Warning: this blog entry contains graphic marxist terminology and occasional analysis. It may be unsuitable for some readers. (I am not a commie)
As elections are just around the corner, the Big Two parties have honed their messages to razor-thin quality, targeting individual voters through mailings, internet blitzkriegs, carefully scriped tv ads, phone calls, door-to-door visits, and even the occasional baby-kissing publicity moment. Candidates know their constituents as a well-defined dataset-- people have become datapoints on a marketing presentation.
We have become inputs. A candidate needs a certain number of inputs to show up at a certain time and approve of them through a formal process we call voting. This is the purpose of these organizations we call political parties, campaigns, and third-party groups who are endowed with certain rights of persuasion depending on their tax status.
Like so many things these days, at the end of a long process of organizing people and resources to produce something (e.g., oil, the George Allen vote, Charmin toilet paper), the ultimate wildcard is whether people show up to buy. Anyone who produces anything can do a million and one things to control their supply, and to let people know about it. In a direct sense, they can do nothing to control demand, save telling people the right way about what they have to offer, and why it is necessary to their lives. The most successful products are the ones that people believe are irrreplaceable. The 2004 Republican efforts to convince voters that they were the only answer to terrorism is a prime example.
But when we go home to our families, for a few fleeting hours each night, a few days a week, we are people, not consumers, not labor inputs for production. As voters, we have a duty to rise above this nonsense and vote on those terms, and not on the terms of the owners and their salesmen.
It is unfair to pick on the Republicans, though it is wickedly easy. Democrats are no less guilty of the shameless sales pitch. My fear is that these campaign promises could actually lead to bad, and damaging policies. Let's look at the minimum wage.
First of all, the ethos behind what I am writing is that of the worker, not of the owner. I want to see people better paid, with the benefits they deserve, and the overall quality of life that the richest nation in the world could afford, if we put our minds to it. This is the liberal world view-- everyone deserves a decent life. Here's why the minimum wage is merely a pittance. Democrats need to go further than throwing this bone, or we need to demand more.
1. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2004, "520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage, and another 1.5 million were reported earning wages below the minimum. Together, these 2.0 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 2.7 percent of all hourly-paid workers. " A minimum wage increase up to, say, $7.50 an hour would do nothing for the masses of people earning 8-10 dollars an hour who still don't have enough money to get by.
2. The minimum wage may cause inflation, especially if it's tied to the index of inflation. Put simply, as people have more money, it's worth less. This effect may be minimal, especially when considering the overall money in the economy, the massive floods of investment when interest rates drop accounts for orders of magnetude more money than the lowest bounds of labor payments. Nevertheless, if people start showing up at the grocery store with more dollars in their pockets, prices will go up. It's inevitable and unfortunate, especially for people at the bottom who are much more sensitive to a 1 percent price increase than people who have savings and investments.
3. The immigration debate may be about a lot of things-- cultural issues, language issues, but most fundamentally and least discussed it its impact on labor. Evidence shows that increases in immigrants has some effect on wages at the bottom, but the overall benefits to the economy outweigh this effect on a macro scale. OK, fine. But Republican reluctance to move on their constituent's gut insticts to purge our town and defend our borders is simply about the demand for cheap labor. Until we regulate employment through some sort of "right to work" ID, we'll never have control on the wages that people are paid, nor will we prevent illegal immigrants from seeking the supply of gray-market cash waiting for them in every city and town in this country. We need to put the pressure on employers to hire legally. If they all have to, then this eliminates the "well the other guy's doing it so I have to " argument, and may lead to our being able to allocate resources more fairly at the bottom.
4. The evidence does not show that minimum wage increases reduce the number of new hires. There is demand for labor-- and like politics, they can't directly control that demand. Owners need labor, the same way they need oil-fired energy, steel, eggs and flour, and everything else. OPEC ensures that the market isn't really deciding the price per barrel. If it gets more expensive, prices adjust, and we get over it. We change if we need to. Labor is the only thing that we reasonably expect to be allocated on an open, free market, except for people at the bottom of the scale. Everything else has cartels, associations, price guarantees and industry standards that ensure that the owners of that product make a profit. People at the bottom are expected to just get by and show up every day. Let them demand it more.
If the situation is to change, labor needs to organize, just like everything else has. It needs structure, legitimacy, and yes, regulation. There is no product out there without an association backing it up. What about Walmart employees? I'm not talking about unions, but I am talking about collective bargaining. We cannot remain atomized, individual inputs. We are a labor pool, just like an oil field.
Here's an idea: Labor Cartels.
How about going back to guilds-- associations of wage workers. The associations could provide training in basic computer skills, customer service, GED's, even basic math and writing where necessary. It could have strict rules about punctuality at the job sites, drug tests, continuing education, all of which would feed into a pay scale. This would improve America's work force for the owners and everyone else.
They could collectively buy health insurance, so their risks are spread across thousands, instead of a small business or a handful of individuals; like the sickness funds that supply insurance in Germany, the Netherlands, and elsewhere. The associations could also pool workers for unemployment, even worker's comp and liability insurance. This would also take these ever-growing burden off the shoulders of employers.
The associations could negotiate a going rate for their members, who would presumably be better employees, reducing turnover rates, and other major drags on labor costs. They could even organize child care and social services, negotiate with banks for small loans guaranteed on the worker's pay, and high-interest savings accounts or other investments. If it worked well, management might even contribute to their operating costs, even pay the association directly, who would in turn pay the workers.
It could be funded through private initiatives along with government grants, and depending on how ambitious it was with its offerings, might not even be that expensive.
It could be a movement from the bottom up, representing the interests of these muted millions. They could provide a much needed social network, and a series of positive incentives over a series of handouts. Such a group would be far more empowering than a dollar two more an hour. It would give people a ladder up, something to belong to, a chance to receive more than the bare minimum society is willing to offer.
Forget about what politics offers around election day.
People need to demand more.
They just need a way how.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Clean my House, Fight my Wars
In today's Washington Post, there's an opinion piece by Max Boot and Michael O'Hanlon entitled, A Military Path to Citizenship. The article argues that we should recruit 50,000 willing foreigners for three years, about 10 percent of our immigration quota, directly into the armed forces for a 4-year tour of duty that would lead to legal status and ultimately American citizenship.
Max Boot is one of the intellectual architects of the neoconservative push into the Pentagon, making the case for an American empire in an article in the Weekly Standard as early as October of 2001. When things started going sour with his vision of a domino effect of democratic, western-leaning nations across the region, he did as any intellectual would do, blame the people who had to make the real plans, as seen here. For Boot, there's never enough military involvement. Killing terrorists is always better than making friends, and wherever possible, contract out the job to mercenaries who are above (or below) the constraints laid out in such meaningless pieces of parchment as the constitution or the Geneva Conventions. If things get worse, it's because someone's messing up the tactics on his brilliant strategy, never because he was wrong. Boot's line of reasoning contains all the elements for the classic setup of tragic folly, but this is a theatre of war.
The notion of actively recruiting immigrants to fight our wars is repulsive to me, but to Boot and O'Hanlon, it is one of the keys to the growth of empire. It's no different than foreign heroes of the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, or the janissaries, gladiators and foreign conscripts of history. Maybe there is no historical difference. Maybe the morality of it can be justified; after all, these immigrant soldiers are willing to put their lives in danger for a chance at access to the richness and freedom we enjoy here at home. But look at the history. Empire expansion always leads to total, catestrophic collapse of massive territories that the empire accretes. The Romans were ultimately overrun by the people of the north, many of whom they had elevated to high levels in their own militaries, many were even citizens of Rome. The Ottoman collapse had little to do with their conscription of janisaries largely from southeastern Europe, but it could be argued that their expansion and collapse was an early precursor to the problems we now face in the Middle East.
America should not be an empire. It should be a Godfather. Imagine the influence we could weild with just 1 percent of the current defense budget if we directed it towards foreign aid, develpment, health and education programs. There's a saying in Washington, "a billion dollars here, a billion there... pretty soon you're talking about real money." Our total budget for national defense for fiscal year 2006 is $447,398,000,000. Our budget for all forms of non-military foreign aid in 2004 was roughly $27,000,000,000. That's a ratio of about 16 military dollars to every 1 dollar of money for development. And these guys want more and more. What's one percent of that 447 billion dollars add up to? Not a whole lot. What do we spend on aid as a percentage of our GDP? About 2/10ths of a percent.
Consider what a million dollars (one one thousandth of a billion dollars) could do to improve water and sanitation, bring electricity, to pay teachers. One million dollars a year could give full scholarships to Harvard for roughly 25 promising foreigners. What if we granted them citizenship? People will not be content to live under a military empire. They would love to live under a benevolent king who asks little in return except not to blow oneself up. Hamas and other Islamic militant groups already provide these services, except for the catch of sacrificing oneself for the infidel. Do we honestly think people would choose to fight our infidels over theirs? Maybe, but consider the moral dimension. We'd lose whatever high ground we've managed to retain.
Did it ever occur to Max Boot that people choose to blow themselves up when there aren't many other options? Blowing up their friends, families, neighborhoods and nations will certainly do much to further limit those options. Does he think that these individuals would (or should) choose to fight on our side? I fail to see how increasing our military presence worldwide will somehow make their lives better, somehow make those bored, angry adolescents less likely to choose Al Qaeda over Algebra. Both are local inventions after all.
Let's return to the idea of recruiting foreigners to do our bidding in our foreign conquests. How can it be a better idea to kill people than to offer them assistance? Aside from foreign conquest being an inferior product (pound for pound, dollar for dollar) than foreign aid and support, imagine the cold calculating mind of someone who thinks empire can just be bought from the lowest bidder. Is this someone with a positive vision of where the world could be in 50 years, or is this the mindset of someone who's already got the bomb shelter dug in his back yard?
Then there are the more basic, gutteral criticisms. Is it right for us to sit in our living rooms and have the sacrifices of someone else's children be displayed on TV? Can we be real judges of what is a just war if we make no sacrifices of our own, if we defer the costs of war to Chinese loans, and the maiming and murder of strangers? I think not.
If we're going to expand the military, involve ourselves further in the conquest of others, then it should be our boys and girls who serve. It should be our elected officials who muster up the courage to reinstitute the draft, scarry as that may be, and it should be their children on the front lines along with everyone else's. War is not free.
Max Boot is one of the intellectual architects of the neoconservative push into the Pentagon, making the case for an American empire in an article in the Weekly Standard as early as October of 2001. When things started going sour with his vision of a domino effect of democratic, western-leaning nations across the region, he did as any intellectual would do, blame the people who had to make the real plans, as seen here. For Boot, there's never enough military involvement. Killing terrorists is always better than making friends, and wherever possible, contract out the job to mercenaries who are above (or below) the constraints laid out in such meaningless pieces of parchment as the constitution or the Geneva Conventions. If things get worse, it's because someone's messing up the tactics on his brilliant strategy, never because he was wrong. Boot's line of reasoning contains all the elements for the classic setup of tragic folly, but this is a theatre of war.
The notion of actively recruiting immigrants to fight our wars is repulsive to me, but to Boot and O'Hanlon, it is one of the keys to the growth of empire. It's no different than foreign heroes of the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, or the janissaries, gladiators and foreign conscripts of history. Maybe there is no historical difference. Maybe the morality of it can be justified; after all, these immigrant soldiers are willing to put their lives in danger for a chance at access to the richness and freedom we enjoy here at home. But look at the history. Empire expansion always leads to total, catestrophic collapse of massive territories that the empire accretes. The Romans were ultimately overrun by the people of the north, many of whom they had elevated to high levels in their own militaries, many were even citizens of Rome. The Ottoman collapse had little to do with their conscription of janisaries largely from southeastern Europe, but it could be argued that their expansion and collapse was an early precursor to the problems we now face in the Middle East.
America should not be an empire. It should be a Godfather. Imagine the influence we could weild with just 1 percent of the current defense budget if we directed it towards foreign aid, develpment, health and education programs. There's a saying in Washington, "a billion dollars here, a billion there... pretty soon you're talking about real money." Our total budget for national defense for fiscal year 2006 is $447,398,000,000. Our budget for all forms of non-military foreign aid in 2004 was roughly $27,000,000,000. That's a ratio of about 16 military dollars to every 1 dollar of money for development. And these guys want more and more. What's one percent of that 447 billion dollars add up to? Not a whole lot. What do we spend on aid as a percentage of our GDP? About 2/10ths of a percent.
Consider what a million dollars (one one thousandth of a billion dollars) could do to improve water and sanitation, bring electricity, to pay teachers. One million dollars a year could give full scholarships to Harvard for roughly 25 promising foreigners. What if we granted them citizenship? People will not be content to live under a military empire. They would love to live under a benevolent king who asks little in return except not to blow oneself up. Hamas and other Islamic militant groups already provide these services, except for the catch of sacrificing oneself for the infidel. Do we honestly think people would choose to fight our infidels over theirs? Maybe, but consider the moral dimension. We'd lose whatever high ground we've managed to retain.
Did it ever occur to Max Boot that people choose to blow themselves up when there aren't many other options? Blowing up their friends, families, neighborhoods and nations will certainly do much to further limit those options. Does he think that these individuals would (or should) choose to fight on our side? I fail to see how increasing our military presence worldwide will somehow make their lives better, somehow make those bored, angry adolescents less likely to choose Al Qaeda over Algebra. Both are local inventions after all.
Let's return to the idea of recruiting foreigners to do our bidding in our foreign conquests. How can it be a better idea to kill people than to offer them assistance? Aside from foreign conquest being an inferior product (pound for pound, dollar for dollar) than foreign aid and support, imagine the cold calculating mind of someone who thinks empire can just be bought from the lowest bidder. Is this someone with a positive vision of where the world could be in 50 years, or is this the mindset of someone who's already got the bomb shelter dug in his back yard?
Then there are the more basic, gutteral criticisms. Is it right for us to sit in our living rooms and have the sacrifices of someone else's children be displayed on TV? Can we be real judges of what is a just war if we make no sacrifices of our own, if we defer the costs of war to Chinese loans, and the maiming and murder of strangers? I think not.
If we're going to expand the military, involve ourselves further in the conquest of others, then it should be our boys and girls who serve. It should be our elected officials who muster up the courage to reinstitute the draft, scarry as that may be, and it should be their children on the front lines along with everyone else's. War is not free.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Ideology is for Demagogues
Really for as long as I can remember, I've been hearing that Democrats have no real ideas on what to do with the country while Republicans are stacked to the brim with unassailable beliefs on how this country should be governed. Here's my perspective on these beliefs.
Christian conservatives in power have some vision of a mommy, a daddy, two to seven aryan, (non-in-vitro) children, three SUVs in the driveway, and big box stores stretching to the horizon. Politicians who fall into this category take orders from the people who will bring them votes; those people claim to be taking orders from the Almighty Himself. Legislation follows that supports this vision, and where necessary, the visions of others with money, influence, and a total disregard for anything else. They like the Bible (King James, Protestant, please), those weird fuzzy channels that show bible cartoons and preachers, and the persistant radio broadcasts of preachers telling them what to do on a twenty-four hour loop.
Fiscal conservatives in power have a vision of bustling free markets, liberated from the yokes of taxation and regulation. They see business figuring out all of our nation's problems themselves, where social problems are meerly a matter of a lack of market saturation. Make the poor profitable and they can become customers too. If someone can't make it in this country then there is something basically wrong with them... their failure is competition weeding out the inferior products. This is really a vision of anarchy. The mantra of these believers is simple: they are not my problem, and therefore they should not be anyone else's either. They like Ayn Rand a lot, and ignore Hayek and Locke's mentionings of social responsibility in favor of the writings that support their belief in the market as the center of morality.
Libertarian conservatives share a lot of the beliefs of fiscal conservatives, but they rarely seek or achieve power since the center of their beliefs is a lack of involvment in government affairs, and a relative isolation from everyone not adjoining their acreage. They like leather and log cabins, like the idea of being off the grid and killing their own meat. When it comes to cities and other crowded areas, their emotions run from disdain to paranoia to a simple fear. These people are unlikely to have much consideration for others who may require some infrastructure to be productive; those people who have benefitted greatly from investment up front in health, education, sewers and electricity; the same people and resources that propelled our economy orders of magnetude ahead through the industrial revolution through today, and into the future. Libertarians have an 18th century vision of land and self-sufficiency... fine, even noble for an individual, not so good for a society. Personally, they are my most favorite conservative, though I'm glad they have the space to leave others alone, and to be left alone.
So you've heard my opinions of the Big Three Conservative Ideological Buckets (B3CIB). These opinions are a rough conglomeration of conversations I've had, books I've read, and TV I've watched. That's all. You're aware of the near-universal belief that Democrats (and liberals in general) lack any vision or direction. Well I say this is not a bad thing. The problem with the B3CIB that it's always someone is telling everyone else what to think. This is the essence of ideology. Evangelical Christians believe that anyone who hasn't taken Jesus Christ as their savior is going to hell. Fiscal conservatives see the choices out there as freedom or socialism. Libertarians get caught up in lengthy debates on what is the bare minimum role of the state. Ideological demagoguery comes in all flavors. Liberals must be careful to avoid it like the plague. Marx said that anyone who didn't believe they were being exploted in his terms was a victim of "false consciousness". This is equally (if not more) insulting to the power of individual reason. The end mission of all these beliefs is the complete control over all aspects of our lives. What about us? What about what you and I think?
Here's an alternative way of viewing things. Politics can be about our representatives thoroughly researching the top priorities of our nation and the pressing issues of their constituents. Then they can seek out past examples of solutions to those problems, propose some new ideas based on careful thought, and move ahead with legislation that seeks to address the issues that we care about. I thought this was how it was supposed to work. Since when did we need an ideology to guide this process? Political parties used to be about organizing people and resources to get things done. What changed?
Ideologies propose simple solutions to problems.
If only we could overthrow the owners of the means of production.
If only we could legislate according to our narrow beliefs on how God wants us to live.
If only we could just be left alone to fend for ourselves in the wilderness, or in the marketplace.
... then everything would be great. This sounds like a strategy for controlling people, rather than asking what they think. It's trading personal empowerment for a little faith.
It's not at all bad for our representatives in government to be pragmatists, to have a little humility and respect for the diverse beliefs of the people they serve. I won't vote for anyone who's made up their mind before hearing all the facts. I hope Democrats come up with a good legislative agenda. I hope they're big enough not to get mired down in investigations of the Bush adminstration (pick one and stick with it). I hope they show America that they're better than the guys who came before them.
I really hope they win the House and the Senate this November.
We don't need more competing ideologies out there. We need solutions to our problems. That's why we have a government.
Christian conservatives in power have some vision of a mommy, a daddy, two to seven aryan, (non-in-vitro) children, three SUVs in the driveway, and big box stores stretching to the horizon. Politicians who fall into this category take orders from the people who will bring them votes; those people claim to be taking orders from the Almighty Himself. Legislation follows that supports this vision, and where necessary, the visions of others with money, influence, and a total disregard for anything else. They like the Bible (King James, Protestant, please), those weird fuzzy channels that show bible cartoons and preachers, and the persistant radio broadcasts of preachers telling them what to do on a twenty-four hour loop.
Fiscal conservatives in power have a vision of bustling free markets, liberated from the yokes of taxation and regulation. They see business figuring out all of our nation's problems themselves, where social problems are meerly a matter of a lack of market saturation. Make the poor profitable and they can become customers too. If someone can't make it in this country then there is something basically wrong with them... their failure is competition weeding out the inferior products. This is really a vision of anarchy. The mantra of these believers is simple: they are not my problem, and therefore they should not be anyone else's either. They like Ayn Rand a lot, and ignore Hayek and Locke's mentionings of social responsibility in favor of the writings that support their belief in the market as the center of morality.
Libertarian conservatives share a lot of the beliefs of fiscal conservatives, but they rarely seek or achieve power since the center of their beliefs is a lack of involvment in government affairs, and a relative isolation from everyone not adjoining their acreage. They like leather and log cabins, like the idea of being off the grid and killing their own meat. When it comes to cities and other crowded areas, their emotions run from disdain to paranoia to a simple fear. These people are unlikely to have much consideration for others who may require some infrastructure to be productive; those people who have benefitted greatly from investment up front in health, education, sewers and electricity; the same people and resources that propelled our economy orders of magnetude ahead through the industrial revolution through today, and into the future. Libertarians have an 18th century vision of land and self-sufficiency... fine, even noble for an individual, not so good for a society. Personally, they are my most favorite conservative, though I'm glad they have the space to leave others alone, and to be left alone.
So you've heard my opinions of the Big Three Conservative Ideological Buckets (B3CIB). These opinions are a rough conglomeration of conversations I've had, books I've read, and TV I've watched. That's all. You're aware of the near-universal belief that Democrats (and liberals in general) lack any vision or direction. Well I say this is not a bad thing. The problem with the B3CIB that it's always someone is telling everyone else what to think. This is the essence of ideology. Evangelical Christians believe that anyone who hasn't taken Jesus Christ as their savior is going to hell. Fiscal conservatives see the choices out there as freedom or socialism. Libertarians get caught up in lengthy debates on what is the bare minimum role of the state. Ideological demagoguery comes in all flavors. Liberals must be careful to avoid it like the plague. Marx said that anyone who didn't believe they were being exploted in his terms was a victim of "false consciousness". This is equally (if not more) insulting to the power of individual reason. The end mission of all these beliefs is the complete control over all aspects of our lives. What about us? What about what you and I think?
Here's an alternative way of viewing things. Politics can be about our representatives thoroughly researching the top priorities of our nation and the pressing issues of their constituents. Then they can seek out past examples of solutions to those problems, propose some new ideas based on careful thought, and move ahead with legislation that seeks to address the issues that we care about. I thought this was how it was supposed to work. Since when did we need an ideology to guide this process? Political parties used to be about organizing people and resources to get things done. What changed?
Ideologies propose simple solutions to problems.
If only we could overthrow the owners of the means of production.
If only we could legislate according to our narrow beliefs on how God wants us to live.
If only we could just be left alone to fend for ourselves in the wilderness, or in the marketplace.
... then everything would be great. This sounds like a strategy for controlling people, rather than asking what they think. It's trading personal empowerment for a little faith.
It's not at all bad for our representatives in government to be pragmatists, to have a little humility and respect for the diverse beliefs of the people they serve. I won't vote for anyone who's made up their mind before hearing all the facts. I hope Democrats come up with a good legislative agenda. I hope they're big enough not to get mired down in investigations of the Bush adminstration (pick one and stick with it). I hope they show America that they're better than the guys who came before them.
I really hope they win the House and the Senate this November.
We don't need more competing ideologies out there. We need solutions to our problems. That's why we have a government.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Smash TV: Reality Politicking
If there's one thing we've learned in recent years about the American collective unconscious is that people here are not much for fiction. What's more, they can't stand fiction if there are any holes in the plot, or if what's going on seems inplausible. On TV, sitcoms are being replaced by dramas, and what we used to call "game shows" are increasingly being labeled as "reality tv", as if either of these formats aren't extensively controlled by the fat Jewish guys with infinity pools that look out over the Malibu shore, but somehow are never mentioned on E!. Maybe I should eat more and consider California job offers.
The inner workings of reality are so carefully veiled because suspension of disbelief is absolutely essential to their success. No one wants to know about the conference room discussions that determine when there'll be a "challenge", and whether that challenge should subtly take advantage of one team's weaknesses. In some ways, the dramas are more "real" than those shows because the writers are earnestly trying to convey a vivid and genuine world to their audiences. More often than not, the characters of dramas are more compelling than the more shallow struggles we see on reality TV. After all, drama actors want to do more than just be on TV.
Why are politicians still trying to turn out sitcoms? People crave a does of realism from their idols. They root for people who have overcome weaknesses, they respect a little circumspection from people they want to trust with their emotions, or their tax dollars. Everywhere I go, where there is a real match between Rs and Ds, if I turn on the TV, barbs are being traded back and forth with ominous narration, and newsprint on a black background... or some guy is sitting on a shady picnic bench with his wife and identical hound telling me just how much he loves his (state, county, city, precinct, prefecture or oblast), and how hard he fights to send child molesters to Guantanamo bay. What the hell is this?
Why don't they show these guys with real people, in real (though edited) moments at speeches, meetings, or in the grocery store? They could at least make it look real. Is the truth so bad it can't even be airbrushed a little? If people crave reality so much, they'll really go for the "real" leader. The first politician takes the risks to at least look unscriped is guaranteed a 5 point uptick in the polls (+/- 6%). Do these guys do real things? Do they ever have moments of genuine concern or is this just about the money? I know the county commissioners, coroners and sheriffs are real. What about congressmen and governors? One thing is that the bar is higher for politicians than it is for actors or reality TV stars. The dollars in play are in fact ours to begin with. The issues in the balance really matter.
The real successful TV politician will transcend the wet-t-shirt contests and make a closing argument more powerful than Sam Waterston on Law and Order, more heartfelt than any tender moment of love in a time of hardship found on Lost, or 6 Feet Under. They'll then have to go a step forward and be real advocates for the people, real citizens and civic leaders. As they used to say on my favorite gameshow format video game Smash TV...
Good Luck... youulll need it!
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Bring (9/10ths of) 'em Home Now
The old doctor's adage of "first, do no harm" is difficult to apply in warfare. In fact, the express purpose of warfare is to do harm. The purpose of warfare is to kill, maim or otherwise incapacitate the subject into submission. Continuing awkwardly with this metaphor, the doctors of war are at best, oncologists; mastering excisions, chemotherapy (though outlawed), amputations, and in the most extreme cases, radiation therapy. They may be expert at determining the types of cancers ravaging their hosts, but cannot deal with the long-term causes of such ailments, let alone the baroque patterns of causation associated with other, more insideous long-term conditions.
US involvement in Iraq is a good example of the doctor of war applying his scalpels to a chronically ailing patient who ought to be treated through more indirect interventions. Our doctors saw the Saddam regime as a tumorous growth whose vessels and corpuscles directed a nation's energies towards its center, for its own evil ends. They envisioned a textbook procedure, short recovery under close observation and the patient returning to its formerly vivacious self; cooperative to our interests, contributing to the global community once again. If this analogy were to be applied to real people, capable of real litigation, these quacks would be sued for malpractice, banned from medicine, and exiled from their guild.
Iraq, and the broader war that this endeavor is purported to belong to, is the product of chronic illnesses. It's old news that much of the Arab-Turkic-Persian world has been left behind by the enormous progress of the rest of the world. We've observed political and social traditions ranging from the early renaissance era as seen in places like Qatar, Morocco, Jordan, even Palestine and Iran, to late bronze age, as witnessed in Afghanistan, Western Pakistan, Eastern Turkey, and certain parts of the Sahara. This isn't a cancer, it's a way of life. And here's where the metaphor falls apart. Unlike a patient, nation-states have an indefinite life span and an infinite capacity for structural change. They don't really die; they just get more mangled and ornery with each pass of the blade. Unlike most medical situations, the patient has not requested the doctor's services, and may actively oppose the treatment protocols.
Here's how this looks on the ground. In Iraq, the principle of "first, do no harm" was ignored or rationalized away by the principle of "you gotta break some eggs to make an omelet". The doctors of war, in their belief that their medical knowledge surpasses the wisdom of the leity (even their own colleagues) move arrogantly forward, clamping arteries, removing organs, and casually injecting poisons. The patient is getting fed up, the anesthesia is wearing off, and pretty soon, things will get worse.
It seems to me that our fundamental course of treatment should be changed now. We should not police or patrol the streets of Baghdad, or the expanses of Anbar province. For the lives and money in play, we could buy a lot more success out of fortifying our green zone bunkers, sending heavily armored Arabic-speaking spooks out into the slums of Sadr City, or the tents of the deserts, and brokering deals with hard cash. We should stand behind a multinational push towards incremental democratic insititions in Iraq, economic and social development, and the careful cultivation of allies who understand that our interests are not to occupy as we claim, and who owe us big for whatever "local advantages" we grant them. This is not corrupt. This is doing business in a place with thick, sticky social webs.
We have no business standing between the affairs of this or that warlord. They will resolve their disputes better if we get out of the way, and if we stack the chips in favor of the more sensible players. People will continue to die for some time, but I would guess that the rate will remain steady, and over time, will decrease as territory is carved out, and winners and losers are allowed to shake out, all the while with our finger on the scales. Our children have no business placing their bodies in the crossfire of these disputes. This is a complex task for strategic professionals, not some 19th century battlefield hackjob, where weary generals will eventually discuss surrender over tea. The mid east does not function on raw power, as we are accustomed. This is a crazy game of negotiation, connections and unspoken rules, not some redneck romp into the desert. It may be that we are way over our heads no matter what we do, but nine tenths of our troops could come home in months if we decided to think this way. This isn't cut-and-run, this is wise up and play smart.
On the other side of the coin, Iran understands that getting involved militarily in the affairs of one of their neighbors would be a disaster. Iran has millions of Arabic-speaking citizens, and Iraq has millions of Farsi-speaking ones. To think that Iran hasn't passed hundreds of operatives off as Farsi-speaking pilgrims coming to see the holy sites like Qom is ludocrous. Iran is placing money and influence in the hands of the players they are betting on to win. For every family that is killed in a US airstrike, every teenage gunman we have to take down simply because we were there, Iran makes 10 new friends. The same logic applies to Sunni religious and Baathist sympathizers. When faced with cunning mullahs and imams, sheiks and lieutenants, there is nothing noble about doing something patently stupid. We need to start playing more of this game, and much less of this clumsy policing punctuated by inevitable war atrocities committed by our men and women. This is unbelieveably foolish.
The worse it gets, the more likely the doctors of war will push for radiation therapy. We really need a second opinion, stat.
US involvement in Iraq is a good example of the doctor of war applying his scalpels to a chronically ailing patient who ought to be treated through more indirect interventions. Our doctors saw the Saddam regime as a tumorous growth whose vessels and corpuscles directed a nation's energies towards its center, for its own evil ends. They envisioned a textbook procedure, short recovery under close observation and the patient returning to its formerly vivacious self; cooperative to our interests, contributing to the global community once again. If this analogy were to be applied to real people, capable of real litigation, these quacks would be sued for malpractice, banned from medicine, and exiled from their guild.
Iraq, and the broader war that this endeavor is purported to belong to, is the product of chronic illnesses. It's old news that much of the Arab-Turkic-Persian world has been left behind by the enormous progress of the rest of the world. We've observed political and social traditions ranging from the early renaissance era as seen in places like Qatar, Morocco, Jordan, even Palestine and Iran, to late bronze age, as witnessed in Afghanistan, Western Pakistan, Eastern Turkey, and certain parts of the Sahara. This isn't a cancer, it's a way of life. And here's where the metaphor falls apart. Unlike a patient, nation-states have an indefinite life span and an infinite capacity for structural change. They don't really die; they just get more mangled and ornery with each pass of the blade. Unlike most medical situations, the patient has not requested the doctor's services, and may actively oppose the treatment protocols.
Here's how this looks on the ground. In Iraq, the principle of "first, do no harm" was ignored or rationalized away by the principle of "you gotta break some eggs to make an omelet". The doctors of war, in their belief that their medical knowledge surpasses the wisdom of the leity (even their own colleagues) move arrogantly forward, clamping arteries, removing organs, and casually injecting poisons. The patient is getting fed up, the anesthesia is wearing off, and pretty soon, things will get worse.
It seems to me that our fundamental course of treatment should be changed now. We should not police or patrol the streets of Baghdad, or the expanses of Anbar province. For the lives and money in play, we could buy a lot more success out of fortifying our green zone bunkers, sending heavily armored Arabic-speaking spooks out into the slums of Sadr City, or the tents of the deserts, and brokering deals with hard cash. We should stand behind a multinational push towards incremental democratic insititions in Iraq, economic and social development, and the careful cultivation of allies who understand that our interests are not to occupy as we claim, and who owe us big for whatever "local advantages" we grant them. This is not corrupt. This is doing business in a place with thick, sticky social webs.
We have no business standing between the affairs of this or that warlord. They will resolve their disputes better if we get out of the way, and if we stack the chips in favor of the more sensible players. People will continue to die for some time, but I would guess that the rate will remain steady, and over time, will decrease as territory is carved out, and winners and losers are allowed to shake out, all the while with our finger on the scales. Our children have no business placing their bodies in the crossfire of these disputes. This is a complex task for strategic professionals, not some 19th century battlefield hackjob, where weary generals will eventually discuss surrender over tea. The mid east does not function on raw power, as we are accustomed. This is a crazy game of negotiation, connections and unspoken rules, not some redneck romp into the desert. It may be that we are way over our heads no matter what we do, but nine tenths of our troops could come home in months if we decided to think this way. This isn't cut-and-run, this is wise up and play smart.
On the other side of the coin, Iran understands that getting involved militarily in the affairs of one of their neighbors would be a disaster. Iran has millions of Arabic-speaking citizens, and Iraq has millions of Farsi-speaking ones. To think that Iran hasn't passed hundreds of operatives off as Farsi-speaking pilgrims coming to see the holy sites like Qom is ludocrous. Iran is placing money and influence in the hands of the players they are betting on to win. For every family that is killed in a US airstrike, every teenage gunman we have to take down simply because we were there, Iran makes 10 new friends. The same logic applies to Sunni religious and Baathist sympathizers. When faced with cunning mullahs and imams, sheiks and lieutenants, there is nothing noble about doing something patently stupid. We need to start playing more of this game, and much less of this clumsy policing punctuated by inevitable war atrocities committed by our men and women. This is unbelieveably foolish.
The worse it gets, the more likely the doctors of war will push for radiation therapy. We really need a second opinion, stat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)