The Religious Middle

Welcome!

2004-09-28T19:50:00.000-07:00

Due to Orin Kerr's blogosphere challenging, I am enabling comments today. If I get some good comments, I may leave them on indefinitely.

For anyone coming here from The Volokh Conspiracy, welcome! This blog, The Religious Middle, discusses political issues from a religiously informed but moderate and pragmatic perspective. As the name suggests, I find both the Religious Right and the Religious Left unsatisfying. In particular, I don't like seeing religious people approach politics as an arena where they can fight the same battles again and again. Such battles often waste energy that could be used more constructively on issues of greater moral concern.

Orin Kerr's Questions

2004-09-27T17:38:00.000-07:00

I'm taking a short break from my usual blogging goals to answer Orin Kerr's questions for hawkish bloggers. I supported the war at first, so I should be up front about where I stand now:

1. Today, I believe the Iraq War was a bad idea. The primary reason I have changed my mind is that the war's opportunity costs have been greater than I expected. E.g., the U.S. presence in Iraq has left the U.S. less able to respond to the genocide in Darfur, to Iran's nuclear weapons program, and to crises in Haiti, Venezuela, and the Ivory Coast. I think the world is clearly better off without Saddam, but, I would prefer a world with Saddam but without a nuclear Iran and without a Sudan capable of getting away with genocide.

My opinion here has been less affected by events in Iraq than by my wrongly expecting the peace treaty in Sudan to work and Iran to be further from getting nuclear weapons than it is today. Worse, it is possible that their knowledge that the U.S.'s attention was elsewhere may have emboldened those countries to do things they knew the international community would oppose.

2. None of the negative stories Orin has linked has affected my judgment of the war very much, although the deaths of U.S. soldiers have affected my emotions greatly.

The reason they haven't affected my opinions much is that most of what I've heard suggests the U.S. is currently stepping up its offensive operations, first vs. Sadrists in Najaf, and now vs. Sadrists in Baghdad and holdouts in the Sunni triangle. I am no military strategist, but, I would expect greater U.S. military action in Iraq to lead to a surge in attacks against U.S. forces and in Iraqi unhappiness. The test will be whether it is a surge of attacks followed by a U.S. military victory, or a surge of attacks followed by still more attacks.

3. The primary criterion I would use to judge the success or failure of the Iraq War is whether the war causes other nations critical to the war on terror to bend to U.S. pressure more quickly, or whether it causes them to take U.S. threats less seriously due to our troop commitments, perceptions of U.S. failure, or loss of international goodwill. Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are all test cases for this.

A secondary criterion I would use is whether Iraq becomes a haven for people like Al-Zarqawi and Al-Sadr. I never had high hopes for a democratic Iraq, but I really don't want it to become the world's biggest terrorist training ground.

Wash Post gets one right

2004-08-15T14:01:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post picks up on the expulsion of Montserrat refugees from the United States, and correctly calls it "Volcanic Absurdity."

This is why the WP is my favorite newspaper -- they're great at developing small but indicative stories from places as different as rural China, the Caribbean, Maryland suburbs, and the Virginia hi-tech corridor. Anyone can clip wire stories on Iraq, outsourcing, etc., but the WP puts real shoe leather to work finding stories that others might miss.

quote of the day

2004-08-14T13:13:00.000-07:00

"The secret isn't just lower wages. It's also the attitude of workers who take pride and are willing to do what is necessary to succeed, even if it means outsourcing parts production or working on weekends or altering vacation schedules." -- Steven Pearlstein, Washington Post, "Europe's Capitalism Curtain," describing the growth of manufacturing in Wroclaw, Poland.

I think this is a great point to keep in mind when discussing outsourcing -- while low wages are a factor, no company would outsource anything if it couldn't find intelligent, hard-working people in Eastern Europe, India, or China. People concerned about the effect of outsourcing on American workers should keep that in mind.

In particular, any time I hear politicians say that the U.S. is losing jobs due to 'unfair' competition or lax environmental and labor regulations, I worry they have missed the point -- we are facing real, effective, perfectly fair competition, driven by hard-working and intelligent people who have every right to better their own lives. Ditto for people on the right who claim that the U.S. will always have an advantage in the highest-skilled, highest-paying jobs.

Send us your tired, your poor, so we can kick them as soon as they start to get back up.

2004-08-09T06:12:00.000-07:00

Absolutely unconscionable:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/09/nyregion/09volcano.html?hp

The U.S. has decided to terminate the 'temporary protected' refugee status we gave to 292 people fleeing the volcanos that leveled Montserrat in the 90's. Why? Because their situation isn't temporary, but permanent.

All 292 came here legally, at US govt. invitation; most have been here 7 years or more, with jobs; and many have children who are U.S. citizens. The official US recommendation for the ones with citizen-children: move to Britain, spend 12-20 years there waiting for a green card, and then come back with your children.

Even if this wasn't a moral outrage, it would be an economic one -- the last thing our economy needs is to send people out of the country for their most productive working years, so they can return after a 20 year delay for their retirement and social security benefits. The economic evidence is overwhelming that legally admitted refugees help the US economy, and do not bring the problems associated with illegal immigration.

This brings me back to the core goal I have for this blog -- a lot of religious people approach politics with a sense of outrage about the same old issues, over and over again -- thus, the leaders of the big Protestant churches complain about the treatment of Palestinians, the religious right continues to fight for school prayer, and the Pope is still wondering whether capitalism is a good idea.

I'd like them all to take a 90 day hiatus from being outraged about their old outrages, so that they can all wake up and see the new issues where outrage is justified -- but where positive change is still possible.

Links on the Fissile Material Control Treaty

2004-08-06T07:20:00.000-07:00

That's the treaty which, as discussed below, Bush is watering down by removing the inspection requirements. Some relevant links:
-- NYT editorial today
-- Original story from the Washington Post
-- the FAS has a great history and background page on the FMCT. I often disagree with FAS' spin, but, they rock at assembling detailed, unbiased background information.
-- a really nice analysis of the Treaty, its technical details, and its pros and cons from Steve Fetter and Frank Von Hippel.

As I said below, I think the US decision to oppose inspection requirements is a really bad idea. What's not to like about a verified, international ban on producing the materials that terrorists or rogue states could use to produce their own nuclear bombs?

The best thing about the FMCT treaty is that it recognizes that it is easier to control things (plutonium) than ideas (the know-how and intention to build bombs). The existing Non-Proliferation Treaty tries to control ideas while making it easier for additional countries to make things like plutonium and HEU for 'peaceful' purposes. IMHO, the NPT is much more likely to collapse than the copyright laws, internet gambling restrictions, censorship attempts, and other
idea-controlling policies that some people expect the internet to sweep away.

Drezner link

2004-08-06T06:53:00.000-07:00

Drezner's comments
on the 9-11 Commission and centralization vs. social networks

I'm still getting the hang of the email-to-blog link.

Fwd: Some people who get it

2004-08-06T06:43:00.000-07:00

Finally, some press and blog coverage of the issues I've been upset about this week:

-- the NYT editorial page rightly takes Bush to task over the US decision to oppose inspections of nuclear material programs, and they pick up on the fact that the Bush admin is "ignoring Ronald Reagan's famous cautionary advice, "Trust, but verify'". http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/06/opinion/06fri1.html

-- Dan Drezner picks up on the fact that centralizing control over US intelligence is unlikely to give us the creativity and risk-taking we need. http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001540.html

Dan also has some great links on this: a sociologist familiar with the costs of excessive hierarchy -- http://slate.msn.com/id/2104808/ ; an Anthony Cordesman interview; and the new book "The Wisdom of Crowds." Read them all!

Why does anyone still support the Czar system?

2004-07-31T14:28:00.000-07:00

I'm really glad that some congresspeople are criticizing the 9-11 commission's recommendation for a single national intelligence 'czar.' Did the drug czar win the drug war for us? The terrorism czar prevent 9-11? Or the cybersecurity czar wipe out computer hacking? For that matter, are the original Czars remembered as wise, noble, and successful rulers of Russia, or did they lose a series of brutal wars, fail in every attempt at reform, and meet their end in front of a firing squad?

I just don't buy the argument that a new, centralized authority figure is the solution to any significantly complex problem. I would much rather see the CIA split into two competing agencies, with bonuses awarded to the analyst team with the best track record for predicting future events. We need more competing ideas, more disagreement, and more creativity, not more central control.

Richard Clarke, ex-counterterrorism czar and ex-cybersecurity czar, has proved that the only thing czars are good for is for publishing tell-all books about what went wrong. Even when he was right, he had almost no ability to get cabinet secretaries or other holders or real power to take his ideas seriously.

A really bad idea

2004-07-31T14:08:00.000-07:00

The Bush administration has just announced that the US no longer wants an inspection requirement to be part of a new treaty banning the production of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. Is it just me, or is this a really bad idea? In 18 months, we've gone from citing non-cooperation with inspectors as a justification for war to abandoning inspections completely.

In the eighties, the Reagan administration fought for the principle of "Trust but verify," against people on the left who believed we could trust the Soviets without verification, and against people on the right who thought arms control was a waste of time and impossible to enforce. It disturbs me greatly to think that the people who opposed Reagan's foreign policy from the right are now winning policy battles in the Bush administration.

OTH, it is also possible that some other major countries told the US they would never sign the treaty if it included inspections, and the US has wisely decided to compromise as a sign of our multilateralism and humility. Which of these explanations do you think is more likely?

The problem with Mixing Church and State

2004-06-12T14:22:00.000-07:00

Why did several congressmen participate in a ceremony crowning Rev. Moon as the new Messiah?

I think it's safe to say that the congressmen involved likely had no idea what was going on, only that a potentially huge source of campaign contributions and press support wanted their presence at some kind of award ceremony.

But it illustrates why programs that mix church and state are a really bad idea: whatever the Catholics and the Methodists get from the government, the Moonies, Hare Krishna, and Scientologists will get too. (It is _always_ unconstitutional for the government to pick and choose between religions based on their beliefs). Do your opinions of Bush's Faith-based charities program change when the money is going to the Moonies instead of to Catholic charities?

Similar problems are likely to affect school vouchers. I support school vouchers and choice wholeheartedly, since I don't think the neighborhood you live in should be the primary determinant of the educational opportunity the government provides for you. But, when applied to religious schools, there are a lot of unpleasant groups that I'd rather not see getting government funding. IMHO, this issue will eventually lead to sweeping government influence over private, voucher-subsidized schools. At a minimum, it will prohibit racial and religious discrimination. At a maximum, it could lead to federal curriculum standards dictating the content of history courses, requiring trendy methods of teaching math, and raising lots of constitutional questions.

In the case of school vouchers, the fact that parents have to choose the schools will limit the worst abuses of the system. For faith-based charities, though, as the saying goes "[the needy] can't be choosers."

Good Journalism

2004-06-11T17:27:00.000-07:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/nyregion/11TRAI.html is a great example of what everyday journalism should be -- what happens to people who miss the last train at Grand Central Station? And why do they miss it? Very cool.

I haven't missed a last train before, but I've missed the last hotel room I had to find a train at 2:00 AM with a route long enough to sleep on. Luckily, it wasn't in New York.

Credit where Credit is due

2004-06-10T18:54:00.000-07:00

Both bloggers and journalists are talking about how much credit Reagan deserves for winning the Cold War. I think he played a significant role, but, I think Harry Truman deserves most of the credit. Without Reagan, some Soviet dissidents would have spent a longer time in jail, a few more Caribbean countries would have gone communist, and the 1989 revolution may have been delayed 5-10 years.

Without Truman, we would have lost the Cold War without a fight, with France, Britain, Germany, and Japan mired in poverty for decades, and with communist rule in Berlin, Greece, Turkey, southern Korea, possibly Italy, and perhaps even part of Japan.

It is difficult for a historically-reflective person to visit South Korea without thinking that Truman was one of our greatest Presidents, and that the Korean War was one of the most noble things our country has ever done.

Reagan

2004-06-07T05:35:00.000-07:00

The difference between Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush is the same as the
difference between George Lucas in the '80s and George Lucas today.

The Copenhagen Consensus is out...

2004-06-05T06:35:00.000-07:00

The results of the Copenhagen
Consensus project have been announced. This is Bjorn Lomberg's effort to prioritize big, global social programs according to how much real economic good they do for the world. The conclusion: AIDS and Malaria matter, a lot.

1. as much AIDS prevention as possible -- cost $27 billion, payoff 40x the cost
2. provide micronutrients to fight malnutrition
3. lower trade barriers
4. fight malaria

Unsuprisingly, fighting global warming is not on their list of recommendations; Lomberg has become the environmentalists' version of Emmanuel Goldstein.

I am disappointed, thought, that it is harder than I expected to find the
reasoning behind the Copenhagen Consensus' list. If they are bold enough to claim the right to define the world's most urgent priorities, surely they can write a decent press release or essay briefly explaining their reasoning? I shouldn't have to look for the original academic paper to figure out what 'providing micronutrients' means.

What is the Religious Middle?

2004-06-02T16:31:00.000-07:00

In American politics, there are two common "religious" points of view: the religious right, with its concern over cultural issues like gay marriage and school prayer, and the religious left, with its passion for social justice, pacificism, and economic ideas that were discredited 50 years ago. The first sounds louder in the press, but the second is still going strong in the mainline protestant churches.

I think there's room for a third religious voice -- the Religious Middle.
IMHO, the religious right and the religious left are alike in spending too much energy on issues where people will never agree, and on highly principled stands that don't work in practice. We could use a Religious Middle to talk about:
-- issues where a broad range of religious people (left, right, Christian, Jewish, Muslim should be able to agree
-- creative, pragmatic approaches for addressing social problems and improving people's lives
-- how we can meet religious goals for helping people, without sacrificing either common sense or a modern understanding of economics.

Some examples of the issues I'd like to discuss here:
1. farm subsidies -- can any religious person defend a system of farm subsidies that protects large industrial farms from subsistence farmers in the third world?
2. prisoner abuse -- shouldn't rape in American prisons be a bigger issue than, say, gay marriage?
3. genocide, slavery, and religious persecution -- all still active, today
4. what do we do about countries like Haiti?
5. importing prescription drugs -- is it morally necessary for drugs to cost the same in the US as in other countries? Is it fair for the US government to force drug prices down at home, while often opposing efforts to cut the prices Africans pay for drugs?
6. the "Copenhagen Consensus" -- what should our priorities be for helping developing countries?