Kevin Drum

Medicaid Provides Pretty Good Health Coverage for Children

| Wed Nov. 18, 2015 12:30 PM EST

Via Harold Pollack, here's an interesting study of children's health care. The researchers investigated how good Medicaid coverage was, and the results were surprisingly positive. I have painstakingly modified the chart so that higher numbers are always better, and as you can see, reported satisfaction with Medicaid was equal to or better than private insurance on most measures, and very close on the others.

Now, this is only for children, and the results might be different for adults. Still, a lot of people—including me—generally think of Medicaid as fairly lousy coverage. If this study is correct, we need to rethink this.

Advertise on

Could Obama Have Prevented the Rise of ISIS in 2012?

| Wed Nov. 18, 2015 11:44 AM EST

Back in 2012, Fred Hof was President Obama's advisor for Syria. Today, Zack Beauchamp asks him if there was anything we could have done back then to prevent the rise of ISIS:

In mid-2012, President Obama's key national security officials — Clinton, Panetta, Petraeus, and Dempsey — all recommended a robust training and equipping effort designed to unite and strengthen nationalist anti-Assad rebels. One of the justifications for the recommendation was that they were beginning to see the rise of al-Qaeda-related elements in Syria.

Had that recommendation been accepted and then implemented properly, the ISIS presence in Syria would not be what it is today. Had the US been able to offer Syrian civilians a modicum of protection from Assad regime collective punishment — barrel bombs and all the rest — a major ISIS recruiting tool around the world and inside Syria could have been diluted and even neutralized.

That bolded phrase is doing a helluva lot of heavy lifting here. I wish Beauchamp had followed up and asked Hof if he thinks the US intelligence and military communities could, in fact, have implemented this policy effectively. Their recent efforts, which produced something like five trained rebels, don't inspire a ton of confidence. My guess is that Obama listened to their recommendations but concluded that in the real world, it wouldn't have worked. I suspect he was right.

We'll never know, of course, which means this can be a subject of debate pretty much forever. But there's sure nothing in the recent historical record to inspire a lot of faith in our ability to carry out a plan like this.

Here's Yet More Posturing From Republicans on National Security

| Wed Nov. 18, 2015 1:10 AM EST

Here's the latest from congressional Republicans:

Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday his panel will launch a review of encryption use. Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) introduced a bill to extend a sweeping telephone data-collection program due to expire at month’s end.

“It is likely that end-to-end encryption was used to communicate in Belgium and France and Syria,” Mr. Burr said. He said encryption was likely because no direct communication among the terrorists was detected....Mr. Cotton’s bill would pause the expiration of a broad phone data-collection program run by the National Security Agency, which is set to end Nov. 29, until the president certifies that a planned replacement is equally effective.

This is crazy. Anyone smart enough to use end-to-end encryption isn't going to use a package from Microsoft or Google. They'll find an open-source app instead. There are plenty of them around, and there's nothing the US Congress can do to stop people from using them. As for the NSA's metadata program, it's always had the authority to collect surveillance on overseas users. Nothing about that has changed.

Neither of these proposals seems to be related in any serious way to the Paris attacks. Instead, the attacks are just being used as a handy excuse to push legislation these guys have wanted all along.

Someday we're going to get Republicans to take national security seriously. I don't know when. Hopefully it won't take as long as it does to get them to admit that climate change is real.

How Should Fear of Syrian Refugees Be Fought?

| Wed Nov. 18, 2015 12:38 AM EST

My blog posts don't usually provoke a lot of outrage on social media. I'm just not that kind of writer. But today was an exception, when I suggested that lefties should tone down their mockery of calls to limit the number of Syrian refugees admitted to the country. That spurred hundreds of tweets from fellow lefties—some in support, but most of it hostile. Here's a sampling—and I promise I'm not cherry picking:

Mockery is a reasonable response to the ridiculous.

"Low information voters" == bad citizens.

It's the equivalent of the Japanese internment hysteria, it deserves ridicule.

"Syrian terrorists" may be an existential threat, but gun waving rednecks are more likely to shoot me. Mock them? Gimme a break.

This @kdrum article is exactly why people don't like mealy–mouthed Liberals. This is a moral issue, not a compromised tactic.

Same objections against Vietnamese, Jews, Irish... same ol' catering to nativism, again & again. No more, thank you.

If voters are too racist stupid or sheeple to support progressives Dems Sanders that's their fault not ours

Oh, their fears are understandable all right. Xenophobia is widely understood. So is naked racism and Islamophobia.

@kdrum wants us to treat these concerns as if they are good faith security concerns, not racism.

Many "ordinary" voters are racists & know-nothings who do not want to be educated *or* calmed. Listen to callers on talk radio.

Let's remember that it's politicians we are mocking.

Sure, this is just Twitter, not exactly famous for reasoned and thoughtful debate. Still, what's disheartening about this is that I don't think there's any disagreement on substance here. We all agree that we should accept Syrian refugees. We all agree that screening ought to be rigorous.1 We all agree that Republican fearmongering should be fought.

There are really only two disagreements. The first is whether fear of Syrian refugees is even understandable. Here's Charlie Pierce: "It is completely practical to believe that [ISIS] would try to infiltrate their fighters into this country under the cover of being refugees. They would have to be stupid not to try. Charlie Baker is not a bigot. Neither is Maggie Hassan. Their concerns are not posturing. They are not for show....They should be taken seriously and addressed seriously." I agree—and I'd suggest that anyone who thinks these concerns are just ridiculous bedwetting is pretty far out of touch with ordinary folks.

Second, how should this fear be addressed? Here's the problem: people won't even listen to you unless they think you take their concerns seriously. That's why, for example, liberals mostly dismiss conservative posturing about race: we don't believe they even take the problem of racism seriously in the first place. And probably the best way to convince people that you don't take a problem seriously is to mock it.

Maybe it's true that we're only mocking some of the most egregious politicians. And maybe it's true that they deserve it. But who cares? Ordinary voters won't make the distinction—they'll just hear the mockery—and it doesn't matter what anyone deserves. What matters is what works. On issues of interest only to wingnuts, go ahead and mock. We're not going to persuade them of anything no matter what. But on issues like this, where a quite understandable fear is shared by a broad slice of the electorate, mockery is death. We can persuade these folks, and the way to do it is to acknowledge the problem and then fight the fear with facts.

Will it work? Maybe, maybe not. But it's got a way better chance than mockery does. For a good example of how to do it, check out President Obama's comments tonight. There were a couple of sentences of ridicule in there, but nearly all of it was a firm, fact-based pushback against fear of letting in refugees. Obama didn't give in to bigotry or xenophobia, and he was plenty tough on Republicans. But he took the fears seriously and wasn't guilty of mockery.2 That's how it's done.

1Which it already is. Refugee screening in America is an extremely long and arduous process.

2Not much, anyway. For some reason, conservatives get revved up by outrage while liberals get revved up by mockery. I'm not really sure why. And in small doses on the right occasions, it's fine. If you're a comedian, it's fine. If you're in private among friends, it's fine. But if it becomes your default public response even to the ordinary fears of ordinary people, you've lost the argument before it even begins.

Sorry, But Ben Carson Just Doesn't Care About Foreign Policy

| Tue Nov. 17, 2015 5:56 PM EST

Who would ever have guessed that someday we'd have a serious presidential candidate who makes Donald Trump look sober and grounded? And yet, that's what Ben Carson has done. Here's one of his foreign policy advisors, perhaps under the misapprehension that he was speaking off the record:

“Nobody has been able to sit down with him and have him get one iota of intelligent information about the Middle East,” Duane R. Clarridge, a top adviser to Mr. Carson on terrorism and national security, said in an interview....After Mr. Carson struggled on “Fox News Sunday” to say whom he would call first to form a coalition against the Islamic State, Mr. Clarridge called [Armstrong] Williams, the candidate’s top adviser, in frustration. “We need to have a conference call once a week where his guys roll out the subjects they think will be out there, and we can make him smart,” Mr. Clarridge said he told Mr. Williams.

Mr. Williams, one of Mr. Carson’s closest friends, who does not have an official role in the campaign, also lamented the Fox News interview. “He’s been briefed on it so many times,” he said. “I guess he just froze.”

"He just froze." Maybe. But there's another possibility. A friend of mine recently had a conversation with a guy who once sat on a board with Carson: "He told how, at that time, Carson advocated that the way to reduce CO2 emissions was to build hydrogen-powered cars. Once he had embraced that policy solution, according to his fellow board member, Carson showed no interest in alternate policies."

This seems to be Carson's MO. One way or another, he decides what he believes. Glyconutrients are a miracle. Hitler took away people's guns. The Chinese are in Syria. Hydrogen cars will fix global warming. And once he's fixated on something, that's it. He just isn't interested in learning any more. You can brief him until you're blue in the face, but it's water off a duck. He's already made up his mind.

I wonder what happened to make him this way? It seems clear that he wasn't always like this. Did this change occur slowly? Or was there some dramatic event that changed his worldview? We'll probably never know. But it leaves him wide open to every weird idea and kooky conspiracy theory out there if it happens to press one of his buttons. Usually characters like this are relegated to post-midnight talk radio or sending out chain emails about Obama getting ready to declare martial law. But this one is running for president. And winning.

UPDATE: This is great. The Carson campaign recommended Clarridge as a source and provided the Times with his phone number. But now they're throwing him under the bus. "Mr. Clarridge has incomplete knowledge of the daily, not weekly briefings, that Dr. Carson receives on important national security matters," the campaign said in a statement. "For The New York Times to take advantage of an elderly gentleman and use him as their foil in this story is an affront to good journalistic practices."

Very classy.

Here's a Plan to Defeat ISIS. It Might Even Work.

| Tue Nov. 17, 2015 3:01 PM EST

Here is Fred Kaplan's 8-point plan for fighting ISIS:

First, NATO should invoke Article 5.... Second...ISIS could come under much fiercer bombardment.... Third, this air power should be directed to support all ground forces engaged in fighting ISIS, no matter how unpalatable they might otherwise be—including Iranian-backed militias.... Fourth...everything should be done to raise up, supply, and if necessary train Sunni militias and command groups, too.... Fifth, all of the above requires intense shuttle diplomacy.... Sixth...Obama is right to quell talk of throwing thousands of American (or other Western) combat troops into this fight.... Seventh, this reticence in sending combat troops shouldn’t preclude a doubling or tripling of special operations forces to advise, coordinate airstrikes, and occasionally support counter-terrorist raids.... Finally, none of these efforts will amount to much in the long run without a political settlement in Syria.

In short: a bigger air campaign; cooperation with both Shiite Iranian forces and Sunni militias; and more special ops. On the non-military side, we need plenty of shuttle diplomacy to secure a political settlement in Syria. I'd add to that the development of a tolerably multi-sectarian government in Iraq, and I'm a little unsure why Kaplan left that off his list.

I think everyone should understand that even a plan like this, which is grounded in reality, is uncertain to work and will require a lot of time even if it does. In the end, groups like ISIS will continue to pop up until the Middle East's civil wars start to resolve themselves. It's unclear whether American influence can do much to speed that up.

Advertise on

The Disgrace of Lamar Smith and the House Science Committee

| Tue Nov. 17, 2015 1:37 PM EST

The Washington Post writes today about a long-running feud between die-hard climate-denier Lamar Smith and pretty much anyone who says that climate change is real:

The flash point in the feud between House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is a congressional subpoena. The congressman, a prominent global warming skeptic, is demanding that the government turn over its scientists’ internal exchanges and communications with NOAA’s top political appointees.

Smith believes this information, showing the researchers deliberative process, will prove that they altered data to fit President Obama’s climate agenda when they refuted claims in a peer-reviewed study in the journal Science that global warming had “paused” or slowed over the last decade.

“These are government employees who changed data to show more climate change,” the chairman said in a statement to The Washington Post. “Americans deserve to understand why this decision was made. Despite what some critics claim, the subpoena is not only about scientists. Political operatives and other NOAA employees likely played a large role in approving NOAA’s decision to adjust data that allegedly refutes the hiatus in warming.

Over the last few years, harassment of climate scientists via subpoenas and FOIA requests for every email they've ever written has become the go-to tactic of climate skeptics and deniers. The purpose is twofold. First, it intimidates scientists from performing climate research. Who needs the grief? Second, it provides a chance to find something juicy and potentially embarrassing in the trove of emails.

In the case of Lamar Smith vs. NOAA, the key fact is this: Smith has no reason to think the scientists in question have done anything wrong. None. He doesn't even pretend otherwise. He has simply asserted that it's "likely" that politics played a role in "adjusting" the climate data. But at no time has he presented any evidence at all to back this up.

This is a pretty plain abuse of congressional subpoena power, and so far NOAA is refusing to comply. In the case of private critics using FOIA, it's a pretty clear abuse of FOIA—and one of the reasons that I have some reservations about FOIA that might seem odd coming from a journalist. It's one thing to demand private communications when there's some question of wrongdoing. It's quite another when it's just a fishing expedition undertaken in the hope of finding something titillating.

In any case, Smith is a disgrace, and it's a disgrace that Republicans allow him to chair a committee on science. Smith's view of science is simple: if it backs up his beliefs, it's fine. If it doesn't, it's obviously fraudulent. This is the attitude that leads to defunding of climate research or banning research on guns. After all, there's always the possibility that the results will be inconvenient, and in the world of Smith and his acolytes, that can't be allowed to stand. Full speed ahead and science be damned.

We Need to Re-Learn the Lessons of the Iraq War

| Tue Nov. 17, 2015 12:44 PM EST

Jeff Guo writes about the likelihood that the Paris attacks will inspire reprisals against Muslims:

“This is precisely what ISIS was aiming for — to provoke communities to commit actions against Muslims,” said Arie Kruglanski, a professor of psychology at the University of Maryland who studies how people become terrorists. “Then ISIS will be able to say, ‘I told you so. These are your enemies, and the enemies of Islam.’”

....The researchers see the Paris attacks increasing radicalization in two potential ways. First, the killings project power and prestige, burnishing ISIS’s image and attracting those who want to feel potent themselves.

Second, the attacks will escalate tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims. They have already led to some anti-Muslim activity, and will likely provoke more. Not only will these events make Muslims in the West feel marginalized, but they will also provide extremist propagandists with examples of Western oppression.

What really gets me about this is not just that it's true. It's that we've seen this movie before with Al-Qaeda. We know perfectly well that it's ISIS that wants to turn this into a war of civilizations, just as Al-Qaeda wanted to do. It's no secret. Why are so many conservative hawks so willing to play along with this?

More generally, it's astonishing—or depressing, take your pick—how soon we forget what we learned just a few years ago. Should we send a massive force into Anbar to crush ISIS once and for all? Well, we've tried that before. Remember? We sent a massive force into Iraq and, sure enough, we toppled Saddam Hussein's regular army units pretty quickly. Then, despite a huge military presence, the country fell apart. The Sunni insurgency lasted for years before it was finally beaten back. Then the Shiite government of Iraq decided that fealty to its Shia supporters was more important than uniting their country, and before long Anbar was in flames again, this time with ISIS leading the charge.

You want to take out ISIS? Me too. But if you want to do it fast in order to demonstrate how tough you are, it's going to require 100,000 troops or more; it will cost hundreds or thousands of American lives; and the bill will run to tens of billions of dollars. Remember Fallujah? It took the better part of a year and nearly 15,000 troops to take a medium-sized city held by a few thousand poorly trained militants. Now multiply that by ten or so. And multiply the casualties by 10 or 20 or 30 too. This isn't two armies facing off on the field of battle. It's house-to-house fighting against local insurgents, which isn't something we're especially good at.

Still, we could do it. The problem is that President Obama is right: unless we leave a permanent occupying force there, it will just blow up yet again—especially if we take Ted Cruz's advice and decide we don't really care about civilian casualties. Having defeated Al-Qaeda 2.0, we'll end up with Al-Qaeda 3.0. Aside from a permanent occupation, the only thing that can stop this is an Iraqi government that takes Sunni grievances seriously and is genuinely willing to govern in a non-sectarian way.

This isn't just a guess. We went through this just a few years ago. But everyone seems to have forgotten it already. Just send in the troops and crush the bastards! That worked great against the Nazis. It doesn't work so great in Iraq.

Liberals Should Knock Off the Mockery Over Calls to Limit Syrian Refugees

| Tue Nov. 17, 2015 11:45 AM EST

Chris Cillizza on the post-Paris push among Republicans to keep Syrian refugees out of the country:

Over the past 24 hours, almost half of the nation's governors — all but one of them Republicans — have said they plan to refuse to allow Syrian immigrants into their states in the wake of the Paris attacks carried out by the Islamic State....That stance has been greeted with widespread ridicule and disgust by Democrats who insist that keeping people out of the U.S. is anathema to the founding principles of the country.

....Think what you will, but one thing is clear: The political upside for Republican politicians pushing an immigration ban on Syrians and/or Muslims as a broader response to the threat posed by the Islamic State sure looks like a political winner.

Cillizza has some poll numbers to back this up, but he's right in more ways than just that. Here's the thing: to the average person, it seems perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of admitting Syrian refugees to the country. We know that ISIS would like to attack the US. We know that ISIS probably has the wherewithal to infiltrate a few of its people into the flood of refugees. And most voters have no idea how easy it is to get past US screening. They probably figure it's pretty easy.

So to them it doesn't seem xenophobic or crazy to call for an end to accepting Syrian refugees. It seems like simple common sense. After all, things changed after Paris.

Mocking Republicans over this—as liberals spent much of yesterday doing on my Twitter stream—seems absurdly out of touch to a lot of people. Not just wingnut tea partiers, either, but plenty of ordinary centrists too. It makes them wonder if Democrats seriously see no problem here. Do they care at all about national security? Are they really that detached from reality?

The liberal response to this should be far more measured. We should support tight screening. Never mind that screening is already pretty tight. We should highlight the fact that we're accepting a pretty modest number of refugees. In general, we should act like this is a legitimate thing to be concerned about and then work from there.

Mocking it is the worst thing we could do. It validates all the worst stereotypes about liberals that we put political correctness ahead of national security. It doesn't matter if that's right or wrong. Ordinary people see the refugees as a common sense thing to be concerned about. We shouldn't respond by essentially calling them idiots. That way lies electoral disaster.

CIA Director Delivers Some Blunt Talk About....Climate Change

| Tue Nov. 17, 2015 12:28 AM EST

In an address this morning, the New York Times says CIA director John Brennan used "unusually raw language" to talk about covert surveillance programs. Here's what Brennan said:

In the past several years because of a number of unauthorized disclosures and a lot of handwringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, there have been some policy and legal and other actions that are taken that make our ability collectively internationally to find these terrorists much more challenging. And I do hope that this is going to be a wake-up call, particularly in areas of Europe where I think there has been a misrepresentation of what the intelligence security services are doing by some quarters that are designed to undercut those capabilities.

I don't happen to think that a concern over a massive program of warrantless domestic surveillance is "handwringing," but OK. That's Brennan's opinion. However, for all the people pointing to Brennan as a voice of authority for his blunt talk about surveillance, how about if we also pay attention to his blunt talk about climate change?

Across the globe, in both authoritarian and democratic societies, governments are finding it increasingly difficult to meet the demands, realistic or not, of their skeptical and restive populaces....Mankind’s relationship with the natural world is aggravating these problems and is a potential source of crisis itself. Last year was the warmest on record, and this year is on track to be even warmer. Extreme weather, along with public policies affecting food and water supplies, can worsen or create humanitarian crises. Of the most immediate concern, sharply reduced crop yields in multiple places simultaneously could trigger a shock in food prices with devastating effect, especially in already fragile regions such as Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.

There's some real talk for you, straight from the mouth of the CIA director.