publius

I Think Digby Called Them “Scum”

by

by publius One of the hazards of blogging is that outrage comes pretty easy. Bloggers are, by nature, an irritated group. Speaking personally, it’s the pent-up irritation at pretty much everything I see and read that keeps me going. It’s a strange symbiosis — bloggers and the outrageous objects of our affection. Easy outrage, however, … Read more

In Defense of Bad Faith Second Amendment Arguments

by

by publius

Via McCardle, I saw this uncharacteristically weak argument from Jonathan Turley:

Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right.

To which McCardle responds:

I’ve always had a hard time believing that people who thought the right of “the people” was a collective right could be arguing in good faith–at least, not if they’d read the rest of the constitution. After all, no one would take seriously an argument that the right of “the people” in the fourth amendment “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” was a collective right that could only be enjoyed if you joined the National Guard.

These are tough questions. Lots of smart people argue different things. But the idea that arguing for a collective right is in bad faith is absurd. I happen to believe it’s the best argument — and I’ve even read the rest of the Constitution.

First, contrary to popular belief, the Bill of Rights weren’t necessarily libertarian protections for individuals and minorities. Akhil Amar, for instance, has argued that the Bill of Rights should be understood as structural, federalist (i.e., states-rights) protections for majorities. The animating fear was a distant, remote federal government that would tyrannize state governments (remember then-recent history). For instance, the establishment clause makes no sense as anything other than a protection of state-recognized churches (or against federally-established churches like the Church of England) — it is not a libertarian provision. Even the criminal protection provisions can arguably be seen — not merely as individual protections — but as structural protections against federal officials who impose arbitrary or tyrannical rule.

Of course, when you read over the Bill of Rights, it’s easy to read them as libertarian provisions. But Amar in particular has offered various textual and historical reasons why they shouldn’t be (or shouldn’t exclusively be) read that way. I’ll rattle those off below the fold.

Read more

Another Reason to Ban Signing Statements

by

by publius I agree with everything Hilzoy says about the latest disgusting revelations from OLC. I just want to quickly note that the NYT article illustrates all too clearly just how pernicious Bush’s signing statement accompanying the McCain “anti-torture” Amendment was. The NYT says: At the administration’s request, Mr. Bradbury assessed whether [McCain’s] proposed legislation … Read more

The Iowa Cascade

by

by publius

It’s true that a Hillary Clinton victory isn’t yet inevitable – but it’s sure getting close. She’s got strong, commanding leads in the polls. Lots of money and institutional support. Tons of experience, etc. In short, she’s got all the things that inevitable nominees tend to have. The catch, though, is Iowa.

Personally, I think Iowa is the only thing standing in her way. And so the million dollar question at this point is how the other states will react to Iowa. It’s impossible to predict, but I’m going to take a stab at it by using information cascades.

What makes Iowa such a wild card is that it can trigger instant information cascades – or “herd behavior.” The basic idea is that cascades happen when people rely on the visible actions of others rather than their own imperfect or limited information.

For instance, imagine you are at a fancy-pants dinner with lots of people and don’t know what fork to use. Let’s say you’re 55% sure that the small fork is for salad. But, you see two other people before you pick up the longer fork for the salad. You get nervous and discount your own private information, opting for the big fork instead. Imagine too that the guy next to you is even more confident that the small fork is for salad. But, with three people opting for the big fork, he does the same. And on it goes until everyone is using the wrong fork. Thus, the cascade. (For more formal statistical discussions, see here – pdf).

We see the same thing happen with bubbles, financial panics, etc. But we also see it following Iowa. And that’s the problem.

Read more

Political Parties – Take ‘Em or Leave ‘Em?

by

by publius

The Almighty Nine opened shop today, hearing arguments on whether Washington’s open primary violated the First Amendment. The more cynical framing of the question is whether the First Amendment provides cartel-like protections to the major political parties. That, in turn, leads to the broader question of whether our current two-party structure is a good thing. On that last question, my views have evolved considerably since I first started blogging, thanks in no small part to Bush. Strangely enough, the modern GOP has restored my faith in the two-party system . . . I think.

But first, the case. The backdrop here is a case called Jones from 2000 that struck down California’s “blanket” primary. It was an open primary — voters could vote for any candidate, and any candidate could align with any party. The catch though was that voters as a whole determined the party’s official nominee for the general election. For instance, the self-proclaimed Democrat with the most primary votes became the official Democratic candidate regardless of what the Party itself wanted. If Cocaine McPedophile declared himself a Democrat, then (in theory) Republicans could vote for him, placing him on the ballot for the fall. The Court found that this type of forced marriage violates political parties’ association rights. Fair enough.

Washington, however, had a different idea. It also proposed an open blanket primary, but allowed the “top two” candidates to move on (rather than the top vote-getter within each party). The catch here (again) was that any candidate could declare herself aligned with any party. The parties didn’t like that — in this sort of pre-runoff primary, they wanted only their own preferred candidate to have the “D” or “R.” [See Rick Hasen for more.]

I certainly sympathize with the parties — you don’t want loonies (or Mike Gravels as I call them) confusing voters. That said, I don’t see why the Constitution protects them here. It’s one thing to force a candidate on to the party like California did. It’s quite another thing to forbid candidates from declaring their own party preferences in a “top two wins” election.

The broader point is that this is simply one of the many structural legal protections that national parties currently enjoy. Whatever you think of Ralph Nader, he’s right that significant barriers to entry exist outside the two-party structure. In the Washington case, for instance, the First Amendment would protect the parties by allowing the institutional leadership to maintain more control of the nomination process. Without this protection, Lieberman and Schwarzenegger-type candidates (nominal Dems or Republicans with considerable cross-appeal) could win “the nomination” without institutional backing.

Whether that last scenario is good or bad is the million dollar question. In theory, open primaries create more “centrist” candidates. Rather than vying for the median party voter, candidates are vying for the median voter. Further, the less that “serious” candidates rely on the institutionalized party, the closer to the median they can be. The result would be people like the Governator and Lieberman.

Read more

Worst Op-Ed of 2007

by

by publius I’ll nominate today’s Ignatius column. It’s the most extreme example of blaming “both sides” for unreasonable Republican behavior that I’ve seen lately.

The War

by

by publius Ken Burns’ “The War” will likely trigger a new round of Greatest Generation celebration and WWII retrospectives. It’s strange — I haven’t really heard any of it yet, but it’s already exhausting me. Those thoughts, however, make me feel ungrateful and guilty — so I go through a self-imposed Maoist self-confessional and grudgingly … Read more

Pirate Broadband for Burma?

by

by publius Whatever else it’s accomplished, the Myanmar regime is vindicating Tim Wu and Jack Goldsmith’s argument in Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World. The book might as well been named The Empire Strikes Back. Contrary to the initial utopian ideas that the Internet would break down borders, Wu and Goldsmith argue … Read more

The Victory Next Time

by

by publius My source for White House press statements – K-Lo – comes through again. After the Senate’s SCHIP vote, Lopez dutifully sent out the following from the White House. It’s fascinating: Today, the Senate passed a State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) reauthorization bill that fails to focus on poor children, and instead creates … Read more

It’s the Tubes, Stupid

by

by publius When Uncle Ted Stevens famously called the Internet a “series of tubes,” many of you foolishly ridiculed him. While cleverly disguised as senile rambling, Uncle Ted’s visionary statement illustrates why Verizon’s text-messaging drama matters. Despite all its charms and complexity, the Internet (and communications networks more generally) still rely on old pipes and … Read more

Nah, There’s No Need for Net Neutrality After All

by

by publius Sorry for the slowdown — things should be back to normal shortly. In the meantime, Verizon has apparently decided that pro-choice text messages are simply too controversial to ride over their wireless networks: Saying it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” text messages, Verizon Wireless has rejected a request from Naral … Read more

Exhibit A of the Fraud Caucus – the Anguished Moderate

by

by publius I direct a lot of my wrath toward “centrist” Republican legislators rather than, say, Inhofe. There’s a reason. As numerous others have pointed out, they don’t actually do anything to force a change of policy. They prefer to furrow their brow while voting lockstep to continue those bad policies. Their brow-furrowing, however, gives … Read more

The Rotten State of Warner

by

by publius Ah, the great John Warner. Let’s remember this gushing description of his record: Time and again, from his stance on withdrawing troops in Iraq to his concern about global warming, he has taken on his party and bucked conventional wisdom. [Larry Sabato says] “What’s important about John Warner and what distinguishes him is … Read more

Canon Fires

by

by publius

This weekend’s Book Review brought us a retrospective on the university canon wars. And I’m not ashamed to say I’m with Ross Douthat on this. I’ve always been a bit curmudgeonly on all matters Western Canon. In fact, defending the traditional canon illustrates one aspect of conservative thought that I’ve always found compelling. But first, to the wars.

Rachel Donadio correctly says that “it’s generally agreed that the multiculturalists won the canon wars.” Don’t get me wrong, I think adding some diversity to the required lists is good, but it’s important that the old books stay on the list. Douthat makes an interesting side point that the greater threat is not so much removal of the texts, but studying everything through “the ‘modes of inquiry’ (or in Harvard-ese, ‘approaches to knowledge’) view of education[.]” I tend to agree, but that’s a different debate. For now, I want to focus on the older one – i.e., why require those old books in the first place? Why call them a “canon”?

At the outset, I recognize that these are all dead white male books (except for Austen, who clearly belongs on any list). I also recognize that this disproportionate representation stems from social and political repression – and even slavery. I grant all that. But it doesn’t exactly answer the question. The question, after all, isn’t “how come these are all dead white male books?” We know that. The question is, “of all the dead white male books ever written, why do these particular ones stand out?” And the answer is because they are great books.

Fine, but what makes them great? Who gets to say? Tough questions, all. Books aren’t great because I say so. They’re not great because Harold Bloom says so (though his vote counts more than mine). To me, greatness is simply a function of appeal over time. If a book continues to appeal to generation after generation, then there’s probably some objective value lurking somewhere in the work. For instance, Shakespeare is still going strong at 400 not because a bunch of dead white professors pushed him for years on brainwashed students, but because the works have (thus far) appealed to each generation across cultures. Same deal for Homer.

Read more

A Bright Shining Lie

by

by publius John Hinderaker (Powerline): I was not able to watch President Bush’s speech tonight, but have read it. It was, I think, a great speech. . . . President Bush laid out the case for engagement in Iraq in a way that most will find compelling. Fred Kaplan: President Bush’s TV address tonight was … Read more

Surrender Donkeys

by

by publius Jeebus, I shouldn’t have read this article before my morning coffee. It’s already ruined my day. Harry Reid – whose strategy thus far has been smart and far-looking – let the Washington Post editorial page get in his head: Democratic leaders in Congress have decided to shift course and pursue modest bipartisan measures … Read more

Gerson’s Pants-on-Fire Problem

by

by publius Anyone care to take a stab at what Gerson means by this: The resentment of Sunni tribal leaders against al-Qaeda’s highhanded brutality predated the surge — but the surge gave those leaders the confidence and ability to oppose al-Qaeda. The surge was proposed in December, 2006, following the elections. The Anbar tribes made … Read more

No More Talkey Talkey

by

by publius I skipped amateur hour yesterday, but I’ve been watching the Senate hearing this morning. It’s been rather exhausting. For instance, I would love to see a pie chart illustrating the amount of time the Senators (collectively) talked versus Petraeus and Crocker’s collective time. I’d guess the Petraeus/Crocker slice is pretty small. The long-windedness … Read more

Petraeus

by

by publius To avoid having our blogger licenses revoked, I figured I better talk about Petraeus’s testimony today. There are already volumes out there, so I’ll just make some quick points about the Fox News exclusive interview. To me, it’s pretty simple. It’s not that Petraeus is dodging hard questions. It’s that Bush is no … Read more

Be Afraid

by

by publius Peter Beinart reviews Norman Podhoretz and Michael Ledeen’s new books and isn’t exactly impressed. Re Ledeen, Beinart writes: Ledeen’s effort to lay virtually every attack by Muslims against Americans at Tehran’s feet takes him into rather bizarre territory. He says the 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania “were … Read more

Thompson’s “Wesley Clark Moment”

by

by publius As Steve Benen helpfully documents, the Messiah Fred Thompson hasn’t exactly stormed out of the gate. Skipping debates for Leno, talking gibberish, staff turnover — all in all, a poor start. In all seriousness, this is a very dangerous time for the Messiah. Over the next few weeks, the risk is quite high … Read more

Those Who Ignore the Past

by

by publius I caught a few minutes of a bloggingheads exchange between Megan McArdle and Dan Drezner. McArdle seemed frustrated that the liberal netroots doesn’t accept anything less than a groveling mea culpa on Iraq (she was also rightly frustrated at the unfair vehemence cast her way). The Iraq point is sort of true, but … Read more

Larry Craig Stars in Madison’s Revenge!

by

by publius So Larry Craig may go down swingin’ after all. If so, it’s a fascinating story on several different levels. But in the desperate attempt to say something original about all this, it’s worth noting some of the constitutional dimensions surrounding Craig’s potential de-resignation. More precisely, Craig’s de-resignation offers some interesting insights into our … Read more

The Overrated Gentleman from Virginia

by

by publius I will not be joining the celebration of John Warner this week. In fact, he may be my least favorite Senator. Warner — and Senators like him — are actually far more harmful to progressive politics (and sane policy) than more certifiably extreme people like Coburn and Inhofe. That’s why I’d take Coburn … Read more

Larry Craig’s Own Personal Absalom, Absalom!

by

by publius

Over at Volokh, Dale Carpenter has an interesting, and touching, post on the GOP’s dysfunctional relationship with homosexuality. It’s more than hypocrisy, Carpenter says, something more complicated. I think he understates the base’s visceral dislike for homosexuality (which is what’s driving all this in the first place), but it’s still an interesting post:

The big, open secret in Republican politics is that everyone knows someone gay these days and very few people – excepting some committed anti-gay activists – really care. . . . So to keep religious conservatives happy the party has done two things. First, it has steadfastly resisted efforts to ease anti-gay discrimination in public policy, even when Republican politicians know better. . . . Second, to keep the talent it needs and simply to be as humane and decent as politically possible toward particular individuals, the party has come up with its own unwritten common-law code: you can be gay and work here, we don’t care, but don’t talk about it[.]

This uneasy mix of the public and the private is not exactly what I’d call hypocrisy. It’s perhaps better described as a form of ideological schizophrenia: private acceptance welded to public rejection. It’s a very unstable alloy.

For the closeted gay Republican, this alloy means a life of desperation and fear and loneliness, of expressing one’s true feelings only in the anonymity of the Internet, of furtive bathroom encounters, of late nights darting in and out of dark bars, hoping not to be seen. It means life without a long-term partner, without real love.

In reading this, I thought of Faulkner’s Absalom, Absalom! There are some fascinating parallels between Mr. Craig and Mr. Sutpen’s tragic falls. Major spoilers below, so I’ve put it below the fold.

Read more

A Question of Motives

by

by publius Over at the TPM empire, I see that Republican Senators Norm Coleman (MN) and John McCain have called on Craig to resign. That’s quite a step. To be cynical, though, they were likely motivated to take this extreme step for two completely different reasons. Coleman — being up for re-election in a Blue … Read more

Copyright Law v. iPhone Freedom Fighters

by

by publius Big news brewing on the iPhone front. As you may have heard, a teenager (not Miss Teen South Carolina, sources report) posted instructions about how to “unlock” the iPhone. Unlocking it means you can use it on other networks and not just AT&T’s. There’s a little wrinkle though – copyright law. I’m still … Read more

Why Conservatives Opposed Gonzales

by

by publius Ah, Fredo, we hardly knew ye. Actually, we did knew ye, we just didn’t much like ye. I don’t have much to add — the man should never have been nominated in the first place, and will probably rank as one of the weakest AGs in American history. On a brighter note, it’s … Read more

Think First, Speak Second

by

by publius

I know that O’Hanlon is the wanker du jour, but let’s not ignore this op-ed by relatively-liberal Democrat Brian Baird. Basic story — Baird voted against the war, but recent events persuaded him to speak out for more time. As a result, the Washington Post gets to write lines like this: “[T]he administration indicated their belief that the political debate in Washington has moved in the administration’s favor this month, pointing in particular to a number of Democrats who have spoken positively of some security improvements in Iraq.”

I have a veritable treasure chest of “wanker”-derived adjectives, but I’m not going to use them. Baird seems like a good guy, and frankly, I suspect many of his ideological fellow travelers might be having similar thoughts — especially those who don’t read blogs. So rather than attacking him, I want to explain in the most substantive, non-snarky way I can the problem with Baird’s position (which includes his speaking out publicly).

1 – Understand that Bush will never leave. It’s clear that the administration will keep the maximum number of troops in Iraq until they are forced to do otherwise. As Josh Marshallsomeone I read explained [I think Josh Marshall, but I couldn’t find the link], the administration’s incentives are now distinct from the nation’s incentives. They are playing out the clock in hopes that something — anything — will turn their way before they leave. The good faith supporters of this strategy cling to the hope that something will change. The bad faith supporters (Kristol) see the writing on the wall and want to buy time to push the eventual withdrawal to a Democratic administration that can be blamed for “losing.” Both positions, however, are irresponsible, even if for different reasons.

2 – The debate is not stay or leave, but stay or start leaving. The political (and military) reality is that it’s not remotely possible to withdraw rapidly. Baird’s op-ed is doing a bit of strawman attacking. The most that could happen — and only then with collapsed GOP support — is that we can begin the process. That’s what the upcoming debate is about — whether or not Congress can muster the numbers to force the beginning of a withdrawal. Bush, of course, will not budge unless forced.

3 – The only way to force Bush to start leaving is through political pressure to Congress. Democrats simply don’t have the numbers to force anything on this President. GOP support has to collapse. This will only happen if the GOP feels political heat on Iraq.

4 – There is a brief window of time to force Bush’s hand. Fall 2007 was gearing up to be the administration’s most vulnerable window. It’s not just the timing of the Petraeus report, but the very nature of the appropriations process that makes this a unique, if fleeting, opportunity. It’s pretty much now or never. If Bush can survive the next month or two, he’s home free and can dump our (admittedly humiliating) withdrawal off to the next President.

5 – Bush needs to buy time. All Bush needs to do is buy some time, primarily with congressional GOP members. He’s just got to squeak through. Accordingly, the plan is to seize on anything that can buy that time. What people like O’Hanlon and Baird don’t (but should) realize is that they’re playing squarely into the administration’s hand by providing Congressional Republicans cover. Their op-eds let Republican legislators go on TV (or go to a state fair back home) and say, “Even Democrats are saying we need more time.” It’s difficult to overstate the political consequences of Baird and O’Hanlon’s actions. At the very least, they’re creating doubt within the minds of the public (often busy people who don’t have time to read up on Brookings’ comings-and-goings) by generating unfavorable talk show debate agendas. And, even worse, they’re releasing steam from the political pressure cooker — the one source of pressure that could actually lead to change.

Ok, fine, you say. But what if Baird and O’Hanlon really mean it? Are you asking them to be blind ideologues who should ignore facts and their deeply-held beliefs? It’s a fair question. After all, if it’s truly a bad idea to withdraw even one troop, then Baird and O’Hanlon are doing the right thing. Apparently, Baird and O’Hanlon really believe that we should keep them there for the indefinite future. So again, if that’s what they truly believe, what’s wrong with them saying so?

Read more

How Markets Work

by

by publius

Anonymous Liberal says the following about the Bush Administration’s strong push against public health care for children.

But people like this need to realize that this isn’t some grand experiment. We’re not dealing with hypotheticals here. When policies like this are put in place, real children–ones with real hopes and dreams and fears–are made to suffer. Some even die.

I used to think the same thing. Given the media coverage, it’s easy (very easy) to paint this as a shameless effort to put the needs of large fat men with bags of money for heads before children’s health. But to be contrarian, I think A.L. is missing the point. Like so many others, A.L. needs to develop a more sophisticated view of markets. Understanding how markets work will help everyone understand why Bush’s policies actually make sense. A tough pill, ’tis true. But don’t blame me – blame the laws of economics.

To help this process along, I’m pasting below the fold a pamphlet that taught me everything I know about markets and children’s health. It’s written as a Q & A dialogue, which I found a bit annoying, but it’s informative nonetheless.

Read more

Sammy 4 Prez

by

by publius This AJC article on Sam Nunn’s toe-dipping into the presidential waters illustrates quite nicely why things like Unity08 don’t make any sense. [T]he Georgia Democrat, who made his name nationally as a defense-minded hawk, has watched what’s happened to the country, and he’s more than a bit ticked — at the “fiasco” in … Read more

Why Democracy Promotion Scares Me: Part 74 of a Series

by

by publius There are many things to take away from Peter Baker’s article on the rise and fall of Bush’s democracy promotion “vision” following his re-election. Frankly, I’m skeptical that Bush was the strong causal force behind “democracy promotion” that the article portrays. However, assuming Bush really was driving this policy, the article is frankly … Read more

The Great Mystery of Tom Friedman

by

by publius Wow – I never saw this 2003 Friedman/Charlie Rose interview, but . . . wow. I haven’t read the entire transcript, but there’s really no missing context that could help lines like this (via Atrios): We needed to go over there, basically, um, and um, uh, take out a very big state right … Read more

The Qualifications Dodge

by

by publius Like Scott Lemieux, I was annoyed by this Washington Post editorial supporting Leslie Southwick’s confirmation to the 5th Circuit. While the editorial’s wankerishness was characteristically high, that’s not what annoyed me. What annoyed me was the Post’s rationale – i.e., that Southwick should be confirmed because he is qualified. It’s an argument you … Read more