Nothing But Words

Cross-posted at TPMCafe

Sharing headlines with hurricanes Katrina and Rita has been coverage of the United States’ limited and fragile oil refining capacity. We’ve seen gas prices soar not because of a lack of oil shipments to the US, but because the hurricanes have shut down refineries crucial to turning that oil into gasoline. The conventional wisdom that’s quickly emerged on the news channels is that we wouldn’t be in this situation if it weren’t for environmental regulations, and pressure from environmental groups, raising too many obstacles to the construction of new refineries. Is this the only reason, or is there more to the story?

Congress is already gearing up to loosen environmental regulations and “streamline” the approval process (i.e. block objections from local communities) for the construction of new refineries:

Congress got an earful from industry officials who argued for tax breaks to bolster capacity and complained that environmental regulations and ‘not in my backyard’ citizen movements had blocked efforts to build new refineries…Both parties are weighing measures to loosen environmental and permitting constraints for refineries.

As the saying goes, don’t believe the hype. While environmental regulations and NIMBY-ism are certainly a factor, of equal or greater importance is the fact that until now the industry hasn’t been particularly interested in building new refineries:

“Oil companies want to make money with refineries, and they did not want to get excess capacity by over-investing,” says Lehi German, president of Fundamental Petroleum Trends, a weekly newsletter. Oil companies felt that if America suddenly needed more gasoline or diesel fuel, “then import it.”

So the industry has placed profits ahead of investing in refining capacity, and – with the exception of this Christian Science Monitor article I quoted – the media seems content to go along with them pining the whole thing on environmentalists.

While bouncing Eidan on my shoulder last night, I endured Bush’s monotonic, robotic Hurricane Katrina speech. Bush is fairly good at rhetoric geared towards aggression, but a total failure at feeling people’s pain. Where is Bill Clinton when you need him? (his remarks at the Oklahoma City memorial service were so moving they gave him a 12-point boost in the polls). But what matters most is substance. On that count, Bush said one thing that angered me, and another that scared me. Josh Marshall picked up on the same two things, and has already blogged about them:

Let’s see. What was the problem with Michael Brown exactly? Let’s see. No expertise or experience for the job. Got the gig because he was pals with Bush’s political fixer. Also a political loyalist.

So to learn the lesson and get back on track, to run the recovery, President Bush picks Karl Rove [Bush's long-time chief political strategist, whose sole area of expertise is running political campaigns].

That’s great.

Do we really all need the paint by numbers version of this picture [see Paul Krugman's Not the New Deal op-ed].

Then there’s the president’s great line from the speech: “It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces.”

No, it’s not. Actually, every actual fact that’s surfaced in the last two weeks points to just the opposite conclusion. There was no lack of federal authority to handle the situation. There was faulty organization, poor coordination and incompetence.

Show me the instance where the federal government was prevented from doing anything that needed to be done because it lacked the requisite authority.

This is like what we were talking about a few days ago. This is how repressive governments operate — mixing inefficiency with authoritarian tendencies.

You don’t repair disorganized or incompetent government by granting it more power. You fix it by making it more organized and more competent. If conservatism can’t grasp that point, what is it good for?

I was drafting some thoughts on where we stand 4 years after 9/11, but I was just too tired to pull it together. Fortunately, someone else wrote what is by far the best assesment I’ve seen: Mark Danner’s New York Times Magazine cover story Taking Stock of the Forever War. Normally I quote the key passages of articles I cite, but this is the kind of essay that is so expertly weaved together that you have to take it all in – there is no paragraph or two that I can grab that would sum it up.

It’s long but well worth reading. If you don’t like reading a lot on the screen, go to the printer friendly version and print it out.

Steven Vincent was one of the very few Iraq reporters brave enough to venture outside the Baghdad Green Zone these days, without a US military escort. He took this risk to bring us stories that would otherwise go unreported, as it’s a lot earier to get people to talk freely without armed US soliders looking over your shoulder. As has been widely reported, he was killed yesterday in Basra. What hasn’t been as widely noted is what a great reporter he was. It’s quite likely that his Switched Off is Basra editorial in last Sunday’s New York Times – in which he described how much of the Basra police force is little more than an extension of the extreme Shiite religious parties – is what got him killed.

The Christian Science Monitor (my favorite paper) regularly picks up his stories, so I’ve read his stuff before, but it was only after his death that I learned about his blog, In the Red Zone. I’m not sure how much longer it will stay up – I highly recommend taking a look while it’s still available. In particular, his final entry, The Naive American, is a compelling, personal account of his recent interview with an Air Force captain.

My GSAVE post to TPMCafe garnered some attention: it made their Top Readers Blogs just a few hours after I posted it (since it was a couple days ago, it’s now 3rd from the top). One of their regular contributors has a different take on what it really means, if you’re curious. Now that more information has come out, I’m inclined to agree with him. The Bush administration almost always has tight message control, and I had taken that as a given when I wrote my post. But it looks like this is a rare case of the Pentagon announcing policy decisions without coordinating with the White House.

Cross-posted at TPMCafe – please go there and click the “Recommend” button

Matt Yglesias was mystified by the name change of the Global War on Terror to the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism (GSAVE). The motivation for the name change is the 2006 midterm elections. With popular support for Bush’s handling of terrorism and the Iraq war on the wane, the White House recognizes that maintaining the status quo could very well lead to Republican loses in 2006. So Bush’s objective is to make, or at least announce, significant troop reductions in Iraq by next summer’s election season.

The White House’s public pronouncements aside, they know it’s very unlikely that the situation in Iraq will significantly improve by then. So the  question they’ve been asking themselves is: how do we start bringing troops home even though Iraq is still very unstable, and not have it look like a defeat? The answer is to reframe public perceptions, and to start doing it now. If Iraq is the central front in the Global War on Terror and the troops leave before victory is achieved, then Bush and the Republicans look like failed wartime leaders. But if we are instead engaged in a long-term Global Struggle Against Violenet Extremism, then large numbers of boots on the ground is not the answer: it takes diplomacy, covert operations we can’t tell you about (but trust us, they’re working great), patience, and a holistic perspective that sees Iraq as just one aspect of the Global Struggle. The message will be that withdrawing the troops isn’t a sign of failure, it’s simply a sign that we’ve entered the next phase of the Global Struggle.

The fact that a lot of this is awfully similar to what they excoriated John Kerry for advocating is not seen as particularly relevant by the White House political strategists. The media has let them get away with blatant hypocrisy before, so they feel no compunction about doing it again. This seemingly odd name change is the first step in a communication strategy that will unfold over the course of the next year.

This entry is cross-posted at Daily Kos.

President Bush has repeatedly expressed his admiration for Justices Thomas and Scalia, who are by far the most conservative members of the Supreme Court. The religious right is vocally reminding him that he wouldn’t have been re-elected without their support, and with a vacancy on the Court, the Christian conservatives are calling in the debt. However, Bush’s popularity is well under the 50% mark, as is his support for the Iraq war, he’s losing his battle for changing Social Security, he’s got a deficit spending crisis on his hands, he can’t get his UN nominee John Bolton confirmed by the Senate, and the House even thumbed its nose at him recently, passing legislation for expanding federal support of stem cell research. As a second term President approaching lame duck status faster than most, he’s not in a strong position for pushing a controversial Supreme Court nominee through the Senate. So will he replace the moderate O’Connor with another moderate, or a “strict constructionist” in the mold of Thomas and Scalia?

In the aftermath of the 2004 election, I predicted that, when the time came, he would nominate a conservative to the liking of the religious right. I’ve changed my mind – I think he’ll nominate a moderate. Here are my reasons:

1. I used to think Bush would appoint someone friendly to the religious right because he played himself up as a true believer. But I’ve come to believe his attachment to the religious right has more to do with electoral exploitation than sincere beliefs. One reason for my change of heart is a story I heard Howard Dean share when I saw him debate Bill Bennett last Fall. He described an encounter with Bush when they were both governors. It’s a story he’s told elsewhere as well: “‘I hate those people,’ he’d once snarled at me when I ribbed him at a White House governors’ gathering about some trouble he was having in Texas with the Christian Coalition.” Also, if you read this interview with Al Franken, it seems that Bush doesn’t know all that much about what’s in the Bible, despite two years of Bible boot camp and his claim in the 2000 campaign that he reads the Bible daily.
2. The strongest argument in favor of Bush appointing a conservative is that he can’t afford to anger his base, and that the average voter doesn’t get worked up about Supreme Court nominees anyway, so why not give the religious right what it wants? I disagree with this for three reasons:
   1. He can afford to anger his base. His base can’t help him with all the problems I listed in the first paragraph. Bush won’t be running for re-election. Republican House and Senate members who need the Christian conservative vote will get it if they pander sufficiently. The religious right has become highly mobilized in recent years, and I don’t think they’ll sit out the 2006 election, even if they are angry with Bush (their anger at Bush will be outweighed by their almost hysterical fear of possible Democratic gains).
   2. The people who can help Bush right now are moderate Republicans. They can help him salvage something from his stalled Social Security initiative. They can help him get his nominees through the Senate. If Bush nominates a radical conservative to the Supreme Court, it will undoubtedly trigger a Democratic filibuster, causing Frist to pull the trigger on the “nuclear option.” The Democrats will then respond by shutting down the Senate. It’s unclear who would suffer the most politically if this were to happen, but there’s a good chance it would be Bush, and I don’t think he’s willing to take that chance. The average voter may not be very interested in Supreme Court nominees, but they would pay attention to a Senate shutdown, and all the mudslinging that would undoubtedly ensue.
   3. As a second term President, Bush is almost certainly thinking about the “L” word – no, not liberal – “legacy.” All things being equal, I’m sure he’d like to be remembered for putting a strong conservative on the bench. But given the current risks of trying to push one through, he probably doesn’t want to be remembered for another Bork-style flameout.

If Bush does choose a moderate nominee, and John McCain (or another moderate) emerges as the 2008 Presidential nominee, I think there’s a very real possibility of a GOP split, with the Christian conservatives putting up their own 3rd party candidate for the Presidency. Take a look at this Humphrey Institute poll from 2004:

The poll showed that in a one-on-one race with Kerry, Bush would win 87 percent of the GOP vote. But when given the option of Bush, Kerry, and a conservative third-party candidate, GOP support for Bush dropped to as low as 75 percent.

I think the support among conservatives would drop even lower if an avowed moderate got the 2008 Presidential nomination, especially if Bush doesn’t give the Christian conservatives someone they like on the Supreme Court. But my guess is that Bush isn’t thinking about 2008 right now. It’s more likely that he wants to make sure he ends up with something to show for his last three years as President.

I have too many interests and not enough time.

If you do a Google News search for “base closings,” you’ll see that the new round of military base closures planned by the DoD is getting a lot of press attention. This round of closures follows previous rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995. In 1994 I worked as an intern for Business Executives for National Security (BENS) where I did research on the base closing process. We learned that in many respects it was a shell game, with new federal or military missions often taking up shop on the “closed” bases, thus undercutting much of the expected cost savings. Leslie Stahl did a 60 Minutes piece based on BENS research.

For one of my research seminars while I was a graduate student, I attempted a statistical analysis to assess what factors determined whether closed bases would “re-open” with new defense or federal activities. My model was flawed but salvageable – I figured I’d return to it as a possible dissertation topic. But then I never went on to complete my PhD.

I want to improve on my original analysis, but there would be quite a lot of research to do, and I just don’t have the time (especially since it’s work that’s not exactly relevant to my career). Maria suggested I find a graduate student who might be interested, and let him or her take on the additional research. We could then see if we could get it published as a co-authored paper. I think it’d be a useful contribution to the discussions concerning the current round of base closings, and of course, it’d be nice to get a paper published

So I think I’ll make a few phone calls. I’m still friendly with a professor at Georgetown, someone at BENS might be interested, and between Maria and one of her colleagues at Penn, we can ask around among Villanova’s and Penn’s graduate students.

Peggy Noonan was one of Reagan’s speechwriters, and she has an occasional column in the Wall Street Journal. Her column last week – The Legend of Deep Throat – blew my mind. Noonan is a master of political writing – she usually makes most of her points by inference or implication – allowing her to make a persuasive argument, yet making it very difficult to pin her down on a particular statement. But Watergate clearly pushes her buttons, as her statements in this column are unambiguous. They are also immensely hypocritical. Here’s the most jarring statement:

The Washington Post said yesterday that Mr. Felt’s information allowed them to continue their probe. That probe brought down a president. Ben Stein is angry but not incorrect: What Mr. Felt helped produce was a weakened president who was a serious president at a serious time. Nixon’s ruin led to a cascade of catastrophic events–the crude and humiliating abandonment of Vietnam and the Vietnamese, the rise of a monster named Pol Pot, and millions–millions–killed in his genocide. America lost confidence; the Soviet Union gained brazenness. What a terrible time. Is it terrible when an American president lies and surrounds himself by dirty tricksters? Yes, it is. How about the butchering of children in the South China Sea. Is that worse? Yes. Infinitely, unforgettably and forever.

So, apparently, Woodward, Bernstein, and Felt are indirectly responsible for all the horrible things that happened around the world for the next few years after the Watergate story broke. The only conclusion that one can draw from this assertion is that we shouldn’t question the honesty and integrity of our leaders during “serious times,” because of the potential damage to our foreign policy. Reading this made me think of 9/11. Richard Clarke (counter-terrorism czar for both Clinton and Bush) revealed in his book that the Lewinsky scandal paralyzed the Clinton administration, and consequently, Clinton let pass an opportunity to kill Bin Laden (after taking a beating on the “Monica’s missiles” incident, he had no political maneuvering room to attempt another strike against Al Qaeda). I looked through Noonan’s columns since Clarke’s book came out, to see if she thought, in retrospect, the Lewinsky affair should have been swept under the rug for the sake of national security and getting Bin Laden. I found nothing of the sort.

Another section that got my attention:

Was Mr. Felt a hero? … a hero would have come forward, resigned his position, declared his reasons, and exposed himself to public scrutiny. He would have taken the blows and the kudos…Heroes pay the price. Mr. Felt simply leaked information gained from his position in government to damage those who were doing what he didn’t want done.

I think Richard Clarke fits that definition of a hero quite well. He was so dismayed by the Bush administration’s handling of counter-terrorism that he resigned his position, wrote a book detailing his concerns, testified before Congress, and was subsequently raked over the coals by the Bush administration (they even tried to cast doubt on his sanity). But again, looking through her old columns, I found no praise for Clarke (I wasn’t expecting her to agree with his position, but after reading what she said about Felt, I thought she might at least respect Clarke’s forthrightness). When his book came out, the Republicans dismissed him as an egomaniac who wanted to hog the limelight and make a few bucks off his book. If Felt had acted like Clarke, how much would you be willing to bet that Noonan would have torn down Felt the same way the Republicans went after Clarke?

Her thoughts on Felt do not illustrate any kind of principled position, but they provide insight on how she rationalizes her own feelings of anger, while trying to score some points in the process.

Last year most of my blogging was about politics. This year, I’ve only made a few posts about politics. One reason for the change is that my specialty in grad school was voting behavior, so if I have any unique insight on something, it’s probably going to be during election time. The other reason is that there are several other good political blogs out there, and quite often, when I think of something to write, I discover that someone else has already written it. Links to my favorite political blogs are in the column on your right.

So until next year’s election cycle, most of my blog’s political content probably will consist of links to articles I found particularly interesting, along with some additional commentary of my own. Here are a few to get things started:

• Ed Kilgore’s False Prophets post – if you only read one of these linked articles, read this one. Having read Kilgore’s posts for several months now, it’s become clear to me that he has a particularly deep understanding of religion and its interplay with politics. He’s at his best in this post.
• Greg Sargent’s Brand Hillary article in The Nation. This is the first article I’ve seen so far on Hillary Clinton’s possible 2008 Presidential bid that is actually written in a calm tone, and is insightful and informative. Other commentary I’ve seen so far has been completely irrational, consisting of either apoplectic disgust or hysterical support. And here’s my first prediction for the 2008 Presidential campaign: look for a Hillary Clinton – Wesley Clark ticket. She’s been burnishing her national security credentials as a Senator, and she can seal the deal on that front by putting Clark on the ticket. Clark was quietly backed by the Clinton’s in 2004, so we already know they get along. Clark was too green in 2004, and he had an awful speech writer. But he was always good in one-on-one interviews, so I think he can turn in a better performance in 2008 if he gets a better speech writer.
• The Christian Science Monitor’s Why has ‘Downing Street memo’ story been a ‘dud’ in US? – you may or may not have seen the very limited coverage that’s been given to the British “Downing Street memo” which states that in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, “…the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” This article explores why such a seemingly explosive revelation has gotten such little coverage in the US.
• Niall Ferguson’s Cowboys and Indians Op-Ed in the New York Times – this is a schizophrenic yet insightful piece on the situation in Iraq. Ferguson’s a conservative who’s not shy about taking potshots at liberals in this article, yet he paints a damning picture of US policy and the grim prospects for Iraq’s future (echoing points myself and others made a year ago). His clear-headed analysis of the situation is upended by his confounding belief that the US cause is just and that we shouldn’t leave. In an attempt to reconcile the two, he ends up offering bizarre and unworkable advice:

  “…it is time to acknowledge just how thinly stretched American forces in Iraq are and to address the problem: whether by finding new allies (send Condoleezza Rice to New Delhi?); radically expanding the accelerated citizenship program for immigrants who join the army; or lowering the (historically high) educational requirements demanded by military recruiters.”

  He’s crazy if he thinks we can persuade India (or any other country at this point) to send substantial numbers of troops to Iraq. He opens himself to accusations of the worst kind of racism if he seriously thinks we should accelerate our immigration programs to provide cannon fodder for the army. And when he suggests lowering the “historically high” education standards for joining the Army, I guess he thinks the current requirement of a GED is too onerous. It seems to me you wouldn’t want anything less when it comes to 21st century warfare. If the best a prominent conservative intellectual can come up with is that we should win the war by getting foreign troops to fight in our place, to start a massive recruitment campaign among new immigrants, and to seduce the under-educated into joining the army, then we really are in an awful predicament.

• Middle East expert Juan Cole’s Sometimes You are Just Screwed post explains just how untenable our position in Iraq now is. It’s a more comprehensive analysis than Ferguson’s.