Kevin Drum

Uighurs Headed to Different Island

| Wed Jun. 10, 2009 1:20 AM EDT

The Uighurs have apparently finally found a home:

The United States has won an agreement to transfer up to 17 Chinese Muslims from the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to Palau, a sparsely populated archipelago in the North Pacific, according to a statement released by Palau to The Associated Press on Wednesday.

....The agreement opens the door to the largest single transfer of Guantánamo prisoners and is the first major deal on detainees since President Obama pledged upon taking office in January to close the prison within a year.

It also gives Mr. Obama some relief on an issue that has become a political hot button among Congressional Republicans and even some Democrats, who have noisily protested against releasing what they call potentially dangerous extremists on American soil or transferring them to prisons in the United States.

According to Palau's UN representative, "Palau is paradise."  Better than Cuba, anyway.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Quote of the Day

| Tue Jun. 9, 2009 5:18 PM EDT

From Sarah Palin, responding to a question from Fox News' Sean Hannity:

Hannity: Tim Geithner got laughed at in China last week.  Is this even more than you thought was going to be in terms of where the president would take the economy?

Palin: What's more than I thought would be is, we're hearing a lot of good rhetoric.  A lot of this is wrapped in good rhetoric, but we're not seeing those actions, and this many months into the new administration, quite disappointed, quite frustrated with not seeing those actions to rein in spending, slow down the growth of government. Instead, China's Sean it's the complete opposite. It's expanding at such a large degree that if Americans aren't paying attention, unfortunately, our country could evolve into something that we do not even recognize, certainly that is so far from what the founders of our country had in mind for us.

Damn, I love Sarah Palin.  This doesn't even begin to make any sense.  I very sincerely hope that she stays on the public stage as a face of the Republican Party for a very, very long time.

UPDATE: My bad.  I transcribed this wrong — and without the China reference it does make sense.  A little garbled, but still comprehensible.  My apologies.

Late Term Abortion

| Tue Jun. 9, 2009 1:45 PM EDT

Ross Douthat points out today that late-term abortions are vanishingly rare, but says that's part of the problem:

If anything, by enshrining a near-absolute right to abortion in the Constitution, the pro-choice side has ensured that the hard cases are more controversial than they otherwise would be. One reason there’s so much fierce argument about the latest of late-term abortions — Should there be a health exemption? A fetal deformity exemption? How broad should those exemptions be? — is that Americans aren’t permitted to debate anything else. Under current law, if you want to restrict abortion, post-viability procedures are the only kind you’re allowed to even regulate.

If abortion were returned to the democratic process, this landscape would change dramatically. Arguments about whether and how to restrict abortions in the second trimester — as many advanced democracies already do – would replace protests over the scope of third-trimester medical exemptions.

The result would be laws with more respect for human life, a culture less inflamed by a small number of tragic cases — and a political debate, God willing, unmarred by crimes like George Tiller’s murder.

There are a whole bunch of missing steps here.  Regardless of the merits of overturning Roe v. Wade, why does Ross believe that protests over second-term abortions would be any less inflamed than protests over late-term abortions?  Does he really think that if we adopted a European-style regime that banned abortion at, say, 18 weeks instead of 26, this would reduce the culture war heat that abortion breeds?  I'm really not seeing the logic here.

Identity Politics on the Right

| Tue Jun. 9, 2009 12:59 PM EDT

Despite the fact that we now know pretty thoroughly that Sonia Sotomayor has been judicious and evenhanded on the bench, Jonah Goldberg remains worried:

If an Irish judge gave a speech to the Ancient Order of Hibernians and dabbled in a bit of excessive Irish pride, it might be inappropriate but it wouldn't be disqualifying. But if there was evidence that he gave preference to Irish plaintiffs out of "empathy," I would like to think that would get him in serious trouble....Would judge Sotomayor be your first pick in a lawsuit against a Puerto Rican organization if your livelihood was on the line? It may be entirely unfair to her, but I think reasonable people might think long and hard on that question.

Does Goldberg seriously want us to believe that he might ever have criticized as "inappropriate" a speech from a white guy displaying "a bit of excessive Irish pride"?  Give me a break.

Conservative response to Sotomayor has been astonishing.  It hasn't really, of course.  It's been drearily predictable.  But you know what I mean.  Sotomayor is a liberal judge nominated by a liberal president, and she has a long track record of speeches, prosecutions, and court opinions to her name.  Conservatives surely have at least a dozen good avenues to attack her.  But right out of the gate, seemingly as an exercise in pure reflex, they attacked her on racial grounds.  All based on one sentence from a speech eight years ago and one case in which she narrowly ruled against some white plaintiffs.  But no mind.  They zeroed in on race instantly and relentlessly anyway.  I guess they know their audience pretty well.

Bank Regulation Heats Up

| Tue Jun. 9, 2009 11:48 AM EDT

Some possibly disturbing news from the Wall Street Journal:

The Obama administration is backing away from seeking a major reduction in the number of agencies overseeing financial markets, people familiar with the matter say, suggesting that the current alphabet-soup of regulators will remain mostly intact.

....The administration, for example, is unlikely to call for merging the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, an idea it had considered, these people say. It also isn't expected to call for the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to cede their primary authority to supervise banks, they say....Officials worry that trying to start from scratch could ignite messy turf battles that might slow or even derail the entire process.

I'm not necessarily dedicated to the idea that a single bank regulator is an absolute necessity, but it sure seems as though a root-and-branch reform — which is a necessity — is going to require a considerable amount of consolidation.  If the Obama administration is backing off from this already, it's a bad sign.

I'm not always in favor of these box drawing exercises.  I'm still not convinced, for example, that creating a Director of National Intelligence was a great idea.  But bank regulation in the U.S. really is archaic, and it really is counterproductive to have so many regulatory bodies that banks can choose from.  Having two or three with clearly defined mandates to supervise well-defined sectors — or possibly well-defined spheres of activity throughout the entire industry — is probably OK.  Having a few different agencies around to disagree with each other is a good thing.  But half a dozen with fuzzy responsibilities?  That better not stay on the table for long.

Restraint

| Tue Jun. 9, 2009 2:19 AM EDT

David Brooks on Sonia Sotomayor:

She is quite liberal. But there’s little evidence that she is motivated by racialist thinking or an activist attitude.

....When you read her opinions, race and gender are invisible. I’m obviously not qualified to judge the legal quality of her opinions. But when you read the documents merely as examples of persuasive writing, you find that they are almost entirely impersonal and deracinated.

....To my eye, they are the products of a clear and honest if unimaginative mind. She sticks close to precedent and the details of a case. There’s no personal flavor (in the boring parts one wishes there were). There’s no evidence of a grand ideological style or even much intellectual ambition. If you had to pick a word to describe them, it would be “restraint.”

Is anyone listening?

Advertise on MotherJones.com

More on Democracy

| Tue Jun. 9, 2009 1:57 AM EDT

Michael Rubin agrees with me that George Bush didn't do a bang-up job on the democracy promotion front, but thinks this shouldn't be a partisan fight:

I do agree a bit with Drum, albeit without the snark, when he says, "George Bush's main achievement in this arena wasn't to promote democracy, it was to completely cement Arab cynicism about America's obvious lack of concern for democracy." The difference between me and Drum appears to be that I don’t think partisan animus toward a previous president should excuse the abandonment of transformative diplomacy. Give Bush credit: He broke with the past and made democratization central to the debate. Cynicism toward democratization existed long before Bush was president when, in the context of the Cold War and after, Washington proved itself willing to coddle dictatorships. It is infuriating, however, that the gap between the rhetoric and reality of the Bush administration grew so large, and that in his second turn, Bush was willing to accept such backsliding in Lebanon, Egypt, and elsewhere.

I don't know enough about the literature on democracy promotion to say an awful lot about this, but I don't agree that Bush "broke with the past and made democratization central to the debate."  Rather, I think Bush and his team of old school anticommunists merely revived the Cold War context Rubin talks about, where democracy was less a real goal than it was a rhetorical cudgel to use against countries we didn't like.  In the postwar era, that mostly meant working to overthrow left-wing dictatorships while leaving the right-wing variety alone (famously given an intellectual foundation by Jeanne Kirkpatrick in "Dictatorships and Double Standards").  In the Bush era, this transitioned with barely a pause into working to overthrow Middle East dictatorships we didn't like while giving a pass to the ones that supported us.

That just doesn't seem transformative to me.  It never has.  In fact, Bush always struck me as less serious about democracy than his predecessors.  To him it was a nice slogan — every American politician is in favor of democracy, after all — but anyone who's serious about democracy knows that it's not the kind of thing you can get overnight.  It depends critically on education, on institutions, on culture, on overcoming corruption, on property rights, on the rule of law, and a dozen other things.  None of these were things that Bush ever seemed to have the patience to bother dealing with.

Obama, conversely, seems to have a better handle on this, both temperamentally and intellectually.  The result might be less bombastic and emotionally satisfying, but it's a more effective way of actually accomplishing something.  Less transformative rhetorically, perhaps, but if he follows through it's likely to be much more genuinely transformative in practice.

I'm still being partisan here, but I'm not sure that can be helped.  The approaches of Bush and Obama aren't just personal, after all, but reflect different world views.  The Bill Kristol wing of the conservative movement believes pretty strongly in a big bang approach to democratization, something that I just don't see any future in.  The Obama wing of liberalism, conversely, seems to see democracy promotion as small ball: lots of hard slogging, lots of public diplomacy, and lots of minor initiatives that fly under the radar and don't produce dramatic moments to rally around.

Unfortunately, that approach seems to elicit little but scorn from conservatives.  Like Rubin, I'd like this whole arena to be less partisan, but I'm not sure that's possible.  At least, not judging from the first few months of the Obama administration, anyway.  It's too bad.

Bad Behavior Update

| Tue Jun. 9, 2009 12:36 AM EDT

Ed Whelan has apologized to Publius.  Good for him.

Quote of the Day

| Tue Jun. 9, 2009 12:32 AM EDT

From George Will, demonstrating that he's about nine months behind the curve on state-of-the-art Obama crackpottery:

"I," said the president, who is inordinately fond of the first-person singular pronoun, "want to disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy meddling in the private sector."

Jesus.  This would be an embarrassingly fatuous thing for a supposedly serious columnist to write even if it were true.  But a bare minimum of fact checking shows that it's not.  It's really, really, really not.

Obama and Congress

| Mon Jun. 8, 2009 7:29 PM EDT

After quoting a Montesquieu line about corrupt legislatures foreshadowing the end of liberty, Matt Yglesias says:

I do think you can see an inkling of what Montesquieu is talking about in the fact that there’s a persistent impulse in the contemporary United States to say that if something is really important, we need to basically cut congress out of the loop. This probably happened first with the steady decline of congress’ war powers. But you also saw it in the way that the Treasury/Fed response to the financial crisis was shaped by an overwhelming desire to avoid the need to go back to congress, by the way that proposals for improving the operations of MedPAC all involve trying to circumvent congress, etc. Tellingly, the judgment that congress can’t handle these issues is a judgment largely shared by congress.

Congress is a schizophrenic body: imperiously protective of its prerogatives some of the time, but, as Matt says, surprisingly eager to avoid responsibility and simply punt to the executive or the courts at other times.  So on the one hand you get blue-ribbon panels, base-closing commissions, the CBO, and statutory language left deliberately vague so that the hard details are left to agency rulemakers and appellate judges, while on the other hand you get temper tantrums about flying on Air Force One, seemingly endless jurisdictional fights, and committee barons rewriting entire legislative programs out of personal pique.  Barack Obama seems to understand this tension better than most, and so far has shown a quite subtle sense of when he can use executive power to lead Congress and when he needs to step back and let the Capitol Hill grandees do their thing.  Here's Matt Bai on how Obama does it:

After winning the office with the same kind of outsider appeal as his predecessors, he has quietly but methodically assembled the most Congress-centric administration in modern history. Obama’s White House is run by Rahm Emanuel, a former House leader who was generally considered to be on a fast track to the speakership before he resigned to become chief of staff, and it is teeming with aides plucked from the senior ranks of both chambers. Obama seems to think that the dysfunction in Washington isn’t only about the heightened enmity between the parties; it’s also about the longstanding mistrust between the two branches of government that stare each other down from twin peaks on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

....During a recent conversation in his expansive West Wing office, Emanuel explained that he was well aware, as he and his fellow transition aides set out to fill the various roles in Obama’s White House last fall, that many of the aides they hired had pivotal friendships on the Hill that Obama could exploit. “That was a strategy,” Emanuel said. “We didn’t kind of parallel-park into it. We had a deep bench of people with a lot of relationships that run into both the House and Senate extensively. And so we wanted to use that to our maximum advantage.”

Read the rest to learn about Emanuel's remarkably calculated "tracking system" for doling out little favors to members of Congress — something that's probably a good idea, but also one that perhaps he should have kept to himself.  Ditto for the "spontaneous" drop-bys in the West Wing.  Successful executives should always cultivate at least a little bit of an aura of mystery, shouldn't they?