Michael Ledeen has a fascinating piece on Russian political maneuverings relating to the Iranian nuclear issue. I've come to suspect for awhile now that Russia was attempting to manipulate the situation so as to bring about an attack on Iran from either Israel or the United States, and Ledeen lays out the case for how and why they are doing this succinctly. But I suspect his analysis, while accurate as far as it goes, falls short of what's really going on.
We hear with some regularity that President Bush recognizes the threat posed by Iran and by their pursuit of nuclear weapons, and about how he feels that is his responsibility to see that the situation is resolved on his watch, not left to his successor. The president has also said, somewhat to his apparent embarrassment, that Vladimir Putin is someone with whom he can work (having come to this conclusion by looking into Putin's soul). I can't help but think that all of Russia's bluster, the mounting tensions between the United States and Russia as relations appear to deteriorate, Russia's support for Iran both materially and politically on the nuclear issue, and the apparent American fecklessness in the face of Iranian intransigence on many fronts, including support for insurgents and militias in Iraq, are a deliberate cooperative act on the part of the United States and Russia to get the Iranians to expose themselves to attack, to stick their necks out too far so that there will be no option but for the United States, either alone or with a small group of allies, to attack Iran, destroy its nuclear program and undermine the regime in Tehran.
I don't have any hard evidence of this, nor do I have any particular expertise in this field, but as the Bush administration and the American military continue to increase the rhetorical pressure on Iran, and as European negotiations appear more and more ineffective, and the deal with North Korea looks more and more like a bad deal, the more quickly the prospects of a peaceful resolution to the crisis show themselves to be empty (whether they always were is a matter for debate). And if options like diplomacy and sanctions are going to be ineffective, that leaves only options like sabotage, insurrection and military action. Recognition of this may not bring allies flocking to the United States' efforts to disarm the mullahs, but it should at least buy the political cover necessary to ensure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.
Now all of this may be dead wrong. American fecklessness in the face of Iranian and North Korean intransigence may be genuine. Relations with Russia may be as bad as they appear. Russia may be more concerned with keeping the United States occupied so as to increase its own international standing than with preventing the mullahs acquiring nuclear arms. The United States government may just now be waking up to Iranian mischief in Iraq, though they've certainly known about it since 2003. In the morass that is international politics, there's no way to be sure, but it strikes me as being the height of absurdity that the president would stand for having an issue on which he places high import handled and such an inept and disjointed manner, even if some of his actions on the domestic front do not inspire confidence in this belief.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Was Listening to NPR Earlier Today
And I heard that Jennifer Granholm is likely to endorse Hillary Clinton for president. That's no surprise, but think Granholm's endorsement of Hillary might hurt her in Michigan more than it helps. I can see the Republican barb now:
The woman running Michigan into the ground has endorsed the woman who will run America into the ground.
Some Deal
Jack McHugh of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy has the goods on the deal that ended the brief government shutdown in Michigan. All politics aside, I'd like to think that I might be wrong in thinking this deal will only make Michigan's economy worse while doing nothing to resolve the budget problems facing the state, but I don't see it happening. Things are going to get worse for Michigan before they get better, and the least bad scenario is things getting bad enough quickly enough that Michigan has the sense to elect free-market, fiscal conservatives in the 2008 and 2010 elections.
Where's John Engler when you need him?
Where's John Engler when you need him?
Friday, October 05, 2007
Either/or or Both/and?
Cynical Synapse has posted a reply to my recent post on the sources of Michigan's brief shutdown. I don't know how much more I want to say on this because it looks to me like we aren't too far apart on this issue, but I think some clarification is warranted.
Synapse argues the following:
On one level, this is certainly true. Both parties are interested in maintaining and increasing their own power at the expense of the other party. This was clearly an essential part of the dynamic which led to shutdown, and all involved deserve equal blame for using the pending shutdown to make a political power play, but to dismiss the philosophical differences between the parties is to dismiss the foundation of the power play by the two sides. Because our elected officials are held accountable publicly through the electoral process, their ability to gain and hold power is grounded in the perceived effectiveness of their policies, and because it is impossible to determine the effectiveness of a policy until after it has been allowed to play itself out, you need to have well-grounded principles underlying your policies in order to justify their implementation. These principles also come in handy after the fact if the policy is the result of a compromise. Any good results are due to the implementation of your principles, while bad results proceed from the implementation of your opponent's principles.
To make a long story short, self-interest dictates adherence to principle (or at least the appearance of it). But there's another side to the story because adherence to principle has to translate to real-world benefits for those impacted by policies implementing these principles. Thus, you want the policies you implement to benefit tangibly as many people as possible, because people vote based upon their own self-interest, and if adherence to your principles benefits them, they will vote for you and people of similar mind. Thus, if you adhere to certain principles, you believe that they are true, or at least more true than those of your opponents. From this, it follows that if your opponent's principles undermine your own, policies based on those policies will be bad policies because people will be worse off than they would have been if your principles had played a greater role in forming said policies.
But this can't be the end of it because if you simply cave into the other side, allowing them to have their way, in what sense can you be said to be standing for your principles? Simply casting a vote in silent protest is little more than lying down and letting yourself get run over by a stampede. If you're going to lose a political fight, you want to go down valiantly, inflicting as much damage as possible to your opponent to establish where you stand, why you stand there, and how committed you are to holding that ground. This way, when things go South, you can say that yours was and is the better way.
Ultimately, political aims are cyclical. You advance policies grounded in certain principles because you believe they will make people better off. You want to make them better off because they will then give you the power you seek. You then use this power to advance more policies you think will make people better off because they will reward you by either allowing you to maintain your power or giving you more.
In the end, you can't separate philosophy and politics in the political process because both are essential elements of the process. Sometimes one element is more clearly seen than the other, as in the budget fiasco, but while both parties were using the mess to try and gain political advantage (and share equal blame in this regard), the philosophical differences between the parties were and are real, not simply window-dressing, and because I think the Republicans were more right than the Democrats on how best to deal with the deficit, they are more blameworthy than the Republicans.
Synapse argues the following:
The parties involved—the Democratic governor, Republican majority leader in the State Senate, and to a lesser degree the House speaker, a Democrat, want us to believe this was about the Democrats and Republicans standing up for philosophical differences in what government should be. The fact is, there's not that much difference between the two parties any more but the doublespeak they wrap their spin in.
On one level, this is certainly true. Both parties are interested in maintaining and increasing their own power at the expense of the other party. This was clearly an essential part of the dynamic which led to shutdown, and all involved deserve equal blame for using the pending shutdown to make a political power play, but to dismiss the philosophical differences between the parties is to dismiss the foundation of the power play by the two sides. Because our elected officials are held accountable publicly through the electoral process, their ability to gain and hold power is grounded in the perceived effectiveness of their policies, and because it is impossible to determine the effectiveness of a policy until after it has been allowed to play itself out, you need to have well-grounded principles underlying your policies in order to justify their implementation. These principles also come in handy after the fact if the policy is the result of a compromise. Any good results are due to the implementation of your principles, while bad results proceed from the implementation of your opponent's principles.
To make a long story short, self-interest dictates adherence to principle (or at least the appearance of it). But there's another side to the story because adherence to principle has to translate to real-world benefits for those impacted by policies implementing these principles. Thus, you want the policies you implement to benefit tangibly as many people as possible, because people vote based upon their own self-interest, and if adherence to your principles benefits them, they will vote for you and people of similar mind. Thus, if you adhere to certain principles, you believe that they are true, or at least more true than those of your opponents. From this, it follows that if your opponent's principles undermine your own, policies based on those policies will be bad policies because people will be worse off than they would have been if your principles had played a greater role in forming said policies.
But this can't be the end of it because if you simply cave into the other side, allowing them to have their way, in what sense can you be said to be standing for your principles? Simply casting a vote in silent protest is little more than lying down and letting yourself get run over by a stampede. If you're going to lose a political fight, you want to go down valiantly, inflicting as much damage as possible to your opponent to establish where you stand, why you stand there, and how committed you are to holding that ground. This way, when things go South, you can say that yours was and is the better way.
Ultimately, political aims are cyclical. You advance policies grounded in certain principles because you believe they will make people better off. You want to make them better off because they will then give you the power you seek. You then use this power to advance more policies you think will make people better off because they will reward you by either allowing you to maintain your power or giving you more.
In the end, you can't separate philosophy and politics in the political process because both are essential elements of the process. Sometimes one element is more clearly seen than the other, as in the budget fiasco, but while both parties were using the mess to try and gain political advantage (and share equal blame in this regard), the philosophical differences between the parties were and are real, not simply window-dressing, and because I think the Republicans were more right than the Democrats on how best to deal with the deficit, they are more blameworthy than the Republicans.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Mere Ineptitude?
Cynical Synapse blames the brief shutdown of Michigan's government on the sheer ineptitude of Governor Granholm and the Michigan legislature. As a small-government conservative with something of a libertarian bent (especially economically), I find myself highly sympathetic to this argument.
However, there is something else at play here which Cynical Synapse ignores and tends to be dismissed by those who don't pay much attention to politics: the fundamental philosophical differences between the two parties. This dispute was born of irreconcilable differences between the two parties on the role of government in society, and the economy in particular. Is government the engined driving economic growth, or are the economic needs of the people more dependent upon and better secured by an effectively functioning market only minimally constrained by government regulation and interference? All of the stonewalling, politicking, maneuvering, demagoguery, procrastination, inflexibility, and general b.s. surrounding the budget fight were an attempt by each party to craft the budget in a manner consistent with its view of the role of government.
What's more, it really should be no surprise that politicians in political institutions play politics with political issues. It may be ugly, but this is how we have decided to make our laws. We choose up sides and do everything in our power to make sure our side wins because we believe our side is right. When the resulting policy doesn't perfectly reflect our principles, we do everything in our power to make sure the resulting policy shows the wisdom of our views by claiming credit for the policy's successes and blaming its failures on the aspects of the policy favored by the other party.
Another factor that has to be considered is the fact that Michigan's constitution prohibits the state running a deficit. Therefore, it was impossible for both sides to come together and agree to kick the can down the road with deficit spending. Spending had to be cut and/or "revenues"* (i.e. taxes) had to be raised. Republicans favor the former solution while Democrats favor the latter, and both sides were probably going to have to give. The question was over who going to come out ahead politically, and both sides deliberately engaged in brinkmanship to either get all of what they wanted (not likely) or to make the other side look bad, and both sides succeeded at that.
A final factor in the situation is the current plight of GM, Ford and Chrysler. For decades, Michigan has been dependent upon the auto industry for a huge portion of its tax revenue. With the struggles facing the Big Three in terms of sales and expenses and these companies locating plants outside the United States to cut costs, not to mention straight plant closings, Michigan has suffered a massive reduction in tax revenue from one of its biggest sources, and it has paid the price for the profligate spending supported by these tax revenues. It is unfair to say that the current government of Michigan owns a budget crisis that was dropped in its lap by the lack of foresight by previous governments and the travails of the auto industry. It is fair to say that after five years of economic hardship, the state government has failed to put Michigan in a position to overcome its economic struggles. The tax plan that was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor was a short term solution at best. It would not surprise me in any way if we were debating this same issue of tax increases versus spending cuts at budget time next year.
*I find using the term "revenues" in this context to be rather dishonest. There are two factors in determining the size of tax revenues: the tax rate and the size of the tax base. It is true that, given a fixed (in monetary terms) tax base, increasing taxes will increase revenue, but it is also true that given a fixed tax rate, increasing the monetary value of the tax base will also increase revenue. What's more, if a cut in a tax rate causes a sufficient rise in the monetary value of the tax base, it is possible for revenues from those taxes to increase.
However, there is something else at play here which Cynical Synapse ignores and tends to be dismissed by those who don't pay much attention to politics: the fundamental philosophical differences between the two parties. This dispute was born of irreconcilable differences between the two parties on the role of government in society, and the economy in particular. Is government the engined driving economic growth, or are the economic needs of the people more dependent upon and better secured by an effectively functioning market only minimally constrained by government regulation and interference? All of the stonewalling, politicking, maneuvering, demagoguery, procrastination, inflexibility, and general b.s. surrounding the budget fight were an attempt by each party to craft the budget in a manner consistent with its view of the role of government.
What's more, it really should be no surprise that politicians in political institutions play politics with political issues. It may be ugly, but this is how we have decided to make our laws. We choose up sides and do everything in our power to make sure our side wins because we believe our side is right. When the resulting policy doesn't perfectly reflect our principles, we do everything in our power to make sure the resulting policy shows the wisdom of our views by claiming credit for the policy's successes and blaming its failures on the aspects of the policy favored by the other party.
Another factor that has to be considered is the fact that Michigan's constitution prohibits the state running a deficit. Therefore, it was impossible for both sides to come together and agree to kick the can down the road with deficit spending. Spending had to be cut and/or "revenues"* (i.e. taxes) had to be raised. Republicans favor the former solution while Democrats favor the latter, and both sides were probably going to have to give. The question was over who going to come out ahead politically, and both sides deliberately engaged in brinkmanship to either get all of what they wanted (not likely) or to make the other side look bad, and both sides succeeded at that.
A final factor in the situation is the current plight of GM, Ford and Chrysler. For decades, Michigan has been dependent upon the auto industry for a huge portion of its tax revenue. With the struggles facing the Big Three in terms of sales and expenses and these companies locating plants outside the United States to cut costs, not to mention straight plant closings, Michigan has suffered a massive reduction in tax revenue from one of its biggest sources, and it has paid the price for the profligate spending supported by these tax revenues. It is unfair to say that the current government of Michigan owns a budget crisis that was dropped in its lap by the lack of foresight by previous governments and the travails of the auto industry. It is fair to say that after five years of economic hardship, the state government has failed to put Michigan in a position to overcome its economic struggles. The tax plan that was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor was a short term solution at best. It would not surprise me in any way if we were debating this same issue of tax increases versus spending cuts at budget time next year.
*I find using the term "revenues" in this context to be rather dishonest. There are two factors in determining the size of tax revenues: the tax rate and the size of the tax base. It is true that, given a fixed (in monetary terms) tax base, increasing taxes will increase revenue, but it is also true that given a fixed tax rate, increasing the monetary value of the tax base will also increase revenue. What's more, if a cut in a tax rate causes a sufficient rise in the monetary value of the tax base, it is possible for revenues from those taxes to increase.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)