Some Astonishing Numbers from an Important New Book

In my judgment, one of the most important questions about American society is the relationship or compatibility between capitalism and democracy -- the extent to which one threatens or precludes the other. Thus I was drawn to a new book by the Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels, which is described here and discussed here, and which has received a lot of criticism in the blogs of conservative economists, although (as best I can tell) mostly on fairly trivial and unpersuasive methodological grounds. One of them (Will Wilkinson) described the Bartels book as "Krugman for serious people." What I find most striking are the following numbers, which show that the usual descriptions of growing income inequality in the US since 1981 vastly UNDERSTATE the growth at the high end of the income distribution. For example, while the real income (that is, measured in constant dollars) of taxpayers at the 99th percentile doubled between 1981 and 2005 -- a much greater increase than for Americans below that level -- the real income of taxpayers at the 99.9th percentile TRIPLED, and the real income of taxpayers at the 99.99th percentile -- "a hyper-rich stratum comprising about 13,000 taxpayers" -- QUINTUPLED. Bartels argues that this growth was produced primarily by the tax cuts pushed by Republican administrations, and stresses that the fivefold increase was not the average for the 99.99th percentile, but "the LOWEST income of taxpayers in this group," so presumably the rate of increase was even larger for the wealthiest of this highest-income 13,000 households. For the three decades after World War II, "the REAL income cutoff for this hyper-rich stratum was virtually constant, but around 1980 it began to escalate rapidly, from about $ 1.2 million to $6.2 million by 2000" (constant dollars).

Bleak but persuasive summary of the US situation in Iraq and Afghanistan

This is the single best summary I have seen of the current "state of play" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The author (Thomas Powers) is one of the very finest journalists covering US intelligence agencies, and whose excellent review of George Tenet's "I am not the scapegoat" autobiography (AT THE CENTER OF THE STORM: MY YEARS AT THE CIA) produced an exchange of letters published in the NY Review of Books in which Powers wrote this ominous but entirely plausible assessment: "I have thought from the first day of war that it would destroy two presidents—suck up all their energy and attention, while every other matter of importance was allowed to drift. Two presidents, I thought, because the second in the early flush of triumph at winning the White House would look for a new strategy to put off or disguise the reality of failure, much as Nixon did in 1969. Of course the new strategy would fail, and the new president would find him- or herself insisting that the new strategy needed more time, or that someone else—Iran perhaps—was to blame."

Sharon Stone and the Karma Police

So evidently China's chickens are coming home to roost. Evidently she's already apologized for this idiotic comment, but this should just serve as a reminder that even we left-coast liberals have some real ignorance in our ranks. At least 70,000 civilians are dead -- many of them schoolchildren -- and Sharon Stone thinks this is some kind of cosmic retribution?!

I know she's just a celebrity, but I had to vent a little anyway. I just sincerely hope she's not actually "good friends" with the Dalai Lama. A conversation between the two of them would make for a good Maureen Dowd piece I think.

"Some argue that no law should intrude beneath the quilt"

Not unrelated to Rachel's post is this article about sex and Korean soap opera stars.

Quick synopsis: soap opera star Husband accuses actress Wife of having an affair. Under Korean law, extramarital affairs are punishable with a jail sentence. Instead of denying the affair, Wife calls a news conference, admits having an affair, and challenges the infidelity law. She accuses him of being loveless; he calls her a liar. High drama!

There's all sorts of interesting tid-bits in here, including the historical feminist support for the infidelity law, since it gave/gives otherwise powerless women leverage over their husbands. But what I wanted to bring up was governmental "beneath the quilt" interference. [See Justice Minister's comment half way down the first page.] Say what you like about the law's impact on public morality -- maybe ethics will come crashing down without governmental support, maybe they won't, maybe its none of the government's business -- the fact remains that marriage as we currently know and practice it is, at one level, a legal contract. As Rachel notes, since it is a legal contract, the government exercises authority over who can and cannot enter into that contract. Likewise, as long as marriage is a legal contract, it makes some sense that there would be legal ramifications for breaking the contract.

Disclaimer 1: I'm not saying that the government should be able to "intrude beneath the quilt," I'm just pointing out that questioning the government's right to regulate conduct within marriage also brings into question its right to oversee the contraction of marriage in the first place. If marriage is "just a contract," then the contracting parties shouldn't be able to waltz in and out of their contractual obligations willy-nilly without the overseeing entity laying the smack down. But if marriage is something other than (or, if you like, more than) a contract; if it's a relationship that cannot be controlled or regulated just because it involves the signing of a contract, then we have to question the significance, nature, and efficacy of the contractual component.

Disclaimer 2: I don't know anything about marital law, or the line and/or interaction between the cultural and legal aspects of marriage. Therefore I don't know exactly what you sign on to, in legal terms, when you get married. So perhaps infidelity isn't technically a breach of contract? Law students feel free to jump in -- I know the article was about Korea, but now I'm curious about the U.S.

The State and the Union

The supreme court of my possible future home-state, California, recently overturned a law banning same-sex marriage, only the second state (after Massachusetts) to do so. The ruling also suggested that homosexuality may be a suspect class (meaning that laws which discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation will be under strict scrutiny). But for now, that's just in the 9th circuit.

Some have heralded it as an advancement in civil rights; others have condemned it as a departure from the traditional concept of marriage. Comments on the WSJ law blog outline the contours of the debate: "Next people will be wanting to marry their pets, mark my words!" one side wails. The other side retorts something like "We don't live in a Christian state. We live in a secular state so values have nothing to do with it. It's just a contract."

First of all, even if marriage is "just a contract", the state has always wanted to regulate who could enter into that contract. Earlier, interracial marriages were banned (see Loving v. Virginia). Marriages below a certain age are still banned, as are polygamous marriages. Why does the state have an interest in banning any forms of marriage at all? As commentator number 2 points out, there is no state religion. Perhaps for marriages below a certain age, we can argue that some parties do not have the legal ability to consent. But what about polygamy between adults? What about marriages between business partners for tax breaks?

The engines of the state have always had an interest in regulating marriage, because they have an interest in regulating community morals. The fact that we don't live in a religious state does not make the judgments of our judiciary value-neutral. Secularity is not a free space where everyone gets to do as they want. We all make value judgments even in the absence of religion. Judges and legislators do the same. So, why are some people angry? I think it's mostly because the judges are following their set of upper-class educated values, rather than a different set of values followed by those who voted in the ban in the first place.

Either way, there is nothing in the law that will require a decision one way or another. Either way, it's a judgment call being made by elites in the society. Is that a bad thing? Not really. Sometimes the society later comes to adopt those values as normal, in which case we will call these judges "forward-thinking" (think civil rights). Sometimes the society does not come to adopt those values, in which case we will call those judges products of their time, stuck in the skewed view of the past (think eugenics).

Am I saying there is no right and wrong? Not at all. I'm just not sure that's what law is all about.

A Quick Post

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/world/asia/14response.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all

Finally...some positive news regarding the Chinese government.

Fighting Resumes in Lebanon

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24534124/

So the militias are at it again in Lebanon. Countryman is fighting countryman as the world sits back and watches its handiwork play out. For years Lebanon has been a plaything used by multiple countries as a part of their broader Middle East strategies. Iran, Syria, the United States, Saudi Arabia - they are all complicit in the fighting and death. What I am most saddened by though is that the Lebanese people have once again allowed themselves to be manipulated into killing one another. One would have thought that 15 years of civil war and over 100,000 dead would have taught us that fighting only hurts the Lebanese people. The last time I was in Lebanon there seemed to be such high hopes for the country - new buildings were being constructed, infrastructure had been repaired, tourism was picking up - all in all it seemed that a bright future was on the horizon. Now it seems all that has truly been lost.

Clash of Stupidities, Part I

According to popular rhetoric these days, we're fighting a War on Terror, not a War on Islam. Many people distrust Muslims (perhaps subconsciously), but there are not so many who would say that they are all the enemy. Most of them peacefully practicing their [objectionable and archaic] religion. No, they are not the enemy...just backward, confused, or in general in need of a good dose of Western liberal values.

Even the U.S. has attempted to make a point of separating Islam and Islamists. Some governments have even attempted to forgo using religious terminology, like jihad, that insinuates that Islam condones terror. We don't want to isolate the moderate Muslims, we are often told, because they are the ones who will insure religion is eventually reformed into something tolerable.

But while many well-intentioned Westerners are trying to win the hearts and minds of the good savages moderate Muslims, there are others who say it is exactly these supposed moderates who are the enemy. According to Daniel Pipes and groups like Campus Watch, the moderates are the most dangerous, because they don't understand how to question authority and will eventually be led into terror. In fact, even a non-religious Arabic language public school in New York is a threat, because...well it teaches Arabic. But more importantly, according to Mr. Pipes, it is through these channels that "lawful Islamists" will carry out their soft jihad to stage a radical Islamic coup, establishing such dangerous things as responsible shar'ia compliant lending.

While many of us might dismiss Mr. Pipes, he may only be the extreme incarnation of a deeper fear about Muslims who don't carry bombs, but degrees and American citizenship. These are the ones who want women's only hours. They want to pray during the middle of the day. They want to challenge Western secular views of religion as something that happens inside your mind, and need not be manifested externally. And what if they were to lead our society?

An article in the Economist talks about historical works on Islam and secularism, but a question that reveals much more about problems today. After reaching the conclusion that modern governments in the Muslim world will not survive without a basis in Islam, the article then asks about the possible fate of religious minorities under an Islamic government. At best, it concludes, they would be second-class citizens.

And that's the core of the Western view: secularism is a neutral space, where everyone can be free to believe whatever they like, so long as they don't act on it. But anything else- even in moderation - is a threat.

No Cocaine Here, But Let's Yak about Tibet

This morning, Dr. Ray forwarded me an Economist article and blog rejoinder on Tibet (the article and post can be found at: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11293645, and http://www.chinavortex.com/2008/05/whats-wrong-with-the-economists-angry-china-article/). I don’t have anything terribly insightful to add to the online articles and discussions that have multiplied in recent months, but I did feel that I should put down and organize some of my own thoughts on the Tibet issue.

As someone who’s had some (very limited) experience in the human rights field, I can’t think about the Tibet situation without cringing. My discomfort doesn’t come from the fact that there have been over 50 (mostly unreported) uprisings in Tibet, Qinghai, etc, although the pictures and stories I’ve heard from the human rights community are horrifying. Instead, my feelings result from the fact that, whenever I walk by the Tibetan protestors near campus or hear mention of the Tibet issue, I become immediately and inexplicably defensive and paranoid.

The Tibet issue is something that I was unable to think about until relatively recently. A week or two before the protests began, I had a conversation with a Korean American friend on the topic that nearly reduced me to tears. I couldn’t articulate any substantive reasons why Tibet should remain a part of China, and was rather resentful that he was throwing everything I said back in my face. I was defensive and illogical and found myself whining like a pubescent 13-year old.

I heard that same wavering voice in media outlets not long after, except it wasn’t me doing the talking. The same arguments that I had made weeks earlier echoed through the media and the blogosphere—the Chinese deserved their sovereignty, there’s a pro-Tibet bias in the Western media and human rights community, we just can’t let Tibet break off, damn it!

All this is true to some extent. The Chinese—like all others—deserve sovereignty and the ability to conduct their own affairs. There is a very real fear that Tibetan independence—or even a viable separatist movement—would fuel other separatist movements on the Chinese border. And yes, there is a Western bias towards coverage of abuses of civil and political rights, while China’s enormous achievements in socioeconomic rights go unmentioned by human rights activists.

Looking outwardly at Western missteps, however, is to some extent indicative of insecurities within. The tendency to focus on Western reactions illuminates the Chinese struggle to break with historical specters and accomplish the difficult task of finding foothold on the modern political stage. In fact, however, the Chinese should not be impeded by the fear of a second Taiping or their nostalgia for the dynamism of the May 4^th movement. The insecurities that arose from being the “sick man of Asia” are not really applicable to a country that has made such enormous—albeit uneven—economic achievements in the last few decades. However, the Chinese—on both individual and national levels—seem unable to fully divorce themselves from historical insecurities, and have thus been somewhat hampered in the Tibet dialogue.

With this said, I think the most significant discussions—both for the resolution of the Tibet issue and for the continued prosperity of China more generally—are the dialogues taking place among the Chinese themselves. The many issues that confront the country are complicated. While international media sometimes portray the Chinese as being unified and monolithic, the Chinese themselves actually hold diverse views on Tibet, the economy, the government, the enforcement of law and order, etc., and feel simultaneously torn between these multiple forces (see for example http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/02/world/asia/02china.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=carrefour+boycott&st=nyt&oref=slogin).

What is the West’s role in all of this? I think it should be a more passive one than most Americans would like to have. There should be no appeasement, and the West should continue to accept Tibetan refugees while firmly pressing for the opening of Tibet to media. Criticisms, however, should be tempered by encouragement and reassurances. Active engagement and a focus on exchange would also be enormously helpful. Beyond that, there is little that can be done except to wait for the Chinese to come to their own conclusions about who they are and the directions the country should be headed in. I have reason to believe that the bystanders will not be disappointed.

Crystal Baller

Sometimes I feel like I have a real gift of prognostication, a keen (and creepy?) ability to divine future events related to the news I'm currently -- and woefully -- steeped in. This gift used to confine itself to the break-ups of grunge bands, but lately the golden intuition has placed its hand on the realm of politics.

The single recent datum of evidence supporting this theory of my sooth-saying is my early prediction of Mike Huckabee's rise to frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Although I guess I was kind of wrong since he didn't get the nomination, I still think I deserve some credit for how much money I would have made on intrade if I'd had the sense to bet on him. Plus, everybody knew McCain was out of the race months before. With that, I'd say I'm batting .500.

In any case, in order to test these whimsical predictions, I think I should put them in writing, so that's what I have for you today. You can call this a conspiracy theory (and it kind of is), but I don't think there's anything wrong with a good conspiracy theory as long as it's not just crazy. Did white people invent AIDS to kill blacks? That's a little too crazy for me. But just a little.

So here goes:

Although the fact that Barack Obama did cocaine a few times when he was younger was first brought up publicly by Barack himself in his 1995 memoir Dreams From My Father, I here solemnly predict that this becomes a news story sometime after the conventions.

Here's how it might go down:

The Republicans have a lot of time here, so I'm guessing that this is already in the works, or will be soon. There's no way to play this card right now because it will take the right set of circumstances to make it actually "newsworthy" -- a term whose definition has taken a beating with the advent of 24-hour cable news. On the other hand, this set of circumstances can be manufactured, and I expect it will be.

Sometime in late summer or early fall, a study on the effects of cocaine will be published that will receive undue attention from some politically savvy editor from a second-tier newspaper, say The Washington Times, or maybe the Wall Street Journal. Every year there are thousands of studies published that relate to cocaine -- I searched Web of Science and found 562 scientific studies dated 2008 that contained "cocaine" as a search word. One of these studies will contain some reference to the long-term effects of cocaine use, and this will be touted as some "new scientific finding" by the reporter who breaks this "story." The story will contain some mention of the fact that there is uncertainty about how much cocaine one would have to consume for there to be any significant long-term effects. As soon as this story breaks, it will go into rotation with the usual suspects, from Novak to Hannity, and will -- according to them -- justify further probing into exactly how much of the white stuff Obama really did. Although this "story" will at first be shunned by the more respectable news sources, eventually a voter will ask about it at a town hall and Obama's reticence will become the "new story." "Why won't Obama tell the voters the truth about his cocaine use? The voters have a right to know how much drugs the person who has their finger on the nuclear trigger has done!" Sean Hannity will argue with his douchebag brand of fatherly firmness. Eventually, it will come up in a debate, and will finally get its 15 minutes of fame with the MSM including Matthews and others who will bemoan the fact that we are discussing such petty things, but will be forced to talk and talk about it anyway. Mary Matalin is sure to mention it on Meet the Press.

Of course, I think there will be other swift-boating once the general election campaign starts up, but my prediction is that this is sure to somehow be an "issue."

Anybody want to bet me $50 that Mary Matalin says the word "cocaine" on MTP in the next 6 months?

If anybody sees the makings of this in the news over the next months, feel free to report back. And don't blame me when it happens: these guys are way too smart and unscrupulous to let this one get away. On the other hand, if for some reason it doesn't happen, I'm taking credit. I mean, maybe they'll read my prediction and know that it's a play we're all expecting. Either way.

Immigration in America

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24409765/

So I thought I'd post for the first time...it's exactly what I should be doing the night before a final. The story I've linked to is about the declining levels of illegal immigration from Mexico and the associated decline in agricultural worker availability. It (briefly) raises a point that I think gets lost in the rhetoric surrounding illegal immigration - illegal immigrants do serve a legitimate function in the American economy. It's high time that Congress dealt with the comprehensive immigration reform legislation that's been buried during the election season. Immigrants have been bolstering our economy for decades - my great-grandparents were seasonal migrant workers from Mexico pre-WWII for example - and it's high time we face that fact. Benefiting from immigration that we force into illegal channels and then railing against it is just hypocritical. More later...