The Dish

Today, I have a column in the San Diego Union Tribune in the subject of health care, and just how much is wrong with Britain’s National Health Service, which Michael Moore praises in his new film.

I’ve just finished watching the GOP debate on George Stephanopoulos’ show, and I’m struggling to pick a winner.  I think I’m going with Giuliani, but only just.  Here’s why. 1. The big thing that impressed me about Giuliani’s performance today was his ability to distinguish himself from the President, and indeed based on my reading of their prior statements, McCain and Romney, on the question of democratization as a major foreign policy tool.  Possibly my biggest critique when it comes to the Iraq War has been of those leading the charge (i.e., neoconservatives) who have demonstrated their utter, and misplaced, faith in people voting as an answer to all of our problems– despite all the evidence we have seen from Algeria, Gaza and the West Bank, and now Iraq, that just letting people vote does not a) guarantee democracy as we tend to conceive of it or b) guarantee that the country holding the elections will automatically shift its behavior, and become more attuned to US interests and objectives.  I have always identified in both neoconservative and liberal approaches to foreign policy (which in truth are not all that far apart in terms of their conceptions) a deep undercurrent of belief that if we just let people vote, they’ll move much closer to us, and if every country in the world were a democracy, there would be peace everlasting.  Now, I don’t believe this, but the real reason that I have a problem with it is because this kind of thinking fails to lend appropriate weight to the role that an established and recognized system of liberties plays in enabling a democracy to thrive– and it fails to recognize that without that basic foundation of liberties, democracy cannot thrive.  This is essentially the theory espoused by Fareed Zakaria in an essay he wrote back in 1997, which has remained probably my favorite essay on international relations since back in the day when I was still studying for my MA– and it’s a theory that many liberals and neocons just completely ignore, but which Giuliani evidenced in one of his answers today, he is not ignoring.  Whereas I feel that both McCain and Romney (and to be fair, the latter to a much, much greater extent) have been willing to ignore the distinction between what Zakaria would term "illiberal democracy" (which is what we see in Iraq and many other parts of the world, where voting preceded the establishment of a foundation of liberties) and "liberal democracy" (which is what we have here, and in the UK, and in India), Giuliani evidenced that he gets this.  This is a major point for him to score with me, and it’s something that makes me much more confident in his ability to run an effective foreign policy that will be very different from that of Bush-Cheney (which I don’t think has been very effective at all).

(more in the continuation)

www.lizmair.com

2. Some people won’t like this, but I think Giuliani was absolutely right to say that Barack Obama had a point in his comments about Pakistan this week.  And apart from Romney having a good line to throw out, criticizing Obama, he basically demonstrated his total naivete and untrustworthiness when it comes to foreign policy with his answer.

While I agree that it isn’t ideal to have public figures of any sort saying "hell yes, I’d bomb Pakistan" (it puts President Musharraf in a difficult position with his critics, no doubt), were Al Qaeda pinpointed at a precise location in Pakistan, were a call placed to Musharraf asking him to take them out, and were he to refuse or were the Pakistani military to refuse to act, absolutely it would be the right move for the US to go in and take action.  This is effectively no different a situation than what we saw with Afghanistan, after 9/11– except much, much smaller scale, and in a country with a "friendly" leader– though I would underline that Pakistan, in terms of its population, is not exactly friendly to the US. 

Romney’s view seems to be that alliances are static and that we have to abide by them and do exactly what our allies want, even when it is not in our own national interest.  This is exactly the kind of thinking that, were he in office, and were that thinking implemented as policy, would risk us de facto taking orders from foreign regimes (like Pakistan, or hell, let’s just throw out France).  That’s something that should sit badly with the party, and should sit badly with Americans.  While it’s almost always better to cooperate, and work with people, and rely on diplomacy and collaboration, instead of seeking out conflict and behaving like the proverbial bull in a china shop, at the end of the day, it is absurd, I think, to suggest that one should say "OK, we’ll just ignore that all the Al Qaeda members are assembled in one easy-to-target location, because our ally has asked us to, and we’ll sit on our hands, even if it gives Al Qaeda an advantage."  If these people really are a major, existential threat, that kind of thinking makes no sense.  It’s time for a good dose of realism to be reintroduced into US foreign policy, and I cannot see Romney doing that to any notable measure.  But I can see it happening with Giuliani, at least a little.

3. Giuliani’s answer on what mistakes he has made was just inspired.  And he did a very good job of explaining supply-side economics (side note: I hope Romney economic adviser Greg Mankiw was watching this, and I’d love to know what he has to say about Giuliani’s answer, since the guy has described views like these as representing "extreme" fealty to supply-side economics, something from which we can only presume his candidate doesn’t suffer).

Ultimately, I think McCain, Romney, and in fact Mike Huckabee did decently (Ron Paul didn’t do as much for me as he has in previous debates, but maybe that’s because he didn’t call for eliminating the Department of Education), but Giuliani has to be the winner for me.

When I saw Liz’s post, my first thought was, I didn’t even know there was a debate. It reminded me of that scene in one of the James Bond movies where some mobster throws Bond’s lady friend out a window. She ends up landing safely in a swimming pool, but the mobster tells Bond, "I didn’t know there was a pool down there."

My point is that once upon a time, not too long ago, I would have cared that there was a Republican debate. Now I would just as soon watch an infomercial.

Incidentally, there was something in the Fabrizio poll that I meant to mention for Andrew’s benefit. Republicans were asked if they had any friends or family that are gay. Almost half indicated some gay contact: 18 percent have a gay family member, 28 percent have a gay friend, 15 percent have a gay co-worker, and 1 percent said they were gay. Obviously, there is some overlap among these.

I don’t know what these numbers mean. No comparison to 1997 is presented, so there is no way of knowing whether the contact that Republicans have with gay people has changed. But I think it is reasonable to assume that the figure has grown over time as more and more gays come out of the closet. I don’t what, if any, political impact this may have, but my casual observation is that issues such as gay marriage don’t have the political potency they used to have. This may be because as more and more people realize that they have gay family members and acquaintances, the more they come to accept that it is not a life style decision, but just the way some people are; a condition akin to left-handedness and nothing more.

"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli." "The Godfather."

I’m liveblogging this over at my site, but will post a wrap-up summary later on.

www.lizmair.com

My feelings about the Republican Party are almost exactly the same as Stephen’s. I am reminded that Ronald Reagan always said that he never left the Democratic Party; it left him. I feel the same way. I haven’t changed my philosophical views in any significant way over the last 10 years, but in the pre-Bush era I felt comfortable in the Republican mainstream. Today, I don’t really feel there is any significant element of the Republican coalition where I am comfortable.

This gives me an opportunity to call attention to a poll of Republican voters that hasn’t gotten much attention. Conducted by Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, it looks at the composition of the Republican Party in 1997 and 2007 using a large sample of self-identified Republicans.  Among the interesting results are these.

– The party is more conservative; that is more Republicans identify themselves as conservatives. And the increase is dramatic. In 1997, 55 percent of Republicans called themselves conservative; today 71 percent describe themselves that way. Those calling themselves liberal have fallen from 11 percent to 4 percent, and self-described moderates have fallen from 31 percent to 21 percent.

– In 1997, about half of Republicans said their main concerns were social/cultural and half were mainly concerned with economics, about half being "supply siders" and half being "deficit hawks." Today, only 16 percent of Republicans are primarily concerned with economic issues. About half are still mainly concerned with social/cultural issues, but now more than a quarter of Republicans are primarily concerned with defense and foreign policy. Of this group, the bulk are strong hawks that support the war in Iraq without reservation.

There are many other interesting results in the survey and I urge people to read it for themselves. What mostly comes across to me is that it documents my feeling that the party has changed around me more than I have changed. The wing of the party to which I belong–the supply-side/free market wing–has shrunk dramatically. At this rate, Larry Kudlow will be the last one in another few years.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of a similar analysis of the Democratic Party or the large and growing population of political independents. I suspect that the composition of these groups has also changed, probably in ways that mirror the Republican changes.

A lot of bloggers put party before principle. It’s true on both sides, although it might be a bit more common among high profile right bloggers. (Not that I’m going to name names, mind you, but you know who they are.) Mea cupla. I used to be a yellow dog Republican. These days, however, I think of myself as a disgruntled right-of-center independent. I didn’t leave the GOP, however, so much as it left me. Yesterday, I posted a poll on conservative principles. How many of them does the GOP stand for today? It’s time for conservatives to face facts. George W. Bush has set back the conservative movement for years, if not decades, by betraying conservative principles. We controlled the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and (more-or-less) the judiciary between 2002 and 2004, but what was accomplished? Did government get smaller? Did we hack away at the nanny state? Were the unborn any more protected? Did we really set the stage for a durable conservative majority? No on all counts.

I’ve come to agree with the prominent conservative who wrote of Bush:

Yet the Republican Party, which achieved its greatest vigor in this century during the presidential terms of Ronald Reagan, now seems in the sere and yellow leaf. Permit me to discuss with you, for a quarter of an hour, the domestic errors of the Republican national administration, and then to examine, for the second quarter of an hour, that administration’s blunders in foreign policy.

My task with respect to the fiscal measures of the Bush Administration is made the easier for me by Dr. Edwin Feulner’s "State of Conservatism" message, entitled "Fashionably Out of Fashion Again." I concur heartily in his observation that "after years of steady growth, a combination of new federal taxes, out-of control spending increasing, and suffocating regulatory burdens have conspired to send the economy into spasms." Federal expenditure soon will exceed a quarter of the gross national product; the deficits are among the largest in the history of the United States.

The Bush Administration had one handsome prospect for reducing governmental expenditure, reducing the federal deficit, and possibly even making a gesture at reduction of the federal debt: that is, the prospective contraction of the armed forces. Instead, Mr. Bush has plunged the United States into a war which, so far, has cost about a billion dollars a day. (You will recall that a billion dollars is a thousand million dollars.)

Unless the Bush Administration abruptly reverses its fiscal and military course, I suggest, the Republican Party must lose its former good repute for frugality, and become the party of profligate expenditure, "butter and guns." And public opinion would not long abide that. Nor would America’s world influence and America’s remaining prosperity.

Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson were enthusiasts for American domination of the world. Now George Bush appears to be emulating those eminent Democrats. When the Republicans, once upon a time, nominated for the presidency a "One World" candidate, Wendell Willkie, they were sadly trounced. In general, Republicans throughout the twentieth century have been advocates of prudence and restraint in the conduct of foreign affairs.

But Mr. Bush, out of mixed motives, has embarked upon a radical course of intervention in the region of the Persian Gulf. After carpet-bombing the Cradle of Civilization as no country ever had been bombed before, Mr. Bush sent in hundreds of thousands of soldiers to overrun the Iraqi bunkers — that were garrisoned by dead men, asphyxiated.

A war for an oilcan not turning out to be popular, however, President Bush turned moralist; he professed to be engaged in redeeming the blood of man; and his breaking of Iraq is to be the commencement of his beneficent New World Order. Mr. Bush has waged what Sir Herbert Butterfield, in his little book Christianity, Diplomacy, and War, calls "The War for Righteousness." As Butterfield begins the third chapter of that book, "It has been held by technicians of politics in recent times that democracies can only be keyed up to modern war — only brought to the necessary degree of fervor — provided they are whipped into moral indignation and heated to fanaticism by the thought that they are engaged in a ‘war for righteousness’."

Now indubitably Saddam Hussein was unrighteous; but so are nearly all the masters of the "emergent" African states, and so are the grim ideologues who rule China, and the hard men in the Kremlin, and a great many other public figures in various quarters of the world. Why, I fancy that there are some few unrighteous men, conceivably, in the domestic politics of the United States. Are we to saturation-bomb most of Africa and Asia into righteousness, freedom, and democracy? And, having accomplished that, however would we ensure persons yet more unrighteous might not rise up instead of the ogres we had swept away?

President Bush and Americans of his views doubtless intend the American hegemony to be gentler and kinder than the sort of hegemony that prevailed in the ancient Persian Empire, say; more just even than the Roman hegemony that gave peace, for some centuries, to several lands — relative peace, anyway, at the price of crushing taxation and the extinction of earlier cultures. But devastating Iraq is an uncompromising way of opening an era of sweetness and light. Peoples so rescued from tyrants might cry, as did the boy whom Don Quixote de la Mancha had saved from beating by the muleteers but who was thrashed by them not long later, nevertheless — "In the name of God, Don Jorge de la Casablanca, don’t rescue me again!"

Just now I conclude my thoughts on Republican errors by suggesting that it would be ruinous for the Republicans to convert themselves into a party of high deeds in distant lands and higher taxes on the home front. Such a New World Order, like the Pax Romana, might create a wilderness and call it peace; at best, it would reduce the chocolate ration from thirty grams to twenty. And in the fullness of time, the angry peoples of the world would pull down the American Empire, despite its military ingenuity and its protestations of kindness and gentleness — even as the Soviet Empire was being pulled down today, thanks be to God.

The sad thing is that what I’ve done here is to very slightly update excerpts from an essay by Russell Kirk on George H.W. Bush (you remember, 41). Unfortunately, the son and the people around him refused to listen to these wise words of prudence. As Kirk predicted, the consequence has been "ruinous" for the GOP and the conservative movement.

I fail to really see the benefit of privatizing existing highways.

The problem is the question of a monopoly. A road gets put in a certain place for a reason, serving the people who need the road to get from point A to point B. Once a road is laid down, there’s an inherent monopoly — only one road could be going through that particular spot, and nobody could ever truly compete with it by offering the same product. Someone else could put a road nearby, but not in that same exact location.

Privatization of highways doesn’t really solve that; it just replaces a public monopoly with a private monopoly. And since the whole point of private ownership is that superior products will result through competition, how is any problem actually solved here?

And if competition is to be introduced, offering a similar road nearby, the barriers to entry are enormous. Competition would have to come through a rival company building a whole separate road nearby, first buying up and developing land that could have provided housing, businesses, green space, etc. It would take years to raise the business capital, then take care of all that overhead and construct the separate road, and finally open for business. That sort of situation would hardly put much competitive pressure on a current monopoly holder.

On the other hand, if we were to experiment with road privatization, I know exactly where I’d try it. New Jersey has two separate toll roads that each run the length of the state from north to south, the Garden State Parkway and the New Jersey Turnpike. They’re fairly close to each other, and would be redundant if not for the fact that the state’s traffic needs are so severe.

It might not be a bad idea to quasi-privatize the two highways via indefinite leases, with the condition that the two roads can never come back under the same ownership — any attempt to do so would result in the forfeiture of ownership back to the state government. That way, two companies would have to maintain their roads and offer decent tolls in order to attract drivers to come to their highway as opposed to the other. And since these two separate roads already exist as it is, the barriers to entry don’t apply.

But New Jersey is more of a special case, so specific that it practically disproves the general argument for private roads by demonstrating just what the necessary conditions would be.

On the whole, the case for any grand benefit coming from privatization doesn’t really withstand tough scrutiny. It’s more just a way for state governments facing tight budgets to unload an expense and get a decent cash windfall from the initial sale.

At the end of the day, a public monopoly on the roads is preferable. If people get really angry about a bad road — in case of a bridge collapse, for example — they can vote for candidates who promise road improvements. But the private monopoly wouldn’t have that safety mechanism, and the owners would be unlikely to face any true competition, either.

Larry Ribstein argues that "The Minnesota bridge collapse brought dramatically home what anybody who spends a significant amount of time driving already knew – our infrastructure in general, and roads in particular, are in awful shape."

His solution? Privatization, carefully done.

Here’s Romney coming face to face with the religious right on Iowa talk radio:

It’s long, but definitely worth your time.

Update: I just e-mailed Romney’s press secretary Kevin Madden, asking why the campaign decided to put this particular exchange up on YouTube. His reply:

Because it shows Governor Romney standing his ground and making his case to an interviewer that took him head-on over the issues. He is confident and engaging during a tough inquiry. Folks who have seen the video says it is Governor Romney at his best, so we felt others should have the chance to see it.