Month: February 2011

View Mapping Violence Against Pro-Democracy Protests in Libya in a larger map Steve Negus flags an “excellent crowd-sourced map [above] on Google on the uprising in Libya.” He thinks that the international community should intervene:

The question now is whether or not an international body (NATO, the UN) can declare a no-fly zone. Given the size of Libya, the fragility of the regime, and the apparent dependence of the government forces on air supply, this may not be as toothless as it first sounds. A no fly ban (if it is enforced) could complicate the assemblage and the supply of mercenary forces, and avert an offensive against Benghazi that might lead to tens of thousands of civilian casualties. Even a few more days of respite for Benghazi might see more tribes (and more military units) drift into the anti-Qaddafi camp — one presumes that if the repression is anywhere as near as brutal as it sounds, many officers will soon be hearing of the deaths of close relatives. On the other hand, any sort of foreign intervention would reinforce a regime narrative that Libya is under attack by outsiders — the Egyptian experience suggests that that xenophobia is the embattled despot’s best friend — and could lead to many unforeseen complications, particularly if Libya slips into a prolonged civil war. 

The WSJ goes further and asks the US to “tell the Libyan armed forces that the West will bomb their airfields if they continue to slaughter their people” and argues that “arming the demonstrators also cannot be ruled out.” Greg Scoblete counters:

 The Obama administration urged Mubarak to the door, so it seems at a minimum it should be calling for the same in Libya. Sanctions, too, make sense. But the idea that we should arm demonstrators and bomb airfields seems rather reckless. The question, as always, is: and then what? Help Libyans rebuild their country? Sit on the sidelines as chaos engulfs the country? Elliott Abrams, no fan of Gaddafi, describes Libya as a “shattered land with no alternative government, no real political parties, and no experience with free elections, a free press, independent courts, or any of the building blocks of democracy.”

Any direct foreign military intervention on the WSJ lines, especially by the US, could, in my view, backfire horribly, by allowing Arab dictators to describe the uprisings as part of a foreign plot. I can see how dangerous a failed state in Libya could be, but this is their business, not ours, unless the West is directly threatened or attacked by elements in Libya. To see the true nature of this regime in the Hobbesian light of day is revealing also of its core instability, its amazing inability to provide basic services or freedoms while enjoying vast oil wealth. This is a horrific reckoning that we must clearly condemn – where the fuck is the UN Security Council? – but not get mixed up in. Eliza Griswold:

When it comes to a functioning civil society, Libya is a near total vacuum. It is home to six million people, not Egypt’s 80 million, who have lived in almost total isolation for 41 years. Internet access is limited. So are opportunities for study abroad for anyone whose last name isn’t Gaddafi. Unlike Egypt, the county is filthy rich, but that money is meaningless for those outside of the regime.

In Libya, global forces have held a limited sway. Unlike Egypt, there are not millions of tourists arriving every year. There are only a small handful of international visitors, many of whom (including me) have received direct invitations from the Gaddafi regime to come watch their petro-dollar Potemkin village function as an “opening” state.

Andrew Exum:

I am already reading calls for the United States and its allies to intervene in Libya, and I think we should all take a step back and first ask four questions: 1. Will an international intervention make things better, or worse? 2. If worse, do nothing. If better, who should be a part of this intervention? 3. Should the United States lead the intervention? 4. If so, what should we do?

All too often in humanitarian emergencies or conflicts, we skip ahead to Question 4 without first answering the first three questions. Let us not make that mistake this time. (Because I don’t myself even know the answer to Question 1.)

Brian Ulrich agrees with Marc Lynch’s call to action:

In addition to the humanitarian implications, the rest of the Arab world has a stake in what happens, for if Qadhafi is successful, he will have crafted a path to regime survival for those facing their own protests, while if he fails, they will be more likely to give in with less struggle.

A reader writes:

I'm not sure why so many commentators continue to express confusion about why the "freedom agenda" was abandoned after 2005.  After the "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon, neo-conservatives were giddy about their success in instituting the new "Arab Spring".  Lebanon was liberated from Syrian occupation, Mubarak announced that he would permit rivals to challenge him in September, Iraq would hold elections at the end of the year, Palestine would follow in January, and Sa'udi Arabia, Jordan, Libya, etc. announced "promising" reforms. So what happened?

Presidential elections in Egypt were hopelessly flawed and the Muslim Brotherhood was "allowed" to win roughly 20% of available seats in the November parliamentary elections.  This was Mubarak's sharp rebuke to Rice's speech in June, and the Bush Administration acquiesced.  In December, only 8% of Iraqis voted for the list of staunch U.S. ally Iyad Allawi.  (The U.S. obviously came to terms with the Shi'ite victors, but the point had still been made).  In January, Hamas emerged victorious in the Palestinian elections.  Democratic "reforms" in other Arab countries, of course, amounted to nothing.

While the commitment to the "freedom agenda" began to wane with each successive electoral rebuke of candidates identified as key allies, the victory of Hamas hammered the final nail into the coffin. With U.S. rejection of the democratic victor in Palestine clear and vocal – and backed by the decision to channel arms to Fatah – any shred of credibility (and there was never very much) for U.S. calls for democratic reform were gone.

If you were having a break this holiday weekend, you might have missed the Dish's non-stop coverage of the extraordinary events in North Africa and the Middle East. All the links, posts, video, commentary, analysis and photos in the Wrap are here.

From Walker’s bill:

16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state-owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).

Without solicitation of bids? How is that frugal? How is that conservative? It couldn’t be anything to do with the Koch brothers, could it? And wouldn’t it be more fiscally conservative not to simultaneously add over $150 million by rescinding tax hikes on those couples earning over $300,000 or individuals earning $150,000 at the same time as asking for sacrifices from people earning a fraction of that?

It’s not the cutting of public sector benefits that concerns me. I think the budget situation demands such cuts, and Walker deserves credit for saying so and following through. It’s the combination of no bid sales to corporations, exemptions for public sector unions like cops and firefighters who backed his election, and simultaneous tax cuts for the successful – in the context of asking for general sacrifice.

I’m glad I took my time on this. In general, I think public sector unions need to take a hit because of the recession’s impact on state budgets, and because of their resistance to experimentation, flexibility and reform, as Reihan noted. But the more I read, the shadier and more ideological Walker seems.

Last night, I heard on Fox News from Stephen Hayes that Wisconsin governor Scott Walker had run on a platform to end collective bargaining rights for public sector unions. I can find no evidence of this in the public record. It isn't on his campaign platform where he deals with "government spending and reform". It's clear that he vowed to slash pay and benefits for public sector unions. Here's an obviously liberal-leaning report that says

Republican gubernatorial front-runner Scott Walker is vowing to cut state employee wages and benefits to help reduce state taxes on the wealthy.

But not end their collective bargaining rights on everything but wages. There's no reference to any such bid in the final gubernatorial debate. Here's another substantive piece on Walker's positions on public sector unions from before the election. Again no mention of collective bargaining. The same can be said about his State of the State address on February 1.

Why does this matter?

Because it seems to me that Walker has a case that democracy means he gets to fulfill his campaign promises. And it also seems to me that the public sector unions should concede much of what Walker is asking for in contributions to their pensions, healthcare etc. And here's why:

Between 1958 and 1974, public teacher pay increased an average of 6 percent a year. After a bitter 1974 teachers’ strike in the small town of Hortonville that galvanized public unions, teacher pay increased an average of 7 percent annually for the next 16 years. It was also during this time that the state and local governments began paying the full amount of public employees’ pension benefits.

That very generous deal was doubtless helped by a very cosy relationship with the Democratic party which is in turn is largely financed by unions, often public sector ones. Hence the inherent tendency for such unions to over-influence their own compensation through the political process. There is an argument, especially after the Citizens' United ruling, that such special clout is necessary to counter-act the massive clout of business or people such as the Koch brothers. But in Wisconsin, it sure doesn't look to me as if the public sector unions have been struggling for the last few decades.

So I think Walker is absolutely right to target such benefits for cuts, given the outlook for the state budget, and the current strains on those in the private sector (although I think it's nuts to simultaneously reduce revenues). But I can also see, given the record of the campaign, why this radical new move – raising the stakes far higher – has prompted the response it has. If you campaign on one platform and then suddenly up the ante, you cannot cite democracy in your defense. And there is something bizarre about Republican commentators who cheered on Tea Party protests against a clear Obama campaign pledge – health insurance reform – suddenly decrying public protests against something a politician didn't campaign on.

Maybe I've missed something in the historical record. And if Hayes – or anyone out there – has evidence of a campaign pledge by Walker to end public sector union collective bargaining on benefits, please let me know. But going through this thoroughly, as long as the unions are prepared to make serious concessions on pay and benefits, I think Walker is over the line.

"When I heard about Eisenhower's presidential accomplishments—holding down the national debt, keeping inflation in check, and fighting for balanced budgets—it hit me that we'd clearly gotten their names mixed up at some point. I couldn't believe we'd been associating terms like 'visionary,' 'principled,' and 'bold' with President Reagan. That wasn't him at all—that was Ike. We deeply regret misattributing such a distinguished and patriotic legacy to Mr. Reagan. We really screwed up," – Reince Priebus, new RNC Chair.

That's a question Noah Millman has been wrestling with:

I lost my own battle with the Jewish dietary laws in Iceland, of all places. I was with my wife and son, on vacation, and we were in a restaurant that served puffin and whale. And my son asked: could I try puffin? And in a moment, I had to decide. Would I say, “no, you may not, even though this is likely going to be your only opportunity, because God doesn’t want you to”? Or would I say, “sure – if you’re curious, give it a try, and if God has a problem with that it’ll be on my head.”

I chose the latter, chose the liberal virtues of curiosity and openness to experience over the conservative virtues of fidelity and restraint.

Paul Waldman points out why on the National Broadband Map:

You'll note the irony that at the moment, Democrats are working to get broadband to every area of the country, yet the places where there are lots of Democrats already have it. Republicans aren't favorably inclined, yet the places where there are lots of Republicans are drastically underserved. Welcome to American politics in the 21st century.

Andrew Solomon outlines them:

Libya is North Africa’s most prosperous country, given its tremendous oil wealth and small population. Yet most Libyans live in deplorable conditions. The state provides little by way of civil society and does not take care of even the most basic government obligations. There are police to control people who stray from supporting the Leader, but there is little else. As a housing crisis has escalated in the past few years, the regime has made no effort to provide adequate public accommodation. Wealth is concentrated in the hands of the very few. It would have been easy for Qaddafi to raise the standard of living for the population as a whole either by creating a sustainable non-oil economy or simply by distributing some portion of oil revenues, but he chose to do neither.