I’ve Seen This Movie Before

I had the most amazing dream last night. Thankfully, Jimmy Kimmel in a diaper wasn’t in this one. Instead, I saw Barack Obama giving a speech about government openness and accountability. He talked about the closure of the U.S. terrorist prison in Guantanamo Bay; he talked about ending extraordinary rendition of U.S. terrorism suspects to other countries where they would be tortured; he talked about ending the use of extra-legal means to spy on Americans under color of law, and he talked about an absolute ban on the use of torture.

Recent events have confirmed that this is only a dream. The candidate of alleged change has instead agreed with George W. Bush on almost every torture and secrecy issue. He ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay. But, in a brilliant feat of misdirection, none of us ever saw that his Justice Department was working tirelessly to ensure that the same civil liberties that were held to apply to Guantanamo detainees would never apply to detainees held at, for example, Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

A Lawless Prison By Any Other Name

Sure, Boumediene v. Bush clearly established that, at a minimum, prisoners in the United States’ Guantanamo Bay facility are entitled to habeas corpus, the 793-year-old doctrine that if a person is to be held in jail, he must be charged with a crime. The Bush administration thought that it had sent 600-some detainees of the War on Terr’ into a “legal black hole” (the Justice Department’s words) where US law did not apply, and therefore, people could be kept there indefinitely without being charged with a crime, without the right to challenge their detention, and without the government having to prove that they were terrorists.

Then the Bush administration relented, wrote the Military Commissions Act, and decided that was good enough. The Act explicitly stripped detainees of their habeas rights and said that the government would create military commissions to evaluate whether or not each detainee should continue to be held. The Supreme Court didn’t like that, either, saying that the MCA process was fundamentally flawed, and furthermore, it was not within Congress’ power to take habeas rights away from anyone.

As soon as he came into office, Obama put a halt to the Military Commissions Act tribunals, recognizing that they were fundamentally flawed. He also said he would close the prison in Guantanamo Bay. While those are both laudable, his next action is, once again, right out of How to Suspend the Constitution Without Really Trying, David Addington’s best-selling Richard P. Cheney thriller. Detainees of the War on Terr’ would instead be moved to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. The argument is that, since Afghanistan is still an active war zone, it would be ludicrous to give prisoners there any habeas rights, since they would be prisoners of war. Then again, that was the rationale used to scoop up hundreds of people on the “battlefield” in Afghanistan in 2001 and send them to Cuba.

Wiretapping? What Wiretapping?

A few weeks ago, the Obama Justice Department moved to dismiss a case in federal court involving illegal wiretapping. In spite of his January memoranda committing the Executive Branch to transparency and accountability, Obama’s reasoning vis-a-vis wiretapping remains unchanged from the Bush years; that is, opacity in the extreme, no accountability (i.e., you can knowingly and maliciously break the law, but you won’t be prosecuted for it), and a firm commitment to using the state secrets privilege to cover up illegal government activity.

Earlier this month, the Obama administration filed a petition to have the entire warrantless wiretapping case dismissed under a never-before-seen doctrine of “sovereign immunity” that comes from the USA PATRIOT Act. It’s not the sovereign immunity itself that is at issue (sovereign immunity is a very old legal doctrine which holds that the sovereign — in this case, the government — is immune from criminal prosecution in some instances). It’s that sovereign immunity has never before been used a a defense in these wiretapping cases. To the Obama administration’s credit, it has interpreted into being a sovereign immunity claim based on the fact that Congress had not explicitly waived sovereign immunity when it came to these cases. Therefore, argues the Justice Department, the courts must err on the side of the sovereign. This is, of course, in addition to the standard-issue “state secrets” defense, which consists of, “In order for you to have a case, you need to prove you’ve been harmed. In order for you to prove you’ve been harmed, you need access to classified information. Because giving you that information would compromise national security, we’re not going to give it to you. Since you don’t have that evidence to prove your case, you have no case. So let’s dismiss the case.”

Let’s Talk Torture

Yesterday, after years of legal battles led by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Obama administration released four memoranda from the Bush years in which the Office of Legal Counsel — the legal-advice arm of the White House — declared that, yes, “enhanced interrogation techniques” like water-boarding were perfectly legal. In making these documents public, however, Obama added the caveat that CIA employees who engaged in these techniques, which are correctly and properly called torture, will not be prosecuted.

I am of two minds on this particular issue. On the one hand, we have the Nuremberg Defense, used by various strata of Nazi soldiers in the post-World War II Nuremberg trials. The defense amounted to, “I was just following orders,” the implication being that very low-level soldiers who did the actual dirty work of killing 6 million Jews (and millions of others of various non-Nazi-approved races, nationalities, ethnicities, and sexual orientations) were faced with the choice of either doing what they were told, despite their orders being obviously morally and legally wrong, or standing up to their superiors and facing court marshall or death themselves. The outcome of the trials was Nuremberg Principle IV, which states, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.” This principle was incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and now U.S. military personnel may refuse to follow an order that they believe violates the law, with the law including the U.S. Constitution and any treaties to which the U.S. may be a party (including the Geneva Conventions, which explicitly forbid the use of torture).

Then again, these CIA operatives were assured that what they were ordered to do was legal. They were assured by the president — who is their boss — that it was okay to do what they were doing. It’s not an issue of questionable legality; they were told — by lawyers, who are alleged to be experts in the field of law — that it was okay to water-board suspects, deprive them of sleep, and occasionally hit them. Must they then be faulted for their lack of follow-up? Are they expected to then second-guess White House lawyers? The issue is murky. Definitely the people at the top who were responsible for crafting these policies — Bush himself, Vice President Cheney, David Addington, John Yoo, and Alberto Gonzales — must be prosecuted. But what about the people in the field? As Glenn Greenwald observes, the law compels the Justice Department to prosecute everyone who took part in torture. There was a moral choice: CIA operatives could have made the choice not to engage in torture. And if it risked their careers, so be it. They were not themselves ever threatened with death or torture; the loss of one’s job is not morally equivalent to torturing another human being.

It’s certainly true that President Obama has done a number of laudable things in his four months in office. But he can still do better, and all of us need to push him away from the trope of “centrism” (which, in U.S. political discourse in 2009, means “being conservative”). And if he does have a legitimate national security concern, he should let us know. He doesn’t have to go into the gory details, but it would be nice to know why he’s suddenly changed his mind. After eight years of “Trust me, I know what I’m doing,” I voted for a government that doesn’t demand faith from its people.

The White House Science Agenda, So Far

A few minutes into President Obama’s inaugural speech, he highlighted the importance of science to our nation:

“For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift. And we will act, not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We’ll restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.”
(emphasis added)

Nevertheless, the first thing I noticed upon visiting the White House Web site was the absence of Science from the Agenda menu on the home page. They do however list a link to their Technology page on that menu, and thankfully some scientific issues are listed there.

Regardless of how the White House organizes their Web site, many of us are breathing a sigh of relief – and not just because President Obama presumably cares about the environment and will work to make the air cleaner. On a wide range of issues, citizens may now expect a return to sensible public discourse that places science and rational thought above political ideology and pseudo-science. No longer will we be held hostage by George W. Bush’s willful ignorance of life-threatening issues (recall that it took five years for the former president to acknowledge that “America is addicted to oil”). While we will have to rely on Congress to create substantive legislation, President  Obama has certainly set the right tone for better living through science.

In the three months since the inauguration, several important topics have gained attention. Global warming and stem cell research are two issues many people are concerned about, and we have already seen the new administration act decisively on these fronts.

President Obama recently announced an international summit, to be held at the end of this month, to coordinate action to address global warming. Representatives of 16 countries (each G20 members) are expected to attend the “Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate.” The forum is in advance of the United Nations’ Climate Change Convention, which will be held in Copenhagen in December.

Obama frequently mentions global warming as a top issue, including during the presidential campaign and in numerous public appearances and official statements. He signed a memorandum in January requiring the Transportation Department to work with the EPA to enforce the average fuel efficiency standard of 35 miles per gallon for all cars and light trucks (a category that includes SUVs). In February the president signed another memorandum that forces the Department of Energy to establish efficiency standards for consumer and commercial appliances according to previously passed federal laws. These are very important steps considering that increasing efficiency is the quickest and most cost-effective way for Americans to reduce energy usage and the related greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.

These clear actions and statements from the president in the earliest days of his tenure are a very encouraging sign of his commitment to reducing the threat of undesired climate changes. It remains to be seen whether government agencies, manufacturers, and the public will work together to rise to the challenge of increasing energy efficiency.

Regarding stem cell research, in March Obama issued an Executive Order that permits scientists to finally work without fear of restrictions by the federal government. Specifically, the order revoked the rules created in 2001 by former President Bush, which prohibited federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and restricted the techniques available to researchers. While research was hampered in the U.S. for eight years, several other countries continued their work, threatening to undermine our progress and competitiveness in this field. Stem cell research is one of the most promising frontiers in biology, and many experts believe that there will be many potential tremendous benefits in curing a wide variety of ailments and genetic diseases.

Other items currently on the administration’s technology laundry list include:

• Ensuring open internet and media, including net neutrality;
• Creating a modern communications infrastructure, with broadband availability virtually everywhere in the country;
• Increasing America’s competitiveness through trade, tax credits, and direct investment in science;
• Fostering entrepreneurial ventures;
• Protecting intellectual property rights;
• Improving science and math education;
• Increasing the use of science and technology to solve national problems;
• Lowering health care costs and improving quality through improved information systems;
• Investing more in renewable energy research and development; and
• Advancing health through biomedical research.

As you can see, this is quite a long and ambitious list. President Obama has said that he expects us to work together with him on the many issues that he highlighted during the campaign and in his presidency so far. Given the country’s many significant challenges outside the realm of science and technology, hopefully we will be able to make meaningful progress in at least some of these areas.

Hillary’s Trip to Asia: A Foreign Policy Reality Check

President Obama ran his election campaign on a slogan we all now know – “Change We Can Believe In.” However,  I have always been skeptical of Obama’s ability or commitment to bring fundamental change in US foreign policy. Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s February trip to Asia, as well received and heavily covered as it was, has only confirmed my skepticism. Here’s why.

First, while Clinton’s words in Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, and China were a departure from Bush’s simplistic might-makes-right foreign policy, they weren’t too different from the foreign policy followed by her own husband, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan (you get the idea). Obama’s foreign policy “change” appears to be a return to how the US has conducted foreign policy since World War II. That is, we work cooperatively within the UN, NATO, and other alliances; we engage other countries diplomatically; we don’t declare preemptive wars; we promote a certain type of economic model; we support nuclear non-proliferation; etc.  While this is undoubtedly better than George W. Bush’s foreign policy, it doesn’t look like a fundamental foreign policy shift. Nor does it bode well for those optimistic that President Obama will base his foreign policy on human rights, as many had hoped for during the campaign.

Admittedly, I did start out happy with how Clinton was conducting herself during this trip. She discussed relevant issues in the countries she visited and met with officials, students, and  activists. People seemed to be generally impressed with and charmed by her performance.  However, after following her trip for a while, I began to feel like it was just that–a performance. She was saying what she needed to say (and not saying what she needed to not say) depending on where she was, and her priority was selling the US, President Obama, and herself to officials and the public. This was sorely needed after eight years of George Bush, and while she showed her serious professional side as well as a softer personal side, Clinton is a seasoned, hard-nosed politician who surely understands the realities of being the only global superpower’s top diplomat. Realpolitik rules. Mushy sentimental support for human rights does not guide international relations or foreign policy. Clinton did after all vote against a Congressional bill to ban the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas because it would make her look weak on terrorism (her new boss supported the ban). 

The dissonance of her message was most jarring when comparing her speeches in Indonesia to those in China. She wooed and flattered her Indonesian hosts by talking up their democratic government, their thriving and diverse civil society, and the inclusive positive example they show to the Muslim world. China was another matter. Before she even arrived, Clinton emphasized that human rights concerns would not interfere with major issues like the economic crisis and global warming. She curbed her earlier harsh criticism of China’s human rights record in favor of other topics (which, to be fair, were not much easier to confront). While implying human rights are a marginal issue was not music to the ears of human rights advocates, it is consistent with US foreign policy historically. Human rights have had their place when they support US policy, but are always easily swept aside when they don’t. So far, the Obama administration doesn’t seem to offer a change from this realist worldview.

This is not to say that changes are not likely on the horizon. Obama is certainly charting a different course than George Bush did. His early choices about China, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria indicate a new tack, and he is making a concerted effort to clean up the US image in the world’s eyes. Human rights may be more important to President Obama than many previous US presidents, but Clinton’s stance in China makes it clear that they will not be the guiding principal of his foreign policy. The US participation as a mere observer at the recent UN Human Rights Commission and its boycott of the UN Conference on Racism also show that Obama’s administration is wary of treading new ground in the defense of human rights.

So then what is Obama’s guiding principle for his foreign policy? Not surprisingly, it appears to be essentially the same as every other US president–to protect and promote American interests abroad. This definition clearly leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Obama has pledged deeper and more sustained diplomatic engagement with allies as well as enemies–even Iran! Cuba! Venezuela!–in an effort to forge constructive relationships across the globe. As a caveat to this policy, Obama has explicitly said he will act in such a way only if it is in America’s self-interest.

Fair enough. This is the president’s job, and the reality is that US foreign policy probably will never be guided by any principle other than American self-interest. I understand this, and though it sounds amoral and opportunistic to my ears, I understand the necessity, and benefit, to advance a flexible foreign policy in an effort to engage with as many other countries as possible. And, in reality, should it be any other way? Maybe what Obama is offering is the best we can hope for when it comes to US foreign policy. George Bush’s presidency clearly demonstrated the pitfalls of having a foreign policy that stubbornly brooks no opposition to its moral certainty. Any moral justification can be abused by those in power–even a commitment to human rights or democracy or freedom. (Such a commitment to worldwide democracy is in fact one of the guiding principles of both idealist foreign policy, put in practice historically by those such as Woodrow Wilson, and modern neoconservatism under President Bush.) Promoting and protecting American interests abroad can be abused too, but at least it is an honest selfish justification for how our government behaves overseas. Protecting American interests is perhaps all the president should commit to, and if he (or one day she) is willing to keep as many channels of communication open with friend and foe, this may be the best long-term strategy. To expect anything more just may be naive, unrealistic, and unfair.

Obama’s Use of State Secrets Is More of the Same

Throughout his administration, President Bush invoked a little-known and less-understood doctrine called the State Secrets Privilege. The privilege allows the Executive to suppress evidence in a court case if, in the Executive’s estimation, revealing that evidence in court would compromise national security. The use of the privilege is not unprecedented. Bush, however, didn’t merely use the privilege to get evidence thrown out. He tried to have whole cases dismissed. (Please read this article from Lewis & Clark Law Review for more information about the abuse of the State Secrets Privilege.)

In the arena of warrantless wiretapping, the administration argued that it could not provide documentation to plaintiffs that they were wiretapped, since even providing evidence of wiretapping would compromise national security. And, since the plaintiffs can’t prove they were ever wiretapped, they have no standing to bring a case, so the administration also requested that the case be dismissed. Thankfully, Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rejected the Bush administration’s assertions.

But now, the Obama administration is in town, and given his memorandum ordering more transparency in government, he’s going to reject the Bush administration’s assertion that entire cases can be thrown out due to the State Secrets Privilege.

Just kidding! In fact, Obama’s Justice Department has gone even further in asserting opacity when it comes to the State Secrets Privilege. On Friday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Obama administration’s arguments — which were a continuance of the Bush administration’s arguments — that the State Secrets Privilege can be used to dismiss entire cases.

Immediately following the ruling, Obama’s Justice Department filed a new brief in which it asserted that it will not comply with the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling because — drumroll, please — no court has the authority to compel the Executive to release top secret information, for any reason whatsoever. In case you think I’m misinterpreting the brief, here you go:

In addition, the relevant Executive Branch official must determine that plaintiffs’ counsel have a “need to know” the information. In this case, the relevant official, the Director of the National Security Agency (“NSA”), has determined that counsel do not have a need to know. This decision is committed to the discretion of the Executive Branch, and is not subject to judicial review. Moreover, the Court does not have independent power, either under its supervisory authority, or under authority analogous to that granted by the Classified Information Procedures Act (“CIPA”), 18 U.S.C. App. 3, to order the Government to grant counsel access to classified information when the Executive Branch has denied them such access. Therefore, the Government respectfully suggests that the Court should not take further steps at this time that would result in plaintiffs’ counsel being granted access to the classified information at issue.

Any determination made by the Executive that information is top secret is final. It is not subject to judicial review. Ever. At all. Period. What the Executive says, goes. There is no other instance — none! — anywhere in this country where any body has ever asserted that its decisions are outside the scope of judicial review, save legislation passed by Congress restricting review. This is solely Congress’ power, and not the president’s, as articulated in Article III, § 2 of the Constitution:

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

There is nowhere to be found anywhere in the Constitution the assertion that the president can make decisions that are outside the scope of judicial review. Indeed, the existence of such a rule would be detrimental to our republic. Imagine: the president asserts the State Secrets Privilege for a malicious, disingenuous, non-secret reason, but because the president’s claims of privilege are non-reviewable by anyone, there is no one to appeal to in order to contest the legitimacy of the president’s assertion. If true, this doctrine would mark the first time in the history the United States that a single branch of government cannot be checked by any other branch. This is extremely dangerous.

What will the Obama apologists say now? I have famously complained that Obama’s policies are “more of the same,” whether they be continuances of Clinton-era policies, or Bush-era policies. Which wedge of the Obama Wheel of Apology does this action fall under? Shall we file unilateral executive authority under pragmatism? Or perhaps it is more akin to the I, Claudius explanation, in which Obama will one day pull his mask off and reveal himself to be a progressive socialist who has been working behind the scenes to undermine the system even as he pretends to uphold it? Can this be explained by team of rivals or bipartisanship? What other buzzword that is used to explain away the lack of significant change is appropriate here? Obama can do no wrong!

Okay, coyness aside. The Obama administration has made a bad decision. This is absolutely the wrong assertion to make. And I find it surprising, especially in light of the memorandum mentioned above, that Obama would claim such broad authority in this matter. Unless, of course, the Justice Department is working independently of Obama’s personal agenda, in which case, it’s time for someone to sit down and have a serious talk with Eric Holder about how the Constitution works.

But I seriously doubt this is the result of a rogue Justice Department. No, Obama has made a bad call, here. He is acting terribly like George W. Bush in his assertion of powers that are not his. It doesn’t matter if Obama is a great guy; no one person — not even a “benevolent dictator” — can be invested with such broad powers. It’s illegal, it’s unconstitutional, and given Obama’s background as a constitutional law scholar, he should know better. It’s shameful and he needs to stop it. This is not the change I voted for. (H/T Glenn Greenwald, of course.)

Could Obama Be the New Bush?

Anyone who has paid any attention to anything political these past weeks and months would easily arrive at this conclusion:

President Barack Obama is the exact opposite of President George W. Bush.

The differences are obvious: party, race, age, background, and experience. The list could go on for a full paragraph. In nearly every aspect, one differs greatly from the other. But it’s the one similarity between the former President and the current President that could lead to 8 years of déjà vu for Americans.

In what now seems like a drug-induced hallucination, there was actually a time when people trusted President Bush to make decisions. It was the weeks and months immediately after September 11. Americans were united. We all turned to our newly-elected Commander in Chief, ready to follow him wherever he led. President Bush could ask for anything, especially if it was in the name of fighting terrorism, and it would be given to him on a silver platter with little to no resistance from either party.

And so it was.

A war in Afghanistan, with “fighting them over there instead of fighting them over here” as its mantra, was approved with ease. Next came Iraq. Although there was some resistance, it was a flaccid opposition at best. Over the next 5-plus years, most of those who weren’t opposed to the Iraq war in the first place changed their minds. But from 2001 to 2003, at the dawn of his presidency, Bush had struck the jackpot. Because of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, he had the nearly unanimous support of the American people. But as many politicians do, he overstepped this advantage for the sake of the opportunity for his own personal gain. Instead of doing what was best for America, he did what was best for him. Instead of asking for national sacrifice in light of the new War on Terror, he told us to go shopping and look the other way as America accepted the new Bush Doctrine of preemptive war.

Now, fast-forward 7 years. When it comes to the support of the American people, is Barack Obama much different from the 2001 President Bush? Granted, the reasons behind their followings are very different – one was a result of a terrible national tragedy and the other is a result of his eloquence, ability to inspire, and contrasting policies with the former. However, with Obama now in the White House, Americans could possibly find themselves in similar circumstances to what they faced two terms ago. It’s possible that Americans will get lulled into the same sense of security that accompanied the first years of the Bush administration.  Any potential negative consequences, like running up the deficit for little economic benefit or diminishing national security, won’t be seen until several years down the road, possible after Obama’s reelection campaign.

So between now and then, before Obama’s throngs of followers (possibly) turn against him for some unforeseen reason, what will he convince America is a good idea? Or what liberal principles will traditional conservatives agree with because the country’s fearless leader has made some good choices in the past? Or because he’s trying to save the economy? Or trying to unite the country?

The increased executive power of Bush and Cheney is something Obama has promised to do away with, but with his approval rating so high, will Americans be more willing to let him keep that authority or not question how he exercises it? Obama says he wants to reach across the aisle, but he may end up pulling more people back over to his side rather than meeting them halfway.

More importantly, President Obama is now pushing for a huge stimulus package, which appeals to lots of Americans. Socialist and capitalist principles aside, most people appreciate having more money. However, most people probably don’t fully understand the implications, especially considering many of the included measures are, no matter how noble their merits, not initiatives that would have any immediate effect on the economy.  However, it could be argued, like  post-9/11 executive orders, this stimulus package is just an excuse to implement pet priorities, a reaction to a new circumstance, not necessarily some overarching principle. In other words, President Obama may be merely using the current economic disaster as an excuse to enact a smorgasbord of liberal policies, even if they have no relationship to helping us out of the economic crisis, in the same way that President Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to enact conservative policies that had no relationship to 9/11, such as the invasion of Iraq.

So the dominoes have more or less been set up. With Obama elected, we have another president Americans are ready to follow. Another president they’re willing to trust. Another president who they feel comfortable making decisions.

With so much power, let’s hope, unlike his predecessor, he makes the right ones.

What Do You Think a Stimulus Is?

Yesterday, President Obama finally stood up to the Republicans. For the last week, Republicans have been doing what they do best: controlling the message. They have talked about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 only in terms of its negative components: how much individual elements cost, how there aren’t enough tax cuts. They have, as they always do, derided and made fun of specific parts of the bill, like the part that calls for moving the federal vehicle fleet to hybrid cars. In much the same way that Sarah Palin derided certain research projects during the election (research projects that, by the way, benefit the state of Alaska), Republicans have attempted to hold up individual programs and say, “Isn’t this stupid?” Of course, that message is only suucessful if the audience similarly agrees that the program is stupid.

Yesterday, at a Democratic getaway (which cost $100,000, by the way), Obama defended the stimulus plan and even — what’s that — improvised:

When you start asking, “Well what is it that’s such a problem, that you’re seeing? Where’s all the waste in spending? Well, you know, you want to replace the federal fleet with hybrid cars.”

Well, why wouldn’t we want to do that? That creates jobs for people who make those cars. It saves the federal government energy, it saves the taxpayers energy.

Then you get the argument, “Well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.” What do you think a stimulus is?  That’s the whole point. No, seriously. That’s the point.

Republicans have been pushing more of the same: tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. For businesses and for the wealthy. But businesses have shown that they have no tolerance for spending money right now. They’ll take a tax cut and save it rather than use it for new production, or investment, or to hire workers. The wealthy have all the necessities of life they need. Rather than spend a tax cut on a new car or a new house, they’ll save it. The marginal value of a 10% tax cut is greater for a poor person than it is for a wealthy person. The wealthy person doesn’t need another Rolls. The poor person needs to eat.

Part of the Republicans’ problem with the stimulus package is that it involves the government doing things beyond fighting wars. It’s a generalization to say that Republicans hate government, but certainly part of what it means to be conservative is wanting “less government.” Grover Norquist is, of course, the proprietor of wanting to make the government so small he could drown it in a bathtub, which is why the government was so mismanaged for so many years. It’s hard to do a job well when you don’t think that job is worth doing at all. Given the choice between action or inaction, conservatives have preferred inaction (except, of course, when action increases businesses’ profits, as when Congress voted to take up United Airlines’ pension plan). One conservative pundit last week (who may or may not be able to speak for all conservatives and may or many not also be an idiot) claimed that the government has never created jobs, that government can only destroy jobs. It’s like dealing with an economic al-Qaeda: Republicans don’t want to negotiate, they don’t want to be bipartisan. They want to get exactly what they want, in full. They’ve grown accustomed to that after eight years. (Democrats have the exact opposite problem: they’ll capitulate at the drop of a hat. They’ll volunteer to capitulate if no one has asked them. There’s even a picture of Harry Reid in the dictionary next to the word “pusillanimous.” Someone needs to tell the Democrats that Ronald Reagan stopped being the president a long time ago.)

It’s true that, given enough time, the economy could probably fix itself (of course, John Maynard Keynes famously said that, in the long run, we’re all dead). But while we’re waiting for the free market to operate, people are getting laid off and losing their homes. Can we morally permit ourselves to let the economy remain in shambles for an unknown amount of time just to prove a point about capitalism? Of course not; it doesn’t make sense to do something just because it’s liberal or just because it’s conservative. We should do things because they work; Obama said as much in his inaugural address (though, admittedly, he was referring to more government versus less government).

Right now, the free market is broken. Consumers don’t want to spend at any price (and “any price” here means “any price that would be beneficial to the market”; certainly businesses could offer their goods for free, but that doesn’t exactly help us out of a recession). The cycle is supposed to work like this: a recession occurs, consumers stop spending, businesses lower their prices, consumers start spending again, business make more money, they start hiring people, consumers get employed again, business raise their prices, and we’re on our way back to 99-cent gas and Hummers at a 2-for-1 discount.

Our recession is working like this: consumers stop spending, businesses lower their prices, businesses lay more people off in order to save money, consumers stop spending even more as some of them get laid off, business revenue decreases, business lay more people off to save money, and so on. It’s a downward spiral that the market can’t correct. The market needs a fresh infusion of cash that just isn’t going to be coming any time soon.

Monetarism has failed. The discount rate — the interest rate that banks pay for short-term loans to other banks — is between 0% and 0.25%. It can’t go any lower, and banks still are reluctant to lend to other banks. This isn’t an issue strictly of price; it’s also one of psychology. Until businesses are ready to produce again, government must step in and fill the void to prevent the recession from getting any worse than it already is. Republicans criticize the size of the stimulus and bring up the issue of how we’re saddling future generations with this debt (these same people, by the way, were remarkably silent as the debt doubled under George W. Bush, Henry Hyde, Tom DeLay, and Bill Frist). They forget the other component of Keynesian economics: once the economy has recovered, the government must increase taxes and cut spending in order to pay back the money it borrowed. Let’s hope Congress doesn’t forget that part.

Update: Daily Kos has an interesting article analyzing media coverage of the stimulus bill. The Liberal Media, as it turns out, are not liberal at all. “Republican lawmakers outnumbered Democratic lawmakers 75 to 41 on cable news interviews.” In addition to Congressional Democrats themselves, cable news networks must be informed that Democrats won the election. Also, some of the Democrats who appeared on cable news networks were “Blue Dog” Democrats who side with Republicans on economic issues. And pretty much every other issue. Why are they Democrats, again?

A Progressive Health Care Solution

In one of my earlier posts, I said that I hoped President Obama would be progressive. I further tried to offer a definition of progressive, to be contrasted with liberal and conservative. That didn’t go over too well. I’m trying again, this time by using the concrete example of health care. How would a progressive go about health care reform? This is the question that I answer in Demockracy’s first-ever podcast – take a listen:

Progressivism and Health Care

Afghanistan: An Inaugural Gift

So now that we have a new President, what to get him for an inauguration present? How about an antiwar movement? Specifically an anti-Afghanistan War movement. Some may consider it in poor taste to immediately set about opposing Barack Obama’s Afghan policy before it’s had a chance to “work.” But some ideas don’t deserve a chance to work, and adding an additional 30,000 American troops to the 32,000 currently in Afghanistan is one of them.

You might think it should be easy enough to develop a movement against a war that has been going on for over seven years, but for almost all this time the nation has considered the Afghanistan War with little more than averted vision. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, retaliatory US military action was widely viewed as inevitable. The only question was what the target would be. If a country is bombed by military aircraft, you look for their country of origin; if it is attacked by highjacked airliners, things are not so simple. But when Afghanistan was chosen, the prospect of the demise of its Taliban government alleviated at least some of the misgivings of those who considered invading an entire country an inappropriate response to the actions of nineteen hijackers. Already notorious in the west for blowing up its giant ancient Buddha statues, its treatment of women was so primitive that George Bush could be viewed as a feminist crusader for launching an attack against it.

However, before there was much time to actually consider what was going on in Afghanistan, came the buildup to Iraq invasion the following year. Ever since then, Afghanistan has largely been lost in the glare. This has been an extraordinary lapse of attention, even for a country that seems to have come to accept military conflict as the norm. However, even Afghanistan War’s early opponents resigned themselves to devoting their complete energies to opposing the larger and more outrageous Iraq War with the hope for a day when they could return to actively organizing against what had now become America’s second war.

That day has probably arrived, not with the hoped for clarity of an actual end of the Iraq War, but with the vaguer prospect of an end coming in the next couple of years. But of course, the people who plan these wars don’t exactly keep the convenience of potential antiwar movements in mind, and a murky set of circumstances is what we’ve now got.

Whether antiwar interests like it or not, between the perception of Obama as an antiwar candidate (whether deserved or not) and the Iraqi troop withdrawal agreement negotiated by the outgoing administration, the public is likely to give President Obama a pass on Iraq for at least the next year. Therefore, even though Afghanistan may still not feel like the correct priority for American antiwar interests, circumstances seem to dictate that it may become just that. For one thing, the leeway the new President will enjoy regarding Iraq will not extend to the Afghanistan War, which he has embraced as a “good war,” unlike that “dumb” one in Iraq. In fact, with the talk of the surge, there even seems to be a reasonable chance that Afghanistan will one day be remembered more as Obama’s war than as Bush’s.

There are some Obama supporters whom I have talked with recently who do not think that he really meant much, if anything, of what he said about Afghanistan during the campaign.  Rather, it was the sort of thing that he felt that he had to say in order to get elected. This theory assumes that you can’t seriously aspire to the White House without supporting at least one military action. However it seems least equally plausible that his stance reflects a genuine belief that the Democrats will be able to get the Afghanistan War “right” by being smarter about it, much as “the best and the brightest” of the Kennedy Administration once figured that they could fix Eisenhower’s Vietnam problem for us.

Building broad support for getting out of Afghanistan will likely not be easy in the short run. The upcoming escalation will probably produce some military successes that will foster illusions about finally “turning a corner” there. There will likely be lots of tough talk about eliminating the Afghan opium trade, closing the border with Pakistan, and perhaps even extending the war to that country (something that candidate Obama indirectly advocated during the primary season). The new Administration will inevitably benefit from the perception of bringing new vision to the conflict, even if it has done no such thing. However, if and when this war moves from the periphery and the nation begins to focus more attentively, opposition will inevitably deepen.

In order for such opposition to mount, the first uncomfortable fact that America needs to confront is that the Karzai government that the US and NATO forces are committed to defending would not exist without the foreign invasion. Its legitimacy is based on the force of arms–foreign arms. Unpleasant as the prospect of another Taliban government may be, can we assume that it is a less legitimate option from an Afghani point of view? In addition, the other portion of Washington’s rationale, that we have engaged in seven years of war in the unsuccessful pursuit of one man, Osama bin Laden, becomes somewhat pale in the light of the fact that the US rejected out of hand the Taliban’s offer to turn him over to another Muslim country for trial if he were found.

Even more urgently, Americans will need to wake up to the fact that a “war on terror” is a slogan – like a “war on crime,” not a military operation like the invasion of Normandy. The American public is capable enough of sympathizing with the suffering peoples of the world, the population of Darfur for instance. However, unfortunately that empathetic capability often vanishes when the cause of the suffering is the US itself. Can we Americans really imagine ourselves accepting a situation like that of Afghanistan today where a foreign power (namely us) will bomb the occasional wedding, say, “Oops, our bad,” and continue right along because mistakes happen in even in the best intentioned of wars? The day our country actually comes to grips with what it means to be on the receiving end of our misconceived “war on terror” will be the day its support crumbles.

Hopefully the friends of Obama who think his heart really isn’t in the escalation of the fight in Afghanistan will realize that they can do him no greater favor than helping to deliver a groundswell of opposition to being there. After all, friends don’t let friends fight dumb wars. And if they’re right, if he’s really serious about wanting to “forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan” as he said in his inaugural address, even he will ultimately thank us.

It may take a while to catch on, we should start practicing the words now: “Afghanistan–out now!”

Two Days > Eight Years?

I’m feeling pretty good right now.

Yesterday, on his first full day in office, President Obama issued three memoranda to executive departments reinforcing his commitment to open government and accountability. For one, he directed departments to comply with the Freedom of Information Act and err on the side of disclosing information rather than hiding it. In 2001, former Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered executive departments to comply with FOIA requests only after exhausting all avenues to prevent disclosure of information. He even emphasized that potential embarrassment or liability is not a good reason to withhold information requested under FOIA. That’s tremendous!

Obama’s memoranda also gives the National Archives the authority to declassify whatever presidential records it sees fit, a stark reversal from an administration that had fought tooth and nail to keep everything it did secret. The potential exists for massive declassification of Bush administration records that are being kept secret for no other reason that it might be embarrassing or might disclose political favors.

That’s really terrible, in case you were wondering. The Bush administration’s default position was secrecy over disclosure, which only served to emphasize Bush’s greater message: the U.S. government works for we the representatives first, then for you the people. Obama’s philosophy is exactly the opposite: he has said several times that he and the rest of our representatives are public servants first, and everything they do should be in that vein of serving the public.

It should go without saying that our government is accountable to us, but it’s been a long time since that’s been true. We have been told that we have no right to know what our representatives are doing, and in some cases, we have been told it is unpatriotic to question the things our government does. Thank you, Obama, for bringing us back to normal.

And then this morning, as promised, Obama signed an executive order calling for the closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison within a year. The fate of the 200-some prisoners left there has yet to be decided: prosecutions under the Military Commissions Act have been suspended for 120 days, pending a review of each prisoner’s case. Guantánamo is littered with people who did nothing more than be in the wrong place at the wrong time, including people who were minors when they were arrested in 2001.

But there’s more! Obama signed another order directing the C.I.A. to use only the interrogation techniques specified in the Army Field Manual, a policy that has been in the works for two years, but was ignored by the Bush administration in a signing statement.

Things are looking good for America. After eight long years, it’s refreshing to see accountability, transparency, and the due process of law finally take precedence over narrow political interest.

The Hidden Sides of the Israel-Gaza Conflict

Since December 27, the Israeli military has been attacking the Gaza Strip in a large scale fashion, determined to break Hamas and end the showering of rockets into southern Israel. Thirteen Israelis have died and over 1,300 Palestinians have been killed. Observers have accused Israel of creating a humanitarian crisis out of the already precarious living environment in Gaza. Hopefully,the recent cease-fires will bring the violence to an end.

While the narrative may have some basic facts right, the mainstream media in the US has largely reduced the conflict to too simple a narrative – “Israel’s attack into Gaza is one of self-defense against a Hamas government bent on its destruction. Regrettably, many civilians have died.” Even conceding the excessive scale of its attack on Gaza, Israel is ultimately presented as a victim of terrorism with a right to self-defense. Hamas is presented as an illegitimate government (though democratically elected, “who still refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist’ we are always reminded) and an irrationally violent terrorist organization.

While there may be some elements of truth in this narrative, it is far from the complete picture.  Some observers have noted that not much attention has been paid to anything besides this simplistic narrative. But the simple Israel-victim-Hamas-terrorist narrative ultimately fails to answer many broader political questions about the conflict in a satisfying way. Why would Hamas been firing rockets at Israel now? Why would Israel respond with the large-scale force that it did? Why would the US step back and allow the violence to proceed? Why would other actors – Egypt, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon – behave the way they have?

While there are clearly legitimate and clear-cut concerns over sovereignty and security on both sides of this conflict, the motivations and actions of all actors are muddied by the conflict’s political context. The political motivations and factors that may be playing a significant part in driving the conflict have been largely overlooked. Here I begin to explore how certain political concerns may be influencing what has been happening in Gaza.

Israel–Yes, Israel– justifiably wanted to defend itself by stopping Hamas rocket fire. But, with Israel’s apparent victory in this conflict, it has become clear that a significant reason for its excessive assault was to exorcize the failure of 2006’s war with Hezbollah. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert – stepping down as PM this year – may have wanted to depart with a success under his belt after 2006’s debacle. His Kadima Party, facing a February election, had to show its toughness against attacks on Israel and its ability to protect Israel and take the battle to its enemies. It was also Kadima’s Ariel Sharon that unilaterally withdrew Israeli forces from Gaza in 2005. Perhaps Kadima felt responsible for curbing Hamas’ current aggression. It remains to be seen if the Israeli public’s overwhelming support for Olmert’s attack on Hamas will translate into success at the polls for Kadima’s Tzipi Livni. During the conflict, there was considerable debate within the Israeli government about how to pursue the war on Hamas, and Kadima would not be the only party to gain by pushing the war. Labor Party head and Defense Minister Ehud Barack is a contender for PM in the upcoming election as is Likud’s Benjamin Netanyahu. The main political debate in Israel surrounding the conflict has been how hawkish is hawkish enough. The effect of the war on the election looms large.

Hamas – One part of the reason for Hamas’ improper rocket attacks that we hear little about is the Israeli blockade of Gaza. The blockade has effectively amounted to a siege, intended to make life for residents in Gaza extremely hard. By all accounts, this crowded sliver of land has been on the verge of a humanitarian crisis for some time. With the end of a six-month ceasefire in November, Israel began attacks on tunnels in Gaza and denied Hamas’ demand that the blockade be lifted.  While none of this justifies rocket attacks, this series of events helps to explain what led Hamas to begin sending rockets into Israel again. In addition, the on-going fight for Palestine between Hamas and Fatah offers a possible political motivation for Hamas’ attacks. Palestinians have rallied behind Hamas during the conflict, threatening Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah government in the West Bank. This was likely an intentional move by Hamas, to undermine Fatah, often seen as too accommodating to Israel and the US. During the conflict, Fatah has not allowed open protests against Israel for example. The sympathy and pride Palestinians have felt for Hamas during this conflict could tip the scales in Hamas’ favor in the next West Bank election. One also wonders if the timing of the conflict might be an early test of President Obama by both Israel and Hamas. With hostilities barely over when Obama takes office, his pushing a lasting US-sponsored peace deal is highly unlikely. Perhaps this was a calculation by Hamas – who appears unwilling to agree to any two-state solution – and Israel too – who may see current circumstances unfavorable to its interests.

United States – George W. Bush’s lame-duck administration has had little reason to stick its neck out for either side in Gaza. Its support for Israel has been implicit, though not unconditional while it has also, surprisingly, supported UN demands for a ceasefire. What concerns me more is the silence from president-elect Obama. He has shied away from making statements about the situation in Gaza, arguing that there is only one President at a time. But, that same argument has not stopped him from speaking at length about the country’s economic woes. If Obama is avoiding making statements about Gaza, it suggests two things to me. First, he probably does not see a US role in solving the problem in Gaza as a priority for his administration at this time. This is understandable – there are numerous, bigger problems facing the US, and the UN and countries like Egypt have been ably handling the negotiating of the recent ceasefire. I sense that Obama has made the political calculation that the US need not be heavily invested in the Gaza solution for now. The more troubling implication of his silence is that he would not act much differently than Bush has. By his silence, Obama seems to be painting himself into a corner and agreeing with Bush’s policy – essentially ratifying what will be all but a done deal by the time he takes office. As a candidate, Obama courted AIPAC and returned from a trip to Israel with a great deal of sympathy for its situation. He has vowed to continue the “special relationship” between the two countries and probably doesn’t want to make Israel – or the rest of the world – nervous about his intentions toward the region during his administration.

And this is just the beginning. There are undoubtedly other political calculations that have been influencing the conflict, and other players are significant here too – the EU, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and especially Iran and Egypt. They will be crucial to securing any lasting peace and resolution to this specific conflict and to the Israel-Palestine conflict in general. Yet, all parties bring their own agendas and complexities to the table. We can all hope that peace will one day reign in Israel and Palestine, but it will not be simple, and it will not be possible by looking at the situation simplistically. We will need to see and understand the hidden facets to the region’s challenges and act accordingly.

« Previous Page — Next Page »