Tuesday, January 31, 2006
The American Thinker
The American Thinker says it all. What else can I say? We have lost a great economic scientist.
Friday, January 27, 2006
The American Thinker
The American Thinker
has an interesting article on Hamas's win. Many blogs are writing about it.
Some of the Democrats are acting like this was a "See, I told you so" moment for Bush's pursuit of democracy in the Middle East.
This does give us a moment to consider why is democracy important?
Does it constrain prospective followers of Machiavelli's treatise The Prince?
Does it guarantee peace?
Does it eliminate corruption?
Does it guarantee each party the right to hold power from time to time?
It does none of these. It is capable of each of them, but having a process that is democratic does not guarantee any of them.
As usual, the easiest means of understanding a concept is look at its opposite's most salient characteristics for a compare and contrast exercise. Autocracy or despotism is the strong opposite: one person rule versus the people's rule. Oligarchy is more like autocracy, but I will hold that analysis for now.
In autocracy, the autocrat maintains power by controlling discussions. He promotes those that repeat his propoganda. He holds power by eliminating competing political groups. Literally, eliminating the voices either by imprisonment or killing. The autocrat changes his cabinet for failing to toe the line or meet the arbitrary demands of the autocrat. The people only receive benefits to the extent that it serves the autocrat retaining power.
In this process, sudden change is the worst possible outcome: change is difficult to control or to predict its outcome. Continuity is focused on the autocrat. Life is unpredictible for the population because it instills fear and a desire to avoid personal destruction. Only armed revolt will cause the whole cabinet and political appointees to be removed in one moment.
Democracy in the modern sense (which is republican government in the political scientist's vocabulary) is the opposite of these. Life is predictible for the population and unpredictible of the elites. Continuity is focused on the population. Sudden change comes for politicians and populations alike, but in pre-set doses called "Election Day." Discussion is encouraged. The discussion will always have a dose of "Look what criminals the officeholders are."
What this means in practice is that the population will focus its wealth-envy on officeholders bilking the public coffers. While stopping this bilking or rent-seeking from happening at all is a fight against human nature, democracy controls it by throwing out one set of rascals lock-stock-and-barrel and putting in a different set of thieves.
The first thing the thieves do is uproot the rascals connections with the systems. The thieves have an incentive to disconnect the rascals from the system so that the thieves can insert themselves in the system. If the rascal had a contract or a bribe from the rascal's cousin to have the cousin build a 5-foot sidewalk for $100,000, the thief wants to shine the light on the rascal's self-serving contract. The thief will prosecute or chase the rascal's cousin away. For a period of time after the thief has cleansed the system of the rascal and his cousin, the thief cannot insert his own cronies too obviously. The public would cry for blood while the press and public are still watching.
When the press and public focus their attention on some other rascal's uprooting, the thief can start building his own network. This takes time. Usually months or years. In Indiana, we have had 16 years of Democrat rule. The state's government has many problems. The Republicans have been finding many problems and changing policies that favored Democrat rent-seekers. Indiana's government is going to be the most efficient immediately after the process of change is done focusing on removing rent-seekers. Once the process turns to building a new system, the Republican rent-seekers will start to set their own rent-seekers in place. This ebb and flow cleans the government like a ocean's wave cleans a storm-ravaged beach.
If the thief is a political appointee, he has to be even more careful. If he looks too corrupt, it is desirable for the elected executive or body to use the thief as a scapegoat for their own failures. If the thief is elected, he is the most protected because he may be able to be re-elected. Think of Marion Barry or the political machines.
So what does all this theory tell us about Hamas taking charge? Fatah is corrupt. They are rascals. Hamas' thieves want to sustain their new-found power. They will push Fatah's rascals out of government, maybe even out of Arab Palestine. Fatah will have a chance (even if they might fail to use it) of cleansing their party of Arafat's people. Arafatites might find it safer for themselves to take their stolen money in Switzerland and retire elsewhere. While other Arafatites might use their Swiss funds to rebuild the party, these Arafatites will be circling their prey in the Hamas government. They will seek out Hamas's corruption to highlight. They will seek Hamas's failures in its supposed area of strength: welfare handouts and social services.
While in the short-term tactics, it would seem advantageous for Bush to support Abbas and ignore Hamas. I think this may be a long-term strategic error. Abbas should be forced to address Hamas's foreign policy agenda. This will deadlock the peace process in the near term, but it will force Hamas to bear the politcal burden of foreign policy failures. It may lead to war and many persons' deaths. This is a sickening thought. However, the threat of war will not go away through peace talks when the Muslim population sees any treaty as a hudna -- a temporary (i.e., no longer than 10 years) truce while the Muslims try to gain strength. The peace process is doomed to failure if the Palestinian Arabs cannot come to terms with the notion that war will only bring them destruction. Even so, destruction to a religious zealot is only of this world, since destruction in war only leads to eternal paradise.
The Palestinian Arabs must find a personal advantage in peace. Removing the corruption of the Palestinian Arab government is not necessarily possible, it is possible to have a see-sawing of power between multiple factions that lead to popular outrage. The outrage that is now focused on the Israelis and Americans being re-focused on their own leaders -- that is the power of democracy. The ebb and flow begins.
The human condition yearns for peace to raise a family. It yearns for comfort. It yearns to focus on matters beyond survival. Removing or reducing corruption's road block to providing for survival starts the process.
In America, the rent-seekers have become so efficient, we have moved on to the next problem in democracy. The ebb and flow has been channeled by the rent seekers.
The Bush Administration needs to encourage institutions in the Palestinian Arab community that makes the ebb and flow of power more likely on election day. The Administration neither can nor should appear beholden to Fatah. If Hamas cleanses well, many Fatah members will go to jail or exile. The "New Fatah" will not necessarily bring peace. In fact, a third party would be my preference. Fatah of Arafat would be best to die in ignomy. The Arab world needs something else. Let the ebb and flow bring something new. Let it ressurrect Fatah. The point is that corruption needs to have new patrons for now and a continuance cleaning cycle to remove it entirely. That is when we will have first hope of finding peace.
has an interesting article on Hamas's win. Many blogs are writing about it.
Some of the Democrats are acting like this was a "See, I told you so" moment for Bush's pursuit of democracy in the Middle East.
This does give us a moment to consider why is democracy important?
Does it constrain prospective followers of Machiavelli's treatise The Prince?
Does it guarantee peace?
Does it eliminate corruption?
Does it guarantee each party the right to hold power from time to time?
It does none of these. It is capable of each of them, but having a process that is democratic does not guarantee any of them.
As usual, the easiest means of understanding a concept is look at its opposite's most salient characteristics for a compare and contrast exercise. Autocracy or despotism is the strong opposite: one person rule versus the people's rule. Oligarchy is more like autocracy, but I will hold that analysis for now.
In autocracy, the autocrat maintains power by controlling discussions. He promotes those that repeat his propoganda. He holds power by eliminating competing political groups. Literally, eliminating the voices either by imprisonment or killing. The autocrat changes his cabinet for failing to toe the line or meet the arbitrary demands of the autocrat. The people only receive benefits to the extent that it serves the autocrat retaining power.
In this process, sudden change is the worst possible outcome: change is difficult to control or to predict its outcome. Continuity is focused on the autocrat. Life is unpredictible for the population because it instills fear and a desire to avoid personal destruction. Only armed revolt will cause the whole cabinet and political appointees to be removed in one moment.
Democracy in the modern sense (which is republican government in the political scientist's vocabulary) is the opposite of these. Life is predictible for the population and unpredictible of the elites. Continuity is focused on the population. Sudden change comes for politicians and populations alike, but in pre-set doses called "Election Day." Discussion is encouraged. The discussion will always have a dose of "Look what criminals the officeholders are."
What this means in practice is that the population will focus its wealth-envy on officeholders bilking the public coffers. While stopping this bilking or rent-seeking from happening at all is a fight against human nature, democracy controls it by throwing out one set of rascals lock-stock-and-barrel and putting in a different set of thieves.
The first thing the thieves do is uproot the rascals connections with the systems. The thieves have an incentive to disconnect the rascals from the system so that the thieves can insert themselves in the system. If the rascal had a contract or a bribe from the rascal's cousin to have the cousin build a 5-foot sidewalk for $100,000, the thief wants to shine the light on the rascal's self-serving contract. The thief will prosecute or chase the rascal's cousin away. For a period of time after the thief has cleansed the system of the rascal and his cousin, the thief cannot insert his own cronies too obviously. The public would cry for blood while the press and public are still watching.
When the press and public focus their attention on some other rascal's uprooting, the thief can start building his own network. This takes time. Usually months or years. In Indiana, we have had 16 years of Democrat rule. The state's government has many problems. The Republicans have been finding many problems and changing policies that favored Democrat rent-seekers. Indiana's government is going to be the most efficient immediately after the process of change is done focusing on removing rent-seekers. Once the process turns to building a new system, the Republican rent-seekers will start to set their own rent-seekers in place. This ebb and flow cleans the government like a ocean's wave cleans a storm-ravaged beach.
If the thief is a political appointee, he has to be even more careful. If he looks too corrupt, it is desirable for the elected executive or body to use the thief as a scapegoat for their own failures. If the thief is elected, he is the most protected because he may be able to be re-elected. Think of Marion Barry or the political machines.
So what does all this theory tell us about Hamas taking charge? Fatah is corrupt. They are rascals. Hamas' thieves want to sustain their new-found power. They will push Fatah's rascals out of government, maybe even out of Arab Palestine. Fatah will have a chance (even if they might fail to use it) of cleansing their party of Arafat's people. Arafatites might find it safer for themselves to take their stolen money in Switzerland and retire elsewhere. While other Arafatites might use their Swiss funds to rebuild the party, these Arafatites will be circling their prey in the Hamas government. They will seek out Hamas's corruption to highlight. They will seek Hamas's failures in its supposed area of strength: welfare handouts and social services.
While in the short-term tactics, it would seem advantageous for Bush to support Abbas and ignore Hamas. I think this may be a long-term strategic error. Abbas should be forced to address Hamas's foreign policy agenda. This will deadlock the peace process in the near term, but it will force Hamas to bear the politcal burden of foreign policy failures. It may lead to war and many persons' deaths. This is a sickening thought. However, the threat of war will not go away through peace talks when the Muslim population sees any treaty as a hudna -- a temporary (i.e., no longer than 10 years) truce while the Muslims try to gain strength. The peace process is doomed to failure if the Palestinian Arabs cannot come to terms with the notion that war will only bring them destruction. Even so, destruction to a religious zealot is only of this world, since destruction in war only leads to eternal paradise.
The Palestinian Arabs must find a personal advantage in peace. Removing the corruption of the Palestinian Arab government is not necessarily possible, it is possible to have a see-sawing of power between multiple factions that lead to popular outrage. The outrage that is now focused on the Israelis and Americans being re-focused on their own leaders -- that is the power of democracy. The ebb and flow begins.
The human condition yearns for peace to raise a family. It yearns for comfort. It yearns to focus on matters beyond survival. Removing or reducing corruption's road block to providing for survival starts the process.
In America, the rent-seekers have become so efficient, we have moved on to the next problem in democracy. The ebb and flow has been channeled by the rent seekers.
The Bush Administration needs to encourage institutions in the Palestinian Arab community that makes the ebb and flow of power more likely on election day. The Administration neither can nor should appear beholden to Fatah. If Hamas cleanses well, many Fatah members will go to jail or exile. The "New Fatah" will not necessarily bring peace. In fact, a third party would be my preference. Fatah of Arafat would be best to die in ignomy. The Arab world needs something else. Let the ebb and flow bring something new. Let it ressurrect Fatah. The point is that corruption needs to have new patrons for now and a continuance cleaning cycle to remove it entirely. That is when we will have first hope of finding peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)