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.

Democrat, Republican or Independent, we should all be grateful for the Secret Service

As we enter the final week of the campaign, it's easy to be wearied by the relentless partisanship that absorbs the airwaves.

And yet, amidst the rancor of endless attack ads, there is one permanent campaign fixture from which we should take great pride- The Secret Service agents and officers working selflessly to protect our democratic process.

Certainly it would be a mistake to ignore the Service's recent prostitution scandal and its ongoing fallout. These failings are serious and need cognizant recognition as such. But having taken this scandal into account, the larger story of the Secret Service this year shouldn't be defined Colombian prostitutes and drunken antics. Instead, it should be defined by truth. The truth of long periods away from home, of endless campaign stops, of the complex and often conflicting imperatives between effective protection and effective politics, and of the ultimate work of shielding candidates against a threat spectrum of varied characters and capabilities.

Without the Secret Service, our democratic process would be subject to violent extremists and our candidates left open to intimidation or coercion. There should be little doubt, we are lucky to have the Secret Service at our candidates sides.

While most Americans respect the Secret Service, this respect rarely extends to a more than a cursory understanding of how the organization operates. As such, if the Service is to receive fair analysis going forwards, much greater attention must be given to the extraordinary skill and discretion (the two crucial facets of executive protection) which underpin the conduct of the majority of Service employees.

Let's consider the record.

With reference to professional skill, the Secret Service holds a hard earned reputation as the world's finest protective force. This reputation hasn't simply been purchased with money- though it is true that protection isn't cheap. Truly comprehensive (and thus effective) protection is a difficult, time consuming venture. Ultimately it requires aggressive training, comprehensive preparation and honing rapid reactions. While it is easy to label these measures as excessive, they are (for the most part) necessary. Assassins especially in the modern era, can take many forms. Whether facing a suicide bomber, a group of gunmen, a lone gunman, a car bomb, a chemical attack. or a combination of attacks, protecting America's national leaders is not an easy business. Further, given America's tradition of close candidate-crowd proximity and our celebrity obsessed media culture, the Secret Service confronts a protection environment far more challenging than that facing most other protective agencies.  In essence, while a campaign team wants their candidate as close to the crowd as possible, agents want the opposite. Effective navigation of the protection-politics tight rope is neither an easy nor enviable task. Yet, agents do it every day.

On the second element - discretion, the Secret Service holds another praiseworthy reputation. To ensure that protectees trust the agents assigned to them and will allow those agents to remain close by, protectees must be able to rely upon agents discretion. In this regard, it is a tribute to the Secret Service that first families including the Obamas' and the Bush family hold the agency in such high personal opinion. With the especially partisan political environment of recent years, the Service's retained reputation in this area deserves great credit. Embarrassing leaks about protectees are exceptionally rare. In addition, major agency corruption scandals involving bribery etc. are effectively non-existent. Again, while the Colombia prostitution scandal is serious, it must not be taken as a defining incident.

The Secret Service has faced a lot of bad publicity in the last year. Some deserved. However, a fair consideration of the record and the conduct of its employees paints a different picture to the standard media narrative. Standing post at campaign stops might not be glamorous work, but is integral to American democracy. That the Secret Service is able to perform its role in the most political of environments and simultaneously in the least partisan of ways, is a tribute to the men and women who form its ranks.

UPDATE - If you liked this piece, please check out my op-ed for The Guardian on politics and the protection of the first family.

Yemen Plot - Criminal Investigation

Senator Feinstein is correct to call for a criminal investigation into leaks surrounding the latest AQAP plot. As I previously noted, the leaked information is serious in nature. Their are few intelligence failures as problematic as ones that compromise the source identity of an allied foreign agent. Whoever leaked this information is likely a TS/SCI security clearance holder and therefore someone who should be capable of absolute discretion in protecting classified material. A level of discretion that requires individuals to concern themselves with national security and not the pursuit of media glamor. The American people and our foreign partners deserve better.

Source: Marshall Foundation

Republicans and 'democracy' in the Middle East

This has been annoying me for a while now. 

Republicans cannot condition support for democracy in the middle east on the basis of our personal affinity for particular ideologies. If the party is to stand for democracy in Iraq, it must also accept the need for Palestinian democracy, Egyptian democracy and democracy in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Without honest, genuine support for democracy across the Middle East, Republicans have a total lack of credibility to argue that america's foreign policy is centred around promotion of freedom. In this hypocrisy, Republican candidates serve to provide politically astute adversaries like HAMAS, Hezbollah and the Sadrists, with talking points to suggest that the US only supports those with whom it agrees. In an inescapable sense, this feeds traditional extremist narratives hostile to US interests..

IE -  the argument - 'Don't trust or work with the Americans or their agents, because they have no interest in your welfare but instead only care about pursuing a blindly, pro-Israel agenda'. This narrative serves to unfairly deligitimise the nature of America's regional actions and relationships.

Aside from the diplomatic damage caused, such wilful contradiction between words and reality, ultimately undermines the cause of freedom itself (to which america's extremist opponents in the middle east are ultimately ideologically averse). Supporting democracy does not mean that we should automatically agree with other democracies, but it does mean that we accept the notion that popular power is at its basic but ever developing level, a good thing.

The central point here is that if republicans still believe in democracy as a moderating force (the underlying premise of the Bush ideology that Republicans have overwhelmingly supported since 9/11), then in favour of an ultimately more just, peaceful and stable middle east, republicans must be willing to accept that in the short term, while democracy may not always produce results that we would like, it is crucial to stand in support of freedom.