The great missing debate in contemporary politics is about the role and reach of markets. Do we want a market economy, or a market society? What role should markets play in public life and personal relations? How can we decide which goods should be bought and sold, and which should be governed by nonmarket values? Where should money’s writ not run?

Michael J. Sandel
“What Isn’t for Sale?”

The Economist has an interesting take in its Schumpeter blog from not-too-long-ago about the appropriateness of managing government like managing a business. The British newsweekly has never hidden its political views, and nobody would accuse it of being anything to the left of a Tory-leaning Liberal-Democrat. One might expect it to take a bullish attitude toward making government more businesslike.

But after examining some ideas, the paper comes to an interesting conclusion: interesting idea, but don’t take it too far:

There is much to quarrel with in the growing movement to learn from the private sector. Businesspeople tend to forget that government always involves the clash of visions and interests. The government of people can never be reduced to the administration of things. Businesspeople also forget that they are an interest group like any other. But it is nevertheless right to involve as many different voices as possible in the discussion. Governments have no choice but to rethink their core operations in the light of tectonic technological changes and escalating social pressures. They need all the help they can get.

Which is the point. We shouldn’t shy away from good ideas that come from business just because they were birthed in the commercial realm, but we should not give them credence in the government context merely because they succeeded in business.

I have no problem with Ms. Boudin espousing her political views, no matter how misguided they may be. My issue is with placing a convicted murderer and terrorist in a classroom teaching our children. When we do that, we become no better than the extremists who teach in the Hamas terror camps.

Cover of Brave New World

One of the vices I try to foreswear in this forum is the singling-out of a single liberal voice. People on all sides of an issue have a right to their opinion, no matter how loony. But when something comes up that suggests a major divergence of values or perspective from the Bull Moose standpoint, it is worth highlighting if for no other reason than it offers an opportunity for us to stake out a claim.

Case in point: MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry stepped into a very deep pile of something unpleasant when she said in a promotional spot last week:

…we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.

This has provoked outrage among conservatives, and I think rightly so. William Bigelow, writing for Breitbart, fumed:

[Melissa Harris-Perry] may call those of us who know the value of parenting as opposed to being raised by the state trolls, but she shouldn’t be surprised by the furor over her remarks. To insult all of us who devote our lives to our children and also truly believe that we are completely responsible for their welfare is beyond offensive and repugnant; it is an attack on the foundations of western civilization itself.

I do not often agree with the Breitbart editorial line, but I have a hard time disagreeing on this one. It may take a village to raise a child, but that rearing is the responsibility of the parent(s.) To disagree is to do more than grant the state its right to act in loco parentis: it is to place on the community, and by extension the state, the responsibility for rearing children, and for the decisions about their health, welfare, education, clothing, feeding, and spiritual growth.

That statist approach to child-rearing is not only anathema to the principles that underlie this republic, they are the very precepts followed by totalitarian societies to ensure that the purpose of children is to support the state against all else. Indeed, leaving aside the implicit moral hazard of telling parents to have children without worrying about taking responsibility for them later, having the state assume that children become wards of the “community” places us on the road to fascism, to a brave new world none of us seek.

Related articles

• Melissa Harris-Perry Doubles Down on Her Marxist, Anti-Family MSNBC Ad (pjmedia.com)

- Dennis Prager

New York City Mayor Edward I. Koch during a meeting with US president Jimmy Carter in 1978 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Ed Koch, 1924-2013″
John Podhoretz
Commentary

Ed Koch was not particularly loved by conservatives, but he deserves much credit for his role in changing New York City’s fortunes. In a forthright tribute, John Podhoretz remembers Koch as a self-declared left-Democrat who saved New York through policies that were inclusive rather than divisively partisan.

As such, Koch offers us all a look at what is possible in America when we have the courage and intelligence to toss ideology into the back seat. Godspeed, Mr. Mayor.

Asia – Satellite image – PlanetObserver (Photo credit: PlanetObserver)

“America’s Pivot: One Big Contradiction”
Justin Logan
The Diplomat
January 25, 2013

I rarely discuss the topic of China in this space, for a couple of reasons. First, I discuss it at length in other fora, most often in Silicon Hutong and The Peking Review. Second, I think there are enough other more pressing topics to debate when it comes to the future of the U.S. Occasionally, though, I need to make an exception, and in this case Justin Logan’s thoughtful critique of our China policy demands I do so.

The Asia pivot fails three critical tests. First, it is a failure to match ends with means. The U.S. military lacks the doctrine, forces, and resources to fight and win even a limited conflict in the region, and appears to lack the will to create them within the current and looming constraints on budgets.

Second, it exposes latent hypocrisy, the failure of our rhetoric to match our reality, and thus it undermines our credibility. We say the shift has nothing to do wit China, when in everyone’s eyes, including those in the Pentagon and their opposite numbers in Beijing, it has everything to do with China. In Logan’s words, “if the success of America’s Asia policy relies on China’s elites believing our official rationale, the policy is in trouble.”

He’s absolutely right. And when we promulgate official rationales for policies that are blatantly at odds with reality, our global influence is shot in the foot.

Finally, the Asia Pivot demonstrates a lack of strategic imagination. Given the challenges America faces both at home and abroad, and given the priorities the government must now face as the nation ages and our infrastructure demands upgrades, global forward engagement of a rising hegemon is simply unsustainable. What is more, it encourages our allies to behave as free riders on a system we are creating.

The wisest choice for the US would be to forgo the neo-containment approach of the Pivot. Instead, we should revert to a posture that allows China enough rope in the region to prove itself a hegemon, thus inciting other countries in Asia to take greater responsibility for their own defense and for the balance of power in Asia.

The current administration is on the firing line for this approach, but this is not a partisan issue. It is, instead, a generational change in strategic focus, and if the current administration does not make the necessary choices, it will be left for successors to clean up the mess.

Related articles

• Zbigniew Brzezinski and America’s Pivot (pekingreview.com)
• America’s Pivot: One Big Contradiction (thediplomat.com)
• Challenging ASEAN: the American pivot in Southeast Asia (eastasiaforum.org)
• Obama is still searching for right tone in executing ‘Asia pivot’ (stripes.com)
• Australia shows the West how to pivot to Asia (eastasiaforum.org)

NASA (Photo credit: Luke Bryant)

Related articles

• NASA Gives Bigelow Aerospace $17.8M for Expandable ISS Module (dailytech.com)

Hurricane Sandy 2012 (Photo credit: charliekwalker)

“Superstorm Sandy triggers climate blame game“
David Shukman
BBC News
13 December 2012

As the East Coast continues its painful recovery from the wrath of Sandy, some commentators have used the opportunity to put forth their pet theories about climate change. Along those lines, I found BBC Science Editor David Shukman’s commentary on the link between global warming and Sandy to be a refreshng break from shouting on both sides of the issue.

Shukman, whom I would not put into the “denialist” camp on climate change, says that we are all still learning about the link between changes in surface temperature and tropical storms, and as such we need to keep the discussion fact-based. Responding to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg‘s comments on the storm, he noted:

The question is one of risk, not of certainty – the risk that the continuing rise in greenhouse gases from human activities may exacerbate extreme weather.

To go further, as many environmental campaigners would like to – to suggest that the violence of Hurricane Sandy is the result of global warming – is to strain what scientists themselves are able to conclude.

When we have debates about climate change and man’s relationship to it, the two concepts we have to focus on are a) what are the scientifically provable (or likely) facts; and b) what are the realistic and worst-case risks we face? Based on rational, science-based answers to those questions (as opposed to wishful thinking or science fiction), we can craft the policies most likely to mitigate the risks.

I am not yet ready to buy the most gloomy predictions of impending doom (and I’m still buying coastal property), but I have always believed in using the precautionary principle when it comes to matters of national security: give the guy with the scary story the benefit of the doubt and make reasonable, extendable, cost-effective preparations for the worst case.

If, for example, we decide that there is a risk that our dependency on fossil fuels is causing global warming, do we as a nation lose anything by directing university research at the development of alternatives (which, by the way, need a lot of development? Are there not compelling economic and national security reasons for reducing our dependence on a non-renewable resource?

And are there not sufficient public health benefits to reduced fossil-fuel emissions to provide us an incentive to pursue that policy? What about the economic benefits of raising the energy efficiency of businesses, buildings, and households? Can we honestly say that growing more green plants, even if ostensibly to “lock up” carbon, has no other benefits to mankind?

We need to driven by wisdom in this debate, not by fear, nor by greed, nor by inertia. Shukman injects the debate with some wisdom.

Related articles

• Climate change taken seriously by insurance industry, study says. (latimes.com)
• Climate change poll: 4 out of 5 Americans see global warming as serious problem (oregonlive.com)
• Extreme weather more persuasive on climate change than scientists (guardian.co.uk)
• Tubb: Superstorm Sandy is not proof of global warming (newsday.com)
• Climate Change Made Sandy Worse. Period. (motherjones.com)

James Fallows was a speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter for most of Carter’s single term in the White House. More than just a technically adept writer, Fallows came to his job in January 1977 a true believer, someone who saw in the clearly intelligent Georgian a leader who could lead the nation into the future.

Fallows’ disillusionment was gradual, apparently without rancor, but was utter. After citing a long list of Carter’s political, intellectual, and managerial failings, Fallows offers a telling comment that gives illuminating background both to Carters character and to his recent activities.

These clues told me part of the answer, but there was one part missing, the most fundamental of them all. Carter’s willful ignorance, his blissful tabula rasa, could—to me—be explained only by a combination of arrogance, complacency, and—dread thought—insecurity at the core of his mind and soul.

The arrogance of willful ignorance, according to Fallows, led Carter to treat history as Henry Ford did – as so much bunk. Even in the White House, Carter felt that the lessons of history beyond those of Watergate and Vietnam were irrelevant. At best, this led him to repeat the mistakes that others had made before him, in energy, in tax reform, in his hollowing of the U.S. military, and in his fateful mishandling of his Cabinet.

That same arrogance lies at the root of Carter’s misunderstandings about Israel and the Palestinians. Whatever the virtues or vices of his views, they were based less on a full apprehension of the facts than on opinions. Given Carter’s history in and with the region, the ignorance can only be willful.

All of this is important not because it is necessary to pull Jimmy down a peg, but because in the story of Carter’s failure as president lie lessons that are essential for the entire American electorate. While we may debate whether it is correct to judge a presidential candidate by his extracurricular behavior, we must recognize that good character alone is insufficient qualification for the highest office of the land.

Fallows’ review Carter shows us that we need a president who is a great manager as well as a great leader; who can work with the Beltway establishment without being subsumed by it; and above all who is prepared to learn from history to avoid the mistakes of those who have gone before.

Cicero once said “To be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to be forever a child.” Fallows’ retrospective of Carter, published even before the Iranian hostage crisis and the election of 1980, suggests a slight modification of that. “To be ignorant of what happened before you came to Washington is to be forever a failure.”

It is a harsh verdict, but it serves every voter to heed it.