Obsidian Wings

McCain on Afghanistan?

by von

Andrew Sullivan:

McCain On Afghanistan

It's a good sign that Obama cannot win. If he exerts caution, he's an incrementalist, as in Vietnam. If he withdraws, he's flying the white flag of surrender. And so the man who won the election is being goaded by the man who lost it.

This isn't what McCain actually said.  McCain is concerned that Obama's incrementalism will make it more difficult to get more troops for Afghanistan in the future, if they are needed.  He is trying to avoid the consequences of Vietnam by being clear with the American people regarding the difficulty of the struggle against the Taliban, and the need to expend more blood and treasure.  

"Sen. John McCain largely applauded the Obama administration's approach to Afghanistan on Tuesday. But he said that if he had been elected, he would have done a variety of things differently ....

"I would have... went ahead and announced the overall addition of troops," said McCain. ["]Rather than be accused of a Lyndon Johnson style of incrementalism, because it is very clear what General McKiernan asked for even though it may not be right away, I probably would have announced that we intend to do that."

....

"I support this [Obama's] plan," said McCain. "I probably would have done a few things differently. One, and most importantly, is to emphasize, and the president did, but I think you really have to emphasize how difficult this will be. As with the surge there will be an increase in conflict and therefore an increase in casualties as we move south in Afghanistan and try to reassert control in some regions."

....

"I think it is more problematic among Democratic leadership," McCain said of the potential for waning support. "We all know that the Speaker [Nancy Pelosi] comes from a very liberal district and we all now that Harry Reid has been very nervous about troop levels in Iraq... I guess what I worry about is that most Americans have not been sufficiently alerted to the [issues we are] going to face there."

In contrast to Dick Cheney's buffonery, McCain's statement is exactly what a loyal opposition is supposed to do. (You do expect the loyal opposition to oppose on occasion, right?) The 4,000 new troops that Obama recently pledged for Afghanistan are a down payment, not a final one. Obama hasn't ruled out sending more troops.  McCain's point is that more troops are almost certainly necessary.  As Eric Martin will explain at length, Afghanistan is -- how you say? -- hard.  McCain proposes sending 40,000 more troops as part of a broad, multi-faceted effort to address US regional concerns (that is to say, US concerns regarding Pakistan).  McCain has also set a much larger target for the size of Afghanistan's security forces, an idea that the Obama Administration seems prepared to consider.

Not everything Obama does is a desperate prayer for Karl Marx.  Not everything McCain does is a dogwhistle to refight arguments over the Vietnam War.  Don't dismiss McCain's point because he's the messenger, or because boomers at the HuffPo play up every boomeriffic angle.  Move on, my friend .... you have to move on.

Here All the Bombs Fade Away

by Eric Martin

The unfortunate truth about nuclear non-proliferation is that any country that is determined enough to obtain nuclear weapons - and that has the resources and the technological savvy to complement the will and economic means - can eventually become a nuclear-armed power.  However, there are good reasons for the US and the international community to want to prevent more nations from joining the nuclear club: each such entrant has the capacity to trip another regional arms race, and the more nuclear armed nations, the greater the risk that at some point, the unthinkable will happen.

In the case of Iran, the technological advances made on the uranium enrichment front have brought that country close to being able to construct a nuclear weapon at some time in the next five to ten years.  Maybe a bit sooner, but the delivery system obstacles remain.  If Iran does cross that threshold, it could inspire other nations in the Middle East/Gulf region to make a similar push to counter Iran's new found position.  Then again, nearby powers such as Pakistan, Israel and India are already nuclear-armed, and that status has not thus far provoked a nuclear scramble.  Not that we should rely on that as a good guide to future actions on the arms race front.

The proximity of nuclear armed powers has at least partially influenced Iran's decision making process throughout the years - making the acquisition of such weapons a prominent objective in order to ensure greater military parity with regional rivals.  That, and the fear of regime change initiated by the United States, which has recently been under the guidance of an administration that was not exactly putting any minds at ease in Tehran.

So the question arises, given Iran's progress to date, and given the reality that if Iran keeps at it it will eventually obtain a nuclear weapon if it so desires, is there any way to forestall that turn of events?  The only possibility is making the abandonment of any future nuclear weapons program attractive enough to Iran.  Stephen Walt is likely right that coaxing Iran to give up its enrichment program is not feasible at this juncture - given the amount of resources dedicated to that endeavor already, and given the nationalist sentiment associated therewith - but there is at least a chance to establish a red line with respect to weaponization. 

Walt's recommendations (linked to previously on this site) are well worth the read, as is Stephen Miller's follow-up post on the subject.  However, rather than debate the merits of Walt's suggestions, I wanted to highlight the futility - in fact, the counterproductive nature - of other approaches.  Namely, the notion that we can keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon by bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. 

The consensus amongst most observers (even most proponents of air strikes) is that the air strike option would, at best, only delay Iran's attainment of a nuclear weapon by about five years or so - with the fear that, like Iraq in reaction to the Osirak reactor bombing, Iran would speed up its efforts and further protect its facilities from future attacks.  In a recent debate on the subject, neoconservative stalwart Josh Muravchik sought to allay such concerns by pointing out that we could just continue to bomb Iran as necessary, and that we could just assume that our military technology and intelligence gathering capacity will always be up to the next challenge:

...if we bomb and do wholesale damage to its nuclear weapons program, then the clock starts running on the next round.

And I donʹt see any reason to assume that, technologically, Iran is going to beat us in the next round. That is, they will be trying to find new ways to fortify and hide and what have‐you, their rebuilt nuclear weapons program, if, in fact, they do attempt to rebuild it.

And we, in turn, will move forward with developing better bunker‐busting bombs or whatever else we need, and with additional intelligence, to find out where those things are and to have the capability to hit them...

As Justin Logan points out:

...we’re supposed to accept, arguendo, perfect intelligence and military technology endowed with borderline-magical powers.  This is a variant of the “I don’t know, the military will have to figure that stuff out” argument.

Leaving aside the fact that the Muravchik approach puts the US on a serial war-footing with Iran (and Iran could and would retaliate throughout the region, complicating several missions and likely escalating to all out war), if, eventually, our military technology and/or intelligence fails to meet the next round's requirements, we will be left with a nuclear armed Iran that is a bitter adversary, with years of violent conflict between us to broach somehow.  While Iran and the US are already hostile, our current acrimony would pale in comparison to the breach between us should we undertake a series of bombing raids in Iranian territory over the next decade or two.

The neoconservative response to the argument that bombing only delays, but does not rule out, a nuclear armed Iran and that such approach ensures that when Iran does get a nuclear weapon, it will be an entrenched and zealous enemy, is rooted in magical thinking that makes the hand waving about future military technology seem firmly grounded in reality.  At the debate linked to above, Muravchik and Elliot Abrams offer the latest variation on the Bill Kristol argument that bombing Iran will lead to an American-friendly, pro-democracy uprising - Flowers and Candy 2.0.  Phillip Weiss recalls Muravchik's argument:

Muravchik says if we bomb them, then they're likely to be like Argentina after the Falklands disaster: the people will throw out the militant government. Again: does anyone believe this? Sadjadpour explodes it. He speaks of the case of Ahmad Batebi, the human rights activist famously on the cover of The Economist, who spent 10 years in Iranian prisons, in solitary, before escaping to the west; well, Batebi said that if the U.S. bombs Iran he will go back there to fight for his country.  

Justin Logan quotes Abrams:

We are not talking about the Americans killing civilians, bombing cities, destroying mosques, hospitals, schools. No, no, no – weʹre talking about nuclear facilities which most Iranians know very little about, have not seen, will not see, some quite well hidden.

So they wake up in the morning and find out that the United States if attacking those facilities and, presumably, with some good messaging about why weʹre doing it and why we are not against the people of Iran.

Itʹs not clear to me that the reaction letʹs go to war with the Americans, but rather, perhaps, how did we get into this mess? Why did those guys, the very unpopular ayatollahs in a country 70 percent of whose population is under the age of 30, why did those old guys get us into this mess.

First of all, Iran deliberately located some facilities near population centers, so undoubtedly there would be civilian casualties from the ordnance itself.  Second, scientists and engineers are also civilians, and their deaths would elicit more than a mere shrug - let alone a bout of pro-US euphoria.  Finally, is there a reason why Iranians would not be angered by military deaths?  Those soldiers have families, extended relatives and friends.  And even regular citizens tend to view such attacks on their military with outrage. 

The Bush administration was rather unpopular in the United States in the waning days of its second term, but if a foreign country bombed a US military installation, those looking to vote Bush out of office would call for swift and brutal retaliation.

Bottom line: people don't react with gratitude when you bomb them.  It's not rocket science nuclear physics.

It Could Have Been a Brilliant Career

by Eric Martin

For several months there has been speculation (both on the right and left) that General David Petraeus might throw his hat in the ring as a would-be contender for the Republican nomination in 2012 or 2016.  Considering the uninspiring roster of GOP hopefuls (from Palin and Huckabee to Romney and Jindal), it's easy to see why GOP stalwarts are pining for this man in uniform.  Similarly, given Petraeus' reputation and ostensible successes in Iraq and elsewhere, and the general level of adulation afforded military figures in American society, it's understandable that his presence on the top GOP ticket could cause some Democrats to fret.

Petraeus has maintained for some time that he has no intentionof seeking either Party's nomination in 2012, but such denials tend to be pro forma at such an early date and would not be held against him should he change his mind as 2012 nears.  However, in an appearance on CNN yesterday, Petraeus made comments that ran afoul of one of the modern GOP's litmus tests: Petraeus suggested that he opposes the use of torture, and that he disagrees with Vice President Cheney when the latter asserts that abstaining from torture makes our country less safe.

When presented with Cheney's assertion to that effect, Petraeus said the following (via Think Progress):

Well, I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that. I think in fact that there is a good debate going on about the importance of values in all that we do. I think that if one violates the values that we hold so dear, that we jeopardize [our troops]...We think for the military, in particular that camp, that’s a line [torture] that can’t be crossed. [...]

It is hugely significant to us to live the values that we hold so dear and that we have fought so hard to protect over the years.

With opinions such as those, it will be exceedingly difficult for a candidate - even one with Petraeus' pedigree and popularity - to make it through the GOP primary process.  Recall, during the last go around, each candidate (other than Ron Paul) took turns trying to outdo the other in their emphatic support for the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques.  Mitt Romney actually scored points amongst the GOP faithful when he declared that his goal was to double the size of - and number of detainees held at - Guantanamo Bay prison.

Since that time, conservatives have only redoubled their defense of torture, with prominent voices bemoaning the fact that Bush did not waterboard more detainees, and others still arguing, mendaciously, about torture's value.   As bizarre as this might sound to someone who just awoke from a 10 year coma, it doesn't seem likely that a candidate opposed to torturing detainees (the more the merrier) could win the Republican Party's nomination for President in 2012 and the foreseeable future.  One of the enduring Bush/Cheney contributions to the Republican Party platform.

In earnest, I hope that assessment is wrong. 

Don't Cave On Cramdowns

by hilzoy

From CongressDaily, via the Wonk Room:

"Senate Majority Leader Reid said today he would drop a cram-down provision from a House-passed banking bill if the language threatened to keep the Senate from passing the overall bill. The provision would allow a bankruptcy judge to reduce a homeowner's mortgage principal. "If we can't get the votes for that, and I am hopeful we can -- I am semiconfident we can -- then what I'll do is take that off [the bill] and do the other banking provisions," Reid said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. Reid said he would work to keep the package intact, but raising the prospect of pulling the provision seemed to acknowledge assertions by Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and others that the cram-down bill cannot pass due to opposition from Republicans and some Democratic moderates."

As I've said before, caving on cramdowns would be a big mistake. Presently, every other form of secured debt can be written down to its present value in bankruptcy, provided the borrower can make payments on it at its new, reduced value. Allowing cramdowns would simply treat mortgages like any other form of secured debt. This matters for a number of reasons.

Often, the alternative is foreclosure. Foreclosures are not good for anyone: not the homeowner, not the neighborhood, not the bank. Banks are now starting to walk away from foreclosures: this means that after a homeowner has gotten a foreclosure notice and moved out, after the now-vacant property has been vandalized or turned into a crack house and lost a lot of its value, the bank refuses to take title, and the homeowner is stuck with both the house and the debt s/he can't pay. 

One reason this happens is that if the mortgage has been securitized, it's very hard to locate all the people who now own a tiny little piece of it, let alone to get them all to sign off on renegotiating it. Cramdowns would get around this problem: bankruptcy judges can write a mortgage down to the present value of the home unilaterally, without having to get all the people who own some part of the mortgage to sign off. 

Another is that banks are sometimes unwilling to write down a mortgage because they do not want to have to write down any comparable mortgages they might have on their books. If the mortgage is, in fact, not worth as much as they value it at, then they ought to write it down, along with any comparable mortgages. Bankruptcy judges do not take into account banks' desire not to acknowledge losses they have already taken, nor should they. 

Besides all that, though, there's a good economic case for allowing cramdowns. We seem to be rescuing a lot of companies lately. But it's no good trying, for instance, to save GM if we don't have customers who are able and willing to buy cars. As any number of commenters have said, we need to shore up the not just businesses' balance sheets, but consumers', since if they are not able and willing to spend, then even the best-run businesses will fail.

Some ways of doing this -- e.g., putting people to work doing things that need doing -- don't involve problems of moral hazard. But any attempt to try to reduce people's debts does. However, in the case of cramdowns, these concerns are a lot smaller than they would be otherwise, since in order to get this kind of debt relief, you need to declare bankruptcy. And no one likes declaring bankruptcy. No one declares bankruptcy just for fun. So the problem of moral hazard is, in this case, a lot smaller than it would be otherwise.

Allowing cramdowns is good for everyone. It's good for homeowners, since if they could make payments on their house if it were written down to its present value, they get to stay in it. It's good for the neighborhoods in which these homes are found, since it prevents abandonment and blight. It's good for the housing market, since it means fewer foreclosed homes for sale. It's good for the banks, except that they will have to acknowledge losses they ought to acknowledge anyways. 

Caving on this would be a serious mistake. If your Senator is among those who are wavering, let him or her know how you feel.

George Will's Legal Extremism

by publius

Noted climatologist George Will shifted gears to constitutional law yesterday, arguing that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) (i.e., the bailout) is unconstitutional. The specific claim is that it violates the nondelegation doctrine, which holds that "legislative" acts cannot be "delegated" to other entities, particularly the executive branch.

There are at least two interesting aspects of Will's column. First, it reminds us why it's always important to understand the logical implications of Will's (and his ideological comrades') seemingly innocent legal arguments. The column sounds reasonable enough on first read. The EESA, Will argues, is too broad, and it gives the executive too much power. Fair enough.

However, the doctrine that Will wants to use to kill the EESA would have the added benefit of effectively destroying the post-New Deal administrative state. It's always the New Deal with these people.

Today, the doctrine is essentially toothless -- and hasn't been used to invalidate a statute since the New Deal. (Good short summary on the doctrine here). But for decades, the more extreme elements of the legal conservative world have been trying to revive it from the dead. As the summary above indicates, both Thomas and Rehnquist have tried -- but no such luck thus far.

It's also no surprise that Will cites law professor Gary Lawson for support. In addition to being a "founding member" of the Federalist Society, Lawson thinks the post-New Deal administrative state is unconstitutional. And that's the whole point -- it's not about the bailout, but about federal regulation more generally.

In short, this is a doctrine with extreme implications that has been pushed by the most extreme members of the conservative legal community. (And, rather wankerishly, by Cass Sunstein).

Moving on, the second interesting aspect of the column is that it illustrates the tension -- if not schizophrenia -- in conservative legal thought with respect to deference to the political branches.

On the one hand, the rise of "the movement" was inspired by the view that liberals had circumvented the legislature. People like Bork argued that, because liberals can't win things like abortion rights at the ballot box, they politicized the Constitution and imposed their preferences into its text. So this strain of conservative thought emphasizes the political process.

At the same time, however, there's a deeply anti-democratic strain running through legal conservatism as well. As illustrated by Will and Lawson, this strain wants to ignore the political branches entirely and invalidate big pieces of the regulatory state. (Thomas is the most extreme on this issue -- Roberts and Alito have been much more respectful of precedent).

In short, legal conservatives like Will can't make up their mind about whether they like the ballot box. For instance, in yesterday's column, Will offers a hypothetical about a truly absurd and vague statute (the Goodness and Niceness Act) that would delegate a lot of undefined power to the executive.

And yes, I would disagree with that statute -- but that doesn't mean it's necessarily unconstitutional. The political branches play a role here too in protecting us from such absurd statutes. We don't necessarily have to rely on courts for protection from this terrible statute. One would hope that this bill wouldn't make it very far.

Anyway, the point is that Will's example shows virtually no faith in the political process -- the glorification of which is, ironically enough, the raison d'etre of the modern conservative movement.

(Cross-posted at WashMonthly)

Rod Dreher Says Strange Things

by hilzoy

Rod Dreher has a very puzzling post about gay marriage. There are some bits I will not engage with -- for instance, while believing that gay sex is sinful might be part of Dreher's religious tradition, I do not think it's at all integral to the Bible; in fact, I have always thought that one could make a decent case for allowing gay marriage on the basis of Paul's claim that it is better to marry than to burn. 

What interests me more is this:

"If homosexuality is legitimized -- as distinct from being tolerated, which I generally support -- then it represents the culmination of the sexual revolution, the goal of which was to make individual desire the sole legitimate arbiter in defining sexual truth. It is to lock in, and, on a legal front, to codify, a purely contractual, nihilistic view of human sexuality. I believe this would be a profound distortion of what it means to be fully human. And I fully expect to lose this argument in the main, because even most conservatives today don't fully grasp how the logic of what we've already conceded as a result of being modern leads to this end."

Let's start with the "purely contractual, nihilistic view of human sexuality" that is supposed to be the danger here. I take it that there's nothing wrong with a contractual view of human sexuality -- that is, a view according to which sex is only OK if both parties consent. The problem has to be with a purely contractual view, according to which the only question one needs to ask before having sex is: has the other person consented? This is akin to the 'nihilistic' part: a nihilistic view of sex would be one according to which you don't even have to ask about the consent part. Anything -- literally anything -- goes.

Offhand, there would seem to be lots of ways not to be a nihilist about sex. Sex in some situations, or in some ways, can be cruel: e.g., sex with someone you know is in love with you and with whom you are not the least bit in love. It can be disrespectful, or callous, or mean, or irresponsible. It can show a lack of self-respect -- e.g., if you have sex with someone just to get them to stop pestering you to have sex with them. It can be self-destructive or a way of avoiding issues or, well, any number of bad things. Or it can be, so to speak, the wrong good thing, e.g. if you have sex with someone whom no one else wants to have sex with, out of some kind of misplaced compassion. Or it can be wonderful.

Dreher seems to think that if we "legitimize homosexuality", all the ways in which we might morally criticize or praise sex would go flying out of our heads. The alternative to opposing gay marriage, in his view, seems to be one in which "the only rule guiding people's sexual behavior is their own desire". But why on earth should that be true? Why, for instance, would I suddenly find myself unable to figure out what's wrong with seducing someone else's partner just to spite that person, or having sex with people just to rack up conquests, or not being able to muster the energy to say no? Why should I suddenly become unable to say: sex is deep magic from before the dawn of time; it is strange and powerful and should not be entered into lightly; but done right, it is one of the most glorious things there is -- as opposed to just: I want some?

It would be one thing if Christian morality were the only morality in existence. But it's not. There are other religions. There are secular moralities. Those of us who are not Christians manage to deploy moral concepts all the time without difficulty. I think that I can coherently say that torture is wrong, that I should not be wholly indifferent to the needs of others, and so forth. Does Dreher think that I am wrong -- not just wrong about my specific morality, but wrong to think I can talk coherently about this at all? Or is there something about sex in particular that makes it impossible for non-Christians to make moral judgments? In either case, why? 

And what on earth does any of this have to do with gay marriage? Here I'm curious about two things. First, what do one's views about homosexuality have to do with one's views about whether or not there is anything to be said about sex other than: I want it or: I don't? I would have thought that the question: can we make moral judgments about sex? was distinct from the question: is 'homosexuality is wrong' one of the moral judgments we ought to make? Second, supposing (for the sake of argument) that I were to conclude, for some unfathomable reason, that unless I disapprove of homosexuality I cannot make any moral judgments about sex at all, why should I take this to mean that I ought to try to prevent gay men and lesbians from being able to marry? What makes it appropriate for me to try to legislate views about the morality of sex between consenting adults?

Andrew Sullivan makes a good point:

"With Catholics, the obvious counterpoint is civil divorce. Catholics do not recognize such divorces within the church nor the second and third marriages that follow them (leaving aside the rank hypocrisy of the annulment scam). But they are prepared to live in a civil society that allows for it as a civil secular matter, just as they live easily with infertile married couples, or post-menopausal couples getting married. Until Rod explains why homosexuals as such represent a unique threat, even while they make up a tiny section of society, his singling out of gays in order to uphold his views of natural law in the civil law will look and smell like animus, not reason."

Dreher regards "a commercialized, consumerist, individualized culture that believes in no authority but the desiring individual will" as a threat to himself and his children. It is not clear to me why the sight of two people in love making a public commitment to one another might be thought to strengthen that culture.(Sullivan again: "The culmination of the sexual revolution was at 4 am in the Mineshaft in the late 1970s. It is not the civil marriage of two elderly lesbians in a town hall in California in 2008.") But if Dreher disagrees, it is a lot to ask of those two people that they give up the chance to marry one another to protect him from that threat. 

Far better, I would have thought, to find a way to resist our commercialized, individualist culture on his own, and to bring up his children to have more self-respect than the Lost Children of Rockdale County. If Dreher cannot manage to govern his own life, and to give his children a decent moral compass, without requiring that other people sacrifice their love and their happiness, he has bigger problems than our commercialized culture.

When You Assume, You Make an Ass of U and Me

by hilzoy

Andrew Klavan in the LA Times:

"If you are reading this newspaper, the likelihood is that you agree with the Obama administration's recent attacks on conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh. That's the likelihood; here's the certainty: You've never listened to Rush Limbaugh.

Oh no, you haven't. Whenever I interrupt a liberal's anti-Limbaugh rant to point out that the ranter has never actually listened to the man, he always says the same thing: "I've heard him!"

On further questioning, it always turns out that by "heard him," he means he's heard the selected excerpts spoon-fed him by the distortion-mongers of the mainstream media. These excerpts are specifically designed to accomplish one thing: to make sure you never actually listen to Limbaugh's show, never actually give him a fair chance to speak his piece to you directly.

By lifting some typically Rushian piece of outrageous hilarity completely out of context, the distortion gang knows full well it can get you to widen your eyes and open your mouth in the universal sign of Liberal Outrage. Your scrawny chest swelling with a warm sense of completely unearned righteousness, you will turn to your second spouse and say, "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate, and I'm tolerant of a wide range of differing views -- but this goes too far!""

I started listening to talk radio in 1985. (Gene Burns : he endeared himself to me by beginning every show by saying: "The Gene Burns show is brought to you by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.") I first heard Rush Limbaugh in late 1988 (possibly early 1989.) He was substituting for someone else, and I remember thinking: this guy is too obviously an idiot even for talk radio. Plainly, I was wrong.

I can't say I have often listened to his show in its entirety, but that's because for the past decade or so, I have mostly listened to talk radio in the car, and I very rarely drive for three straight hours. I have, however, listened to a lot more than snippets I get from "distortion-mongers". 

Also, I'm not a guy, I don't have a second spouse, and my chest is not scrawny. 

Since Klavan is "certain" I have not listened to Limbaugh, he wants to know why not:

"Let me guess at your answer. You don't need to listen to him. You've heard enough to know he's a) racist, b) hateful, c) stupid, d) merely an outrageous entertainer not to be taken seriously or e) all of the above.

Now let me tell you the real answer: You're a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You're terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do.

I listen to Limbaugh every chance I get, and I have never heard the man utter a single racist, hateful or stupid word. Do I always agree with him? Of course not. I'm a conservative; I think for myself. But Limbaugh, by turns insightful, satiric, raucously funny and wise, is one of the best voices talking about first principles and policy in the country today.

Therefore, I am throwing down my gauntlet at your quivering liberal feet. I hereby issue my challenge -- the Limbaugh Challenge: Listen to the show."

Been there. Done that. Don't particularly feel the need to do it again. 

However, I have a few questions for Mr. Klavan, starting with the most obvious: What makes you so certain you know all about me? 

Moreover: your contempt for your imagined audience drips off the page: my chest is scrawny, my feet quiver (??), I am "spoon-fed", I don't think for myself, I make little moues of outrage on command, and, of course, I am "a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward." Why my second spouse has anything to do with me is a mystery that passeth all understanding, or would be if I had a second spouse.

If this were accurate, we would not need to ask why you think this way about me. However, truth is one, but error is infinite; and since you're wrong, it is worth asking why, of the infinitely many misconceptions available to you, you chose this one in particular. Unlike you, I don't care to make pronouncements about people I don't know, but I'll venture a few guesses. 

For one thing, you are "certain" you know all about a large number of people you've never met. You could have written this piece about many of your readers, or liberals you have met; instead, you chose to write about all your readers, and to claim certainty about us. That was unwise -- I mean, what are the odds that not one of your readers has listened to Limbaugh? -- but you either didn't notice or didn't care about the likelihood that you were wrong. I imagine, then, that you do not make epistemic caution your watchword. 

Nor does it seem likely that you make it a habit to be generous, or to give people the benefit of the doubt. You certainly didn't do so in this case, and it seems unlikely that you would exercise charity towards people most of the time, but then abruptly switch to contempt when you get an opportunity to publish your thoughts before a very large audience. 

You probably don't listen very well, if this essay is anything to go by. Listening well requires not assuming that you know in advance everything the person you're talking to is going to say. Again, most people start by not listening to individuals, and only gradually work their way up to not listening to the entire readership of a major national newspaper. So I'm guessing this is not an isolated episode.

By the same token, I'd guess that you do not have the kind of intellectual curiosity that would lead you to listen, above all, to people you disagree with. Those are the people who challenge you; the people from whom you are most likely to hear something you would never have thought of on your own. You dismiss them out of hand -- an odd thing to do in an op-ed devoted to lecturing others on their closed-mindedness.

Which is why I'd also guess that you do not have a lot of insight into yourself. If you did, it might have occurred to you to notice the rather striking fact that your column displays the very intellectual failings you are complaining about. You might also have noticed the hatred that jumps off the page, and wondered what it says about you, and how you found yourself in a position in which you are so much as tempted to insult a large group of people who are, for the most part, quite unknown to you. 

Maybe you picked it up from Limbaugh. He is certainly the most obvious source for your view of liberals. Since you're a conservative and you think for yourself, though, I'm sure you didn't just accept it because you were 'spoon-fed'. There are any number of other possible explanations: hasty overgeneralization from a few liberals you met at parties, a projection of your own flaws onto others, unacknowledged anger, or a need to think of yourself as a lonely island of reason in a sea of idiocy. The one thing I do know is that you could not possibly have arrived at your certainty about what your entire readership is like based on careful reflection and close examination of the evidence. Because it's just not true.

***

Why go on about this? Because it's a danger for all of us, on any side of the political spectrum. It's easy to see what's wrong with making uncharitable assumptions about people you don't know when someone else is making assumptions about you. But it's always worth stopping and asking yourself: do I ever do this to the people I disagree with? 

Because it's no more justifiable to do this to conservatives than it is to do it to liberals.

Give Bayh a Chance?

by publius

Evan Bayh's working group hasn't exactly taken the liberal blogosphere by storm. The reaction has been critical, and the most common complaint is that it's simply a tool for business interests. That fear may prove correct. But let me be devil's advocate for a moment and at least try to present a more palatable explanation. In short, the group's primary benefit may be to provide political cover at home to perennially vulnerable Senators.

As an initial matter, let me clarify that I disagree with forming the group. Yes, the business agenda worries me -- but that agenda worries me with respect to all Senators. My bigger gripe is that the mere formation of the group undermines the "optics" of the progressive agenda. That is, by creating a self-described "moderate" group, it necessarily creates the perception that the rest of the Democratic Senate is a bunch of wild-eyed Bolsheviks wearing berets and smoking cloves.

Nothing could be further from the truth, but the Bayh group's mere existence will reinforce that narrative. In doing so, the group will inevitably pull the overall political center of gravity to the right on any given issue. And of course, the media will use any and all means necessary to play up the moderate/liberal division that has featured so strongly in its coverage of Pelosi's House.

So that's my gripe. My hope, though, is that the group will turn out to be relatively harmless. And that question -- are they harmful? -- will turn on why these Senators joined the group. If it's to extract more money for and from businesses, then yes -- it's a bad development.

But it's possible that most members of the group have signed on simply for political cover at home. In other words, maybe this group affirmatively wants to push progressive policies, but needs cover to avoid being painted as too liberal at home. That view is generally consistent with the types of people who have joined. While people like Bayh and Carper are safe, most come from predominantly Republican or toss-up states like Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Alaska, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Florida, and New Hampshire.

This is a point that people sometimes miss with the Blue Dogs in the House -- membership in the group is a political asset in conservative districts. It's something that legislators can and do emphasize to dull the perception that they're out of touch with their districts.

Obviously, that's not always how it works. And the Blue Dog leadership often pushes a lot of terrible policies for terrible reasons. But my hunch is that a lot of modern Democratic legislators (following the Southern realignment) are actually more liberal than they can admit, and groups like the Blue Dogs can -- somewhat ironically -- help them be more liberal.

The ultimate proof will be in the pudding. If Bayh decides that his mission in life is to help corporate interests, then he deserves sharp criticism. But if the point is simply to shave 5% off of anything Obama proposes to maintain "moderate" perceptions in vulnerable districts, I don't have much of a problem with that. Besides, although Bayh was pretty terrible on Iraq, his legislative record is generally solid.

So maybe it's worth holding fire for a bit to see.

(cross-posted at WashMonthly)

Populist Anger Made Simple

by hilzoy

I wonder why people are so angry about bonuses. Do they hate the rich? Do they want to punish success?Are they eaten up inside with resentment? Do they just not want to admit that some people work harder and are more talented than they are?

Or could it be one too many stories like this (h/t)?

"Though the company teetered on the verge of bankruptcy at the time, this past December Philadelphia Media Holdings awarded bonuses to CEO Brian P. Tierney, vice president of finance Richard Thayer and Daily News publisher Mark Frisby. (...)

PMH filed for bankruptcy in February. Toll, of the homebuilding Toll Brothers company, confirmed that the PMH board knew the company¹s fiscal situation was dire. "The financial condition of the papers was obviously not good," said Toll. "We knew what was going to happen sooner or later."

It had earlier been revealed that Tierney received a raise in December, just before Christmas, boosting his pay roughly 40 percent to $850,000. The company initially defended the raise, which was revealed in its bankruptcy filing, by saying that Tierney had taken on extra responsibilities since his initial deal had been struck.

Tierney gave up the raise shortly after it was revealed. Frisby and Thayer simultaneously gave back smaller raises. Now comes news of the bonuses, which were awarded just two months after the company’s unions voted to postpone $25-a-week raises for each of its members at the request of PMH."

The bonuses were originally reported to be $350,000 for Teirney and $150,000 for the other two, but the numbers are disputed.

Besides the union members postponing their $25/week raises, the Inquirer laid off 71 people in Jan. 2007, laid off 68 people in Feb. 2008, and laid off 35 more people last December. And those are just the layoffs I could find with a quick search. It also failed to pay a whole lot of bills that it was contractually obligated to pay:

"The filing estimated that $4 million in accrued wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses and reimbursable costs remains unpaid. Mr. Bykofsky told The Bulletin that at least the newsroom at the Daily News had been paid, and the checks had cleared. He said that the staff was given paychecks on Thursday, but nobody was told of the bankruptcy filing.

As part of its bankruptcy filing, PMH admitted to its failure to pay out the withholdings from employee paychecks to the proper third parties. The deductions include employee’s shares of health benefits and insurance premiums, 401(k) contributions and union dues.

“Certain deductions that were deducted from regular employees’ earnings may not have been forwarded to the appropriate third-party recipients prior to the petition date,” reads the filing. “The debtors estimate that as of the petition date, $200,000 in deductions may not have been forwarded to the appropriate third-party recipients.”

Further, PMH has also failed to forward employer payroll taxes to the proper authorities, even though they were properly deducted from employee paychecks. PMH estimates that the total number of fees and taxes owed to the authorities does not exceed $550,000."

So: they stiffed the federal government. They didn't pay their employees' 401k contributions and health insurance premiums, though they were deducted from their employees' paychecks. (We can only hope that none of those employees got sick and were denied care.) Hundreds of people have been laid off in the last two years, and workers have had to take several rounds of cuts. Now the company has filed for bankruptcy. And yet, strange to say, right before they filed for bankruptcy they found a way first to raise their CEO's salary by nearly 60%, to $850,000, and then to give him a bonus.

Maybe they did this because Mr. Tierney is a prince among men. Then again, maybe not:

"In early 2008, Tierney warned union representatives of "a dire situation" if costs weren't cut by 10 percent. The papers have slashed more than 400 staff members across all departments since he took over. According to Newspaper Guild representative Bill Ross, Tierney once shook up a management meeting by barking "I will not lose my f*cking house over this!" And Ross says a couple of people emerged from a private meeting with the CEO claiming that he'd spoken to them, in his 12th-floor office, with a baseball bat in his hands. Ross also adds that in January, Tierney took to patrolling the parking garage, watching to see what time employees were arriving to work and asking managers about those who were late. "That’s what I'm getting calls about now," says Ross. "He’s walking around the parking garage. If he gets hit by a car, it'll be his own fault.""

Heartwarming, isn't it? I can't imagine why anyone is upset.

Not To Blame

by hilzoy

From CNN:

"Thousands of buildings at U.S. bases in Iraq and Afghanistan have such poorly installed wiring that American troops face life-threatening risks, a top inspector for the Army says. (...)

"It was horrible -- some of the worst electrical work I've ever seen," said Jim Childs, a master electrician and the top civilian expert in an Army safety survey. Childs told CNN that "with the buildings the way they are, we're playing Russian roulette."

Childs recently returned from Iraq, where he is taking part in a yearlong review aimed at correcting electrical hazards on U.S. bases. He told CNN that thousands of buildings in Iraq and Afghanistan are so badly wired that troops are at serious risk of death or injury.

He said problems are "everywhere" in Iraq, where 18 U.S. troops have died by electrocution since 2003. All deaths occurred in different circumstances and different locations, but many happened on U.S. bases being managed by various military contractors. The Army has has reopened investigations in at least five cases, according to Pentagon sources.

Of the nearly 30,000 buildings the Army's "Task Force Safe" has examined so far, Childs said more than half "failed miserably." And 8,527 had such serious problems that inspectors gave them a "flash" warning, meaning repairs had to be completed in four hours or the facility evacuated.

He said the majority of those buildings were wired by contractor KBR, based in Houston, Texas. KBR has faced extensive criticism from Congress over its performance in the war zone. KBR has defended its performance and argued it was not to blame for any fatalities."

Let's see: inspections disclose "some of the worst electrical work I've ever seen", work that puts people's lives at risk, and has already killed 18 people. The majority of this work was done by KBR. And yet KBR is "not to blame". That's totally plausible! For instance, it could be that after KBR's crack electricians got done wiring the buildings, and after their quality control teams checked and double-checked every last circuit to make sure it was done right, bands of evil gnomes went burrowing around behind the wallboards and switched all the wires around. 

I'll bet all you KBR bashers didn't think of that. But it could have happened! Blame the gnomes!

Seriously: can you imagine what it would be like to be the parents or spouse or child of someone serving in Iraq, hoping against hope that your loved one would make it home, learning that she had died, and then finding out that it wasn't an IED or a sniper that killed her; it was faulty wiring installed by an American company that hadn't bothered to do its job right? 

On the other hand, can you imagine being the kind of person who would decide that despite your company's having gotten billions of dollars in contracts, despite its repeatedly overcharging the government, despite "an impossibly high cost overrun of $436,019,574 on one job, charges of $114,308 for an oil spill cleanup that failed to remove any oil and another set of tasks in which the overruns were 36.9 percent of all costs", you were not going to make sure your company did a good enough job to keep our soldiers from getting killed? 

How, exactly, would you live with yourself?

***

Oops, I forgot to add this:

"Defense contractor KBR Inc., which is under criminal investigation in the electrocution deaths of at least two U.S. soldiers in Iraq, has been awarded a $35 million contract by the Pentagon to build an electrical distribution center and other projects there."

I've tried to find out whether it has been cancelled since then, but if it has, I can't find word of it.