A Realist’s Case for Idealism?

As I type, Iranians are voting to determine their president. They are also voting to determine their immediate future to a much larger degree than many Iran hawks would care to admit. A common refrain — not entirely without merit — among Western thinkers both left and right is that Iran’s presidential elections are irrelevant to Iran’s course of action vis-a-vis its nuclear program. The Supreme Leader, after all, has the final say on Iran’s military. I am a great admirer of Dennis Ross, Hillary Clinton’s point person on Iran, but I have been disappointed that the administration has failed to put together a coherent strategy in dealing with Iran.

Time is of the essence as new developments indicate Iran is installing ever more centrifuges at its Natanz enriching facility and Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu has been rumored to allow Obama until the end of this calendar year to try the diplomatic approach before considering other options. It’s also become a consensus that Iran has enough low-enriched uranium for a bomb. But it makes some sense that the administration has wanted to wait until this election to determine its approach. As this New York Times article shows, there is a great energy behind the competing campaigns of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hussein Moussavi.

The mullahs, the real power center in Iran, are taken aback at this wave of democratic energy. They value, like other authoritarian rulers, the sustainability of their regime above all else. This is why the right combination of pressures — the threat of military attack, an economy that is wreaking havoc on Iran’s budget, and a revived reformist movement — could push the incoming president, even Ahmadinejad, to be more conciliatory and open with the West. Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but that’s idealism for you.

The Halo Effect: German edition

The Wall Street Journal reported today that Angela Merkel was turning her Teutonic skepticism on the role of central banks.

More interesting from a political science perspective were the photographs that ran with the story, which depicted Merkel in Saarbrueken, Germany, speaking to a rally held for European parliamentary elections.

Note the position of the O in Europa and the effect it creates:

AFP/Getty images

In the 2008 U.S. elections, conservative would-be iconoclasts noted the same phenomena occuring with the ubiquitous O symbol  in the Obama campaign. Exampla grata:

Is Merkel borrowing a page from the Obama campaign book? It makes sense. Despite his support of continued German presence in Afghanistan,  Obama was wildly popular with Berliners when he spoke in the city in July of last year. Not only are the EU Parlimentary elections on the horizon, but  Merkel is facing domestic elections in 2009. Merkel’s greatest deficit is widely considered by pundits to be a lack of charisma. Who has charisma to spare? Obama. Also, Joan D’Arc.

But as a word of caution to Mrs. Merkel – some saints are martyred.

Conflation Alert: Freedom of Religion

I’ve come across a Politico article by Victoria McGrane about the so-called “Bible bill” offered by Georgia Republican Paul Broun, a resolution that would make 2009 the “Year of the Bible.” Whatever that means.

New York Representative Jerrold Nadler is one of the people leading the charge against the resolution. The article notes:

And even as Nadler criticized Broun, he has done his own share of mixing religion and legislation.

Last year, he introduced a bill that would overturn a federal appeals court ruling — an “idiot” decision, he says — that a condominium board in Chicago had the right to ban Jews from installing mezuzahs, which consist of a piece of parchment inscribed with a specific religious text put inside a case and hung on a door frame.

Condo boards shouldn’t be able to interfere in an individual’s right to practice his or her religion, Nadler said.

McGrane seems to imply that Nadler is being hypocritical with regard to the role of religion in politics, as she says that Nadler has “done his own share of mixing religion and politics.” But she conflates two different issues here. Allow me to reproduce the first sentence of the first amendment, highlighting where relevant: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The two phrases I’ve highlighted are what are known in constitutional law as, respectively, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. They are designed to do two totally different things: the first keeps the government from endorsing one particular religion, and the second protects the rights of individuals to practice religion freely.

Nadler’s objection to the “Bible bill” rests on the establishment clause, the belief that government should not favor one religion over another in any way. His objection to the ruling on hanging mezuzot on people’s houses is based on the free exercise clause. Therefore, it’s inappropriate to compare the “Bible bill” to Nadler’s bill using the same standards. It’s not at all hypocritical to reject making a “year” out of one religion’s book and to also support using the power of the Congress to protect free practice.

Thank You!

Hello Everyone:

I want to thank everyone for a great year, particularly those who contributed articles and blog posts. You all are what made this an exciting year and contributed to the ongoing political discourse on GW’s campus and the world. I also want to extend a special thank you to this past year’s editorial board: Julie Silverbrook, Sophie Stern, and Celeste Cerano for all their help and to Ashley Fleishman, our production director, for putting together the layout of our publications.

Finally, I also want to take this time to introduce next year’s editorial board, lead by Editor-in-Chief William Schreiber. You may view his biography, along with the other editors under our “Executive Board” page or by clicking here.

Best,

Tim

Missiles and Missile Defense: DPRK Edition

When North Korea launched a “satellite” earlier this month, two narratives emerged: the dominant one — that the launch was an overall failure — and a dissident one, that this nonetheless represented an important leap in the Koreans’ ability to threaten the U.S. with long-range missiles. The truth is not mutually exclusive to either narrative, but there’s a clear difference in emphasis.

A New York Times article illustrates why this divide in analysis came through: the old debate over missile defense hasn’t gone away. Money graf:

In this case, the hidden agendas centered on the Pentagon’s antimissile program, which has consumed some $100 billion in the last decade and still costs about $10 billion a year. Analysts pooh-poohing the North Korean launch want that money for arms control, while the ringers of alarm bells want to save the program from administration budget cutters.

Death of a Blogger

The plight of Iranian bloggers is a subject with which I’m all too familiar. But it’s now taken a turn for the worst, with the first death of a blogger at the hands of the Iranian regime. If you think it’s difficult to pressure Iran over its human rights record now, imagine how much more difficult it will be — that is to say, impossible — when Iran develops nuclear weapons.

P.S. I do insist that you check out Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s personal blog. He knows how to talk to the people!

Playing Make-Believe is Fun

Jewish-British academic Tony Judt published an essay in 2003 that garnered some attention. Championing himself as a brave intellectual pioneer, he promotes the idea of a “binational” state in the Land of Israel, one in which all Jews and all Arabs and all others live under the same polity. Judt is ashamed of Israel, so he says: “The depressing truth is that Israel today is bad for the Jews.” And so, disillusioned by the Zionist ideal, he turns from idealism to what would politely be called “wishful thinking.” (I also highly recommend Leon Wieseltier’s response to Judt.)

Jewish-British journalist Roger Cohen is also ashamed of Israel. And he also engages in wishful thinking when discussing Israel. Take his assessment of Hamas and Hizballah: “But the equating of Iran with terror today is simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah have evolved into broad political movements widely seen as resisting an Israel over-ready to use crushing force.” If we follow any of the definitions given by the UN, for example, then, yes — Hamas and Hizballah are terrorist organizations.

But Cohen has always seemed to assume the most benign of intentions on the part of Iran and its proxies. Here is an excerpt of a conversation he had with Los Angeles Rabbi David Wolpe last month:

Wolpe: Let’s say Hezbollah had the firepower of Israel and Israel had the firepower of Hezbollah. Let’s say Hamas had the firepower of Israel and Israel had rockets … What do you think would happen to Israel were the balance of power reversed? And the reason I’m asking that is because Iran is pursuing means by which they could actually in the end  be more powerful than Israel so it’s not just hypothetical. If Iran gets several nuclear bombs, they have much more territory and they could be more powerful than Israel. What would happen if Hamas and Hezbollah — which are Iran’s proxies — had that power tomorrow?

Cohen: I don’t know what would happen.

Of course he does. No one who is intelligent enough to write for The New York Times can claim ignorance on this. But Cohen cannot answer truthfully because to do so would be to admit that Hamas’ motives in talking about “ceasefires” are less than angelic. It would be to admit that Hamas and Hizballah are not interested in this or that hilltop, but in murder.

Keep this facade in mind when reading his latest NYT column.

Spring 2009 White Pages: The Economy

Hello Everyone:

I would like to introduce to you this semester’s white pages about the economy. There publication covers a wide range of domestic and internaitonal issues facing the world during this economic crisis. You may download a copy via the white pages tab at the top of the screen or read the issue on-line by clicking here.

I hope you enjoy the issue.

Warm Regards,

Tim

Editor-in-Chief

Selective Keynesianism

My Congressman, Barney Frank, is not one to shy away from attention-grabbing remarks. One thing he’s been touting recently is a desire to cut the budget deficit by eliminating unnecessary military spending. An example he raises is the F-22 Raptor fighter plane: the F-22 is a very expensive, highly advanced jet that is being phased in over the next few years to replace the F-15. The problem with the F-22 is that it is designed almost exclusively for air-to-air combat — a rarity these days. Given the immense cost of the F-22 program,* there is talk that the operation could be shut down.

This is where things get interesting. Generally speaking, Congressional Democrats and liberal commentators have staked out Keynesian positions on fixing the economy; they argue that massive government spending is necessary to make up for lost demand caused by the recession. Republican leaders have argued the opposite: markets, not government will get the economy back on track. Take, for example, RNC Chairman Michael Steele’s insane comment that “government has never created a job.”

It becomes apparent, though — now that the F-22 is on the chopping block — that one type of job that government creates (and that many conservatives cherish) is that of the defense contractor. Lockheed Martin, maker of the Raptor, says that 95,000 jobs will go out the window along with the plane if it is scuttled. In the long run, the F-22 is not cost-effective and not really necessary for the US Armed Forces.

But as Jon Chait points out, cost effectiveness is of secondary concern in Keynesian economics — at least during a recession:

Obama has allowed the debate to revolve around the merits of each project. Normal spending is judged on those terms–whether the goods or services justify their cost. The point of stimulus spending, by contrast, is simply to spend money–on something useful if possible, wasteful if necessary. Keynes proposed burying money in mineshafts, so that workers would be hired to dig it out. (Imagine what the GOP could do with material like that.) World War II was an effective stimulus that, economically speaking, consisted of 100 percent waste. If war hadn’t broken out, we could have enjoyed the same economic benefit by building all those tanks and planes and dumping them into the ocean.

The lesson for conservatives is that if you can admit to yourself that government creates jobs in the defense contracting industry, you ought to be able to also admit that building bridges and roads creates jobs, too. And liberals can and should argue about the cost effectiveness of the military budget, but not at a time like this — when any spending is good spending.

*$65 billion has been spent on the program from its inception (including R&D costs), and 135 planes have been built so far — almost $500 million per plane.

UPDATE: Keep an eye on the F-22 debate after this.

Not Apologizing: Easier Than Apologizing

There are some things you can do that are easier than say, “I’m sorry. What I did was wrong.” You, like Bishop Richard Williamson — he of the no-longer-scorned Society of St. Pius X — can say “I’m sorry that people heard my disturbing thoughts. Now please stop paying attention to me in a negative light.”

That is essentially the crux of Williamson’s non-apology. We are led to believe that one month ago, Williamson believed that the Holocaust dead numbered 300,000 (none involving the use of hydrogen cyanide gas) but now — only when countries are barring his presence from their midst — does he accept the full story. It is, of course, nonsense. His current Holiness did a disservice to the Church by making light of the Vatican II reforms that finally absolved collective Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus.

Christopher Hitchens recently offered his own biting take on the matter, of which I urge a full read.

UPDATE: The Church isn’t buying the apology. And rightfully so.