Robert F. Kennedy's Statement on Dr. King's Death - Montage


Where our truer ideals lie.

Love,
Ben

Idealism and the Iraq War

Dana Milbank has an excellent and honest article in the Washington Post, today, that I think deserves an honest discussion.

One War, No Answers

I've actually seen excellent discussions about security and political matters in Iraq by folks like Frederick Kagan, Elliot Cohen, Jeremy Greenstock, Joe Nye, and a whole lot of folks.

But I have to say that what's becoming clearer to me is that what those discussions have in common that the current discussion about the situation in Iraq lacks is a sincere commitment and belief in the possibility of a free, equitable, democratic Iraq where democratic principles are taken seriously and animate the imagination of the Iraqi people, even as government policies may or may not fulfill those ideals.

It is becoming clearer to me that that what America is most in need of, right now, is not more power to control events in Iraq or the world.What America needs, right now, is some serious soul searching.

America is dealing with a crisis of confidence in its own ideals. And force is a popular if shortlived substitute that those who lack faith in those ideals are romanticizing right now in absence of that kind of soul searching. Force is a substitute for ideals in the same way that drugs are a substitute for a substantial commitment to a future and higher purposes. Meaning it's no substitute at all. It's a place-holder as people do the difficult heart and mind work to prepare themselves to living up to their sincerest values.

What's becoming clear to me, right now, is that what we are missing in Iraq is not necessarily a lot of new ideas (though these would be helpful, and certainly stronger thinking about how and when to use force and aggression would serve us well), but a renewed commitment to our strongest ideals.

Iraq is likely to disappoint those ideals when this is all over with. Just as America disappointed those ideals after the Revolution.

But disappointment is not reason to give up on ideals. Ideals are the standard by which disappointment is measured. Disappointment is reason to persevere in developing our thoughts and commitments, our hearts and minds, in setting the stage for ideals to be realized and for people to face the difficulties and setbacks that inevitably come with setting their sights high.

The bottom-line in Iraq is that we need a democratic government that will be crafted as a function of a political compromise that cares for the most serious concerns of Iraqis, right now, and that can deal with other concerns as they come up, over time, in a democratic fashion.

Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds, and their alligned militias, need to invest themselves in a political solution to the conflict where political and cultural concerns are resolved non-violently, either through government or through a freer Iraqi culture.

To do that, they will need a security situation that is stable enough for Iraqis to trust that such a government can provide basic safety, end ethnic violence, and provide a safe enough space for Iraqis to work out concerns together without violence. Americans will need to help with that situation, for now, both in training Iraqis to do a better job of caring for such concerns and in providing the support of a military capable of handling conflict too overwhelming for the Iraqi military (and perhaps supplying the Iraqi government with weapons, equipment, and any other support that they might need to carry out this mission).

What they don't need is Americans bullying them or anyone else, anymore, about how to go about doing that. They don't need Carl Levin bullying them anymore than they needed George Bush bullying them.

Iraqis and Americans need leadership that is genuinely committed to a successful Iraqi democratic government and the nurturing of a more authentic free and equitable democratic culture in Iraq, meaning a culture premised upon freedom and equity and thoughtful reflection and engagement with serious issues as a means of promoting self-governance and self-determination among average Iraqis as the basis for a sustainable democratic future in Iraq.And what we all need to provide that leadership is some serious soul searching. Some genuine belief in democratic ideals, even as the world perpetually falls short of our idealism.

Me too. As I've watched Democrats fall short of so many of my own democratic ideals, I've been prone to cyncism, lately. The idea of a world where I am forced to do the bidding of anyone who can find the means to compel me is so discouraging, that I've lost some fire and spirit, lately, as I search deep for faith and hope in a world where so many people lack both in the most serious ways.

It is so strange to me that a generation in America that was nurtured in the commitment to love and compassion and equity by the likes of Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, John Lennon and the Beatles, Abraham Maslow and later Bill Clinton, Joe Nye, Amartya Sen, and U2 and courage and freedom, by the likes of Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, George Will and Andrew Sullivan and the rock band Rush and would take such legacies so for granted in a world where the popularity of force as a political philosophy has substituted political imagination with obsession with power.

America, having lost track of their democratic ideals, has been engaged in a political civil war for the last 6 years. And she wonders why Iraq is embroiled in a civil war, herself, with that example to follow.

America needs to set a better example.

And a better example is set with a more honest and genuine commitment to democratic ideals.

The ideas about how to achieve those ideals follow a more genuine commitment to their fulfillment.

This is an aside. But it's funny. I've been single, meaningfully, for about 5 years, now. I've dated several women in there, but I've not been in love since I dated Brandi.

And the reason why I haven't found love is because the idealism that animated Brandi's and my relationship was more substantial than any of the relationships that I have had since that time. Idealism is not thought without action. Idealism is thought in action, with on-going thinking and reflection and engagement and dialogue and friendships and relationships and compassion and understanding to develop new ways of thinking about those to expand them to more people and to expand our ways of imagining a world that successfully navigates the challenges that we all face together.

Idealism is the only most substantial commitment that I've ever been able to count on amongst friends and colleagues. The extent to which they have it is generally reflective of the degree to which they have persisted in stronger purposes despite the obstacles that life has to offer.

Cynicism is borne of disappointment. And it becomes the most serious obstacle, itself, to a more ideal world than any obstacle that our idealism may originally encounter. Cynicism is the source of almost all of the most serious obstacles to more powerful ideals.And then cyncism scoffs like the bully at the ideals that it has knocked to the ground and says, "Told you so." It's an ugly pattern. And it only ends when we give it up.

I've decided that I will not date anyone who lacks the idealism that Brandi and I brought to that relationship we committed to when were too young to know just how ugly the world was and how long people would defend that ugliness. That includes Brandi, as she has settled in the last 5 years or so, who lost track of that idealism several years back, at this point.

Because no matter how much I try to pretend otherwise, I will always know that any other kind of love is not real. It is counterfeit. It is pretending to believe something to look more savvy of the world than I or anyone really is. That is what cynicism is, too often. A big front for how savvy one can look about the realities of the world, borne of the fear to acknowledge that one knows far less about the world and is far more afraid and confused in the world than one wants to admit.

And I'm just not interested in spending the rest of my life with someone like that. I want someone like the girl I fell in love with in the summer of 1997. That girl I have not seen for many years, now. But I just won't settle for less. Because everything else is bullshit. It's not real love.

The same goes for Iraq. As long as Americans are not honestly committed to the highest democratic ideas either in Iraq or in their relationships with states and countries in the rest of the world, their leadership is not genuine and they should expect mistrust from Iraqis and the rest of the world, which is the most substantial element to this whole situation that is undermining the success of a democratic government and a democratic culture and future in Iraq. Iraqis mistrust us because we have earned their mistrust. And the more we act like they are pawns in our efforts rather than people we care about worthy of our commitments, we will continue to earn that mistrust.

It is this failure on our part -- out failure to care about people for their own sake and not for how they can be of use to us -- that both is responsible for so many of our problems in America, in Iraq, and in the world and which blinds us to the heart of so many of those problems, as we rationalize why we try to force people to care, which is not possible, and which undermines the genuine caring that we need to solve so many of the problems that we face.

I will not settle for someone who does not love me, genuinely, for me and not for what I can do for them, what insecurities I keep at bay, how I make them look, what I can get for them, what I can do for them sexually, materially, or otherwise.None of those things is real love. And I have real love to offer. And so I expect the same in return and do not feel insecurity or desperation for something less than that. And if I were to settle, I would always know that I have given up on real love for something less.

I have no interest in settling for less than love in my marriage and relationships. And I have no interest in settling for anything less than the highest democratic ideals in Iraq, in America's relationship with her neighbors in the world, and in how we aspire to live as free and democratic citizens in the international community.

The irony in the discussions of the strength of Malcolm X and the weakness of Martin Luther King (and Bobby Kennedy or John F. Kennedy) and all of King's talk about love and compassion and turning the other cheek, is that King was, by far, the more courageous and strong of those two leaders. The courage to love and to show compassion for those who would withhold freedom from you is far more courageous and involves far more strength than railing against them as "devils". Hating those who would oppress you is far less courageous than loving them, expecting better, and engaging in constructive (and as non-violent as possible) conflict to promote one's freedom, or, in the case of Iraq, a democracy that will secure that freedom and the hope for a freer and more equitable democratic future.

Love is borne of genuine concern for others. Americans and most people lack that. For Iraqis, for the world, for each other, and most importantly, for themselves.

And I am holding out for a woman who has that kind of love. For herself. And for me.

And that is the only way forward in a world lost in its excuses for why it doesn't take that love and compassion and understanding, so basic to our dealings with one another, seriously enough.

Bobby Kennedy's eulogy for Martin Luther King upon his death in April of 1968 is one of the strongest testaments to that idea amidst a time of cynicism and violence and the ugliest human impulses that I have ever heard.

Perhaps we can rediscover those ideals amidst a time when we need them most.




Love,
Ben

I miss being in love

A colleague of mine just got flowers for her birthday.

And I'm reminded that I miss being in love so much.

I love giving flowers. I love receiving them. But I love giving them more.

That feeling when you want to give your heart freely to someone all the time is a great feeling.

It just occurred to me something really amazing:

For all of our fighting and all of the difficult times, Brandi and I really never lost the romance or the sex. The sex was always hot, I think Brandi and I have both acknowledged, and I never stopped bringing flowers or doing romantic dinners or romantic times together.

There was just a ton of passion in our relationship, and much of that came out as fighting, unfortunately. I didn't even really believe we would break up, I was so in love.

Amazing, as I look back now. And more amazing the more I see older friends who complain of fizzling romance and relationships.

One thing is for sure for any woman who is with me that I fall in love with. It's a mighty love. And it's a hard one to fizzle out.

I need love and passion and romance in my life again.

I need to give flowers to someone.

Love,
Ben

Making peace with a world of manipulation and control

I have spent a lot of time in the last 5 years or so thinking about the psychology of control. Why people want it, despite never having it in the most meaningful ways. How people rationalize it, no matter what ugly consequences its pursuit creates (except in circumstances of physical aggression where the threat is genuinely eminent and no other means is possible). What role it plays in all of the most serious tragedies and crimes against humanity in long-standing and near-term history.

And most difficult of all, I have thought about all of the ways that others will and do rationalize controlling me and anyone else, no matter how well they lead their lives and no matter what quality of person they might control -- no matter how much a world that tries and went to great lengths to control and dominate Jesus of Nazareth, the Buddha, Martin Luther King, Mohatma Ghandi, and Desmond Tutu seems perverse and distorted, and yet how the rationalization persists despite that distortion. I have thought long and hard and I think I'm beginning to finally come to terms with the fact that if I want freedom to live my life and to champion the cause of freedom and to work to excel beyond my own and others more minimal and smaller expectations for myself and people, then I will have to embrace that freedom despite the efforts of others to control me, not wait for their permission.

Freedom and the responsibilities that come with its higher ideals, I have decided, is a cause that will have to be pursue of my own accord despite the efforts to control and manipulate and pressure and otherwise bully me without respect for my conscience and free thought and choices.

It is a moral cause as much as it is a concern for stronger solutions to humanity's problems.

And last night and today, I think I am finally coming to terms with my need to embrace the freedom that is necessary to be a genuinely good human being (and not just be fearful and repressed and persistently trying, fruitlessly, to control what I fear) regardless of what others think, regardless of how I fit in or do not with people, regardless of whether my freedom is respected or not by others.

This is the only life I've ever dreamed of. And whether or not it manifests itself ideally or not in my own lifetime, I intend to live a life committed to my own freedom of thought and conscience and where love rather than power or wealth or control or darker desires are my center.

That is where our truer center is found. Our moral center. Our political center. It is found in the heart. It is found in our more genuine love and compassion for others and the understanding that develops out of that compassion. And it is that compassion, hence, that those who live out of fear and control fear most; fearing that they are weak the more they love. Because love does not control. And love challenges us to let go of fear and our need to control.

If you love something, set it free.

It's a principle that those who seek to repress and control fear because it means opening up beyond their defenses -- which are useless in the biggest sense, no matter how much they buttress them -- and make them vulnerable to a world full of pain but also full of life and love. Love and pain come hand in hand. And it is pain that people waste so much precious time trying to protect themselves against with controls that make it all the more likely, sadly.

Luckily, we seem to find our way out of the shadows that we too often mistake for sunshine, as Plato observed, and to be led by love more than by fear, as Martin Luther King insightfully noted.

Today and last night, I have been making my peace with a world where some people will persistently try to manipulate and control me, no matter how much respect for my freedom and the freedom for others is fundamental to a responsible life, a responsible politics, and a responsible morality and humanity.

And it is the most freedom that I have felt in a long time.

Love,
Ben

Joe Biden is a scary motherfucker

Biden: Blame immigration woes on Mexico

Speaking of people who operate out of insecurity and D-values.

Joe now favors a fence on the Mexican border to deal with immigration and the dreaded drug trade.

Joe Biden is now officially a scary motherfucker.

Thank God this guy will never be President. Now if we could only get him off of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Where is Dick Lugar when you need him?

Our worst natures

The darkest feature of our free will, I'm learning, is that we can rationalize anything with a cover of being righteous.

Abraham Maslow was right. Most people operate with D-values, meaning values of insecurity. All of us operate with D-values, at some level. But some people operate more out of this level of values rather than out of higher B-values or our higher values and ideals.

And the most basic need that impedes our growth and that is so easily manipulated and exploited is our desire to be viewed favorably by others. All of us have this tendency, and we are either more or less honest with ourselves and others about how much we want to look good at the expense of being honest with ourselves and others, which would better facilitate our actually being good and better people.

And the worst feature of this insecurity is when we enforce our fear of who we might really be, inside, on everyone, because staying our fear is more important than growing beyond them.

Fear is both the most dangerous and notorious weapon of the weak and the most serious impediment to our growth.

Our saving grace is that fear cannot lead to anywhere where we can thrive.

And eventually, we need real nourishment.

We must fumble around in our own internal darkness, I am discovering, before we can finally see the light. All of us. Without exception.

And the most fearful and insecure among us fumble for longer than others because they keep mistaking the darkness for light. Fear for understanding.

Fear of understanding mistaken for weakness and reflective of our own weaknesses we prefer to remain blind to is one of the most serious obstacles to personal and cultural learning, growth, and progress.

We only find strength and understanding when we let go of weakness rather than defending ourselves against its presence. And this weakness most of all -- our propensity to protect our ego from facing our weaknesses for fear of acknowledging them-- is the most pernicious frailty of all.

Love,
Ben

You know what I'm proudest of?

I just happened by this blog about this female professor talking about tenure and her concerns about the process.

And I just realized that something really extraordinary that I am really proud of with this book and my work is the one thing that was hardest:

That I broke away from the university and its politics to write something that I thought needed the freedom for me to write for its own sake, rather than to appease any political environment, including the university, to be as honest as possible.

University politics are some crazy politics to navigate when you care about honest scholarly work. And it creates blindspots for academics that I want, as much as possible, to be able to recognize, shed light on them, and to create understanding in their place.

Life is political in a way that perpetually shuts down honest discussion, political or otherwise. Fear is our biggest obstacle to making progress, and fear both blinds us to our failures and shuts down discussion and debate and engagement and dialogue and understanding that might help us illuminate them.

Fear undermines honest understanding because it shuts down the communication and engagement that makes honest understanding more possible.

And universities, like life in general, are full of politics inspired by fear that undermine honest communication, engagement, and understanding.

The best way out of that fear is for us to let go of it and our foolish notion that we must inspire it to scare away all of our fears.

But absent that, since that is a very tall order, we can find freedom to share understanding outside of the purview of power dynamics that inspire fear and undermine engagement and understanding.

This is a time where we have foolishly romanticized inspiring fear in others to solve problems that fear can never solve since it undermines the understanding that is necessary to resolve most serious issues.

But there are always ways around the fear and those who monger it for whatever purposes.

Universities are the best institutions in the world, in my experience, for opening up our opportunities to share understanding without fear. And they still fall short. Every group, every institution, every relationship falls short as we learn to treat one another better and trust one another better as the foundation for supporting our mutual understanding and engagement to tackle and resolve serious problems that we face together.

And I'm proud of the fact that I have had this time outside of even the most open institution to consider the blindspots of all groups and institutions, even the most honest and decent and genuine, like universities.

I'm exhausted. I need a nap in a serious way.

Love,
Ben

Do you know what I miss?

From an email I wrote to Melissa, today:

"Do you know what I miss, Melissa? You what feels missing every day of my life and has felt missing for more than 5 years, now?

A feeling of inspiration because people around me feel similarly inspired.

That's what's gotten better at school. People seem to be taking the job as seriously and caring about the kids closer to the very genuine concern that I have for them.

That was the feeling I had when Brandi and I were together that I miss so badly. Working on something important with someone who cares about it as much as I do and with whom I can share my passion and enthusiasm. I haven't felt that in a long time. And it feels missing every day of my life that I don't have it.

It's something I can't do on my own, I'm learning. It's something either you share with someone else or you don't. I miss it. And I live for it when it's around. And no amount of money can replace it."

It is awesome and amazing what two young people can kindle that together when they don't have the cynicism of older adults weighing them down.

That's the feeling I miss in my life more than any other. If I could have that feeling again, I wouldn't give two shits about anything else: money, prestige, influence, fame.

Nothing else matters when you feel that kind of love.

I have to hope it's out there. Because it would be a tragedy if no woman had the courage or love in her to step up to the plate and experience that kind of love and inspiration.

No matter how much of the other stuff I might come by, life will seem empty if I don't have that kind of love again.

It's the only thing worthy of my life. And love.

Love,
Ben

A new book idea

I'm still working on my book. I've actually thought about it more than I've worked on it, but I suppose that counts since the work is found in the thinking.

The first book: The Limits of Power

3 sections:

1) Empirical discussion of power and the use of force and aggression and its consequences
- a thoughtful exploration of those arguments and alternate causalities for data around governance and its empirical consequences with best arguments for power and force for domestic and international issues and an empirical discussion of its consequences in each case
- drug control, gun control and death penalty featured among domestic issues
- terrorism, genocide, and poverty and wealth equity featured among international issues
2) Philosophical discussion of morality, free will, law, and politics
3) Theoretical discussion of least possible necessary aggression

Second book: A History of Liberal Democracy

Something to that effect. I want to write a progressive history -- with a clear distinction between real progress, meaning empirical improvement on important indicators, and progressive politics, a ideological orientation that may or may not and does and does not promote real progress -- of liberal democracy and liberal democratic principles and the ways that they support human progress.

I've just decided that I don't think I can do the first more empirical, philosophical and theoretical book as a progressive history. But I think a historical exploration of the same issues would be powerful.

I have to say that something that is interesting in my own personal and professional development is that I am much more genuinely committed to empirical exploration of these issues independent of my own biases and philosophical commitments than I think I've been at all up to this point. I've explored so many different ways to approach various policy issues that I can conceive of policy data in lots of different ways in terms of constructive policy. And I think data and strong theory about data is more important than any ideology or ideological or philosophical lens on an issue. The philosophy and theory and ideas matter.

But what I love about theory and the reason that this needs to feature up front in my writing, I think, is that theory is built around empirical science rather than either trying to substitute data for theory or committing oneself to an ideology or philosophy or worldview and then trying to fit facts into that thinking.

I'm not interested in theory to reinforce my biases. I'm interested in theory to develop stronger explanations of data, not to develop a worldview to manipulate facts to fit my thinking. The latter just doesn't make any sense, really, because it's not an honest exploration of facts. And it is this kind of self-righteousness that I am so frustrated and disappointed with in contemporary political discussions. And it is the certainly the kind of self-righteousness that leads to all of the worst tragedies in humanity's history, I believe: genocide, imperialism, terrorism, brutality; religious, ethnic, racial, sexual, economic and other forms of repression. It is this kind of self-righteousness that enlightened thought was meant to escape. And I am more committed to that notion than I am to any particular idea, philosophy or theory.

I've got grading to do. And Carson, I wrote this big long "5 things people don't know about me" before Thanksgiving and lost it all, somehow. So I'm working on it again, as I get the chance.

Love,
Ben

In honor of Milton Friedman, a free market education policy discussion

I happened across an excellent free market education policy discussion at Reason Magazine, today, and I thought I'd share it in honor of the man who made, from my reading, the most persuasive case for market reforms in education, Milton Friedman.

Let a Thousand Choices Bloom

If you haven't visited the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation to promote school choice, I highly recommend it, especially given the beautiful and moving obituary for Milton on its front page.

Milton Friedman's seminal 1955 article arguing for school choice, The Role of Government in Education, is powerful, but it is not the most powerful argument I have heard for school choice.

The most powerful argument I have heard for school choice also came from Milton Friedman. It was an empirical argument based on an area of education that the United States undoubtedly excels at internationally: higher education.

Friedman argued that one of the incontrovertably successful places that the United States has provided education -- by both public and private institutions -- has been in colleges and universities. And that the heart of that success is the amount of choice, freedom, and self-determination in college and university selection in the United States and by the American and international students who attend them.

The success of institutions of higher education, argued Friedman, were not just that students chose where they wanted to attend, which is important if people are to freely embrace the responsibility that comes with a strong education. But that colleges and universities have substantial and often sacrosanct autonomy over their institutions, for good reason. While public and private schools generally welcome government money for their institutions, they are rightly and for good reason, very skeptical of government interference or subtantial oversight or control of their activities, largely because the value on freedoms of thought and exchange and teaching and learning in universities are often considered sacred on university campuses, for good reason.

Thus, one of the freest markets and some of the freest institutions in the country also hail an international reputation for quality.

It was an excellent and powerful argument, and -- in addition to many very powerful arguments for school choice -- was the one that eventually swayed me to the idea of choice as fundamental to public education school reform.

As I watch the hubris of liberals, right now, running against the more genuinely liberal tide of human history, which affirms human freedom and genuine equity, at the moment of Milton Friedman's death, I am sad for Milton that he had to die at a time when his legacy was being most forcefully challenged by those who do not appreciate fully enough the power of his ideas or the power of freedom for the course of humanity.

But reflecting on the legacy of a man who stood against collectivism and for freedom, and individual choice, and independent thought when the cause was much more unpopular, I am heartened by the realization that the cause of freedom burns much brighter today, despite the current setback of the contemporary regressive political moment, than it did when he first wrote.

And that, undoubtedly, the cause of freedom outstrips the arrogance and power of those who seek to limit it.

As Andrew Sullivan remarked more than 3 years ago, this is a dark time for freedom.

But it is the darkness before the dawn. Because darkness always gives way to light on the road of human progress.

Love,
Ben

Hope amidst pessimism

This is a very pessimistic and cynical time for Iraq and America, right now.

Charlie Rangel's proposal of a new draft illustrates everything that I find foolish and counterproductive and nonsensical about Democrats, right now.

Henry Kissinger sounds a dour note that demonstrates that foreign policy experience does not equate with constructive policy advice.

And amidst all of the glum and helplessness that so many people feel in Iraq, largely because their cynicism about both means and ends in Iraq and in much policy are self-fullfilling...

Jeremy Greenstock has an excellent proposal for a political resolution to the underlying issues in Iraq along with a commitment to military resources to create as much security as possible to deal with this terrible mess. Jeremy's idea for a nationalized oil industry is questionable and would need to be reformed with free market commitments at some point, anyway. But otherwise, Jeremy's proposal is solid and a much more constructive alternative to Kissinger's similar proposal of an international conference with a weaker commitment to democratization in Iraq.

What distinguishes Greenstock's proposal from Charlie Rangel's cynical suggestion and Henry Kissinger's pessimistic prognostocations is that Greenstock is committed to a political resolution consistent with a more democratic Iraq even if that resolution may fall short of our ideals, but without giving up on the ideals.

So many people, Kissinger and Rangel included, confuse their cynicism and disappointment with realities they don't like -- an unstable Iraq, for Kissinger; the President declaring a war that Charlie disagreed with for Senator Rangel -- with some constructive approach to resolving the issue.

What Kissinger and Rangel are stuck on is the same failed way of thinking about the situation. The problem with the war was not enough force and control. For Rangel, the problem was that there wasn't enough controls on the President to declare the war. For Kissinger, the problem was not working to place Iraq under the thumb of a military strong-man early on, rather than committing ourselves to a democratic Iraq (while simiultaneously and nonsensically supporting the President's commitment to democraticatization, internationally).

When, no matter how much people keep fucking this up, the problem is not that there is not enough force or control over the situation. Those are control issues on the part of Henry and Charlie, who just can't come to terms with the fact that neither of them can control the things that they are trying to control.

The problem from the beginning, as Jeremy well argues, is that we have not taken democratic commitments seriously enough over the course of the war. My critique, up front, was that we did not consult with Iraqis who both needed to make a commitment to an invasion and needed to lead a revolt, I believe, to undercut insurgent efforts to expel the American infidel. Iraqis lives were at stake and noone talked with Iraqis about a possible invasion. Americans failed to discuss the option with Iraqi opposition and militia groups so that they could lead an effort and undercut perception and reality that Americans were invading for their own purposes. It was American hubris at its worst and we are paying the price for it.

And Jeremy argues well, I think, that the most pressing problem, today, is not military victory, which as Henry argues is not a viable option for resolving this situation. The problem is that democratic dialogue amongst all interested parties, both within Iraq and outside of Iraq, is not taking place to ensure an outcome that works for everyone's interests, including and especially Iraqis.

Jeremy is right. There is no reason that we need to lower our sights for democratization of Iraq. Is there going to be all kinds of obstacles and setbacks for many, many years to a more mature Iraqi democracy? Of course. They have no experience with democracy. But does that mean that we should resign ourselves to a civil war or to an opppressive Shia or Sunni majority or an autocracy with a military strong-man (Kissinger's suggestion, by the way, you notice, completely mirrors his advice and active support of Augusto Pinochet in Chile and to the assassination of at least one Chilean general by Kissinger directed assassins; so perhaps Henry is being a bit self-serving in his cynicism and, at the very least, perhaps we should be a little skeptical of that already failed advice)?

Of course we should not resign ourselves. Henry's experience in Chile should be reason enough for him to be skeptical of his own cynical advice and is perhaps a sign that Henry has not learned the lesson from that very tragic mistake on his part.

Resigning ourselves to the ugly realities that could take place in Iraq does not constructively deal with those realities, even if they fall short of our expectations. And, in the meantime, the cynicism undermines constructive efforts like the one proposed by Jeff Greenstock to take democratic approaches, as much as democratic outcomes, more seriously in finding a resolution that gets us closer to a more stable, more democratic Iraq, even if that reality falls short of our democratic ideals (ideals are not meant to be fulfilled completely, at all times, after all; they are blueprints for making our lives better and standards by which our efforts are judged as successes or failures).

A more open, more democratic, more participatory international multilateral conference of all parties internal and external in Iraq would go a long way to moderating sectarian conflict and insurgent resistance to an Iraqi government with final authority for the use of force, to dealing constructively with the concerns of involved parties, and with developing an Iraqi government that would satisfy various parties. Will this government fall short of our expectations and democratic ideals? Absolutely. But will a commitment to the fulfillment of those ideals get us closer than absent that commitment. Definitely. And it creates the space for criticisms of the Iraqi government and Iraqi society for the ways that they fall short of those ideals.

As William Safire, Alexis DeToqueville, and others have made clear, genuine democracy is not rule over, it is rule committed to self-governance and self-determination. Genuine democracy is not about coercing others to do our will. It is about empowering people to do their own, to do so freely, and out of that free will, to do so responsibly. And to responsibly engage others about and resolve important issues in ways that account for mutual interests.

People who think of democracy as, primarily, formal institutions to coerce their will are not committed to democracy genuinely at all. That kind of democracy is the most minimal commitments of those not committed sufficiently to freedom and equity as the foundations for self-determination and self-governance which are the most sustainable route to a well-governed society and the primary virtue of free societies and free peoples.

It is the primary virtue of free societies that those advocating more autocratic arrangements and free peoples alike persistently take for granted: that freedom creates the room for a society of self-governing people of virtue rather than the illusion of virtue in a society consumed with power, control, repression, retribution, revenge, destruction and self-destruction. Free societies are the only path to real virtue. Every other society is bound up in repression and self-deception. Palestine, North Korea, Iran, and Cuba are excellent examples of the latter; societies so wrapped up in their repression, retribution, revenge, destruction, and self-destruction that they just cannot face their failures of conscience and governance. They cannot face the ugly, dysfunctional cultures they have created and they cannot face the ugly, dysfunctional governments that they often support, and, in the case of Palestine and Iran, that they elect.

Free and democratic societies do not leave us free of vice. No culture does that. Free and democratic societies leave us more free, able, and likely to take responsibility for our vice and to embrace our virtue, in our personal choices and in our choices for governance.

What Charlie and Henry lack that Jeremy maintains is a genuine commitment to democracy. Not democracy as a means of controlling those you disagree with or democracy as a means of controlling a population. What Jeremy has that Charlie and Henry lack is a genuine commitment to democratic means and attitudes toward parties that takes seriously peoples' concerns and the self-determined concerns of Iraqis, not as obstacles to an external priority that must be imposed without consulting parties. Our goal of democracy for Iraq is a good one. But it is one that must be practiced more substantially, not just opined about and then imposed with a democratic process that lacks commitment to democratic substance, especially the need by Iraqis to a self-determined political solution to the crisis they face currently rather than impositions from America or elsewhere. Democracy, at its heart, is about engagement and ideas to resolve important problems that people face, not a process by which we manipulate to impose our will. To use the levers of democratic power in ways that undermines democratic conversation and engagement is not genuinely democratic. It is getting your way. Democratic means that other people are taken seriously other than yourself. And they are taken seriously equitably -- meaning on their own terms and by their own self-determined sense of their needs and interests -- not using a majority vote to shove your ideas down other peoples' throats.

The latter is democracy of the cynic. It is not genuine democracy, it doesn't take principles of equity and freedom seriously, and people who advocate it should not be taken seriously.

Democracy, at its heart, is about people equitably resolving problems in a way that takes freedom seriously and which looks after the interests of everyone equitably, not one person or one group at the expense of others.

And Henry and Charlie don't get that, frankly, because neither of them take seriously the interests or concerns of others nearly seriously enough.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Forcing others to do your bidding is not democratic. It is manipulative and dishonest and wrong.

And people who do it don't take commitments to freedom and democracy seriously enough. And they shouldn't be taken as seriously in a discussion about how to democratize.

Here's to hope amidst pessimism.

Love,
Ben

An enduring legacy

The Economist has an excellent obituary for Milton Friedman. The finest I've read thusfar.

An enduring legacy

It is amazing to me how one person can be so productive when so many people accomplish so little in their lifetimes.

The negative income tax (otherwise known as the earned income tax credit), a volunteer army, a commitment to free markets and central banks directing economic activity rather than government, public and private school choice and vouchers, proposing the idea of natural unemployment.

And that is not even to mention the powerful legacy of a promoting freedom, his ability to explain the powerful role that freedom plays in stronger, more responsible choices and understandings of the world, and his living legacy to that idea.

Milton Friedman accomplished more in one lifetime than most people ever imagine for themselves.

His ideas were powerful and animated by a commitment to freedom that has already done so much good for the world and will likely, hopefully, do still much good after his death.

When I say that I don't agree with everything that Milton Friedman has said or argued or thought or believed, I say it as someone who has never and will never agree with everything that anyone ever says. Milton's vision of the power of free peoples and markets to care for so many important social issues -- health, safety, the environment, poverty and wealth inequities, concerns around race, ethnicity, nationality, religious affiliation, gender, and so many other social issues -- was more limited than free people or free markets were capable of. And his failure of imagination on these issues will rationalize the very kinds of regulation of those markets that Milton so powerfully argued against unless free peoples take advantage of their freedom more responsibly to care for those issues. The failure of those regulations will neither be enough nor are they likely to deter the more ideologically-committed of their advocates, no matter what failures they create or encounter. It will take positive commitments by those within the free world and within free markets to offer real rather than just hypothetical alternatives to regulation or government to attempt to resolve such issues. Issues that can only be resolved with the free commitments of free peoples, but which ideologues may never be satisfied with undermining no matter their failures.

Milton Friedman's most important legacy was his commitment to freedom and the commitment to free thinking that is humanity's only most serious hope for resolving all of its most serious problems.

And it is that legacy that ranks Milton Friedman as one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century. And one of the few thinkers whose ideas will live long after him into the 21st century and beyond.

Love,
Ben

Looking after number one

You know what's the ultimate self-centeredness that the majority of people in the world commit and that noone wants to take responsibility for:

They all want to be forgiven. But nobody wants to forgive.

It's the ultimate self-centeredness of humanity, as far as I'm concerned.

And the tragedy of it all is that we all do and will need forgiveness for our self-centeredness around forgiveness and all of the ways that our vision of the world is distorted by our self-centeredness.

You know why Democrats don't impress me in the least, these days?

The one way they try to distinguish themselves from Republicans is around wealth inequities.

And yet I very rarely hear from Democrats -- John Edwards and Barak Obama being two very rare exceptions and even their opining is kind of weak given the enormity of wealth inequities -- getting to the heart of wealth inequities. And the heart of wealth inequities is that we all take advantage of our neighbors and that we all need to stop. Rich people, middle class people, poor people. We all take advantage of our neighbor. And the only way we will stop, I'm convinced is to the degree that we stop voluntarily and to the degree to which we wisen up and don't let people take advantage of us to the greatest degree possible.

The sad fact of life is that the second option has limits in what it can do for us. And that, ultimately, when it comes to alleviating wealth inequities, the first option -- our willingness to voluntarily stop taking advantage of our neighbor -- is the only real hope we have on this issue.

And everything else -- the minimum wage, health care, family leave, education, etc. -- these issues are all just a function of our willingness to stop.

And until we do, this issue will remain on our individual and general consciences and our childrens' consciences and their childrens' consciences until we face it squarely.

The one really great thing about this period is that American hegemony -- liberal or conservative -- over the world is being seriously and permanently eroded, I think. America and people, generally, will either lead because they have better ideas for leadership, or they will lose their following. Force and power and wealth are not good enough reasons for leadership. And you can some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. And Democrats, like Republicans, will have to learn that lesson the hard way, it seems.

As long as we satisfy ourselves with the cyncism, a cynical reality will remain and all of the cyncical responses to the reality that have all gotten worse in the last 6 years will get worse. And the world will continue down that road until we wisen up and face the reality squarely.

The last 6 years have been one long self-congratulation by the left and by the right for all of their ugliest, meanest, most cynical, most thoughtless instincts.

And there is no real progress in that kind of self-congratulation.

Every ugly reality that has ever persisted in the world has been rationalized as the only possible reality by its cynical defenders or even cynical detractors. Slavery, oppression of women, oppression of minority ethnicities, religions, ideologies, and groups, imperialism, repressive government, poverty and wealth inequities.

Every single ugly reality in the world that exists or has existed has tried to suck new life from the cynical rationalization that the world could be and would be no other way.

And the only thing that has ever made those cynical realities go away is peoples' willingness to face them squarely and criticize them until they were resolved; not until the consciences of those who perpetuate them are appeased.

Forgiveness is the only context in which that can be done effectively. And it is the path that can facilitate it most quickly and successfully. There isn't enough prosecution in the world to make this issue or any issue go away. Conscience is what we must engage. And no other path will resolve this or any other issue. Every other path is temporary and minimal in scope.

And anyone who thinks differently around that fundamental issue, as far as I'm concerned, is just not being honest with themselves or others.

Here's to a world where we all take more serriously getting honest with ourselves.

Love,
Ben

Milton Friedman and personal freedom

Andrew Sullivan cites an excellent letter from Milton Friedman to Bill Bennett in 1989, when Bennett was President George H.W. Bush's drug czar.

From that letter:

In Oliver Cromwell's eloquent words, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken" about the course you and President Bush urge us to adopt to fight drugs. The path you propose of more police, more jails, use of the military in foreign countries, harsh penalties for drug users, and a whole panoply of repressive measures can only make a bad situation worse. The drug war cannot be won by those tactics without undermining the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish.

You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are tearing asunder our social fabric, ruining the lives of many young people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged among us. You are not mistaken in believing that the majority of the public share your concerns. In short, you are not mistaken in the end you seek to achieve.

Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore. Of course the problem is demand, but it is not only demand, it is demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels. Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault.

Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use converts that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike. Our experience with the prohibition of drugs is a replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages...

...This plea comes from the bottom of my heart. Every friend of freedom, and I know you are one, must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence. A country in which shooting down unidentified planes "on suspicion" can be seriously considered as a drug-war tactic is not the kind of United States that either you or I want to hand on to future generations.

Thank you, Milton, for your commitment to freedom.

Love,
Ben

Those who compel my will lose my heart

This period more than any other has convinced me that I can no longer identify exclusively or primarily with any ideology or party or group. Ideology and ideologues -- communism, socialism, Nazism, fascism as well as liberalism or conservativism and even anarchism or libertarianism; whatever ideology -- that compel conscience are as repugnant as religion that compels conscience.

There is a reason why there is such a absence of ideas in contemporary political and cultural discussions. Because force -- power -- has become an obsession in contemporary democratic politics. It's one of the most ironic and tragic features of early 21st century democratic politics, since the 20th century saw the thankful demise of the most serious threats to freedom and liberty and ideologies and governments premised on force as an organizing idea: communism, Nazism, fascism.

The idea that free and democratic peoples would spend a century opposing, rightly, ideologies premised around force only to turn to force, themselves, to try to govern themselves and to recommit the same mistake of governance that democratic peoples spent the previous century opposing is one of the terrible tragedies of the beginning of the 21st century.

It cannot possibly hold because force is what failed those regimes and what rationalized their abuses. Though, as we learned with communism, force can hold the human imagination for far longer than anyone who loves freedom could think bearable or imagineable.

The fact that Milton Friedman, who spent his life committed to cause of freedom, would die during a period of repression and regression, nevertheless a period of liberal repression, is a serious tragedy of this time.

What else would we refer to as a repressive period or a repressive regime but a time or a government that romanticizes the use of force or turns to force to solve its most pressing problems? There is no other meaningful definition of repression.

And the fact that Milton Friedman had to die during a time when liberals are romanticizing force to cure economic woes that he spent a lifetime arguing powerfully as a medicine worse than the sickness is tragic for Milton and tragic for all of us, really.

He thankfully saw the end of communism as a serious alternative to democracy as an organizing principle for governance. And there is little doubt that Democrats control power temporarily, thankfully, in a democracy, as do Republicans, thankfully. There is little doubt in my mind that force as an organizing principle of democratic governance cannot hold long because its failure and abuses during the 20th century were real and serious.

It's one of the most important bits of wisdom from a serious liberal thinker, Lord Acton, that we have from the 20th century:

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

How terrible that we would spend the early 21st century romanticizing the most terrible legacy of the 20th century.

Democratic peoples romanticizing force look like Russians romanticizing Stalin.

At least under Stalin we ate, reason too many Russians. Which, of course, was not true; some ate, some starved. At least when we were forced to be good, reason democratic peoples, we were not so bad. Which, of course, is not true. As with today, many were good; all were bad.

Repression, in both cases, undermined all aspects of life: moral, material, political, cultural, academic, personal.

Repression is the most seriously tragic legacy of humanity. And that it takes so much time to die in the early 21st century demonstrates just how foolish humanity's commitment to this failed principle remains. Foolishness and stubborness are often synonymous, in my experience. And this example is the most serious of that sad fact of life that our time has to offer.

Those who compel my will lose my heart.

And my heart, my conscience, is not open for compulsion.

My heart, my conscience, is now and forever committed to freedom.

Love,
Ben

Rest in peace, Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman, one of the more brilliant economists of the 20th century, has died at the age of 94.

Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman has died: reports

A very sad day for those who love individual freedom and care about free markets. Friedman was perhaps the most important advocate for free markets and one of the most important advocates for individual freedom of the 20th century. Friedman's advocacy for personal freedom is probably more important than his monterarist economics philosophy, per se. But monertarism was a vehicle for Friedman to advocate for as little interference of the government in markets as possible. His work around education markets is some of the finest I've seen and a very persuasive case for the cause of freedom in promoting education.

What I loved about Friedman is that he was convinced, rightly, that his right of conscience on almost any issue that mattered was more important than the government's right to resolve that matter of conscience for him. He was right about that. And it is what most endeared me to this very smart and decent man.

Thank you for your contributions, Dr. Friedman.

Love,
Ben

Strong-arming and its consequences

You know what's really interesting?

My original reaction to being strong-armed by administrators when I was so completely in good faith on everything they've tried to strong-arm me around was to have my feelings hurt. I was in good faith, there was no reason to strong-arm me, and they strong-armed me anyway because of this foolish, popular notion that change can or must be forced (which it can't, of course; some people just have to learn that lesson the hard way, I'm learning).

But now, I'm getting over my hurt feelings. And at this point I'm just losing respect for people who continue to argue that line because they so often do so at the expense of other options, they've gotten so obsessed with it. My administrators do seem to be completely losing track of what strong teaching and leadership looks like in their obsession with looking tough. And folks like Carl Levin, arguing for the most mindless and arrogant option for handling the Iraq war being passed around these days -- to pressure the Iraqis to take care of the mess we created -- just looks like a fool to me, these days. I used to respect Carl more. Now I just think, "What would lead someone to so mindlessly pursue one option that has such a terrible track record and ignore all others?" The answer: because Democrats are convinced that this is what brought them to power. The truth is that Americans voted against Republicans, not for Democrats. And they can vote against Democrats, similarly, if and when Democrats fail to resolve the situation in Iraq because they decided to get stuck on an option that is not likely to yield results.

Some people are kind of hard-headed, I'm learning. But plenty of failure will either lead to them changing their mind, or people changing their leadership.

Either way, once this obsession fails and pitters out, we will have to move on.

Because we can't just keep failing forever.

Love,
Ben

Small minds

The essence of small minds is not too complicated:

Expend enormous energy and attention on things that really aren't that serious or important in the grander scheme of things. Solve nothing, but insist on much that doesn't matter. Annoy the shit out of those with a vision of the big picture. Argue/pressure yourself into irrelevance:).

So sad that everyone is given the same capacity for intelligent reflection. But so few use that capacity for anything beyond smaller priorities.

Thank goodness for us that a few people keep their attention on the things that matter in life:).

Love,
Ben

Making someone else shoulder the burden

I think I'm beginning to understand the issue that so many people deal with today in their relationships that is the source of so much conflict.

Everyone wants someone else to shoulder the burden.

Or when they shoulder the burden, they want control over others that they just can't have and that produces resentment among those they work with.

And there is no other way out of that situation but with everyone learning to shoulder the burden, and respecting, better, the freedom of others as they do not.

There are consequences for not shouldering the burdens of life that we face together. And there are consequences for trying for force people to shoulder those burdens. Neither sorts of consequences are the ones that the people involve intend. People who avoid shouldering the burdens deal with a life more burdened by the consequences of their neglegence. And those who try to control others deal with the way that this undermines peoples' trust in their leadership.

It's a hard lesson to learn, I understand.

But the only way to a world where everyone takes more responsibility for themselves and their behavior is one that respects peoples' freedom to screw up, in all of these ways. Until they can figure out for themselves just how little either route works.

Humanity perpetually comes back to the worn out, unproductive, regressive and repressive principle that people must be controlled or hurt or punished or otherwise forced to do what is best for them.

And it perpetually fails. Every single generation that it is revamped.

And it will continue to fail, until we face up to the failure.

And that is one reality that we can never force out of existence.

Learning is the only route that creates serious progress for humanity. Learning takes time and patience. And freedom. And there is no way to force it differently.

Love,
Ben

A military commitment to political success in Iraq

Frederick Kagan has really impressed me over the course of this war with his vast knowledge of military operations and strategy and his most recent Weekly Standard column is no exception.

No Third Way in Iraq

Frederick's title and some of his writing in this piece to make me suspect of his politics (the title seems to ask conservatives to dig in for a fight with liberals over the matter of redeployment and Iraq policy, which is not only a foolish, foolish suggestion, politically, I think, since Democratic control over the House and Senate makes such a fight seriously handicapped for Republicans, it also seems to be just the oppposite suggestion that is necessary to generate the kinds of bi-partisan -- and in the case of representatives of Iraqi ethnic groups, multipartisan -- policy ideas that might be adopted by Iraqis to develop a sustainable democratic government).

But I have to say that what I always appreciate about Frederick's writing is his very serious appreciation for the reality that military operations are a critical support for security needs that are more basic than politics, right now, and which are needed to support a political process that will take time to win the confidence and/or trust of enough Iraqis to make it sustainable.

As Frederick argues well at the end of his piece.

"It is quite true, as the American leadership often says, that there is no military solution to the problem in Iraq. That is true of any counterinsurgency--at the end of the day, the solution will have to come from the political process. But it is also true of almost every counterinsurgency that there is a military component necessary for political success. The American civilian and military leadership has consistently downplayed and shortchanged this military component. We are coming up on what will probably be the last window of opportunity to regain control of the situation in Iraq and stop the slide toward chaos and defeat. Considering the likely consequences of such a defeat for the region, our nation, and our armed forces, we would be derelict if the effort is anything less than all-out."

Frederick's c0mments are not fair to the leadership of folks like General George Casey who have argued for both the need for a political solution to the crisis in Iraq and the need for a U.S. military commitment to make such a solution possible.

But Kagan is right, I think, to keep our attention on the need for military strength to provide the basic security necessary for a political solution to take hold.

Americans take our security for granted, I think, because we are so well-protected. Katrina should have been a reminder of what life looks like, even in America, when security is taken for granted.

An absence of real security in Iraq will surely undermine a democratic political solution, and, as Kagan argues, create more backlash against America's role in the situation, rather than relieving us of an unhappy burden. As Kagan argues, the absence of confidence in American backing of Iraqi security efforts would likely, given our history with Iraqi soldiers, fuel insurgency as Iraqis make fewer commitments and/or abandon security efforts in lieu of a convincing and forceful presence by the American military and more certain victory over insurgents, especially in difficult battle scenarios where Americans provide an essential backing for Iraqi forces. It is wishful thinking, given our history with Iraqi military and law enforcement forces and given the untenable situation of insurgent and defensive militias from a variety of groups and areas within the country and the repeated requests by the interim government that American forces remain that an American drawdown would improve Iraqi security and not seriously deteriorate that security so necessary for a government built on sustainable democratic principles and political compromise between groups to take hold.

America has a choice to make. It's not an enviable choice for us. Neither are the choices available to Iraqis enviable.

But the least worst option, right now, is not pull-out or draw-down, both of which are recipes for disaster and military and political collapse in Iraq. The least worst option is sticking with a bad situation until a better situation can be created from the mess that currently exists.

We don't have to stay, obviously. And if we decide the leave, which we should at least have the balls to admit that we are doing so because Democrats don't feel responsibility for President Bush's war and that they want Iraqis to take this mess off their hands, not because Democrats are operating with some sort of noble purpose, if that is the option they press. Democrats who press for withdrawal are either deluded by their arrogance that somehow they care more about Iraqi security and a peaceful Iraqi political future than the Iraqis themselves, or they are cowardly in the face of America's responsibilities given the mess that we have created of Iraq, at this point, unless I hear a better argument to the contrary.

The only real option is staying the course and creating a sustainable political process for Iraqi governance.

Americans should consider the alternatives because it allows us to do what we know we need to do:

The right thing. To stay until we have confidence that the Iraqi government and military can handle the security challenges they face.

And our capacity for genuine commitment to doing the right thing comes from our ability to choose otherwise and freely choosing to do the right thing, despite our reservations and despite the sacrafice involved.

And it puts my own sacrafices at Eisenhower in perspective. I might or might not be happier elsewhere, right now, given the current political climate in my school and in the district, right now. But I didn't get into teaching for the pay or the comfort. I got into teaching to affect reform of inner city schools like Eisenhower. And I'm not putting my life on the line, every day. To the contrary, I am hoping that I am helping to make Kansas City and surrounding cities like Lawrence far safer for my presence in it and I am doing it in one of the safest place for kids and people to spend time, generally: in a school.

I hate any situation where political pressure overwhelms reason and its capacity to patiently help us navigate difficult situations.

But reason has to operate in our dealings in Iraq (and in schools), at some level, because nothing else makes sense.

And our dealings there must be animated by patience, thought, and courage if we are to find a peace that will last and to do good by our very serious, very tragic mistakes.

Thanks to Frederick Kagan for offering me the opportunity to reflect on this very serious choice and what it says about us and our capacity for doing the right thing in the face of difficult sacrafices.

Why Democrats and Republicans invest too much confidence in government

George Will has a brilliant article in the Washington Post, today, that illustrates exactly the "irrational exhuberance," as George calls it and as Alan Greenspan originally referred to the source of the hazy vision that led to the technology bubble and crash of the late 90's, that has characterized Democratic and Republican governments alike as each invest too much confidence in the power of government to solve important problems.

Innoculated for Exhuberance

And George is exactly right on both counts.

Hillary Clinton's and Washington Democrats' foolish conviction that the Federal government could and should effectively coerce every level of government and every citizen in a cumbersome, overbearing government health care plan was perhaps the most serious investment of far too much confidence in government during the last Democratic Administration.

And George Bush's belief that the U.S. government could remake the Middle East with its military might is perhaps the most serious investment of far too much confidence in government during either the last Democratic or Republican Administration.

They are two different mistakes with two very different sets of problems. Challenging Saddam Hussein likely did need outside and overwhelming military force to do the job. But believing that the U.S. could do it alone, especially without the support and leadership of the Iraqi people, as well as the support of our democratic and critical non-democratic allies in the region was American hubris at its worst. Republican backing of this foreign policy failure as well as Democratic incompetence to develop an alternative policy other than some different version of American hegemony in the form of pressuring the Iraqis to clean up the mess we made (does our arrogance have no bounds?) will likely undermine American power in serious ways if America does not humble herself in world affairs.

The foolish national health care plan offered by Hillary Clinton luckily was less ambitious and less successful. And it too, as George well argues, was a terrible investment of confidence by an Administration in the power of government to solve a problem that it cannot and should not attempt to solve.

As George argues, "the most important thing a government can know...(is) what it is that it doesn't know." And that is the source of the hubris of both Democrats and Republicans in Washington -- investing too much confidence in Federal solutions -- that need our vigilant criticism and correction.

It is the perpetual problem of solutions imposed by Washington. They assume that they know more than they really know to solve those problems. In America, it is the most important reason to have divided government, separation of powers, and checks and balances: to check the hubris of those seeking national power. Typically Washington legislators know far less than they would need to solve more serious problems in the country. Their power should be limited and exercised in the most limited of ways if it is to be either effective or wise. To the extent that Washington overestimates its understanding of issues (which is more often than not), it generally makes problems worse, is my study and experience.

And to the extent that all power is exercised humbly (which is less often than not) the more effectively and wisely it can be used for any purpose.

Check out George's article for a very insightful look into the hubris of all parties whenever they exercise power.

Democrats won an election for one brief political era. Lord Acton and George Will have wisdom for the ages.

Love,
Ben

Forgiving Brandi for good

I don't know why, but I've just started to come to terms with how hurt I've been for the last few weeks/months (I don't remember how long it's been) having Brandi sever our friendship.

You know what the kicker was?

I've felt the pain every day. I've been bitter and I've thought terrible things about Brandi. About what I would say or do if I ever saw her again.

And then, today, it occurred to me that it's been a long time since I've allowed myself to think about good times with Brandi. Because it just hurt so much to allow myself to do it.

And today, in a moment of hope and appreciation for people around me, I just started thinking about her, again.

And I realized that I am so tired of thinking nasty things about her. Because it means that I can't think about all of the good times.

I would rather hurt and deal with the pain and think about everything I loved and appreciated about Brandi than I would hold onto this bitterness that is just sitting like a dark, angry obsession in my heart with how Brandi hurt me as much as she possibly could. By ending our friendship.

I don't want this shit on my heart. I want Brandi to be great with Greg. I want her to have a great life. I want her to have great kids and a great family. And I want her and Greg and her family to be happy. And I want all of those things even if I'm cut out of her life.

And I want it for me.

Because I don't want to spend the rest of my life hating her because I hurt so bad. I want to remember how great Brandi was. And know how great Brandi still can be.

And I want it more than all this bitterness inside of me. Which is just polluting my soul, really.

I don't know how long it's going to take to work through all of these dark feelings. But I don't want them on my heart anymore. I want to remember the good times.

And I want Brandi's life to be great, with or without me.

Because anything less is beneath me. And certainly not fair to Brandi.

And it's the only route that offers me any real happiness. And access to memories of my most idealistic and trusting time in my life. Which are more important to me than anything I could buy or earn or have at any point in my life.

Here's to forgiving Brandi for good.

Love,
Ben

Breakthrough

We had a meeting, today, about the new math assessments and benchmarks and what it means for special education.

A lot of issues got discussed which helped us work through some of the real challenges we are facing.

And not only did my principal finally seem to really get it how difficult this work is for the kids and thus for the teachers to get them where they need to be...

But one administrator seemed to inadvertantly acknowledge what I've been suspecting all along.

They are intimidated by my intelligence. And acting like it doesn't matter, which it clearly does to anyone paying attention. And my principal, who is the other smartest person at the table every meeting I've been apart of seemed to understand that better, today.

Chips on shoulders. It's a tedious thing to deal with working with a boss.

But it's more tedious when it gets in the way of the work.

A little ray of hope, today:).

Love,
Ben

My administration has exhausted its trust with me

I hope election results with Democratic wins please my administrators.

Because they have exhausted their trust with me.

I don't want to work with them anymore.

Bullying has consequences.

And the biggest one is that I don't trust you anymore.

Ben

Why I just can't support Rudy Guliani anymore

Because I could never vote for someone who thinks this simplistically.

Rudy Guliani on the midterm elections

Goddamn, I hope Barak Obama will run this election. Because I just can't stomach the idea of voting for Hillary Clinton.

Run, Barak, run.

Love,
Ben

It's official: I hate my job

I've hated my job for the last three weeks. Last Friday was a new low. Today was a newer low.

I had an evaluation, today, with an assistant principal for two classes she observed that went off beautifully. The classes were engaged, they were answering questions, they were asking questions, and the kids who normally disrupted class were not disrupting class.

And all Ms. Cowan could see was how everything wasn't perfect. The kids who were not disrupting class, today, and making serious efforts to show me that they were trying, as far as Marsha was concerned, they weren't participating and I wasn't making sure they were. I was differentiating for three levels of students, but for Ms. Cowan it wasn't enough (no matter how huge a task that is). And the kicker was that we were doing the higher level math work to prepare for 8th grade benchmarks, the kids were getting it far better than in the past, and for Ms. Cowan it still wasn't rigorous enough, even though this was one of the first classes where kids seemed to really get it.

Ms. Cowan has officially become exactly the kind of administrator that I hate working for now. And of the many reasons driving me out of the teaching profession, her mentality of nothing ever being enough has just topped my list.

Why do public service when people always feel this way? Nothing is ever enough. I can't think of a good reason.

There's a part of me that feels like, "I have done enough. The job isn't done. But there's no way in hell that people are going to let me do the job that would need to get done. So why bother?"

It's not just others making mistakes, these days, that is bothering me. It is them imposing their mistakes on me because they just can't handle fucking up their own work. They have to fuck up mine, as well.

I need another profession. Something I don't care about, as much. Something that doesn't matter so when people act stupid I just have to take it so seriouly.

A university would be similarly infuriating with the same headaches with people who are more convinced that they are right, all the time, because they have Ph.D.'s.

The business world was similarly frustrating with people who had no clue at all always bossing me around.

I guess I can either start my own independent business, or I can do what my professors and teachers said all along -- be the person with all of the power. But these days, the person with the most power (meaning the capacity to force others to do his bidding) is the President, and there is no way in hell that I would want to be in his shoes. I couldn't imagine a more miserable job.

All I know is I hate my job. And I need to do something else.

Congratulations to every liberal, conservative, whatever the fuck they call themselves, who rationalized force as a means of solving problems that it can't solve, no matter how much we pretend. I hate my job, I don't trust anyone I work with, I don't trust the government, and I don't trust anyone any more than I can throw them because they all want to force my hand all the time.

As Fukuyama aludes to in his new book, that is the consequence of an accountability/force system of getting things done. It undermines trust. And it definitely undermines mine. Because I don't trust a goddamn person anymore.

Nice job.

Ben

Enron in public schools

I feel like I'm at Enron, right now, with the level of rationalization and self-deception that people are engaging in so that they think they will make AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress; a mininum standard under the No Child Left Behind Act), this year. Everyone is rationalizing leaving behind kids and math skills, they are so focussed on complying with the "No Child Left Behind Act."

Ironic, huh?

But it's so clear at this point.

And as completely disturbing as it is to me, right now, it makes me really proud that I haven't given into all this bullshit.

Lying to yourself and others is a nasty habit. It fucks up your perception. And it leads to things like tech bubbles and housing bubbles. And wars where you have no clue what to do to make the situation better.

And school failure.

Love,
Ben

Rising to their level of incompetence

I am completely convinced of the axiom that people rise to their station of imcompetence at this point.

It is completely clear to me, at this point, that people who get administration jobs are the people who apply for the jobs. I've got good friends who apply for those jobs who I love, but if they ever tried to pretend that this meant that they had more wisdom to offer, I would buy them a beer and tell them do some more studying:):).

I just had a meeting with an administrator on a formal evaluation that convinced me that if you pretend like you know more than you really do, you look like an ignoramus. It's a bad strategy in life. And it means that people trust you less, not more.

I am quickly losing confidence in my administration. Which is trouble. Because it's when good teachers look at leaving. Being fired would be a blessing, right now, because the less you can trust your leadership, the less effectively you can accomplish bigger goals and trust them to get you there. At that point, it really does become every person for themselves. Because you don't have leadership that you can follow with any level of trust.

Power corrupts. Because it infects the mind with a compulsion to always get more of it when you're convinced that it hasn't accomplished what you really want deep down.

To have your opinions respected.

And that only comes with knowing what you're doing:).

Love,
Ben

Joe Nye, least possible necessary aggression, and non-proliferation after North Korea

Joe Nye, the University Distinguised Service Professor at Harvard's JFK School of Government and international policy scholar renowned for his work around soft power, has an very good column in today's Washington Post.

Nonproliferation After North Korea

Joe brings a wealth of knowledge on non-proliferation and its history to the table on the question of North Korean non-proliferation, since non-proliferation is perhaps Joe's most important specialization.

As Joe argues, we are probably ahead of the game, right now, with non-proliferation, given the number of total countries that have pursued a nuclear defense policy. And there is much reason that we may make additional gains as countries, like South Africa, take up a nuclear defense only to give it up as countries commit to nuclear non-proliferation as a principle rather than as a political or legal constraint (where the only sustainable future for non-proliferation lies, in reality, I believe).

Joe recommends several actions to prevent future non-proliferation on the Korean continent:

1) Security guarantees for Japan and South Korea to prevent North Korea's neighbors who might feel threatened from pursuing their own nuclear defenses.

2) Strengthening international institutions committed to non-proliferation, including U.N. sanctions against North Korean nuclear development and to enforce norms of nonproliferation.

3) Increasing the budget and inspection capabilities of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Association) and supporting IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei's plan for creating a bank of enriched uranium to made available in exchange for guarantees that countries will not develop their own independent plants (thus IAEA controls the production, sale, and trade of enriched uranium and weapons-grade nuclear material).

4) Continue warning North Korea with dire reprisals if it exports nuclear weapons or materials and stiffening the resolve of China and South Korea for enforcing trade, financial and weapons export/import sanctions, especially around trade contributing to a North Korean nuclear program.

It is refreshing and precient for Joe to acknowledge a reality that I am anticipating, which is that a sanctions regime will likely erode in its effectiveness, within a year Joe believes, which is why I think sanctions are likely a mistake around anything but limiting North Korea's capacity to export weapons or materials to terrorist groups, rogue states, or other actors likely to use such weapons against U.S. and international interests, which is probably still quite a ways off.

From there, Joe gets to a long-range strategy (a long-term strategy being the only one that makes sense to me, at this point, since North Korea's capacity to develop a full-blown nuclear program capable of presenting a credible threat or the capacity to export materials is still a future rather than a present danger):

"A long-term strategy will require a carrot as well as a stick. We can offer recognition and economic integration in return for a freeze in the production of fissile material, IAEA inspections and a renewed commitment to a long-term denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Someday, probably within the next decade, the North Korean regime will disappear (probably more rapidly through integration than isolation) and prospects will improve that Korea could follow the South African example."

Suggestions 1 and 3 and qualified versions of 2 and 4 of the short-term strategies I think could likely to serve our long-term interests. Security guarantees with a sustained U.S. military presence would be incentive for Japan and South Korea to not accelerate an arms race in the region (a race itself, as the U.S. and Soviet Union proved in the 1980's does not, itself, constitute nuclear engagement; it does, however, increase the fear which makes everyone more edgy and makes conflicts more scary and dangerous). An IAEA bank of enriched uranium and a sustained commitment to the IAEA as an inspections and independent non-proliferation institution are decent short-term strategies for giving incentive to countries considering nuclear programs to not pursue them and demonstrating a continued commitment to independent institutions committed to nuclear non-proliferation.

Suggestions 2 and 4 are both short-term in their thinking and come with important trade-offs to consider. Strengthening the U.N. as a institution committed to democratic engagement about non-proliferation is an important idea and one that keeps communication channels open around a heated and fear-provoking issue like nuclear proliferation. A sanctions regime, however, escalates the cycle of aggression, threats and counter-threats and defiance between democratic countries of the West and Iran and North Korea. The empirical evidence from the last 3 years or so is that the more threats are made, the more ambitiously that both countries pursue nuclear weapons. If we want to accelerate those ambitions, an effective strategy would seem to be to increase the level of aggression and threats and counter-threats between those countries. It's true that a sanctions regime will likely wear off in a year or so. It's also likely, given recent experience, that we will see a North Korean and/or Iranian regime with a wetter appetite, if not more material commitment, to a nuclear program rather than less once sanctions have broken down. It's a gamble. And it's a gamble that we have been losing in the last 3 years or so. It seems foolish to keep betting on a losing horse without considering that perhaps its the horse we're betting on rather than a being loyal to a failing horse or, worse, believing that the race is unwinnable.

Similarly, suggestion 4, threatening dire reprisals in case of North Korean nuclear exports, makes sense if and when they have nuclear materials that are developed and plentiful enough to warrant eminent concern about such exports and only when we are thoroughly convinced that such exports are occuring and that it is immediately clear that nuclear materials are ending up in the hands of dangerous actors. We can warn North Korea not to engage in such exports and that we will take whatever action we deem necessary to prevent Al Queda from getting nuclear materials (which would constitute an eminent threat, obviously, given our history with Al Queda and their standing real threats and destruction to U.S. citizens and interests).

But our immediate history with North Korea and Iran suggests that the more we threaten them around this issue, the more threatened they feel and the more ambitiously they engage in a defensive and aggressive posture that, paradoxically, leads them to be more ambitious in their pursuit of a nuclear program and, conceivably, to seek out allies in their antagonism towards U.S. and other democratic countries' interests.

If we ignore our immediate history with these countries, we will likely face more of the same, which has led to accelerated nuclear ambitions for both countries, rather than decelerated ambitions, which is our goal. An empirical squaring of our goals and the results of our recent efforts would suggest that we deal with North Korea and Iran with less aggression and less threats and more diplomacy more genuinely committed to North Korean and Iranian interests.

Which gets us to Joe's last most long-term suggestion, which is a focus on North Korean economic (and I would add political) integration into the international political and economic order, a move that has made serious gains in reducing antagonisms and increasing cooperation between the U.S. and China and Vietnam, in the region, at the very least.

Joe makes that integration conditional on Pyongpang's willingness to give up its nuclear ambitions, and predicts that within the decade the North Korean regime will disappear (and if I am interpreting him correctly, and I would agree, he is referring to the Communist regime, period, rather than to Kim Jong Il's rule, specifically). That makes sense insofar as political integration needs to involve trust-building measures that North Korea is not looking to threaten its neighbors to the South or the U.S. or looking to export materials in ways that would threaten democratic or allied and even non-allied countries.

But integration should also happen independently of a full-fledged commitment by North Korea to abandon its nuclear capabilities, I think, given the power of political and economic integration to seriously improve the relationships and the likelihood of military confrontation between China and the U.S., for instance, an effort that should be tried and repeated, if possible, with regimes like North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Syria, etc. when possible.

Economic and political integration do not mean that we have to trust regimes we know are not trustworthy. But they build trust where is would not exist otherwise and make military confrontations far less likely. It is not just democratic nations that threaten other democratic nations less, I believe. It is democratic nations openly and respectfully engaged with other democratic and even non-democratic nations that means for more democratic and peaceful, diplomatic engagement over serious issues like non-proliferation which look after the common interests of countries and populations and reducing propensities for military confrontations or provocations. China, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are all examples of powerful autocratic countries that offer less threat and more cooperation to U.S. interests and to the interests of other U.N. member countries the more they are constructively engaged around mutual interests and the less their interests are treated as mutually exclusive with U.S. strategic interests. North Korea and Iran are clearly more dangerous actors. But there is reason to believe that successes with constructive engagement with China and Vietnam, for instance, might be repeated in North Korea and Iran, given a sufficient commitment to the long-term interests of North Korean and Iranian nations and peoples. Economic and political integration and engagement make sense independent of conditions, but conditions would be good trust-building measures in strengthening relations between North Korea and Iran and their democratic neighbors, which would serve the mutual interests of all parties involved. All options, more and less aggressive, are always available given a more immediate threat from either regime. But more aggressive options clearly come with consequences, many of which have been counterproductive and fueled their nuclear appetites rather than ended them.

Joe ends with concluding thoughts on the non-proliferation enterprise generally:

"North Korea's nuclear test is not the end of the nonproliferation regime if we develop such a strategy. The resumption of the six-party talks is a first small step. For those who believe that the horse is out of the barn, the answer is that it matters how many horses are out and how fast they are running. This race is far from over."

That is true. And we must recognize the reality from both our failures to threaten Iran or North Korea into submission and in our unintentional provocation of Iran and North Korea to increase and materially support their nuclear ambitions that future non-proliferation, as with past non-proliferation, has depended in large part, despite our wishes otherwise, on the good faith commitment by member countries to make and keep agreements to principles around non-proliferation -- namely that arms races increase dangers and threats to all countries, with weapons with potentially serious and massive consequences and therefore should be avoided -- rather than with coerced regimes, per se.

It is completely clear that the withdrawal of North Korea from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea and the assertion of the right by Iran to pursue such a program (though only a civilian program has been detected by the IAEA at this point) have occured after both were being confronted with threats from the U.S. as members of President Bush's Axis of Evil and as the U.S. made accusations around their programs. The U.S. provokes with accusations and threats, and the consequence is an Iranian regime and a North Korean regime that, feeling threatened and defensive, assert their right to nuclear materials and to pursue nuclear options more rather than less in the face of such provocation. The U.S. is not to blame for a North Korean or Iranian nuclear program, but we must recognize our role in their development if we want to cease their development. If we want that cycle to end, we will need to recognize how our aggression and actions may, in fact, accelerate the cycle, rather than reduce the propensity for more aggression and provocation and proliferation.

Everyone has good reason to be concerned about North Korean and Iranian nuclear ambitions. Neither regime is particularly trustworthy with such dangerous weapons, and their provocative behavior -- especially on the part of North Korea -- reflect leadership that is both dangerous and unpredictable.

But we must be vigilant and rigorous in our critical evaluation of how our policies and actions are effective, ineffective and/or counterproductive in making those regimes and the international community more or less safe or dangerous given the realities we face with non-proliferation. Stubbornly pursuing policies that undermine our goals is a mistake. And not recognizing our failures and the increased threat that we face 3 years after pursuing each regime with threats and aggression makes it very difficult for us to develop more effective policies to contain this threat.

Future failure will undoubtedly be needed for us to face our need to develop a sustainable, long-term commitment to diplomacy, engagement, and sustained relations built on mutual interests, with options to take more aggressive actions when threats of nuclear exports to bad actors like Al Queda or nuclear attack are more imminent rather than as distant as they are today, if we are to get beyond the nuclear stand-off that we have faced for the last 3 years. That stand-off, involving threats and provocations by the U.S. and U.N. member countries, has led to a more nuclear armed North Korea and an Iran which may very well be developing nuclear weapons but which is certainly more committed to their development in light of our aggressive posture.

If we want North Korea's and Iran's defensive and provocative nuclear ambitions to end, we will need to significantly curb our own aggression and provocation. Building institutions and relationships that build and sustain trust around nuclear and other security issues is a far more promising path to nuclear and international security than accelerating the cycle of aggression.