Cafe Hayek: Low Standards

« Tyler Cowen on Elections | Main | Living Beyond Our Paychecks?» Don Boudreaux

February 19, 2008

Low Standards

Don Boudreaux

I sent this letter on Sunday to the Washington Post:

Dear Editor:

I'm forever flabbergasted by the preposterously low standards to which politicians are held. Case in point: in today's lead editorial ("Trading Down") you correctly note that Senators Clinton and Obama each now is trumpeting more and more wrongheaded populist themes - including suspicion of trade - only to increase her or his chances of securing the nomination. So by your own assessment (which I share) the next President of the United States might well be someone who endorses policies that he or she knows to be unwise AND who lies in order to score with the electorate.

If a man tonight falsely assures a woman of his undying love only to score with her, we rightly regard him as a sleazeball. But when politicians do essentially the same thing, save on a much larger scale, we call them "public servants" and treat them as our saviors. Very strange.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Posted by Don Boudreaux in Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e5506c9e838834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Low Standards:

Comments

Why send a letter agreeing with what the Washington Post said in their article? I thought letters to the editor were supposed to be about disagreements.

Posted by: jeff | Feb 19, 2008 7:05:43 AM

Harry Truman once said something to the effect that no government, no matter how dictatorial or corrupt, exists without the consent--either overt or tacit--of the people. So, if our politicos are a bunch of sleazeballs it is because we, the people, have chosen them to represent us and we continue to do so. Maybe you should start voting.

Posted by: mike | Feb 19, 2008 8:04:26 AM

This tactic reflects a real contempt for voters - saying anything regardless of what is true or what you believe in pursuit of power. Obscurantism.

Posted by: Dirck the Noorman | Feb 19, 2008 8:11:00 AM

Donald J. Boudreaux says “someone… who lies in order to score with the electorate”

Why do you write of the possibility of an electorate that lies in order to better see through the candidates?

The article seems to be built on the premise that the labor unions are all important. Is this so? and if so, what do you intend to do about it?

I would say that as a bare minimum you should announce that you are also a part of the electorate that they need to woo instead of telling them that you do not vote no matter what.

Posted by: Per Kurowski | Feb 19, 2008 8:54:13 AM

Free trade is what happens on ebay when no one is watching, when the package is inconspicuous enough to escape a customs inspection. When the package is more conspicuous, then "free trade agreements" kick in, but that's really planned trade. Isn't it?

Harry Truman once said something to the effect that no government, no matter how dictatorial or corrupt, exists without the consent--either overt or tacit--of the people. So, if our politicos are a bunch of sleazeballs it is because we, the people, have chosen them to represent us and we continue to do so. Maybe you should start voting.

Harry Truman would say that. Wouldn't he? Stalin could say the same to a Russian in 1940 and tell him to join the Communist Party, and he probably did.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 19, 2008 9:08:43 AM

Well said.

I also love it how Democrats tend to run as doves but generally move in a hawk-ish direction as soon as they get in office.

Posted by: Chris O'Leary | Feb 19, 2008 9:34:30 AM

In the particular case of Hillary, I prefer her to Obama just because she is more likely to betray her supposed principals and loyal supporters.

Posted by: The Dirty Mac | Feb 19, 2008 9:55:56 AM

Mike,

"So, if our politicos are a bunch of sleazeballs it is because we, the people, have chosen them to represent us and we continue to do so."

This is just a back door approach to stating a belief in "the people". I don't choose politicians anymore than I choose the cats that use my back yard as a sandbox. I could vote against the cats but it wouldn't matter in the least. I live in their territory, and that's what cats do.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 19, 2008 9:56:18 AM

To consider Obama and Clinton sleezeballs for taking a position well supported by many fellow economist on the issues of trade and indeed supported by lucid discussions is a bit much.

Free trade should mean free trade but China protectionist and monetary policies along with our feds own actions largely create the "trade imbalance". And contrary to the editorialist claim that Obama was suspect for suggesting "........a line connecting the current subprime mortgage crunch to "decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China." , there is much to suggest HE is right and the editorialist is wrong.

Clinton and Obama are truthful in supporting trade AND understanding that HOW trade agreements are set up matters. Those claiming it doesn't matter, as our economy crumbles around us, are the ones who should be held suspect.

Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 19, 2008 10:31:29 AM

Muirgeo,

That Obama and Clinton agree with certain economists who support their assertions does not mean that Obama and Clinton aren't sleazeballs. It only means that the certain economists are propagandists for the sleazeballs.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 19, 2008 10:40:17 AM

"I could vote against the cats but it wouldn't matter in the least. I live in their territory, and that's what cats do."

Another swipe at voting? Oh well this guy is apt to agree:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/09/10/do1002.xml

Posted by: Gil | Feb 19, 2008 10:41:54 AM

With all due respect, Prof. Boudreaux, your crusade against the politicians won't improve matters much, even if a bunch of saints were running for president. They would still have to promise the impossible.
Hayek understood this. He never complained about the politicians themselves. Instead, he tried to understand why they were practically forced into inadequate behavior. He new the only way to impel politicians to act rightiously would be to improve on representative democracy itself.
This is why he went to the trouble of doing something he usually never did, that is, propose a concrete solution: a model constitution (which he sometimes called "demarchy"). Since we are all well aware of your disgust with politicians, it would be refreshing to read your views, your proposals, on a way out of the darkness.

Posted by: Fabio Franco | Feb 19, 2008 10:55:01 AM

Quote from Mike: "So, if our politicos are a bunch of sleazeballs it is because we, the people, have chosen them to represent us and we continue to do so. Maybe you should start voting."

Shall I paraphrase: Unfettered democracy leads to political corruption. Participate in unfettered democracy.

Posted by: Keith | Feb 19, 2008 11:56:02 AM

Can some one please define "free trade"?

If we had quotas, import tarrifs, adjusted monetary policy for trade advantage would that be considered free trade. If we allowed capital investements in our coutry to come in from overseas and only allowed those products to be exported out of our country and not sold in he local economy would that be free trade?

As I understand China does all these things and our Fed policy seems to also favor the multinational corporations benifit in trade at the expense of the American tax payor.

Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 19, 2008 1:22:34 PM

It only means that the certain economists are propagandists for the sleazeballs.

Posted by: Randy

Randy,

Then you need to prove which economist are right. The links I gave and many other readings and discussions make me think its a rather simpleton claim to suggest what we are doing is free trade.

We are using monetary and trade policy to transfer massive amounts of wealth from the working class as best as I can see.

Dishonesty seems to come from liberal economist claiming this is free-trade. I mean using monetary policy in such a way seems to be at odds with the classical liberal philosophical approach to the economy. They don't even seem true to their own beliefs much less the significant negative impacts we are seeing unfold daily from as a result of our poor trade practices.

The guys who Obama and Clinton base their claims on seem to have predicted this mess years ago while those here still seems in denial that there is even a problem.

Populism????? Hell yeah!!!!

Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 19, 2008 1:33:53 PM

Since we are all well aware of your disgust with politicians, it would be refreshing to read your views, your proposals, on a way out of the darkness.

I'd also like to see more affirmation of specific reforms. Basically, when politicians exclusively nit-pick flaws in an opponent's program (or whatever straw man they substitute for this program), they're really avoiding a specification of their own, so they're less constrained by previous assertion when exercising power.

Something like demarchy is what I expect from a progressive consumption tax. Essentially, wealthy proprietors (the lords we still have in the U.S.) need not deliver much authority over resources to the central government if they choose to "invest" rather than organizing resources for their exclusive benefit. "Invest" ideally means organizing resources to add value, but as a practical matter, the word means whatever juries hearing tax evasion cases say it means. With reasonable instruction, juries could well distinguish investment, in this sense, from consumption, and most juries would happily do so. Common people well understand the necessity of producing what we consume and don't want others simply entitled to consume.

A progressive consumption tax essentially is what Adam Smith advocated as a tax on luxury, but a tax on luxury requires a definition of "luxury", so it has authorities policing person consumption. Everyone consumes. Most people consume a lot and invest a little. A few people invest a lot. Policing the consumption is both impractical and impairs more liberty, which is why proposals like the "fair tax" are so questionable. A more rational system defines "investment" while leaving the definition of "consumption" free, and it then offers the few who invest a lot a simple choice. Meet the standard of "investment" established by common law, or pay the tax.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 19, 2008 1:39:04 PM

There you go denigrating us sleazeballs again.

Posted by: BoscoH | Feb 19, 2008 1:56:26 PM

Martin:

If we simply slashed spending by 50%, we wouldn't need a single change in the tax code. Why don't you see the shortest path between 2 points is a straight line?

Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 19, 2008 2:04:10 PM

Muirgeo, I bet you say that to all the girls.

Posted by: The Dirty Mac | Feb 19, 2008 2:04:13 PM

"The guys who Obama and Clinton base their claims on seem to have predicted this mess years ago while those here still seems in denial that there is even a problem."

You're certainly not talking about Bill Clinton since he was the one who exported all of our jobs to Mexico and then cut capital gains taxes, thus giving our country away to the the billionaires.

Posted by: The Dirty mac | Feb 19, 2008 2:16:41 PM

"Clinton and Obama are truthful"

I missed this one. Let me guess, Roger Clemens is a real straight shooter too.

Posted by: The Dirty Mac | Feb 19, 2008 2:31:54 PM

muirgeo-

Free trade is the absence of constraints on voluntary exchange between parties, whether or not they live in the same country.

Posted by: Rich Berger | Feb 19, 2008 2:54:48 PM

Rich Berger,

The way I see it, free trade is the voluntary exchange itself - the core transaction that exists prior to the constraints. Why is this an important distinction? Because the wealth is created in the free trade. The constraints can only hinder, prohibit, or redistribute.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 19, 2008 3:10:58 PM

Muirgeo,

"We are using monetary and trade policy to transfer massive amounts of wealth from the working class as best as I can see."

The amount of wealth transferred from the working class by monetary and trade policy is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount being transferred from them by tax and spend policy, but that doesn't seem to bother you at all. FreedomLover is absolutely right. The obvious solution is to slash government spending, but the only thing we hear from the progressives is excuses for why they should be allowed to keep on spending.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 19, 2008 3:32:31 PM

Randy:

It's because the most obvious answer is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about or even notice. Even when you get "progressives" to admit we have a "little spending problem", they justify it on social grounds and say we NEED to be spending trillions on social programs, and thus the real answer is to soak the rich. There's no way to win with those types, who make it a strictly moral equation devoid of Economic science.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 19, 2008 3:59:38 PM

The shorten my last post in honor of Bill Clinton:

It's the spending, stupid.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 19, 2008 4:04:21 PM

muirgeo-

Free trade is the absence of constraints on voluntary exchange between parties, whether or not they live in the same country.

Posted by: Rich Berger

Well we don't have that so as far as I'm concerned Hillary and Obama's concerns are legitimate. And the lie is that they are against free trade and that the professors here are for free trade.

Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 19, 2008 4:43:42 PM

Martin:

If we simply slashed spending by 50%, we wouldn't need a single change in the tax code.

Posted by: FreedomLover

If you believe that then you certainly don't want to vote republican with their recent history of massive spending and budget busting.

Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 19, 2008 4:46:12 PM

And the lie is that [Clinton and Obama] are against free trade and that the professors here are for free trade.

-- muirgeo

ok, this violates some form of internet posting law or rule somewhere. i demand government intervention!

If you believe that then you certainly don't want to vote republican with their recent history of massive spending and budget busting.

... this we know. The dominant faction of the Republican party and the popular democrats are far more alike than you realize. One has environmental religiosism [sic] while the other has religious environmentalism.

Posted by: colson | Feb 19, 2008 7:11:27 PM

If we simply slashed spending by 50%, we wouldn't need a single change in the tax code. Why don't you see the shortest path between 2 points is a straight line?

The reform I imagine would slash income tax receipts. I favor slashing spending, and I can tell you which spending I'd slash. Do you want to discuss it? The path is not a straight line in reality. Just try cutting vidyohs' pension, and you'll find that out.

Foreign military adventures to zero. Foreign military bases practically to zero. NASA to zero. Department of Education to zero. Most of the Department of Commerce to zero. Most of the Department of Agricultural to zero. Most of the Department of Energy to zero. CIA to zero. NSA to zero. Most of the FBI to zero. (Remaining) Federal salaries and pensions growing one or two percent below the CPI-U for a decade or so. The Social Security reform I've discussed. These reforms could cut the Federal government in half. It won't happen, but I would support it.

What do we do when another 9/11 occurs? Nothing. Aside from making some effort to hold any conspirators directly involved responsible, we do absolutely nothing. It's not like Switzerland has this problem.

Medicare is a tough nut to crack, because so much of the treatment actually is life saving. People literally die without it. The problem is that they also die with it, and predicting which ones die when is not easy.

Basically, we must tell hospitals that if they spend a lot of money keeping a person alive in the month or two before his death, Medicare doesn't pay. Then hospitals make the difficult choices. They must be protected from torts in these cases.

Personally, I'm willing to sign up for voluntary euthanasia when my health reaches a certain point. Medicare saves a bundle. My kids get half.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 19, 2008 7:11:43 PM

I kill myself when I can't even make a decent punchline.

Posted by: colson | Feb 19, 2008 7:12:41 PM

I kill myself when I can't even make a decent punchline.

Glad you're still with us.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 19, 2008 8:29:29 PM

"If you believe that then you certainly don't want to vote republican with their recent history of massive spending and budget busting."

I would have to say that Muirgeo is right down the center of the plate on that one.

"And the lie is that they are against free trade and that the professors here are for free trade."

I would have to say that Muirgeo is completely full of shit on that one. My guess is that the Professors would favor the unilateral lifting of all trade barriers - to the point where treaties would be irrelevant.

Hilbama may not be against free trade. But their interest is in exploiting men's fears and prejudices and so they must expoit popular resentment against The Foreign Devils.

Posted by: The Dirty Mac | Feb 19, 2008 10:01:04 PM

Ah Martin, this is when you lose all credibility. Islamic Jihad is not a law enforcement issue - it's a battle between Western civilization and them. That you refuse to see it - that's your delusion.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 19, 2008 11:01:22 PM

muirgeo, free trade is like politeness -- it's about how you treat other people even when they aren't polite to you.

Posted by: Russ Nelson | Feb 20, 2008 2:56:01 AM

Ah Martin, this is when you lose all credibility. Islamic Jihad is not a law enforcement issue - it's a battle between Western civilization and them. That you refuse to see it - that's your delusion.

Your collectivist battle between Western Civilization and Them is a pain in my wallet with no payback, and the price tag is even higher than the $200 billion/year that proponents now describe, which excludes all the disability benefits and related future costs.

You're the perfect example of why states grow and grow. You claim to want to halve Federal spending, but your claims are completely disingenuous. You only want to whine about the other guy's piece of the Federal pie.

A bunch of zealots in the caves of northwest Pakistan threaten Western Civilization only in your tortured, politically inspired imagination. Drunk drivers pose a much greater threat to you.

For the cost of the Iraqi occupation, we could post a highway patrolman along the interstate highway system every hundred yards (and that's based on the cost a few years ago). This measure would be incredibly wasteful as well, but it might conceivably save more American lives than it costs.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 20, 2008 9:55:54 AM

A bunch of zealots in the caves of northwest Pakistan threaten Western Civilization only in your tortured, politically inspired imagination. Drunk drivers pose a much greater threat to you.

Well done, Martin. Sober drivers also pose a much greater threat.

Posted by: Eric | Feb 20, 2008 10:01:48 AM

Freedomlover is a silly child tool used and abused by the daily fear-mongering and hate-mongering he hears on Faux News, Rush and coming from this Whitehouse. Grow up child your freedoms are being abused by the oldest political trick in the book to gain power and make you submissive......create fear and mortal enemies. Theyt aren't coming to get you, they've already got you...that's what you should fear.

Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 20, 2008 10:12:28 AM

Both Martin and muirgeo obviously didn't believe that Islamic Jihadist slammed 2 buildings into our towers on 9/11. Must have been a "fear exercise" by BushCheneyRoverHitler machine. You see how easy it is?

Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 20, 2008 12:34:00 PM

Freedomlover is not interested in serious discussion of foreign policy. He hews to the unsubtle concept that the only way to defeat one's enemies is direct physical attack.

Observing that humans are territorial, we might consider that, were any foreign power to place military bases in within our borders, we would take GREAT issue with that. Considering that Arabs are also territorial humans, it's not a great stretch to suppose that Arabs would also abject to our bases placed in their territory.

This motivation behind Islamic antipathy was well acknowledged pre-9/11 by Cheney and has been asserted also by our intelligence agencies.

Now I suspect that our great leaders are aware of the advice of Niccolò Machiavelli as given in The Prince that an effective means of subduing a populace to one's rule is to provide them with an external enemy.

It is well known that the Arabian peninsula was subjected to foreign rule by the old European Empires, and the the U.S. assumed the mantle of empire with the collapse of the three main mercantilist empires built by England, France, and Spain, all of which have had problems with Islamist attacks.

England, France, and Spain, hmmm, aren't those the three European countries that have suffered Islamic terrorist attacks the most?

This is not to say that Islamic fanaticism is not a concern for the future, but we should considered the Arab mantra 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

Taking Machiavelli's recommendation for uniting people under one rule and the above mantra, we might consider that the Islamist jihad sought to draw the U.S. into military ventures in the Arabian Peninsula in hopes of uniting people, who would otherwise by fighting each other, against the 'infidels'.

We can derive this speculative conclusion from several facts:

1. The PNAC group telegraphed their desire for a 'Pearl Harbor' to justify establishing a military footprint in the middle east via their Website. The PNAC group includes the support of Donald Rumsfeld, among other notables.

2. The jihadists have access to the internet.

3. Regime change in Iraq was established as a policy under Clinton.

These facts suggest that the Islamist's actions were intended, not to defeat our will, but to draw us into a financially draining military venture and simultaneously unite Arab sentiment against the U.S.

Even with all that, it is obvious that uniting the various Arab factions for any length of time is a pipe dream.

A withdrawal of our military from the Arabian Peninsula would leave those Arab factions with each other as the nearest enemies to strike against.

The Islamic Caliphate is an unattainable goal.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 20, 2008 1:41:04 PM

Both Martin and muirgeo obviously didn't believe that Islamic Jihadist slammed 2 buildings into our towers on 9/11.

I believe that a dozen specific Islamists did it. The Bushniks then concocted an "Islamo-fascist axis of evil" somehow incorporating two bitter enemies, Iraq and Iran, and North Korea. Only one of these states is reasonably called "Islamist", and Iran's brand of Islamism is bitterly opposed to the Taliban/al Qaeda brand.

But blurring distinctions to create terrifying collectives is rule #1 in the state worshiper's game plan.

Must have been a "fear exercise" by BushCheneyRoverHitler machine. You see how easy it is?

Yeah. You swallowed that one, hook, line and sinker.

The rational response to 9/11 was a bit more airport and airliner security, reinforced cockpit doors, rules keeping the doors shut while an airliner is airborne and a limited police action against the few hundred forces reasonably implicated in the attack. We could easily have done that for the few billion the Iraqi occupation was predicted to cost before the invasion. The rest was a trillion dollar fund raising campaign, and you get the bill.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 20, 2008 2:17:50 PM

The rational response to 9/11 was a bit more airport and airliner security, reinforced cockpit doors, rules keeping the doors shut while an airliner is airborne...

Also dropping the Federal policy requiring submission to hijackers demands.

Once everyone found out what had happened, there was no way anyone would be able to hijack an airliner again. Witness what happened to the guy with the shoe bomb.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 20, 2008 2:22:02 PM

This item indicates why we should abandon the military approach to defeating the Islamists.

A free market is such a winning approach.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 20, 2008 5:28:54 PM

Sam,

I normally agree with you but you are off base when you talk about military bases on foreign soil - especially the Arabian Peninsula. You're just missing facts.

The US planted military bases there because the US struck a "military defense for oil" deal with the Saudis after King Abdul Azziz united the warring tribes of most of the Arabian Peninsula in the 1930's into a single country now known as Saudi Arabia ("Saudi" is the possessive form in Arabic and literally means "Arabia belonging to the Al Saud"). The deal basically was and still is "we defend you and train what pathetic military you have and you give us deals on oil and the development of oil". The US didn't just go and plunk bases in the Arabian desert.

It is well known that the Arabian peninsula was subjected to foreign rule by the old European Empires
England, France, and Spain, all of which have had problems with Islamist attacks.

Spain never ruled the Arabian Peninsula and by and large neither did France. Spain was ruled by the Muslims of North Africa (that's why Eiman El-Zawahri periodically demands Spain as "Muslim land" he wants back). So, by your logic, the Spaniards ought to be bombing Morocco. In fact, the most notable, longest ruling and influential colonial rulers of the Arabian Peninsula where the Ottomans. Thus, I think you're going to have a hard time pinning Islamist attacks in Spain and France on colonial activity in the Arabian Peninsula. Since there haven't been attacks on Turkey, I think you're going to have a hard time drawing such a neat conclusion at all.

considered the Arab mantra 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

In all my time in the Middle East, I've never heard that mantra. Although, I've heard it everywhere else in the world. Here's the mantra I've heard more commonly in Arab countries "Me against my brother. My brother and I against our cousin. My brother, my cousin and I against my neighbour....etc." The point is, there's always somebody to fight. This should not be surprising because the Arab Bedouin tribes would raid each other nightly. It's a raid or be raided culture. It still is.

Now, THAT is the core of Arab thinking. They have backwards beliefs that keep them in poverty and misery and since those beliefs are religious and sacred and totalitarian, they must find a scapegoat to blame their misery on. I'm generalizing, but you have to when talking about an entire population.

Sam, I think you've swallowed Ron Paul's fantasy. He seems to think that other people around the world are not independent actors and don't act out of their own motivations and perceived self-interest. Their every action is a reaction to something we (our government) does. The solution is similarly simplistic and wrong: If only we change our actions, they'll leave us alone. This is mighty sloppy thinking for a libertarian, IMO.

The fact is that they don't use the number of dead or the bases or the involvement in Iraq as a recruiting tool. Those are the soundbites they give you because they know what cords to strike in Western media. What they use to actually recruit terrorists from among their countrymen is the opposite of what they claim in the media - America's inaction. Its lack of response to the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the skedaddling out of Somalia after the Black Hawk incident. That's what is used to recruit new terrorists and energize those already signed up. The promise is that America won't stand and fight because its liberal thinking has lead to less conviction in God and the righteous path and that it's ripe for a Muslim takeover. "God is with us as he has weakened our enemy so that he can't even fight". The promise is that once this conquest happens, all the misery and poverty of will be wiped away and peace and Islamic happiness will rule the earth.

How exactly do we respond to this bull? If I knew, I'd be famous. However, retreating has the opposite effect of the one you're hoping for.

Posted by: Methinks | Feb 20, 2008 5:56:38 PM

Sam, I think you've swallowed Ron Paul's fantasy. He seems to think that other people around the world are not independent actors and don't act out of their own motivations and perceived self-interest.

I doubt very much that Ron Paul thinks that other people around the world are not independent actors, etc. I certainly don't think that.

As far as the 'invitation' from the house of Saud, many Arabs think that we prop up the House of Saud, in effect, have bought them.
Perhaps that explains why most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.

Yes, the British were the major colonial power in the middle east, France to the south, and Spain, the Philippines and the new world. There is some problems with Islamic factions in the Philippines, right?
France with Algeria. So yes, you've got is all right.

It's a raid or be raided culture. It still is.

Nomads.

I pin the attacks on Spain to their participation in our Iraqi adventure.

Look, much of the Arab world attacked Israel and were defeated handily in very short order. The Islamists are well aware that they cannot defeat us militarily.

What's the next best thing to weaken us?
Let us drain our wealth in an occupation against guerilla fighters. Afghanistan showed the efficacy of this strategy against the USSR.

The fist attack would have done the job if they had brought the tower down, so provoking us into reaction required a more dramatic display to arouse the populace in effecting the strategy of the PNAC group, which detailed our response to a 'Pearl Harbor' incident ON THE INTERNET.

Our invasion served that purpose plus ridding the area of Saddam Hussein.

I suggest if we withdraw from the region, they will resume attacking each other. Just what they've done for many hundreds of years.

Now, the neocons can't do this because they've staked their claim to fame on the 'We can't back down, they'll think we are weak.' model. So the only way to effect a withdrawal without appearing weak is to boot the neocons out and do it for a much better reason: Iraq posed no immanent threat to the U.S. and it was wrong to invade and occupy it. And make sure that this strategy belongs to the neocons and no one else.

A big benefit of a military withdrawal from the region is that we'll see what the Islamist response is and if we are attacked again, they won't be able to claim, as bin Laden claimed, as Dick Cheney claimed, and as the CIA claimed, because of our military presence in the middle east.

Our government has been so enamored of our military prowess that they have allowed our intelligence agencies to turn into intelligence bureaucracies. We should fold the CIA into the military and charge them with responsibility for keeping apprised of foreign threats.

The promise is that America won't stand and fight because its liberal thinking has lead to less conviction in God and the righteous path and that it's ripe for a Muslim takeover. "God is with us as he has weakened our enemy so that he can't even fight".

They have their propaganda and we have ours.
they know we aren't weak in the military sense, but I bet they are aware of how much we are spending on our empire and this little adventure.

What they have been looking for is 'the straw that will break the camel's back'.
I think they miscalculated that a bit, but given the mercantilist outlook of our government, I think we make see that straw before too long.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 20, 2008 7:15:44 PM

The promise is that America won't stand and fight...

I think the pounding of the hideouts in Afghanistan was sufficient to disprove this theory.

The invasion of Iraq was the fulfillment of the PNAC policy, not to demonstrate that we will, in fact, 'do something'.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 20, 2008 7:20:41 PM

edit:
I think we may see that straw before too long.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 20, 2008 7:21:26 PM

Someone tell me why Islamists attack a country on the other side of the world and why they haven't attacked closer countries, say Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, etc.

If it's not about our long history of meddling in the middle east, including the overthrow of the democratically elected leader in Iraq in 1957, then explain what exactly is the motivation to attack the U.S. and I don't buy the 'They hate our freedoms, etc.' line.

What they use to actually recruit terrorists from among their countrymen is the opposite of what they claim in the media - America's inaction.

That's not a primary motivator, that basically suggests they attacked us because they could get away with it; it does not provide the actual reason for doing it. It's not like they are so bored that they do it for kicks.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 20, 2008 7:33:39 PM

Martin & Sam = Islamic apologists. Keep it up, saying America's to blame for 9/11 is really popular!

Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 20, 2008 9:42:57 PM

Freedomlover = thoughtless strawman attacker
and unwitting collectivist.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 20, 2008 9:53:31 PM