More Pontification

Another friend writes:

Now that the election is over, I feel moved to pontificate on several subjects.

WAR ON TERROR

I now believe that Bush has been successful in destroying Al Qaeda's ability to strike the US. I could not have said this two weeks ago, but I say it now. Perhaps Al Qaeda will recover in the future, but so far, Bush has done his job very well.

I say it because politics is personal, and in my judgment, Bin Laden would have given anything to hit Bush back after Bush humiliated him before the eyes of the world. OBL and the Taliban obviously did not expect us to invade Afghanistan - and perhaps we wouldn't have invaded if a different man had been president at the time. We ran him out, and he probably soiled his pants in front of his followers at some point during that process. We killed many, many of his associates, and even some of his family. We humiliated his hosts, and killed many of them, including some of their leader's family. I think that Bin Laden feels it to be a matter of personal honor to strike not only the US in general, but also George W. Bush in particular. He knew all along that Bush would face an election on November 2, 2004, and he knew also that Bush might lose that election. This set him a deadline: if he wanted to be sure to humiliate Bush as Bush humiliated him, OBL would have to strike the US no later than election day 2004. Ever since I realized this, back in 2002, I've been steeling myself for a terrorist attack in the summer or fall of this year - like the attack on Spain.

Despite the Patriot Act, it is still easy for anyone to get into the US. Shit, it's hard to fail in a serious attempt to sneak across either border. I've crossed both borders extra-legally myself! I've been expecting a team to come into the US, and bide their time, and set up a strike. When Osama's video came out last week, I thought, uh oh, here it comes! But it didn't come. In my opinion, Osama Bin Laden wanted to hit us on or before November 2, more than anything else in the world, and he didn't do it. Therefore he cannot do it.

Of course this does not mean that the war on terror is over, or even that Osama is finished for good. But it does mean that Bush's approach to the war is effective. I'm glad that he is still in charge.

WHAT TIPPED THE ELECTION?

The consensus of our wise media pundits seems to be that "moral values" made the difference. That's a bunch of poop. Talking about which issue decided a close election is like determining which basketball player made the deciding basket in a game that was won by one point. The correct answer is: everyone made the deciding basket. It's just as reasonable to claim that the deciding issue was the improving economy, or Mrs. Kerry's behavior, or Bush's appointment of a black as Secretary of State, or Bill Clinton's endorsement of Kerry, or Bush's handling of the war, or the Swift Boat vets, or the windsurfing photo, or even CBS. Each of these changed somebody's mind.

HE COULD HAVE BEEN A CONTENDER...

...for my vote! As I discussed in my memo last March, I was willing to consider voting for a Democrat this year, for the first time since 1980. The reason was that the challenge posed by Islamic terrorism to the US threatens constituents of both parties, and therefore the traditional political orientations of our parties do not necessarily apply to this problem. So I was listening for good ideas from any source. I gave the Democratic candidates a pass during the primaries, because I knew that they each had to satisfy the left wing at that juncture. But after Kerry won the primaries, it was time to speak to the entire nation, and I listened for a plan to deal with terrorism.

What I heard was criticism of Bush's handling of the war to date, much of it legitimate. No problem there; during an election, of course the challenger is going to criticize the incumbent's record. But that's not enough to get my vote. Just because the incumbent can be legitimately criticized does not mean he is doing a bad job. George Washington's handling of the Revolutionary War can be criticized - but he won the war. Lincoln's, Grant's and Sherman's handling of the Civil War can be criticized - but they won the war. Roosevelt's and Eisenhower's approach to WWII can be criticized - but they too won the war.

I was listening for a plan for prosecuting the war against terror in 2005 and 2006, not a plan for running it in 2002 and 2003. Kerry didn't seem to offer much. Even during his key Iraq speech in the summer, when he outlined four policy proposals for Iraq, to me they sounded a lot like what Bush was already doing! So finally I concluded that Kerry and his advisors did not view terrorism as seriously as I do, and he did not get my vote.

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

There was a time when I was proud of how our election system included presidential debates. I felt it was the fairest test of men: let them, face to face, and without the help of advisors, defend and compare their ideas before the nation. Now I feel the opposite: the debates are frivolous gewgaws with little or no serious meaning. Think of the debates of our time, and what is remembered about them:

1980: "There you go again, Mr. President"
1984: "I will not exploit, for political gain, my opponent's youth and inexperience"
1988: "I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Believe me son, you're no Jack Kennedy"
2000: Gore's heavy sighs
2004: Bush's grimaces

Do we remember any of these debates for their substance? Is the candidate with a clever turn of phrase the better man? Is the candidate who grimaces or sighs during a debate unfit for office? Why do we pay attention to this shit? Because the Media, in their wise stewardship of American political discourse, believe this stuff is more important than the actual content of the speeches and rebuttals. So when they "analyze" a debate, that's all they talk about - even on Fox.

Actually, it's not all the media's fault. The very idea of a ritualized debate is inherently counterproductive, because it focuses attention on debating skills, rather than policy proposals. If we were electing the captain of a debating team, or if we were looking to hire a lawyer, it would be appropriate to judge a guy based on his skill at debating. However, the office of President of the United States requires different kinds of skills; ability in a formal debate is irrelevant.

I believe that acid rain is responsible for stressing and even killing trees in soils with low buffering capacity. I'm extensively trained in geochemistry, and I'm familiar with research literature that documents the point. I watched a political debate where this issue was discussed. The candidate who was against acid rain got nervous at one point, and stammered a bit. He was somewhat unprepared, and did not conclusively demonstrate that acid rain kills trees. After the debate, a panel of very intelligent and articulate commentators - with national reputations - pointed out repeatedly that the candidate who was OK with acid rain was a more polished speaker. The panel didn't actually talk much about acid rain. After that, even though I still believe that acid rain is bad, and even though I want SO2 and NOx out of the atmosphere, I voted for the candidate who will oppose clean air legislation, because he did a better job in the debate. I did the right thing, didn't I?

My opinion today is that debates are counterproductive, and do more harm than good, especially when interpreted by the media.

BLACKS IN GOVERNMENT

Blacks achieved an important milestone in 2001, which has not really been adequately celebrated. The participation of blacks in government has been rising steadily since they first began to be taken seriously in the 1960s. First it was small stuff, like mayors and minor cabinet posts. Then ambassadorships, a post on the Supreme Court, congress, and a governorship. In 2001, a black reached the group of the five or so most powerful men in the nation. Along with the Secretary of Defense, a President's most important advisor is the Secretary of State. This position is certainly more powerful than the Vice Presidency; the Secretary of State is sometimes the most powerful person in the nation, after the President himself. Bush was the first President of either party to appoint a black to that position.

I am not claiming any special virtue for Bush, or even for the Republican Party. Both parties are fully engaged in civil rights, and have been since 1970. However, the degree of influence wielded by Powell and Condoleeza Rice shows that blacks have reached an unprecedented level of power in our nation - and in the world-and, for the first time in history, contribute to the most important decisions that a Superpower can make. You'd think this would be a cause for celebration. But, of course, the silence is deafening.

LESSONS LEARNED / LESSONS NOT LEARNED

Each party must persuade 51% of the voters to endorse its ideas, or it will lose. When a party does fail, members must examine their behavior, and determine where they went wrong, so they can win the next time. Occasionally what went wrong is beyond the party's control, but most of the time the party's loss is due either to the candidate not being up to the job, or to the party's viewpoint not being shared by a majority of the electorate.

So this month, Democrats are having a turn at this difficult self-examination, and they are talking about it in the media. Watch closely, and you can tell which analysts understand what happened, and which ones don't. If an analyst says "We have to reach out to so-and-so" ("We have to change our viewpoint") or "We have to get a better candidate", they may be seeing things as they really are. If they say "We have to do a better job getting our message out", they do not know why their party lost, and they are setting up for another loss next time.

My response:

Time to pontificate! My replies:

WAR ON TERROR

It's been clear for some time that Al Qaeda has been crippled by the attacks on Afghanistan. What is unclear is how quickly Al Qaeda will recover. Since bin Laden and Al Qaeda have a safe haven in Waziristan, the plans of the top leadership can continue. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of Iraqis now have operational experience killing Americans, and might serve as a good pool from which to draw new Al Qaeda recruits (e.g., Zarqawi). The current half-year lull in activity may not last that much longer.

It's not clear how personally invested bin Laden is in attacking Bush, mano-a-mano. I agree with people like Fouad Ajami that bin Laden is very much attracted to the limelight. He loves the media. He mocks Bush, probably wishing to provoke Bush, but does he hate Bush in the manner of a vendetta, the way Saddam hated Bush 41? Don't know. The jihad tradition of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the NW Frontier of India stresses martial values, and a willingness to die at any time for the holy cause - they don't stress vendettas. Al Qaeda tends to take the long view: in their first video after 9/11, their main complaint was the Catholic domination of Spain, an issue that I thought settled 500 years ago. I didn't think Al Qaeda saw the election as a deadline, but rather as an advertising opportunity. They aren't on the clock, and they can bide their time.

WHAT TIPPED THE ELECTION?

Myself, I thought it was 9/11 concerns. Kerry deliberately remained vague on the matter, in part in order to remain as small a target as possible, and in part to retain flexibility once he entered office. But he lost an opportunity there, no doubt, to explain his plans. I'm sure he had plans - he wrote a pre 9/11 book on the challenge of terrorism. But he didn't quote from it during the campaign, so his plans remained vague to the voters.

What will be interesting to see is how sweeping the Bush Administration interprets its mandate. Their instinct will be to push it to the maximum - the American system encourages it (LBJ said if you get 50% plus one, you've got to press for everything, because you may never get another opportunity). But with the country so divided already, his plans will stir up a political torrent.

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

I think they still have a great value. It isn't so much their canned presentations that reveal so much, as the unintended asides.

In Debate Three, George Bush said some very revealing things. He was trying to segue quickly past a question regarding jobs, to the subject of education:

Q: Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States? BUSH: I'd say, Bob, I've got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st century. And here's some help for you to go get an education. Here's some help for you to go to a community college.
Remember that outsourcing hits particularly hard young-to-middle-aged technical workers who completed their educations not that long ago. These are the folks that just got out of community college! They lose their jobs because eager foreigners are available to do the work for a fraction of the wages. Getting reeducated won't help if new jobs are unavailable, because long-term job investments featuring R&D have been neglected. Recommending education as a panacea borders on insult, and segueing to elementary education doesn't address the question.Very revealing segue! It showed Bush's cluelessness about outsourcing. And it wouldn't have happened without a debate!

LESSONS LEARNED / LESSONS NOT LEARNED

"Each party must persuade 51% of the voters to endorse its ideas, or it will lose. When a party does fail, members must examine their behavior, and determine where they went wrong, so they can win the next time. Occasionally what went wrong is beyond the party's control, but most of the time the party's loss is due either to the candidate not being up to the job, or to the party's viewpoint not being shared by a majority of the electorate."

In this election, I think the electorate was not prepared to change course, whether or not good arguments to change course were made or not. In other words, it was beyond the Democratic Party's control, and no amount of Democratic behavioral self-control would have changed things. 9/11 traumatized the electorate, and people decided the messy Iraqi imbroglio is best addressed by the people who created it. There is a certain risk there, of course, but if things turn out badly, there is no doubt where the blame will lie (and it won't be with Bill Clinton, or marrying gays, or moral weakness, Osama bin Laden or the North Koreans!)

I know I was happy with the Kerry the candidate, head and shoulders above the others available, and far better than the opposition. I'm all in favor of the Democratic Party reaching out, but there has to be a willingness to listen on the electorate's side as well, and there is no reason why core values should be compromised.

It's interesting comparing the 2000/2004 electoral maps with the 1896/1900 electoral maps. Over the 20th Century, the red and blue states swapped sides, as the various parties, through numerous campaigns, reached out and co-opted the other side's voters. That process begins anew!