Morning Fog

Democrats And The Military

To follow up on my earlier thought that national security may be an area where nonpartisanship has a chance to get reestablished, David Broder's column today is pretty perceptive.  He suggests Pres. Obama has moved through the same learning curve as other Presidents, both Democratic and Republican, who often have realized once they are in office that the demands of national security are overriding, and will trump campaign promises.  Broder also rightly points out that many Democrats, steeped in the lore of anti-war, are lamenting Obama's recent decisions, but will continue to be disappointed. 

Someone in my neighborhood has a bumper sticker on his car that reads "War Is Not the Answer."  I would guess that person is one of the democrats who might complain about Obama's "backsliding" on campaign promises.  But the only correct reaction to this bumper sticker is, "It Depends On the Question." The reality is that war is a valid instrument of national policy that may at times be necessary.  

What both parties ought to have learned by now is that getting into a war is the easy part; getting out, once it's bogged down and has become unpopular, is much more difficult and costly. Lyndon Johnson learned this finishing Kennedy's war; Obama is now learning it finishing Bush's war.  It's just a bit more tragic when the inherited war was started without any serious analysis of its necessity or its outcome.  No matter how pointless the war, the heir to it has to try to ensure that it ends in a way that doesn't do more harm than good to U.S. goals or credibility.

What we can (and should) do is use diplomacy to its fullest, be prepared to go to war but not make it our first answer to everything.  By doing so we might actually be able to afford to educate our kids, feed our poor, and such, while still maintaining a strong national defense.

Broder also says recent Democratic Presidents (Clinton and Obama) have been more uncomfortable dealing with military matters because they have not themselves served in the military.  But that's also true of our most recent Republican President.  George W. Bush was in the National Guard and may have picked up a little jargon and institutional knowledge there.  But career military officers - indeed, anybody who was of eligible age in the Vietnam draft era - know that in those days, the Guard was hardly ever called up except temporarily for natural disasters.  Getting into the Guard back then was a draft dodge, almost as safe as going to Canada but more honorable. It was great for the sons of prominent politicians, for it gave them a form of virtual military service. 

There are two issues raised here.  First, we do now have a trend of three consecutive Presidents who have had no serious military service.  That's largely because we abandoned conscription after Vietnam; we'd better get used to it because it just reflects how our society has changed over 50 years.  (If "Swift Boat Veterans" were concerned about the problem, they would not have savaged Kerry, who did have true service.) 

Second, we should recognize that the National Guard has also changed immeasurably in those same 50 years; in Iraq and Afghanistan, as we know, many units have been called up; they've served admirably, but it's not the citizen-soldier deal they signed up for, and I have to wonder how recruiting for the Guard will fare in the next decade or two.  Perhaps, though, we will have a President some day who had the reality of military experience through this channel.

Credit Cards

Practices of credit card issuers have led to many complaints lately, most relating to various changes that issuing banks can make at will, and without notifying the cardholders.  Now, purportedly, Congress has taken the complaints to heart and crafted new legislation that will "rein in" the companies.  Here is one summary of the changes. The bill passed the Senate yesterday and is expected to be passed by the House easily also, in a slightly different version that will be worked out in conference.

Certainly some of the fixes provided by the new legislation were needed and long overdue, to restore some fairness and balance to the issuer-holder relationship.  If someone's interest rate is going to double or triple, surely they should be notified of that fact.  When somebody's card is canceled for being just a day or two late in payment, isn't that a little extreme?  No one can look at these practices without sympathy for those affected by them, considering how central credit cards are to Americans' lives these days.  So is this good legislation?  Yes.

But also not so good, if you think your problems with credit card companies are over.  The article I linked above starts out with the statement that the card companies don't seem to have many friends on Capitol Hill these days.  Perhaps not, but this legislation is like a lot of actions Congress takes in the area of consumer rights; it fixes some superficial problems, but leaves plenty of loopholes, and possibly, unwittingly, may even open new avenues of abuse for the companies to exploit. 

So don't rejoice just yet.  Congress has not altered the fundamentals of the business (nor would we expect it to).  Banks that issue credit cards are still in the business of providing heavily marketed short-term revolving credit at usurious interest rates. The business is so profitable that they are likely to continue to hand out credit cards like penny candy, and use all kinds of gimmicks to encourage you to use your card more and more (and more than you can afford).  And they are still very much in the driver's seat when it comes to the terms of your contract with them.

Many reports indicate card-issuers are already instituting changes designed to help them "recoup" the profits they will lose from the practices the new law bans.  These include higher interest rates in all categories, increasing annual fees, shortening grace periods, and more -- changes that will apply to even customers who pay regularly and on time.  Ironically, these "good" customers are, from the issuing banks' viewpoint, their "bad" customers.  And they may end up paying more, in effect subsidizing those who are wont to overspend or can't pay their bills on time.  

It's worth noting the profits lost, if any, are those that the companies obtained through unethical, if not illegal, means, in effect by deceiving people, charging them outlandish rates, and not notifying them of changes.  The same people, by the way, whom in many cases they cynically encouraged to incur more debt.  Far from blithely finding new ways to gin up the same profit levels, shouldn't the issuers be returning those "lost" but unethically gained profits to their cardholders?  It sounds good, but we know it's not going to happen.  Not now, anyway.  If you believe in individual responsibility as I do, it's up to credit card holders to manage their accounts, monitor interest rates, pay their bills on time, and limit their spending to what they can afford.  After all, convenient and ubiquitous as credit cards are, it's still possible to live without them, right? 

Maybe for a while yet; but I think we're on (or beyond?) the cusp of structural change in the credit card's role in our economy.  CAN we really live without these cards?  Try renting a car without one, or buying anything online.  Think about how everything you buy is 3 to 4 % more expensive than it would be without credit, as those merchant fees have been built into the prices you'll pay - even if you pay cash!  If we all switched tomorrow to using cash, there wouldn't be enough cash in circulation to handle the change.  In the not-too-distant future, as the card companies continue to push us to use their cards for everything from buying a Coke to paying our mortgage, they become an integral element of our payments system.  The tradeoff is that they should expect greater regulation.

Slow Economy Brings Down Regional Icons - Greenbrier

A second troubled icon of the Washington DC region is The Greenbrier, a major resort near Hot Sulphur Springs West Virginia that has existed under its current name since 1913, and was owned and operated since then by the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad (now CSX).   It's on the National Register of Historic Places, it's a designated National Historic Landmark, and it has on its premises a special bunker designed as an emergency go-down for the U.S. Congress during the cold war.  Quite a place, as you can see.

 But The Greenbrier has been in the news lately, not in a good way, having lost $133 million last year and having trouble filling its 700+ rooms.   Owner CSX, like many companies these days looking to reduce costs by cutting adjunct businesses, decided to throw it into bankruptcy.  Marriott Corp. was seemingly prepared to buy it when a West Virginia coal and real estate magnate, James C. Justice II, stepped in with a better offer.  The good news for the resort (probably) and the people in the surrounding area (most definitely) is that Justice says he won't operate the place in "standard hotel mentality" - presumably meaning to keep its unique features.

While the locals are understandably excited about the prospect of in-state ownership and a better chance of keeping their jobs, it remains to be seen whether the resort can return to profitability.  The current economy has only exacerbated trends that were already in play, most importantly declining bookings.  Maintenance costs must be immense, and the facility, according to some, needs serious updating.  Even if major renovation were to occur, it's unclear whether it would be enough; the place is a dinosaur, built to meet the expectations of a very different era.

A Tough Economy Exposes More Weak Spots - Horse Racing

A bad economy tends to reveal weak points (companies, sectors, individuals) whose struggles might not have been noticed in a flusher economic environment.  Chrysler and GM are the clear examples lately - nationally iconic brands that are struggling to survive and may disappear - but regional icons can also be affected, regional icons like thoroughbred racing in Maryland, Kentucky, and other equestrian states.

Last Saturday's Preakness, held at Pimlico Race Course in Baltimore, Maryland, was an exciting few minutes, as Rachel Alexandra became the first filly to win the race in 85 years, followed closely by Mine That Bird, the surprising long-shot that won the Kentucky Derby a few weeks before. 

The Sport of Kings is an interesting anomaly; horse racing most of the year is the province of a relatively small group of "horse people," plus bettors who come to the tracks (or OTBs) to try their luck.  Only for three weekends a year, when network TV broadcasts the three races that make up the Triple Crown of racing, does the sport attract a mass following. 

That's why I suppose many of the people who tuned in the race Saturday don't realize that the future of the Preakness, which was first run in 1873, even before the Kentucky Derby, is somewhat in doubt.  Pimlico was endangered when its owner, Magna Entertainment, declared bankruptcy; the Maryland legislature has sought to pull it back from the brink, using eminent domain to prevent the property's being sold at bankruptcy auction while another owner is sought to keep the track open (and the Preakness in Maryland).   Still, I'm guessing that any "save" may be temporary. 

The fact is that the sport of racing itself is in trouble.  Tracks are closing or threatened in a number of places, due to higher costs and pressures on the real estate that the major tracks occupy.  Sponsors for the TV broadcasts of racing's major events are dropping out.  Attendance at tracks is dwindling; if, as reported, more money was bet on the Preakness this year than last, I'd chalk that up to the excitement created by the first filly to have a chance in nearly a century.  Other suggested fixes, like a shorter racing season (wouldn't fewer races with fewer horses attract fewer bettors, and wouldn't the fixed cost of maintaining a track be spread over less revenue?), or slot machines at the track (which have nothing to do with racing), will not serve to remedy things. 

The Sport of Kings may need to redefine itself as The (or Another) Sport of the Masses.  Even so, it's difficult to see how racing can survive without radical changes to its current business model. 

  

Foreign Policy: Backing Away From The Brink At The Water's Edge

I watched some of the talking heads on the Sunday morning interview programs today.  Many of these dealt with some fairly contentious foreign policy and national security issues - the issue of torture (whether applied by CIA interrogators to prisoners, or by Nancy Pelosi to her syntax), the closing (or not) of Guantánamo internees camp, the Obama decision to continue with special tribunals, albeit with changed rules.  Yet despite the differences of opinion expressed, the feature that drew my attention was the amount of agreement there was between parties on certain questions.

When George Will can say it's OK for the President to change his mind (on the prisoner issues); when Senators John Kyl and Jim Webb can agree with each other on several points relating to how we should proceed with the internees; when the Democratic and Republican Party Chairmen Kaine and Steele can find some common ground; and when no one is rushing to excoriate Obama on these issues, something a little different is afoot. 

Obama has played his hand matter-of-factly and doesn't appear ready to follow the path that Pelosi and some other Democrats have taken toward absolute moral righteousness, while of course Republicans (with notable exceptions like Richard Cheney) are pleased to see him accepting some of the points they've been pushing about national security.  Though the most extreme wings of the two parties are not yet into the swing of things, I see a glimmer of hope for a degree of nonpartisanship, at least in foreign policy.  As Senator Arthur Vandenberg said in 1945 (I think), "politics stops at the water's edge."  Even if it's not always true, it's a good thing to aim for.   

Pelosi, Prejean -- Do We Care?

The silly season in news coverage started earlier than usual this year with ongoing frontpage splashes involving two women who have little in common except that their last names begin with P, both are from California, and they're getting a lot of excessive media attention for nothing more than behaving predictably.

"P" is for Pelosi:  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi chose to deny that the CIA ever told her they were using waterboarding or other techniques of extreme interrogation; she got in deeper when she claimed they lied and told her they were not using them.  Maybe she thought she had to deny knowing this in order to be more credible and consistent when she called such techniques torture.  That sure didn't work out very well for her...having watched her bumbling performances on television, reading her statements, it's very hard to believe she's being truthful about those briefings, especially when other members of Congress contradict her accounts. 

Still, I have to ask myself, who cares?  A Congressperson changed her mind, or perhaps even wants to reinterpret history.  This wouldn't be news at all if the issue itself weren't such a sensitive one for Republicans trying to defend the Bush administration's use of these practices.  Thus, Pelosi ought to have been more careful in approaching the issue; I don't see that she needed to deny knowing about these practices, nor get out in front of the issue by labeling it torture, nor (especially) make herself a lightning rod for the opposition.   

David Ignatius has it about three-quarters right when he says it's common for members of Congress to have selective memory when it comes to briefings they received from the CIA.  I don't feel as sorry for the CIA as he does (see "Cheney As Red Riding Hood"), but he is correct about the imperfections of Congressional "oversight" of intelligence -- members who are briefed are expected to maintain confidentiality of what they hear and are seldom in a position to challenge national security operations as a result of being "briefed."  And this is one point where Pelosi's justification of her actions (not objecting to "torture" when she was told about it) rings true.

"P" also stands for Prejean: Carrie Prejean got famous about a month ago when she said, as part of her tryout to win the Miss USA crown, that she thought marriage should be defined as "between a man and a woman."  Or some such.  Looking for news topics today, I happened upon the online headline "Gov. Palin Defends Miss California." No surprise there.  But I checked a few links and ended up knowing more about this non-news item than I ever wanted to:

• Such as that a self-created "celebrity" of sorts (a celebrity hitherto unknown to me), one "Perez Hilton," was a judge at the Miss America contest (can this be true? - Yes, I checked!) and objected publicly to Ms. Prejean's statement.  Should a judge in an event like this really get involved in judging a candidate's views? I thought it was just how articulate and poised they were when they expressed them. 

• Such as that Prejean had "breast enhancement" and has been photographed nude - not unusual for a model but not, I guess, what some expect of a gal vying for this "prestigious" title.  Her defenders are a bit out on a limb, having made her out to be the paragon of the wholesome old-fashioned gal.

But back to her statement against same-sex marriage.  Why is this news?  What on earth would anyone expect from a Miss USA candidate, where the whole idea is to project that clean-cut, wholesome image, and anyone choosing to compete for the honor would likely hold "fitting" views?  We don't know for sure if this Miss California really believes hetero is the only way to go; the video of her statement looks as if she's trying to remember a prewritten line; it's very possible she said it because that's what she knew, or calculated, most of the judges would want to hear, or because she thought it would bring additional publicity.

Whatever the truth of that, Prejean, like Pelosi, made a totally unsurprising statement under the circumstances.  Neither "story" is news.

Protectionism Gone Wild

Now we're beginning to see the after-effects of "Buy American" policies mandated by Congress in the stimulus package and other legislation.  Some of the trade and procurement disputes now turning up between the U.S. and Canada illustrate the downside of protectionism. 

First, because Canada is the biggest purchaser of U.S. exports.  So if we manage to save a few jobs on this side of the border by refusing to install Canadian-made pumps in our municipal water treatment plants (for example), that means Canada has less income to purchase anything from us.  The situation gets worse when the Canadian government retaliates by banning U.S. imports (as is occurring now).  There are some reports that one Canadian company may be considering opening a manufacturing facility on this side of the border (hmmm... would that be considered "American" though?).  One Indiana mayor may think that's a fine solution (actually on one level, it is, and it's better than we deserve) but when you replicate the same tit-for-tat trade wars around the globe, how many international firms really have the option of suddenly cranking up production here?

Protectionism just doesn't work.  At first it might appear to have some logic in times like these.  Certainly any politician will be concerned about "how it looks" if the taxpayer's dollars ultimately appear to be boosting the bottom lines of non-American firms.  But these attitudes are based on simple ignorance of how interconnected the world is today.  "Buy American" has a legitimate place in the market, when it develops as the individual consumer's preference based on cost and quality, but legislating it is misguided. 

No doubt we'll work through these issues; as the stimulus money is paid out and runs through the pipeline, maybe things can get back to normal.  Meanwhile, this whole exercise, touched off mainly by Democratic legislators' input to economic recovery efforts, only proves that the Republican Party doesn't have a monopoly on reactionary thinking.

Cry For Chrysler Dealers And Their Customers

Today brings news that Chrysler has let a big shoe drop, proposing - subject to bankruptcy court approval - to close nearly 800 dealerships, about 1/4 of the total.  Tears and accusations are flying freely.  Clearly, on a human scale, we should lament the effect of this decision on the dealers affected, many of which are family businesses, all of which collectively employ large numbers of people who will also be losing their jobs in this economy.  As a last insult, apparently Chrysler won't even take back the cars these dealers have in inventory.  Is all this fair? No.  Ethical?  Perhaps not.  Legal? Probably, but the court will decide. 

Finally, is it good business?  Yes, unfortunately. Nearly every analysis of the industry has indicated that one of the big drains on the U.S. auto companies' viability is the till-death-do-us-part arrangements by which the companies weren't free to drop dealers.  It's parallel to their over-generous contracts with unions. You can argue, if you like, that unions are getting a better deal than dealers, but that's basically irrelevant.  The need for change in both areas is pretty clear.  A paradigm shift is occurring in this industry.  If it works, the industry and perhaps the country's manufacturing base will be better off in the long run.  If it doesn't and Chrysler still can't be saved, then the dealers getting dropped now may be counting their blessings in a year or two.

On the business side of the equation, it's worth noting that despite ads earlier this week from dealer associations urging the government to save them, and despite recriminations from dealers today after the decision, Treasury has said they had no hand in the decision, and I see no reason to doubt that. As I suggested a couple of months ago, when the big Execs of the Big Three made their way to Washington to ask for money, they knew they were in trouble and were looking for cover -- Uncle Sam -- to be able to escape some of the onus of hard decisions they knew they faced.  Both the Bush and Obama administrations have acquiesced in that little shell game, for better or worse, so "government" is likely to get some blame it doesn't deserve.

For future Chrysler customers, the decision to cut dealers means fewer places to dicker for price, maybe fewer places to repair a vehicle.  More important, I suspect, is that the cuts seem to favor big chains over the older locally-owned family dealers.  Some in the industry are already saying this means lower prices for consumers.  That's possible, but I'm a bit dubious.   Chains are in a better position to keep prices high, especially when there's less competition from independent dealers; and I suspect they will have less of a commitment to service, less of a commitment to building a lasting customer relationship, and less inclination to involve themselves in the community.  But again, all of that just reflects realities of the auto market these days.

Cheney As Red Riding Hood

There's another side to the recent statements by former Vice President Cheney regarding interrogation techniques (see yesterday's post).  That is intelligence.  Not Cheney's, but the CIA kind. 

Much of the controversy surrounding the war in Iraq, the role of Bin Laden, and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has to do with our information-gathering and more critically, the analysis thereof:  Whether Saddam had biological or chemical weapons, for example; or whether one obscure report about terrorists learning to fly airplanes should have been enough to alert us to 9/11.  Now Cheney has introduced another; in the recent flap over interrogation techniques, he claims to have seen CIA memos detailing how harsh interrogation has revealed plots and saved lives.  

Intelligence in this sense is not raw information; good intel is a product of analyzing, sifting, evaluating and synthesizing information, sources, and their reliability.  It should never be skewed or tailored to fit somebody's preconceived notions, but in my experience, it too often is, especially by the CIA.  Policymakers are seldom subtle about what they hope the intel will show; in turn, senior CIA bureaucrats (don't blame the analysts for this) unfortunately are not shy about slanting things in the right direction, particularly when the evidence isn't conclusive.  After all, those policymakers approve their budget. For their part, people in decision-making positions too often take intelligence as gospel, or they see a single information report and take it to be conclusive "intel."  When the Bush administration started insisting on seeing raw reports from the field for themselves, they made a serious blunder because they had no idea how to interpret them.

So Cheney may be telling the truth.  Of course he saw memos "documenting" the success of extreme interrogations (and I'd be surprised if there were only two of them).  The question is, should he have believed them?  Did he read them with a skeptic's eye?  Probably not.  Not only was it evident what the Administration wanted to hear, but the agency needed to justify itself.  Putting the best face on Cheney's recent statements, we must assume that he played Red Riding Hood to the Agency's wolf, except that he was eaten in one gulp because no woodsman appeared at the last minute to save him.  (The worst face would be that he is willfully misrepresenting the record - also a possibility.)

Columnists like Richard Cohen, as unversed in intel as the Red Riding Hood version of Cheney, join the former VP in urging that we open up the CIA memos to decide whether extreme interrogation really does work.  There may be reasons to declassify the memos (I predict it won't happen), but even if we do, they won't give us a credible answer to that question.  There could be truth in them, but there would likely be just as much self-justification; they would need to be taken with a whole truckload of salt that neither the public nor journalists would be qualified to provide. 

Personally, I think that waterboarding and similar techniques probably do work sometimes, but the difficulty is in determining when you're getting the truth, and when you're just getting what the source thinks you want to hear.  In that respect, it's sort of like reading CIA memos. 

Dick Cheney Cries Wolf

Someone let former Veep Dick Cheney out in public again to repeat his accusations that Obama-administration actions such as dismantling the Guantanamo prison camp and banning torture as a prisoner interrogration technique will make the country less safe.  As many observers have already commented, Cheney's motivation is suspect, coming as it does amid calls to prosecute those who conducted the extreme interrogations and even those policymakers like Cheney, who enthusiastically approved them.  Further, he is the original boy who cried wolf too often; his credibility is nil, except with his die-hard conservative political base. 

So - why repeat the same shopworn warnings now, when he must discern that he's unlikely to persuade anyone, and trying to do so violates a long-standing tradition by which senior officials of an outgoing administration refrain from comment on actions of their successors?  Is it because he's an addled old geezer or a psychopathic liar? Maybe.  Is it because he's such a patriot?  That may be convincing to the GOP's true believers, but hardly to anyone else.  His views are known, and written in the blood shed by the previous administration.  The only answer I can find is that it's a cynical attempt to gain political traction.

Cheney's "prediction" that we're less safe is a carefully constructed self-fulfilling prophecy.  Events can only prove him right; never wrong.  Terrorists are not so dumb that they don't learn from their mistakes.  At some point, some group will study our weaknesses (security is never absolute) and may succeed in wreaking mayhem on a U.S. target again.  To do so, they'll have to maintain their secrecy, just as they did prior to the attacks of 2001, so that no form of interrogation of anyone will be able to uncover the plot before it occurs.  Nevertheless, Cheney will be triumphantly jumping up and down to say "I told you so - better vote Republican!"  If his weak heart drops him before then, I'm sure Rush Limbaugh will do the jumping (now there's a picture to make grown men quail!). 

Presidents and Vice Presidents of both parties have traditionally avoided critiquing the actions of their successors.  It's the humility of "there but for the grace of God go I."  Every administration faces its own unique combination of threats, circumstances, and just plain lucky breaks; the "outs" recognize this and wish the new administration well, knowing that in a new crisis, the distractions of their carping from the sidelines would complicate decisions and disrupt national unity.  

If Cheney were half the patriot he claims to be, he would see that the real casualty in the scenario above would be the sense of nonpartisanship that has guided us in the past.  Personally, I think national security is too important to be turned into a political football.  Those who do so are putting their country second, and they are a greater threat to our security than any policy on interrogrations.