Month: November 2008

Fallows is tired of the "team of rivals" cliche:

We do already have words for the underlying concept, and many other examples in history than Lincoln’s bringing Seward et al into his administration. You could call it an "inclusive" approach. Or "big tent" politics. Or "bipartisanship," if the rivals in question are from the other party. Or "coalition-building." Or "compromise." Or a "unity cabinet." If you really want a hoary adage, you have two familiar ones to chose from: something about bygones being bygones, or about keeping your friends close, and your enemies…  America needs a lot of things, but not additional cliches to stunt political thought before it has a chance of taking place.

Shadi Hamid struggles with foreign policy labels:

It’s never really made sense to me to use a left-right spectrum when talking about foreign policy. What does it mean to have a “leftist” foreign policy approach? I assume that people use “leftist” as a proxy for “weak.” But, even the “weak/dove” – “strong/hawk” spectrum is a weird one. I think the last 8 years would indicate that hawks have made us weaker, while doves would have made us stronger. Is a willingness to coddle dictators a sign of weakness or strength? And if it’s the former, then why do so a significant number of “neo-cons” have, contrary to what their ideology would suggest, a particular fondness for “moderate” Arab dictators? If we’re talking about the left’s foreign policy tradition, then a “moralist” concern with supporting human rights and democracy abroad is, I would say, distinctly “leftist.” But then we run into a problem: democracy promotion > leftist foreign policy approach > weak.

One the worst legacies of the Vietnam boomer syndrome has been turning complex foreign policy decisions – which should ultimately be pragmatic actions in defense of national self-interest – into idiotic left-right, patriot-traitor, soldier-hippie dichotomies. Abandoning that is part of Obama’s promise. So far, so good, Mr Scowcroft.

Pethokoukis sizes up Obama’s economic team:

These guys are not Marxists, protectionists, or believers in a return to 90 percent marginal tax rates. They are believers in free trade bolstered by an expanded government safey net for workers, increased government spending on infrastructure (green and transportation) and education to increase growth and reduce income inequality, and higher taxes (though certainly less than a 70 percent top income tax rate) to help fund it all. But will they support a) the nationalization of our banking system or b) a pricey homeowners bailout? My guess is that they will recommend doing, to use the words of Obama, "whatever it takes" to keep us out of a depression. Other than cut taxes on capital or business of higher incomes.

I’d say that’s where the overwhelming majority of Americans now are. They key is to escape the worst of a recession while allowing the downturn to do what needs to be done: deleverage America from the fiscal insanity of the Bush years, private and public.

A new Global Trends report(pdf) is out. A snippet:

Terrorism is unlikely to disappear by 2025, but its appeal could lessen if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorists that are active the diffusion of technologies will put dangerous capabilities within their reach.

Opportunities for mass-casualty terrorist attacks using chemical, biological, or less likely, nuclear weapons will increase as technology diffuses and nuclear power (and possibly weapons) programs expand. The practical and psychological consequences of such attacks will intensify in an increasingly globalized world.

Sounds lovely. Here’s the WaPo’s summary of the report. Thomas P.M. Barnett isn’t impressed.

(Hat tip: Eric Posner)

CNN rips off the Dish.

Mind Hacks points me to this article on the "medicalization" of unhappiness:

The blurring of the distinction between normal intense sadness and depressive disorder has arguably had some salutary effects. For example, it has reduced the stigma of depression and created a cultural climate that is more accepting of seeking treatment for mental illness. Many people with normal sadness might benefit from medication that ameliorates their symptoms. However, the usefulness of medication for normal sadness, and especially the trade-off between symptom reduction and adverse effects, has not been carefully studied—partly because the necessary distinctions do not exist within the current diagnostic system.

The decontextualized definition of MDD, however, has had substantial costs. Since 1980, an enormous “medicalization” of unhappiness has occurred. Life’s ills—whether a failure to attain an expected promotion, ongoing conflict with a spouse, or overwhelming distress from coping with competing family and work demands—are too often treated as mental disorders based on the report of a few symptoms of sadness. The medicalization of social life triggered an immense rise in the consumption of antidepressants. The efficacy of these medications for the treatment of normal sadness is often overstated, and their potential to cause harmful effects has sometimes been underestimated.

As Obama seems to move toward more rather than less in the economic crisis, Noam Scheiber’s profile of the next Treasury secretary is worth a read:

While the deliberations among Geithner, Paulson, and Bernanke remain opaque, there is a growing consensus on Wall Street and in Washington that Geithner would have been more reluctant to let Lehman go if left to his own devices. Perhaps more importantly from the perspective of Geithner’s career, this is the view that holds sway in Obamaland. "I don’t know anyone who doesn’t think the Lehman decision was a terrible error," says one Obama confidant. "But there is some sense … that Geithner would have handled it differently. … That, in terms of understanding and pushing on the severity of the problem relatively early, Geithner was strong that way." This person relates a recent conversation between an associate and a Fed official, in which the latter complained, "Christ, Geithner wants to save everybody."

This is a stirring call for reform:

The US is now a carceral state that imprisons eight to 12 times more people (2.5m) per capita than the UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany or Japan. US justice has become a command economy based on the avarice of private prison companies, a gigantic prison service industry and politically influential correctional officers’ unions that agitate for an unlimited increase in the number of prosecutions and the length of sentences. The entire “war on drugs”, by contrast, is a classic illustration of supply-side economics: a trillion taxpayers’ dollars squandered and 1m small fry imprisoned at a cost of $50 billion a year; as supply of and demand for illegal drugs have increased, prices have fallen and product quality has improved.

I wish to advise Lord Hurd that when I return to the UK I would like to take up more energetically than I did initially his request for assistance in his custodial system reform activities.

Alas, it never occurred to Conrad Black to be in favor of reform until he was locked up himself.

As the Bush administration prepares to pardon itself for war crimes, and the Obama team understandably wants to focus on bringing the country together, accountability for what happened in this country in the last eight years may slip away. Jerrold Nadler has introduced legislation trying to deal with president Bush’s final attempt to circumvent the rule of law.

My positive take on Clinton at State in the Sunday Times:

Earlier this year, it seemed a good idea to plonk her on the ticket to defang the threat. That would have followed the “team of rivals” concept that Obama wanted to purloin from Lincoln. It would also have given the Clintons an independent claim on power. By winning without them and even, in some measure, despite them, Obama can now bring the Clintons into the power structure while retaining clear dominance. The State Department appointment is prestigious enough not to be condescending, yet also keeps Clinton off the Washington circuit more than any other position. She’ll be on a plane or abroad a great deal. Extra bonus: Bill will just love that. Sending his wife to the Middle East is the ex-president’s idea of a good time.

There’s also the small question of Iraq. Think of the appointment this way: “You voted for this bloody war, Hillary; you can end it.”

Withdrawing from Iraq will not be easy and it may well be gruesome. I have no confidence that the place won’t erupt into an even nastier civil war when the United States pulls out than it did when the United States didn’t fully push in. How does a president avoid the domestic blow-back of essentially cutting his losses on a doomed adventure? He uses Clinton as a protective shield from domestic critics. It’s also a rather brilliant manoeuvre against those elements on the right – from Fox News to Washington neocons – who came out in praise of Clinton in the spring when she sounded more hawkish than Obama on the Middle East. Having hailed Clinton as the Iron Lady of the Jews, the stab-in-the-back right will find it hard to pivot immediately and accuse her of treason if and when she ends the Iraq occupation.

(Photo: Brendan Smialowski/Getty.)