I hate liberals vs. I hate conservatives

A random guest columnist in the Cincinnati Enquirer offers some historical insight on President Bush - but more importantly, on how people's partisan biases affect how they view the president.

The middle of the road can be a lonely place in this country.

Civil liberties: conservative or liberal?

The Cunning Realist has a solid post about how conservatives such as Mark Levin screamed bloody murder at the Clinton White House for the deaths at Ruby Ridge and Waco in the 1990s, yet now are fans of John Yoo's no-holds-barred interpretation of executive power. A predictable quote from Ann Coulter, too.

But one must point out that liberals are certainly not exempt from hypocrisy. Are there not people on the left who dismissed Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians as right-wing gun nuts (and implicitly suggested they were responsible for their demise), yet the left now bends over backward to protect civil liberties of accused terrorists?

Of course each side of the spectrum will apply their biases to whether or not a suspect deserves certain rights. It's partisanship; Nothing new.

Holidays = watching cable TV news

Another holiday, another few days on a more affluent family member's couch watching cable TV news. Everyone knows local TV news is bad, but how about the cable news? I don't have cable so I rarely get to experience its splendor. And my holiday viewing habits made me love newspapers - online or on paper - even more.

When I get a few minutes, I'll elaborate.

Tube bombings vs. Kashmiri earthquake

London's tube bombings, which killed 56 persons, made No. 6 on the Associated Press top stories of the year. A note of perhaps overanalysis: The earthquake in the Kasmir region - which killed about 87,000 and left millions homeless - made No. 7 on the list. Why is 56 deaths bigger news than 87,000?

Well, the AP poll was among US newspaper editors and writers. We have a bias toward other English speakers, and to news from other "civilized" areas of the world. Additionally, the tube bombings relate to our war on terror - and the British are our primary partners in that war. Also, whle there have been other terror attacks (Bali, the Middle East everywhere, Bangladesh...), the tube bombings were particularly shocking because they were perpetrated by second-generation citizens. This upset some theories in the nascent studies of modern terrorism.

Anyway, it crossed my mind. I'm half-surprised the earthquake even made the top 10. We are much more interested in things that happen to societies similar to our own. It's easier to relate.

George Will on George Bush

In reference to the administration's interpretation of its powers to included warrantless phone taps:

In his column, George Will analyzes the role of the executive branch and comes to a rather, well, conservative conclusion: Perhaps the president should realize his limits.

Every now and then we fall apart?

Cunning Realist has an interesting discussion about periods of mass hysteria. Is this one? There seems to be minimal outrage over an administration that seeks more and more power. The NSA's non-court-ordered wiretaps are the latest episode. Is the concentration of authority justified because we are at war, or will we look back on this as a time of unjustified hysteria?

CR also reminds us that it was the NSA, ironically(?), which two weeks ago revealed that the Gulf of Tonkin incident - the casus belli for Vietnam - was a hoax. Yet it inspired the Congress to give President Johnson a blank check.

Will history view John Yoo as a person with the correct perspective, considering the security dilemma we face? If there is another major attack, will we wish we had been more vigilant in preventing it?

EU disses GE-Honeywell merger, again

When this $46 billion mega-deal initially got the thumbs-down in 2001, it prompted U.S. Congressional outrage, and eventually led to T.R. Reid's book "The United States of Europe." The deal was approved by U.S. trade regulators, but the EU said it would hurt competition.

"How can the EU regulate American companies?" demanded U.S. leaders. Well, regulate it did - if those companies want any sales in Europe. And the EU's second highest court on Wednesday upheld the European Commission's 2001 decision.

By the way, Reid's book is fascinating, if you want a non-academic look at European integration. You have to take it with a grain of salt, as I believe it over-touts the integration EU, but it's still a great read. The author is a Washington Post reporter and former London bureau chief.

North America as the new EU?

Could the U.S.-Canadian border and the U.S.-Mexican border disappear, to be replaced by more strict border controls at the edges of the continent? I say it's quite unlikely, at least in the next 20 years or so.

In the Dec. 1 issue of the Economist, an article called "Living with number one" discusses Canada's relationship with the United States. (You can pay to read it online, or you can peruse at your local library, like people did in the days of yore.) The article mentions a Council on Foreign Relations task force that in March recommended "a North American economic and security community by 2010, defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter." You can read more about it on the CFR's website here.

(Note: there are numerous conspiracies about U.S. sovereignty disappearing into the North American night due in part to a certain highway, called "I-69." (Seriously.) Check out the NASCO site for info about the proposed cross-continental, north-to-south highway corridor. It has Lou Dobbs and the like up in arms. It's been discussed on WorldNet Daily, the Snopes.com message board, some website called Human Events, Counterpunch, etc. And a side note to a side note: The NASCO site tells us we're "literally facing a trade tsunami." Literally, eh?)

Everyone loves globalization, and some people blame wars on the very existance of borders, so I'm not surprised by the suggestion of a new vocation for North America. However, there's probably good reason why we haven't heard much of this in the U.S. press. It's not a very realistic proposal.

When considering such a relationship, one is tempted to point to the success of the European Union. While the EU's shortcomings are many, the economically integrated and internally borderless (in many ways) association has been an amazing experiment. The common laws and common currency could not have been imagined in 1944. But this regional organization is unique to Europe for several reasons: relative homogeneity, three or five states of roughly equal power that demand balance, and the horror of two world wars.

Homogeneity: Europe, or at least the Western Europe that started the European Community, is pretty culturally similar. Mexico is not Turkey, but can you imagine how the Minutemen's numbers would swell if we had de jure open borders?

Balance of power: Europe has several similarly powerful states. After the Second World War, Europe feared a German resurgence, and the other states had enough power to get Germany to join the club so it wouldn't attack the club. This also gave Germany protection from England and France. North America is different - the United States runs the show. Canada and Mexico obviously don't have the power to control America like the Europeans intended to do with Germany, although I suspect this might be part of the reason behind support for the CFR plan from many factions outside U.S. borders.

War and peace: There's just too much apathy between North American states. Or, rather, there's not much U.S. interest in changing the relationship - and we're the ones who matter, right? If there had been a few major wars in our region recently, we might be ready to deal.

Perhaps a reasonable explanation is balance of power.

However: I must say that a organization such as the one described could very well exist 50 years from now - the EU has been a long time in the works. But a North American version won't happen in 2010, 2015, 2020...

Update: With Venezuela on route to join Mercosur, and Chavez aides talking about "strategic alliances," I think the better study for EU comparison is in Latin America.

So enough about domestic politics

So enough about domestic politics. Who is going to care about abortion when Israel and Iran are lobbing missiles at each other? Will gay marriage be an issue when the West and Russia start sharpening their bayonets over Russia's $1 billion arms deal with Iran? (Yes, I said "the West.")

Which states will be this century's Vietnams, Rhodesias, Afghanistans, and Koreas?

Sudan, with Chinese-provided fighter jets? Venezuela, with $2 billion worth of arms and equipment from Spain? (That is a stretch, but there are U.S. troops in Columbia, and U.S. interests - not the least of which is oil - in the region.) Iran, because it is Iran? Kyrgyzstan? For that matter, any state within striking distance of China?

Or will the interdependence caused by global trade make everything OK?

What does God expect of political candidates?

The election for governor of Ohio is not until November 2006, but campaign ads are already airing.

Here is the transcript of one advertisement that runs regularly. It's for current Republican Attorney General Jim Petro:

Petro's voice: "What does God expect of us? To do justice. To love kindness. Nancy and I have been married for nearly 33 years. We’re pro-life. We believe that we have to do all that we can to advocate the protection of all life. We believe that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman, that allows for families to develop, to become the basic foundation of our society. Our worship and our faith give me the opportunity to make decisions that are more effective for people."

Narrator: "Jim Petro for governor."

Visuals in the ad include a Holy Bible, wedding rings, and a marriage certificate.

Let's look at one phrase:

Our worship and our faith give me the opportunity to make decisions that are more effective for people.

Wait - is he suggesting that people of a different faith than his, or people without a faith, can't make decisions as effectively?

More effective than whom? Jews? Muslims? Atheists? At the very least he is saying his religion makes him a better decision-maker than an atheist or agnostic.

Interestingly enough, this guy is too liberal for at least one of his Republican opponents, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. Blackwell's response was that Petro's abortion record is misleading - that Blackwell is more pro-life than Petro.

Domestic tolerance for casualties

The NY Times today has in interesting article on the influence of a Duke political scientist's work on the Iraq war strategy - and more specifically, on President Bush's Naval Academy speech.

Peter D. Feaver (which would also make a good name for a radio DJ) was also recently cited in a Foreign Affairs article by John Mueller. The referenced Feaver statistic was then cited here, in this post just more than one month ago.

I say this not to toot my own horn (or John Mueller's for that matter), but to point out the significance of Feaver's work on public opinion about wars, which he has done in partnership with his Duke colleague Christopher Gelpi. They have a book called "Choosing Your Battles: American Civil-Military Relations and the Use of Force."

The meat of the NY Times article is that Feaver and Gelpi's research shows that Americans are willing to support many casualties in a war, as long as they believe victory is possible. Hence the "Plan for Victory" backdrop behind the president, as the Times points out.

(Side note: How insulting are the power-phrase backdrops? They're like Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points." Are we that stupid, that we need it broken down for us simply? Do the semi-subliminal messages really have an effect on the stupid masses? I'm not sure if the Republicans have a monopoly on this; I don't watch much TV. I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats did it, too. But I'm not a fan.)

This is the line from Mueller's article that I previously posted:

"For example, the political scientists Peter Feaver and Christopher Gelpi have calculated, rather remarkably, that Americans would on average be entirely willing to see 6,861 soldiers die in order to bring democracy to Congo."

My bolding. But, as the Times would point out, that is only if democracy was actually achieved.

I don't think the whole "Americans will keep supporting the effort if it seems we can win" is that prescient of a thesis, but it is nice to know political scientists are actually relevant to foreign policy. Of course, Secretary Rice is a poli sci Ph.D, and the administration can't get enough of democratic peace theory (except when we need a base in a non-democratic country, ha ha). And Feaver probably won't win the Nobel for arguably helping the administration keep U.S. troops in Iraq. But it is nice to see some practical results of political science research.

I know some folks don't like studying attitudes and conducting massive public-opinion polls, but they can provide some helpful data.

Woodrow Wilson on regime change

According to Newsday columnist James P. Pinkerton, when U.S. Marines were sent to Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, and Mexico, President Woodrow Wilson said of the deployments:

"I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men."

Pinkerton also notes the strategy did not work.

Side note: Wilson is the only U.S. president to have earned a political science degree.

To be a Polish farmer in the EU era

Poles get billions in farm subsidies, but many still struggle to compete with cheaper German imports.

Some Poles miss Communism, the Guardian writes, but they like their new John Deere tractors.

Internet addiction counseling

Call a doctor.

Call - don't email.

Wait, how many Iraqi troops?

According to the new National Strategy for Victory in Iraq:

"As of November 2005, there were more than 212,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces, compared with 96,000 in September of last year."

But in February of 2004, Secretary Rumsfeld said this:

"Today in February of 2004 there are over 210,000 Iraqis serving in the security forces."

So...
February 2004: more than 210,000
September 2004: 96,000
November 2005: 212,000

Roller coaster!

(I'm not the first to bring this up.)