Parts to Wholes: the Socionomic Systems Nexus

The latest Real Clear Politics poll has it like this: Barry 46.3, John-boy 43.7, Difference 2.6(B). Not much of a gap and one that's narrowing, even after the triumphal world tour. We'll have to see how things play out of course. Every "objective" indicator from dislike of Bush, to the state of the economy, to accelerating voter anxiety about the future to the successes in Iraq would favor Barry. What's going on here ? Well some of, if not most of it, is the dilemmas and lack of clarity we already discussed (Moral Clarity ? Good Intentions, Muddy Proposals, Directional Obscurities). And the cartoon, puts it in perspective. A caveat - while the cartoonist probably intended to take a shot at Barry IMHO it applies to John-boy as well, just differently.

My bottom line is this - we have a pretty clear grip on the major policy challenges, both here on the blog in some depth and analytical fashion and among the general public. Who may be less analytical but has a darn good grasp of what the real challenges are. Where the rub's turning into pain and how serious it is. What we don't have a clear grip on is what either candidate is proposing to do about it. Let me wrap a couple of pictures around that, just for fun, illustration and to riff off of.

Policy Directions

First, just as a reminder and to frame the discussion, here's how we see the major policy challenges. And our recommendations for strategic directions to follow to dealing with them - basic or fundamental principles if you will. Now the categories and descriptions got built up out of the way things work - reality as best we can judge - and the way people end up thinking about these things, even when it's not so crisp. The directional recommendations are what our analysis suggests offer the best and most workable objectives to pursue at a high level. But of course the devil's in the details.

Candidate Evaluation

So how're the candidates doing against the blueprint ? And how will/are people judging them ? The next picture we put together to try and frame those question from a couple of direction. As the last post discussed (Rational Voters, Public Choice, Economics and Futures) nobody's got the time or resources to do detailed evaluations on all the issues and alternatives, the candidates and their non-existent proposals. So we all tend to the next best thing - judging on Vision, Leadership and Policy Principles. More or less - and it's not a bad way to go. If you combine that list with the policy principles blueprint you might end up with something like this. And apply it to the two candidates you might end up with the two-color triangles. Which aren't entirely fair but heh, what'd you expect for free graphics. But aren't entirely inaccurate either - Barry is a lot stronger on the Vision thing but sure seems to fade out fast on anything below that. On the other hand John-boy gets to down to brass tacks on a few things where he's comfortable (his paint scheme should have been spottier for sure) but sure fades fast when trying to explain how he sees it all tying together. If Barry is running on eloquence John-boy's running on true-grit and track record and both might just be running on empty.

As Good As It Gets ??? Where's Ronnie When You Need Him ?

That's a complaint, not a diagnosis and not a treatment for sure but it may be as good as it gets. Going back to the "Policy Principles" chart we're in a world where there are major structural changes in every category. It's a brave new, multi-polar world where peace and love haven't broken out but there are major rising powers who need to be incorporated constructively into some new system. Meanwhile we're experiencing major structural shifts in the economy which is making people legitimately anxious about future growth prospects. And it's also leading to major pressures on society that are making people less comfortable with the old American verities. The only good news IOHO is that the culture wars have been back-burnered as the seriousness of these challenges mount up. The last time we faced a range and depth of problems this severe was in 1980 when we had an imploding economy, a failing foreign policy that was losing the Cold War and a mounting backlash against the failed social engineering of the '60s and the associated libertinism attacking our core historic values. And Ronnie managed to step forward, calm everybody down by offering a vision for the future and specific action plans that did address many of these problems. In a small way he shared Lincoln's abilities in finding simple explanations for complex problems and converting them into convincing stories. But also for the record he was badly wrong about much of his economics and we're still living with the consequences. On the other hand there was a lot he was right about; for example he and Volcker broke the back of inflation and restored a growing economy though supply-side turned out to be voodoo economics indeed.

In other words he had a VOICE - he could tell us straight out what he thought was going on and what we ought to do about it, in a way we could understand and find convincing...or not.

 Voice and Leadership

And therein lies the problem - neither of the candidates has found their VOICES as yet. They haven't come up with simple, clear and compelling explanations of who they are, what they stand for, what they think we should do and how we should go about. That's it in a nutshell.

But let's set the record straight. The scope and seriousness of the problems we face now are not anything like the ones Reagan faced and those were nothing in comparison to what we faced at prior major turning points in the history of the Republic. So let's everyone get a grip - we got thru those. Maybe not with style and grace but overall not ineffectively either. We'll muddle thru these somehow as well - if nothing else by definition. The question then becomes will we like the outcome ?

Part of the problem is that for a long time politicians have been successful telling us what the think we want to hear because we haven't insisted on hearing painful truths. Well the fact of the matter is that the world is what it is and we're in a better position, now and for decades than almost any other entity. But there are serious challenges. The one of most concern is the economy and there aren't any magic answers, there especially. Most of the problems we face with regard to the Economy, and the associated problems with Energy and Education are the result of deep structural flaws that have been accumulating for decades. They are addressable....just not quickly, easily or cheaply. So ?

The bottomline of the bottomlines is that the central challenge is the short- and long-term economic issues. And neither candidate has demonstrated any comfort, competence or command there. Despite, at least in Barry's case, having as fine a composite team of business leaders and economists at his disposal as any I've ever known to be assembled. And John-boy's on the whole ain't to bad either. But that's in a nutshell - they need to find their VOICES on the Economy and we're running out of time.

And with only a little over three months left this may indeed be as good as it gets. 

Worldviews vs. Realities

The problems afflicting discontented America Regardless of their political beliefs, American voters are in a horrible mood this year. Democrats are sick of George Bush. Republicans are sick of the Democrats running Congress. Everyone worries about Iraq, either because they think the war should never have been fought, or because of the long, costly and thankless slog it has turned into. The latest violence in Afghanistan is depressing. The culture war grinds on: America is slouching towards Gomorrah or theocracy, depending on your viewpoint. The earth is either cooking or being overrun by eco-fanatics. And the American economy is tottering. The polls tell a dismal tale. Only 29% of Americans approve of the president. Only 14% approve of Congress. And just 6% view the economy positively. Yet many Americans combine despondency about the big picture with personal contentment. More than 80% say they are satisfied with their own circumstances. Even more are satisfied with their jobs. And although nearly everyone despises Congress, most Americans like their own representatives. Americans have grown accustomed to extraordinary prosperity. Poor Americans today are more likely to have fridges, dishwashers and air-conditioning than average Americans were in 1971. Young voters have no memory of a serious recession, since the last one was in the early 1990s. Some do not even realise that cyclical downturns are normal. Only 18% of Americans think they are worse off than their parents were at the same age. But elections hinge on shorter-term concerns. Four-fifths of Americans say it is harder to maintain a middle-class lifestyle now than it was five years ago. That probably means the election is Mr Obama’s to lose.

Nihilism vs Optimism Tom very nicely captured what might be the essence of these culture battles when he said: "If the dominant clash of my generation was between communism and capitalism, the dominant clash of this generation is between nihilism - as” represented by suicide bombers who try to blow up hope from New York to Baghdad -” and optimism that a better social and political order can be created." You need hope and optimism, not only to go out there and plan the next steps in your life and work, but to help address some of the really tough problems facing us in society.  Especially when you are young, it is good to be somewhat naive and idealistic, to have the feeling that the world is your oyster and that there is little you cannot accomplish if you just try hard enough.  Even as we get older and have been chastened by encounters with real life, it is very important to retain some measures of hope and optimism in the future as the energy that keeps us going. By contrast, all those individuals that think nothing of killing young people in Baghdad outdoor markets and Tel-Aviv and London nightclubs seem to have discarded all hope in the world.  Human existence to them no longer has any meaning or purpose beyond killing those they hate because they live different kinds of lives, as well as wrecking havoc in a society from which they feel alienated. Closer to home, we have our own culture wars.  Thankfully, they are quite different in nature, - with loud, angry words as the weapons of choice, - but they are playing out on many fronts with surprising ferocity. 

Unhappy America NATIONS, like people, occasionally get the blues; and right now the United States, normally the world’s most self-confident place, is glum. Eight out of ten Americans think their country is heading in the wrong direction. The hapless George Bush is partly to blame for this: his approval ratings are now sub-Nixonian. But many are concerned not so much about a failed president as about a flailing nation. One source of angst is the sorry state of American capitalism (see article). And it’s not just the downturn that has caused this discontent. Many Americans feel as if they missed the boom. America has got into funks before now. In the 1950s it went into a Sputnik-driven spin about Soviet power; in the 1970s there was Watergate, Vietnam and the oil shocks; in the late 1980s Japan seemed to be buying up America. Each time, the United States rebounded, because the country is good at fixing itself. Just as American capitalism allows companies to die, and to be created, quickly, so its political system reacts fast. Everybody goes through bad times. Some learn from the problems they have caused themselves, and come back stronger. Some blame others, lash out and damage themselves further. America has had the wisdom to take the first course many times before. Let’s hope it does so again.

• America's overstated inequality

Political Economy and Realities

The Democrats' Dilemma But this Democratic ascendancy is by no means guaranteed for the long run. The changing nature of the party casts its future in doubt, particularly after 2008. Much of this has to do with how the party’s base has shifted, and where that base may lead it over the coming decades. In other words, to borrow roughly from Franklin Roosevelt, the only thing the Democrats have to fear is themselves. Yet today’s Democratic revival represents something far more profound. Rather than a shift to the “middle,” the current Democratic tide reflects a long-term secular shift in the composition of our economy and our class structure. Americans may dislike the term class, but it has been an essential part of our political history. And for most of our history, Democrats represented the middle and working classes, dating at least back to the days of Andrew Jackson. Under William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic Party cast itself as largely the voice of the small farmer and the working and middle classes. Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and even Bill Clinton maintained this tradition. Yet over the past two decades, and particularly the last few years, the party’s base has shifted decisively in both demographic and geographic terms. Increasingly, the core Democratic constituency—and, even more so, the base of Senator Barack Obama’s campaign—consists not of working- and middle-class whites but of African-Americans and a rising new class of affluent, well-educated professionals. These factors may make it difficult for Democrats to govern as the party of what used to be called “economic justice,” even given the presence of a widening gap between the rich and the middle class. It’s revealing that, rather than express outrage at the huge payouts to the Wall Street elite, Democrats generally prefer to demonize oil company executives, whose pay, if more than generous, pales in comparison to that earned by the traders and speculators.

Where did our financial stability go? Changes to the US economy over the past 4 decades have left Americans richer but less secure. A new book explains why anxiety is rising along with incomes. If the economy is so great, why do things feel so bad? If you've even asked yourself that question, read the following book. Peter Gosselin's just-published "High Wire: The Precarious Financial Lives of American Families" is the best explanation that I've read of why a substantial majority of us feel less secure, more anxious and increasingly worried about the future even though the national economy has done so well over the past 10 to 20 years. I've wrestled with this question repeatedly in my column during the past few years, well before $4-a-gallon gas, falling home prices and rising unemployment provided a short-term focus for our anxieties. After the current economic slowdown is over and we've returned to "normal" good times, I think we're likely to be left puzzling over this question again. If the economy is so great, why do things feel so bad? If you've even asked yourself that question, read the following book. However it's phrased, though, the message is the same: People are worried, really worried, about the future for themselves and their families. The increase in income volatility that shows up in these numbers isn't an accident of the U.S. or global economy, Gosselin argues. As a society, we've pursued choices that have led to this increase in volatility. For example, we've replaced pensions that had guaranteed annual payouts with individual retirement accounts and 401(k)s, where the payout is determined by how much we save and how well our individual investment choices turn out. And we're increasingly replacing employer-provided health insurance with private policies that, when disaster strikes, provide little coverage or none at all. If the statistics don't bring you around to Gosselin's conclusions, his vivid anecdotes about how this system can devastate the lives of people who have planned intelligently and soberly to take care of themselves should at least make you think about the system we've built:

• Americans Losing Faith In Free Markets? Discussing whether Americans are losing faith in free markets, with William Galston, former adviser to President Clinton, and CNBC's Larry Kudlow & Steve Liesman
• Your Money Your Vote Debate Preview A look ahead of the political candidates money men economic battle, with CNBC's John Harwood

Bush Economics Give Obama an Opening  A new book designed to show Republicans how to win the working-class vote actually makes a strong case that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will carry it. Much-discussed and deservedly praised, "Grand New Party" by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam paints a grim picture of working-class prospects, both economically and socially, under prevailing circumstances. Instead of being a society where anybody can "make it," Douthat and Salam describe the United States as increasingly becoming an "inherited meritocracy" where the wealthy and well-educated get more so and those without education and skills get left behind and face a life of stress and insecurity. They don't say so directly, but I would: What Obama is offering -- and eloquently -- is hope for a better deal, while Republicans are offering more of the same. And, to the extent that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) does offer new proposals, they tend to be small-bore or hard to grasp. It may be true, as Douthat and Salam contend, that what Democrats propose amounts to a "European-style welfare state" that's economically unsustainable, but McCain hasn't been able to make that case, either. The white working class is the classic "swing" constituency -- Richard Nixon's "silent majority," Ronald Reagan's "Reagan Democrats," the group that gave victories to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and has been dubbed "Sam's Club voters" by Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. But my guess is that -- unless McCain can make a better case for Republican economics than he has -- working-class voters will opt for more government help than they've had. As Obama says, Bush's economic policies "have failed to create well-paying jobs or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the sky-rocketing cost of college -- policies that have lowered the real income of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt." The working class, like everybody else, wants a change.

Voters Want Less Pork, Even in Their Own District The Club for Growth recently conducted a nationwide poll on government spending, and the results were exactly the opposite of what most politicians have been saying for years. Voters are fed up with Washington's out-of-control spending. Politicians aren't representing the will of the people when they bring home the bacon. They are really representing the will of their special-interest cronies. And it's not just conservative voters who feel that way. Voters across the board have finally found something they can agree on even if their elected officials can't: It's time to cut the fat, even if that means fewer projects for their own districts. The results were unambiguous. Fifty-four percent of general election voters chose the frugal candidate, compared with only 29% who chose the profligate candidate. Republicans overwhelming favor less federal spending, 72% to 17%, with independents close behind at 61%. Only Democrats prefer more federal spending, but only by a plurality. Thirty-six percent of Democrats chose the more fiscally conservative candidate, with 42% choosing the alternative. Unfortunately, too many politicians are refusing to listen. The vast majority of congressmen are just as wedded to bloated budgets as ever. Part of the problem is that wasteful spending is embedded in the congressional culture. Congressional freshmen are instructed by leadership to seek out earmarks and flaunt their success back home. They are indoctrinated to believe that seeking and securing earmarks -- no matter how silly or wasteful -- is a congressman's official duty and a surefire path to re-election. It is for this reason that vulnerable incumbents are showered with additional pork projects as the election cycle heats up. I know this is true because Republican leaders explained this all to me when I entered Congress in 1999.

Candidates Struggle to Find Economic Voice So, the general election campaign has been going on about 45 days, and where do things stand? Interestingly, almost exactly where it did when the two person race started nearly two months ago.  Barack Obama is up about five points over John McCain, and that number really hasn't changed at all. And this despite a very positive, widely covered trip overseas by Obama, in conjunction with some mistakes made along the way by John McCain and his surrogates, as well as lots of ads aired and released by each campaign.  If all you did was add up the media reports on the race, you would think this race holds an overwhelming lead by Obama. But voters have not yet made that decision. What does this tell us? First, both candidates are underperforming where they should be based on two indicators: 1) the incumbent President has a job approval rating in the high 20s, the worst position ever for a president in the midst of a presidential election, and 2) Democrats have at least a ten-point advantage on the generic ballot and partisan voter affiliation. But I think what is preventing either candidate to do as well as they should, is that the dominant issue in this race is the economy (jobs, cost of health care, gas prices), and neither candidate has found their voice to talk about it, to address voter concerns, and to present a compelling vision for the 21st century.  And not only has each candidate not found their voice, but each candidate seems to look for an opportunity to talk about anything else but this issue. If you add up the first 45 days of this general election, the majority of time has been spent on something other than the economy. Quite unbelievable when pocketbook issues are driving American's votes. There is now less than 100 days until election day, and the candidates don't have a lot of time to fix this situation. (I note this week Obama and McCain are trying to address the economy.) And the longer this goes on, the more this race will settle into historic factors which has nothing to do with the candidate's and their campaign's performance. I believe that the first candidate to find their voice on the economy and speak to voters fears and hopes related to that issue will be the candidate most likely to take the oath of office in 2009.

Other Assessments

Obama, Playing His Own Game For years, Democrats have marveled at Republicans' ability to create compelling visuals. When Ronald Reagan's advisers began treating his every appearance as a tableau that required careful attention to lighting, perspective, and composition, it was revolutionary. But look at what we saw this week. While Barack Obama was photographed standing on mountaintops and being mobbed by adoring troops, John McCain was filmed tooling around in a golf cart with George H. W. Bush, a figure from the political past. Then, while Obama spoke in front of a crowd of 200,000 Germans waving American flags, McCain answered questions in the dairy aisle of a supermarket. The imbalance is more than just the two campaigns' relative talent at staging photo-ops. The fact is that in every aspect of campaigning, Obama's team is showing more skill and results than that of his more seasoned Republican opponent. Perhaps the most important difference between the two campaigns lies in their core messages. Look back at recent elections, and you see again and again that the eventual winner had a clear, simple, easily understood message, a story he wanted the public to hear that could be summed up in a single sentence. Obama's message has been the same since he began his campaign (and even before): He is the candidate of change, hope, and unity. Ergo, "Change We Can Believe In," all three ideas conveyed in five words. And McCain? One day he's the candidate of reform, one day he's the candidate of strength, one day he's the candidate of '60s-era cultural resentments, one day he's "the American president Americans have been waiting for."

Known Unknowns About Obama  "Just tell me one thing Barack Obama has done that you admire," I asked a prominent Democrat. He paused and then said that he admired Obama's speech to the Democratic convention in 2004. I agreed. It was a hell of a speech, but it was just a speech. On the other hand, I continued, I could cite four or five actions -- not speeches -- that John McCain has taken that elicit my admiration, even my awe. First, of course, is his decision as a Vietnam War POW to refuse freedom out of concern that he would be exploited for propaganda purposes. To paraphrase what Kipling said about Gunga Din, John McCain is a better man than most. But I would not stop there. I would include campaign finance reform, which infuriated so many in his own party; opposition to earmarks, which won him no friends; his politically imprudent opposition to the Medicare prescription drug bill (Medicare has about $35 trillion in unfunded obligations); and, last but not least, his very early call for additional troops in Iraq. His was a lonely position, virtually suicidal for an all-but-certain presidential candidate, and no help when his campaign nearly expired last summer. In all these cases, McCain stuck to his guns. , it was Walter Lippmann's enduring misfortune to size up FDR and belittle him: Roosevelt, he wrote, was "a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for office, would very much like to be president." Lippmann later recognized that he had underestimated Roosevelt. My guess is that Obama will make a fool of anyone who issues such a judgment about him. Still, the record now, while tissue thin, is troubling. The next president will have to be something of a political Superman, a man of steel who can tell the American people that they will have to pay more for less -- higher taxes, lower benefits of all kinds -- and deal in an ugly way when nuclear weapons seize the imagination of madmen. The question I posed to that prominent Democrat was just my way of thinking out loud. I know that Barack Obama is a near-perfect political package. I'm still not sure, though, what's in it.

Posted by dblwyo at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Over the weekend a friend sent me an interesting message talking about irrational voters making the wrong choices and not doing what they were told to by the academic economics community. Now as it happens there’s often a great deal of sense in what the economists have to say -  on the whole their analysis pans out. On the other hand they often are too narrow in their views, as all specialists tend to be and neglect many real world factors and dependencies. This is such an important issues it seemed like it was worthwhile to share the exchange with you. Below is the original e-mail and my reply – which with my friend’s pronounced talent for tabling simple questions with painfully complex answers require some effort to respond to. Hence…

But the reply, longish as it is, bears so much on the dilemmas we face in this election and the structural problems we need to resolve that it provides a very useful piece of background information.

“These are serious times and we have serious problems….and we need serious people to address them. Your 15 minutes are up.”

- Andrew Shephard

Rational Voters Defined

I'll counter-define rationality as making the best choices among those available to you based on accessible information and our values and preferences. Let's remember btw that self-interest need not be narrowly defined. We know that fundamental preferences for the public good have always existed (why did George W. do what he did - at least thrice or more saving the nation) and that's linked to long-term evolutionary characteristics of the species. And our forces in the military can certainly be said to be acting in their own narrow, private interests only by widening the definition so far it breaks. Public spirit is alive and well when it needs to be and people see the need.

 Specialists and Dodos

Any specialist organization that wants it's recommendations adopted by the wider populace it obliged to present, defend and explain those proposals in terms that are comprehensible and convincing to the wider public. Or suffer the consequences. "FofD" problems come about when specialists, e.g. evolutionary biologists, a) lecture the public and treat them as children while not explaining themselves, b) presuming they are so entitled because of their privileged position which may in fact represent only their own narrow interests and conclusions and c) forget that they are dependent on the health and continued development of the larger socio-economic system for their own support. In the vernacular if you keep crapping in your own well pretty soon you'll poison yourself. Academic economists are particularly prone as a group to this deficiency. A classic example of predictable unintended consequences that were unanticipated is school busing where bad analysis and bad thinking created a major mess we’re still trying to recover from. So much for society wide social engineering experiments when you don’t know what you’re doing.

Two of the great public policy speeches of the last 20 years IMHO were Barry's explaining these hard truths to the evangelicals at Sojurners and to blacks in his speech on racism; coupled with substantive sketches of directions and principles for moving forward. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to display that same emotional depth and willingness to tackle the other range of issues. (Moral Clarity ? Good Intentions, Muddy Proposals, Directional Obscurities)

Complexity in the Real World

Int'l trade theory suggests that we are always better off because more people have more things at lower cost. History, experience and empirics have born that ought for centuries. Recently studies have shown that the lower income distribution population has benefited greatly from trade with China and the resulting lowering of costs. (America's overstated inequality ) Yet trade theory has one major macro-deficiency - it assumes that displaced resources, e.g. workers, can be re-deployed to other uses. And further that the costs of the transition are far less than the larger-scale benefits. When the displacement is relatively small compared to the increase in overall output that's true. On the other hand when the displacement is large, as it was when the US Midwest replaced E.Eur and Russia as the breadbasket of Europe in the late 19th C. and no substitute alternatives were available, the impacts can vastly outweigh the gains. The situation we face today is a combination of major adjustments costs and barriers combined with a huge reservoir of under-employed labor in the BRIC countries who will be in transition for decades. These are not the only examples but are a telling one. Political support for free-trade requires fairness, legitimacy and conviction - all of which the academics and blind free-trade supporters have failed of gaining.

You can't legitimately lecture people for not adopting your solutions when those are incomplete, wrong or damage them more than you know and they are aware of. In fact you merely demonstrate your own dodoness - with all the implied consequences that in a just Universe would/should/could result. 

Markets, Institutions and Government

Markets don't magically spring up but gradually emerge over long time periods - they require common measures of goods, e.g. grain contracts, rules of exchange, enforceability which all require in return the presence of legal systems to enforce and adjudicated inevitable disputes and stable political systems that defend the rights that citizens think they have. (Books to Read:  Structure and Change in Economic History by Douglass C. North,  Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships by Mancur Olson ).

Moreover markets often fail because many goods aren't well-suited to markets, e.g. defense and security are shared among many people. Buying increments is impossible and without taxes and public decisions too many opportunists will free ride. Same arguements apply to Healthcare, Legal Systems, Public Education, Highways, Public Health, and so on. Markets also fail when certain outputs or inputs aren't traded, e.g. the pollution created by a factory creates a public bad which the plant owners have no incentive to correct. Or when common fisheries are badly over-exploited. One needs a political system to establish public or private property rights and change these non-traded goods into controllable ones, either thru markets or regulation.

Voter Choices and Rationality

Voters always choose what they think is best for them, best including short- and long-term as well as private and family and general interest in the health of the society insomuch as it's recognized. Which most do to some extent, greater or lesser. They may choose things that in fact result in bad consequences from mis-understanding, poor information, poor presentation or the machinations of special interests (Hidden Issues and Government Reform: the Politics of Special Interests) who gain so much from manipulating the public legislative and regulatory environment that they can afford to invest considerable resources in fixing those problems and changing things to suite.

The classic example is farm-subsidies which are destroying 3rd World development by flooding to much cheap food on markets and the classic sinners distorting the entire appartus of the world trade agreements are the Europeans, particuarly the French. Ag subsidies absorb the bulk of the EU budget AND mostly go to Fr. farmers. Here our Energy problems are largely of our own choosing. For example CAFE standards were deliberately maintained at low levels and light trucks/SUVs exempted on the grounds that they were for business. BS of course. Similar arguments apply to off-shore drilling, environmental regulation of refineries and the decline of the inner cities. (In Search of a Nat'l Energy Policy: Check the Mirror Pogo, Unintended Consequences: Blowing Off Our Own Feet,Party on Grasshopper: Digging Deeper....into the Policy Agendi)

The  Challenges and  Approaches

Very few of the policy issues we face are un-resolvable or unsolvable. The first if nothing else by definition though we may not like the outcomes. In the areas of defense, foreign policy and economics we actually understand pretty well have centuries of accumulated experience on the first, decades on the second and a core consensus. Key challenges are resolving Energy and stimulating innovation to create the Next Big Things that will cause the emergence of new industries. On domestic social policy it's a much more mixed picture. On traditional areas, e.g. Public Health and Infrastructure gov'ts have provided those for centuries. There are admin challenges but we pretty well understand them. Our two biggest challenges are I) finding new models for social policy in those areas where big solution/government social engineering has failed miserably thru not understanding the complexities and II) creating new mechanisms of governance that are hybrids between markets and public regulation. These are frontiers of invention, innovation and deployment where we're still learning.

So, bottomline, we're facing many challenges, they're all hard, we've done well but are reaching exhaustion on our inheritences that requires us to suck it up. We know how to fix some things, we need to get creative on others and pursue the 3rd Way forward.

Caplan on the whole makes a negative contribution thru his narrowness to all these challenges. And so, therefore by inference and linkage, does Jaccoby. The free-market and conservative revolutions started by Buckley and carried on by Friedman, et.al. and implemented under Reagan were necessary correctives to big government solutions inherited from FDR's "New Deal". Themselves sensible and workable responses to breakages in the economy and socio-political system that no existing mechanisms handled. As FDR put the two most dangerous men in America were MacArthur (the man on the white horse) and Huey Long (the populist panderer). Just consider the last century of dysfunctional osciallation in Latin America between militaristic oligarchies and populist demogogues. Or the recurrent breakdowns in Fr. gov't over the last two centuries.

Posted by dblwyo at 09:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Well "Brian", I mean Barry, has had his triumphal tour of Jeruslem and points around and between, at least according to some of the coverage. What's rapidly becoming street mythology. And Johnboy was so lonely and abandoned.It's probably worth your while to skim the excerpted readings, including the URLs to a very wide range of articles, from a wide range of source. You might be rather surprised - even the Der Spiegel reporter had some notes of hesitancy while the various Brits were properly applauding as well-spoken PR gesture but spen their last paras on "so what". Listened to a panel on Rose last night and that was essentially there conclusion as well.

1) those who haven't heard him before but were enchanted are potentially enamored of his vision,

2) those who have heard him repeatedly repeat, "where's the beef", and

3) McCain remains within reach. Beyond that the careful control of the message, the suppresion of tough press questioning, the posturing (as several commentators note, including several of the so-called liberal, biased media - e.g. Andrea Mitchell) isn't encouraging.

1) Americans still don't have a grip on who or what he is while they are more comfortable with Johnboy,

2) Barry will have to come out form behind his shell and show us who he truly his - something he's incredibly unconfortable with,

3) real substance needs to be forthcoming,

4) in his background he's demonstrated he's an inquiring mind ready to listen carefully to anyone of substance, to be nuanced and hard-headed/handed when he percieves it as necessary,

5) his unwillingness to change his mind as the result of that listening and a pronounced difficulty in admitting he's wrong (the Surge being the primary example) and

6) his total reliance on the "brave new world" euporia of the early '90s instead of translating that into realpolitik. At least in his speechifying.

READINGS

Struggle to Gain Ground at Home Even as his turn on the global stage hit an emotional peak Thursday with a speech before a cheering crowd of more than 200,000 in Germany, Barack Obama faced new evidence of stubborn election challenges back home. Fresh polls show that he has been unable to convert weeks of extensive media coverage into a widened lead. And some prominent Democrats whose support could boost his campaign are still not enthusiastic about his candidacy. Several new surveys show that Obama is in a tight race or even losing ground to Republican John McCain, both nationally and in two important swing states, Colorado and Minnesota. One new poll offered a possible explanation for his troubles: A minority of voters see Obama as a familiar figure with whom they can identify. Republicans are moving to exploit this vulnerability, trying to encourage unease among voters by building the impression that Obama's overseas trip and other actions show he has a sense of entitlement that suggests he believes the White House is already his. Even as his turn on the global stage hit an emotional peak Thursday with a speech before a cheering crowd of more than 200,000 in Germany, Barack Obama faced new evidence of stubborn election challenges back home. Fresh polls show that he has been unable to convert weeks of extensive media coverage into a widened lead. And some prominent Democrats whose support could boost his campaign are still not enthusiastic about his candidacy. Several new surveys show that Obama is in a tight race or even losing ground to Republican John McCain, both nationally and in two important swing states, Colorado and Minnesota. One new poll offered a possible explanation for his troubles: A minority of voters see Obama as a familiar figure with whom they can identify. Republicans are moving to exploit this vulnerability, trying to encourage unease among voters by building the impression that Obama's overseas trip and other actions show he has a sense of entitlement that suggests he believes the White House is already his.

• The Presumptive - and Presumptuous - Nominee, Obama Abroad: We Get the Picture, ‘This Is the Moment’, And now we are loved again?, A Flat Performance in Berlin, Number 44 Has Spoken, Playing Innocent Abroad, Obama, Too at Home in Berlin

Con Law  Baird approached Obama about a teaching job at Chicago during his third and final year as a student at Harvard. "You look at his background--Harvard Law Review president, magna cum laude, and he's African American," Baird says. "This is a no-brainer hiring decision at the entry level of any law school in the country." But Obama wasn't interested. Obama did, however, mention that he was writing a book on voting rights, so Baird arranged for him to become a Law and Government Fellow at the school--a position that provided Obama with an office and a modest stipend he could use in the course of his writing. For the next eight years, Obama taught upper-level constitutional law courses on equal protection and voting rights. He was a huge hit with his students. Epstein, who once almost sold his Hyde Park home to Obama and would buttonhole him to talk about things like state mandates for health insurance, offers one reason why: "He was always a terrific listener. He'd sit there and cock his head, take it all in." Of course, as Epstein points out, Obama's willingness to listen didn't necessarily mean he was willing to be convinced. "What you don't get, alas and alack, out of all this is a change in point of view," Epstein says. "If you ask me whether I had any influence on his intellectual or moral development, I'd say no, not even a little." But other Chicago conservatives seem content with the fact that Obama tried to understand their point of view, even if he didn't wind up adopting it. "What I know from my dealings with him at the law school is that he does really attempt to understand the points of view of other people who look at the world or a particular issue differently than he does," says Fischel.

Jeff Jacoby: Missing from that Berlin speech Barack Obama had ample reason to recall the Berlin Airlift of 1948 during his dramatic speech in the German capital last week. The airlift was an early and critical success for the West in the Cold War, with clear relevance to our own time, the war in Iraq, and the free world's conflict with radical Islam. But having reached back 60 years to that pivotal hour of American leadership, Obama proceeded to draw from it exactly the wrong lessons. It would take nearly a year and more than 277,000 flights, but in the end it was the Soviets who backed down. On May 12, 1949, the blockade ended -- a triumph of American prowess and perseverance, and a momentous vindication for Truman. But not once in his Berlin speech did Obama acknowledge Truman's fortitude, or even mention his name. Nor did he mention the US Air Force, or the 31 American pilots who died during the airlift. Indeed, Obama seemed to go out of his way not to say plainly that what saved Berlin in that dark time was America's military might. Obama's speech was a paean to international cooperation and unity. "Now is the time to join together," he said. "It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads." No -- it was a Democratic president named Truman, who had the audacity to order an airlift when others counseled retreat, and the grit to see it through when others were ready to withdraw. Sixty years later, it is a very different kind of Democrat who is running for president. Obama may have wowed 'em in Berlin, but he's no Harry Truman.

Pride Clouds Obama's Vision Barack Obama concedes that America's troops have contributed to improvements on the ground in Iraq, but he still stands by his vote against the surge. Why not just admit that he was wrong? Come on, senator, this is a lot easier than changing churches. Say: "As a proud American, I'm delighted that the surge has worked so we can move forward with my timetable for withdrawal. Look, if I'd known how successful it was going to be, I would have voted for it. At the time it didn't seem like a good bet, but prognosticators go broke in wartime." See, that wasn't so bad. Instead, Obama says that even knowing what he now knows, he still would have voted against the surge. Really? Even knowing that without the surge, he couldn't have safely visited Iraq? Obama insists that, hypothetically, his own plan might have worked better than the surge: To review Obama's statements on the surge since it began is to understand why: pride. Over and over again -- even after Gen. David Petraeus reported in late 2007 that the surge was working -- Obama said: It's not working. It won't work. It's a mistake. He essentially was betting his presidential hopes on the surge's failure. But the surge did work -- and the mistake is Obama's.

Body Language: What McCain and Obama Reveal Barack Obama spoke in front of 200,000 Germans in Berlin on Thursday at the start of a European tour, while John McCain talked to small business leaders at a fourth-generation German restaurant in Columbus, Ohio. But regardless of the audience, people undoubtedly paid as much attention to the nonverbal performance as they did to what each presidential candidate said. Body movement analysts say that McCain represents stability in how he stands firmly and holds onto the sides of a podium. By contrast, Obama has a forward-looking gaze and strolls about in a relaxed fashion during public appearances. Yet both men share an introspective quality that could make them strong leaders, each in his way.

Posted by dblwyo at 01:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Since the candidates aren't being as clearly forthcoming with their policy directions as we'd like the  next step is to return to foundations and parse out the details, to some extent, ourselves. And since Barry is just finishing up his triumphal tour of foreign shores the area of Foreign Affairs and National Security seems like the appropriate place to start. After the break are a set of collected excerpts that review the national security situation, the broader topic of US grand strategy with respect to the world and Iraq specifically. Unfortunately for us all his posture on Iraq seems to be accurately captured in the cartoon - which despite being a couple of weeks old represents the feedback we've been getting on several fronts. Despite what you heard on the news both the Iraqi government and the commanders on the ground told them the last thing they wanted was a definite timetable. While supportive of an eventual withdrawal, or at least drawdown, what they're after is a flexibility to decide in concert with the evolution of events. Along with a longer term US commitment to Iraqi security, defense and on-going support. What Col. Austin Bey characterizes as strategic over-watch.

In fact the Surge strategy has been enormously successful and laid the basic foundations for a more durable civil environment. At the same time the defeat of al-Queda in Iraq (AQI) has had three fundamental consequences. First it's functioned as an enormous rat trap with every nutjob inthe region and further being drawn into the meatgrinder and suffering enormous casualties. Second the unchecked violence deployed by AIQ has resulted in a major defeat for them in the public mind thruout the ME. And third, though only a far-away glimmer, it raises the potential for a stable, improving and democratic country sitting in the middle of the world's most unstable, dangerous and strategic geography. Which btw means Barry's emphasis on Afghanistan as the "central front" is an error of judgment of monumental proportions, as pointed out by no less than the Washington Post on its' editorial page. His posturing and manipulation of the press coverage - preventing all active coverage and interviews and presenting somewhat distorted views of what he was getting as feedback, can at best be described as disingenuous and self-serving. As Lord Keynes put it, "when the facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir ?"

Which is not to say that Iraq was, by any means well-executed. But we did succeed in adopting and adapting in "orderly, proficient, military manner" to quote GSY T. Highway. Which leads to broader questions of what did we learn and how do we apply those lessons worldwide for a more open and inclusive US Foreign Policy. Earlier we'd argued (Brave New World: Non-Flatness, History and Challenges, Peace, Stability and Prosperity: the Nature of Good Government) that the central principle of US FP ought to be constructive engagement with the world to establish a new world system based on a stable int'l regime that asked for support from major stakeholders in line with the benefits they receive. And one that also recognizes that failed states are in no one's interest.

With those governing principles in mind the lesson for strategic development of our FP capabilities include a more balanced emphasis on bringing to bear all our capabilities in an integrated whole, which is NOT well-received among the bureaucratic turf-mice. It also includes using those TBD capacities in our specific strategies, the example given here being Pakistan. And finally it means putting more emphasis on soft power and public diplomacy. An integrated perspective we've tried to represent in the accompanying graphic.

Yet at the end of the day this requires vision, leadership, integrity and honesty as opposed to pursuit of narrow and partisan political advantage. Take a look at the readings below - where we've deliberately and typically passed on the more polemical and biased sources in favor of the informed and balanced. After you skim them - or better, clicked thru and read a few - make up your own minds regarding whether Barry was a) being disingenuous, b) right, c) flexible and d) public-spirited. On the whole my interpretation of these reports does not lead to a favorable conclusion. 

The Democrats fought the surge with every maneuver and ounce of energy they could muster, including pejorative attacks on our commanders and distortions. Notice that they've been notably silent since around Oct. Given their position that we'd screwed up it would seem to me civic responsibility called for fixing the problem...not trying to make it as much worse as possible.

So how would you like to evaluate things ? The final excerpt on Iraq outlines a strategic alternative that serves all our goals and applies these lessons. And Sen. Obama would achieve a new stature in my mind if he'd carp the diem and adopt some version. Instead he seems to be doing his level best to come out even more mis-guided than when he went in. Very sad for a reasonable, rational man who could have been one of the great leaders of our time.

National Security

The Bush Paradox  Let’s go back and consider how the world looked in the winter of 2006-2007. Iraq was in free fall, with horrific massacres and ethnic cleansing that sent a steady stream of bad news across the world media. The American public delivered a stunning electoral judgment against the Iraq war, the Republican Party and President Bush. Expert and elite opinion swung behind the Baker-Hamilton report, which called for handing more of the problems off to the Iraqi military and wooing Iran and Syria. Republicans on Capitol Hill were quietly contemptuous of the president while Democrats were loudly so. Democratic leaders like Senator Harry Reid considered the war lost. Barack Obama called for a U.S. withdrawal starting in the spring of 2007, while Senator Reid offered legislation calling for a complete U.S. pullback by March 2008. The additional fact is that Bush, who made such bad calls early in the war, made a courageous and astute decision in 2006. More than a year on, the surge has produced large, if tenuous, gains. The cocksure war supporters learned this humbling lesson during the dark days of 2006. And now the cocksure surge opponents, drunk on their own vindication, will get to enjoy their season of humility. They have already gone through the stages of intellectual denial. First, they simply disbelieved that the surge and the Petraeus strategy was doing any good. Then they accused people who noticed progress in Iraq of duplicity and derangement. Then they acknowledged military, but not political, progress. Lately they have skipped over to the argument that Iraq is progressing so well that the U.S. forces can quickly come home. But before long, the more honest among the surge opponents will concede that Bush, that supposed dolt, actually got one right. Some brave souls might even concede that if the U.S. had withdrawn in the depths of the chaos, the world would be in worse shape today. Life is complicated. The reason we have democracy is that no one side is right all the time. The only people who are dangerous are those who can’t admit, even to themselves, that obvious fact.

• Baghdad is Berlin 60 Years Later
• What Obama Could Learn on Vacation

COUNTER-TERRORISM: Arab Nations Unite Against Al Qaeda Most Arab nations have agreed on a new set of regulations to crack down on terrorist fund raising and money laundering in their countries. Until the recent defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq, it was considered too politically risky to go after wealthy donors to Islamic radical groups. Money laundering was another untouchable area, because corruption was so common, and money laundering was part of that. But "reform" has become increasingly popular in the Arab world over the past few years, and these new counter-terrorism efforts are part of it. It's no longer fashionable to rejoice whenever a Islamic terrorist bomb goes off in the West, or anywhere else for that matter. Since 2003, most of the al Qaeda violence has been against Arabs, and after a few years of this, public opinion turned on the Islamic terrorists. Public opinion wants these butchers shut down. This means that those who support Islamic radicalism are no longer as tolerated as they used to be. Another aspect of the crack down on money laundering is the growing popularity of honesty is business and government. Lots of corruption is still tolerated, and many Arabs insist that corruption is "part of the culture." But the money laundering is seen as primarily criminal, a tool largely for gangsters and terrorists. How successful these new agreements will be remains to be seen. It will be at least a year before one can tell with any certainty.

Chertoff: European terrorists trying to enter US European terrorists are trying to enter the United States with European Union passports, and there is no guarantee officials will catch them every time, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Thursday. Chertoff's comments on Capitol Hill comes as the country is entering a potentially vulnerable period with the presidential nominating conventions coming up next month; the presidential election in November; and the transition to a new administration in January — all of which may be attractive targets for terrorists. In his last scheduled appearance before the House Homeland Security Committee, Chertoff said that the more time and space al-Qaida and its allies have to recruit, train, experiment and plan, the more problems the U.S. and Europe will face down the road.

Preparing the Battlefield Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program. Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year.

Foreign  Affairs

The State Department Confronts the Synergy Crisis  What's the synergy crisis? It is a soundbite for a complex, long-term problem involving bureaucratic turf battles and lack of focused leadership that costs America lives, time and money. America has trouble synchronizing its "tools of national power" -- synergizing its diplomatic, information, military and economic power to achieve a policy goal, like winning a war. This isn't a new affliction. Arguably, the "interagency process" that the White House uses to coordinate and synergize the Pentagon, State, Treasury, and every other department and agency hasn't worked well since the Eisenhower administration. Not only does the government fail to bring "unified" governmental power to bear, but America's private sector strengths are -- at best -- applied haphazardly, if at all. No strategist disputes the fact America's systemic power, the global tsunami of its $14 trillion economy, the nonstop avalanche of cultural and technological creativity, gives the United States an awesome though unfocused advantage in any conflict, be it diplomatic, economic or military. It takes time, however, and the sustained application of American political will and its other "power tools" for the systemic edge to defeat an opponent. Time in war is measured in loss of lives. "I can't tell you how many times I've spoken with people from Afghanistan and Pakistan who say to me all of this (complex war) is economics," Steve Kaplitt, director of EESR, told me. "Solve the economics, and all of this will melt away." Neither Kaplitt nor I think it's quite that simple. But terrorist and tyrant elites certainly leverage grievances magnified by systemic poverty and corruption. Via the Internet, EESR provides "business development advocacy" and what Kaplitt calls "customized matchmaking" to help entrepreneurs in "targeted countries" (e.g. Afghanistan, Pakistan) find business partners and resources. "We solicit business proposals from entrepreneurs," Kaplitt said, "then try and match them with partners in the U.S. private sector, government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and philanthropic foundations." Translation: An entrepreneur in Kabul or a nurse who wants to open a clinic in Peshawar can get support, advice and financing from around the world.

US plans to triple non-security aid to Pakistan in new strategy The United States is considering a new aid strategy for Pakistan that will triple unconditional non-security aid to 1.5 billion dollars annually but tie security funding to counterrorism performance, lawmakers said. In coming weeks, bipartisan legislation will be introduced in the US Senate laying the foundation for the new approach, senior Democratic Senator Joseph Biden said Wednesday. Biden, who chaired a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the new strategy, proposed that the central elements of the new plan include tripling non-security aid to 1.5 billion dollars annually over a 10-year period. "A significant increase in non-security aid, guaranteed for a long period, would help persuade the Pakistani populace that America is not a fair-weather friend but an all-weather friend; it would also help persuade Pakistan's leaders that America is a reliable ally," he said. But Biden, in a controversial move, also wanted US security aid -- around one billion dollars annually at present -- to be tied to results. This, he said, would "push the Pakistani military to finally crush" the Al-Qaeda and Taliban militant groups believed based along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. President George W. Bush's administration has given general support to the plan. "While we do not agree on every point in the current version of the proposed legislation, we welcome this initiative and feel strongly that a new, bipartisan commitment to partnership with Pakistan is crucial," said Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher.

The key to a better U.S. image Both presidential candidates recognize the need to galvanize public diplomacy to improve the image of the United States abroad. Congress is also seized of the issue. A House subcommittee has held a series of hearings that affirm a "precipitous decline in favorability" toward the US and its foreign policy in recent years. At the urging of Congress, the Department of State, current home of the government's public diplomacy efforts, has commissioned a study to review the instruments and techniques needed to burnish the US image. Three interested organizations, the Brookings Institution, the Business for Diplomatic Action group, and the Washington-based Public Diplomacy Council, will also conduct hearings in July to assess the views of interested parties. Key to the debate is whether the government's public diplomacy, or "soft power" effort, should remain based in the State Department or should become a separate institution. Republican candidate John McCain has already pronounced his choice. In "Foreign Affairs," he wrote: "The Clinton administration and Congress mistakenly agreed to abolish the US Information Agency and move its public diplomacy functions to the State Department. This amounted to unilateral disarmament in the war of ideas. I will work with Congress to create a new independent agency with the sole purpose of getting America's message to the world – a critical element in combating Islamic extremism and restoring the positive image of our country abroad."

With the end of the cold war, adopting the happy view that America's foes were now few, Congress opted to make public diplomacy a lower priority. USIA programs were cut back, and the remnants eventually subsumed under the State Department, whose professional diplomats are schooled not in public relations, but the art of close-to-the-chest government-to-government negotiations. Public diplomacy has thus been deprived of a separate agency whose sole mission is to amplify the American story around the world, using the latest communications technology, and the skills of practitioners who live and breathe the mission. While the Bush administration has admirably championed democracy, it has not restored the ability to engage doubters and those whose anti-US prejudices defy reason.

• ·         Winning the War of Ideas

Iraq

Obama says Iraq war must end Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is vowing to quickly end the war in Iraq and shift the focus of the war on terror to Afghanistan and Pakistan, declaring in an address to be delivered later today that the “single-minded and open-ended focus" on Iraq "distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize.”

“This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century,” Obama says in excerpts released by his campaign. “By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.” Obama is delivering a major address on Iraq at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, ahead of a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan later this month. In the remarks, Obama vows to take “the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan”: “In fact – as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain – the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. Obama plans to announce “five goals essential to making America safer”:

1. Ending the war in Iraq responsibly;

2. Finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban;

3. Securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue nations;

4. Achieving true energy security;

5. Rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Candidates' Positions on Iraq Differ Less Than You'd Think This tense back-and-forth was a vivid reminder that as conditions improve in Iraq, the U.S. is losing its ability to dictate terms to the sovereign government it has worked so hard to put in place. Less noticed is that the rapidly shifting events are beginning to make the presidential candidates' debate over Iraq seem oddly out of sync with reality. Obama and Republican John McCain are maximizing their differences when they talk to voters, but in practical terms there's less and less daylight between them. Rhetorically, Obama backs a fixed timetable for withdrawing American troops while McCain wants to stay as long as "victory" takes and beyond. But if the Iraqis want the U.S. out and they prove capable of taking over, both ideas lead to the same end on about the same schedule.

Mr. Obama in Iraq THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy. Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown. Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

• After Visit, Obama Defends Iraq Plan, The GQ Statesman

Iraqi Victory, Defeat for McCain?  It is ironic, but victory in Iraq could mean defeat for John McCain. Crown the lucky Barack Obama, bury the courageous McCain -- what a fate for a warrior senator who has played a key leadership role in Iraq's emerging victory. I'll repeat that description: "emerging victory." Terror campaigns and insurgencies end with diminishing codas of violence. The video summarizes "Strategic Overwatch" in this manner: Assumptions: The United States is in Iraq for the long haul; Iraqi political progress continues. Time to Develop: Could emerge by mid-to-late 2009, full-fledged by 2011. Related Events: Iraqi Army continues to re-arm and modernize; Iraq and the United States agree to a "long-range cooperation agreement" the Iraqi people see as advantageous to Iraq; ... Iraq begins to attract steady and sustained private investment; members of the Arab League begin forging stronger political and economic ties with Iraq. Effect on Average Iraqi: Increased GDP ultimately means a wealthier society; Iraqi neighborhoods revive; Baghdad's business community revives, and the city's nightlife returns. Effect on Region: Increased internal trouble in Iran as Iranian people object to the corrupt mullocracy and to the lack of democracy in Iran; Iraqi-Turkish relations continue to strengthen; Iraq becomes more assertive in Middle East politics and economic affairs; more Shia Arab strife occurs in Lebanon (stoked by Iran) with the goal of distracting Iraqi Shias and-or "radicalizing" Iraqi foreign policy; Jordan re-emerges as a staunch ally of Iraq. So why the irony? Barack Obama wanted to withdraw because Harry Reid and the Democratic Party insisted we'd lost. As "Strategic Overwatch" develops, the United States can begin reducing its combat role because we are winning -- and "we" includes the Iraqis. McCain ought to reap the reward, but given the national media's creampuff treatment of Obama, the next "instant truth" will be "see, we can withdraw."  But before Obama declares peace in our time, consider the "Effect on Region" paragraph. The Iraqis want an alliance. That means Washington must be prepared to back Iraq in a confrontation with Iran. We know McCain can handle that dangerous test. In the maelstrom moment when an Obama-advocated rapid military withdrawal would have devastated the Iraqis, McCain stood firm.

Posted by dblwyo at 03:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I don't know about you but so far this state of the campaign has me greatly puzzled trying to establish clarity and a deeper of understanding of what the candidates stand for and what they intend to do. In fact this has been in some ways the most difficult post to write in a long time because no clear position is gelling out in my mind. Judging from the composite potpourri of political cartoons that dilemma is rather widely shared - insofar as political cartoonists typically capture the attitudes of some segment of the population. You can parse out and de-construct each of the cartoons for yourselves but IMHO each has an element of truth and some error. It seems to us that indeed each is struggling to migrate centerward, has evolved their positions somewhat, taken some heat for it (particularly Barry) and Johnboy ain't Ford nor Barry Peanut. Though given that choice between a well-meaning, honest and reasonably competent leader who restored some confidence in our government as opposed to the 2nd worst US President of the 20thC that would be a clear choice. The best summary of how things are going is this recent Rose interview with two smart and informed political commentators: A conversation with Chuck Todd and Mark Halperin.Both of whom while providing insight basically seem to share our "confusions". Highly recommended. As independent check btw notice that Barry's vast post-primary lead has largely disappeared and the two candidates are, to some extent, running neck and neck. Check out the RealClear Politics composite of recent polls.

Where We're At ? 

So what's going on here ? And what did we expect or what would we like to see. After the break there's a decent collection stretching over the last two weeks of the more useful and/or thoughtful pieces talking about the candidates worldviews and how they're evolving as candidates. There's also a collection of prior posts that contains a pretty complete assessment of the key policy issues, the dynamics of the campaign and what we need them to be addressing, instead of what they aren't addressing. There's good news and bad news in all this btw - the good news is that so far each candidate has by and large conducted himself as a gentleman with nothing like the Democratic primary and a far cry from the '00 and '04 partisan snakepits. And they have migrated toward a constructive and workable center. This campaign has been described by several people as the most important since FDR's first. That's nonsense but makes good headlines. It is the most serious since 1980 however in the scope and depth of the issues facing us.

What We Need

A friend recently quoted Bill Bennett's judgement of McCain as a person who has moral clarity - that is he knows what he stands for and what decisions his likely to make. Johnboy, in our opinion, is an exemplary individual. But he's not running for individual - he's running for President. And what he and Barry both owe us is more than "moral clarity" - we have to trust him to represent us and make, on balance, the best decisions of which they're capable for our collective best interests. Stop and think about that for a minute - how will you reach your decision regarding either candidate.

It seems to us that positions are only a part of it but we can't dig thru each major policy area in detail let alone work it thru in the hurly-burly of a campaign. We do need some indication of where they stand and how they'll proceed. Which we're not getting. There's actually been little of substance, the differences aren't that particularly vast with regard to prior elections (an assertion which we walk thru in some careful detail in the prior posts listed after the break) and what we've seen is a mish-mash of point positions. Not any over-arching themes for the major policy challenges we face. What would be nice to see is for each candidate to tell us what their general philosophy of government is, how they see it playing out domestically, economically and internationally and give us some idea of what direction they think they'd work in for those areas.

But that's still not likely to be how we evaluate them though it'd be a nice supplement. No we'll look at them and decide based on our judgement of their character, leadership and their abilities to represent our views on what should be done. And that jury is out as well. The graphic is my last attempt to do something like for the '04 election - as you can my take on each candidate wasn't particularly favorable. And also as you can see it's for the last election since the process of thinking it through for this one is still early. But it's an interesting checklist and blueprint to work from. Agree or disagree but building something like it isn't a bad way to get started. At the end of the day last time around we had a C/C+ candidate running against a D/D+ one. This time we've got a couple of decent B-students in the game. That's progress - now if only we get lucky and don't need A-students this'll work out. So what's your opinion ? Have you thought about it or just made a snap judgement ? Take a gander at the excerpts and the prior posts and cycle back and see if your answer remains the same.

Political Worldviews

David Brooks: The Two Obamas God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson. But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes. This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside. But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place. I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside. All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics. Obama's Moving Bottom Line, McCain Straight Talk Needs Sizzle

Worldviews in Need of Merger But I have an even better ticket in mind: Obama-McCain. That way we might get a sensible foreign policy. As it is now, the two probable presidential nominees have outlined a foreign policy that sort of goes like this: Obama will talk to anyone while John McCain will talk to no one. I would guess that both would love to amend their positions but they are both mortally afraid of appearing reasonable. Obama represents a constituency which holds that much of the world's troubles are caused by the United States and can be rectified by a president who is alert to cultural nuance and can be a keen listener. This is the world according to Oprah Winfrey. McCain, on the other hand, is seeking the support of a constituency that thinks the U.S. is always the innocent party and would show weakness by even acknowledging the existence of, not to mention the occasional justifiable grievance of, certain entities -- particularly Hamas, Hezbollah and the entire country of Iran. This is the world according to an ostrich. I attribute Obama's predicament to inexperience and a certain worrisome naivete. When he said he would personally negotiate with Iran (if he were president), he might not have realized exactly what he was saying. McCain, though, knows exactly what he himself is saying -- and how wrong he is -- because he once said pretty close to the opposite. Campaigns tend to make idiots out of really smart people. Already Hillary Clinton has been soiled by her fantasy bravery in Bosnia, Obama stood by for too long while his minister made a fool out of him, and McCain, who wakes up every morning as decent a person as there is, calls someone a liar because he has been embarrassed by his own words. No one's looking good here. But while Americans take campaign rhetoric with a grain of salt, foreign audiences -- including leaders -- tend to believe what they hear. They are now sizing up both McCain and Obama based on what they are saying. One sounds like an inflexible hard-liner and the other like a naif. What America really needs is to combine the two -- some moderation on McCain's part, some ugly realpolitik on Obama's. Either man could fill that role by himself. All it takes is a decent regard for when history says not to talk -- and when it says to listen.

Candidates: Positions and Delivery

Obama Draws On Lessons From Chicago Streets to Propel Race for Presidency When Barack Obama launched his presidential campaign, he called his three years as a community organizer in Chicago in the 1980s ``the best education I ever had.'' He's putting those lessons to good use in his drive for the White House, say many of those who worked with him then. The same tactics Obama honed in mobilizing people to agitate for neighborhood improvements he's now using to draw millions of volunteers and voters to his campaign. His experiences with a church-based group also helped shape his views on individual responsibility and the role of government, according to dozens of people who knew him 20 years ago. ``The idea he expresses now, that people are linked by a common purpose'' is an effort to transfer those lessons ``from a neighborhood to a nation,'' says Mike Kruglik, 66, who trained Obama and worked with him from 1985 to 1988. Obama, 46, an Illinois senator and the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, often cites his days organizing people in the shadow of shuttered steel mills as evidence he understands grassroots activism and to underline his distrust of bureaucracies. The setting for his political education was Chicago's South Side, a sprawling expanse of predominantly black and economically depressed communities.

McCain Shuffles Staff, Says Campaign Manager Davis to Focus on Fundraising John McCain is restructuring his presidential campaign for the second time in a year, diminishing the duties of campaign manager Rick Davis and putting Steve Schmidt, a protégé of Karl Rove, in charge of day-to-day operations. McCain aides characterized the move as a natural result of the campaign organization's growth as it ramps up for the fall election. Still, the change raised anew questions about whether the Arizona senator has a structure in place to effectively wage a nationwide battle with his Democratic opponent, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. ``This is a natural scaling up for the general campaign,'' said Nicolle Wallace, a McCain adviser. She and other campaign officials said Schmidt would appoint a national political director to oversee the work of 11 regional directors, who until now have had a large degree of autonomy. Schmidt will report to Davis, who will concentrate on fundraising, the Republican nominating convention in September and long-term strategy, according to Wallace and Brian Rogers, a campaign spokesman. The changes were announced yesterday at a staff meeting. McCain was in Colombia at the time. ``This is a recognition of the need to staff up, and Rick's acknowledgement that he needed to off-load the day-to-day operations,'' Wallace said.

The 'mushy middle' hard to reach for Obama, McCain They're the most fickle voters, and potentially the most powerful. Thus, with party nominations secure, John McCain and Barack Obama now are pushing toward the center to win them over. Meet "the mushy middle," a complex chunk of people likely to decide the presidential election but difficult to reach and very hard to please. "Yes, we can!" isn't floating their boat. Nothing much is, from either candidate. They aren't uniformly conservative or liberal, and they don't fit strict Republican or Democratic orthodoxy. They aren't typically engaged in politics, and they don't much care about the campaign. And like so many others, they are extraordinarily pessimistic. A recent AP-Yahoo! News poll finds that 15 percent call themselves moderates and aren't solidly supporting a candidate. More than half of this still-persuadable middle is made up of independents. "The center always matters," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "It matters more this year. Both candidates were nominated because they appealed to independents and moderates, so how these voters make a choice between Obama and McCain will be even more decisive." For now, at least, the race is competitive and the rivals' bases are mostly intact. The survey, conducted by Knowledge Networks, found that three in four Republicans and three in four conservatives are backing McCain, while Obama has nearly identical support among Democrats and liberals. So, both are tacking away from their party's ideological ends to appeal to this unpredictable swath in between. McCain is moving away from the unpopular President Bush if not from the Republican Party itself. He emphasizes bipartisanship while pressing two issues that resonate strongly with voters of all stripes. Obama, for his part, broke from the left by backing new rules for the government's terrorist eavesdropping program, straddling a Supreme Court ruling striking down a gun ban, and objecting to the justices' decision outlawing executions of child rapists. He even quoted conservative hero Ronald Reagan's "trust but verify" line in reacting to North Korea's latest agreement on nuclear weapons. His leadoff campaign commercial cast him as the embodiment of the center, and pitched family values, patriotism, "welfare to work" and lower taxes. It stressed "love of country" and "working hard without making excuses" — echoes of Bill Clinton.

Candidates Refine Iraq Positions Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday dismissed criticism that he is abandoning his principles to move toward the political center, saying he has been consistent in embracing moderate views on several issues, especially his belief that pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq must be done "carefully." Obama addressed what he called "this whole notion that I am shifting to the center, or that I am flip-flopping," with a firm denial that he has tilted his emphasis away from swiftly bringing the war to an end. "Don't be confused: I am going to bring the Iraq war to a close when I am president of the United States of America," Obama said. The remarks came as both candidates scrambled to clarify their visions for Iraq in the face of changing events on the ground. Sen. John McCain, who has repeatedly derided calls for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, suddenly found himself confronted with the American-backed Iraqi leadership raising the prospect of exactly that. For the first time, Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki said Monday in a statement that the two countries should consider deciding the future of U.S. troops with "a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal." Their party nominations in hand, Obama and McCain have calibrated their firm stands on Iraq to adapt to changing events on the ground, namely a post-"surge" reduction in violence, to target a more centrist audience.

Gail Collins: The Audacity of Listening We have to have a talk about Barack Obama. I know, I know. You’re upset. You think the guy you fell in love with last spring is spending the summer flip-flopping his way to the right. Drifting to the center. Going all moderate on you. So you’re withholding the love. Also possibly the money. I feel your pain. I just don’t know what candidate you’re talking about. Think back. Why, exactly, did you prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton in the first place? Their policies were almost identical — except his health care proposal was more conservative. You liked Barack because you thought he could get us past the old brain-dead politics, right? He talked — and talked and talked — about how there were going to be no more red states and blue states, how he was going to bring Americans together, including Republicans and Democrats. Exactly where did everybody think this gathering was going to take place? Left field? When an extremely intelligent politician tells you over and over and over that he is tired of the take-no-prisoners politics of the last several decades, that he is going to get things done and build a “new consensus,” he is trying to explain that he is all about compromise. Even if he says it in that great Baracky way. A year and a half of campaigning and we still haven’t heard Obama’s penguins, either. It’s not his fault that we missed the message — although to be fair, he did make it sound as if getting rid of the “old politics” involved driving out the oil and pharmaceutical lobbyists rather than splitting the difference on federal wiretapping legislation. But if you look at the political fights he’s picked throughout his political career, the main theme is not any ideology. It’s that he hates stupidity.

McCain sees himself in Teddy Roosevelt mold Senator John McCain, in a wide-ranging interview, called for a government that was frugal but more active than many conservatives might prefer. He said government should play an important role in areas like addressing climate change, regulating campaign finance and taking care of "those in America who cannot take care of themselves." "I count myself as a conservative Republican, yet I view it to a large degree in the Theodore Roosevelt mold," the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said, referring to Roosevelt's reputation for reform, environmentalism and tough foreign policy. The views expressed by McCain in the 45-minute interview here Friday illustrate the challenge he faces as he tries to navigate the sensibilities of his party's conservative base and those of the moderate and independent voters he needs to defeat Senator Barack Obama, his Democratic rival.His responses suggested that he was basically in sync with his party's conservative core but was not always willing to use the power of the U.S. government to impose those values. He also expressed a willingness to deploy government power and influence where free-market purists might hesitate to do so, and to consider unleashing military force for moral reasons. In recent weeks, McCain has left many Republicans unsettled about his ideological bearings by toggling between reliably conservative issues, like support for gun owners' rights, and an emphasis on centrist messages, like his willingness to tackle global warming and to provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Liberal Bloggers Accuse Obama of Trying To Win Election Nominee Called Traitor to Democrats' Losing Tradition The liberal blogosphere was aflame today with new accusations that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is trying to win the 2008 presidential election. Suspicions about Sen. Obama's true motives have been building during the past few weeks, but not until today have the bloggers called him out for betraying the Democratic Party's losing tradition. "Barack Obama seems to be making a very calculated attempt to win more than 270 electoral votes," wrote liberal blogger Carol Foyler at LibDemWatch.com, a blog read by a half-dozen other liberal bloggers. "He must be stopped."

Republican Breakdown

House Republicans Need Leadership Outwardly, the House GOP is gearing up to take on Democrats this fall. Inwardly, it's in disarray, engaged in a fight over the soul of the party. The reformers demand the leadership aggressively define itself on health care, earmarks and spending; the fat and happy push back, insisting their pork and their farm bills are necessary for re-election. In the middle is the minority leader, who has so far walked a tightrope. Yet this is a fight that must be resolved, and definitively, if the GOP wants out of the wilderness. Mr. Boehner's choice: To join with the reformers, Gingrich-like, and rally the troops around a bold agenda, or to find himself, Michel-like, a footnote in minority history. The GOP has been quarrelling over its image ever since its 2006 electoral banishment. But the fight got nastier after the party lost two special congressional elections in May. The Republican Study Committee's 105 conservatives have been aggressively challenging the leadership's agenda (which it views as too fuzzy) and its refusal to rein in pork. The appropriator kings have banded together to block reform, and have so far been winning the battle. What's at stake here isn't just Mr. Boehner's future (there is already talk of a leadership challenge), but the party's. Republicans are down to 199 members, and a blowout this fall could leave them positioned for a long minority run. The party regulars could care less; for them, minority status means 40% of the pork instead of 60%. But what happens to the next generation of reformers who'd understandably prefer to run for governor, or make a bundle in the private sector, than languish in second-place?

No Easy Victory Idaho Republican Bill Sali is in a tight race for Congress. But a month ago, his seat was considered safe. Bill Sali is defying the political odds by making Idaho's first-district congressional race competitive. That isn't good for Mr. Sali: He is the incumbent. A 54-year-old Republican from Kuna, 18 miles from Boise, Mr. Sali represents one of the most heavily Republican electorates in the U.S. The district hasn't elected a Democrat to the House since 1992; in the 2004 presidential race, 69% of its votes went to George W. Bush. But through slow fund raising and a combative reputation, Mr. Sali has become vulnerable to his Democratic challenger… Mr. Sali's trouble with voters such as Mr. Soltman stems in part from a pugnaciousness that has brought him notoriety since 1990, when he became a state legislator. When Mr. Sali was in the Idaho statehouse, he tried to amend a bill that would extend a law against domestic violence to minors because he wanted it to apply only to heterosexual couples. He supported efforts to make divorces more difficult to obtain. He upset some colleagues by insisting on legislation to require parental consent for minors to get abortions after courts frowned on such laws. After an abortion debate in 2006, then speaker Bruce Newcomb, a Republican, told a group of reporters in the statehouse hallway that Mr. Sali was "an absolute idiot" after Mr. Sali insisted on the statehouse floor that abortions cause breast cancer. "I've not withdrawn my statement," said Mr. Newcomb, who now teaches at Boise State University. Mr. Sali's spokesman, Wayne Hoffman, said Mr. Newcomb -- who supported a Sali foe in the 2006 House primary -- "was frustrated" when he made that comment. In a separate incident, a Republican Idaho House speaker said he threatened to defenestrate Mr. Sali during a procedural dispute over a bill.

Prior Postings

• Whew, That's Over: Let the Games Begin...Again !

• Campaign, Candidates & Consequences: the Emerging Race for the Middle

• Policy Challenges: From Coasting Along to Coping ?

• Crossing the Cusp Points: Politics, Policy and a Proposal

• Party on Grasshopper: Digging Deeper....into the Policy Agendi

• WRFest 20Jan08(Economics): Oops...Recession Ahead

• Readings (Economy): It Really is the Economy, Stupid Frog

Posted by dblwyo at 08:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Did you ever stop to wonder why we won the Cold War ? And how hard, difficult, costly and unlikely it was ? Not to mention a big element of luck and good fortune ! Well there are big answers and little answers. Beyond some of the theoretical abstractions were people like "Goodtime Charlie" Wilson. A hard-drinking, hard-partying Democractic Congressman from Texas who engineered the largest and, arguably, the most effective covert war in US history. If you click on the graphic it starts up the movie trailer which captures a lot of the gist of the movie - much better than almost any other trailer I've seen. And what a movie - just as movie. First off it was put together by Tom Hanks as the lead producer - in other words he wanted to make this movie and went out of his way to "make it so". He also played the lead along with Julia Roberts and Phillip Seymour Hoffman - three Academay Award winners is a lot of horsepower. They all must've seen something in it as well. It was directed by Mike Nicholas, one of America's greatest modern directors (The Graduate, Catch 22, Silkwood,...), and written by Aaron Sorkin of West Wing fame. That means to start with it was not only extraordinarily well acted and written but on the surface it's very funny, very clever and very insightful. BtW - it's almost the only recent gig that Sorkin fought hard to get - another telling indicator. You see it's also a true story. And offers up several lessons we think tell us a lot about manuvering inside the Sausage Factory (Inside the Sausage Factory: the 4P's of Political Reality) to get things done for the good of us all. Hard as that might be to believe. The Wikipedia synopsis is pretty decent though a tad limp-wristed trying to be even-handed.

You see we won the Cold war partly thru inherent dysfunctions of the Soviet system which made it unable to adapt and grow. Partly thru the military and economic pressures Reagan put on the Soviet system, including a secret economic war which has yet to make it beyond hints in various thrillers - if you can ever find it it's worthwhile tracking down Cap the Knife Weinberger's review of Tom Clancy's novel "Cardinal of the Kremlin" - written as the sitting Sec. of Defense and published as the main editorial in the WSJ of all places. Talk about a broad hint. Another reason was the growing restiveness of Eastern Europe, particularly the Poles, encouraged and motivated by Pope John Paul II. But did you ever wonder why the Red Army didn't put down the Poles like they had earlier put down the Czechs and the Hungarians ? Because they weren't allowed to after the debacle of Afghanistan where they sufferred horrendous casualties, demonstrated a barbarism toward the population more reminiscent of the Mongols, had (as Charlie Wilson points out) their hearts broken and destroyed their credability with the Politboro. Gorbachev wasn't just being civilized when he wouldn't support their plans to suppress Eastern Europe - he didn't believe they could do it. It's worth your time to watch this interview on Charlie Rose with Goodtime Charlie in which the supposed buffoon has a lot to say about politics, partisanship, and partying. And this much earlier one with George Crile - the 60 Minutes producer who first got Charlier interview and later wrote the book that brought all this to light for us. Who basically back up the fact that a rogue Congressman who set out to do the right thing was the primary mover on one of our greatest foreign policy successes. An amazing story from the real world, better than fiction.

In fact the movie's tag line captures it exactly - "base on a true story...you think we could make this up ?" 

And some of the lessons are pretty sad indeed, and revealing and salutory. But if we want the sausage factory to make better sausage we'd better figure out how to learn them, apply them and repeat them. After the break we'll dig into several of them - though perhaps we did't catch them all and you'll have to watch the DVD and get back with some comments. In the meantime this quote captures the nature of the challenge:

CIA Award Presenter: The defeat and break up of the Soviet empire, culminating in the crumbing of the Berlin wall, is one of the great events of world history. There were many heros in this battle, but to Charlie Wilson must go this special recognition. Just thirteen years ago the Soviet army appeared to be invincible. But Charlie, undeterred, engineered a lethal body blow that weakened the communist empire. Without Charlie, history would be hugely, and sadly different. And so for the first time a civilian is being given our highest recognition; that of honored colleague. Ladies and gentlemen of the clandestine services, congressman Charles Wilson.

One final question, maybe two:

1. What would it have cost us in the '90s to turn Afghanistan into a viable state - $30-40 million a year ? (Wilson's estimate). What did it cost us on 911 ? What's it costing us now ?
2. What 4P lessons do we take away here for Energy, Education, the Economy and National Security that a) we've known what to do about for decades ?

Lesson No. 1:Bureacracies are not given to clever, insightful or informed policy let alone clever and cost-effective execution of same.

Charlie Wilson: You mean to tell me that the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is to have the Afghans keep walking into machine gun fire 'til the Russians run out of bullets?
Gust Avrakotos: That's Harold Holt's strategy, not U.S. strategy.
Charlie Wilson: What is U.S. strategy?
Gust Avrakotos: Most strictly speaking, we don't have one. But we're working on it.
Charlie Wilson: Who's 'we'?
Gust Avrakotos: Me and three other guys. 

 Lesson No. 2: Bureacracies act that way for good reason. Politicians tend to punish bureacrats for too much imagination, sacrificing long-term competency for short-term political expediencies.

Gust Avrakotos: Tell that to the 3,000 people to the Adm. Turner fired (after the Church Comitte decided we didn't really need on the ground covert operators talking to real people)

 Lesson No. 3: Bureaucrats who survive and prosper become chair warmers and cyphers because they must.

Charlie Wilson: I stood in Harold Holt's office in Islamabad, and I offered him the keys to the safe. I said to him, "What do you need?" And I was apparently annoying him.
Gust Avrakotos: Well, that's because Harold Holt is a tool. He's a cake-eater, he's a clown, he's a bad station chief, and I don't like to cast aspersions on a guy, but he's going to get us all killed. 

Lesson No. 4: You need some Wild Ducks to manuver around the bureacracy, who unfortunately, put their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor at risks.

Cravely: And I don't know why the hell I didn't fire you when you broke my fucking window.
Gust Avrakotos: Oh yes sure you do Cravely.
Cravely: Look Gust!
Gust Avrakotos: Yeah you're fucking Roger's fiance, and you know I know.
Cravely: I'm not I'm not I'm not even gonna dignify that with a response.
Gust Avrakotos: Yeah yeah, you're dignifying her in the ass, at the Jefferson Motel Room 1210 but let me ask you, the 3000 agents Turner fired, was that because they lacked diplomatic skills as well? 

Gust Avrakotos: Promises were made!
Cravely: Not by me.
Gust Avrakotos: I've been with the company for twenty-four years. I was posted in Greece for fifteen. I've advised and armed the Hellenic Army. I've neutralized champions of communism. I've spent the past three years... learning *Finnish!* Which would come in handy here in Virginia, and I'm never ever sick at sea. So I wanna know why... I'm not gonna be your Helsinki station chief. 

 Lesson No. 5: Most of our problems were and are self-inflicted.

Title card: "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world...
Title card: ...and then we fucked up the end game." - Charlie Wilson 

Posted by dblwyo at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)