February 19, 2007

Asking the Hard Question

I have been reliably informed that my posting of late has been rather dark. That's probably true, in no small part because it seems that no matter where I turn, I end up reading things like this:

The goal of Democrats -- and their allies -- over the next two years should not and cannot be to stop the war cold turkey. The goal should be to politicize the issue in preparation for 2008.

I may not agree with the assessment of the far left, but at least they're honest. They think we've lost in Iraq and that we should get out now. Contrast that with those who see in Iraq a wonderful opportunity to win more seats for their party, like publius. It pleases me to no end that if I end up getting killed in Iraq, at least my wife can take comfort in knowing my death may help the Democrats win the White House in 2008. Really, that makes it all worthwhile.

Harsh? Absolutely. And I realize that publius' motives are sincere. But while the odds are pretty good I'll live through my trip to Iraq, the fact remains that too many of my comrades will die in Iraq between now and the day a new President takes office in January 2009. If people think that we have lost in Iraq, then they have a duty to say so and do what they can to get us out of Iraq, not position themselves to be in better shape to do so in two years. The idea that Congress cannot stop this war flies in the face of the facts. Congress can quite easily end the war within six months if they so choose. No money equals no war, and while the Democrats aren't strong enough to pass a resolution rescinding the Authorization to Use Military Force, they are certainly strong enough not to pass a budget funding further operations in Iraq. Yes, six months is a long time and more people will die, but that eighteen month window means perhaps 1,000 more dead soldiers and many times more soldiers whose lives will be forever changed by the wounds they receive there.

Of course, doing so would probably be politically devastating to the Democrats. The Republicans would use such a move as ammunition for scurrilous demagoguery, carefully avoiding the questions they've mostly been able to dodge over the past four years about their responsibility for the war. But the war would still end, and while it might hurt the Democrats initially, given that their actions would come roughly a year before the next election, who knows how they might look in the fall of 2008 when American soldiers are no longer coming home in caskets; President George H.W. Bush looked nigh-unbeatable a year before the 1992 election; I assume we all remember how that one turned out.

More to the point, it seems to me that it is the right thing to do, if you believe we should be getting out of Iraq. If you think the surge cannot work and that we've lost, I fail to see how you can justify waiting an additional 18 months because the politics aren't right. John Kerry once asked how you can ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake. It would appear that for a lot of Democrats, that question is easier to answer than Kerry thought.

Posted at 02:37 PM · Politics • · War · Comments (8) · TrackBack (0)

February 15, 2007

Fish or Cut Bait

I've talked about why the Democratic Party has a bad reputation among the troops before. Sadly, it appears that they're planning on reinforcing, rather than overcoming, that image. It appears that, since they cannot get the votes for a resolution to end the Iraq war (although they have managed to burn two weeks on a nonbinding resolution), the Democrats are going to try to end the war via the back door.

The Democratic concept seems to be making it harder and harder for the President to fight the war, which will eventually force him to give up. Representative John Murtha, perhaps best known for his innovative plan to redeploy American troops to somewhere close to Iraq, like Okinawa, wants to prevent the military from deploying troops to Iraq unless they are properly trained and equipped. This sounds like a reasonable restriction, but the devil is in the details. Murtha seems to think that no Army units meet this criteria, and it's a safe bet the legislation he crafts will be designed to make sure that few, if any, units can meet it. Presumably the Democrats think they will be able to have their cake and eat it this way, 'supporting' the troops while preventing the Army from relieving any of the troops in country.

The result, however, while it may be great for troops who aren't in Iraq when the legislation is passed, means that those troops still over there will suffer higher casualties and longer tours. Not the kind of support I'd ask for. If these requirements are tacked onto deployments, the Army will have little choice but to attempt to meet them, which will mean that units currently in Iraq will have to stay longer because it now requires more work to get their replacements into country. Further, whatever hope there is for defeating the insurgency depends on getting additional boots on the ground. By preventing that, the Democrats will establish a worst-of-both-worlds situation where we won't send additional troops to improve the situation, but we won't bite the bullet and pull those we have out.

If the Democrats believe we've lost in Iraq, they should vote to pull the troops out. Yes, it would probably be vetoed, but at least they would have made a stand for their principles, and come the fall they could end the war the hard way by refusing to provide funds for the troops in Iraq. If they really believe that the only good option is to get out of Iraq, then they have no excuse for not doing everything in their power to make that happen. Every day they choose to pussyfoot around the issue is another day when American troops are killed or maimed in performance of their duties in Iraq. John Kerry infamously asked how you ask a man to be the last person to die for a mistake. If the Democrats really believe remaining in Iraq is a mistake, how can they reconcile that with asking more American soldiers to die because ending the war is politically inconvenient for them?

The Democrats own Congress now. That means they can't just carp from the sidelines anymore. They bear equal responsibility with the President for what happens in Iraq from now on. They need to make a decision to stay or go in Iraq, and if the answer is go, then they need to make it happen. Otherwise there is little difference between them and the Republicans who started the war. Actually, there is one key difference: the Republicans who started the war believed it could be won. They didn't ask troops to stay in harm's way because it might damage their reelection chances.

Posted at 06:17 AM · Politics • · War · Comments (3) · TrackBack (0)

February 14, 2007

Emails From the Edge

I was rather harsh regarding Amanda Marcotte's complaints of being a victim regarding her leaving the Edwards campaign. While I stand by that assessment, the harassment she and Melissa McEwan (who quit the campaign yesterday) have received since this whole mess surfaced is really beyond the pale. I don't care what either Ms. Marcotte or Ms. McEwan wrote; there is no excuse for the kind of viciousness displayed on that page. Yes, I realize that is doubtless a sampling of the worst stuff, but I fail to see how that somehow makes it acceptable. We are, as George Costanza once observed, living in a society here, and whether we like it or not, we've got to live together.

I do not expect that people are all going to like one another. Hell, I can barely stand anyone outside my immediate family. But is it really too much to ask that we refrain from both vile comments and threats during the course of our discussion? If you're that worked up about something, let me suggest taking a nice walk or doing something else that will vent your frustrations in a more productive way. Or just be like me and bottle it all up inside, that's ok too. Trust me when I observe that letting fly with some rude comment, no matter how cathartic it may be in the short run, does absolutely nothing to resolve the problem and is likely to make things worse, not better.

Posted at 10:23 AM · Politics · Comments (7) · TrackBack (0)

The Price of Credibility

Ezra Klein has highlighted one of the biggest failings of the Bush administration: its almost complete loss of credibility in the wake of the Iraq war.

It is possible, although I believe it unlikely, that the U.S. government has firm evidence linking the Iranian government to the weaponry found in Iraq it claims is of Iranian origin. I have noted in the past that the Iranian government has good reasons provide limited aid to the insurgency in Iraq. After all, President Bush placed Iran within the 'Axis of Evil' during his 2003 State of the Union address, the U.S. has made numerous arguably threatening comments about not permitting Iran to gain nuclear technology, and the U.S. clearly considers the Iranian government unfriendly at best. Given the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran is quite rational to be concerned about the U.S. possibly trying to overthrow their government as well. So the motive to see the U.S. tied down in Iraq is there. But it is impossible to accept the claims of the administration at face value after the events that led up to the Iraq war.

I get a fair amount of ribbing (I like to think it is good intentioned) because I do not ascribe nefarious motives to the Bush administration for what happened in Iraq. Regardless of motives, however, it is quite clear at this date the administration relied on very poor intelligence to make its case for the war in Iraq. I suspect we would have gone to war in Iraq even had our intelligence been better, but the case would have been far more difficult to make had we known going in that Iraq's WMD program was dormant in 2002. So when the administration starts making the case for a casus belli with Iran, it is difficult at best for the outside observer to accept the case without seeing all the evidence. The problem is, if the U.S. does have any real evidence tying the Iranian government to any part of the insurgency, that information was probably collected in such a way that to reveal it would be to burn that source, so if that evidence does exist the intelligence community will be loathe to do so. This is why we have intelligence committees in the House and Senate: so classified information can be provided to a small group of (theoretically) trustworthy representatives and Senators who can evaluate it on the merits and keep their colleagues informed. But that system broke down over Iraq, and any claims this administration makes are going to require a much higher standard of proof from now on.

I have absolutely no interest in seeing the U.S. expand the war to Iran, so I have no objections to the path to war being made as difficult as possible for the Bush administration. But I do believe the Bush administration has caused real damage to our system through their actions during the runup to the Iraq war. While I think the amount of classification that goes on in Washington is probably at least an order of magnitude greater than it needs to be, there are occasions when the government really does need to keep secrets, and the people need to be able to trust their elected representatives to act accordingly. Because the Bush administration has chosen to abuse the classification system, they have damaged that capability, and we may all pay a price for it at some point in the future. And that damage will remain long after the Bush administration players have moved on.

Posted at 06:22 AM · Politics · Comments (1) · TrackBack (0)

February 07, 2007

A Little Perspective

I've stayed away from the whole Edwards-bloggers fiasco because, to be blunt, I really don't care. But I do concur with Ezra Klein about the larger picture: what should matter to the Edwards campaign is not what stupid things these two bloggers have said in the past, but are they qualified for the jobs Edwards needs them to do. And he's right. If Edwards hired these two to help with drafting policy, their intemperate words would probably be somewhat relevant. But since he's paying them to do non-policy related jobs, their particular positions on issues say precisely zero about what Edwards believes.

I'm not a fan of Edwards, and I hope he goes down in flames during the primaries. But the fact he hired two people who have a habit of saying silly things on their blogs shouldn't reflect on his campaign, and the bloggers shouldn't have to face the threat of being fired from jobs they seem eminently qualified to perform for unrelated issues.

Posted at 01:38 PM · Blogging • · Politics · Comments (5) · TrackBack (0)

At Last, True Bipartisanship

"Wow, Dad. You're really working hard."
"Yes, I gotta work hard, honey. Daddy made a lot of crazy promises."
--Trash of the Titans

As a general rule, when you hear anyone in Washington talking about bipartisanship, what they really mean is they got or want to get some people on the other side to agree with them. But James Joyner has exposed a truly bipartisan issue in Washington: the five day work week.

Political junkies will recall that this was one of the selling points the Democrats used in the 2006 election: the Republican Congress was only working three days a week, and hardworking Democrats were going to have Congress working the same hours as the rest of America. Now that they're actually being forced to occasionally work five days a week, a lot of Democrats are no more fond of the schedule than the Republicans. Thus far, Majority Leader Reid is sticking to his guns, but I'd guess this particular campaign promise is going down in flames sooner rather than later. If that means Congress can do less damage, I've got no heartburn at all with that.

Update: Welcome, Blog Report readers. While you're here, check out the main page, where there are some posts with a bit more heft to them.

Posted at 08:46 AM · Humor • · Politics · Comments (3) · TrackBack (0)

February 06, 2007

De-Nazification

Callimachus at Winds of Change has a succinct summary of why George Soros' comments about 'de-Nazifying' the United States after the Bush administration steps down in 2009 were, at best, inappropriate.

Words have meaning. If Mr. Soros didn't mean what he said, he needs to learn how to use words correctly, or stop speaking in public.

Update: Edited to replace missing verb in opening paragraph.

Update: Kudos to Mr. Soros for backing off his rhetoric. He gets bonus points for actually apologizing, as opposed to the more typical 'I'm sorry if anyone was offended' apology.

Posted at 05:19 PM · Politics · Comments (4) · TrackBack (0)

February 05, 2007

Twain Was Right

I said that we were going to see soldiers start to get demonized more as opposition to the war gets more heated, and I stand by that. Today's example: Mona, who has been posting at Unqualified Offerings of late. She has decided to jump into the Arkin fray by explaining to all us poor dumb soldiers that we really are mercenaries after all.

Now, I'll grant you that in today's Humpty Dumpty world, you can probably find a definition of mercenary somewhere that would cover American troops. But under common definitions of mercenary, or the legal definition of mercenary, soldiers don't really qualify.

But Mona, as is her wont, dips into the Argument from Authority to prove her point, [Update: see below and Mona's post for what she was attempting to do.] noting that no less an authority than William Westmoreland thought of paid soldiers as mercenaries, and that Milton Friedman agreed with him. Reading the actual quote, however, it's pretty clear that Mona doesn't quite understand what Friedman was trying to say.

“In the course of his [General Westmoreland’s] testimony, he made the statement that he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. I [Milton Friedman] stopped him and said, ‘General, would you rather command an army of slaves?’ He drew himself up and said, ‘I don’t like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves.’ I replied, ‘I don’t like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries.’ But I went on to say, ‘If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.’ That was the last that we heard from the general about mercenaries.” - Milton and Rose Friedman, Two Lucky People Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998, p. 380.

Yes, Westmoreland did refer to volunteer soldiers as mercenary. Which only means that he didn't understand the definition any better than Mona. But to interpret that quote as claiming that Friedman agreed with Westmoreland is, to be charitable, an interesting reading. It seems pretty clear to this observer that Friedman was demonstrating to Westmoreland that calling the soldiers mercenary simply because they were to be paid for their service was to debase the term and make it meaningless, since by that definition, every profession is made up of mercenaries.

That's not the important thing for these people, though. Accuracy always places a distant second place in politics, and that's what this is about. Soldiers, by and large, still support the war to a much greater degree than the average American. Add to that their volunteer status, and you have a group of people in need of demonization by the antiwar types in order to strengthen their case. Mark my words: the longer this war goes on, the nastier the antiwar side is going to get towards soldiers.

Update: Mona objects to my characterization of her post, noting that she was attempting to point out that the use of the term mercenary is not limited to the far-left. Fair enough, although somebody a bit more recent than Westmoreland might have been a better example of the right. She also objects to being painted as anti-military. She says she is not and I take her at her word. But however she uses the term mercenary, the fact remains that it is a pejorative term, and its advancement will be used to demonize the troops regardless of Mona's personal desires. This, I should note, does not mean that Mona shouldn't say what she thinks. My intent in highlighting her post was simply to note the spread of this issue. As I said before, this will get worse before it gets better.

Posted at 07:44 AM · Military • · Politics • · War · Comments (4) · TrackBack (0)

February 02, 2007

Unintended Consequences

And speaking of global warming, one of our nominal solutions appears to be causing its fair share of problems. If the U.S. is doing anything to prevent global warming, it is pushing for the use of non-fossil fuels, and the king among these is ethanol. I'm no scientist, so I won't pretend to claim that I know if ethanol is a real solution to the use of gasoline or not. Suffice it to say there's some question as to how much energy we're really saving by using ethanol.

But there's one effect we know is caused by the various ethanol subsidies: rising corn prices. By subsidizing the production of ethanol, corn farmers get more money selling their product to ethanol manufacturers than to food producers. Which means that people who want to buy corn to make, for example, tortillas, have to pay more for their raw materials and therefore have to raise their prices. Which, as we see in our neighbor to the south, has caused some problems.

I'm not much for blaming America first, but I think that in this case, we don't have any way to avoid it. We are pushing ethanol hard in this country, partly because people want to see thye U.S. become energy independent (a tempting but chimerical goal), partly because people see ethanol as a means to reduce global warming, and largely because Iowa holds the first Presidential caucus in the nation and is packed to the gills with corn farmers who want more money for their product. And they're getting it, but as in all such cases, that money has to come from somewhere, in this case, from people who like to eat corn and corn-based products, many of whom are quite poor.

Granting that I don't agree with the global warming set on many issues regarding what we can and should do about the problem, I think there are some areas where we can agree. First among these should be that the actions we take to mitigate global warming don't exacerbate other problems unless there is compelling evidence that the benefits will outweigh the costs. Let me be clear in saying that I'm not arguing that we shouldn't do anything unless we're 100% certain that it will work. But for a situation like ethanol, where the gains are questionable and the costs are clear, it seems clear to me that we should eliminate the ethanol subsidies in favor of policies that, even if they're no more certain to help, at least won't have such negative impacts on the people least well-equipped to deal with it.

This is why government is so ill-equipped to deal with problems like global warming (while, conversely, also being possibly the only entity capable of doing so). Republican (small-r) government responds to its constituents, and it responds better to constituents who have the ability to effect their current or future job prospects. Because Iowa is seen as a necessary gate to the Presidency, any American politician who is thinking about a run for President is reluctant (at best) to take on the ethanol subsidy (or other farm subsidies) for fear of torpedoing any chance they have at higher office. Add to that companies like the infamous Archer Daniels Midland that stand to make a great deal of money from subsidies and it is hardly surprising that ineffective remedies are often the result of government reaction to problems. Add to that the unfortunate tendency of republican government to never eliminate old programs and the problem becomes clearer. Global warming is an extremely complex phenomenon. Changes made to try and mitigate will doubtless follow multiple paths: some will succeed, some will fail, and some will make things worse. So we're going to need metrics that allow us to determine which programs work and which do not, so we don't waste time and money on blind alleys (or worse, on making the problem worse). But government doesn't do a good job measuring its own results.

This is not wholly inevitable. If enough people notice the problem, it can be mitigated. But that's going to require people willing to take a critical look at programs they've agitated for. I'm not hopeful that we'll see much of that.

Posted at 01:12 PM · Economics • · Global Warming • · Politics · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)

February 01, 2007

Good Effort

"A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference," according to a Norwegian lawmaker who has nominated Al Gore for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. A more accurate statement, I suspect, would be that a prerequisite for winning is making the U.S. look bad, given the recent history of the award, but I suppose it's declasse to say such things out loud.

I know, I'm being terrifically cynical, but it's hard not to when Al Gore is being nominated for a Peace Prize. Did he negotiate a cease fire in the Sudan? Did he convince North and South Korea to get along? Nope. He just flies about the world to warn us all about the dangers of global warming. That may well be a good cause, don't get me wrong. But the idea of handing out a Nobel prize for talking about global warming seems silly on at least two levels. Most importantly, to me, global warming isn't a war, so I fail to see how a peace prize is an appropriate reward for raising the issue. Almost as important, with all due respect to the former Vice President, he hasn't actually accomplished anything on global warming yet. Had he managed to convince someone to do more than listen to his opinions of the topic, I could see giving him a reward. But thus far, as the media likes to remind us, the U.S. is not doing anything about global warming. So what, exactly, is the Nobel for? I think they used to mean something more than just 'nice try.'

I'm something of a global warming agnostic, myself. I think it's happening, and I suspect that a significant cause is human activity. But I'm not convinced we all need to do whatever it takes to stop it. One, we just don't know for sure just what the results will be. Two, whatever results there are will probably occur well into the future, which means we have time to learn to deal with them. And three, China and India aren't on board with the whole global warming thing anyhow, so our ability to stop it solo is pretty close to zero.

I respect the fact Gore thinks global warming is a big deal, and his willingness to try and get people to do something about it is somewhat admirable, even if it's little more than an outgrowth of his natural statist tendencies. But it seems to me that the Nobel Committee ought to find someone who has actually accomplished something if they're that excited about global warming.

Posted at 08:36 AM · Global Warming • · Politics · Comments (11) · TrackBack (0)

January 31, 2007

Responsibility

If there is one constant in politics, it is that everything is someone else's fault. When there's a big mistake bad, that impulse becomes overwhelming, as we're seeing in the case of Iraq. It seems to be the general consensus that Iraq involved a number of mistakes. Some people still think it was a good idea to invade, but believe that the administration and military botched the occupation. Others either believed from the start the invasion was a bad idea, or have come around to that belief over time. There may be people who believe the Bush administration was both correct to go to war and made all the right moves, but that has to be a pretty small constituency by now.

Which means there are a lot of people looking to explain away their position on the war four years ago. I'm not one to go pointing fingers as a rule, since I've already had to eat plenty of crow regarding my position on the war, but I'm going to make an exception in this case. In the last week we've seen two Senators going out and explaining why it is that the Bush administration should never have gone into war in Iraq, despite the fact both Senators voted in favor of the Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq. Senator Hagel's excuse is that the bill approved war only as a last resort, while Senator Clinton claims that her vote for the AUMF was strictly intended to provide the President with diplomatic leverage.

Both of them are, not to put too fine a point on it, knuckleheads. The AUMF authorized the President to take the country to war. If Senators Clinton and Hagel thought it was a bad idea to go to war with Iraq, they should have voted against it. Period. If they felt the President needed some diplomatic leverage, they should have sponsored a bill that would have expressed their intent to vote for war if certain conditions weren't meant. A 'sense of the Senate' bill much like those that are so popular on Capitol Hill right now would have been a fine means of providing the President with leverage without providing him the authority to go to war. Instead they voted in a way they hoped would make them politically popular and are now trying to disavow their votes for the same reason. They voted for a bill that made this war possible. It doesn't matter what they hoped the bill might accomplish. What matters is that they voted in favor of letting the President take the country to war. They should be held accountable for that, not for some nebulous claim for what they hoped the resolution might accomplish.

Better yet, Senator Clinton is running for President, and Senator Hagel may yet throw his hat in the ring. So both of them think that they're the kind of people who ought to be President, despite their refusal to accept any responsibility for their own actions. Who, precisely, do they think they're kidding? The answer, naturally, is all of us. We're supposed to accept that two people who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions now are worthy of being granted greater responsibility. Aren't politics a wonderful thing?

Senator Hagel is also claiming that his vote for war helped to avert a constitutional crisis, because the Bush administration would have gone to war in Iraq even without a Congressional authorization. I fail to see how averting a crisis by rubber-stamping the President's desires is an improvement. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that Senator Hagel is correct and that President Bush would have taken the country to war without Congressional authorization. This would have caused a crisis, no doubt. But that crisis would have (hopefully) ensured that the power to take the nation to war remained in the hands of the Congress and not the President. By choosing instead to avoid that crisis by giving the President a free hand to go to war in Iraq, Congress effectively has relinquished its duties under the Constitution. We are hardly better off under that scenario than if President Bush had forced a constitutional crisis. At least in a crisis Congress might have held onto its power to declare war. If Senator Hagel is to believed, we're better off with Congress giving up that power without a fight rather than risk a constitutional crisis.

This is not to say that because they made mistakes Senators Clinton and Hagel should be ineligible for higher office. But if you think the war was a mistake and you voted to make it possible, then if you're really responsible you have to be willing to accept responsibility for your mistake. I'm not asking Senators Clinton and Hagel to wear a hair shirt for the rest of their lives, or at all, but I would like it if they would stand up and admit that they shouldn't have voted for the war. Not they shouldn't have voted in favor knowing what they know now. Not that their vote was supposed to be for something other than war. That they made a mistake, and that they realize they were wrong. That's all they have to say. The fact that they won't speaks volumes to their fitness for the Oval Office.

Posted at 11:54 AM · Politics · Comments (6) · TrackBack (0)

January 25, 2007

Treason? Why Not?

There are times when I think we may be too reluctant to apply the word 'treason' to people's activities. John Walker Lindh comes to mind as a man who, in serving the Taliban, certainly ended up taking up arms against the United States, the very definition of treason. But Lindh was never charged with treason, and I don't recall the media ever calling him a traitor. Still, for such a serious accusation, it is wise to be cautious in applying it, and I see no reason to believe any harm was done in omitting such charges from Lindh's docket.

Particularly when, on the other side of the coin, frivolous accusations of treason seem to fall so easily from some lips. At The Corner, Rich Brookhiser uses a Teddy Roosevelt quote comparing the treason of Benedict Arnold and Jefferson Davis to tar Senator Jim Webb, though he couches it with the header 'a friend writes.' Roosevelt's point was that Jefferson Davis, in accepting the office of President of the Confederate States of America, committed a greater sin than Benedict Arnold, who received money in exchange for his betrayal of West Point. To compare James Webb's running for office with Jefferson Davis helping to start a new country by tearing apart the United States is, to say the least, scurrilous.

In that same vein, Dan Riehl of Riehl World View stopped by Unqualified Offerings to observe that Webb is 'relatively treasonous' for bringing up Iraq during his response to the State of the Union. I'm not even sure what to say to that one; Iraq is the elephant in the living room of current American politics. I am curious how anyone could be expected to simply omit references to that in the course of a speech intended to address the State of the Union. Webb may have been many things in his response. He certainly struck me as a touch contradictory. But treason? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

This is but one more example of the horrid state of affairs in America today. Liberals and conservatives alike are walling themselves up in echo chambers to a greater and greater degree and explaining to themselves how horrible the other side is. That may be a fun pastime, but it is not healthy for a country that, whether we like it or not, still has to live with one another. One of the most important hallmarks of a republic is the willingness of the losers in an election to step aside in favor of the winners. And one of the best ways to undermine that willingness is to so demonize the other side that people convince themselves that stepping down in the face of an electoral loss would be a greater sin than allowing 'those people' access to the levers of power.

I am not warning of an impending coup in America. Not yet, at least. We have some distance to travel before we get that far, the claims of Robert Kennedy Jr. and his ilk notwithstanding. But we are moving in that direction, in my opinion, as we continue to see the country polarizing into two factions so utterly convinced of the perfidy and vileness of their opposite numbers.

Posted at 07:56 AM · Politics · Comments (10) · TrackBack (0)

January 24, 2007

Listening to his Little Man

So, we won't have John Kerry to kick around any more, as Senator Kerry plans to announce today that he will not seek his party's nomination for President in 2008. That strikes me as good news for everyone.

For Senator Kerry, that means he can focus on whatever it is he does in the Senate. He won't have to go through the pain of another long campaign, nor will he have to face the likely verdict of his voters in 2008 telling him that while they appreciate him coming close in 2004, they're looking for new blood this time.

For the Democratic Party, that means they don't have to endure the spectacle of a man trying to establish his military bona fides on the strength of two years' service. For a party that prides itself on being of the people, the Democrats have had a terrible tendency to run aristocrats in recent years, and Kerry certainly epitomized that trend.

For the rest of us poor sots who have to live with whoever occupies the White House, it means that at least we don't have to face the specter of yet another verbally challenged President issuing speeches on national TV that some of us feel obliged to watch.

Now if only he'd bow out of the Senate, too...

Posted at 11:19 AM · Politics · Comments (3) · TrackBack (0)

What Might Have Been

I see Howard Kurtz is thinking along the same lines I am after President Bush's State of the Union address last night.

The President pushed the bipartisanship button hard last night, a logical decision given our currently divided government. But for the first six years of his administration, with few exceptions, the President has been about as partisan as anyone could be, pushing legislation through Congress with the help of the Republican majority and running roughshod over the Democrats. Now that he has to deal with a Democratic majority (and I'm surprised more Democrats didn't comment on his use of the term 'Democrat majority'), suddenly he's Mr. Bipartisan. That may make sense politically, but having sown the wind, President Bush is a fool if he believes he's not about to reap the whirlwind.

Yet it didn't have to be this way. While I don't subscribe to the claims that the world was behind us following the September 11 attacks, I do believe that the American people were united for a time in the interest of defending the country. Those who date back to that time in the blogosphere probably remember wistfully a time when Glenn Reynolds could cite Markos Moulitsas and Oliver Willis with approval and vice versa. There was still going to be disagreement, because we all want different things from our country, but there was an opportunity to go beyond that disagreement when it came to the war. Imagine an alternate history in which on September 12, 2001, President Bush invited both Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders to the White House to discuss the war and solicit their input. Not to run the war by committee, but to develop some general areas of agreement on what needed to happen in the war, and to work with both sides of the aisle to ensure that whatever course of action America undertook, it did so with the full support of the American people.

Instead, President Bush decided to use the war as a partisan issue, with predictable results. Instead of a war that we all agree we must win, we have a war that is seen as a Republican war and that, therefore, too many on the left would be all too happy to see the U.S. lose because it would hurt their political enemies. People on the right want to blame the left for that, but it was President Bush who insisted on running the war without any consultation of the Democrats, President Bush who pushed for the vote on Iraq to be held prior to the 2002 elections, and President Bush who has consistently demonized Democrats who don't support his plans. I am much more surprised by the many Democrats who, despite all this, are willing to set that aside and hope against hope for a U.S. victory in Iraq than by the comparatively few who have reacted to the President's actions in kind.

It is too late for this President. Even assuming he suddenly begins to work with the Democrats in Congress, he has burned so many bridges that the best he could hope to do in the time he has left is rebuild a few of them. This is a tragedy for the U.S., which will almost certainly go down to defeat in Iraq, a failure that will lead to more American bloodshed in the future, and it is an even greater tragedy for the people of Iraq, who will pay the price for American partisanship for many years to come.

There is little point in dwelling on what might have been for its own sake. Doc Brown's DeLorean is not warmed up in the driveway so we can shoot back to 2001 and fix these mistakes. But this war will go on after America has left Iraq. It will go dormant for a time, I suspect, as we pull back, but our enemies will merely use that time to prepare their next strike against us. Based on al Qaeda's past history, we can expect that the next attack on our soil will be even more devastating that September 11. Which means that some future President will be faced with a choice similar to that faced by President Bush on September 12, 2001. It is to be hoped that we will have learned the lesson of President Bush by that time, so we do not repeat that mistake again.

Posted at 07:24 AM · Politics · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)

January 23, 2007

State of the Union 2007

I was shocked, shocked, to learn that the state of our union remains strong. I mean, really, what would it take for the President to say that the state of the union wasn't great? Another constitutional requirement that has really been overtaken by events. Now it's just a silly showcase, an hour of free advertising for the President, little more. And there were no surprises: a laundry list of platitudes, with a few interesting items lobbed in here and there.

The one interesting part, for me, was the promise of another fight on entitlements. Not that I expect anything to come of it, as Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are too valuable as objects of demagoguery for any Democrat to agree to actually fixing them. I realize that is somewhat cynical, but it's amazing to me how many Democrats who pointed out that Social Security was a problem ten years ago have miraculously changed their tune since President Bush came into office. I'd respect them a lot more if they'd just come out and admit that they're not willing to see Social Security changed into what the Republicans would like to make it. I'd still disagree on the politics, but I'd respect their honesty a lot more. Not that they care. (Nor, really, should they, as our alliance will always be one of convenience.)

The rest was warmed over garbage, quite frankly. It could have been ten minutes shorter without a recounting of the history of what's happened in the war over the past year, and if it were trimmed down to substantive proposals, I doubt it would have taken five minutes. We would all be better off if the President would go back to just sending a written report to Congress.

Update: I see that a President in my lifetime actually didn't report that the State of the Union was strong.

Posted at 08:43 PM · Politics · Comments (13) · TrackBack (0)

Broad Brushes

If this is true, you've really got to wonder about their hiring practices. It is an amusing reminder, however, of one of the reasons those of us in the military tend to look askance at claims by those on the left that they're really the preferred solution for the troops.

That's not really fair, of course. I think the vast majority of Democrats are decent people who want nothing but the best for our troops. I think that's true of Republicans as well. The problem, as it usually does, comes from the fringes, where a few knuckleheads can ruin things for everyone. When it comes to the military, the Democrats suffer because their fringers (or, many times, people well to the left of the Democrats) tend to like to denigrate the military. This attitude isn't common among Democrats (although I'd wager that it is more common than the Democrats like to admit), but it is the kind of thing that draws attention, and contrary to what advertisers will tell you, there is such a thing as bad publicity.

I imagine that this will get a bit of play in the blogosphere as the prowar side attempts to tar the antiwar side with claims of not supporting the troops and so on, but I do hope not. One of the more basic freedoms we're supposed to enjoy in this country, and one the right used to stand for, is the right to be judged for who we are, not for who someone who is in some way affiliated with us is. Yep, the person who wrote that email was an insensitive boob who deserves whatever censure he or she gets. But trying to use that stupidity as a means to tar an entire side of the argument is puerile and worthless.

Look at it this way: no matter where you stand politically, I'll wager I can find someone who agrees with you who is also an idiot. Do you really want to be judged by the lowest common denominator?

Posted at 09:31 AM · Politics · Comments (2) · TrackBack (0)

January 20, 2007

And Then There Were...Well, A Lot

In what may have been the most anticlimactic announcement since the Coca-Cola Corporation pulled the plug on New Coke, Senator Hilary Clinton jumped into the arena today with her announcement she will seek the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. She starts off as the frontrunner, which may or may not be a bad thing; Democrats have historically been more amenable to surprises in their primary season, while Republicans tend to stick with whoever's turn it is. With the constant forward motion of the primaries, however, this kind of early positioning is vital because we may well know who the nominees are in little more than twelve months. In other words, if we are to select two decent candidates for the 2008 election (an unlikely possibility, in my personal opinion), we're going to have to make that decision before a vote is cast in a primary.

Personally, I'd prefer to see some reasonably-experienced governors over a Senator, if only because performance in the Senate doesn't seem to track well with work as a chief executive. On the other hand, there aren't many governors in the race: Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Jim Gilmore of Virginia, Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin and Tom Vilsack of Iowa. OK, more than I thought (thanks to Think Progress for the list). Romney might be interesting, if only because he was a Republican governor in a strongly Democratic state, which suggests a lot more flexibility than our current chief executive, who was a Republican governor in a strongly conservative state, exhibits. Yes, I know the Texas legislature was controlled by Democrats at the time, but they were conservative Democrats. Still, I'll have to see a lot more of Romney before I can come to a conclusion on him. Then there's Rudy Giuliani, but while his experience running New York City may make him better qualified in the strictest sense than any other candidate, his civil liberties record in New York leaves me cold.

And, when you come right down to it, my vote in 2008 is likely to come down to what the balance in the House and Senate looks like. The past six years have been quite instructive in the dangers of single-party rule, something the Democrats themselves used to their advantage in the 2006 campaign. I'm sure the party will not feel similarly in 2008, but I certainly do. If the Democrats appear likely to hold the Congress in 2008, I'll push hard for the Republican. If the Republicans are poised to take back Congress, then I'll spend time and money on the Democrat. Who they are specifically matters less to me than ensuring that Congress will have every incentive to keep a tight rein on the executive.

I do like Thoreau's prediction, though: Hillary will win the nomination and the Presidency despite losing the popular vote. His logic? John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison, and George W. Bush, the three prior close relatives of former presidents to run, all lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote and the presidency.

Posted at 04:55 PM · Politics · Comments (2) · TrackBack (0)

January 12, 2007

Small Change, Big Consequences

The Pentagon is changing the rules for reservists. Up until now, a reserve component soldier (this includes National Guard and Reserves) at least knew that after he or she served two years on active duty, their time was up. Now, any RC soldier can be called up to serve a two-year tour, demobilize, then repeat.

The Pentagon is claiming they hope to keep tours to 12 months, but that's not really possible without significant changes to how we operate. Right now, a unit mobilizes, moves to a mobilization station for training that usually lasts two or three months, then deploys to theater for twelve months. Tack on a month to bring them home and demobilize them and you're talking 15-18 month tours as a more likely number, assuming they don't allow RC units to serve shorter tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't know what this will do to retention in the reserve component, but I believe it's realistic to expect it to hurt it. It's not unreasonable to expect the reserve component to have to serve a single two-year tour on active duty while the nation is at war. Expecting them to do so repeatedly is likely sufficient to have reservists asking why they shouldn't either go full time or get out, since they're going to spend such a great deal of time mobilized in any case. This may actually provide some small assistance to the active force, as many reservists decide, as I did, that they want to return to the active force. But I'm concerned about how this may undermine the reserve component as it currently exists.

Posted at 07:57 AM · Military • · Politics • · War · Comments (2) · TrackBack (0)

January 11, 2007

A Proposal for the Democrats

I will begin by noting that I am in complete agreement with hilzoy's proposal. And I sympathize with the Democrats who are gun shy about being unfairly accused of being against the troops because they want to end America's involvement in the Iraq war to a limited extent. It's never any fun being the guy who points out that the party's over and you can see the flashing blue lights from the front yard already, and even less fun when someone wrongfully claims you were the one who called the cops. So, to bolster the Democrats' credentials on national security, I have a suggestion.

To minimize the surge and get U.S. troops out of Iraq, Congress needs to pass funding bills that deny the President to spend the money on troops in Iraq above a certain, downward-trending number. Setting this number would be done best by holding hearings (real ones, not made-for-TV ones) at which the Democrats ask a number of military experts for help developing a reasonable timeline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. This will help to undermine claims the Democrats are trying to tell the President how to fight the war by establishing a glide path vetted by military experts. I do like Abrams' proposal as well, although that might be one to hold until after the White House has attempted to get around the initial restrictions Congress has set. This is what hilzoy has already laid out, of course, I'm just embellishing it a bit.

The next step is to get on the airwaves to establish why the Democrats are doing this: because the President doesn't have a plan to win the war in Iraq, and the Democrats aren't willing to allow American troops to continue to die just because the President isn't willing to fish or cut bait. The President's plan includes no metrics to measure success, no end state that tells us what we want to see as a result of this surge, and no alternatives if it fails (doubtless in part because there's no way to actually measure the plan on its own merits). Given the President's failure, the Democrats have no choice but to insist on the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq to end America's never-ending stream of casualties without result.

The Democrats then need to make the defense budget for 2008 their first priority, and pack it full of the spending required to rebuild the military. That includes money for maintenance, for new vehicles like the Cougar and the M1117, other new equipment that would be of use in a future Iraq-style operation, money for medical care (physical and mental), and funds to train the force on its new equipment and doctrine. I realize that a lot of people won't like the idea of buying the military better counterinsurgency tools, but by doing so the Democrats will be able to demonstrate their seriousness about national security, and that they are backing up their complaints about the shortfalls in equipment during the war by acting to resolve those problems. Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid ought to be able to go on national television and tell the American people that 'Hopefully American soldiers will never again have to fight this kind of battle. But if they do, the Democratic Party is making sure that they will be properly equipped and trained and that no American soldier will have to go into combat with body armor they purchased themselves or with scrap metal bolted onto their vehicles in lieu of vehicles built for the purpose of protecting them from IEDs.' They shouldn't do this all at once and break the budget, I'll note, but they need to do enough of it to demonstrate their seriousness about the issue. This will severely undercut any claims on the right that the Democrats are trying to undercut the troops, as they will have very concrete proof of just what they have done to support the troops.

This is not to suggest that this will make things easy for the Democrats. We leave in a demagogocracy, so the fact remains that people will make claims about each side regardless of the facts. But this plan puts the facts firmly in the Democrats' corner, particularly if they sell this issue as one of doing this because the President has not offered a plan for victory rather than a pullout because it's the best available option (although it may be). Democrats need to be sad that the President has pushed them to this move, and they need to at least look like they mean it. Americans don't like losing wars, and while I believe that by selling the plan in this manner they will garner reasonable respect for their plan, how it is handled will have a major effect on how people view it.

I provide this advice (which, like most advice, is worth precisely what you paid for it) not because I want us to leave Iraq right now. I shudder to think what will happen in Iraq when we leave, and there's no doubt in my mind it will be bad and it is our fault. But the President has failed in his duty to offer a plan that has any reasonable chance at victory. That leaves the Democrats with two unpalatable choices: allow the President to continue an aimless war, or cut it off. (I may be accused of creating a false choice here, but I think this is legitimate. Congress has only blunt instruments for adjusting how we fight a war.) It is not difficult for me to choose between those options.

Posted at 03:37 PM · Politics • · War · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)

January 06, 2007

Iran's Nukes

powered by performancing firefox

Posted at 08:57 AM · International Relations • · Politics • · War · Comments (3) · TrackBack (0)

December 27, 2006

Gerald R. Ford

President Ford died last night. President Ford will, perhaps forever, be remembered as the unelected President. Selected to replace Spiro Agnew after reports of his corruption surfaced, Ford ascended to the Presidency in August 1974 when President Nixon resigned as it became clear the Watergate scandal would result in his impeachment, and Ford then lost a narrow race to President Carter in 1976. Hopefully President Ford will also be known for his integrity. Would that we all could rise to our circumstances as Gerald Ford did. Even knowing it would make him incredibly unpopular, Ford pardoned President Nixon, closing, as he put it, our long national nightmare and allowing the country to truly move on. The odds are pretty good that, had President Ford chosen not to pardon President Nixon, he would have been reelected in 1976, but pardoning Nixon was the right thing to do, so Ford did it. It is a shame that such willingness to do the right thing regardless of the cost is so clearly a thing of the past in today's Washington.

Posted at 07:44 AM · Politics · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)

December 22, 2006

Why Facts Don't Matter

So: Republicans (Nixon, Reagan/Bush) massively increase the deficits. We (Carter, Clinton) come in and bring the deficit under control again. (Various details about how this happened under Clinton are here.) Republicans then regain power and spend uncontrollably again. And so the cycle continues.

powered by performancing firefox

Posted at 09:58 PM · Politics · Comments (10) · TrackBack (0)

December 14, 2006

About Time

While I'm sure there will be many things about a Democratic Congress I will dislike, I'm pleased to see that at least they're going to do one of the things that convinced me to vote for them: provide some oversight of the executive branch. More precisely, they're going to take a closer look at defense spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, an issue that was shamefully ignored by the Republicans over the past three years.

Military activities often require unexpected expenses, and there is a place for emergency appropriations during a time of war. But the Bush administration has abused the privilege, refusing to account for any of the costs of the war in the budget they submit each year, instead insisting that Congress approve emergency spending bills as necessary to finance the war. In 2003 that might have been acceptable. In 2007, it most certainly is not. Part of the DoD's budget ought to include what the administration expects to spend on the war. If it turns out they need more money, they can go back to Congress, explain precisely why their budget was incorrect, and Congress can determine whether or not to provide the additional funds.

I'm sure this will be spun by Republicans as threats to cut off funds to the troops, and the administration will push that line hard in order to gain political advantage. But whether the Bush administration likes it or not, Congress is not a subordinate branch of government; if anything, Congress is the superior branch of government. That is why the Constitution opens with the establishment of the Congress before moving on to the executive. As at least a co-equal branch of governmnet, Congress not only has the right to know how the people's money is being spend, it has an obligation to make sure that it is being spent wisely. The Bush administration has gotten away with no oversight for far too long, and if it takes Congress not giving the President everything he wants for a few months or a year to reestablish the proper relationship between the two branches, so be it. Despite the warnings you'll no doubt hear, I'm sure Congress will provide sufficient funds to keep the military operational.

The American government was established as a republic. An executive was seen as necessary to execute the laws, but the power to make laws has always resided in the Congress. It's time the Bush administration was reminded of that fact.

Posted at 09:21 AM · Politics • · War · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)

December 10, 2006

Laying Blame

powered by performancing firefox

Posted at 06:56 AM · Politics · Comments (1) · TrackBack (0)

December 08, 2006

Fixing the Government

Bill Bennett's reaction to the Iraq Survey Group report seems to me to exemplify a significant problem with how the American government currently works.

Who are these commissioners and what is their expertise in Iraq — or even foreign policy?  Ralph Peters has made the point, “Washington insiders pretend to respect our troops but continue to believe that those in uniform are second-raters and that any political hack can design better war plans than those who've dedicated their lives to military service.”  The entire report is contemptuous of the military, spoken of as pawns on a chess table, barriers, observers, buffers, and trainers.  Never as what they are trained to be: the greatest warriors in the world.  Would it have been too much to ask that one general, or even one outspoken believer in the mission from the get-go, be on this commission?

I do agree with Bennett that it would have been a good idea to have a military man or two on the commission, if only to help evaluate the feasibility of the ISG's recommendations, but Bennett's reaction suggests he either fails to understand or (more likely) disagrees with the purpose of the ISG.

When the military takes the field, it does so to achieve a military objective in order to achieve a political objective. We do not go to war in order to kill people or destroy things. We go to war because we want to impose a political settlement on a nation or group that is unwilling to come to an agreement with us through diplomatic means. There is good reason to make use of military professionals to plan how to fight a war. But because war is ultimately a political action, both the decision to go to war and decisions about the war's objectives must be left to political leaders.

I’m tempted to go on about knowledge of American government, but for brevity, can we just say the president is the commander-in-chief and in charge — because he is elected by the people. 

This comment particularly disturbs me. In large part, the comment is probably accurate, because Congress has abdicated most if not all of its responsibilities. But the fact remains that, under our system of government, it is not up to the President to decide when we go to war. That privilege is reserved for Congress, and with good reason. Going to war is far too important to leave to a single individual, and by that same token, leaving war in the hands of one person is equally inappropriate.

I'm willing to bet that some readers read that last sentence and immediately thought that you can't run a successful war by committee. And that is true as far as it goes. But running a war without oversight is a demonstrated path to failure, at least based on our experience in Iraq. Individuals make mistakes, no matter how skilled they are. Congressional oversight provides a backstop against such errors. The President has the lead in running the war, but Congress does not bow out of the play once the declaration of war has passed.

It remains to be seen what, if anything, can be salvaged from Iraq. But there is no evidence the Bush administration is going to make any changes, positive or otherwise, without Congress getting involved. The 109th Congress has left the building. It's time to see if the 110th can improve on its record.

powered by performancing firefox

Posted at 08:48 PM · Military • · Politics · Comments (2) · TrackBack (0)

December 02, 2006

Yes, But...

An interesting article brought to my attention by Josh Marshall's TPM Daily Digest. Apparently Dennis Prager is upset because Congressman-Elect Keith Ellison wants to swear his oath of office on a Koran. Hardly surprising for a man who happens to be a Muslim, but Prager is upset about it, and one of Josh's muckrakers is rightly taking Prager to task for it. I am curious, however, about the writer's choice of openings.

Outrages come a dime a dozen these days. But here's one that deserves a few moments of attention. Dennis Prager, the Jewish and increasingly looney radio talk show host, says that Keith Ellison, the country's first elected Muslim congressman, shouldn't be in Congress if he won't take the oath of office on the Christian Bible.

What word jumps out at you in that paragraph? Your mileage probably varies from mine, but I found it fascinating that the author felt it necessary to note Prager's religion. Indeed, the column seems to be mostly about Prager's religion, as the author goes on to describe Prager as a 'self-hating Jew' and offers up quite a few other bot mots regarding Prager's religion.

Perhaps I'm overly sensitive. But I wonder what the author's reaction might be to a similar column about a Muslim that described the subject as a self-hating Muslim or accused him of only hating the 80% of Muslims who are conservative?

Prager sounds like a schmuck, no questions asked. Dragging his religion into the issue where it has no relevance strikes me as decidedly inappropriate.

Update: As for Prager's argument, such as it is, Radley Balko sums up my feelings in the matter perfectly.

Posted at 08:49 AM · Politics · Comments (6) · TrackBack (0)

November 30, 2006

Wonders Never Cease

In the kind of revelation that would leave Claude Rains "shocked," the Democrats have decided that at least one of their campaign promises is too much work. Yes, after battering the Republicans senseless over their failure to fully implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the Democrats have decided to...not fully implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Now, they will be implementing most of the recommendations, at least, all the ones that don't cost them anything. But when it comes to one of the things that could really make a difference in how our intelligence services operate, they've decided to take a pass. Rather than shift control of the intelligence services' budgets to the intelligence committees who are responsible for oversight of intelligence, they're going to leave it under the control of the armed services committee. This was one of the better recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, as by giving the people responsible for oversight control of the pursestrings, Congress will be in a much better position to ensure our intelligence agencies are doing the right things. By failing to do this, Congressional oversight of intelligence will remain an unloaded weapon: the committee can make recommendations, but since they can't punish the agencies if they fail to improve, the agencies have little or no incentive to change.

This is a significant disappointment. I was not overly impressed by the Democrats' blanket adoption of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations; Congress' job is to do the legwork necessary to see what changes need to be made, after all. But if they're going to throw out one of the most valuable recommendations because it's unpopular among their own rank-and-file, then it becomes pretty easy to see what matters most to the Democrats. Hint: it's not national security.

But for those who want to jump on this post as evidence of buyer's remorse, you're wasting your time. The Republicans weren't willing to do this, either, and every bit of evidence gathered over the last five years suggests that the Republicans only saw national security as a good issue for them during election season. The fact the Democrats will probably view it similarly is disappointing, but hardly evidence that voting for Democrats was a mistake.

Posted at 03:10 PM · Politics · Comments (1) · TrackBack (0)

November 29, 2006

School in the Summertime

I was generally pleased to see former Secretary of the Navy James Webb defeat Senator George Allen in Virginia, as I saw little to recommend Allen as a particularly good senator and Webb seemed like an interesting addition to the Democratic Party. I still feel that he is certainly that, but his behavior at a White House reception certain raises some questions about his abilities and judgment.

According to the Washington Post, Webb avoided the President as long as he could, choosing not to go through the reception line or have his picture taken with the President. When President Bush approached him and asked about his son, Webb responded "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," and ended the conversation. In explaining this rudeness to the President, Webb explained "leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is."

Hmmm....so Webb's message is that he's a rude jerk, presumably. Not exactly the message I'd like to get across were I in his shoes, but far be it from me to tell him how to be a senator. Still, it's hard not to wonder about the judgment of a man who claims to want to work with the Bush administration, but takes the first available opportunity to be unnecessarily rude to the President.

This is a minor incident that matters not at all in the grand scheme of things. But as an indicator of Webb's temperament and judgment, it speaks volumes, none of them good.

powered by performancing firefox

Posted at 08:43 AM · Politics · Comments (4) · TrackBack (0)

A Challenge for 'Libertarian' Democrats

There are a lot of things that libertarians and Democrats are never going to agree on. But there's one area where they ought to be in agreement, if there are in fact any areas of overlap between them: the drug war. Every year the federal government expends billions of dollars trying to prevent people from putting certain substances in their body, with negligible effects on the availability of those substances but with fearful consequences for the American people.

For the average libertarian, federal drug laws are an abomination. Congress has no power under the Constitution to tell people what they can or can not put into their bodies. At best, Congress could place some taxes or tariffs on illegal drugs, but nothing in Article I suggests that Congress has the ability to outlaw drugs simply because they are viewed as harmful to the users.

From a personal liberty standpoint, the view is similar. Believe it or not, I have never used illegal drugs in my life. Doubtless I was a victim of all the anti-drug propaganda I was fed as a child. But I see no reason whatsoever to prevent people from using illegal drugs if they so choose. If it makes you happy to smoke marijuana or shoot heroin, that's your business, not mine. I'd be in favor of making sure that laws against driving under the influence applied to driving while using those substances as well, but if what you're doing doesn't harm others, outlawing it on the basis of 'your own good' strikes me as a terrible principle for any government. If we don't have the right to control our own bodies, our rights are basically null and void save for those the government is willing to grant us. While that is, de facto, how governments work, it is the antithesis of how government is supposed to work. When we establish governments, their primary purpose should be to protect our rights, not to decide what rights it is willing to grant us.

Then there is the question of collateral damage. Above and beyond the people who are killed or hurt in needless drug raids, there are the millions of people who live in neighborhoods that have been terribly damaged by crime, much of which is drug crime or drug-related crime. By making drugs illegal, the government has created as vast infrastructure of crime that disproportionately harms the poor and most-vulnerable members of our society. Ending the drug war won't make the poor any richer, but it might mean less of them having to worry about their children dying in senseless gang violence. It will take years to undo all the bad results brought on by drug criminalization, but that will only get worse over time until we finally choose to stop this 'war'.

Ending the drug war would have several positive outcomes. It would free up vast space in our jails currently occupied by people whose only crime was providing a substance other people were willing to buy. It will free up vast amounts of police time to investigate more important crimes; every minute a cop is trying to buy a dime bag from an informant is a minute the cop isn't trying to find out who burgled a home, raped a woman, or murdered someone. I know what I'd rather see the police doing. It would reduce the incentive for 'no-knock' raids on people's homes, the kind that place police and citizens alike in unnecessary danger just to prevent the alleged threat of a dealer flushing his stock. And it would scale back the unnecessarily broad power of the federal government to interfere in people's lives.

It is this last that I know scares some Democrats. I still recall with horror the opinion of Matt Yglesias to the ruling in Gonzales v. Raich: "Sympathetic as one might be to the defendants in this case, a victory for their side could have led to very bad consequences down the road." Yes, this might have led to some limitations on the power of the federal government, and we all know the horror this brings to some Democrats. Better that people suffer so we can use the power of the federal government to make more people suffer. Yes, I know that's not Yglesias' view; he thinks he's going to use the power of the federal government to solve the world's problems. Of course, a lot of despots rise to power with the intention to use government power to do good; we've seen how well that works out.

But if there are libertarian Democrats to be found out there, this would be a great place for them to start. If the Democrats are looking to draw in libertarians to their point of view, taking on America's foolish Drug War would be an excellent place to start the campaign.

Update: As I should have noted up front, thi