Balkinization: Bicycle Riding in January

Bicycle Riding in January

Mark Graber

Monday and Tuesday were the first days in over a month that I wore gloves when taking my bicycle ride on the Rock Creek Trail outside of Washington, D.C. The daily temperature for the previous 30 days was above average for this time of year. On many days, I did not bother with a sweater. More than once, a t-shirt was sufficient.

I do a good deal of my academic thinking on my bicycle rides (which the comments below will no doubt suggest, probably explains a great deal). Often my mind wanders to Iraq. I was opposed to the original Iraqi invasion, suspecting that overthrowing Hussein was likely to be fairly easy but creating a stable polity (if not a stable democracy) next to impossible. On the other hand, the invasion was supported by the Washington Post, initially the New York Times, and some people whose judgment I think usually quite sound. They failed to persuade me (not that they needed to), but given their beliefs, the initial invasion seems best described as a mistake rather than incompetent. There is a revisionist school of thought, led by the Washington Post, which claims that Iraq could have been pacified had only President Bush adopted a more competent policy once the initial invasion succeeded. On my bicycle ride, I am inclined to think this mistaken. Destabilized Middle East countries, what little I know of comparative politics suggests, are next to impossible to put back together. That was my initial judgment of the Iraqi invasion and one that seems confirmed on a daily basis. For this reason, my suspicion is that President Bush’s present plan is no more incompetent than any other plan, all of which are as likely to succeed as any other effort to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. If we were to fire this bum as incompetent, the next bum, Democratic or Republican, in my pessimistic judgment, is likely to do no better. At least, I have yet to see any consensus among any experts I respect on a plan that is likely to result in a stable Iraq that is not a haven for Al-Quida.

Matters seem different on my bicycle ride when I think about how the winters in this area seem to grow milder by the year. A consensus does exist among experts that global warming is real and likely to have catastrophic consequences in the relatively near future unless something is done. Of course, dissenters exist on the details and a few on general themes. Still, if the best measure of incompetence is divergence from expert consensus, Bush administration environmental policies seem far more incompetent than Bush administration Iraqi policies. We have a looming environmental disaster, general agreement exists as to what must be done to prevent that disaster, and this administration does little more than censor scientific reports critical of industry.

As is the case for the initial Iraqi invasion, however, blame is hardly limited to the Bush administration. Global warming does not seem even to be on the agenda of the Democratic Congress. "An Inconvenient Truth" does well at the box office, but has hardly created a mass political movement for environmental reform. Higher gas prices bring out contrary voters, whether the cause is the Iraqi invasion or taxes intended to limit pollution. If as President Bush informed us after 9/11, the major American sacrifice during the war on terrorism would be to continue our normal consumer habits, this does not bode well for calls asking Americans to rethink behaviors responsible for pollution. My sense of the universe is that if 99 experts say an environmental disaster is coming and one legitimate expert says this may not be the case, the general public either believes the solo expert or at least concludes that the matter would benefit from more study. In this case, incompetent public policy is substantially rooted in a too apathetic general public.

My good friend and mentor Sandy Levinson would have us agonize over the possibility that an incompetent president has 740 days yet to reign. I worry more that the next President of the United States will be chosen by the same electorate that twice preferred a candidate who was widely known to be disinterested in the details of public policy. Impeaching Bush for incompetence is a bit like impeaching Clinton for philandering. What intelligent person thought they were voting for a master of policy or a devoted monogamist. "I may not know what I am doing," Bush informed the American people, "but I will stay the course." He has kept the promise on which he won the 2004 presidential election. Is there any reason to think that the Bush presidency has taught the American voter a lesson or is the likelihood greater that American voters will repeat their same mistakes in the future? Does American environmental policy teach us that we are unlikely to consistently elect more competent presidents unless we have a more competent public? 740 days left until a different kind of incompetent takes office.

Posted 2:00 PM by Mark Graber [link]

Comments:

I fully agree with your last consideration that in the end a constitution will not rescue the US from an incompetent president. As long as the electorate will choose one, it seems a bit out of touch to suggest that the constitution should offer a remedy.

But that might only count for Bush. Prof. Levinson might counter that some presidents seem to be competent when choosen but their incompetence will only reveal it self during the (first) term.

# posted by

Anne : 2:20 PM

Mark: Destabilized Middle East countries, what little I know of comparative politics suggests, are next to impossible to put back together.

Is this an argument for why 41, former CIA head, left things as he did after the Kuwait campaign? I'm no fan of 41, but our response to Kuwait always seemed to me quite necessary and our choice to opt for stability rather than regime change was far wiser (or at least grounded in reality) than anything we've seen out of PNAC to date.

# posted by

Robert Link : 2:38 PM

I think there is a lot to Mark's post, including the basic pessimism about finding an acceptable way out of Iraq. (This is why I have argued several times that Iraq is considerably worse than Vietnam, save (not unimportantly) in numbers of lives lost, whether American or even Iraqi. If we had a vote of no-confidence procedure, the best we might hope for would be a cogent discussion of alternative possibilities. I note, though, that John Kerry never rose to thise challenge during the 2004 campaign (or, more precisely, scarcely made it a motif of his campaign, even though there were some isolated speeches that might be regarded as reasonably serious).

As to the environment, I think that Mark's argument makes it all the more imperative that Al Gore enter the race. He is the only candidate, in either party, who truly cares about the issue of global warming and can convey the passion needed to arouse the public (assuming it can be aroused at all). Even if he lost to another Democrat for the nomination, he would force his opponents to take the issue much more seriously and, therefore, address the issue in the general campaign. This is not 2004, when almost no one wanted to Gore to run. One might almost say that he has a duty to run if he really takes his own premises seriously.

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 2:53 PM

Mark Graber: if the best measure of incompetence is divergence from expert consensus, Bush administration environmental policies seem far more incompetent than Bush administration Iraqi policies.

Apologies for not addressing this, your actual point, in my prior comment. Our immoral and illegal invasion and occupation of the formerly sovereign nation of Iraq is topical, sensational, and ultimately easier to understand than the amorphous science of pollution costs subsumed under the heading "global warming." The "right" knows that global warming is a gloss for corporate accountability for messes made, which is why it must be discredited at all costs. (How folks like Posner or Coase get away with defining the creation of trash and poison as an "externality" in the first pace is still beyond me.)

Flatly, it's too much for our electorate. Semi-literate, semi-numerate, increasingly anti-intellectual, with their MTV or their Fox News, our citizens are too comfortable to really understand that they, and the world around them, are drowning in poisons of our own making.

This is a topic about which I wish I could be more optimistic.

# posted by

Robert Link : 2:54 PM

@Robert: still, the sollution to the majority of the American being stupid would not be to try to change the constitution, but to leave politics or the US altogether. Might I suggest a tropical Island?

# posted by

Anne : 3:01 PM

@anne: Might I suggest a tropical Island?

Sadly the law degree I am pursuing at my non-ABA accredited school will only let me sit for the California Bar. I will have to make do here (assuming I pass in '09, Deus volent.)

Jokes aside, however, given my pessimism it is a fair question of why I don't leave. Cognitive dissonance being what it is I have convinced myself the best I can do is stay here and preach conscience to power at any and every opportunity---and encourage others to do likewise. I find it puts me in good company.

# posted by

Robert Link : 3:13 PM

On the other hand, the invasion was supported by the Washington Post, initially the New York Times, and some people whose judgment I think usually quite sound. They failed to persuade me (not that they needed to), but given their beliefs, the initial invasion seems best described as a mistake rather than incompetent.

Much of that support, perhaps all of it, was based on believing facts which turned out to be myths. Now we know that that Bush recklessly disregarded and suppressed the counter-evidence which contradicted or undercut those "facts". As far as I'm concerned, this pushes the invasion into the category of "incompetent", if not downright "fraudulent".

# posted by

Mark Field : 3:32 PM

Perhaps one of the more despicable and damaging things the Bush admin as done is to attempt to censure scientists whose findings don't fit the administration's policies. Not as conspicuous as failure in the middle east (Shi'as and Sunnis have been fighting since the death of Mohamed, who fantasized that a military occupation and some democracy would 'fix' that), but far more damaging to wellbeing of humanity.

# posted by

John : 3:33 PM

Anne: A constitution might rescue us if it made the President a figurehead, so that his competence or incompetence would not matter. The competence of a Prime Minister or majority leader would be much less problematic since he would be chosen by those who know him well.

GYL

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:51 PM

@GYL: true, but what I meant is that is that Bush was reelected. A vote of no confidence would not have saved the US from a second Bush term. The real problem lies with the voters.

I doubt whether a prime minister is really chosen by it's peers. With us (the Netherlands) as in the UK, the leader of the party that wins the general election (for us the largest party in the new coalition that supports the administration) usually becomes the prime minister. In France, the prime minister is appointed and dismissed by the president or dismissed by Congress.

The vote of no confidence is usually only used when the PM did something terribly wrong (we call this a "capital sin". The most famous one is misinforming Congress). PM's usually are not voted out of office by a vote of no confidence because then the entire cabinet falls (which is usually not in the interest of the parties supporting the administration).

So shorter: we don't use a vote of no confidence to oust incompetent leaders.

# posted by

Anne : 5:00 PM

The vote of no confidence is usually only used when the PM did something terribly wrong (we call this a "capital sin". The most famous one is misinforming Congress).

At least one Founder, Justice Iredell, stated that misleading Congress into a war would be ground for impeachment.

# posted by

Mark Field : 5:23 PM

Mark,

Do you per chance do any maintanence on your bicycle? Perhaps inquire into values in addition to politics along your rides?

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 6:17 PM

Edit: Mark as in Mark Graber for the above post.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 6:18 PM

Do you per chance do any maintanence on your bicycle? Perhaps inquire into values in addition to politics along your rides?

Zen and the Art of Bicycle Maintenance?

# posted by

Mark Field : 7:05 PM

Congrats! Give Mark Field a gold star!

I just couldn't help but think of that book after reading Mark Graber's post.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 9:13 PM

Anne: But the leader of his party has already been chosen by his party members, his peers, as the leader, and when the party gets the majority, he becomes the Prime Minister. True a no confidence vote is not used to get rid of an incompetent leader: Blair was ousted in the UK by his party, his peers, without a confidence vote, when his party felt they needed a different leader. No confidence votes are used by the opposition, or when ruling party feels that they would do even better with a general election.

GYL

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:29 PM

I fully agree with your assesment. Note though that Blair hasn't left yet, he's just announced his departure (but considering your comment, I'm sure you knew)

# posted by

Anne : 9:48 PM

I just couldn't help but think of that book after reading Mark Graber's post.

I'm impressed that you've read it. I assumed it went out of style years ago.

# posted by

Mark Field : 11:31 PM

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

# posted by

Joe : 12:34 AM

I have to admit that I didn't read purely on my own volition. It was part of a contemporary rhetoric course I took. But, I loved it nonetheless. I picked up his later book Lila, but that book was very dissappointing.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 10:49 AM