Morning Fog

Guns And Butter

I enjoyed Ezra Klein's column about how we fund our wars in the U.S., and commend it to your attention.

There is a lot of good sensible talk here about being honest with ourselves:  Putting war costs in the budget, rather than under "emergency funding" where they aren't really examined; and thinking ahead to provide estimates of cost for different scenarios, not just the one where we achieve our goal immediately and come home in a week (believe it or not, that rarely happens).

This all made me think, though, about another issue that seems constantly to elude our understanding.  As Klein says at the outset, war costs money.  Lots of it.  It's something we need to understand when we consider why the U.S., often characterized as the richest country in the world, "can't afford" essential services like universal health care, the simple repair/maintenance of our infrastructure, or investment in the technology of the future; and why we lag behind other developed nations in this areas.   That's too complex a question to be answered simply, but surely ONE major cause is that we spend far too much on our wars.

In economics textbooks the standard example of this spending paradox was producing "guns" or/and "butter."   For years we have thought we could do both; administrations of both parties have encouraged us to believe we could.  But over time, the strain of longer and longer wars begins to take its toll, and we get less butter.  It can't continue indefinitely.

On related topics, specifically our most recent venture vis-a-vis Libya, I can also recommend two op-ed pieces that appeared today:  Gideon Rosewrites about the failure of our leaders, reaching back to FDR and Truman, to think ahead about outcomes before committing to war; Dan Byman considers the ways in which a "simple" no-fly zone in Libya might become complicated.

Krauthammer Speaks Out On Libya

Charles Krauthammer's column on Libya is his usual one-track, blind, absurd, neoCon drivel.

(By the way, there's nothing "neo"
about neoCons any more -
they're very old and stale.)

As the intrepid columnist insists, yes, the Libya situation is quite a mess - both the Libya part, and the effort to do something about it.  That was clear from the start, and it's one reason I think Obama made the wrong decision to get involved at all.  That said, however, I also believe he went at it the right way, by getting others to pick up part of the burden -- particularly those who were advocating it.

The conservative approach, channeled here by Krauthammer, is to leap into such messes with both feet and see if we can't make them worse, while the expense of doing so drives our own country into financial ruin.  That's the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan, and of a "Decider" who thought nothing of committing billions in American money and thousands of lives just to get a rematch with the guy who made of fool of his Daddy.  Reagan, at least, knew how to choose his fights, by picking on tiny Grenada.

When it comes to overseas adventurism, regressives scream loudly that the U.S. must be leading every effort.   Yet in demonstrating leadership on domestic matters, Republicans fail miserably, preferring to abdicate to Gaddafiesque big business on the "little, insignificant" issues like the economy, pollution, health care, climate change, consumer protections, food purity, and so many more. 

Undoing The Legacy Of Elbridge Gerry

Elbridge Gerry, ye knew not what ye wrought.   Or perhaps ye did.  Anyway, the legacy to which you lent your name, gerrymandering, lives on...... and on ....... and on .... as politicians of both parties continue to redefine political boundaries in a way that is calculated to benefit their party's election chances.  It's become so common a practice that our elected representatives don't even pretend to be shamed by it; in fact, they announce their intentions to commit it.

In the U.S., of course, a whole new wave of gerrymandering (no, I will NOT call it a tsunami) is being generated by the census of 2010.  In many states, adjustments will need to be made as varying regional population growth rates cause a few states to lose or gain a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.  Many more changes will occur at state levels.  Such is the case in Virginia, where the process is off to an early start because we will be electing state officials in November 2011.

Here (and possibly in other places as well) there's a laudable new effort afoot to do away with the legacy of Eldridge Gerry.  University students have been invited to compete in producing sensibly defined electoral districts without the strange-looking and confusing borders that have become typical.  I'm also glad to hear that Virginia Governor McDonnell has a bipartisan commission working to produce guidelines for redistricting that should be made public next week.

Hopeful as these steps are, unfortunately there is no guarantee that the recommendations produced will be taken into account.   Incumbents already have one built-in excuse for continuing business as usual:  With elections pending just seven months from now, there will be a rush to complete the redistricting process, so that tweaking the existing (and badly gerrymandered) district maps can be billed as a necessary timesaver. 

Still, sponsors of the student competition, and of the state commission, hope that publicizing their efforts to produce a clear and better alternative will make it more difficult for politicians to create safe seats for themselves.  This would be a great stride forward. 

Libya Sweeps The Op-Ed Page

Yesterday's editorial page in the Washington Post produced something I'm not sure I've ever seen before.  All five of the columnists represented there had written about the same topic:  The administration's decision to get involved in enforcing a no-fly zone to protect the anti-Qaddafi forces.

Specifically,

• Anne Applebaum seemed most concerned about the "what then" factor, i.e., if our no-fly zone was insufficient to make Qaddafi fold his tents, wouldn't we be pulled into a widening role as we tried to bring about the desired end result?  (It's this concern that was foremost in my mind when I said I thought the decision to get involved was a mistake.)
• Richard Cohen was more concerned about how Obama reached his decision, stressing "incoherence" and "confusion" in the process.
• Michael Gerson was also concerned about how and when the decision was made. He took the predictable fallback position of Republicans, that the U.S. must always be out there leading the charge because ... well, just because.
• Eugene Robinson wrote a thoughtful piece clearly lamenting that the Obama decision is based upon realism in foreign policy.  I say, what's wrong with realism?  His realism is that we only go militarily after errant countries who aren't friendly to us; my realism is that we shouldn't jump into something without a clearer idea of exactly what we are getting into.
• Finally, George Will expatiates on that very theme (like Applebaum) -- how can we avoid mission creep, and why should we think that it's our duty to expend blood and treasure being the world's policeman ... is it enough to say "because we can?"

The common thread in all this learned punditry was that nobody is especially happy with the President's decision -- it was wrong, it was right; he took too long to decide, he decided rashly;  he did the right thing but for the wrong reasons, or he stated the right reasons but took the wrong action.   The old adage is that if you manage to piss off everyone equally, you must have got it just about right.  I'm not retracting my original thumbs-down on U.S. participation in the Libya no-fly zone, but the wide range of opinion certainly expresses the difficulties any administration faces in such situations.  It's no-win.

Does The U.S. Now Have A War In Libya?

It now appears that we will be engaged in at least some level of military activity in Libya.

Too bad.  I think it's a mistake.  True, as time has passed, we found allies to join us, an Arab League call for intervention, and a UN Security Council resolution permitting action against Qaddafi.  I suspect we may also have engineered with some of the participating Allies (particularly France) that they will take the lead while we hold back.  (Early reports are suggesting that France has been the first to strike militarily against the Libyan loyalist forces.)

Interventionists in the U.S. have argued that this is a human rights issue (because Qaddafi is killing his own people), or one of political freedom (because the rebels are seeking democratic change).  Both arguments seem weak to me.   We've never really taken military action just because a deranged dictator was murdering his own people.  We fought Hitler mainly for other reasons (and found out about the killing later); we did nothing about Stalin, Ceaucescu, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, or a host of others.   As for democracy, I don't think we really know what the Libyan rebels stand for politically.  Being against Qaddafi doesn't necessarily make them democrats.

Ultimately, it seems to me, Obama has given in to political pressures, some international but the more pressing ones home-grown.  He felt he couldn't afford to be seen as a do-nothing while Qaddafi snuffs out "democracy" in Libya.   In U.S. domestic politics, it's always the out-of-power party that shouts loudest about supporting human rights and democracy in other countries but when they're in power, they seem content to accept the status quo and the stability it offers.  In this case, I really wonder if the Republicans could use inaction effectively as a political blunt instrument.  I don't believe most Americans care that deeply.

So, we have established a new, potentially costly and dangerous precedent for intervention.  It may also turn out that we're supporting a lost cause.  One justification offered for intervening today was that the rebel forces were being defeated more quickly than anticipated.  To me, that's an argument for remaining on the sidelines - that kind of weakness only suggests they may not triumph even with foreign intervention.  Or that our intervention could lead to back to the status quo ante, with Qaddafi basically still in charge but perhaps chastened enough to be wary of too vicious a crackdown on his opponents.

It's axiomatic in diplomacy that when unexpected events occur - especially if we can't immediately be certain they run in our favor - politicians start demanding that we "do something about it."   As if we could!  And if we could, it wouldn't necessarily be in our interest to do so.   If Libya's rebels do succeed in toppling Qaddafi and taking the reins of power, does that benefit us?  Will the new government thank us, or might they become just another radical thorn in our side?  I have my doubts.  Will radical muslim governments elsewhere think better of us, or cooperate more willingly, because of our support for this Libyan movement?  Dream on.

Earlier, I pointed out that among the various uprisings of popular anti-government sentiment across the Middle East and North Africa, some would fail, some succeed.  Events to this point suggest that Libya would, if left to its own devices, be one of the former.  For the long term, our best option may have been to allow them to do so.  Democracy-building is a slow process; would-be democrats will be stronger in the long run if they make, and learn from, their own mistakes.  They won't learn from ours. 

Some say even we don't learn from ours.

 

Costs Of Daylight Time Outweigh Benefits, Says Morning Fog

Regular readers by now might think I had not noticed that the U.S. went on daylight saving time last Sunday.  Rest assured that I didn't.  

Yes, spring is in the air, the witch hazel bloomed as usual in February, the forsythia has sythed, the crocuses have croaked, and daffodils are poking out, the birds are getting more active -- and across all this timeless scene of cheer and renewal, we choose to cast a pall of darkness.   One day the morning walk is pleasant, and the next, it's back to stumbling around in the dark.

I've pointed out many times that "daylight saving" saves nothing, least of all energy, a fact that even Congressman Ed Markey's skewed attempt at self-justification (a Department of Energy study) has been unable to refute. 

We need to realize that any infinitesimal saving of energy that might result from "daylight time" (accidental and random, if any) is counterbalanced by more measurable negative effects:

• The increase in heart attacks as we shift from daylight to "normal" time and back again has been documented.
• Working folks who need to get their exercise before going to work (or who are just plain early risers) are deprived of sunlight, which stimulates the body to produce essential vitamin D.  What are the health consequences to the nation?  Will we all look as pasty as Congressman Markey?
• The time and effort involved in running around setting our clocks forward and back, if it were studied, would surely turn out to be significant.  Of course the electronic gadgets reset themselves automatically these days (unless you're the owner of an iPad, apparently) but oddly, the number of those that do not is also growing.  In the latter category, around my house, are the microwave (admittedly old), security system (likewise), and four recently installed thermostats, all of which must be reset manually.  Not to mention a half-dozen clocks, two or three wristwatches, and the clock in the car.  It takes an hour to get to them all.  And that's just a single home.  Multiply by millions.  Multiply by adjustments needed in factories and workplaces.  It's huge, and it far overshadows those much-touted but fictitious benefits we derive from "daylight saving."

Health Care "Mandate" -- Will, Be Done

George Will wrote a terrible column this week about the constitutionality of the health care "mandate."

I'm afraid it hasn't done anything to convince me I was wrong months ago when I argued the mandate is self-evidently legal (as long as we keep politics out of the judgment).  Nothing of substance has changed since then.

Will should really be ashamed, not just of the arguments he makes here, but of the way he makes them. 

First, ashames for adopting the shibboleths of the extreme right wing.  It is as wrong for a supposedly respected columnist to refer to the health care bill passed last year as "Obamacare" as it is to refer to the estate tax as the "death tax."  The term is, of course, intended to color people's opinion of the law by subtly associating it with something they don't like -- is it Obama personally, Democrats as a group, or maybe just black people?  It's tempting to use this shorthand, but don't, if you're serious.

"Obamacare" isn't accurate anyway.  The bill as we see it was shaped by a thousand forces, including extremists of the left and right, the health care "industry," and countless others.  I believe we would see a very different product if the bill had been drafted by the White House and passed without change.

Second, shame again for failing to note that the whole "universal mandate" concept was proposed originally by Republicans, the staunch defenders of the Constitution as they interpret it.  Are we to believe that Republicans purposely suggested an idea that either they knew to be unconstitutional, or that they now have studied again (in light of what -- all the changes that have been made in the Constitution over the past 25 years?) and completely reversed their opinion?  I don't buy it, George, and you shouldn't either.  It's evident that the current Republican objections to the legality of the "mandate" are motivated strictly by political considerations. 

Shame again for perpetuating the red herring that only the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution can provide constitutional underpinning for the mandate.  Personally, I like the "general welfare" clause, which provides everything that's needed.

The worst effect of taking the constitutionality argument seriously is that it puts the Supreme Court in the position once again of adjudicating a political issue.  With its legitimacy already cast in shadow by other decisions, the court doesn't need to get embroiled in another divisive issue that has little to do with law, and which will be controversial no matter which way it decides.

Is A Return To Sanity Possible?

There was a lot of sense in George Will's column Sunday.  Will noted that even the most apolitical of citizens, with far more immediate concerns on their minds than a Presidential race that's two years away, might start to notice "vibrations of weirdness" in some of the self-proclaimed Republican candidates.   Will points out that the "birther" concept is extreme nonsense, and it is hard to take seriously a candidate (Mike Huckabee) who refuses to label it as such. 

Another case of weird emanations not mentioned by Will is the curious grandstanding by Rep. Peter King with his plans to investigate radicalism in the U.S. Muslim community.

At its heart, what's lacking here is something I've complained of in the past:  We can't break out of our political straitjacket unless politicians are willing to philosophically and rhetorically disown the worst extremists of their political "base." Few, alas, are willing to do so.

Another way of tackling the problem of timidity in truth-telling that could have some success is what's now being tried by a handful of Senators who have dubbed themselves the Gang of Six -- get a buddy from the other party, and the two of you can team up to try to get both sides to listen.  These guys are trying to tell the turth about dealing with the deficit.  It's not clear yet that they're having any impact, but most of them are well-connected enough to their party's leadership that they might gain some traction.  We should welcome such efforts. 

Student Voting

There seems to be another little culture-war tempest brewing over the matter of college student voting.   The "cause du jour" is in New Hampshire, where Republicans in the state assembly say they want to curtail current lenient policies regarding student registration.  Specifically, there is talk of (a) requiring most students to vote in the towns they came from rather than where they attend college; and (b) eliminating immediate election-day registration. 

The comments on this article (quite a large number of them) fall along predictable lines, with conservatives applauding the move and liberals crying foul.  

I don't buy this as a culture-war issue, however; there is no Democratic or Republican side to it.  

Students of voting age should certainly be able to vote somewhere. Students may have some equities in local issues but by and large, they are temporary and/or part-time residents in the places where they go to school. The fact that it might be a little more difficult and time consuming to vote absentee in their home towns is irrelevant.  If they are old enough to vote, they ought to be responsible enough to apply for an absentee ballot before the deadline.  At the same time, however, those who feel more linked to their adopted  hometowns should be able to choose to register in their college towns if they want.

The corollary, though, is that there must not be any opening that would permit students to vote in both places.   With electronic record-keeping these days, it ought to be possible to ensure that if a student registers himself to vote in "University City," his registration in "Hometown USA" would be automatically canceled.  Otherwise, the system is open to fraud.  In that same vein, it seems self-evident to me that last-minute registration is potentially fraught with fraud; doing away with it shouldn't be too great a hardship.  (Again, we'd have to rely on students to show some inkling of how to plan ahead but hey, if they don't have that after all that college education, so be it.)

Now, having said this isn't a partisan political issue, I must point out that the speaker of the New Hampshire assembly, one William O'Brien, seems to have gone out of his way to make it one, succeeding only in making an ass of himself in the process with this statement:

They're "foolish," Speaker William O'Brien said in a recent speech to a tea party group. "Voting as a liberal. That's what kids do," he added, his comments taped by a state Democratic Party staffer and posted on YouTube. Students lack "life experience," and "they just vote their feelings."

So for O'Brien, it is about politics, and he makes no bones about it.  For his benefit I paraphrase one of the many comments from readers of the above article:  If it's true that college students all tend to vote "liberal," maybe that's because they're the educated ones. 

Or maybe this is more persuasive:   the geriatric set represented by O'Brien is just as foolish -- "voting as a regressive," that's what they do, and "they just vote their prejudices."

Even At The Local Level, Religion And Politics Don't Mix

I liked the little story I saw this morning about one local Maryland county commissioner by the name of Paul Smith.  "Liked" it, because it so clearly illustrates the dangers of mixing politics and religion.

Mr. Smith, it turns out, is a self-described devout Mormon.  And because he is, he wants to use his political position to apply Mormon religious doctrine to everyone in his county.  He explained his vote to cut the local HeadStart program by expounding his belief that "a woman's place is in the home."  No need to have a program to take care of the kids of working parents, who should just stay home with the kids instead (he's referring only to the women, of course).  Having stated this in a hearing on the issue, Smith should be grateful that he wasn't beaten to a bloody pulp.

The Commissioner is entitled to these quaint notions as a part of his faith and of his personal life choice.  Anyone may choose to be a narrow-minded bigot - in private.  But souch people shouldn't run for public office; and when they do, and when voters are foolish enough to elect them, they should have enough humility to see that they're not gods.  They become the representative of all the people; they lose the right to try to impose their worldview on everyone.   If they can't restrain themselves, then perhaps, to paraphrase Smith himself, they should just "stay home."

The Smiths of the world need to recognize that precisely because we live in a multi-faith society, our politics must remain secular.  To inject, or worse, try to legislate, the doctrines of one or another church is to descend into the morass of religious persecution - the kind of stuff which motivated our ancestors to flee Merrie Olde England. 

John F. Kennedy, as a Roman Catholic Presidential candidate, was controversial because of his religion, but validated voters' trust by avoiding religious justifications for his legislative proposals.  Richard Nixon was a Quaker but did not carry his pacifism into his foreign policy.  Voters still need to be extremely careful in assessing the religious intentions of the candidates they vote for.