Madame:
Except that we usually
only want to throw all the OTHER bums out, but our particular congressman or
senator is the reasonable exception we want to keep (because somehow he or she’s
“one of us” near election time and he or she nearly always successfully runs “against”
the very Congress that he/she’s a part of). And regular rotation, while it intuitively
sounds like the correct prescription, is not borne out by the data (Michigan
study, for example) we have so far.
But don’t give up. Maybe we just need to adjust for more precise
variables. :)
I turn today to how we
are penny-unwise AND pound-foolish. One of
the briefest but best explanations was given 4 and a half years ago by Nicholas
Kristof in the New York Times. Some
excerpts:
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates realized this and did his best to fight to right it (he flew in the face of parochial expectation that he would be pro-Defense spending, not pro-State Dept spending). But he ran up against parochial interest from congressmen and senators: “As an example, the F-22 aircraft is produced by companies in 44 states; that’s 88 senators…(and) the Navy and the Air Force are seizing upon China s rise as an excuse to grab tens of billions of dollars for the F-22, for an advanced destroyer, for new attack submarines. But we’re failing to invest minuscule sums to build good will among Chinese. For the price of one F-22, we could for 25 years operate American libraries in each Chinese province, pay for more Chinese-American exchanges, and hire more diplomats prepared to appear on Chinese television and explain in fluent Chinese what American policy is. And for the price of one M.R.E. lunch for one soldier, the State Department could make a few phone calls to push the Chinese leadership to respond to the Dalai Lama’s olive branch…helping to eliminate a long-term irritant in U.S.-China relations.”
“Then there’s the Middle East. Dennis Ross, the longtime Middle East peace negotiator, says he has been frustrated beyond belief to see resources showered on the military while diplomacy has to fight for scraps. Mr. Ross argues that an investment of just $1 billion financing job creation and other grass-roots programs in the West Bank could significantly increase the prospect of an Israeli-Palestinian peace. But that money isn’t forthcoming. Our intuitive approach to fighting terrorists and insurgents is to blow things up. But one of the most cost-effective counterterrorism methods in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan may be to build things up, like schooling and microfinance. Girls education sometimes gets more bang for the buck than a missile.”
“A new study from the RAND Corporation examined how 648 terror groups around the world ended between 1968 and 2006. It found that by far the most common way for them to disappear was to be absorbed by the political process. The second most common way was to be defeated by police work. In contrast, in only 7 percent of cases did military force destroy the terrorist group.”
For the complete article, readers can go here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10kristof.html?_r=0
Lordy, lordy, we HAVE to get smarter. While the Obama administration has done a better job in some respects than the conditions existing during the previous one when this article was written, that’s a pretty low bar. But more to the point is that it’s a mindset that’s the real problem. And that mindset exists in the congressmen, senators, and we the people. Because we’re the ones ultimately who get short-sighted about what we spend on.
Something to think about the next time someone utters the classic phrase: “We need to spend all that money we’re wasting on foreign aid and all right here instead.” Even counting a lot of largely barely related stuff, if we cut it all out, we’re talking at most some tens of billions of dollars. Versus many hundreds of billions of dollars.
Straining at gnats and swallowing elephants.
And the idioms keep coming! :)
3 comments:
•The Chinese government will not allow American run libraries or to
be present in television in their country. China has always been a
relatively closed society that has tried to keep close controls on
what its citizen’s experience in media. For example, Google is a web
search engine who is, “committed to providing easy access to as much
information as possible”. This commitment is in direct conflict with
the Chinese government’s goals. Therefore, Google was kept out of
China. Why does the Facebook never get in China? (Same reason)…… Even
though, there still some issues in the Country, China has been able to control the outside media influences on their society. It seems like the Chinese are very
pleased with their great leadership over last 30 years! Are you happy
with the last 13 years of American leadership? If not, let’s focus on our
problems and dig out the root issue.
•I recommended the great book called “America The Beautiful “by Dr. Ben Carson. In America the Beautiful he turns his attention to many of the issues facing America today--healthcare, education, capitalism and more, to explore what is great about our nation, and what needs to be addressed. You'll gain new insights on our nation's origins, our Judeo-Christian heritage, our educational system and more. America the Beautiful is a stirring manifesto of the values that have shaped America's past and must shape her future. You'll be inspired to heed the call to use your God-given talents to improve your life, the nation, and our world. (Publisher's Description)
• Also, Peace in the Middle East will not be achieved until Christ
returns. The conflict today is a direct result of conflict between
Issaic and Ishmael of the Old Testament. It doesn’t matter how much
money you put in the West Bank, the complex problems will never be
resolved until Christ returns.
• I found out these are unrealistic characters who are trying to change society, but their ideas will not work out! In conclusion, we should always be respectful of their efforts and feelings.
I must respectfully disagree—and agree. While it’s true that nakedly propagandistic “libraries” would be banned by Chinese officials, many parts of China are hungry for American English, American teachers, and actually just about anything that can explain the real meanings behind so much of American culture. There is a real hunger for knowledge, and real desire to connect.
Chinese media are often hungry for American diplomats and others to appear on their programs, especially when they don’t have to subtitle anything. It is, in fact, the paucity of those appearances that increases the desire.
I agree that the Chinese government attempts to keep China a closed society. While they succeed well in some respects (and sometimes most respects), in some others they fail. While they have succeeded in channeling the internet when it comes to searches, and Google left in disgust, it is not a process they have full control over, and sometimes it rebounds on them in a big way. Especially where corruption is concerned.
Chinese are both pleased and displeased with their leaders. Since they are in a surge period and a transition period both, the growing middle class still sees value in the stability that the Chinese Communist Party provides. When that value on the balance turns negative, which is probably still a long way off, things will change. What Chinese ARE hypersensitive about are any criticisms of their leaders, society, or policies—understandable given their treatment by outsiders for much of the last 200 years.
As both Madame and I have written, Dr. Carson has a number of good points to make. While there are areas where he and I disagree, his calm manner, appearance of sincerity, and inspiring story, are refreshing.
As for the assertion about peace in the Middle East, that’s an obviously fervent religious belief. As a political scientist and historian, projections of certainty and mono-causal ascription are met with skepticism and awaiting of emotion-lite data.
As to the last item, I did not quite understand, and await further clarification.
It is true that the Chinese people have a hunger and desire for the meanings behind American culture. In particular, I believe, it is our uniquely free society that they so admire. I look back to the Tiananmen Square uprising in 1989 as evidence that the youth of China desire freedom in all of its wonderful permutations and, therefore, look to America as the bastion of freedom. I believe that the best way to foment freedom in China is through the underground, unofficial approach. I am not entirely sure how that would be achieved, but where a group of people desire to be free and are crushed in the public forum, the underground looms large as a way to discuss freedom.
The next topic is the assertion that peace in the Middle East won't be achieved until Christ returns. Yes, this is, indeed, a religious belief, but the specter of religion looms large in the Middle East. One can't take the religious perspective out of the equation when peace in the Middle East is discussed. The conflict that the Jewish people and their Arab counterparts are currently involved with is, like it or not, is, in part, rooted in their differing religious beliefs. I don't think it is possible to have an authentic discussion about peace in this part of the world and take religion out of the equation. As far as "projections of certainty" which I am assuming is referring to my comment about Christ's return, I guess we will have to wait and see who is correct. As far as a political solution to peace, I believe the Jewish people may need to be willing to give up some territory and the Arab groups MUST acknowledge that the Jewish nation has a right to exist in this world. So, if these two positions could be achieved, then an uncertain peace could be worked out. I say uncertain because you have extremes on both sides that don't want peace at all, but would rather see the other side completely destroyed.
Post a Comment