Category: Barack Obama

Categories
Barack Obama Criticism Economics Financial Crisis Politics The Opinionsphere

Why I’m Confident About Obama (Still)

[digg-reddit-me]I’ve struggled to figure out how to respond to the stimulus debate – as I think many are struggling. The blogs and the polls are both drawing muddled conclusions. I share TPIP’s reservation about judging Obama’s strategies too quickly:

When it comes to strategy I never like to question Obama (although I have, like on appeasing ungrateful Republicans on the recovery package), because he has proven himself over and over again to be brilliant when it comes to strategy, particularly when it comes to taking the long view, that many often overlook.

Looking at the recent past, Obama’s savvy has been underestimated again and again – and by defending him in these moments, I think this blog has proved itself prescient – for example, before Iowa, when Hillary seemed inevitable, I wrote a post entitled, “Why I Am Confident About Obama.” I wrote at the time – in October 2007:

Clintonian hubris, an Obama strategy to put the pressure on Clinton late, with Iowa in a statistical dead heat, and a ton of other primaries following hard-upon Iowa.  It seems to me that Obama has a good chance of winning…

That sounds pretty much right even today. After the surprising New Hampshire loss, I wrote that:

Sometimes, it’s hard to have faith in democracy, in people. The same people who, in their wisdom, elected George W. Bush to a second term…

But:

If this election comes down to the fundamentals – if it comes down to people trying to decide the direction of the country – then Barack wins.

On the night of Palin’s convention speech, I wrote:

Palin can rally the Republican base like few others. But tonight, for all it’s electricity, was disappointing – because if Palin is the future of the Republican party, she has nothing to offer but fear – primarily of Obama, secondarilty of Islamic extremism, and tertiarilty, of taxes…

But that this “will not have the effect the Republicans hope it will” because “she had no vision for America, not sense of what comes next. She refused to acknowlege the tough times we are in.”

After the Sarah Palin bump had everyone scared, I tried to calm people down by posting links to various articles and posting this picture:

The reason I was confident in Obama beating Hillary – even in the worst moments – and in Obama beating McCain – even during the worst moments – is that Obama’s campaign was tapping into the fundamentals of what I believed the electorate was looking for. Whether or not he was winning in any specific moment, whether or not he was winning in any of the daily press wars, his overall strategy was a victorious one.  Sun-Tzu advised to “accommodate yourself to the enemy until you can fight a decisive battle.” This seems to have been Obama’s strategy – to allow his campaign to take hits and play defense, sticking to an overall strategy that would gain him a final decisive victory rather than exhausting his staff fighting every daily flair-up. Sometimes, this led to awful weeks – such as the long lack of a complete response to the Rev. Wright fiasco. But Obama ended up winning because, though he lost a thousand daily battles over Rev. Wright, he took the long view and gave a subtle, personal speech about race. He won that war not by fighting back charge after charge but by changing it from a war into a reflective national moment. It’s hard to describe how extraordinary that is – how rarely that has happened in history, and how difficult it was to imagine this was even possible, especially in the frenetic media environment that has existed since 1992. 

Similarly, now, Obama’s stimulus bill is being attacked on it’s thousands of small details. By some accountings, it is only 1% or 2% of the funding of the bill that is being directly attacked. Issues entirely tangential to this stimulus are dominating the media coverage – and it certainly seems true that some portion of the opposition of Republicans to this bill comes from political calculation rather than an honest disagreement with the bill. As the AFP described the dynamic at work:

[I]f Obama’s stimulus works and revives the reeling economy, [the Republicans] would be unlikely to get any credit even if they voted for it – by opposing the measure they can at least expect some political gain if it fails.

Some Democratic Senators are criticizing the bill now – and House Democrats are getting pissed. I agree with a number of the criticisms of the bill and certainly see some good reasons for a Congressman or Senator to oppose this massive new public spending.

All of this has contributed to the growing feeling among some voters and most commentators that this whole thing is being poorly managed.

Except…if you look at Obama’s role in this carefully and see the process which he is creating.

He is once again playing the long game. He did not write the bill himself, but allowed Congress to do its job and draft a bill and then fight over the provisions. This is what Congress is supposed to do. Washington pundits – not used to an executive that allows the Congress to deliberate and debate and actually play a role in governing – are criticizing Obama for not putting a stop to this process of debate and deliberation, drafting his own bill, and then forcing Congress to accept it, perhaps allowing them to amend it a bit if the president is feeling generous. That’s not the Washington that Obama wants. He accepts our Constitution and believes Congress has a role to play even in a financial emergency such as this.

At the same time, he is willing to reach out to the Republicans who might oppose him – to obsequiously try to get their buy-in for this needed stimulus, to engage in civil conversation about the issues – to avoid attacking them directly though they continue to try to score political points against him and the Democrats. He can afford to do this because of his commanding position with large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. He knows he can get his way even with strong Republican opposition. But it’s hard to imagine another political figure accepting the number of attacks Obama has without responding in kind. Instead, Obama has reiterated publicly the urgency and seriousness of the crisis – and the need for quick action as he made clear in his comments today:

I hope [the members of Congress] share my sense of urgency and draw the same, unmistakable conclusion:  The situation could not be more serious.  These numbers demand action.  It is inexcusable and irresponsible for any of us to get bogged down in distraction, delay, or politics as usual, while millions of Americans are being put out of work. 

Now is the time for Congress to act…

Now, I have repeatedly acknowledged that, given the magnitude and the difficulties of the problem we’re facing, there are no silver bullets and there are no easy answers.  The bill that’s emerged from Congress is not perfect, but a bill is absolutely necessary.  We can continue to improve and refine both the House and Senate versions of these bills.  There may be provisions in there that need to be left out; there may be some provisions that need to be added.  But broadly speaking, the package is the right size, it is the right scope, and it has the right priorities…[my emphasis]

According to Obama, this stimulus bill is just the first part of a larger package of reforms and bills that will be part of his response to the financial crisis – the first steps in a Grand Bargain to tackle challenges America’s long-term financial and economic stability. 

All of this is why, despite the thousand small attacks and the growing chorus of concern from the pundits, I am still confident in Obama and his plans. 

Confident but not complacent.

Categories
Barack Obama Law Liberalism Politics

The Last Thing We Need Is A Liberal Scalia

Dahlia Lithwick, who I rarely fail to mention, is one of my favorite writers, had a piece a few days ago on what she wants. In a Supreme Court justice that is. And I lightly paraphrase:

Wonky liberal lawyer seeking a hero, a bomb-throwing, passionate, visionary, liberal Scalia for a seat on the Supreme Court!

One of the main facts revealed in all those recent scholarship of the Rehnquist (O’Connor) court, though, was that Scalia’s brash personality and insulting style actually pushed the moderates to the left – or drove them to be less susceptible to being wooed to Scalia’s side in an argument. Though the Court has indisputably moved far to the right since Scalia entered it, seven of the past nine Supreme Court justices have been appointed by Republican presidents. The two appointed by Clinton were moderates chosen to be confirmed by a Republican Congress. Yet, the Court has only moved slowly towards conservative positions. There are many explanations of this, but for anyone who considers the social dynamics of the Court to be significant – and from her article Dahlia seems to be one who does – then Scalia’s antagonistic approach to O’Connor’s sloppy reasoning and Kennedy’s pomposity certainly must be one factor. A brash, bomb-throwing liberal then is exactly what the Court doesn’t need. 

What I think it does need is a libertarian-minded liberal who can forge an alliance with Scalia on certain issues – and perhaps Thomas as well. Both Alito and Roberts seem to be enamored of executive power – and perhaps that was why it was they who were chosen. I consider them lost causes. But Scalia and Thomas are conservatives of an older school – one which a contemporary liberal – such as Lawrence Lessig or even Cass Sunstein – has much in common with.

I think Dahlia would be happy with that though – a Lessig, a Sunstein, and a Lawrence Tribe. Perhaps a Harold Koh and an Elena Kagan. Instead of a bomb-thrower, I think Dahlia just wants a liberal with a vision instead of an incrementalist. On that, I agree.

Categories
Barack Obama Economics Financial Crisis Politics The Opinionsphere

The Back of Obama’s Hand

Obama has clearly been trying to stay above the fray in this debate over the stimulus bill. He set guidelines as to what he wanted in the bill and let Congress fight over the specifics. He wanted a bill:

  • in which 75% of the spending would occur within two years; 
  • that would focus on long-term projects such as infrastructure, health care, and educational improvements and on short-term stability measures dealing with unemployment; 
  • that would have little to no “pork”; 
  • that would include significant tax cuts; and 
  • that would be ready to pass as soon as possible – by last week.

But as E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post explained:

The president has been willing to give House and Senate Democrats substantial leeway in crafting their proposals because he knows that both will end up being broadly to his liking. He can influence the final outcome when the two houses work out their differences next month.

The administration did intervene, however, to chip away at a few small but politically troublesome expenditures…

Dionne is referring to the items the Republicans voiced displeasure over (with press releases and coordinated apperances on cable news shows). Obama pressed the Democrats in Congress to remove the items (including state funding for contraception and STD prevention and a museum of the mob in Las Vegas). The Republicans wanted tax cuts – and Obama obliged with over 35% of the cost of the stimulus going to tax cuts. A number of other Republican proposals have been incorporated into the bill from Chuck Grassley’s Alternative Minimum Tax fix to Arlen Specter’s additional funding for the National Institute of Health to Eric Cantor’s proposal to place the bill on the internet. 

The Republicans who have been criticizing the bill have praised the popular President Obama’s outreach and tried to place the blame on the unpopular House Democrats. The talking point is that Obama is too timid to stand up to the House Democrats who are foisting this awful bill upon us. This seems to me to be a misleading interpretation of the above events designed to undercut Obama politically. From what I can see and from what I read – the Democrats, and especially Obama, are making a good faith effort to make sure this bill has bipartisan support. They are incorporating Republican suggestions and principles; they are involving them in some, though not all discussions of the bill. Even if there is truth to the complaints of House Republicans that they are being frozen out of the House’s deliberations, their input is clearly being taken into account by Obama who has presssed the House Democrats to make changes suggested by the House Republicans. The Senate bill seems to be even more reflective of Republican concerns, with 78% of it’s spending projected to be done by 2010.

Which is why the unanimous opposition of the House Republicans is disappointing. It is best explained, it seems, by politics, as the AFP described the dynamic at work:

[I]f Obama’s stimulus works and revives the reeling economy, they would be unlikely to get any credit even if they voted for it – by opposing the measure they can at least expect some political gain if it fails.

But the battle of whether the Republicans are being true to their ideals or merely obstructionist hasn’t yet been resolved. The Republicans have been dominating the media coverage while the Democrats have hung back. They have been expressing their criticism of the stimulus plan in partisan terms – bringing up culture war issues related to sexual morality, calling the bill a mere sop to Democratic interest groups, and failing to acknowledge the significant concessions that have been made. Rush Limbaugh – as part of his continuing quest to hijack the Republican Party – wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal full of his usual misinformation: exaggerating the cost of the bill; downplaying the tax cuts within the bill (when his real objection is to who these tax cuts are going to); and most of all claiming that it was an example of Democratic policies being forced down the throat of an America who wants a bipartisan approach – like the one Rush Limbaugh is offering.

There are major changes that should be made to this bill – the most pragmatic and popular one being to eliminate the portions of the bill extending past 2010 and keeping those provisions for other legislation. But by necessity, out of a need for quick action, this bill will be far from perfect – utilizing existing programs rather than creating more appropriate and effective ones. Obama should ensure that the Senate Democrats make this change to the bill, which is already an improvement over the House bill in that 78% of it’s monies will be disbursed within two years.

But regardless of whether this bill is the right bill or not, Obama will soon face a choice. The Republicans seem to be interpreting Obama’s civility and openness to dialogue as weakness. They do not seem to realize where they are headed. Voting against tax cuts. Voting against a stimulus measure. Obstructing the government from acting in the midst of a crisis. Obama will likely continue to reach out for the rest of this week, making obsequious efforts to woo Senate Republicans to his side. Given the dynamics that are dominating in Washington, I find it difficult to believe they will give in, although some might. (The question would become, did Obama get enough Republicans.) As described above, most Republicans have far more to gain by being obstructionist – especially if they are misinterpreting Obama’s attempts at biparisanship as weakness – and think there will be no consequences.

My bet – and my advice if it were needed – would be for Obama to make a final private plea for Republican support later this week. Then, if it fails, to schedule a speech this coming weekend in one of his more vulnerable opponents’ states. He should make clear that this bill is not perfect – but that decisive action in the midst of this crisis is important. He should make clear that bipartisanship is not unilateral disarmament. He can only work with those who will unclench their partisan fists and are willing to get down to the work of governing. He should make it clear that this bill is not our only response to the crisis – that we will likely need to do more – to reform the banking and mortgage industries; to continue to create liquidity in the credit markets. He should make clear that this stimulus bill is only one part of his overall plan. Shortly after this speech, he should sent out an email to his supporters asking them to write their Congressmen and Senators and ask the Obama movement to prove it’s continued political worth.

In short, he should give a brief demonstration of the consequences of crossing Obama – he must show his opponents the back of his hand. It may not be civil – but politics cannot be civil without respect. Perhaps it is time for Obama to demonstrate his ability to change the debate in Washington – and in the country.

Categories
Barack Obama Criticism Economics Financial Crisis Liberalism Libertarianism Politics The Opinionsphere

What’s Wrong With the Stimulus Plan

[digg-reddit-me]Aside from the partisan power play that seems to be motivating most of the Republican opposition to the stimulus plan, there are a number of fair-minded criticisms.

First, the plan lacks the Obama touch – the deft promise to cut those programs that don’t work and to make sure the ones that are around still do work, the libertarian paternalistic designs of Cass Sunstein, the nimble government program that does not coerce but merely offers opportunity. Of course, there is a sensible reason for this. The stimulus is needed right now – and it will take time to design new programs with this balancing between libertarian principles and liberal ends in mind. So, Obama has decided that this stimulus package must work within existing programs – which Republicans have used as an excuse to attack those programs.

Second, there is not a clear exit strategy. Many of these spending measures and tax breaks are supposed to be emergency measures that the government will only maintain during this crisis – but new spending and cuts in taxes both are hard to roll back. The idea that taxes are hard to raise is, of course, the basis of the “Starve the Beast” strategy that conservatives adopted (as described by George Will):

For years, many conservatives advocated a “starve the beast” approach to limiting government. They supported any tax cut, of any size, at any time, for any purpose, assuming that, deprived of revenue, government spending would stop growing.

But they found out that spending was also hard to cut:

But spending continued, and government borrowing encouraged government’s growth by making big government cheap: People were given $1 worth of government but were charged less than that, the balance being shifted, through debt, to future generations.

Obama’s stimulus plan involves both increasing spending and cutting taxes. The question is – can we then raise taxes and cut spending after this is over? Obama has clearly indicated he intends to – and to shore up America’s long-term fiscal solvency by dealing with entitlement spending too. If he is able to pull off this Grand Bargain, then he will belong in the rank of the best presidents. If he is not, then this temporary increase could have disasterous effects.

Third, by trying to act so quickly, there will inevitably be unintended consequences. To avoid as many of these as possible, the bill should be cleaner and its provisions should work faster.

Fourth, as Robert Samuelson wrote in the Washington Post:

As it turns out, President Obama didn’t make the tough choices on the stimulus package. He could have either used the program mainly (a) to bolster the economy or (b) to advance a larger political agenda, from energy efficiency to school renovation…There were tough choices to be made – and Obama ducked them.

This bill is something of a muddle so far, in part because of the need for speed, and in part because Obama has let the House and Senate Democrats craft the bill, waiting to give his input until the conference in which the bills passed by the House and Senate will be reconciled.

Fifth, the bill offers both short term stimulus measures and downpayments on longer term (and worthy) projects. A stimulus bill should only include spending in the short term. The 75% goal Obama has set is too low. Every dime in the stimulus package should be out by the end of 2010. Kay Bailey Hutchinson ably stuck to this point in her Meet the Press appearance this past Sunday. Her confident demeanor and obvious grasp of policy made me wonder what had led John McCain to bypass her in choosing his Vice Presidential nominee. 

In short, most of the bills problems seem to come from the speed with which it is being forced out. This is a tradeoff Obama seems to be willing to make – as this bill is intended primarily to demonstrate that stimulus is coming and the problem is being taken seriously.

Categories
Barack Obama Domestic issues Financial Crisis The Opinionsphere Videos

Obama’s Grand Bargain

[digg-reddit-me]From Obama’s Inaugural Address:

There are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

This brings to mind what George Stephanopoulos was so excited about last Sunday on This Week:

(Yes, I need to work on improving my DVR to computer quality.)

It seems that Obama is preparing to bet his presidency on a Grand Bargain – that will allow him (and us) to rewrite the social contract in a more extensive way than any president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Even during Obama’s campaign, he spoke of tackling the challenges that were necessary – and not putting off hard discussions about our country’s long-term stability. But the financial crisis – which at first prompted the endlessly parroted conventional wisdom that whoever won would need to cut all of their projects and focus narrowly on the crisis itself – has instead proved to be an opportunity.

The amount of spending needed to stimulate the economy is enormous – with the numbers being thrown around today dwarfing that of any previous government intervention (save perhaps for our major wars). What Obama understands is that this type of spending, while necessary in the short-term, poses a serious long-term threat. Which is why he is now speaking of the second step – after the financial crisis has passed – of tackling entitlement reform and tax reform, and finally putting America on sound financial footing after years of prolifigacy.

None of these insights are exceptional. What is exceptional is how Obama is already shaping the arch of his first term, using this crisis to set up his next objective, and shaping the conventional wisdom.

The problem I see though is that the Obama administration has not done a good job of conveying to the public the place this stimulus bill has within Obama’s agenda. The word is that in the next week or so, Tim Geithner will present “a ‘comprehensive’ plan that [he] hope[s] will command market confidence.” My hope is that this comprehensive plan will lay out a broad legislative agenda based on Obama’s campaign. Based on the campaign plans and signals sent during the transition, here’s what I see:

Step 1 (The First 100 Days)

  • Release the rest of the funds from TARP.
  • A large stimulus package to demonstrate the government’s commitment to addressing the crisis, especially in alleviating it’s effects on the majority of Americans.
  • A banking and mortgage bill that takes whatever steps are necessary to shore up these sectors of the economy, including new regulations, new oversight, and possibly additional funds.
  • An infrastructure bill that would create a National Infrastructure Bank.
  • Health care reforms that would extend health care benefits and attempt to control the escalating health care costs.
  • A combination of a cap-and-trade program and funding for green energy.

The goal of this first period would be to begin to make both short-term and long-term investments into those sectors that will lead to long-term growth – which will stimulate the economy in the short-term. This is the spending stage. After this burst of legislating, Obama would be able to focus on tinkering with education programs and seeing what works, as well as addressing the simmering foreign policy issues which are constantly threatening to take over the agenda.

Step 2 (Post-Crisis)

  • Entitlement reform (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.) Everything is on the table.
  • Tax reform. Not much has been said about this. This will certainly be a wild card – but Obama has criticized our corporate tax rate for its irrationality. It’s very high – but due to the enormous number of exemptions and credits, the effective rate for those businesses able to lobby for benefits, it is very low. This should be rationalized.
  • Universal health care.
  • Education reform.

This is the “cutting back” stage and consolidation stage. The goal of this second stage would be to put America on a solid financial footing again – to eliminate the unsustainable domestic policies that undermine our stability and power.

This is obviously an enormous agenda. And it’s far from clear that Obama can accomplish this. But if he does not lay out the vision – which I have pieced together from numerous statements – then it’s hard to see how he can accomplish it. Of course, Geithner was just confirmed last week – and Obama’s only been in office for two weeks – so he does have a bit more time to lay this out. But he doesn’t have long.

Continue reading “Obama’s Grand Bargain”
Categories
Barack Obama The Web and Technology

A Question About “E-Mail to the Chief”

Peter Baker reporting in The New York Times:

To minimize the risk, the government technology gurus have made it impossible to forward e-mail messages from the president or to send him attachments, people informed about the precautions say.

I can see how to set up a system to prevent the sending of attachments. But how do you make an email impossible to forward? Wouldn’t that require protocols existing within all email clients allowing this? I’m not an expert on this – so please educate me if this isn’t the technical issue I think it is.

Categories
Barack Obama Criticism Foreign Policy National Security Pakistan The Opinionsphere The War on Terrorism

The Populist Party Blog

On what seems to be the official Populist Party website, they are taking “Oh Bomb Uh” to task for launching a war without consent of Congress:

Even though he swore the oath twice, Barack Obama is in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 which states that only Congress can declare War.

What they are referring to is the launching of military strikes against what they would call “alleged” Al Qaeda bases in Pakistan. What confuses me of course is that he starts out by quoting Ron Paul saying that to use the word, “War” in regards to attacking terrorism has no meaning – and that “You can’t have a War against a Tactic.” But if that’s the case, then how is what Obama doing a war?

And for that matter, Congress has not formally declared war since World War I. Which would make any military action – in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Somalia – seemingly anywhere – also contrary to the Constitution. Of course this is a unique reading of the Constitution, but this is how the Populist Party can claim to represent “the people” – they know as much about the Constitution as the least of all people.

Choose a side and stick to it Populists!

N.B. Can anyone at all make sense of how any of this evidence backs up the initial claim in this paragraph. For the life of me, it just doesn’t make sense. The evidence he cites is interesting – but does nothing to prove his point:

Although it is sacrilegious, some commentators are even claiming that Al-Qaeda does not exist. Their evidence? Just well-documented interviews with a key Oh-Bomb-Ah foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and footage of him extolling a bunch of muhajideen to fight for their god before the Soviets even invaded Afghanistan.

Overall, it’s nice to see the Populist Party has a blog. But they should work on the content a bit.

Categories
Barack Obama Domestic issues Economics Financial Crisis Politics The Opinionsphere

Fair-Minded Yglesias

Matt Yglesias points out the inconsistency in Republican opponents of the stimulus bill claiming:

we can’t afford large new temporary deficit spending but can afford large new permanent tax cuts.

And then Yglesias points to “a Republican worth listening to,” Rep. John L. Mica.

It’s the fair-mindedness that keeps me reading Yglesias’s stuff.

Categories
Barack Obama Domestic issues Economics Financial Crisis The Bush Legacy The Opinionsphere

Galvanized By Sexual Panic

Andrew Sullivan on the big headline GOP objections to the stimulus bill (Funding for Contraception! Funding for STD Prevention!)L

[W]hy is it the GOP is so easily galvanized by sexual panic? Weird, if you ask me. This is the budget we’re talking about here. Even there, they reach, like the exhausted tacticians they are, for the culture war.

Categories
Barack Obama History Law Liberalism National Security Politics The Bush Legacy The Opinionsphere The War on Terrorism

Why It Should Be A ‘War’ Against Terrorism

[digg-reddit-me]One of the big issues many kossacks had in responding to my post was that they objected to the term, “war” being used in describing efforts to combat terrorism.

Peter Feaver over at Foreign Policy nicely parries at least one of the points made – what he labels the “specious claims like the idea that calling it a war narrow options down to only military tools.” Feaver’s response:

On the contrary, of course, calling it a war actually has the opposite effect of expanding options: It admits the use of military and other war-like tools, but it also encompasses the rest of the non military tools in the toolbox, as I’ve argued here. Those who want to label it as something other than a war are the ones who want to limit the tools available.

What Feaver seems to support is what he calls a popular straddle that unites the semantic warriors:

Obama intends to say that we are really at war, but we will voluntarily not use all of the tools of war because we do not need to.

Although at the present, this is fine – it seems to offer the worst of all worlds should another attack occur. Politically, Obama will have boxed himself in by admitting that we are at war and at the same time, by saying that we do not need to use every tool at our disposal to win that war, a kind of anti-Powell doctrine.

The approach that I think bears the most promise – both as a solid grounding for understanding the struggle against terrorism and for creating a politically defensible position – is what I’m calling the Philip Bobitt approach. More on that in a moment.

I think it’s obvious to see why the Feaver approach ((It’s unfair to label it the Feaver approach as he actually attributes it to Obama, but for the moment, this is the least confusing way to go about explaining.)) would probably cause political damage to any candidate that embraced it if there is another attack. (Think of the mothers of the victims of an attack saying, ‘You said we didn’t need to do this, but my son died!’) At the same time, the policy of holding back would be discredited by a spectacular attack – or perhaps even a minor one. There would be a backlash. The delicate balance that would need to be struck between the war we are fighting and what we are holding back “because it is unnecessary” would necessarily come undone at the first loss of life.

Alternately, some claim we are not at war and that the struggle against terrorism is a law enforcement matter, and that politicians should embrace this view publicly. If there are no future attacks, then this position will work out fine. If there are only a small number of minor attacks, this also might work out fine. If there are a series of minor attacks, it’s possible that this position might get us through – both politically and substantially. But this doesn’t seem a smart bet to me. I’m not sure that anyone would deny that our society is vulnerable to catastrophic attacks – and that with technological improvements, increased travel, the increasing density of our urban areas, the spread of information, the worldwide and instantaneous nature of the media, and the growing importance and fluidity of markets – non-state actors are more empowered today, to do good or harm, that at any time in the history of the world. I’m not sure anyone would deny that there are significant numbers of individuals who seriously wish harm to America. Terrorism then – terrorism more serious than before – is inevitable.

Ron Suskind, whose critical books on the Bush administration earned him the ire of the former president, reported that an Al Qaeda agent accomplished a technological breakthrough and was prepared to launch a chemical attack on the New York subway system several years ago. The operation was within 45 days of being launched when it was called off by Ayman Zawahiri. Although we have no definite intelligence as to why this attack was called off, the most plausible explanation based on other statements Bin Laden and Zawihiri have made is that Bin Laden feared this attack would not surpass September 11. Societies throughout history have shown that they can acclimate themselves to a constant low-level of violence – even terrorist-created violence. Which is perhaps why Al Qaeda seeks spectacular attacks on their primary target, or none at all – because a spectacular attack is more likely to generate an overreaction.

If history is to be a guide, we can bet that if a terrorist group does enough damage, people will care little for triviliaties such as freedom – such is the effect of the fear of death. (At the same time, history must also inform us that a society’s fear of death can be manipulated by the state as well as by the terrorists.) It seems to me that the law enforcement approach is not especially suited to combatting the terrorism we now face because:

  • the consequences of letting an ordinary criminal go are far less serious than letting a terrorist go;
  • punitive measures that are supposed to deter crime don’t work regarding strategic terrorism (The death penalty, for example, doesn’t deter someone who wants to be a martyr like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad.);
  • law enforcement focuses on prosecution and punishment rather than prevention, when counterterrorism measures must do the reverse;
  • military engagement may at times be called for – as it was in Afghanistan after September 11;

The efforts to combat terrorism then don’t seem to fit into our traditional ideas of law enforcement. Neither of course, do they fit into our modern definition of war – as a military engagement between states (or within states) that ends with a treaty. The efforts to combat terrorism don’t fit into any of these preexisting categories neatly. We could invent a new term – but if we did, that would suggest that if this threat escalates, then war would be the next step. In other words, I don’t see any approach to terrorism short of “war” to be sustainable – because I believe it is likely that regardless of what steps we will not be able to prevent another attack.

So I suggest we adopt the term “war” and couple it with the main aim of this war – a preclusive victory against strategic terrorism. This victory would be the protection of the ability of citizens to consent freely to their government. ((I believe we must aim as a society for more than mere consent to government action – to actively shape it, etcetera – but that’s not the goal of this war.)) Any time the government violated the rule of law, it would be violating the war aim – it would be, as I described it in a post long ago, a “preemptive surrender of American values.”

This seems to me to be a sturdier construction for the protection of American values than either the law enforcement approach, the Feaver approach, or (and especially) the Bush approach.