New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has criticized the Obama Administration's support of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
That begs the question: what's our alternative? Friedman was already on record advocating a decrease of American involvement in Afghanistan. George Will goes perhaps a bit further: "America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units."
They might be right. But it seems to me that Friedman and Will are looking for a clean solution in a region where things are always messy. I'm not happy with the notion that the U.S. must be the world's policeman. However, I'm not prepared to abandon the war we were drawn into on September 11, 2001.
By continuing our military involvement in Afghanistan are we throwing good money (and lives) after bad?
The war that was less necessary for us to fight, the one in Iraq, seems (cross your fingers) as though it's headed toward a good solution. But that doesn't decrease the degree to which it was necessary to go to war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Our situation in Afghanistan is a classic dilemma, in the sense that none of the alternatives constitutes a good answer. That includes withdrawal. I'm willing to give Troop Surge II a chance.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
I hope you're right, Larry
I agree with what Larry Kudlow writes in this blog post about freedom of contract.
But I don't know that he necessarily has a basis for being so bold as to say "Republicans have clearly become the party of the private sector."
Many of us hope that that is the case. But it's one of the big unanswered questions going into the 2010 and 2012 elections. The Republicans' record, when they controlled the political branches of the federal government from 2003 to 2006, is not encouraging in that regard.
The 2003 Medicare expansion wasn't Obamacare, but it was a giant step in the wrong direction, right at the time we should have been preparing for the demographic time bomb that will soon hit the FDR and LBJ Ponzi schemes. We need to, at the very least reduce, and ideally phase out, Medicare and Social Security in their current form.
George Will provides a good summary of that situation, in case by some chance you might need a reminder.
I'd like to see this question asked of Republican candidates at every opportunity: will you indeed be the party of the private sector when you're back in power?
But I don't know that he necessarily has a basis for being so bold as to say "Republicans have clearly become the party of the private sector."
Many of us hope that that is the case. But it's one of the big unanswered questions going into the 2010 and 2012 elections. The Republicans' record, when they controlled the political branches of the federal government from 2003 to 2006, is not encouraging in that regard.
The 2003 Medicare expansion wasn't Obamacare, but it was a giant step in the wrong direction, right at the time we should have been preparing for the demographic time bomb that will soon hit the FDR and LBJ Ponzi schemes. We need to, at the very least reduce, and ideally phase out, Medicare and Social Security in their current form.
George Will provides a good summary of that situation, in case by some chance you might need a reminder.
I'd like to see this question asked of Republican candidates at every opportunity: will you indeed be the party of the private sector when you're back in power?
Friday, March 26, 2010
Krugmancare
What better way to kick off this new blog than by arguing against this New York Times op-ed piece by Paul Krugman?
Krugman cherry-picks a handful of extreme statements, and asserts that they discredit the entire Republican position in opposition to Obamacare. Are the congressional Republicans really the extremists Krugman makes them out to be?
He defines Republican extremism on health-care issues in terms of Ronald Reagan's opposition to Medicare. But Reagan has been proven right on that issue, as he has on so many others.
Medicare is not financially sustainable in the near and long term. Like its friend Social Security, Medicare is a ponzi scheme, and the kitty will soon run out as lower birth rates and higher life expectancy continue to destroy the programs' rationale.
That viewpoint is sensible. And if you want to call it extreme, so be it.
It will be interesting to see whether Krugman's enthusiasm for majority rule in the Senate still holds up when the Democrats next find themselves in the minority in that body. Each of the two most recent presidents has spoken favorably about "up or down votes" in the Senate, but only when his party had a Senate majority.
That point of view runs counter to George Washington's view of the Senate as the place where "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it." And, if I forget that, the next time the Republicans are in the majority (2011? 2013?), please remind me.
Krugman cherry-picks a handful of extreme statements, and asserts that they discredit the entire Republican position in opposition to Obamacare. Are the congressional Republicans really the extremists Krugman makes them out to be?
He defines Republican extremism on health-care issues in terms of Ronald Reagan's opposition to Medicare. But Reagan has been proven right on that issue, as he has on so many others.
Medicare is not financially sustainable in the near and long term. Like its friend Social Security, Medicare is a ponzi scheme, and the kitty will soon run out as lower birth rates and higher life expectancy continue to destroy the programs' rationale.
That viewpoint is sensible. And if you want to call it extreme, so be it.
It will be interesting to see whether Krugman's enthusiasm for majority rule in the Senate still holds up when the Democrats next find themselves in the minority in that body. Each of the two most recent presidents has spoken favorably about "up or down votes" in the Senate, but only when his party had a Senate majority.
That point of view runs counter to George Washington's view of the Senate as the place where "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it." And, if I forget that, the next time the Republicans are in the majority (2011? 2013?), please remind me.
New Blog
For almost two years, I have been blogging on another site, called Exploring the Political Spectrum. As I described in the introductory post to that blog, my intent was not so much to express my opinions on issues, as to describe the political process. But, as time has passed, I find myself straying from that original intent, when I can't resist the temptation to express opinions.
So I have created this new blog for my opinion posts. I expect that, on an ongoing basis, the bulk of my writing will appear on this new blog. However, I will continue to write on the other blog, as well, continuing to try to be the Political Science teacher I would have been, had the job market in academia been better.
As on the other blog, I welcome comments, subject to the following guidelines:
I hope to stimulate a discussion of ideas, not of people. I hope commenters will dispute and develop ideas that have been put forward by other commenters and by me. But please refrain from personal attacks on any of us. I will delete in their entirety any comments that:
1. Contain profanity.
2. Include personal attacks on anyone who has published their ideas in this blog.
3. Constitute spam (as determined by me).
4. Are completely off-topic (but I’ll be lenient on this one).
So I have created this new blog for my opinion posts. I expect that, on an ongoing basis, the bulk of my writing will appear on this new blog. However, I will continue to write on the other blog, as well, continuing to try to be the Political Science teacher I would have been, had the job market in academia been better.
As on the other blog, I welcome comments, subject to the following guidelines:
I hope to stimulate a discussion of ideas, not of people. I hope commenters will dispute and develop ideas that have been put forward by other commenters and by me. But please refrain from personal attacks on any of us. I will delete in their entirety any comments that:
1. Contain profanity.
2. Include personal attacks on anyone who has published their ideas in this blog.
3. Constitute spam (as determined by me).
4. Are completely off-topic (but I’ll be lenient on this one).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)