OxBlog

Friday, November 30, 2007

# Posted 7:26 AM by Taylor Owen  

I KNEW HE WAS CRAZY, BUT...: "Most army recruits are conservatives with deep judeo-christian values – that’s why we can’t have gays in the military" - Duncan Hunter, YouTube debate. As CG remarks, where is Jon Stewart when you need him...
(18) opinions -- Add your opinion

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

# Posted 6:21 AM by Taylor Owen  

FOUR MORNING U.S. FP QUESTIONS: 1) Should/must Hamas be part of any Mideast peace talks? 2) Should the US keep permanent bases in Iraq, and should US companies get 'first rights' to Iraqi oil contracts? 3) Is decreasing violence in Baghdad because a) the surge is kicking ass, b) forced religious segregation/killing is almost complete, c) they just are waiting until the surge is over to start fighting again, or d) all of the above? 4) What does the answer to 3 mean for a continued US presence in Iraq?
(7) opinions -- Add your opinion

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

# Posted 5:48 AM by Taylor Owen  

BROOKS FISKS DOBBS:
And if Dobbsianism is winning when times are good, you can imagine how attractive it’s going to seem if we enter the serious recession that Larry Summers convincingly and terrifyingly forecasts in yesterday’s Financial Times. If the economy dips as seriously as that, the political climate could shift in ugly ways.

So it’s worth pointing out now more than ever that Dobbsianism is fundamentally wrong. It plays on legitimate anxieties, but it rests at heart on a more existential fear — the fear that America is under assault and is fundamentally fragile. It rests on fears that the America we once knew is bleeding away.

And that’s just not true. In the first place, despite the ups and downs of the business cycle, the United States still possesses the most potent economy on earth. Recently the World Economic Forum and the International Institute for Management Development produced global competitiveness indexes, and once again they both ranked the United States first in the world.
...
Second, America’s fundamental economic strength is rooted in the most stable of assets — its values. The U.S. is still an astonishing assimilation machine. It has successfully absorbed more than 20 million legal immigrants over the past quarter-century, an extraordinary influx of human capital. Americans are remarkably fertile. Birthrates are relatively high, meaning that in 2050, the average American will be under 40, while the average European, Chinese and Japanese will be more than a decade older.
...
Third, not every economic dislocation has been caused by trade and the Chinese. Between 1991 and 2007, the U.S. trade deficit exploded to $818 billion from $31 billion. Yet as Robert Samuelson has pointed out, during that time the U.S. created 28 million jobs and the unemployment rate dipped to 4.6 percent from 6.8 percent. That’s because, as Robert Lawrence of Harvard and Martin Baily of McKinsey have calculated, 90 percent of manufacturing job losses are due to domestic forces. As companies become more technologically advanced, they shed workers (the Chinese shed 25 million manufacturing jobs between 1994 and 2004).

Who said the NYT oped page is avoiding the blogosphere?...I say they are now, post wall take-down, starting to adopt some of its best elements...but that is another post...

Labels: ,

(6) opinions -- Add your opinion

Monday, November 26, 2007

# Posted 7:03 AM by Taylor Owen  

THE REVIEW I WISH I’D WRITTEN: The best book reviews are those that avoid the easy shots, the type of superficial critiques that can be made of any book, and go straight for the gut. Such reviews don’t quibble with details, or point out obvious biases, but rather go after the central thesis of the work. They challenge the core principle.

Such a blow is struck in Leslie Campbell’s review of Naomi Klein’s new book, The Shock Doctrine, published in the Literary Review of Canada.

In much the same way Potter and Heath nailed it re. No Logo, Campbell’s review is so powerful because it fundamentally challenges the central tenant of Klein’s work, that she is providing a progressive alternative to the conservative market forces driving, in her view, global inequality. Moreover, it does so from the heart of the left - The author is linked the to the federal NDP.

Campbell’s core critique is that Klein is not progressive at all, she is actually a conservative. As he puts it:
“A hankering for the old days (in Klein’s case, the era of John Maynard Keynes) and suspicion of change are the hallmarks of true conservatism. Reminiscent of the Canadian Tory wag who once quipped that the Magna Carta was “too much, too soon,” Klein’s admiration of Keynes and the “mixed, regulated economy that created the New Deal” can sound quaint and dated. New Deal economics transformed North America, but positive innovations since then, many based on encouraging entrepreneurial wealth creation and liberalizing trade arrangements, deserve more attention. Also, in critiquing selected international economic transitions—most notably Russia, Poland, South Africa and Iraq—Klein occasionally sounds nostalgic for a past that was, for many people, at least as negative as the present.”
This can of course be said of much of the left writ large, where nostalgia has in many regards replaced progressivism, in any meaningful and historically accurate sense of the term. Certainly in Canada, there can be little doubt that the NDP are the most conservative party in the country (save perhaps the Bloc’s view of Quebecois Nationalism).

Understandably, conservatives are not too pleased with their new bedfellows, but on the central point, Jonathan Kay agrees with Campbell:
Leslie's got it right: As with many anti-corporate activists, Klein's vision for the world is essentially old-fashioned and sentimental. She imagines workers organizing into small-scale collectivist cottage shops of the type that globalization and technology rendered obsolete generations ago. The economic model Klein wants for developing nations is essentially the same one our own grandparents eagerly cast aside when modern capitalism made them rich after the Second World War.
Kay goes on to provide some useful clarity on conservatism and capitalism re. the Klein review, but this is somewhat tangential to Campbell’s critique.

I will avoid the temptation to go further, only to say, there is an emerging progressivism that moves beyond the highly conservative restraints of the socialist left. Something these guys are early champions of. As Campbell concludes, it is tired and out of date:
The book winds down with a rather familiar defence of “democratic socialism” (good socialism as practiced by Hugo Chavez) as opposed to “authoritarian Communism” (bad socialism as practiced by Stalin) or social democracy (cheap sell-out of socialism practiced by Tony Blair, Gerhard Schroeder and their ilk). To those in left-wing circles this is a hoary and tired debate, but Klein resuscitates it as brand new, quoting 1970 memos from Kissinger to Nixon like newfound gems. To have the young and talented Klein, hero to a generation of wired, plugged-in idealists looking for a place in the world, concluding that the political future is “markets existing alongside the nationalization of the banks and mines” is almost as discouraging as having to fight the powerful, unaccountable multinationals she skewered so skillfully in No Logo.
Lest anyone think I, or I think I can safely say Campbell for that matter, are arguing in favor of conservatism. Quite the opposite, as it is the very drift of much of the left that concerns me. More on this later though...

Labels: ,

(1) opinions -- Add your opinion

Saturday, November 24, 2007

# Posted 12:11 PM by Taylor Owen  

LOST DOCS: This is pretty incredible. It also clearly demonstrates the power of the journalistic model Josh Marshall has built.
(3) opinions -- Add your opinion

Friday, November 23, 2007

# Posted 8:54 AM by Taylor Owen  

ONE GOOD AND ONE BAD...: move by the current Canadian government. First the good. Along with other Commonwealth members, and in notable contrast to Bush's recent statements, Canada has led the way on suspending Pakistan from the Commonwealth.

Now the bad. The current government is trying to shut down the supervised injection site in Vancouver. The site has been an unqualified success, and serves as a portal to getting people into the health care system. If anyone thinks these people should just be locked up, watch this short but tragic globe and mail documentary. That's right, just lockin'em up will do it. Nonsense. This gets directly into a discussion of the seriously flawed irradiation policy that will likely be undertaken this winter in Afghanistan. I'll have more on this asap, but just to muddy the waters a bit, Canada exports almost as much illegal narcotics as Afghanistan. Perhaps we should start at home, or, shockingly, with the demand side of this problem.

Lest one think these are unrelated, the war in Afghanistan has brought to light wider international issues that directly effect our potential success. Both Pakistan and the opium trade are serious destabilizing forces in Afghanistan. Dealing with both is therefore critical to our continued involvement. As Dave and I argued, here, there are deal breakers in this war. The status quo on both Pakistan and the global opium trade, are unsustainable.
(2) opinions -- Add your opinion

Saturday, November 17, 2007

# Posted 9:14 AM by Taylor Owen  

BEST. STATISTIC. EVER.: A CNN/Time Magazine Fall 2000 poll asked respondents whether they were among the wealthiest 1% of Americans - "Yes," said 19 percent.
ht - KO.
(14) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:13 AM by Taylor Owen  

FLYING HIGH: Why is it that flying is seen as a license to drink at truly disturbing hours of the day? The guy beside me just ordered a wine. It's 9 in the morning and what's worse, it's only 7 where we are going to land in less than and hour. while were on the topic, the same is true for airport lounges. Where else is it ok to down a four finger scotch with your danish at 11am? Ah, life on the road...

ADDENDUM: Since this post generated such interest, let me add a further example to prove the rule...just took the overnight from Calgary to London. It's an 8 hour flight. Took off at 9pm. Lots of drinking with dinner, understandably. However, a woman across the isle from me ordered a beer with her breakfast. Now, this is that horrible breakfast where the wake everyone up 2 hours before landing. Granted, it was technically 10am where we were landing, and 3am where we came from, so neither are totally inappropriate, but in the context, i think it proves my initial observation.
(27) opinions -- Add your opinion

Thursday, November 15, 2007

# Posted 5:15 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE McCAIN SURGE? At some point in October, the debate ended about whether there was a significant drop in violence in Iraq. The numbers were clearly there and those arguing for a rapid withdrawal had to fall back on arguing that progress was either not sustainable or insufficient on the political front.

I wonder whether the debate about the McCain surge is reaching a similar turning point. Supporters like myself are hoping that the surge is more than a trend we are compelled to see because of our faith in our candidate. After all, there is a lot of buzz around his resurgence, although there was lots of buzz just a month or two ago about McCain being dead in the water. So is there evidence?

The latest poll from FoxNews is clearly good news for McCain. For the first time in many months he has second place all to himself, well behind Giuliani but clearly ahead of Thompson. (See question 14.)

The McCain staff is also very excited about evidence from Fox and elsewhere that McCain performs the best against Hillary Clinton in general election trial heats. (Question 16) I've been wondering/hoping whether the electability factor will rise in importance as it becomes more and more apparent to Republicans that they really will be facing Hillary in a general election.

For a comprehensive look at the polls, it is of course always best to visit RealClearPolitics. I'd say that even a supporter like myself has to concede that none of the other GOP primary polls look as good as Fox. Collectively, those polls show a neck-and-neck fight for second place behind Giuliani. McCain is fighting for second place in New Hampshire, but the real big story is Mike Huckabee's surge in Iowa.

With regard to trial heats, the news is better. McCain certainly runs better against Hillary than Giuliani does, but Giuliani was winning his trial heats against her less than a month ago. The data on McCain isn't so robust, however, since the pollster have responded to the conventional wisdom of McCain's demise by running fewer heats, whereas there is plenty of data to analyze for the Clinton-Giuliani matchup.

In summary, I would say this: Mark Twain would have a good chuckle at the premature reports of Sen. McCain's demise. Those who expressed such certainty in that outcome have plenty of egg on their face. But McCain has a long way to go before anyone can call him a front-runner again.

Labels: ,

(3) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:31 PM by Taylor Owen  

DECIMATING, MOCKING AND SKEWERING: Haven't read Belgravia in a while, but dug in on a flight this morning. Aside from all but endorsing Obama on foreign policy grounds, he is really quite good and calling out bullshit.

He decimates Bush's "demagogic tactics" of listing specific attacks supposedly stopped through torture.

He gives folly to the hypocrisy of presidentialists who at once call for literal interpretations of the constitution while arguing for greater executive power in war, ignoring Madison, who said:
In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. ... War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement".
And, citing Anthoy Lewis:
There is a profound oddity in the position of the presidentialists like Yoo, Cheney and Addington. Legal conservatives like to say that the Constitution should be read according to its original intent. But if there is anything clear about the intentions of the framers, it is that they did not intend to create an executive with more prerogative power than George III had. Not even in time of war.
But, it's his skewering of this ridiculous excerpt of Gerson's, that really go me chuckling on my early morning flight:
The most complicated question is why, as a rather serious-minded conservative, I am often found in bohemian coffeehouses, comfortable among the revolutionaries. Maybe it is because politics doesn't always predict lifestyle. Maybe because there is a bohemian impulse inside every writer, searching for a little quiet rebellion. Maybe I just like good soy lattes. Whatever the reason, and whatever the T-shirts say, I'll be back.
As he apply puts, you "can't help being staggered by the tawdry mediocrity of it all." Indeed.
(2) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:30 PM by Taylor Owen  

WATERBOARDING, STATESIDE: Sullivan on an interesting case:
Waterboarding was sometimes used in the Deep South to torture
African-Americans and to extract false confessions to alleged crimes.
And when it emerged in an appeal as long ago as 1926, even the
Mississippi Supreme Court ruled it categorically "a specie of torture
well known to the bench and bar of the country," and "barbarous." They
over-turned a guilty verdict for murder by an African-American man
against a white man because such methods invalidated any notion of a
reliable confession.
More here.
(1) opinions -- Add your opinion

Friday, November 09, 2007

# Posted 11:33 AM by Taylor Owen  

ONE ELECTION TOO EARLY?: In theory, I am sympathetic to Sullivan's thesis that Obama is a post-boomer candidate. In fact, I am sympathetic to most post-boomer theses. Including, recently, this one. Which is awesome. In practice, however, my sense is that it is at least one election too early for a successful post-boomer run. Not least of which because there are just so damn many of them. This of, course, should not prevent Obama himself from capitalizing on the positioning, which he appears to be doing:
I think there's no doubt that we represent the kind of change that Senator Clinton can't deliver on and part of it is generational. Senator Clinton and others, they've been fighting some of the same fights since the '60's and it makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done.

Labels:

(6) opinions -- Add your opinion

Thursday, November 08, 2007

# Posted 3:46 PM by Taylor Owen  

DEMOCRACY PROMOTION AS FOREIGN POLICY: In light of recent developments in Pakistan, this might be a good time to post an exchange I had with Jeff Weintraub a few months ago on the subject of democracy promotion as a foreign policy meta-narrative. The first is his response to this blog post of mine. He is in Italics.

Dear Taylor,
SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT...: The moment the democratically elected government [of the PA] is undemocratically reconfigured is the right time for aid to be re-instated? hmmm, now what lesson does this send to those for whom this aid is rightly intended? [....]
Tangentially, can we please put the absolutist democracy promotion rhetoric to rest.
Well, at least you recognize that this is "tangential." In this specific case, the aid was neither suspended nor restored in the name of "democracy promotion," but on the basis of other issues (as Patrick Porter correctly pointed out in his comment). No one claimed otherwise. So what's the problem? These are simply two disconnected points. However, if these points are supposed to be connected (as you seem to be suggesting in the overall discussion), then this strikes me as a bit of a non-sequitur.

Your real point seems to be a call to reject "absolutist democracy promotion rhetoric". That sounds OK to me, depending on what "absolutist" means in this context. But what is it actually supposed to mean? You do on to say, for example ...

Rather, I am making a judgment on those who claim that in certain cases the promotion of democracy is an absolute, and in other cases it is well, a little more flexible.
This sounds mostly like a suggestion that some people are sometimes hypocritical (or confused), which is a fair polemical point. But on the face of it, the substantive argument being put forward here is a little confusing. If people treat support for democracy as "flexible" in some circumstances, then it's not being treated as "an absolute". So, again, what's the point?

Your point seems to be this:

Democracy can have good and bad implications, depending wholly on how free people choose to act. Foreign policy must therefore be based on more than simply its "promotion". It is not a particularly useful meta-narrative.
The first two sentences here strike me as quite right, as far as they go. (As liberalhawk pointed out in his comment, the position laid out in these two sentences is precisely the rationale underlying US policy toward Hamas, Fatah, and the PA--whether or not you happen to think the specific details of that policy are sensible or not.)
It is not a particularly useful meta-narrative.
But that final sentence is either unclear or a non-sequitur. How does that follow from what came before?

What if one argues that <a> supporting and promoting democracy (and democratic political forces) should be treated as an important general goal of foreign policy, which should not easily be abandoned for considerations of short-term expediency or alleged realpolitik, but at the same time <b> it should not be treated as the only important goal of foreign policy, and <c> we should also recognize that democratic regimes will only work in some circumstances and with certain conditions, so it is neither a universal panacea nor something that can simply be parachuted into any society at any time.

That strikes me as a realistic (as distinct from "realist") approach ... and I suspect that it's one you might actually have some sympathy for, too. Bit if so, then the proper conclusion (it seems to me) is that the defense and promotion of democracy is a "useful meta-narrative" to help guide politics, diplomacy, and foreign policy--as long as it is not understood in an exclusive, unrealistic, or utopian manner.

To put it another way, picking up on David Adesnik's useful comment, any effective long-term political perspective has to combine commitment to certain core principles with flexibility in practice and the recognition that we always confront multiple, often competing, goals and concerns. (I guess this is mostly just a restatement of Weber, which is OK with me.) Responding to this dilemma by simply abandoning the core principles--i.e., throwing out the baby with the bathwater--is actually a pretty "absolutist" solution itself, even if it masquerades as pragmatism (or "realism").

Yours for democracy (all things considered),
Jeff Weintraub

P.S. Also, by the way, describing the situation in the PA as "the moment the democratically elected government is undemocratically reconfigured" is a little odd, and somewhat misleading. It suggests that there has just been a Fatah/Abbas coup against Hamas, but matters are a little more complicated than that.



Dear Jeff,

Many thanks for taking the time to write. I hope that my reply shows a slightly greater deference to the subject matter than my admittedly flippant blog post.

I think as you say, that it is best we treat these as two separate issues: The issue of recent US policy regarding the PLO, and the larger utility of democracy as a meta-narrative. First though, let me just say that I agree generally with much of what you propose. I think we would probably agree on the desired end goals of American foreign policy. I am simply uncertain whether democracy promotion is a useful meta-theme in order to achieve these ends. While absolutist might have been a bit harsh, there is certainly a degree of ideological doctrine that drives many to promote the spread of democracy at the cost other policy objectives. Objectives that I would consider more important than, and in many cases prerequisites for, successful democratic development. It is this that concerns me.

First, the purpose of pointing out the discrepancy between the rhetoric of middle eastern democracy promotion and policy decisions regarding the democratically elected government of the PLO, was more to make the point that both you affirm, which is that democracy promotion is messy, and there are many interests that seem to override its promotion. In this case, the perceived threat to the security of an ally.

You are right that whether this policy is actually in the best interest of the US is debatable. Many have argued that Hamas was actually willing to conceded more at the time of the election than at any other time in recent memory (the last constitution, now abandoned, seems to suggest this). This, one would think, would be precisely the time that one would want to engage with them, rather then promoting policies that re-radicalizes them. But, I do not know enough about this to say much more. I will leave that to others to take on.

Regarding this fitting within the rhetoric of the Bush Administration, made by you and Libhawk. I respectfully disagree. I think that there is no doubt that neoconservatives put significantly more weight on the utility of democracy than simply ‘it may or may not be useful’. This seems to me to undercut the principle argument of neoconservatism, for better or worse. Indeed, the very underlying principle of current middle eastern policy is that democracy may be destabilizing, but in the long run, it is better for US interests. From this, however, their follows two perhaps. more interesting points on the nature of US foreign policy.

First, if democracy promotion in the short run is very bad for people living through the transition, which research suggests it is, but is good for long term US interests, then clearly US foreign policy puts the later ahead of the former. Fine, this should be acknowledged. Second, does the manner in which democracy is promoted matter to the long term impact on US interests? Here, I would argue yes. A democracy is obviously not a static state, but rather a representation of its free people. If these people become free through a very violent externally imposed invasion, surely this will effect the end democratic state. If this is even close to correct, then the means of democracy promotion are just as important to US interests as the end democratic state they seek to establish. More thought to the means would also of course enhance the likelihood of bucking the first of these trends, the short term human security of those in the state we are engaging.

On the question of absolutism, you are of course correct that that was hyperbole. However, it is equally disingenuous to claim relativism in the rhetorical use of ‘democracy promotion’ as meta-theme for current US foreign policy. Since the cold war, different people have taken different lines on the degree to which this should be THE guiding principle of US foreign policy. While none may be completely absolutists, I would suggests that some, including current neoconservatives, are ideologically doctrinaire.

In the historical debate on the relative weight that should be placed on the promotion of democracy, or even of the democratic peace theory, neoconservatives certainly fall closer to absolutism than many other foreign policy ideologies. It is this, that I worry has a negative effect on the very things democracy is ideally indented to enable - Higher living standards, human rights, basic needs. Alternatively of course, liberal internationalists are on a different axis of this spectrum, believing that institutions should be promoted which first result in the betterment of the people who live under their mandates, and second, that allow for free and open societies to evolve peacefully. The point is, there is a spectrum, and depending where one puts democracy promotion, there are real policy consequences. i.e.) It was the hope of democracy promotion that put many over the edge in supporting the Iraq war.

Regarding your sensible proposition that: “any effective long-term political perspective has to combine commitment to certain core principles with flexibility in practice and the recognition that we always confront multiple, often competing, goals and concerns” I would simply say: Unless, of course, said core principle does more damage than good.

My main point here is not whether democracy is good or bad, but rather whether it is useful, not just as a theme, but as a meta theme of American foreign policy. For me, to be a useful meta-narrative, or core principle, many other principles of a desired foreign policy would fall under it without compromising the cohesiveness of the meta-narrative, or meta-policy. David points out that there always inconstancies in any ‘core principle’. But just how many inconsistencies are we willing to accept, and at what point do these inconsistencies threaten the very benefits the core principle is supposed to enable, ie, human rights, ect. I guess we all draw our own line here. I personally am simply not convinced that democracy promotion, in the Wilsonian, or Bush second inaugural sense, accomplishes this is a coherent way. The inconsistencies are too vast and the human costs too large.

For me the costs to human security of forceful democracy promotion often will outweigh the long term benefits of a society which achieved its democracy through violent means. I simply believe that there are other, more beneficial uses for US force and influence, if the objective is the betterment of the human condition. What is more important than democracy promotion? To me, human security, which I believe is a far more useful overarching goal of an interventionist foreign policy. Of course, a state, democratic or otherwise, may be the cause of insecurity. But this is why we have principles such as r2p and institutions such as the ICC. These are objective to the form of governance, only caring about the treatment of the citizens by the state in question.

I would also ask, whether a democratically elected society achieved through great bloodshed and misery, is better than a non-democratically elected society living in relative peace? This speaks to the problems of conflating democracy promotion with the promotion of basic human rights. The two are undoubtedly often in opposition. Particularly in the transition phase. To me it is simply insufficient to claim long run befits from short term misery in the promotion of democracy. Short term costs cannot be seen as extraneous, or worse, as necessary to the birth of a democratic state. Particularly one being transitioned by outside force. This to me, shows a blind faith in the utility of our actions which is profoundly disrespectful to societies in which we are engaging, or invading, as the case may be.

Finally, on the selective use of a core principle, at what point does the false rhetoric surrounding democracy begin to negatively effect the very things democracy is supposed to enable? This can be far less tangible that polices that directly harm people, and involve the effects of a degraded US position in the world, the impact on the actions of other states and groups, and so on. Democracy promotion as a guiding principle, arguably also limits the positive impact the US can have in countries such as Iran, which are far more open to the human rights discourse, than that of US imposed democratic transition - i.e., regime change.

Kind regards,

Taylor


Hi Taylor,

Thanks for your serious and extensive response to my message. It probably won't surprise you to hear that we partly agree and partly disagree on the issues you raise. (These include some important questions you raise that I had thought of raising myself, regarding the complicated relationships between "human rights" and "democracy" as possible foreign-policy themes. In the broadest sense, I think we agree that these are partly distinct and partly connected, and I would also agree that there can sometimes be tensions between them, but I think you overdo those tensions and draw some conclusions that I find unwarranted. I also think that your discussion slides too easily from the question of <a> whether supporting and encouraging democracy should be an important goal to the quite different question of <b> whether invading countries with US troops and overthrowing there regimes is generally a good technique for establishing successful democratic regimes. Etc.)

But I'm afraid I will have to put off spelling out the details, since I'm tied up with other things right now. Perhaps soon.... In the meantime, I did want to acknowledge receiving your message and thank you for taking the time & trouble to respond to mine. Enjoy yourself in Rome.

Cheers,
Jeff Weintraub

Labels:

(1) opinions -- Add your opinion

Monday, November 05, 2007

# Posted 5:13 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

NUANCED GIULIANI-BASHING: As McCain supporter, I might be expected to take every shot I can at Rudolph Giuliani. Last week, a Washington Post/ABC poll showed McCain running second to Giuliani, closer than both Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. As a loyal supporter, shouldn't I do my utmost to knock Giuliani off the perch that once belonged to McCain?

Maybe if the criticism were more persuasive, but John Judis of The New Republic has really done a third-rate job of trying to brand Giuliani as an extremist while praising him just enough to be fair enough for the pages of TNR. In his profile, Judis accuses Giuliani of nothing less than “a reluctance to cede power and a contempt for the democratic process.”

Judis makes it sound like Giuliani is some sort of Putin. Judis basically argues that Giuliani's first term as mayor was a success, but then his inner demons prevailed. After being re-elected:
Giuliani decided that he needed to suppress not only petty criminals, but also jaywalkers, street vendors, speeding bicycle messengers, and reckless taxi drivers. "If we don't act in a civil manner here, we can't thrive as individuals or as the capital of the world," Giuliani announced in February 1998. Giuliani's new campaign, billed "Creating a More Civil City," was met with strikes from cab drivers and food vendors, as well as angry reactions from citizens threatened with arrest for jaywalking. Giuliani finally gave up on it, but, the next year, he took on the New York art scene. He tried to stop the Brooklyn Museum from putting on a provocative show, "Sensation," which he called "sick stuff." Giuliani's attempt to cut off city funding for the museum and fire its trustees was defeated in court...

Andrew Kirtzman attributes Giuliani's threats against the Brooklyn Museum to a desire to curry favor with upstate New Yorkers whose votes he would have needed to win the 2000 Senate election against Hillary Clinton. And, indeed, Giuliani currently brags about his bid to shut down the exhibit when trying to woo social conservatives. But this move, like his poorly executed expansion of the Street Crime Unit and his crusade against street vendors and jaywalkers, was consistent with Giuliani's growing commitment to use his authority at the expense of liberty.
It reminds me of that famous poem by Martin Niemoller about the Third Reich. First they came for the street vendors, and nobody protested. Then they came for the jaywalkers and nobody protested. Then they came for the Art Museum and nobody protested. Finally, they came for me and there was nobody left to protest.

I tend to agree that Giuliani’s threats against the Brooklyn Museum were a political stunt. That’s not my kind of politics. But rather than any sort of contempt for the democratic process, it shows that Giuliani will engage in the sort of pandering that is part of our proud democratic tradition.

But worse was yet to come:
Perhaps the most telling example of Giuliani's attempt to expand his authority came after September 11. In the crisis created by the terrorist attacks, Giuliani excelled as a leader. He was calm and eloquent, a voice of reassurance while the president, aloft in Air Force One, remained curiously silent. But, even before the dust had settled over Ground Zero, Giuliani began lobbying the New York legislature to repeal the city's two-term limit so he could run again, while simultaneously pressuring the candidates vying for his office to accept a 90-day extension of his term. Giuliani's moves showed a reluctance to cede power and a contempt for the democratic process. It was a demonstration of how far he would go in the pursuit of authority.
Lobbying. Pressuing. Forgive me for sounding a bit cynical, but does that represent contempt for the democratic process, or what democratic politics usually consists of?

Coming from Judis and TNR, this kind of exaggeration makes me think that Democrats don’t have too much ammunition when it comes to Giuliani’s record. And if Giuliani were nominated, his campaign could proudly observe that even excessive critics like Judis credit him with:

The broken windows theory [of law enforcement] fit Giuliani's view of liberty and authority. It meant that, in order to create order and encourage moral liberty, citizens would have to allow the police to discourage behavior that was often only marginally illegal.

Giuliani hired Bratton, Boston's police chief, to put the strategy into practice -- and, supplemented by the innovative use of computers to single out and target high-crime neighborhoods, it had a dramatic effect on New York's crime rate. Giuliani's detractors would later say that the decline began under Dinkins, but that is misleading. The city's murder rate reached an all-time high in 1990, then declined slightly over the next two years. But it was only after Giuliani took office that the crime rate declined precipitously -- starting in 1994, when it fell by 12 percent. New York's reduction in crime also far exceeded the national average -- 16 percent in the first half of 1995 compared to one percent nationally.

Giuliani enjoyed similar success in driving the Mafia out of both the Fulton Fish Market and the commercial garbage business. He also reduced fraud in New York's welfare rolls -- no small accomplishment. From 1989 to 1995, more than 270,000 New Yorkers were added to the welfare rolls. After Giuliani instituted fingerprint checks and home visits in 1995 -- an infringement on liberty to be sure -- the welfare rolls declined by 18 percent the first year.

Giuliani easily won reelection in 1997 and enjoyed widespread popularity -- even in parts of the black community. Black leaders like the Reverend Floyd Flake appreciated that Giuliani's policing methods -- however intrusive -- had revived neighborhoods that had been riven by drugs and guns. As journalist Andrew Kirtzman put it in his book on the Giuliani years, "The essential truth of '97 -- that life on the streets was calmer, safer, saner -- was just as relevant to the poor of Bed-Sty as to the prosperous of Brooklyn Heights.”

I grew up in New York City. I lived there until 1995 and visited often until 1999. What happened in New York seemed like a miracle. A city condemned to persistent failure and decline suddenly discovered its former glory. It really felt like the greatest city in the world.

Labels: ,

(11) opinions -- Add your opinion

Home