Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Politics

  • Free Speech and Savings Possible

    … at one blow. Eliminate these. I have never been able to understand how controls on the money people use in order to speak could be considered consistent with free speech. In fact, it’s a way to control speech.

    So we could eliminate regulations, reduce the federal budget, make it easier to get into campaigning by getting rid of complicated language, and eliminate the headaches of people who have to figure out a “good” limit on contributions when there is no such thing.

    Oh, and by the way, I considered Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire one of my most useful RSS feeds.

  • Bad Reasons for Getting Out of a War

    I’m an opponent of the Iraq war, but I oppose it on strategic grounds. Even now, I believe that we have gained very little, and are in fact worse off than when we started. After a period of time we will find that Iraq has become another haven for terrorists, perhaps not as bad as Afghanistan was, but definitely not safe and friendly. We can blame that on the idea that we can create a government in such a state that is both democratic and reliably friendly, and do so by force from the outside.

    For some odd reason, foreigners killing local folks, however they may express their justification, just don’t become popular with the same local folks. Sometimes you have to do it, but don’t expect it to make you popular. So if you are carrying out a war in order to become popular, for some reason you’re likely to fail.

    Stupid, conflicting aims – lousy results. We similarly harmed our own interests when we pushed for early elections for the Palestinians, and then were shocked by the results. (Ex-President Bush take note: People do freely choose terrorists as their rulers.)

    But then there are bad reasons for getting out of a war, for example:

    • The people will start to love us if we go home after the invasion.
    • Force is really unnecessary if we just talk enough.
    • We’re really tired of fighting the war.
    • This is harder than we thought when we started.

    Thus I view with some alarm this report that only 1/3 of Americans support sending more troops to Afghanistan. In this case the point is not popularity, though we may be able to aid the current government. The point is hunting terrorists, in a place where actual terrorists live. As long as that is a viable option, we need to be willing to use the necessary resources. When it is strategically right, we need to be able to move on.

    Now I must give a hat tip to Dr. Michael Westmoreland-White, who alerted me to this report. In his case I must note that he is consistently opposed the war, in fact, all wars. That is a consistent and moral position, even though I disagree.

    The folks that get on my nerves are the ones who are happy to invade, kill a few thousand people, and then get out because it’s inconvenient. They don’t oppose war; they oppose inconvenience. Theirs is not a moral choice; it’s a position into which they drift for their own comfort.

    Americans have a bad habit of supporting the glory of a quick invasion when we can see the enemy running and dying. It’s the hard job of cleaning up afterward for which we lack the stomach. That’s the worst of all possible combinations; it’s childish and immature. A nation with our kind of firepower can’t afford to be so childish and immature.

  • Dr. Reich Stirs up some Hornets

    I’ve been following Dr. Reich’s blog ever since I discovered it during the primary season. He was Labor Secretary during the Clinton administration, and I recall not always agreeing with him at the time, though I don’t recall the details. In any case, from the time when TARP was passed through the auto industry bailout, and now in specific testimony and writing regarding the stimulus package, I have to say that I have found him extremely thoughtful and constructive.

    Thus it’s interesting to note that no less (or greater!) a trio than Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh have misconstrued some of his testimony to congress, and of course have begun yelling about it. (Media Matters reports on it, HT to Robert Reich.)

    Of course, there is a group of people, fortunately small I think, who believe that every attempt to be inclusive is automatically an attack on white men. As a white man myself, I repudiate such notions. I believe that each of us is made better as society becomes more inclusive and that the expansion of the economy in size, in creativity, in competition, and in diversity is well worth any temporary displacement.

    Dr. Reich is merely asking that we make sure that the jobs created by the stimulus go to a broad range of people–an admirable goal. In any case, his suggestions are serious enough to merit careful and substantial debate, not a mauling by shallow political entertainers.

    I know, what fantasy land to I [want to] live in?

  • A Caution to Republicans and Democrats

    I’m an independent who voted Democratic this time. Now obviously I can’t speak for independents as a group. That is, after all, what independent means. One of the things I wanted was bipartisanship, and my impression is that either I don’t know what that means or most of the people in Washington DC are pretty clueless on the matter.

    In my view bipartisanship means honestly listening to one another, and cooperating across party lines wherever that will work. There are two things to avoid: 1) Bickering, grandstanding, and other such tactics and 2) Compromising away your principles. I think both of these things should be avoided diligently and equally.

    When two politicians disagree on a substantive issue of principle, debate it out openly and honestly, and then end up voting against one another, I regard that as good civic responsibility. When the same politicians waffle around until they find some mushy compromise, I call that dishonesty and cowardice.

    So when President Obama and congressional leaders get together, I don’t mind the fact that the Republicans have numerous objections to the stimulus package that is taking shape on the Democratic side. They should. There is much here to which one may object.

    When President Obama gives as his reason for opposing them the fact that he won, that is also quite within bounds. After all, he did win, and not only has the right and the power to pursue the policies one which he campaigned, or which he deems appropriate in the current circumstances; he has a duty to do so.

    On the other hand, when Democractic leaders in congress write rules that tend to freeze Republicans out of the process, that’s not bipartisan, and when a Republican such as Senator John Cornyn of Texas uses the rules that are available to block a cabinet appointment when he (a) knows he’s going to lose in the end and (b) intends to vote for the particular appointee in any case, that’s not bipartisan.

    At the same time, if was actually opposed on principle to the appointment itself, saying so and voting against the appointment would be simply carrying out his duty as a Senator.

    It seems to me that the politicians simply don’t understand how grandstanding and petty bickering looks to those who are not already their committed followers. I think it’s one reason congress, under the control of either party, has extremely low approval ratings as a whole. We just see too much of this sort of behavior.

    It seems simple to me–talk, listen, decide, vote. Procedural tricks are quite valid when they can accomplish something, but when they are used simply to draw attention to oneself, I think they will tend to backfire more and more.

    I’ve voted Republican before. I voted Democratic this time, for the most part. I could easily be persuaded to vote Republican again–or for a third party if sufficiently provoked.

    That’s just a thought from one independent.

  • The Press is No More Intelligent

    I just watched the initial White House press briefing. I was watching on MSNBC, and immediately afterwards one of the reporters commented that the briefing was quite contentious, that the press corps was “feisty” and that this should lay to rest any idea that the press, which was pretty negative on President Bush, would fail to be vigilant in challenging the Obama White House.

    Now I think that a free press is very important in a democracy. I believe that one of the few things on which I can be said to take an extreme position is freedom of speech and of the press. But if the press that is free is also lazy and stupid, that freedom will do little good.

    In this case, the majority of the questions were stupid. While they may have put the briefer (Robert Gibbs) on the spot because they were unexpected, they also were unlikely to elicit any valuable information or pressure any substantive change. The questions on the retaking of the oath of office and the concerns over how it was covered by the press were particularly inane and childish. (I was going to write a short post on the oath thing, but Allan Bevere wrote a better one.)

    The frequent complaint about bloggers, however valid, is also often valid about the mainstream media. In Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, there’s a scene in which a young reporter, carried away by the joy of reporting an important accomplishment says that he had always wanted to be someone who reports news. Our press should consider sharing that fictional young man’s ambition.

  • And Now for a Liberal Attack on Free Speech

    … in the Netherlands.

  • This Should Have Happened Yesterday

    Senate confirms Clinton as secretary of state. Two things will keep me annoyed with Republicans–failure to stand up for principles and useless gestures for no purpose. This was the latter.

  • A Few Kicks in the Rear

    I think that President Barack Obama’s inaugural speech was less about soaring rhetoric and more about giving the nation a few kicks in the rear, though only in the nicest way.

    Yet the kicks were firm for all of that. While government has work to do, we all need to change our attitude and get going both in work and in service.

    I was also pleased to note that he mentioned “non-believers” in his list of groups. That doesn’t happen all that often.

    Let’s try to live up to it!

  • Great Days but Bad Quarters

    Rossini said of Wagner that he had great moments but bad quarter hours. I’m paraphrasing this as a short post-mortem on President George W. Bush. I think that several times during his presidency, George Bush showed the potential for greatness, but only for a moment. The way in which he has handled the transition, for example, at a minimum shows his capacity to be gracious and his willingness to work together with others. I could only wish that he had shown this ability during the rest of his presidency.

    There were also moments when he showed an ability to communicate. There were a number of good speeches, though he doesn’t have truly great presentation, he can be quite adequate to the task. But apparently he didn’t see the need to communicate a vision to the country.

    Don’t get me wrong on what I am about to say. I am an implacable foe of the war in Iraq. I believe that we will not be happy with what will be left months and years after we withdraw, and I believe we would be unhappy with the result if we stayed another five years lost a few thousand more troops, and then withdrew. That’s because our goals in going to war there were nonsense from a strategic point of view.

    But having chosen to go to war, President Bush acted as though there was no need for continued support of the war. There are indications that many in his administration thought the war would be much easier. I have a hard time crediting that level of stupidity. I find it easier to believe that certain people thought the war would sell better presented as an easy thing, and then it would be easier to get additional support by pointing to troops in harm’s way.

    In a democracy, one of the strategic resources for a war is public support. In deciding to go to war, political leaders need to calculate that they have enough support from the American people to carry their war to a conclusion. The arrogant decide that if they start a war the public must support it as a patriotic duty. This is nonsense. Patriots should vocally oppose bad wars. It’s our duty to our country and our troops.

    But this kind of quick sell of a concept followed by an assumption that, the decision having been made, the people would stick with him, seems to have characterized Bush’s presidency. Even with very bad decisions, a more constant communication would have helped.

    In the transition, while President Bush has been much more gracious and has helped facilitate an effective transfer of power, his powers of communication have actually dimmed, in my view. His farewell speech was laughable and seemed even more detached from reality than normal.

    I’m reminded of the day I watched the Southern League All-Star game in Jacksonville, FL. I was there because my stepson, John Webb, was one of the pitchers, but he doesn’t come into the story. A batter whose name I don’t remember stepped up to the plate, swung with great power at a pitch, lost hold of the bat, and sent it several rows into the stands. Some fans, who should receive psychiatric care, tried to catch the bat, but it crashed to the ground.

    The 43rd president thinks history will judge him much more favorably than he is judged now. In the sense that the distance of time makes failures seem less disastrous, perhaps it will. But I believe he will be remembered as a president who had great challenges and great opportunities, stepped up to the plate, and swung the bat at the ball with vigor. For a moment, those of us who wished him well looked for a home run. But much like that batter at the all-star game, he lost hold, and the bat flew into the stands, threatening the well-being of bystanders.

  • Is Tomorrow a Down Payment on the Dream?

    On Meet the Press on Sunday Tavis Smiley made a comment that stuck with me. I have to extract this from a longer statement, and you can find the whole thing here. He said:

    … I think, though, it’s important to state that Obama’s election is a down payment on King’s dream, it is not the fulfillment of King’s dream, and that’s a crucial, I think, and critical distinction we have to make. A significant down payment to be sure, and King would certainly be celebrating this moment. But the closest thing in King’s lifetime to this Obama moment was the election of the first black mayor of a major American city, Carl Stokes in Cleveland. King went to Cleveland and, if I can paraphrase it this way, talked about this notion of black faces in high places. And while that’s something to celebrate, there is work to be done and we have got to keep the focus on the issues. And where Mr. Obama is concerned, while black America and all of America will certainly celebrate this, because King is, again, not just a black leader, he’s the best of what America is all about. …

    Now Mr. Smiley makes a good point. Election of the first African-American president is not the end of the story in terms of equal rights in America. There will be much more to be done. One of the benefits I see in having Barack Obama as president is that the very fact of his being in office will start many discussions and help change perceptions. He is not so much the sign of the end of a process but rather a milestone showing how far we have come and how far we have to go.

    But there is a problem with the whole “payment” and “down-payment” type of language with reference to what has gone on. I’m not talking about the validity of any claims for reparations. I’m talking about the way we think about equal rights and freedom for everyone. It’s practically a cliche to say that if one person isn’t free, then nobody is free. But I don’t believe we often think about how true that is.

    In doing injustice to one group of our citizens, we also injure ourselves. It is tragic for any group to be oppressed, but what about the insanity of oppressors? One of the things that the bus protest in Montgomery managed to communicate to some remarkably thick headed people was that the African-American community was part of the same economy, and that by oppressing that part of the community the opportunities of everyone were limited.

    The south didn’t lose the civil war because they were morally wrong, though they certainly were–they lost because they did not have the economy to handle such a war. One reason was that a slave economy was really not all that efficient.

    I would regard slavery as immoral even if it was not also quite insane, but there is a certain disgusting pathos about people who are oppressing someone else while at the same time making their own lives worse than they might be otherwise. Perhaps there is a reason why white-supremacy rallies do not appear to be attended by the best and the brightest!

    Now there are certainly some people who can prosper in such an economy, but overall and in the long term such things tend to fail, and to fail in a spectacular manner.

    As a Christian I believe we do owe one another allegiance, and that we do have a duty to help free the oppressed, to care for the poor and needy. I think there is a moral duty to do such things not because they are good for me, but because they are good. At the same time, I think God has so ordered the universe that it seems that I can do good for myself by doing good for others, that I will live in a richer and better society if I am willing to sacrifice for others and fight for their rights.

    Ultimately, the greatest good that can come from this election is not in the person we elected, or in specific milestones in our progress, but in the changes in the way we think about freedom, and in a determination to pursue freedom and justice for everyone. The down-payment was paid much more when each person made his or her decision about the election, and decided to vote based on the content of the candidate’s character and the good of the country, rather than on the color of that candidate’s skin.

    (Note that, as I wrote before [see Yes, Race Influences my Vote], I believe there was a value in electing an African-American president of the United States. I put that under “good of the country.” Were the content of his character not appropriate, however, the value of that symbolism would be inadequate to drive my vote.)

    Now some people did vote purely or mostly on the basis of race, at least as indicated by the polls. Some cast their vote out of hatred. But I believe that the majority went out a voted their conscience, and that was the down-payment–not the inauguration of the particular person who was elected.

    We have much further to go in terms of equal treatment of all people. One example of the type of insanity I described is the discharge of much needed linguists from the military simply because they are gay or lesbian. In a time when we have a documented need for more linguists, we have released some of them because of a sexual preference. There is an unmeasured and unmeasurable claim that morale will suffer that is allowed to overcome a demonstrable need. That’s insanity, in my view. We need to change it.

    “Don’t ask, don’t tell” means that qualified people who want to serve their country are not permitted to do so. At the same time the country is denied their services. That’s insanity and it needs to stop.

    Our attitudes towards race and toward all other forms of discrimination–all discrimination that is based on irrelevant factors is not only immoral in itself, it is insane. In allowing freedom to be withdrawn from others, we cultivate oppression for ourselves.