World Don’t Stop

Nothing seems to have the world stage’s attention currently like the massive unrest in Iran. It’s rather clear that the election was a sham, to keep the ruling elite in power, to keep the system from being forced open in ways that frighten it. The image of Iran went in one evening from a closed but effective democracy to a repressive totalitarian theocracy that had been playing at elections to keep it’s people happy.

Well, they’re not happy anymore. And the protests are just the tip of the potential iceberg. It looks like these protests will die down and this episode will end soon…

Or will it?

New York Times columnist David Brooks points out what this election upheaval proves about the Iranian regime, and gives suggestions for how the West should approach them from here on in. In many ways, we could be looking at a situation similar to the fall of the Soviet Union. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but this could be the beginning…

It’s been a while since an update here, but of course the world hasn’t stopped spinning.  While not necessarily on the front page in every nation, in the USA, the debate over “enhanced interrogation techniques” as former Vice President Chaney calls them, and “torture” as the rest of humanity calls them, is never too far.  Arguments over what documents and photographs the government can afford to declassify, if there should be a “truth commission” to look into what really happened in those Bush Administration years, how to close Guantanamo Bay prison, and so on.

It is into this fray that this article from Time Magazine is especially appropriate.  It comes down firmly against torture for all reasons that have been publicly aired for months: that they aren’t affective, that it shuts people down and gets false information, and most importantly, it is un-American and destroys any moral high ground we might have had.  But some of the direct stories of interrogation are quite engaging.  Who would have thought that Abu Jindal, Bin Laden’s bodyguard, would be broken, not by waterboarding, but by a cookie?

Puts it in perspective, doesn’t it? We are defined by our beliefs, skills, and ethics. Of course, in the “ticking-time bomb” scenario, the rules fly out the window, but you don’t make the rules based on what is, according to professionals, simply a “thought experiment” that never really comes up. Let’s let the professionals make the rules, and let bitter revenge-seekers like Cheney fade away into obscurity, choking on their own bitterness.

In a sense, it was almost inevitable. Arlen Specter has long been a moderate Republican. Being a centrist Republican was not so unusual in the late 80s and early 90s, when President George Herbert Walker Bush lead his party as a pragmatic, center-right candidate. But as the Bush’s son, the 43rd president, lead the Republican party to the far right, Specter remained one of the few moderate, pragmatic, center-right Republicans. Since Obama’s win, the Republican party, desperate to find something to hang on to, have gone even farther right, become more ideological and obstructionist than pragmatically conservative.

Thus abandoned by the Republican party, it should be no surprise that as Reuters reports, Arlen Spector has announced that he is switching parties, and will run in his next election as a Democrat.

Senator Arlen Specter

The Republican party has already gone into damage control.  Republican friends in the Senate are publically trying to sound sympathetic, saying that he was going to face a tough Republican primary, and stood a better chance of winning as a Democrat.  This is of course a rather damning “sympathy,” suggesting that his sole reasons for switching were selfish and political, not idealogical, or due to any deterioration of the Republican party itself.

Certainly, there is an element of truth to that.  Clearly, Specter wouldn’t have done this if there wasn’t some professional advantage.  But even that may be more “legit” than meets the eye.  As Specter notes in the article above, in the last election 200,000 Pennsylvania Republicans registered as Democrats.  It’s a safe bet that those Republicans were already close to the center; it’s doubtful that too many radical right wingers decided that they liked Obama so much they’d ditch their party.  This would mean that nearly all that was left in the Pennsylvania Republican party would be the arch-conservatives.  So in a sense, if Specter’s Republican base already changed party affiliation, joining them was as much about reflecting the political reality of his constituents as it was about his own career.  The arch-conservative challenger probably did have a better chance of winning a Republican primary, because those remaining in the Republican party no longer accept any divergence of views from that of the extreme right.

But idealogically, he’d always been in the center.  He’d always been a pro-choice Republican, spoke out about Bush’s policies when they crossed the line, and supported the economic stimulus when the Republican party thought it best to stonewall and do nothing.  There was a time that the Democrats and Republicans both met in the center.  But while the Democrats still embrace both the center and the left, ideologically the Republican party has abandoned the center.  Specter is still not, and will never be, a card-carrying liberal, but it simply got to the point that he can be himself in the Democratic party, but not the Republican party.

One unfortunate side-effect of this is that the Republican party has lost one of its few moderate intellectual voices.  This will of course move the Republicans even further right.  From a political perspective, this may marginalize the Republican party even further from the voters.  But it also means that there will be even fewer moderate Republicans in the Senate.  Ultimately, rational and intellectual disagreements based on mutual respect and compromise are better for everyone.  So in that sense, it’s sad to see the Republican party forcing  all of its moderates to get in lock-step or leave.  On the other hand, if the center is truly the juristiction of the Democratic party only, there is no reason for Republicans in the center to stay loyal to a party that has marginalized and ideologically abandoned them.

It’s not a widely known part of American history, but like England, we too have done our share of fighting piracy. The last Americans taken by pirates were off the Barbary coast near Tripoli (hence the phrase “to the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine hymn) about 200 years ago. That resulted in the first Barbary war. The piracy off the lawless coast of Somalia has been going on for a while, with hundreds of civilians captured and millions in ransom paid.

However, when the US-flagged Maersk Alabama was taken by Somali pirates—and moreover, when the crew overtook the ship, and the noble captain surrendered himself to keep his crew safe, it captured America, and the world’s attention. France had stormed ships to rescue them as well, brave and daring rescues by expertly trained and dedicated French special forces, but those didn’t resonate quite as much, at least in America. Maybe because we expect trained elite soldiers to risk their lives for their countrymen, but a civilian captain both quick thinking and brave enough to save his crew and potentially throw away his own life to save them, then the civilian crew’s ability to take back their own ship, is something else. It speaks volumes of the American character, not its political character, but that of it’s people. It confirms what all Americans, and indeed what perhaps all world citizens, like to think the American character is: resourceful, independent, capable, brave, selfless.

The story became even more quintessentially American next. The pirates were not met by insurance agents and bankers to hand over cash, they were met by FBI hostage negotiators and US Navy gunships. This became incident became both a show of individual courage and national strength. When US media reported that negotiations were hung up on the demand that the pirates surrender to US law enforcement, while the family worried and the insurance agents shook their heads, the American people understood. This captain had shown the finest American morality. It would undercut everything he risked to simply treat his sacrifice as a financial and logistic inconvenience. His actions had transcended the usual hostage-for-ransom scenario, and therefore so did ours.

Americans held our collective breaths, praying for his safety outwardly, and inwardly also praying that the Somali pirates received justice for what they did. And the conclusion, Captain Phillips recuperating safely aboard a Navy ship, one pirate in US Custody, and three shot by Navy Seal sharpshooters (who parachuted in, and managed to kill each pirate with only a single shot while having to compensate for rough, choppy seas), was joyous. America lost no citizens, the pirates had been thwarted, the US military proved its efficacy, and Obama, who personally approved the order to fire, proved that as commander-in-chief, he wouldn’t hesitate to authorize force when justified.

Americans are proud, and rightly so. And in fact, early analysis is already hailing this politically as well as a win for Obama. Obama himself does not seem to be using this episode for political gain, heaping all the praise on Captain Philips and the US Armed forces, as he pledges that the US shall fight piracy. And Americans are up for it; this entire episode has been extremely good for the American soul, and regardless of political affiliation, all Americans see piracy as criminal, and shipping deserving of protection.

But as the cheers and high-fives subside, the question becomes, what is the best long-term policy? The pirates, as the linked article notes, of course vow revenge—although truthfully, if US ships are smart enough to either avoid the area or bring security, that threat is likely hollow. There are already attempts at land-based retaliation, such as mortar fire at US Representative Donald Payne’s plan as he departed Mogadishu, Somalia this morning. (his plane was not hit, but sadly 19 Somalis on the ground were). And what about other nationals? Are they now in more danger? Sadly, there are simply not enough French and American special forces to protect every ship vulnerable to piracy. World Navies have done what they can to patrol the seas, but there’s simply too much open sea.

Back to history. America was able to put a stop to piracy of US ships in the 19th century after fighting two Barbary Wars. That’s not feasible now, with US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Moreover, the last time US troops tried to enter Somalia, it was a disaster. But that doesn’t change the fact that ultimately, protection on the high seas is extremely expensive, and offers only limited effectiveness at best.

Perhaps the answer is, like with the Anbar Awakening in Iraq, to train and pay the Somalis. If their poverty leads some to crime, perhaps by offering substantial payment to others to police those criminals, the world can both fight the problem at its source, and help raise the Somalis standard of living through beneficial employment. Former special operations USAF pilot John Robb, author of Brave New War (2007, Wiley), muses in his blog that the above, along with a “Somali Coast Guard” (basically, paying pirates to fight pirates) is the way to go.

Either way, as Obama said, we’re in this fight now, and while these victories of spirit and might warm the heart, to truly protect international trade will take a much more pragmatic, and less glamourous solution. Let’s hope the world is up for it.

David Brooks, moderate conservative columnist, in his latest column, advises the Republican party to take the current economic crisis seriously, and come up with bold alternatives to the Democratic plan.

He doubt’s that they can do it.  He’s probably right.

The far left gets a lot of attention, mostly for being so radically left that it looks at Obama as a right-wing fascist. The far right gets a lot of attention, because so far it seems to be winning the battle for the Republican party. But the center rarely does.

Maybe that’s because there isn’t a “one party center” the way that radical left-wingers end up Democrats (or Green Party, but they don’t have a real voice in US government) and radical right-wingers end up leading the Republican party (and then trying to say that Rush Limbaugh isn’t their leader at the same time they grovel at his soiled underpants…). But the center is more fluid. There is a center-left, a “true” center, and a center-right. Also, since the center is where the moderates rule, the rule becomes moderation—not the divisive jingoistic demagoguery of people like Limbaugh on the right or Nadir on the left. Moderates tend not to make as much noise, because they tend to be…well…moderate.

But as David Brooks, a self-described center-right moderate, understands, it is time for the moderates to stand up. He opines about a Moderate Manifesto, and much of what he says has about the importance of forging a middle ground rings very, very true. It should have been done under Bush, and it still needs to be done under Obama.

Of course, being from the center-right, the Obama budget seems far more threatening to Brooks than it does from the center-left. But that’s okay; moderates and centrists on both sides can differ in opinion. In fact, it’s even good—it is from discussion and and disagreement that a realistic, centrist, moderate consensus can be reached. This is why Brooks is so appreciated in this blog: not because he represents the same viewpoint necessarily, but because he represents a thoughtful, moderate, centrist position, even when it’s further to the right than World Don’t Stop. Let’s hope more people on both sides take moderate positions, for ultimately this is a centrist nation, even if the extremes rattle the loudest swords.

There are lots of arguments why now is a good time to nationalize the US Banking system, at least for a short while.  Clearly, it would signal that the government would not allow the banks to fail.  It would allow them to strip out all the toxic assets without complex purchasing mechanisms.  And it would without a doubt punish those responsible for this free fall—the shareholders would be wiped out, and the managers could be fired with impunity.

Of course, there are as many people against the idea as for it.  Not all banks made the same mistakes in the same proportions.  We’ve always had a free market system here.  And the straight fact is that the US Government officials are not trained bank managers.

Well, it seems Secretary of Treasury, Timothy Geithner told Jim Lehrer on The News Hour on PBS that he does not see nationalization as the way to go.  So at least for now, the debate ends.

Still, it shouldn’t be rejected out of hand…ultimately, it may be the way to go, at least for  a while.

Last night, President Obama spoke to both houses of Congress.  It had much of the pomp and circumstance of a State of the Union speech, although technically it was not.  Perhaps “State of the Economic Recovery” speech was more like it.  You can download the audio and text of the speech here.

It was a wonderful speech.  Inspired and inspiring, laying out bold initiatives with frank talk sprinkled with enough optimism to help them go down.  A CNN poll found 85% of viewers felt positive and reassured.  In politics, that’s as close to a bullseye as you’re going to get.  Of course Bobby Jindal, Republican Governor of Louisiana had nothing good to say about it in the official GOP response, but it’s safe to assume he’s one of the negative, unreassured 15%.  Or perhaps just a desperate and sore loser who is scared that perhaps if the current Administration has good ideas and implements them intelligently those who share his knee-jerk opposition will be exposed for the bankrupt obstructionists they are…

The US Taxpaper is in dire straits.  Starting in the Bush administration, $700 billion was borrowed to try and stave off the collapse of the financial system.  Obama just borrowed another $787 billion.  The ultimate cost of the financial bailout, betweeen private and public money, will be some $2 trillion dollars.  The Obama administration has left the door open to requesting even more stimulus money.  Some reports say that this will all bring the national debt to about $36,000 per taxpaying American.  This is more than the average yearly salary of US workers.

The US Auto Industry is in equally dire straits.  GM has already borrowed over $13 billion dollars from the US Taxpayer to keep solvent, and Chrysler has borrowed as well.  Yesterday the two companies had to submit plans for restructuring, in order to get more in loans.  GM wants more than $16 billion, for the final total being nearly $30 billion.  And they admit they’ll likely need more, bringing the short term cost to $39 billion.  Chrysler needs another few billion, up to $9 billion.

The sad part is, all this might not stave off bankruptcy for GM anyway, unless the US Taxpayer money keeps coming.  How much longer will the taxpayers be on the hook?  Nobody is sure.  It depends on factors such as how successfully GM restructures, if sales ever improve, and so on.  

GM says that bankruptcy isn’t a viable option, and for GM to go bankrupt would cost tens of thousands of jobs, nearly $100 billion of taxpayer money, and few would want to buy a car from a bankrupt GM.  The thing is, GM is currently in the process of shedding tens of thousands of jobs, the tab may reach or exceed $100 billion of taxpayer money anyway, and part of the problem is that as it stands few want to buy cars from GM.  So it’s not entirely clear if the damage or cost of a government-underwritten bankruptcy would be any worse than this current government underwritten bankruptcy-in-all-but-name-and-legal-reorganizational-ability.  Some analysts think that Chapter 11 protection actually is the way to streamline and save the industry.

In the eyes of the consumer, it seems that the difference between “looks like it will go under” and “going under” is a very fine point.  Most people already look at GM as a company that may not be around in years to come.  And with the US Taxpayer already bleeding, there is a certain comfort in choosing the option that at least has an end in site—a bankruptcy is a process with a beginning, middle, and end—as opposed to this open ended aid hole that could cost much more, and still cost thousands of jobs and ultimately not save the industry.

It’s bad enough that the taxpayer is overburdened with trying to prop up the financial system.  Frankly, if it wasn’t for systemic risk destroying the entire US Economy, all of these companies should be wiped out.  So the US Taxpayer will be left owing an entire year of their life trying to undo the damage that Wall Street did to the nation.  With that monumental burden already being borne, adding to that by propping up a failing auto industry seems almost foolhardy.  Better let the bankruptcy courts strip them down to lean, mean, viable companies, and then let the taxpayers keep them going if need be.  It seems that’s what’s already happening in an open-ended way.  The US Taxpayer needs closure.  Let’s at least get this issue heading towards it.

It wasn’t enough that Hamas confiscated aid materials for the needy in Gaza once.  They decided to do it again.  So not surprisingly, the U.N. suspended aid shipments to Gaza.  As well they should have—what’s the point of bringing in food and goods for the victims if they are stolen in order to become spoils for the clients of the gangsters in charge?

Hamas overplayed its hand with Israel by assuming they could terrorize Israelis at will with only limited repercussions.  Now they have overplayed their hand with international aid, assuming they could simply steal truckloads of goods at gunpoint and the world would simply grumble about it and continue to supply them.  Hopefully, this will serve as another strong indicator to the people of Gaza as to just what sort of thugs Hamas really is.  

Ultimately, for Israel and Egypt to truly throw open the borders of Gaza, there will need to be a legitimate leadership that operates under the rule of law in charge of the Gaza strip.  It is completely clear that Hamas will not be that leadership.