Author: hamilton1788

Today we move from the Middle East to the less controversial topic of abortion.  By way of background, my views on this subject are as follows:

1.  While it can hardly be denied that life begins at conception, the notion that a fertilized egg is a human being, and that its destruction constitutes homicide, defies common sense.

2.  The point at which a fetus becomes a human being, and is therefore entitled to some degree of legal protection, is a functional/biological question.  If the fetus has the reasonable potential to survive and function on its own, it meets the test.  Traditionally, and in the Roe case, this standard has been described as “viability.”

3.  Due to medical advances, it is possible that the point of viability can change over time.

4.  I have a serious problem with people who claim to be “pro-life,” but whose interest in providing support for the child disappears the minute it is born ( i.e., go get a job and be a rugged individual like me, you little baby moocher!)

5.  Conservative critics of the legal reasoning in Roe have the better of the argument.  I personally think the balancing test was appropriate from a policy perspective, but the legal foundation for it was very shaky, and the decision should have been left to the legislatures of the individual states.

With that in mind, I turn my attention to a posting by Ross Douthat in yesterday’s New York Times on the politics of abortion.  Douthat is a conservative columnist who wears his Catholicism on his sleeve.  While I rarely agree with him, his writings are thoughtful and steeped in a long line of conservative tradition, so, unlike many of his right-wing colleagues, I take him seriously.

Deconstructing his arguments into syllogisms, and using terminology describing the factions of the Republican Party from my previous posts that is unfamiliar to him, he says the following:

1.  As a good Catholic, I fully embrace the idea that human life begins at conception.  Response:  See #1 and #2 above.  I don’t remember ever reading his views on the death penalty, so I am not certain how truly “pro-life” he is.  On abortion, however, his record speaks for itself.

2.  I am a member of the Christian Democratic faction of the Republican Party.  As such, I support at least the concept of an effective welfare state that provides protections to every member of society, no matter how poor or powerless he is. Response:  Ross is more skeptical of the use of American military power than most of his CD colleagues, which I view as a good thing.  Otherwise, this is true.

3.  Unfortunately, my faction represents a small minority of the Republican Party.  The Democratic Party is more or less unanimously opposed to further restrictions on abortion, so my only allies in this battle are the Reactionaries in the GOP.  Response:  True.

4.  My goal of limiting abortions to the maximum extent possible in the short run, and banning them altogether in the future, takes precedence over my concerns about the social costs of requiring women to have unwanted children (which, in any event, I take to be overblown).  As a result, I will swallow my principles regarding the welfare state and support the Reactionary agenda in the hopes of getting things done.  Response:  There is a reason this blog is named after Thomas Cromwell and not Thomas More.  I take the social costs far more seriously than he does, and I am not volunteering to pay for them.

5.  I see no problem in making opportunistic arguments against particular abortion practices that have nothing to do with the rationale for my ultimate objective of banning abortions altogether as long as they move the cause in the right direction.  Response:  This has all the intellectual honesty of the supporters of medical marijuana legislation who privately view it as an opening to recreational use, but only talk about the benefits of medical uses in public.  Or, if you like, of Iranian war hawks who claim to believe that Iran can be compelled to fundamentally change its policies through sanctions, when the opposite is clearly true.

Even though it would be very difficult for him to embrace any sort of compromise on this issue, he does discuss the possibility of reaching a middle ground that would be more acceptable to the general public than the current judicially-created status quo.   Personally, I would be willing to accept the following:

1.  Reopen the issue of the date of viability.  Put all of the medical facts, as they exist today, on the table and see where the discussion goes.  If the facts support an earlier viability date, so be it.

2.  In exchange for that, abortion opponents would have to agree to two things.  First, put an end to the harassment of abortion clinics through spurious rules that purport to protect the health of the mother, but which have no basis in sound medical practice.  Second, agree to raise taxes to the extent necessary to provide the medical and social services for the mothers of the unwanted children, and for the children themselves.

Any takers?

An open letter to President Putin:

Dear Vlad the Impaler:

The ostensible objectives of your Syria policy are to maintain Russian influence and to prevent the rise of Islamic extremist groups.  Your unspoken objective is to cause trouble for the US, just to prove you can, for old time’s sake.

Your policy has been a disaster for Russia.  By offending the Saudis, you have driven down the cost of oil and crippled your economy.  IS is thriving.  And your guy is losing.

In spite of what you may think, we honestly don’t care if you keep your influence in Syria, because the Cold War is over, and your side lost.  We just want an end to IS and to the regime’s human rights violations.  It would be nice if we could cut the cord between Iran and Hezbollah, but that is not necessarily a deal-breaker for us.

We can make an agreement that is in both sides’ interests if you are willing to dump Assad and replace him with someone cleaner.  Are you on board?

Waiting for your call, I am

Cromwell

 

Here are the facts, as I see them:

1.  The international sanctions that are currently in place were directed solely towards Iran’s nuclear program, not at its support of Shiite military forces elsewhere in the Middle East.

2.  The approval of these sanctions was a largely unrecognized diplomatic victory for the Obama Administration which created the leverage for the nuclear deal.

3.  Our relationships with Russia and China are, at best, complicated, so we cannot rely on their good will in this process.  Russia in particular has gone out of the way in the past to play spoiler in the Middle East.  It supports the Assad regime and, by implication, Iranian efforts to prop it up.

4.  Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Russia and China would agree to reinstate, and even strengthen, sanctions against Iran in the event the US repudiates the agreement to which they have given their consent.

5.  Without the support of the entire international community, it is preposterous to think that sanctions can fundamentally alter Iranian behavior.

6.  As a result, the only way to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program is through war, or at least a thoroughly credible threat of war.  I know of no reason why it can be safely assumed that the Iranian regime would cave in the face of an ultimatum, and if one were issued and rejected, we would have no choice but to go to war, probably without much international support.  The questions, then, are what kind of war would be fought, and what would our objectives be?

7.  It is assumed in some quarters that a few surgical air strikes would be sufficient to eliminate the Iranian nuclear infrastructure.  In fact, the process would be much slower and messier than that;  it would initially require the destruction of the Iranian air defense system, and any attempt to target the regime’s ability to build centrifuges would involve bombing civilian areas.  (Thanks for an article by Zack Beauchamp on Vox for this insight)

8.  The Iranians would undoubtedly retaliate.  Under other circumstances, it could be assumed that this would include a missile attack on Israel by Hezbollah, but Hezbollah may be too overstretched at the present time to help.  Terrorist attacks on American military personnel in Iraq would be likely.  The big question is whether Iran would threaten to close the Straits of Hormuz.

9.  Closing the Straits would be a low-tech operation, using small boats and mines.  It would be very difficult to prevent, particularly in the early stages of the conflict.  A complete and immediate blockade of the Iranian coastline would be required to avoid it.  Even the mere threat of closure would cause the price of oil to skyrocket, and would do untold damage to the US economy.

10.  Even if the air strikes appeared to be successful, we would not have sufficient intelligence to know exactly how much damage was done.  As a result, we would probably have to follow up on a regular basis.  In other words, we would be committing to “cutting the grass” for an indefinite period of time.

11.  Assuming, for purposes of argument, that the Iranian nuclear program could be wiped off the face of the earth, that would not eliminate Iranian support of Shiite military groups throughout the Middle East.  Fundamental revisions to the objectives of the Iranian state cannot be accomplished without regime change, which appears to be the goal of the Israeli government and many US hawks.

12.  Bombing will not result in regime change.  It will increase public support in Iran for the regime, and (probably) even for the nuclear program.

13.  There are two plausible ways to bring about regime change.  The first is an Iraq-style invasion and long-term occupation, with all of the attendant costs, which would be far greater than they were in Iraq, given the larger size of the country to be occupied.  The second, if you want to avoid that, would be the complete destruction of the country, probably through the use of nuclear weapons.

The nuclear deal is the product of negotiations, not an ultimatum, so it is not and could not be perfect.  The real question is whether there is a better alternative.  If our objective is limited to the destruction of the nuclear program, the alternative is air strikes for an indefinite period of time.  If our objective is regime change, it means an invasion and occupation or a nuclear attack.  I do not believe these are better options.

The Thirty Years’ War lasted as long as it did because it was essentially three conflicts in one:

1.  A constitutional crisis within the Holy Roman Empire;

2.  A religious war involving Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists; and

3.  A great power battle involving France, Spain, Denmark, and Sweden.

The war going on in Syria and Iraq today has similar components:

1.  A struggle for power within both countries;

2.  A sectarian conflict involving Shiites and two factions of Sunnis; and

3.  A proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, with the US, Russia, and Turkey pursuing their own interests, as well.

History tells us there is no simple and clean way out of this mess.

 

The Obama Administration clearly decided years ago that the only possible way of reaching an outcome that would be reasonably consistent with our interests and values (i.e., no sectarian massacres, ongoing militia battles, or American ground war and occupation) would be through a negotiated settlement.  As a result, our policy, which in reality has been quite consistent, has looked indecisive and unheroic.  I believe there have been three stages to this approach:

1.  Make a deal with the Russians:  In the early stages of the conflict, it seemed possible to ease Assad out of power by persuading the Russians to find a more acceptable surrogate.  Unfortunately, the Russians, for a variety of good and not-so-good reasons, would not go along with this, and the regime did not fall, which led to:

2.  Hope that a stalemate would result, and the parties would be driven to make a deal:   A stalemate of sorts did occur, but this stage was dominated by the unforeseen rise of IS, which clearly could not be a party to any kind of negotiated settlement.  So here is where we are:

3.  Focus on IS, and keep your options open:   The ideal solution would be the replacement of Assad by a much cleaner member of his regime, some degree of nonsectarian democratic reform, and a broad alliance of the remaining elements of the regime and the more moderate rebel groups against IS.  If that proves to be impossible, strangle IS (the greater danger to US interests) and then deal with the regime.  Russian and Iranian cooperation is almost certainly necessary to make the preferred scenario realistic.

The connection between #3 and the Iranian nuclear deal is obvious.  It would appear that the Russians are starting to show some flexibility, as well.  We will see.

Foreign policy has become far more partisan in recent years.  However, the best guide to the country’s foreign policy at any given time is the personality and the individual beliefs of the President, not his party affiliation.

You can put this in a graph.  One axis would run from active to passive, while the other would run from values to interests.  All of our Presidents would fit in one quadrant or another.  Some examples would be as follows:

Passive/interests:  Obama and George H. W. Bush

Passive/values:  Jimmy Carter

Active/interests:  Richard Nixon

Active/values:  George W. Bush (campaigned in 2000 as passive/interests)

Clinton and Reagan are a bit harder to categorize.  While his rhetoric suggested otherwise, Reagan was actually quite reluctant to engage in military adventures after the debacle in Lebanon, so I would call him only slightly active/values.  Clinton would also be slightly active/values, given Rwanda and Bosnia.

It’s a process, not an ideology, and every litigation lawyer is familiar with it.  When confronted with an issue, you ask the following questions:

1.  What are my chances of attaining a successful outcome?

2.  What do I have to gain?

3.  What is my exposure?

Based on the answers to these questions, you identify the course of action that is the most likely to accomplish most of what you want at the least amount of cost and risk.  Typically, this involves settlement, because going to trial leads to an unacceptable element of unpredictability.

This is a case-by-case form of analysis that has no appeal to people who view the world in black and white terms.   It also rarely results in anything like total victory.  On the other hand, it makes complete disasters very unlikely, and is extremely cost-effective.

Hence, the preference for diplomacy, the use of proxies, and the emphasis on small-scale military actions (drones, special forces, etc.) in lieu of costlier and riskier large-scale interventions.

 

I wanted to write a hip-hop musical like “Hamilton” about the debate, but I don’t have that kind of talent, and these guys aren’t worth it, anyway.  I offer the following instead:

There once was a Texan named Cruz

Whose campaign had nothing to lose.

Lambasting the field

Refusing to yield

He said “I’m the one you should choose!”

 

Thus said the man they call Huck,

“Entitlement cuts really suck.

I love the unborn

All their deaths I do mourn

Too bad my campaign’s out of luck.”

 

There once was a guv’nor named Bush

His poll numbers needed a push.

While he has so much money

It’s not even funny

His speeches are duller than mush.

 

There once was a young man named Marco

Whose campaign required a spark-o.

He claimed to be new

What else could he do?

The age of his views were all dark-o.

 

There once was a doctor named Ben

Who made a large fortune, and then

He said to the poor

“All the pains you endure

Are due to your own fault, I ken.”

 

The GOP stalwart named Rand

Said Washington was out of hand.

He wanted to cut

Virtually everything but

There were too many lines in the sand.

 

There once was a Donald named Trump

Who played all the public for chumps.

He scowled and he blustered

His foes were lackluster

He left them all down in the dumps.

For about the first hour, I thought I was watching a bull-baiting, not a debate.  It might have had the intellectual heft of a Twinkie, but it certainly was compelling TV.

It is becoming clear that Donald Trump believes he can overcome all of his past heresies and all of his logical inconsistencies with pure, unadulterated swagger.  As long as the format permits him to avoid any kind of extensive cross-examination, he may be right.  My guess is that the winnowing of the field and the cumulative effect of commercials highlighting his inconsistencies that will be forthcoming in due time will ultimately destroy his candidacy, but that will not happen overnight.

Winners, losers, and also-rans:

Winners:

Trump:   Came across as the most compelling candidate in the field, no matter how ridiculous his ideas are.

John Kasich:   Articulated the Christian Democrat position better than Jeb Bush, and was rewarded for it by the hometown crowd.

Mike Huckabee:   Had some of the best lines of the night and was forceful without sounding angry.

Losers:

Jeb Bush:  No big mistakes, but no swagger.  His backers have to be worried.  Sooner or later, someone has to mention that his accomplishments in Florida were the product of a huge real estate bubble, and he can’t blame the federal government for the aftermath, because his brother was President at the time.

Chris Christie:  His usual bellicosity was lost in Trump’s exhaust.  His exchanges with Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee were draws at best.

Also-Rans

Ted Cruz:   Made his anti-establishment pitch clearly and forcefully, but it, too, disappeared in the Trump supernova.  Does he really believe that he can get elected without reaching out to anyone outside of the hard right?

Ben Carson:  Tentative and unremarkable, although he improved as the night went on.

Rand Paul:  Gave and took about equally.

Marco Rubio:  Made some effort to talk about real world problems and made his case for being new blood, but his statements on abortion are going to cost him dearly if he is the nominee.

Scott Walker:  Showed a reasonable command of the facts, but did not swagger particularly effectively.  There is something about this man’s personality that I find deeply disagreeable.  If someone ever makes a horror movie with an evil Eagle Scout protagonist, Walker should be the star.

I have been puzzled for years as to why there has been such limited support for protectionism within the Democratic Party, given the impact of globalization on the incomes of the party’s working class constituents during the last two decades.  Thanks to Donald Trump, I think I now have the answer:  a disproportionate number of the beneficiaries of protectionist policies would be white men working in manufacturing who, for a variety of reasons, have become Republicans.

Never fear, free traders:  the WSJ and the other ideological enforcers within the GOP are never going to permit the leadership of the party to embrace protectionism.  That said, we may have a very interesting discussion on the subject during the debates over the next several months.

1.  Immigration (legal and otherwise);

2.  Education;

3.  Protectionism (to be discussed in a post tomorrow);

4.  Government support for business (subsidies, bailouts, tax preferences, etc.);  and

5.  Overseas military interventions.

Most of these pit the Pro-Business Pragmatists against the Reactionaries, which is why the Reagan Coalition is harder to pull off than the Romney Coalition.

The debate is only a day away!  Comedians everywhere are rubbing their hands with glee.

Some things to look for:

1.  How aggressively will the panel question the candidates?  Historically, the Fox News panels have been surprisingly effective in dealing with Republican candidates.  Expect that to continue tomorrow.

2.  How will the candidates react to the panel?  One of the ways Republican candidates have traditionally shown off their swagger is by attacking the panel.  Doing this with a group of Fox News journalists who have at least as much credibility with the right-wing public as they do would be very dangerous.  This could help Rubio, whose lack of swagger is a big liability.

3.  How will Donald Trump handle himself?  Trump will be walking a tightrope here:  he will disappoint his audience if he doesn’t perform to his outrageous, unscripted campaign persona, but he can’t afford to alienate the panel or look uninformed.   He would be wise to use all of his ammunition on the Democrats.

4.  How will the other candidates deal with Trump?  At this debate, I think the better practice would be to ignore him and see if the panel will expose his weaknesses.

5.  Which candidate will lead the breakaway, and will the peleton reel him in?  It certainly won’t be Bush, Walker, or Rubio.  Chris Christie could try it, but I don’t think he will.  Bet on Ted Cruz, and don’t expect him to back down, because he has nothing to lose with the GOP establishment.

6.  What characters will the candidates be playing?  Here are some of them:

Jeb Bush:  Lord Grantham of GOP Abbey

Scott Walker:  Ronald Reagan’s Undiscovered Son

Ted Cruz:  Mr. Tea Party Goes to Washington

Ben Carson:  Horatio Alger

Marco Rubio:  Mr. Fresh Face with New Ideas

Rand Paul:  Harpo Marx

Donald Trump:  Himself, of course

7.  Who has to play Cecil the Lion?  TBD.

So let me get this straight:  the Republicans are threatening to shut down the federal government (a proven vote loser) in order to defund Planned Parenthood (and thereby reignite their unpopular “War on Women”) even though none of the funds in question are used for abortion?  That is bad policy and stupid politics.

Thank God these people choose to use their beloved Second Amendment rights on themselves.

 

Where other countries have men on horseback, we have egomaniac billionaires.  I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky.

1.  Events have reached the point where even the German leadership admits the Greek debt is unsustainable, but the parties have done nothing meaningful to change their positions in the negotiations over debt relief.  How ridiculous is that?

2.  A large part of the problem here is that there is no bankruptcy process (i.e., one ultimately guided by an independent third party using a well-established body of law) for the parties to use.  Instead, all decisions result from negotiations between parties with decidedly unequal bargaining power.  The unsatisfactory outcome of that process was and is inevitable.

3.  The essential difference between Greece and the other EU bailout recipients is that Greece had both a governmental overspending/credibility crisis and a euro-driven private sector bubble, while the others only had the latter.  If you are looking for reasons why the Greeks are in a bigger bind than the Spanish and the Irish today (life isn’t exactly paradise in those countries, either), start there.

4.  In retrospect, the Greek government would have been better served if it had sucked up to the Germans and conceded that their system needed a complete overhaul to be more, well, Germanic, in exchange for some debt relief.  Instead, they turned the issue into an EU referendum on austerity, and lost.