Morning Fog

I was surprised to find, a couple of days after my last post ("U.S. Foreign Policy Interests: The Remedy for Trouble at the Core"), that no regular columnist seemed to have analyzed Obama's statement at the UN the way I did.   In fact, one or two of them (Jackson Diehl and Eugene Robinson) pretty much echoed what the Post had written.

Still, it seems pretty obvious to me.  If I were to put it in terms closer to home, I might imagine a family analyzing its vital interests (these things are instinctual at that level, but let's pretend our family tried to "analyze" it).  No doubt they would include food, water, shelter, and security... maybe in modern times, even clothing, transportation, and education for the kids.   But would any sane family define its vital interests to include ensuring that their neighbor went to church on Sunday?

The failure of supposedly sharp political commentators of either side to even analyze what Obama's statement might mean unfortunately demonstrates the degree to which "promoting democracy" has achieved mythic status.  It spells continued trouble for the future. 

U.S. Foreign Policy Interests - The Remedy for 'Trouble at the Core'

Today's Washington Post editorial  laments that in his speech at the UN, Obama failed to list the "promotion of democracy" as one of the U.S.'s "core interests."  It claims that Obama is abandoning a longstanding U.S. policy dating back for decades, and that his omission "diminishes the U.S. soldiers and diplomats who have sacrificed to far higher purpose...."

In my opinion, that's pure fantasy.  First let's be clear that the phrase "promotion of democracy" carries an unwritten tail: "...in other countries."  Was that truly a policy espoused by Roosevelt or Kennedy?  Only as a myth to drag us into war.  Maybe they believed the propaganda they fed the troops, that we were fighting for "democracy," when in reality we were fighting to preserve our (and Europe's) preeminence in the global balance of power.  And yes, also because we were appalled at the inhumanity we saw in Nazi Germany - but that's human rights, not democracy.  It was nice that Europe was mostly democratic, but didn't we also fight with that famous democrat Joseph Stalin?  Did we promote democracy abroad in those days?  How could when only some of us had it at home until the mid-1960s?

No, the concept of actively imposing democracy upon other countries came rather later, perhaps with Reagan.  He had some success in deposing dictators peacefully (Marcos), while "promotion of democracy" still remained a potent excuse for going to war.  But I suspect Roosevelt and Kennedy did so cynically, while later exemplars from Reagan to Bush II came to actually believe the myth. 

To make "promoting democracy" a core of our foreign policy is to announce to other nations that we intend to meddle in their government even when they pose no risk to us.  We didn't much like it when the Soviets made the promotion of communism one of their core interests.  Our real power to inspire -- the reason that "farmers in Venezuela and Indonesia ... hung pictures of JFK on their walls" -- was not because they expected us to come in and hand them democracy on a platter, but because we represented a shining example -- something we don't and can't do if we insist on "promoting democracy" as a core interest. That makes us a global threat. 

We promote democracy by our example; we promote it by furthering human rights; certainly we promote it by applauding and preferring democratic solutions (e.g. free elections) when those are initiated by governments that think of them and institute them on their own.  But the concept has been extended and mythologized too far -- our real interests lie in political, military, and economic factors. 

If Obama can succeed in restoring balance and realism to our foreign policy, it could be his most lasting legacy as President.    

"The Week" That Was, Is. But Will It Be?

I recently had the chance to browse through a copy of a newish magazine -- the rather unflashily titled "The Week."   It is a slightly new take on the weekly newsmagazine, with shorter articles but (it seemed to me) a broader reach. 

Though I didn't find much I probably couldn't have read in an exhaustive perusal of the Washington Post, I enjoyed seeing more blurbs about developments outside the U.S., the publication of opinion pieces from around the world, and some of the coverage of "less serious" yet still interesting news (e.g., why parents are lining up Twitter accounts for their newborns). 

On the other hand, I also felt that in an age where we want all our news focused with razor precision on our own interests, beliefs, and prejudices, a magazine that seeks to cover all bases is really bucking a trend. The trouble with trying to be all things to all people is that not all people want all things. "The Week," for example, has book reviews, food news, selected political cartoons, and even a real estate section.

The publication, like many these days, offers both online and mail/hardcopy subscriptions.  The latter might seem to be in particular danger of having its life cut short; some will see its old-school, print journalism component as a hopeless throwback.  Certainly that will limit its appeal, but it may turn out to be, for a while, a perfect "niche" publication, just as there are still people who seek out their music on LPs, and others who eschew digital music players, and even the older transistorized ones, in favor of those vacuum tubes dating from Edison's day.  

A better example, perhaps:  Just about three years ago, as Borders Bookstores died their rather drawn-out death, a new small bookstore - One More Page - opened not far from me.  We all thought it was a foolish venture... How could they hope to survive?  Wasn't everybody turning to e-books?  It turns out, "not necessarily."  Recent reports suggest that the surge in e-book sales is slowing, and that a huge proportion of those that are sold are popular fiction titles, while many people still seem to prefer print books in other categories, like history, biography, self-help, cookbooks, children's books, and the like.  Further, readers like the personal attention that a knowlegeable bookstore savant can offer.  So far, One More Page is doing just fine, thank you.

It will be interesting to see if "The Week" can survive, possibly even prosper, in either of its formats -- a digital version designed for tablets, and/or a traditional print publication if it doesn't decide to specialize its content.   

 

True Denial

"Politics Makes Morons of us all," concludes Kevin Drum at Motherjones.com, in summation of a recent study by Yale Law professor Dan Kahan.  Kahan, it seems, tested people who had identified themselves as "conservatives" or "liberals" by giving members of each group a set of concocted statistics on the question of whether a gun ban led to an increase in crime.  Some got information clearly indicating "increases crime," while others got information with equally persuasive evidence that a ban "decreases crime." 

The interesting finding was that the participants, all of whom had previously proven their ability to perform basic mathematical analysis, nevertheless came up with different answers about what the data showed, depending on their political views.  Many liberals, presented with data that a ban on guns led to an increase in crime, often erroneously concluded just the opposite; conservatives whose available data showed a clear correlation between a weapons ban and decreased crime nevertheless insisted that the data showed increased crime.

As with so much "social science" research, this study shows us what we already knew heuristically:  People tend to get set into an opinion that matches their preconceived notions and are not likely to be dissuaded by even the most unbiased evidence to the contrary.  In popular parlance, this is "Don't confuse me with facts! My mind is already made up!"  So we shouldn't be surprised.

This being the case, we have less reason to wonder why our political environment nowadays seems so fractured.

But we should also keep in mind another truism:  "You can prove anything with statistics."  Finding unbiased statistical analysis of social and legal issues and their consequences has become increasing difficult in today's internet-dependent world.  Everybody has an ax to grind.  And that being the case, it may be that the subjects of Kahan's study are simply exhibiting a healthy skepticism about the sources and reliability of the statistics they read.

So, don't take my word for it, or even Mother Jones's -- you can Link to the original study by Dr. Dan Kahan of Yale Law School.

 

Out Of The Way? Or Way Out?

The record of Republican obstructionism in American politics continues to grow.  Two recent developments:

As today's Washington Post editorial says, the GOP in many states is seeking to gut the Affordable Care Act by blocking funds for parts of it, refusing to extend the law's benefits to the people of their state, and even to ignore specific provisions of the law (such as allowing insurance companies to operate even if they continue to deny insurance for existing conditions).  We might hope that voters in the states affected by these moronic tactics would soon put paid to the politicians who deploy them.  Or (better suggestion) these die-hard politicians should "get out of the way" of the implementation of the law of the land.

Elsewhere I see reports from the border area of Texas that hardly anyone living in those states supports the Republican-favored idea that any immigration reform must be accompanied by still more physical barriers on the border.  As these Texans observe, there are already two and three layers of fence in some of these border areas; adding more doesn't make sense.

In both these cases, Republicans are committing the mortal sin of which they frequently accuse the "liberals," Democrats, or even the government:  Deciding for others what they need.  It isn't new.  The fact is that both parties, when in power, do a certain amount of that -- their political bias leads them to solutions that not everyone likes.  And political excess leads eventually to changes in public perception that are fleshed out at the ballot box. 

The problem with the current GOP trend is that it's self-defeating.  It may play well in some locales, but by and large, it serves only to reinforce the existing perception that the party is more interested in dogma than in solving practical problems.  Republican excess has already put them in an electoral hole; continuing it, when they aren't able to win elections anyway, only digs them in deeper.  Rather than continuing to be "way out" (of the mainstream) they need to get out of the way, while they figure out how to get on their way back.

Syrian Lemons Can Make Excellent Lemonade

Let's be honest:  The U.S. response toward the ongoing battle between the Syrian government and oppositionists has been feckless.  And fecklessness, I'm sorry to say, continues in the latest developments, with President Obama deciding to ask Congress for approval he doesn't need, to take action he clearly doesn't want to take.

From the start (define "start"? - maybe six months or a year ago) it seemed to me that Obama's course, based upon not getting involved in yet another military action in the Middle East, was a wise and practical one.  Our military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, whether you care to judge them "successful" or not, have weakened our military, contributed to unintended economic consequences (including rising oil prices and that little hiccup we experienced from 2009 to 2012), and made the entire country war-weary.  With recovery still sputtering and the country deeply divided along political lines, why get into another one?

So to many of us, it seemed Obama was on the right course.  And perhaps if he had stated at the outset that nothing would persuade him to intervene militarily in Syria, and stuck by his (un)guns, we wouldn't see him as dithering.  But then came his more recent decision to "take action" in Syria, which came as a surprise, to me at least, partly because he had so obviously not wanted to go there, and partly because he insisted at first he would do so regardless of Congress and regardless of our allies' willingness to participate.  

Incidentally, I'd argue that if military action were the course to choose, it ought to have been chosen back at that "start," rather than now, belatedly and certainly ineffectually -- this  uppercut to Assad's jaw has been telegraphed so frequently that it can't possibly have any stopping power (unless maybe Assad laughs himself to death). 

But back to the main story line: We're told that a mysterious walk with Presidential advisor Denis McDonough changed Obama's mind.  Again.  Now, the President will seek Congress's OK.  No reporting I've seen really explains what McDonough may have said that was so convincing.  Until the details come out in memoirs, I'll probably choose to believe that the British example provided him both motivation and means for backing away from the brink on which he was teetering.

For the country (this country), the airing of Congressional opinion may not be a bad thing.  If it results in a call to "no action," I won't think of that as a bad thing either.   Meanwhile, it's too late for Obama to make it appear that he has a feck to give; no matter what, he'll come across as indecisive. 

But if the entire Syria mess is a truckload of lemons, having key Republicans (and to a lesser extent Democrats as well) on record as for, against, or in between may be the lemonade come election time a year or three years from now.