O'Same

I remember why I voted for Barack Obama. It was partly because I loved the idea of having a smart, well-educated person in the office of President, making decisions based on a rational appraisal of effectiveness rather than ideology, and with a thorough understanding of Constitutional limits. It was partly because I was truly frightened by that pathological liar and Christian Dominionist that McCain chose for a running mate. But it was mostly because I felt we needed a significant change from the failed policies of the previous Administration, and it seemed that "McSame" would not provide that.

Let's look at what he's actually done, though. Sure, the Republicans have attacked his every move, but that's purely reflex with no apparent cerebral involvement, so we should probably look a little closer. Shall we start with the economy?

• Continued the TARP bailouts. I'm not saying that was the wrong thing to do - a collapse of our banking system would have been a bad thing, though I do feel that direct assistance to those facing foreclosure would have been more effective for both the homeowners and the banks, and possibly cheaper. But as that was a Bush-initiated program, there's certainly not much change there.
• Massive stimulus package. New program, yes. Clearly, though, TARP was a stopgap to save the banks, and was never expected to totally solve the economic woes. No doubt McCain would have come up with a different focus, and different marketing tactics for his plan - but from what I've seen of the consensus from economists, pumping massive amounts of borrowed government cash into the economy was the only realistic answer to the short-term crisis. (It causes long-term harm, yes - but if the country is on the verge of economic collapse, long-term is not really the issue.)
• Transparency of the process. This is something Obama promised for TARP and the stimulus. I really haven't heard much about it since he took office, though. Anyone know if he actually provided such a change? Do we really know where that money is going?
• Nationalizing GM. Clearly not something the Republicans would have done, right? But I seem to recall a major public outcry about the lack of control we kept over AIG and the other financial institutions, who took the TARP money and used it to pay their executives, instead of actually, you know, benefiting the economy. When it came time to bail out the car companies, McCain would have been under heavy pressure to put some strings on that money, to maintain some control over how it was used. I believe that, again, it would have been spun a little differently. That would have been easy - the Republicans wouldn't have complained since it was their own plan, and decrying Socialism really isn't a normal Democratic position. But regardless of the change in spin, the effects would have been similar.
• Health care. Not that Obama has yet accomplished anything there, but he's trying. Here's a spot that I think I see a little difference...but mostly in timing. Health care reform has been put off for a long time, and public opinion was clearly pushing for action. McCain might have been able to delay working on that, but I think the economic problems - especially massive layoffs with the attendant loss of insurance - would have forced him to do something about it sooner or later.

So, not much change there. Okay, what about the War on Terror?

• Closing Gitmo. On his first day in office, if I recall. Yeah, McCain wouldn't have done that. But it turns out that's more of a pretty symbol than anything substantive. It's been six months of the promised year, and there's still 245 prisoners there. And now, it seems, Obama's own Justice Department is arguing that these prisoners can still be detained even if they are acquitted of any crimes.
  
• Iraq. It seems we are finally, slowly, getting out. I believe, however, that the timetable was set before the election - admittedly, partly because of pressure from Obama and the rest of the Democrats. I suppose President McCain might have changed it, slowed it down, but I don't believe public opinion would have encouraged him in that. While I'm glad Obama is moving the right way here, I still can't count it as a change.
• Afghanistan. Honestly, I haven't been following the news there like I probably should. I counted both Iraq and Afghanistan as long-term failures years ago - we may or may not be able to maintain peace there for as long as we stay, but it will fall apart when we leave. So I lost interest in the details. Anyone want to fill this one in for me?

Okay, how about civil liberties vs. executive privilege? This is where I was really hoping to see something significant.

• State Secrets Privilege - Bush's Department of Justice asserted that if the Executive Branch declares material related to a court case classified, then the court must dismiss the case entirely. This in effect removes any check on executive authority from the Judicial Branch - the courts are not even allowed to hear evidence of government wrongdoing, let alone rule against it. Obama's DoJ has repeatedly asserted the same privilege. In press conferences, he speaks of more limited means to protect classified information in court case - but when his spokesmen are actually in court, he continues to claim an expansion of executive authority that would completely nullify the checks and balances against him.
• Protection against false imprisonment - we've already discussed that one. Obama is willing to continue to hold a person found innocent of any crime, as long as he can claim a national security reason.
• Fourth Amendment protections - Obama reversed himself on the question of immunity for telecom companies for warrantless wiretapping even before the election. At best, he has promised not to use the authority to wiretap without a warrant - but he doesn't seem to agree that the authority doesn't exist.
• Torture - Bush, of course, enabled and approved it through the use of poorly reasoned legal justifications and renaming it "enhanced interrogation." Obama railed against it in the campaign, but since then he has threatened our closest ally, the United Kingdom, with the reduction of intelligence-sharing if they revealed memos detailing torture. He has retained and even promoted some of the Bush Administration officials that oversaw the torture and rendition programs. And he has called for investigation and prosecution of torture committed by other nations, while steadfastly refusing to take such actions here in our own. The net result is basically the same as his position on wiretaps - he's promising not to use the authority, but he is leaving the door open through a lack of legal action and precedent to change his mind, or for future Presidents to revisit it.

Very disappointing. How about other social issues?

• Supreme Court nominee - the more rabid conservatives have attacked Judge Sotomayor on her empathy, her race, and her gender, but frankly they were threatening to filibuster even before Obama picked her. Again, their objections are reflexes with no connection to objective reality. In the real world, Sotomayor appears to be a very moderate selection, with a tendency to support authoritarian claims of power from police, prosecutors, and presumably the President in his attempts to retain the excessive authority Bush claimed for himself. At best, we can hope that the Sotomayor pick might be better than an right-wing extremist the McCain might have (or Palin certainly would have) chosen.
  
• Gay marriage - Obama's DoJ has argued against overturning the clearly unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act. Many of the states have been moving forward on this, but apart from this one negative move, Obama hasn't done any more than McCain would have.
• Gays in the military - Obama hasn't done anything towards removing Don't Ask, Don't Tell - exactly as we might have expected from McCain.
• Medical Marijuana - Obama has made statements that his DoJ would stop harassing people who grow, distribute, or use marijuana in accordance with state law, even if that conflicts with Federal law. But the DoJ was still raiding medical marijuana dispensaries as late as March, and the Attorney General confirmed that the arrest and conviction of Charlie Lynch for operating such a dispensary is completely in accordance with the new Administration's policies.
• Legal Representation - Obama's DoJ even encouraged the Supreme Court to overturn the long-standing principle that a suspect should not be questioned by police without his attorney present, once he's asked for one.
  

Conservatives have spent the last several months crying about how that change we asked for is going to destroy the country. Maybe they're right. Before I can believe them, though, I think I'd have to see some of that change...and so far, I haven't.

Hobson's Choice

The recent attacks in Great Britain got me thinking about terrorism, specifically foreign terrorism. Here’s what I’m coming up with – I’d really like someone to point out my errors.

Assumption #1: In our society, constructing an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) with sufficient power to kill or maim large numbers of people is a trivially simple exercise.

Analysis: High-powered explosives are somewhat controlled. However, ammonia-based explosives are simple to make from easily-available materials. Gasoline, propane, and other fuels can also be used to develop explosive devices. Ample material to provide fragmentation effects can be found in any hardware store or junkyard. While mass purchases of some of these materials (e.g. ammonia-based fertilizer) might be controlled, a series of smaller purchases over a longer period of time could provide raw materials for an IED of any desired size.

Assumption #2: Emplacing such an IED is also a trivially simple exercise.

Analysis: So-called “important” targets are increasingly protected. Government buildings, large office buildings, airports, power plants, chemical facilities…the list of protected sites is seemingly endless, but the key word is “seemingly.” Schools, shopping centers, fairgrounds, parade routes, smaller office buildings, restaurants, bars – even just an area on the road that frequently suffers traffic jams – are all possible targets for a terrorist attack. There’s just no way to protect all of them.

Assumption #3: Foreign terrorists bear sufficient enmity against the United States that any form of engagement between our country and theirs is sufficient to encourage terrorist acts against us.

Analysis: This one is purely my opinion – but I think it is nonetheless correct. Our support for Israel, our financial and political involvement with several Middle Eastern countries, and the immense popularity and availability of our entertainment media all provide ample sources of outrage for Islamic fundamentalists. While other sources of foreign terrorism in the U.S. may exist, they are so much rarer that I don’t see a need to analyze the roots of their hatred for us.

Conclusion: Foreign terrorists will continue to attack our nation and our allies as long as any significant contact remains between our culture and theirs. While some attacks may be stopped through luck, good police work, or incompetent terrorists, others will inevitably succeed. This may someday be stopped by the foreign culture adopting more democratic and liberal principles – but that will not be soon, and is unlikely to come from our direct intervention.

Responses:

1. Status Quo. We can accept some level of innocent casualties as a cost of doing business in the regions from which the terrorists come. While our intelligence and police forces will improve their capabilities, so will the terrorists. As long as our basic political structure is unchanged, our open society is vulnerable to attack. The question becomes – how many dead citizens are a fair price for supporting Israel, exporting TV shows, and importing oil? And how long are we willing to pay that price while we wait for them to turn away from violence?

2. Disengage. That entails cutting down our crude oil usage by about two thirds, to live off our own domestic production – if we continue to import any oil at all, the fungible nature of the product means that some of it will come from the Middle East. It means cutting off Israel from our support – and thus likely leading to the use of one or more nuclear bombs when Israel is forced to defend itself without the threat of allies coming to assist. It means cutting off all immigration, student visas, and even tourist visas from the area, lest some of them become contaminated by our culture and then return to spread that contamination. I suppose we can ask the countries involved to handle censoring TV, books, and movies, and provide our assistance in censoring the Internet. Politically and economically, I think this one is beyond any realistic expectation.

3. Retaliate. Announce to the world that any country or culture that attacks us with acts of terrorism will in turn be attacked. Violently, and without too much regard for the nature of the targets. I’m pretty sure that we could strike fear into the heart of the most rabid terrorist – if a ten to one casualty ratio isn’t enough, how about a hundred to one? Thousand to one? An air raid over Mecca and Medina? We have the physical means to do whatever it takes to get their attention. Only political will and morality prevent it.

Of course, such violence breeds anger and resentment, which breeds more terrorists. That could end up as a genocidal war.

Is there a flaw in my assumptions? My conclusion? A fourth response? I don’t like any of the answers I’ve come up with – I could really use another one. Anyone?