FunctionalAmbivalent

The Future of American Piracy Policy

Huffington Post puts Somali pirates in context:

No, this doesn't make hostage-taking justifiable, and yes, some are clearly just gangsters - especially those who have held up World Food Programme supplies. But the "pirates" have the overwhelming support of the local population for a reason. The independent Somalian news-site WardherNews conducted the best research we have into what ordinary Somalis are thinking - and it found 70 percent "strongly supported the piracy as a form of national defence of the country's territorial waters." During the revolutionary war in America, George Washington and America's founding fathers paid pirates to protect America's territorial waters, because they had no navy or coastguard of their own. Most Americans supported them. Is this so different?

So here's where we're going to end up: liberals are going to try to solve the underlying problems that make piracy a valid career choice in Somalia, dumping massive aid and effort into a country that really isn't a country at all. Conservatives are going to want to ramp up the military effort, if necessary eradicating all signs of life on the pirate coast.

Either policy would solve the problem; I'll leave it to you to decide which is more practical because, in all honesty, I don't really have an opinion.

But here's the inevitable thing: we won't adopt one policy or the other. We'll compromise and adopt half of each. We'll beef up our military presence, which the right will like because it sounds tough and gives them lots of macho bully moments to celebrate. (We're currently thumping our chests about the great victory of the USS Bainbridge, an Arleigh Burke-class Aegis destroyer that carries a wide variety of guided missiles and can engage 100 supersonic targets at a time, over a plastic lifeboat manned by three teenagers.) On the other hand, we'll beef up our "humanitarian" aid and nation building effort, which will have the effect of keeping everyone alive without giving them a realistic road to self-sufficiency.

The result will be a perpetually festering Somalia, a state just failed enough to stay out of the headlines but not successful enough to allow us to disengage. This will continue, roughly, forever, becoming another invisible $20 billion a year budget line item that no one really thinks about.

It will also, perhaps not coincidentally, give politicians something to beat each other over the head with. The right will accuse the left of being weak; the left will accuse the right of not caring about starving babies.

How long this policy will last is anyone's guess, but we've had a similarly, obviously unproductive policy in Cuba for 50 years and it's still going strong, so the potential is almost unlimited. Careers will be built; fortunes will be made.

Iconic Imagery

It makes no substantive difference, I know, but I'll bet you this image of President Obama defines his Presidency in much the same way that the image of President Kennedy and son, below, defined the Kennedy Administration.

The Point at Which History Will Recognize Once and For All the Death of the CD

Apple Corps has announced that The Beatles catalog will be digitally remastered and released in September on a dozen new CDs. The Beatles and their survivors will make, roughly, ten kajillion dollars on the sale of CDs to Baby Boomers, while utterly mystifying younger demographics.

After the initial sales of the CDs, The Beatles and their survivors will acquiesce to the inevitable and cut a deal to sell the catalog through digital downloads, at which point they will make another seven bazillion dollars. At that point, everyone will decide that CDs are stupid and will stop manufacturing them.

Palin Lawyers Up

For a book deal!

She's reportedly hired Washington in-crowd attorney Robert Barnett, who brokered Hillary Clinton's $8 million deal, to put together a little muse-money for herself. Previous speculation on this very blog puts the eventual deal at $6 million -- and lord knows none of my predictions have ever been wrong.

Which means that now the only thing we don't know is whether the book is going to be sneering right-wing claptrap and score-settling or a serious attempt to rehabilitate her image. Imagine Palin right now, wrestling in a very personal way with the essential conservative conflict of our time: William F. Buckley or Ann Coulter? Respect or money?

I'm betting Palin publishes a serious attempt, with lots of introspective discussion of mistakes she and other Republicans made on the campaign trail, a kind of elegaic tone poem ending with an inspiring concept for the re-birth of conservatism.

Aw, hell, who am I kidding? Sneering right wing claptrap it is!

What Goes Around Comes Around

One of the interesting things about the last eight Republican years has been the absolutism of Bush's Republican Party. In a word, the were uncompromising, both literally and figuratively. They were petty in their management of Congress -- denying Democrats meeting spaces, for example, and even calling the Capitol Police to break up a Democratic meeting they didn't want to happen -- and refused to even consider opposing viewpoints in the writing of laws. In some cases, they didn't even give Democrats time to read the laws they were being asked to vote on.

Now it's amusing to hear Republicans complaining that their points of view aren't being considered in the incoming Obama Administration. Kevin Drum links to this NRO story -- the NRO having apparently been a model advocate of balanced government during the Republican heyday -- complaining that Obama's nominee for Secretary of Labor fails to "reflect some balance between labor and management." Drum recognizes the irony:

Maybe my memory is just getting fuzzy as I get old, but I sure don't remember very much conservative concern with "balance between labor and management" when George Bush chose Mitch McConnell's wife to be Secretary of Labor eight years ago. Do you?

Let's see. Before her appointment, Elaine Chao spent four years as a fellow at the Heritage Foundation. She campaigned tirelessly with McConnell against the Employee Free Choice Act. Her choice to head up OSHA was a partner at one of the best known union-busting lawfirms in the country. Under her watch the NLRB reclassified 8 million workers as "supervisors," primarily in an attempt to throw a wrench in unionizing efforts. New overtime rules wiped out time-and-a-half for 6 million workers. The probability of union organizers being fired went up by more than half.

There was, of course, no balance during the Bush Administration, and the pro forma bitching Republicans are doing now about the vastly more balanced Obama Administration is hypocritical and  obvious to the point of clownishness.

I sat at a party Saturday night with two drunken, wildly conservative Republicans who I have personally heard use the N-word in conversation, and they had nothing but good things to say about Barack Obama. They were impressed by his deliberation and his cabinet selections, and mentioned the respect he showed the current President by reminding the media that this country has only one President at a time. And when they were done praising Obama they went after their beloved Republicans, who seem able to do nothing but complain and destroy.

"If they cain't be helpful," one man said, his Kentucky accent thickened by a half bottle of Maker's Mark, "they ought just to shut up."

(This warmed my heart to hear, by the way, "Sit down and shut up" being the in-a-nutshell summation of what I think Bush Republicans ought to do.)

It's going to be interesting to see how long it takes the Republicans to develop some kind of positive message. Their misbehavior the last eight years -- misbehavior by their own, conservative standards -- in pursuit of power and their craven dependency on division and attack is making them look foolish even to their own base. (Every time a Republican complains about big government, don't you just want to laugh?) It looks, however, like they're going accentuate the negative for at least one more election cycle.

Which leads me to the point of all this: a prediction.

The Democrats, contra-history, will pick up seats in Congress two years from now. In the Senate, Democrats will gain a couple of seats as voters tire of Republican filibusters.

The Republican reaction will be one more round of ideological purges and compromisers and moderates are removed from positions of power.

Then, in 2012, they'll nominate Sarah Palin, whose ideosexual hold on the party's uncompromising base defies rational analysis. She'll get deservedly creamed.

After that, Republicans will maybe get serious about contributing something useful to the political discourse. They'll do that by going back to their pre-culture wars roots: smaller, less intrusive government; lower taxes; a foreign policy that puts America's interests first. The message will resonate more in 2016, since we'll no longer be afraid of coming Depression and instead will be trying to figure out a way to get government out of the banking, insurance and financial businesses.

But right now, Republicans are exactly where the Democrats were in 1980. They're fighting a political and cultural tide by promising to deliver more of what people have already rejected. Walter Mondale, you remember, responded to Reagan's effective "tax and spend liberal" label by promising from the podium of the Democratic National Convention to raise everyone's taxes and spend the money on welfare.

Admire his integrity if you like, but remember too that Mondale got only 13 electoral votes.

Have fun in the wilderness, Republicans. Write if you get work.

The "B" Team

CNN last night discussed who the candidates would choose for the Vice Presidency, and as is their wont they put together little graphics showing the five people they imagine to be front-runners for each party.

For your convenience, here are the ten they featured and what I think of their chances:

On the Republican side:

Carley Fiorina -- the fired former head of Hewlet-Packard, Fiorina would be confirmation that the world really does revolve around the Clintons, since the nomination of Fiorina would be a blatant cowtow to a supposedly soft portion of the Democratic base. "Sure they're got a black guy," the campaign would be saying. "But we've got a woman!" Fiorina would also be a gesture to the Republicans who think government ought to run more like business -- though you'd think he could find someone who's primary accomplishment wasn't getting herself fired for decreasing the enterprise value of her company by 50%. Anyway, Fiorina is on the list primarily because it gives otherwise bored news anchors something to talk about. She has no chance.

Bobby Jindal -- To be honest, i know almost nothing about Jindal except that he's 37 years old. McCain's whole argument is experience, which he blows if he puts this whippersnapper a heartbeat away from the Presidency, as they say. So: no.

Charlie Crist -- Governor of Florida, a state McCain needs to retain if he's going to have a chance of winning. Crist is, as previously noted, a gentleman with an interesting personal life. Somewhere in McCain's war room there's a group of people who can't sleep because they're imagining flamboyant homosexuals coming out of the woodwork claiming to have had sex with Crist. Rightly or wrongly, he's not going to make the ticket for that reason alone.

Tim Pawalenty -- For a Baptist Republican to thrive in Lutheran and liberal Minnesota says something, and Governor Pawlenty has some chops. While he has a dearth of experience on the national stage, he's got some impressive ticket punches (e.g., Chairman of the National Governors Association) and seems genuinely reasonable. His fit with McCain, from a policy standpoint, is good -- which means he's more conservative than McCain and would appeal to the Republican base. Put Pawlenty down as a "maybe."

Mitt Romney -- The former Massachusetts governor is the hands-down favorite, despite the fact that he and McCain seem to not get along. He'd be our first consultant Vice President, which means he'd probably stop by th Oval Office a couple of times a week to urge that cosmetic changes be made and a few thousand people be laid off. Mitt's a big goof-ball past his expiration date; the video of him vowing to make the prison at Guantanamo Bay bigger would be a great oppo ad in these times of national regret. That said, he's a solid conservative who'd appease the base, though his membership in what many see as a weirdo religion is problematic. Some MTV kid is going to ask him "briefs or boxers" and when he replies "garments" it's going to open a whole new can of worms. Still, if I had to pick, I pick Romney at better than 50-50 chances.

On the Democratic side:

Hillary Clinton -- No. She refutes Obama's whole argument of change and the thought of Bill unleashed appeals to no one. No no no. I don't even understand why the mdia keep putting her on the list.

Evan Bayh -- Bayh is from nearby Indiana, and I, for one, have never understood his appeal. He's like a cut-glass tumbler filled with Homogenized Vitamin D Milk -- handsome and bland. His hair doesn't move, his suits are always perfect, and he's never said anything that would get anyone's hackles up. He's Dan Quayle with a side of synthetic gravitas. But: he's very popular in Indiana, a solidly Republican state that is creeping toward the blue line. Still: no.

Sam Nunn -- My first reaction when his name surfaced a few months ago was, "I didn't know he was still alive!" And I very seldom use exclamation points, so you can imagine my surprise. I don't believe for one second that nominating an elder statesman with solid defense chops will placate anyone disinclined to vote for Obama because he's young and inexperienced. Which means Nunn has no political upside, though it might be handy to have him around. Still, I think he's more likely as Defense Secretary than veep.

Chuck Hagel -- Last I checked he was a Republican. No.

Joe Biden -- Hasn't he already said he doesn't want it? I think Biden would be a good choice, though you'd have to set some sort of time limit on him during cabinet meetings.

All in all, I think CNN badly missed on the Democratic side, choosing prospective candidates who make interesting newsroom chatter but don't have a chance in the real world. I think Obama's going to choose someone who's a surprise. I'm still not ruling out Bill Richardson, though I wouldn't bet on him. I wouldn't bet on anyone, at this point, but Mitt -- and I'd need at least three-to-two odds to lay-down more than a round of drinks.

Everyone Else Has an Opinion, and So Do I

Obama picks Jim Webb as his Veep. There is plenty of symbolic value to that and some electoral logic as well, but there are also substantive reasons for the choice.

If the war is going to be brought to an acceptable conclusion, the relationship with the DoD needs to be a real point of focus for the new administration.

Whatever Obama's plan is, getting it done is going to require an Executive Branch that understands how to get the enormous DoD bureaucracy to move. The liberal emphasis is usually the taming of the DoD, getting the budgets under control and downplaying the aspect of our national character that could be referred to as "the warrior mentality." That's a critical function, of course, as recognized by the great anti-military leftist Dwight Eisenhower. It also needs to be handled right or the results won't make anyone happy. (For example, Clinton's gays-in-the-military pronouncement led to the awful don't ask, don't tell policy, which pleases no one.) The Bush Administration has in significant ways abdicated its responsibility for overseeing the military, deferring to generals on high-level strategy that is rightly a civilian function. One assumes Obama won't do that. Webb, after his stint in the Reagan Administration, has pretty good working knowledge of bureaucratic Washington, in particular the Department of Defense. He could be a big help.

There's another aspect to the relationship between civilian government and the military where Webb could help, and that's in building Obama's understanding of the value of the distrusted "warrior mentality." We do,  actually, live in a dangerous world -- not as dangerous as Republicans seem to think, but dangerous nonetheless. Democrats often seem as if they don't understand that. Webb is an exception, and he would likely be a forceful and valuable reminder of that reality, and it's a safe bet that any Democratic administration is going to benefit from a real understanding of the culture, expertise and capabilities of the military.

Increasing civilian control over the military while also integrating the military more deeply into a overall anti-terrorism strategy amounts to a re-jiggering of the relationship between the Executive Branch and the Pentagon -- something that is necessary if Islamic fundamentalism is going to be defeated. Webb could be an invaluable part of that process.

Then there's this: Webb is a pugnacious little SOB, a sharp-elbowed political battler capable of the kind of wet work Vice Presidents often have to handle. Obama needs someone like that.

So, anyway, Webb's my bet.

OK, I'm Going To Take a Risk Here

It's like Blog Jeopardy. I give you the answer, and we'll see if the question comes up in the next few days. The answer is:

Seriously, what guy didn't say exactly the same thing at exactly the same time of his life?

This is my test of being able to predict the next feigned outrage by outraged conservatives outraged by outrageous liberal outrages. A cursory look at my predictions so far on this blog indicates that there is approximately no chance of my being right.

Today's Prediction About Tomorrow's Primaries

Barack wins Texas and Vermont; Hillary wins Ohio and Rhode Island. Barack takes more delegates overall.

This disastrous outcome will be positioned by Hillary's staff as proof that she's coming back.

He won 11 states in a row. Now we split 4. The momentum is ours!

On the Republican side, McCain cleans up, except that Huckabee does better in Texas than anyone thought he would. Huckabee drops out of the race Thursday and announces that he's going to tour with Tony Orlando next summer.

Finally, third-party candidate Ralph Nader announces that if elected, he'll impeach former President Bush and former Vice President Cheney. Seriously.

Best Outcome

While the discussion about President Bush and his actions in Iraq has devolved into two basic sides -- the President is steadfast and true, or the President is stalling to turn the dirty business of leaving Iraq to a successor -- it seems to me like there's a third possibility no one's paying a lot of attention to. The famous unheeded advice of Vermont Senator George Aiken about Vietnam was this:

Declare victory and get out.

Does it look to anyone else like that's what President Bush is positioning himself to do in Iraq?

Today's testimony certainly laid the groundwork; we've made a big public claim of progress and shone a light down the tunnel in search of an ending. We're suddenly no longer talking about Iraq's central government, which has all but collapsed. Instead, today's conversation is about progress from the ground up. That's code for allying with and empowering the tribal and sectarian chieftains who, not that long ago, were trying to kill us. Now we're helping them secure their spheres of influence.

That's not much, of course, but at least it's a kind of security, and it might be enough to give us the cover we need to get out.

What a delightful coincidence that it would happen just before the election.

For clues as to whether this is going to happen, watch the politically uncomfortable Republicans who've recently made noises about abandoning the President and voting to get out of Iraq. If they suddenly become docile, there's a deal in the works.