Ryan-Murray Deal

I support Congressman Ryan's deal. I do so for two reasons. First, government dysfunction is never a cause for celebration. It fosters a climate of economic doubt and a culture of self-perpetuating disdain. It's clear that many conservatives oppose this deal. Still, in order to make the spending reforms that are necessary for the long term of the country, Republicans will have to control Congress. In similar vein, if liberals want to have a chance of asserting the Warren agenda, they'll also need to control Congress. This deal recognizes those two competing truths. In essence, it ends the dysfunction by deferring those judgments to a later date. Second, the United States military is being gutted by the sequester. As I've argued before*, this cannot continue. Especially in the context of growing threats from China and a splintered but metastasizing collection of extremist groups. This is the essence of a compromise. It's a deal all sides can learn to live with.

* The title is a little harsh - Although I disagree with him, I've grown to respect Norquist.

ObamaCare, Afghanistan and the question of liberal morality

Breathing a sigh of relief, the President is dusting off his salesman cap. ObamaCare seems to be on the mend. Some problems remain, but Healthcare.gov now appears pretty functional.

Yet the future of the Affordable Care Act is far from certain. As David Freddoso notes, Democrats are going to have a hard time getting past the ‘sticker shock’ that many Americans are experiencing with their new plans. After all, it’s hard to persuade a middle class family that they should be happy paying more for a plan that suits them less. There’s obvious political risk here. If common dissatisfaction becomes the norm, November 2014 isn’t going to be fun for Democrats.

Certainly, liberals are going to have to learn from this experience. They’re going to have to accept that good intentions and good policies are not the same thing.

Ultimately, ObamaCare’s difficulties didn’t flow from unfortunate circumstances; they flowed from the arrogance of self-assumed moral superiority. Consider our political discourse. Where conservatives often deride liberal philosophy as delusional, liberals often regard conservatism as implicitly immoral. Regarding ObamaCare, prominent liberals frequently claim that conservative opposition is racist, or motivated by a hatred for the poor, or just plain stupid, or really, really racist. Indeed, the Washington Post's Ryan Cooper has stated that opposing ObamaCare is ''morally wrong''.

Look, I’d be the first to admit that conservatives need to offer serious alternatives to ObamaCare. Nevertheless, liberals desperately need to buy a mirror.

Just reference the recent liberal record in Afghanistan and Iraq…

Iraq, January 2007. A nation on the verge of implosion. Every day brought new bombings and beheadings. Iranian provided explosives were turning armored Humvees into human grinders. Al Qa’ida was fracturing Iraqi society with a ruthless brutality. Then Bush ordered ‘the surge’. With time, JSOC and ‘The Awakening’, the surge dramatically reduced the bloodshed and created space for basic political reconciliation. Without it, Iraq would have almost certainly descended into an ethno-sectarian holocaust. In other words, a moral abyss. Yet, even when its dividends were becoming clear, liberals fastidiously opposed the surge. Not only that, just as the liberal base now gleefully defends Snowden as a great patriot, during the surge, those same liberal activists were happy to deride Americans soldiers as traitors. Consider the dichotomy of this worldview; celebration of a defection to a mafia state, treason by fifteen months military service in 120 degree heat. 

Opposing the surge, liberals offered two weak alternatives - abandon Iraq or ‘hope for the best’. Terrible human suffering had become an abstraction. At best, an uncomfortable reality to be pushed from the mind.

Then there’s Afghanistan.

The majority of liberals have long believed that Afghanistan is a unworthy cause. Nonetheless, whether embracing an inverted McNamara-esque number count, or an assumed self-righteousness, a far too casual faux morality is in play. We’re witnessing a new national security liberalism; one defined by easy populism and devoid of moral anchor. A paradigm in sad distinction to the leadership of FDR.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that American military deployments are morally simple questions (nor that conservatives are perfect). But liberals must more honestly pay heed to American’s unique role in the world. While the Afghan President might possess the temperament of a five year old, the evidence also shows Afghanistan’s gradual movement towards stability. By calling for policy changes on the basis of the first consideration but ignoring the latter, liberals would greatly empower those who find justice in the hanging of children. I know they don't intend that, but it's exactly what will happen.

The Donkey, The Elephant and the Stan McChrystal school of responsibility

It's obvious that American political life needs a renewed culture of responsibility. The President has his 'matrix' and too many Republicans remain unwilling to speak up for the ethos of reason.

This speaks to something deeper. American politicians need to remember a long forgotten truth - responsibility and effective service are mutually dependent. American politicians need an example.

Stan McChrystal offers one.

Don't get me wrong, I know that McChrystal resigned amidst scandal. Ultimately however, that's the key point - McChrystal's imperfect life story speaks to the merits of responsibility. He proves the truth that so many reject - the truth that a life of honor need not be defined by a moment of disrepute. That redemption isn't just possible, but empowering.

McChrystal's life proves that taking political responsibility (whether via a resignation, or unqualified apology, or changing approach etc.) makes virtuous sense. As I see it, McChrystal's example offers three particular lessons.

1) The responsibility of accepting failure fosters 'institutional learning' - Absent a perceivable culture of responsibility, of 'institutional learning', leaders cannot inspire/expect high standards of initiative, conduct and commitment from their staff. This is critically important for an institution/company/political party/government's long term effectiveness. As McChrystal notes in regards to US Special Forces, accepting (rather than hiding from) failure enabled the stellar capabilities that define that military branch today. The lesson is clear - without a perceivable willingness to engage in serious introspection, trust hemorrhages from government.

2) Responsibility connects government to society - With public regard for government at an all time low, the need for a better union between politicians and society is great. The dichotomy is clear. While many Americans believe that their employment performance is inextricably tied to future advancement/employment opportunities, the political class is seen to play by a different set of rules. Or no rules at all (voting in ways that simply facilitate future careers on K Street). By taking responsibility as McChrystal did when he resigned, politicians would be seen as serious, accountable, respectable and redeemable (Mark Sanford won election to Congress because he was seen to have accepted and apologized for his indiscretions. At least in part, Weiner failed because he was seen as having attempted to evade his indiscretions).

3) Responsibility makes patriotic-political sense - In the face of his controversy, McChrystal resigned without qualification. In his words - as commander, “you’re responsible for everything bad that happens and everything good, and I accept that.'' In the end, McChrystal implicitly recognized that the 'service' is more important than 'the servant'. By putting the ideal before himself, McChrystal overcame his scandal. In its dissipating wake, he's cultivated a highly respected place in American society. But he's done more than that, he's also given strength to the notion of responsible public service.

American politicians could learn much from his example.

GUEST POST: A cordial challenge to conservatives- Some misunderstandings on Income Inequality

This is a guest post from Alex Lenchner aka 'Curious Leftist'. He's an Economics specialist with a keen mind and a fine pedigree for analysis and debate - make sure you check out his excellent blog /s. I'm excited to host this post - while I disagree with some of his opinions, Alex reminds me that left-right political engagement is crucial. In the end, whatever our political colors, the vast majority of us seek a just, prosperous American future. I digress... Over to you, Alex!

One of the things I've noticed in politics is the way Republicans misunderstand or ignore liberal arguments against inequality. And to to be fair, income inequality is a tricky subject to talk about. Even the very best of economists struggle to find the best way to measure inequality. There are different types of compensation, e.g. labor income (wages), benefits, and transfers. There are different ways to measure income inequality, e.g. at the individual, family, or household level. There are also things that we should consider like hours worked. And don't forget that pesky thing called inflation. Trying to put all of these factors into an empirical paper can be a real mess, so on some level, I understand the lackluster debate over income inequality. But despite these complications, two things are clear when looking at the data, decoupling and income growth divergence are real and sizable (1). These are two incredibly important problems that show how income inequality has been growing the past few decades.

More often than not, most people can't even get past step one. The conventional debate on the subject is rife with political rhetoric that obscures the issue and gets us nowhere. Don't get me wrong, there are some right leaning economists and academics that cut right through the talking points and get straight to the heart of the problem. The points they bring up and issues they raise are good for the political debate and they help bridge both political parties to a sort of mutual understanding. But these people are often in the minority and there voices aren't heard all that often. The people I'm primarily talking about are Republican politicians, members of the GOP, right leaning journalists, and plenty of others. Even many on the left are bad about this. So with this in mind, it would be beneficial to some clarity on the issue.

There are 4 main issues I have with Republican arguments on inequality:

1. The false dichotomy between growth and distribution
2. While too much government regulation may be a problem, it isn't the problem
3. Income inequality is not purely due to individual initiative. Instead, it is mostly an institutional phenomenon
4. Liberals are not against income inequality per se

The False Dichotomy between growth and distribution

This I see all the time, especially from Paul Ryan, a GOP favorite. Take this quote: “Are we interested in treating the symptoms of poverty and economic stagnation through income redistribution and class warfare, or do we ant to go at the root causes of poverty and economic stagnation by promoting pro-policies that promote prosperity?”

This is a classic example of a false dichotomy. We can either redistribute income or promote economic growth, but not both. But liberals often talk about inequality because it can hamper growth. The fact is, high levels of inequality can lead to a less efficient and productive economy. Cutting public investment leads to under-investment in infrastructure, R&D, and education at multiple levels (2). The ways firms treat their workers and the amount workers are paid all factor that go into worker productivity. In fact, fairness is a very important factor that goes into worker productivity and motivation (3). Although the idea of “fairness” is rarely clear and has a heavy degree of subjectivity, there is a growing sense that the present disparity in wages is unfair. And there is some date to back this up, as the wedge between wages and worker productivity has risen considerably since the 1970s:

Factor this with the rapid rise in executive pay (4), then there will be a feeling of unfairness throughout the economy. So with this in mind, redistribution, i.e. changing marginal tax rates on the 1 percent (or through some other method of taxation) to help increase public investment and lower the gap between worker and executive pay could increase productivity and efficiency in the economy. We can redistribute wealth, thereby reducing income inequality, and make the economic pie bigger.

While too much government regulation may be a problem, it isn't the problem

Many Republicans and Conservatives like to make the claim that government regulation is primarily to blame for income inequality, “In just about every speech they give examples of small businesses trying to do something and being blocked by government regulations. The Republicans are not whistling Dixie here – they are sinking their teeth into very public angst about government being too large.”

All of these stories amount to mere anecdotes. While government regulation is certainly a problem for our economy, it isn't the problem. No political institution is perfect. Interest groups are going to have some influence on the political process and there is bound to be excessive regulation over some sectors in the economy. But to say that regulation is the primary reason for our present state of inequality just ignores history. The fact is, inequality has been rising since the 1970s. Over this period we've had a number of presidents with various economic policies and doctrines. Yet despite the continuous dynamic shift between more and less regulation over several administrations, inequality has continued to increase. What the right seems to underestimate is the importance of monopoly rents and the increased monopolization of markets as a result of imperfect information, network externalities, and anti-competitive practices. Other factors like regulatory chapter and inadequate enforcement of laws also play a role, but that's different from regulatory burden.

Income inequality is not purely due to individual initiative.

You don't normally see this claim from the right, that inequality is purely due to differences in individual initiative, but it sometimes pops ups (5). Inequality is shaped by individual and market forces, but individuals and markets don't exist in a vacuum. They are constantly being shaped by thing like the government, social rules, institutions, and other structural forces. Skilled manufacturing jobs are being replaced by unskilled service sector jobs. Skill biased technological change has replaced many unskilled workers with machines. Financial liberalization and free capital movements have resulted in global financial stability, causing unemployment on a large scale. Even things like racial and gender discrimination are still alive and well (6). And this just scratches the surface. Looking at this from a common sense approach and blaming inequality on laziness and lack of effort might seem practice, but it ignores decades, if not centuries of research and theorizing. With this in mind, it would be absurd to attribute inequality solely on individual initiative.

Liberals are not against income inequality per se

Many on the right have perceived the liberal crusade against inequality as a desire for “equality of outcomes”. And you see this claim a lot (7). But it's nothing but a strawman and shows the true extent of how many Republicans and GOP members misunderstand the liberal position on inequality. Inequality is going to happen in a market economy. The desire for profits and gain is a vital component in the capitalist system and it's bound to lead to inequality of varying degrees. And, for the most part, capitalism is a great system, and I've seen very few liberals attack the institution outright. What liberals emphasize are the things that constantly influence markets, e.g. institutions, social rules, norms, habits, and a ton of other factors. Some of these structures and constraints are good, some bad, and some negligible. But many of these factors lead to imperfections in the market system and cause differences in well being across the board. Often, these differences in outcomes aren't due to individual actions. It things like this that liberals are concerned about, and believe that a number of institutions, like the government and unions, can help fix. Will the process be perfect? No, and it would naïve to think otherwise. But it's better than ignoring the problem.

While you might see some liberals make very dumb comments, you shouldn't extrapolate those examples to all liberals. The fact is, liberals and many on the left are primarily concerned with equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

Conclusion

Now, none of these arguments I made are original in any sense, but I hope they provided some clarity on an issue that is often obscured by political games. I definitely used vague phrases like “the right” and perhaps I generalized too much. But with that aside, the only way to make any real headway on the problem of inequality is to find a common ground between both political parties. And the only way for that to happen is for those on the right to better understand the arguments those on the left and vice versa.

Footnotes:

1. For more see Matt Bruenig (http://www.demos.org/blog/trickiness-measuring-inequality) and Lane Kenworthy (http://lanekenworthy.net/2012/03/11/is-decoupling-real/)
   
   
2. As Ben Bernanke notes: “First, since the 1970s, R&D spending by the federal government has trended down as a share of GDP, while the share of R&D done by the private sector has correspondingly increased. Second, the share of R&D spending targeted to basic research, as opposed to more applied R&D activities, has also been declining. These two trends--the declines in the share of basic research and in the federal share of R&D spending--are related, as government R&D spending tends to be more heavily weighted toward basic research and science. The declining emphasis on basic research is somewhat concerning because fundamental research is ultimately the source of most innovation, albeit often with long lags. Indeed, some economists have argued that, because of the potentially high social return to basic research, expanded government support for R&D could, over time, significantly boost economic growth.” (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20110516a.htm)
   
   
3. Joseph Stiglitz highlights an important case study that demonstrates these effects: “A detailed case study by Krueger and Mas of the plants that manufacture Bridge/Firestone tires provides a particularly chilling illustration. After a profitable year management demanded moving from an eight-hour to a twelve-hour shift, which would rotate between days and nights, and cutting pay for new hires by 30 percent. The demand created the conditions that led to the production of many defective tires. Defective tires were related to over one thousand fatalities and injuries until the recall of Firestone tires in 2000”.
   
   
4. Lucian Bebchuk and Yaniv Grinstein concluded in their empirical study on the growth in executive pay, “the analysis indicates that the growth in pay levels has gone far beyond what could be explained by the changes in market cap and industry mix during the examined period. The growth of pay involved a substantial rise in the compensation paid to the executives of firms of a given market cap and industry classification. Although equity-based compensation has grown the most, its growth has not been accompanied by a reduction in cash compensation.” (http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/bebchuk/pdfs/Bebchuk-Grinstein.Growth-of-Pay.pdf)
   
   
5. Bill O'Reilly tends to makes this claim: “Nobody gives you anything. You earn it.” (http://nation.foxnews.com/income-inequality/2012/05/14/oreilly-fire-income-inequality-bull)
   
   
6. See the classic study “Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination,” American Economic Review 94, no. 4 (September 2004): 991–1013
   
   
7. See this article On Equality of Outcomes: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/14/929058/-On-Equality-of-Outcome

Shutdown, ObamaCare and what it all means

Interviewed by AJ Delgado (video below), I offer my thoughts on the shutdown, ObamaCare and the broader ideological disagreements sustaining the discord.

Why House Republicans Should Support Immigration Reform

With the Senate having passed an Immigration Reform bill, the House of Representatives will now take up this critical issue. The internal GOP debates are sure to be both fierce and passionate.

From my perspective, Republicans should regard this reform effort as one deserving of their support. Most importantly, the bill offers a flawed but real opportunity to address the two great weaknesses of our immigration system: The presence of over 11 million undocumented illegal immigrants in a state of legal limbo and a border that remains effectively unsecured. This reality poses significant challenges to the well being of the United States. It creates significant financial burdens (for example in uninsured health care costs), it sustains a massive underground economy and it poses major challenges in terms of both criminal/terrorism related concerns. This dysfunction must find resolution.

However, there's another reason why GOP representatives should support reform - politics. 

It's true, in the short term, it's very likely that immigration reform will favor Democrats. The President will sign a law (if it reaches his desk) and as a result, he will be perceived as the primary agent of its creation. In short, Democrats will bear the immediate dividends. Yet, this being said, Republicans need to begin a perception rapprochement with Hispanic Americans. National elections require the engagement of a broad spectrum of voters - this dynamic will only accelerate going forwards. By illustrating a willingness to engage in serious compromise and in a way that meets key conservative concerns (in this case- border security imperatives), the GOP will earn a 'second look' from Hispanic voters as a viable alternative to the Democratic Party. 

Immigration reform won't weaken the Republican brand, it's passage will re-frame and renew that identity.

For conservatives to meaningfully assert those messages most likely to appeal to Hispanic voters - strong families, personal responsibility and social mobility, Hispanic Americans must first be listening. At the moment, we're being ignored.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban

I'm glad to see that Senate Democrats have dropped their attempt at a Federal assault weapons ban. The reasoning for my satisfaction is simple. Local democracy knows best. Nothing stops New Yorkers from electing politicians who will restrict assault weapons in their state. But Washington DC should not create a one size fits all model of restriction. In addition, Feinstein's assault weapons ban included unconstitutional (in my opinion) magazine capacity limits. That was an excessive and unjustifiable encroachment onto second amendment rights. I've consistently said that I would support common sense gun reform. But common sense is not decided by Senate Democrats, it's decided by a bi-partisan collection of Senators and members of the House.

In case you're interested - why I believe that the second amendment is important. 

The GOP 'civil war'

As evidenced by the heated Karl Rove debate, the GOP is struggling with continuing internal discord. Conversely, the Democrats possess a relatively stable party unity.
 
From my perspective, there are two main reasons for this dichotomy.

First- social policy. Where Democrats have a pretty consistent foundation of alignment on social concerns (pro-gay marriage, pro-choice etc), Republicans are riven by division. Some believe that life begins at conception and must be protected with absolutist government action. Others are pro-choice. Some support gay rights, others stand in unrepentant opposition. Others are somewhere in between. But, because of the deep importance of these issues, concerning as they do, notions of freedom, equality, tradition, history, religion and life itself, Republican disagreements here are often profoundly emotion. As a result, conflicts over social issues are able to burrow into passionately held and often personal disputes over other political concerns. In essence, if you believe that your fellow Republican endorses rape or on the flip side, endorses murder, finding common ground on any issue is difficult. For my views on social policy, see this Week piece. 

The second reason? Contrasting understandings over the role of government. Here, while Democrats believe in the active growth of government power and the notion of government as a mechanism for good, Republicans are less sure. Some GOPers support government power in certain fields, for example on defense. Others, Rand Paul for example, believe in a government that is not only smaller, but also less active (both at home and abroad). Again, because of the importance of these considerations; foreign policy, taxation and spending etc, these disputes hold a viscerally ideological quality. A quality that spills into a deeper distrust of the opposing voice.
 

When it comes to social policy and government power, a stable party comfort or at the very least, reciprocity of respect, is crucial for a party's unity and external appeal. Presently absent of that unity, the GOP is struggling to break free from a political sectarianism that regards disagreement as treasonous stupidity. And without a coherent internal polity, Republicans are naturally unable to persuade external independent voters what we stand for. And why they should vote for us. Personally, I believe that we must stand for freedom.

The Democratic Party's Constitutional Ambivalence

The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon. July 28, 1795.

From the standpoint of his above quote, George Washington would not be happy with today’s Democratic Party. It’s hardly difficult to understand why. Following his revolutionary victory, in order to establish an American government checked by balanced of power, Washington turned down the opportunity for absolute personal power. Washington understood that in order for American democracy to survive the ages, the various mechanisms of our government would have to operate in respectful equilibrium. In response, the founding fathers gave us the Constitution. 

Unfortunately, today’s Democratic Party has become the standard bearer of Constitutional absurdity.

First, let's look at the Judicial component.

Taking Democrats at their word, you’d believe that their judicial philosophy has an overarching, unifying objective- the pursuit of core public interests and the protection of individual freedom. But this isn’t the case. Instead, for many Democrats, Constitutional interpretation has become a fundamentally subjective venture. Just check the record.

This Supreme Court session, considering two relevant cases, the Justices will decide on a major Democratic priority- 1) whether gay couples have a Constitutional right to marriage and/or 2) whether they have a right to the same benefits that are available to heterosexual couples. Generally, Democrats believe that the government has no right to grant or deny rights on the basis of moral judgments concerning intimate, adult relationships. Recognizing the Constitutional right to equal protection under law, I support this understanding (at least as it relates to the second case).  However, Democrats are far from consistent when offering their legal support for individual freedom. For one example, consider gun rights. As decided by the Supreme Court in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010), the Second Amendment grants an incorporated right to all Americans, to possess handguns in their homes. Unfortunately, in their present pursuit of bans on all semi-automatic weapons (including handguns), imposing stringent magazine capacity limits (ten rounds or less) and requiring prospective handgun purchasers to submit fingerprints, many Democrats are actively challenging established Constitutional rights. While many conservatives (myself included) recognize that gun rights are not absolute, the boundaries of the law are clear: American citizens have the right to possess (at least some) semi-automatic weapons, without suffering excessive government obstruction.

It isn't just guns though. Consider the Democratic Party position on government power re- private conduct. When, in 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Government’s right to impose taxes on individuals who fail to buy health insurance, Democrats were overjoyed. Yet, as exemplified by their infinite outrage over the 2010 Citizens United ruling, Democrats also apparently believe that the government has the right to gag political speech. Under this  warped Constitutional theory, government can seemingly compel both consumer purchases and political silence. 

This is a legal framework without credibility.

 Ultimately, there is no Constitutional logic to a judicial interpretation which resides upon inconsistent, subjective whims of the moment. This is anathema to the Constitution’s existential purpose. The Constitution doesn’t exist as a kind of political ‘phone a friend’- a tool for difficult situations, but one to be ignored when so desired. It requires lasting respect.

Sadly, it’s not simply case law where Democrats are ridiculing the Constitution. 

Consider the on-going interactions between the Executive and Legislative branches of government. Before he entered the Oval Office, Senator Obama railed against President Bush for putting ‘more and more power in the executive branch’. However, since then, he's had a change of mind. Whether concerning Libya, executive privilege, energy policy, immigration, or now guns, on various critical issues, this President has no qualms ignoring congressional authority when he so desires. Not a great record for a former Constitutional law professor.

In the context of their previous complaints about Bush's executive, you might have expected at least a little hesitation from congressional Democrats over Obama’s executive reach. Conversely, congressional Democrats have become subservient allies to Obama’s expansive executive. A good example? The evolving battle over the March debt limit. Faced with congressional Republicans who understandably want entitlement reform in return for debt limit increases (without reform, we will continue our proud, national dive into the fiscal abyss), Democrats have offered a unique three-part alternative to honest negotiation.

 First, to demagogue against Republicans for not capitulating to the President’s demands. This first element is particularly bold, considering that former House Speaker Pelosi felt entitled to her own abysmal (really worth checking this link!) foreign policy during the Bush Presidency.

Second, change the rules.

Finally, if all else fails, ignore the Congress and its Constitutionally granted power of the purse.

Sidestepping Congress, what do Democrats suggest in return? Proposals, which are so utterly ludicrous, they appear to be the product of Monty Python movies. Suggestions of $1 trillion coins and intoxicated readings of the 14th Amendment are not acts of proud Democratic legislators; they are the product of a delusional deference to executive power. This is the obsessive pursuit of power as an end in itself.

Liberals like to claim that conservatives are to blame for our national political dysfunction and I’ll admit, we have to share some blame. However, in substituting cartoonish surrealism for the Constitution, Democrats are attacking the basic essence of American democracy.

Our country faces profound national challenges. It's understandable that difficult political dynamics will burden our efforts to find solutions. However, the Constitution should never be treated as a casual partisan tool. Over hundreds of years, our balanced system of government has guided us through the pain of civil and foreign wars, the misery of economic depression and the strife of great social upheaval. While Democrats played a crucial part in this national journey, the journey isn’t yet over. We still need the Constitution and it continues to deserve the Democratic Party's respect.

 

Pakistan-India, Hagel for SecDef, Assad speech, China threats, UK in EU, Debt Limit

1) The killing of a Pakistani soldier by the Indian military, illustrates the continuing tensions in Kashmir and beyond. I primarily blame Pakistan for this dynamic. Until the Pakistani intelligence service ends its support for anti-Indian terrorists, opportunities for a relationship of greater trust will not be forthcoming. It isn't too good when you have two states who a) hate each other, b) live next to each other, c) are both armed with nuclear weapons. Sadly, it doesn't seem to bother the Pakistani Government when their forces are killed by domestic extremists. Because they don't care, we must. 

2) I wouldn't pick Chuck Hagel to be my Secretary of Defense (for one, I think he was wrong to oppose sanctions against Iran), but I'm not the President. And if Obama wants Hagel for the role, I don't believe that Senate Republicans should oppose his nomination. Certainly, AIPAC's opinions of Hagel are irrelevant. Instead, a candidate's selection for this critical cabinet position should be made on the basis of three considerations: capability, knowledge and character. I believe that Hagel meets these standards and I don't believe that his nomination is worth another partisan battle (especially when he's a Republican anyway).

3) Assad is delusional. He still thinks that he has the power to survive. But he is running out of time. His regime is increasingly surrounded and is suffering defections and a dwindling supply of money. The only interesting part of Assad's speech came when he thanked China and Russia for supporting him. Those two states should be ashamed of their positions on the Syrian civil war. As I argued last week, Putin's Russia is a gangster state.

4) China is engaging in increasingly threatening behavior towards Japan. This follows further Chinese belligerence against other regional states like Vietnam. Obama must ensure that we stand firmly with our Pacific allies. And those around the world who hold fashionable anti-American views should also take note. China is no ally to international freedom. Western romanticism over China's economic rise must be tempered by reality.

5) The British Government is looking to fundamentally re-shape their relationship with the EU. This desire stems from two motivations. First, the UK has had to cede sovereignty to the EU and the UK Government now wants these powers repatriated. This is especially relevant in the field of Judicial issues. Second, with the UK economy still struggling, the Conservative Party needs an issue that can galvanize voters to support them. Because of public dissatisfaction with the EU, pushing for reform in this area is seen to present a political opportunity.

6) The Democrats are freaking out because they know that Republicans are going to push for major entitlement reform come the debt limit negotiations in March. As a conservative, for me this issue is simple. While I supported the fiscal cliff deal, I did so in large part because of the need to show conciliation as a foundation for future compromises from the President. Now, if the Democrats refuse substantial spending cuts/entitlement reforms in return for new revenue and a rise to the debt limit, the GOP should simply refuse to raise the debt limit. Again, this is simple. The American people have seen Republicans newly willing to make tough compromises for the sake of the national interest. Americans also understand that major spending cuts are necessary. So, if the Democrats want to be obstinate and refuse such cuts, then that is their prerogative. And their political risk. In such a situation, the Democrats will bear ultimate responsibility for the catastrophe that would stem from a default on the national debt. (Oh... and the 14th amendment debt argument/ platinum coin argument that some Democrats are throwing out... are totally absurd. I will be writing about the 14th issue in more detail next week.)