Skepticism of Bannon declaring an "economic war" with China

Fresh off steering strategy for a presidential campaign and White House which has damaged institutions and democratic norms in the United States, Steve Bannon flew to Hong Kong in the second week of September to deliver a speech to investors at an event hosted by a Citic subsidiary. He was greeted by protesters outside the venue decrying the toxic politics Bannon is famous for nurturing. 

In line with his nationalist rhetoric, Bannon declared an "economic war" between China and the U.S. during his speech. At ChinaFile, a number of experts discussed the merits of this sort of label for the relationship between the two countries. My small contribution to the conversation is copied below. The entire discussion can be read here.

I question the motives of the messenger. The discussion above, to the credit of its participants, has revolved so far around the merits of using “economic war” as a concept in the discourse of U.S.-China relations and the extents to which China is competing on a fair playing field. But we should be wary of Bannon, a regressive political figure and “alt-right” enabler who craves conflict within the U.S. and apparently war with China, of dishing up a conversation on the policy nuances toward China. Somewhat like the race-based theories of social organization to which his Breitbart faithful adhere, Bannon seems to selectively use bits and pieces of acknowledged fact to advertise a normative argument for deeper conflict, in this case with China.

Many people within the policy and political science community have engaged for years in discussion of the U.S. trade stance toward China and its bucking of international norms and standards. This conversation should continue, inclusive of those across the policy spectrum. But we ought to remain circumspect toward those who may not be engaging in good faith, who do not intend to maintain a just and peaceful world or resort to conflict as a last resort, those who undermine democracy with ethnocentric populism and envision a world divided along such lines. Bannon’s Hong Kong speech is an effort to stay relevant after leaving the chaos he helped mold in the White House.

在美国之音电台谈总统候选人首场辩论 Discussing the first presidential debate on Voice of America

昨天我参加了美国之音电台中文频道的一个交谈节目，讨论了美国总统候选人川普和克林顿首场辩论，节目完整视频在下面。

Yesterday I was invited to participate in a discussion of the first presidential debate between candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on Voice of America's Chinese-language channel. The full video is below. It is in Chinese without subtitles.

Conversation: How Should the Republican Party Approach China Policy?

President Nixon and Premier Zhou Enlai toast in Beijing (February 25, 1972)

ChinaFile hosted a conversation during the Republican National Convention on Trump's China Policy. It was kicked off with comments from his advisor Peter Navarro, a business professor at University of California Irvine. Along with others, I took part in the conversation. My comment is copied below. The conversation can be found here. 


For starters, Republicans should stop seeking out the next war. Historically, Bush II was good at war-making—though maybe not war-winning. The fear and simplistic narrative of war, splitting the world into ‘us’ versus ‘them,’ can be an effective tool to mislead and corral the public. Such a tool is especially potent in a national campaign during a time when people are struggling economically and told to dread impending, random violence. Donald Trump now looks to formulate another war, a trade war with China. The narrative is custom-made to evoke fear and nationalism: A far-off country with an authoritarian government and a bone to pick is maliciously stealing your livelihood and weakening your country.

There is considerable imprecision, narrowness, and risk in Trump’s China narrative.

First, an examination of history will teach us that manufacturing began declining in the U.S. in the 1970s, long before China came on the scene as an industrial powerhouse. Huge structural shifts were caused by our North American allies via N.A.F.T.A., but we are not declaring “war” (i.e., needlessly demonizing) Canada and Mexico because of their economic impact on the U.S. (But based on Trump’s wall and immigration rhetoric, we cannot seriously doubt that he would not escalate conflict with America’s southern neighbor.)

Snowden case is at the soul of America

On Facebook today, a friend (you know who you are) posted on my wall that some of the labor rights denied to Chinese workers are also regularly denied to American workers. Unfortunately true.

Soon after reading this post, I read the New York Times' editorial that ambitiously kicked off the new year by demanding amnesty for Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower now self-exiled in Russia.

How, you ask, is Snowden related to labor rights defense?

Missing the Point of the Public Option

The following was written by guest author Sue Ann Orsini.

Tonight, President Obama gave a press conference to further discuss the health care reform initiative. (Transcript available here.) A question was asked regarding the public plan option, particularly on whether or not Obama would use his own Administration’s plan if his family members were sick, even if the plan didn’t offer all types of available treatment. The same question was posed by a doctor during ABC’s “Prescription for America” discussion held last Friday. And while the President fumbled his way through a mostly political response at both events, I wondered why he wouldn’t just say the truth – questions of this sort are meaningless and betray a deep lack of understanding about what a public option would mean.

Certainly, these questions illicit emotional responses, particularly fearful mob reactions to the word "socialism" that inevitably pops up when the public plan is discussed, and also anger over long-standing class-based complaints that the rich and powerful always get a better product. For me, asking whether or not Obama would use his public plan overlooks two very important issues. First, a public option may improve the health of the insurance markets by providing competition and regulation of the industry. And second, anyone who insinuates that the Administration’s public option will be the only option has obviously not read the text of any Congressional proposals.

The health insurance market is complex. It's not just composed of big name companies, like Blue Cross or Aetna, but a number of side-players, including Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), that actually have great influence on cost and sometimes commit outright fraud. Hardly any regulation governs these health care middlemen, and they are left relatively free to set prices. Such rampant manipulation hurts consumers and propagates an unhealthy market. Congress has been aware of this manipulation for years - the courts have, too. Major litigation occurred only a few years ago concerning pharmaceutical price-fixing. And just last Thursday, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing to address issues of competition in health care insurance. The public option would attempt to regulate the health care market by providing an alternative to private plans (keyword here is alternative).

As for my second issue, I wonder how many people running around screaming "Socialism!" have actually read the part of the recently introduced House bill concerning the public option. Nowhere in that bill text does it say that we will have to choose the public plan. Nowhere does it suggest that you can't continue with the coverage you have right now. The argument that a public plan will take away your choice and drive us down the road to socialism is a lie propagated by people who fear change. And to those people I would ask this question: Do you truly have a free choice now as to what kind of doctor you can see? Do you truly have a choice as to which treatments you can seek without paying through the nose?

My recent journey into the health care system tells the story - I hurt my back, was constrained as to which doctors, specialists, chiropractors, etc., that I could see through my insurance plan. I was constantly on the phone with my insurance company making sure as to what they would cover. And then, when I transitioned into employer-based insurance, I had to prove to that I'd been covered before in order to waive the "pre-existing condition" clause (something which would be forbidden by the current bill). I may be able to get insurance through my employer now, but I have no choice as to which insurance company I use. Adding a public option into this mix isn't going to make my lack of choices any more or less pronounced. It may improve things.

In the end, much of the discussion over the public plan amounts to nothing more than fearmongering disguised as rhetoric. Fearmongering gets us nowhere and rhetoric can leave a bad taste in the mouth. Check out the latest bill for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

Sue Ann Orsini is a law librarian that specializes in the legislative process. She works in Washington DC.

ALTERATION: on 23 July at 11:43 AM, the title of this post was changed.

White Man's Neutrality

Last Thursday, Steven Colbert (on The Colbert Report) used his conservative pundit spoof, yet again, to express through humor what most news media either miss, skew, or don't say outrightly. In this case, he performed another in his regular segment called "The Word" -- a satire of Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points" -- in which Steven pontificated the claim that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's life experience is a scar on her record while all past (white) nominees' life experience was an asset to their qualifications as a judge. Using this ridiculous argument, Steven was pointing out the hypocrisy of those (in news media or politics) that focus on Sotomayor's pride in her life experience as a problem. Most delightfully, Colbert makes this argument using a comparison between the nomination and an ordeal over the color of Band-aids. I'll let you see for yourself the brilliant connection -- watch the clip below. (If the video does not show up, then click this link.)

This clip also had me thinking: pushing out material like this four nights every week, it must be exhausting to be a writer for The Colbert Report.

New Taxes on the Wealthy Unfair?

Are higher taxes for the nations top 5% a clear example of governmental overreach? 

Anyone who followed the presidential campaign could see this battle coming for months. President Obama recently announced his budget, which includes plans to expire the tax cut for Americans that make over $250,000 annually. As soon as it was announced, the debate began -- just on time -- about whether or not this is fair. 

In a recent LA Times article, Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation, a think tank, said that under Obama's plan, the top 20% of taxpayers in the US will pay 90% of all taxes. I had a hard time finding information that verified this claim. But let's suppose that Riedl's numbers are accurate. Initially, this may sound like a crime. Yet a look at reality would tell you that such a tax burden is actually in line with the distribution of resources in America.

In 2001, the top 20% of the richest in America owned 91% of financial wealth and 84% of net worth. The top 10% also had about 85% of all investments (stocks, bonds, trust funds, etc.) and 71% of net worth. This book (see pp. 28-34) and this study (chapter 5) -- among many others -- find the same results. And all of this was before the Bush tax cuts had a chance to accelerate the rate of inequality.

In reality, then, the new taxes match the reality quite well. On principle, it is simply fair. But there are other concerns.

One complaint is that these taxes are simply meant to redistribute wealth and make everyone economically equal. But this is not even a possibility. Just because the wealthiest pay most of the taxes doesn't mean that it reduces their wealth. To the contrary, the richest Americans' wealth is increasing far faster than taxes can reduce their wealth. According to Congressional Budget Office data, from 1979-2004, the top 1% saw their annual income rise 176%. The top fifth gained a 69% rise in their income.  The middle 3/5 saw a 20-30% increase, and the poorest 20% saw only a 6% increase in their income. Compared to the median income increase over the same time period (about 10%), the poorest fifth in the country are actually more poor than 30 years ago! (And the top 1% made out like gangbusters.) 

So the wealthiest in America have nothing to worry about if they think that they'll be taxed out of prosperity. Their huge income advantage and almost total ownership of investments will prevent higher taxes from regressing their wealth.

Another complaint goes something like this: rich people work harder for their wealth and should not have to give any more of it back to society. This is essentially saying that 20% of people in the United States work four times harder than the other 80%. Please! I won't even dignify that with a response.

Then there is the pragmatic side of this whole issue. The bottom 80% of American wealth-owners, and especially the bottom 60%, are struggling. The bottom 90% of wealth-owners have 74% of the nation's debt. True, some blame can be relegated to irresponsbility of borrowers and lenders -- living beyond means and trying to make money off of predatory lending. But many people are in debt simply because they have to be. Very few Americans can attend a university, own a home (no matter what size), or start a business without significant debt.   

And these debts were already a problem before the recession. Now they are breaking people's back. 

The point here: the government needs revenue to provide the services, projects, and credits (for school, homes, and businesses) that the far majority of Americans require. That money must come from somewhere (other than borrowing abroad). Some of it will come from cuts in ineffective programs; some of it will come from taxing the wealthy. It's dollars and sense (pun intended). 

Therefore, these tax measures are both principled and pragmatic. The wealthiest are going to be just fine.

 

Obama's Missing Piece

As many of you well know, President Obama delivered his first State of the Union Address last night. (Okay, it wasn't technically a "State of the Union Address", but for all intents and purposes, it acted as one.) As expected, his focus was planted solely where it should be: on repairing the sorry state of the domestic economy and attending to neglected domestic policies. But what was urgently missing from these remarks was enough attention to challenges outside of US borders, particularly a vision for the world.

To be clear: Obama's priorities seem to be in the right order. Yet the weight he gave each priority in his address to the nation was skewed too much toward domestic priorities. Put another way, prioritization is not the same as single-mindedness.   

Before going on, though, it should be stated that his domestic policy seemed well-organized, smart, and focused on the right areas. Beside the immediate stimulus plan, Obama said that he would focus his energy on three areas: energy, health care, and education. He talked about instituting a carbon cap in the US market and making clean energy technology profitable. Although he shrugged off the specifics of a health care plan, Obama rightly stressed the importance of universal health care for competitive business and the significance of preventive health care. (A note: Obama has made a clear political commitment to obtaining universal health care within a year when he said health care reform "will not wait another year." If he fails, then this could drain a good bit of political capital.) In education, Obama declared that the high high school drop rate would be reigned in and that significant college tuition credits would be given to students in exchange for volunteering. These are all positive steps to take.

And attending to all three issues is imperative for the long-term health of the US economy. But so is a global system of free trade, a halting of climate change, and stable international relations. Of course, none of the the latter concerns can be attended alone. 

Yet of Obama's 5,902 words spoken last night, 515 were in reference to foreign policy. That's 8%. In an hour-long speech, that is about 5 minutes. 

I don't want to overplay the numbers; they are relatively arbitrary by themselves. But it gives you an idea of the lack of attention given to foreign policy.

More importantly is what the remarks lacked in substance. In three sentences, Obama said that he would soon be unveiling his policies for Iraq, Af-Pak, and the general struggle against terrorism. Then he paid respect to American troops and spent a couple sentences denouncing Guantanamo and torture. 

For the moment, let's forget that he provided no specifics on the important issues above. Understandably, this was not the forum to discuss the nitty-gritty of securing the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan. As promised, Obama will likely roll these details out in the coming weeks.

Then the president went on to make a valiant -- but failed -- effort at presenting a grand foreign policy. He stated that the US needs the world just as the world needs America -- a true statement. Obama declared that a "new era of engagement has begun" in which the US will negotiate with friends and foes alike, using "all elements of our national power" to tackle global problems in concert with other nations. This sounds very near to Joseph Nye's concept of smart power. (Clinton invoked the term explicitly in her confirmation hearing -- see page 4.) Obama even goes on to give the approaching G20 meeting in April as an example of how the US must engage with the world.

But neither engagement nor smart power is a grand strategy. They are tools in a foreign policy toolbox. They are means to an end. But what end? 

Sure, we want a stable Afghanistan, a democratic Iraq, a stop to climate change, peace and development in Palestine, etc. Everyone can agree that they want the most pressing problems resolved. But it is not enough for any country, especially a global superpower, to leap from crisis to crisis, reacting to flashpoints as they present themselves. The US must have a vision. America must actively shape the world it wants to see five, ten, or twenty years from now. 

And on a bureaucratic level, a lack of grand strategy is destructive. If the scores of policy planners in the State Department, Defense Department, and Commerce Department are not linked by a common overarching strategy from the White House, then the administration risks disparate and conflicting policies across issues and regions. Policy planners must have general guidelines from which to work.

Far be it from me to declare the grand vision for the United States, but there are various strategies that could be pursued by the US for, let's say, the year 2025. (Conveniently, I will pose them as rhetorical questions.) Should the US still be the unquestionable, sole superpower? Should a more robust system of international law regulate state behavior and begin to shape a more powerful world government? Should a multipolar system of 4 or 5 global powers be working together to provide international security? Should all failed states be nonexistent? 

I have a thousand of them. It is easy (and quite fun for policy wonks) to come up alternative visions for the world. But this should not be an academic exercise. It is a governing necessity. 

After last night's speech, we all know what the ideal US economy would look like under the Obama Administration: buildings powered by solar panels, booming clean energy companies without the burden of employee health care, and a population dominated by a highly educated workforce.   

But based on last night's remarks, I defy you to tell me what the ideal international order would look like under the Obama Administration. You cannot. And that is the missing piece.    

Gandhi He is Not.

This month, Martin Luther King III, leading a delegation of prominent civil rights leaders, retraced the Indian path that his father traveled in 1959. King Jr. went to India to learn methods of nonviolence from Mahatma Gandhi before taking these lessons back to America and leading one of the most successful nonviolent campaigns in history. 

King III's trip was described recently in a Washington Post article. At the end, the article discusses the nonviolent struggles of Gandhi and King being continued by Barack Obama. Representative John Lewis (D-Ga), a leader during the civil rights movement, was quoted as saying, "Many years ago, Gandhi showed the world that nonviolence was one of those immutable principles in the struggle for justice. Today, everybody in the world feels, 'If Barack Obama can do it, so can I.' " 

Barack may yet still prove to be an historic leader of social change. But Gandhi he is not.

These comparisons of the president to King and Gandhi, about which I have too often heard and read, need to stop. 

You might wonder why I would take the time to make a fuss about this. And my reason is simple: Obama is not nonviolent. As admirable as Obama's rhetoric and many of his actions have been, the courage to lead a nonviolent campaign in the face of severe hate, blatant oppression, and death threats exists on another tier altogether. 

It is incredible that the success of the Indian independence movement, American civil rights movement, and Czechoslovakian Velvet Revolution was driven by the suffering and instinctual fear overcome by millions. These struggles were a refusal to meet cruelty with cruelty, hate with hate. At its core, nonviolence is the most honorable of strategies. It is both an appeal to your aggressor's humanity as well as an adamant conviction to keep your own. 

President Obama has already allowed three Predator drone attacks in Pakistan since he took office, killing dozens of people. And he will continue to fight the war in Afghanistan with military force. Implicitly, then, Obama is supporting social change through violence -- obviously the opposite of nonviolence. 

This is neither meant to be an indictment of Barack Obama nor a discussion of whether or not nonviolence is realistic on the international level. (Though it may be.) Indeed, as the political leader of the most powerful country in the world, you can be sure that Obama would have never been elected if he had declared on the campaign trail that the US would eschew all violence under his presidency (see: the campaign of Dennis Kucinich).

That said, stop comparing the nonviolence of Gandhi, King, and others to the political movement of Obama. I admire the president for many of his principles, but none of those is the refusal of violence as an instrument of change.   

A Frigid, Momentous Day

Amidst the deafening silence of two million people, listening to the 44th president's artfully delivered speech, I lost track of my painfully numb toes and fingers. There is something beautiful in the grand masses of peaceful, positive people gathering around a common identity.

Maybe it is the scarcity of the occasion. Not only does one rarely see such numeric splendor with the eyes, but it is not often that one experiences an instant aura of history, like the one that fell upon the National Mall around noon today. Moreover, it may be only once in my lifetime that I will so tangibly feel such unity radiating from a complex, often-disagreeing people.

It is notable that the Secret Service reported zero "inaugural-related arrests" by law enforcement.

Yes, beautiful is accurate. (See the image below from the Associated Press. All other images are from my "ground level" perspective.)

If anyone is controlling the weather, then they made it inordinately difficult to enjoy the long travel and waiting times associated with getting into the Mall. With windchill, it was 10-15 degrees Fahrenheit.

I met my friends Ashesh and Stephanie in line to get into the ticketed "blue section" -- about 100-200 yards from the steps of the Capitol building -- around 9 AM. The lines were huge, unwieldy, and poorly managed by event staff. I will save you the frustrating details, but suffice it to say that the staff lacked a lot of coordination with the crowd during the entrance stage. At one point near the gate to get into the blue section, we were being picked up and carried by the crowd because of poor line management.

Anyway, we entered the standing area for our section around 11:30 AM, just as Diane Feinstein began speaking. Although staff was noticeably lacking outside the barriers, there was plenty of security to go around in the open Mall area. But if the cold and boredom got to me outside the gates, then they were quickly forgotten inside. The momentous view melted all discomfort (at least for the next half hour).

It is hard to describe the feeling one gets amongst a group of this size. Maybe some of my photos will help. (And the Google satellite images taken during the event give a sense of magnitude as well.)

After Obama's delightful rhetoric -- expressing both poetry and principle -- we waited for another 45 minutes in the Mall to let the crowd begin to stream out before making our exit. Image below: my roommate and good friend, Ashesh, poses in front of the milling crowd.

Once in the streets, though, my friends and I were again reminded of the intensity of the occasion. Every street for miles in any direction was packed with people. And all of them were heading in seemingly disparate directions. Surely many were headed to the Metro (the city's subway system), but others were figuring out how to burn time before their buses (which lined every street) departed the city. Many were also figuring out how to make their way to the parade, all the way on the northern side of the Mall.

With the cold setting in again and the singular focus of the millions dissipating, we three tried to find a corner with food, warmth, and a seat. It took us another hour of walking all about the South Capitol area, but eventually, we found a sufficient restaurant in L'Enfant Plaza. (And by "sufficient", I mean a food establishment obviously over capacity, running out of every food in their buffet.)

After warming up and filling up, Steph, Ashesh, and I decided to skip the incredibly long lines (hours of lines) at every Metro station and take the 2-3 mile walk all the way across and through the Mall to the Key Bridge, which leads back into Virginia. Along the way, we saw the media booths of MSNBC and ABC. We also witnessed the surreal amount of open space in the Mall that had been full to the brim a short time before. Before leaving the Mall grounds, Steph and I captured one more photo in front of the Washington Monument. Though we were tired of walking and standing, though the day was frigid, we were happy (evidently).

When I arrived back at my cozy apartment in Arlington (around 5:30 PM), I was floating in the excitement of the day. I lay back in my recliner and rested my feet, pondering the experience.

DC had been transformed, almost bursting from the strain of millions. Yet it was a pleasant overcrowding, and it was hard to find a person who complained. The dominant feeling was one of camaraderie and shared identity. We could finally celebrate an ethnically and politically historic moment, sharing hope and anticipation.

But that anticipation also breeds expectation. Needless to say, after the parades, pomp, and pageants, President Obama -- after months of waiting, it feels good to say that -- needs to be in top gear tomorrow morning.

For today, though, I am taking a rare moment to indulge in the gravity of a grand social movement. It felt good to be part of today's mass gathering. And I am fortunate. Fortunate for the marvelous view.

The "Obama Concert"

One of the benefits of living in DC is the relative ease of attending historical (hopefully, eventually) events. 

Today, my friends and I braved 30 degree weather and a crowd of hundreds of thousands to see some notable entertainers sing, dance, and speak. A few people had heard that there were around 1 million people packed into the western side of the Washington Mall, but it is hard to tell for sure. Suffice it to say that there were plenty of people, and when I retell the story in coming years, there will have been over a million. Here's the NYT overview of the event.

The process of getting into the Mall (lines, security, etc.) was really not all that bad. There were many entry points and things moved quickly. We began on the south side but quickly discovered that the view was better from the north. Once on the north side, my friend, Julia, and I tried to scout up ahead to determine how close our group could get to the stage. It was a bad idea. By the time we reached the front third of the Reflection Pool, it became so crowded that Julia and I were being pushed along in an unchosen direction by the crowd. So we turned and made our way back to the group.

Eventually, the whole clan settled on a spot about halfway down the Pool. The stage was pretty miniscule, but there were large screens and speakers everywhere. Essentially, we went for the experience of being with a large group of people united around a common cause. (Or at least, this is what one tells oneself during the third, frosty hour of standing in one spot with numb feet.) 

My dad had mentioned -- wisely -- that it would probably be a hassle to go to the bathroom in such a crowd, yet porta-potties were also in broad attendance -- hundreds of them lined the outer rim of the Mall.

The entertainment was satisfying. I especially liked Mary J. Blige's rendition of "Lean on Me" and Garth Brooks audience revving version of "Shout". Perhaps I liked these the most because these songs increased the already high level of unity among the people in attendance. Jamie Foxx also did a superb impression of Obama; Saturday Night Live should offer him a contract for the next four years (with the opportunity for renewal after the first four).

But do not be fooled, whether or not Bono was performing at this concert, the people were here for a primary reason -- because so was Barack Obama. The crowd cheered loudly for Stevie Wonder's "Higher Ground", but whenever the camera quickly panned to Obama -- usually smiling, clapping, or dancing in his seat -- the crowd noise would increase noticeably. And when Obama approached the podium to make a short speech at the end, you could have heard the ice crack on the frozen Reflection Pool. Enamoring still dominates when Obama talks.

So what was my final impression of this massive get-together? Good music, fun atmosphere. The speeches and music were centered around a common purpose -- the individual and collective ability to positively change the nation. Almost every speech -- from Denzel Washington, Jack Black, Tom Hanks, Samuel L. Jackson, and many others -- was focused on lessons drawn from other difficult moments in America's history and the constructive way in which Americans reacted. 

It was an event of epic proportions. Yet oddly (or scarily) enough, this was a warm-up. The inauguration (to which I am fortunate enough to have a ticket in the front section) will dwarf this.

Let's hope that the coals of the social movement being stoked in the Washington Mall this week reach far and deeply beyond the borders of the capital.    

 

Media Silence on a Protest

The current flashpoint in Gaza has people galvanized on both sides of the debate, but there is disproportionate attention given to those who argue that Israel is perfectly justified in its continued military mission in Gaza.

Along with most rational observers, I agree that a nation has a right to defend itself. But this is more complex that a black-and-white case of defense. It is not just a question of rockets being launched into Israel. This whole crisis is deeply connected to the well-being of Palestinians (and thus their willingness to support Hamas). During the ceasefire period, Israel cut off most humantiarian aid to Gaza. Jimmy Carter recently wrote an op-ed that details some of this. And here is an interesting piece by an Israeli. 

But the subject of this post isn't so much about the less publicized argument as it is about the fact that there are many in America who do know that this is more complex. Although they are speaking out, many media outlets do not want to give them attention. 

A clear example of this is large protest -- up to 20,000 people -- that was held in DC this weekend. Even at the doorsteps of the Washington Post, the Post would not report the event. A co-worker, who was at the protest, has a brief story about it:

"I attended the march for Gaza on Saturday in D.C. and thought I'd share what I observed...

 

People gathered at Lafayette Square and heard from a whole range of speakers (some were rather politically incorrect, some were OK), these included Ralph Nader and former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. 

 

After the speeches, the march went around D.C. - the march could not get near Obama's residence (and it later turned out he was at Ben's Chili Bowl - so were probably all reporters as that became the main event of the weekend -  I'm being cynical). The march blocked K street for a short bit as it made its way around D.C. and stopped at two places . One of the places was the Washington's Post headquarters , which ended up not reporting the march at all in its Sunday paper.  

 

This was a funny incident actually, I took pics of the protesters as they shouted "can you see us now?" and some of the staff  were waving from inside the building while the police made sure no one entered - actually, the protestors did not even go on the pavement, just on the street - yet the Post did not report anything in its Sunday paper. You'd think maybe 10k people showing up outside your door to protest your coverage of something would get mentioned even if negatively.  In any case, all reporting on the march is very minimal...

Number of people reported varied between 10K and 20k, I say about 15k is right, but have no way of telling. I  also heard there are many videos on you tube too, but I haven't seen any yet. 

Forget who you agree with on the conflict in Israel; this is terrible for our society. If there is a legitimate perspective that many people in the country hold, then it is the job of the press to report it. 

If someone in America were to watch evening news programs, then they may be conivinced that America is unified on its support of every action that Israel takes. But just as in the case of Gaza itself, the reality is more complex. 

 

 

Multiple Ways to Fear the Recovery Plan

I recently read Paul Krugman's and David Brooks' most recent columns and was left feeling rather uncomfortable about Obama's approaching recovery package. (First, a quick note: Brooks has partially redeemed himself with this strong article after his previous abomination on the conflict in Gaza. Perhaps things just fall apart for David when he looks outside of the US border.) 

Anyway, this week, Brooks gave compelling evidence to suggest why Obama may be overconfident in his ability to time and allocate the recovery spending correctly. He thinks Obama is taking on too much -- promising to forward every policy goal without focusing on any one thing. In addition, the bill is going to be ultra-complex in written form, which poses problems for getting it passed through a Congress of 435 seperate interests.  

On the other hand, Krugman (and others like John Judis) reveals doubt over the recovery package for exactly the opposite reasons. "The economic plan he’s offering isn’t as strong as his language about the economic threat. In fact, it falls well short of what’s needed." According to this analyst, Obama's $775 billion plan will not cover the projected $2.1 trillion loss in production. Even worse, only 60% of the plan is public spending; the rest is tax cuts, which isn't as likely to cover the gap in production. The result could be an underachieving plan that prevents a deeper economic crisis.

These two essays, taken together, present severe pessimism for this plan. One perspective thinks expectations are too high. The other predominant view says the bar is set too low. But even if the economic plan can get past obstacle #1 (it passes Congress without much delay and is implemented without mistakes), then the package faces the daunting reality that it may only be half the size it needed to be in order to save the US from a deeper recession.    

The reality is that there is almost widespread consensus among economists (a rare moment in history) that a large spending plan is needed to fend off the next Depression. So as reasoned as Brooks' argument for political expectations is, an unprecedented spending bill is coming through the Congress. Brooks' concerns -- insofar as solutions to the problem go -- are irrelevant. 

Therefore, only the "underperformance" concern remains, and the solution becomes clear. Obama must step up spending significantly. Double his plan's size or more -- $1.5-$2 trillion would be the in the ballpark. And if such big numbers make you nervous, just remember that the Great Depression was just a recession at first -- until FDR failed to spend enough.

 

Kick Them While They're Down

Paul Krugman's NYT essay argues that the Republican party has primarily been led by and founded on racism. That's a deeply serious accusation. Krugman needs more evidence to make such a claim. Certainly, racism has been more prevalent in the GOP. But Krugman is claiming that the conservative message of "anti-government" is really a proxy for anti-black. That's a stretch. And possibly a direct insult to the numerous black members of the Republican party.