Jujitsui Generis

Giving Credit

Martin Peretz, in a thoughtful essay, is urging fellow Democrats to get past the politics of churlishness:

No, the president has not discovered a cure for cancer. But there is a pathology, a historical pathology, that he has attacked with unprecedented vigor and with unprecedented success. I refer, of course, to the political culture of the Middle East, which the president may actually have changed. And he has accomplished this genuinely momentous transformation in ways that virtually the entire foreign affairs clerisy--the cold-blooded Brent Scowcroft realist Republicans and almost all the Democrats--never thought possible. Or, perhaps, in ways some of them thought positively undesirable. Bush, it now seems safe to say, is one of the great surprises in modern U.S. history. Nothing about his past suggested that he harbored these ideals nor the qualities of character required for their realization. Right up to the moment Bush became president, I was convinced that his mind, at least on matters Levantine, belonged to his father and to James Baker III, whose worldview seemed to be defined by the pecuniary prejudice of oil and Texas: Keep the ruling Arabs happy. But I was wrong, and, in light of what has already been achieved in the Middle East, I am glad to say so. Most American liberals, alas, enjoy no similar gladness. They are not exactly pleased by the positive results of Bush's campaign in the Middle East. They deny and resent and begrudge and snipe. They are trapped in the politics of churlishness.

Bridging the partisan divide to find common cause in something over and above the rancor of party politics is hard to come by.  Giving credit, especially where it's due, is far more difficult than carping and shifting focus.  Peretz is right to urge his fellow party members to recognize this transformation as historical or face irrelevance:

It has been heartening, in recent months, to watch some Democratic senators searching for ways out of the politics of churlishness. Some liberals appear to have understood that history is moving swiftly and in a good direction, and that history has no time for their old and mistaken suspicion of American power in the service of American values. One does not have to admire a lot about George W. Bush to admire what he has so far wrought. One need only be a thoughtful American with an interest in proliferating liberalism around the world. And, if liberals are unwilling to proliferate liberalism, then conservatives will. Rarely has there been a sweeter irony.

Jonah Responds

Jonah's stinging response is up:

Jonathan begins by restating his argument that "conservatives believe that smaller government is an end in itself, because it promotes freedom. Liberals, on the other hand, do not see bigger government as an end in itself. Therefore, on economic policy, liberals are much more interested in what works than are conservatives."

Already we have flags on the play. Let me explain what conservatives — or at least the ones Jonathan is referring to — do and don't believe. It's true that some — and I hope most — conservatives still believe that limited government is a good in and of itself. Smaller government — which I like very much, by the way — is a sloppy shorthand for the conservative's true desire for a government that has very defined responsibilities that it does not exceed without very good cause. Hence, conservatives who believe in limited government also believe in a government that protects us from foreign enemies, enforces contracts and civil rights, etc. A government that isn't activist in upholding the rule of law endangers freedom. I bring this up because it isn't accurate to say that all conservatives believe that merely "shrinking" the government increases freedom.

Then there's the second flag. I don't care whether or not liberals see "larger" government as an end in itself (though I think the claim that they don't is a more contentious declaration than Jonathan realizes). What liberals certainly do believe is that government can have a role in any problem and that very often government is the best means to their ends. This is particularly true on economic policy. The old adage that if all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail comes to mind. I will concede that most liberals don't see the hammer as an end, but they do have a well-deserved reputation for bringing a hammer to every problem and saying "Hey, will this work?" Jonathan sees a man willing to pound a broken vase with a mallet and says, "Aha! A pragmatist!"

Read the whole thing.  The very important work of political clarification is being done in debates like these.

What A Surprise

A new study has found the university faculties may be even more liberal than assumed.  72% of college professors identify themselves as liberal whereas only 15% self-identify as conservative.  At elite universities the difference is even higher: 87% identify themselves as liberal and 13% rank themselves conservative:

The most liberal faculties are those devoted to the humanities (81 percent) and social sciences (75 percent), according to the study. But liberals outnumbered conservatives even among engineering faculty (51 percent to 19 percent) and business faculty (49 percent to 39 percent).

The most left-leaning departments are English literature, philosophy, political science and religious studies, where at least 80 percent of the faculty say they are liberal and no more than 5 percent call themselves conservative, the study says.

No doubt that university associations are already preparing a response, probably something like, "Yes, professors are typically brighter and brighter people gravitate toward teaching positions at universities.  And, as a matter of fact, brighter people are more liberal.  Stupid people make really bad professors, and conservatives are generally stupid."

Passing a 'social issue litmus test' is as bad an idea for liberals as it is for conservatives, and no one wants to see yet another diversity initiative on campus - even if it is aimed at correcting the political imbalance.  What the finding does call for, however, is casting a wider net.  University faculty should naturally demonstrate a concern for more inclusion and thoughtfulness - political and otherwise.

Hell No, I Won't Go

Kofi Annan's blues are not keeping him from fighting for his job.  Citing a charitable interpretation of the report on the inquiry into the oil-for-food scandal, Annan has maintained that he commited no wrong.  Except that Annan is adding the emphasis:

But the investigation led by former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker did not completely vindicate the secretary-general.

Although it found no wrongdoing by Annan, it clearly faulted the secretary-general's management of the world body and his oversight of the scandal-ridden oil-for-food program in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

The report raised questions about when the secretary-general learned about the December 1998 contract to the Swiss firm, Cotecna Inspection S.A., though it said there was insufficient evidence that he was aware of the company's bid. It also strongly criticized the destruction of documents by his former chief of staff that could have shed light on the oil-for-food program.

The independent inquiry, released Tuesday, faulted Annan for conducting a one-day investigation into the matter, saying it should have been a more rigorous, independent probe.

On the question of his son, Kojo's, involvement in the scandal, Annan commented:

"I love my son, and I have always expected the highest standards of integrity from him," Annan told reporters. "I am deeply saddened by the evidence to the contrary that has emerged," especially his refusal to cooperate.

Kojo's behavior, however, represents more than a 'refusal to cooperate' and borders on obstruction (not that it carries any legal weight):

The Volcker report said that while Cotecna "generally has cooperated" with the investigation, the committee "concludes that Cotecna has made false statements to the public, the United Nations, and the committee."

It accused Annan's former chief of staff, Iqbal Riza, who retired in January, of giving the OK to shred three years of files on April 22, 2004 - the day after the U.N. Security Council authorized the Volcker investigation

The sins of the son need not always be visited upon the father, but neither should the connection be ignored when all signs point toward collusion.

Annan maintains that he has no intention of stepping down.

The Debate Begins

There's an interesting debate just starting up over at TNR between Jonathan Chait and Jonah Goldberg (of National Review) over liberal versus conservative economics.  Chait makes the claim that when it comes to the economy, liberals rely more on a pragmatic empiricism than do conservatives.  Conservatives, according to Chait, conceive of limited government as an end in itself and so tweak various empirical claims to fit their normative ones:

I began the piece with a thought experiment. I imagined God intervening to support every conservative empirical claim on economic policy (tax cuts encourage massive growth, regulations are costly and ineffective, etc.), and alternatively intervening to support the liberal side. I argued that liberals would have to change their minds if the data was proven to work against them, whereas conservatives would not.

It should get interesting.  Jonah is to respond Wednesday.

The New Libertarian

Finally!  There's now a place for those who find themselves uneasy with both the overbearing social conservatism of the Republican Party and the unyielding 'commitment to principle' of the Libertarian Party.   For those still confident in the power of liberty - but equally sure that the Libertarian Party has become ever more strident and principled and, thus, even less serious about ever exercising political power - there is The New Libertarian: A Journal of Neolibertarian Thought.  Check it out.  Here's hoping that they will, in their own words, do for libertarianism what WF Buckley did for conservatism.

Will Krugman explain?

Will Paul Krugman explain Jesse Jackson's role in establishing the "extremist" "climate of fear" now gripping the US?  Or his participation in the "rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right?"  Or how Jackson is a harbinger of a "future [that] seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law?"  I predict that he will not.

Fixing The Bank, Pt II

The New Republic weighs in on why Wolfowitz may just be the best choice to head the World Bank.

Pascal Zachary argues that the years of corruption and incompetence have wrought a convergence between the two sides clamoring for a clean up at the World Bank, and he argues that both conservatives and liberals should find common cause in the following set of likely reforms.

First, Wolfowitz would be likely to reform the bank's loan practices by curtailing unnecessary loans to wealthy countries, countries which already have a ready supply of cash and captial and need no assitance from the bank.  On the other hand, Wolfowitz is likely to end the practice of granting zero-interest loans (a subsidy really) to third world countries that have no ability to repay.  Instead, Wolfowitz will probably cut out loans altogether, relying instead on grants.  Grants have the advantage of being tied to certain conditions; that is, one must reform X or create Y in order to receive (and continue receiving) the full grant amount, whereas loans generally have no such stipulation (since their only condition is repayment).

Secondly, Wolfowitz is likely to end the World Bank's myriad initiatives (initiatives on drinking water, AIDS, famine, etc...), initiatives that have already been taken up by organizations like the UN and a host of other NGOs.  The Bank's own internal audit, in fact, criticized the initiatives as ineffective and straying from the bank's central purpose.

Thirdly, Wolfowitz is sensitive to corruption and is likely to act quickly to initiate a clean-up and loosen the bank's ties to corrupt governments.  As Zachary writes:

Finally, conservatives have argued for an intense effort to stamp out corruption. Wolfowitz himself has said that, as ambassador to Indonesia in the 1980s, he considered the World Bank too cozy with the country's famously corrupt dictator Suharto. The Bank, he reportedly said, "did some wonderful work" in Indonesia but "didn't do enough to empower those advocating" better strategies for development. Today, the Bank moves much more quickly against corruption than 20 years ago when it frequently steered funds to dictators who were cold car allies of the U.S. and Europe. But infrastructure projects remain magnets for kickbacks and bribery. The Bank needs to stiffen penalties for those caught stealing and expand its investigatory efforts so more wrongdoing comes to light. As Marc Miles, director of the Heritage Foundation's Center on International Trade and Economics, told Congress in February of last year, the World Bank too often props up bad governments financially so that "corruption and harmful existing practices can flourish." Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has repeatedly singled out corruption as an impediment to the development of poor countries; last September he complained, during a hearing he chaired, that the World Bank needs to do more "to ensure that Bank funds are used properly."

Zachary is right.  But Wolfowitz is likely to do more.  In particular, many of the grants will probably be tied to certain political and economic conditions, namely transparency, democracy, and economic liberalization.  And while those steps may not equal full privatization, they're leading in the right direction.  And an idealist like Wolfowitz seems like the best man to issue the marching orders.

The Blue Helmet Blues

The British media is notoriously unreliable, but The Times (UK) is reporting that Kofi Annan is struggling with depression and is carefully considering how the report on the oil-for-food scandal is going to affect his future:

Depending on the findings of the report, by a team led by the former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, Annan may have to choose between the secretary-generalship and loyalty to his son.

American congressional critics of the UN are already pressing him to resign over the mismanagement of the oil for food programme, and even his supporters have been dismayed by the scandals on his watch, including the sexual abuse of children by UN peacekeepers in Congo.

Annan's watch has been marred by much more than just the oil-for-food and sex abuse scandal.  In fact, the very credibility of the entire organization has become a central issue on his watch.  To be fair, people were questioning the viability of the UN long before Kofi, but philosophical differences aside, Annan's ineptitude and corruption have made those critics worth listening to.

Refitting The Aerobics Room

Pole dancing isn't just for strippers anymore and is becoming all the rage - in the UK at least:

But contrary to appearances, Debbie is no pole pro. She's a 42-year-old married banker in London who has just completed a six-week beginners' course in pole dancing at My Pole Dance School in London.

She is one of growing numbers of urban British women -- from bankers and accountants to charity workers and housewives -- who are using poles to get fit and get sexy.

Gyms and pole dancing schools are reporting a huge surge in enrolment, supposedly inspired by model Kate Moss's sultry pole performance in the recent pop video by White Stripes and the film "Closer," in which Natalie Portman plays a stripper. 

Of course not everyone is pleased with the trend:

Hard-core feminists may disagree.

"If you come from a secure economic background and you've got education then it isn't such a big thing to play with sex tourism. If you don't have these your status is very different," said Paula Black, a sociology lecturer at Sussex University.

The latest craze in erotic dancing doesn't change the way men look at women's bodies as sexual objects and puts pressure on women to achieve in yet another area, she said.

No word yet on when the sexy fitness fad will cross the Atlantic.  But if Tae-Bo and Belly Dancing can attract participants, why not pole dancing?