Free vs. Fresh

I ran across this little gem this morning:

If you go to a market and are offered free fruit and vegetables, they will be rotten. If you want fresh fruit and vegetables, you have to pay for them.

Well, it stands to reason, I guess. But wait--the vegetables in question are intangible. To what does the analogy refer? Private education in a poor section of Nairobi. (Thanks to James Tooley!)

I guess the under-educated don't necessarily lack intelligence, especially where their children are concerned. It seems fairly obvious, but I think the underlying principle bears amplification:

People will pay dearly for what they value. It follows that what people will not pay for, they do not value.

Now, for the policy implications: it is unwise to remove the costs of a service or a commodity by making it into a basic human right. Now before the emails start screaming into my inbox, let me say that removing the duty of payment does not automatically destroy the willingness to pay, nor does it necessarily kill the value people place on a given good or service like education, healthcare, food, or even voting.

Voting?

Yes--the franchise was once the right of land owners who paid a special poll tax. It was a way of preventing whole sections of the population from having a political voice, of course, but it was also a way of recognizing that the franchise was essentially valuable. Yet even when voting had a monetary cost, it was considered a political right (not a mere privilege granted by the government).

I know I've steered into territory that makes it easy for people to charge me with bigotry, but that's not the sort of argument I'm trying to make. What I'm attempting to say is that by removing the direct tangible costs from what we consider basic rights, we cheapen those rights and invite contempt of them.

So, in the interests of helping Americans take their political rights more seriously, I say make 'em pay. Speaking for myself, I'd pay for some fresh freedom--the free variety is rotten.

Email Me

Fear and Security

I wrote in February that left-wingers don't object to the 'politics of fear' on principle. I happen to think they're right (I don't object to the 'politics of fear' on principle either), but a caveat is in order: fears are bad when they are irrational. It follows, of course, that cultivating irrational fears for personal or political gain is immoral.

It was frequently argued that the last administration manipulated American fears in order to gain control of oil fields in Iraq, that TERRORISM was just a tool to further the aims of Big Oil, &c. Blah blah blah. Looking back, all the screaming by leftists seems pretty juvenile. Bush came from oil country, and Cheney had at one time worked for Haliburton, but that didn't make them into villains conspiring against America for financial gain.

In contrast, Obama's administration is showing some early signs of manipulating fear for overtly political ends, namely the de-legitimization and stigmatization of conservative political thought. It's not difficult mental gymnastics, even. For someone who can see the label "freedom fighter" lurking behind the flashing neon sign reading "terrorist", it's child's play to see terrorism beginning to foam within the ranks of veterans, tax-protesters, and even "right-wingers" broadly construed.

Which is exactly what Janet Napolitano recently did with her Department of Homeland Security assessment (thanks to Michelle Malkin for posting the pdf). Now why, in heaven's name, would a bureaucrat think right-wing American groups are so dangerous, especially since the administration evidently doesn't think foreign terrorists are such a big deal any more (thus releasing the internal information on our advanced techniques for squeezing intelligence out of high-level terror operatives)?

I think it boils down to two basic left-wing political assumptions:
1. Terrorism is primarily a reaction to the misuse of American power in the world.
2. The largest and most important struggle in the world is between the "haves" and the "have nots."

"Right wingers", for the left-wing thinker, represent the "haves" who oppress the "have nots" (either knowingly or unknowingly). They represent the privileged few who ought to be brought down a bit so that the underprivileged many can be brought up a bit. So if we just look at the problem through the left lens of our spectacles here, we can see that "right wingers" are dangerous opponents to progress and terrorists are just acting out their economic frustrations in irrationally violent ways.

Now in my (admittedly right-wing) view, this is plain silly. There is no question that there are a few nuts in America who do really nasty things--we often hear about Timothy McVeigh at times like this--but there really is no broad based conspiracy against America from the American "right". International terrorism is a much more clear danger.

Which brings us back to the release of the release of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos. It's a bad policy choice, and one that will have a deleterious effect on future intelligence efforts against our ever-evolving terrorist enemies. Michael Hayden and Michael Mukasey make the point well:

The release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy. Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001.

They go on to address the many misperceptions and rebut the usual arguments against the interrogation techniques before concluding with an explanation of how the creation of "institutional timidity" has weakened intelligence in the past:

In his book "The Terror Presidency," Jack Goldsmith describes the phenomenon we are now experiencing, and its inevitable effect, referring to what he calls "cycles of timidity and aggression" that have weakened intelligence gathering in the past. Politicians pressure the intelligence community to push to the legal limit, and then cast accusations when aggressiveness goes out of style, thereby encouraging risk aversion, and then, as occurred in the wake of 9/11, criticizing the intelligence community for feckless timidity. He calls these cycles "a terrible problem for our national security." Indeed they are, and the precipitous release of these OLC opinions simply makes the problem worse.

Oh well, at least they're watching those really scary conservatives in America. After all, those right-wingers seriously cloud up our 'bright, sunny, safe' April days... The inversion of reason is incredible--unless, of course, the policy here is purely a consolidation of political power at the expense of American security. Here's to the politics of fear.

Email Me

ps: This little blog will be unusually quiet next week as I'm off for a little Katrina relief work on the Gulf Coast. I'll be back at it on the 27th.

Taxes and Tea Parties

I must confess to being less-than-enthralled with the idea of the tea parties that sprang up all over the place yesterday, mainly because there's a certain disjointedness about the historical analogy.

It's a relatively minor quibble, though, since most people aren't trying to make a thoroughgoing analogy. Besides, I'm not one to join the snarky classes who are currently holding down the "you're just stupid" chorus very ably by themselves and looking pretty mean for their troubles.

But then again, there are really good analogies to be made if one steps back a bit and considers. Iain Murray did a pretty good job, I'd say--in fact, I don't think I can offer any improvement on it.

So, instead of asking why people are so stupid, one should ask why so many people are upset about taxes in a general sort of way. That's exactly what...[hold on a sec while I cue the ominous mood music for the 'evil genius']...Karl Rove did before he wrote today's column. Here's the main conclusion he drew:

But the center of the debate is in Washington, not the states. The fear of future federal tax hikes is fueling the tea-party movement.

There is a portion of the American population that doesn't believe the government can incur record expenses, cut taxes, and meet all its obligations. Tax hikes are coming. When and what shape--well, it's to be determined.

And as Rove so aptly observes, whether or not the Republican Party (as the only viable organized opposition party) benefits from the tea parties is a very open question. That it would like to surge back into power on the current of tax-induced protest is certain, but I have heard with my own ears a feisty objection to attempts by various political figures to "co-opt" the tea parties. Republican policymakers had better beware that they don't try merely to harness this event.

They'd better listen well.

Email Me

Update: I knew I was forgetting something. I had meant to include a link to this story from March. It illustrates that "tea party" is just a popular form of protest and that strict historical analogizing isn't the point. That, and the interesting and salient point that right wingers aren't the only ones doing this sort of thing.

Changing Cuba

I mentioned Cuba in yesterday's post as an example of a real 'sea-change' in American policy. For all I know it could very well be the right change, but I'm still unconvinced that it will have any positive impact on Cuba or Cubans--though I'm certain it will certainly bring a little more money to the impoverished island's repressive government.

The Castro brothers are, of course, still hoping for a lift of the embargo, because it would mean the effective withdrawal of substantive American disapproval of the Cuban state. I found this passage interesting:

Mr Obama has said he wants dialogue and improved relations with Cuba, but that the embargo should be maintained until the Cuban government shows progress on democracy and human rights.
Fidel Castro said he did not blame Mr Obama for past US policy towards Cuba, but added: “The conditions are created for Obama to use his talent in a constructive policy that puts an end to what has failed for the past half century.”
He pointed out that Raúl Castro had expressed willingness to hold US talks on the basis of equality and without preconditions. [emphasis added]

I can't say I'm surprised at the demand for equality and the withdrawal of preconditions, especially considering that Obama has seemed willing enough to grant those things elsewhere. But what I do find surprising is that there are American conservatives who think lifting the embargo has zero drawbacks and many benefits.

Mario Loyola has a piece up at the Washington Times arguing exactly that. It's easy to argue that American policy has "failed" because Cuba hasn't changed in the last 50 years, but I don't think 'changing Cuba' is the only reason for the policy. The embargo is also useful for de-legitimizing the Cuban state, for preventing active American financial support for the government, and a simple statement of deep disapproval.

But what really irks me about Loyola's analysis is his belief that we should emulate Nixon's approach to China. I really can't see why opening up with China can be seen as a spectacular success in terms of American interests. Now think--is China more democratic? Less repressive? Is China more friendly toward American interests abroad? No, no, and no. China has proven no help with North Korea, continues to persecute the Falun Gong and Christians, and it continues as a one-party state. There is one big change in China though: the government seems to think that it can remain Communist while stabling a quasi-capitalist cash-cow. Orwell's pigs have truly made good.

On the other side, Peter Brookes at the New York Post holds down the older conservative argument. There's nothing particularly new in what he says, but that's because there's really nothing new to say (and that's not a bad thing, really). The fact is that for 50 years the ball has been in the Cuban government's court. America hasn't made the Cuban people's life miserable--the Cuban government has done that.

If America wanted to literally force Cuba to change, it's militarily possible, of course. But American interests aren't strong enough to use overwhelming military power, so the embargo stands as the primary bargaining chip. When Cuba reforms, America lifts the economic sanctions.

Your move, Castro.

PS: The only really decent reason for lifting the embargo without receiving some kind of good-faith effort from Cuba first is if we want something that only Cuba can provide. Which means...cigars, I guess. But we're busily taxing and banning tobacco. On second thought, Cuban cigars would qualify as some dangerous conspiracy against the health of witless Americans. Oh well.

Email Me

Plus ça change...

If you know how that line ends, you probably had a good history teacher in high school or college. But even if you don't recognize it in French, it's pretty familiar in English too: the more things change, the more they stay the same.

It's more than a cynical outburst: it's sometimes a statement of fact and sometimes a commonly held perception (sometimes both), which is why it resonates in generation after generation. Somehow I think there are some cynical liberals muttering it under their breath at the latest news that Obama has chosen to continue yet another Bush policy: the use of the "state secrets" privilege to keep certain kinds of surveillance (including wiretaps) secret. Regardless, many liberals who expected this to blow away with the new president are upset.

I think it's a good policy choice, but I doubt there's going to be a statement from the White House with the words "I was wrong" any time soon. Ah, change! But all this is to point out that Obama's presidency has been and will likely continue to be a mixed bag. There are some big changes, and there are some big non-changes. I'm relieved and grateful every time Obama makes what I think is a decent policy choice because I don't really expect it. But it's a fact that he can't do everything the opposite way that Bush did. It's just not possible.

That doesn't stop some folks from reading big changes into relatively small circumstances. Jonah Goldberg's plug on The Corner yesterday generated a smattering of email to this humble blog (thanks, Jonah!), including one arguing that the tow-rope extended to the pirate life-boat and the presence of negotiators constituted a "sea change" from the last administration's policy of refusing to "deal" with those it deemed "evil."

Besides grossly overloading the incident with policy meanings, the charge against the Bush administration is just not true. North Korea and Iran were deemed "evil", and Bush routinely participated in talks of some sort or other throughout his administration. What he did not do, however, was make unilateral concessions hoping that the Iranians or North Koreans would follow suit.

The logic is actually quite good: an evil power is also one you can't trust. So, instead of trusting it, you declare that if it meets such-and-such precondition(s), then there will be some basis on which to strike a bargain. And so "talks" in this kind of situation consist mostly of haggling over the preconditions before arriving at other policy negotiations. Or, to put it another way, it's pre-negotiation negotiation.

But there's a real sea-change in American policy underway that doesn't involve pirates, tow-ropes, or FBI hostage negotiators. Obama is seriously considering a decision to dispense with pre-negotiation negotiation, which means that he's effectively prepared to admit Iran into the nuclear club without further protest. Iran doesn't seem to have gotten the message, though (sorry, I can't read the Arabic script, so we'll have to make do with Rubin's translation): America is still 'the enemy'. So even if we're not calling Iran "evil" any more, Iran is still rooting for a punishment of its chief "enemy."

And so we can modify our little quotation to say, The more America changes, the more Iran stays the same. I hope I may be pardoned for thinking Bush's way was more realistic.

There's another manifestation of this particular policy "sea-change"--this time with Cuba. It's not as dangerous a policy as dropping preconditions with Iran, to be sure, but the logic under which the change takes effect is highly questionable. Apparently Obama hopes that easing travel, communication, and remittance restrictions will inspire goodwill and "foster the beginnings of grassroots democracy." I'm skeptical. Cuba is a repressive and totalitarian state that has little scruple concerning democracy, property, or basic liberty. If Obama seriously thinks that making nice will subvert the Castro regime, I think he's in for a disappointment. Which brings us full-circle:

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...

Email Me

Pirates and Politics

Jonah Goldberg issued a congratulations to the Prez last night on the decisive end to the pirate standoff...and Rush Limbaugh isn't particularly happy about it.

The difference between these two heavy-hitting conservative commentators isn't as antagonistic as it seems, though. I may be wrong, but I don't think Limbaugh isn't just trying to pull some kind of "propaganda" stunt (for a look at what propaganda entails, read this Corner post by Goldberg).

No, it seems that Limbaugh is concerned that Obama is pulling a Clinton. (You can check the transcript of today's show over at Limbaugh's website sometime tomorrow.) Acting tough in politically inconsequential situations (asprin factory, anybody?) is cheap PR that might have the result of weakening opposition to his genuinely bad agenda items (in this case, most of the domestic agenda plus military spending cuts).

Limbaugh has a point. There are good reasons to oppose the President's stated agenda items, and we mustn't get too excited when he does something right (even if, in this case, it means chiefly that he didn't interfere in the Navy's very capable handling of the situation).

But Goldberg has a point too: part of being an opposition party member, or just an opponent, is to goad your political counterparts into adopting good policy. To the extent that they choose what you want, you say "thank you", but it doesn't mean you lend them active support. With Democrats in control of the Legislative and Executive branches of the Federal government, I'll take what I can get.

So I'm happy the pirates got their comeuppance, and I hope Obama considers seriously the Navy's rumored proposals for stabilizing international shipping lanes. That doesn't mean I don't still think his policy agenda is generally very bad. In fact, I'll continue to bleat and carp about it in my little corner of the world.

Email Me

Thinking about Peace

I saw a bumper sticker on the rear of a passing car this morning that made me laugh out loud:

Do people really think that peace comes as a result of "popular demand"? Come on! Peace is something fragile that must be constructed and maintained (often through force of arms) not "demanded" by masses of people. Peace isn't even the natural state of things: let people alone and they will fight. Don't believe me? Check out your local school yard when it is without a supervising teacher for about five minutes.

The waters off the Somali coast are a vast unsupervised playground, and the bullies are grabbing little Susie's and Johnny's lunches. Only it's worse than that. Pirates, like terrorists, are not just bullies in need of after-school detention and a note home to the parents. Nor are they criminals in need of trial and imprisonment.

No, pirates are enemies of mankind (this is a well-established category--see here, and here--with roots in the Roman civilization) and ought be executed whenever they are caught. They do not bow to noble and civilized notions like the "rule of law". They understand one language and one language only: that of raw power. And so we should mete it out.

While our attorney general is thumbing through his files on how to solve a problem we haven't dealt with for quite a while, maybe we could issue some letters of marque, or at least put some "sea marshals" (we already have "air marshals") onboard US-flagged ships to man 30mm cannons, or something.

None of that is likely, I'm afraid. With the problem being classed as an annoying distraction for the president, I'd say we're in for more piracy. Andy McCarthy thinks so too. His whole article is worth reading, but I especially liked his reflections on what it means to be "civilized":

“Civilized” is a much-misunderstood word, thanks to the “rule of law” crowd that is making our planet an increasingly dangerous place. Civilization is not an evolution of mankind but the imposition of human good on human evil. It is not a historical inevitability. It is a battle that has to be fought every day, because evil doesn’t recede willingly before the wheels of progress.
There is nothing less civilized than rewarding evil and thus guaranteeing more of it. High-minded as it is commonly made to sound, it is not civilized to appease evil, to treat it with “dignity and respect,” to rationalize its root causes, to equivocate about whether evil really is evil, and, when all else fails, to ignore it — to purge the very mention of its name — in the vain hope that it will just go away. Evil doesn’t do nuance. It finds you, it tests you, and you either fight it or you’re part of the problem.

I think it's fair to say that while Mr. Obama finds piracy distracting, the rough-and-tumble types out there find it very interesting. They will calculate based on what the American President does. If Obama wants to set the stage for easier conflict resolution in the future of his administration, he will demonstrate that there is cold hard steel behind his words. If he does sow in strength now, his administration will reap little more than foreign policy failures garnished with an occasional UN Security Council resolution.

As a result, peace will find itself much demanded and seldom delivered.

Email Me

Exceptionalism

Americans are exceptional. It means that they march to the beat of a different drummer, and usually their own. (There are exceptions even to this rule, though the White House denies that bow to King Abdullah happened.)

Meanwhile, an all-American crew on an American cargo ship carrying humanitarian aid has proved exceptional in their response to the predations of Somali pirates. Other crews of ships taken by the Somali thugs have lain quiet until vast sums of money are transferred to Somali recipients (as it is generally agreed that resisting pirates once they've successfully boarded is deadly and usually counter-productive).

But not this American crew. They took one of the pirates hostage instead. As in all such situations, it didn't work out as well as it might, and the captain of the Maersk Alabama is sitting with a bunch of pirates in a life-boat that has no gas while the USS Bainbridge looms ominously nearby.

I can't help thinking this is an echo of 9/11/2001. It took the American passengers of Flight 93 just a few minutes to realize their plane was a suicide weapon headed for Washington, DC, so they risked--and lost--their lives in a revolt against their crew of hijackers.

The point is that exceptionalism is not always good for your health--it is frequently quite the opposite. It isn't necessarily good for your ship or your family. But one thing is certain: being exceptional guards one's personal dignity. To wit:

Those who know [Captain] Murphy said they expected a good outcome.

"To me, he was a hero anyway. As strange as it is, it's almost not surprising. That's about it. That's Shane," said Patrick Stewart, Murphy's roommate at the University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth.

Robert MacAleese, a senior at Massachusetts Maritime, said Murphy recently visited his father's modern cargo class.

"He stated that he sees pirates all the time," MacAleese said. But Murphy added that he thought the pirates "knew better than to go against the American ships."

Part of American exceptionalism is a conviction that we must not submit to evildoers, we must defeat them. In this case, the conviction has escalated a problem and may result in a tragically exceptional solution. The captain may not survive; the pirates may get away. The stakes are high and may go higher (especially as more pirates seem to be heading in the direction of the scene), and as they do, the one thing certain is that the United States is getting more interested in the pirate problem.

The American Marine Corps broke the back of the Barbary-Coast pirate problem many, many years ago (that's why the Shores of Tripoli are in the Marine anthem to this day), and it seems that they may be called upon to do it again, this time on the coast of Somalia. And if they are, you may be certain that the solution will be another exceptional example of American dignity on display.

Email Me

PS: In case I didn't make it clear enough, it is my sincere hope that there will be more gibbets and fewer payments for pirates. The Washington Times makes the point pretty well here.

Taxes

I hate the way deadlines loom ominously over my consciousness and seep into my dreams at night. Which is why I managed to get my tax returns filed in March this year. Whew. But I'll spare you the rest of the details. Suffice it to say...I'm with Jonah.

Happy Tax Season!