The Occasional Observer

6 comments:

Fredo said...

Don't have time for a full response, but I'm certainly with you on points 4 & 5.

On opinion #2, please grant me one question: what is the definition of an "assault rifle"?

11/24/2007 8:51 PM

SheaHeyKid said...

OK, let's line 'em up and have a go at each of these intriguing topics. Thanks to MB for some good discussion points.

1. Here is my bottom line: the only way we can achieve long-term, lasting security in GWOT is if we make sure that as many people around the world as possible have a vested interest in preventing terrorism. We can't police all places at all times; therefore, we will rely on conditions such that neighbors will not turn a blind eye to those who seek to commit acts of terrorism. I believe this will only occur when most Middle East societies at least have open borders and free press, and some form of electoral and property rights. IF (and this is a HUGE IF) the eventual outcome in Iraq is a country that moves in that direction, AND promotes similar change of other countries in the region as a by-product, then the invasion was a good idea in my opinion. (Ignoring whether the Bush admin really had credible intelligence they truly believed that Iraq had WMD posing imminent threat, b/c in such a case I say invade/attack first and ask questions later. I'm assuming they didn't really have such evidence, and the goal all along was regime change / nation building agenda of the neocons.) However, that clearly seems to be a pipe dream long shot at best right now, in which case MB is quite correct that the money could have been FAR better spent on other items to improve our security (port scanning, improved border security, etc.)

To address MB's question, I believe the blame lies with two areas. First is the limitations of democracy in general and the two-party system (which I raised quite a while back). I think politicians today are way too beholden to their own power interests, being re-elected, and serving the party rather than the people. Second, I don't think Sec of Defense should ever have been in charge of the rebuilding phase, I think as soon as we declared invasion phase over and rebuilding beginning, Sec of State should have taken the lead. This is also a point I raised a while back. Here is the State Department's official mission: Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community. This is clearly in better line for nation building than DoD's mission, which is:
• Warfighting
• Humanitarian Aid
• Peacekeeping
• Disaster Relief
• Homeland Security
So I believe fault lies with Bush for not putting State Dept in charge of rebuilding plan (which would consider both military AND political aspects), and properly listening to credible reports early on from CIA, State Dept, Pentagon and others about possible difficulties in rebuilding phase.

2. Haven't really thought much about 2nd amendment, although it is always interesting to determine exactly who the right applies to and to what extent. Certainly at least 3 things are different today than when amendment was written: (1) US has standing army, (2) weapons available to citizens and their capacity for killing have advanced, and (3) weapons available to US gov't have advanced. I think the question is to what end did the framers give us 2nd amendment? If the goal was to give citizens some protection against tyrannical gov't, then unfortunately points (1) and (3) above make this essentially useless.. That is, if the US gov't wanted to suppress the citizens today, we're screwed, 2nd amendment or not, b/c the gov't wouldn't have to go through the challenge of raising funds and personnel to serve in army, and their weaponry is so advanced no assault rifle is going to help you. On the other hand, a machine gun certainly might help defend your home in a more likely mob situation (e.g., post-Katrina). So, depending on the intent of the founders, I can see a case where automatic weapons could improve your chances of defense.

3. Haven't listened to him much, but I do listen to a libertarian during my drive home every day. I tend to be more SoCon than libertarians (i'm not in favor of legalizing drugs, for example), but in general I like the libertarian push to remind conservatives that we are supposed to stand for small government, not the bloating seen under Bush.

4. I agree, something should be done, although I haven't spent enough time studying the macroeconomic ramifications of different policy options. I would say the following: perhaps more effective (and useful to the citizenry) would be to make sure that companies who use developing countries for their manufacturing impose tighter inspections and quality control. I think every US toy manufacturer who has had recent problems with lead poisoning from Chinese toys should be held legally liable for 100% of the damages. If they want to try to take advantage of lower costs from overseas labor and capital (clearly due in large part to poorer manufacturing controls and oversight), then they should be forced to implement stricter QC. Once they add that cost on top, they may find in reality it is not cheaper to go overseas for manufacturing. I'm generally against lawsuits, but if ever this country truly needed a huge class-action suit to protect itself from further damage it's now with toy manufacturers and others using Chinese goods. Force them to realize that it is not necessarily cheaper to go to China when you factor in higher QC costs and/or lawsuit costs.

5. I'll have to check that out, sounds good.

11/26/2007 7:05 PM

SheaHeyKid said...

One other quick point about Iraq you don't hear much about: if we hadn't invaded, the succession plan there was hideous. Saddam's sons, Uday and Qusay, were allegedly even more ruthless than he was, and it's unclear how they would have ruled once they took over. I think they might have represented a greater threat to stability in the region than Saddam. So killing them and ending that chain is certainly a positive.

That said, if your only goal was to prevent their ascension to the throne, I'm sure you could have funded their assassination at much lower cost.

11/29/2007 1:12 PM

Fredo said...

OK, now that I'm back, I'll fill in a bit more. My problem with the assault rifle ban is that it was a joke. Separating an "assault weapon" from a traditional semi-auto rifle is impossible. Basically, the weapons that were banned were those that looked threatening or military in style, but were not substantively different from other semi-autos on the market. Mag capacities were reduced on guns that were still permissible, but lets face it, the older/larger magazines are probably still out there to be had in the aftermarket.

The assault rifle ban was what it was: a foot in the door towards a broader ban on semi-automatic rifles and pistols. It's a good thing that the GOP was able to sunset the provisions of the Clinton ban.

SHK really gets to the crux of the issue when he asks the purpose of the 2nd amendment. The Supreme Court will be ruling in this term on the DC gun ban case, in which it is widely expected that the Court may make its first sweeping pronouncement on the nature of the 2nd amendment in decades. Is it about the personal freedom to own fireams? Does a "well regulated milita" mean that such a right only exists under the auspices of state regulation? We will soon see.

Of course, it is my belief that an originalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment would lead to the conclusion that it protects the individual's right to own weapons per se, AND because it is a valuable check against state power. And I think SHK overstates somewhat when he thinks that such an exercise of the 2nd amendment is already futile. I would posit that the insurgents in Iraq are far fewer in number than the portion of the American population that would fight totalitarian rule at home. Furthermore, I'd guess that the American population is, in aggregate, armed far more effectively than is AQII. It's a counterinsurgency war that the US Military, at 2 million strong, probably could not win against 150 million armed Americans. And they probably wouldn't even want to try (even in the bizarro universe where they were only concerned with winning, not with why they were trying to engineer a political coup). Just as Jefferson wanted it, IMHO.

12/04/2007 12:38 PM

Fredo said...

As for opinion #4, I firmly agree that the federal government must stop abdicating its Constiutional responsibility to handle international trade issues, especially when American workers and their families are getting hurt.

Duncan Hunter's "mirror trade" policy makes perfect sense to me as an ideal, although in practice, the threat of mirror trade would hopefully be incentive enough to create a more equitable trading relationship with some of our Red international partners.

As I've said previously on this blog, if the GOP's response to Hillary's protectionist measures is to say "free trade" and "make a relevant product", it's going to be a long night on election day. We have to be more nuanced on the issue, and let workers know that, as a general rule, free trade works, but that we take care of our own when foreign governments are abusing our countrymen.

12/04/2007 2:56 PM

Fredo said...

#5. In GDP terms, our economy is doing fine, although it has slowed markedly in the past couple of months. That said, the growth has been highly concentrated in a few industries and geographic regions in the past 2 years. As Lou Dobbs likes to point out on a nightly basis, the middle class is under attack, and real wages for middle class Americans are below the levels they were at 25 years ago.

Personally, I feel that there is not necessarily a moral imperative to maintain some type of economic proportionality between the various parts of the income spectrum. If the rich are getting richer faster than the middle class (or even if the middle class is stagnating), that is not, of itself, a "bad" thing. The middle class doesn't have a "right" to succeed any moreso than the lower class or the upper class, if you believe in such distinctions. That said, there is a level of economic disporportionality that is harmful to our nation because of the ill will it engenders. As a result, the "class gap" is not a moral issue so much as it is a political one. As a result, it should be handled as other political and economic problems are handled. Just as our monetary policy loosens when the economy is slowing, and tightens when it is accelerating, it makes sense for our government to use regulatory and fiscal policy to lessen the political pressures of economic disparity when the economy can handle it, and deregulate when it cannot.

Common sense tells me the growing wage gap has to be attributable, at least in part, to the massive reduction in marginal income tax rates on highest wage earners that has occurred since 1980, as well as cap gains reductions. In addition, deregulation and the decline of organized labor has led to a greater wage gap. Note that all of the above also contributed mightily to GDP growth, and you can see why, IMO, the relationship between (1) maintaining class proportionality and (2) overall economic growth is more of a balancing act than "one side is always right" type of argument.

12/04/2007 3:31 PM