Top Military Are Good Bureaucrats

Today's NYTimes reports on the new Army manual on interrogations that being developed. Some, like Cheney, want two sets of methods: one published in the manual, one kept secret so that our adversaries can't train to counter the methods. But Congress and the top generals are resisting:

Pentagon Rethinking Manual With Interrogation Methods - New York Times:

"In addition to the lawmakers' complaints, some senior generals also objected. At a recent meeting of the nation's top worldwide commanders, Gen. John P. Abizaid, the head of the Central Command, and Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, said the new interrogation techniques had to be clear and unambiguous 'so our corporals in the field can understand them,' said a military officer briefed on the remarks."

That's the mark of a good bureaucrat. KISS for the field operatives. It's a long chain of command from HQ to the field and the simpler you can keep instructions, the better.

Beinart's Over-Simplified History

Peter Beinart oversimplifies history here--Why Clintonism worked:

"In reality, the Democratic Party didn't lose the confidence of its convictions when Clinton became president; it lost them when he was in graduate school. From Harry Truman through Lyndon Johnson, Democrats stood for three basic things: enlightened anti-communism, an expanding welfare state, and racial integration. Between 1968 and 1972, under pressure from Vietnam and racial conflict, two of those three collapsed. By 1972, George McGovern was urging the virtual abandonment of anticommunism and advocating racial quotas. Then, in 1976, Democrats nominated a relative economic conservative, Jimmy Carter, who showed little interest in extending Johnson's Great Society largesse. And, poof--there went principle number three. "

During the 50's integration wasn't a big deal for most Democrats--Stevenson was not notable for his leadership here. Southern Democrats were simply too important in the party. Even when JFK came to office, it took a while for him to act on anything, even the "stroke of the pen" to sign an executive order on discrimination (in federally financed housing, if memory serves) that he had used as campaign fodder. The positions of the parties didn't fully solidify until LBJ pushed through the civil rights legislation and the Republicans followed Goldwater in going south.

Much of politics works that way--the "ins" take a position and the "outs" criticize, assuming the position has problems, regardless of what their past history and principles might seem to dictate. Just look at Keynesianism. That was the Dems position from the 1930's to 1980. A very successful one, even converting Nixon. Then Reagan used the Laffer Curve to steal their clothing and now Dems believe in responsible budgeting.

Virginia Liberal's Dilemma--Miller or Webb?

Tuesday I've got to cast my vote in the Democrat primary in VA for a candidate to oppose Sen. George Allen. As I told the phone surveyer for Webb, my priority is to beat Allen. And that's the message former Rep. Leslie Byrne is pushing in her radio ads for Webb--he's the guy to beat Allen.

Webb is a Naval Academy graduate, decorated Marine vet of Vietnam, fiction writer--an impressive resume. But he's also a former Republican and a Secretary of Navy under Reagan, he supported Allen in 2000, and famously opposed women in the Academy in the 70's. He's Scots-Irish, having written a book that interwove his family's history with that of the Scots-Irish in America (Born Fighting) that suffers from over-romanticizing them (I'm half Scots-Irish myself). His major platform and the motivation for switching parties seems to be opposition to the Iraq war.

His opponent, Harris Miller, is a lobbyist for the IT industry, but rather than being a turncoat Republican he has a long history of Democratic activism, serving as a Congressional aide and in the Carter admin.

As I analyze my choice: Webb seems to be someone who today would have a good chance to beat Allen. He can't be painted as a flaming liberal and has the background that will appeal to downstate Republicans, while the Dem establishment will push him in No. Virginia. But it's 5 months to election day. Will Iraq look as bad then as it did the end of May? If it doesn't, Webb seems a single issue candidate who'd have problems adjusting gears. On the other hand, if it gets worse or if there's new terror attacks in the U.S. Webb would do better than Miller. Will Webb wear well? He doesn't seem to have impressed the media with his campaigning abilities. Webb seems to be go-it-alone-Joe, perhaps too stubborn and self-righteous (prime S-I vices) to be good on the stump.

On the other hand, Allen is probably salivating at the idea of Miller--he can be painted as liberal, and a lobbyist, and opposed to the working man. (Miller's pushed strongly for free trade on behalf of IT, so several unions are against him.) He's also Jewish, which won't play well downstate and aggravates the image problem. He's made a little better impression on the media, which always likes wonkish types. (ex-Gov Mark Warner was an IT wonk, and he had to lose once before he came back to win.) I agree with Miller much more on issues. In terms of changing situations over the next 5 months, he probably would be less affected by good news from Iraq than Webb. (On the other hand, the public may have come to a final view of Iraq--that it was mismanaged so that lives and money were wasted, even if it works out over the next 5 years.) And if the Republican base stays dispirited, maybe a liberal can win.

But if Webb gets in, after Iraq fades will he find himself reverting to the Republicans? But if we can't defeat Allen this year, we probably can't beat him ever. He's been fairly impressive for the Republicans, enough so he's dreaming of the White House, so we can't tar him as another Roman Hruska. Darn, I don't like Allen.

Damned if I know who I'll vote for.

Robin Williams Jr., -- RIP

Professor Robin Williams Jr., ("Robin M. Williams Jr., a noted sociologist and a former president of the American Sociological Association who offered insights into racism and the behavior of men in war, died here on June 3.") was a teacher of mine back in 1962-3. He wasn't the greatest lecturer I had, but he was interesting and gave me some insights into American society I still use. The course was on American society, which was also the title of a book of his. It's no longer in print but I recommend it.

What I remember--the observation that we pass laws and act in symbolic ways to reaffirm norms, like the law against prostitution with the periodic crackdowns--the actions don't really attack prostitution, they say that we "good people" don't approve of it. That's true today, though I've learned over the years that symbols do matter perhaps more than I got from his class.

Another observation fit in with my future career--the idea that the New Deal delegated governmental power partially in an attempt to co-opt groups, as giving farm programs to an agency run in part by locally elected committees, the agency I ended up working for later. Local control became big during the War on Poverty, but it's gradually faded. Even the Republicans have abandoned it during the Bush administration

Libraries, Schools, and Electronically Generated Books

Came back from the Reston library today, passing Dogwood elementary school, which has a very high proportion of Hispanic students. I wonder whether the book/education industry is making good use of computers these days. How costly is a print-on-demand machine? How hard would it be to generate personalized books for kids with their names inserted--if advertisers and magazines can do it to generate interest, why not education? How about books with Spanish and English interleafed--one page English, the facing Spanish (or whatever language--lots of them in the Fairfax system?)

Visual Acuity and Immigrants

Just finished "Farmworker's Daughter" by Castillo Guilbault, who grew up in California during the 50's and 60's. It's well written and evocative of that time (not that I'm familiar with the area or with being Hispanic). One thread of her memoir is the distinctions her mother made among people, both race (Yaqui Indians versus not, shades of brown) and class/culture. Her mother took pride in her gentility, even though she was married to a farmworker.

I'd generalize that specialists always make distinctions that generalists don't. When people grow up in an area, they and their neighbors are specialists, making distinctions more or less well-founded. So-and-so isn't just a farmer, he owns a particular farm with particular animals and has a history on the farm. When "outsiders" come in, they can't make these distinctions because they don't have the background knowledge so their eyes can't see what the natives see. But the "insiders" also make generalizations about the outsiders--back in the 50's many in the south would see newcomers or media as "Yankees" and probably troublemakers.

So too in immigration. We now talk of "Asian Americans", lumping together as one group people from many disparate countries. And we talk of "Hispanics/Latinos", lumping together people who speak different versions of Spanish or, perhaps, no Spanish at all (i.e., Brazilians and Indians). And immigrants will make generalizations about the "natives", being more likely to see blacks and whites as Americans and less likely to make racial distinctions than natives.

A similar process takes place when we visit the past, which is a foreign place. Our eyes fail us as we blur out differences. For example, would you be surprised to learn that Illinois had many German-language newspapers between the Civil War and WWI? I was.

Anxiety in Professorial Ranks--Stanley Renshon

Just finished reading "The 50% American : immigration and national identity in an age of terror"
by Stanley Allen Renshon. He's a professor and it's a scholarly work, lots of footnotes and citations. He points to the prevalence of nations who permit dual citizenship (most do) and argues it's a danger, leading people to fail to identify with the U.S. He sees immigrants, particularly Hispanics, as retaining allegiance to their country of origin and failing to assimilate. He's concerned about "multiculturalism", arguing that we need one national culture that is dominant. As I said, it's scholarly and makes a reasonable argument, though I'm not convinced. I'd offer these points:

• It's a rather ahistorical picture. He's not conscious of the extent to which the U.S. has already had experience in navigating between the Scylla of individual/subcultural rights and the Charybdis of national culture and rules. The flag saluting of Jehovah's Witnesses, the peyote use of native Americans, the off-the-grid culture of the Amish (including aversion to higher ed), the hasidic Jews in NY, the question of parental rights of Christian Scientists to forego treatment, etc. etc. True we don't come close to the experience that a land like India has had with multicultures, but I'm confident we can navigate in the future.
• While the tone is scholarly, there's a current of anxiety about American culture that pops out regularly--the culture wars, the crassness of popular culture, etc. etc. The anxiety is shared by others who'd oppose immigration as currently operative. This leads to an irony. On the one hand, Renshon says that immigrants have too strong and too cohesive of a (family) culture which poses a threat to the U.S. On the other, he points with alarm to the erosive effects of a free-market system of catering to individual tastes that supposedly dissolves our former culture. It's difficult to have it both ways.
• But Renshon does offer some good suggestions to help immigrants acculturate, orientation sessions, English as a second language classes, etc. While I'm a bit dubious about the payoff from such efforts, there is a purpose to symbols. Perhaps an eventual compromise immigration bill would benefit by including some of these measures. They constitute a better response to the concerns of those who would restrict immigration than just dismissing their concerns.

40 Years of Social Change--Seven Days in May

Watched the movie "Seven Days in May" last night, describing an attempted coup in DC, and noticed these indicators of social change:

• lots of smoking (the Surgeon General's report came out just after the movie was released)
• lots of drinking--offering liquor to one's guest was common
• lots of WASP males. There was a black security guard and a mother and child in Dulles airport who had the one speaking part ("No, I didn't see him.") One black male in the press corps. No Hispanics, no Asians. There were identifiable Catholics--nuns in black habits.
• an "emancipated woman" (the great Ava Gardner so describes herself, sardonically, as she's the discarded mistress of the villain (Burt Lancaster).
  
• an empty White House--compared to "West Wing", the President had a small staff (one main aide).
• formality--still some hats and the press corp was dressed formally for the press conference. Travelers at Dulles were also formally dressed.
• few fliers. Dulles, which had just opened, was practically empty.

The country has changed.

Establishment Pundit Acknowledges The Seer--All Hail Kevin Drum

David Broder today notes an article the Washington Monthly ran back in 2004 containing predictions by various experts on what the second Bush term would be like:

"The one commentator who got it exactly right was Kevin Drum, who runs the magazine's blog. 'What do we have to look forward to if George W. Bush is elected to a second term?' he asked. 'One word: scandal.'"

A Liberal's Dilemma--Kevin Drum

Kevin Drum comments on Mr. Beinart's recent book:

"So what is it that Beinart really wants from antiwar liberals? The obvious answer is found less in policy than in rhetoric: we need to engage more energetically with the war on terror and criticize illiberal regimes more harshly.

Maybe so. But this is something that's nagged at me for some time. On the one hand, I think Beinart is exactly right. For example, should I be more vocal in denouncing Iran? Sure. It's a repressive, misogynistic, theocratic, terrorist-sponsoring state that stands for everything I stand against. Of course I should speak out against them.

And yet, I know perfectly well that criticism of Iran is not just criticism of Iran. Whether I want it to or not, it also provides support for the Bush administration's determined and deliberate effort to whip up enthusiasm for a military strike. Only a naif would view criticism of Iran in a vacuum, without also seeing the way it will be used by an administration that has demonstrated time and again that it can't be trusted to act wisely.

So what to do? For the most part, I end up saying very little. And Beinart is right: there's a sense in which that betrays my own liberal ideals. But he's also wrong, because like it or not, my words — and those of other liberals — would end up being used to advance George Bush's distinctly illiberal ends. And I'm simply not willing to be a pawn in the Bush administration's latest marketing campaign.

I don't have a very good answer" [He asks for comments, most of which prove a bit disappointing to me.]

Seems to me there's several answers:

1. Be faithful to the facts as you see them. Facts can compel one to speak out (see Martin Luther) regardless of who is helped or hurt.
   
2. Realize that the emotions of debate are good and useful. For example, to my mind Kevin overstates the villainy of the Bush administration out of emotion. That motivates him to probe the situation for facts that counter the Bush policy. Even though he mostly agrees with Bush on the nature of the Iranian regime, he's likely to come up with different facts and have different blind spots than Mr. Cheney.
   
3. Maximize your impact. Where 1 and 2 would argue for a liberal to speak out on Iran, this could be seen as cover for cowardice. For example, the cases of both Iran and North Korea are very difficult. So liberals can take potshots at Bush policies that appear mistaken, but there's really no obvious alternative, so why should liberals struggle to find one? It's not written in the heavens that a liberal should have a solid policy alternative to every issue. (For one thing, the lack of a policy is a policy--kick the can down the road and hope that events change the situation. Death, after all, is certain, even for our foes.)