Two Must-Read Articles from Wash Monthly

"Taking Liberty": Liberals ignore and conservatives misunderstand America's guiding value: freedom.
By William A. Galston

"Bloody Necessary": Europeans won't admit it but America's violent messianism isn't all bad.
By Michael Hirsh.

Philip Bowring: How America's interests collide in Asia

Interesting take on the Rice trip.

Prediction 1: When the dollar crashes, the US will find it's no longer the economic superpower it thinks it is. And it will regret having pissed off allies needed in order to get stuff done abroad.

Prediction 2: Bush will eventually be remembered as he who presided over the beginning of the decline of America.

The big question is this: Will America go down peacefully (like the British) or will the hard right stay in power and use our massive military lead to cause a really destructive "stink". It will be up to the American voters.

Am I too pessimistic? I hope so. This is what's at stake though.

Juan Cole: Democracy -- by George?

A must-read for all those who now claim that Bush's middle-east strategy has been vindicated (salon one-day pass needed).

Karen Hughes and Public Diplomacy

A very good read by Fred Kaplan of Slate:

As a recent RAND Corporation paper on public diplomacy put it, 'Misunderstanding of American values is not the principal source of anti-Americanism.' Sometimes foreigners understand us just fine; they simply don't like what they see.

Libertarian?

Do you consider yourself Libertarian? Since I moved to the South I've met a bunch of people who do. My guess is that many of them are too rational and/or secular to be Republican. But since they grew up in places where "Democrat" equals "pussy" and "spineless" they can't be Democrats either. So by the time-honored process of elimination they are Libertarian.

But what does that mean, exactly? Here's a purity test where you can find out. (Hat tip: Drezner.)

Bolton at the UN

Some people think the nomination of John Bolton as the US ambassador to the UN is a good thing, and I am finding that I agree with many of their arguments. Certainly, a spokesman who shares the administration's view of the world is better than a friendly and competent ambassador who would be constantly overridden by the White House (case in point: Colin Powell).

Still, I don't buy all the pro-Bolton arguments. Anne Applebaum writes in WaPo that:

Unlike, say, the U.S. civil service, or the Japanese bureaucracy, the U.N. bureaucracy is not beholden to a democratic government or even a sovereign government. There is no electorate that can toss the Libyans out of the human rights commissioner's chair, no judicial system that can try corrupt officials. As I understand Bolton's critique of the United Nations and other international institutions (when he isn't being Rumsfeldesque in his turn of phrase) it is precisely this that concerns him: Indeed, he has spoken and written for many years on the threats to America's sovereignty -- and everyone else's sovereignty -- from international institutions that owe nobody any allegiance, are subject to no independent review and have no democratic legitimacy of their own.

The trouble with many U.N. defenders is that they refuse to see this fundamental problem...

I see her point and I am certainly in favor of any reform initiatives from Bolton or anybody else. But I strongly object to the notion that the U.N. is a "threat to America's sovereignty". It may be a threat to everyone else's sovereignty but it's no threat to America as long as we have the biggest gun on the block.

The trouble with many U.N. critics is they forget the U.N. is largely an American creation. Its raison d'etre is to help propegate US values and project "soft power" across the globe. For the price of a small and voluntary loss of sovereignty America gets allies, peacekeepers and help with conflict resolution.

Most Americans think this is an acceptable trade-off. Those who don't should say so instead of trying to scare everybody with all this talk of a "threat to our sovereignty".

Views of a European-style Conservative

Via Yglesias, a good read about a guy named John Lukacs who thinks American "conservatives" are more populist than conservative. This piece reminded me of my younger days as an active member of the Young Conservatives in Norway.

Colin Powell Interview

An interesting interview. These two paragraphs speak volumes about the former Secretary of State's integrity:

So how would he characterise the ideology of neo-conservatism which has had so much influence on the Administration? He sees this, rightly, as a less than innocent question, and laughs a lot: 'This will have to wait for another day. I'm a very recently minted ex-Secretary of State.'

And there's another thing he won't talk about. The man who closely served four Presidents won't compare George Bush, the younger, with any of the others.

A great man. I wonder what he'll do next. America needs people like Colin.

Bush's Foreign Policy Successes?

Food for thought from a Sullivan reader:

I've been a devoted reader of your blog since its inception five or six years ago. I'm a stalwart Democrat, and I disagreed with you for quite a bit of time - particularly the years immediately after 9/11 - yet I continued reading. I was studying in Cairo for 9/11, and the sentiments you called upon seemed completely alien to me, as your assessment of Bush seemed ridiculous; when you declared that you couldn't have imagined a competent Gore response to 9/11, I couldn't have disagreed more.

However, I suddenly feel a similar sentiment. I'm currently in Damascus, and I've been following the events in neighboring Lebanon quite closely. And all I see are Bush administration successes, from Ukraine to Iraq to Lebanon to Egypt. The transitions to democracy in all of these countries is hardly a fait accompli - both Iraq and Lebanon could still descend into sectarian civil war, and Egypt has hardly begun - but they are immensely heartening. And it's hard not to credit Bush. More worryingly (for me at least), it's hard to imagine a Kerry responding to Hariri's assassination as perfectly. This may be unfair - I'm a big fan of Joe Biden - but I have to confess that Bush's radical liberalism feels quite justified by current events. I'm waiting for a Democratic foreign policy that's not only competent - and I'm still convinced that the Democratic foreign policy establishment has many more competent than, say, Rumsfeld - but also idealistic. Idealism is powerful, and this is something Bush realized and I didn't. But the people of the Middle East certainly do understand this, and hopefully the Democratic foreign policy establishment will follow suit.

There have been several such reports recently, along with much gloating by right-wing bloggers. Perhaps Jon Stewart's fears will come true again:

[About Bush] He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, "Reagan was nothing compared to this guy." Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it.

My own take is this: It is early days still, but from the standpoint of a foreign-policy liberal like myself it may look like Bush has actually started to do some good in this world. His Reaganesque conviction that if you talk tough about democracy and freedom long enough good things will happen seems to be paying off.

Now, if you think about it, this shouldn't be a surprise. In fact, a bigger surprise is that I was convinced Bush was purely immoral and self-interested. I didn't think much about the potential benefits of his policies. Just like the Clinton-haters still can't bring themselves to see that a liar and a cheat could actually balance the budget, grow the economy, and go after the worst terrorist of our time (Bin Laden).

Like many moderate liberals I aim to be less close-minded than most right-wing nut jobs so chalk me down as one of the liberals who is having second thoughts about the categorically rigid condemnation of the Bush administration and all its policies. That doesn't mean I would have voted for him (I still think he's untrustworthy, I don't like his secretive style, I don't like his despot-like tendencies to reward loyalty over competence, I absolutely hate his fiscal policies). But it means that I am now finally convinced that deep down he does want to promote freedom (albeit with a strong American flavor).

Of course it would be nice if he would stop pestering promoters of freedom such as Al-Jazeera but I guess in Bush's world these are mere details. Like with Reagan and his various nutty initiatives (like Star Wars) I guess it doesn't really matter if he knows what freedom really means as long as he keeps talking about it.

Mail-in Rebate How-To

Via Kevin Drum: Confessions of a Mail-In Rebate Junkie

Confessions of a Mail-In Rebate Junkie

Via Kevin Drum: Confessions of a Mail-In Rebate Junkie. I'm following his advice next time I submit a rebate claim.

Confessions of a Mail-In Rebate Junkie

Via Kevin Drum: Confessions of a Mail-In Rebate Junkie. I'm following his advice next time I submit a rebate claim.

On Poverty

Los Angeles Times

On Poverty

Los Angeles Times

America's Poor

Via Kevin Drum, from Los Angeles Times, a must-read series.

America's Poor

Via Kevin Drum, from Los Angeles Times, a must-read series.

Matthew Yglesias: Kinds of Rightwingery

Pay close attention to Matt's on-going thoughts on the two kinds of conservative (anti-state and anti-left), here and here. He's on to something very important here and I look forward to seeing how this discussion evolves. A key point which he addresses in the second post is the critisism like "I'm no de-prioritizing small government because I've simply decided to hate on liberals, I supported Bush because the Democrats aren't serious about national security." Matt's answer is that this is "wrong", but I don't think that fully covers it. Also it is nowhere near as elegant as the emerging "two kinds of conservatives" thesis. I look forward to a more powerful response.

UPDATE: Thinking about this some more, it seems clear to me that there's another element to conservative motivation beyong anti-state and anti-left. I'm not quite sure what it is but it has something to do with the fact that 9/11 was such as shock to most Americans and the strong appeal of the "let's kick some butt" type of response. There are lots of (mostly) white Americans in the heartland who have never even been to New York who wholeheartedly support Bush and think Democrats are unserious about national security. People who were much closer to the attacks (such as my wife who was in NYC on 9/11) think many of Bush's initiatives have been counter-productive and Kerry & Co. would have probably done a better job. Something is going on here, and that something is a major rightwing political force in this country today which rivals the anti-state and anti-left currents.

Sales Tax

For once, I think I've come across an issue where I'd like to respectfully disagree with Matt Yglesias. Commenting on a national sales tax report from Knight Ridder Matt says such a tax "would be a disaster virtually without precedent in modern history", because "the incentives to evade the tax through cash payments would be enormous".

I think he is wrong, and I'd like to cite my beloved Norway as an example. As it happens Norwegians already pay 23% VAT on everything except food (and a few other types of merchandise I think). And as far as I know tax evasion is not a big problem. My gut feeling (there may be some data on this somewhere) is that income tax evasion is a bigger problem. Income taxes are about as high as they are in the US, perhaps a bit higher.

As a non-practicing econ major I actually think sales taxes have a lot going for them - they encourage savings, are simpler to collect and would virtually eliminate the need for personal tax returns and income tax planning (and related consultants).

Of course sales taxes are also strongly regressive and would have to be accompanied by huge corresponding distribution of wealth from rich to poor. I don't see how this would ever be politically possible in America; even in Europe they have to resort to indirect measures such as collective bargaining and strict employment laws to achieve it. Thus, like Matt and most other American liberals I am also officially against the national sales tax. But not because I think people will cheat.

UPDATE: Jesse Taylor over at Pandangon seems to think I messed up by citing a "successful" VAT tax as an argument in the debate about the national sales tax. He probably has a point, perhaps it is easier to evade a straight point-of-sale tax than a value-added tax. I'm certainly no expert on taxation but I suspect that's why the Europeans went with VATs in the first place.

If Matt thinks replacing the income tax with a a national sales tax is a terrible idea while replacing the income tax with a VAT is a far better one then I take back my previous assertion. If not then I still disagree with him.

And as for Republican intentions; yes they're clearly hell-bent on a strategy of deception to advance their narrow self interests. But that doesn't mean we should react to every Republican proposal with knee-jerk opposition. In fact I took Jonathan Chait's argument to heart the other day as a model for what liberalism is or ought to be:

liberals are agnostic about the size of government, and therefore more evidence-based in their approach to public policy, and therefore better able to make policies that create a better life for most Americans

As liberals we owe it to ourselves to examine the merits of all proposals, good or bad.

---

Now back to my usual habit of heaping praise on everything Matt has to say: This post on Israel/Palestine is just awesome! It elegantly says what I clumsily tried to say earlier with this question:

Imagine for a moment that Sweden and Norway are mortal enemies at war. Then ask yourself this question: Would it be in America's best interest to have me and my fellow Norwegian-Americans direct US policies in Scandinavia?

Non-Hawks Saving Face

Matthew Yglesias provides those of us who (by now) think the war (as it was fought) was a mistake with a nice justification for wanting Iraq to succed:

He [Julian Sanches] makes the point that, quite rightly, even if things turn out well from here on out in Iraq that would hardly constitute a justification for having launched the war. I -- or he -- could no doubt produce a long argument to that regard, but the simple argument is just that there's a reason Bush didn't say, 'I want to invade a country that poses no threat to the United States, spend hundreds of billions of dollas and get thousands of people killed, in order to build a nice Shiite democracy.' On the one hand, this argument is a needed debunking of much hawk propaganda. On the other hand, keeping the argument in mind will help non-hawks avoid any hint of subconscious desire for things to go poorly in Iraq. We can -- and should -- hope things turn out for the best, without believing that things turning out well in any way undermines our point.

Liberals and Democracy-Promotion

Matthew Yglesias is right on, as usual:

The second, and larger part, of the argument goes like this. Liberal rhetoric about democracy-promotion and idealism is more likely to be effective at promoting democracy but liberals are sensitive to the reality of past American wrongdoing and hypocrisy. This is stuff the people we're trying to help are aware of, and they don't take the US government seriously unless we acknowledge all that and can credibly maintain to be doing things differently in the future.

The trouble is that rather than bolstering each other, as Beinart thinks, these points are in tension. The sort of liberal rhetoric that is effective as part of a democracy-promotion strategy is harmful as an electoral strategy. That's exactly the kind of stuff that pisses most Americans outside of a smallish cosmopolitan sector off. A big part of what's appealing about Bush's idealistic rhetoric is that it plays into America's very flattering self-conception. The more honest take on this beloved of liberal intellectuals is likely to work better, since it's more credible, but at best it will confuse the electorate ('nuance' and all that) and more likely it will enrage them. People don't want to hear that America, though often good, has also been bad and needs to reform its ways to meet the challenges of the 21st century. There's a genuine difficulty here, and it needs to be acknowledged and addressed. The 'pundit's fallacy' of assuming that whatever you happen to think the best policy would be is also the best political approach is a serious danger.

To paraphrase: Actually promoting democracy abroad (as opposed to just talking about it or going to war) is a complex task which requires America to acknowledge past and present foreign policy realities. But selling this to Joe American is difficult because a) he is attracted to simplistic solutions, and b) he will usually reject any notions that do not conform to his rosy picture of America.

Of course, reading between the lines, what we're really saying here is that voters are simplistic idiots. Which is not very comforting to idealistic "liberals" like myself.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that America's Democrats are engaged in a battle they can't win. Sure they may win some elections every now and then if the Republicans become too corrupt or screw up things too badly. But Americans have this crazy ability to ignore unpleasant facts. As long as Republicans are shrewd and speak of their policies (failures or not) in terms that appeal to voters' desires for simplicity and self-promotion (i.e. "patriotism") they will prevail in the long run.

So what's the solution? I think Democrats need to completely break with the system. Stop taking money from interest groups altogether. Introduce full transparency (publish all accounting records on the internet, for instance). Start engaging in public debates - if Republicans won't participate then mock them. Stop trying to say what the public wants to hear. Answer questions truthfully and completely on TV. Kick out (or stop supporting) elected Democrats who are self-interested crooks. Stop partisan redistricting in all blue states (like Arnold suggested). And so on and so forth.

American voters may stop being idiots if they're given the opportunity to see politicians with integrity and character.