It’s the Thought that Counts

The presidential debate this evening was interesting, but dense. A lot of important points were raised, but I’m unsure about how much the average viewer could take away from it, especially if they haven’t been following the details of the campaign in depth for as long as I have.

Of course, the big question after all debates is who won. I don’t think there was a clear winner (especially if you emphasize clarity in addition to simply having better arguments). Both candidates gave many answers in which they seemed to be listing handfuls of different ideas they wanted to cram in somewhere, rather than directly and succinctly answering the questions posed. Obama definitely came out ahead in terms of appearance and mannerisms, using the format of the debate to directly challenge McCain, while McCain looked down or away from Obama more often and seemed less comfortable. (Also, that tie… stripes were maybe not the best for TV?) It was nice to see the whole event stay civil and focused on issues (even if maybe not on one specific issue at a time).

In the end, I doubt this debate will change many people’s minds. However, both candidates have shown themselves to be skillful at speaking extemporaneously and with expertise on their policies, so I’m definitely looking forward to the next one.

Tags: barack obama, debate, foreign policy, john mccain, politics

Until recently I have been torn about what to do in Iraq.  That makes me a bit of an exception, since most people who are well-informed and care about the issue have very strong opinions.  Still, while I have leaned towards the anti-war view, I’ve always been very conflicted about it.

I believe that, in retrospect, the war was clearly a mistake, but I don’t blame most of the people who supported it at the time.  At that time, the argument hinged largely on the existence of WMDs, or at least substantial WMD programs, and that existence was vouched for in very strong terms by the nation’s intelligence agencies.  Given a belief in the WMD accusations, the decision to go to war, while still somewhat dubious, was at least understandable.  I don’t think there was any real reason to doubt the WMD accusations at the time, either.  Even most people who opposed the war believed there was some truth to those accusations.  Saddam was definitely acting as though he had something to hide.  The real blame for the error in going to war lies in my mind with the intelligence agencies who got the facts wrong, and (most importantly) with the Bush administration, which from all accounts created an atmosphere where dissenting opinions were ignored, and delivering evidence and/or analysis to support preconceived goals was rewarded.

Once in, of course, there are lots of reasons to try to succeed in Iraq despite the fact that we shouldn’t have been there in the first place.  A stable, friendly democracy in the Middle East would be a huge improvement, and an unstable, fractured, and dysfunctional Iraq would be a huge disaster.  The real problem for me in determining the right course of action was the great degree of uncertainty connected to either course of action.  Withdrawal could put pressure on the Iraqi government to step up, make some tough decisions, make the political compromises it needed to, and really take control.  However, it could also lead to total failure.  Similarly, staying in could eventually produce an acceptable outcome, but could also be hopeless, leading to the same disaster but with more lives and money wasted in the meantime.  Given that all four of these outcomes seemed possible to me, there was not much of a way to decide on a clearly correct course of action.

One thing that was clear to me was that if we were going to stay in, the surge was the right way to do it.  It was at least a clear improvement over what had been the status quo up to that point.  (On a related point, another reason I don’t blame those who supported the choice to go to war is that much of the cost of the war has been more the result of mismanagement than a necessary cost of such an endeavor.  Yes, the danger of mismanagement is always something you should take into account when making a decision like that, but the level of idiocy in the conduct of the war seems like something that someone should be forgiven for not foreseeing.)

All of my indecision has gone away recently, though, as the Iraqi government has begun to push for the kind of timeline that Democrats have been asking for all along.  The most extreme example came today when al-Maliki said that Obama’s 16-month time frame was correct.  As far as I’m concerned, whether a timeline was a good idea before or not, this request from Iraq makes it the obviously correct course of action now.  Iraq is a sovereign nation with its own democratically elected government.  Because Iraq depends on the US for its security, the US has incredible leverage over the Iraqi government, but that should not be mistaken for a lack of Iraqi sovereignty.  In the end, if Iraq asks the US troops to leave, they have to go.

McCain has said this himself in the past, but now seems to refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the request.  The reason he gives, that al-Maliki is just doing this for domestic political reasons, is idiotic.  That’s what’s supposed to happen in a democracy.  If the vast majority of voters within a country believe something to be good policy, their leaders should be forced to fall in line with that belief.  If anything, the fact that this is the will of the Iraqi populace rather than of al-Maliki personally should make it a more important request.  Is it best for Iraq if the US leaves?  Probably.  It’s definitely not certain, but it’s the future of Iraq that is at stake, and when there’s a tough call to make, it’s the Iraqi people who should get to make it.

Tags: barack obama, foreign policy, george w bush, iraq, john mccain

I’ve been thinking about American patriotism, particularly my own.  (Blame July 4th.)  Americans are obviously very patriotic, especially compared to Europeans, Canadians, and others in what we would think of as similar countries.  I don’t believe in blind obedience to one’s country.  Maybe “because that’s where I’m from” is a good reason to root for a sports team, and some sort of superficial patriotism can be justified on that ground, but I think deeper patriotism really is irrational without a better reason.  There are a lot of things that cause people to be patriotic that I really think are horrible reasons for caring about the US, but I still feel very patriotic, and I’ve been thinking about what exactly makes me feel that way.  I would be very interested to hear what other people think of these, or what reasons you have.

First, let me eliminate some things from consideration.  There are a lot of good things about the US that aren’t particularly unique.  (It’s a democracy, capitalist, has a generally not corrupt government, and so on.)  These things are good, but inspire in me more a sense of general satisfaction than real pride.  There are also a huge number of admirable historic achievements.  These are quite impressive - first modern democracy, moon landing, arguably saving the world in both the second world war and the cold war, etc.  I don’t want to downplay these at all.  They’re huge.  Nevertheless, I’m really interested in what it is about the US as it exists today that makes me proud of my country, and “it did something great a couple decades ago” just doesn’t do it.

That said, there are a couple things (and I could easily be missing some) that I really am proud of.  One, overly generalized, is the level of rights given to our citizens.  For all the controversy over the Patriot Act and other moves in the opposite direction, the US still has much greater levels of civil liberties (broadly defined) than most places.  For example, take the amount of time someone can be held without charges.  In the US, it’s 48 hours.  In France, it’s 6 days.  In Ireland it’s 7.  Britain just extended it to 42 days (!!), though there are some extra safeguards after 28 and it’s very controversial.  Even with the deep impact of terrorism, the US remains judicious here.  (Good analysis here, hat tip to UK Liberty.)

Another good example is freedom of religion.  Many modern, liberal democracies still have established religions.  I have my problems with the Pledge of Allegiance, and there are plenty of current threats to this, but as it stands the US government is very separate from religious matters.  At the same time, the actions that many “secular” governments take around the world (think of things like headscarf bans in France, Germany, and Turkey) would be totally anathema to almost all Americans.  This is related to a larger point about social acceptance and a sense in which the government stays out of things in a good way.  While France bans headscarves, Britain is having a debate over allowing people to opt into Sharia law.  France and Canada use legislation to carefully protect the French language.  Other countries seem to be having a lot of difficulty with how to deal with this whole category of issues, while the US seems to have, for the most part, figured it out.  General laws and regulations apply to everyone, regardless of culture/religion, and the government generally stays out and lets assimilation occur on its own, gradually, like it should.

Probably the most important thing to me in this category is free speech and political participation.  The US respects a level of free speech unheard of in the rest of the world, where hate speech is routinely banned.  (The NYT had an excellent article on this.)  Extremist political parties are also frequently outlawed.  This seems utterly insane to me, but would surprise almost no one anywhere else in the world.  In most modern liberal democracies, there is a belief that there are some basic ground rules and foundational beliefs that you have to accept before engaging in political debate - things like the equality of all people and the support of democracy as a form of governance.  It’s not that Americans don’t believe in those things being supremely important.  It’s just that we don’t believe the way to deal with those who don’t agree is to silence them.  We let them speak and then outvote them.  This seems clearly better to me.  If those who think these crazy things are a small minority, letting them vote doesn’t hurt.  If they’re a majority, it just fails to make any sense.  The idea of a democracy governing a country where most are opposed to the rules of governance is self-contradictory.

I’ve also decided that I’m pretty proud of our foreign policy.  This is obviously going to be a controversial choice.  There is no shortage of stupid American foreign policy.  It’s important to remember, though, that after the Cold War the US was left as a superpower unrivaled by any other power on earth.  This won’t be the case forever.  Europe will unify, and China and India will grow.  For the time being, though, the US is really alone in this position.  The old “power corrupts” saying isn’t totally wrong.  A country with the power the US has will always tend a little towards the pushy side.  There will always be unnecessary wars.  They’re bad, but if they are wars against tyrannical dictators that then establish (or at least try to establish) democracies in their place, there’s at least a bit of silver lining.  If you really think having the US as a global superpower is awful, imagine what would have happened if the USSR had won the Cold War or a rising China supplants the US.  Extraordinary rendition would be the least of your concerns.  For all the shortcomings, I think the US has been a lot more responsible with it’s power than almost any other country on earth would have been.  It’s easy to say “Wouldn’t it be great if it was Sweden that had massive power?”, but that power would instantly transform Sweden into a somewhat different country.  Given all the corrupting influences and temptations that power has, I think the US has done a pretty good job remaining a responsible international player whose presence benefits the world.

There’s obviously a ton here.  Each thing I mentioned really is worthy of at least a full post on its own.  I’m also sure I missed some things.  Nevertheless, I think this is a reasonably good start.  I’d be curious to see what others think.

Tags: civil liberties, foreign policy, free speech, law, patriotism, religious freedom