South Dakota Politics

Russia Walking Backwards

Intrepid reader BB has this, in response to my recent post on the petite guerre in Georgia:

Equating military preparedness and war planning as the cause of the conflict is specious. You can not possibly think that the Pentagon does not have contingency plans for attacking nearly everyone.

To which I reply: planning is one thing.  Preparedness is another.  The one can be accomplished in minutes.  The later takes days or weeks.  There is no way Russia could have launched its efficient attack on Georgia without moving men and material into position for weeks or months. 

But the bigger issue is what this says about the new Russia.  Strobe Talbott has a very good piece of what this means about the near the future of the region.  From the Washington Post:

An accurate comparison between the Balkan disasters of the 1990s and the one now playing out in the Caucasus underscores what is most ominous about current Russian policy. Seventeen years ago, the Soviet Union came apart at the seams more or less peacefully. That was overwhelmingly because Boris Yeltsin insisted on converting the old inter-republic boundaries into new international ones. In doing so, he kept in check the forces of revanchism among communists and nationalists in the Russian parliament (which went by the appropriately atavistic name "the Supreme Soviet").

Meanwhile, Yugoslavia collapsed into bloody chaos because its leaders engaged in an ethnically and religiously based land-grab. Milosevic, as the best-armed of the lot, tried to carve a "Greater Serbia" out of the flanks of Bosnia and Croatia. If Yeltsin had gone that route, seeking to create a Greater Russia that incorporated Belarus and the parts of Ukraine, northern Kazakhstan and the Baltic states populated by Russian speakers, there could have been conflict across 11 time zones with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in the mix.

A question that looms large in the wake of the past week is whether Russian policy has changed with regard to the permanence of borders. That seemed to be what Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was hinting yesterday when he said, "You can forget about any discussion of Georgia's territorial integrity."

And there you have it.  Boris Yeltsin, fat and fond of drink, saved countless souls by letting go.  Vladimir Putin, lean and hungry, seems bent on turning his borders into a ring of little Bosnias, only with the bad guys winning this time.  Welcome to the 21st century. 

China Walking Backwards

According to the conventional wisdom, China is the miracle nation.  It is proof that an authoritarian government is consistent with or even necessary for economic development.  As is often the case the CW gets the facts wrong, and misinterprets them.  There is a brilliant article by Yasheng Huang in the current issue of Foreign Policy, comparing the recent histories of China and India.  Unfortunately, it is not available online to non-subscribers.  But here is the gist:

In the 1980's, the Chinese government experimented with political and economic liberalism.  That means more than a relaxed business environment and a relatively free press.  It means that the government subjected itself, or at least its local creatures, to some measure of real accountability.  Dramatic failures of policy led to public hearings, reported on by newspapers that felt free enough to tell the people what was going on.  But in the 90's, the government began to march backwards. Today no newspaper or TV anchorperson dares report honestly on the government's failings.  As a result, the Chinese economic miracle has been somewhat less than miraculous.  To mention but one indicator, illteracy in the rural provinces is increasing.    India went the opposite direction with opposite results: today India is the great success story.

There is no great mystery in this.  Accountability alone puts pressure on government to deliver.  Coupled with democracy, government is forced to deliver.  That is the story India and China are telling. 

Argus/Gannett Slashing Jobs

Reuters:

Gannett Co Inc plans to eliminate 1,000 positions from its local newspapers around the U.S. because of declining advertising and circulation revenue, and may cut more if those conditions persist.

The largest U.S. newspaper publisher said the cuts equal about 3 percent of the positions in its Community Publishing unit, according to a memo obtained by Reuters on Thursday. The unit accounts for the vast majority of the company's newspapers, except for USA Today.

About 600 people probably will be laid off as part of the cuts, the memo said. The remaining cuts will come from retirements, resignations and other vacancies that will go unfilled.

Gannett, which is based in McLean, Virginia, sent the undated memo to publishers of its more than 80 community newspapers, asking them to notify employees by August 15.

The company, which publishes USA Today, is the latest U.S. newspaper publisher to slash headcount because of falling advertising and circulation revenue.

McClatchy Co, The New York Times Co, The Washington Post Co and Tribune Co all have cut their employee rolls, either through buyouts or layoffs.

U.S. newspaper publishers have been battered by a steep fall in classified advertising revenue brought on by wider economic woes spurred by the housing crisis as well as a steady migration of readers seeking free news on the Internet.

Russia is the Aggressor

I return to this comment which I received by Email, in response to a recent post:

hey scumbag, Georgia attacked Ossetia. Killing hundreds before Russia attacked. You're just another lying, slithering republican.

Here is Ralph Peters in the New York Post:

Let's be clear: For all that US commentators and diplomats are still chattering about Russia's "response" to Georgia's actions, the Kremlin spent months planning and preparing this operation. Any soldier above the grade of private can tell you that there's absolutely no way Moscow could've launched this huge ground, air and sea offensive in an instantaneous "response" to alleged Georgian actions.

As I pointed out Saturday, even to get one armored brigade over the Caucasus Mountains required extensive preparations. Since then, Russia has sent in the equivalent of almost two divisions - not only in South Ossetia, the scene of the original fighting, but also in separatist Abkhazia on the Black Sea coast.

  The Russians also managed to arrange the instant appearance of a squadron of warships to blockade Georgia. And they launched hundreds of air strikes against preplanned targets.

  Every one of these things required careful preparations. In the words of one US officer, "Just to line up the airlift sorties would've taken weeks."

The current unpleasantness in Georgia is entirely the doing of Russia. 

Neck and Neck

Rasmussen:  "The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama attracting 43% of the vote while John McCain earns 42%. When 'leaners' are included, it's Obama 47% and McCain 46%. The race for the White House remains remarkably stable. With leaners, Obama's support has stayed between 46% and 48% every day for the past two weeks. During that same time frame, McCain has been at 46% or 47% every day."

Why A Comments Section is a lot of trouble

Spirited reader BB sends me this:

I would say as "uncivil" as you not posting comments and or delaying them so as to be inconsequential. Being labeled as only a "petite" fascist is perhaps an understatement if anything.

So let me get this straight: David Newquist thinks I'm a "petit-fascist" because I think Tim Johnson should not have run for reelection.  BB thinks I am something more of a fascist because I do not always post his comments fast enough to please him.  Boy you guys set the bar low!

As for the comments, they have to be policed.  I get very few uncivil messages, and BB's are certainly not a problem.  The problem is spam.  Unfortunately, the software that Keloland provides for us bloggers makes it very tedious and time-consuming to find the few comments that are not spam, and release them.  I am sorry if BB gets impatient, but I make no promises on this score.  I have tried very hard to release his comments as soon as they come in, but when they come in at the same time as a load of spam, it can be hard to notice them at all. 

As for the rest of BB's comment:

Your sycophantic support of an administration that regards the constitution as "quaint" and which has done more to impinge upon the rights of man (to the aggrandizement of the ultra wealthy)is reprehensible. The damage that has been done by "W" is a true blot on our nations history. America is great because America is good. When America stops being good it will cease to be great. Cicero would be no fan of Bush: "The budget should be balanced. Public debt should be reduced. The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered, and assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt." When did you give up on the constitution and the rule of law Ken? As a PhD in PS could you inform as to what is wrong with democracy in America?

BB is saying here that I am a fascist because I disagree with him about George W.  I defy BB to show me one place where my support of Bush has been "sycophantic."  I spend more time defending Bush when I think he is right because I figure that I will do a better job of that than BB, or David, or Todd, or Cory.  They are better fit to take him to task than I am.  I have never called anyone a fascist or a Stalinist or anything of the sort for disagreeing with me on such issues. 

Uncivil Discourse

I got this cute reply from Rick Couturier, about whose character and language handicaps I have nothing to add.

hey scumbag, Georgia attacked Ossetia. Killing hundreds before Russia attacked. You're just another lying, slithering republican.

This sort of immaturity might seem like an idiosyncrasy, but it's not exactly uncommon.  As I expected, David Newquist reacts to my comments about Tim Johnson and the debate question with this:

One blog has taken up the blogging cudgel against Sen. Johnson and has not missed a pretext to hammer the message that the Senator is incapable of serving. Another blog which is more strident in its espousal of petit-fascist attacks asserts that the Senator should have withdrawn from the race long ago and to be responsible should do so now. Democrat blogs have joined in the chorus that declining to engage in confrontational oral debates is sort of an admission of not being able to do the job.

I am pretty sure that the "one blog" is Pat Powers, and "Another blog" is me.  Newquist is not honest enough to identify his targets.  If I am wrong about the second comment, I apologize in advance.  If I am right that the second comment was directed toward me, then Newquist is once again trying to convince everyone that he is off his rocker.  SDP may be a bad blog or it may not, but calling it "petit-fascist" suggests an addled mind.   After all, my comments on the merits of political debates are similar to Newquist's own, and I drew a clear distinction between Johnson's fitness to serve in the Senate and his fitness to run for re-election. Moreover, as Newquist himself concedes, my opinion was within the range of local democratic blogs.  Apparently everyone who ever disagrees with Newquist is a "petit-fascist." 

I am a resident of South Dakota and I have every right to form an opinion about Johnson's fitness for office.   The truth is that Newquist regards any criticism of Tom Daschle or Tim Johnson as a kind of treason. One need only compare his blog posts with those of Cory Heidelberger and Todd Epp to see how addled Professor Newquist is. 

Tim Johnson Plays Hardball

I plan to write this up in the American News, but one lesson one can draw from Tim Johnson's refusal to debate Joel Dykstra is that the Johnson campaign's decision to stalk and intimidate Steve Kirby's family was pure genius.  As I said that the time, Kirby's private wealth would have automatically made him a formidable challenger to Johnson.  That wealth would have helped Kirby wage a strong enough campaign that Johnson's refusal to debate Kirby would possibly cost him the race.  It was imperative that the Johnson people avoid a one-on-one with Steve Kirby.  What better way to avoid that than to start following Kirby's wife and daughter and then let them know they are being followed.  If you can't get at the candidate (or in this case, the potential candidate) get at his family. 

But Joel Dykstra can't raise nearly the money Kirby could have.  Therefore Johnson can essentially run a nothing campaign and still have a pretty good shot at winning.  Great hardball politics by Tim Johnson. 

It's A Dark Knight

My latest in the American News discusses the political questions posed by the new Batman film, Dark Knight.

It is not often that summer blockbusters live up to the hype. The new Batman film, “Dark Knight” is a thought-provoking film that justifies its enormous box office take. The film poses a question as old as political thought itself: How do we achieve justice in a world full of injustice?

Aristotle argued in his “Politics” that politics is defined by the question of how we ought to justly live together. But humans are imperfect and reason differently about life's ends and the means to achieve them. One of the key political virtues, then, is prudence, the ability to choose the right means to achieve just ends.

The ancients tended to have an idealistic view of politics. This does not mean that they were na•ve, indeed the concept of prudence suggests an awareness of the difficulty in rightly navigating the political waters. But the notion of justice was never far from the ancient mind.

Enter Machiavelli in the 16th century. One of the many lessons Machiavelli tries to teach in his work “The Prince” is that political leadership inevitably leads to the problem of “dirty hands.” A political leader must be willing to work evil in order to establish and defend his principality. He must be willing to be a doer of injustice.

These are just some of the political puzzles that undergird “Dark Knight.” In its prequel, “Batman Begins,” we already see Batman struggling with the contradiction in his attempt to establish law and order in the fictional Gotham City while he himself operates outside the law.

Gotham, in a thinly veiled critique of contemporary America, is a cesspool of decadence, greed and corruption. If the first film introduces us to the idea that Batman will defend civilization without dirtying his hands, Dark Knight shows us the difficulty that entails.

Dark Knight reintroduces us to the Joker, the twisted clown who is Batman's nemesis. As depicted in the film, the Joker represents a direct challenge to the very possibility of political life. He is a nihilist, having abandoned any moral code other than the spreading mayhem. His goal is to undermine Gotham's faith in civilization by showing how their heroes, including Batman, can be corrupted. There is no right and wrong, the Joker suggests, only power.

Batman and Gotham District Attorney, Harvey Dent, are tempted by the Joker's offer. In their anger at his increasingly brutal attacks on Gotham they feel the urge to resort to unbridled violence themselves. The audience is similarly tempted. Given the horrors the Joker has caused, what movie fan would not be satisfied by a particularly poetic violent death for the man the film describes as a terrorist?

Sure, “Dark Knight” is just a movie, and a flawed one at that. For example the film is simply too long with too many plot twists for its own good. But it poses questions sure to stimulate the grey matter of the politically minded viewer.

What makes Batman a hero instead of a mere vigilante? Does fighting injustice require one to do injustice, necessitating “dirty hands”? Does creating public order oblige a strong, even dictatorial, executive hand? Do people need noble lies to retain faith that justice in public life is possible?

Why is the Joker wrong? In this era of relativism where, for example, some say one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, why isn't justice simply the stronger imposing his will on the weaker? Who has the right to use violence to protect the public?

The film answers these questions, but you'll have to see the movie to find them out. But let me suggest that one lesson is: Undisciplined individual will, ungoverned by a moral code that exists outside the self, is a recipe for civilization's collapse. Even doing good must be done in the right way by the right people or it becomes evil.

Oh, and the movie's special effects are awesome.

The Devil Went Down To Georgia

Every time I go on vacation, something blows up somewhere.  Usually it's on Northern's campus.  This time it's in the once and maybe future Russian possession, Georgia.  Here is John McCain's first response:

Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.

Here is Barack Obama's first response, from his website:

I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis. 

The difference?  McCain says something: he identifies the aggressor, and demands a specific remedy.  Obama says almost nothing, except for that bit about Georgia's territorial integrity.  But from this, you couldn't tell which party is threatening it.  Obama condemns only the impersonal "outbreak of violence". 

If you like Obama, you'd probably argue that he was just being cautious and nuanced, as opposed to shooting from the hip.  But then, according to Reuters, he decided to start shooting too.

I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.

The first response tells us something about Obama; the second, about Obama's political calculations.  It is better, he concluded, to sound like McCain.  For more on McCain's response, see the excellent coverage at Powerline.

The Second Ugliest Man in Arkanasas

The Johnson Debate Dodge

My Keloland colleagues Todd Epp and Cory Heidelberger are doing a good job on the story.  Tim Johnson has announced that he will not debate Joel Dykstra in this year's Senate race.  Cory has this:

Sorry, Dems, but on this issue, we have to accept an unspinnable fact: Senator Johnson has conceded that Senator Dykstra can outperform him in one important skillset for a United States Senator: public speaking. Senator Johnson now needs to make the case that he can outperform Senator Dykstra in enough other areas to earn our ballot.

Todd Epp says this:

From a political strategy point of view, Johnson's decision not debate and its timing are brilliant.

Brilliant, but bad for our democracy.While sometimes contrived and stuffy and limiting, debates allow citizens to see the candidates discuss a broad range of issues, face one another, and allow citizens to compare and contrast in a "one stop shopping" setting.
Political debates are good for our democracy. 

Further, I am not aware of any candidate for major office in SD since 1986 refusing to participate in at least one debate. Rep. Tom Daschle debated Sen. Jim Abnor in 1986. Sen. Larry Pressler debated Ted Muenster and a couple of other third party candidatess in 1990. Rep. Tim Johnson debated Sen. Pressler in 1996. Rep. John Thune debated Sen. Johnson in 2002. Thune debated Sen. Tom Daschle in 2004. I also think every single gubernatorial candidate during that time debated.

I'm not quite sure that debates are as important as my colleagues think. They are very rarely debates in any real sense.  Politicians usually concentrate on three things to the exclusion of everything else: getting in good sound bites, drawing the other guy into committing a gaff, and above all, avoiding the gaff yourself.  Still, I agree that they serve one important function: they allow us to get to know the candidate, or at least, the public face of the candidate.  And if they often tell us nothing about what the candidate himself really thinks, they at least tell us what the candidate thinks we want to hear. 

As Cory and Todd point out, the reason that Tim Johnson is dodging the debate is that he and his organization think it will do damage to his campaign.  But the real question, as Cory notes, is this:

we Dems would do better to acknowledge and accept Senator Johnson's own honest explanation: he's just not recovered enough to make a public debate a fair fight.

And that statement opens the door for the honest question: If Senator Johnson cannot handle a public debate, is he the best candidate for the U.S. Senate?

Pat Powers put it this way:

So far the media and electorate have been patient in giving Johnson the benefit of the doubt on whether he's up to another term in the US Senate. Unfortunately for him, his camp has now removed all doubt, and it is not in his favor. 

This is pretty convincing evidence that Senator Johnson is not up to the job, and that while his staff can carry him just so far in an effort to save their jobs, there are some things on which they just cannot fake the job description.

I would not go that far.  However important debates are, they are different from the job a Senator does day to day.  Nor do I think it fair to call Johnson a liar for telling Keloland, nine months ago, that he would participate in "a debate."  That would only be a lie if he was already planning to duck the debates, and that would require evidence.  Maybe Johnson was only being overly optimistic. 

Still, Pat's view of Senator Johnson's competence is not unreasonable.  In a televised political debate, nothing is at stake except face.  On the floor of the Senate, great questions of public policy may be at stake.  If Tim Johnson can't handle the one, can he handle the other? 

I am not convinced that Tim is not up to his job as a Senator.  He has implicitly conceded that he is not up to the job of running for another term. This is not to say he can't win.  I am not sure that he can be beaten, given his presence in the state, along with the weakness of Republicans in general this time around.  Public affection alone might make him invulnerable.  But to ride back into office on those things alone is neither graceful nor responsible.  Tim should have withdrawn some time ago.  He should seriously consider doing so now.