This week’s National Journal poll of political bloggers asked “What will be the top two issues in the midterm elections?” Enormous majorities on both the Left and the Right picked “Economy/jobs” as the expected top issue. On the Left, “health care reform” came in second, far ahead of the third-place “deficit/big government.” The issues of Afghanistan […]
Archive | Politics
Fat acceptance in NJ Governor Race
The Fat Acceptance Movement may have a new hero. Tubby Republican nominee Chris Christie is now pushing back against imperially thin Democratic Governor Jon Corzine’s campaign theme making fun of Christie’s heft. Christie criticizes Corzine for his recent, implausible, assertions that Corzine never raised the weight issue: “If you’re going to do it, at least man […]
Who is behind today’s anti-banker demonstrations? The usual suspects
(photo from stopbankgreed.org) During Tuesday’s lunch program at CNBC, anchor Bill Griffith asked who was behind the demonstrations at the American Bankers Association meetings in Chicago. The answer is clear: SEIU and a coalition of organizations, many of which are related with ACORN or that have commonly partnered with ACORN over the years. A few […]
A Transaction Tax on Financial Transactions?
The Wall Street Journal has a new story from over the weekend on Democratic proposals, in Congress and the administration and from outside groups, to impose a tax on financial transactions (John D. McKinnon, Democrats Weigh Tax on Financial Transactions, WSJ, October 10, 2009): Taxing financial transactions on Wall Street is gathering support in high places. […]
The psychology of prizes
Obama’s Nobel Prize brought to mind a vaguely remembered line in a novel by Thomas Bernhard (I think it was Wittgenstein’s Nephew but only because that is the only novel of his I remember reading) to the effect that nothing is as humiliating as being given a prize. Bernhard was famously splenetic, as were the […]
Obama Administration Considering Tax Credits for New Hires
On the New York Times Caucus blog, John Harwood revealed that the Obama Administration is considering “a new package of tax cuts and other job creation measures.” Privately, Mr. Obama’s economic advisers are sifting options for a new package of tax cuts and other job creation measures to be unveiled in next year’s State of […]
They Made a Multilateralism and Called It Peace
The Obama UN speeches and appearances last week have caused some comment among conservatives along the lines of President Obama simply wanting the US to be one among the guys of nations. Andrew Ferguson picks up this notion in his Weekly Standard commentary this week, and it’s been around other places, too. I think it’s basically right, and is one of the basic motivations behind US protestations of “multilateralism” – to lay down the burdens, mouth the same words as everyone else, and quit having to bear the costs of providing the essentials of the global security system.
I’ve been talking about this for quite a while, in alas unread academic papers that languish in unread corners of the internet, so you’ll just have to forgive me for quoting myself. Note to everyone: the full papers are also well worth reading! Also, though, in an excellent literary review, La Revista de Libros which, while very well circulated and publisher of some of the finest literary prose in the contemporary Spanish language, does, however, publish out of Madrid and in Spanish:
Be wary, O Europe, above all, of liberal internationalist Americans bearing gifts of multilateralism. An America that does not assert, rudely and brusquely, its own interests and views first through Nato and elsewhere, an America that sings sweet songs of multilateral interdependence is, surely, a superpower that has decided to simply go along with what everyone else does, which is another way of saying it has tired of supporting the free riders, which is another way of saying that it, too, says one thing but might do another, and what it might do is not show up when the big battalions are finally needed. Prudent Europeans fear and do not trust, above all, an America that does not put its own interests first and carry the rest along in train. Re-read Raymond Aron. Europe will soon enough face an Iranian nuclear weapon along with its massive dependence upon Russian natural gas, even as its military strength declines yearly – hourly – and in important respects it is today at least arguably more dependent on the American security guarantee, not less, than at any time since 1990.
The broader point being that for all the talk about UN collective security, the reason anyone even talks about it is that it is, for much of the world, a fifth wheel on a broad, US security guarantee. If you are European states, you can talk about UN collective security because you don’t need it and it isn’t truly your security guarantor.
On the Criticism of Obama for Going to Copenhagen
I have been surprised at some of the criticism of President Obama for going to Copenhagen to lobby for the Olympics. Few commentators bother noting that, had Obama NOT gone to Copenhagen, many would have been blamed him for Chicago’s losing its bid. Most of us would have quite reasonably — though erroneously — attributed […]
Globally Managing American Speech?
By Kenneth Anderson on October 2, 2009 10:19 am in Constitutional Theory, Freedom of Speech, International Law, Politics, Religion and the Law
I read with great interest Eugene’s post below on the Obama administration, free speech, and human rights. As it happens, I’m trying to finish up a manuscript on the UN and “values” at this very moment. Here are a couple of observations that I don’t propose to defend here; I throw them out unsupported, and I’ll try to go back and add something else later.
This whole process of “engagement” on an issue like free speech by the US at the HRC or anywhere else in the international system is a mistake from the beginning. Among the many reasons is, first, that a process like that of the HRC is designed to lead to consensus, which in practice will mean some kind of compromise. But the whole point of freedom of speech under the First Amendment is that it is not open to compromise, and certainly not in the sense of elaborating standards from the outside for a sovereign people who govern themselves under a constitution.
Even to “engage” in the process, as a consequence, leads to tears no matter where it goes. A compromise on the issue will inevitably mean that the first amendment is weakened in its substantive American understanding. If the US engages in the process, however, but then does not accept the result, then it is understandably accused of negotiating in bad faith.
But that’s the consequence of a policy of “always, or nearly always, engage” with the UN or with international institutions. There are certain institutions in which the US should always engage; the Security Council is one of them. There are certain institutions or processes with which it should never engage and actively seek to undermine; Durban I and II come to mind. The HRC is another institution with which engagement is a mistake, and an obvious one. The decision to engage or not engage is one that by itself is an exercise in political capital. I admit to finding unpersuasive the position of some (HRW made these arguments around Durban, but it is a fairly common trope) that
(a) the US should always engage with UN institutions because engagement is an important symbolic act that shows US commitment to international institutions and
(b) the US should not be concerned about always engaging with institutions or processes at the UN, because these are “merely” symbolic processes and one can always walk out, because as a realist matter no one can “make” the US do anything it doesn’t want.
This is looking to have it both ways. Which is it to be? Does symbolic engagement matter or doesn’t it?
News Flash: Presidents Work When They Travel
Though I am a Chicagoan who is rooting for Rio — not Chicago — to win the 2016 Olympic bid, I think the criticism of President Obama for flying to Copenhagen to lobby the Olympic Selection Committee is silly. A modern president is working at least 16 hours most days (Reagan being the only exception […]
Appellate court dismisses Dan Rather’s lawsuit against CBS
LA TIMES BLOG: More than two years after Dan Rather filed a $70-million lawsuit against CBS for breach of contract and fraud, a New York Supreme Court appellate division has tossed out his claim. The ruling, handed down today, dismissed Rather’s claims that CBS News broke his contract and committed fraud by sidelining him in […]
Roman Polanski, George Orwell, and Salvador Dali
When I was running university film societies in the 1970s and early 1980s, I considered Roman Polanski’s Chinatown the best film made in the 1970s. I don’t know what I would think today because I haven’t seen it for three decades. And I still consider Rosemary’s Baby one of the best horror movies ever made. […]
Bloggers agree: Health bill likely to pass. Split on Obama foreign policy grade:
This week’s National Journal poll of political bloggers asked “What is the most likely outcome of President Obama’s health care reform initiative?” Ninety-three percent of the Left and 82 percent of the Right expected either “major” or “scaled back” legislation to be enacted in 2009. The Left was roughly split between major and scaled back. I […]