Chicago Boyz

(This started as a comment to Lex’s thoughtful post and I got carried away.)

The Democrats can’t win on the economy as long as the main question is how much to cut taxes. Nor can they win on defense while the central issue is a very serious war and the central question is how aggressively to prosecute it. In each case the best they can do is act like Republicans Lite, in which case they lose because voters will prefer real Republicans. Where have we heard such ideas before? Bush is making brilliant use of the same tactics which Clinton used to such good political effect against Republicans for eight years. Now as then, the opposition party finds itself stuck in a seemingly endless cycle of lamely reacting to the President’s initiatives.

I think the Democrats can get out of it, but tired hacks like Lieberman aren’t the answer. There may be, however, opportunity for a party that shows sincere concern for civil liberties – something that neither party currently exhibits. Of course, this path may be anathema for the Dems, whose leadership is dominated by amoral statist authoritarians who are hostile to self-defense and on the take from trial lawyers, environauts, race hustlers, the entertainment industry, and other groups hostile to the open society.

But if the Democratic leadership could, somehow, become again as sympathetic to individual rights as, say, Hubert Humphrey was, they would likely pick up votes from independents and libertarians for whom the Republicans are now the lesser of evils. Probably lots of people who vote Republican have deep misgivings about the drug war, about extra-judicial detention of U.S. citizens, about the Bush administration’s eagerness to impose dubious snooping and data-mining schemes on us in the name of fighting terrorism, and about other similar issues. Given the closeness of current electoral divisions, a pro-individual-rights Democratic party, even one that was still on the wrong side of taxes and defense, might pick up enough support on the margin to win elections.

Will it happen? I doubt it, at least in the short run. First of all, the current Democratic leadership is reflexively pro-government to the core and likes things as they are. Second, the war could last for a while, and it crowds out most other issues, making it difficult for Democrats to do much except go along with the Administration’s agenda. But in the long run it’s conceivable the Democrats will become more open to a radical reorientation if they keep losing. And if they did transform themselves successfully it would pressure the Republicans to start paying more than lip service to issues that are now seen as the province of the libertarian fringe. Maybe this is all wishful thinking on my part, but we live in an age of radical transformations all over the world. Something in the way of an anti-government upheaval has been simmering in our politics for years. If anything it has quickened since Sept. 11. What happens if Democratic candidates see this as an opportunity and run with it?

And not a minute too soon. I hate the months when there is no election on the immediate horizon.

Dick Morris, the maestro of the tactical, has this analysis of how Bush’s tax cut package is ingeniously packaged to raise maximum election day Hell with the Donks. Woo hoo. It makes perfect sense to me:

[The] deal -with the Democrats and moderates in his own party – looks like typical legislative compromise, but is actually a move of incredible political acumen: The “sunset” provision, under which the tax cut automatically lapses unless expressly extended by new legislation, makes taxes a front-and-center issue of the 2004 election.

Now Bush can send refund checks of $400 for each child to 25 million households this summer, slash the tax on dividends and capital gains to 15 percent and reduce tax rates on all three brackets – all effective immediately – and still be able to base his re-election campaign on the need to preserve his tax cuts.

The president can run for re-election with an economy stimulated by his tax cuts and still have the issue to use in the ’04 contest.

With the tax cuts slated to expire in the opening years of the next presidential term, every Democratic candidate will have to answer the question: “Will you support extending the Bush tax cut?”

A “no” will be required to win enough primary votes to get the nomination. But a “yes” will be necessary to prevail in the general election. Bush has put the Democrats in an impossible position.

Dude. I am liking this. It sounds good.

On a related point, the Washington Post notes today that Bush Fills Key Slots With Young Loyalists. It then quotes some “veteran of White House meetings” as saying: “These new folks are going to pull their punches at first. They don’t have the gravitas.” Whatever. They’ll get “gravitas” soon enough, by good and loyal job performance. The point is that Bush is getting a team together of young fire-eaters that can work sixteen hour days up to and through the election. And he is training a next generation of GOP leaders. Also noteworthy, the younger GOPers are more ideologically conservative. They are more hardcore.

Bush’s 2004 election campaign is going to be a sight to behold. I am hoping for a crushing win. Early signs bode well.

We are aware of the difficulties readers have been experiencing in viewing this site. I don’t know what the problem is, though I suspect it’s not unrelated to Blogspot. We have a new site, almost ready to go, awaiting us on a more reliable hosting system. We will move as soon as I can figure out how to transfer our archives to the new blog. (Joe Katzman has been kind enough to make some helpful suggestions in this regard.) Thanks.

David Warren writes (1) that the Iranian regime is the new protector and landlord for al Qaeda (or its successor, currently nameless), and (2) that the Iranian Mullah’s turbanned heads sit lightly on their robed shoulders. Michael Ledeen has been arguing this for months now. (See this recent piece.) The Iranian “street”, or at least “campus” has been ready to throw these bastards out for some time. Warren also suggests that the US Government is hardening its stance toward Iran. Nonetheless, Warren notes that nobody, no matter how hawkish wants to “invade” Iran.

However, that may be answering the wrong question. After all the word “invade” is so old-fashioned, so “machine age”, so last century. Of course no one wants to do that. Anyway, it’s been done recently and well, and who wants to be passe?

No. This is the moment to turn the fearsome new weapons of the enemy back upon him. We keep hearing about how in this new world we are entering, tanks, planes and howitzers are irrelevant. (They looked pretty relevant rattling around Basra and Baghdad, but let’s put that to one side for the time being.) These units of power are supposedly now of no account because they can be circumvented by “Fourth Generation Warfare”, by “networked warriors” who will “swarm” around conventional forces and make “asymmetrical attacks” deep in the rear areas of their supposedly slow-moving enemies, disrupting and crippling whole societies, etc., etc.. We keep getting told that this is the threat faced by the civilized world. (See the excellent book Non-State Threats and Future Wars which I am halfway through reading.)

Fine. OK. Fat, dumb and happy America is, we are told, especially susceptible to asymmetrical sucker punches. The menacing but shadowy people who want to do us harm can infiltrate our society and work their way into the interstices and strike at the ill-defended but critical nodes and hinges and lynchpins, etc. Agreed, suicidal maniacs with box cutters, or terrorists with backpack nukes, are a menace. Let’s face that threat and be ready to defeat it.

But why can’t we dish it out, too? If the bastards can swarm us, why can’t we swarm them? Why can’t the United States do the same unto others? Why can’t we throw some bone-crunching, jaw-busting asymmetrical punches of our own? Why can’t we create a parallel capability to dish out this same nasty medicine? No reason I can think of. For example, we could certainly create a cadre of Iranian expats or Farsi speaking Americans, and send them into Iraq to undermine, disrupt, cripple and wreck the Iranian regime in exactly the same way. American “fourth generation warriors” could aid the locals in a non- or minimally violent overthrow of the Mullahs. Or, if that wasn’t working out, they could provide a sharp “special ops” edge to a locally generated but US-supported and armed revolution. These new challenges are not magic. Once the novel language is stripped away, it is apparent that most of these supposed new challenges are, at bottom, techniques. And the United States possesses the human and material resources to build the capacity to employ any techniques it chooses, including these, with maximum effectiveness, against anyone who decides to fuck with us.

Anyway, even if we don’t do any of this, the mullah regime in Iran is heading for the scrap heap.

Here’s a little springtime wish for our dear ChicagoBoyz readers — let us fervently hope and pray that before the leaves turn we will see Khomenei’s picture being flung on the bonfire like Saddam’s was. 2003 could end up being a very good year indeed.

Update. Sylvain comments that we ought to take it easy with Iran, since the overt involvement of the US is perceived as a bad thing in the region. I respect and understand this view, which a lot of people share, and I used to agree with it. I’m glad he raised this, since I should have addressed it in the first place.

As time goes on I care less and less what the “Arab Street” thinks, says or does — or for that matter what any of the governments over there (or in Old Europe) say, or think or do. The US/UK/Oz/Poles conquered Iraq. No revolutions happened in Cairo or Riyadh or anywhere else. No riots happened except in Baghdad. The “Arab Street” did what all inert mineral matter does. It sat there motionless. All that happened was that al Qaeda or somebody set off some bombs and killed a bunch of muslims in Saudi and Morocco. This is sad, but it is not a formula for rallying the mythical Arab Street against the Great Satan. The Iranians have given us plenty of provocation. The United States should make its case, then actively and openly support an Iranian revolution against the mullahs. What would happen? The revolution would succeed, Iran would be liberated, enormous crowds would celebrate in the streets of Teheran waving American flags, Iran’s nuclear weapons program would be shut down, its support for terrorism would be shut down, and a pro-Western regime would come to power there. All of these would be very good things. They are within our grasp, practically for the asking. Set off against these good things is a hypothetical bad thing: Some third parties won’t like it if the Americans openly help the Iranian people make these good things happen. But so what? None of these third parties are going to do anything about it. People in the region are finally, and at long last, once again, really and truly afraid of the United States. Good. It’s about time. That works wonders over there. So forget about the Arab Street. The French, Russians, Chinese, the State Department, North Korea et al. would be upset. They’d issue some memoranda, voice their disapproval, note the relevant provisions of the U.N. Charter. Fine. Whatever. They would not and cannot do anything substantive about it, either. Syria, Hamas, and who knows what other terrorist outfits would suddenly find themselves in a real pickle with their best buddy and bankroller crushed like a bug. Again, great. And the Iranian people want to be rid of the mullahs and are capable of understanding that the United States does not want to annex them, etc. and would likely be glad to have our assistance. And if some of them thought the revolution was “tainted” by US involvement, they’d still be glad to get rid of the mullahs and they’d then have the freedom to say any nasty things about the USA they want into the bargain. Who cares? It can’t be worse than what everybody else says about us already.

It all adds up to a big green light.

Baghdad in the Spring, Teheran in the Summer. Yeah, baby. We should go for it.

Update II:Rumsfeld Pushes for Regime Change in Iran. The Financial Times reports: “If regime change were to become official policy, then the US would cut off diplomatic contacts, lend support to opposition groups and intensify economic pressure. It would not necessarily involve military action.” Also this: “the view of hawks in the Pentagon is that the struggle in Iran is not between hardline clerics and elected reformists led by President Mohammed Khatami, but between the people and the system.” (via Drudge)

YES. Go get ’em. No time like NOW.

I had to fly to DC for work. I was given a packet of salted almonds on the airplane. As I ate them the thought came back to me of the little white, paper cups of salted nuts they would give you on the side, if you asked for them, with a hot fudge sundae at Friendly’s Ice Cream. They were good, and added a whole dimension of sweet/salty, to go with hot/cold and chocolate/vanilla — to say nothing of the cherry on top. I don’t know if the nuts are available anymore, but I somehow doubt it, at least in the paper cups. When you had poured the nuts on there, you opened up the paper cup so it was flattened out into a disk, and then you got the last few crumbs and grains of salt out of it. There was a Friendly’s in Brockton, Mass. There was another one, I think, at the Braintree mall. I’d go in these places with my mother when I was a kid, if we were out shopping for school clothes. That was our ritual. No particular episode stands out, it is a whole category of memories (tactile, visual, olfactory, auditory as well as the taste of things), all in one bin in my head. This is all a long time ago now. It was a time before the issue of whether or not to eat such a thing would have occurred to me — if it was available, I ate it. And now as in so many other details, the torch has passed. It is part of my job to be the parent taking the kids out for ice cream. The kids are not particularly grateful. The kids are not distracted by other concerns when the ice cream appears — it is a brief but all-consuming episode. And the parent sits there, with a cup of coffee, having bought a moment’s quiet, or time to worry about something else in peace for a minute, which is even better than a hot fudge sundae with nuts. Or at least almost as good.