Category Politics

Entries 232 Total

Carl Sagan and the “High-Water Mark”

Dec 20, ’07 7:19 PM

San Francisco in the middle sixties was a very special time and place to be a part of. Maybe it meant something. Maybe not, in the long run, but no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time and the world….There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning. And that, I think, was the handle – that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting – on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark – the place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.

Hunter S. Thompson, “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”

Today is the eleventh anniversary of Carl Sagan’s passing, and like last year many people are writing today to commemorate Sagan and contribute to the second annual Carl Sagan Blog-a-Thon. This is the first of several from me, and one that I’ve been thinking about for awhile.

Not too long ago a friend asked why I still was enamored of the old Cosmos episodes, and periodically went back to watch them. I had to think about it a great deal, because ultimately my friend was right: they’re outdated, and even in their depiction of history are occasionally inaccurate. I keep coming back to an answer, however, which makes me think about Hunter S. Thompson and the quote above.

At least for me, Carl Sagan and his work with Cosmos and planetary exploration represent the “high-water mark” for American scientific culture. Cosmos is redolent with the sense of knowing that we lived in a time when science and democracy and rationalism were winning out over superstition and fear. As Thompson says, not in any military sense, but simply that a particular sensibility would ultimately prevail.

It has not. Not long after Sagan completed the Cosmos series, the Moral Majority (and its descendants, the modern Religious Right) became a major force in American politics, and so-called “postmodernism” became a major force in American scholarship. Today, less than 30 years later, the prestige of science and rationalism are at their lowest in my lifetime. Watching Cosmos, and reading Sagan’s writings are the equivalent, in my view, of seeing the “high water mark” — the place where the wave of mid-20th century secular rationalism finally broke and rolled back.

This isn’t entirely a bad thing. A bit of skepticism is always a good thing. Feyerabend and Arthur Fine bring to the philosophy of science a needed skepticism about the uniqueness of “scientific method” and most of us now view science as a socially conditioned process. But still one whose essential feature is self-correction across the efforts of many. We may have no solid ground to claim that anything we learn is really true, in any ultimate sense, but Popperian falsification still seems to work: we can know when we’re wrong.

But the skepticism of the postmodern critique of “scientism” has crept into policy-making and politics. The shameless manipulation of science and expert testimony under recent (and especially the current) Administration is shocking, and it’s not clear how to reverse this trend. A whole generation of Americans is growing up without much significant training in math and science, which are increasingly viewed as specialities which it’s OK for most people to skip because they’re “not interested in that sort of thing.”

The elevation of personal choice as the sole arbiter of value is a difficult topic in a capitalist democracy (see Michael Sandel on this topic, among other political philosophers), but one thing is clear: we face choices as a country that virtually require us to understand the issues. And it is far from clear that the electorate does understand the evidence on global warming, or peak oil, or biodiversity, or genetic research, to name just a few topics.

So to some extent, I continue to remember Sagan and watch Cosmos as a reminder of what we need to regain, of what we’ve lost in the past 30 years.

Comments (2)

Multiple Patriotisms: Is it Possible For Americans To Unify Behind One Leader?

Sep 29, ’07 4:25 PM

As we get into the fall season, in addition to the normal rhythms of autumn — back to school, back from vacation, buckling down for the winter — we pass another anniversary of the attacks on 9/11, and get to witness the spectacle of Congress "getting back to work" and the 2008 Presidential race kicking into high gear. 

Frankly, Americans on both sides of the aisle have reasons to dread the latter two events.  With respect to the politically motivated among Americans (however large that population truly is), neither side will actually get anything they want, and much noise and ink will be deployed in trying to convince us otherwise.  One side will not see the US signal a willing end to the Iraq War and an admission that the policy was a mistake, whether deliberate or not — because as is apparent, this is what the "anti-war left" wants.  And the other side will not see a country that "sees the light" and finally agrees unanimously that everything in the last six years is more than justified by the gravity of the threat we face — again, as everybody in the country knows, this is what the "conservative" and traditionalists in this country want.  I leave aside the less salient but still significant aspects of political opposition in this country because, honestly, these are the big issues of the day.  As with Vietnam, the nation today is split over different models of what "patriotism" requires of citizens in our current situation.

Continue Reading… Comments (1)

Sen. Clinton’s “Baby Bonds” and a Stakeholder Society

Sep 28, ’07 5:49 PM

While not yet a firm policy proposal, Sen. Hillary Clinton endorsed the notion of giving every child born in America a $5000 “baby bond” account which would accrue until they went to college, thus helping pay for the education necessary to raise a competitive, educated citizenry.

The bashing has already begun by the RNC, who called it an irresponsible idea, requiring “devastating tax hikes on hard-working families” and would “grow the size of government at a massive rate.”

Leaving aside comments about precisely which party has been “growing the size of government” and creating skyrocketing unfunded fiscal liabilities for our country (hint: read the GAO’s GAAP accounting estimates for the federal deficit, rather than the White House’s, if you want to know what the country’s finances under the Bush administration really look like), let’s talk about the merits of the proposal.

The idea is a variant on Anne Alstott and Bruce Ackerman’s proposal in The Stakeholder Society, which argued that our efforts at remedying the effects of income inequality should come on the front end, with children, rather than on the back end, with adults and assistance programs. There are many good reasons for “front-ending” such assistance, including arguments that conservatives and libertarians should be attracted to.

Arguably, adults should be responsible for their actions and life choices, and except for dire circumstances, government and tax dollars should not be spent to remedy poor personal choices. Even Hayek and Friedman argue for assistance in extremity, so I would expect conservatives and libertarians to follow this line of reasoning fairly closely.

Equally, we can all agree that children, prior to achieving independence and some age of majority, are not responsible for their own socio-economic status nor the life choices made by their parents and remoter ancestors. Hence, if we are to ensure that all citizens have equal opportunity (not equal outcomes!), equalizing the starting line status and success probabilities of children is the appropriate way to do it.

This is precisely what Alstott and Ackerman argue in the Stakeholder Society, and point out that $80,000 per child born in the United States would accomplish precisely this — allowing all children the ability to go to any school, commensurate with their intelligence, ambition, and abilities, or to pursue the opening of a small business or training in a trade or specialty.

The $80,000 figure has a fair amount of analysis behind it, and clearly it’s much higher than the $5000 described by Senator Clinton. Perhaps one is more than we can afford, but the smaller figure is also less help than we need to give: $5000 compounded for 18 years at today’s money market rates ain’t a college education by any standard, even in-state tuition at a state university.

But it’s an idea that’s on the right track. Both those who believe both in fighting the effects of income inequality on life chances, and those that believe we need to hold adults responsible for their choices but help children; in other words both principled liberals and principled libertarian conservatives, ought to come together and discuss Clinton’s proposal, and the Alstott-Ackerman research that underlies it, in good faith, and without the duplicitous rhetoric that the RNC pays its spokespeople to shovel out.

Comments (2)

Congress Needs to Consider Retroactive Immunity for Telecom Companies…For A Price

Aug 23, ’07 5:27 PM

I’m still pondering McConnell’s interview, discussed in the previous post, and it strikes me that he said something which opens a potential level for the Congress to use as an investigatory tool.

McConnell’s top priority for Congress on revising FISA legislation is gaining retroactive immunity for the telecom companies who have assisted the NSA with the illegal wiretapping program over the last five years:

Now if you play out the suits at the value they’re claimed, it would bankrupt these companies. So my position was we have to provide liability protection to these private sector entities. So that was part of the request. . . .

The issue that we did not address, which has to be addressed is the liability protection for the private sector now is proscriptive, meaning going forward. We’ve got a retroactive problem. When I went through and briefed the various senators and congressmen, the issue was alright, look, we don’t want to work that right now, it’s too hard because we want to find out about some issues of the past. So what I recommended to the administration is, ‘Let’s take that off the table for now and take it up when Congress reconvenes in September.’ . . . No, the retroactive liability protection has got to be addressed.

Glenn Greenwald is right, I think this is the first time a top official has pretty much admitted the complicity of telecom companies in the illegal wiretapping program. And that gives the Congress a possible plan, an investigatory path into the lawlessness of this Administration, and beyond, into Executive overreach in general (as previously discussed.)

When Congress returns, it should re-convene hearings on the FISA legislation, especially since that “six month” clause forces them to re-authorize or re-examine. In the process, they should indeed address retroactive immunity for the telecom companies.

The price for retroactive immunity must be full, public, and complete cooperation by the telecom companies. Not disclosing technical detail; any hearings that require sensitive information as part of testimony will naturally follow the usual rules for classified briefings and testimony. But policy decisions and directives from the Administration and especially the White House must be fully and publicly disclosed. On the record, under oath.

No oath, no testimony, no immunity. And no CEO, after their respective boards of directors get done with them. Regardless of political affiliation, political donations, or ties of friendship, no telecom company CEO and its board will pass up the deal. Major shareholders, mutual funds, and the holders of corporate debt won’t let them.

And we’ll get the testimony and hearings we need in order to shape FISA law in accordance with both constitutional principles AND the exigencies of our current situation.

And we’ll see what happens once it’s all out, on the record. Everyone, even a President with the track record of this one, is innocent until proven guilty. But let’s just say the data isn’t trending in the right direction for Mr. Bush. Or will the Republicans decide this is their “Barry Goldwater visits the Oval Office” moment?

Comments Off

McConnell: Americans Will Die Because We Discussed Wiretapping….?

Aug 23, ’07 4:39 PM

In recent comments to the El Paso Times, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell has apparently claimed that even discussing the legality of our wiretapping and electronic surveillance program will result in the deaths of Americans:

    Q: Even if it’s perception, how do you deal with that? You have to do public relations, I assume.

    A: Well, one of the things you do is you talk to reporters. And you give them the facts the best you can. Now part of this is a classified world. The fact we’re doing it this way means that some Americans are going to die, because we do this mission unknown to the bad guys because they’re using a process that we can exploit and the more we talk about it, the more they will go with an alternative means and when they go to an alternative means, remember what I said, a significant portion of what we do, this is not just threats against the United States, this is war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Q. So you’re saying that the reporting and the debate in Congress means that some Americans are going to die?

    A. That’s what I mean. Because we have made it so public. We used to do these things very differently, but for whatever reason, you know, it’s a democratic process and sunshine’s a good thing. We need to have the debate.

This is a pretty bizarre twist on the whole wiretapping discussion, and really has to call into question McConnell’s own claims of being "apolitical."   Americans will die as a direct result of having Congressional debate on the subject?  Seriously?

Apparently, McConnell’s "reasoning" (and we’ll use that term loosely for the duration) is that debate in Congress informs our enemies about our tactics and capabilities.  Of course, there’s a point to secrecy about detailed capabilities and tactics, and Congress and the Executive Branch have in place practices for closed hearings and briefings, and for handling law-making concerning classified activities.  These practices appear to work, as far as any of us can really tell. 

But at a high level — the level we’d read about in the news — I’d be shocked to hear that anyone doesn’t know that the NSA routinely monitors electronic communications internationally, and has done so for decades, across many generations of technologies.  After all, the NSA is an outgrowth of WWII signals intelligence groups. 

Or we might assume that folks overseas, including perhaps the bad guys, had read James Bamford’s history of the NSA, "Body of Secrets:  Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency," (a good book by the way), or his previous book, The Puzzle Palace.  Or you could extrapolate from fiction and entertainment and watch the Will Smith/Gene Hackman action thriller Enemy of the State.   Or literally dozens, if not hundreds, of other sources. 

Really.  Seriously.  McConnell clearly knows, as the former director of the NSA itself, and a player in D.C., that (1) the bad guys know we tap phones, monitor email and other electronic transactions, and gather a variety of other non-human-source intelligence, and (2) Congressional debate will be on the legality and processes involved in authorizing such activities, not the details of the technology for acquisition and processing.

So nice try, Mr. McConnell, on the "I’m apolitical, just doing my job" bit.  I’m not buying it.  Your comments are, at best, a misstatement.  At worst, they’re deliberately inflammatory hogwash of the kind we keep seeing from this Executive Branch, which will say anything to avoid having oversight, rules, or statutory limits to its authority.

 

Comments Off

Taking Impeachment Seriously

Aug 11, ’07 6:17 PM

Over the last year, I’ve gone from not wanting the Democrats to waste political capital on impeachment proceedings to feeling that the effort is critical to the health of our democracy.  I think I’m ready to articulate why, and more importantly, outline the issues for which I still believe that the normal electoral process is the more appropriate cure.  This "sea change" in my thinking on the issue corresponds roughly to a change from thinking tactically about the 2006 election to thinking more broadly about the health of our democratic progress, although that tactical thinking was simply wrong from a constitutional standpoint — no matter what the stakes in that election.  I’ll also recommend John Nichol’s excellent small book, The Genius of Impeachment:  The Founder’s Cure for Royalism.  I started writing this before I read Nichols, and in fact I bought his book precisely because it’s got great references to early English custom and American history that I hope to use in arguing my case, but I strongly recommend his treatment, which is obviously better documented, more detailed, and often much better written than my comments below.   

In short, I’ve become convinced that impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney are not just the appropriate remedy for the massive executive overreach we’ve seen in the last eight years, but an essential corrective for ensuring that future administrations — Democrat or Republican — do not simply continue where Mr. Bush leaves off.  Given massive expansions of executive power during the 20th century, and especially from Nixon onward (including the Democratic Clinton Administration), we have ample evidence that normal electoral process is insufficient as a corrective to executive overreach.  Stronger medicine is required.  And fortunately, strong medicine is precisely what the Founders gave us, in the form of impeachment.

Continue Reading… Comments Off