China rising

Steven has a detailed and thorough post about a radical solution to the NK problem - letting China win. It's a subtle argument and is not well served by excerpting, so I won't try. But it certainly is the kind of foreign policy that would be more achievable under Reagan, Bush Sr. or Clinton (in that order). Under the neocon domino warriors/reluctant imperialists camps that currently compete for the reins of the current Bush's foreign policy, the idea is ultimately impossible, because realpolitik requires the Administration to willingly suffer a loss in prestige for the greater good. Allowing China to take over NK would amount to a loss of face for Bush - and as we know, neocons are a very face-oriented culture.



China is indeed rising though. By all measures - economic, military, population - China is building a foundation for primacy. As long as China remains Communist, though, her gains are a zero-sum with our interests.

the tyranny of the rich

I'm all for capitalism, after all it's why my parents immigrated here and part of why I think this is the greatest country in the world. Not because of capitalism per se, but because of the specifics of the way capitalism is implemented. The American Dream is not to get rich - it is to live free. But there is an inherent conflict which drives almost the entirety of American politics. Michael Kinsley argues in a brilliant essay in Slate about that sensitive balance between capitalism and democracy:

The fall of communism 14 years ago was not the end of history, despite Francis Fukuyama's famous prediction. It was, though, pretty much the end of the argument, in most of the world, about the best way to organize society. The answer (despite quibbles over the details and a surprisingly resilient minority preference for theocracy) is democratic capitalism.



But this intellectual victory for the dynamic duo didn't resolve the tension between them. Democracy presumes and enshrines equality. Capitalism not only presumes but requires and produces inequality. How can you have a society based on equality and inequality at the same time? The classic answer is that democracy and capitalism should reign in their own separate "spheres" (philosopher Michael Walzer's term). As citizens, we are all equal. As players in the economy, we enjoy differing rewards depending on our efforts, talents, or luck.



But how do you prevent power in one from leeching into the other? In various ways, we try to police the border. Capitalism is protected from democracy, to some extent, by provisions of the Constitution that guard individuals against tyranny of the majority�for example, by forbidding the government to take your property without due process of law. Protecting democracy from capitalism is the noble intention, at least, of campaign finance laws that get enacted every couple of decades.



Separation of the spheres also depends on an unspoken deal, a nonaggression pact, between democracy's political majority and capitalism's affluent minority. The majority acknowledge that capitalism benefits all of us, even if some benefit a lot more than others. The majority also take comfort in the belief that everyone has at least a shot at scoring big. The affluent minority, meanwhile, acknowledge that their good fortune is at least in part the luck of the draw. They recognize that domestic tranquility, protection from foreign enemies, and other government functions are worth more to people with more at stake. And they retain a tiny yet prudent fear of what beast might be awakened if the fortunate folks get too greedy about protecting and enlarging their good fortune.

Kinsley points out that the Bush Administration has discarded that nonaggression pact, as part of an overall GOP playbook that has as its ultimate goal the complete destruction of limitations upon the economic sphere.



UPDATE: Lone Star points out this quote:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."



-Samuel Adams, 1776

the role of business in adding value to society

I've been doing a lot of linking rather than thinking recently, but that will change. But my friend Kim has a long post up whose main point deserves wider airing.

I suggest that a retreat from the values of true conservatism is a fundamental reason that the U.S. economy is in dire straits. Instead of doing business honestly for the purpose of mutual gain, businessmen have become unethical and dishonest swindlers, out to steal from customers and investors alike. Leveraging workforce, debt, sales and production in dishonest ways in order to drive up stock prices is disgusting behavior reflective neither of a true conservative nor a socialist view. Traditional conservatives see no shame in giving value for value, but rather see that the long term financial growth of a company, and therefore value to investors, is served by giving good value to customers, making wise workforce decisions not harmful to workers, and by acting in the best interests of the communities supporting the business. Those practices reflect the kind of enlightened self-interest that the party of Lincoln once represented. Current conservatives prefer to roll the dice in the hope that they personally will be able to cash in, at the expense of workers, partners, investors, customers, and community. Misrepresenting company value is one of the less damaging practices that so-called businessmen engage in these days. Fundamentally, I believe that the problem comes down to the lack of a true meritocracy. Warring for pride of place is the abandonment of a work ethic by the privileged children of wealth. Along with them, the not-so-privileged dreamers turn away from work, seeing that hard work did not serve to make their parents wealthy, and believing the message of greed-is-good, they aspire only to entitlements, not to useful lives. Current liberal thinking, and current "conservative" thinking exacerbate the problem. Neither throwing money at the undeserving, nor supporting the useless inheritance of wealth by parasites brings us the conservative values we need. Incenting business to do more than create artificial stock "value" would go far toward bringing back real businesspeople. People are only as good as their goals, and if their goals are to artificially inflate a stock price...well they can do so better by not working than by working!

When it comes to societal problems, Kim and I have many, many differences about solutions but we often agree on cause...

Drum on the debate over social spending

In the midst of an authoritative post about the tax burden on Americans over history, Kevin makes this key point:

Social Security and Medicare are expensive programs, and we should have a national debate about their future. The current round of tax cuts is part of that debate, but their impact is being obscured by tax cut zealots who are deliberately trying to create a crisis atmosphere in which it's "obvious" that we can't continue to fund these programs.



But we can. Repeal the Bush tax cuts and agree to a tax increase of 1% a year for the next 30 years and we can do it. If you don't think that's worth it, fine. Make your argument. But in any case, let's argue honestly and may the best argument win.

The problem is that there is no interest in a true debate with an eye towards finding the optimum course of policy. The true goal is maintenance of power. If there was any true concern for the country operating here then the GOP wouldn't have pulled a 180 on having deficits between now and the Contract with America.

Scalzi on the Bush tax cuts

John's post is so brilliant and inspired that I need to excerpt some of it for posterity.



If it's to boost the economy, why does the working guy get nothing?

Yes, yes, I know -- more money back to the people so they can boost the economy, blah blah blah. But let's not lie and say this most recent tax cut is about the people, okay? I mean, yes -- if we really want to help the working guy, let's slash his taxes by more than a measly one or two percentage points and a few hundred dollars and avoid giving the rich double that in percentages and of course multiples of that in dollars. Throwing the working guy pennies while the wealthy are rolling out wheelbarrows of cash isn't my idea of a smart thing to do. Hell, even Warren Buffett thought the details of the most recent tax cut proposals were appaling. In the story referenced there, Senator Charles Grassley says that Buffett doesn't have any appreciation for the trials of the middle class, which is (excuse the pun) rich, since Buffett was suggesting giving the middle class much more of a tax break than the budget Grassley was pushing. And anyway, when it comes to money, who should you believe: They guy who invested his way to being worth $36 billion, or the guy with the government paycheck?

The GOP as the party of fiscal insanity:

There are many things I don't like about the Republican Party, but one of the things that galls me the most is how it's demonized taxation, and how it's consistently run deficits since Reagan and yet manages somehow to position itself as the party of fiscal responsibility. Yes, there is a point of too much taxation, and at times in our past we've been there, and it was not at all a bad thing for the GOP to point that out. Good on it. Now isn't one of those times, and even if it were, the rich would not be the people I'd focus the cuts upon. The answer to everything is not "tax cuts."

...

To be entirely honest about it, I lump people who believe that Republicans are fiscally responsible in with the people who believe in astrology and that the Earth was created in six days, in that whatever other positive qualities they might have, they have a fundamental defect in their ability to process reality. Mind you, this does not mean I expect Democrats to be correspondingly fiscally sound. That's a false opposition. But honestly, people. We have a three administration track record of Republicans gulping down debt like they're dipsomaniac sorority girls at Free Margarita Night, and then calling for yet another round of tax cuts. How much more evidence do you need?

On why taxation matters:

Call me crazy, but I expect a certain level of government service. It's not dizzingly high, but it's there. I'm comfortable with funding a certain number of things I don't necessarily agree with with my tax dollars in order to get certain services others might not agree with. I'm comfortable spending money on services I don't need to use personally -- welfare, unemployment, the military -- because I think they provide for a better quality of life for my fellow citizens at large. And for all of that, I'm willing to pay a fair amount, and the emphasis here is on "fair." I don't want to pay more than is necessary, and I want to make sure what's being spent is accounted for -- I remember reading recently that Pentagon accountants don't know where a trillion dollars they were given went, and that's just no good -- but for the quality of life and government services I expect, yes, I'll pay my taxes. Happily.

...

I like the idea that some of the money I send to my government goes to keep a library open in the little town I live in. I like the idea that somewhere in my little town, a kid who'd otherwise go hungry is eating dinner bought with food stamps that I paid for. I like the idea that a sailor on an aircraft carrier goes on shore leave with money I put in his pocket. I like the idea that people are researching diseases and robots are exploring space with money I chipped in to pay for them. As I mentioned, there are lots of things our government is doing with my money I wish it wouldn't do, but that's the trade-off and overall I think the balance is worth it.



All of that stuff takes money. That money comes from me. I accept the responsibility of paying that money. More of that money comes from me than from the average taxpayer. And I say, I don't need any more tax cuts. I need a government that can pay for what I want it to do without chronically shifting the financial burden of its existence on to my kid.

taxation subsidizes wealth

John Scalzi has one of the best rants about the sheer absurdity of the Bush tax cuts that I've read - far better than my own frustrated rant.



The bottom line is that these tax cuts are fiscally irresponsible. (Financial Times, "US 'faces future of chronic deficits'", 5/29/03). John makes a compelling and passionate argument that deserves to be read in its entirety.



The common argument by the principled right (whose existence i don't doubt, though Matthew does ask the reasonable question, where the hell are they?) is that government spending is axiomatically bad, counter to the Founder's ideals, etc. But the truth is that government has been teh catalyst for growth. If you want to see a world of unbridled capitalism and small, meek government, cast your gaze to the era of Tamany Hall or Teddy Roosevelt. Not even the most iron-hearted conservative today would argue that short life expectancies, rampant public diseases, child labor, sweatshops, dirt roads, inadequate sewage systems, polluted water, debilitating old age, etc were Good Things. It's taxation that has conquered all of these terrible things, and that has freed the potential of American capitalism and American People to go on to build even greater wealth.



The Progressive Agenda may not have even had form in the Founders' Time. That was because the much more basic issue was freedom. "Live free or die" is more than just a phrase, it's the essence of what the Founders sought to achieve. That battle has been won against Britain, but what about against our own darker natures? To categorically lump all Progressive idology as "anti-Founder" is a rhetorical deus ex machina - The Gods Disapprove, according to these self-styled Prophets of American Freedom. Who gave them any more right than myself to divine what the purpose of freedom is? To live like dogs under the thumb of a ruling superclass?



Denying that government taxation funds a great empowerment of the common citizen is to wish a return back to Tamany Hall and the Robber Barons and aristocratic classes. Could the great American entrepeneurial successes of the 20th Century - Microsoft, Fed Ex, AOL, Qualcomm - have occurred in such a climate? No, because without government improving the quality of life for the average citizen, those great visionaries would never have had the resources, education, or simple good health to pursue their vision.



Taxation - and government spending - is the lifeblood of our society. Every billionaire in this country owes a huge part of their success to the atmosphere of entrepeneurship which this country is built on. That atmosphere does not exist except to the priveleged few in a world where government is prevented from acting on behalf of the common man.



This is the central truth of why America is so successful and powerful. Because every man woman and child has the true ability to achieve their dreams. And it happened because of taxation. And it is threatened by these tax cust that are now law. What sacrifice have we made from the pool of our children's potential?



Government services are the Commons, and the tax cuts are the Tragedy.

pleasing lies vs unpleasant truths

via Billmon:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. -- Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002



Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. -- George W. Bush, September 12, 2002



If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. -- Ari Fleischer, December 2, 2002



We know for a fact that there are weapons there. -- Ari Fleischer, January 9, 2003



Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. -- George W. Bush, January 28, 2003



We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. -- Colin Powell, February 5, 2003



We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. -- George Bush , February 8, 2003



So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not. -- Colin Powell, March 8, 2003



Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. -- George Bush, March 17, 2003



Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes. -- Ari Fleisher, March 21, 2003



There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. -- Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22, 2003



I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. -- Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman, March 23, 2003



One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites. -- Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark, March 22, 2003



We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad. -- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003



Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty. -- Neocon scholar Robert Kagan, April 9, 2003



I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found. -- Ari Fleischer, April 10, 2003



We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them. -- George Bush, April 24, 2003



There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. -- Donald Rumsfeld, April 25, 2003



We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so. -- George Bush, May 3, 2003



I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction. -- Colin Powell, May 4, 2003



I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country. -- Donald Rumsfeld, May 4, 2003



I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. -- George W. Bush, May 6, 2003



U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction. -- Condoleeza Rice, May 12, 2003



I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden. -- Maj. Gen. David Petraeus (Commander 101st Airborne), May 13, 2003



Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found. -- Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps, May 21, 2003



Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction. -- Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, May 26, 2003



They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer. -- Donald Rumsfeld, May 27, 2003



For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. -- Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003

A year ago, Steven Den Beste asked, "Do you prefer pleasing falsehoods or unpleasant truths?" ... I find the question rather ironic.