I didn’t really expect Don Rumsfeld to be named White House press secretary, so I’m not disappointed that it was the loudly rumored Tony Snow who will be press secretary. Tony is bucking the trend – usually you work for a politician, then you go to work for the press (Stephanopolis, Mathews, Russert, and Scarborough (OK, he was a politician) come quickly to mind). Of course, Tony has already worked for a politician, and I can think of no more thankless job than working as a press secretary for a President’s last three years whom the press hate. It’s like being put in a cage with starving ferets for three years, and you’re the only food in the cage with them. Will the press go easy on him because 1. he was a colleague and 2. he’s got cancer? My money is on NOT in a big way because he worked for FOX and his illness is nothing next to the fact he’s working for BUSH! Nope, it will 3 years of daily “Get him, kill the heretic!” for Tony.
Archive for category Politics
It’s Official: Tony Snow
Apr 26
Iran Or Belarus?
Apr 24
A case of real hypocrisy: Iran’s President Welcome in EU. Belarus’s Not.
What if, as a sign of courtesy to the Austrian presidency in the EU, Ahmadinejad visits one Viennese prison cell — that of David Irving, another Holocaust-denier with much less pretentious claims about it? He would probably get away with it too. Could anybody imagine Austrians jailing the president of the nuclear-rich Iran? He is not David Irving with his books of dubious quality. He does not wear pinstriped suits. All he does is call for Israel to be whipped off the map. Or at least be moved to Europe. Not a single reason to bar him from the EU? I wish the EU was as hospitable to all Muslim guests, not just Ahmadinejad.
We don’t get to pick and choose our enemies; sometimes they pick us as such. But to pick and choose based on naked self interest — punishing those who can do nothing for you while rewarding those who can, yet pretend that you are punishing the wicked and rewarding the virtuous is not just hypocritical but wicked itself.
The Politics Of Roads
Apr 19
The Missouri Department of Transportation is working on I-270 in West St. Louis County. They have ground off the top layer of concrete in the two lanes that still have concrete surfaces from Highway 40 (yes, I know it’s officially I-64) to I-70. Normally I’m not one to complain about road work, but this time I am. To my untrained eye, there was nothing wrong with road surface on that stretch of I-270. I’m assuming (since there is nothing about the work on their website) that they will then resurface the whole highway, even though there are much worse stretches of pavement – like I-270 between I-70 and I-370, which they did a “micro” resurfacing to a few years back and which is in terrible shape.
I just wonder if it isn’t just a way to spend money and maintain visibility in a part of the state that has a lot of affluent voters. And it only makes me dislike amendment 3 even more. MODOT tried a couple of times to get tax hikes for roads but they were voted down. So they hit on a different approach – they would ask the voters to stop the “diversion” of gas and license tax revenue to non-road related spending. MODOT told us we could get better roads “for free”. I voted against it for the simple reason that it would mean cuts in other places that would be determined later and this time I agreed with the Sierra Club. In fact, Archpundit said that the amendment would turn victory in the governor’s race into the booby prize because whoever became governor would be forced to make big cuts in spending.
So after some very unpopular cuts in state spending for which Gov. Blunt has taken a lot of heat, MODOT is spending money for no apparent reason. To all my fellow Missourians who voted yes on amendment 3, I hope you’re satisfied.
I voted yesterday. As always, my polling place was staffed by seriously old people. As I was going through the line of getting my ballot, one of the staffers complained to another that this getting up before breakfast was for the birds. So I chimed in with “You’re making Democracy possible. Thanks.” I got no response, so I have to assume that I didn’t speak loudly enough for either of them to hear. But I still want to thank you two and all the other people who take the time to make democracy possible.
Cyprus
Apr 4
Mr. World Traveller Michael Totten recommends reading this article about a divided Cyprus while he works on his next installments. I typically heed such advice and as per usual, I’m happy I did.
I’m old enough to remember the summer morning when Turkey invaded Cyprus. I was eating breakfast before summer school and watching the whole thing on our TV in the kitchen. Paratroopers calmly landing, cutting their chutes, and forming up into their units shown live on TV. Years later my wife and I had a Greek tour guide — Terry. Terry wasn’t fond of America. He told the story of how he had been set up as a hotelier in Cyprus by the Germans as amends for their harming (tortured? killed?) his father during WWII. But in 1974 he lost everything when the Turks invaded Cyprus and the American armed forces did nothing.
My wife and I still say “Slowly, slowly” in imitation of Terry who really was a good guide because he looked out for all of us). He deliberately told us everything three times (not in succession) because as he told us on day 1, if I don’t tell you three times, someone won’t remember and then they’ll say “you didn’t tell me”. Danged if some people didn’t remember even after he told us everything three times.
Immigration: Mexico
Apr 3
Immigration has moved to the front burner in this country. Thoughtful people are writing thoughtfully – Jane Galt has a trio (is that a theme today?) of such posts:
Some rambling thoughts on immigration,
Unwanted guests?
More on immigration.
What I haven’t seen is what is driving the issue today – it’s really about Mexican immigrants and the large influx of illegal immigrants over our border with Mexico. Absent that large flow over a large border, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I guess nobody wants to sound like a racist, but what grabs people’s attention isn’t how many technically savvy people come in on HB-1 visas from Asia and India, but how many poor Mexicans are willing to risk death to live in the United States.
The stakes are high all around on this issue – for both Mexico and the United States. We really want to get the answer right — and that does include all aspects of immigration, including how many HB-1 visas are issued.
And let’s face it, its better to be poor in the United States than it is in Mexico. I can’t say as I blame people who are trying to make a better life for themselves. But we need to balance everybodies interests, and not focus too exclusively on one particular group.
We need to take a dispassionate look at what we want the end state to be, and then figure out how to get there. I’d start with a Mexico that poor people aren’t willing to risk death to leave. So our ultimate goal is a Mexico that has the political and economic institutions that are able to take care of all its citizens. Of course, we have to (1) survive in the meantime, while (2) we help Mexico get there. So that means that while we look at the range of options on how the US deals with immigration, we need to always be looking at the effect that these measures have on Mexico (and really all the countries that have people who want to get out). For instance, building a wall along the entire border – what are the effects on immigration, the effects on the US, the effects on Mexico – all these things need to be considered, not just one.
Hamas Election
Mar 9
I enjoy history. Any period, any culture, history simply appeals to me. One of the nice things about it is that you can learn quite a lot just by reading, which I do. And another nice thing is that it provides perspective on the events of today. So one of the lessons of history I draw is that a major problem with rule by a single person, whether by king or despot, emporer or strong-man, whether accepted by the governed or subject to constant rebellion and resistance, is that its quality depends on the quality of a single individual. The character of government depends on the character of the ruler; even where the ruler wasn’t particularly able, they could recruit and rely on able subordinates if they were of a mind to. So looking at a nation under such a single person rule over time you see how the overall fortune of the nation depends on how good a ruler is curently ruling.
And its not just true of single person rule, it’s just easier to see there. The exact same thing is true of any government — it’s character depends on the character of the ruler(s). And so for representative governments, the character of the government depends on the character of the people. Harsh people lead to harsh rule; tolerant people to tolerant rule, wise people to wise rule, and foolish people to foolish rule. You get the idea.
That brings us to the results in the Palestinian election where Hamas, a terror organization (or not), was voted into office. Some people tell me that Hamas doesn’t reflect the Palestinian people. Oh really? Who does it represent then? The Israelis? Look, if the Palestinians wanted a less corrupt government and mutual existance with Israel, then a political party that espoused that view would have formed and been voted into office.
They’ll moderate under the pressures of governance alone I’m told. Really? Why should they? When have Palestinian governments every lived up to their end of agreements?
Maybe Hamas is just the natural response to Israeli intransience? Such a view ignores the reality – Israel is ready to coexist with a Palestinian state that is not out to destroy it, the Palestinians are not. (If Israel wanted all the Palestinians dead, they’d be dead already). And as far as Israeli violating a voluntary truce on the part of Hamas, why should Israel hold back against an avowed foe just because the foe wants a break?
And of course, what to do about funds for Palestine. Should the US and the EU continue to subsidize the Palestinian government, or should they be cut off? What about the money Israel collects on behalf of the Palestinian government? What will the effect be on the Palestinian people? Should the plight of the people who voted for terrorists to take over sway us? Sometimes, there are no good solutions, just muddling through as best as you can, and guess what – we have been in that situation in the middle east for a long time now.
We need to really keep in mind what the desired end state is, and work towards that with as much focus as we can — and that is two healthy states at peace with each other. The trick is in figuring out if that requires a firm stand on principle or flexible pragmatism. I think it requires what President Bush has been doing all along – clear expectations for both Palestine and Israel, and keeping our commitments either to withold or provide based on their behavior. The previous and current goverments of Palestine have not reflected favorably on the Palestinian character. I’m hoping that that changes.
Gerrymandering
Mar 8
Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the gerrymander.
Gerrymandering is universally unpopular with voters and popular with politicians. And Stuart Taylor puts the case against gerrymandering quite well:
“The one-person, one-vote decisions of the early 1960s have had the unintended consequence of enabling politicians to choose their voters rather than the other way around”.
I don’t know which is worse, when one party gerrymanders at the expense of the other, or when incumbents of both parties combine to gerrymander at the expense of challengers of the other party.
One of the complaints is that as we have more and more safe districts, we have highly polarized politics. But what about the other extreme? If we drew districts to maximize competitiveness, would we be happy if a party that had 48% of the electorate managed to win 100% of the seats — which might happen in a smaller state with every district highly competitive. Would politics become focused even more on appearance, on sound bite, on the immediate tactical advantage on election day to the exclusion of good governance? So is the choice between polarized politics or representation that isn’t representative?
The other alternative is to take gerrymandering to the other limit, so that districts would be all equally safe which would mean that the representation in the legislature would most closely reflect the party makeup of the electorate. That would achieve the global result of accurate representation of the electorate, but people would feel even less connected to the political process. Heck, we could avoid all the expense and controversy associated with general elections and just hold primaries.
And if you think that most people vote for the person and not the party (you of course never do that, free thinker that you are), then gerrymandering wouldn’t work. What makes gerrymandering break down isn’t our rugged individualism, but that over time we move around and thus change the relationship between party and location, and that there are slow shifts in the electorate between the parties.
I don’t buy the theory that safer districts have led to more political strife. I think what we are seeing is a return to normal (although unpleasant) levels of political strife and incivility that after an abnormal period of consensus that was due to the experiences and outlook of my fathers generation – the one’s who grew up during the depression, fought WWII, and came home with the ability and desire to get along to get things done — and this change happens to correlate with more effective gerrymandering.
We could just select districts based on compactness and carve them up by computer without regard to their competitiveness, but then who knows what you’ll get — which is why politicians will never agree to such an approach. Would we be happy if such a scheme meant the dilution of minority votes, or inadvertantly made uncompetative districts that didn’t represent the relative strengths of the parties? Would we then have to step in with some sort of neutral commision to adjust the boundaries so that the districts conformed to notions of fairness, as if that isn’t a political judgement in itself?
Is there even a good answer on how to draw legislative districts in a two party system?
And don’t even get me started on the problems with one man, one vote.
Harry, Get Well Soon
Feb 15
Vice President Cheney accidentally shot a friend while quail hunting over the weekend and you’d think something of national import happened. I guess it was a slow weekend in the Natalie Holloway case. The VP’s tardiness in notifying the media — the 22 hour gap — is driving some people bonkers. What difference did the delay make? None has been offered, so I’m left with nothing but Ecclesiastes: Vanity, Vanity, all is Vanity.
I realize that the best way for the VP to have handled the situation from a PR standpoint was to have immediately notified the press, made a tearful apology on camera, and in general treat it as more important than Iran getting nukes. But really, should I care that the VP accidentally shot a fellow hunter? And who should the VP apologize to besides Harry Whittington, the man he shot? He didn’t shoot the American people, so why does he owe us an apology? If all we want is to hear Cheney’s apology to Whittington, what do I make of all this outrage over the NSA listening to private conversations?
OK , I do think at least one important question has been raised by this “scandal”. Why is that preening doofus David Gregory on NBC’s payroll? I had no problem with quantum physics, but I’m completely stumped by that one.
Actually, the handling by Cheney may not be so bad as people are saying. For one thing, the press corps has predictably behaved so wretchedly that they are sharing the spotlight with him. And he’s built interest in the interview he’s going to do, so this way he only has to apologize on camera once. And thirdly, all of us who think of ourselves as laconic he-men admire the way he’s taken the laconic he-man approach to this. My inner laconic he-man has been stirred so much by the VP since since he and the President called New York Times reporter Adam Clymer a major league asshole (and of course the left was up in arms over that bit of truth telling) and Cheney alone told Senator Pat Leahy “‘intercourse’ you” when Pat was trying to play nice in private after blasting him in public. Laconic He-men are the same in private as in public, and expect other people to be the same.
I miss the Clinton presidency. Now there were real scandals and issues. Take eavesdropping on international calls. Every President since Alexander Graham Bell has done it, and every President, including Saint Jimmy, since FISA was inacted has said they still had the right to eavesdrop on international calls under the constitution. In other words, old news. But when Clinton was President, we got to see the claim resolved that per executive privelege Presidents should be immune to any non-Presidential lawsuits while President. Illegal wars? Heck, President Bush has congressional authorization. President Clinton had nothing when we pre-emtively attacked Serbia over Kosovo. Secrecy? Have you forgotten Hillary Care so soon? Maybe the VP should explain he grew up hunting with his father and all questions will cease. Hey, it worked when Hillary explained how she was able to make so much money in futures. I pity the Democrats who have so little to work with.
Alito Confirmed
Jan 31
In the category of unsurprising is the collapse of the fillibuster against Judge Alito and his confirmation. Only ardent leftists living inside the media bubble thought it was going to happen any other way.
The only real question is why Alito was confirmed 58-43 and Ginsberg 96-3. She wasn’t the more qualified candidate; Republicans voted on ability, Democrats on politics.
