My Predictions

It’s Halloween, I’m sick of the little children asking for candy, I just finished writing a huge article on Turkey’s relationship with the EU, and I want to do something thoughtless and pointless. How about an election prediction post! I really don’t know much about the House races, but given that Rothenberg and Cook have low-end figures that are over the ever-so-important 15 seat mark, I’ll predict a Democratic takeover. The only real question is how big it will be. As for the Senate, I think Maryland and Minnesota are safe keeps, and Pennsylvania, Ohio, Rhode Island and Montana are all safe gains for the Democrats. That leaves a 51-49 Republican Senate. I think Bob Menendez will win an easier victory than expected – thepolls are with him, and Republican turnout isn’t going to be great in this political climate. Fournewpolls show Webb considerably ahead in Virginia, so I’ll swing that one over, and after a long period of deadlock McCaskill has eked ahead in Missouri, so I think they’ll pull out tiny victories. Ford’s well behind now, and suffers from the race problem. So I predict a 51-49 Democratic Senate.

Just Plain Not True

The Bush administration may be malevolent, but it is not dumb. It avoids easily recognizable lies when it can, preferring sneakier, less easily exposed methods. But tough times call for tough measures, and so bald-faced lying it is. At least with the “stay the course” denial there was the necessity to use Google to expose the lie; now they’re not even trying.

The Rights Revolution Chugs On

New Jersey’s Supreme Court just ruled that the New Jersey legislature has half a year to legalize either civil unions or marriage. I’ve always thought Jon Corzine to be a good guy, but this will be a good test of his integrity. If he goes the Plessy route and pushes for mere civil unions, I’ll think substantially less of him. On the other hand, he could have a spine and push for full equality, in which case his reputation as one of the better governors in the country will be secured.

Wars I Supported

Kevin asks:

So: which wars did you support? Any of them? None of them? Some of them? Does it make sense to support a politician who appears to have the same judgment about these things that you do? It’s obviously not the only thing you should look at, but it seems like it ought to be one of the things.

In order:

  • American Revolution: Support – it’s really hard to think of a world without it.
  • 1812: No, but maybe that’s just my Anglophilia for you.
  • Various Indian Wars: No. I also dislike the Holocaust. True story.
  • Mexican: No, but it’s nice to have California.
  • Civil: Yes – by which I mean I would have liked the North to start it sooner. And win.
  • Spanish-American: No. Seriously, does anyone actually believe the Spanish sunk the Maine anymore? And is there anyone who thinks that a war launched from such a dishonest premise is at all justifiable?
  • WWI: I just watched La Grand Illusion, so no.
  • Spanish Civil War: Yes (it seems reasonable to point out instances in which my desire for intervention wasn’t fulfilled).
  • WWII: Yes. Again, about disliking the Holocaust.
  • Korea: Yes, but MacArthur was a nutjob and we should have stopped at the DMZ to begin with.
  • Vietnam: What do you think?
  • Grenada: Yes. Maurice Bishop wasn’t too great a guy, and it was easy enough.
  • Panama: Same as Grenada. Any time we can take out a dictator without totally destabilizing the country he was ruling is much appreciated.
  • Gulf War: Yes. It was important in warming relations between the US and the soon-to-be Russian Federation. Also, allowing Hussein to attack Gulf States with impunity would have set a very bad precedent. For that matter, intervening in 1988 after Halabja wouldn’t have been a bad idea, providing we provided adequate support to the Shi’ites to support a rebellion and got out in a timely manner. It would have been right after the Iran-Iraq war ended, so we could have exploited Hussein’s drop in popularity.
  • Rwanda: Yes – we should have bombed the radio stations broadcasting murder orders and provided air support for the RPF.
  • Bosnia: Yes – earlier and more aggressively.
  • Kosovo: Hells yes.
  • Afghanistan: Preferably not, but it seemed unavoidable.
  • Iraq: Hells no.
  • In Defense of Obama

    Judis writes:

    John Kennedy was a two term senator, but he spent much of his two terms campaigning for president, and when he became president, made two very serious errors in foreign policy in his first year–sanctioning the Bay of Pigs invasion and appearing weak to Khrushchev in Vienna. Lyndon Johnson knew how to get domestic policy passed, but had little experience in foreign affairs, and it showed immediately in his decision to escalate the war in Vietnam. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush made initial missteps in foreign and domestic policy.
    The presidents who didn’t screw up immediately–however their presidencies turned out–were Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush. Eisenhower, Nixon, and Bush Sr. had extensive foreign policy experience, and Reagan was a two-term governor of the country’s most important state, and had been involved in national politics for decades.
    Obama, if elected, would possess neither the foreign policy experience of Eisenhower, nor Nixon, nor the administrative experience of Reagan–and he would inherit a fractious world and a deeply divided Washington.

    First, Judis gets some basic facts wrong. Nixon served in the House for two years and the Senate for four before becoming Vice President in 1952. His legislative experience gave him roughly the same amount of foreign policy experience as Obama has, and given that the VP’s role in most cabinets in mostly ceremonial – Nixon is no exception – it’s not clear that that helped Nixon under foreign policy more than he did in 1952. Further, Nixon had been removed from politics altogether for eight years by 1968, allowing him to get rusty in a way Obama wouldn’t. And I wouldn’t say Nixon didn’t screw up initially on FP – what do you call Vietnamization? Eisenhower, similarly, didn’t have much foreign policy experience per se. He commanded an army, but he didn’t manage relations with other countries except in the limited military realm, and he didn’t help manage the Marshall Plan. Indeed, he had substantially less FP experience than Wes Clark had in 2004. And, as with Nixon, his experience was dated. 1952 was quite a few years off from 1945. Also, the “initial missteps” made by JFK and Clinton were not theirs at all. The Bay of Pigs was Dulles’ baby, and Somalia Bush’s. Indeed, Somalia can’t even conceivably be lain at the feet of Clinton – he inherited the problem, and didn’t even consciously sanction it as Kennedy did BoP.
    Second, Judis distinguishes arbitrarily between inital missteps and further missteps. Reagan may have had “managerial experience” (what ME he had that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton didn’t is a mystery), but he screwed up royally in pushing SDI and presiding over Iran-Contra. Nixon may have had marginally more FP experience than Obama, but he also bombed Laos and Cambodia. Similarly, Judis doesn’t give credit to presidents – Clinton and JFK, for example – who made excellent FP decisions – Bosnia/Kosovo and the Cuba blockade – later in their tenures.
    Finally, while Obama may not have a lot of foreign policy experience, he knows what he’s talking about. The guy specialized in international relations at Columbia, and it shows. Read some of the transcripts of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s meetings. Obama’s no lightweight on FP.