The Citizens

Bell Curve

The Law Talking Guy

Raised by Republicans

U.S. West

Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Friday, May 14, 2004

Site Update

We (we? Who am I kidding) I have changed the comments feature of the site to use Blogger's comments, a new feature. Haloscan's commenting feature had some problems -- it made page loading slower and it restricted the length of comments. Blogger's should do neither. Unfortunately, all the old comments are now gone, but all of your opinions were worthless anyway :)

Thursday, May 13, 2004

Geneva Conventions

Wolfowitz is now admitting that some of the interrogation procedures we used in Iraq - the official ones under the "manual" - violate the Geneva convention. Senator Reed asked if these would be a violation if American soldiers were subject to the same. He was forced to admit it would be.

Will the Congress dare to demand that we behave in accordance with the treaty, which is, under Article VI of the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land?

Take a look at the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War. It is quite explicit in what is permissible.

Also Article Article 12, of interest to Messrs. Bush and Rumsfeld:

"Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them."

More Poll stuff

Thanks Ross for the URL: http://www.dailykos.com/ The link to the most recent numbers from Ohio is: http://americanresearchgroup.com/ohg/

To the rest of you, it's a great website with lots of information. However, its clearly a pro-Democrat site so visitors should approach what they say with some healthy skepticism.

The same guy runs a website about state politics at http://www.polstate.com/. One of the postings on that site from March said that the Cuban emigre community in Florida was getting really ticked off at Bush about what they thought was lack of action against Castro. That might explain the recent series of new sanctions against Cuba that Bush announced in April.

More Polling News

Hi Again,

Just a couple of tidbits from the world of polls.

First, an Associated Press poll of registered voters found that 50% want Democrats to control Congress compared to 41% who want Republicans to control Congress. Now, keep in mind that this is a national poll and Congressional elections are heavily dependent on local district boundaries and the geographical distribution of Democrats and Republicans. But it does provide another indication that Bush and Republicans in general are being blamed for the widely perceived "wrong track" that the country is on. That seems fair to me since the GOP controls the White House and Congress - hard for them to blame Democrats under those circumstances.

Second, I heard on CNN earlier that Kerry is ahead in Ohio now 49% to 42%. I haven't been able to verify that number on the web. If anyone can find a recent (since May 5th) poll from Ohio or any of the other swing states, I'd really like to know where to find it.

Alternative Suggestion

I don't like it when people criticize my suggested approaches without supplying alternatives so I will offer one here.

Step 1) Establish an independent counsel to investigate the torture/abuse scandal. It is beginning to look like no one above the rank of sergeant is going to get court martialed over this. If that turns out to be true, the Iraqis will not respect or believe statements by US authorities that issue is behind us.

Step 2) Remove George W. Bush as President. His ignorance and incompetence are now combined with alienated allies. We probably can't succeed in Iraq alone. We certainly can't succeed in Iraq if our policy is a stumbling muddle conceived by an ideological and poorly informed leadership and implemented without any oversight.

Step 3) Stop trying to hand pick Iraq's leaders. If people like Sistani or former Baathists really are the popular leaders in their respective communities we should accept that. We should concentrate on guiding and enforcing the institutions within which those factions will compete politically.

Step 4) Invite increased participation by Western Europeans. Offer to increase our troop levels in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo to relieve pressure on the over extended European militaries.

Step 5) Ultimately we will have to leave Iraq. It will be best for the Iraqis if they see us leave on something approaching their terms. I'm not saying we should allowed Iraqi mass opinion or levels of political violence drive the policy. However, it would be mistake to think that Iraq will be well served by the US alone dictating the terms of our own departure.

Chechenya and Iraq

Great analysis Law Talking Guy! I didn't realize there was a connection between Ingushetia and Chechenya. Isn't Ingushetia the part of Georgia that has been undergoing a lot of unrest?

I just have two areas where I disagree with you about things.

First, in your point 3 you say "Understanding your opponent is crucial to knowing how to make peace. Willful blindness to history will damn efforts to make stability, because the motivations of groups and individual persons cannot be deduced from their relative power or outside assessments of the benefits or disadvantages of cooperation."

The average age in Iraq is 19 years old, they have no direct memory of Iraq's colonial past. In fact, they probably few if any personal memories of the Iran-Iraq war. Everything they "know" about Iraq's history they learned from their local political leaders in the last year or so. I know you have taught college freshman in the United States. How complete would you say their understanding of American History is? How dependent would you say their perception of that history is on their current political ideology? What I am trying to get at here is that while what actually happened in the past is certainly history, the political relevance of particular past events, real or imagined, depends on how/what people are taught. How people perceive their country's history depends on their socio-political position. I'm not saying that these perceptions are not important. They are vitally important because they send signals about people's policy preferences. BUT what we really care about are the preferences themselves not the current interpretation of past events. People's current view of history is a symptom of current policy preferences NOT the cause. Based on that recognition, we should advocate direct talks with the current leaders of the various Iraqi factions. If they chose to express themselves in historical terms, fine, but the important thing is that we find out what each faction wants now and what they will accept now.

Second, I strongly disagree with the idea that the Arab league should take over in Iraq. It's tempting to think that because they are fellow Arabs and fellow Muslims that they will be effective at moving Iraq towards stability. However, if one looks at how the military and police behave in most of the countries of the Arab League one sees gross abuses of human and civil rights, no tolerance for political dissent and an alarming tendency to respond to protests with live ammunition. What we need - and apparently can't provide ourselves - is troops specially trained and experienced at peace keeping and policing civilian populations without abusing them. The Arab League simply can't supply those kinds of troops. The Western Europeans (NATO) can supply those troops. The problem is that Bush has so thoroughly alienated most of the NATO countries' leaders - and all of their populations - that increased participation by NATO so long as Bush is President is out of the question. NATO recently said as much. They announced that NATO would not consider official participation in Iraq until after the US elections in November.

The Chechnya File

A little backgrounder on Chechnya:
Chechens (they call themselves the Nachko, incidentally) descend from a Caucasian Muslim people. When the Russians invaded the Caucasus in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, this tribe split between collaborators and resistors. The collaborators are now known as the Ingush, and have neighboring Ingushetia. The resistors became known as the Chechens. In their midst, the Tsars built the fortress of Grozny, which means "terrible" - it is the sobriquet of Ivan the Terrible - Ivan Grozny. The Tsars subdued the region by the 1880s. For the Russians, the Caucasus has the psychological importance of Texas. Its heroes in the 19th century won their honor fighting in places such as Vladikavkaz (The Mistress of the Caucasus). For them, it IS Russia.

Not so for the Chechens. In February 1942, Stalin (a Georgian who had all the Caucasian ethnic hatreds) declared the Chechens an enemy people and deported them en masse to Kazakhstan. More than 1/3 died before they were allowed to return in the 1950s under Khrushchev. That day in February 1942 is known as the "Day of Chechen Genocide" by the Chechens. Their leader Dudayev declared independence from Russia on the 50th anniversary of that day (February 1992). Russians have no comprehension of the desperation of the Chechen people to get out from under the Russian heel.

In the initial phase of the war, the Chechens, numbering approximately 500,000, lost 10% of their population. Grozny, the capital, is a wasteland. Chechens then turned to Islamic extremists for weapons and help. In the mid 1990s, Clinton agreed with Yeltsin that the Chechen problem was a problem of terrorism and gave a green light for continued action. Yeltsin's reelection was ensured when General Lebed negotiated a peace deal permitting de facto independence. This proved unsatisfactory to the Chechen guerrillas, who were not invited to the new government. It proved unsatisfactory to the Russians, as Chechen guerrillas continued to carry out terrorist attacks. Putin took office in 2000 and renewed the war. In 2003, Putin had elections, installed a president, and appeared to be re-integrating Chechnya. Last week, that president was assasinated.

Why talk about Chechnya here? It is an object lesson on Iraq.
Lessons of Chechnya:

1. Terrorism is a predictable phase of guerrilla war, if there is no attempt to make peace with the guerrillas.
2. Sheer brutality will not defeat terrorists/guerrillas, unless you are willing to engage in genocide.
3. Understanding your opponent is crucial to knowing how to make peace. Willful blindness to history will damn efforts to make stability, because the motivations of groups and individual persons cannot be always deduced from their relative power or outside assessments of the apparent relative benefits or disadvantages of cooperation.
4. Once a war slides into a pattern of guerrilla war and terrorism, peace becomes almost impossible. Because the invading state believes that negotiating with terrorists/guerrillas is unacceptable, it will try to negotiate with self-proclaimed moderates, or even puppets, who cannot effectively negotiate because they do not control the terrorists/guerrillas. If neither side will negotiate, the impasse will continue.
5. The populace will likely side with the terrorists/guerrillas because (1) their nationalist sympathy lies with them anyway, and (2) the usual reaction of the state/invader is to oppress all civilians because they cannot tell civilian from guerrilla.
6. This sort of terrorism works. Northern Ireland and Palestine show that peace is possible only when the state power is willing to sit down and reward the terrorists for their behavior, something they are loath to do.
7. No state power has yet figured out how to win the "hearts and minds" of an occupied people.

So how to make peace in Iraq?
We are not yet at the breaking point. If elections, under any conditions, were held next week, a coalition including lots of nasty people could yet be induced to accept a UN-run transitional government that grants significant autonomy and protection to minorities and splits the national oil resources between groups. The Arab league could guarantee the security of the Sunnis against the Shi'a majority goverment. It might not be a democracy as we would want it, but it might be stable and allow the Americans to go home.

Wednesday, May 12, 2004

Springtime of Discontent

The polls are now coming in too strongly to be ignore. Approximately 60% of the public in poll after poll says they are dissatisfied with the way things are and that we are headed in the wrong direction. This is, of course, eating away at the president's job approval rating (below 50% now) and at the electoral contest (Kerry by a nose).

The level of discontent is the suprise -- it is a 180 degree change from last summer. It's starting to look like the person who needs a rally is Bush, not Kerry.

Some interesting editorials from the military press

If anyone is thinking that the political views of the military community are all about photo ops and cheers for the Bush administration, check out this link.

The Army Times editorial accuses Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers of "professional negligence" and calls for accountability for "failed leadership."

Army Times is part of Military Times which has Navy, Air Force and Marines versions as well. I'm not sure but from a brief and informal comparison between its website and that of Stars and Stripes, I'm guessing that Army Times is more independent of the Defense Department. For example, there were no editorials easily located on the Stars and Stripes page - just letters to the editor covering more or less innocuous subjects. For example, whether the exercise uniform should have a hat to protect against sun burn.

Another swing state heard from

A friend of mine forwarded me an article about a little scandal in Appleton, Wisconsin. It seems that the Appleton area paper, the Post-crescent was so alarmed about the mostly anti-Bush letters to the editor that they published a call for more pro-Bush letters to achieve "balance."

Some background: Wisconsin overall is a pretty liberal state. Unions are very influential and Madison is a famously left-wing university town. However, the Appleton-Green Bay area (aka the Fox Valley) is pretty conservative. The Fox Cities (a collection of small cities strung out around the north shore of Lake Winnebago and down the length of the Fox River)were the home town of Joe McCarthy. The area is now the home to the John Birch Society. The cities economies are dependent on paper mills. The biggest paper company in the area is Kimberly-Clark which is so right wing that it makes Coors Brewery look down right liberal. I've heard rumors from people I know in the area that a lot of the paper mill jobs have been disappearing there recently.

CNN et al are all saying that Wisconsin is "in play." That is they think that while Wisconsin voted for Gore in 2000, Bush might pick it up in 2004. If Bush is going to pull that off, he MUST have a huge Republican turn out from the Appleton area.

If the Appleton area is generating mostly anti-Bush letters to the editor that is TERRIBLE NEWS FOR BUSH. The only thing that could put Wisconsin back into the winnable column for Bush is if Nader draws off a lot of support from Kerry (probably in Madison).

Tuesday, May 11, 2004

Is Al Haig in charge? (a response)

I was just going to post a "comment" but it got out of hand and exceeded the character limit.

Confused chains of command are often seen in American institutions. These convoluted institutional structures often result from implementing the principles in my favorite quotation from the Federalist papers (the one from Madison's Federalist 51 about "opposite and rival interests").

The problem we've got in Iraq is that institutions that used to be "opposite and rival" have been transformed into a single ideological leviathan by the post 9/11 "war on terror" rhetoric and the lack of Congressional oversight that has gone along with it.

The result is that instead of acting as a "centinel" [see, the Founders couldn't spell either!] over public rights, these institutions have created a barrier to oversight. By confusing the chain of command, the Military/Intelligence leviathan increases what social scientists call "informational asymmetries." The rough translation of that little bit of jargon is that it helps the Military/Intelligence leviathan to make sure that they know more about what's going on than Congress (or anyone else) does.

Once again, it all comes down to oversight.

Is Al Haig in Charge?

The Senate uncovered today one of the real problems in Iraq: uncertain chains of command. I cannot help but remember Rumsfeld's coy line last Friday that he had made the chart of the chain of command but "forgot" to bring it. It is more reasonable to suggest that chains of command were deliberately confused in Iraq to allow military intelligence operatives (and private mercenaries) to get around the normal authorities and use the "stress and duress" (read: torture) tactics to extract information from prisoners.

Some, like Senator Imhofe (R-Oklahoma), believe that the problem is "the do-gooders swarming all over the prisons looking for abuses." So, for the right wing, the Red Cross is the problem. Once we get our meds straightened out, the facts point to one conclusion. Since 9/11, this administration has proceeded under the Goldwater principle that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Well, it is a vice. It is also illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional. Ye shall know a tree by its fruits. And the fruits are soon to be on video.

Trust the government, they say. Don't ask questions, don't think about the dead soldiers and civilians, and if you have to, shut your eyes. We'll keep you safe. Except, of course, that we are in more danger than ever.

When we let the executive branch muck about with due process...

One of the reasons democratic societies insist that their governments respect due process and civil rights is to avoid unintended consequences for innocent people.

The main story:
There are reports afternoon that the American, Nick Berg, who was brutally beheaded by Al Qaeda terrorists was arrested and detained without due process by US forces holding him for two weeks. When he was released the Iraqi security situation was deteriorating and he was kidnapped by Al Qaeda while he was attempting to leave Iraq. Mr. Berg was arrested by Coalition authorities in a "sweep" operation near Mosul. He was held without access to lawyers, family or other outside persons or organizations.

His family tried to find out where he was when his communications with them suddenly stopped on March 24th six days before he planned to leave the country. They claim they got little cooperation from Federal authorities in the United States. However, the FBI did "interview" the family about Mr. Berg's reasons for being in Iraq on March 31st. In early April the Berg family filed suit against the US Defense Department. Berg was released on April 6th and was kidnapped by Al Qaeda on April 9th.

To say that this guy got cruelly abused from every side is understatement to the point of almost being crass. Had Coalition authorities given him his constitutionally guaranteed access to a lawyer or at least to his family, he might have been released earlier and/or released into the company of friends instead of dumped alone into a chaotic war zone a week after he had planned to leave the country. I'm not blaming the US authorities for something Al Qaeda did. Clearly, Al Qaeda bares responsibility for his cruel murder. However, that murder doesn't change the fact that the US controlled "coalition authorities" violated this man's rights in a way that - unintentionally I hope - set in motion that chain of events.

Another story:

I heard on MSNBC yesterday that the family of one of the US soldiers filmed abusing Iraqi prisoners has also complained that the soldier was detained incommunicado for weeks. Family members in the US tried unsuccessfully to find out what had happened to their relative through US State and Defense departments as well as the Red Cross. The soldier was eventually given access to a lawyer just before CBS broke the story of abuses in the prison.

This soldier was not an "enemy combatant." His alleged crimes are indeed against Iraqis who are classified as "enemy combatants."

Does anyone else see these two cases as alarming evidence that we have begun the great slide down the slippery slope to tyranny?

Let's not judge before all the facts are in

One of my favorite movies is Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove: or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb" which I believe is one of the greatest satires in the history of film (go rent it today!). It doesn't take much for me to see parallels between real life and that film. For some reason, Rumsfeld's attitude toward the torture scandal in Iraq has me thinking of the following exchange from the film: President Merkin Muffley has just been told that an Air Force General, Jack T. Ripper, has ordered his wing of B-52s to drop nuclear weapons on the USSR without authorization. He is being briefed by the commander of the Strategic Air Command (SAC - the branch of the air force responsible for nuclear weapons), General Turgidson.

"Turgidson:

The duty officer asked General Ripper to confirm the fact the he had issued the go code and he said, 'Yes gentlemen, they are on their way in and no one can bring them back. For the sake of our country and our way of life, I suggest you get the rest of SAC in after them, otherwise we will be totally destroyed by red retaliation. My boys will give you the best kind of start, fourteen hundred megatons worth, and you sure as hell won't stop them now. So let's get going. There's no other choice. God willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.' Then he hung up. We're still trying to figure out the meaning of that last phrase, sir.

Muffley:

There's nothing to figure out General Turgidson. This man is obviously a psychotic.

Turgidson:

Well, I'd like to hold off judgment on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in.

Muffley:

anger rising General Turgidson, when you instituted the human reliability tests, you assured me there was no possibility of such a thing ever occurring.

Turgidson:

Well I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip up sir.

Muffley:

I want to speak to General Ripper on the telephone, personally.

Turgidson:

I'm afraid that's impossible, sir.

Muffley:

General Turgidson, I am becoming less and less interested in your estimates of what is possible and impossible. "

I'll conclude with a gratuitous Simpsons reference to keep Bell Curve happy. "Take that Maynard G. Crebbs!" (said by Homer as he rode a nuclear bomb down towards a couple of bongo playing hippies in a park)

Monday, May 10, 2004

What the Founding Fathers really said

There is an enormous amount rhetoric out there - especially from conservatives - along the lines of "the Founding Fathers never intended blah blah blah." However, it is my experience when talking to conservatives who like to make these arguments that very few of them have actually read anything written by the "Founding Fathers" or the Constitution itself for that matter. Which is really strange because these guys were really prolific authors. I've been reading The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay a lot lately in relation to my own research on political institutions and here are some of my favorite quotations.

"For it is a truth which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger, when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." - Federalist 25 (Hamilton)

I think the quotation above speaks to the "trust Bush, he has moral clarity" justification for greater executive power we hear from conservatives.

"This policy of supplying by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power; where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other; that the private interest of every individual, may be a centinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of supreme powers of the state." - Federalist 51 (Madison)

This quotation by Madison is my favorite of all time. Consider what Madison would think about the enormous concentration of executive power (and executive police power at that) in a single agency in the form of the Homeland Security Agency.

"Its is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: The one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority, that is, of the society itself; the other by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens, as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole, very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self appointed authority. This at best is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests, of the minority party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority." - Federalist 51 (Madison)

OK, that was a long one. But it speaks to my earlier posting (which generated so much controversy) arguing that economic diversity was a necessary condition for democracy. It also speaks to the demands by religious conservatives that all government policy reflect "traditional American values" (read conservative Evangelical values).

Who do the terrorists want to win in November?

OK Everyone, in keeping with the wild speculation theme of the blog universe...

Who do you think Al Qaeda wants to win the 2004 Presidential election in the USA and why?

I suggest that they want Bush to win because their goal is the radicalization of the Islamic world and the initiation of a "Clash of Civilizations" style war with the West. Bush's policies seem to play right into that strategy. A more moderate US foreign policy based on international cooperation would blur the Islam vs the West image Al Qaeda want to sell to people.

Now, you all tell me what you think!

Protestant fundamentalism and intolerance

I think the attitude of the Bush circle and their supporters is a direct result of their religious fundamentalism.

Because their ideology is religiously founded, they see dissent as against the will of God and deserving of intolerance if they are citizens and persecution abroad. This is in marked contrast with the traditional divisions in American politics which were based on Enlightenment style reason. It used to be that liberals and conservatives could agree to disagree while recognizing that each were pursuing the more or less legitimate (if misguided) interests of their constituents. No more. Because the conservatives have become dominated by a new religio-ideological cult, all dissent from the conservative view is un-American, immoral and illegitimate. Consider the dramatic reduction in courteous behavior towards the minority party in Congress since the Evangelical conservatives rose to prominence in the GOP (more on that on request).

People who oppose the war in Iraq, or any other Bush policy for that matter, are "aiding the terrorists" or "don't value life" or "don't share American values." People who advocate equal protection under the law for homosexuals are "pushing for special rights for gays" who in turn are portrayed in dehumanizing ways.

Which brings me to my final point, I believe that what has Bush et al really upset about the torture in Iraq is its homo-erotic qualities rather than the fact that torture is used as an interrogation technique. If it were just beatings and dog maulings, would Bush have condemned it? Probably, at least in a bland, official press release. Would he have been "sickened" by it? I wonder. There was no response from the White House about this until the pictures broke despite the fact that they knew about it a year ago in Iraq and even longer in Afghanistan and Guantanamo (knew from the ICRC).

No Excuse For Torture

This morning, Bush reiterated his claim that "nobody can doubt that Iraq is better off because it is free." This is, although not explicitly offered as such, his justification for the abuse of prisoners. Isn't torture okay, the argument goes, if we can get good results by doing so? Too many New Yorkers no doubt would say that the torture of a "few Arabs" would have been worth it, if it could have prevented 9/11.
Even Alan Dershowitz suggests, as he did after 9/11, that there should be "torture warrants" issued in select circumstances to elicit information. Shame on him. Shame on this administration. Torture is a bargain with the devil. And remember: the devil always wins.

It is on this issue, above all others, is where the civilized world rallies or fails. The issue is not "police brutality." Torture is an attempt to break the spirit by depriving the victim of his sense of humanity through pain and humiliation. The hallmark of torture is not physical pain, but psychological destruction.
Torture is wrong. No exigent circumstances justify it. Its gradual abolition was one of the greatest achievements of the Enlightenment. Freedom from torture is our most precious freedom. No matter how badly the government hates us, it has no right to destroy us physically and psychologically. Thus we are free men and women with the right to dissent. Now we are seeing that in Iraq, the army - OUR ARMY- strips prisoners naked, leaves them in the freezing cold and dark for days, forces them to perform acts of humiliation, and beats them. And that's just what they chose to photograph. If there were photographs of Guantanamo, we would likely see worse.

There must be house cleaning in the Defense department. If Bush and Rumsfeld cannot understand why this is wrong, they must be swept out of office on a wave of revulsion. America can survive more terrorist attacks. We cannot survive the introduction of torture. There was a time when our presidents would declare a "national day of humiliation and prayer" to take stock of our wrongdoing. This is the time for such a day.

I recommend that we all, as a nation and as individuals, set aside a day over the next week or two for reflection and education, or prayer if you are so inclined. It is an appropriate time to put away the yellow ribbon and don a black one, or simply dress in black clothing. We should ponder the question: how have we become so angry that we are willing to countenance this behavior? I would propose May 28 - the Friday before Memorial Day.

Sunday, May 09, 2004

Running the Economy on Adrenaline

So we get the news that the economy has added new jobs. To celebrate, there is a stock selloff? Fear of inflation through wage pressure is not the issue. We know that incredibly low unemployment and wage increases for low-income workers in the late 1990s was accompanied by, of all things, deflation. The sources of the recent uptick in inflation can be traced to the effect of surging energy prices and the price of raw materials, such as steel, that China is demanding at ever-increasing rates. Not to mention the falling dollar making all imports more expensive. Inflation does not seem to be the boogeyman now -- the fear rather is that an improving economy means higher interest rates. The intuition in a stock selloff is that higher interest rates will be worse for major corporations than the benefits indicated by the other good economic news.

What's going on here? Why is the good news not so good?

We can't solve the whole economy in one post, but a few things seem clear.
Federal tax breaks for corporations have turned out not to be a great success. The falloff in federal tax dollars has left states and localities to take up the slack with tax hikes and service cuts. This burden falls more heavily on small business than big businesses who often negotiate with cities to avoid tax burdens in turn for relocating. Service cuts hurt local economies in so many ways, not the least of which is cutting the income of small businesses that handle construction, maintenance, and the like. We would be out of this recession faster if the federal government had used deficit spending to invest in capital projects. Instead, the deficit spending has been dumped down a hole in Iraq. We are literally blowing up our tax dollars. While defense spending has some positive impacts through the defense industry, the bigger pain is the loss of reservists (and their purchasing power) from small communities which are the same ones hit by the service cuts and tax increases. Worse still, the deficit adds to the likelihood that interest rates will rise. Rising energy costs, health care, and tuition are taking away middle class purchasing power and reversing the real gains in living standards. Cheap money is the only thing making this economy bearable for the middle class - through low-interest credit cards and home equity loans, we are borrowing to stave off bankruptcy. No wonder the stock market plummets on news that that well might run dry.

Thus, the fundamentals of economic recovery are not here. In 1993, the Democrats committed the country to reduced deficits through a combination of federal spending cuts (on defense and social programs, both of which are ineffective GNP stimulators) and progressive taxation. The Republican Congress in 1994 was even more committed to the goal of a balanced budget. With this consensus in Washington on getting the federal house in order, the stage was set for real confidence in long-term investments. The internet boom of the 1990s was played out on this platform. You could argue that tax hikes caused the boom, but that would be as foolish as the Republicans arguing that tax cuts will jump start the economy.

What is needed is one thing: stability. A return to normalcy. Instead we're making up wars, devaluing the dollar, terrifying the public with multicolor alert systems, and gutting the core investment in roads, bridges, schools, and such. The Republicans are trying to run this economy on adrenaline. It's a cowboy mentality. Reversing the recent tax cuts will be a good step in telling corporate America that they can't wait for government giveaways to make their bottom lines. There's no quick fix, be it Iraq or tax cuts. John Kerry must run on a platform of financial discipline, fixing the spiraling health care, tuition, and energy costs, and international stability.

The common theme is oversight (or lack of it)

If there is a common theme to the Bush administration it is that they have managed to avoid the normal amount of oversight that the other two branches of government exert over the executive in the United States. The key to this ability is the Bush administration's use of "the war on terror" rhetoric.

So what is the role that suppressed oversight plays? As George Will (the prominent conservative pundit) said on what I still think of as This Week With David Brinkley on ABC (paraphrasing what I remember he said on TV today): when you have no consequences for failure you get a lot of failure, and we've seen an awful lot of failure from this administration and very little in the way of consequences.

George Will's point is that oversight has been lacking. The Bush administration has been able to weather a series of policy disasters (pre-9/11 intel botches, no WMDs in Iraq, the torture scandal etc) with no major resignations, and a remarkably few trips to Capitol Hill by cabinet members. Will implied that this allows officials to take unreasonable risks with little forethought and planning.

Why are there no consequences? With respect to the Judiciary, I suspect it is the result of the Republican partisan sympathies of a core group in the Supreme Court. But in defense of the Judiciary, the relevant cases are only now reaching the highest level. I'll leave it to Law Talking Guy to disagree, agree and/or elaborate on that.

With Congress there are two factors. First, the Republican party has majorities in both houses of Congress. The Republicans are easily capable of blocking anything the Democrats might want to do.

Second, to make matters worse, Republicans used 9/11 as a political tool very early on to silence Democratic criticism of the Bush administration's policies with regard to terrorism and the middle east in general. Consider the Chambliss (R-GA) attack ads against Max Cleland (former D-GA) that prominently featured pictures of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and with the statement that Cleland opposed the Homeland Security Act (which Cleland opposed because it dramatically reduces oversight mechanisms).

A friend (the other political scientist) who we know visits this blog but has yet to contribute told me that he's tired of hearing about blind support for "the troops" because he believes that it is this tendency to avoid holding the military accountable that has led to these problems. In other words, the "support the troops" mantra is preventing needed oversight of the military. If I got that wrong, he should correct me in a comment or posting. nudge nudge.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)