Year: 2003

As he often does, the incomparable Jon Rauch homes in on the central distortion in the current discussion of the Iraq war:

Iraq is ridden with hindsight bias. For instance, the Bush administration should have — must have — seen the gaps in its prewar intelligence (they are pretty evident now). And the notion that the occupation could be run with a few divisions — how naive was that? And wasn’t it obvious that the military would need to patrol the streets from the day the war ended?

Hindsight bias raises false expectations and nurtures conspiracy theories. Perhaps worst, it leads to ricocheting errors as people look backward through distorted lenses and then overcompensate looking ahead.

War critics who today revel in hindsight bias might do well to recall an earlier instance: the claim that the first President Bush’s failure to march to Baghdad and unseat Saddam was a gross error. It was not. In early 1991, the smart money was on Saddam’s soon being toppled, and the first Bush wanted to avoid precisely the sort of ugly occupation that the second Bush now finds himself conducting. The second war grew partly from hindsight bias in evaluations of the first.

The solution is pragmatic muddling through. That’s what Condi is now trying to coordinate. It’s the essence of good government. And we have many months to judge its effects – with as little hindsight bias as possible.

Some at the Los Angeles Times are not too happy this morning.

The French establishment is rattled by this thing called “democracy.” Le Monde’s editorial today – from the front-page headline, “Danger Californien – continues, highmindedly:

“California is known for its capacity to innovate. Every new trend from Los Angeles or San Francisco generally ends up crossing the American continent from west to east, and then the Atlantic. The trend launched on Tuesday October 7 is worrisome. . . . [Mr. Schwarzenegger’s substance doesn’t worry us.] No, it’s the process that led to “Arnie’s” victory that should worry us. Here’s a state with 35 million people and a GDP about the size of France’s. . . . And yet here’s a state where, at a cost of millions of dollars, voters can dismiss a sitting governor barely eleven months after his election. . . . Laboratory of the United States, California has been no less a testing ground for democracy itself over these past 20 years: more and more, by means of referendums and “citizens’ initiatives,” direct democracy has stolen a march on representative democracy. Thus Mr. Schwarzenegger, like his predecessor, will have his hands tied with respect to something like 70% of the state budget on account of constraints imposed by successively restrictive referendums. This state of affairs results, to be sure, from the electorate’s distrust of the political establishment. Schwarzenegger’s populist victory is but a further illustration of this point.

Some of these points, are, of course, valid. But one of the pleasures of this victory is watching the Europeans squirm, harrumph, and privately marvel.

In the Wall Street Journal this morning, I ask a simple question: in terms of gay rights, what are Republicans for?

Tom Maguire backs me up. With more data.

Ralph Peters lets it rip. (Hat tip: Instapundit.)

Not just a victory but a landslide. Mickey explains far better than I why this is a good thing. Roger Simon gets the basic point: the Eagle revolution. It’s a potentially excellent development for the state of California, for punishing a certain type of interest-group-beholden Democrat, and really, really good news for the future of the Republican party nationally. (Can you imagine how gloomy Alan Keyes is this morning?) Money quote:

Bruce Cain, the overquoted Berkeley professor, was just on television sneering that the recall doesn’t get California any closer to solving its problems. What an idiot. Schwarzenegger as governor will have weapons Davis doesn’t have, the most important of which is the ability to go over the heads of the legislature and rally public support–behind an initiative, if necessary. He might even be able to threaten to go into legislator’s districts and campaign against them (although the state is so heavily gerrymandered there may be no unsafe “swing” districts left). You want to amend the state Constitution to get rid of the paralyzing requirement that two-thirds of the legislature approve any budget? Schwarzenegger is the man who can do it. You want a tax increase if cutting the budget isn’t enough to close the deficit? Schwarzenegger’s the man for that too. As a nominal Republican, he is in a position to attract at least some Republican votes for a budget package that includes both taxes and cuts. And if even an anti-tax candidate like Schwarzenegger tells the voters some increases are needed, they’re more likely to accept it from him than from a Democrat whose first instinct is to pay whatever it takes to avoid public employee layoffs.

But Arnold also shows that Eagle politics can work – fusing low-tax conservatism with social tolerance and a tough foreign policy is the great missing politics in America. We may have just found our first truly charismatic candidate.

Not so heavy dish this morning because I spent one of the most enjoyable evenings in a very long time. Lecture by Steven Pinker at AEI, dinner afterwards, then off to “Lost In Translation,” the sublime Sofia Coppola movie. Then home to news of Arnold’s triumph. You have to savor days like this. Now to walk the beagle …

RAINES AWARD NOMINEE: “Behind a seemingly calm facade, with Damascus toothless to respond militarily to the deepest Israeli air raid in Syria in three decades, the Arab world was reeling Monday from the idea that yet a third major conflict could erupt in the Middle East. Already, the region is traumatized by the open wound that Israeli-Palestinian clashes have become and by an American-occupied Iraq teetering on the brink of bedlam.” – Neil MacFarquhar, New York Times. The “brink of bedlam?” And what evidence is there of that? None given. Gee, do you think MacFarquhar was opposed to the war? More anti-war spin from the NYT. The spirit of Raines is back.

The first casualty of the Clintonista Manchurian candidate is, er, the campaign manager. Not exactly a good sign.

THE TURKS COME THROUGH: Important progress in the military stabilization of Iraq. Safire’s right about the position of the Iraqi neo-government. This is time for conciliation and support.

The minute Sharon started taking the fight back to the terrorists, something strange happened. Terrorist deaths dropped by

WHEN LESBIANS BLINK: Eugene Volokh follows up on the born-gay story.

THE IMMINENT LIE: “David Kay, the head of the US team of 1,200 experts scouring Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, reported to Congress last week that he found none of the nuclear, biological or chemical weapons that President George W. Bush (news – web sites) said Saddam had and were an imminent danger to the world. The threat from these weapons was cited in Washington as the main reason for the US-led war that toppled the Iraqi leader.” – Agence France Presse, October 7.