Tag Archives: political parties

Some Thoughts on the Politics of Missile Defense

Posted on by
Reply

I’ll leave aside the technical difficulties of a missile defense; these are just engineering problems, most of which have already been solved, with the remainder having solutions understood and under development.  I’ll only write about some of the political factors involved in our country defending itself.

I operate in this post from this First Principle: we formed the social compact that created the US explicitly to do two things: one is to protect individual liberty and facilitate an environment within which each of us also could satisfy our individual responsibilities.  The other is to protect our nation as a whole from outside disaster.  A corollary to this is the defense of our friends and allies, since their health, independence, and freedom contribute to our own and so facilitate our defense.

A missile defense system is intended to support that second imperative—national defense—and missile defense in Europe (and in eastern Asia when the alliances can be arranged) is a component of that.

There are a number of objections to our having an active, and forward, missile defense capability.

  • Russia is also critical of the plan, which it believes is really intended to counter its missiles.
  • While it might seem logical for the US to want to have a defense against Russian missiles, it’s not so simple.  A new missile defense system aimed at Russia could undermine the balance between the nuclear powers, prompting Moscow to add to its arsenal and build up its own defenses.
  • [P]lans have gained momentum in Europe with the signing of basing agreements in Poland, Romania and Turkey, as well as backing by NATO.  But Russia, while initially welcoming the plan, now strongly opposes it, especially the interceptors in the final stage.  Russia fears those interceptors could catch its intercontinental missiles launched at the US.

Aside from my (minor) meme that if the Russians don’t like it, it must be a good idea, whatever “it” might be, there are a number of reasons why these objections are silly.  Say, arguendo, that our anti-Iranian missile defense system does have the capability of countering Russian missiles.  This isn’t at all farfetched, since the end-stage of our missile defense system includes a capability against all ICBMs (Russia’s included).  The Russians don’t have any intention of attacking us or our allies.  Do they?  Since they…do not…their plaint that a defense system might interfere with their non-existent attack is a non sequitur.  Besides, if they do attack, our government has a duty to shoot down those missiles—as well as to respond with the total defeat of Russia and their war.

Deploying a functional missile defense system could push the Russians into adding “to its arsenal and build[ing] up its own defenses?”  They’re already doing that.  However, even in our current economic strait, this is an arms race Russia cannot sustain.  Russia’s economy is too dependent on oil and gas exports, and that economy already is failing (and not only due to falling oil and gas prices on the world market).  They don’t have the money.  Besides, this is a rerun of a play we’ve already seen under identical circumstances: the failure of the Soviet Union and its subsequent dissolution was contributed to heavily by their effort to sustain a missile and missile defense effort in the face of our earlier, Reaganite missile defense system development.

  • [R]elocating missile interceptors planned for Poland and possibly Romania to ships on the North Sea, could be diplomatically explosive.

If setting ourselves to defend ourselves and our friends and allies is diplomatically explosive, that’s a problem for those with plans to attack us, not for us.

  • It [Europe-based missile defense] would undermine prospects for further cuts in nuclear weapons—a priority for President Barack Obama—and could also hurt US-Russian cooperation on other issues of international importance.

We’ve reduced our nuclear capacity below military viability, already.  We should be rebuilding/modernizing, not engaging in further cuts.  Beyond that, this is another red herring.  Stipulating a need for further cuts anyway, a viable defense against nuclear (missile) attack can only facilitate a willingness to reduce or eliminate expensive, no longer viable weapons systems.  When facing an effective defensive system,  there are two major options: overwhelming it with massive numbers—an enormously expensive option—or improving penetration aids and developing offensive systems that bypass the defenses.  The latter option doesn’t require much of an investment in nuclear weapons.

Moreover, Russia isn’t cooperating with us on anything, so there’s nothing here to hurt.  See their active obstruction of our, and of international, efforts to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons development program.  See, also, their active support for, and consequent blocking of efforts to curb or replace, a Syrian régime that has butchered 60,000 of its people in the last 18 months.  After Afghanistan, their “cooperation” won’t be even be necessary there, and as it is, it’s an iffy cooperation: they’ve already tried to get Kirghizstan to stop letting us use their bases, and we had to greatly increase the rent to be able to continue.

OK, one technical item:

  • Romania [is] a poor location for an interceptor to protect the US.  …the Polish site would work only if the US developed capabilities to launch interceptors while an Iranian missile was in its short initial phase of powered flight.

However, Romania is well situated to defend Europe from Iran—or Russia, or China.

Additionally, intercepting missiles during boost already is under development, and this isn’t as difficult (relative to interception in any other phase of flight) as it might seem (only detection and reaction times are somewhat compressed).  Missiles still boosting are not yet at maximum velocity (they are still boosting), and they’ve not yet released their warhead(s), which greatly increases the interception problem, nor have they yet released their decoys and other countermeasures, which also greatly magnify the interception problem.

There are no coherent political reasons for not deploying an effective, and extensive, missile defense system around the world.

Progressives Need to Quit Complaining and Start Cooperating with the Republicans

Posted on by
Reply

Sally Kohn, a Fox News contributor, offered a response to President Barack Obama’s Tuesday State of the Union address.  Herewith, I offer my response to her and to Obama.

Tonight, the president of the United States of America and the leader of the party that won the Presidential election in 2012 while losing the Congressional and State House elections set forward a plan not only for the next four years but the next four decades of American decline.

It is a plan that purports to build our economy from the middle class out and not just from the top-down, while ignoring the poor and their fading opportunities for upward mobility.

It is a plan that purports to believe American workers can get the skills they need for the 21st century and American companies can compete in the global marketplace.

It is a plan that creates a false choice between helping our students and seniors and creating jobs for everyone else in between on the one hand and cuts to spending on the other.

It is a plan that ignores the lessons of American history and the traditions of our founding values of limited government and personal opportunity and choice and personal responsibility.  And it is a plan that has already failed multiple times in this President’s administration and in those of prior Presidents’—and a plan that the American do not support!

Nine in 10 Americans—and eight in 10 Republicans and independents—agree that we need to create a road to citizenship for the hardworking, aspiring Americans who are so vital to our economy and our communities.  Over 85% of voters believe we need to strengthen the manufacturing industry in America.  A majority of voters support improving our roads and schools and creating jobs primarily through private enterprise and that where taxes are necessary for public infrastructure improvement, these should be minimal and temporary.  A wide majority of gun owners—and NRA members!—support common sense violence prevention measures like keeping weapons out of the hands of felons and those convicted of domestic violence actions.  A growing majority of scientists note that human activity as a driving cause of climate change is not supported by the evidence.  More and more Americans are recognizing that singling out particular companies—even whole industries—as “winners” outside the results of free market competition is wasteful of taxpayers’ money.   And most Americans recognize that inequality in America is a major problem and that our government’s distortion of  our economy unfairly favors that government’s chosen.

Americans understand the tight linkages between our enormous deficits and exploding debt on the one hand and jobs and our economy’s health on the other.  They also recognize that the latter cannot be repaired until the former is fixed.

A strong majority of Americans recognize the straw man Obama put forward that equates reforming Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security so that they are made stronger and preserved for our children and grandchildren with cuts to these programs.  And they recognize the false choice that Obama made between reforming and strengthening our social safety net or cutting defense.

In other words, every single idea and initiative that President Obama outlined in his State of the Union Address is not only additional spending that our nation cannot afford and additional taxes that our citizens cannot afford—especially after the $600 billion tax increase passed with the fiscal cliff deal just concluded—but also directly contradicts the values and priorities of the majority of American voters: it’s the government as the solution rather than the strength and collective wisdom of Americans acting on their own priorities.  Those trying to argue otherwise are obviously intoxicated by the recycled air of their own ideological bubble.

 

In crafting his Republican response, Senator Marco Rubio (R, FL) noted that he and his fellow conservatives are the defenders of working people and immigrants.  And while Rubio repeatedly suggested Republicans agree with President Obama’s assessment of the problems we face as a nation, he repeatedly made clear Progressives remain opposed to any reasonable solutions.

The Democratic Party should be less worried about demagoguery and more worried about their substance.  No party that offers “jobs” bills built on failed—repeatedly!—Keynesian spend, borrow and tax…stimulus…, sends up legislation that purports to address violence direct against women but that only increases spending without addressing causes of violence, and offers an immigration act that is nothing more than amnesty for illegal behavior can claim to represent mainstream America, let alone a governing majority.

For crying out loud, Progressives in the chamber—including Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder—couldn’t even manage to support protecting voting right protection with simple things like voter ID requirements or and helping kids go to pre-school in effective programs.  Instead of continuing to oppose everything conservatives stand for, Progressives should explain to the American people why the only thing Democrats seem to consistently stand for—higher taxes, more spending, increased borrowing, and coddled favored entities—didn’t ward off our financial crisis or create jobs with  those increases and coddlings in place.

Of course the irony in all this is had Republicans eked out a presidential victory with even a fraction of the margin President Obama enjoyed, they would be reforming and strengthening our social safety net along with repealing and replacing Obamacare and enjoying a broad and mainstream mandate to do so with strong public opinion favoring that action.  Instead, the Progressives’ present course consists of doing nothing, allowing these programs to fail, and allowing Obamacare to increase the cost of health insurance—for those who still can afford any coverage at all.

So the fact that President Obama continues to advance the plan for the nation that he does is evidence of either a deep and unyielding disdain for free markets and the power of the collective action of individual Americans without government involvement or a fundamental failure to grasp reality.  Or maybe both.

In every sense imaginable, America is stagnating, if not in decline.  Our economy is not recovering and we are in retreat from world.  Our demographics are evolving; our politics must keep up.

President Obama articulated a plan that is rich in spending and taxes, which any sensible Republican true to his principles and to the mandates of his constituency over the last two elections must be highly inclined to prevent.  The American people chose their path and elected—and reelected—a Republican House, with losses in the Senate smaller than is normal for a Presidential reelection.  Democrats would be wise to stop with the blanket criticisms and start finding a way to work with Republicans on real economic plans and social safety net reform.

Odd, isn’t it, how completely the Progressive plaint applies to openly, proudly “my way, or else” Progressives?

Washington, DC

Posted on by
Reply

Washington[.] It’s a wonderful world, a place where every problem of life can be reduced to just two words.  Gun control.  Immigration reform.  Climate control.  The deficit, which of course can be solved in two words: a “balanced approach.”  Things so hard haven’t been so simple since Tinker Bell taught children to fly in “Peter Pan,” also with two words—pixie dust.

I was tempted to file this under my Humor key word.  But Daniel Henninger is as deadly serious as the disconnect this quote describes.

The Coming Elections and Electoral Struggle

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written a few times about how Republicans and Conservatives can attract voters to their party and cause, and how conservative principles will draw Americans of every stripe—that demographics do not threaten us, they aid us—if only we would talk to folks.  Those are principle arguments, though.

David Horowitz has a pamphlet out, “Go For the Heart: How Republicans Can Win,” that goes into far more detail.  Horowitz makes the principle arguments more cogently, and he has some things to say specifically about what to say.

Below are a couple of excerpts.

In the 2012 election, Democrats attacked Republicans as defenders of the wealthy who are not paying their “fair share.”  Republicans responded by deploring “class warfare rhetoric,” which does not answer the charge that Republicans are defending the wealthy and are uncaring.

“Caring” is not one among many issues in an election.  It is the central one. Since most policy issues are complicated, voters want to know above everything else just whom they can trust to sort out the complexities and represent them.  Before voters cast their ballots for policies or values they want a candidate or party that cares about them. …

… In the 2012 election, 70% of Asian Americans cast their ballots for Obama, even though Asians share Republican values, are family oriented, entrepreneurial, and traditional.  Asian Americans voted for Obama because they were persuaded that he cared for minorities—for them, and Romney didn’t.

The Republican response to the Democrats’ attack (that’s “class warfare rhetoric”) doesn’t work because it’s an abstraction.  “Class warfare rhetoric” has no human face; it’s about a political style.  Criticizing the wealthy for “not paying their fair share” is a direct attack on an easily identified target, which is why so many wealthy taxpayers—including entertainment figures who are normally Democrats—were outraged by the slander.  More importantly, the Democrats’ attack on the rich is an emotional appeal to those who are not rich.  It tells them that someone cares about them.

And

Elections are necessarily about “us” and “them.”  Democrats are as adept at framing “them,” as Republicans are not.  Democrats know how to incite envy and resentment, distrust and fear, and to direct these volatile emotions towards their Republican opponents.  Meanwhile, Republicans are busy complaining about the style of the Democrats’ argument.

I’m reminded of the mouse remonstrating with the owl.  The mouse thinks the owl’s ways are wrong; the owl thinks the mouse is lunch.

An answer:

The only way to confront the emotional campaign that Democrats wage in every election is through an equally emotional campaign that puts the aggressors on the defensive; that attacks them in the same moral language, identifying them as the bad guys, the oppressors of women, children, minorities and the middle class, that takes away from them the moral high ground which they now occupy.  You can’t confront an emotionally based moral argument with an intellectual analysis.

Horowitz goes on, then he summarizes.  Essentially, Republicans need to stop playing small ball, need to stop reacting (piecemeal as it is) to the…Democrats’…initiative: Republicans—and Conservatives, say I—need to seize the initiative, to go on the offensive:

  1. Put the aggressors on the defensive.
  2. Put their victims—women, minorities, the poor and working Americans—in front of every argument and every policy in the same way they [Democrats] do.
  3. Start the campaign now (because the Democrats already have).

For instance:

Throughout the Republican campaign, there was a lot of talk about “job creators.”  There were a lot of defenses of “job creators,” whom Democrats quickly redefined as rich people who don’t pay their fair share.  That’s the problem with playing a “prevent defense.”  Most Americans see job creators—employers—as rich people. … If you’re fighting for the underdogs, you have to go on the attack.

What about job destroyers?  What about Democrats who are killing the jobs of ordinary Americans—not just failing to create them…?
…
Why are Republicans so reluctant to name the victims of Democrat policies, particularly the victims among America’s minority communities and working classes?  Why don’t Republicans identify Democrats as a threat to those communities as Cuomo declared Republicans a threat to women?

Thus,

The bottom line is this: If Republicans want to persuade minorities they care about them, they have to stand up for them; they have to defend them; and they have to show them that Democrats are playing them for suckers, exploiting them, oppressing them, and profiting from their suffering.
…
The way for Republicans to show they care about minorities is to defend them against their oppressors and exploiters, which in every major inner city in America without exception are Democrats. Democrats run the welfare and public education systems; they have created the policies that ruin the lives of the recipients of their handouts. It’s time that Republicans started to hold Democrats to account; to put them on the defensive and take away the moral high ground, which they now occupy illegitimately. Government welfare is not just wasteful; it is destructive. The public school system in America’s inner cities is not merely ineffective; it is racist and criminal.

Horowitz’ pamphlet contains much more than just those items, though, and it’s well worth reading in its entirety.  One place it can be read is at Power Line.

There’s one more thing Conservatives–including Tea Partiers–should do, that Horowitz doesn’t mention.  We should put up candidates in Democratic primaries, forcing a primary contest if necessary, to make Democrat Senate and House incumbents actively defend their in-office records.  In public.

Budgets, Deficits, and Debt

Posted on by
Reply

In his press announcement last week, President Barack Obama made a lot of…interesting…comments.  Here are some, with some editorial remarks associated.

We’ve created more than 6 million jobs in the last 35 months.

However, if our economy were undergoing the recovery he promised his stimulus spending would produce, it would have produced 8 million jobs in that time, and we wouldn’t have fewer Americans working today than at the start of that spending.  If we were undergoing a normal recovery, we’d have even more jobs “saved or created” by now.

But we’ve also seen the effects political dysfunction can have on our economic progress.  The drawn out process for resolving the fiscal cliff hurt consumer confidence.  The threat of massive automatic cuts have already started to affect business decisions.

And

Deep, indiscriminate cuts to things like education and training, energy, and national security will cost us jobs and will slow down our recovery.

True enough.  But given that, he shouldn’t have demanded such indiscriminacy in his sequester demand of 2011.  Today, he needs to get out of the way and let budgets be passed that cut spending responsibly and in a carefully targeted manner.  More, he needs actively to help this process by requiring his Party-controlled Senate to put House-passed budgets (see below) up for vote and passage.

[W]e’ve been reminded that while it’s critical for us to cut wasteful spending, we can’t just cut our way to prosperity.

As someone said repeatedly in 2008, “Yes, we can.”

He also had this riff:

Democrats and Republicans have been able to come together and cut the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion….  [A] balanced approach [of tax increases and spending cuts] have achieved $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction.  That’s more than half way toward…$4 trillion in deficit reduction…required to stabilize our debt.

And

There’s no reason why we should keep [loopholes and deductions] at a time when we’re trying to cut down on our deficit.

And

If we’re serious about paying down the deficit, the savings we achieve from tax reform should be used to pay down the deficit.

Notice that: deficit, and not debt.  Obama cares not a fig for the magnitude of our national debt—100% of our GDP today, including all of our national debt, not just the publicly held portion—and its rapid growth.  “Reducing” our deficit leaves a continuously growing debt—not stabilization.

He also was careful to include his stock demand for higher taxes as a quid pro quo for even token spending reductions:

And I still believe that we can finish the job with a balanced mix of spending cuts and tax reform.

Obama’s speech adds up to an ignorance of how a free market economy actually works that’s breathtaking in its scope.  Or a cynical disdain for free markets and the associated individual freedoms.

The WSJ noted,

House Democrats have drafted a plan to replace all of the March 1 spending cuts with a plan that calls for both tax increases and spending cuts.  The proposal, drafted by rep. Chris Van Hollen (D, MD), calls for tax increases on the wealthy, reducing tax breaks for oil and gas companies and a reduction in farm subsidies.

Notice this, too: more tax increases, especially on the hated wealthy, and the Progressives’ standard singling out of evil oil and gas producers.  Van Hollen carefully is seeking to protect “green” energy companies (I hesitate to call them producers) from a similar reduction in tax breaks or subsidies for “green” energy companies.  The Progressives—not just Obama—are busy designating winners and losers in our economy.

There are, though, some in Congress (not on the left side, alas) who do understand.  House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R, MI), for instance:

Tax reform should be about making the code simpler and fairer for American families and helping employers create more jobs.  The president’s proposal is nothing more than another tax hike to pay for more Washington spending.

House Speaker John Boehner (R, OH) said before Obama’s speech,

Republicans have twice voted to replace these arbitrary cuts [Obama’s sequester] with common-sense cuts and reforms that protect our national defense.  We believe there is a better way to reduce the deficit, but Americans do not support sacrificing real spending cuts for more tax hikes.  The president’s sequester should be replaced with spending cuts and reforms that will start us on the path to balancing the budget in 10 years.

Because balancing the budget—actually eliminating the deficit, not just “paying it down”—is a critical first step to reducing—paying down—our debt.  After all, the CBO says that

continuing large deficits would push the level of government debt held by the public—a commonly used measure that excludes the US Treasury bonds held in Social Security and various trust funds—to 76.3% of GDP at the end of September, the highest level since 1950.

and

[Failure to fix will cause] the gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services produced in the US, to grow by just 1.4% this year, measured from the fourth quarter of 2012 to the fourth quarter of 2013.

That’s less than last year’s 1.9% growth.  And full employment won’t be reached before 2017, the CBO says.