To follow up a bit on what I wrote at TAPPED, there’s some utility in thinking about this point:
David [Mutimer], on the other hand, gave a thought provoking but untitled talk which I will somewhat cheekily dub Why the Left Should Dislike Arms Control. His point (in part) is that the nature of arms control agreements is both shaped by the strategic environment and helps to shape it. He argues that US-Russian bilateral agreements, in particular, can be self-serving in that they help to perpetuate the nuclear primacy of those two nations.
This is kind of interesting, and I think that the point is even more stark when we’re looking at the Washington naval treaties instead of the bilateral arms control of the Cold War. The Washington Naval Treaty, its successors, and its associated treaties amounted in one sense to an agreement between the major powers to let each other feed on the decaying corpse of China (and maintain empires in the rest of Asia) in peace. And although the treaties actually did involve some substantial disarmament and arms production limitation (they forced the scrapping of large numbers of dreadnoughts, and precluded the construction of many new ones) they didn’t do anything to fundamentally change the character of relations between the major powers.
That said, the major retrospective critiques of the treaties seem to be from the right (this is true of both the Cold War treaties and the interwar treaties), centering on the argument that unconstrained American arms production could have either won or headed off future conflict. Part of the issue is a “politics art of the possible” concern; I’m skeptical that it would have been possible to convince state leaders in either period that disarmament was an achievable goal, and thus the agreements themselves were preferable to unconstrained competition. I also think, however, that arms control serves two other purposes that are central to the “liberal” left: saving money, and reducing the chance of war. The data on the latter is a bit unclear, but its persuasive enough to make me think that unconstrained arms competition increases the chance of war, which is a bad thing. The former is also important, because while the liberal left should be reasonably comfortable with taxation to support state expenditure, spending less, rather than more, money on weapons should all things equal be a good thing.
I’m a little worried that the final season of The Wire is going to be like Sopranos Season 6A (aside from the awful-by-any-standard dream sequence): vastly better than pretty much anything else on TV, but distinctly inferior to the standard previously established by the show. In particular, despite Clark Johnson’s very welcome presence I’m worried about the Baltimore Sun plotline whatever one agrees with the axes Simon has to grind, the resulting villains just don’t shape up to be that interesting, in the way that even the show’s most inept and venal characters usually are. As Matt says, “[e]verything in the Sun plot is being marked out like a runway. Do you think the Unscrupulous Journalist and the Douchebag Editor are going to conspire to cause the Fall of American Journalism? I think they just might!” I also agree with Kay that the opening sequence of Bubbles at the N.A. meeting was a poorly written and acted variation on an especially tired theme; it’s frustrating for precious last minutes of the show to be wasted in this way.
Still, there was a lot of great stuff in both episodes; hopefully the lesser storylines will get better.
So I was doing an image search for George Wallace — inaugurated as Alabama governor 45 years ago today — and I came across this campaign comic book.
The whole thing is worth a look. Check out the other “Comics with Problems”, including my favorite, Captain Alcohol (a Canadian temperance narrative aimed at the Inuit).
Hilzoy makes the case against Clinton. I substantially agree, both on policies and politics, but I’m not certain about this:
In this context, I think that nominating Hillary Clinton would be a disastrous mistake. Of all the people whom we are at all likely to nominate, she is the one whom people would be most inclined to believe the worst of. Some of those people — the ones who thought the Clintons had Vince Foster killed and hung crack pipes on their Christmas trees — are presumably unreachable by Democrats. But others — the ones who don’t pay close attention to these things, and came away from the 1990s with a vague sense that the Clintons were just plain sleazy — are people we can reach.
If we nominate Hillary Clinton, then I assume that the Republicans will go after her, and that they will not restrict themselves to attacking her policies and her record. When they do, then all those people who are already inclined to think the worst of Hillary Clinton will, for that reason, be prepared to find those attacks believable. Stories about her sleaziness, her underhandedness, her cold and calculating nature, etc., will be a lot less likely to strike them as implausible, overreaching, mean-spirited, malicious, or vile. And that means that the chances that people will see standard Republican attacks for what they are are dramatically reduced.
Here’s the thing; while we can always say that “it could be worse” I’m not convinced that, in the case of Hillary Clinton, the attacks actually can get worse than those that have already been leveled against her. The Republicans have literally (and I mean literally to read “literally” rather than figuratively) accused her of every crime that it is possible for one person to commit, and she still polls well against the strongest Republican candidates.
There are two potential pro-Clinton narratives to draw from this argument:
- Further attacks against Clinton will yield diminishing returns for the Republicans. As she has already been accused of everything (and, as she’s the most identifiable politician in America, I’m unconvinced that any potential voters haven’t been exposed to such attacks) more attacks are unlikely to convince anyone not yet convinced that Clinton is bad, and may in fact produce a backlash; once you’ve said that someone is a drug dealing murdering man-hating lesbian, attacking her health care policy is rather pointless.
- Obama has not yet been subjected to this level of attack, and is not likely to be immune to it; whether true or not, the Republican noise machine will cook up some vile line of attack that it likely to see some success, suggesting that Obama’s better poll performance won’t stand the scrutiny of a general election.
This is why I remain reluctant to concede that Clinton is less electable than Obama. In the first place, I think that electability is a very difficult trait to assess, and in the second I can see some specific reasons why current polling of the two prominent Democrats may wrongly assess the situation. That said, Scott and Hilzoy are right to point out that Hillary’s reputation is farther left than her policies, which is a bad thing, and that Hillary may mobilize a huge component of the Republican electorate.
All that said, the vote against the war is important to me, and I expect to vote Obama. But I can’t say that a Clinton victory will disappoint me.
Cross-posted to TAPPED.
Via Matt, Radley Balko and Kerry Howley discuss some data that supports my inclination to decriminalize and regulate prostitution. Because sex workers engaged in illegal activity can’t go to the police, they face the Hobson’s Choice of violent assault from their customers or violent assault from pimps. And, worse, police with the arbitrary power to arrest prostitutes at their discretion take advantage of this by raping prostitutes with disturbing frequency. And because illegal prostitution isn’t regulated, 80% of the johns don’t use condoms. All of these problems, as Balko says, seems pretty directly tied to criminalization.
On the other hand, decriminalization isn’t a panacea. Brad Plumer points out that legalization led to increased trafficking, doesn’t stop many sex workers from feeling coerced and unsafe, and brothels proved difficult to regulate. This doesn’t fully convince me because these problem seem like they could be at least partially addressed by more careful regulatory regimes whereas the problems of criminalization seem inevitable. But as an alternative, Brad suggests the Swedish model of criminalizing the buying but not the selling of sex, which would at least eliminate many of the perverse incentives of criminalization. The Swedish model also “provided ample social service funds for helping any prostitute who wanted to get out of the business to do so, as well as funds for educating the public.” This system has its own serious flaws, although it would seem better than the American status quo. The depressing lesson here seems to be that given existing gender inequities we’re choosing among least bad policy options.
Ever since I was a little kid, I have dreaded the first day of a new semester. There’s some joy to it: the new school supplies, the anticipation of actually liking my classes. But there’s also anxiety and the disappointment of a vacation’s end.
So, today is the big back to school day. Only this time, it’s my last one. Ever. After way too many of them. And you know what? It feels exactly like all the others.
The Decider doesn’t understand why the US and its allies in World War II couldn’t have bombed Auschwitz and, he assumes, saved thousands of lives.
Here, Bush is invoking a debate that goes back about 30 years and continues to inspire ferocious argument among historians. Without getting too deep into the thickets, the “pro-bombing” argument rests on claims first articulated by historian David Wyman in an article for Commentary in 1978. There, he asserted that (a) the Allies knew what was happening at Auschwitz; (b) that attacks on Auschwitz would have been technically feasible; and (c) that such attacks would have saved lives. (The worst of these arguments, raised by pop historians like Michael Beschloss, suggest that these attacks did not happen because FDR was an anti-Semite who couldn’t be bothered to care about European Jews. Someone should check Liberal Fascism to see if that particular smear lives anew.)
Skeptics acknowledge that (a) is true enough — by 1943-44, there was no reasonable question about what was happening in these camps — but point out that the bombing campaigns during the war were incredibly imprecise, and that even a massive assault on Auschwitz would have been unlikely to destroy the gas chambers; even assuming for the sake of argument that it had actually worked, the bombing of Auschwitz most certainly would not have spared most of the camp’s victims from being gunned down and dumped in trenches. Nor would it have done anything to halt the proceedings as Treblinka, Belzec, or Sobibor — unless, of course, the allies had chosen to prolong their war against the German military by sending fleets of aircraft to rubble the camps. The military historians I’ve read on this issue generally agree that Wyman’s argument and its various descendants are poorly grounded, at least as far as questions logistics and strategy go.
I can’t for a moment imagine that Bush has any inkling about the actual terms of this debate. Rather — as his idiotic pronouncements about the Yalta conference indicated three years ago — the man appears genuinely convinced that his raisins are larger than FDR’s and, moreover, that pre-emptive action always produces the best possible outcome. Had Bush been president, we’re asked to believe, the Iron Curtain would not have descended across Eastern Europe, and the name “Auschwitz” would, like “Normandy,” call to mind the moral purity and spirit of sacrifice that defined the American war effort. It’s a laughable premise, but it’s pretty much par for the course. He may be an inarticulate dunce, but he surely ranks as one of the great egomaniacs to hold the presidency. That much is obvious whenever he tries to speak about history.
Mithras has dug up more examples of Pat Oliphant misogynist war on Hillary Clinton. I think I need a shower. And I don’t think he’d be able to keep his job if he dealt in similar stereotypes with respect to Obama.
…maybe that last sentence was too optimistic.
I suppose we would be obligated to link to the post because of the title alone, but Spackerman does a good job in pointing out the feeble response of the NYT public editor to the hiring of someone who quite recently said that his new editors were traitors who belong in jail.
I yield in nobody in my hatred of the Cowboys, but the “why did Tony Romo go to the beach with a woman inexplicably seen as a platonic ideal of beauty by many American men during a bye week?” controversy is so stupid it could have been invented by Maureen Dowd herself. Take the normally much more astute William Rhoden:
That’s why, given everything at stake, I was puzzled by Romo’s decision to go to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, with Jessica Simpson during the Cowboys’ bye week.
I know, I know: on the surface this is not a big thing. Cabo isn’t all that far from Dallas. Still, the decision to make the trip sent an odd message to his teammates: I’m at least as focused, if not more focused, on celebrity than winning this playoff game. The message to the Giants was, We’ve beaten you twice already; the third meeting at our house will be a day at the beach.
Immaturity, poor decision-making and misplaced priorities.
When Romo was hatching his plans, I wonder if he stopped and asked himself: I wonder how Brett Favre, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are spending their bye weeks? Brady, of the Patriots, spent most of his time in New York with his girlfriend, and the Packers’ Brett Favre spent time in Mississippi.
Two of the great quarterbacks in N.F.L. history kept low profiles. I don’t know where Manning was — which is instructive in itself — but I’d be willing to wager that he wasn’t hanging out on a beach in Mexico.
Or to rephrase this without changing a single fact:
While Tony Romo spent a quiet couple of days out of the glare of the Dallas media spotlight in a remote location with his girlfriend and her family, Tom Brady spent two days carousing swank Manhattan nightclubs with supermodel Gisele Bündchen, proving that he is immature and cares more about celebrity than his team. Heavens to Betsy, what misplaced priorities! Tom Brady is Teh suxxor!
But I’m sure if Romo had decided to vacation in Branson, the Giants wouldn’t have been especially motivated to get to the NFC Championship game…
Last week, I recorded a Bloggingheads dialogue with Eli Lake. Does this make me a hypocrite? I prefer not to think about it in those terms…