Diatribes of Jay

This is a blog of essays on public policy. It shuns ideology and applies facts, logic and math to economic, social and political problems. It has a subject-matter index, a list of recent posts, and permalinks at the ends of posts. Comments are moderated and may take time to appear. Note: Profile updated 4/7/12

30 July 2008

How Republican Ideology Destroyed America’s Competitiveness and Sapped Her Strength


Introduction
Health Care
Pensions
Energy
Education
Our Military
Conclusion

Introduction

Four decades of ascendant Republican ideology are ending. Whether or not Barack Obama can give it the coup de grace, the ideology is spent. Even conservative pundit David Brooks seems to recognize its demise.

I’ve described the era now ending as our “Soviet period.” Of course the substance of our ideology differed from the Soviets’. Our Republicans abhorred Soviet Communism and everything it stood for, including the few good things like universal literacy, free education, and free health care.

But for the last forty years our reliance on simplistic ideology has been every bit as fervent, and every bit as misplaced, as the Soviets’ seven-decade flirtation with Marxism.

Our GOP used its own simplistic ideology as a foil to the Soviets’. It set up a Manichean dualism and used the ideological divide to feed our national pride, inspiring jingoism among us. In 1962, that jingoism nearly led to global nuclear annihilation. It was a classic case of demagoguery.

The irony is that the Republicans were partly right. Marx and Engels were just creative writers. They were not even notable thinkers, let alone economic scientists. In contrast, we were building on the work of great thinkers like Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson.

The power of free markets is indeed remarkable. So is the power of freedom. But ideology is ideology. In order to work as a demagogic political tool, it has to be simple enough for Joe and Mary six-pack to understand. No subtlety or nuance can tarnish its false luster. It cannot admit anything as confusing as contradictions or checks and balances, or as abstruse as nonlinear effects.

So the Russians had their “Soviet Man”—a mythical creature who works selflessly for the glory of the state, without thought of personal reward, like the horse in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. We had our “noble entrepreneur”—a mythical creature who always works harder and smarter than any government bureaucrat, scientist or soldier. Through the magic of wishful thinking, this creature’s self-interest always operates for social good. Its self-seeking enhances social cohesion. Its greed is the marble from which we built our temple to Mammon, believing it would lead us to the promised land.

Unfortunately, things haven’t worked out that way. What we failed to notice was the quality of the leaders of this so-called “Reagan Revolution.” The “bookends” of our ideological “Soviet Period” were Ronald Reagan and Dubya. Reagan was a radio announcer and grade B actor. Dubya was and is a lightweight and goof-off who made it through college and business school with “gentlemen’s C’s” on his father’s position and money. To say these men were not great thinkers is Obamanian understatement.

Reagan at least had charm and affability—a first-class temperament. Dubya didn’t even have that. Neither could write or speak even as well as Engels or Marx, let alone in more than one language. To mention them in the same sentence with Adam Smith or Thomas Jefferson would be risible, if the consequences of their fairy tales weren’t so tragic.

Whoever wins this presidential election, we will be spending the next decade or two exploring those fairy tales and correcting their consequences. A McCain victory will only postpone the inevitable reckoning, which academia and think-tanks already have begun.

In this essay, I focus on those consequences. All are dramatic, clear, and already identified by others. What may not be so clear is how all are direct results of the Republican fairy tales that we have believed and taught our children for the last two generations.

Health Care

It is now common knowledge that every advanced industrial nation except ours has a form of universal, government-sponsored health care. The competitive consequence is also well known. American industry bears an unusual and extraordinary burden: the burden of financing health care for its workers. The result is a huge cost millstone around its neck. In the auto industry, the cost disadvantage amounts to nearly ten percent of the price of an entry-level car.

That cost disadvantage is a key factor in our loss of manufacturing jobs and our technological stagnation. When you have a cost disadvantage of nearly ten percent relative to your competitors, you don’t have a lot of money to spend on research and development. And so we lost the consumer electronics industry to the Japanese and are now in the process of losing our auto industry as well.

These facts are now well known and much discussed. What is less well known is their origin. They are direct consequences of Republican ideological fairy tales, as spun and retold by Reagan, Newt Gingrich and the Bushes. We don’t have universal, government-sponsored health care because it looked to them like “socialized medicine.” It contradicted their notion of the “noble entrepreneur”—in this case a doctor—working in a Rosseauian State of Nature, governed only by his presumably enlightened self-interest.

That fairy tale gave us the worst of both worlds, not just for would-be patients without access to doctors, but for doctors and actual patients as well. Our doctors and patients suffer under not just one bureaucracy—a government one—but many. Each private insurance company has its own bureaucracy. Each is reluctant to pay claims (because they cost money). Each has its own arcane rules, its own incompatible computer systems, and its own lengthy and tortuous internal processes for appealing denials of claims. Together, these noble entrepreneurs generate administrative costs between 15% and 30% (see sources 1 and 2), while Medicare, the “inefficient” government bureaucracy, keeps its administrative costs around 4%.

There is yet further irony. In most of the foreign health-care systems that Republican ideology likes to demonize, private medicine exists side-by-side with free, universal, government-sponsored health care. In Australia, Canada, England, and France (among others), you can still find private doctors and hospitals. If you are rich, or if you have a serious disease that can’t tolerate waiting in the queue—and if you are willing to pay for the earliest possible care—you can have it. But the government-sponsored systems give all citizens the peace of mind of knowing that they have basic preventative and curative care.

Equally important, those systems remove enormous costs and administrative burdens from the backs of foreign industries, which compete with ours. Our own industries have to run the same race with the health-care millstone around their necks, and with their employees and customers worried about losing everything to an injury or illness. Thus does Republican ideology hamstring our doctors, our workers and our industries.


Pensions

Once you understand the mess that Republican ideology has made of health care (and, in consequence, our industries’ competitiveness), you can better understand our retirement meltdown. The sorry state today of pensions in our country today is a direct result of Republicans’ eight-decade rear-guard action against Social Security.

Social Security is the strongest and longest-lived form of so-called “socialism” in the United States. But it’s not really socialism. It’s not financed by general tax revenues but by special taxes on workers and employers.

Through taxes on their wages, workers make about half of the payments. To that extent, Social Security is not socialism at all. Instead, it’s a self-financed retirement plan that the government mandates, manages and guarantees. Employers do pay the other half of expenses. But it’s not unreasonable for them to help keep the workers responsible for their success in the marketplace from becoming destitute (and a social burden) in their old age.

Despite the inaccuracy of the charge, Republicans have never thought of Social Security as anything other than socialism. Their dirty little secret is that they opposed it steadfastly since its inception. They fought its birth tooth and nail, calling FDR a “traitor to his class” for proposing it. They resisted it ever since, opposing taxes to support it, robbing its trust funds for other purposes, and decrying its meager allotments as a morally decadent “something for nothing.” (They always seem to ignore the half that comes directly out of workers’ pay.)

Dubya’s spectacularly unsuccessful attempt to privatize part of Social Security was just the latest of a long string of ideological assaults going all the way back to the New Deal. Only the extraordinary conditions of the Great Depression—and the specter of millions of destitute seniors begging or starving in the streets—created the political consensus to overcome Republicans’ bullheaded ideological opposition.

That opposition never waned. But something interesting happened in the interim between the New Deal and today. Many big employers supplemented Social Security with private pension plans of their own. They did so partly as a result of pressure from organized labor, and partly out of a sense of social responsibility arising from the shared sacrifice of the Great Depression and World War II.

The generous private pensions that most large corporations granted their workers were part of a social compact that sustained American industry (and workers!) from the postwar period until the eighties. With Social Security as a backstop and a supplement, this system worked very well for about a generation. Then it began to unravel.

The reasons why it unraveled were much the same as those for the failure of our health-care system. Supporting generous private pensions imposed an extraordinary cost on American industry. Competitors in advanced nations with better government-sponsored pension systems did not bear the same costs. Administrative expenses exploded as finance and investment became vastly more complex and the big corporations had to hire experts or privatize their pension management. Confusion and complexity increased as private administrative systems with incompatible rules, procedures and computer systems proliferated.

So now in pensions, as in health care, we have the worst of all possible worlds. We have a hybrid public-private system, with increasingly complex and confusing rules regarding what, if any, Social Security benefits are available to people who still work or have employer pensions or private pension funds. We have a balkanized system of public-private accounting, with various incompatible computer systems, that vastly increases administration expense. And, in the last decade, we also have the miracle of bankruptcy.

Big corporations weighed down by pension and health-care obligations recently discovered that these obligations are just promises. They have no more legal force than a promise to deliver goods or an unsecured promissory note. Like other contractual obligations, they can be shed or modified in bankruptcy. So our uncompetitive car companies and airlines—once the model of generosity to workers—began turning to the bankruptcy courts (or using the realistic threat of bankruptcy in collective bargaining) to shed the pension and health-care obligations that they solemnly undertook since World War II.

From the worker’s point of view, all this legal manipulation was a big shell game. Virtually without consequence or objection, industry broke solemn promises of health care and support in workers’ old age, often just as old age and infirm health arrived. The result, although perfectly legal, was a gigantic societal swindle, affecting millions of the very workers who helped build our nation’s postwar strength and prosperity. As I’ve argued in another post, this swindle evoked universal distrust and fear on the part of workers, undermining both their and their children’s motivation and our nation’s social cohesion.

I don’t mean to belittle the complexity of the pension problem. Pensions are a far more complex social issue than health care. Good health care is the means by which we keep our workforce healthy and productive. A strong national commitment to a healthy workforce is just common sense. But pensions involve paying for people’s living after their productive days are over, when they are surviving on past glory and, in a cynic’s view, may seem like parasites upon society. How much support society should provide them if they or their families have not made adequate provision for old age is an horrendously complex political, ethical, moral, social and economic question.

Every nation in the world is wrestling with that question in its own way, and there are no easy answers. But three things are clear. First, most people are simply not capable of saving, investing and managing their own investments for a comfortable old age. As the recent mortgage crisis and near financial meltdown amply demonstrated, our financial system is now so complex that even experts often get taken. To insist that ordinary people’s economic survival in old age depend on their own economic and financial expertise—or even their ability to select better options among profit-seeking, self-interested managers and advisers eager to take their money—is a recipe for disaster. We wisely avoided that pitfall in rejecting Dubya’s attempt to privatize a part of Social Security.

The second clear thing is that more investment variety is not necessarily better. Republican ideology has produced the greatest “flowering” of investment options in human history. In addition to the usual stocks and bonds, we have mutual funds, index funds, index futures, commodity futures, mortgage securities, “swaps,” derivatives and bond-default insurance. The more exotic investment vehicles (those toward the end of this list) are mostly for experts, but pension funds increasingly invest in most or all of them. As our population ages, the amount of pension money invested in these exotic and risky vehicles increases.

There is big money to be made in managing these investments. The lure of that big money is now distorting our workforce and our national priorities. The best and the brightest among our population are becoming investment bankers or the lawyers and economists who advise them. Meanwhile, foreign students come to us from all over the world to learn engineering, science, medicine, and manufacturing. Then, when they’ve learned all we have to teach, they increasingly return to their native lands, where there is more opportunity—and more money—in professions that create wealth rather than shuffling it around.

The final thing that is clear about the house of cards that Republican ideology built for pensions is its enormous administrative expense. You don’t have to be an economist or well versed in math to understand the inefficiency, duplication and waste caused by fragmentation—dare I say “atomization”?—of our financial industries, which are getting broader, more complex, less well regulated, and more numerous every day. Besides making room for snake-oil salesmen (whose defrauded victims we taxpayers have to support), financial atomization dramatically increases advertising, promotional, administrative and bureaucratic expense.

The end result is a system that works passably for the well-educated and diligent, who could fend for themselves in any society. But it’s one of the worst in the world for the rest. It allows millions of ordinary people to fall through the cracks. It is hideously inefficient and duplicative. It creates extraordinary opportunities for dishonesty, fraud and simple confusion. And because it offers such glowing financial rewards to the smart, cunning and sharp-elbowed, it drains the best of our brains into finance and investment. It threatens to convert the best of us from thinkers, discoverers, inventors, makers and doers into paper shufflers and money handlers.

Energy

Of all the disastrous effects of Republican ideology, its impact on energy policy has been the worst. We are the world’s only advanced industrial nation that has no national energy policy.

We don’t have one because we’ve bought the Republican fairly tale that free markets and self-interested entrepreneurs always know best. And so we’ve allowed the short-term self-interest of free marketers of oil, gas and the vehicles that waste them to build the world’s most costly and least flexible energy infrastructure.

Even our enemies and adversaries have coherent and effective national energy policies that fit their circumstances, resources and long-term national goals. Iran is developing nuclear energy so that it can sell its oil abroad, improve its citizens’ standard of living and propel its lagging economy into the twenty-first century. (Whether it also seeks nuclear weapons is an important question, but a separate one irrelevant to this discussion.) Russia is developing its vast reserves of oil and gas, keeping some for its own economic development, selling most to get money to repair the damage wrought by its own seventy-year Soviet period, and using its ownership as a political weapon to increase its influence abroad. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is selling his nation’s vast reserves of oil to get the resources to raise Venezuelans out of poverty. He’s doing so awkwardly, with the economic sophistication you might expect from a man who emerged from the peasantry himself. But his basic strategy—selling natural resources to jump-start his economy and alleviate poverty—is sound and appropriate for Venezuela.

Every one of our allies and competitors also has an energy plan. France generates over three-quarters of its electrical energy from nuclear power. Germany has the world’s leading market share of solar panels and the world’s greatest installed capacity of modern windmills (although the U.S. recently overtook Germany in wind power actually generated) . Europe taxes gasoline to a price level more than twice ours, and Japan taxes gasoline to a price level about 180% of ours. By so doing they discourage excessive driving and gain revenue for roads and other social needs. Both Europe and Japan have cars that, on the average, are nearly twice as efficient as ours. (We recently raised our own legal standards, but the new standards go into effect gradually.) All these nations have long-range national plans that recognize the limits of and opportunities in their domestic energy resources.

Do we have anything like that kind of national energy policy? Do we have a plan that coheres with our circumstances and needs for the long term? Not at all.

In the absence of a plan, we have painted ourselves into an energy corner. We are buying over 10 million barrels of oil daily to support our oil addiction. Even at today’s reduced price of $125 per barrel, we spend $1.25 billion on foreign oil every day—more than twice as much as our average daily spending on the war in Iraq since its inception. But what’s worse is that we have no coherent short-term or medium-term plan, let alone a long-term plan, to kick our oil habit.

What don’t we have such a plan? Because for the last thirty years, since the Arab Oil Embargo, Republicans have told us fairy tales. Government, they said, was a wicked witch: untrustworthy, incompetent, downright evil, and prone to keeping you from enjoying your “own money.” If government or politicians tried to “pick winners,” they would lead us down the primrose path to ruin.

But government as wicked witch is only half the GOP’s fairy tale. The other half involves entrepreneurs, the “good fairies.” By waving their magic wands of self-interest and “consumer choice,” the fable goes, they will give us everything we want.

And so they did. They gave us inefficient, technologically backward vehicles that run on oil and nothing else. With all the persuasive power of modern advertising and public relations, they told us that these inefficient clunkers were what we wanted. They made us lust for bigger, heavier, clunkier, less efficient cars, for safety, power, and sheer self-indulgent excess. Our entrepreneurs never let on that what their billions in advertising made us want was not exactly what we need.

So here we are in 2008. We are wasting one-third of a trillion dollars every year on foreign oil. Our transportation economy is entirely dependent on oil. We are suffering from the highest energy cost burden since the Arab Oil Embargo of the early 1970s.

And what do our Republican fable spinners propose as a cure? More oil.

I’ll leave aside Senator McCain’s ridiculous proposal for a summer gas-tax holiday. That’s not much more ridiculous than Speaker Pelosi’s proposal to deplete the seventy-day supply of oil in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for a few weeks of price relief.

The Republicans’ supposedly serious proposal is to start drilling for oil in our protected wilderness and coastal areas. But independent experts say it will take at least ten years before any of that oil comes to market. When it does, it will increase worldwide supply by ten percent. Yet in the meantime worldwide demand will have increased by 11.5 percent or more.

You don’t have to be an economist or mathematician to see how far out of bounds that Hail Mary pass will fall. It will never lower oil prices, let alone in the short term. The most it might do is reduce the rate of increase in oil prices from what it might otherwise have been, sometime ten years or more from now. More important, by providing the false hope of permanently lowering oil prices, it will dissuade us from what we have to do—transform our national economy to run on other sources of energy, principally nuclear, wind and solar power. Even disregarding its destructive effect on priceless wilderness, climate change, and living species, drilling for more oil is just digging ourselves deeper into the hole we are already in.

In contrast, Europe and Japan provide examples of what a rational energy policy might do. They pay the same global price that we do on the world market for oil. But their price for gas at the pump is roughly twice ours because they tax gas heavily. At the same time, their cars are roughly twice as efficient as ours and get roughly twice the mileage.

So Europeans and Japanese, on the average, pay about the same as we do per mile of car travel. But because their cars are twice as efficient, they use half as much gas per mile. The extra cost for gas, which equalizes their cost per mile, goes into taxes that support social programs like roads, health care, pensions, government-sponsored scientific research, and infrastructure. So, relative to us, Europeans and Japanese divert half of their consumers’ cost of foreign oil into social programs. Those programs make them richer as a society, while their equal price of travel per mile makes them no poorer as individuals.

Thus do Europeans and Japanese value their public sectors and support them with wise policy. And that’s not even mentioning their more advanced use of wind, solar, and nuclear power. Their primary difference from us is that they don’t believe the fairy tale that government is the wicked witch, taxes the ultimate evil, and private entrepreneurs the good fairies.

Education

The final field in which the Republicans’ ideological fairy tales have done us grievous harm is education. I make this point with diffidence because Dubya’s “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) initiative has been a small step in the right direction. It puts the right focus on public education, requires accountability for results and insists that all our children have a chance to learn, regardless of race, ethnicity, family income or location.

Like the Iraq war, NCLB was half-hearted. It was underfunded, overly dependent upon edicts from Washington, and administered with a heavy hand. But had its heart in the right place.

The problem was that NCLB—one of the very few good things to emerge from Dubya’s abysmal two terms—marked a sharp divergence from Republican orthodoxy. For decades Republicans had insisted that education is a matter of States’ Rights and state funding and none of the federal government’s business. Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich went to far as to propose closing the federal Department of Education.

Republicans made these proposals despite our appalling neglect of large fractions of our children and increasing disparities in education from state to state. They taught us that federal money would do better in your hands than in teachers’. (Do you see a consistent theme of individual greed here?)

All these points were part of the Republicans’ master fairy tale—a perversion of free-market economics that Adam Smith would never recognize. According to that tale, the magic of markets transmutes the lead of individual greed and selfishness into the gold of social good. Jesus wants you to be rich. Being rich will make you good, and your being rich and good will make us all better. Or so the fairy tale went.

As in the cases of health care, pensions and energy, this fairy tale didn’t work so well in practice. It had two gigantic flaws. First, it neglected our history. Universal, free public education has been a key factor in our national success so far. We were the first nation to make a point of giving a free public education to every citizen, regardless of birth, social status or location. As a result, we now have what is generally recognized as the best system of public higher education in the world, by a considerable margin. Students come to our colleges and universities from all over the world to study engineering, science, medicine and business, among other things.

Second, the fairy tale neglected the competition we are facing as a nation. For two centuries, China has been in a national slump. While it once had its Mandarins and their national entrance examinations, it has never really had universal education, American style. Now it is emerging from its two-century slump and adopting the American vision of universal education. The results are likely to change the world.

We can already see the effects here at home. Chinese and Chinese-Americans already so dominate admissions to our premiere public university—the University of California at Berkeley—that non-Chinese, including Caucasians, have been demanding affirmative action. A friend of mine, a distinguished professor in the biological sciences at a prestigious public university, reports that over the last several years nearly all his graduate students and post-doctoral assistants have been ethnically Chinese. The others, he says, by and large are just not as diligent or as bright. Some of these new scientists are Chinese-Americans or recent immigrants, but many are Chinese expats eager to take their new learning back to China.

These are just anecdotes, but you can hear similar stories in every major university in the United States. If we don’t repair our public secondary education so that our own students can compete with Chinese (and other foreigners) in our best universities, then our grandchildren will all end up working for foreigners, if not as hired hands then as lawyers and investment bankers to their leading-edge businesses.

That’s why Dubya’s “No Child Left Behind” initiative, as awkward, clumsy and underfunded as it was, was indescribably important. It marked an abrupt change from the Republican fairy tale that government can do no right and private enterprise no wrong. It heralded a return to the successful American policy that free, high-quality public education is the most important infrastructure of all.

Over the coming decades, we must engage in friendly but serious competition with Europe and Asia to produce the best scientists, engineers, discoverers and inventors. The nation or region that wins that friendly competition will lead the human race and take us to the stars.

We once had a clear head start, but we have squandered it. Our system of higher education is still second to none, but our system of secondary education is barely average and losing ground. If we don’t fix it, we will end up a second rate power watching our standard of living and future prospects recede as other nations surpass us.

Nothing is more important. And nothing we do will improve our position until we give up the Republican fairy tale that government is impotent and incompetent and only private business works. Although private schools can and do provide isolated centers of excellence, entrepreneurs and private business can’t fix our broken system of public primary and secondary education. Only enlightened government policy can.

The next Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Pasteur or Salk could come from anywhere—even Appalachia, rural Georgia, or the economically and socially devastated communities of what was once New Orleans. Most children from those places don’t go to private schools. We need a strong system of universal public education to nurture their native talent.

Despite two decades of effort, we are consistently losing ground in repairing and enhancing that system. The false notions that government is the wicked witch and that we’d all be better off as a people if we all kept our “own money” and spent little on education don’t help. They especially don’t help when we waste money that we could use for education on foreign oil and gas-guzzling SUVs in the name of “free enterprise” and “consumer choice.”


Our Military

You would think that a party that spent decades demagoguing foreign threats would at least have left us with a strong military. But quite the opposite is true. Forty years of mostly Republican rule have hollowed out our military, leaving it far weaker than it need be. It is too small, too bureaucratic, too backward and unimaginative in doctrine and weapons, and far too dependent on the profit motive, rather than skill and patriotism, to supply our troops. At the same time, our military-industrial complex has evolved into the most bloated, bureaucratic, corrupt, and inefficient institution in our society. It makes our health-care system look rational. [For a small but telling recent example (10/12/08), read this story about two mid-level engineering managers who, for $ 1.6 million in illegal kickbacks, got Congress to fund $ 350 million worth of useless military projects through illegal lobbying.]

All this has happened on the Republicans’ watch. And it is no accident. Every part of this debacle flows directly from the GOP’s ideological fairy tale that government is the wicked witch and private, self-interested entrepreneurs the good fairies.

I could write a long essay about mismanagement alone. But I’ll limit myself to four points: the draft, our Manhattan Project, Blackwater, and the abysmal current state of our military supply chain.

From Paul Revere through World War II, we relied on citizen soldiers to meet foreign threats. With their aid, we beat the world’s most powerful empire to gain our independence. Much later, and with the help of allies and the draft, we beat the two most fearsome military societies ever known to humankind and saved the world from despotism. Our military of citizen soldiers worked.

All that changed after Vietnam. With poor advice and tragic machismo, our first Texan President, Lyndon Johnson, escalated an advisory role into all-out support of a crumbling and corrupt South Vietnamese regime that its own people perceived as oppressive and colonial. Our own people didn’t support that war, and our hearts weren’t in it. So we lost the first major conflict in our history.

Our Republican leaders took the wrong message from that loss because they asked the wrong question. They could have asked, “how can we assure popular support for war by limiting ourselves to conflicts whose necessity is self-evident?” Instead, they asked, “how can we give ourselves the ability to wage war without popular support?” The answer was “all-voluntary” armed forces.

So today we have replaced our superb military of citizen soldiers with paid mercenaries. The awful consequences of that decision are clear, and they are legion.

What once was a force motivated by solely by patriotism and self-sacrifice is now a force motivated in significant measure by money and benefits. Because our troops enlisted “voluntarily,” they have less leeway to complain of incompetence, corruption and mismanagement among their leaders. Because they often come from economic strata that have few other options, they and their parents do not have the education, income and social status to push for correction of obvious errors. Inexcusable failures to provide armor for Humvees or body armor for every combatant, for example, run on far too long.

One consequence is a military that is less well prepared. As times get tough—as they are now in Iraq—fewer people volunteer to bear a burden that the rest of the country is unwilling to bear. And so we have to dig deeper in the barrel, training troops with criminal records and sub-par test scores. At the same time, our troops and their loved ones have less leverage over leaders, politicians and military suppliers because they volunteered, because they are presumed to be paid enough to motivate their volunteering, and because they come (with a few exceptions that prove the rule) from the most needy strata of our society, including immigrants looking to earn their spurs.

The result is a vicious downward spiral into empire. Our leaders have more absolute power over a dwindling volunteer force of decreasing quality that has less wherewithal to object to its own misuse or abuse. Leaders’ freedom from popular rule tempts them to adventurism. They skimp on force protection and care both in combat and afterward. The general citizenry’s remove from the hard realities of combat make it ignorant of or oblivious to leaders’ adventurism, mismanagement, and abuse of our troops.

And so it goes. The only thing that cuts this vicious spiral is the high cost of protracted war. As the human and financial costs of war mount, fewer volunteer. Pay and benefits required to attract a volunteer force increase, and it gets harder and harder to raise or maintain an army. At the same time, force quality deteriorates, and we divert funds from supplies and material to paying troops increasing wages.

That is precisely where we are in Iraq right now. These factors are the only real impediment to our self-proclaimed Emperor making new war in Iran. The vicious downward spiral already has reached the stage where supporting a new ground war—especially against a far more formidable enemy—is practically impossible.

All this happened before, long ago. Toward the end of its long history, ancient Rome relied increasingly on paid mercenaries rather than citizen soldiers for its defense. Most scholars believe that change was the single most important reason for Rome’s decay. Today our volunteer forces, which rely on a high percentage of recent immigrants, even look like ancient Rome’s, in which vanquished foreign troops sought to earn Roman citizenship through military service. Mistakes never change, it seems, and democracies never learn until it’s too late.

Not only did Republican ideology transform our military, impairing its quality and vastly reducing its political influence and the public’s control over impulsive wars, mismanagement and corruption. It also transformed how and how well we supply our troops.

Today we have privatized virtually the entire military supply chain. Our focus is not speed, urgency and quality in delivering needed supplies and equipment to our fighting men and women. Our unconscionable delays in supplying armor for Humvees and enough body armor for all our troops proved that. Instead, our goals are competition in supply and bureaucratic fairness to profit-making private ventures.

To illustrate that dramatic change, compare our recent tanker-plane supply scandal with the Manhattan Project. For over three years, we have sought to replace our decades-old fleet of aerial refueling tankers with more modern versions. This is a pedestrian engineering project, involving little fundamentally new technology and only modest innovation in design. Yet three years have gone by without even letting a contract.

Why? Because the entire procurement process is oriented toward the private sector. The “revolving door” between Boeing and our military tempted Boeing’s executives to corruption in securing the contract. Partly as a result, the Air Force granted the contract to a competitor. Boeing successfully challenged the award as unfair, and the rebidding process is likely to take another year. When the dust settles, we will have taken the better part of four years just to grant a contract to supply a critical part of our Air Force’s ability to project force effectively around the globe.

Now compare the Manhattan Project. When it began, atomic weapons were just an abstract theory proposed by physicists, most of them foreign born. We had invented crude nuclear reactors, but no one knew for sure whether an atomic weapon was even possible. The very night before the first test, physicists were still calculating whether an atomic explosion might destroy all life on Earth by igniting the atmosphere in nuclear fire.

The Manhattan Project’s technical and engineering challenges were among the most formidable ever addressed. Not only was there abstruse theory of nuclear fission, then still in the process of development. We also had to solve many practical problems that no one had ever described, let alone solved. We had to separate uranium’s fissionable isotope and purify it. We tried two means: gaseous diffusion and centrifuges. The uranium hexafluoride used for gaseous diffusion was so corrosive that it destroyed high-quality stainless-steel piping in days. So we invented Teflon to avoid the corrosion. When centrifuges proved more capable, we built an entire city of them and supplied it with a substantial fraction of the entire nation’s electric power. Then when we had enough fissionable uranium, we had to develop the most precise explosive triggers ever made.

Although the Manhattan Project ran almost six years after Einstein’s famous letter to President Roosevelt, most of this development occurred after Pearl Harbor. It took less than four years. Other nations since have spent decades trying to duplicate these feats, although our successful methods (in general, not their details) are widely known.

The Manhattan Project was undoubtedly the most successful advanced military project in human history. How did we do it? The old-fashioned way. We put smart, dedicated people in charge. We recruited the best and the brightest scientists, engineers, technicians and machinists from the entire country. And we gave the project’s leaders virtually absolute authority to commandeer the nation’s material resources.

In short, we treated the Manhattan Project like what it was: a high-priority military project crucial to the nation’s survival. We didn’t worry about who made a profit or fret about fairness to private investors. We just worried about getting the job done.

In contrast, it will have taken us four years to write a contract for the new tanker planes, and lawyers and accountants will have played as big a part in the project as scientists and engineers. Welcome to the brave new world of for-profit military supply!

The sad story of privatization of our military supply chain didn’t end with the Humvee and body armor debacles or the tanker-plane scandal. Consider Blackwater. This force of private mercenaries was supposed to guard our State Department’s and other civilian personnel in Iraq. The idea was to relieve our over-stressed voluntary forces of non-essential duties. But we ended up paying Blackwater’s “troops” more than our military, while relieving them of responsibility for their actions. Out the window went the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, insofar as these mercenaries were concerned. The result was a bunch of shot-up Iraqis, global embarrassment, and a bigger bill than our own military would have charged had it had the necessary troops.

I could go on. I could write about the hospitals and office buildings erected in Iraq by incompetent and corrupt American contractors, rather than the Army Corps of Engineers, which knows what it is doing and is accustomed to working under fire. I could describe how many of these structures were abandoned due to flaws as basic as leaking sewage. I could write about the small, innovative body-armor maker that never got the chance to supply our troops because of legal challenges by a competitor.

But you get the idea. It has been a little over thirty years since our last war, in Vietnam. During most of that time, Republicans ruled the roost. Their ideology that private profit in free markets is the source of all good prevailed. The result: our military supply chain is the most corrupt, backward, inefficient and irrational it has ever been.

If we had fought World War II this way, we would almost certainly have lost. We would still be working on the contract to develop the atom bomb.

Conclusion

Not every national failure can be traced to Republican ideology. The Cold War led to excess precisely because no real shots were fired. When it ended, we thought we saw the end of history. We naturally turned to commerce and luxury. We got soft, lazy, corrupt and stupid.

But now history has rebooted. We are facing some of our gravest challenges ever. We have to fight terrorists and win. We must completely transform our energy infrastructure. We have to reform our system of public primary and secondary education while maintaining our declining advantage in higher education. We have to restore funding for and leadership in the sciences, especially the biological sciences. We have to repair and improve our crumbling infrastructure, including the levees around New Orleans, our highways and bridges, and our outmoded and increasingly dangerous air traffic control system. And we have to do all these things at once.

If one general theme pervades this discussion of corrupting ideology, it is lopsidedness, imbalance and excess. The Russians had their “Soviet Man,” who would work tirelessly without hope of personal reward. We had our “entrepreneur,” whose self-interest and profit seeking would invariably advance our society.

Both are lopsided caricatures of human nature. Human motivation is a complex of many factors, some self-seeking and some altruistic. It does no good to oversimplify.

Self-interest is indeed a powerful force. Our Founders recognized that fact when they designed our society around free markets and carefully calibrated checks and balances to avoid excesses of governmental power.

Yet our Founders also exemplified nobler motives. If they had been as self-seeking as our modern financial entrepreneurs, they would not have spent so much time and energy trying to design a foolproof society that limited their own power. George Washington would not have refused a third term. Instead, they would simply have grabbed everything for themselves, just as did the noble “four hundred families” of Latin America.

Even in our age of corruption and decline, examples of altruistic behavior abound. Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan enlisted and fight bravely not for the pay, but to protect their country. Doctors in our CDC and health services risk serious infection every day to track down illnesses, subdue antibiotic-resistant bugs, and prevent epidemics. They and lawyers in our Department of Justice earn far less than they could in the private sector; but both love their work because it makes the nation healthier and better. Writers and poets write not primarily for money, but because they are driven. Scientists seek the satisfaction and acclaim that comes from discovering Nature’s truth.

If we are to rescue our society from decline, we must learn anew to honor these non-pecuniary impulses. We must make use of the hard work and self-sacrifice that they motivate.

To do that, we must recognize that venture capital and small business are not the be-all and end-all of human organization. Where warranted, we must rely more on government and large organizations to implement national policy choices. And we must make those policy choices with the knowledge that greed and short-term self-interest will not solve all our problems. In sum, we must remove the blinders of Republican ideology and see human life in all its complexity and grandeur.

Most of all, we must learn again to acknowledge and respect government’s many remarkable achievements. The Manhattan Project was a government-run military project that leaped extraordinary technological hurdles in the midst of war. Our Post Office is one of the best in the world. It introduced non-lick stamps and overnight mail years ago. Try to find those innovations in foreign post office! And have you compared the service of your local Post Office with that of your (private) cell-phone company or Internet service provider lately?

Our Social Security Administration supports tens of millions of pensioners with checks and electronic deposits that arrive on time, without fail, every month. The whole world relies on our Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to discover and thwart the next bacterial or viral plague. Its website is a uniquely valuable compendium of accurate, balanced and leading-edge medical, epidemiological and other scientific information, on every health-related topic from A to Z, offered free of charge to the entire world.

And our military, despite its problems and mismanagement, is still the best in the world. When Dubya’s incompetence and cronyism emasculated our Federal Emergency Management Agency, what swooped in to pick up the pieces after Katrina? Certainly not our private sector, which provided defective surplus trailers full of dangerous formaldehyde. In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, it was our Navy and Coast Guard that provided an effective emergency response, just as our military had done after the Indonesian tsunami and later did after the devastating earthquake in Pakistan.

All of these institutions were and are governmental, staffed largely by people whose principal motivation is something other than personal financial gain. And there are many more. Government is not the wicked witch or incompetent bumbler that Republican propaganda has portrayed for two generations.

It’s not enough just to discard misleading Republican ideology. We should reject all ideology as useless oversimplification, just as we rejected Communism. We should return to the realism, pragmatism and nuanced intelligence that were the source of our Founders’ genius and are our national birthright.

If we can do that, we can arrest our national decline. If not, then your grandchildren will live to see the day when foreigners from more successful societies will come to gawk and buy.

The foreigners will marvel at our quaint religion and ideology. They will gawk at our backwardness. After shaking their heads, they will use their stronger currencies to buy our goods, our land, our companies, and our human talent. And our Republican ideologues—if any still remain—will tell your grandchildren that all this is a consequence of free markets and therefore good for them.

permalink

Footnote: The danger of “financializing” our economy, with consequent neglect of industrial innovation, manufacturing and real wealth creation, is neither my idea nor idle speculation. In the third part of an excellent book celebrated for other reasons, Kevin Phillips documents the phenomenon meticulously. He concludes that the United States is now in about the same place in this process where the British, Dutch and Spanish empires were when they began their respective social, economic and military declines. See Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy 265-318 (Viking, 2006).




Site Meter

28 July 2008

Lack of Imagination I: Small Remotely Piloted Aircraft


Introduction
Our Remotely Piloted Aircraft Deficit
Technical Advantages of RPA
Small RPA: the Perfect Twenty-First-Century Weapon
What’s Holding Us Back
How We Can Move Forward
Conclusion

Introduction

For the last two decades, our national leadership has displayed such a stunning lack of imagination as to suggest that it has suffered a collective lobotomy. Nowhere is the absence of imagination more acute than in our military and intelligence services and our bloated, corrupt, backward and grossly inefficient military-industrial complex.

The contrast with our Golden Age half a century ago is stunning. As I’ve outlined in an earlier post, we won World War II in large measure with superior imagination. When the Japanese took the Malaysian rubber fields, we invented synthetic rubber. We discovered the Japanese Navy’s plans to attack Midway with a brilliant ruse. We hid our intention to invade occupied Europe at Normandy using a vast, fake armada of rubber planes and tanks aimed at Calais. Our allies, the British, deciphered the Nazis’ machine-generated battle codes without ever letting on that they had done so. And we devoted a vast fraction of our national wealth and industrial output to developing atomic weapons on nothing more than the abstract theories of brilliant physicists, most of whom were foreign born.

Yet for the past generation our response to foreign threats has been not only lacking in imagination, but largely incompetent. In contrast, the Colombian military recently pulled off a brilliant ruse to extract hostage Ingrid Betancourt from the FARC’s clutches unharmed.

When Colombia beats us in imagination, we know we need to improve. Possibly the perpetual sleep deprivation that permeates our culture has stifled creative thought. Yet whatever the reasons (and there are probably more than one), our gross national imagination deficit may be our undoing.

In this series of occasional essays, I propose some imaginative solutions to our national problems. All of them require few resources, especially when compared to the stupendous sums we are wasting on nonproductive or counterproductive activities. We are now spending more than $1.3 billion per day on foreign oil. We have spent, on the average, over half a billion dollars per day on the war in Iraq. In comparison, these solutions require minimal investment, but they do require a bold mind set—i.e., imagination.

This essay discusses small remotely piloted aircraft as a solution to the twenty-first century’s military and intelligence challenges, including terrorism and weapons proliferation. Future essays in this same series will discuss other problems susceptible to imaginative solutions. (Several posts on this blog already discuss good batteries as a solution to our national energy crisis. This post has links back to the others.)

Our Remotely Piloted Aircraft Deficit

A few weeks ago, a little-noticed item in the New York Times reported on our deficit of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was and is much greater need for these devices than the Air Force can supply. The need is so great that military leaders discussed stripping down light civilian airframes and converting them to unmanned surveillance craft.

The Times story also reports more than a little inter-service rivalry over these devices. To those of us who remember the Cold War, it evokes a return to the bad old days of destructive inter-service rivalry, before our current “integrated command.” Yet to the troops and commanders on the ground, any increase in the availability of RPA would be a godsend. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates—one of the few high officials of the Bush Administration with any imagination at all—reportedly tried to hasten the process of developing, producing and training pilots for these devices.

This depressing scenario of lack of imagination and sluggishness in our military supply chain follows the Humvee-armor and body-armor scandals of the Iraq War and the continuing tanker-plane procurement scandal, now going into its third year. Yet in the long run the need for imagination it illustrates may be the most important of all. For RPA, in particular small RPA, promise to be the best weapons for meeting the military and intelligence challenges of the twenty-first century.

Technical Advantages of RPA

The paradigm is the “bin Laden Problem.” How do you find and neutralize a terrorist or terrorist group hiding in rugged, inaccessible territory surrounded by innocent civilians and a generally sympathetic (or terrorized) population? Our response so far has been conventional aircraft carrying conventional or precision bombs, plus an occasional wistful but unrealistic look at ground invasion. These “solutions” have produced consistent failure and significant collateral damage—which can be particularly counterproductive in fighting an insurgency.

Modern RPA with high-resolution video and other sensing capabilities may provide an answer. They can operate secretly and discretely, without the political and social cost of ground incursions. By permitting positive, real time identification of targets and precision strikes, they can also reduce collateral damage.

Three additional technical advantages also derive from the very fact that RPA carry no human pilots. First, because they are remotely controlled, RPA are expendable. Their operation risks no pilot’s life. Likewise, they pose no risk of a pilot being shot down or crashing behind enemy lines. There is consequently no need to plan or mount rescue operations, and no danger of a pilot becoming a geopolitical pawn, as happened to Francis Gary Powers during the Cold War.

Second, RPA can be made much more maneuverable than manned aircraft. Not only can they be made lighter. They can also be designed to make turns whose G forces would cause pilots to black out, even with high-G pressure suits. We can build remotely-piloted aircraft that could beat any manned aircraft in a dogfight by performing maneuvers that no human could make and remain conscious. In addition, computer-assisted control—in the aircraft, on the ground or in a surveillance aircraft—could augment a remote pilot’s experience and instincts and make limited flight decisions faster than any human reflex.

Finally, RPA can avoid the size, space, weight and bulk limitations of having to support a human pilot. They can be made much smaller, lighter, and harder to detect than planes big enough to carry human pilots.

These advantages are well known. Remotely piloted Predator aircraft have twice spotted bin Laden himself, although no permission was given to target him. They have killed high-ranking Al Qaeda operatives and other militants in Pakistan and Iraq, but they also have caused significant collateral damage.

Small RPA: the Perfect Twenty-First-Century Weapon

How can we do better? One way is by better exploiting the chief advantage of RPA: the very fact that they do not carry pilots.

That advantage frees RPA from constraints of size and weight and the need to carry life-support and escape devices. Freed from these constraints, RPA can be made small, maneuverable, cheap and expendable.

Small RPA with these characteristics can operate in swarms instead of squadrons. They can get close enough to targets to facilitate positive identification by facial features, dress or even voice. Some may fall to small-arms fire, but the swarm’s ability to deliver precise identification and precision strikes will compensate for the loss of some aircraft, especially in light of their extraordinarily low cost.

It is precisely this freedom from the limitations of manned flight that will make small RPA revolutionary in reconnaissance and anti-terror activities. Imagine, for example, a swarm of a hundred or so remotely piloted planes, each about the size of a large model airplane, and each carrying a small-bore rifle, a light grenade, or a suitable quantity of C-4. Imagine further each plane under the control of a separate, highly trained pilot, operating in a hangar or surveillance aircraft remote from the field of battle but in reliable electronic or voice communication with his or her comrades. The opportunities for a fearless, flawlessly planned, and well-coordinated surveillance or attack mission are palpable. If you add to this equation the notion that the aircraft are cheap and expendable, the advantages of RPA over conventional aircraft are overwhelming.

Small RPA could be made expendable in two ways. First, they could be much smaller, lighter, and simpler than conventional aircraft. Second, designers could transfer much of the computer analysis from the aircraft themselves to surveillance vehicles or remote-piloting complexes, thereby relieving the flight vehicle of the need to carry expensive computer equipment and software.

If made sufficiently small, light and undetectable, RPA could perform missions entirely beyond the capability of current aircraft. They could fly through open doors behind or ahead of enemy operatives. Conceivably, they could even transmit brief glimpses from inside Iran’s uranium-enrichment facilities in Natanz or bin Laden’s caves in Pakistan. If they are small and cheap and expendable enough, there is in theory no place they could not go.

These sorts of RPA lie entirely within the ambit of current technology. They would require little development: just a marriage of current aeronautics, model airplane design, and aircraft technology with present-day miniaturized electronics. Their “eyes” would be little more than the chips used in digital cameras (with more expensive optics), their “ears” the electret microphones built into every laptop PC, perhaps with Bose-like electronics to remove engine noise. Their brains could be standard microprocessors and ROMs (read-only memories), specially programmed. The only features that might need significant special development are their radios (to work around corners and evade detection) and the external design and covering (to evade detection by the eye and electronic means, including radar). Small engines (including miniature jet engines) also might benefit from further development focusing on military and intelligence objectives.

What’s Holding Us Back

Why don’t we have these weapons and surveillance vehicles now? I wish I knew. I have no security clearance or access to military secrets. So we may have them, or we may be developing them, and I just might not know about it.

But three factors suggest the contrary. First, there is no hint in the press that we have any such weapons. All the press coverage speaks of big, expensive RPA with multiple weapons, like the Predator and the Reaper. Some months ago, a national news magazine had a short piece on modern weaponry. It included model-plane-like surveillance vehicles capable of being launched by soldiers in the field. The Israelis reportedly were said to be developing similar devices. Yet I’ve seen or heard nothing of them since.

Second, economic considerations suggest why there may be opposition to building and using small RPA. With its $ 10 million price tag ($40 million for a set of four, with control equipment), the Predator promises significant profit for its manufacturer. Even if a small RPA costs as much as $4,000—surely a high figure for a radically simplified design in mass production—a contractor would have to make and sell 10,000 of them to garner the same revenue. Likely our bloated and self-interested military-industrial complex has little interest in making what it would no doubt refer to contemptuously as “model airplanes.”

Third, similar cultural considerations make introducing small-scale RPA touchy from a personnel standpoint. Ever since the Wright Brothers over a century ago, an airplane has been something that can carry a man. A weapon or surveillance vehicle the size of a model airplane just doesn’t command the same heft or respect.

When you add to that point pilots’ pride, the cultural resistance must be close to insurmountable. You can almost hear an Air Force Academy grad saying scornfully, “I didn’t spend four years learning to fly to pilot a model airplane!”

There’s already plenty of resistance to flying a Predator remotely, because doing so involves little personal courage and not much rush of adrenaline. You can imagine how much less enthusiastic trained pilots would be to fly “model planes.”

How We can Move Forward

But now imagine a swarm of small RPA from an enemy’s point of view.

Twenty Taliban believe they are safely hidden in a narrow, high, remote mountain valley. With a few seconds warning, a rising whine of small engines suggests an intrusion. At virtually the same moment, a hundred small RPA fly over the tops of the surrounding hills.

Each small RPA comes from a different direction. Each is under the independent control of a different pilot, with instantaneous electronic response. Although small, the planes are more maneuverable than the most modern jet fighter. Their pilots are trained to operate the drones independently but are in constant and instantaneous communication with one another.

The remote pilots feel no fear or confusion, only excitement, professionalism and dedicated purpose. Although the planes come from a hundred different directions, they fly in an organized formation, like a gigantic football team with a preplanned “play.” The pilots have practiced the play repeatedly in simulators and multiple drills, and they are flexible and resourceful enough to change it in an instant.

There are five small RPA for every Taliban target. Each one carries a small-bore rifle, a grenade or a suitable quantity of C-4. The militants can barely see them against the sky and the sun. After the pilots make remote visual contact and confirm their identity, the Taliban have only seconds to react. They don’t stand a chance.

Now suppose the Taliban hold three terrified innocent villagers hostage. A single Taliban guards them. As the small RPA close in, the guard’s attention is diverted by their buzzing and the commotion among his comrades.

In the remote piloting complex, a hundred pairs of eyes scan the field, from a hundred different vantage points, for possible “collateral damage.” They do so under rules of engagement that put a high priority on avoiding it. Because the small RPA are smaller and much less expensive than Predators, they can come a lot closer to their targets before firing, permitting better identification.

One of the hundred remote pilots spots the terrified villagers cowering in fear, while their guard searches the sky for targets. The pilot calls out, “Hold fire! Circle back!” The other pilots comply. As the small RPA pull up and circle for their strike—a delay of some dozen seconds—the team leader assigns three extra drones to the guard, and the remaining pilots divide the other targets. The guard falls first, and the other Taliban fall in turn.

The three hostages live to tell of their miraculous rescue, without a scratch, by all-but-unseen aircraft, at the cost of a few dozen small RPA downed by small-arms fire or rocket-propelled grenades or destroyed by their own internal weapons. As eye witnesses, the happy survivors tell the world that no innocents were sacrificed, increasing popular respect for our forces and their mission.

The results of the mission?
    Militants neutralized: 100%
    Our casualties: none
    Collateral damage: none
    Hostages rescued: three
    Cost:
      Small RPA downed by enemy small-arms fire: 12
      Small RPA destroyed by their own internal weapons: 38
      Total cost (at $4,000 per small RPA): $200,000
      (about two minutes’ worth of our average daily expenditure on the war in Iraq)

How can we make this picture real? As the Times story suggests, probably only by re-instituting a bit of inter-service rivalry.

The Air Force is no more likely to work vigorously toward this end than the Army was to create the Air Force at its inception. It is doubtful that any current pilot wants to fly “model planes,” and there are probably few existing aircraft firms that want to build them.

One answer might be to create a new service, the Remotely Piloted Air Force, independent of both the Army and the Air Force. But the new service would have only an abstract commitment and little esprit de corps.

A better approach might be to create new service branches within the Army and Marines, directly responsible to their commanders and having streamlined procurement power. After all, it’s the troops on the ground who need RPA capability and need it now, for surveillance, attack and defense. They have the greatest and most urgent motivation to succeed, because their lives and missions are on the line.

Conclusion

As the Air Force’s own history shows, air power took over 35 years to be recognized with its own service. We don’t have that sort of time to develop and use small RPA in the war against terrorists and weapons proliferators.

A little imagination shows how powerful, effective and cheap small RPA could be in these sorts of missions, and how simple, quick and cheap (compared to normal military projects) their development might be. With our nation’s expertise in aeronautics, miniaturization, optics, microelectronics, and systems integration, we could have small RPA in the field within a year or two, if we put our minds to it. All that we need is a national commitment, a little imagination on the part of our leaders, and a sense of urgency.

pemalink




Site Meter

24 July 2008

The Banality of Evil


There he was, his picture plastered over television and newspapers worldwide. With his massive glasses, thick white beard and mane of white hair tucked into a small pony tail—he looked like an innocuous new age guru. He seemed a harmless ball of white fuzz, Serbia’s “Doctor Phil.” Who would have guessed that under all that white fuzz lay the Butcher of Srebrenica?

Here was the guy who had ordered several thousand unarmed and helpless Muslim men and boys—some as young as sixteen—shot down in cold blood and laid in mass graves. Here was the guy who made a hard rain of artillery shells and sniper bullets fall upon innocent civilians for months on end, converting the historic city of Sarajevo into a nightmarish field of random murder and dismemberment.

Radovan Karadzic had a justification as banal as evil itself. We Serbs, he repeatedly said, were victims. From the fields of Kosovo over six centuries ago to the Second World War, “we” had been misunderstood, battered and mistreated. Therefore, his logic went, “we” have the right and duty to misunderstand, batter and mistreat others.

Karadzic is a sophisticated, well-educated man. He believed devoutly in ethnic cleansing and mass murder, which he justified and promoted in word and deed. He is truly “the worst of the worst.”

Richard Holbrooke is one of our best. A brilliant, consummately skilled diplomat and negotiator, he is as calm and understated as Barack Obama. He never raises his voice or uses incendiary language. Here’s what he said about Radovan Karadzic:
    “The man we’re talking about today is responsible, directly or indirectly, for 300,000 deaths, 2.5 million homeless, and the destruction of a multi-ethnic society. . . .

    “Early on in [our negotiating] session, Karadzic just exploded, started talking about the humiliation of the Serb nation and how unfair life was to Serbs, the kind of classic self-victimization of the Serbs with which [others who worked there were] so familiar.”
Does this story ring a bell? A people nurse historical grudges, real and imagined. A charismatic leader plays on their sense of victimization and fills them with fear and rage. A military buildup and explosion follows, leaving behind the corpses of innocent victims, a record of bestial atrocities, and the shreds of civilized society.

Wasn’t that precisely what Adolf Hitler did with his Nazis? As Holbrooke so mildly put it, “[c]harisma in the hands of evil people can lead to the most terrible brutalities.”

No one who loves democracy and fair play—even basic humanity—can fail to exult at the long-delayed capture of this vicious and unrepentant butcher.

But what about us here at home? Could something similar ever happen here? No one would ever accuse Dubya, Cheney, David Addington or David Yoo of charisma. Maybe we were lucky in that regard.

I do not mean to compare these men with the Nazis or Radovan Karadzic. The duration, scale, and scope of Nazi and Serb atrocities were incomparably more hideous and grandiose. Our leaders jailed hundreds at most, tortured only a few, and only a handful appear to have died. Hitler started a conflagration that ultimately killed fifty million people and nearly destroyed western civilization. The scope of Karadzic’s depredation is clear from Holbrooke’s summary above.

Our leaders were pikers in comparison. But wasn’t their justification for torture, rendition, “black sites” and flaying our Constitution precisely the same? We were victims on 9/11, they said. We were brutally attacked without provocation. We had no way of knowing when another attack might occur. So we had the right—and the duty—of warding off another brutal attack with the most brutal, least thoughtful, least lawful, and least civilized means possible.

There was a sense of victimization and self-righteousness, followed by a firm conviction of moral superiority. There was a demonization of the enemy, using words like “Axis of Evil” and “Islamofascists.” That Idiot Rumsfeld called all the prisoners in Guantánamo the “worst of the worst,” although many, like bin Laden’s driver, were bit players—often unwilling—in a drama over which they had little or no control. Finally, there were the banal ideas that ends justify means, followed by complete disregard of long-term and short-term consequences.

Only our strong democratic traditions, plus a blessed deficit of charisma among our own banally evil men, saved us from a further fall from grace. Here, as elsewhere, evil occurs when men of mediocre intelligence and corruptible character meet extraordinary challenges and resort to ancient barbarism because they are capable of nothing more.

Here, as elsewhere, evil triumphs when good men do nothing. Our Congress can’t even enforce its own subpoenas. Its members wait timidly, hoping that Senator Obama will ride in on a white horse as president, bringing a Democratic landslide and finally cleaning house.

We may be through the worst of it now. The Dubya Administration’s handling of 9/11 and its aftermath has been thoroughly discredited. An impulsive attack on Iran seems more remote by the day. Dubya’s popularity is consistently the lowest ever measured since accurate polling began. Change is finally in the air.

But we have not yet even begun the accounting that we must have. Take a look at the House hearings last week. Or simply watch Jon Stewart’s brilliant collage of snippets from that and earlier testimony.

What you will see is our own banal perpetrators of evil—John Ashcroft, David Addington, David Yoo, and others—telling their classic story of self-victimization, self-righteousness, demonization, freedom from legal and civilized restraint, and disregard for consequences. That is, if they talk at all.

Their most worrisome trait is the total absence of a sense of accountability or responsibility. Whether before the press or the people’s elected representatives, they adamantly refuse to answer to anyone but their Supreme Leader and themselves.

John Ashcroft put it best. He was our own Attorney General, our chief law-enforcement officer. He worked for us, the people. Yet time after time, he flatly refused to explain how and why he allowed his boss’ administration to degenerate into lawlessness and brutality. “I’m trying to think of all the reasons that are appropriate,” he told Congress, “to refuse to answer that question.”

As you listen to his mild-mannered but adamant refusal to come clean, it is impossible not to see a very faint but recognizable reflection of the Nuremburg Trials some sixty years ago.

Patriotism is not blind loyalty to a leader. Nor is it Fourth of July parades. It is thinking hard and working hard to make sure that nothing like the Holocaust or the Rape of Srebrenica and Sarajevo ever happens here or under our flag.

Over the past seven years, it almost did. As we take satisfaction from the long-overdue accounting that Butcher Karadzic now must face, we should not forget the long-overdue accounting that remains unmade here at home.

On way or another, the rotten innards of this banally evil administration are going to be exposed to the sunlight over the next five years, and we are all going to see with horror just how close we came.

permalink




Site Meter

22 July 2008

A Loser’s Confession


One of the most depressing things to read is a confession of failure. Even more depressing is the confession of a prominent loser whose unjustified social position gives him a megaphone to trumpet “it can’t be done!”

That megaphone was, in essence, what the Wall Street Journal’s Joe White gave former GM CEO Robert Stempel yesterday [subscription required].

Stempel is the paradigmatic high-profile corporate loser, a walking demonstration of the Peter Principle. He helped put GM on the path to its dramatic decline and within falling distance of bankruptcy today. He was ousted as CEO by GM’s board in 1992. His next failure involved unsuccessfully trying to develop nickel-cadmium batteries for cars as CEO of Power Conversion Devices.

Today, according to White, Stempel doubts we will ever have economical electric cars. Good batteries, he reportedly thinks, will always be decades away.

But what, pray tell, does a mechanical engineer who spent much of his adult life as a management failure know about batteries? The few remaining problems in upscaling lithium-ion batteries involve control electronics, solid-state physics, metallurgy and materials science, with perhaps a touch of basic physics and chemistry. Last time I checked, mechanical engineers didn’t learn or know much about these subjects at all, let alone at the cutting edge of technology today.

Developers of high-power batteries for cars have encountered some problems of reliability and cost. But unlike Stempel, the managers now in charge of GM are neither pessimistic nor unimaginative about solving them. Just last month, GM’s board decided to produce the Chevy Volt, which requires reliable high-power lithium-ion batteries. That decision demonstrates the directors’ confidence and commitment.

Their confidence is well deserved. Lithium is the third lightest chemical element and the only one that is solid at room temperature. Lithium-based batteries have a power-to-weight advantage over lead-based batteries of nearly fifteen, and about nine over cadmium-based batteries. That’s nearly a factor-of-ten advantage over the nickel-cadmium batteries that Stempel, as former CEO of battery developer Power Conversion Devices, once labored unsuccessfully to make economical.

Lithium-ion batteries will solve the weight-to-power ratio that has held electric cars back for over a century. We have them now, and they work now, as GM’s board’s recent decision testifies. Do you think GM’s board would have approved the Volt’s production based on a mere promise of future research?

The batteries are still costly. GM’s most recent price estimate for the Volt is now $40,000, about $10,000 more than its original cost estimate. The change suggests a cost for the batteries alone of at least $15,000.

But lithium-ion technology for high-power batteries is still in its infancy. The first commercial lithium-ion battery for any application is only seventeen years old. Car-battery technology is about five years old.

At a less insecure and more “can do” moment in our national history, we didn’t quail at solving problems far more complex. When the Manhattan Project began, atomic weapons were nothing more than an untested, abstract theory. We had to mine and refine sufficient uranium for them and learn to concentrate its fissionable isotope. No one knew for sure whether a nuclear chain reaction could produce an explosion, as distinguished from the slow heat of an atomic pile. In order to trigger such an explosion, physicists had to develop novel electronic circuits and detonation devices to provide, instantaneously, a perfectly spherical implosive charge. The night before the first atomic test, they labored with obscure calculations to verify that the resulting explosion, if successful, would not ignite the Earth’s atmosphere and destroy all life on Earth. Nations like India, Iran, Korea and Pakistan, had and are still having difficulty duplicating these technical feats over half a century later.

Next to the technical problems the Manhattan Project overcame in just six years, the problems of making lithium-ion batteries reliable and reducing their cost are child’s play.

All we need is a similar a national commitment, one that recruits the best minds for the job regardless of their fields of study, location and current employment. As I’ve suggested, maybe an approach based on randomly formed and haphazardly funded private ventures is not the best approach. We need imagination and a national commitment of the same sort that motivated the Manhattan Project and made it succeed.

What we don’t need is a mechanical engineer from one of our most technologically backward industries—let alone one who helped drive it into the ditch—telling us what can’t be done.

permalink




Site Meter

17 July 2008

Al Gore’s Energy Challenge


[Click here for supporting facts.]

It’s nice to have your own analysis confirmed—and so soon after posting—by someone with far greater clout. Al Gore spent most of the last decade working environmental and energy issues. He won the Nobel Peace Price and a Pulitzer Prize for his effort. He’s independently wealthy and beholden to no one, so you know he’s speaking from his mind and his heart. (We’ll leave aside that fact that he should have been president.)

Today, in a major speech on energy, global warming and the environment, he confirmed the essential conclusions of my recent posts on energy policy, an electricity economy, the cost and practical advantages of electric transport, the dangers of so-called “clean coal,” and the futility of short-term measures to lower gas prices.

The essence of Gore’s advice was two points. First, we have to give up all fossil fuels, including coal, if we want to save our planet, our economy, and our national independence. Second, we Americans can do it, if we put our minds and backs into it, in ten years. Then we can lead the world to replicate the process globally.

My own independent analysis—based on historical growth in wind power worldwide—suggests that we can increase wind power alone enough to virtually eliminate coal from our energy diet in eighteen years. If we add solar and nuclear power, let alone geothermal, that should be enough to reach Gore’s goal on his time schedule. But doing so will require a truly national effort and therefore a broad political consensus.

Gore’s speech is not overly long, and the New York Times piece reporting it is quite short. Both are worth a read.

But several quotations capture our current situation as only a man who should have been president can. Here they are (in my order, not Gore’s), with links to my own posts explaining them in detail:

    “We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change.”

    “If you want to know the truth about gasoline prices, here it is: the exploding demand for oil, especially in places like China, is overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time no matter what the oil companies promise.”

    “It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now.”

    "The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline.”

    “It is a great error to say that the United States must wait for others to join us in this matter. In fact, we must move first, because that is the key to getting others to follow; and because moving first is in our own national interest.”

    “Even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, ‘The Stone Age didn’t end because of a shortage of stones.’”

    “We should guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry. Every single one of them.”

There’s much more in Gore’s speech. Everyone who loves our country and our planet and believes deep down that something is terribly wrong should read it. But more than that: everyone who feels that way should take up Gore’s challenge and join his movement.

We can still do the right thing, but there’s not much time left. Dubya and Cheney already have cost us eight precious years.

Ten Encouraging Facts

If you think Al Gore’s vision is unrealistic, think again. The ground is shifting under doubters and deniers. The following are facts showing just how fast the world is changing (all links are to primary sources, not blogs):

1. Texas is now the United States’ largest generator of wind power, with 5.3 installed gigawatts. (A gigawatt is one million kilowatts.) California is second to Texas in wind power, with less than half of Texas’ total. The rest of the Southwest and the windy plains states are just getting started.

2. Texas just approved a $4.93 billion upgrade to its electricity grid, to handle 18.5 gigawatts of wind power. That’s enough to run 3.7 million homes with air conditioners roaring. Yes, this is Texas, the state of Dubya, Enron, and Exxon.

3. Texas’ home-grown corporate swashbuckler T. Boone Pickens—a former petroleum engineer, oilman and corporate raider—wants to raise $ 1 trillion to invest in wind power. He told the New York Times, “I have the same feelings about wind as I had about the best oil field I ever found.” Pickens is 80 years old. Who says an old dog can’t learn new tricks?

4. In 2006—that’s two years ago—wind-power capacity in the European Union reached 48 gigawatts, just a bit less than 4% of total electrical capacity. That figure was 19% over the previous year’s total capacity. If that rate of growth continues and total electricity demand stays flat (through conservation), Europe will make 40% of its power from wind alone before 2022. And that’s not even considering nuclear or solar power.

5. France generates over three-quarters of its electricity from nuclear energy. Belgium, Sweden and the Slovak Republic generate about half. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Korea and Switzerland generate about a third or more. The United States, which invented nuclear power, generates only one-fifth of its electric power from the atom.

6. General Motors’ board of directors just approved production of the Chevy Volt, a “plug-in” hybrid designed to charge up in your garage and go forty miles on electricity alone. Production is scheduled for 2010.

7. The Volt is designed to go five miles on a kilowatt-hour (Kwh) of electricity. You can calculate how much that number would save you as compared to driving on gasoline by using the following formula:
    (Ratio of Volt Cost to Gas Cost) = (Your cost of electricity, in cents per Kwh) x (Your car’s MPG)/(five times your cost in cents per gallon of gas at your favorite pump)

8. The Japanese are not standing still. Toyota, Nissan, Matsushita Electric and other Japanese industrial companies have formed a consortium to establish standards for the lithium-ion batteries that will power Japan’s plug-in hybrids. Toyota has promised a lithium-ion plug-in hybrid by 2010.

9. Other car makers are working on electricity-based designs. BMW has promised an all-electric Mini-Cooper. Ford, Mazda, and BMW have working prototypes of cars that burn hydrogen. Their exhaust is only water vapor, and any source of electricity can generate their hydrogen fuel by hydrolyzing water.

10. If you reread this list, you’ll note that none of these points even mentions solar power.

Don’t be fooled by doubting Thomases and nay-sayers. Wind, solar and nuclear power are the energy technologies of the future. They won’t deprive you of your personal auto; it’ll just run quieter and make less pollution.

Coal and oil are the stone age, and we’re about to move into bronze. Don’t be left behind breathing sulfur dioxide in your Hummer.

permalink




Site Meter