Month: August 2011

by Patrick Appel

Conor Friedersdorf is blind to the dangers of putting Paul in the White House:

What's the worst that Ron Paul could do? Try to get America back on the gold standard, only to find that he doesn't have the votes in Congress to do it? I am not just being funny. Though Paul has some radical domestic policy ideas, I just don't see any of them getting passed into law. And in foreign policy and national security matters, the areas where he would exercise the most unchecked discretion, he is the candidate you'd least expect to unwisely provoke or launch a war.

Yglesias outlines major problems with Paul. Wilkinson continues asking the media to give Paul more coverage. And Erica Grieder sees Paul's as a net positive, but her argument rests on him losing the nomination.

My fear is simple: Paul, like Bachmann, is comfortable being the only no vote on massively popular legislation. His ideological rigidity would result in a de facto government shutdown wherein almost all legislation would require a two-thirds majority in both houses in order to override Paul's veto. Like Conor, I find aspects of Paul's ideology attractive; Paul's defense of civil liberties, desire to end the drug war, and foreign policy restraint are all sensible.

But imagine the debt-ceiling debacle with Paul or Bachmann in the White House. Imagine the 2008 financial crisis if the government had a president unwilling to act. Or consider more mundane legislation, like passing an annual budget. Paul wouldn't need to get his nutty domestic policy agenda passed into law in order to wreak havoc; he'd only need to stymie the most basic and routine actions of the US government.

(Photo: Signs for Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) are stacked outside the Hilton Coliseum in Ames, Iowa on August 13, 2011. By Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

by Zack Beauchamp

In the same vein as the Lynch post Patrick highlighted, Tom Finn thinks Qaddafi's fall has revitalized Yemeni revolutionaries:

With little prospect of NATO or other foreign troops on the ground in Yemen, Saleh may not be as rattled by the Libyan experience as some might hope. Yet the sight of Qaddafi behind bars could still have an earth-shattering effect in Yemen. If Egypt was anything to go by, Libya might still prove inspirational enough to set things here in motion again.

Rania Abouzeid thinks the same about Syria. Larison worries about the downsides:

The danger here is that emboldening protesters in the absence of any prospect of outside backing is just the sort of irresponsible thing that “rollback” advocates did in Hungary and the first Bush administration did in southern Iraq after the Gulf War. The scandal of American inaction in those cases was that Washington had led people to believe that the U.S. would side with them if they rose up. However, our government had no intention of doing this. That empty promise of support prompted them to take risks that they would probably never have taken without this encouragement, and they suffered greatly because of it. Outside intervention in Libya has always had the potential to mislead other protest movements into expecting direct backing from the U.S. and other governments. It might also conceivably encourage protest movements that the best way to gain outside backing is to provoke harsh crackdowns by taking up arms. Viewed this way, it is not an entirely good thing that protesters and revolutionaries are emboldened. Of all the supposed demonstration effects that the Libyan intervention was supposed to have, this is the one that I have rarely discussed.

Ed Husain pushes back against replicating the Libya model in Syria. Husain's argument that Syrian protestors are demanding Western intervention is critical to Larison's position. If it's the fall of Qaddafi simpliciter, and not the fact that it was accomplished via Western intervention, that's inspiring Syrians and Yemenis, then the dangerous effect Larison's talking about here wouldn't be at work in this case. If people are mostly energized by the sight of Libyan's celebrating and Qaddafi's fall more broadly, and still don't want Western intervention, then they're not hinging their protest strategy on a Western intervention that won't be coming. Whether or not Husain's right is an open question at this point.

(Video: Syrians in Homs on August 21st chant "Al Gadaffi tar tar, isha dorak ya Bashar" which the uploader translates as "Gadaffi flew Away! Bashar Your Turn is Next!")

by Maisie Allison

Politico defines the establishment zeitgeist post-Daniels, Pawlenty, and Ryan:

The problem, in shorthand: To many conservative elites, Rick Perry is a dope, Michele Bachmann is a joke and Mitt Romney is a fraud. … “In some ways, [the current field is] less satisfying because this is a particularly policy-heavy moment and the most wonky of the wonky issues are front and center,” said Yuval Levin, the Hertog Fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. “We feel the absence of policy intellectuals more.”

Along the same lines, Jim Antle assesses the ongoing search for a "consensus conservative." John Ziegler takes on Republican delusions. Jennifer Rubin is dismissive of the meme, imagining that Romney and Perry will "grow" during the campaign. James Warren blames voters for ordering empty political calories. Levin now retracts his dissatisfaction. Larison is amused that the "elites" interpreted Pawlenty's "desperation to pander" as wonkiness. 

Allahpundit asks the Dish's next question:

Why aren’t more of these guys backing Huntsman? He’s centrist-ish to put it mildly, cosmopolitan, has come out publicly in support of Ryan’s budget, and is eager to set up camp on the elite side of elite/grassroots fault lines like evolution. He may be a bit too dovish on Afghanistan for some establishment hawks and his support for a larger stimulus with more tax cuts might be unpalatable to establishment fiscal cons (although maybe less so now with a double dip looming), but as a fourth or fifth preference behind Daniels et al., why wouldn’t they gamble on him? I assume that’s always been part of his longshot strategy — win over a few movers and shakers inside the GOP and then hope that their support plus the party’s deepening melancholy at the thought of nominating Romney will bring other big players around to his side.

I suppose getting behind Huntsman requires too great a risk (and not just because he hasn't made a dent in the polls). As Steve Kornacki argues, Huntsman has asked for some uncomfortable soul-searching from a party that has been "gripped by a siege mentality" since Obama was elected.

For years conservative elites, opinion leaders, and institutions have accommodated and even justified (and celebrated) the right's delusions and extremes. They exchange "intellectual" partisanship for incremental influence and the stupid satisfaction of Republican political victories. It is utterly short-sighted. "That final victory" is slipping away. 

The GOP field is sadly lacking in an election that is by all accounts its to lose. I think it's clear that conservative elites helped make this bed.  

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

Asexual reader here. With regards to your questions about cheating and monogamy, while I do know more non-monogamous asexuals than sexuals, I haven't noticed a trend in the community at large – at least any more than in any community that would be open to the idea at all. Keeping in mind that this is just me as a romantic asexual and others I know, kissing would be considered cheating by most (I would), but cuddling is largely considered a platonic activity as well as a romantic one, and I doubt there would be much of a fuss.

Of course, this assumes there's even a sensual aspect of a romantic relationship in the first place – I know some couples who don't enjoy hugging/kissing. The most important definer in a romantic relationship is usually the emotional side in addition to enjoying each other's company, a this-is-the-person-I-want-to-spend-most-of-my-time-with sort of thing.

There's also a fair amount of asexuals who are aromantic (don't desire romantic relationships) but do want a long-term platonic partnership. I don't know as much about that, so I won't comment further, but I thought it should be noted.

Another writes:

I'm an asexual and a daily reader of the Dish. Here's how I think of "cheating": it's dishonesty and concealment on topics you find very important – emotionally, romantically or otherwise. For most people, sex is one of those big topics. For me, it's really not. The idea of a romantic partner having sex with someone else doesn't distress me, and though I've never been in the situation, I don't think it would be a deal breaker if we were honest with each other.

There are other forms of dishonesty that I would probably find more distressing. Dishonesty about ethical views, say, or about a partner's emotional life more generally. The bonds of intimacy can break abruptly and painfully. The sense of "cheating" as the cause of this breakage applies to asexuals, but to the extent that the term indicates sexual jealousy, I don't think it applies to me.

Asexuals are as diverse as any group, and I know that others feel differently. Not all would be okay with an "open relationship." But honesty is imperative for all categories of relationship.

Another:

I've recently (and sweetly) ended a year-long relationship with someone who perfectly fits your definition of an asexual.  It was the most romantic, thrilling connection I've ever had, conducted mostly by texting, with a man 35 years younger (yes, we had met accidentally and the chemistry was powerful).  He assured me that although he had many friends, he was not sexually involved with anyone – but I failed to ask him if he was *physically* involved with anyone.  It was when things got to the point of his arriving in the middle of the night to cuddle that I put 2+2 together and drew the line – mainly because I could see I was headed for hurt.

(Image of a Privacy Shell via LikeCool)

by Patrick Appel

TNR is holding a symposium on the state of the economy and what can be done about it. Here's Richard Posner, who sees no viable way forward. Stephen Rose is upbeat in comparison:

The economic pain is real, but not as widespread as many believe. The maximum fall in real GDP per person was just 6.3 percent, while median income fell by just 4.4 percent. Certainly, America has too many people living at or near the poverty level. Yet, there has been relatively little increase in these numbers: According to the latest Census report on incomes in 2009, the share of the population in poverty and the share of the population below twice the poverty line have each gone up by just two percentage points since 2007. This is also reflected in the share of people describing themselves as “poor” or “lower middle class” in various Pew polls, which has also increased by just 2 percentage points (from 26 to 28 percent)

Ulcinj, Montenegro, 3.15 pm

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

Your summary and Rend Smith's report on Marijuana use and arrests in DC was interesting. However, I am disturbed by misleading presentation of the data. Specifically, the graphic juxtaposing use rates among blacks and whites next to demographic breakdown of all arrests is rather problematic. Given that white and black population are not equal in size, the comparison of behaviors within two different groups with the racial composition of the pool of individuals arrested is not a fair comparison. It does not demonstrate the real difference in how much more likely a black pot smoker is to be arrested than is his white counterpart.

While there is still a rather significant difference here (and Smith notes this in the text — an arrest rate ~8 times greater for blacks than whites), it is disappointing that his article presents a graphic that makes it appear to show even more bias than actually exists. The real difference is significant enough to require no more propagandized exaggeration.

Another curious omission: while whites and blacks appeared to make up 99% of all marijuana arrests in 2007, together they make up a little less than 90% of the population of the District. The remaining 1% of the arrested come from a ~10% of the population, a rate lower than that seen for either of the aforementioned.

As an alternative, a reader recommends this infographic of Chicago marijuana arrests by race. It should be noted that whites outnumber blacks in Chicago.

by Zack Beauchamp

David McRaney summarizes some sobering research:

In a political debate you feel like the other side just doesn’t get your point of view, and if they could only see things with your clarity, they would understand and fall naturally in line with what you believe. They must not understand, because if they did they wouldn’t think the things they think. By contrast, you believe you totally get their point of view and you reject it. You see it in all its detail and understand it for what it is – stupid. You don’t need to hear them elaborate. So, each side believes they understand the other side better than the other side understands both their opponents and themselves.

McRaney's research suggests we ought be humble about our conclusions – it's totally fine to have opinions and express them vehemently (I wouldn't be geting into the blogging game if I didn't think that), but it's a different thing entirely to assume that because you think you're right, there's literally zero chance the other side could be. I was trying to make this point about arguments-from-credibility yesterday, but did so in such an epically inartful way that several readers and E.D. Kain took it as claiming Libya war critics had lost their credibility. That, as some of E.D.'s commenters explained much more clearly than I did,  was the opposite of the intended point.

People like to impute the absolute worst (stupidity, amorality, etc.) to those who are on the opposite "camp" in the argument by mere fact of disagreement. Every one of their mistakes is magnified by this psychological effect, to the point that the mere fact of being on their side is grounds for dismissal of their views.  The problem is as present in debates about military intervention, the issue I was highlighting, as it is on abortion, health care, Israel, Drew Westen's argument about Obama, and so on. McRaney's blog highlights a number of different cognitive biases beyond the one discussed in the above excerpt that exacerbate our blind spots about our own opinions. The only real checks are to consciously try to engage fairly with opposing arguments and to relentlessly critique our own assumptions. This an argument not for epistemic relativism (people are, in fact, wrong sometimes!), but for humility. We very well could be wrong on the issues about which we are most certain, so we should welcome dissent rather than try to run dissenters out of polite opinion. Even if they've been wrong before.

by Zoë Pollock I’ll defer to (the very svelte) Patrick on whether newlyweds gain weight after marriage, but Amanda Hess raises some interesting concerns about post-marriage disparities:

Married men make more money and get more promotions than single guys. They live longer, have less heart disease, drink less, smoke less weed, and experience less stress. Meanwhile, married women have less fulfilling sex lives and less free time than their husbands. They also have smaller paychecks. (They do get to keep smoking the same amount of weed). These factors help explain why women are less into marriage than men are. And they may also contribute to the gendered risk of gaining weight after getting hitched.

Bluntly, marriage “is more beneficial for men than for women,” write Ohio State University sociologists Dmitry Tumin and Zhenchao Qian. “Men after marriage do not gain [significant] weight because they enjoy a healthy lifestyle and receive stronger emotional support”—in other words, they’ve got the time, energy, and help to maintain a steady weight, thanks to the sacrifices of their spouses.

(Photo: Engagement photos (with zombie) of Juliana Park and Benjamin Lee by Amanda Rynda)

by Zack Beauchamp

Chris Steven thinks NTC ability to control Tripoli is a key test of what we're in for:

Factionalism has been a key problem among Libya's rebels in this six month war, with the still unexplained murder of army commander Abdul Fatah Younis seeing units loyal to him coming back to the front and threatening violence against NTC officials they blame for the killing. Their anger was assuaged only with the appointment of a new army commander, Suleiman Obedi, who is from the same Obedi tribe as Younis. Another split has been between Misrata and Benghazi. After the assassination, Misrata rebel army spokesman Ibrahim Betalmal underlined to the Guardian that Misratan units did not accept orders from NTC military command, while continuing to remain on paper loyal to the NTC. The NTC has included members from different parts of Libya in an attempt to present itself as a government in exile, but those members were chosen by Mustafa Abdul Jalil and his Benghazi-based colleagues, and many parts of Libya, including Misrata, the third city, and the capital, may refuse to accept that these appointees represent them. The litmus test of NTC authority will be the ability of Jalil to establish control over rebel forces now spreading out across Tripoli, and whether the Gaddafi regime, likely soon to be shorn of its leader, tries to reestablish itself as a political force.

James M. Lindsay talks with Robert Danin and Daniel Serwer, who add more reasons for both for worry and hope. Christopher Hill believes international assistance will be integrally important in establishing a post-Qaddafi order, but Ackerman reports that if that means troops, it sure won't be Americans. It was right to celebrate Qaddafi's hard-won downfall, but now comes an equally difficult, if likely harder, part. Check out the interesting exchange between Glenn Greenwald and Marc Lynch for further commentary.