What Would Be a Good Congress? How Would We Get There?

A number of posts and comments recently have touched on the questions that comprise my title so I thought it was time to tackle them head on. As my point of departure I’ll take a post from Ezra Klein’s WP Wonkblog. In the post Mr. Klein lists 14 reasons that the present Congress is awful:

  1. They’re not passing laws.
  2. They’re hideously unpopular.
  3. They’re incredibly polarized.
  4. They’ve set back the recovery.
  5. They lost our credit rating.
  6. They’re terrible even when they’re “super.”
  7. The House Republicans’ repeated attempted at repealing the PPACA.
  8. The budget shenanigans of Senate Democrats
  9. They can’t get appropriations done on time.
  10. The transportation-infrastructure fiasco.
  11. The FAA shutdown
  12. Not confirming Peter Diamond as a Fed governor
  13. Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein say so.
  14. There actually are problems they need to solve.

I’m late to this party because I rarely read Mr. Klein’s work. If you’re curious as to why, ask in comments and I’ll explain.

I agree with #3, #5, #8, #11, #12, and #14. Please read Ezra’s commentary on why the failure of the Senate leadership to propose or enact a budget is important. Essentially, they’re forcing the country to retain past priorities even in the face of changing circumstances.

Some are frivolous or, at least, make unwarranted assumptions. For example, would Ezra really prefer a Congress that repealed the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 (it provided for federal inspection of meat among many other things), the Social Security Act of 1935, the Social Security Reform Act of 1965 (Medicare), and the various laws authorizing the size of our armed forces so that our military was cut to zero? Such a Congress would be very, very busy but I doubt that Ezra would approve of it. Unless you believe that an activist government is ipso facto a better government, what Congress does is more important than how much it does. My ideal Congress would do very little because the laws had been structured in such a way as to render constant tweaking unnecessary. It wouldn’t even be in permanent session, as Congresses have been for decades.

Let me propose what I think are the necessary solutions to some of the problems with our present Congress (see some of my previous observations about critical success factors).

First, reform Congressional compensation. Toughen the outside earning rules. Abolish pensions paid to federal elected officials.

Second, introduce anti-gerrymandering provisions.

Third, prohibit the use of seniority in the Congress for just about anything. Committee chairmen should be chosen by lot annually.

Fourth, reform lobbying. Only actual constituents should be allowed to lobby Congressmen and even then only physically within their Congressional districts.

I’m under no illusions that any of those things are likely to be undertaken. Most would require constitutional amendments or a Constitutional Convention. Sitting members of Congress will never vote to curtail their own power and the delegates to a Constitutional Convention are likely to be largely composed of sitting members of Congress. The only way they’ll be implemented will be by the courts or insurrection. And, as Orval Faubus noted 50 years ago, the Feds have the bomb.

44 comments… add one
  • Andy Link

    I agree with your proposed solutions as well the likelihood of them coming to pass. I’d also like to limit the power of the national parties with respect to Congressional elections (no more funneling of national money to specific campaigns for example.)

  • Heck, I’d ban political advertising on television outright. Look at how the campaigns spend money. It would drastically change how campaigns are run, putting significantly more emphasis on things that we want a president to be able to do (manage and organize) and a lot less emphasis on things it doesn’t really matter whether they can do or not (campaign and look good on TV). I don’t think that’s either necessary or sufficient. Not a critical success factor.

  • Icepick Link

    Committee chairmen should be chosen by lot annually.

    You’ve lost your mind. Imagine Sheila Jackson Lee in charge of, well, ANYTHING. I’d point out some comparable Republican types through the years, but most of those folks ended up in charge of something anyway.

  • Icepick Link

    Okay, I’ll bite. Why do you rarely read Ezra Klein’s work?

  • Sending the little shits home and then locking the doors.

  • I’m under no illusions that any of those things are likely to be undertaken. Most would require constitutional amendments or a Constitutional Convention. Sitting members of Congress will never vote to curtail their own power and the delegates to a Constitutional Convention are likely to be largely composed of sitting members of Congress. The only way they’ll be implemented will be by the courts or insurrection. And, as Orval Faubus noted 50 years ago, the Feds have the bomb.

    So in other words our government is run by a bunch of power hunger pissants who could f*ck a rock fight. And we’ll give them more and more power because of guys like steve who think the government can be improved….nevermind that something that might actually work, your list Dave, is politically impossible.

    Must be nice to have such a child like view of politics like steve.

  • Ben Wolf Link

    “Sitting members of Congress will never vote to curtail their own power and the delegates to a Constitutional Convention are likely to be largely composed of sitting members of Congress. ”

    They wouldn’t be allowed to curtail their power even if they were of a mind to do so. After all the effort expended by private interests to stack the system in their favor, they’ll never accept an end to the government gravy train.

    “Abolish pensions paid to federal elected officials.”

    To the contrary: anyone serving in Congress should be required to live the rest of their lives solely of a federal pension and banned from earning any other form of income. Then we don’t get senators taking cush lobbying jobs paying multi-million dollar salaries in exchange for screwing over the country. It would also completely eliminate candidates running for office as a way to strike it rich. You want to “serve”, you make a real sacrifice to do so.

  • Okay, I’ll bite. Why do you rarely read Ezra Klein’s work?

    Two reasons that are probably interrelated. First, everything of his I’ve ever read, including the linked piece, looks like a writing sample for a job interview. Second, he doesn’t know anything. If he worked for about ten years as a beat reporter, he might be worth reading.

  • Dave: “First, everything of his I’ve ever read, including the linked piece, looks like a writing sample for a job interview. ”

    For a position in a Democratic administration, you mean?

  • For a position in a Democratic administration, you mean?

    It’s something he shares with Matt Yglesias and Josh Marshall. “Give us 500 words supporting the leadership’s position on X”.

  • PD Shaw Link

    I agree the number of bills enacted is a poor metric, but I would add another reason. If numbers are the metric, the first two years of Obama’s Presidency (111th Congress) were among the least productive in modern history: Here are the top three “least productive”:

    104th (1995-1996): 337 laws enacted
    107th (2001-2002): 384 laws enacted
    111th (2009-2010): 385 laws enacted

    I don’t think anybody would doubt the 111th Congress enacted substantial legislation related to the recession and healthcare reform — big stuff. However, unlike the 107th and 104th Congresses which are at least partly explained by divided government, the 111th is odd for enacting fewer laws, even small laws, without any such divisions. Maybe all of the individual items became stimulus.

    For comparison, over their entire Presidency:

    Regan: avg. 665 laws enacted per Congress
    Bush: avg. 638 laws enacted per Congress
    Clinton: avg. 455 laws enacted per Congress
    Bush II: avg. 463 laws enacted per Congress
    Obama: projected avg. 302 laws enacted per Congress

  • PD Shaw Link

    EK: “Plus, Congress doesn’t typically work in last-minute sprints; most bills are passed in the first half of a congressional session.”

    I think he’s dead wrong.

    If you scroll down to the line graphs, you’ll see that most bills are _introduced_ in the first half of a congressional session (50% of bills introduced in the first six months of two-year session). However, most bills are enacted in the last six months of a congressional session. Indeed, one quarter of all bills enacted in the last Congressional session were passed in the last month.

    (BTW/ This is how I projected the total number of laws enacted under Obama’s first term. 385 from the 111th; 174 so far from the 112th, plus an extra 25% expected during lame duck session or 44; (385 + 174 + 44) / 2 = 302))

  • Yet more evidence in support of my view that the 111th Congress was the worst in history. Which is going some.

  • PD Shaw Link

    Reid’s decision to hold a lot of legislation until the lame duck session in 2010 seems to be unique. To my eyes, the line graph suggests ten percent of legislation is typically enacted after the elections, as opposed to twenty-five percent during the last Congressional term.

    That generally suggests unpopular laws, but probably also means that the 111th Congress used all of its time and energy on healthcare and had nothing left until it realized that the Barbarians were at the gates and they had to pass what they could and they did. Anything approaching bi-partisan consensus would have been passed two years ago. The 112th had nothing left, as I expect the 113th will have little left, if they reinstate the incumbents.

  • steve Link

    “Must be nice to have such a child like view of politics like steve.”

    Ahh, I love you too. Your position that we should just roll over and die because there is nothing we can do is so much more mature.

    Now that we have that out of our system, governments are always made up of those who seek power. There are always problems with it. But it is better than all of the alternatives we have tried. We do have occasional shining periods or people (Washington, Cincinattus) and we also have eras of near total political corruption (our 1800s). Still, we eventually do the right thing, even if we try everything else first. Or at least close enough to make things work.

    I think the question we face is if this time is different. After WWII, politicians generally got along better, largely because they had so often served in the same war. There was a modicum of respect. Now, the media is a 24/7 barrage of information and misinformation. We have polling and marketing methods more sophisticated than ever before. Computing power makes it easier to target smaller groups with tailored stories, lies, that will appeal to them. We have, I believe, an unprecedented combination of concentrated wealth, and the ability of those wealthy to influence our messaging.

    I still think we can and will overcome these problems. I think some of this is just group hysteria. I think we can and will make govt different. It will be better by the estimation of some people and worse by others, but we will eventually address our big problems.

    Steve

  • steve Link

    As to the topic, I would do some of Dave’s suggestions. I do think the following is impossible.

    “My ideal Congress would do very little because the laws had been structured in such a way as to render constant tweaking unnecessary.”

    I would require incoming politicians, much like judges in France, to take courses, and pass them, on basic economics, history and public policy. The level of ignorance among many of our pols is atrocious.

    I like Ben’s idea about pensions better, but could compromise with an permanent ban on lobbying and communicating with Congress in any form, including aides, once one leaves office.

    No one under 40 or over 70 serves in Congress or the Senate. You need to be at least 5o to get on the Supreme Court with a term limit of 15 years.

    Steve

  • PD Shaw Link

    I support the point about anti-gerrymandering provisions. I agree with most of what steve just wrote (though not about “unprecedented combination of concentrated wealth, and the ability of those wealthy to influence our messaging,” because I think the messages are not terribly effective). I do think the political parties have become quite effective at being competitive each year. Placing themselves just over the 50% position has certain advantages. The Republicans will probably achieve this in the House and Obama will probably achieve this in the electoral college, why should they change, victory is just a good candidate away?

    More uncertainty on electoral outcomes would help. Advanced polling and marketing methods, in combination with choosing your electorate is not good.

  • Ahh, I love you too. Your position that we should just roll over and die because there is nothing we can do is so much more mature.

    Not roll over and die, but realize that trying to change things you can’t is stupid and foolish…no I take that back, its insane. Read what Dave wrote (maybe Dave thinks we should roll over and die too, huh?):

    The only way they’ll be implemented will be by the courts or insurrection. And, as Orval Faubus noted 50 years ago, the Feds have the bomb.

    And the courts aren’t much help as they’ve been granting more and more power to the government over time too (e.g. Kelo).

    So keep doing something (voting) and expecting different results.

    Now that we have that out of our system, governments are always made up of those who seek power. There are always problems with it. But it is better than all of the alternatives we have tried.

    Riiiightt….maybe you need a refresher course in some of our more disgusting examples of government we’ve seen in the world. Mao’s China, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Kim’s North Korea…..yeah. Always better than the alternative.

    Still, we eventually do the right thing, even if we try everything else first.

    Friesdersdorf would disagree with you regarding our policy in Pakistan.

    I think the question we face is if this time is different. After WWII, politicians generally got along better, largely because they had so often served in the same war. There was a modicum of respect. Now, the media is a 24/7 barrage of information and misinformation. We have polling and marketing methods more sophisticated than ever before.

    What a load of retrospective horse crap…talk about viewing the past with rose tinted glasses. Try reading a bit of Mencken, not just his quotes but some of his articles. It is rather amusing because you read his stuff and it sounds like what we hear today, just with all the historical names we know.

    Throughout his career, Mencken believed that the United States had no business interfering in the affairs of other countries and should never get involved in foreign wars. Compare this attitude to that of the contemporary editorial writer who blanches at an ethnic slur, but enthusiastically calls for bomb strikes on Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc.

    Hmmmm…sounds like some commentators here…..

    I still think we can and will overcome these problems. I think some of this is just group hysteria. I think we can and will make govt different.

    We’ve been trying for decades and it is still incredibly dysfunctional. Maybe even more so in some ways than in the past. We have set up systems that are virtually impossible to undo and/or change (e.g. Social Security and Medicare) even though they represent serious fiscal problems in the not too distant future.

  • steve Link

    Steve V.- It would really help if you had ever been in a country that has no functional government. Or a country with a monarchy. You decide that imperfection is adequate rationale for nihilism. The same awful governments you decry also have fed the hungry, developed the research for essentially all modern medicine, got us all vaccinated, got us clean water and sewers. We rejected monarchy and while, heaven knows, we have been way too involved in the affairs of other countries, wars are actually decreasing, as is violence here and around the world.

    “Riiiightt….maybe you need a refresher course in some of our more disgusting examples of government we’ve seen in the world. Mao’s China, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Kim’s North Korea…..yeah.”

    Didnt say all govt is good. And, what were those areas like before those governments? Largely ruled by roaming bandits? Constant war and warlords ruling the areas? Lots better, or just different? How would you compare China’s govt now compared with Mao’s? Russia’s? Is it better? Name me anyplace in the world that had anything like liberty before 1600.

    Note that this is not linear. Things get better and worse. The pendulum swings.

    “We’ve been trying for decades and it is still incredibly dysfunctional. Maybe even more so in some ways than in the past. We have set up systems that are virtually impossible to undo and/or change (e.g. Social Security and Medicare) even though they represent serious fiscal problems in the not too distant future.”

    And old people dont live in unheated shacks starving to death when the economy sucks, or they have no family. People can afford medical care so that they dont have to live in pain in their old age. As Heinlein said, “we have the ethics we can afford.” We can afford this. Maybe not as much as we thought. We might have to have more limited care, or maybe we means test SS, or maybe we copy someone else’s medical system. We will never get it perfectly correct. We will never agree upon what is best, but we will keep on working at it, and getting it right eventually. We got it on slavery, women’s rights, child labor laws and others. This too shall pass.

    “Friesdersdorf would disagree with you regarding our policy in Pakistan.”

    He is a young blogger. He doesnt have to decide anything and is responsible for very little. There is no good policy option fro Pakistan. Sometimes the bad guys have a say in what goes on. They hide in a place to which we have no access. The Pakistani govt sort of opposes them, but par to fthat branch wants to protect them. They have their own problems which, from their POV, trump ours. This leaves with bad and worse solutions. Hence, Friedersdorf can make absolutist statements in absolute safety. Dave’ solution of just monitoring who comes in the US means all of our citizens abroad are at risk. Sometimes, we will need a way to get to and kill the bad guys. Just the way it is.

    Steve

  • Icepick Link

    Friesdersdorf has legitimate complaints about the expansion of WOT tactics to American citizens. Targeted extra-judicial killing of citizens isn’t a good thing, and that is moving our government in the direction of those bad governments even you don’t like, steve. (Not to mention all the other stuff that was the END OF CIVILIZATION when Bush did it, but is a ho-hum now that Obama is doing a lot more of it.)

    And just saying that things have worked in the past is no guarantee that things will work in the future. I’ll go full Godwin and mention that the Blitzkrieg worked right up until Stalingrad.

    How long can we sustain deficits of over 7.5% of GDP? At some point there must be a reckoning. You are stating that the only permissible choices on that matter is between the guy that wants that number to be over 8% and the guy that wants that number to be 7%. Catastrophe or disaster, that’s all the choice that’s allowed?

  • Icepick Link
  • Icepick Link

    And maybe bombing, just bombing, is the way to get the bad guys. But maybe all it is doing is creating a bigger mess. But that’s okay, ’cause we can always just bomb the next country too! Since the Libya thing isn’t working out so great, we’ll just go ahead and bomb Mali next. Eventually we’ll be all the way to Cape Agulhas and the bad guys won’t have anywhere else to go!

    I’m not objecting to the violence, per se. I AM objecting to the violence if it doesn’t accomplish anything. And so far the big take-away from the Libyan adventure has been one dead ambassador, one cache of CIA files stolen, two countries de-stabilized and more prominence for Al Qaeda affiliated groups.

    (Maybe this is improvement. After all, Bush had to invade two countries and occupy them for years to get similar effects. Obama did it with one simple aerial campaign! Maybe the next President can fuck things up with a single Tomahawk missile. Progress!)

    So my choice on THAT front is the guy that doesn’t know what he’s doing now vs. the guy that wants to do for Iran what Obama did for Libya. At the very least we should send an envoy to Tehran first. He should be wearing a pin-striped suit and he should start the conversation with “You’ve … you’ve got a nice country here, Ayatollah. We wouldn’t want anything to happen to it.” I mean, if we’re going to go whole-hog stupid, let’s at least have some fun with it.

  • Ben Wolf Link

    @Icepick

    All that’s happening in terms of our deficits is the central bank puts money into the bond market, then borrows it back. It’s a gimmick to circumvent the rule preventing the Fed from sending cash to Treasury directly. The bond markets, Tiny Tim Geithner and Helicopter Ben all know this is how it works, they just don’t talk about it. That’s why bond yields remain low.

  • Icepick Link

    Ben, I understand all of that. But eventually there will be consequences from these actions. They just can’t spend money into existence indefinitely without having an impact. Otherwise they could (and should) eliminate all taxes and fund the government entirely with Magic Dollars.

  • Steve V.- It would really help if you had ever been in a country that has no functional government. Or a country with a monarchy. You decide that imperfection is adequate rationale for nihilism.

    Apparently you can’t read. I’m not advocating nihilism. I mean if we are going to go for pie in the sky bullshit, why not go whole hog?

    The same awful governments you decry also have fed the hungry, developed the research for essentially all modern medicine, got us all vaccinated, got us clean water and sewers.

    But did they get the trains to run on time?

    Didnt say all govt is good. And, what were those areas like before those governments? Largely ruled by roaming bandits? Constant war and warlords ruling the areas? Lots better, or just different?

    Are you dimwitted? I’m not advocating warlordism. Why is it dimwits like you always assume somebody like me is advocating warlordism?

    And old people dont live in unheated shacks starving to death when the economy sucks, or they have no family.

    No, they haven’t for decades, but the problem is time is running out. We can’t keep going on the path we’ve set up. It is not sustainable and the government you think can be made to work has proven extremely reluctant to do anything to try and fix it.

    As Heinlein said, “we have the ethics we can afford.” We can afford this.

    Not really. Sure a family could afford to max out its one credit card…maybe. But when it gets another and runs that up to the max, then another…and then another? Unless their income is growing appreciably faster than they are acquiring debt you are going to run into a problem.

    We might have to have more limited care….

    Hahahahaha….good one. I suggested that once at OTB. The Drool Cup Brigade of course thought I was some kind of monster. Yeah, next politically stupid idea….?

    We will never agree upon what is best, but we will keep on working at it, and getting it right eventually.

    In the long run we are all dead. :p Sorry couldn’t resist. Funny though how when convenient guys like you will run to long run arguments.

    My problem with the above, is that it really is an argument you’d make with markets. Now you might think, wait, but you like markets. Government does not work with the same parameters as a market. Governments don’t face the same set of constraints a firm does or a consumer. A government does not have to alter its behavior when a policy fails. A government can, and often does double down on failure whereas a firm or consumers would suffer serious setbacks that prevent such actions.

    Here is what makes a government fundamentally different that a firm or a consumer:

    The government can legally use force and violence against its own citizens in broad terms. Firms and consumers cannot, save in very limited circumstances.

    That is a huge difference. It basically gives the government access to far more resources…in fact the government could access all the resources of every consumer and firm in the economy, at least theoretically.

    TL;DR is that the self correcting mechanism of the government is alot less strong than in markets…and we all know that markets have issues, so it stands to reason one should be even more skeptical of government.

    He is a young blogger. He doesnt have to decide anything and is responsible for very little.

    How very condescending and dismissive of you. I should note that you are also in favor of killing people in foreign countries…often times women in children.

    And funnily enough here you dismiss the long term. What is the long term consequences of us sending drones around the world blowing up people…sometimes bad people, sometimes innocents. If I was to see my kid blown up by a drone and I was in no way connected to terrorism, and he was in no way connected to terrorism…I might decide that having Americans getting killed ain’t so bad. Might even consider being a bit proactive about it too. Maybe…maybe we might get somewhere if we dial it back. Engaging in these kinds of foreign military adventures in the past have resulted in some pretty devastating blow back.

    Sometimes, we will need a way to get to and kill the bad guys. Just the way it is.

    Yeah, but it isn’t just the bad guys that are getting killed. If Friedersdorf is even half right we have become terrorists ourselves.

    And so far the big take-away from the Libyan adventure has been one dead ambassador….

    And two security team members and another foreign service IT specialist as well. To be quite honest, I don’t what the Ambassador ever did for me, but the IT guy…I’ll miss him.

    I’m not objecting to the violence, per se.

    Neither do I. It has its place.

    I AM objecting to the violence if it doesn’t accomplish anything.

    Exactly. Is our drone attacks accomplishing anything or is it making a bigger mess. Our previous adventures in the 1980s in that part of the world made a huge fucking mess of epic proportions. But that hasn’t seemed to phase anyone.

  • Don’t worry, eventually we’ll get it right.

    Question B: During the next two decades some U.S. states, unless they substantially increase taxes, cut spending, and/or change public-sector pensions, will require a combination of severe austerity budgets, a federal bailout, and/or default.

  • unless they substantially increase taxes, cut spending, and/or change public-sector pensions

    There may not be that many alternatives. When you raise taxes 66% and don’t realize a 66% increase in tax revenues, as happened here in Illinois, it strongly suggests that raising taxes is a solution with limits.

  • steve Link

    “Are you dimwitted? I’m not advocating warlordism. Why is it dimwits like you always assume somebody like me is advocating warlordism?”

    Because you say nothing can be done to make things better, throw your hands up in the air and wail “woe is us”?

    “No, they haven’t for decades, but the problem is time is running out. We can’t keep going on the path we’ve set up. It is not sustainable and the government you think can be made to work has proven extremely reluctant to do anything to try and fix it.”

    So if they dont fix it on your timetable, it cant be fixed?

    “Hahahahaha….good one. I suggested that once at OTB. The Drool Cup Brigade of course thought I was some kind of monster. Yeah, next politically stupid idea….?”

    Cant say I really care what they think. I think that any economically and politically feasible solution will result in some combination of a bit higher revenues and some curtailment of services in some fashion.

    “Not really. Sure a family could afford to max out its one credit card…maybe. But when it gets another and runs that up to the max, then another…and then another? Unless their income is growing appreciably faster than they are acquiring debt you are going to run into a problem.”

    Our big debt run up has been in the private sector. Of course, we must not touch that, the markets will figure it out.

    “Here is what makes a government fundamentally different that a firm or a consumer:

    The government can legally use force and violence against its own citizens in broad terms. Firms and consumers cannot, save in very limited circumstances.

    That is a huge difference. It basically gives the government access to far more resources…in fact the government could access all the resources of every consumer and firm in the economy, at least theoretically.”

    1) Duh!

    2) Theoretically. So much hangs on that word doesn’t it? In reality, based upon our over 200 hundred years experiment with democracy and capitalism, it does not happen. Why would a majority of people vote to have the govt control everything? Now, maybe democracies always eventually fall apart, and we just haven’t been doing it long enough to find out. Maybe Marx’s critique of capitalism is correct, and we are coming apart. I dont think so. People thought the sky was falling with the Civil war, the Long Depression, WWI, WWII, the Cold War and the Vietnam War. I still have a WIN button from when inflation was going to doom us. Eventually we go under methinks, like every other nation state, but I just dont see things being that dire now. Increase revenue a bit, reduce medical spending to just a tad over the inflation rate, cut defense spending a bit. We are good to go, for now.

    In the long run, it is the bankers who need to be controlled. Remember what Lord Acton said.

    “And funnily enough here you dismiss the long term. What is the long term consequences of us sending drones around the world blowing up people…sometimes bad people, sometimes innocents. ”

    Oddly enough, I have made the same argument, having read Kilcullen’s book, Galula’s and several others. In a COIN operation where we are occupying territory, I think it is a problematic tactic. In a CT operation, what we are doing now in Pakistan, it can be a problem, but one you cant duck. Sometimes you will have to kill people. The blowback and bad will you might generate is part of the decision making process. (I suspect Conor may have just recently discovered that the conservatives he has supported are responsible for the deaths of many more people than the drones have ever killed in places like Iraq. Maybe he is just feeling guilty. Or, to be a bit more serious, the most recent report on drones says that we dont really know how many we have killed. The numbers are inflated and deflated by many groups for their own reasons. I would also suggest reading about the Tokyo fire bombings.)

    “Exactly. Is our drone attacks accomplishing anything or is it making a bigger mess. Our previous adventures in the 1980s in that part of the world made a huge fucking mess of epic proportions. But that hasn’t seemed to phase anyone.”

    The drones pale compared with Iraq. Not even in the same league. To be clear, I think a reassessment is probably long overdue. I think Andy (?) probably said it well when he noted that if we are using them to kill common Taliban, it is being overused. We need to get out of the WOT mode and into policing/CT mode.

    Steve

  • Icepick Link

    Are you dimwitted?

    You should have written “Are you daft, man?” It should, of course, be written with a Scottish accent.

  • Andy Link

    TL;DR is that the self correcting mechanism of the government is alot less strong than in markets…and we all know that markets have issues, so it stands to reason one should be even more skeptical of government.

    I see it a bit differently. Government and markets have different roles and I don’t think one can directly compare the “self correcting features” of both since they are different animals. Government can certainly self-correct, but it does so for different reasons than a market does. IMO problems begin when one attempts to accomplish the functions of the other. At the end of the day, though, government and markets are dependent on each other and I think there is limited utility in framing the two as an either/or proposition.

    Engaging in these kinds of foreign military adventures in the past have resulted in some pretty devastating blow back.

    Actually, the blow back from foreign military adventures is pretty rare, and your example of Afghanistan in the 1980’s isn’t really a “foreign military adventure” for the US (it was for the Soviets of course!).

    Exactly. Is our drone attacks accomplishing anything or is it making a bigger mess. Our previous adventures in the 1980s in that part of the world made a huge fucking mess of epic proportions. But that hasn’t seemed to phase anyone.

    That’s a pretty USA-centric view. Hard to say if it’s making a bigger mess or not. And bigger as compared to what? 9/11, the East Africa Embassy bombings and the Cole all happened before drones. They occurred at a time when were were not taking a military approach to terrorism.

    As for our previous “adventures” in the 1980’s, if you’re looking for a “huge fucking mess of epic proportions” then I would suggest you consider the Soviets who killed approximately 10% of Afghanistan’s 1979 population – a literal decimation – with another 10-20% maimed (and thanks to several million Soviet landmines left behind, the maimings continued for another decade). The war turned another 1/3 of the population into refugees, destroyed most of the infrastructure and, more importantly, spelled the end of the relatively stable political system of tribal alliances that had lasted almost a century. Over 1/2 the population dead, maimed or force to flee their homes – that’s pretty f’ing epic.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Icepick

    I’m not objecting to the violence, per se. I AM objecting to the violence if it doesn’t accomplish anything. …

    I only care if it is done properly. Senseless violence often has a purpose. If done correctly, it will convey a willingness to use violence even if it is inappropriate. This is terrorizing your enemy, but it is an old tactic.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Steve Verdon

    I agree that the government ultimately controls the use of violence, but it is rarely used. The government uses soft power almost always. Through zoning laws, tax laws, searches, etc., the government is able to accomplish more than through violence.

    I am more worried about the bureaucrats than I am about the jack-booted thugs. Taking everything you own is more effective than jailing you. The Kelo ruling established that the government can take your property for economic reasons. Unfortunately, too few care.

  • Through zoning laws, tax laws, searches, etc., the government is able to accomplish more than through violence.

    You might want to bone up on what “hard power” and “soft power” are. As used by the man who coined the terms, Joseph Nye, hard power means military force, trade sanctions, or other forms of legal or economic pressure. Hard power is the use of “push” forces.

    Soft power on the other hand means the attractiveness of the things that you want others to do or your system. “Pull” forces.

    All of the things you gave in your example are uses of hard power.

  • TastyBits Link

    @steve

    And old people don’t live in unheated shacks starving to death when the economy sucks, or they have no family. …

    Really? When has this happened?

    Nobody starves to death in the US without trying (or against their will). People starving to death is not a pretty sight – diseases, flies, dying babies, the living dead. Since they have no money or strength, the dead bodies get buried in shallow graves, and the stench is not pleasant.

    Being hungry is not the same starving.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Dave Schuler

    Hard power as a nightstick used to beat you. Soft power as a pillow to smother you. A nightstick was used at Ruby Ridge, and a pillow was used with Kelo.

  • Icepick Link

    Senseless violence often has a purpose. If done correctly, it will convey a willingness to use violence even if it is inappropriate. This is terrorizing your enemy, but it is an old tactic.

    Bingo.

  • Hard power as a nightstick used to beat you. Soft power as a pillow to smother you. A nightstick was used at Ruby Ridge, and a pillow was used with Kelo.

    The police power, which is the power that enforces the law, is hard power. You’re misusing the term “soft power”.

  • Andy Link

    Tasty,

    Senseless violence “done correctly” is an oxymoron.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Dave Schuler

    I understand that the government holds the absolute use of violence, but in the US, the constitution limits that use. In addition, the government allows individuals use of violence, but this use is restricted. The government can use violence to enforce violations of zoning laws, tax laws, searches, etc., but violence is rarely used to enforce civil laws.

    Few Americans will ever feel the government’s boot on their neck. Most people will feel the weight of court rulings, tax liens, etc. Many Libertarian arguments get derailed by the “government’s monopoly of power” citation. I get it, but it is not a good way to persuade somebody.

  • steve Link

    “Senseless violence “done correctly” is an oxymoron.”

    Amen. Extreme violence has been used to terrorize people into submission. The Romans were quite good at it. I dont think it was often senseless. I would also question the ability to effectively terrorize the Afghans. The Russians made a serious effort towards that end, with minimal success. The Taliban in Pakistan are pretty much just Afghanistan East.

    Steve

  • Icepick Link

    The Russians made a serious effort towards that end, with minimal success.

    The Soviets were also trying to occupy Afghanistan and turn it into a client state. (Hmm, that sounds familiar….) They (and we) might have had different results if they had had less intrusive intentions.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Andy

    Senseless violence “done correctly” is an oxymoron.

    Done correctly would be purposefully random violence with no apparent reason. The purpose would be to establish a willingness to use violence. Violence can be substituted for something else, and the effect is the same.

    I suspect that much of what Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says is intended to imply “senseless violence”.

  • TastyBits Link

    @steve

    … Extreme violence has been used to terrorize people into submission. …

    Extreme violence has the potential to “backfire”, and the purpose is not submission. It is actually much more difficult to do correctly than most people imagine. In school, the teacher “makes an example” to establish a willingness to discipline.

    … The Romans were quite good at it. …

    Usually, the Romans during the Empire were mostly concerned with land, taxes, trade, and natural resources. They would “make an example” of troublemakers and a few random people. Some of the Governors were sadistic, and this would change with the different Emperors.

    … I would also question the ability to effectively terrorize the Afghans. …

    I am not sure what the goal is in Afghanistan, but unless it is chaos, it ain’t being accomplished. If the goal were to keep terrorists out, the local strong man could be paid to do it, and every so often, bomb something, kill or capture someone, or burn a poppy field.

    Otherwise, I agree with @Icepick.

    … The Taliban in Pakistan are pretty much just Afghanistan East.

    I would have kept Musharraf in charge. He had control of the nukes and as much of the country as possible.

    The present drone campaign has turned Pakistanis against the US, and the hatred is going to be paid back in the future. As a warmonger’s warmonger, I am fully supportive of the President killing terrorists and as many innocent bystanders as possible, but inspiring people to hate you is not a good policy. People who hate you blow up your buildings. People who fear you burn your flag.

  • steve Link

    @TB- The US has been unpopular in Pakistan for very many years. Exum’s old blog buddy wrote from there many times. They love conspiracy theories and they like to blame the US. As most of these reports show, most of the country is not very aware of the drone attacks. It is an issue selectively used by most groups there for their own purposes.

    Steve

Leave a Comment