Republican Presidential Candidates

Pres. Obama has already lost the next presidential election as far as thinking people right and left are judging. It does not mean that Republicans will win. The GOP has to run with an electable candidate.

The field of Republican presidential candidates is becoming more readable, I think. Here is my summary.

Herman Cain is very likable and he speaks clearly about his genuinely conservative program. Besides, he looks like a president and women will love his manly manners. That’s not enough to get him elected or to make him electable. Americans will not vote to make president anyone who was not previously elected to something. No amount of good business experience will make up for this. (And Cain, has plenty of that.)

Newt Gingrich is a completely clear conservative. No one explains better than he does the main practical points of a conservative programs for 2012. Unfortunately, no one likes him, I think. There are good reasons to, including his unprincipled flirtations with government support for ethanol.

Gov. Perry lost it all in the last presidential debate. There is no way he can make up for it. He was facing the test of his life with Gov. Romney and he came to the test without having studied. He was not prepared. It’s not a default of knowledge as some pretend, it’s a character fault.

Romney is equal to himself. He is reasonably likable in a sort of metrosexual way. He carries a lot of baggage, including his Mass. health program he has never either really defended nor apologized for. That’s a lot of baggage, especially in 2012 because Obamacare, cousin to the Mass. plan, will be a number one reason to reject Pres. Obama. No one knows for sure whether Gov. Romney is a conservative by today’s standard.

Note: If I turn out to be wrong, it’s going to be about Gov. Romney. He may just be the half-way candidate where the Republican Party voters meet. I sure hope not.

Congresswoman Bachman is another Great Woman’s Hope in the ring. She is clearly a conservative and she is likable in a weird sort of way. (Rearing all those foster children surely was not pretend work.) Politically, though, she is not serious. She said something big-time wrong on the occasion of the second debate, about vaccinations. She will never recover. Here is a the rule of thumb: You may stumble when someone else hands you a question, especially when it’s an enemy handing you a trap question. (I am reminded of Gov. Palin being asked perversely what she thought of the “Bush Doctrine.” I would have flunked too.) You may not, however, tell falsehoods on a topic you, yourself chose. It matters little whether you are lying or merely ignorant. I am not even sure which one I prefer.

Ron Paul sounds like he whines. It may not be his fault. I could be like Pres. Bush’s alleged smirk, just a physical thing with no intention behind it. Paul will always get some support because there are significant numbers of loyal Libertarians who wish to work within the Republican Party. He will never get much more support because they, the Libertarians, don’t dupe anyone. Their isolationism in foreign policy is perceived as a lack of patriotism. (Full disclosure: I am a libertarian – small “l” – who is a registered Republican. I am struggling with the inherent contradiction between libertarianism and the necessary American armed stance. See my recent essays on the topic: “Libertarian Military Isolationism: Forward All with Eyes Tightly Shut,” “The Libertarian Project and American Military Power. “ )

Congressman Paul declared in the second debate that the armed forces spend 20 billion dollars (US D 20,000,000,000) annually on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan. See the rule of thumb above. Like many ideological purists, he will come to believe just about anything that seems to support his ideology.

Then, there is what’s his name who stated categorically in a debate that, “ 97 % of climate scientists” believe in man-made global warming. You can’t say that. It’s  dogmatically stupid. If it were true, we would not know it and therefore, no one can affirm it. The man sounds a little stupid, perhaps because he answers before he thinks. Bad trait for a president. Forget him.

And then, there is the other what’s his name whose sole contribution thus far is a good wisecrack about dogs and shovel-ready jobs.

Gov. Christie of New Jersey keeps insisting he is not running. He is not the mincing type. I think he is telling the truth.

It all does not ad up to much, so far. Time to get excited.

Klan Murdered Michael Jackson!

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

———————————————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–

—————————————————————————————————–

——————————————————-

Why would you pay any attention to something so stupid? You need not tell me the answer. You need to tell yourself.

—–

Illegal Immigration: Bad Faith and Mental Confusion

When I have insomnia, I watch the news and news commentaries in a language other than English. Looking at the same object from different angles makes you smarter, I think. So, the less I sleep, the smarter I become, and the smarter you become, indirectly (to a very small extent, I realize).

Early in the morning, there is a long interactive discussion about immigration on Univisión’s “Despierta America “(“Wake up America”) First, comes a badly illustrated, falsely descriptive jeremiad by a Hispanic immigration advocate. He is what I called in academia, a “professional Mexican.” I don’t know what he is getting at. He is not doing anything useful. He only perpetuates a sort of 1970s exploitation narrative that does not even make me feel young. The advocate complains bitterly of course, that today or yesterday, several hundred illegal immigrants, presumably all with a rap-sheet, have been gathered nationwide for deportation. The charming and beautiful anchorpersons play along. Everybody refers to “immigration.” No one ever says, “illegal” immigration or even “undocumented” immigrants. Next comes an immigration lawyer. He takes questions on-air from callers who want help to fix their status as people who entered this country illegally, some, several times. Still, there is no reference to illegal immigration in general; the topic is still simply “immigration.” The show remains on “immigration, “ no qualifier. It makes you wonder if there are any people from Spanish-speaking countries of the Western Hemisphere who ever entered this country legally.

The confusion between immigrant and illegal immigrant in this largest of Spanish-language television networks in the whole world, Univisión, constitutes a massive exercise in collective bad faith. It’s not going to help in the next political stage. No wonder conservative stay pissed off. No wonder their anger at illegal Hispanic immigrants sometimes comes to resemble anger at Hispanics in general.

Speaking of conservatives and of their distaste for illegal immigration, it does not help that they are confused on several important points. The fact that this country does not seem to be able to control its borders, the fact that its official immigration policies do not serve our interests, that’s all bad enough. We, conservatives, don’t need, in addition, to entertain and to propagate false notions of the burden immigrants, legal and illegal impose of us.

First, let me repeat that immigrants earn slightly more money on the average than the native-born. In our economic system, this means straightforwardly that immigrants contribute more, on the average than the native-born. Second, there is a widespread idea that illegal immigrants (illegal) consume government services while they don’t pay taxes. However common this belief, it does not withstand the most superficial examination. Here is why: It’s probably true that illegals avoid paying the federal income tax and also what state income taxes there are. That would be because they fear that filing government paper entails a risk of detection and of deportation. They routinely exaggerate the risk but it’s understandable.

Illegal immigrants however cannot avoid any indirect taxes or most other taxes, be they property taxes (that support schools), sale taxes, or excise taxes, including both federal and state tax on fuels. You might think that’s not much until you remember that 46 or 47 % of Americans do not pay any federal income tax. It’s likely that the % of Americans not paying state income tax is identical or, even higher. Thus, only illegal immigrants who situate themselves somewhere near the top 50% income bracket or within it would have to pay income tax at all if they filed. How many can that be? Think it through, don’t dismiss the thought out of hand.

What am I telling you?

It’s likely that illegal immigrant pay something close to their normal share of all taxes. I mean of the taxes they would have to pay if they were legal immigrants or US citizens. Not worth getting into a tizzy over, I say!

I know I have not dealt with payroll taxes, including taxes that support Social Security and Medicare. It’s likely that, by and large, illegal immigrants don’t pay those either. Reason is fear of detection again (see above). I know what you mean. I am with you. I wish they would pay those, right now, or at least, tomorrow. Please, follow through with this thought also. You will be amazed.

Bad faith, intellectual dishonesty on the one side; utter confusion fed by angry indignation on the other. It does not look good unless some conservatives will come to their senses. (Hint: The Wall Street Journal does a good job on the topic of immigration but it’s doing it so quietly hardly anyone is paying attention.)

 

PLEASE, THINK OF FORWARDING TO YOUR CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS.

Le gouvernement va tomber!

J’ai un frere qui vit en France et qui lit plusieurs journaux francais tous les jours et toutes les esemaines. Il m’a suggere recemment que le prssident Sarkozy ne serait pas re-elu a cause de som bandistisme et de clui de ses proches. (Mon frere n’a pas utilise ce terme mais je lis entre les lignes.) Voici ma reponse. (Je m’excuse pour les accents. Mon logiciel anglais exigerait que je les forme un par un. C’est trop demander.)

“J’avais bien suivi l’affaire des valises de Karachi. La responsabilite de Sarkozi est sur ce plan a zero pour le moment. Je ne voudrais pas qu’on me tiennent pour responsable de touts les actions de toutes mes connaissances et de tous me associes depuis quinze ans. Et toi?

Sarkozi va tomber, la Gauche française va faire un malheur pour les memes raisons que les Socialistes prennent la raclee en Espagne, pour les memes raisons qu’Obama et le Parti Democrate vont perdre les grandes elections, l’anneee prochaine en depit de la desorganization du parti Republicain, en depit de son manque de candidats attrayants. C’est le meme scenario partout: L’economie europenne et l’economie americaine sont tres mal en point. Les partis au pouvoir sur le moment paient la facture. Ce serait vrai si Sarkozy etait un ange aux manieres exquises. La raison sous-jacente est que nos peuples ne veulent pas grandir: Tout le monde  veut croire qu’il y a un adulte au volant et qu’il sait tres bien conduire.

Ceci dit, Obama est plus nul que la moyenne et exceptionellement obstine.”

The Libertarian Project and American Military Power

On September 14^th, I posted an essay on the widespread Libertarian blindness regarding the diverse violent threats this society faces:

“ Libertarian Military Isolationism: Forward All with Eyes Tightly Shut.”

Crackpot, a talented blogger who represents well the people I target in my essay responded on September 15^th. His response appears as a Comment on this blog. Following the original posting.

Some readers may want to look at one of my old postings by way of introduction, unlimbering, warming muscles: January 5, 2011: “Peace At All Costs….”

Crackpot responds in three segments. Two segments deserve to be collapsed together into one. I can dispose of the first segment quickly and it’s not directly relevant to our discussion. Our main discussion is whether Libertarians are, in fact, dangerous pacifists.

Incidentally, it seems that Crackpot does not think there is any danger left from violent jihadist terrorism or that perhaps, there never was notwithstanding the Twin Towers.

Crackpot starts with an argument with me on imperialism in general. As I said, it’s not important but I don’t want to let politically correct inaccuracies and exaggerations slip by. So, here I go.

There was considerable popular enthusiasm for de-colonization when it happened in the sixties and seventies, it’s true. As I have affirmed repeatedly, without ever encountering serious contradiction, forty and fifty years later, it’s pretty obvious that ordinary people in many of the former colonies would be better off now had those countries remained under the colonial boot. In many of those countries, regular people are even worse off today than they were in the sixties, on the eve of decolonization. (See my “Somalia and Famine: Déjà Vu,” posted August 13 th 2011)

Do former colonial people have a right to prefer starvation under masters of their own blood to modest prosperity under blue-eyed administrators and settlers, Crackpot seems to ask of me? Certainly! However, in most cases we will never know what they would prefer because consistently blood-thirsty indigenous regimes have replaced in many places the indolently repressive colonial powers. If they, the former colonial subjects, open their mouths to answer, they are immediately slaughtered. In some cases,admittedly rare cases, they are even eaten by their overlords. This may sound hopelessly naïve but I believe with all my heart that none of the colonial masters ever ate their charges.

Thus, Crackpot, engages in a denunciation of imperial rule in general. In spite of what precedes, I don’t have a great interest in the subject. I certainly do not advocate that the US conquer the world for the hell of it. Instead, I am in favor of active, armed forward defense. Sometimes, as in Iraq, this results in Americans being forced to rule over others. I agree that this is a generally bad idea. (For one thing, we are less willing as a rule, to murder adversaries in their places of prayer than are many others. That puts us at a disadvantage.) This judgment does not prevent me from repeating the obvious: American rule sometimes, often, usually, results in social progress in the countries ruled: Ask the surviving German Jews, ask the Japanese who thrived under the thorough constitution bestowed upon them by MacArthur like they never had thrived under their own institutions. Plus, it’s now unlikely that any Sunni Iraqi leader will soon destroy most Kurdish villages with biological weapons. The reverse is just as unlikely. And, though the Taliban continue to throw acid in the eyes of little schoolgirls in Afghanistan, even National Geographic will tell you that the practice has become rare since the US and NATO invasion. So, I am not making any excuse but let’s not lose track of my argument. Here it is:

The United States must be strongly armed at all times to discourage attack. It must often project its military power forward, outside of its borders. An American military stance that does not obey these two simple imperatives is a strong obstacle to progress toward the kind of world to which libertarians (small “l”) aspire. That is true although I have no difference with the Libertarian observation that war and war preparation habitually promote government expansion.

Wishing we did not need an active defense just does not make it so.

The heart of that portion of Crackpot’s “Comment” that actually addresses my original essay I find broadly irresponsible. It can be fairly summarized as follows:

There could emerge serious and dangerous enemies in the future as there have been dangerous enemies in the past, such as Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, and even the Soviet Union. However, each time it was called upon to do so, the US got rid of the danger in three years or less. (My paraphrase, not his.)

I think Crackpot expresses well the secret thinking of fellow Libertarians. If I am wrong, I hope they will correct me.

Crackpot is quite right, historically, but he seems completely ignorant of, or indifferent to, the price one pays for allowing one’s enemies to initiate hostilities. Here is a summary: World War II cost about 400,000 American lives and Korea, about 50,000.

If you read anything at all about the period preceding World War II, you will soon realize that hardly any Japanese military or civilian leader believed Japan could win a drawn-out war against the US. One faction of the military (only a faction) thought that it could keep the US away from Japan’s main military aggression elsewhere by discouraging it with a sudden, unexpected and decisive blow. That was the reasoning behind Pearl Harbor. There was no other reasoning ever presented.

Had the US possessed large armed forces in 1941, Japan would have been unlikely to attack because the one-blow speculative bet would have had not value. Absent the Pearl Harbor sneak attack, Hitler , in turn, would not have made the horrendous mistake of declaring war on the US. There is a fair chance then that 300,000 young Americans or more would have been able to lead normal lives with wives and children. Had there been no Pearl Harbor, the US might still have been drawn into the war but it would have had the advantage of doing it in a time and place of its own choosing. The number of casualties would have been lower, possibly much lower.

Let me repeat what I believe in light of my historical understanding:

- The US has to hurt bad guys so they will not hurt us and also so that others will be less tempted to try it. (The Chinese are watching closely our withdrawal from Afghanistan. Want to bet?)

- We should hurt bad guys as far from home as possible. Since our military actions abroad usually result in improvements for the local populations, we should not be paralyzed by the sure prospect of collateral damage. Similarly, as I have said, the US military command was not paralyzed by such fear while large American armies were fighting in France between June 1944 and approximately February 1945. I am forced to repeat myself. I hate that!

- Constitutional democratic government in a country with a strong anti-authoritarian cultural tradition is the most likely womb for the gestation of a good approximation of a libertarian society. There is only one such country to my (considerable) knowledge. A determined attack by a small country armed to the teeth, such as North Korea, or by a large country with plenty of nuclear weapons such as Pakistan, or even by a terrorist organization, has the potential to create havoc with our society. I don’t mean through the direct military results of such an attack but, I mean, by undermining our economy.

Below, to finish, are some largely unrelated corrections I have to bring to some of Crackpot’s sometimes exotics statements.

The Soviet Union crumbled under the combined weight of its own incompetence and of the increasing burden that the arms race with us imposed on it. That’s according to retired Soviet generals.

It is not the case that there is “no end” to the US intervention in Iraq. As of this writing, it’s ending in three months. You can be sure I deplore this fact. It’s a Bush failure confirmed and re-enforced by the ineffable Obama supported by a corps de ballet of Libertarian ballerinas. If it were my decision, I would stay there forever or until such time as Iran becomes a normal country, whichever came first.

Balkanic people are not slaughtering one another wholesale anymore because we, with our allies, stopped them. That’s a kind of success, in my book. Tastes differ, of course. I never argued Kosovo would give Switzerland a run for its money as a civilized state. Neither do Illinois nor Louisiana, by the way.

“Petty tyrants” can easily become dangerous if they are allowed. Look at the fat-bellied little dwarf in North Korea. I am not willing to risk Seattle, or even Anchorage, or even Vancouver, B. C. Are you, Crackpot?

Bizarre Conservative Ideas About Immigration

I have told several people on the Internet that Gov. Perry was inaccurate in calling Social Security (SS) a “Ponzi scheme.” That’s because what’s morally and also legally objectionable in a Ponzi scheme is that sooner or later the scheme runs out of late investors, or rather, investments, to pay off early investors. Whether SS will so run out depends entirely on two things: 1 Whether fewer late investors may provide large investments to pay off early investors. This may even happen painlessly given high economic growth. 2 Whether there will be many more late investors in SS than mechanically (dumbly) prolonging demographic trends would predict.

The US population may rise much faster than it is now growing through natural increase, including through natural increase fomented by deliberate economic measures. Or the American population may rise suddenly and healthily because our immigration policy is transformed. This could happen overnight and the beneficial effects on SS could be nearly instantaneous. Let me concentrate on this scenario.

Imagine that Congress and the President (not this one, maybe another) decide to admit each year for ten years 100,000 additional healthy and literate foreigners age 20 to 35. Solid research suggests that such a selective opening of borders might aggravate unemployment initially but that it would shortly spur economic growth. The effect of adding one million new people in the best of their working years over ten years would make the fear that we are running out of workers to support the non-working population considerably less relevant. Of course, I am selecting the low number of 100,000 per year deliberately to avoid causing panic without a name. (Numbers admitted legally each year in recent years were about 1,1million.) In fact, there is no obvious reason why the new immigration could not comprise 200,000, or even 500,000 people annually. Certainly there are sufficient reservoirs of potential immigrants worldwide to achieve such numbers.

My monitoring of talk-show radio leads me to suspect that many conservatives think that if this could happen it would already have happened. This misconception in turn is rooted in the bizarre ideas conservatives tend to entertain with respect to our immigration system.

There are two main bizarre ideas: One regards who is allowed to come into this country (legally, I mean); the other strange misconception has to do with how aliens become US citizens.

The system by which the US admits immigrants is a little complicated and its description relied on a specialized legal jargon. In my considerable experience, few people have the patience to sit through a lecture on American immigration policy. So, let me cut to the chase:

There is no way, zero way, the average married Mexican can legally immigrate into this country.

There is only one way the average married Irish man or woman may immigrate into this country: Winning a lottery. In 2008, only about 48,000 people, all from Europe and Africa, gained admission on the basis of winning that lottery.

That’s it, folks. If you want to know more about the raw numbers, study the relevant pages in the Statistical Abstract of the US.

So, contrary to what I suspect is a widespread idea among conservatives, it is not the case that there is an orderly, wide-open legal way to immigrate into this country that illegal immigrants perversely ignore. Illegal immigrants are not rudely jumping to the head of the line; they come in trough a side-door we don’t seem able to close.

Instead of the present  admission policies (plural)  based on viciously absurd selection we have, we could take a page from the Australian and from the Canadian playbooks. That is, we could coolly decide what kind of immigrants we want and tailor a door to those precise dimensions. Presently, we are doing very little of this, however unbelievable it may sound.

Incidentally, I am a product of a rational immigration policy myself.  I was admitted on merit alone. I rest my case!

On to the next misconstrued idea: In fact, in reality, to be allowed to become a US citizen, to take American citizenship, requires several years of residence in this country after being legally admitted.

Hence, personal preference plays little role in determining which immigrant does not become a US citizen. I don’t have the numbers but I am sure that, as a rule, the vast majority of legal immigrants adopt American citizenship shortly after they are legally empowered to do so. It is true that, in theory, some hesitation, some problems may arise in connection with some countries of origin who do not wish to recognize dual nationality. In practice, depriving anyone of his passport is low on the list of priorities of all countries from which new US citizens originate.

The consequence of this scenario is that, contrary to what I think is a widespread notion, there is no horde of legal immigrants living in this country and peevishly and disloyally refusing to take American citizenship.

It also follows that there is no mass of illegal immigrants who obstinately refuse American citizenship. It’s not available to them, period.

If follows from these simple observations that with simple changes in the laws governing immigration, you can modify profoundly the prospects of SS. Conservatives have given this solution essentially not consideration. Yet, contemplating significant policy changes is more dignified and more in line with conservative seriousness than are gross and self-defeating exaggerations as employed by Governor Perry.

Incidentally, at this point, hours before the third Republican debate, I would vote for Perry.

If you want more thinking material about immigration, there is a direct link on this blog to my co-authored article on immigration published in The Independent Review: “If Mexicans and Americans….”

Islam: A Religion of Peace?

A few days ago, in Pakistan, white, blue-eyed Christian Crusaders slaughtered 35 Muslim pilgrims in their bus.

Oops! My mistake. The victims were indeed Muslims, Shiite Muslims, to be precise. In Pakistan, the Christians are a small persecuted minority and only two or three of them have blue eyes. They couldn’t have done it. I wonder who did all that killing.

With all the best disposition in the world, it’s hard to take Muslim intellectuals seriously because they hardly ever own up to the big crimes committed by their kind.

Muslim extremists have murdered tens of thousands of other Muslims.  Many of the victims were slaughtered in cold blood during religious services, in places of prayer. That all makes it difficult to subscribe to the idea that Islam is ” a religion of peace.”  I keep trying. It’s not becoming any easier.

News From Palestine

Big News? The authority in charge of 2/3 of Palestinians living in territories contiguous to Israel seeks recognition at the UN for a Palestinian state. I am not sure why this is news. Several comments: Neither the US nor Israel have any standing to tell Palestinians if they can have a state or not. And I don’t know why anyone believes that the UN has the power to decide who has a state and who does not. It’s not a world government and it sure as hell is not the superior global court. The General Assembly is a collection of real totalitarian regimes, tin-pot dictators, some in the process of losing all, such as Al Assaf, of ordinary rakes, of a few democratically elected leaders, and of the occasional cannibal. (If you don’t believe this, look up: “Jean-Michel Bokassa.”)  The Security Council is comprised of the victors of WWII, two out of five by courtesy, if you ask me (France and China). The Palestinian leader who is conducting this maneuver was elected in proper elections but his mandate ran out two years ago. Imagine Obama continuing in the White house until 2016 without an intervening election. Come to think of it, I would rather not even think about it!

The other third of Palestinians in contact with Israel live in Gaza where they elected, also in proper elections, a theocratic party that thinks its primary God-given mission is the elimination of Israel. That’s to the exclusion, for example, of fixing sewers that overflow into the middle of the streets of Gaza City. The rulers of Gaza, Hamas, do not want a state, at least, not that state.

(For the wish t eliminate Israel, see the link to Hamas charter, on this blog.)

So here is a general reminder: The territory your group occupies is a state if other states treat it as such. No vote required, no vote really useful. My prediction: The General Assembly will declare the West Bank a Palestinian State but not Gaza. The Security Council will not vote for a Palestine because the US will veto it. Some Palestinians will demonstrate in the street with shouts of “Death to America.”  We will continue giving every Palestinian $200 of my tax money each year. It’s cheap. International insults have cost me more in the past. In the meantime, don’t get your short twisted about Palestinian statehood.

PS  My opinion: The sooner there is a Palestinian state, the better. A sense of dignity often changes people’s behavior. Having a state will also diminish the capacity of a big part of Palestinian political opinion to act like a brat.

 

French Sleaze-Bag Banker To Leave Politics

Dominique Strauss-Khan (DSK), the horny French banker is appearing on a French television show today or tomorrow. There, he will explain what really happened to a famous television journalist who is a good friend of his wife.

There is still a civil suit going on in New York against DSK,  brought by the lying chambermaid. A young French woman is also suing him in Paris for attempted rape, several years after the fact. The young woman’s mother is a big shot of DSK’s own Socialist Party. She, the mom, revealed that she had had an affair, a consensual one, with DSK several years earlier. The “affair” took place after hours in the offices of an international organization in Paris, presumably on a desk. (I cannot guarantee this detail.) Mom insists that the affair was consensual but she has also said that DSK was a “brutal” lover. In French code, it means that he subjected her to unsolicited and possibly unexpected sodomy. Don’t blame me for prurience, I take seriously my role of cultural interpreter. You would have to travel far and wide to find anyone interpreting French culture to Americans with greater clarity!

A serious poll reveals that more than half of French people do not want DSK to return to politics. Apparently, this loss of love is not due to DSK’s sexual proclivities. Rather, the scandal in New York revealed how luxuriously he lived. High living is the one thing the French electorate will not forgive, especially, the Socialist Party electorate whose backbone is made of school-teachers.  About possible rape, even confirmed rape, even mass rape, they are open-minded. Flying first class: Pas du tout!

PS : I got most of my information in Le Figaro on-line. It’s a centrist daily newspaper. It’s reasonably serious, as French newspapers go. I mean that the whole French press tends to have problems with facts. They are recalcitrant to it!. See my article on French intellectuals in  Liberty Unbound.

Libertarian Military Isolationism: Forward All, With Eyes Tightly Shut

This is an incomplete response to Crackpot’s “Comment” to my posting entitled:

“Tripoli, Libya: What’s not Discussed in the Media; Augmented: Looting.”

The essay was posted August 26 2011.

Here in italics is the Comment itself:

Dr. J, you are starting to sound more and more like a pretentious Leftist who is too proud to admit he has been wrong. Here is what you said on neoconservatives and Saddam Hussein:
“I am a libertarian who prefers military intervention to destroy Hussein, Stalin, Hitler, to ideological purity.
Neo-cons were not impelled only or mostly by a desire to install democracy in the Arab world. If they had been, they would have chosen an easier nut to crack than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Tunisia comes to mind. They wanted to repair the mistakes of the first Gulf War when a chance to rid the world and Iraqis of a bloody monster was squandered.”
This sounds an awful lot like you are saying that Bush only invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. I look forward to the amusing way in which you will try to wiggle out of this. You are an intelligent man, so I am sure it will be good. Incompetence on this point is out of the question, though I think a lack of attention does indeed play a part in it. In fact, I think that lack of attention on the part of the neoconservative movement in general with regards to foreign policy plays a big part in our current quagmires in the Muslim world.
Speaking of a lack of attention (I hope your more intelligent readers are not as inattentive as you have been on the subject of foreign policy), the libertarian case for neutrality and commerce abroad does NOT stem from “ideological purity”. Rather, it stems from the readily-verifiable fact that our interventions abroad have created more monsters and more problems for the world than would otherwise have occurred. Again, I ask you how Saddam Hussein came to power, and how he acquired chemical and biological weapons to butcher his own people with. It also stems from the age-old wisdom of knowing that war abroad limits freedom at home.
The United States did not install or embolden Hitler or Stalin. It has, however, installed and emboldened plenty of dictators since the end of World War 2. I am willing to grant a number of concessions on this point. The Soviet Union was a murderous and imperialistic megastate bent on world domination. Socialism would have impoverished the last quarter of the globe that the United States had influence over if we had not made a stand with a powerful military.
With that being said, the Soviet Union collapsed under its own murderous weight two decades ago.

I beseech both you and your readers to consider the following: is the libertarian Right really akin to the soft-hearted Leftists (and Stalinist apologists) of the 30’s and 40’s (you were what, in your forties then?) when it advocates a foreign policy of neutrality and commerce, or is it more akin – like our economic and civil prescriptions – to tough love?
Just think about it for a minute: the neoconservative narrative on foreign policy calls for the U.S. to wage war on genocidal dictators (most of whom we have inadvertently or otherwise created) in the name of liberating – nay saving! – oppressed peoples everywhere. Does this not sound like the socialists of the 30’s and 40’s calling for drastic and extreme measures to save their societies from imminent exploitation and destruction? Think about how both camps view the Rule of Law in this regard.
On the other side of the argument, you have calls for peoples to fight their own fights, if need be. Not because of a perceived barbarity on their part, but due to the respect for a stranger that one should have simply on the merits of being a man alone. What is so ideologically pure about letting people fight for their own freedom? About respecting the decisions that they come to? And about setting a good example to those who yearn for a free and prosperous society? That sounds like tough love to me, and it would also avoid taking a side that may end up being far worse than the oppressive force overthrown in the first place.

Here starts my own essay:

We are dealing with important issues, to my mind, with the reason why the Libertarian Party never gets any political traction although many Americans and more and more Americans share most of its views of the world. I refer to the desire for much smaller government. The Libertarian Party can only get one person elected to Congress and this, under a false label. I vote for Libertarian candidates myself, but only for offices whose functions I don’t understand well such as California “Secretary of State.” I am not even adept enough with decimals to describe the percentage of the votes the Libertarian Party draws in Presidential elections. This is strange because, I repeat, the number of libertarians in this country seems to be high and growing. I mean: “libertarians” with a small “l.”

The reason I am referring to why libertarians don’t enroll en masse into the Libertarian Party is the latter’s military isolationism. Although it may have different theoretical foundations, it’s hard to distinguish in practice the Libertarian Party’s military stance from naïve pacifism. It also resembles closely lack of patriotism although Libertarians will proclaim loudly that no one loves this country more than they and suggest that others love it from a perspective lacking true understanding. Incidentally, I don’t know if Crackpot is a Libertarian Party member. It does not matter much whether he is or not past this acknowledgment because his words resemble closely the party line propounded by such Libertarian (capital “L”) as the Independent Institute and its President and founder, David Theroux. Incidentally, those are an organization and a person I like and respect in every other way. It just seems to me that they take leave of their senses when they speak of national defense. I even had David Theroux tell me once on Facebook that the solution to threats from abroad as presented by Al Qaida was for this country to issue lettres de marque. (Go ahead, Google it, those of you who stayed in high-school instead of dropping out like Bill Gates.)

In the “Comment” of reference, Crackpot makes strange statements regarding what I said about the reasons for invading and liberating Iraq. I put my response to these strange statements at the end of this essay because it’s not directly related to our main dispute. At the same time, it’s important because explanations of the war in Iraq have become a litmus test of political tribal membership and, at the edges, a test of political rationality. (When I had a radio program, I knew to turn off whenever someone made a noise to the effect that the federal government, or Pres. Bush, or the CIA, were “behind it.”)

Incidentally, Crackpot, no “wiggling” needed for me to deal with this as you affirm devilishly. It’s straightforward.

So, why the Bush administration invaded Saddam Hussein’s Iraq is Part 3 of this essay. Part 1 is the response to Crackpot’s assertion that American military interventions usually make things worse. Part 2 is the core of this essay. It explains why libertarians (small “l’) would be wrong to make a doctrine of military isolationism. Note that this whole essay is addressed to people to whom I am close politically. It does not talk toliberal girlie men or to progressive scum.

American military interventions make things worse.

Crackshot affirms: “…our interventions abroad have created more monsters and more problems for the world than would otherwise have occurred.”

It’s wonderful to possess such clear vision and such certitude about reality. I am at a disadvantage right there in arguing with Crackpot because I am not nearly as sure of anything as he sounds. Wars always involves gambling. That’s one reasons you should not start them, as a rule. As I shall try to show, responding to armed attack involves much less gambling. And, of course, I am not personally neutral on the topic of American militarism in general. There is a good chance I would have died or grown up an orphan had the US not invaded France militarily in 1944, thus stopping the Nazis from starving the French as they had starved the Poles and much of the Soviet Union.

Of recent wars in which the US took part, it seems to me that the intervention in Vietnam was counterproductive and may have made the Communist regime there even more repressive than it would have been otherwise. Before that, American military intervention in Korea was morally commendable, principled, legal, and brave. It was successful although the US had stupidly disarmed immediately upon the victory in WWII. If you don’t believe it was a successful war, ask for a tourist visa for North Korea. I hope you get one. Tell me if I can help.

The Cuban missile crisis was not a war. It was a military threat that averted sure war, likely devastating war on the US mainland. Half-baked American pressure on Cuba after the missile crisis, on Communist Nicaragua, and elsewhere in Latin American , including the somewhat farcical invasion of Panama, was every time the lesser of several concrete, easy to imagine evils.

Of the two attacks on Fascist Serbia, one, to relieve Bosnian civilians took place too late; the other to save Kosovo civilians was fine. Both were successes in every way, sparing the lives of thousands and eventually causing the fall of a mad dog dictator. I too am sorry that the sick Islamic world does not give the US much credit for saving tens of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo but we did not do it for gratefulness.

The current “lite” intervention in Libya should find some grace in Crackpot’s eyes. It cost something, of course but others are doing all of the dying and in the process, we got rid of someone who killed Americans and got away with it. Yet, something tells me he, Crackpot, disagrees with this one too. Thus the resemblance with unconditional pacifists.

Incidentally,it seems to me that the humane obligation to help, even with military means, does not appear in the Libertarian agenda. From that simple humane standpoint, I learned a lot about what happens when the US does not intervene. The Cambodian and Rwanda genocide come to mind and also the on-going campaign of rape and massacre in Darfur. But since Crackpot seems to have decided to ignore moral considerations and notions of humanity, I will try to speak the language of real politik. If I am wrong about moral considerations, please, Crackpot, correct me and we will take it from there.

I imagine that the current American-led NATO and other allies military operations in Afghanistan represents well what separates us, Crackpot and me. First, it’s costly. I think it’s cost me personally almost $170 per year. That’s almost as much as one tenth of what I used to spend annually on cigarettes. More importantly, Americans have died there without much tangible progress being registered. I am ashamed to report that there even is serious talk of reconciliation with the same Taliban that sheltered Bin Laden and shot women in the head at half-time of soccer games. The American death toll there, of all causes, is about 1800 in ten years. It’s thus about 18 times fewer than die meaninglessly on American roads in a single year, incidentally. I know it sounds callous but facts matter and also orders of magnitude.

One gets the feeling that America and its allies just don’t know how to fight an Afghan war, or not much better than others before them. It’s possible to imagine that not a single Afghan is really appreciative of our sacrifices because Afghans are the kind of people who would rather have their throats cut by another Afghan that accept a cup of tea from an outsider. And there is considerable though unknown collateral damage on the Afghan civilian population. Well, there was also a great deal of collateral damage in France in 1944 because of American military action. (It included the destruction of the beautiful 17^th century walled city of Saint-Malo which sheltered eighteen German soldiers, including secretaries.) What we know is that if the Taliban get back into power, they will again prevent little girls from attending school and forbid music. That’s in addition to offering succor to more violent jihadists: Why should they abstain if they feel that they got the better of us in a ten-year confrontation?

The most important contribution of the US in my lifetime was, of course, its military watch over western Europe, lasting forty years and capable of turning into a large, hot conventional war or a nuclear war at any time. Although, I am less sure of most things than Crackpot, it seems self-evident to me that this country’s armed stance during the Cold War, its ability to maintain large numbers of men under arms, its big expenditures on advanced weapons system, its large military budget (about 4% of GDP), allowed, made possible a Pax Americana lasting sixty years. That period saw the greatest historical rise in the ability of large numbers to live lives of dignity. We need not speculate much on what the alternative to Pax Americana might have been. It would have been slavery under various forms of fascism, or it would have been a life of misery for all under the other form of totalitarianism I need not name because it’s on everyone’s tongue.

A Defense Establishment, War and the Shrinking of Government

I might understand why Crackpot does not see the obvious. Does he think, I ask, that there would have been no Nazism and no Communism absent a powerful and willing military? Or does he believe that if this country had not given offense by arming itself to the teeth, the Nazis, or the Communists, or both, who have simply held amiable conversations with us and decided on fair measures to fill the gap separating us? Hitler, would not have been tempted by the fact that our army ranked famously in numbers behind Romania’s, I wonder? And Stalin, who asked how many divisions the Pope could line up. would have seen reason and stayed home, right?

And by the way, do Libertarians believe that there is no threat out there that is not of our own making? Does not Crackpot and his blind fellow-travelers believe that assorted hoodlums and crazed fanatics are watching our steps, noting every stumble? Of course, he and they know all the above well enough. They work hard at keeping their blinders on because the truth is too awful to behold.

Yet, I sometimes have a feeling, a feeling only, that my reasoning seems naïve to sophisticates like Crackpot, as it does to sophisticates of the Left. I sense that they think there is somewhere a more refined, better informed analysis of the effects of militarism and war for which mine is but a crude substitute. Fortunately, after thirty years I academia, my bullshit detector is both powerful and exquisitely refined:

Bullshit!

I suspect I know why Crackpot and Libertarians don’t wish to accept the obvious. It’s because of the consequences they think this would have on their direst political wishes. Here it is; you heard it from me.

Libertarians and libertarians (small “l”) want less government, especially less of the federal government. They want to shrink government. That’s what I want also. Ideally they hope for a future with nearly no government.

Well, all of history shows, and shows with numbers, that war and the preparation for war invariably increase the importance and power of government vis-à-vis civil society. That is always true at least unless the arming nation loses the war, as did Germany and Japan in World War II.

With this correct view of historical reality, admitting also the reality of military threats from foreign sources is too awful. If we pretend it’s not there, it’s not, say Libertarians. And if we pretend the threats are all our fault, it’s almost as good because we can extinguish the threats in short order through our own behavior. Instead of going to war with the certainty of casualties and of an expansion of government and with the uncertainty of the outcome, we only have to persuade our fellow citizens to stay put and quiet. We know from election results how well Libertarians have accomplished this peaceful objective.

The truth of the statement regarding the incompatibility of war and of its preparation with the dwindling away of government is inescapable, I think. It does not mean that adults should avert their eyes from the other truth that there are many threats to our national existence and to our lives.

Presently, there are those who hate us, who would like to kill us, who killed us, for what we are, not for anything we did. They want to kill us, among other reasons, because they think their religion tells them they must and also because your teen-age niece exhibits her belly-button. It’s all mixed up I their minds. And then there are those who don’t mind risking war with us because they want to be us. It used to be the Soviet Union; now, it’s Communist China. It never stops. There is no reason to believe it will ever stop. Our best bet is an unfailing and constant demonstration of overwhelmingly superior force accompanied by steely resolve. And yes, I repeat it, maintaining such superior force and keeping our resolve will affects adversely the accomplishment of a libertarian program (small “l”). Yet, it’s worth doing. Here is why:

I can think of only two scenarios for achieving progress toward the libertarian ideal of much smaller government. The first scenario, we can observe (prudently) from afar. It’s the Somalian scenario. Internal strife reaches a point where the main organs of the state dissolve and the sovereign state is replaced by warring gangs. Civil society does not seem to fare well under this scenario. There are large famines and piracy -which is sure eventually to attract a storm of steel and destruction – becomes a primary source of livelihood. I am sure my mild and civilized Libertarian friends are not looking to ward the Somalian scenario to achieve their objective.

The second scenario is the progressive winning over of voters in a constitutionally run society, such as this one, to a program of lesser government. Once a first phase of lighter government proves itself, a further shrinking of the sate by political means will be envisaged and, etc.

I don’t see a libertarian polity developing in an economically backward or otherwise weak society. I fear that Libertarians think of constitutional democracies has immortal and decreed by God instead of the small accident of history they are. So, they underestimate greatly this obvious fact: Everything that menaces the existence of constitutional democracies a fortiori undermines progress toward minimal government. Likewise, everything that makes the populace feel threatened-such as the 9/11 mass murder – must retard our progress toward the libertarian utopia. Every act of saber-rattling motion by a large and economically growing power such as China will cause the same populace to act timidly. Even saber rattling by piss-ant nations such as North Korea will achieve almost the same result if we don’t think that we possess superior force. To advance, we must feel and look practically invulnerable. I don’t see the alternative but I am paying attention.

I keep hoping Finland will show us the way as I keep hoping the Finns will take over from us the task of making the world safe. I am sure the Finns would do a better job than we. Unfortunately, the Finns keep not volunteering!

Why the Bush Administration Invaded Iraq (One More Time!)

The Bush administration thought Saddam Hussein ( “SH” ) had weapons of mass destruction including poison gas, such as he undeniably had used on Kurdish villagers in the past. It also believed it had biological war agents and that it had made unknown progress toward completing nuclear weapons. The French and the Russians, who refused to go along with the US action, believed the same things. There are reasons to think that SH’s generals, or some of them, believed the same. It was difficult, it is difficult, to understand why SH would have thrown out the UN inspectors if he did not possess such weapons. It turns out there probably were no such weapons You had to be able to think like a SH massively divorced from reality to believe simultaneously that there were no such weapons and that the UN inspectors needed to be ejected. The preponderance of decision-makers in the Bush administration were unable to think that way.

There is no doubt in my mind that G.W. Bush and his political entourage also had a program in mind that went beyond destroying SH’s sanguinary regime. I think they wanted to make an example, a virtuous example. Specifically, they wished to demonstrate that “democracy” could take root just about anywhere. I don’t wish to have a schoolish discussion about the meaning of the word. Roughly, we can agree on the following: government that is representative through real elections, peaceful alternance in power, an independent judiciary, freedom of the press. I mean no more. You can mean what you want but that’s all I am talking about.

The Bush administration couldn’t very well start a war with any tin-pot tyrant out of nowhere just to make this demonstration. They thought they had to make do with what they had. SH offered himself with thousands of violations of the cease-fire he had signed in 1992. Also, Bush had the weakness to think that some sort of UN mandate would give the endeavor legitimacy, as if the UN were some sort of world government or possessed any sort of moral authority. (It’s hard to forgive Bush for this.) He had such a mandate from day one. He got it renewed right before the invasion.

Crackshot asks where SH got his weapons of mass destruction in the first place. The answer is: A little bit everywhere including in this country. The US helped him against Iran in the 1980s for the same reason, the US sent Stalin thousands of tons of war matériel to use against Hitler. Having one monster help destroy the other is a commendable practice.

Lost in the shuffle, absent from Crackshot’s tirades and strikingly absent from most contemporary discussions in the mass media is that G. W. Bush won the war and accomplished all his objectives. It would be easy to convince me that the cost was too high, that it could have been handled better, etc. Same for the occupation of Japan, same for Korea, same for Italy, same for Germany, and for a long time. In fact, today, Iraq has representative institutions. Iraqis vote in larger proportions than do Americans even when they risk their lives to do so. No observer has alleged that Iraqi elections were less honest than, say, Chicago elections. There has been a peaceful transfer of power at the national level. I tell myself that if the Iraqi judiciary lacked independence, the story would be on NPR twice a week and in the New York Times every day. It’s not. I do know that the guy who threw a shoe at visiting G.W. Bush was not dragged outside and beaten to death. He received a light sentence, just as you would expect. And, there is no question that Iraq has a free press. So: “Mission Accomplished!” That’s just for the record. I would say that the Iraqi Republic less than nine years later, and in spite of is failure to establish perfect domestic security, looks better than the French Republic did in 1798.

This little development does not address all the issues of whether it is desirable for the US to become militarily involved in another country, of course. It’s a start for a discussion between libertarians.