At this writing, as the early results have come in, it seems that the elections in Iraq have been a success. There is no indication about who might have won, but turnout has been high, even in Sunni areas. The turnout and the high spirits of the people in Baghdad both suggest that support for the insurgents is low and, perhaps more importantly, that many Iraqis are willing to risk much to defy them.
Let us hope this is true. I opposed the war; I have thought our policies since to have been ridden with error; I have had little hope that elections would turn the tide. Let us hope that they have.
But even if it has, there is much work to do; there will be setbacks to come. This election day impression may fade quickly. The results seen so far may prove illusions. Sunni rage may boil into civil war. The joy of the Shiites and Kurds may led to ill-considered actions that irrevocably divide the country. The insurgents could gain strength. But perhaps not. Let us hope that this day's impression proves lasting.
30 January 2005
03 January 2005
Bush and the Tsunami
President Bush's slow response to the catastrophe in South Asia has been replaced by almost hectic action. The extension of $350 million in aid can only be applauded.
More on that, but first a comment on the President's delayed response--it was three days before he uttered a word in public about it, side from a perfunctory statement issued by a deputy press secretary. Edwin Chen of the Los Angeles Times suggests that this was part of a pattern of the President's, and suggests that it stems from a "laid-back quality" in his approach to his office. Another interpretation is that it stems from a sense that what happens overseas is not important. The President is, in many respects, Midland, Texas, to the core. That is part of his strength. But a weakness is that he is insular--oriented toward the United States almost exclusively; little inclined to learn about or appreciate foreigners and their cultures. Indeed, he came to the presidency with little experience overseas. Not that he is incapable of understanding others. However, with an approach to life marked by an unquestioning self-confidence and a disinclination to either analyze his own thinking or to surround himself with people with differing points of view, he seems to choose not to open himself to the kind of perspectives that are necessary to understand people who have been raised to think differently from Americans. This approach permeates his statements on democracy and freedom in the Middle East and elsewhere.
But enough of that complaint. The President is taking full advantage of the opportunity that the tsunami gives us to do a great deal of good in the lands around the Indian Ocean. This may well create goodwill in many of those countries, including several that are Muslim, with implications for the conflict in Iraq that can only be good. Beyond the good it does us, extending long-term aid to repair the damage done to the infrastructure of these countries and to lay the basis for prosperity extending far into the future can do the people of the region immeasurable good. That is not merely self-serving; it is generous and charitable. The President should be praised and encouraged.
More on that, but first a comment on the President's delayed response--it was three days before he uttered a word in public about it, side from a perfunctory statement issued by a deputy press secretary. Edwin Chen of the Los Angeles Times suggests that this was part of a pattern of the President's, and suggests that it stems from a "laid-back quality" in his approach to his office. Another interpretation is that it stems from a sense that what happens overseas is not important. The President is, in many respects, Midland, Texas, to the core. That is part of his strength. But a weakness is that he is insular--oriented toward the United States almost exclusively; little inclined to learn about or appreciate foreigners and their cultures. Indeed, he came to the presidency with little experience overseas. Not that he is incapable of understanding others. However, with an approach to life marked by an unquestioning self-confidence and a disinclination to either analyze his own thinking or to surround himself with people with differing points of view, he seems to choose not to open himself to the kind of perspectives that are necessary to understand people who have been raised to think differently from Americans. This approach permeates his statements on democracy and freedom in the Middle East and elsewhere.
But enough of that complaint. The President is taking full advantage of the opportunity that the tsunami gives us to do a great deal of good in the lands around the Indian Ocean. This may well create goodwill in many of those countries, including several that are Muslim, with implications for the conflict in Iraq that can only be good. Beyond the good it does us, extending long-term aid to repair the damage done to the infrastructure of these countries and to lay the basis for prosperity extending far into the future can do the people of the region immeasurable good. That is not merely self-serving; it is generous and charitable. The President should be praised and encouraged.
Democrats: Bad image, lackluster response
E.J. Dionne, Jr. wrote a column in Friday's Washington Post (registration required) arguing. in essence, the the Bush campaign showed "sheer negative genius" and that "Liberals and Democrats are way too sensitive to elite editorial page opinion." I wrote the following to him yesterday:
There are two points I'd like to make. First, much of the problem that the Democrats had in 2004 stems from a cultural problem that they have. I wouldn't have thought this, but I am fortunate to work among a group of twenty-something guys (mostly) who are fairly conservative--they are veterans mostly, and many of them are still reservists. The picture that many of them have of Democrats has a group of well-dressed snobs sitting around a mansion eating brie and drinking wine. Strong support from "elitists" in Hollywood and elsewhere feeds this image. So did much of what Kerry did also fed this image (wind surfing? His late-campaign introduction to hunting?). Bush, in contrast, who I suspect prefers white wine to Bud, doesn't come across this way. Just as his father professed to like pork rinds (at least Lee Atwater said he did). I suspect that the Democrats would benefit from an image closer to that of George Meany (or Bill Clinton) than to George Clooney.
Second, on the President's plan for social security. I'm not certain that the Social Security privatization scheme is shaky. But that is because we do not have the details yet. After all, Laurence Kotlikoff, who does seem to be overly conservative. proposed something similar (see The Coming Generational Storm, which he wrote with Scott Burns). What is shaky is the scheme for financing it. And what is least clear are the benefits that those now young will receive from it. In my view, taxes must rise and benefits must fall, but no one wants to address either, separately or together. The response of the Democrats has been, to say the least, lackluster. That may well change as the details come it. But there is tendency to say that there is no problem and to focus on the privatization scheme without examining alternatives. The president will argue that there is no alternative to the privatization scheme if Social Security is to be fixed. That is nonsense, of course, but will not seem so if there is no Democratic alternative.
Arguing that there is no problem in essence cedes the ground to Bush. The Post's article on the problem in this morning's paper seems at first glance to bolster that argument. But a closer reading suggests that there is a consensus that, ceteris paribus (as economists like to say), the system will be in big trouble by 2020. The way out, people cited in article suggest, is economic growth, as if that is a change that we can count on, despite the current lack of investment and the future shortage of workers and surplus of retirees.
There are two points I'd like to make. First, much of the problem that the Democrats had in 2004 stems from a cultural problem that they have. I wouldn't have thought this, but I am fortunate to work among a group of twenty-something guys (mostly) who are fairly conservative--they are veterans mostly, and many of them are still reservists. The picture that many of them have of Democrats has a group of well-dressed snobs sitting around a mansion eating brie and drinking wine. Strong support from "elitists" in Hollywood and elsewhere feeds this image. So did much of what Kerry did also fed this image (wind surfing? His late-campaign introduction to hunting?). Bush, in contrast, who I suspect prefers white wine to Bud, doesn't come across this way. Just as his father professed to like pork rinds (at least Lee Atwater said he did). I suspect that the Democrats would benefit from an image closer to that of George Meany (or Bill Clinton) than to George Clooney.
Second, on the President's plan for social security. I'm not certain that the Social Security privatization scheme is shaky. But that is because we do not have the details yet. After all, Laurence Kotlikoff, who does seem to be overly conservative. proposed something similar (see The Coming Generational Storm, which he wrote with Scott Burns). What is shaky is the scheme for financing it. And what is least clear are the benefits that those now young will receive from it. In my view, taxes must rise and benefits must fall, but no one wants to address either, separately or together. The response of the Democrats has been, to say the least, lackluster. That may well change as the details come it. But there is tendency to say that there is no problem and to focus on the privatization scheme without examining alternatives. The president will argue that there is no alternative to the privatization scheme if Social Security is to be fixed. That is nonsense, of course, but will not seem so if there is no Democratic alternative.
Arguing that there is no problem in essence cedes the ground to Bush. The Post's article on the problem in this morning's paper seems at first glance to bolster that argument. But a closer reading suggests that there is a consensus that, ceteris paribus (as economists like to say), the system will be in big trouble by 2020. The way out, people cited in article suggest, is economic growth, as if that is a change that we can count on, despite the current lack of investment and the future shortage of workers and surplus of retirees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)