publius

King Solomon

by

by publius One of the many things annoying me about the Libby outrage is this idea that Bush split the baby, rejecting jail but keeping some “tough” parts of the sentence in place. Bush said: “I felt like some of the punishments that the judge determined were adequate should stand,” Mr. Bush told reporters Tuesday. … Read more

More Cheney

by

by publius For those interested in the Cheney discussion we had a while back, Lance Mannion has an interesting three-part series responding to some of the discussion — one, two, and three.

“Simple-Minded”

by

by publius Brendan Nyhan writes: President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence has unleashed a predictable series of simple-minded reactions. Liberals and Bush opponents are, of course, outraged. Joe Wilson and Atrios (here and here) are claiming that the commutation is “obstruction of justice” — a nonsensical claim on its face (the president’s pardon … Read more

Maybe the Anti-Federalists Had a Point

by

by publius Anti-Federalist Paper No. 67, Cato, 1787: It is, therefore, obvious to the least intelligent mind to account why great power in the hands of a magistrate [i.e., a single executive], and that power connected with considerable duration, may be dangerous to the liberties of a republic. . . . [T]he unrestrained power of … Read more

Undervaluing Values?

by

by publius

Unlike Hilzoy, I was more sympathetic to Ezra Klein’s “Down With Values” argument. So at the risk of sparking a rootin-tootin’ ObWi family feud, I’m going to try to defend it.

Maybe I’m expanding it, but I read Klein’s argument as expressing skepticism of abstractions (and policy-by-abstractions), rather than skepticism of the individual abstract values themselves. In this sense, his foreign policy argument seems to be philosophical — he’s skeptical of theory itself. One question it raises is whether theory has any useful role to play in the foreign policy realm.

I recognize that I’m using “theory” a bit loosely. For today, “theory” refers to a comprehensive abstract ideology cited as an animating foreign policy principle. For instance, a foreign policy based on “freedom” or “justice” is what I’m calling “foreign policy by theory.”

With that in mind, the first problem with foreign policy by theory is that it flips empiricism on its head. The idea of empiricism is that you study the individual situation first, and draw abstract conclusions second. An abstraction-based foreign policy — whether democracy-promotion or Communism — reverses this order. It begins with the abstraction (often with excessive epistemological certainty) and applies it to the individual situation.

Consider how these two approaches might play out regarding, say, China and Taiwan. Approaching the dispute with a blank slate would likely lead the US to stay mute and ambiguous. China is very touchy about it, and a military escalation over Taiwan would be disastrous for pretty much everyone (and every market) involved. If we decided, however, that our commitment to the abstract idea of freedom outweighed these pragmatic concerns, we might act in a very unwise way (or interpret events in an inaccurate way). This is a simplified example, but the broader point is that approaching objective reality with a pre-existing theory in mind colors and distorts our perceptions.

Read more

Touchback

by

by publius With immigration coming to a boil today in the Senate and at NRO, I have a question for the bloggy masses. Is there any plausible policy justification for the touchback provision other than pure spite? (The touchback provision requires people to go back to their home country to get a visa/green card application). … Read more

How To Produce Ghosts

by

by publius Michael Gerson (today’s Post): But there is a problem with this [withdrawal] approach. Feeding America’s natural isolationism — no country relishes sending its sons and daughters to fight in a far-off desert — can create a momentum of irresponsibility that moves beyond control. In 1974, a weary Congress cut off funds for Cambodia … Read more

Cheney: Beyond Good and Evil

by

by publius

Like everyone else, I’ve been reading the Post series on Cheney with half disgust, half morbid fascination. As difficult as it may be, when assessing Cheney’s actions (as Hilzoy is doing masterfully), it’s important to resist the temptation to blame it on Cheney’s individual “evilness.” While immensely fun, explaining Cheney’s behavior as “evil” is too simple. More to the point, it reduces complex social phenomena to fairy-tale morality narratives. In the terrorism context for instance, words like “evil” are often lazy shortcuts that people use to avoid grappling with the complexities and structural causes of the problem.

Similarly, dismissing Cheney as “evil” is too easy. Cheney is not some one-time moral aberration, he is the product of deeper, more structural flaws in the American political system. For that reason, we can expect future Cheneys if these fundamental flaws aren’t recognized and addressed.

Read more

Legal Realism Lives

by

by publius Shocking isn’t it. The Supreme Court finds it ok to regulate student speech (at a public parade) when it references drugs. But then basically the same coalition of Justices think McCain-Feingold’s regulation of issue ads places an impermissible burden on speech. And by strange coincidence, virtually the same coalition of Justices dissent in … Read more

Spared Rod, Spoiled Child

by

by publius The criminal enterprise that is our Vice President’s Office continues apace. Via Big Media Benen, I see that Waxman’s House Oversight Committee learned that the Vice President’s Office doesn’t consider itself subject to laws governing the executive branch: The Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, Vice President … Read more

This Week’s Music Prediction

by

by publius It’s just up on Rhapsody, so I haven’t listened to it yet. But given that Pitchfork put the new Whites Stripes album in its recommended “Best New Music” section, I’m guessing it must phenomenal. For strangers to the polysyllabic, adjective-happy dreamland that is Pitchfork, the Best New Music section is a complex beast. … Read more

Big Media Benen

by

by publius Steve Benen continues to expand his media empire, with a flattering profile today in the Politico. I particularly enjoyed this: His wife nudged him, too [to start blogging]. “I would frequently bother (her) with hours of political diatribes. She ultimately encouraged me to take it online.” Some say Iraq, but I’m convinced that … Read more

Woodrow Wilson Sucks

by

by publius

Dear lord am I tired of reading columns like this. From today’s Post:

Democrats today have a problem with democracy. We have lost our voice on the issue of promoting democracy abroad — which means that what was once a core Democratic foreign policy idea is being ceded to the GOP.
. . .
Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry S. Truman and John F. Kennedy must be turning in their graves. Using U.S. power to promote freedom and democracy was central to their foreign policies and legacies. . . . Is the party of Wilson abandoning Wilsonianism?

Let’s hope so.

In all seriousness, I used to be very sympathetic with this foreign policy vision. But no more. I’m tired of hearing about Woodrow Wilson’s idealism, and I’m really tired of hearing about Harry Truman. Frankly, Democrats — and America more generally — would be better off abandoning idealistic democracy promotion as a foreign policy goal altogether. That’s not so much because the abstract idea is bad, it’s that attempting to implement it causes more harm than good in the real world.

As for the column itself, its first problem is that it dignifies the Bush administration’s foreign policy by pretending that it (1) is coherent and (2) embodies moral ideals. Putting aside morality, if you look at the administration’s actions (not its words), it’s difficult to conclude that democracy promotion has been a consistent priority. I can’t really complain about that though. The fact that the Bush administration has only selectively pushed for “democracy promotion” is its saving grace. Indeed, the administration’s greatest failures have come when it has tried to promote democracy (e.g., Iraq/Palestine) and/or has taken militant stances in the name of abstract ideals (Axis of Evil).

Getting away from Bush, the bigger problem with this column is on the merits. The working assumption — one expressed ad nauseum by Democratic foreign policy elites like the author — is that democracy promotion should be a central and explicit foreign policy goal. I used to agree. I don’t anymore. I’m all for human rights. I’m all for promoting liberal reforms. But I’m through with democracy promotion.

At the outset, I should say that I support democratic capitalism as much as the next guy. I wish the whole world consisted of liberal democracies — it would be a far better place. But, we conduct foreign policy with the world we have. And as recent history teaches us, the steps taken to promote democracy often make the world worse than it otherwise would be.

Read more

What Makes Them So Mad

by

by publius It’s official. As predicted, the conservative base is in full-scale revolt over the immigration bill. While this revolt was not unexpected, I’ve always wondered why immigration (or illegal immigration to be precise) gets the base so exercised (particularly bloggers and pundits). What exactly makes them so mad? It’s tempting to attribute it all … Read more

The Spectrum Auction for Dummies (and by Dummies)

by

by publius

As Matt Stoller and others have noted, the FCC is finalizing plans for its upcoming auction of extremely-valuable wireless spectrum. It’s an incredibly important auction, the outcome of which will shape wireless voice service and, more importantly, wireless broadband for years to come. I’ll be writing more about this, but I thought it would be useful to provide an overview of some of the big-picture issues at stake. I’ll give a basic intro first, and then move on to more complicated policy debates.

As many of you know, the right to use the electromagnetic spectrum is controlled by the federal government. The FCC carves it up and “licenses” pieces of it to various types of parties (radio broadcasters, TV broadcasters, cell phone providers, etc.). Like real estate, though, not all spectrum is created equal. Lower-frequency spectrum is more valuable because it travels further and is more resilient (i.e. better able to go through walls, hills, etc.) than higher-frequency spectrum. That’s why, for instance, AM radio stations have much wider range than FM stations — they operate at lower-frequencies.

For reasons both historical and political, TV broadcasters have enjoyed access to wide swaths of incredibly valuable low-frequency spectrum. However, as a result of the DTV transition (digital TV), broadcasters will soon be abandoning parts of this spectrum. Specifically, they will soon be required to broadcast digitally rather than in analog. Because digital transmissions are more efficient, the transition will free up spectrum space. Our eminently-wise public servants in Congress have decided that this newly-freed-up broadcasters’ spectrum should be reallocated to commercial users via auctions and to public safety agencies (e.g., fire departments, emergency communications). These are all good things.

At long last, the DTV transition draws nigh. Later this year (or early next year), the FCC will auction off big chunks of the broadcasters’ spectrum — often referred to as the “700 MHz spectrum.” In the wireless world, this spectrum is considered “beachfront property” because it is stronger and more resilient than the spectrum that wireless providers (voice and broadband) currently use. For instance, one reason why your cell phone doesn’t work in urban office buildings (particularly if you have Sprint or T-Mobile) is that the phones often use higher frequency spectrum (e.g., PCS spectrum) that can’t penetrate heavy concrete walls very well. In addition, and for similar reasons, the 700 MHz spectrum is far better-suited for mobile broadband than higher-frequency spectrum.

Right now, the FCC is considering the rules (the “service rules”) that will govern the spectrum auction and will likely release those rules in the next month or so. The upshot here is that the rules the FCC adopts will essentially determine who is going to “win” this spectrum. There really is no “neutral” outcome here. The structure of the rules will determine the winners, and thus the shape of the wireless market in the years ahead. That’s why parties are furiously lobbying right now to get the rules they prefer embedded in regulations governing the auctions. To take one example, consider the “block size” rules (i.e., should the pie be sliced in 6 pieces or 4 pieces? Or maybe 2 big pieces and 100 tiny pieces?). Big carriers want the spectrum auctioned in “big” blocks that no one else can afford to bid on. Smaller carriers in turn want “smaller” (and more local) blocks.

Read more

The Classy Counterculture

by

by publius

Reviewing Brink Lindsey’s “The Age of Abundance” in yesterday’s NYT Book Review, George Will writes this interesting aside:

Lindsey tantalizes readers with some pithy judgments that call for more elaboration than he supplies[.] [For example,] he acutely sees that “the Aquarian project” had its own cultural contradictions: “Without the immensely intricate division of labor developed and constantly elaborated by capitalism, there would have been no mass affluence; without mass affluence, there could have been no counterculture.”

It’s not entirely clear, but I read this as a swipe against the counterculture (particularly given the authors). Technically, it’s an observation rather than argument, but it seems like the ol’ argument-via-observation – i.e., by observing that the 60s counterculture was itself a product of capitalist affluence and inequality, Will and Lindsey are implicitly critiquing and discrediting it.

Regardless of their intent, it’s an interesting point – and a thoroughly Marxist/Rousseau-inspired one. The observation is that the counterculture was a class-based phenomenon made possible by affluence and leisure (and thus by underlying economic structures/distributions). The tricky – and fascinating – part is what arguments exactly follow from this observation, and whether those arguments do in fact discredit the so-called counterculture.

Read more

“Early Next Year”

by

by publius Wash. Post, 6/10/07 U.S. military officials here are increasingly envisioning a “post-occupation” troop presence in Iraq that neither maintains current levels nor leads to a complete pullout, but aims for a smaller, longer-term force that would remain in the country for years. This goal, drawn from recent interviews with more than 20 U.S. … Read more

Your Conspiracy Theory O’ The Day

by

by publius Like Kevin Drum, I read that our future War Czar© thinks that the surge hasn’t really worked, and won’t work absent political reform. This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it’s a bit out of character for Bush administration officials to be openly voicing pessimism like this. You’d expect this kind … Read more

Moving Sucks

by

by publius At long last, the cable guy came and I now have the Internets. Just need to figure out what happened over the past few days. Did we get that little Iraq situation turned around yet? Also, a few observations about my new Texas home. First, hot. But the worst is apparently yet to … Read more

A Quick Programming Note

by

by publius I try to avoid blogging about my own personal biz, but I thought it would be appropriate to do so now in light of conflicts of interests, etc. But I will keep it short. I’ve hinted around, but in exactly 72 hours, I will no longer be employed by a DC law firm … Read more

Artur Davis . . . Linguistic Badass

by

by publius

I didn’t watch the entire Goodling hearing (about 60%), but I had two quick impressions. First, Monica Goodling pretty much handed the House Judiciary members their asses. She was impressive, frankly. Second, the preparation of the Democratic committee members was disgraceful. They were woefully unprepared, and apparently unaware of those strange little creatures sometimes called follow-up questions. With one exception – Artur Davis (D-AL) (Orin Kerr noticed him too).

I can’t take credit for catching this — a friend (commenter kovarsky) directed me to both Davis’s questioning and his resume. And it’s impressive stuff. Davis is a Democrat from Alabama – double Harvard, and a former Assistant US Attorney. And it shows. It wasn’t just that Davis efficiently obtained the most damaging testimony, it was the way in which he did so. Looking closely at the mechanics of his examination illustrates that he is a skilled, experienced questioner (and a master of linguistics). More below the flip.

Read more

Bush’s Pyrrhic Victory

by

by publius The early narrative on the Iraq funding debate is that Democrats “lost” and Bush “won.” Sorry, but I don’t buy that. People need to view this particular skirmish – and its inevitable, entirely-predictable conclusion – through a longer-term lens. If Bush “won,” it’s the most Pyrrhic victory of all time. The Democrats, by … Read more

The “Illegals Bill”

by

by publius I know this is by now obvious, but the headline below ("illegals") illustrates perfectly why things like the Wash Times and Fox News are something less than legitimate news organizations.

Immigration Reform — Now Beats Never

by

by publius

On the immigration front, the emerging dilemma for progressives is whether to support an imperfect bill or hold out for a better one. This question will obviously turn on the final details (Hilzoy has an excellent outline of the big picture issues), but my view is that progressives should err on the side of passing legislation, even if it means swallowing some bad provisions (note that this is a working presumption rather than an unyielding position).

First, I think people need to understand (1) how unique (and fleeting) the current political coalition is; and (2) why this uniqueness matters. One of the main arguments for waiting is that the 2008 election will create a more favorable environment for immigration reform if the Democrats win (both the White House and Congress). I think, though, that this view is fundamentally mistaken. In reality, immigration reform will be far more difficult (if not impossible) in a government controlled entirely by Democrats.

Immigration has soured me on Mickey Kaus, but he’s right about one thing – immigration reform is an electoral loser for the Democrats (at least in the short term). I’m not sure what the national polls say, but I don’t think they’re all that relevant. What is relevant is that immigration is a big loser in the marginal districts (and states) that will decide which party controls Congress. Without strong Republican “cover,” a large, veto-holding chunk of Democratic legislators (particularly the freshmen) would oppose comprehensive reform. In short, Democrats cannot (in the short term) hold political power if they are perceived as owning immigration reform.

At the same time, and for more obvious reasons, it’s risky for Republicans to support comprehensive reform as well. It’s true that the business community generally gets what it wants. But that maxim only holds true to the extent it doesn’t cause “political death” in primary elections. The conservative base is passionately, even hysterically, anti-reform. For that reason, it’s the type of issue of which primary challenges are made.

That’s why the White House’s strong support for comprehensive support is so important. On the one hand, it gives enormous political cover to the Democrats. Notice, for instance, how much of the conservative base’s relative wrath is being channeled toward the White House rather than Dems. In addition, White House support gives cover to nervous Republicans and frees them to do either what they think is right, or what their corporate patrons want them to do. Substitute Hillary Clinton for Bush, and you’d see a lot more GOP opposition.

The White House then is really the glue holding this compromise together. And the White House support is itself unique (and fleeting). It’s not just that it’s a Republican administration, it’s that this particular administration — for somewhat contingent reasons (roots in Texas; Rove’s demographic faith; etc.) — has made progressive immigration reform a top priority that it will spend capital on. None of the major Republican candidates in 2008 should be expected to do the same if they win. People like Romney are already running against “amnesty,” while McCain’s precarious relationship with the base would limit his freedom of movement.

Bottom line — the stars are truly aligned. The current Republican administration supports immigration reform, and this support provides the political cover necessary for both Congressional Democrats and Republicans to strike a deal. When Bush leaves (or perhaps ascends), immigration reform leaves with him.

Read more

The Gathering Storm

by

by publius Although I support the animating principles behind the Great Compromise, I’d like to read the fine print before I wade in too deeply. The devil of these things is always in the details. Feith: Eh, just ignore ‘em. It’ll work out. But that said, I have a couple of quick preliminary thoughts on … Read more

Gates of Hell, But With a Smile

by

by publius With my soon-to-be-described hiatus nearing its end, I caught some of the GOP debate last night. Just some helpful advice for McCain — expressing a willingness to chase terrorists to the “gates of hell” is more effectively done when not followed by a goofy Welcome-to-Wal-Mart smile. And on McCain (grrr… gates of hell!… … Read more

Cast Thy Blame Where Blame Is Due

by

by publius I haven’t read anything about it yet, but I saw (via LGM) that the Supreme Court upheld the partial-birth abortion ban. I’m swamped with work and other things, and will write about it when I can. But very quickly, I wanted to make one important point. This case was not decided today. It … Read more

Derbyshire Ain’t Nuthin’ to F*** With

by

by publius Ana Marie Cox has gone too far this time. Just a few weeks ago, she criticized John Derbyshire (a more Brit-friendly version of William Wallace) over at NRO for ridiculing the captured British troops for not being brave enough. Now, he’s calling out the Virginia Tech students getting shot at for not fighting … Read more

For the Fallen

by

by publius They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them. – Laurence Binyon Small comfort though. All thoughts today to Blacksburg.