first Gulf War. If anything good comes out of this, hopefully it will be the realization that the politics of the situation are at least as important as the military aspects of it. Winning on the battlefield is of no benefit if you don't also win in the living room. This may be the biggest flaw in the neo-con political theory. The value of military might ain't what it used to be. This is the dirty secret hidden behind the Powell Doctrine and the Rumsfeld Doctrine, and all of the other post-Vietnam military theories. Any pissant little country can send us home with our tail between our legs if they're stubborn enough.
The bad guys are starting to think they can win, and it's not hard to see why. They're building up momentum and we're standing there like a deer in head-lights wishing we could figure a way out. Unless we can think of some creative solution, and quickly, it may not be long before Iraq passes the point of no return.
Dean's Endorsements
I'm sure you guys have heard about this, Howard Dean has picked up endorsements from two of the largest labor unions. Not only is this a major boost for Dean, but with two of the five major unions backing Dean it's a real blow to Gephardt whose primary selling point has been his strong union support. With the endorsements coming at the same time that Kerry's campaign is showing signs of stress, Dean may be separating himself from the pack. It would be nice if this could be wrapped up before these guys batter each other into oblivion. Howard Kurtz discusses the state of the race. Also worthy of note, John Edwards follows Dean and Kucinich onto Lessig's blog (scroll down a little).
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
The Will of the People, Revisited
In our earlier discussion entitled "The Great Litmus Test," Joe brought in some quotes from the Federalist No. 10 (Madison) (link here to the archives--the entry was on Sunday, September 14, 2003) to demonstrate support for his suggestion that the legislature should serve as a buffer to the public. I have just stumbled across another excerpt from the same text that perhaps goes a step further in advancing Joe's cause--Hamilton's the Federalist No. 71. This portion is particularly timely with regard to the $87 billion that Congress ran straight through Congress without too much challenge. I found this in Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy on America, Vol. I Part I Chapter 8:
There are some who would be inclined to regard the servile pliancy of the executive to a prevailing current, either in the community or in the legislature, as its best recommendation. But such men entertain very crude notions, as well of the purposes for which government was instituted as of the true means by which the public happiness may be promoted.
The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they entrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.
It is a just observation that the people commonly intend the PUBLIC GOOD. This often applies to their very errors. But their good sense would despise the adulator who should pretend that they always reason right about the means of promoting it. They know from experience that they sometimes err; and the wonder is that they so seldom err as they do, beset as they continually are by the wiles of parasites and sycophants, by the snares of the ambitious, the avaricious, the desperate, by the artifices of men who possess their confidence more than they deserve it, and of those who seek to possess rather than to deserve it.
When occasions present themselves in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests to withstand the temporary delusion in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection. Instances might be cited in which a conduct of this kind has saved the people from very fatal consequences of their own mistakes, and has procured lasting monuments of their gratitude to the men who had the courage and magnanimity enough to serve them at the peril of their displeasure.
There are some who would be inclined to regard the servile pliancy of the executive to a prevailing current, either in the community or in the legislature, as its best recommendation. But such men entertain very crude notions, as well of the purposes for which government was instituted as of the true means by which the public happiness may be promoted.
The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they entrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.
It is a just observation that the people commonly intend the PUBLIC GOOD. This often applies to their very errors. But their good sense would despise the adulator who should pretend that they always reason right about the means of promoting it. They know from experience that they sometimes err; and the wonder is that they so seldom err as they do, beset as they continually are by the wiles of parasites and sycophants, by the snares of the ambitious, the avaricious, the desperate, by the artifices of men who possess their confidence more than they deserve it, and of those who seek to possess rather than to deserve it.
When occasions present themselves in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests to withstand the temporary delusion in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection. Instances might be cited in which a conduct of this kind has saved the people from very fatal consequences of their own mistakes, and has procured lasting monuments of their gratitude to the men who had the courage and magnanimity enough to serve them at the peril of their displeasure.
New Gallup Poll on Iraq
According to this Washington Post article, only 1% of Iraqis believe the United States invaded Iraq to establish democracy (the number rises to 5% when asked if it was to help the Iraqi people) while 43% say it was primarily "to rob Iraq's oil."
Gallup reports that it surveyed 1,178 Baghdad residents. For more detailed information about their selection of the sample, look here. That's about all the information one can get without getting a $95 annual subscription. I recommend we get a subscription for BWJ and split the cost.
Thanks to Democracy Now! for the heads up on this story.
Gallup reports that it surveyed 1,178 Baghdad residents. For more detailed information about their selection of the sample, look here. That's about all the information one can get without getting a $95 annual subscription. I recommend we get a subscription for BWJ and split the cost.
Thanks to Democracy Now! for the heads up on this story.
Re: About MoveOn
You are completely correct, Barry. The addition of Pariser was a big step for the Silicon Valley-based organization.
:)
:)
Re: About MoveOn
Eli Pariser is more than just "staff." From the same link you pointed us to:
The MoveOn Peace campaign was founded independently as "9-11Peace.org" by Eli Pariser, a Maine native and recent graduate of Simon's Rock College of Bard. In the days following September 11th, 2001, he launched an online petition calling for a peaceful response to break the cycle of violence, which was quickly signed by more than one hundred thousand people in the U.S. and almost half a million worldwide. Eli joined forces with MoveOn soon afterward, and is now our International Campaigns Director.
The MoveOn Peace campaign was founded independently as "9-11Peace.org" by Eli Pariser, a Maine native and recent graduate of Simon's Rock College of Bard. In the days following September 11th, 2001, he launched an online petition calling for a peaceful response to break the cycle of violence, which was quickly signed by more than one hundred thousand people in the U.S. and almost half a million worldwide. Eli joined forces with MoveOn soon afterward, and is now our International Campaigns Director.
About MoveOn
Just as an FYI to clear up a point of contention over the weekend: MoveOn.org was originally established by a group of Silicon valley activists. That may have something to do with why they went overboard with the Governator. They do have a couple of staff-people from Maine, and currently have people in NY and DC.
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Update: Always at War With Eurasia
Time Magazine's director of public affairs emailed me to let me know that she has forwarded to Time's editor my suggestion that the table of contents online reflects this story . She is also sending websites posting information about this missing article the following email:
TIME has no rights to re-publish the book excerpt which first appeared in TIME's March 2, 1998 issue (and online that week). The book, "A World Transformed," by George H.W. Bush (Sr.) and Brent Scowcroft, was published by Alfred A. Knopf Inc., which holds the rights. The headline on the excerpt in TIME was "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam."
A notice was posted to the TIME.com website on Nov. 11, 2003, to clarify why this excerpt is not available through TIME Archives:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980302/special_report.clintons_29.html
"The page you've requested is an excerpt from a book by Brent Scowcroft and George H. W. Bush titled A World Transformed, which appeared in the March 2, 1998, issue of TIME magazine under the title "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam". It has been removed from our site because the publisher did not grant us rights to sell the piece online through the TIME archive."
TIME has no rights to re-publish the book excerpt which first appeared in TIME's March 2, 1998 issue (and online that week). The book, "A World Transformed," by George H.W. Bush (Sr.) and Brent Scowcroft, was published by Alfred A. Knopf Inc., which holds the rights. The headline on the excerpt in TIME was "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam."
A notice was posted to the TIME.com website on Nov. 11, 2003, to clarify why this excerpt is not available through TIME Archives:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980302/special_report.clintons_29.html
"The page you've requested is an excerpt from a book by Brent Scowcroft and George H. W. Bush titled A World Transformed, which appeared in the March 2, 1998, issue of TIME magazine under the title "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam". It has been removed from our site because the publisher did not grant us rights to sell the piece online through the TIME archive."
Re: Always at War With Eastasia
Great investigative journalism, Barry! That's almost worthy of a Chew-litzer prize! You may even rival Geraldo someday if you stick with it. Did you tell them you were a (Boys' Weekend) journalist?
Nader In A State of Confusion
I much agree with Dave's analysis of Nader's speech. He says, and I quote, "It was stolen from the Democrats. And they should concentrate on the thieves and the blunderers in Florida, not on the Green Party." That's an interesting statement. Did Ralph Nader actually believe that he was going to win the Presidential election? I don't think Ralph is an idiot, so I'll wager to say no. The two party system is a reality in this country. Nader knew that a) he would not win, and b) he would disproportionately draw voters from the Democrats. The only productive thing he could hope to get out of it was that it have some effect on the Democrats, and force them to pay attention to him. Nader's candidacy cost the Democrats the election and gave Nader a prime platform from which to try to advance the Green Party position, but instead he is deflecting attention from the Green Party. If this wasn't what he was after, why did he bother to run? And moreover, why did he refuse to drop out at the end once his point was made? As has been discussed in depth, I have no problem with people registering protest votes, but at least let's be honest about it.
Re: Always at War With Eastasia
I became immediately concerned about this so I called Time magazine's archives department, who said that it is generally their policy to delete articles over five years. I also spoke with someone in Time's PR department, who said she did not want to provide her name, that stated the publisher of the book from which the article was excerpted (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., according to the article) only extended Time a limited right to publish the article online and that time expired. She stated that Time has received a high volume of calls regarding this topic and they are considering publishing a comment in an upcoming issue.
The link where the story used to be listed provides an explanation similar to the one I received on the phone. I asked why the article was not specifically listed in the table of contents for that issue and she said she would get back to me on that one.
The link where the story used to be listed provides an explanation similar to the one I received on the phone. I asked why the article was not specifically listed in the table of contents for that issue and she said she would get back to me on that one.
Always At War With Eastasia
In an event frighteningly relevant to our recent conference, slashdot pointed out a story on The Memory Hole (very interesting web site, BTW) documenting Time Magazine's effort to make one of their columns dissappear. Coincidentally the column is by George Bush Sr. and Brent Scowcroft explaining in detail why they did not attempt to invade Iraq, their reasoning still being quite relevant and valid in present contexts. I can understand why the administration might want this to go away, although how you get from that desire to AOL/TW actually erasing the article would be an interesting thing to know..
Monday, November 10, 2003
Transcript of Franken suit
Here is the transcript of the hearing Franken talked about--it is a good read (and Franken was accurate in his description of the events, as best I can tell).
Stay the Course
Fareed Zakaria, whose book The Future of Freedom has been mentioned previously on TBWJ, wrote this column criticizing the increasingly popular idea of Iraqification. I am quite in agreement with Zakaria. Nothing in Iraq is as easy as many in our government (on both sides of the aisle) seem to make it out to be. Look at the effort and resources we've put into eliminating crime and fixing our economy here in the US, and how far that's gotten us. Now we think we can throw a few billion dollars at Iraq and it will all magically be fixed? Iraq does not have the civil infrastructure to be a functioning independent state. Efforts to make it one before preparations are ready will negate any good that has come out of this invasion, and may very well leave them worse off than they were before we came. We went in there when everyone told us not to, now we have an obligation to the Iraqis to make sure things come out right.
Ritter: Iraq Planned For This
It was interesting to see Scott Ritter appear as a CSM opinion columnist today. He wrote a feature on the nature and preparations of the Iraqi resistance campaign based on his observations as a weapons inspector. It is the first I've seen or heard of him since the right wing launched a massive and vicious smear campaign against him before the war. Funny what being right when everyone else (even most of the anti-war crowd) thought you were wrong can do for a person's image.
"Nader Blasts Democrats as 'Whiners'"
See this article on Yahoo--with the tagline from Madison, WI (and a plug to the National Conference on Media Reform).
It's too bad we missed that speech. With the crowd in attendance, I'm sure there was an interesting reaction from the audience.
It's too bad we missed that speech. With the crowd in attendance, I'm sure there was an interesting reaction from the audience.
Guantanamo Case
The Supreme Court today granted cert on the question whether federal courts can hear petitions from detainees in Guantanamo. The Second and DC Circuits have held that there is no jurisdiction over these cases, and the Ninth Circuit has not yet decided the case in front of it.
Thursday, November 06, 2003
To Everything, Spin, Spin, Spin
Faced with growing criticism about Iraq, the administration has decided to do what they do best: news management. CSM has a roundup of coverage on this. It's not hard to see it if you're looking for it, and they know that, but they also know that the vast majority of people will never look...
Dean's Big Decision
I got an email from the Dean campaign yesterday, stating that I, and the rest of the Dean supporters, will have an opportunity this Thursday, through an online vote, to decide whether or not Dean will accept federal matching funds. First, of all, the decision to hold the vote is a brilliant strategic move for the campaign. It builds on everything that has made his candidacy strong. It is probably a given that his supporters will vote for him to forego the funds, but simply allowing them to have that input is a big pat on the back and sign of recognition on Dean's part of all the work that his supporters have done for him. As he says in the email:
"This decision is no longer mine to make. This is a campaign of the people, by the people and for the people. Your successful effort of raising a historic amount of money through small contributions has made this choice possible. This is why I am putting this decision in your hands."
I am glad to see Dean and his staff continue to seek new ways in which to involve and excite their supporters. Additionally it gives Dean a convenient cover with which to back away from his previous statements that he would participate in the matching program.
From a strategic point of view, it is a significant decision. The matching funds would serve to extend his existing lead and getting a big chunk of cash dropped in his lap would greatly enhance his position for the primaries. However, assuming that he wins the primaries, the $45m spending cap that accompanies the matching funds would severely limit his ability to compete with Bush's media onslaught through next summer to the party nominations. Rejecting the match leaves him with less of a lead (or no lead if one of the other front runners accepts the match) for the primaries, but leaves him free to raise enough money to continue his campaign up through next fall.
I support what I presume will be the decision (to reject). I also hope that Kerry and the other top contenders do the same. I think it will be very important that the Democratic nominee not allow Bush to completely dominate the summer leading up to the election. With the record war-chest he's raising, Bush could blow them out of the water with a media blitz the same way he did John McCain in 2000. I think the amount of money Bush is raising, in conjunction with the $45m spending cap, is a death knell for the federal fund matching program.
"This decision is no longer mine to make. This is a campaign of the people, by the people and for the people. Your successful effort of raising a historic amount of money through small contributions has made this choice possible. This is why I am putting this decision in your hands."
I am glad to see Dean and his staff continue to seek new ways in which to involve and excite their supporters. Additionally it gives Dean a convenient cover with which to back away from his previous statements that he would participate in the matching program.
From a strategic point of view, it is a significant decision. The matching funds would serve to extend his existing lead and getting a big chunk of cash dropped in his lap would greatly enhance his position for the primaries. However, assuming that he wins the primaries, the $45m spending cap that accompanies the matching funds would severely limit his ability to compete with Bush's media onslaught through next summer to the party nominations. Rejecting the match leaves him with less of a lead (or no lead if one of the other front runners accepts the match) for the primaries, but leaves him free to raise enough money to continue his campaign up through next fall.
I support what I presume will be the decision (to reject). I also hope that Kerry and the other top contenders do the same. I think it will be very important that the Democratic nominee not allow Bush to completely dominate the summer leading up to the election. With the record war-chest he's raising, Bush could blow them out of the water with a media blitz the same way he did John McCain in 2000. I think the amount of money Bush is raising, in conjunction with the $45m spending cap, is a death knell for the federal fund matching program.
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
At Least We Agree on Something...
It turns out that conservative Republicans agree with me: the American public is ill-informed and lazy. Realizing this, they have put considerable pressure on CBS to cancel "The Reagans", fearing it was not an accurate representation of Ronald & company and that Americans would not be able to sort this out for themselves. Thank goodness they came to the rescue of us ignoramuses.
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Media Reform Thoughts
I agree with Barry and Dave that a publicly funded media source is absolutely necessary in the current climate. It should be better funded (perhaps like the BBC as Dave suggests). As Robert McChesney points out and echoing Cass Sunstein in Republic.com, there seems to be a greater and greater tendency for the big media companies to simply deliver what the consumers want instead of challenging them with truthful, thorough, and wide reporting of news events. We have seen the trends with both the explosion of Fox News as well as the example in the Radio industry, where many consumers have been sucked in by Clear Channel cookie cutter programs. As Joe points out in "What's At Stake" (10-31-03), these trends do not bode well for our democracy. An ill-informed public is perhaps the worst things that could happen to our democracy/republic, and this issue needs to be addressed.
How to address it has been a difficult issue for me. One can certainly place more restrictions on commerical media ownership and practices. One can also enhance support for public, independent media. Yet the core problem seems to remain: the laziness of the American citizen. Why do so many individuals fail to seek out multiple news sources and different viewpoints? What has happened to the discussion of substantive issues that affect our democracy and nation such as media reform, campaign reform, international trade and foreign policy? Perhaps it is the citizen that needs to be held more accountable instead of blaming big media or the government, as is so easy to do. As is pointed out in "Nationalism In Schools" (11-4-03), education may the place to start, and never too early.
How to address it has been a difficult issue for me. One can certainly place more restrictions on commerical media ownership and practices. One can also enhance support for public, independent media. Yet the core problem seems to remain: the laziness of the American citizen. Why do so many individuals fail to seek out multiple news sources and different viewpoints? What has happened to the discussion of substantive issues that affect our democracy and nation such as media reform, campaign reform, international trade and foreign policy? Perhaps it is the citizen that needs to be held more accountable instead of blaming big media or the government, as is so easy to do. As is pointed out in "Nationalism In Schools" (11-4-03), education may the place to start, and never too early.
Go Bucky!
Being around Madison lately, I had to comment on this one. For the past several weeks, every time I walked past the Kohl center I saw students huddled in makeshift tents in the cold and rain. They were not allowed to have real tents due to university restrictions. It was a bizarre sight to see students have these outdoor living rooms set up with mattresses, tarps, you name it. That's dedication!
Hero for the Week: Eliot Spitzer
New York state attorney-general Eliot Spitzer is my hero for the week. Spitzer appears to be taking over the job of the SEC since they have clearly proven themselves incompetent in enforcing regulations on Wall Street. His testimony before the Senate on Monday managed to shock the SEC into action. This is not the first time that Spitzer has stepped into this void. Last year he forced the major Wall Street firms to a class action settlement. And he's been chipping away ever since. These are issues that need to be dealt with, and since the federal government apparently has no interest in it, it's a damned good thing Spitzer is there to take up the task.
Nationalism In Schools
Fantastic editorial on CSM today regarding the nationalist doctrine taught in our schools. Not much to add to this one, except a standing ovation.
The Voting Machine Story
I don't know if any of you guys have been following this, but there is an interesting story that has been emerging regarding Diebold's new voting machines. There has been a lot of coverage of it on slashdot, as it has been mostly hacker activism that has brought the issue to light. Slashdotters have been up in arms from day 1 about that fact that any voting precinct would use voting machines which a) are proprietary (ie do not run open source software), and b) have no paper audit-trail. Then reports started to come that these devices are terribly insecure. On top of that some clever folks swiped Diebold's internal memos and leaked them on the internet. They found a number of interesting messages displaying incompetence and subterfuge. Everyone's favorite seems to be:
“I need some answers! Our department is being audited by the County. I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16022 when it was uploaded. Will someone please explain this so that I have the information to give the auditor instead of standing here "looking dumb".
Then, of course, you have the CEO of Diebold making a statement that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year". And last but not least, author and electronic voting critic, Bev Harris, managed to gain remote access to one of Diebold's machines duing the California recall. Good grief. So lately Diebold has decided to start SLAPP'ing folks to get their memos off the internet. Today the EFF announced they will defend two students against Diebold's claims. I have a sneaking suspicion that this company is not long for the world (or at least for the voting machine business).
“I need some answers! Our department is being audited by the County. I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16022 when it was uploaded. Will someone please explain this so that I have the information to give the auditor instead of standing here "looking dumb".
Then, of course, you have the CEO of Diebold making a statement that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year". And last but not least, author and electronic voting critic, Bev Harris, managed to gain remote access to one of Diebold's machines duing the California recall. Good grief. So lately Diebold has decided to start SLAPP'ing folks to get their memos off the internet. Today the EFF announced they will defend two students against Diebold's claims. I have a sneaking suspicion that this company is not long for the world (or at least for the voting machine business).
Go Bucky!
So it's not our usual Boys Weekend fare, but check out this ESPN story on Wisconsin basketball. We're in the big-time. Good thing too, since our football seems to be going downhill (although sunday night was sweet).
Hang 'Em High, FCC
It looks like the FCC has found a sucker to test the new DNC on. Figures that it would be a long-distance company. I hope they set a good example of them.
Friday, October 31, 2003
What's At Stake
There's an interesting report here studying the impact of various news sources on their audiences. Needless to say, Fox does not come highly recommended.
Thursday, October 30, 2003
U.S. Says WMD Went from Iraq to Syria
UPI has this report (thanks to the Drudge Report for bringing it to my attention).
When I was a kid, we played this game called "kill the guy with the ball" (there was a far less approving name for the game as well). Well, it looks like Syria's got the ball.
When I was a kid, we played this game called "kill the guy with the ball" (there was a far less approving name for the game as well). Well, it looks like Syria's got the ball.
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
Gearing Up for Media Reform
I was wondering whether any of you care to share your thoughts on the best funding approach for the news media. In America, the default developed pretty much shortly after the development of radio that the airwaves belonged to the public and yet licenses are granted to allow private control over the flow of information. The US government gives paltry sums to PBC (through the CPB) and NPR, but the amount is truly negligible. This is contrasted with the BBC model, where until recently the government had direct control over content and, I would suspect, subsidized the production of this content heavily (although admittedly I do not know whether and how much of BBC's funding is derived from commercial sources).
Some people would argue that government funding or too much participation by the government raises serious constitutional (First Amendment) concerns. Even if the government did not directly act as a censor, this would be the inevitable result every time the funding were debated in Congress. But all the same, I think it is indispensible that there is at least one reliable and independent source of news (and I do credit PBS/NPR as that source now) and it should be entirely funded by our tax dollars. Surely this is not a panacea, but one source that has adequate funding to investigate and report on tough issues is a good place to start. Do you agree?
Some people would argue that government funding or too much participation by the government raises serious constitutional (First Amendment) concerns. Even if the government did not directly act as a censor, this would be the inevitable result every time the funding were debated in Congress. But all the same, I think it is indispensible that there is at least one reliable and independent source of news (and I do credit PBS/NPR as that source now) and it should be entirely funded by our tax dollars. Surely this is not a panacea, but one source that has adequate funding to investigate and report on tough issues is a good place to start. Do you agree?
Is Hamas Irrational?
(Barry's effort to make peace notwithstanding, I wrote most of this last night and am going to post it anyway. Try a roadmap next time, buddy.)
Dave, obviously your information is different from mine. Your position is certainly a valid one. I will freely admit there may be things I do not know. It is difficult to find relatively unbiased and well-researched material on the subject, and it is not one I have invested any great time in. What I know comes from links, the likes of these: Hamas Overview, Hamas & Fatah, and the BBC. I will acknowledge that it is entirely possible that behind the scenes this group is just a virulent and single-minded as the day they were founded. I, however, will continue to operate under the knowledge that is available to me, and as such will wait for Hamas to prove through their actions that they are other than they make themselves out to be, that being aggressive, ruthless, and violent, but ultimately rational. I just have a couple final points by which I support my position:
1. This is a dangerously naive view, and one that ignores history. Was Hitler monumentally stupid? How about Stalin? Tojo? History is filled with intelligent, capable people who have subscribed to an ideology committed to the inferiority of one group of people compared to another--and a desire to eliminate the undesirables. ... In fact, Hamas' leadership are both
intelligent and fanatical.
But were they irrational? (Hitler in the later days was arguable both insane and monumentally stupid, but the others?) My reading of history says that it is generally more dangerous to assume fanatacism and irrationality in an adversary than to assume rationality, even when their actions are difficult to understand. The former frees you from the need to try to understand your opponent or even treat them as a human being, since clearly there nothing that can be done with them short of total obliteration. It also generally leaves you misjudging and underestimating your opponent. Many of the most awful acts of history have been carried out by people who saw their targets as less than human, or somehow less human than they themselves are (including those examples you listed). Unless there is overwhelming evidence to prove that this group of people is essentially insane (or tightly under the grip of insane leadership), I will always assume the opposite. After our own isolated encounter with terrorism I had sit by and listen to more discussions of turning "the Middle-East into a parking lot" and other sordid idiocy than I can count out here in suburbia. While we have done our share of stupid things, we have not turned the Middle East into a parking lot, nor do I think we intend to. That the Palestinians, after 30 years of violence and oppression, have developed a culture where similar remarks are commonly made about Israel hardly surprises me, nor, I think, does much to condemn them. East, west, north, south, people are people.
2. Hamas has grown in stature and their role in the Palestinian community has changed over time. It would seem strange to me if their leadership and values did not reflect this. Hamas is not the small militant group that it was in the late 80's and early 90's. They, according to many commentators, now surpass Arafat's Fatah in power and popularity. With growth generally comes mainstreaming. The "Hamas & Fatah" link above brings this out in particular. In the "Impact of Oslo" section it discusses divisions within Hamas as to how to deal with the follow-ups to Oslo, and divisions with regards to how to deal with the elections for the PA, and it suggests that Hamas took it easy on Netanyahu, all indicating they have already at times contemplated softening their hard line to play for mainstream power. In fact, that article (which I had never seen until today) pretty neatly covers my views on the group, particularly their analysis of the present conflict and Hamas' prospects in it at the end of the article. This is why when Nassin and other Hamas leaders make statements about accepting a 2-state solutions, and perform actions of goodwill in order to facilitate negotiations, I tend to take them at face value. They are becoming the dominant political power in Palestine, and there is a certain level of pragmatism that often goes with that. All of the evidence available to me suggests that this is the case. If there is some critical information out there, hidden from me, I could be totally wrong. But I don't think I am being unreasonable in thinking as I do. If by their words and actions they can continue to fool me for some long period of time, so be it. If by all observable actions they counterfeit, over a period of years, the appearance of a more moderate organization, interested in peace, the results may eventually be the same as if they were, in fact, that. If they walk like a duck, and quack like a duck...
Dave, obviously your information is different from mine. Your position is certainly a valid one. I will freely admit there may be things I do not know. It is difficult to find relatively unbiased and well-researched material on the subject, and it is not one I have invested any great time in. What I know comes from links, the likes of these: Hamas Overview, Hamas & Fatah, and the BBC. I will acknowledge that it is entirely possible that behind the scenes this group is just a virulent and single-minded as the day they were founded. I, however, will continue to operate under the knowledge that is available to me, and as such will wait for Hamas to prove through their actions that they are other than they make themselves out to be, that being aggressive, ruthless, and violent, but ultimately rational. I just have a couple final points by which I support my position:
1. This is a dangerously naive view, and one that ignores history. Was Hitler monumentally stupid? How about Stalin? Tojo? History is filled with intelligent, capable people who have subscribed to an ideology committed to the inferiority of one group of people compared to another--and a desire to eliminate the undesirables. ... In fact, Hamas' leadership are both
intelligent and fanatical.
But were they irrational? (Hitler in the later days was arguable both insane and monumentally stupid, but the others?) My reading of history says that it is generally more dangerous to assume fanatacism and irrationality in an adversary than to assume rationality, even when their actions are difficult to understand. The former frees you from the need to try to understand your opponent or even treat them as a human being, since clearly there nothing that can be done with them short of total obliteration. It also generally leaves you misjudging and underestimating your opponent. Many of the most awful acts of history have been carried out by people who saw their targets as less than human, or somehow less human than they themselves are (including those examples you listed). Unless there is overwhelming evidence to prove that this group of people is essentially insane (or tightly under the grip of insane leadership), I will always assume the opposite. After our own isolated encounter with terrorism I had sit by and listen to more discussions of turning "the Middle-East into a parking lot" and other sordid idiocy than I can count out here in suburbia. While we have done our share of stupid things, we have not turned the Middle East into a parking lot, nor do I think we intend to. That the Palestinians, after 30 years of violence and oppression, have developed a culture where similar remarks are commonly made about Israel hardly surprises me, nor, I think, does much to condemn them. East, west, north, south, people are people.
2. Hamas has grown in stature and their role in the Palestinian community has changed over time. It would seem strange to me if their leadership and values did not reflect this. Hamas is not the small militant group that it was in the late 80's and early 90's. They, according to many commentators, now surpass Arafat's Fatah in power and popularity. With growth generally comes mainstreaming. The "Hamas & Fatah" link above brings this out in particular. In the "Impact of Oslo" section it discusses divisions within Hamas as to how to deal with the follow-ups to Oslo, and divisions with regards to how to deal with the elections for the PA, and it suggests that Hamas took it easy on Netanyahu, all indicating they have already at times contemplated softening their hard line to play for mainstream power. In fact, that article (which I had never seen until today) pretty neatly covers my views on the group, particularly their analysis of the present conflict and Hamas' prospects in it at the end of the article. This is why when Nassin and other Hamas leaders make statements about accepting a 2-state solutions, and perform actions of goodwill in order to facilitate negotiations, I tend to take them at face value. They are becoming the dominant political power in Palestine, and there is a certain level of pragmatism that often goes with that. All of the evidence available to me suggests that this is the case. If there is some critical information out there, hidden from me, I could be totally wrong. But I don't think I am being unreasonable in thinking as I do. If by their words and actions they can continue to fool me for some long period of time, so be it. If by all observable actions they counterfeit, over a period of years, the appearance of a more moderate organization, interested in peace, the results may eventually be the same as if they were, in fact, that. If they walk like a duck, and quack like a duck...
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Israel--Palestine: Who's really to blame?
I want to jump in briefly to say that I have really learned a lot from reading you two debate this issue, and that the level of discussion far surpasses anything I have come across in the mainstream media. I fear that the vigorous nature of each argument may have caused both of you to entrench into your positions, when really I think there is a lot in common. With your patience here is a brief attempt to summarize the debate as it has developed thus far. I am sure that neither of you would agree with all of my characterizations, but here is how I saw things unfold, anyway:
Joe started by saying that Palestine has a limited patience (if any) for a two-state solution, as it is only a matter of time and sex before Arab Israelis gain insurmountable numbers, and Israelis are right (in Joe's opinion) to question its government's current approach.
Dave seemed to agree that it is in the best interest of both sides to work toward a two-state solution quickly, and that the moderates in each camp favor this approach. Dave raised the challenge that both sides face from extremists and their ability to stall or destroy any progress by terrorism. Dave argues that (moderate) Palestinians should be just as anxious to get to a two-state solution because Hamas has been successful at marching the population farther away from compromise by drawing more aggression from Israel, weakening the Palestinian Authority, and seeding their ideas in the minds of the public (both in and outside Palestine). Dave forecasts that Hamas's all-or-nothing approach will never succeed, as the United States will probably never abandon Israel and the rest of the world will probably not choose to come to blows over this issue.
Joe disagreed that Palestine has any urgency on its side, and emphasized that Israel should take its share of the blame for the failure of Oslo and the road map and less should be placed on Hamas. Joe agreed that Hamas has been successful at achieving popularity in the populace, and argues that Hamas even reflects many of the mainstream positions (like a two-state solution, not to mention charity work throughout the state). Joe suggests that any peace-brokering must be done with Hamas at the table because they better represent the public and because they could actually enforce the agreement, compared with the Palestinian Authority, who in his view has only grown farther from the public (and has grown more corrupt along the way).
The following appears to be where the biggest rift has formed. Joe suggested that Hamas (and the Palestinian people, presumably, to the extent the group reflects the public will) is rightly hesitant to give up its only "bargaining chip" for a deal that is less than fair, which I take to be Joe's characterization of Oslo.
Dave agreed that there is plenty of room for criticism in the Sharon administration and argued that terrorism may be partly to blame for the right-wing administration, as the attacks immediately preceding the election probably weighed heavily on the minds of the Israelis when the went to the booth. Dave replied to Joe's contention that Israel can't wait but Palestine can by noting that a two-state and one-state Palestine solution are not the only options--a third (Palestine wiped off the face of the earth by the mighty U.S.) should provide good cause for concern that waiting may not be in the best interest of the Palestinians, either. Dave seemed to hold that Oslo was a good bargain for both sides and suggested that terrorism should never be used as a bargaining chip and certainly (from Dave's point of view) Israel should not be faulted for insisting on the end of terrorism as a condition for peace. I take it Dave holds that terrorism to achieve peace is a method that can never (never?) be justified. Dave also challenged the legitimacy of Hamas and its expression of mainstream views, and wondered aloud why Hamas has not taken the step of repudiating its charter, which would always stand in the way of ever earning a seat at the bargaining table.
Joe did an excellent job summarizing the escalation of the conflict and derailment of the roadmap, and I will let his factual contentions alone other than to say that Joe persuasively argues that Hamas's recent conduct demonstrates a calculated and rational organization and not the extreme group as many portray it. Joe then again stressed his viewpoint that Palestine can afford to wait much longer than Israel and downplayed the threat that America would use its force for anything that far outside what the majority of Americans believe (cough, Iraq, cough). Joe agreed that Hamas's charter does not help its cause but argued that the group itself has come along way since then and the group should be judged on its contemporary actions and words, which demonstrate a willingness toward peace.
Dave took a cautioned approach toward Hamas's rhetoric and conduct, contending that there is ample reason to doubt that a lasting two-state peace is really what they are after.
So where does that leave us?
In all candor, I don't care who caused the latest unraveling of the peace process, and I don't care who--between Israel and Palestine--can hold their breath the longest (although amongst us boys, I am sure that my lungs are far bigger than any of yours. It all comes from having a big mouth). I want to get to a lasting peace, and I think there were excellent points raised that suggest some of the things that must be considered along the way:
1) A one state solution means the other state loses entirely. Neither side will give up without a lot of bloodshed, and I contend that bloodshed is a bad thing. Therefore, two states are better than one.
2) The moderate majority on both sides want peace, and recognize that a two-state solution is the only way to get it.
3) Palestinians have two bargaining chips: time and terror. Although both together may provoke response from America in its all-out "War on Terror" (Copyright 2003, CNN).
4) Israel has all the traditional measurements of power and sovereignty, but cannot survive forever on its current path. Undoubtedly, the people recognize that their existence is fragile and want to work toward peace, but accepting terror as a legitimate method of accomplishing one's political objectives seems too much from the Israeli perspective.
Ultimately, both sides must refrain from retaliatory conduct and commit to a two-state solution. If a compromise is struck that the majority on all sides agree is "fair," and any actions taken by extreme segments of society are immediately rejected as wrong and punished by a third-party magistrate (the International Criminal Court seems to me the most likely candidate), there may be a way out of this mess. Thanks Joe and Dave for the amazing debate and for allowing me to add my thoughts to the mix.
Joe started by saying that Palestine has a limited patience (if any) for a two-state solution, as it is only a matter of time and sex before Arab Israelis gain insurmountable numbers, and Israelis are right (in Joe's opinion) to question its government's current approach.
Dave seemed to agree that it is in the best interest of both sides to work toward a two-state solution quickly, and that the moderates in each camp favor this approach. Dave raised the challenge that both sides face from extremists and their ability to stall or destroy any progress by terrorism. Dave argues that (moderate) Palestinians should be just as anxious to get to a two-state solution because Hamas has been successful at marching the population farther away from compromise by drawing more aggression from Israel, weakening the Palestinian Authority, and seeding their ideas in the minds of the public (both in and outside Palestine). Dave forecasts that Hamas's all-or-nothing approach will never succeed, as the United States will probably never abandon Israel and the rest of the world will probably not choose to come to blows over this issue.
Joe disagreed that Palestine has any urgency on its side, and emphasized that Israel should take its share of the blame for the failure of Oslo and the road map and less should be placed on Hamas. Joe agreed that Hamas has been successful at achieving popularity in the populace, and argues that Hamas even reflects many of the mainstream positions (like a two-state solution, not to mention charity work throughout the state). Joe suggests that any peace-brokering must be done with Hamas at the table because they better represent the public and because they could actually enforce the agreement, compared with the Palestinian Authority, who in his view has only grown farther from the public (and has grown more corrupt along the way).
The following appears to be where the biggest rift has formed. Joe suggested that Hamas (and the Palestinian people, presumably, to the extent the group reflects the public will) is rightly hesitant to give up its only "bargaining chip" for a deal that is less than fair, which I take to be Joe's characterization of Oslo.
Dave agreed that there is plenty of room for criticism in the Sharon administration and argued that terrorism may be partly to blame for the right-wing administration, as the attacks immediately preceding the election probably weighed heavily on the minds of the Israelis when the went to the booth. Dave replied to Joe's contention that Israel can't wait but Palestine can by noting that a two-state and one-state Palestine solution are not the only options--a third (Palestine wiped off the face of the earth by the mighty U.S.) should provide good cause for concern that waiting may not be in the best interest of the Palestinians, either. Dave seemed to hold that Oslo was a good bargain for both sides and suggested that terrorism should never be used as a bargaining chip and certainly (from Dave's point of view) Israel should not be faulted for insisting on the end of terrorism as a condition for peace. I take it Dave holds that terrorism to achieve peace is a method that can never (never?) be justified. Dave also challenged the legitimacy of Hamas and its expression of mainstream views, and wondered aloud why Hamas has not taken the step of repudiating its charter, which would always stand in the way of ever earning a seat at the bargaining table.
Joe did an excellent job summarizing the escalation of the conflict and derailment of the roadmap, and I will let his factual contentions alone other than to say that Joe persuasively argues that Hamas's recent conduct demonstrates a calculated and rational organization and not the extreme group as many portray it. Joe then again stressed his viewpoint that Palestine can afford to wait much longer than Israel and downplayed the threat that America would use its force for anything that far outside what the majority of Americans believe (cough, Iraq, cough). Joe agreed that Hamas's charter does not help its cause but argued that the group itself has come along way since then and the group should be judged on its contemporary actions and words, which demonstrate a willingness toward peace.
Dave took a cautioned approach toward Hamas's rhetoric and conduct, contending that there is ample reason to doubt that a lasting two-state peace is really what they are after.
So where does that leave us?
In all candor, I don't care who caused the latest unraveling of the peace process, and I don't care who--between Israel and Palestine--can hold their breath the longest (although amongst us boys, I am sure that my lungs are far bigger than any of yours. It all comes from having a big mouth). I want to get to a lasting peace, and I think there were excellent points raised that suggest some of the things that must be considered along the way:
1) A one state solution means the other state loses entirely. Neither side will give up without a lot of bloodshed, and I contend that bloodshed is a bad thing. Therefore, two states are better than one.
2) The moderate majority on both sides want peace, and recognize that a two-state solution is the only way to get it.
3) Palestinians have two bargaining chips: time and terror. Although both together may provoke response from America in its all-out "War on Terror" (Copyright 2003, CNN).
4) Israel has all the traditional measurements of power and sovereignty, but cannot survive forever on its current path. Undoubtedly, the people recognize that their existence is fragile and want to work toward peace, but accepting terror as a legitimate method of accomplishing one's political objectives seems too much from the Israeli perspective.
Ultimately, both sides must refrain from retaliatory conduct and commit to a two-state solution. If a compromise is struck that the majority on all sides agree is "fair," and any actions taken by extreme segments of society are immediately rejected as wrong and punished by a third-party magistrate (the International Criminal Court seems to me the most likely candidate), there may be a way out of this mess. Thanks Joe and Dave for the amazing debate and for allowing me to add my thoughts to the mix.
The Original PATRIOT ACT Critic Speaks Out
Senator Russ Feingold has an editorial in this morning's Washington Times calling for repeal of some of the Act's more troubling provisions.
Monday, October 27, 2003
SecDef on the Defensive?
You may recall some discussion here back in July on possible fissures opening up in the previously air-tight front presented by the Bush administration. As the situation in Iraq continues to deterioration, it appears that the press (particularly the liberal press) is starting to pick up the scent of blood and are letting the dogs off the leash. In the past few days I've run across this article in Asia Times, a Joe Klein column in Time Magazine, and this Time Magazine article (to answer the title question, he's certainly lost this Mojo). All three of these tend to fix on Rumsfeld. It'll be interesting to see how much longer he can keep his head above water. Not only does he piss off liberals to no end, his operating style tends to upset congresspeople of all types, the press, and the military. He would make an altogether ideal scapegoat for Iraq, if it comes to that.
Post of the Week
My slashdot post of the week. From a discussion regaring the traffic light controllers used by emergency vehicles starting to hit the public market.
Come on, fellow libertarians! (Score:5, Funny)
by MillionthMonkey (240664) on Sunday October 26, @08:52PM (#7316229)
We're going to hear a lot of people calling to make these devices illegal- except in the hands of qualified emergency response personnel. We must resist them. Traffic light control is yet another prime target for deregulation and privatization, and keeping these wonderful devices out of the hands of ordinary citizens restricts our liberty to control intersections that we've paid for with our tax dollars.
Competition and free markets make everything better. They work great for companies, which is a strong indicator that they improve everything else, too- like public schools, the electrical power grid, and traffic lights at intersections. Why should emergency response vehicles receive a government-granted monopoly on the control of traffic lights? This is just old-fashioned, socialist thinking. If I want to turn my light green and yours red, and I'm willing to pay money for the privilege, why shouldn't I get the right of way? I've got more discretionary income, which means my time is probably more important than yours anyway. Government should not be standing on our necks and telling us who can and can't control traffic lights. The "invisible hand" can do a better job of guiding traffic through intersections anyway!
I can hear the socialists whining even now. "But what about the poor ambulance and police cars?" they'll say. They're so addicted to government regulation they don't realize how wonderful things would be if it were every man for himself. Hey, why should the government have a monopoly on ambulance service and law enforcement? My Expedition has plenty of room in the back for a heart attack victim or a criminal. If I'm willing to pay the money I should be able to offer a competing emergency response service as I sail through an endless sea of green lights and yap on my cellphone. To argue otherwise is socialist, and we've learned from the fall of the Soviet Union that socialism doesn't work, people.
:)
Come on, fellow libertarians! (Score:5, Funny)
by MillionthMonkey (240664) on Sunday October 26, @08:52PM (#7316229)
We're going to hear a lot of people calling to make these devices illegal- except in the hands of qualified emergency response personnel. We must resist them. Traffic light control is yet another prime target for deregulation and privatization, and keeping these wonderful devices out of the hands of ordinary citizens restricts our liberty to control intersections that we've paid for with our tax dollars.
Competition and free markets make everything better. They work great for companies, which is a strong indicator that they improve everything else, too- like public schools, the electrical power grid, and traffic lights at intersections. Why should emergency response vehicles receive a government-granted monopoly on the control of traffic lights? This is just old-fashioned, socialist thinking. If I want to turn my light green and yours red, and I'm willing to pay money for the privilege, why shouldn't I get the right of way? I've got more discretionary income, which means my time is probably more important than yours anyway. Government should not be standing on our necks and telling us who can and can't control traffic lights. The "invisible hand" can do a better job of guiding traffic through intersections anyway!
I can hear the socialists whining even now. "But what about the poor ambulance and police cars?" they'll say. They're so addicted to government regulation they don't realize how wonderful things would be if it were every man for himself. Hey, why should the government have a monopoly on ambulance service and law enforcement? My Expedition has plenty of room in the back for a heart attack victim or a criminal. If I'm willing to pay the money I should be able to offer a competing emergency response service as I sail through an endless sea of green lights and yap on my cellphone. To argue otherwise is socialist, and we've learned from the fall of the Soviet Union that socialism doesn't work, people.
:)
Re-Response
Both sides believe that they can afford to wait; the Israelis for the U.S. neocons to extend their blundering in Iraq into an all out war against fundamentalist Islam, which would swallow up the Islamist Palestinians and enable the Israelis to deal with the remaining leadership on its terms; the Palestinians simply wait for the rest of the world to ride to their rescue against the Israel-U.S. alliance, the U.S. to fall as a world power or for the U.S. to withdraw support from Israel.
I have never gotten the impression that either side expects these things to happen. If they do expect it, these are pipe dreams at best. But demographic shifts in the region are not pipe dreams. It is quite certain that the Israeli Jews will be outnumbered by Arabs in a relatively short period of time. When that occurs, the Arabs need no longer demand an independent nation, removal of the settlements, right of return, etc, etc. They can drop all of their demands, and ask for a single thing: a vote. While the US can stand with Israel on all of these other issues, I do not believe (and I'd be surprised if you think this is the case) that the US will support Israel in denying these people over whom the Israeli government has ruled for some 30+ years the right to participate in that government. Once it comes to this demand the situation is very much analogous to South Africa, another US ally whom we eventually had to abandon once it became clear that their actions were too directly in conflict with our purported values and beliefs. Once the situation is that of a minority of Jews ruling over an Arab majority without political representation, creating essentially a caste class system, it will be politically untenable for the US to stand behind Israel. And once global political and economic pressure forces Israel (whose economy is already coming apart at the seams) to let the Palestinians vote, Israel loses. This is not pipe dreams, that's the political reality of the situation. The Palestinians can wait, the Israelis cannot.
Yassin's statement that he was willing to accept a two-state solution ranks up there on the credibility scale with George W. Bush saying he's a compassionate conservative whose tax cuts help the poor and O.J. Simpson saying he's innocent and hot on the trail of the real killer.
I find it interesting, I guess, the way you lay out some the claims against Hamas. Sure their charter says a lot of bad things, but it was written nearly 15 years ago, and most of it is rather laughable (ie. blaming Jews for carrying out the Holocaust). You do yourself a disservice if this is the basis on which you are evaluating the actions taken by Hamas. How do you explain that Yassin, despite ample excuses to back out provided courtesy of the IDF during his negotiations with Abbas, agreed to the truce? Another ploy? Like convincing the Palestinian people that Arafat is corrupt (which I have never heard a whiff of, and which your own analysis of Arafat's actions in regard to Oslo contradicts)? Or slyly convincing the West that Israel is in the wrong (something, again I have seen no evidence for)? Or putting Sharon in power? This all seems to reek of conspiracy theories. The words and actions of Hamas line up in a perfectly consistent manner to indicate they are willing to negotiate for peace in the form of a two-state solution. What, aside from a 15-year old document consisting mostly of ridiculous tripe, do you have to make you believe that the words and actions of Hamas are no more than an elaborate scheme? And if you believe them to be so supremely shrewd as to be able to pull off all of the things you claim them responsible for, how does this jive with your belief that they are so monumentally stupid as to believe all the bogus crap in their charter?
I have never gotten the impression that either side expects these things to happen. If they do expect it, these are pipe dreams at best. But demographic shifts in the region are not pipe dreams. It is quite certain that the Israeli Jews will be outnumbered by Arabs in a relatively short period of time. When that occurs, the Arabs need no longer demand an independent nation, removal of the settlements, right of return, etc, etc. They can drop all of their demands, and ask for a single thing: a vote. While the US can stand with Israel on all of these other issues, I do not believe (and I'd be surprised if you think this is the case) that the US will support Israel in denying these people over whom the Israeli government has ruled for some 30+ years the right to participate in that government. Once it comes to this demand the situation is very much analogous to South Africa, another US ally whom we eventually had to abandon once it became clear that their actions were too directly in conflict with our purported values and beliefs. Once the situation is that of a minority of Jews ruling over an Arab majority without political representation, creating essentially a caste class system, it will be politically untenable for the US to stand behind Israel. And once global political and economic pressure forces Israel (whose economy is already coming apart at the seams) to let the Palestinians vote, Israel loses. This is not pipe dreams, that's the political reality of the situation. The Palestinians can wait, the Israelis cannot.
Yassin's statement that he was willing to accept a two-state solution ranks up there on the credibility scale with George W. Bush saying he's a compassionate conservative whose tax cuts help the poor and O.J. Simpson saying he's innocent and hot on the trail of the real killer.
I find it interesting, I guess, the way you lay out some the claims against Hamas. Sure their charter says a lot of bad things, but it was written nearly 15 years ago, and most of it is rather laughable (ie. blaming Jews for carrying out the Holocaust). You do yourself a disservice if this is the basis on which you are evaluating the actions taken by Hamas. How do you explain that Yassin, despite ample excuses to back out provided courtesy of the IDF during his negotiations with Abbas, agreed to the truce? Another ploy? Like convincing the Palestinian people that Arafat is corrupt (which I have never heard a whiff of, and which your own analysis of Arafat's actions in regard to Oslo contradicts)? Or slyly convincing the West that Israel is in the wrong (something, again I have seen no evidence for)? Or putting Sharon in power? This all seems to reek of conspiracy theories. The words and actions of Hamas line up in a perfectly consistent manner to indicate they are willing to negotiate for peace in the form of a two-state solution. What, aside from a 15-year old document consisting mostly of ridiculous tripe, do you have to make you believe that the words and actions of Hamas are no more than an elaborate scheme? And if you believe them to be so supremely shrewd as to be able to pull off all of the things you claim them responsible for, how does this jive with your belief that they are so monumentally stupid as to believe all the bogus crap in their charter?
A Roadmap Timeline
Just to back up my earlier comments regarding this summer's Middle East peace roadmap, I pulled together some links from BBC.
June 10 - Despite ongoing talks between Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas in order to arrange a cease-fire, Israel attempts the assassination of prominent Hamas leader Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, drawing condemnation from the West, and around the Middle East.
June 29 - Despite the attack, and despite a round of arrests, after negotiations with Abbas Hamas announces a truce for 3 months in order to test Israeli commitment to the roadmap.
Aug 8 - After more than a month of relative peace, the Israeli military raids Nablus and kills two Hamas leaders. The IDF also kills two bystanders gathered after the initial attack. Hamas re-affirms their commitment to the roadmap, but warns that there will be specific reprisals for this attack.
Aug 12 - Hamas and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades stage minor attacks in response to the Nablus raid. One person was killed in each attack.
Aug 14 - Israel responds by killing another militant leader.
Aug 20 - Islamic Jihad and Hamas come back with a particularly brutal attack that kills 20, injures 80.
The Aug 20 attack was followed up by the Israeli assassination of Hamas leader Abu Shanab and the attempted assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, founder and spiritual leader of Hamas. After this attack, Hamas vowed to "open the gates of hell" and the roadmap was officially finished.
What I get from this is not an irrational organization hell-bent on derailing the peace process. Hamas, despite suffering ongoining attacks right up to the day before Yassin agreed to the truce, signed onto a cease-fire in order to help the roadmap along. The Israeli military stated at repeated occasions that they felt that they were under no obligation whatsoever regarding the truce since that was simply an action undertaken by the Palestinians. They continued their operations against the militant groups throughout the entire time. Hamas and the other organizations responded to Israeli operations in a tit-for-tat manner until an attempt was finally made on the Hamas founder, at which point the gloves came off and the game was over. Hamas is a rational actor, willing to participate in the peace process if given an opportunity. It is to all of our disadvantage that they continue to be regarded as a convenient scapegoat by which to essentially blame the entire conflict on the evil actions of the childish Palestinians.
June 10 - Despite ongoing talks between Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas in order to arrange a cease-fire, Israel attempts the assassination of prominent Hamas leader Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, drawing condemnation from the West, and around the Middle East.
June 29 - Despite the attack, and despite a round of arrests, after negotiations with Abbas Hamas announces a truce for 3 months in order to test Israeli commitment to the roadmap.
Aug 8 - After more than a month of relative peace, the Israeli military raids Nablus and kills two Hamas leaders. The IDF also kills two bystanders gathered after the initial attack. Hamas re-affirms their commitment to the roadmap, but warns that there will be specific reprisals for this attack.
Aug 12 - Hamas and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades stage minor attacks in response to the Nablus raid. One person was killed in each attack.
Aug 14 - Israel responds by killing another militant leader.
Aug 20 - Islamic Jihad and Hamas come back with a particularly brutal attack that kills 20, injures 80.
The Aug 20 attack was followed up by the Israeli assassination of Hamas leader Abu Shanab and the attempted assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, founder and spiritual leader of Hamas. After this attack, Hamas vowed to "open the gates of hell" and the roadmap was officially finished.
What I get from this is not an irrational organization hell-bent on derailing the peace process. Hamas, despite suffering ongoining attacks right up to the day before Yassin agreed to the truce, signed onto a cease-fire in order to help the roadmap along. The Israeli military stated at repeated occasions that they felt that they were under no obligation whatsoever regarding the truce since that was simply an action undertaken by the Palestinians. They continued their operations against the militant groups throughout the entire time. Hamas and the other organizations responded to Israeli operations in a tit-for-tat manner until an attempt was finally made on the Hamas founder, at which point the gloves came off and the game was over. Hamas is a rational actor, willing to participate in the peace process if given an opportunity. It is to all of our disadvantage that they continue to be regarded as a convenient scapegoat by which to essentially blame the entire conflict on the evil actions of the childish Palestinians.
Welcome to Iraq
Welcome to Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz. I hope you enjoy your stay. As you can see,your little operation has created quite the land of peace and prosperity. Hopefully your experiences there can give you a little better idea of what you have gotten us, and the Iraqi people, into.
Sunday, October 26, 2003
Re: One state solution Gaining Ground
Dave, I had written a lengthy response, but my computer crashed and I lost it, so I'll give the shorter version here. First with regards to my initial post, I want to clarify my premise. I believe at this point that the vast majority of people on each side (including the current leadership of both sides) favor a two-state solution. I also, however, believe that Ariel Sharon's government, despite their ultimate belief in the necessity of the 2 states, is resolutely unwilling to take the steps necessary to implement one. Further, I believe that this is a very stupid decision on their part, because the Palestinians can afford to wait, but the Israelis cannot.
The reason there is no peace is not Hamas. Oslo failed because it was a completely one-sided deal. The Palestinians were expected to surrender all of their bargaining chips in exchange for some limited civil control over certain areas of the occupied territories. They were also supposed to have some military control over areas of it, but Israel never honored that, nor do I believe they meant to. The Israelis always maintained the right to move their military into any area of the occupied territories as and when they pleased. Essentially Oslo asked the Palestinians to surrender all of their bargaining chips in exchange for a small slice of what they wanted. There was no requirement for a sovereign Palestine, for removal of settlements, for release of political prisoners, for right of return, for free travel and commerce through and between the territories, no guarantee of a Palestinian half of Jerusalem. Oslo was never, ever going to fly, regardless of Hamas' actions. And the roadmap failed, not due to anything Hamas did, but because Sharon's administration is too dependent on the extreme right to be able to take any action whatsoever against the settlements. They were unable to deliver anything resembling the promises for their side of the roadmap.
The founder and leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, stated in 1997 that he was willing to accept a two-state solution, a statement that has been echoed by other Hamas leaders since. To insist that their actions regarding the various peace plans are motivated simply by a desire for the destruction of Israel is silly. Hamas signed on to a ceasefire for the roadmap quite willingly and without any real pressure being applied. They honored it too, until assassination attempts were made against them by the Israeli military. As far as interfering with Arafat's Palestinian Authority, I would tend to phrase it the other way around. The PA is considered by Palestinians to be horrifically corrupt. The Palestinian people really do not like Yassir Arafat at this point, but don't feel they can abandon him as long as Israeli actions allow him to play the role of the martyr. Hamas is very much in touch the Palestinian street and is quite popular among them, both for their attacks on Israelis and for their charitable work of building schools and hospitals, etc. As Arafat's PA has become more corrupt, Hamas has become more mainstream. The balance of power in Palestine is shifting, and Hamas is at least the equal of the PA, if not its superior. Hamas is who should be at the negotiating table, instead of the PA (or at least alongside the PA). Hamas would make sure they got an agreement, unlike Oslo, that the Palestinian people could live with, and Hamas, unlike the PA, would have the ability to deliver on their agreements. If this conflict is to be solved before the Palestinians abandon the two-state solution, it will only happen if Israel and the West deal directly with Hamas (and I don't mean with missiles).
The reason there is no peace is not Hamas. Oslo failed because it was a completely one-sided deal. The Palestinians were expected to surrender all of their bargaining chips in exchange for some limited civil control over certain areas of the occupied territories. They were also supposed to have some military control over areas of it, but Israel never honored that, nor do I believe they meant to. The Israelis always maintained the right to move their military into any area of the occupied territories as and when they pleased. Essentially Oslo asked the Palestinians to surrender all of their bargaining chips in exchange for a small slice of what they wanted. There was no requirement for a sovereign Palestine, for removal of settlements, for release of political prisoners, for right of return, for free travel and commerce through and between the territories, no guarantee of a Palestinian half of Jerusalem. Oslo was never, ever going to fly, regardless of Hamas' actions. And the roadmap failed, not due to anything Hamas did, but because Sharon's administration is too dependent on the extreme right to be able to take any action whatsoever against the settlements. They were unable to deliver anything resembling the promises for their side of the roadmap.
The founder and leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, stated in 1997 that he was willing to accept a two-state solution, a statement that has been echoed by other Hamas leaders since. To insist that their actions regarding the various peace plans are motivated simply by a desire for the destruction of Israel is silly. Hamas signed on to a ceasefire for the roadmap quite willingly and without any real pressure being applied. They honored it too, until assassination attempts were made against them by the Israeli military. As far as interfering with Arafat's Palestinian Authority, I would tend to phrase it the other way around. The PA is considered by Palestinians to be horrifically corrupt. The Palestinian people really do not like Yassir Arafat at this point, but don't feel they can abandon him as long as Israeli actions allow him to play the role of the martyr. Hamas is very much in touch the Palestinian street and is quite popular among them, both for their attacks on Israelis and for their charitable work of building schools and hospitals, etc. As Arafat's PA has become more corrupt, Hamas has become more mainstream. The balance of power in Palestine is shifting, and Hamas is at least the equal of the PA, if not its superior. Hamas is who should be at the negotiating table, instead of the PA (or at least alongside the PA). Hamas would make sure they got an agreement, unlike Oslo, that the Palestinian people could live with, and Hamas, unlike the PA, would have the ability to deliver on their agreements. If this conflict is to be solved before the Palestinians abandon the two-state solution, it will only happen if Israel and the West deal directly with Hamas (and I don't mean with missiles).
Friday, October 24, 2003
Fantastic website on Iraq intelligence
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (the same folks who, I think, publish Foreign Policy mag) have put together one of the most comprehensive websites I have found on the WMD and other issues leading to the recent Iraq war. I have not yet had time to really sink my teeth into this website, but I can already tell that it is really meaty, so I thought I would give you all the same opportunity to feast.
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
One State Solution Gaining Ground
CSM had a roundup today of the latest foolishness out of the Israel/Palestine conflict. It mentions, amongst other things, that some Israelis are questioning whether dropping bombs on crowds of Palestinians really helps their cause, that Israeli efforts to oust Arafat have successfully driven his popularity level with Palestinians to its highest level in 5 years (as predicted previously on this blog), and that the US joined Israel, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands (a more distinguished group of nations is difficult to imagine) in being the only nations to vote against a UN resolution condemning Israel's security wall.
In our previous discussions on this topic, I believe I have stated my opinion that the urgency in implementing a two-state solution lies on Israel. That if they fail in this regard, it won't be long before Palestinians lose interest in that approach and embrace a one-state solution. The demographics of the situation are such that if a one-state solution were implemented, the Palestinians would be ruling it by the end of this decade. And if the demand for a second state is dropped, it will become very difficult for Israel to explain why they have two distinct classes of citizens, with unequal representation in government and unequal protection under the law. The political and economic pressure on them to implement a one-state system would be overwhelming. Essentially, I think failure on the part of the Israeli government to establish an independent Palestinian state within the next 2-3 years will put the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state in severe jeopardy. According to CSM article, this idea is gaining increasing support from Palestinians. They link to this NRP transcript which gives a very good overview of the subject.
Also in the news today, this piece on the BBC about President Bush's trip to Australia. The description of the security around the trip (the 2nd half of the article) caught my eye. These incredibly elaborate security regimes tend to make my skin crawl. There seems to be a general trend over the past 5-10 years (possibly starting after the Seattle WTO protests) to isolate and insulate the powerful people of the world from the rest of us. Combined with the equally pronounced trend of the powerful people consolidating ever more wealth and power, its, well... creepy. These sorts of trends don't often come with happy endings.
In our previous discussions on this topic, I believe I have stated my opinion that the urgency in implementing a two-state solution lies on Israel. That if they fail in this regard, it won't be long before Palestinians lose interest in that approach and embrace a one-state solution. The demographics of the situation are such that if a one-state solution were implemented, the Palestinians would be ruling it by the end of this decade. And if the demand for a second state is dropped, it will become very difficult for Israel to explain why they have two distinct classes of citizens, with unequal representation in government and unequal protection under the law. The political and economic pressure on them to implement a one-state system would be overwhelming. Essentially, I think failure on the part of the Israeli government to establish an independent Palestinian state within the next 2-3 years will put the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state in severe jeopardy. According to CSM article, this idea is gaining increasing support from Palestinians. They link to this NRP transcript which gives a very good overview of the subject.
Also in the news today, this piece on the BBC about President Bush's trip to Australia. The description of the security around the trip (the 2nd half of the article) caught my eye. These incredibly elaborate security regimes tend to make my skin crawl. There seems to be a general trend over the past 5-10 years (possibly starting after the Seattle WTO protests) to isolate and insulate the powerful people of the world from the rest of us. Combined with the equally pronounced trend of the powerful people consolidating ever more wealth and power, its, well... creepy. These sorts of trends don't often come with happy endings.
Monday, October 20, 2003
Re: Building A Better Democracy
I have been trying to gear myself up to the media concentration conference, and my mind keeps returning to the same point Joe raises in his previous post--even if "good" information is available, how can the public be convinced to pay any attention to it? I recognize Joe raises the point in the narrow context of promoting effective leaders, but I think the same concern exists with regard to all kinds of information.
We certainly do not lack of quality information or even appropriate filtering mechanisms for distributing the information. Why then focus on media concentration as the source of the problem? If I want decent news, I can find it and I reckon that others who are equally interested can find it too.
How can we build a better democracy when the people--the very foundation of democracy--are not interested?
We certainly do not lack of quality information or even appropriate filtering mechanisms for distributing the information. Why then focus on media concentration as the source of the problem? If I want decent news, I can find it and I reckon that others who are equally interested can find it too.
How can we build a better democracy when the people--the very foundation of democracy--are not interested?
Building A Better Democracy
Back from my vacation (FYI, it's cold in Canada) I spotted a couple of articles on TomPaine.com addressing different aspects of American democracy that could use some improvement. The first covers the need forindependent leadership institutions for the purposes of promoting, researching, and publicizing information relevant to the selection of effective political leaders. The press seems to have lost interest in this (unprofitable) role, replacing investigative research with press-release journalism. Baker's solution to the problem seems overly simple and ignores some critical issues (such as, even if the information is out there, how do you get people to read/watch it?) and ignores the obvious difficulties in implementation, but the general theme is quite relevant and the problem is an important one. The public would be well served by trustworthy and neutral expert opinions which can counter the spin and funny numbers the candidates start throwing at each other with regards to their policies. The second article addresses the presidential debates, and the monopolistic control that the two major parties have over them. Apparently a group of activists is attempting to establish an alternative, open source-type, debate format. Again, I would mark their chances for success (at least in the 2004 timeframe) as exceedingly unlikely, but it is an important issue. The debate format needs to be one that is not restricted to the two major parties, and one that truly challenges the candidates to the limits of their abilities. I think public sentiment has been growing in this direction for some time, and given another 10 years of public lobbying it might very well happen, particularly if we see any more 3rd party candidates of any significance refused entry to the debates.
Monday, October 13, 2003
Re: Contempt proceedings of Ashqar (or--"Sometimes the law has something")
It is important for purposes of understanding my concern to distinguish between civil and criminal contempt. At the time the judge locked Ashqar up, he had not been charged with a crime and was not on trial (indeed--the government had no intention of prosecuting Mr. Ashqar--they offered him full immunity for his testimony). The judge decided, under the powers afforded him by the Recalcitrant Witness Statute (18 U.S.C. sec. 1826(b)), to imprison Ashqar as a means of coercing him to testify. The district court and the Seventh Circuit both decided that he might be susceptible to some arm-twisting into talking. I found this conclusion to be ludicrous.
Now, he is being prosecuted for criminal contempt (18 U.S.C. 401(3)). Criminal charges, of course, bring with them a host of procedural protections that are not involved with civil proceedings. I do not take issue with the District Attorney's decision to indict Mr. Ashqar for disobeying the court's orders (although I find its selective use of criminal contempt charges a little puzzling).
I don't know whether Mr. Ashqar is an evildoer. But it disturbs me that someone can be labeled with a scarlet T by the government and that suffices to throw the normal protections our system offers out the window.
Now, he is being prosecuted for criminal contempt (18 U.S.C. 401(3)). Criminal charges, of course, bring with them a host of procedural protections that are not involved with civil proceedings. I do not take issue with the District Attorney's decision to indict Mr. Ashqar for disobeying the court's orders (although I find its selective use of criminal contempt charges a little puzzling).
I don't know whether Mr. Ashqar is an evildoer. But it disturbs me that someone can be labeled with a scarlet T by the government and that suffices to throw the normal protections our system offers out the window.
Saturday, October 11, 2003
Media Concentration study
I have been scouring the net for information to prepare for our conference on media concentration in search of a real debate on the issue, but admittedly, it is hard to find real arguments favoring the FCC's position allowing media concentration. The best debate I was able to find was on Open Democracy, between Media Reform representative Robert McChesney and Benjamine Compaine. McChesney's piece may be found here (anti-concentration, of course) and Compaine's piece may be found here. James Curran continues the debate here, and David Elstein attacks McChesney's position here.
The Nation has an interesting article about media concentration and describing the "big ten" media corporations, which may be found here.
The Nation has an interesting article about media concentration and describing the "big ten" media corporations, which may be found here.
He fought the law and the law won ... again
(Thanks to How Appealing for bringing this to light) A Palestinian activist who refused to provide a federal grand jury with any testimony he believed would harm his family and friends and bring retribution on himself ended up in jail again after being indicted on contempt charges, according to this Washington Post story.
Abdelhaleem Hasan Abdelraziq Ashqar, a former professor at Howard University, refused to provide any information but his name, his address, and his profession. I find this story interesting because Mr. Ashqar spent 180 days in jail 5 years ago on the same issue. Being held in prison on contempt charges are not meant to be punishment, but are meant to encourage compliance with government subpoenas. After remaining on a hunger strike the entire time he was in prison last time (the prison system force-fed him to keep him alive), you'd think they would learn he does not wish to speak. But according to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in this opinion, this time they think it's different--he's older and wiser, they say.
Mr. Ashqar has been on a hunger strike since September 5, when the government took him in custody for failing to cooperate with their investigation. He may be held until the grand jury concludes its investigation, until the government (again) concludes that the imprisonment is ineffective, or until he complies. My heart is with you, Mr. Ashqar.
Abdelhaleem Hasan Abdelraziq Ashqar, a former professor at Howard University, refused to provide any information but his name, his address, and his profession. I find this story interesting because Mr. Ashqar spent 180 days in jail 5 years ago on the same issue. Being held in prison on contempt charges are not meant to be punishment, but are meant to encourage compliance with government subpoenas. After remaining on a hunger strike the entire time he was in prison last time (the prison system force-fed him to keep him alive), you'd think they would learn he does not wish to speak. But according to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in this opinion, this time they think it's different--he's older and wiser, they say.
Mr. Ashqar has been on a hunger strike since September 5, when the government took him in custody for failing to cooperate with their investigation. He may be held until the grand jury concludes its investigation, until the government (again) concludes that the imprisonment is ineffective, or until he complies. My heart is with you, Mr. Ashqar.
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
Update: A victory for liberty and freedom from tyranny
According to this Washington Post article, the government has appealed the ruling of Judge Brinkema in the Moussaoui case. The notice of appeal may be found here. The government has asked for permission to file extra-long briefs and asked for an expedited ruling.
According to the Classified Information Procedures Act (section 7), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals would be required to hear oral arguments within four days of adjournment of trial and issue an opinion four days after that. However, because the appeal was not taken during trial, the court is not under the same time pressure but will probably act quickly all the same. I believe the trial court's decision was sound and should be upheld by the appellate court. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
The Washington Post seems to think that this appeal means the government has decided to forego a military tribunal, but I would not be surprised if the government changed its course after the Court of Appeals upholds the district court. Of course, if it succeeds, then there would be no reason to resort to a military tribunal. Again, we'll just have to wait and see.
According to the Classified Information Procedures Act (section 7), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals would be required to hear oral arguments within four days of adjournment of trial and issue an opinion four days after that. However, because the appeal was not taken during trial, the court is not under the same time pressure but will probably act quickly all the same. I believe the trial court's decision was sound and should be upheld by the appellate court. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
The Washington Post seems to think that this appeal means the government has decided to forego a military tribunal, but I would not be surprised if the government changed its course after the Court of Appeals upholds the district court. Of course, if it succeeds, then there would be no reason to resort to a military tribunal. Again, we'll just have to wait and see.
Re: Commercial Solicitation, or State Action Redux
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of the District Court's order preventing the national do-not-call registry from taking effect. The ruling may be found here.
Good result, but the ruling was weak, in my opinion. The court focused on the fact that the restriction offers a choice to homeowners (see Joe's comments on this point earlier). I will let the arguments I raised on this topic stand and not rehash those same points, other than to emphasize that just because the government has not banned commercial solicitation altogether doesn't eliminate the First Amendment problem. Second, the court claimed that any distinction made between commercial and noncommercial speech "must bear a relationship to the legitimate interests the government seeks to achieve." (p.10) This makes no sense. There is undoubtedly different standards for commercial and noncommercial speech, and it is entirely plausible to imagine a scenario where both pose similar harms, but the value society places on noncommercial speech does not justify regulating all speech--only the commercial variety. Instead of recognizing this point, the court went to great length to argue that commercial calls are much more annoying and therefore the distinction is justifiable on this basis.
While this is only a preliminary ruling, it is highly likely that the final opinion will mirror the points they raised in today's order. I hope the Supreme Court picks it up and clarifies this mess.
Good result, but the ruling was weak, in my opinion. The court focused on the fact that the restriction offers a choice to homeowners (see Joe's comments on this point earlier). I will let the arguments I raised on this topic stand and not rehash those same points, other than to emphasize that just because the government has not banned commercial solicitation altogether doesn't eliminate the First Amendment problem. Second, the court claimed that any distinction made between commercial and noncommercial speech "must bear a relationship to the legitimate interests the government seeks to achieve." (p.10) This makes no sense. There is undoubtedly different standards for commercial and noncommercial speech, and it is entirely plausible to imagine a scenario where both pose similar harms, but the value society places on noncommercial speech does not justify regulating all speech--only the commercial variety. Instead of recognizing this point, the court went to great length to argue that commercial calls are much more annoying and therefore the distinction is justifiable on this basis.
While this is only a preliminary ruling, it is highly likely that the final opinion will mirror the points they raised in today's order. I hope the Supreme Court picks it up and clarifies this mess.
Re: More Than We Needed to Know
I guess Kim Jong Il believes that having No Dong acts as a deterrent.
Monday, October 06, 2003
More Than We Needed to Know
CSM is running a mildly interesting story on the WMD report, noteable mostly for its many references to North Korea's No Dong missiles. Yes, it seems that Kim Jong Il has No Dong. And by all reports, Saddam was trying to make a deal with him so the he could have No Dong as well. Those crazy, crazy dictators..
Friday, October 03, 2003
The Importance of True Believers
I think our biggest difference is not necessarily pragmatism vs purism, but a difference in valuation between independents and party supporters. You value independents at a 2:1 ratio over party faithful. I break the party faithful side up into two parts: the passive party faithful (the majority of them) and the active party faithful (the True Believers). Your ratio probably holds for the passive party faithful, but a True Believer is worth 10 independents. They're probably worth more.
Active party faithful are the people who will supply your campaign funds (both from their own pockets and through fund raisers), who will work your phone banks, who will put your sign in their yard, who will stand on the corner and hand out your flyers, who will get their family and friends excited about the election, who will write editorials to their local papers, who will call in to radio shows, who will bother to show up for boring mid-term elections, and who basically will make your party work. They are your grass roots. If you lose your True Believers, it doesn't matter how many independents you have, you can pack up your bags and go home, because your party is finished. They are dedicated people who care about politics. They are interested in these subjects and are considerably better informed on them than your average member of the public. They will give you their time and their money, their blood, sweat, and tears. But they expect something back.
True Believers don't do it because they are in love with the Democratic party. They believe in certains ideals that they expect the Democrats to uphold. When you betray those ideals (or, more often, ignore them), these will be the first people to notice it. And they will be the first ones to do something about it. They understand politics and don't expect you to win every battle, but they do expect you to at least fight the good fight on issues that are important to them. They have made a personal investment in you, and if you don't respect them, they will find someone who will. And when you lose them, you lose a hell of a lot more than just their votes. This is when you start hearing about how your party lacks passion and vision, and your campaigns start being referred to as dry, bland, and boring. This is the key. These are not just voters, these are your most important supporters. They might even still vote for you if you piss them off, but they'll no longer be active party faithful. They'll just be another voter.
The Democrats spent the the twenty years prior to 1992 ignoring these people, and the ten years since 1992 systematically alienating them. The Clintonian theory of triangulation is a slap in the face to them. Democrats need to expend time, effort, and political capital to build these people up the way the Republicans have. The Democratic support organizations like the NAACP, NOW, and the AFL/CIO are in the midst of long declines, staid, corrupt, and command less money and less loyalty with each passing election. Republican support groups are vital and powerful. This is not by accident and it is not a matter unrelated to party politics. Conservatives have spent considerable effort over a long period of time to build up these groups and to tie them to the Republican party. Why do Republican support groups not force their politicians to kow-tow? They don't have to. Republican leadership respects them, and they know it. The interactions between right-wing organizations and Republican leaders are genuine and meaningful. Those on the Democratic side are symbolic, at best.
Democrats don't need to provide passionate leadership to their grass roots. That's the opposite of what I'm suggesting. They need to nurture these liberal activists, because it is they, the True Believers, who provide passion to the rest of the party. If you don't nurture them, if you drive them out, you end up with a lifeless party with no vision... in other words, the current Democratic party.
I don't think there is this mutually exclusive situation where playing to your True Believers alienates independents. Clearly this is the mindset that has taken over the Democratic leadership, but I think it's a bad assumption. The Republicans have demonstrated that you can win by staying true to your basic ideals and marketing your campaign well. One of Karl Rove's strengths is the knowledge that most independent voters, and even many passive party supporters are such because they are not that much into politics. And that for people not that much into politics, image and intangibles (character, personality, personal appearance and mannerisms) are far more important than policy. They don't know the ins and outs of international trade. They won't spend time to figure out the difference between Gore and Bush's senior drug plans. All but the simplest elements of policy go in one ear and out the other. Having a strong message and selling it well is the key. Being moderate politically won't get you nearly as far with independent voters as having a strong, united party behind you, with legions of True Believers to sell your message.
The point is that I am not unpragmatic. I just have a different understanding of what success means and how to achieve it. In my view the Democratic party has been on a road to ruin for years, and desperate measures are in order to return it to viability. Clinton was a brilliant political mind and gave the party a false positive. Take him away and you're looking at a party that has done nothing but get its ass kicked for 20 years. I am willing to sacrifice short-term success to long-term goals. In your view, they've made a few mistakes, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the party.
I hope that the abstention and defection of a significant number of Democratic True Believers in 2000 will turn out to be a critical turning point for the party. Those actions sowed the seeds of dissent from which the Dean campaign sprouted. Additionally, if Gore had won (which, given his weak opposition and his 2 prosperous terms as VP, he should have done easily), the Democratic party would still be hard at work driving ever more of their True Believers out of politics or into third parties. Nothing like Dean would have happened at least until 2008 or 2012.
In any case, George Bush hasn't been all bad. No president has ever done more to demonstrate the stupidity of pre-emptive warfare, the importance of multilateralism, or the foolishness of imperialism than W.
Active party faithful are the people who will supply your campaign funds (both from their own pockets and through fund raisers), who will work your phone banks, who will put your sign in their yard, who will stand on the corner and hand out your flyers, who will get their family and friends excited about the election, who will write editorials to their local papers, who will call in to radio shows, who will bother to show up for boring mid-term elections, and who basically will make your party work. They are your grass roots. If you lose your True Believers, it doesn't matter how many independents you have, you can pack up your bags and go home, because your party is finished. They are dedicated people who care about politics. They are interested in these subjects and are considerably better informed on them than your average member of the public. They will give you their time and their money, their blood, sweat, and tears. But they expect something back.
True Believers don't do it because they are in love with the Democratic party. They believe in certains ideals that they expect the Democrats to uphold. When you betray those ideals (or, more often, ignore them), these will be the first people to notice it. And they will be the first ones to do something about it. They understand politics and don't expect you to win every battle, but they do expect you to at least fight the good fight on issues that are important to them. They have made a personal investment in you, and if you don't respect them, they will find someone who will. And when you lose them, you lose a hell of a lot more than just their votes. This is when you start hearing about how your party lacks passion and vision, and your campaigns start being referred to as dry, bland, and boring. This is the key. These are not just voters, these are your most important supporters. They might even still vote for you if you piss them off, but they'll no longer be active party faithful. They'll just be another voter.
The Democrats spent the the twenty years prior to 1992 ignoring these people, and the ten years since 1992 systematically alienating them. The Clintonian theory of triangulation is a slap in the face to them. Democrats need to expend time, effort, and political capital to build these people up the way the Republicans have. The Democratic support organizations like the NAACP, NOW, and the AFL/CIO are in the midst of long declines, staid, corrupt, and command less money and less loyalty with each passing election. Republican support groups are vital and powerful. This is not by accident and it is not a matter unrelated to party politics. Conservatives have spent considerable effort over a long period of time to build up these groups and to tie them to the Republican party. Why do Republican support groups not force their politicians to kow-tow? They don't have to. Republican leadership respects them, and they know it. The interactions between right-wing organizations and Republican leaders are genuine and meaningful. Those on the Democratic side are symbolic, at best.
Democrats don't need to provide passionate leadership to their grass roots. That's the opposite of what I'm suggesting. They need to nurture these liberal activists, because it is they, the True Believers, who provide passion to the rest of the party. If you don't nurture them, if you drive them out, you end up with a lifeless party with no vision... in other words, the current Democratic party.
I don't think there is this mutually exclusive situation where playing to your True Believers alienates independents. Clearly this is the mindset that has taken over the Democratic leadership, but I think it's a bad assumption. The Republicans have demonstrated that you can win by staying true to your basic ideals and marketing your campaign well. One of Karl Rove's strengths is the knowledge that most independent voters, and even many passive party supporters are such because they are not that much into politics. And that for people not that much into politics, image and intangibles (character, personality, personal appearance and mannerisms) are far more important than policy. They don't know the ins and outs of international trade. They won't spend time to figure out the difference between Gore and Bush's senior drug plans. All but the simplest elements of policy go in one ear and out the other. Having a strong message and selling it well is the key. Being moderate politically won't get you nearly as far with independent voters as having a strong, united party behind you, with legions of True Believers to sell your message.
The point is that I am not unpragmatic. I just have a different understanding of what success means and how to achieve it. In my view the Democratic party has been on a road to ruin for years, and desperate measures are in order to return it to viability. Clinton was a brilliant political mind and gave the party a false positive. Take him away and you're looking at a party that has done nothing but get its ass kicked for 20 years. I am willing to sacrifice short-term success to long-term goals. In your view, they've made a few mistakes, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the party.
I hope that the abstention and defection of a significant number of Democratic True Believers in 2000 will turn out to be a critical turning point for the party. Those actions sowed the seeds of dissent from which the Dean campaign sprouted. Additionally, if Gore had won (which, given his weak opposition and his 2 prosperous terms as VP, he should have done easily), the Democratic party would still be hard at work driving ever more of their True Believers out of politics or into third parties. Nothing like Dean would have happened at least until 2008 or 2012.
In any case, George Bush hasn't been all bad. No president has ever done more to demonstrate the stupidity of pre-emptive warfare, the importance of multilateralism, or the foolishness of imperialism than W.
Thursday, October 02, 2003
A victory for liberty and freedom from tyranny
No, I don't think the headline is too bold. United States District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema ordered today that Zacarias Moussaoui may not be sentenced to death or be charged with having any involvement in the September 11th attacks because the government refuses to produce certain detainees in Government custody who may be able to provide favorable testimony for Moussaoui's defense.
Judge Brinkema's opinion may be found here and stories from the Washington Post and New York Times may be found here and here, respectively. I take some issue with the New York Times headline, which reads: "In Setback to U.S., Judge Refuses to Drop Moussaoui Case." Far from a setback, this case vindicates the fundamental right to a fair trial, which necessarily includes the right to mount a meaningful defense to criminal charges.
Judge Brinkema's opinion may be found here and stories from the Washington Post and New York Times may be found here and here, respectively. I take some issue with the New York Times headline, which reads: "In Setback to U.S., Judge Refuses to Drop Moussaoui Case." Far from a setback, this case vindicates the fundamental right to a fair trial, which necessarily includes the right to mount a meaningful defense to criminal charges.
Addendum
From this week's TIME Magazine, in awarding their Performance of the Week to Al Sharpton:
Sparks flew when the 10 Democrats vying for the presidential nomination met for a debate in New York City last week. But it was a lagging candidate, the Rev. Al Sharpton, who used his hometown platform to get off the best lines. "Don't be defensive about just joining the party," he counseled General Wesley Clark, the latest entrant. "It's better to be a new Democrat that's a real Democrat than a lot of old Democrats up here that have been acting like Republicans all along." Sharpton got the loudest applause of the day.
Sparks flew when the 10 Democrats vying for the presidential nomination met for a debate in New York City last week. But it was a lagging candidate, the Rev. Al Sharpton, who used his hometown platform to get off the best lines. "Don't be defensive about just joining the party," he counseled General Wesley Clark, the latest entrant. "It's better to be a new Democrat that's a real Democrat than a lot of old Democrats up here that have been acting like Republicans all along." Sharpton got the loudest applause of the day.
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Counter-Manifesto
I'm not going to take a bunch of quotes here, but this one struck me:
Plus, you establish yourself (and your faction) as unreliable supporters thus making it less likely that the party will move in your direction.
By your own testimony, the effect is exactly the opposite. If you were reliable, the party would see fit to move away from you to pick up the unreliable votes. Game theory and all that...
All that aside, Bill Clinton's tax policy was not such a great factor in 1994. It was his mere existence that pissed off Republicans. Decades of hard work laying down grassroots organizations and developing think tanks paid off for them when Reagan blew Carter out of the water. Over the same period most of the grassroots support for the Democrats had dried up. The civil rights and women's lib movements had for the most part accomplished their goals and dwindled. The labor unions have been in retreat since the beginning of the Cold War. There was no more Vietnam War to rally against, and the hippies were all grown up. The Democratic grassroots had dissolved. The Republicans owned at the grassroots level. They destroyed Carter, destroyed Mondale, destroyed Dukakis. The incumbents in congress carry a lot of inertia, but they were eating away there too. Clinton came as a shock to them. He understood that the Republicans had altered the political landscape, and he won, aside from his considerable personal political skills, by invading their territory (not to mention the massive helping hand that Perot gave him).
The Republicans were infuriated and hated him with a passion from the day he took office, and haven't stopped hating him yet. They won in '94 because they were fired up, and because their tactic for selling the core values their grassroots movement had popularized, the Contract With America, was pure political gold.
When so much had gone against them for the past 20 years, the Democrats were tremendously encouraged by Clinton's success. But they learned the wrong lesson from it. Instead of trying to reclaim the political landscape, they decided, like Clinton, to cede the landscape to the Republicans and try to co-exist in it with them. As a long-term strategy it is suicide. They will never be as good within that context as the Republicans. This is the exact reason why the Iraq resolution failed to have the effect that the Democratic leadership had hoped for. And even when they do win it is only a half victory as they have to abandon a certain degree of their core values to do so. In my opinion any liberals who take action to try to divorce the party leadership from this tactic are not sabotaging the Democrats, but are doing them a service. The grassroots must be reclaimed. Four years of George W. Bush is not too high a price to pay.
I view Howard Dean as a direct response to this problem. I think much of his support has little to do with him personally. For whatever reason the faction of liberals who understand what needs to be done claimed him as their guy and their threw support behind him early. And it has spread like wildfire. I suspect there are many who support him, not for the man himself, but for the revolutionary sort of campaign that his supporters have built around him. I count myself in that category. I made my first-ever political campaign contribution last week, to Dean, for precisely this reason. I still have plenty of reservations about the guy, but his campaign is exactly what the party needs. His campaign is a middle finger extended at the party leadership. It is a statement that we will bring liberal activists back to the front. That we will instill at the ground level of the party the sort of passion and vision that we need to compete with the religious right, the NRA, and the right-wing think-tanks. That we will no longer be embarrassed to call ourselves liberal. If he can win this election, I think (I hope!) he can effect the sort of housecleaning at the upper echelons of the party leadership that is needed to turn things around.
ps. There are number of other sources that cite a 49.3% turnout of voting age people. In any case it's difference of a point and a half and is pathetic in comparison to most other democracies (although one has to wonder what kind of monkey business is going on in Guinea-Bissau).
Plus, you establish yourself (and your faction) as unreliable supporters thus making it less likely that the party will move in your direction.
By your own testimony, the effect is exactly the opposite. If you were reliable, the party would see fit to move away from you to pick up the unreliable votes. Game theory and all that...
All that aside, Bill Clinton's tax policy was not such a great factor in 1994. It was his mere existence that pissed off Republicans. Decades of hard work laying down grassroots organizations and developing think tanks paid off for them when Reagan blew Carter out of the water. Over the same period most of the grassroots support for the Democrats had dried up. The civil rights and women's lib movements had for the most part accomplished their goals and dwindled. The labor unions have been in retreat since the beginning of the Cold War. There was no more Vietnam War to rally against, and the hippies were all grown up. The Democratic grassroots had dissolved. The Republicans owned at the grassroots level. They destroyed Carter, destroyed Mondale, destroyed Dukakis. The incumbents in congress carry a lot of inertia, but they were eating away there too. Clinton came as a shock to them. He understood that the Republicans had altered the political landscape, and he won, aside from his considerable personal political skills, by invading their territory (not to mention the massive helping hand that Perot gave him).
The Republicans were infuriated and hated him with a passion from the day he took office, and haven't stopped hating him yet. They won in '94 because they were fired up, and because their tactic for selling the core values their grassroots movement had popularized, the Contract With America, was pure political gold.
When so much had gone against them for the past 20 years, the Democrats were tremendously encouraged by Clinton's success. But they learned the wrong lesson from it. Instead of trying to reclaim the political landscape, they decided, like Clinton, to cede the landscape to the Republicans and try to co-exist in it with them. As a long-term strategy it is suicide. They will never be as good within that context as the Republicans. This is the exact reason why the Iraq resolution failed to have the effect that the Democratic leadership had hoped for. And even when they do win it is only a half victory as they have to abandon a certain degree of their core values to do so. In my opinion any liberals who take action to try to divorce the party leadership from this tactic are not sabotaging the Democrats, but are doing them a service. The grassroots must be reclaimed. Four years of George W. Bush is not too high a price to pay.
I view Howard Dean as a direct response to this problem. I think much of his support has little to do with him personally. For whatever reason the faction of liberals who understand what needs to be done claimed him as their guy and their threw support behind him early. And it has spread like wildfire. I suspect there are many who support him, not for the man himself, but for the revolutionary sort of campaign that his supporters have built around him. I count myself in that category. I made my first-ever political campaign contribution last week, to Dean, for precisely this reason. I still have plenty of reservations about the guy, but his campaign is exactly what the party needs. His campaign is a middle finger extended at the party leadership. It is a statement that we will bring liberal activists back to the front. That we will instill at the ground level of the party the sort of passion and vision that we need to compete with the religious right, the NRA, and the right-wing think-tanks. That we will no longer be embarrassed to call ourselves liberal. If he can win this election, I think (I hope!) he can effect the sort of housecleaning at the upper echelons of the party leadership that is needed to turn things around.
ps. There are number of other sources that cite a 49.3% turnout of voting age people. In any case it's difference of a point and a half and is pathetic in comparison to most other democracies (although one has to wonder what kind of monkey business is going on in Guinea-Bissau).
Re: Our Sad Political System
Blame can only get us so far. I regret that my earlier posts had attempted to assign blame, but I guess my main purpose was to emphasize that we still are (at least purportedly) a system by the people, and if the people are unhappy, then the people should demand change. The problem is that people are either unaware how unhappy they have become or are unaware how happy they could be. So I shift my attention to potential fixes. It is important to identify the problems to know how to solve them, but I think we all know where the problem lies (if you aren't sure what I think, try hitting the shift key with the number four a few times).
One potential for change is to promote a successful third party--one that really, really represents the people. In each of the major shifts in parties that we have experienced in our country's short history, the motivation appears to have been that the options just didn't capture the heart of the people. If ever there was a time where this was true, now seems to be it.
I stumbled across an interesting website online: Multiparty.org, a summary of the thesis of Matt Grossmann, a professor in Berkeley's Political Science Department. In Chapter 7, Grossmann proposes some interesting recommendations for structural reform and is worth browsing.
I mention the multiparty system not as a genuine aspiration--at least not right now, but to emphasize that we should be looking for answers, not assigning blame. I think that some change can be had within the two-party system, and this is probably the best place to start. When the campaign finance laws get shot down by the Supreme Court, what's the next logical step to reform?
We must find a way to detach money from the process, at least as best as practicable. And we must find a way to wake up the people. If enough voters took the issue of campaign financing seriously, we would not need regulations to ensure that candidates did not take hard or soft money, as anyone who did would not get the votes. One sensible approach, then, might be to encourage activism to vote for the candidate that is least tainted by these funds. I'm sure there are plenty of sources to obtain such information online.
I know this post doesn't really speak to our earlier discussion, but we seem to be nibbling at the greater problems underlying the current political climate. If the topic of debate is truly "our sad political system," then why not discuss ways to make it "our happy political system"?
One potential for change is to promote a successful third party--one that really, really represents the people. In each of the major shifts in parties that we have experienced in our country's short history, the motivation appears to have been that the options just didn't capture the heart of the people. If ever there was a time where this was true, now seems to be it.
I stumbled across an interesting website online: Multiparty.org, a summary of the thesis of Matt Grossmann, a professor in Berkeley's Political Science Department. In Chapter 7, Grossmann proposes some interesting recommendations for structural reform and is worth browsing.
I mention the multiparty system not as a genuine aspiration--at least not right now, but to emphasize that we should be looking for answers, not assigning blame. I think that some change can be had within the two-party system, and this is probably the best place to start. When the campaign finance laws get shot down by the Supreme Court, what's the next logical step to reform?
We must find a way to detach money from the process, at least as best as practicable. And we must find a way to wake up the people. If enough voters took the issue of campaign financing seriously, we would not need regulations to ensure that candidates did not take hard or soft money, as anyone who did would not get the votes. One sensible approach, then, might be to encourage activism to vote for the candidate that is least tainted by these funds. I'm sure there are plenty of sources to obtain such information online.
I know this post doesn't really speak to our earlier discussion, but we seem to be nibbling at the greater problems underlying the current political climate. If the topic of debate is truly "our sad political system," then why not discuss ways to make it "our happy political system"?
Our Sad Political System
[Joe, I released your post--it was "draft" mode. Please fix it if I did wrong.]
[Dave, my post wasn't finished... but I've finished it now, so no matter...]
[Joe, it was I, Barry, who released your post because Dave had already weighed in on it. ;-)]
[Barry, you sneaky bastard. :)]
I think we've been over the brunt of my arguments on this issue before, so I'm just going to take a scattershot approach and hit a few of Dave's points that I find objectionable.
Therefore, the choice for the rest of the Democrats was, as it usually is these days: filibuster, register symbolic opposition, or go along.
I find it difficult to believe that there is no point with regards to constraining the unlimited nature of the resolution, negotiations with the UN, sources of funding for the operation, funding caps, postwar planning, congressional oversight, etc, on which the Democrats could agree. I'm fairly certain that even genuinely pro-war Democrats would not have objected to adding some language on one or more of these issues to the resolution. Of course this would have led to a confrontation with the House and the administration where a compromise would have to be reached. Which is why they made no effort in this regard, and which again goes to my point that what the Democrats did on this occasion was a matter of political expediency, rather than conscience.
2) Bush had sworn to the Senators that he intended to get the U.N.'s support for any action and that open-ended resolution was a bargaining chip to strengthen his hand in international negotiations
I reject the notion that anyone who voted for that resolution with this intention in mind had the least bit of respect of the UN Security Council. The idea that Bush should be able to bludgeon the Security Council into supporting a war with the threat that he would otherwise ignore them is a grave insult to the integrity and authority of the council and of international law and makes a mockery of anyone who voted for the resolution and feigns respect for the UN. Blackmail is not a path to legitimacy. I wrote the following shortly before the bombs started falling back in March:
"When President Bush first addressed the UN regarding his war on Iraq last fall, he presented them with an untenable choice: either fall into line or fall into irrelevance. It was an act of political blackmail. The effect was that even had the security council authorized the war on those terms such a decision would be purely an effort to save the council from irrelevance, which paradoxically would have robbed the decision, and the council, of integrity and legitimacy. The only viable way out that could have salvaged the body's integrity would have been for the UN to deny authorization of the war and for the US to abide by that decision. "
From the perspective of the individual voter on the right or left, it is better to fall in line with your more preferred major party as well--no matter how far it moves to the center--unless it appears that there is a third party alternative that is more favorable with a legitimate chance to win.
Your game theory arguments don't seem to posit much intelligence on the part of politicians. As long as this is the approach of the majority of voters it becomes subject to gaming by the candidates wherein we end up with rather awful politics. For example, 1992 where we had three essentially conservative candidates for president after Bill Clinton realized that "triangulation" made Democratic voters irrelevant to him as long as he was slightly less conservative than Bush. Or the 2000 election wherein Karl Rove was wise to Gore's rehash of Clinton's triangulation and put Bush right there next to him, resulting in possibly the most staid, boring, and lifeless campaign in US history, and a voter turnout of less than 50% of eligible voters (the lowest percentage since these things have been tracked). As long as any politician knows he is guaranteed your vote you have surrendered your primary form of power in the political system.
I like Bill Clinton a lot. But I still blame the guy for destroying the Democratic party. He led the party on a rightward lurch, playing to exactly the sentiment you espouse, and has left the part visionless and grasping for an identity for the past 10 years. He shifted the whole center of political dialogue in this country to the right. He lost Congress for them and allowed one of the weakest GOP Presidential candidates ever, to take the Whitehouse in 2000. Clinton is a brilliant and charismatic man with phenomenal rhetorical skills, and this whole tactic worked out fine for him. But it fucked the party. This is the danger in allowing parties to feel that their traditional constituency will vote for them regardless of what they say or do. Your vote exists within a larger context that the immediate election at hand. You can win the battle but lose the war. And you simply have to make a priority judgement, can I accomplish more by voting for the major party candidate of my choice, or can I accomplish more by not voting for them. It is a perfectly rational decision to evaluate.
Therefore, the party has the incentive to do what it has to to attract swing voters, while party stalwarts have an incentive to support the party.
This rationally suggests that anyone who acts the role of a party stalwart is a sucker. You are inviting your party to ignore you. Whereas if you rebel when they don't please you, either by voting for the other side or by not voting, all of the sudden you're a magic swing voter and the party has incentive to pay attention to you. Frankly, I don't like the Democratic party that much. I am not averse to voting for Republicans, although their core party values have taken a dive over the past 20 years. Whatever happened to their libertarian leanings, fiscal discipline, and support for states' rights? But I digress... If Bush hadn't bought his way to victory in the 2000 primaries I probably would have voted for McCain over Gore. I owe no fealty to the Democrats. If they please me, I vote for them. If I think they're acting like jackasses, I won't.
I am a liberal, this is true. In our country apparently that means I'm stuck with the Democrats. But I can barely tolerate the DNC leadership and have not been impressed with the Democrats' congressional leaders for some time either. If it takes some bleeding to create turnover at the top of the party, I say let 'em bleed. The fact that Howard Dean is the top dog in the primary race suggests that I am not alone in this position. Dean and his staffers get it. His support base gets it. Who's to say that the party's pathetic turnout in 2000 and 2002 didn't have something to do with that?
[Dave, my post wasn't finished... but I've finished it now, so no matter...]
[Joe, it was I, Barry, who released your post because Dave had already weighed in on it. ;-)]
[Barry, you sneaky bastard. :)]
I think we've been over the brunt of my arguments on this issue before, so I'm just going to take a scattershot approach and hit a few of Dave's points that I find objectionable.
Therefore, the choice for the rest of the Democrats was, as it usually is these days: filibuster, register symbolic opposition, or go along.
I find it difficult to believe that there is no point with regards to constraining the unlimited nature of the resolution, negotiations with the UN, sources of funding for the operation, funding caps, postwar planning, congressional oversight, etc, on which the Democrats could agree. I'm fairly certain that even genuinely pro-war Democrats would not have objected to adding some language on one or more of these issues to the resolution. Of course this would have led to a confrontation with the House and the administration where a compromise would have to be reached. Which is why they made no effort in this regard, and which again goes to my point that what the Democrats did on this occasion was a matter of political expediency, rather than conscience.
2) Bush had sworn to the Senators that he intended to get the U.N.'s support for any action and that open-ended resolution was a bargaining chip to strengthen his hand in international negotiations
I reject the notion that anyone who voted for that resolution with this intention in mind had the least bit of respect of the UN Security Council. The idea that Bush should be able to bludgeon the Security Council into supporting a war with the threat that he would otherwise ignore them is a grave insult to the integrity and authority of the council and of international law and makes a mockery of anyone who voted for the resolution and feigns respect for the UN. Blackmail is not a path to legitimacy. I wrote the following shortly before the bombs started falling back in March:
"When President Bush first addressed the UN regarding his war on Iraq last fall, he presented them with an untenable choice: either fall into line or fall into irrelevance. It was an act of political blackmail. The effect was that even had the security council authorized the war on those terms such a decision would be purely an effort to save the council from irrelevance, which paradoxically would have robbed the decision, and the council, of integrity and legitimacy. The only viable way out that could have salvaged the body's integrity would have been for the UN to deny authorization of the war and for the US to abide by that decision. "
From the perspective of the individual voter on the right or left, it is better to fall in line with your more preferred major party as well--no matter how far it moves to the center--unless it appears that there is a third party alternative that is more favorable with a legitimate chance to win.
Your game theory arguments don't seem to posit much intelligence on the part of politicians. As long as this is the approach of the majority of voters it becomes subject to gaming by the candidates wherein we end up with rather awful politics. For example, 1992 where we had three essentially conservative candidates for president after Bill Clinton realized that "triangulation" made Democratic voters irrelevant to him as long as he was slightly less conservative than Bush. Or the 2000 election wherein Karl Rove was wise to Gore's rehash of Clinton's triangulation and put Bush right there next to him, resulting in possibly the most staid, boring, and lifeless campaign in US history, and a voter turnout of less than 50% of eligible voters (the lowest percentage since these things have been tracked). As long as any politician knows he is guaranteed your vote you have surrendered your primary form of power in the political system.
I like Bill Clinton a lot. But I still blame the guy for destroying the Democratic party. He led the party on a rightward lurch, playing to exactly the sentiment you espouse, and has left the part visionless and grasping for an identity for the past 10 years. He shifted the whole center of political dialogue in this country to the right. He lost Congress for them and allowed one of the weakest GOP Presidential candidates ever, to take the Whitehouse in 2000. Clinton is a brilliant and charismatic man with phenomenal rhetorical skills, and this whole tactic worked out fine for him. But it fucked the party. This is the danger in allowing parties to feel that their traditional constituency will vote for them regardless of what they say or do. Your vote exists within a larger context that the immediate election at hand. You can win the battle but lose the war. And you simply have to make a priority judgement, can I accomplish more by voting for the major party candidate of my choice, or can I accomplish more by not voting for them. It is a perfectly rational decision to evaluate.
Therefore, the party has the incentive to do what it has to to attract swing voters, while party stalwarts have an incentive to support the party.
This rationally suggests that anyone who acts the role of a party stalwart is a sucker. You are inviting your party to ignore you. Whereas if you rebel when they don't please you, either by voting for the other side or by not voting, all of the sudden you're a magic swing voter and the party has incentive to pay attention to you. Frankly, I don't like the Democratic party that much. I am not averse to voting for Republicans, although their core party values have taken a dive over the past 20 years. Whatever happened to their libertarian leanings, fiscal discipline, and support for states' rights? But I digress... If Bush hadn't bought his way to victory in the 2000 primaries I probably would have voted for McCain over Gore. I owe no fealty to the Democrats. If they please me, I vote for them. If I think they're acting like jackasses, I won't.
I am a liberal, this is true. In our country apparently that means I'm stuck with the Democrats. But I can barely tolerate the DNC leadership and have not been impressed with the Democrats' congressional leaders for some time either. If it takes some bleeding to create turnover at the top of the party, I say let 'em bleed. The fact that Howard Dean is the top dog in the primary race suggests that I am not alone in this position. Dean and his staffers get it. His support base gets it. Who's to say that the party's pathetic turnout in 2000 and 2002 didn't have something to do with that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
