politics

So I'm back from my week off.  Did I miss anything?  Let's see: 

1. Coup in central American country;
2. North Korea acts provocatively
3. Iran's regime ramps up its paranoia
4. Republican governors gone wild
5. The Washington Post commits an odd blunder. 

In other words, a typical week in 2009. 

Actually, that's not fair to Central America -- thankfully, coups there are much rarer than they used to be. 

It turns out that Zhao Ziyang, China's Communist Party chief during the Tianamenn massacre (and who was outsted for opposing a violent crackdown), secretly recorded a memoir of his time in power.

This is very exciting -- as the New York Times' Erik Eckholm observes, "In a sharp break with Chinese Communist tradition, even for dismissed officials, Mr. Zhao provides personal details of tense party sessions."  In other words, there's some good dirt here for China scholars. 

One little thing nags me about Eckholm's story, however: 

One striking claim in the memoir, scholars who have seen it said, is that Mr. Zhao presses the case that he pioneered the opening of China’s economy to the world and the initial introduction of market forces in agriculture and industry — steps he says were fiercely opposed by hard-liners and not always fully supported by Mr. Deng, the paramount leader, who is often credited with championing market-oriented policies....

Roderick MacFarquhar, a China expert at Harvard who wrote an introduction to the new book, said it had given him a new appreciation of Mr. Zhao’s central role in devising economic strategies, including some, like promoting foreign trade in coastal provinces, that he had urged on Mr. Deng, rather than the other way around.

“Deng Xiaoping was the godfather, but on a day-to-day basis Zhao was the actual architect of the reforms,” Mr. MacFarquhar said in an interview.

I'm not a China expert, but I am a seasoned reader of political memoirs.  And, in my experience, memoirists do tend to paint a picture of their deeds that magnifies their accomplishments at the expense of others.  I see no reason why Chinese political memoirs should be any different from American political memoirs on this score.  So I'm going to take Zhao's claims on this point with juuuust a small grain of salt.

[Hmmm.... note to future version of you -- compile top ten list of best political memoirs--ed.  So noted.]   

Arlen Specter is now a Democrat, which means that:

• Minnesota election law lawyers are going to get to triple their fees overnight; and
• We're going to get to see how the GOP handles defectors, in much the same way that Democrats had to deal with people like Richard Shelby back in 1994. 

So far, I'm not encouraged.  Here's GOP chair Michael Steele's written statement: 

Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not. Let's be honest -- Sen. Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.

This is pretty incoherent.  If Specter really did have a left-wing voting record, then why wouldn't he leave based on principle as well as personal interest? 

Second, if GOP leaders keeps talking like this, then Democrats won't have to wait for Al Franken to be seated to have a filibuster-proof majority. 

Politico's Martin Kady II and John Bresnehan report on Senator Olympia Snowe's reaction: 

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) a fellow moderate, didn't seem surprised. On the national level, she says, "you haven't certainly heard warm encouraging words of how they [Republicans] view moderates. Either you are with us or against us."

“Ultimately we're heading to having the smallest political tent in history they way things are unfolding,” Snowe said. “We should have learned from the 2006 election, which I was a party of. I happened to win with 74% of the vote in a blue collar state but no one asked me how did you do it. Seems to me that would have been the first question that would have come from the Republican party to find out so we could avoid further losses."

There might be more conservatives than liberals in the United States, but there's an awful lot more centrists than conservatives.  Playing to the rump might provide some ideological comfort, but it's also a sure-fire method to becoming the minority party for the next generation.  If the GOP keeps this up, Snowe's prediction will likely come true. 

Ramesh Ponnuru gets this:  "The Democrats are growing by appealing to formerly Republican moderates while the GOP is being reduced to a conservative rump."

One odd foreign policy effect out of all of this:  Obama's bargaining position on some issues with the rest of the world might actually be weakened.  Domestic constraints can sometimes function as a source of bargaining strength on the international stage.  At this point, however, the domestic constraints Obama faces seem ever smaller, even if things haven't changed all that much in practice. 

Let's label this Drezner's Political Analogy of 2009: 

AIG bonuses are to the left side of the political spectrum as congressional earmarks are to the right side of the spectrum.

Why?  Well, these two things have a surprising amount in common. 

• Neither of them poll terribly well;
• Both of them reflect waste, inattention, and borderline corruption in handling the government's money;
• Both issues force the other party to say something to indicate that they don't support these things;
• Earmarks represent a very small percentage of the omnibus spending bill; bonuses represent a very small percentage of the AIG bailout;
• So, given the current economic situation, both of them are huge honking distractons and do not matter a whole hell of a lot. 

Consider this from today's Times write-up: 

New York’s efforts against A.I.G. have overshadowed those of the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, the official who is responsible for the financial bailout, along with the Federal Reserve. The White House and Treasury have been besieged by questions about why Mr. Geithner did not know sooner about the bonus payments due this month, and whether he could have done more to stop them, prompting White House officials to assert President Obama's continued confidence in Mr. Geithner.

If I was Mr. Geithner's press spokesman, here is what I would say in response to more media inquiries about this:

Mr. Geithner profusely apologizes for not devoting more attention to this matter.  He clearly devoted too much time to the G-20 summit, implementing the stimulus package, preparing the 2009 budget, and other piddling matters like that.  Clearly, instead, Mr. Geithner feels he should have devoted more attention to this issue, which does absolutely nothing to put the financial sector on a sounder financial footing.  I mean, it's not like he's the only guy in the building or anything.

Mr Geithner thanks the media and Congress for focusing so much on this dumb-ass issue.   

As you can see, there is very good reason why I'm not Tim Geithner's press spokesman. 

Let's be clear -- I'd like AIG officers not to get these bonuses, just as I'd like to see earmarks removed from the budget.  I just think the opportunity costs on focusing on these issues is pretty damn big. 

My latest bloggingheads diavlog is now online, with NewMajority's David Frum.  Topics discussed include David's takedown of Rush Limbaugh, the future of the GOP, why Glenn Beck is one crazy motherf***er, and whether past political history is any guide for thinking about the future.

Go check it out. 

I've received a bunch of e-mail queries asking me what I think of the Charles Freeman affair.  One could argue that Freeman's actual policy positions got him into trouble.  (When a letter to the Wall Street Journal on his behalf allows that "Chas has controversial political views, not all of which we share," it suggests that something is amiss).  One could also argue pretty persuasively that the Israel Lobby flexed its muscle (as Freeman himself argues in his missive to FP's Laura Rozen). 

In the wake of Freeman's withdrawal, I think everyone is vastly overestimating the influence of outside forces and underestimating the idiosyncracies of Freeman in trying to interpret what the hell happened.  I don't mean his positions -- I mean his relative eagerness to get back into the game.  Freeman's statements on the matter suggests that he was not all that eager to re-enter government life: 

"As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government.  Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service.  When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.”  I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.” 

"I wasn't so eager to go back to the government, anyway."

Sometimes these statements are boilerplate, but I don't get that sense from Freeman.  

To put it another way -- if Hillary Clinton had been in the same situation as Freeman, there's no way in hell that she withdraws her name. 

Steve Walt claims that, "this incident reinforces my suspicion that the Democratic Party is in fact a party of wimps."  He's got a point, but I'm not sure it's the one he intended to make.  Freeman is just one of a longer list of policy wonks -- Wendy Sherman, Caroline Atkinson, Robert Gallucci, etc. -- who have either declined or changed their minds about high-ranking postings.  While none of these other names were targeted by the Israel Lobby, they all found the opportunity costs of entering goverment service too onerous.  

Question to readers: Has the vetting process in DC become too absurd, or are Obama's subcabinet candidates too thin-skinned? 

Ever since Barack Obama was elected, I've received myriad queries about whether I'm going into the administration.  And, for a variety of reasons, my answer has always been, "no, not interested." 

After reading Ryan Lizza's profile of Rahm Emanuel in The New Yorker, however, I must confess that there is one job that I would do for free: 

I noticed that over [Emanuel's] left shoulder, on the credenza behind him, was an official-looking name plate, which he said was a birthday present from his two brothers. It read “Undersecretary for Go F**k Yourself.”

Now that's my kind of job.  It's a bit senior for me, though.  If asked to serve, I would consider the stepping stone to that position -- Deputy Assistant Secretary for Eat S**t and Die. 

I had only one thought as I drifted in and out of sleep while listening to President Obama's non-State of the Union -- he really is the second coming of Ronald Reagan.  I mean that in both good and bad ways.

Obama, like Reagan, has figured out how to drive the opposition party completely nuts without compromising his ability to govern.  Like Reagan, Obama is able to communicate effectively directly with the American people.  I suspect his "going public" strategy will net him significant legislative accomplishments. 

However, Reagan was elected on a platform of massive tax cuts, massive increases in defense spending, and balancing the federal budget.  Older readers of danieldrezner.com might recall that he was never able to reconcile all of these aims, and as a result the budget deficit ballooned. 

After listening to Obama's speech, I find it utterly implausible that the United States can fund energy alternatives, impose a "market-based cap" on carbon emissions, engage in comprehensive health care reform, and institute massive education subsidies, while also halving the federal budget deficit in four years. 

Seriously, am I missing something?  How does that circle get squared?