Politics

The Audacity of Hope

/ 10 Comments

Barack Obama Barack Obama has a new book coming out in October, The Audacity of Hope. Here is a sample (pdf).

For me, none of this [disagreement in the Senate] was entirely surprising. From a distance, I had followed the escalating ferocity of Washington’s political battles: Iran-Contra and Ollie North, the Bork nomination and Willie Horton, Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, the Clinton election and the Gingrich Revolution, Whitewater and the Starr investigation, the government shutdown and impeachment, dangling chads and Bush v. Gore. With the rest of the public, I had watched campaign culture metastasize throughout the body politic, as an entire industry of insult—both perpetual and somehow profitable—emerged to dominate cable television, talk radio, and the New York Times bestseller list.

And for eight years in the Illinois legislature, I had gotten some taste of how the game had come to be played. By the time I arrived in Springfield in 1997, the Illinois Senate’s Republican majority had adopted the same rules that Gingrich was then using to maintain absolute control of the U.S. House. Without the capacity to get even the most modest amendment debated, much less passed, Democrats would shout and holler and fulminate, and then stand by helplessly as Republicans passed large corporate tax breaks, stuck it to labor, or slashed social services. Over time, an implacable anger spread over the Democratic caucus, and my colleagues would carefully record every slight and abuse meted out by the GOP. Six years later, Democrats took control, and Republicans fared no better. Some of the older veterans would wistfully recall the days when Republicans and Democrats met at night for dinner, hashing out compromise over a steak and cigar. But even among these old bulls, such fond memories rapidly dimmed the first time the other side’s political operatives selected them as targets, flooding their districts with mail accusing them of malfeasance, corruption, incompetence, and moral turpitude.

Reading this, straightforward description of political machinations though it may be, is enough to make me cry. I’m usually skeptical of rosy descriptions of how much better things were in the good old days, but it’s pretty clear that our political culture has taken a dramatic turn for the worse. Sadly, I think that the splintering of communications channels has a lot to do with it — and yes, that includes blogs. Not only can everyone get news and information from sources that confirm their worst prejudices, but there is plenty of nonsense available on the other side (whatever that may be) for them to make fun of and feel superior. I don’t have any clever prescriptions for making it better, but increasing polarization and scorched-earth tactics will be an incredible barrier to political progress for decades to come.

Obama, of course, has a magical gift for overcoming (or at least seeming to) these barriers. What he says makes so much sense, and he says it so well, and it directly speaks to a yearning that so many people have for a more dignified and respectful dialogue, it’s hardly surprising that he’s become such a hit in such a short time. Too bad, people say, that he’s not more experienced, or he’d make a great candidate for national office — but for 2008 Democrats seem to be stuck with a field so uninspiring that Al Gore is thought of as some sort of savior.

Well, screw that. I think Obama should run in ’08. (And I’m sure his strategy team is hanging on my every word.) What’s wrong with being young and inexperienced? Obama will be 47 that year — Teddy Roosevelt was 42, John Kennedy was 43, and Bill Clinton was 46 when they were elected, and they did okay. Sure, he’s had less than one full term in the Senate, but that seems like an advantage rather than a liability. The Senate tends to gradually strangle its members’ suitability to run for President, as they become accustomed to its lethargic rhythms and hamstrung by awkward voting records. Now is the perfect time! Obama should run while he’s still a hot property. (Not that I think he actually will.)

Of course, there is an elephant in the room that Obama would have to deal with if he ran for the White House — namely, he’s black. Pundits like to contemplate African-American candidates like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice, but my suspicion is that there are a substantial number of Americans who just aren’t going to vote for a black candidate, even if they won’t admit it to pollsters. And that certainly doesn’t only include Republicans. On the other hand, Obama could set an inspirational example just by running a competitive campaign, regardless of the outcome. It’s long past time that the U.S. had a President who wasn’t yet another white male; now is as good a time as any.

Update: As usual, I find myself ahead of the curve (via Kos). We all know what happened to Cassandra.

The Audacity of Hope Read More »

10 Comments

Economists on immigration

/ 29 Comments

Immigration has been in the news quite a bit recently, as certain political factions (we are so fair and balanced that we won’t say which ones) are looking to score some cheap points at the expense of immigrants. They will even go so far as to deploy the National Guard at our border with Mexico, since those Guard folks have more or less been sitting around with nothing to do for the last three years.

Alex Tabarrok, who blogs at Marginal Revolution, is attempting to inject some facts into the debate. He is basically libertarian/conservative himself, but there is consensus among economists from either side of the political spectrum on the basic realities of immigration, and he has written an open letter to the President and Congress urging them to take these realties into account. It’s been signed by professional social scientists of all political persuasions (including Brad DeLong on the left); if there are any experts reading, they are welcome to sign it themselves.

Dear President George W. Bush and All Members of Congress:

People from around the world are drawn to America for its promise of freedom and opportunity. That promise has been fulfilled for the tens of millions of immigrants who came here in the twentieth century.

Throughout our history as an immigrant nation, those who are already here worry about the impact of newcomers. Yet, over time, immigrants have become part of a richer America, richer both economically and culturally. The current debate over immigration is a healthy part of a democratic society, but as economists and other social scientists we are concerned that some of the fundamental economics of immigration are too often obscured by misguided commentary.

Overall, immigration has been a net gain for existing American citizens, though a modest one in proportion to the size of our 13 trillion-dollar economy.

Immigrants do not take American jobs. The American economy can create as many jobs as there are workers willing to work so long as labor markets remain free, flexible and open to all workers on an equal basis.

Immigration in recent decades of low-skilled workers may have lowered the wages of domestic low-skilled workers, but the effect is likely to be small, with estimates of wage reductions for high-school dropouts ranging from eight percent to as little as zero percent.

While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices. As with trade in goods and services, the gains from immigration outweigh the losses. The effect of all immigration on low-skilled workers is very likely positive as many immigrants bring skills, capital and entrepreneurship to the American economy.

Legitimate concerns about the impact of immigration on the poorest Americans should not be addressed by penalizing even poorer immigrants. Instead, we should promote policies, such as improving our education system that enables Americans to be more productive with high-wage skills.

We must not forget that the gains to immigrants from coming to the United States are immense. Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised. The American dream is a reality for many immigrants who not only increase their own living standards but who also send billions of dollars of their money back to their families in their home countries—a form of truly effective foreign aid..

America is a generous and open country and these qualities make America a beacon to the world. We should not let exaggerated fears dim that beacon.

Economists on immigration Read More »

29 Comments

The wrongness singularity

/ 107 Comments

The blogosphere has been having its fun with this little bit of instant punditry from Glenn Reynolds:

Of course, if we seized the Saudi and Iranian oil fields and ran the pumps full speed, oil prices would plummet, dictators would be broke, and poor nations would benefit from cheap energy. But we’d be called imperialist oppressors, then.

Far be it from me to add anything to the trenchant political analysis already available. But as a Physics Blog, we feel it’s our duty here to point out the exciting scientific consequences that our more humanistical friends have thus far missed: the possibility that Prof. Reynolds has discovered a new state of wrongness.

You see, wrongness is a fermionic property. That is to say, a statement is either wrong or it is not wrong; you can’t pile on the wrongness to make a condensate of wrong. By the conventional rules, n declarative statements can be wrong at most n times. By the Pauli exclusion principle, you just can’t be more wrong than that!

I count four declarative statements in Instapundit’s two sentences. (“… prices would plummet,” “dictators would be broke,” “poor nations would benefit,” “we’d be called imperialist oppressors.”) Now let’s count how many time he is wrong.

  • prices would plummet — No, they wouldn’t. As it turns out, the Saudi and Iranian oil fields are running at very close to full capacity; any increase would be at most a perturbation.
  • dictators would be broke — Not sure which dictators we’re talking about here — the ones we just deposed? In fact, dictators have shown a remarkable ability to not be broke even in countries without vast stores of oil wealth.
  • poor nations would benefit — Because it’s really the poor countries that guzzle oil? This one baffles me.
  • we’d be called imperialist oppressors — Now, in a strict sense this is not wrong. We would be called that. Because invading sovereign countries in order to take over their natural resources is more or less the definition of imperialist oppression. However, Reynolds’ implication is clearly that we should not be called imperialist oppressors, that it would somehow be unfair. Which is crazy. So can we count that as wrong? Yes!

So indeed we count four instances of wrongness in only four declarative statements — Fermi degeneracy! No more wrongness should be possible.

But as Tim Lambert points out, Instapundit managed to be wrong yet another time, by begging a question and then getting the wrong answer!

  • The subjunctive clause opening the first sentence cleverly slides from invading Saudi Arabia and Iran to running pumps at full speed. Actually not something that would happen in the reality-based world! As Tim says, “Yeah, because that’s pretty much the way it worked out in Iraq.”

So in fact, Reynolds has managed to fit five units of wrongness into only four declarative statements! This is the hackular equivalent of crossing the Chandrasekhar Limit, at which point your blog cannot help but collapse in on itself. It is unknown at this point whether the resulting end state will be an intermediate neutron-blog phase, or whether the collapse will proceed all the way to a singularity surrounded by a black hole event horizon. We may have to wait for the neutrino signal to be sure.

The wrongness singularity Read More »

107 Comments

Pandora’s box

/ 38 Comments

The Wikipedia article on countries with nuclear weapons is sobering reading. This map is from the article, although the color-coding is a bit misleading. (3quarksdaily points to more maps.)
Nuclear powers

  • The United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and the People’s Republic of China are the five nuclear powers recognized by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Not coincidentally, they are also the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The US and Russia have about 6,000 active warheads each, while the others have a few hundred each. According to the NPT, only these countries are permitted to have nuclear weapons, and they are prohibited from sharing weapons technology with other countries.
  • India did not sign the NPT, and exploded its first nuclear weapon in 1974 (in a test perversely named “Smiling Buddha“). In 1998 they tested “weaponized” nuclear warheads (I don’t know what that means) in Pokhran-II. Numerous complaints and sanctions followed, none of which had any appreciable effect, and the controversy eventually died down. Possession of nuclear weaponry is considered to be a crucial part of India’s self-image as a world power. They are now recognized by the US as a “responsible nuclear state.”
  • Pakistan is also not an NPT signatory. They performed their first nuclear test in 1998, in response to India’s test. In 1999 they signed accords with India, agreeing to a bilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. A.Q. Kahn, leader of the Pakistani program, confessed to being involved in a clandestine network to share nuclear weapons technology with Libya, Iran, and North Korea; he was pardoned by President Perez Musharraf in 2004. There is some evidence that his network was also collaborating with the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
  • Israel has not acknowledged possessing a nuclear arsenal, but it is an open secret; Israel is not an NPT signatory. (In fact, India, Pakistan, and Israel are the only sovereign states not to ratify the NPT — although see below.) They probably have several hundred warheads, comparable to the stockpiles of China, France, and the UK.
  • North Korea, in contrast to Israel, has publicly claimed to have nuclear weapons, although some analysts remain skeptical. After ratifying the NPT in 1985, they withdrew in 2003; no other countries have ever withdrawn from the treaty. In September 2005 they agreed to scrap their existing nuclear weapons and rejoin the NPT, but later stated that no such steps would be taken unless they were supplied with a light water reactor.
  • Iran is of course an interesting question.
  • South Africa produced a few nuclear weapons in the 1980’s, but later dismantled them. They are the only nation to build nuclear weapons themselves and later give up the capability.
  • Saudi Arabia has stated that they might need to develop nuclear weapons, although they deny actually having done so. Some recent reports claim that the Saudis have embarked on a weapons-development program, with aid from the Pakistani nuclear program.
  • Several republics of the former Soviet Union found themselves in possession of nuclear missiles upon the collapse of the USSR in 1991: Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. All have subsequently transferred the weapons to Russia and signed the NPT, and are currently nuclear-free. Concerns persist over the possibility that weapons technology was sold through the black market; Ukraine, in particular, was known to be active in selling at least conventional technology.
  • Several industrialized nations are thought to be capable of putting together nuclear weapons with very little effort, including Canada, Italy, Germany, Lithuania, and Japan. For the most part there is no evidence that these countries have any desire to pursue such a course. However, former German defense minister Rupert Scholz has argued that Germany should consider nuclear weapons as a way to respond to terrorist attacks.
  • Iraq, of course, had a program to develop nuclear weapons that suffered a number of setbacks, notably the Israeli air strike on the Osirak nuclear facility in 1981. After the 2003 invasion, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that the nuclear program had been abandoned in 1991, along with most other WMD programs, but that Saddam Hussein had plans to re-start the program once multilateral sanctions were lifted.
  • As part of NATO agreements, the US provides tactical nuclear weapons for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey.
  • A number of countries are known to have begun programs to develop nuclear weapons, only to abandon them and eventually sign the NPT; these include Sweden, Switzerland, Egypt, Philippines, Libya, Australia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Taiwan, and Yugoslavia.

What are the chances, with all those weapons out there, that someone will use one, say in the next fifty years? Extremely high, I would guess. None has been used in the last fifty years, it’s true, but for most of that time we lived in a bipolar world with clearly defined lines of engagement and relatively symmetrical capabilities and liabilities. (The above list doesn’t even mention non-state groups, of course.) A more fragmented situation exponentially increases the number of events that could lead to a nuclear strike, including the possibility of accidents. And the number of nuclear-capable states shows little signs of decreasing in the near future.

For what it’s worth, Russia, India and China have officially adopted a No-First-Use policy regarding nuclear weapons; the United States, United Kingdom, France, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea have declined to do so. In the 2005 revised Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, the Pentagon listed the conditions under which a nuclear first strike could be requested, which includes basically any situation in which someone might want to use them. The Doctrine itself was originally published freely on the Pentagon web site, before being cancelled — that is, removed from the site, but not necessarily revised as doctrine. The original document can be read here. Britain and France have similarly asserted the right to nuclear first-use. It is hard to imagine that countries generally thought of as less responsible than the US, UK and France would feel much compulsion against using nuclear weapons if they felt threatened.

Once any country strikes another using nuclear weapons, the presumption against further use will be considerably lowered. The consequences are hard to imagine, simply for being so terrifying.

Pandora’s box Read More »

38 Comments

Message discipline

/ 7 Comments

You may have heard that 72% of U.S. troops in Iraq think that the U.S. should leave the country before the end of the year. Presumably that’s because they can see for themselves that it’s a bit of a sticky wicket over there. On the other hand, they don’t seem to be getting very accurate reports from the outside world, since 90% think that the war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in the 9/11 attacks.

Hmm, I wonder why their information would be so faulty? Wonkette reported recently on an email from a soldier stationed in Iraq, reporting that their site was blocked by the censors at the USMC Network Operations Center in Quantico. Perhaps the military doesn’t want to distract the troops with salacious stories of Washington sexcapades? In a more recent followup (via firedoglake), the same soldier reports on just which sites are blocked, and which our troops are allowed to spend time surfing.

  • Wonkette – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.wonkette.com/) is categorized as: Forum/Bulletin Boards, Politics/Opinion.”
  • Bill O’Reilly (www.billoreilly.com) – OK
  • Air America (www.airamericaradio.com) – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion.”
  • Rush Limbaugh (www.rushlimbaugh.com) – OK
  • ABC News “The Note” – OK
  • Website of the Al Franken Show (www.alfrankenshow.com) – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion.”
  • G. Gordon Liddy Show (www.liddyshow.us) – OK

Interesting. I wonder if there is any pattern there? I suspect that there is, but somehow I just can’t put my finger on it. Probably just being paranoid.

Message discipline Read More »

7 Comments

The company you keep

/ 13 Comments

Good news: U.S. launches charm offensive to bridge new ties with some of our traditional rivals! Bad news: our new point of agreement is the need to squelch gay rights. From Human Rights News, via Sadly, No!

In a reversal of policy, the United States on Monday backed an Iranian initiative to deny United Nations consultative status to organizations working to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, a coalition of 40 organizations, led by the Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called for an explanation of the vote which aligned the United States with governments that have long repressed the rights of sexual minorities. […]

In voting against the applications to the NGO committee, the U.S. was joined by Cameroon, China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, and Zimbabwe.

I miss the days when we were the good guys.

Perhaps to show solidarity with our newfound friends, ballot measures for the 2006 elections are springing up around the country, concentrating on denying homosexual couples the right to adopt children. (USA Today, via Balloon Juice.) Do you think these efforts arise from a sincere desire to protect children, perhaps bolstered by studies showing that it’s better to be raised in an orphanage than by loving same-sex adoptive parents? Of course you don’t.

Election-year politics. Republicans battered by questions over ethics and Iraq “might well” use the adoption issue to deflect attention and draw out conservatives in close Senate and governor races in states such as Missouri and Ohio, says Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, University of Southern California political scientist.

The aim is to replicate 2004, says Julie Brueggemann of the gay rights group PROMO: Personal Rights of Missourians. She says marriage initiatives mobilized conservative voters in 2004 and helped President Bush win in closely contested states such as Ohio. Republicans “see this as a get-out-the-vote tactic.”

You can look back through history and see people arguing passionately in favor of all sorts of positions that today we would characterize as absolutely beyond the pale: slavery, denying women the right to vote, the divine right of kings, and so on. I used to wonder, what is it that we are doing now that will seem most embarassingly backward a hundred years from today? Major contenders, off the top of my head:

  • Denial of civil liberties to gays and lesbians.
  • Erosion of privacy and the right to a fair trial in the name of homeland security.
  • Attacks on science and on intellectuals and experts more generally.
  • Arrogant and uninformed unilateralism in foreign policy.
  • A startling lack of urgency on issues such as nuclear proliferation and alternative energy sources.

Okay, that’s depressing, I’ll stop now. Happy day-after-President’s Day!

The company you keep Read More »

13 Comments

Deeply disturbing factoids

/ 25 Comments

The point about George Deutsch, NASA’s self-appointed enforcer of theological correctness (now ex-), is not that he was an ambitious young political hack who embellished his resume and overreached his authority. It’s that the particular type of behavior in which he engaged — imposing a faith-based worldview where it is completely inappropriate — is a singular hallmark of this administration, and one that originates at the very top. Ezra Klein points to just one example.

I want to highlight this graf from Jeffrey Goldberg’s profile of Bush-speechwriter Michael Gerson:

“The President can’t imagine that someone who is President of the United States could not have faith, because he derives so much from it,” Bush’s chief of staff, Andrew Card, said. “I can see him struggle with other world leaders who don’t appear to be grounded in some faith,” he said. He added, “The President doesn’t care what faith it is, as long as it’s faith.”

That’s a deeply disturbing factoid. Bush, after all, isn’t traipsing around the world calling for testimonials, but meeting with fellow heads of state to discuss world affairs. It’s not clear where religion would figure into the conversation. Moreover, the emphasis on faith as a general character trait rather than Christianity as a foundational world view is even less explicable. If Bush believed so deeply in Jesus Christ and an intelligible God that he couldn’t relate to those without the same worldview, that would be parochial and worrying, but understandable. Simply lacking comfort with those who haven’t decided to trust in a higher force, however, belies a real insecurity with the very concepts of self-determination and free will, not to mention a fear of making decisions unaided.

“The President doesn’t care what faith it is, as long as it’s faith.” I’m trying to wrap my poor faithless noodle around that one, and not quite succeeding.

Deeply disturbing factoids Read More »

25 Comments

The truth, the whole truth, but perhaps not the literal truth

/ 19 Comments

Would it surprise you to learn that, when George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address presented a goal of cutting down on our imports of oil from the Middle East by 75%, his advisors had to explain the next day that this wasn’t meant to be the literal truth? Turns out that we import about 20% of our oil from the Middle East, and that region has the most abundant and easily accessible supplies, so that even if alternative fuels displace an amount equivalent to 75% of our imports from the Middle East, those will really be the last to go. (We import about 60% of our oil all told, so reducing all imports by 75% is not on the agenda.) Apparently some of our oil-producing allies in the region took him seriously — just like they did last year after the Second Inaugural Address gave them the mistaken impression that we had something against repressive dictatorships. They need to understand that these speeches are not about the ordinary “literal” truth that scientists are so fond of, but a larger, purpose-serving truth in which our President specializes.

Toles - Bush and Science Would it surprise you to learn that, when George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address proposed a multibillion dollar initiative to strengthen education and research in math and science, two-thirds of the money is actually not in the form of funding, but rather tax breaks for businesses? In fact, tax breaks that already exist, but are renewed annually, and Bush would simply like to make permanent?

What’s that? You wouldn’t be surprised? You hopeless cynic. Next you’ll be wondering how our President can be a rancher if he doesn’t know how to ride a horse.

The truth, the whole truth, but perhaps not the literal truth Read More »

19 Comments

First they came for the liberals wearing T-shirts…

/ 2 Comments

We all know that, especially under the current administration, Republicans are a mite touchy when it comes to T-shirts, those notorious vehicles of seditious speech. Cindy Sheehan, as you may have heard, got bounced from her seat at the State of the Union (as a guest of Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey) for wearing such a T-shirt. Glenn Greenwald respectfully comments.

But alas, the problem with thought police is that they can get somewhat overly enthusiastic, and it can be really hard to tell which thoughts are supposed to be policed. So poor Beverly Young, wife of Republican Congressman C.W. Bill Young, also got bounced from the SOTU for wearing a T-shirt. (Via Shakespeare’s Sister.) Hers read “Support the Troops – Defending Our Freedom.”

Young said she was sitting in the gallery’s front row, about six seats from first lady Laura Bush, when she was approached by someone from the Capitol Police or sergeant-at-arms office who told her she needed to leave the gallery.

She reluctantly agreed but argued with several officers in the hallway outside the House chamber.

“They said I was protesting,” she said in a telephone interview late Tuesday. “I said, “Read my shirt, it is not a protest.’ They said, “We consider that a protest.’ I said, “Then you are an idiot.”‘

She said she was so angry that “I got real colorful with them.”

You see what all this postmodernism and irony has done? It’s become wicked difficult to tell the difference between old-fashioned support and subversive protest. Better to be rigorously fair, and stomp out all T-shirt-based speech acts.

Freedom is on the march!

Update: The Capitol Police have dropped the charges they had filed against Sheehan, and are now apologizing to both Sheehan and Young. Turns out that wearing T-shirts with slogans during the State of the Union is not, in fact, against the law! Who knew?

First they came for the liberals wearing T-shirts… Read More »

2 Comments

Perspective

/ 6 Comments

Political humor is always a tricky business; taking a strong stand tends to annoy more than half of your potential audience rather than make them laugh, while wishy-washy moderation just isn’t that funny. This post at Joe’s Dartblog pops open the hood on an editorial cartoon and looks inside, showing something we don’t usually get to see: three cartoons about a single topic, by the same artist, taking three different ideological perspectives (left, moderate, right). Even though I love political humor when it’s insightful and agrees with my predelictions, this exercise actually highlights the rhetorical limitations of the medium. A joke isn’t an argument, and the techniques of humor can be much more directly employed to bolster opinions that people already have than to make them see things in a new way. (Via the Volokh Conspiracy.)

Perspective Read More »

6 Comments
Scroll to Top