Stephen Cohen, a well-known Russia scholar, has died. His last book (I think) was called War with Russia? and was basically a reminder that nuclear war with Russia is still a distinct and very dangerous possibility. Not only have treaties and arms control agreements been broken and abandoned under Trump, but U.S. and Russian troops are engaged in violent conflicts dangerously close to each other in Ukraine and Syria, among other places. I can’t help noting that these locations are very close to Russia’s borders, not close to ours. Remember how we reacted to Russian missiles in Cuba? We have a double standard. Biden hasn’t talked much about nuclear weapons, which disappoints me, but at least he is a knowledgeable, responsible adult and things can’t get much worse under his leadership.
Tag Archives: U.S. politics
September 2020 in Review
Most frightening and/or depressing story:
- The Covid recession in the U.S. is pretty bad and may be settling in for the long term. Demand for the capital goods we normally export (airplanes, weapons, airplanes that unleash weapons, etc.) is down, demand for oil and cars is down, and the service industry is on life support. Unpaid bills and debts are mounting, and eventually creditors will have to come to terms with this (nobody feels sorry for “creditors”, but what this could mean is we get a full-blown financial panic to go along with the recession in the real economy.
Most hopeful story:
- The Senate Democrats’ Special Committee on the Climate Crisis had the courage to take aim at campaign finance corruption as a central reason for why the world is in its current mess. I hate to be partisan, folks, but right now our government is divided into responsible adults and children. The responsible adults who authored this report are the potential leaders who can lead us forward.
Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both:
- If the universe is a simulation, and you wanted to crash it on purpose, you could try to create a lot of nested simulations of universes within universes until your overload whatever the operating system is. Just hope it’s backed up.
Senate Democrats’ Special Committee on the Climate Crisis
The Senate Democrats’ Special Committee on the Climate Crisis has a new report, Climate Action: Building a Clean Economy for the American People. It has a laundry list of the kinds of measures that are needed and that the next Congress could choose to act on. What is really interesting though is the last chapter, which is called Dark Money. It takes solid aim at the fossil fuel industry’s campaign to misinform, disinform, and buy political influence, especially following the Citizens United decision. On the page introducing this topic is a picture of our Supreme Court justices.
The Democratic Senators blame Republicans, of course, but the cirampaigns need to be funded too. They pretty much admit here that big business owns Congress, and the Supreme Court made that happen. Well, remembering my high school civics, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, but Congress wrote the Constitution and Congress can change it.
August 2020 in Review
Goodbye summer, hello fall (or do you prefer to say autumn?) in this weird and consequential year.
Most frightening and/or depressing story:
- We just had the 15-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, a major regional crisis that federal, state, and local governments failed to competently prepare for or respond to. People died, and decades later the recovery is incomplete. Coronavirus proves we learned nothing, as it is unfolding in a similar way on a much larger and longer scale. There are many potential crises ahead that we need to prepare for today, not least the inundation of major cities. I had a look at the Democratic and (absence of a) Republican platforms, and there is not enough substance in either when it comes to identifying and preparing for the risks ahead.
Most hopeful story:
- Automatic stabilizers might be boring but they could have helped the economy in the coronavirus crisis. Congress, you failed us again but you can get this done before the next crisis.
Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both:
- Vehicle miles traveled have crashed during the coronavirus crisis. Vehicle-related deaths have decreased, but deaths per mile driven have increased, most likely because people drive faster when there is less traffic, absent safe street designs which we don’t do in the U.S. Vehicle miles will rebound, but an interesting question is whether they will rebound short of where they were. One study predicts about 10% lower. This accounts for all the commuting and shopping trips that won’t be taken, but also the increase in deliveries and truck traffic you might expect as a result. It makes sense – people worry about delivery vehicles, but if each parcel in the vehicle is a car trip to the store not taken, overall traffic should decrease. Even if every 5 parcels are a trip not taken, traffic should decrease. I don’t know the correct number, but you get the idea. Now, how long until people realize it is not worth paying and sacrificing space to have a car sitting there that they seldom use. How long before U.S. planners and engineers adopt best practices on street design that are proven to save lives elsewhere in the world?
The Republican Party Doesn’t Stand for Anything!
I said I was going to look at the Republican Party Platform.
I have voted for Republican candidates at the state and local level at times in the past. I am sympathetic to pro-business, pro-growth arguments at times. I think that some countries have overreached in terms of taxation and regulation at times. I tried to give the Republican Party the benefit of the doubt. BUT…
Today I confirmed that THERE IS NO REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM. They didn’t meet to discuss one, and didn’t adopt one, in 2020. They are for whatever Trump says, and against whatever Obama and the Democratic Party say. They have no ideas, no policy proposals. They simply don’t stand for anything! This is not propaganda. I am not making this up. This is what their website literally says. Just to make sure I wasn’t missing something, I went to the Republican National Committee website, and clicked on the link to the party platform from there. Here’s what is says:
WHEREAS, The RNC has unanimously voted to forego the Convention Committee on Platform, in appreciation of the fact that it did not want a small contingent of delegates formulating a new platform without the breadth of perspectives within the ever-growing Republican movement…
WHEREAS, The RNC, had the Platform Committee been able to convene in 2020, would have undoubtedly unanimously agreed to reassert the Party’s strong support for President Donald Trump and his Administration
WHEREAS, The RNC enthusiastically supports President Trump and continues to reject the policy positions of the Obama-Biden Administration, as well as those espoused by the Democratic National Committee today; therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America-first agenda;
RESOVLVED [sic], That the 2020 Republican National Convention will adjourn without adopting a new platform until the 2024 Republican National Convention
The Republican Party
Okay, fine, let’s look at the 2016 platform then, and compare it to the policy priorities of my pretend party platform.
- Anti-corruption? No! They are literally against any limits on the purchasing of influence by the rich and powerful. p. 12.
- A major childcare, education, and training commitment? No! The health and welfare of children is a paramount responsibility of the government…right up to the point where they are born. From that point, childcare is up to parents alone, preferably two heterosexual parents, and the government will not and should not interfere. Parents should have a choice of schools, which sounds reasonable, but in practice this means defunding the universal public education system. Make sure white people are not discriminated against in college admissions. The government should not provide student loans and higher education should be privatized as much as possible.
- A major public infrastructure and private capital investment commitment? A major research and development commitment? They talk about technology. They talk about startups. I’ll give them some points for talking about the electric grid, which Democrats don’t mention. They don’t really see an active government role in any of these things, let alone an active funding role. They are maybe open to some funding for R&D in the private health care industry.
- Universal health care? No! Continue to rely on the failed private market place that provides poor outcomes at the world’s highest prices, for those who are able to obtain care at all.
- A major risk management program? No, but remember I didn’t give the Democrats a high score on this. I’ll give them some points for talking about food security. I’ll give them some points for talking about cybersecurity. They talk a lot about coal. I wonder if they would still talk about coal so much if they adopted a new platform? They state that the IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one. They reject international agreements on carbon emissions. They want to double down in the war on drugs. They are generally for more military spending, more nuclear weapons, and against arms control agreements. Iran, China, and maybe Russia are the enemies. They are just generally against much involvement in international organizations.
- New revenue to support investment? No, they’re just generally against taxes.
- Unemployment, disability, retirement? No, they want to monkey with social security.
I tried to be objective and read the document with fresh eyes. I am generally disgusted by it. This is a party with no ideas for improving the country, and I would not entrust them with leadership of anything. I hope they crash and burn in 2020, and reemerge as a more moderate, pro-business and pro-growth party.
the Democratic Party Platform
Since the Democratic convention is this week (as I write), let’s have a look at the party platform. I’ll get to the Republican one eventually.
First, let me think about what I’d like to see in there before I read it (seriously, I haven’t read it yet!)
- Anti-corruption measures. One person, one vote instead of one dollar, one vote. Free political speech for human beings only. Without this you can’t really get anything else done because a tiny rich and powerful minority affected by each policy can block it. This probably means a constitutional amendment.
- A major childcare, education, and training commitment. This would help struggling working parents, students, and people out of work right now, and put children on the right path to contribute to the economy and society in the long term.
- A major public infrastructure and private capital investment commitment. This is necessary for both economic growth and quality of life.
- A major research and development commitment. This is necessary for growth and competitiveness, and also creates jobs.
- Universal health care. Just join the world’s modern nations and f-ing do it now! It will help with problems like the pandemic, drug addiction, depression, suicide, child mortality, etc.
- A major risk management program. This sounds unglamorous, and it can be called something else, but the basic insight here is that we were not prepared for the pandemic and we should have been. Well, there will be another pandemic sooner or later, and there are many other risks big and small like nuclear war, famine, fires, floods, earthquakes, and sea level rise. Then there is preventable disease, accidents, violence, and pollution that kill small numbers of people predictably every day and add up to big numbers over time. We need to pick a top five or ten risks and really tackle them systematically, both domestically and internationally. Once we understand what the biggest risks are, we could realign funding, policy and institutions to match.
- New revenue to support investment. We might be able to take most of what we need from the defense budget, but we might need to RAISE TAXES. If so, join all the other modern nations and just institute a value added tax. It’s the best practice, do it now! I would also support taxes on pollution (e.g., a carbon tax) and waste (e.g., non-recyclable packaging).
- Unemployment and disability benefits probably could be shored up, and retirement benefits are basically adequate but need to be protected and adequately funded. All this would help deal with the pandemic in the short term and automation in the longer term.
You might ask where climate change, or environmental protection more broadly, or social justice are in this platform. Well, if done right they are woven throughout all of the above.
Okay, that’s the platform for my pretend party. Now for the Democrats.
- Anti-corruption? Yes, p. 58 gets around to mentioning a constitutional amendment on campaign finance.
- A major childcare, education, and training commitment? Yes – it’s pretty strong here.
- A major public infrastructure and private capital investment commitment? an infrastructure bank is mentioned, basically transportation-only
- A major research and development commitment? “historic federal investments”!
- Universal health care? Yes, there’s a public option, and people without private coverage get signed up automatically unless they opt out. There’s some cryptic language though about it being in place “until the end of the pandemic”. Hopefully once it’s in place it would be politically difficult to remove it.
- A major risk management program? piecemeal – pandemics are mentioned as one might expect. Gun violence is mentioned. Agriculture is mentioned but there’s not really a focus on long-term food security. Climate change and air pollution are discussed in some detail. Biodiversity and habitat actually get a paragraph. It gets around to tepid mentions of defense spending and nuclear weapons somewhere towards the end. Only nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, not even reduction let alone elimination.
- New revenue to support investment? not really anything new – roll back some previous cuts, reduce loopholes, etc. Campaigning on raising taxes is obviously not a winning strategy. Only Bernie Sanders had the guts to go there.
- Unemployment, disability, retirement? piecemeal proposals, “shore up the states”
So the platform kind of, mostly contains the stuff I care about, except it’s weak on nuclear weapons and peace and tepid on infrastructure. The stuff I care about is buried in a lot of other…stuff. Race and gender stuff. Union stuff. I’m not against most of this stuff, I just think it is a lot of empty words for the most part.
automatic stabilizers are not boring!
Slate says automatic stabilizers are boring, and then follows up with a long article on how great they would be. They would have kicked in for both the 2008 recession and the current one, without the months of arguing and lost time.
Things like unemployment insurance are obvious, but I like to think about opportunities for making investments we know we need to make anyway. Like infrastructure investments, capital investments, research and development, childcare and education and training. All of these create jobs now while providing payoffs in the future. When the private sector falters, the public sector kicks into a higher gear and carries the ball for awhile. Then the private sector recovers and debts can be paid back, or a surplus can even be built up. But once again, it’s too late to do it right this time around. It’s time to start planning for the next time around.
George H.W. Bush’s September 11 Speech
No, not that George Bush. And not that September 11th. This speech was given shortly after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. I remember being impressed by the lofty rhetoric at the time. I had turned 15 just a few days earlier. My family had actually been sight-seeing in Washington D.C. when the invasion happened, and I remember a buzz in the air. Great power competition was over, peace and democracy and human rights and the rule of law were supposedly ascendant.
Our objectives in the Persian Gulf are clear, our goals defined and familiar:
Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait completely, immediately and without condition.
Kuwait’s legitimate government must be restored.
The security and stability of the Persian Gulf must be assured.
Americans citizens abroad must be protected.
These goals are not ours alone. They have been endorsed by the U.N. Security Council five times in as many weeks. Most countries share our concern for principle. And many have a stake in the stability of the Persian Gulf. This is not, as Saddam Hussein would have it, the United States against Iraq. It is Iraq against the world.
As you know, I’ve just returned from a very productive meeting with Soviet President Gorbachev. I am pleased that we are working together to build a new relationship. In Helsinki, our joint statement affirmed to the world our shared resolve to counter Iraq’s threat to peace. Let me quote: “We are united in the belief that Iraq’s aggression must not be tolerated. No peaceful international order is possible if larger states can devour their smaller neighbors.”
Clearly, no longer can a dictator count on East-West confrontation to stymie concerted U.N. action against aggression.
A new partnership of nations has begun.
We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge: a new era, freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony.
A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born. A world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.
This is the vision I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He, and other leaders from Europe, the gulf, and around the world, understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.
The test we face is great – and so are the stakes. This is the first assault on the new world we seek, the first test of our mettle. Had we not responded to this first provocation with clarity of purpose; if we do not continue to demonstrate our determination; it would be a signal to actual and potential despots around the world.
America and the world must defend common vital interests. And we will.
America and the world must support the rule of law. And we will.
America and the world must stand up to aggression. And we will.
And one thing more. In pursuit of these goals America will not be intimidated.
Vital issues of principle are at stake. Saddam Hussein is literally trying to wipe a country off the face of the earth.
We do not exaggerate.
Nor do we exaggerate when we say: Saddam Hussein will fail.
Vital economic interests are at risk as well. Iraq itself controls some 10 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that. An Iraq permitted to swallow Kuwait would have the economic and military power, as well as the arrogance, to intimidate and coerce its neighbors – neighbors who control the lion’s share of the world’s remaining oil reserves. We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless. And we won’t.
Recent events have surely proven that there is no substitute for American leadership. In the face of tyranny, let no one doubt American credibility and reliability.
Let no one doubt our staying power. We will stand by our friends.
George H.W. Bush, September 11, 1990
So was I just an impressionable 15-year-old taken in by the rhetoric? What does my cynical middle-aged self think? Well, I still think it was a damn nice speech. The U.S. was going to lead the world’s powerful nations through the United Nations in standing up to cross-border aggression against a sovereign nation. We did that, achieved that limited objective, and got out. Everyone except Iraqi soldiers and civilians was happy. Did it make the world safer for giant oil companies that make giant campaign contributions to U.S. politicians for awhile? Sure. But it was a predictable, restrained use of power that other nations (except Iraq) did not feel threatened by. Our strategy and goals have been muddled ever since, and we have lost our credibility and reliability and leadership position. We need to understand that other countries are simply afraid of us because it seems like we can turn on them at any moment. We can learn something from the vision laid out in this speech.
how to fix international relations after Trump
Well, here are some ideas anyway, from Joseph Nye, a professor at Harvard. The basic idea is to “establish rules-based international institutions with different membership for different issues.” In other words, isolate issues and then try to form groups that will be able to reach consensus on each narrow issue.
- Countries like Russia and China are likely to accept a return to the idea of respect for sovereignty as defined in the UN charter. This allows some bad things to happen within borders, of course, and doesn’t solve disputed borders, but it used to limit cross-border military action and allow for joint international peace keeping missions in smaller troubled countries in less strategic areas.
- Reboot the World Trade Organization with new international rules rather than bilateral or regional agreements.
- Continue international financial cooperation, which he says is actually a bright spot.
- “International ecological cooperation” – he says this has to override sovereignty. Not a lot of specifics here, but a return to the climate treaty and reinvigorating the WHO would certainly be a starting point. I would suggest we need to start taking biodiversity seriously, and also have a look at the long-term stability of the global food supply. Surely this last is something everyone can agree on?
- Cyberspace – not a lot of specifics, but new agreements and norms are needed. Nuclear and biological weapons are not mentioned, and in fact weapons in general are not mentioned (drones, autonomous weapons, missiles, mines, space weapons?), and I would suggest adding these. Anything that will reduce risk in the short term will buy time to figure out a long term plan to give our species and civilization to make it.
how to fix the U.S. Constitution
John Davenport, a professor (of philosophy?) at Fordham University, has some proposals to fix parts of the U.S. Constitution that he says are outdated. I am 100% on board with cleaning up election finance and clarifying the speech rights of corporations. Others I hadn’t thought about as constitutional amendments, but I think all these ideas are worth considering.
- Changes to how we do elections: “rotation of early primaries among all our states, automatic runoffs on ranked-choice ballots, fair district lines, and uniform federal requirements for election integrity”
- “overturning the Citizens United precedent through an amendment that establishes voter-owned elections with public financing of campaigns, very strict limits on all private donations, and requirements for candidates in all federal races (and all cabinet appointees) to disclose ten years of tax records. The amendment should include a clear statement that corporations—whether for-profit or nonprofit —do not have the same rights to spend on “speech” as real persons. Political advertising by corporations and large PACs should be strictly limited.”
- 10-year gap between serving in Congress and working as a lobbyist, restrictions on all federal officials going to work for industry they were regulating (he doesn’t say how long), restrict access of lobbyists to federal officials, and use tax law to further limit lobbying (he doesn’t say how)
- get rid of the Senate filibuster, and allow 55% of House members to force a vote (maybe, but consensus is a worthy ideal, and you can’t have 55% of the population voting to gas the other 45%)
- 18-year term limits in the Supreme Court, which would mean exactly two appointed during each 4-year presidential term. If a justice retires or dies during their term, he suggests picking a lower federal judge by lottery to serve out the remainder of their term. Congress would also be required to vote on judicial appointments within six months (or what, they are automatically confirmed?)
- Now to limit future Presidents: clarify what constitutes an illegal campaign contribution, treason, contempt of Congress, what justifies impeachment, and require blind trusts.
- 10 year terms for the Attorney General and director of the FBI, and dismissing them requires agreement between the President and three-fifths of the House
- limits to appointing family to government positions
- naturalized citizens qualify for any office after 20 years
This all sounds pretty good. I think we have an enormous amount of inertia built into the system though because any individual or small group of politicians who support the campaign finance measures would pretty easily be ousted by those who do not. It’s like disarmament – everyone giving up the weapons all at once is the best solution for everyone, but those who can trick the rest into doing it while they hold on to theirs would then be able to blow up the others. Corporate and special interest money are the electoral weapons of mass destruction that all parties should give up simultaneously as the best outcome, but instead of arms talks we seem to be in an arms race with no end in site. We’ve had a couple relatively strong leaders make a push on this (Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders) and they’ve come up short. The “mainstream politicians” always argue that it would be nice to give up the weapons, but the other side won’t do it and we have to win before we have any chance to reform the system from within. Then they get elected, and the cycle repeats.
There is also the small matter of the U.S. Constitution being our king and god. Seriously, we don’t have a sovereign ruling by divine right, so we treat the Constitution almost as a holy text that should be changed infrequently and only with a damn good reason. And there is some advantage in this – constitutions have come and gone in almost all other countries since 1783, while the U.S. form of government has proven pretty stable. The flip side of stability is resistance to change. The system was intentionally designed that way, but maybe we have gone so long without tightening a few screws here and there to keep it from wobbling, and now big structural changes are needed to keep it from collapsing.
I would also get rid of the electoral college and the states, by the way. Or if I didn’t get rid of the states entirely, I would make it much easier to carve out new ones from bits and pieces of the old ones. State borders have zero cultural, economic, or physical significance. Their time has come and gone and they are holding us back.