Month: August 2011

by Zoë Pollock

A study of 339 present-day hunter-gatherer groups demonstrated that after "every doubling of population, the home ranges of [those] groups increased by only 70 percent":

Every additional person requires less land than the previous one. That’s an important statement. Not only does it say we’re hardwired for density, it also says a group becomes 15 percent more efficient at extracting resources from the land every time their population doubles. Each successive doubling in turn frees up 15 percent more resources to be directed towards something other than hunting and gathering. In other words, complex societies didn’t just evolve as a way to cope with high-density—they evolved in part because of high density.

(Video: Lilium Urbanus from Joji Tsuruga on Vimeo.)

by Zack Beauchamp

It's become fashionable recently to dump on the idea of America as a "global policeman." Chris Preble summarizes how the view is commonly understood:

That is because the Libya story will be fit into a familiar narrative, one in which the United States is portrayed as uniquely suited to be the world’s government, with the U.S. military as a global constabulary, responding to threats large and small, distant and proximate. The Libyan intervention, according to the defenders of the status quo, demonstrates that there is no alternative.

But what Libya really shows is this strawman, believed by perhaps only by a neoconservative rump, is never how thoughtful defenders of America's international obligations have understood "global policing." What the success of Obama's "leading from behind" shows is that America's ability to right global wrongs is about much more than the simple deployment of U.S. forces. It's about our friends, too.

Police forces aren't made up of one member. There's a chief, sure, but there are also detectives and uniformed officers who work with the chief. The chief guides their efforts, but each of them works on their own towards the general goal of enforcing the law.

It's better to think of the U.S. as the global police chief rather than sole policeman. We may be the strongest of our allies, but by no means do we take lead role in solving every problem. American allies work like detectives: they conduct crucial operations in support of the general task of keeping the global peace and creating a better world.

Libya demonstrates how the police chief system works. After the initial phase designed to halt Qaddafi's move into Benghazi, American forces played only a supporting role, letting NATO allies take the lead. Though our contributions (especially in terms of high-tech capabilities) were invaluable, no one would say American forces were doing most of the legwork.

That's the essence of "leading from behind:" convincing other states to shoulder some of the burden of creating a just international order. The U.S. provides limited help in areas where it has a significant advantage, but it outsources lead responsibilities to allies whenever possible. U.S. influence is exercised indirectly through bilateral contacts between states, mulitlateral organizations like NATO and the U.N., transnational networks, and "soft power" ideological and cultural means of influence. The idea is to limit U.S. involvement in order to husband the resources that America needs to lead in the first place.

Ultimately, that's why neoconservative critics of Obama's "weakness" and realist critics of American "empire" both get it wrong. "Leading from behind" isn't about abandoning American leadership – it's about exercising in a manner that's not completely self-defeating. Being a global policeman doesn't mean "wars all the time everywhere!" – it means enlisting allies to help us with global governance.  Yes, that occasionally means military intervention by the U.S. and/or allies when the intervention in question passes basic just war theory tests, but doesn't mean the hallmark of the international order is perpetual use of military force. And our allies aren't limited to Old Europe – the U.S. can, with skillful diplomacy, work with rising states like India, which has demonstrated its commitment to global governance through its significant contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations.

International police work is important. Not only is it morally required for rich, powerful states, but it's good for them in the long run by limiting dangerous instability. Luckily, Americans don't have to conduct every patrol on their own.

by Zoë Pollock

Plastic surgery attracts Brazil's underclass:

For many consumers attractiveness is essential to economic and sexual competition, social visibility, and mental well being.  This “value” of appearance may be especially clear for those excluded from other means of social ascent.  For the poor beauty is often a form of capital that can be exchanged for other benefits, however small, transient, or unconducive to collective change.

(Photo: Brazil's Plastica magazine by Flickr user Hollywoodsmile78)

by Zoë Pollock

Mark Liberman examines the Perry lilt and his generous use of "if you will."

by Patrick Appel

Rick Perry is walking away from unpopular parts of his book, Fed Up, which was published under a year ago. Ezra Klein suspects this won't work:

There is no chance that the Perry campaign is going to convince anyone that his book is not a useful guide to his thinking. What will happen if they try is that they will draw attention to its most radical passages, make their candidate look insincere, and signal to the other campaigns and to Republican elites that even Perry’s advisers think Perry’s book makes him vulnerable. Fed up with ‘Fed Up!’ as they may be, they’re stuck with it.

by Maisie Allison

Byron York captures the dilemma: 

On election night 2010, Republican strategists conducted a poll that asked GOP voters…which issue had been most important in deciding their vote. Fifty-four percent said jobs and the economy, versus 10 percent who said the deficit and federal spending. This month, after months of fights over budgets, continuing resolutions, and the debt ceiling, the Republican pollsters asked another simple question: "Which is more important — reducing government spending or creating jobs?" Sixty-five percent said creating jobs, versus 30 percent who said reducing spending.

Ryan is perhaps the single Republican most associated with the cause of reducing government spending. Until now, most Republican presidential candidates have been hesitant to fully embrace Ryan's budget plan, which among its many proposals calls for a voucherlike program to reform Medicare. If Ryan were in the race, there would be one candidate running wholeheartedly on the budget; if he were the nominee, the Ryan plan would be the Republican Party platform.

Jim Antle insists it's not worth the risk. Allahpundit is enthusiastic, but likewise doesn't see a path to victory. Reminding us of the political radioactivity of entitlement reform, Larison continues to pour cold water. Taking on conservative skeptics, John McCormack downplays Ryan's liabilities. Chait, who has been on the case for months, concludes:

If you think the substantive radicalism of Ryan's agenda is more of a liability than the on-the-surface craziness of a Rick Perry, you have a much higher estimation of the electorate than I do.

And naturally, Douthat explains why Chris Christie would make a better candidate. 

(Photo: House of Representatives Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) takes the stage before addressing the Peter G. Peterson Foundation 2011 Fiscal Summit at the Mellon Auditorium May 25, 2011 in Washington, DC. Ryan's recent budget proposal includes reforms in Medicare and Medicaid that many Democrats have vilified in the charged political environment of budget negotiations. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

by Chris Bodenner

A report from Michele's homestate paper:

Bachmann appears to have represented the IRS only twice in cases tried in U.S. Tax Court — both small cases — according to a search of judicial records by attorney Melissa Wexler, a research expert at Westlaw, a major provider of computerized records. One was a win against a White Earth Indian Reservation resident named Marvin Manypenny, who contended that part of his modest income was not taxable under treaty rights. [… The other] was a 1990 IRS win against a blue-collar Gateway Foods worker from La Crosse, Wis., who didn't file a tax return for several years. The most he ever made during those years was $23,470 and his six-year tax deficiency was estimated by the IRS at $13,500, records show. The taxpayer, who lived with his parents for lack of money after a divorce, represented himself in court.

The WaPo denounces Bachmann's most recent rhetoric against her former employer:

"I went to work in that system because the first rule of war is ‘know your enemy,'" Ms. Bachmann told a crowd in South Carolina on Thursday.

As Post blogger Greg Sargent pointed out, this was a change from the explanation that Ms. Bachmann normally offers for her résumé. In the past, she has said that her four years as an attorney representing the IRS gave her insights into the tax code and why it must be reformed. The notion that from the start she was infiltrating a system she considered to be "the enemy" seems to be a new spin.

But our objection to her statement goes beyond the fact that it may not be true and beyond the bellicose language. We find it disturbing that someone seeking to lead this country and become its government’s CEO would view any of its agencies as the enemy and government service as honorable only if it takes the form of undercover opposition.

Cange, Haiti, 9.02 am