Our group has been debating the Middle East’s problems since we formed more than a decade ago (!). Most recently, we discussed the failures of the Arab Spring (2/14) and the rise of ISIS (9/14). (I thought these posts had some good links, BTW.) In those meetings, I steered us away from blaming individual actors (like Iraqi leadership, U.S. presidents, Iran and other regional meddlers) in favor of structural and historical factors. This made our discussions a bit incomplete, since there is plenty of blame to pass around, obviously. But, the blame game is not very conducive to civilized conversation.
Now, the luxury of avoiding assigning blame is ending. Who “lost” Iraq and Syria (not to mention Libya, Egypt, etc.) is going to move to front and center as the 2016 presidential election gets closer. With the economy recovering and Obamacare and marriage equality now settled law, the Republican Party is widely expected to try to make 2016 a foreign policy election. Why? Much of the Middle East – especially Iraq and Syria – is a genuine catastrophe. Plus national security is the one issue area where the public consistently trusts the GOP more than the Democrats. So, they are going to try to hang ISIS and the whole of the Middle East’s problems around Hillary Clinton’s, ex-Secretary of State neck.
There is a certain nationalistic narcissism to these arguments. The United States does not control the fate of the Middle East and it’s pretty arrogant to think we ever could unilaterally summon some pre-fabricated peaceful future for the region.
Still, it should go without saying that we are high up on the list of culprits, at least concerning Iraq. Bush’s invasion and our decade-long occupation unleased that nation’s Pandora’s Box of horrors and barred the country’s throat to outside subversion. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians died and millions fled. Al Qaeda infiltrated and is still there, as are Iranian- and Saudi-backed armed groups. Sunnis and Shiites fought one bloody civil war in 2004-06 and basically started fighting another one the moment we left. ISIS is the hideous result of that decade of war and infighting. Syria is different. No one can say the United States caused the civil war, and maybe no one could have stopped the 6-years of slaughter or prevented ISIS’s rise. But, if anyone could have, it was us and we did not really try.
So, I think a backwards-looking meeting assigning blame for Iraq and Syria is important and not just because of campaign politics. It’s the only way to hold our leaders accountable for their actions (or inactions) and learn from our mistakes.
On Monday, you don’t need me to rehash the last 15 years of U.S. Middle East policy. But, I will try to open with something useful to frame our discussion. Probably I’ll just bring us up to speed on recent events and then list the main candidates for culprit-hood in Iraq and Syria. You all can let me know if you want us to focus mainly on the U.S. role in Iraq and Syria’s problems or more on actors inside Iraq and Syria and regional meddlers like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- Who do the American people blame for Iraq and Syria? Why do you think they assign blame in this way?
- Why couldn’t Iraqis reconcile in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq? Who besides Iraqis is to blame for that? What specifically did Bush do or not do to screw things up and what should he have done?
- Could action by Obama have prevented ISIS’ rise? How so?
- What caused the long, bloody stalemate?
- What specifically were U.S. options for intervening?
- Is it realistic to think we would have made a difference?
- To what extent are other outsiders (Iran, Arab governments) to blame for Iraq and Syria? Could the United States have kept them from meddling?
- What are the big lessons here for future U.S. foreign policy?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READINGS – Lots of them! Pick and choose.
- Blame George W. Bush. Blame him entirely. Both Recommended.
- Blame Bush mostly.
- Why Bush invaded Iraq – A reminder that ends all doubt it was because Saddam had WMD..
- Blame neoconservatives a lot and Obama somewhat.
- [Update: A must-read, fair-minded account of Obama’s responsibility for Iraq’s deterioration.]
- Conservative POVs:
- Blame decades of U.S. policy towards Iraq. Recommended.
- Blame everybody: USA, our allies and our enemies. Recommended.
- Blame radical Islamist ideology
NEXT WEEK: Is there a looming Retirement Crisis?
This is Filip’s first topic idea and he will run the meeting if I can’t make it back in time from out of town. We have discussed atheism several times in the past. (Here, for example.) But, I like Fil’s wording because it cuts to the heart of atheism’s challenge to religion: That people believe in God because they want to, based on some psychological or biological need.
Many of you all are practicing atheists, if that’s not an oxymoron. So, no need for me to set up the topic idea, either here or on Monday. Instead, I’m taking this week off after all of the recent long, complex topics and weekly intro posts lately. I’m sure it will be a great meeting,, like all of our religious-themed ones are.
Still, out of habit, here are a few readings on the subject of the basic arguments for and against God’s existence, plus a few dealing with one author’s idea of what needs a human-created God might fulfill for society. It’s a pretty good read, IMO.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- “Existence of God” entry at Wiki.
- A 1-hour video debate on whether God is a human invention.
- In a 6–minute video, a Christian Apologist denies God is a human invention. Note: “Apologetics” means arguments in defense of religion.
- A good defense of atheism, from an economist I admire.
- The Evolution of God – A book positing that our idea of God’s nature keeps changing as humans’ psych/sociological needs for God evolve.
- UPDATE: How likely you are to believe religion is useless as opposed to useful depends on what kind of an atheist you are. Which one of these 6 types are you?
Next Week: Who is to blame for Iraq and Syria?
This might be our best-timed topic in a long time! Friday, the House of Representatives rejected President Obama’s request for “fast track” trade authority, officially known as Trade Promotion Authority. TPA is a voting rule that would prohibit Congress from amending any trade agreements that a president submits to it within a set period of time. Legislators still can vote any agreement up or down, but only exactly as submitted, unaltered. The politics of the vote were complicated, and I still think it will pass next week.
Yet, even though Obama has been pushing fast track really, really hard, he has hit a wall of fierce resistance from most Democratic members of Congress and progressive interest groups. So, this time might be different. We may have reached a tipping point on the Democratic voter base’s willingness to countenance free trade policies. If fast track really is dead, it will spoil Obama’s plans to ask Congress to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact (TPP). TPP is a huge, 12-nation trade agreement that’s 30 or so chapters are in the final stages of being negotiated. Several lesser-known but still important trade pacts could be in danger, too, if fast track is killed.
What’s going on, here? Our topic is going on. More and more liberals are convinced that decades of free trade policies have been a major contributor to decimating the American middle class. This is highly debatable, IMO. But, there’s no debate on how sweeping modern trade agreements have become, nor on how poorly average Americans have fared economically in the last 30 years. The TPP, like NAFTA or the WTO regime, do much more than lower tariffs and barriers on manufactured goods trade. They’re about internationalizing the basic rules of commerce – all commerce, from services (inc. financial regulation) to agricultural trade to intellectual property rights. These agreements, most controversially, are enforceable by binding dispute settlement procedures. Progressives say these procedures could be used by foreign companies to challenge U.S. health and safety, environmental, and other laws.
This complexity makes our job harder on Monday because it makes it very hard even for the experts to judge the impact trade agreements have had on U.S. jobs and wages. Even knowing that would not settle the issue, because U.S. trade policy is also about broader, strategic goals (like countering China’s influence, a major TPP goal) that few people bother to think about when they add up free trade’s effects on the United States.
So, with all of this, I think it’s best for Monday if we have a two-part discussion.
- Trade agreements: What they are and their impact on the United States, esp. jobs and wages.
- TPP and related deals: Even though there is no final TPP yet, WikiLeaks has leaked enough draft chapters to reveal its broad outlines.
I will open each of the two subjects with a 5-7 minute presentation, each presentation followed by its own discussion. Sound good?
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- ABCs: What is fast track, why do presidents say they need it, and why is it so hard to pass this time? What does “free trade” mean, really? What do modern trade agreements cover/not cover and why?
- Effects: How have past free trade-oriented agreements affected the United States, especially jobs and wages? How can we separate the effects of trade from everything else that’s going on in the economy (like growing automation, collapse of labor unions, etc.)?
- Other rationales: Are there any other benefits/costs from free trade aside from the economic ones? (National security, diplomatic, etc.) How much should they matter?
- TPP: What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership and what’s s controversial about it and why? What are the main arguments both sides use?
- Alternatives: Are there any good alternatives to free trade agreements that would do more for Americans? Is the U.S. in a position to dictate an about face on trade even if it wanted to?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
Has Free Trade Been Good for Us?
- It’s been harmful:
- Wrong: Free trade has helped us immensely. Recommended.
- Keep in mind: Experts’ prediction can be wrong.
Trans-Pacific Partnership –
- What is the TPP? What are the pros and cons? Two good explainers. Either recommended.
- It’s about much more than trade. My point.
- Obama’s reasons for pushing so hard on this. Recommended.
- TPP will be good for American workers. At the least, arguments that it won’t be are not very convincing so far.
- Robert Reich: It’s not a free trade deal; it’s something else and something worse. Recommended.
- Elizabeth Warren: TPP’s corporate dispute resolution panels should be a deal breaker. Joseph Stiglitz says TPP is a corporate takeover of U.S. legal system.
- [Optional: A long, detailed opposition piece at Public Citizen.]
- [Update: If you’re really interested in the TPP’s investor-state dispute settlement process and whether it would allow U.S. health and safety laws to be undone, read this, from a respected legal blog.]
Next Week: Is God a human invention?
Presidential abuse of power is a hardy perennial issue in American politics. Every president gets accused (often with good reason) of unilaterally expanding the scope of the office, especially in times of war, national emergencies, and political gridlock. Since all of these conditions seem permanent these days, it’s a good time to revisit an issue we last discussed in 2012: Has the executive branch grown too powerful?
Bruce wanted to talk about this subject for a more specific reason. Conservatives are extremely agitated these days about President Obama’s use of executive power. They argue that he has abused his authority – in both foreign and domestic policy – in unprecedented ways. They cite his actions on, well, pretty much everything: Immigration, environmental regulations, Obamacare implementation, war and diplomacy, etc. In case you don’t follow conservative media, you should know it’s hard to overstate how endlessly these charges are repeated in conservative circles and how widely accepted it is on the Right that Obama is a “lawless president.”
Sure, it’s easy to dismiss this as just partisanship and anger over Obama’s ability to use executive action to get around the unprecedented legislative gridlock the GOP deliberately created. (Also, where were these principled critics during Bush 43’s staggering expansion of presidential power?) I think many of the charges against Obama are exaggerated, but I also believe there are real issues here. Obama did reign in some of Bush’s worst abuses, like torture. Yet, like almost all presidents, Obama pocketed most of his predecessors’ expanded authority and has added a few more of his own. Presidential power really does just keep expanding, and has been my entire adult life.
Bruce may want us to focus on specific charges against Obama, like his altering of statutory Obamacare deadlines, and his executive orders deferring deportation of large numbers of undocumented immigrants. Fair enough. I am more interested in pondering why executive branch power keeps on expanding, decade after decade and whether it can be – and should be – stopped.
On Monday, I’ll give some brief opening remarks, then ask Bruce for his POV on the subject. Note: The links this week do not crawl into specific issues, like warrantless surveillance, drones, immigration, EPA regs. Each one would make a good separate topic someday.
- How and why have recent presidents acquired new/expanded authority not explicitly granted in the Constitution? Has this accumulation been “natural;” i.e., a result of the needs of the modern Presidency/state?
- Bush: How radical versus necessary was GWB’s expansion of power? Why did we (Congress, Media, public) let it happen?
- Obama: Same Qs + How did Obama/Bush differ on expanding executive power?
- Okay, then: What’s the alternative to an imperial president? Who would solve national problems – Congress? The states? No one?
- Could continued extreme polarization and permanent state of war lead to a presidential “soft-dictatorship” (see links)?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
G.W. Bush –
- GOP is livid over his “imperial,” “lawless” presidency. Recommended.
- Obama has continued Bush’s “cult of the residency.” Recommended. More details here.
- Consider: What could a Republican president do with Obama’s executive powers?
- Rebuttal: Obama’s actions are legitimate, unlike many of Bush’s. Recommended and important for our general discussion.
The Future of Presidential Power:
- There’s cause to worry about the future.
- Are we on the road to a soft-dictatorship? A must-read.
- Wrong. The presidency is inherently weak and presidential power has accrued naturally. Recommended.
- Non-delegation doctrine: A favorite legal theory of conservatives; Its use would invalidate most standing federal regulations and make it way harder to make more. Easy Wiki version – Read for Bruce.
Next Week: Free trade and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
We have a bit of an unwieldy but important topic this week. American agriculture is the most productive in the world. The industry supplies about 10% of global food production. Huge economies of scale and high-tech farming methods make food prices in the United States lower than they’ve ever been relative to average income and widely available for most of us. (
1/3 1/6 of households have “food insecurity” problems, but they are a function of low incomes, not high food prices.)
But, American agriculture is a highly concentrated industry, which, critics say, is a problem in and of itself. A small number of very large companies dominate each ag sector, giving them enormous power over ideally competitive markets. They also possess enormous political power and, the critics say, use it freely to avoid having to be environmentally and socially responsible. How concentrated? According to the USDA, just 4% of U.S. farms account for 66% of all sales, while the smallest 75% account for less than 5% of sales. Raising and processing food animals is, if anything, even more hyper-concentrated, including geographically, on a small number of gigantic factory farms.
We’re talking about blue chip, household name companies like Perdue and Tyson’s (poultry), Dole and Del Monte (fruit/veg) Cargo and Archer Daniels Midland (grains), Armour and Smithfield (livestock). But, also others you would not think of as agricultural giants, like Monsanto and DuPont (seeds/herbicides). And don’t forget the big foreign-owned giants, like BASF (herbicides) or Seagrams (liquor/grains). You also could throw in the big ag equipment manufacturers (International Harvester), supermarket chains, or other parts of the industry. Big, big Ag.
Lace suggested we talk about Big Agriculture in general, since it gets a LOT of big criticism these days from political activists and popular media. (Movie: Food, Inc.; Books: Omnivore’s Dilemma.) This is totally not my area of expertise, but I know enough to be aware that the criticisms involve a few big (there’s that word again) issues.
Pollution: This includes damage to soil, ground and surface water, and, and even ocean contamination from fertilizer and pesticide runoff and offal from the big CAFO factory farms. Heavy use of monoculture (single-crop) farming also has been criticized.
Health: Industrial farming practices are said to cause poor human health. Low-quality and unhealthy ingredients may contribute to obesity and chronic diseases like diabetes. Toss in food-borne illnesses from poor sanitary methods, overuse of antibiotics, and animal cruelty issues.
Communities: Industrial farming may contribute unnecessarily to depopulation of America’s rural areas. Big Ag’s monopsony power (the power to dictate prices and terms to its suppliers) robs smaller, often family-owned farms of income and independence.
Political Power: It’s hard to overstate the power of Big Ag, at any level of our politics. The industry uses its clout to get large government subsidies and other special favors, many of which allegedly are unnecessary, market-distorting, and encourage consequence-free farming methods.
Now, Big Ag has its defenders, too. IMO, some of their arguments deserve more than to be dismissed as corporate shilling. I’ve linked to a few pieces written by non-hack supporters of the industry, below.
I’m not sure yet which parts of this big huge mammoth topic to try to cover in my introductory framing remarks. Update: I will briefly describe the structure of U.S. ag industry and the federal subsidies and supports for agriculture. Do you all want to focus the discussion on any areas in particular? Say so in comments, please, and maybe I will add my usual Discussion Questions later this weekend..
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Concentrated power: The entire production cycle of our food is in the hands of a small number of very large multinational companies.
- Factory farms problems. .
- A brief list of the major accusations made against Big Ag.
- More detail: “The failure of modern industrial agriculture.” (Common Dreams very progressive) Recommended.
- More on Factory farms (CAFOs). Or, for a more graphic depiction (non-video) by a whistle-blowing Perdue subcontractor here.. Recommended
- Health: Big Ag, its subsidies, and health.
- Communities: Big Ag’s effects on U.S. rural areas and small town life.
- Political Clout:
In Defense of Big Ag –
Next Week: Has the Executive Branch Grown Too Powerful? (new schedule, Bruce idea)
Thanks to Filip, Bruce, and Linda, for helping me select topics for June – mid-Oct., and to all those that suggested ideas. See the “Full Mtg Schedule” tab, above.
People have debated the causes of war for as long as they have been fighting them. Since Middle East madness is on the front news burner, I thought it might be useful for us to discuss some of the basic thinking on what causes political violence and warfare and whether they are waxing or waning, and whether those factors might be joined by new ones in the 21st century.
In modern times, most attention has been paid to the causes and dynamics of inter-state wars, wars between nations. I am not very familiar with this body of work. Much of it either is in in books or gated at academic sites or the major national security-oriented journals. But, it’s not hard to guess the basic culprits they identify, like nationalism, imperialism, religion, resource acquisition, etc. Other factors they debate are more subtle, especially those that have to do with the dynamics of international alliances, globalization’s effects, and aggressor states’ internal political struggles. As the links this week indicate, new factors could come into play, notably climate stress and reactions against globalization’s further disruptions, and more failed states.
I will open the meeting with…very little this week. You all know your history and I don’t know this field of scholarship. So, I guess I’ll just introduce the topic and highlight a few of the “new” factors that might be added to the classic causes of war we all can list. In discussion, we can either stay abstract or debate particular hot spots where we all expect trouble to brew in the coming decades.
It was very hard to find good links this week, due to the books and pay walls problem. Try the recommended ones or the harder, optional ones.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- No more easy wars for the USA. Requires free sign up to read (if you want to).
- But, we have never been safer! Recommended.
- Five “themes” will underlie future wars. Recommended.
- The “clash of civilizations” theory. Most future wars will occur at the frictional boundaries of major human cultures like Muslim/African, Chinese/West, etc.
- Climate change could cause huge wars over diminishing resources. Recommended.
- Especially over water. More sanguine view here.
- Seven ongoing powder kegs that could spiral into future wars.
- Two (very) optional long reads:
Next Week: Big Agriculture in the USA.
We’ve previously discussed how 21st century technological breakthroughs might alter the future of work in the Unit4ed States. In November 2013 I had us devote an evening to the “Great Stagnation” theory. This is the idea that we are entering a long (multi-decade)period of slower economic growth, flat wages and stalled prosperity.
The Great Stagnation, it is alleged, will be caused in part because the next few decades are unlikely to witness any truly transformative technological breakthroughs. The big, basic technological innovations that powered us into the modern world, like the railroad and telephone, are behind us now this theory says. And, sometimes in human history decades can go by between major leaps in technology.
This week, we’re going to look at kind of the opposite argument, and its possible downside. What if artificial intelligence and other automation technologies finally reach the stage where they can replace a huge share of the jobs people now hold? What if robots come to replace human workers on a very large scale, and not just for low-skilled, repetitive tasks, but thinking and problem solving jobs? What will our kids do for a living and how will it transform society?
- What is the evidence that the “New Machine Age is dawning? Is it looming, or bunk?
- Who will it dawn for? Which industries and which jobs?
- Who will be made better off and worse off? What are the trade-offs?
- Can/should anything be done to hasten or prevent this transformation?
- If it comes, what kind of government policies will be appropriate? Libertarian policies (see links) or more social insurance and government support for workers?
- History: What can we learn from past instances of revolutionary labor-saving technology? Please answer without using the word Luddite.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Our 2013 meeting on the “Great Stagnation.” Links included Krugman on the basic concept + this much more detailed explanation. It was about much more than slowing technological innovation.
The Robots are coming –
- Machines soon will take many more of our jobs – and maybe be a Libertarian’s dream come true. A must-read.
- Another optimistic view (Wired Magazine).
- Robots are not the problem. Bad (conservative) public policies are. Recommended.
- Yeah, they are. But, on the bright side, maybe we’ll start protecting American jobs when robots start replacing highly-paid white collar jobs, since even most elites would recoil from a libertarian “paradise.” Recommended.
Next Week: The Causes and Sociology of Modern Wars.
By my count, Bill Clinton – our 42nd president and possible future First Gentleman – will be the seventh presidency our group has evaluated. We’ve done Jackson, Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and Obama’s first term. We also debated the best and worst presidents and the power of the office itself. The topic of George W. Bush’s tenure may have come up a few times, too, but my mind’s a blank.
We already know that Bill Clinton never will be on Mount Rushmore. He fought no major American wars nor battled any terrible economic catastrophes. He had to share power with his Republican tormentors and with some conservative Democrats. So, he spent most of his presidency compromising and triangulating. Conservatives despised him and progressives distrusted him.
Yet, Bill Clinton’s presidency was a consequential one. Moreover, he left office still popular, scholars are ranking him in the top 10 all-time presidents (!) these days, and his wife is running implicitly on a platform to bring back her husband’s era’s widely-shared prosperity. I also think we need to rethink Clinton’s presidency in light of 14 years of post-Bill perspective.
As I indicated last meeting, I will open Monday by listing the major accomplishments, good and bad, of President Bill Clinton. Then, I’ll take a brief stab at providing some context I think might be helpful to us in evaluating his presidency (and, maybe his wife’s?)
- What was Clinton elected to do? What did he promise to do?
- Achievements: What was accomplished during the Clinton years in terms of:
- Domestic policy,
- Foreign policy,
- Politics (building an enduring political movement and coalition)?
- Evaluating him:
- Context: How were the domestic and international contexts within which he operated different from todays?
- Credit: Does Clinton deserve all of the credit/blame for these achievements, or do others share both?
- Standards: By what standards was Clinton judged at the time? How might those standards be different today?
- So, how good or bad a president was Bill Clinton?
- Any lessons for how Hillary would or should govern if elected?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Wiki ‘presidency of Bill Clinton” entry.
- A better recap of his foreign policy achievements
- Why was he so despised by conservatives? A cultural explanation. (NYT)
- Liberal POVs:
- Conservative POVs (relatively positive ones!):
Next Week: Cry, Robot. Will technology revolutionize the nature of work?