danps

Last active
5 days, 18 hours ago
User Picture

Detroit, Gaza, and the continuing erosion of traditional media

By: danps Saturday July 26, 2014 1:51 am

Cross posted from Pruning Shears.

The story of the Detroit water crisis is getting a familiar treatment in the media. Once again a major story of mass activism at home is getting relatively short shrift while international stories get saturation coverage. In the same way that protests abroad dominated American headlines while those in Madison were largely ignored, efforts to stop the water shutoffs are barely recognized in favor of news from Ukraine and Gaza.

Detroit River

Detroit River

Those stories are important as well, but it seems that big media outlets have an almost institutional reluctance to report on major events if they don’t affect the right people. While cultural flash points like abortion and marriage equality get at least some coverage, economic ones struggle to make it on the radar – barring a dramatic moment like Anthony Bologna’s pepper spraying of kettled protesters. (For as big a story as Occupy Wall Street became, it was largely ignored by mainstream outlets until that footage went viral.)

Part of the reason is probably that even large news organizations are not equipped to cover certain stories. Newspapers have business sections, but not labor or worker sections, so a story like the union uprising in Madison didn’t have a natural home. Sometimes a story might be too depressing, and the water shutoffs in Detroit sure as hell clear that bar. Why bring your readers down by telling them about low income people being forced into unlivable conditions, right?

But I think outlets are tempted to ignore these stories for perhaps an even more powerful reason: they make too fundamental a critique of our contemporary capitalist narrative. For the last several decades we have been told that capital is mobile; unions are archaic; free trade and globalization are inevitable; government is sclerotic, bureaucratic and ineffective; and privatization is efficient.

The Detroit water crisis cuts against much of that. As Rose Hackman points out in a terrific piece, the shutoffs are being done as part of an effort to privatize the municipal water supply. It is being rammed through by an autocrat who has replaced the city’s democratically elected leaders. It is being overseen (and outsourced, naturally) by a department stocked with business executives – the kind of people we are routinely assured have the management experience to whip things into shape. These are all supposed to be best practices, yet they add up to the unconscionable infliction of misery on a mass scale. How can this be reported without calling into question the very way we are told the world works these days?

Detroit papers have by turns reported it using tortured attempts at balance (“Critics have portrayed water service as an essential human right”) (via), while Hackman writes of The Detroit News jeering at “water scofflaws.” (She also notes the stigmatizing: painting blue lines in front of houses that have had water turned off. This, along with Poor Doors, are the latest examples of the hardy perennial favorite You Should Be Ashamed For Not Having Enough Money.) Meanwhile, throwing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars at sports team owners is business as usual, impossibly crowded classrooms are an experiment, and curious anomalies escape notice.

Fortunately, that’s not the end of the story. The international community has taken notice, and at least some highly placed citizens are aware of that. Visibility and shame from outside might compensate for the lack of reporting here. The community has been actively resisting the shutoffs and getting the word out, with or without mass media coverage. Here might be the most interesting twist: The war in Gaza is one of the stories crowding out coverage of Detroit, and many have begun to realize how social media is allowing the kind of on-the-ground eyewitness reporting that was previously almost impossible.

That kind of coverage has, for the first time, outflanked Israel’s ability to shape narratives to its liking. Yet the same thing is happening in Detroit as citizens protest, risk arrest in blockades and otherwise try to put themselves in the way of this great injustice. Their efforts from the scene can now be viewed by the whole world, and have the same potential to route around traditional gatekeepers’ attempts to frame the story. It would be quite a shock if, while those gatekeepers marvel from thousands of miles away as one seemingly unshakable pillar falls, their own begins to crack at the foundation.

You can donate to the Detroit Water Brigade here.

 

Sometimes the substance is irrelevant

By: danps Saturday July 19, 2014 5:24 am

Cross posted from Pruning Shears.

The recent semi-retirement of DougJ bummed me out. In addition to writing the funniest line ever posted on the Internet (“Apparently, Qatari humor is a little too edgy for American audiences”), he regularly made astute observations about politics. In May, for instance:

Diane Ravitch

Diane Ravitch

Most politics is about turf wars. For example no one cares about the budget deficit per se, it’s just a concept that Galtians and neo-Confederates latch onto to promote policies keep the blahs and poors in their place. And establishment media latches onto it to keep the hippies in their place.
[snip]

Anyway, this is why I generally recommend ignoring the so-called substance of human beings’ arguments and focusing instead on the psychology that motivates their positions.

Now, the pitfall to that is understanding what really motivates someone – presuming to know another’s thoughts is dicey. Doing so frequently, and with no more support than “knowing” it’s true, makes one susceptible to conspiratorial thinking, wild accusations of bad faith, and tribalism.

On the other hand, some kinds of behaviors and patterns are pretty hard to miss. Take Doug’s example with the deficit. When Republicans are president, conservatives might carp about the deficit but don’t do anything about it. Ronald Reagan joked the deficit was big enough to take care of itself and everyone had a hearty laugh. Dick Cheney famously sneered “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” and who on the right challenged him? Yet when a Democrat is president the GOP shuts down the government over it. That’s pretty much a case study in ignoring the substance and focusing on the psychology.

There are lots of other instances. Glenn Greenwald’s concern over David Sirota’s ouster at Pando Daily looks a little different in light of the unsparing criticism Pando’s Mark Ames has had for Greenwald’s boss Pierre Omidyar. Seems like there was at least a little turf war mixed in with any sincere interest on that one. Situations like these are not conflicts of interest, but they should function in a similar way: readers who know about them should take them into account when evaluating a piece. Or in DougJ’s formulation, consider the motivation before the content.

Jonathan Chait supplied a splendid example this week. It began when Diane Ravitch made a mildly sexist comment about Campbell Brown:

“I have trouble with this issue because it’s so totally illogical,” says Diane Ravitch, an education historian. “It’s hard to understand why anyone thinks taking away teachers’ due-process rights will lead to great teachers in every classroom.”

As for Brown, Ravitch is dismissive: “She is a good media figure because of her looks, but she doesn’t seem to know or understand anything about teaching and why tenure matters…I know it sounds sexist to say that she is pretty, but that makes her telegenic, even if what she has to say is total nonsense.”

That last line is kind of dumb and Ravitch even acknowledged its sexism as she said it, so ding her for that. Chait had a much more dramatic reading though: “Genuinely curious to see if left ideological solidarity protects @DianeRavitch from backlash for this blatant sexism.” Chait has a nice perch at New York magazine for sounding off on whatever strikes his fancy, yet sexism – blatant or otherwise – has largely managed to escape his notice (though to be fair, he has certified the bangability of withered hags like Cameron Diaz).

He’s written about Ravitch before, though, and about the charter school movement she opposes. He makes no secret of his visceral revulsion towards teacher unions. Both he and his wife have sung the praises of KIPP charter schools, and she works at a charter school where multiple board members have KIPP ties. It would have been nice for Chait to let his readers know about that. It certainly would explain how he somehow misses the disreputable whiff of Campbell Brown’s new pro-charter operation, and also how he misses the legitimate concerns Ravitch has expressed about KIPP.

In fact, that is a characteristic of his analysis when he digs in on a wrongheaded position. I first noticed it when Ta-Nehisi Coates was methodically dismantling him back in April: he zooms out to a high level view – and we’re talking International Space Station altitude – which prevents him from cluttering up his beautiful mind with troublesome details.

One would think, for example, that given his interest in Ohio he might know about the charter school scandals here. Shouldn’t these developments cause him to revisit his bland, unsupported assertion that “charter schools are more aggressive about creating accountability standards to promote good teachers and coach up or replace bad ones”? I am, to borrow a phrase, genuinely curious to see if new information is capable of changing his opinion.

Of course, I’m not actually curious about that – no more so than Chait was about the response to Ravitch’s comments. His family has a direct financial interest in charter schools; as long as that’s the case it’s hard to imagine him being anything less than an enthusiastic cheerleader. He’s got his cause to sell.

What this week showed, though, is that he’s willing to grab any handy issue to try and discredit an opponent. He may have thought he was scoring some clever points, but to anyone who’s followed his work he was doing something else: Identifying as someone to be evaluated by DougJ’s guideline. Ignore the substance of his arguments, and look at the motivation.

Picture from Tim licensed under Creative Commons

Bundy Ranch: Not A Legitimacy Crisis But A Government Learning From Its Mistakes

By: danps Friday July 11, 2014 4:34 am

Cross posted from Pruning Shears.

Fire breaks out at the Branch Davidian's Mt. Carmel compound during the Waco siege.

Did the government avoid another deadly confrontation by showing restraint at Bundy Ranch?

Several weeks ago Rick Perlstein wrote a piece about the standoff between Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). He called it “a watershed in American history” because those at the ranch were able to use firearms and the threat of violence to get the BLM to back down. Perlstein notes “anti-constitutional insurgency as Constitution-worship on the right” has a long history, and cites the Minutemen as an example. Yet he neglects to mention more recent history that provides important context.

The federal government had similar confrontations with armed insurgents at Ruby Ridge in 1992 and Waco in 1993, and both cases ended with people dead — spectacularly so in the latter. Those events have taken on iconic significance for the far right. A quick trip to your favorite search engine will turn up an abundance of pages devoted to memorializing the events, and citing them as examples of a tyrannical government waging war against its citizens.

How would Perlstein have the BLM approach this case? There is every reason to believe another armed showdown would once again lead to loss of life, and another item being added to the far right’s list of grievances against the government. I understand his consternation at the BLM backing down last month, but history has shown that escalating tensions at such a volatile moment can have disastrous short term consequences and pernicious long term ones.

For as much as I think Bundy is a freeloader, a liar and a mooch, I was glad to see the BLM pull back. Situations like this one, Ruby Ridge and Waco are typically years in the making — and the worst thing the government can do is to force a dramatic conclusion. The BLM acted prudently by not creating one. I thought it showed the government had learned from recent history and was being careful not to repeat it.

That doesn’t mean the government should just go away, of course. It should just use the better means at its disposal to bring Bundy to justice. It can play the situation out longer than Bundy, and it should. The gun toting yahoos who showed up at Bundy’s ranch aren’t going to stick around if it looks like they won’t have a chance to play Freedom Fighter. They’ll drift away when it becomes clear the resolution is going to be considerably less exciting.

Officials seem to be thinking that way. On Sunday federal and state employees were quoted saying that Bundy crossed a line and the matter should continue to be pursued through the legal system. They haven’t given up or gone away, and they haven’t conceded anything to Bundy. They just decided — sensibly, I think — to dissipate the tension that led to the crisis and take a less provocative approach.

For as unsatisfying as it is to see the gun nuts claim victory in that one encounter, it’s better in the long run to see the thing slowly wind down with a whimper and not a bang. It isn’t hard to isolate Bundy. One way is just to put a microphone in front of him and let him talk. The support that sprang up around him began to wither once he began to expand on his thoughts. Another is to start cutting him off from the civilized world. Surely a rugged individualist like him can do without postal delivery, right? That’s just another form of dependence on the feds.

Maybe the same could be done with phone and Internet service. Other, non-firearm intensive federal agencies could start giving him some extra attention. He can be gradually squeezed without being attacked. Doing so will take more time, but it’s a necessary precaution when dealing with violent extremists. It would be nice to bring such people under the law more quickly; not doing so is no watershed moment, though. Hotheaded fanatics have to be handled differently. The last thing we need is to create a new generation of martyrs.

Will gangland-style executions of police officers be enough?

By: danps Saturday June 14, 2014 3:17 am

Cross posted from Pruning Shears.

Years ago – I don’t remember where or when, or I would give credit – I heard the line “don’t pay attention to what’s in the news; pay attention to what’s not in it.” Media cultures often develop story lines and decide what is newsworthy based on how well if fits the narrative.

Teresa Margolles, Muro Baleado / Shot-Up Wall, 2008

Revolutionary violence has a history in our country. So does domestic terrorism.

The protests in Wisconsin a few years ago were a really clear example. Large corporate outlets have been long settled into a neoliberal economic framing. Capital mobility is the new reality. International agreements that facilitate it are merely expressions of that reality; issues like collective bargaining and establishment of community standards are fondly regarded but antiquated notions in our brave new world.

So when Madison erupted over union representation, many outlets didn’t have any sensible language for describing what was going on. As a result, a huge story was mostly ignored. (Interestingly, many of the themes from it foreshadowed the Occupy movement later that year, which was similarly blacked out in its first weeks.)

Sometimes, though, a story gets ignored because it has simply become too routine to be considered news any more. Gun violence in urban areas like Chicago is not a national story now (if it ever was), and school shootings appear to be getting regarded as less and less newsworthy. After Tuesday’s shooting in Oregon, CNN initially tucked it under an “OJ 20 years later” story. CNN’s Wes Bruer initially tried to explain why it was right to do so, but ending up falling back on a defensive “the other guys aren’t covering it either” reply. Perhaps related: CNN followed up the next day with a “this is becoming the new normal” story.

Treating the proliferation of gun violence as routine means relegating certain stories to the sidelines. A four hour pursuit and standoff with an automatic weapon-wielding gun nut that winds through neighborhoods, evacuates schools and concludes with the suspect getting smoked out? No body count, so don’t bump it. Bulletproof blankets to shield kids during school shootings? Just another day in America.

We might be starting to see some changes, though. Some on the left have urged the media to make the connection between violent right wing rhetoric and metastasizing gun violence. While that isn’t a new observation, it’s starting to get picked up in established outlets. One of my regular reads, Esquire blogger Robert Bateman, has announced his intention to focus his post-military career on the issue. Moms Demand Action has a passionate and grassroots approach reminiscent of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and I don’t think many people would dispute MADD’s success in changing both laws and culture on that issue.

If none of that is considered a sufficiently compelling news hook, how about this. I know the Republican establishment is currently voiding its bowels over the teabaggers claiming the immaculately coiffed scalp of Eric Cantor, but the gun violence coming from the ammosexuals has a character to it that demands a response from GOP leadership. We now have armed right wing extremists targeting law enforcement officers for summary execution. That’s not just a horrific crime, but a political statement as well.

John Boehner and others at the top of the party should be very specifically and persistently asked how they characterize political murder, and where they draw the line between a horrific crime and domestic terrorism. The execution of police officers doesn’t qualify for Boehner. OK, fine – then what does? Does Boehner consider the Oklahoma City bombing domestic terrorism? Since he doesn’t consider the Las Vegas murders to be, we know that at a minimum he draws the line somewhere between the two. Where is it?

Here’s another thought. The Las Vegas killers were trying to use murder to launch a revolution. That’s something that unfortunately has a history in our country, most infamously with Charles Manson. Does Boehner think there is any difference between Manson and the Las Vegas killers? If so, what are they? He shouldn’t be allowed to keep doing his cigar store Indian impression on this issue, no matter how unfavorable the political environment is at the moment.

Revolutionary violence has a history in our country. So does domestic terrorism. It’s entirely appropriate to link contemporary violence to comparable events in our past, and to get our leaders on the record. Where on the continuum do they place those events? They don’t happen in a vacuum or exist in isolation. Pressing leaders to clarify where today’s gun violence fits in our history might reveal some interesting positions. Might, you know, make some news.

Trying to make sense of a manic monetary theory

By: danps Friday June 6, 2014 3:08 am

Cross posted from Pruning Shears.

Economics is a closed system; internally it is perfectly logical, operating according to a consistent set of principles. Unfortunately, the same could be said of psychosis. What’s more, once having entered the closed system of the economist, you, like the psychotic, may have a hard time getting out.

- Judy Jones and William Wilson

MMT vertical and horizontal money

MMT vertical and horizontal money

I had planned to follow up last week’s post with at least a couple others, but the various discussion threads have persuaded me that it’s probably best to just do a single “summing up” post, go through the comments, and leave the topic for the foreseeable future.

My main reservation with Modern Monetary Theory is probably this: It is named a monetary theory, yet its proponents expand its scope – in all directions, it sometimes seems – to include topics that have nothing to do with monetary theory. I think it’s reasonable to expect a monetary theory to describe the way money works, and nothing else. Here is how money is created. Here is how it is destroyed. Here is how it gains value. Here is how it loses value. Here is what governments must do to increase its value, here to decrease it.

Yet proponents insist that other things, things that have nothing whatsoever to do with monetary theory, are part of Modern Monetary Theory. I’ll illustrate using my exchange with letsgetitdone since it’s fresh, but I think it’s also representative.

He writes that “economics ought to be practiced, as Galbraith, the elder said, to fulfill the public purpose,”1 that Modern Monetary Theory “is an approach and not ‘a theory’” (!!) and that “‘public purpose’ is core to MMT.” Public purpose may be core to economics, but not a monetary theory. A monetary theory exists to describe how money works. One may advocate for public purpose, as one understands it, and show how it works under a given monetary theory – but that is no longer monetary theory.

If he (and other advocates) would just call the thing Modern Monetary Policy or Modern Monetary Advocacy or anything else that encompasses “public purpose” commentary, I wouldn’t have any argument. But you can’t have it both ways: If you want to present your ideas in the dispassionate, technocratic, scientific-sounding mantle of monetary theory, then you need to stick with monetary theory.

Proponents of Modern Monetary (not a) Theory choose instead to use the monetary theory as a launching pad for a bewildering, sometimes contradictory, variety of prescriptions. For instance, the un-theory endorses a basic income (“Job and income guarantees are complementary policies”), except when it doesn’t:

basic income guarantees are unlikely to achieve the objectives of alleviating poverty, income inequality or poor standards of living, because the proposals have an inherent highly inflationary bias with disastrous consequences for the currency.

Modern Monetary Theory has no equivalent of Keynes’ General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (which, incidentally, advertises itself as something more than a monetary theory).2 Without an identified creator and foundational text, everything is up for grabs. And untethered from actual monetary theory, proponents are free to turn it into whatever they want.

Turning again to letsgetitdone’s comment, he took advantage of that opportunity (“I wrote a 16 part series on this subject”), but given his tendency to lapse into incomprehensible jargon (“a new ecology of self-organized voting blocs and electoral coalitions fueled by an IT application enabling people to create a metalayer of constraints”) I don’t know how many folks will feel like jumping in. Oh, and also: his reference to getting “the right people in charge” has a really creepy, totalitarian ring to it.

There’s just too much. It’s all too scattered, too open-ended and waaaaaay too verbose for anyone outside the closed system to get an easy grip on. Rainbow Girl may have put it best:

Does this mean that “MMT” is whatever one’s “construct” or “definition” of it is? Like a Roscharch test? Is it even possible to provide citations or links in responding to a discussion or post about MMT that consists of a “construct” or “definition” or “interpretation” of the large opus of MMT — which is a corpus of separate writings by separate people several of whom seem not even to agree with each other on essential features like “public purpose,” “tool” vs. “Policy,” etc. (for example: you and Ben right here; another writer responding to a critique of Wray’s “no taxes” post at NC saying “Wray is not MMT”).

Simply focusing on the monetary theory part of Modern Monetary Theory ought to be enough to occupy any proponent for now. Calling for austerity with “we don’t have money” is factually wrong; those who say it should be made to look foolish. Pushing back against that line, emphatically and persistently, until it gets discredited, is a tall order.

Succeeding won’t by itself end the austerity narrative. Those who invoke it have a deep hostility to social programs, and will just find another story to attack them. But looking foolish will erode austerians’ credibility, which makes austerity budgeting harder to justify. It’s too bad that isn’t seen as a sufficiently ambitious goal.


NOTES

1. Galbraith, the Elder is also the name of my heavy metal band.
(Back)

2. Some might recommend Mosler’s Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds as a foundational text. If so, fine – but he doesn’t describe it as a modern monetary theory (or even use that phrase). Call it Mosler Monetary Policy, get everyone to defer to Mosler as the final word on MMP, and order starts to form out of the chaos.
(Back)

MMT’s job guarantee: oasis or mirage?

By: danps Saturday May 31, 2014 2:20 am

Cross posted from Pruning Shears.

MMT’s job guarantee: oasis or mirage?

I’ve gotten some pushback from Monday’s piece on MMT and plan to address the criticisms in some upcoming posts. Next week I hope to get to inflation and taxes. For now I’d like to cover something I didn’t even mention in the post but that popped up almost immediately in the comments: a job guarantee.

MMT, at least as advertised to liberals, postulates a job guarantee. One of my problems with MMT is the way various proponents’ wish lists get conflated with the theory. Stripped to its barest essence, MMT is the theory that:1

governments with the power to issue their own currency are always solvent, and can afford to buy anything for sale in their domestic unit of account even though they may face inflationary and political constraints

There are no policy prescriptions contained in that, or even implied. One may apply that theory in different ways, but the thing itself requires nothing. The case for the job guarantee is a moral one, not something intrinsic to the theory itself.

Randy Wray makes the moral case with his analogy between disease and unemployment. He spends an entire post describing how MMT can accommodate a job guarantee. Yet he also concedes that “some other advocates of MMT do not accept the human rights angle” (oof), and concludes:

Can you separate the MMT explanation of the cause of unemployment from the policy to cure it? Yes.

Should you? Of course not.

In other words, MMT does not require a job guarantee, but it would be unjust to omit one. Of course, that also means that the prospect for one under MMT would be contingent on the policymakers charged with implementation sharing Wray’s sense of justice. That’s hardly an economic imperative demanded by the theory.

The problem right now is not that we lack the tools or economic model to address unemployment. The Federal Reserve ought to be terribly concerned. The problem is that no one in Washington actually is – not enough to act decisively, anyway.

America: Canada and Europe’s willing chump

By: danps Friday May 23, 2014 3:45 am

Cross posted from Pruning Shears.

Apparently it’s no longer a stain on the national honor to play us for a fool.

One of the more memorable turns of phrase I’ve heard in the past few years came during the effort to unionize an Ikea plant in Virginia. In the same way that Mexico became an attractive location for American capitalists because of lower wages and less stringent environmental standards, some European employers began finding America more to their liking. Or, put more colorfully:

During its successful campaign to organize the Danville workers, the International Association of Machinists (IAM), through its Machinists News Network, produced a web video called “Same Rules, Same Respect.” It charged that “when on American soil, IKEA is playing by a very different set of rules than when at home.” In the video, IAM Woodworking Division director Bill Street says, “We’ve become Sweden’s Mexico.”

That isn’t Europe’s approach across the board, of course; heaven knows Volkswagen did its best to give its American workers more of a voice. But there has definitely been a willingness for other Western nations to take advantage of America’s willingness to put itself at risk or a disadvantage. This has been especially pronounced with fossil fuels.

For instance, Canada has been at best ambivalent about building pipelines for its Alberta tar sands. On the one hand, its political and media elite is not only firmly in favor but vigorously lobbying for them. On the other, the combination of grassroots activism and court challenges has made building them in-country dicey. So it looks like Ottawa might just decide it’s easier to build what Charles Pierce called a death-funnel down the spine of the United States. Since Keystone has the enthusiastic support of climate science-denying cretins in both the House and Senate, it just might succeed.

(Post intermission #1: Canadians’ flattering image of themselves as unfailingly reticent and polite is wearing a bit thin lately. The actions above are not those of a reserved and self-effacing people but an aggrandized and obnoxious one. Please own your new identity and stop insulting our intelligence, thanks.)

A similar dynamic is playing out with fracking. It turns out there is a new trade agreement under negotiation called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), not to be confused with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) except to the extent that both are awful. The TTIP would, among other things, greatly increase American energy exports to the European Union. Since Europe is still acting like Hamlet on fracking, the effect is basically this: Let America bear all the hazard with unconventional extraction and let EU countries get the benefit. And since fracking enjoys roughly the same political constituency as Keystone, there are plenty of takers in Washington.

(Post intermission #2: These international pacts have gone from going from “free trade agreements” to “partnerships.” Maybe that’s because free trade agreements now have such a foul odor, but in any event the change of nomenclature is useful. Monstrosities like TTIP and TPP have less to do with trade than with forcing all participants to abide by individual signatories’ worst practices.)

Incidentally, the push to get Europe off of Russia’s energy supply line is also leading to some fairly scary developments in Ukraine. While it would be lovely to think Hunter Biden’s recent employment with a Ukrainian gas giant is a noble attempt to beat back creeping isolationism in the States, there is unfortunately a more plausible and disturbing explanation.

Since neither Keystone XL nor fracking are long term job creators, it isn’t even like the US is selling out on these issues. “Selling” would imply some kind of profit. American workers will have virtually nothing to show for either, and the economy will be similarly unmoved. Extraction industry executives will make out like bandits, and that’s about it.

Anyway, let me conclude by being very clear on something: The point here is not to demonize Europe or Canada. Neither Keystone nor TTIP will happen without the substantial, ongoing support of America’s political system. No one is pulling a fast one on us here. We know exactly what’s happening. But here’s what I find curious: There are a whole lot of “my country right or wrong” types who bristle with indignation if they believe America is being taken advantage of – yet they have been silent on both of these issues. Apparently it’s no longer a stain on the national honor to play us for a fool. I’ve never been a fan of that antediluvian notion, but it sure picked a bad time to fall by the wayside.

The Touching, Eternal Optimism of Liberal Hawks

By: danps Thursday May 15, 2014 1:09 am

Cross posted from Pruning Shears.

Soldier holding a rifle

Let’s go to war for peace. It’ll work this time.

As the response to the kidnapping of several hundred Nigerian schoolgirls has grown from hashtag activism to full blown international incident, the calls for action have become increasingly bellicose. Some of those calls have revealed (once again) a deeply rooted militaristic streak in America, one that transcends political affiliation. This time around the example starts in the UK, where last week Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett appeared to support bombing or invasion:

It is my view that there is a case for military assistance, but on a more basic level, there are things that we can do to support those who are begging for help. The British feminist movement has immense social media clout. We can all follow the Facebook group Bring Back Our Girls and use the hashtag. We can write to our world leaders, demanding that they offer assistance to rescue the girls. We can organise rallies and marches locally, as many others already have. We can support and listen to the Nigerian community here in the UK.

That paragraph has an interesting construction. It starts by at least tentatively approving bombing or invasion, but then details a number of non-military options for rescuing the girls. Interpretations may vary, but I got the impression she at least wanted preparations for bombing or invasion to begin and in addition to that for activists, governments and NGOs to continue to apply pressure on the Nigerian government.

But the bottom line is, she mentioned military action first. Given America’s recent history with bomb dropping, cranking up the war machine for another round doesn’t seem like a good idea. Glenn Greenwald said as much, and the reaction from some on the left was incandescent rage.

Bob Cesca decided to simply mischaracterize Greenwald, but that’s about par for the course with him. Rebecca Schoenkopf cut right to the chase and went Godwin. Chez Pazienza literally dehumanized him (“he has no humanity”) and also pulled off a neat trick. He linked to a piece of his detailing what an awful person Greenwald is, which includes the following numbered highlight: “Glenn Greenwald Is Almost Certainly Going To Call You Names at Some Point.” Pazienza furnished that link in a post titled “Glenn Greenwald: Asshole.”

Schoenkopf and Pazienza also gave hearty endorsements for bombing. First Schoenkopf, who apparently has been spending too much time playing Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell:

It is time to take out the Boko Haram dudes like you took out those pirates, and get those girls.

Seriously, just drone the shit out of em. Go get those girls.

But her understanding of the situation is actually more grounded in reality than Pazienza’s you’ve-got-to-be-fucking-kidding-me level of naïveté: “There was no concession that maybe, just this once, the vast resources and technological prowess at the disposal of a superpower could be used for good.”

Perhaps instead of hoping that maybe, just this once, this military adventure will be the one that finally gets freedom bombing right, it would be useful to reflect on how (darn the luck!) such actions have persistently refused to work out that way in the past.

Just a few years ago Libya was on the verge of genocide, remember? And we needed to drop lots of bombs to prevent that (no weaselspeak about NATO and leading from behind, thanks — without the US, the bombing wouldn’t have happened). We are now too modest to boast about such benevolent intervention with a Mission Accomplished party, but we all know it worked out splendidly right?