If you think you are a liberal choose Israel

An emotionally charged debate (or more accurately an exchange of bristling internet commentaries) is under way over "Liberal" support for Israel.

Peter Beinart is the author of an article in the New York Review of Books that attacks the Israeli government and the American Jews who support its policies. Beinart is a Jewish former editor of a steadfastly pro-Israel magazine, the New Republic. So his public denouncement has received a great deal of attention, though according to some critics out of all proportion to the originality of his charges. Noah Pollak  and Ted Bromund are two authors who have provided trenchant criticisms of Beinart's article - also see the summary by Paul Mirengoff.

These are worth reading if you have the time and inclination. I won't attempt to summarize them. I want only to add here a few observations that I believe capture the essence of the matter - not new, I and others have been harping on this for some time, but it is becoming more obvious at an accelerating rate.

At the heart of it is a semantic issue. The word "liberal" has been appropriated by people who are not liberals.

As a philosophy or ideology Liberalism originally referred to

• individual freedom from coercion - the idea that all individuals have the same procedural rights under the law
• the desirability of a system governed by the rule of law rather than the rule of men - all men (people) are subject to the same law form the pauper to the president; and the law should not discriminate according to whether someone is poor or (equally) because someone is rich - individuals are equal in the eyes of the law.
• the idea that adult individuals are responsible for their actions and will reap the rewards of profitable actions and pay the price of unprofitable ones
• the idea that all individuals can own property and their property rights should receive equal protection under the law

In short, it referred to a system in which all men (people) are considered equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and property; such rights enabling them to engage in the pursuit of happiness the best way they know how. From these basic rights flow other derivative rights, like freedom of speech on one's property and within one's publications and private gatherings; freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. But, for freedom to apply equally it can be extended only up to the point that it begins to deprive others of the same or other freedoms. Thus, freedom of religion does not permit one to impose one's beliefs on others. Violence is justified only in defense of freedom (though this potentially opens a wide space of interpretation concerning action to preempt the threats to freedom, requiring great attention to the burden of proof).

This Classical Liberal system can be defended on the basis of a moral appeal to individual human rights and/or by observing that, as a practical matter, its implementation, in sufficient degree, has been responsible for the only period in human history of general prosperity. Never before in human history have so many lived so long and so well. And material well-being has been more than matched by breathtaking advances in technology and spectacular explosions of artistic and literary expression. It is no accident. Modernity and its aftermath is directly attributable to that system of "natural liberty" that has spurred and rewarded individual achievement to the betterment of all. That half of the world still remains mired in premodern poverty is attributable to the one thing its inhabitants have in common - the absence of individual liberty.

A Classical Liberal system is one in which individuals, because of differences in luck or labor, will experience different outcomes. The advent of general prosperity implies and requires individual differences. There will be gaps in income. This is not a cause for alarm. Inequality, in and of itself, is a non-issue. To be equally poor is worse that to be unequally prosperous. By focusing on inequality of outcome, these so-called "liberals" legitimize the base emotions of envy and resentment and elevate them to the level of respectable social policy. To be sure, a Classical Liberal system does not denigrate a concern for the less-fortunate. As an historical matter, charitable giving and the incidence of other charitable actions rises with general prosperity - more than in proportion to earnings and wealth. Voluntarily giving to the poor is to be admired. But harnessing the state to plunder the earnings of the "rich" to (ostensibly) redistribute it to the "poor" is nothing else but organized robbery.

Modern "liberals" are not liberals. A better term for them would be Narcissistic Egalitarians. They do not consistently defend individual rights, they do not respect individual property, they do not consider individual adults responsible for their actions. Their prime goal is the removal of social inequality and difference. They refuse to believe in any essential differences between people - in ability and in moral capacity. They avert their gaze from evil and turn to "social conditions." They are social engineers, desirous of smoothing out the the unsightly gaps in social position and they extend this to the world at large and the differences between countries.

When the Israelis were victims they were the darlings of the modern liberals - especially since the early Zionists embraced various brands of socialism. But when the Israelis refused to remain victims, when they embraced modernity, affluence and the ability to defend themselves, they became the arch villains of the world. And the Palestinians, the hapless victims of their leaders' venality and greed, are conspicuous by contrast in their poverty. Ergo, the Israelis are to blame.

American Jews are predominantly modern "liberals" for reasons that defy simple explanation, but that have been the subject of much recent discussion. Whatever the reasons they now find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to either abandon their "liberalism" or their support of Israel (the arch anti-"liberal" state). Their choice would be greatly simplified if they understood what liberalism really meant.

PS. Clarifying note: In Europe the term "liberal" is closer to its original meaning and the Social Democrats are closer to what we in America call "Liberals."

What's a little ranting between friends?

Many of my "Liberal" friends think that budget deficits and the size of government are irrelevant. They just don't believe, deep down, that these things really matter. In the end the American economy will work fine no matter what the increased size of government, and will grow its way out of the deficits.

Their smug ignorance exasperates me. They should know better. Intelligent people should think hard about things like this. They don't. They are impatient with the detail and the subtlety of issues. The eyes glaze quickly.

Instead they are swept by the emotion of the righteousness of "doing good." This makes them feel "good" in spite of their riches - about which there is a nagging guilt, since there are, after all, so many people who have so little. With Obama as their acting angel to right the world they can sleep better.

And, of course, they are bolstered in their ignorance by those who should know better - qualified experts, like Paul Krugman and others, who write in the New York Times and appear monotonously on National Public Radio, the BBC and the TV talk shows, to extol the virtues of the new Messiah and poo poo the naysayers who, after all, have their own nefarious agendas.

They would not run their businesses or their families the way the Obami are running the government - it would make them very uncomfortable and very nervous. Multiply this a few million times and that is what they should feel about the rapidly shrinking size of the private sector. The little people they care so much about will be the ones to suffer most in the end and the "Liberals" will have some responsibility for that. But that's ok because they won't realize it.

Its not the climate that is a problem, its the economy stupid. Wake up! 

Time to wake up - right now - before its too late

The U.S. has vital national security interest in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ... when conflict breaks out . . . that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.

statement by Barak Obama.

This statement, the subject of today's WSJ editorial, is very disturbing. It strongly supports the suspicion that the Obami are orchestrating a credible push to have Israel withdraw to it 1967 borders. 

The statement is both cynical and naive. It is naive because it suggests that the conflict can be simply "resolved" if only Israel will play ball. It thus suggests, not so subtly, that Israel is the "cause" of the conflict. And secondly, and more disturbingly, it repeats the lie that this Israel-caused conflict is putting American lives and resources in danger. This persistent repetition, even in face of considerable compelling argument and evidence to the contrary, suggests that it is a point of view that is impervious to contrary argument. 

It is cynical, therefore, because it is used in the service of a foreign policy trajectory that is indifferent to its truth-content. In other words, they don't really care if it is true or not, it is useful in the attempt to remove Israel as an obstacle in the way of a grand reconciliation between Islam and the West. This is, I believe, Barak Obama's real agenda. I believe he is passionate about it and will pursue it in cynical disregard of the Israeli lives that he sacrifices in the process. It is a crazy agenda, being pursued by a swollen ego, that threatens substantial collateral damage. A reconciliation with Islam is not dependent on anything that Israel does or can do. It is really a ridiculous hope. But the attempt to vilify and isolate Israel in its pursuit is not. Let us hope that this part is a miserable failure.

Much depends on the steadfastness of the average American in his/her belief in the value of Israel as a strong ally. And much depends on the likelihood of many influential American Jews awakening to the truly diabolical nature of their messiah. The proportion of Americans critical of Obama's Israel policy is higher than the proportion of American Jews who are similarly critical of it. Can you imagine anything more sadly ironic - to have a large section of American Jews complicit in this cynical anti-Israel agenda? What the hell are they thinking?

Dershowitz's eight points

In considering the relationship between the United states and Israel, these eight points must be kept in mind. 

1. Foremost, the US and Israel are on the same side in the continuing struggle against Islamic extremists who endanger the lives of American troops and American civilians.
2. Israel is one of America’s most important strategic allies, providing us with essential intelligence, research and developments and other important assets.
3. There is nothing that Israel or the United States can do that will turn these extremist enemies into friends. It is what we are, rather than what we do, that enrages those who wish to turn the entire world into an Islamic caliphate and subject us all to Islamic Sharia law.
4. Any weakening of the alliance between the United States and Israel will make it far less likely that Israelis--who get to vote on these matters--will take significant risks for peace.
5. The Obama Administration’s public attacks on Israel will harden Palestinian demand and make it less likely that they will accept a compromise peace.
6. If Israel’s enemies were to lay down their arms and stop terrorist and rocket attacks against Israel, there would be peace.
7. If Israel were to lay down its arms, there would be genocide. 
8. When the Palestinian leadership and population want their own state more than they want there not to be a Jewish state, there will be a two-state solution.

Some things are worth repeating – as often as it takes

Here are some important facts that seem to need emphasis - again. 

The housing meltdown and financial crisis that accompanied it was NOT the result of insufficient regulation of financial markets or of unrestrained greed. 
The financial sector is and was highly regulated. In fact it was overregulation of the housing industry that caused the crisis - the arrogant, irresponsible promotion of a social agenda to increase the proportion of home ownership in the U.S. no matter what the cost, no matter what the risk. Congressman Barney Frank is the most culpable - yet he is a hero to his many supporters. The amount of damage for which he personally, by "rolling the dice" (his words) is responsible is beyond estimation. He should be vilified not celebrated. There are others Chris Dodd (who is trying to extend the damage with his latest financial regulation proposals)., Nancy Pelosi, and others.

The housing crisis (slump) will NOT be solved by trying to stimulate or boost or support the housing industry.

Housing development was artificially raised to an unsustainable level by the nudging, bullying, and mandating of Fannie, Freddie and Barney who, in effect, muscled out any private sector competition and established a comprehensive new, dumbed-down, set of mortgage approval standards that put people in houses they could not afford. The only "cure" for the housing industry is a reallocation of these misallocated resources into economic ventures that can be sustained, without the need for persistent government (taxpayer) support. The current initiative by Team-Obama is just the latest exercise in futility, one more assault on private enterprise and individual responsibility. This means allowing the housing market to spontaneously reach bottom. [See today's WSJ editorial here.] 

Here is an interesting dictionary entry.

Politics - Derived from Polytics. Poly - many; tics - pl. of tic - a tenacious blood-sucking parasite. 

The price of health-care, like any price, is the result of the supply and demand for health-care. 

This means the price (aka cost) of health-care will not come down unless we somehow reduce the demand or increase the supply. You can stand on your head and whistle dixie until you pass out, there is no way to deny or change this basic fact. Question: what in the current health-care reform package will increase the supply of health-care? Will it be enough to bring down the price? What will decrease the demand? (this one is easy - on paper, nothing, its all about satisfying an increasing demand; in reality, the response to increased demand will be various forms of rationing - longer waiting for the doctor [when was the last time you kept the doctor waiting? When was the last time the doctor did not keep you waiting? That's ok your time is worth less than his/hers, right?], longer wait times to get an appointment, quotas for certain kinds of procedures, ... . ).

Governmnts cannot "create" jobs independently of the private sector.

Government is a service organization, it does not produce anything (or produces very little) that can be sold in the marketplace. It gets revenue from some form of taxation (current taxation or future taxation or inflation - which is a hidden tax on money and debt). Taxes are paid out of incomes. If those incomes are earned in government this is just value-neutral recycling.  Its the incomes from the private sector that count. Only the private sector creates value. To be sure, governments can sometimes enter the private sector and behave like a producer. If they do this and charge the market price and cover their costs (payments to private sector resource owners -  workers, landlords, capital providers) they might as well be private sector producers. (Show me an example of this.) If they don't cover their costs (the usual case) they should not be in business.

Governments work by diverting resources from the private sector - essentially by coercion. This "crowds out" private sector jobs. In the short run it may appear as if jobs are being created by government spending, but this impression will be betrayed as resource prices adjust. In the current recession we don't even have the impression of new job creation. Unemployment is not the result of too few job opportunities in general; it is the result of too few job opportunities in unsustainable ventures, like housing, auto production, and other overproduced sectors, that spill out into the economy at large but may not be suitable for employment in many others sectors. There is an inevitable painful transition for restructuring/retraining that takes time and patience. Any attempt to short-circuit it will prolong it!

There are also social psychological effects that obscure the fundamentals. Business confidence is certainly a driver of private sector investment. But artificially boosting business confidence does not buy much in the way of real recovery. And current economic policy is, in any case, unpredictable, ad-hoc, often capricious and detracts from rather than adds to the degree of business confidence.

All this is well-known by many who have studied and learnt the lessons of U.S. economic history. It is the reality that disproved the claims of the Keynesian economic policies of the quarter-century following W W II. But, somehow, the Keynesian mumbo-jumbo has bounced back. Maybe because the earning generation of today was not alive or had not reached adulthood the last time around. History is repeating itself in a painful way.

The U.S. public-school system is a failure. 

There are good public schools, mostly in the affluent suburbs, where they face real competition. But, the system as a whole, and education for lower income kids in particular, is horrendous. U.S. pre-college education is probably the least successful in the developed world - as measured by math, reading, writing, and comprehension competencies. The system cannot be reformed. It is the problem, it cannot be the solution.

The only hope for lower income families in search of adequate basic education is parental-choice - competition in the delivery of education. There is absolutely no reason why education should be produced by government. It has no special expertise in this. Education can be subsidized by government without being produced by it - or exclusively produced by it. Team-Obama claims to care about low income families, but its education policies are dominated by the powerful teachers' unions who are determined to maintain a government monopoly on the production of education.

There are a lot more things to be said, but that is probably enough for the moment.

There is still hope!

One of the most fortunate occurrences of my life was to find myself at the University of Chicago at the same time as Gary Becker and to end up with him as the chairman of my Ph.D. thesis committee. Unbeknownst to me at the time Becker was  still to win a Nobel prize and become arguably the most creative economist in America. His influence has been spectacular.

Today an interview with him appears in the WSJ. He is 79 and still optimistic. 

I confess that current events have depressed and frustrated me greatly. I flinch at the assaults to our economy and our understanding of how the economy works. The energy, persistence and sheer talent with which Obama (and the Obami) have pursued, and continue to pursue, their arrogant agenda absolutely terrifies me. Its one thing to be so wrong, its another to be so arrogant and effective about it. Will the American people come to the right understanding and will they act on it in the November election? Becker thinks they will and he is optimistic. I sure hope he is right.

Read the interview.

PL.

MARCH 27, 2010

'Basically an Optimist'—Still

The Nobel economist says the health-care bill will cause serious damage, but that the American people can be trusted to vote for limited government in November.

By PETER ROBINSON

Stanford, Calif.

"No, no. Not at all."

So says Gary Becker when asked if the financial collapse, the worst recession in a quarter of a century, and the rise of an administration intent on expanding the federal government have prompted him to reconsider his commitment to free markets.

Mr. Becker is a founder, along with his friend and teacher the late Milton Friedman, of the Chicago school of economics. More than four decades after winning the John Bates Clark Medal and almost two after winning the Nobel Prize, the 79-year-old occupies an unusual position for a man who has spent his entire professional life in the intensely competitive field of economics: He has nothing left to prove. Which makes it all the more impressive that he works as hard as an associate professor trying to earn tenure. He publishes regularly, carries a full-time teaching load at the University of Chicago (he's in his 32nd year), and engages in a running argument with his friend Judge Richard Posner on the "Becker-Posner Blog," one of the best-read Web sites on economics and the law.

When his teaching schedule permits, Mr. Becker visits the Hoover Institution, the think tank at Stanford where he has been a fellow since 1988. The day he and I meet in his Hoover office, Mr. Becker has already attended a meeting with former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and spent several hours touring Apple headquarters down the road in Cupertino with his wife, Guity Nashat, a historian of the Middle East, and their grandson. "I guess you'd call our grandson a computer whiz," he explains proudly. "He's just 14, but he has already sold a couple of apps."

I begin with the obvious question. "The health-care legislation? It's a bad bill," Mr. Becker replies. "Health care in the United States is pretty good, but it does have a number of weaknesses. This bill doesn't address them. It adds taxation and regulation. It's going to increase health costs—not contain them."

Drafting a good bill would have been easy, he continues. Health savings accounts could have been expanded. Consumers could have been permitted to purchase insurance across state lines, which would have increased competition among insurers. The tax deductibility of health-care spending could have been extended from employers to individuals, giving the same tax treatment to all consumers. And incentives could have been put in place to prompt consumers to pay a larger portion of their health-care costs out of their own pockets.

"Here in the United States," Mr. Becker says, "we spend about 17% of our GDP on health care, but out-of-pocket expenses make up only about 12% of total health-care spending. In Switzerland, where they spend only 11% of GDP on health care, their out-of-pocket expenses equal about 31% of total spending. The difference between 12% and 31% is huge. Once people begin spending substantial sums from their own pockets, they become willing to shop around. Ordinary market incentives begin to operate. A good bill would have encouraged that."

Despite the damage this new legislation appears certain to cause, Mr. Becker believes we're probably stuck with it. "Repealing this bill will be very, very difficult," he says. "Once you've got a piece of legislation in place, interest groups grow up around it. Look at Medicare and Medicaid. Originally, the American Medical Association opposed Medicare and Medicaid. Then the AMA came to see them as a source of demand for physicians' services. Today the AMA supports Medicare and Medicaid as staunchly as anyone. Something like that will happen with this new legislation."

Bad legislation, maintained by self-seeking interest groups. Back in 1982, I remind Mr. Becker, the economist Mancur Olson published a book, "The Rise and Decline of Nations," predicting just that trend. Over time, Olson argued, interest groups would form to press for policies that would almost invariably prove protectionist, redistributive or antitechnological. Policies, in a word, that would inhibit economic growth. Yet since the benefits of such policies would accrue directly to interest groups while the costs would be spread across the entire population, very little opposition to such self-seeking would ever develop. Interest groups—and bad policies—would proliferate, and the nation would stagnate.

Olson may have sketched his portrait during the 1980s, but doesn't it display a remarkable likeness to the United States today? Mr. Becker thinks for a moment, swiveling toward the window. Then he swivels back. "Not necessarily," he replies.

"The idea that interest groups can derive specific, concentrated benefits from the political system—yes, that's a very important insight," he says. "But you can have competing interest groups. Look at the automobile industry. The domestic manufacturers in Detroit want protectionist policies. But the auto importers want free trade. So they fight it out. Now sometimes in these fights the dark forces prevail, and sometimes the forces of light prevail. But if you have competing interest groups you don't end up with a systematic bias toward bad policy."

Mr. Becker places his hands behind his head. Once again, he reflects, then smiles wryly. "Of course that doesn't mean there isn't any systematic bias toward bad policy," he says. "There's one bias that we're up against all the time: Markets are hard to appreciate."

Capitalism has produced the highest standard of living in history, and yet markets are hard to appreciate? Mr. Becker explains: "People tend to impute good motives to government. And if you assume that government officials are well meaning, then you also tend to assume that government officials always act on behalf of the greater good. People understand that entrepreneurs and investors by contrast just try to make money, not act on behalf of the greater good. And they have trouble seeing how this pursuit of profits can lift the general standard of living. The idea is too counterintuitive. So we're always up against a kind of in-built suspicion of markets. There's always a temptation to believe that markets succeed by looting the unfortunate."

As he speaks, Mr. Becker appears utterly at ease. He wears loose-fitting clothes and slouches comfortably in his chair. His hair, wispy and white, sets off his most striking feature—penetrating eyes so dark they seem nearly black. Yet those dark eyes display not foreboding, but contentment. He does not have the air of a man contemplating national decline.

I read aloud from an article by historian Victor Davis Hanson that had appeared in the morning newspaper. "[W]e are in revolutionary times," Mr. Hanson argues, "in which the government will grow to assume everything from energy to student loans." Next I read from a column by economist Thomas Sowell. "With the passage of the legislation allowing the federal government to take control of the medical system," Mr. Sowell asserts, "a major turning point has been reached in the dismantling of the values and institutions of America."

"They're very eloquent," Mr. Becker replies, his equanimity undisturbed. "And maybe they're right. But I'm not that pessimistic." The temptation to view markets with suspicion, he explains, is just that: a temptation. Although voters might succumb to the temptation temporarily, over time they know better.

"One of the points Secretary Paulson made earlier today was how outraged—how unexpectedly outraged—the American people became when the government bailed out the banks. This belief in individual responsibility—the belief that people ought to be free to make their own decisions, but should then bear the consequences of those decisions—this remains very powerful. The American people don't want an expansion of government. They want more of what Reagan provided. They want limited government and economic growth. I expect them to say so in the elections this November."

Even if ordinary Americans still want limited government, I ask, what about those who dominate the press and universities? What about the molders of received opinion who claim that the financial crisis marked the demise of capitalism, rendering the Chicago school irrelevant?

"During the financial crisis," he replies, "the government and markets—or rather, some aspects of markets—both failed."

The Federal Reserve, Mr. Becker explains, kept interest rates too low for too long. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae made the mistake of participating in the market for subprime instruments. And as the crisis developed, regulators failed to respond. "The Fed and the Treasury didn't see the crisis coming until very late. The SEC didn't see it at all," he says.

"The markets made mistakes, too. And some of us who study the markets made mistakes. Some of my colleagues at Chicago probably overestimated the ability of the Fed to smooth disruptions. I didn't write much about the Fed, but if I had I would probably have overestimated the Fed myself. As the banks developed new instruments, economists paid too little attention to the systemic risks—the risks the instruments posed for the whole financial system—as opposed to the risks they posed for individual institutions.

"I learned from Milton Friedman that from time to time there are going to be financial problems, so I wasn't surprised that we had a financial crisis. But I was surprised that the financial crisis spilled over into the real economy. I hadn't expected the crisis to become that bad. That was my mistake."

Once again, Mr. Becker reflects. "So, yes, we economists made mistakes. But has the experience of the past few years invalidated the finding that markets remain the most efficient means for producing economic growth? Not in any way.

"Look at growth in developed countries since the Second World War," he continues. "Even after you take into account the various recessions, including this one, you still end up with a good record. So even if a recession as bad as this one were the price of free markets—and I don't believe that's the correct way of looking at it, because government actions contributed so greatly to the current problem—but even if a bad recession were the price, you'd still decide it was worth paying.

"Or look at developing countries," he says. "China, India, Brazil. A billion people have been lifted out of poverty since 1990 because their countries moved toward more market-based economies—a billion people. Nobody's arguing for taking that back."

My last question involves a little story. Not long before Milton Friedman's death in 2006, I tell Mr. Becker, I had a conversation with Friedman. He had just reviewed the growth of spending that was then taking place under the Bush administration, and he was not happy. After a pause during the Reagan years, Friedman had explained, government spending had once again begun to rise. "The challenge for my generation," Friedman had told me, "was to provide an intellectual defense of liberty." Then Friedman had looked at me. "The challenge for your generation is to keep it."

What was the prospect, I asked Mr. Becker, that this generation would indeed keep its liberty? "It could go either way," he replies. "Milton was right about that."

Mr. Becker recites some figures. For years, federal spending remained level at about 20% of GDP. Now federal spending has risen to 25% of GDP. On current projections, federal spending would soon rise to 28%. "That concerns me," Mr. Becker says. "It concerns me a great deal.

"But when Milton was starting out," he continues, "people really believed a state-run economy was the most efficient way of promoting growth. Today nobody believes that, except maybe in North Korea. You go to China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, even Western Europe. Most of the economists under 50 have a free-market orientation. Now, there are differences of emphasis and opinion among them. But they're oriented toward the markets. That's a very, very important intellectual victory. Will this victory have an effect on policy? Yes. It already has. And in years to come, I believe it will have an even greater impact."

The sky outside his window has begun to darken. Mr. Becker stands, places some papers into his briefcase, then puts on a tweed jacket and cap. "When I think of my children and grandchildren," he says, "yes, they'll have to fight. Liberty can't be had on the cheap. But it's not a hopeless fight. It's not a hopeless fight by any means. I remain basically an optimist."

Mr. Robinson, a former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, is a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

AIPAC Policy Conference 2010

Watch Kadima Party Chair Tzipi Livni's Speech

Watch Professor Alan Dershowitz's Speech

Whose side is Obama on?

Call me paranoid, but I suspect a public-relations plot against Israel by the Obama administration.

I see a deliberate attempt to put distance between the U.S. and Israel, as a prelude to increased pressure on Israel to accept the U.S. approach to peace negotiations - the Mitchell approach.

The basis for my suspicion is a discernable ratcheting up of rhetoric - conveniently supported by the target provided by the announcement of the intention to build housing units in East Jerusalem (which was itself probably the result of a counter-Obama Israeli agenda).

The White House is leaking insinuations and rumors from the highest level in the administration and even the military (see for example here and here). According to Mark Perry, an intelligence analyst with known sympathies for Arab extremists, General Petraeus and other senior commanders were shocked to learn the extent to which Israel's intransigence in the Middle East was fueling resentment in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and elsewhere across the Moslem world, and increasing the danger faced by American soldiers in the field. I heard an interview on NPR (I think it was with Mark Perry) in which he clearly implied that if only Israel would quickly "resolve" its disagreements with the Palestinians, America's job in the world, and in the Moslem world in particular, would be significantly eased. This stuff is now all over the media.

This is not a new accusation, but it is an alarmingly serious one. Americans overwhelmingly believe that Israel and American share common values and interests - and are not just strategic allies. In its understanding of the importance of Israel as a bastion of classical liberal principles, America is almost alone in the world. If this should change, if Americans could be made to believe the horribly specious argument that support for Israel is unnecessarily costing us money and lives, the cost to Israel and to the world can hardly be understated.

It boggles my mind to imagine that the Jews of America, Alan Dershowitz included (see here), voted for this President.

AIPAC is about to begin its high-profile annual convention in Washington DC. The delegates will hear from both Hillary Clinton and Binyamin Netanyahu. Let us hope they hear the right things and have the strength and influence to turn this tide before it becomes a tsunami.

Soft on Settlements?

All this fuss about apartments in East Jerusalem?

I have come to believe that indignation about the so-called "settlements" is purely pretextual. Both the Palestinians and the Obami are using this incident as a pretext for doing what they wanted to do anyway - isolate Israel in public opinion. And the Europeans are lapping it up. The Palestinians and the Europeans vilified Israel before the settlements were an issue and will not be placated whatever Israel does.

The settlement issue is fraught with myth and missinformation. It is presented as if Israel is a colonizer on Palestinian land. As Ruth Wisse points out in today's WSJ, Israeli citizens have historically got the worst of the land stuggle. Looking at a map it is hard to believe that this is about land - about living space. Twenty one countries, with 800 times more land, much of it unsettled, are obsessing about Israel building appartments in Jerusalem. As Bret Stephens of the WSJ has put it, this is not a territorial struggle, it is an existential one. It is Israel's existence that is the issue.

The conventional wisdom is that Bibi was surprised by the announcement by his government. It may well be that he is trying to send a message to American Jews to wake up and realize that those who warned that Obama is basically an Arab sympathizer were more right than imagined - Ram Emanuel being an ex-Israeli notwithstanding.

As I say, the settlement issue is a complicated one - not so simple as the world press makes it out. Some of them are private purchases; all of them are in disputed territory, not self-evidently Palestinian. As a rule I do not like government appropriation and development of land wherever it occurs. But this is not the issue here.

It is important to point out that the presence of these Israelis in the territories is often a boost to the Palestinian economy. They bring jobs at fair wages and work conditions, and stimulate trade. And now the EU has decided to boycott the products of this industry. Typical.

In fact trade between the Palestinians and Israel is quietly growing. This is absolutely the best hope for peace in the region as both sides develop a vested interest in each other. But expect the EU, the Palestinians leaders and other thugs to disrupt this trade. It is very threatening to them and their raison d' etre. So it is going to be crushed!

I hope the 78% of American Jews who voted for Obama are rethinking their choice. If not Israel is really in trouble. We know America is, for a host of other Obama-related reasons.

Introducing Pilar Rahola

My cousin Matthew Lewin sent me this blog.


Its been around for awhile but I had not seen it. Nor had I heard of Pilar Rahola. I have now looked at her blog site, read some of her stuff (thanks to the tireless efforts of my wonderful Spanish teacher) and count myself as an admirer.

This short address, translated from Spanish, reveals the flavor of her other work.

Really worth reading.

PL.


From http://portalofideas.blogspot.com/2009/01/pilar-rahola.html

Saturday, January 3, 2009

Pilar Rahola

Pilar Rahola

Pilar Rahola is a Spanish politician, journalist and activist. She is a passionate defender of the United States and Israel and an indefatigable fighter against anti-Semitism. All these despite being ideologically from the left. Her articles are published in Spain and throughout some of the most important newspapers in Latin America. She is the recipient of major awards by Jewish organizations.

I came across this speech and felt that it was worthwhile placing it in my blog. I translated it and assume full responsibility for any errors. If you want to visit her blog, you can do so by clicking here: Pilar Rahola. Some of her articles are translated into English.

Why don’t we see demonstrations against Islamic dictatorships in London, Paris, Barcelona? Or demonstrations against the Burmese dictatorship? Why aren’t there demonstrations against the enslavement of millions of women who live without any legal protection? Why aren’t there demonstrations against the use of children as human bombs where there is conflict with Islam? Why has there been no leadership in support of the victims of Islamic dictatorship in Sudan? Why is there never any outrage against the acts of terrorism committed against Israel? Why is there no outcry by the European left against Islamic fanaticism? Why don’t they defend Israel’s right to exist? Why confuse support of the Palestinian cause with the defense of Palestinian terrorism? An finally, the million dollar question:Why is the left in Europe and around the world obsessed with the two most solid democracies, the United States and Israel, and not with the worst dictatorships on the planet? The two most solid democracies, who have suffered the bloodiest attacks of terrorism, and the left doesn’t care.

And then, to the concept of freedom. In every pro Palestinian European forum I hear the left yelling with fervor: “We want freedom for the people!” Not true. They are never concerned with freedom for the people of Syria or Yemen or Iran or Sudan, or other such nations. And they are never preoccupied when Hammas destroys freedom for the Palestinians. They are only concerned with using the concept of Palestinian freedom as a weapon against Israeli freedom. The resulting consequence of these ideological pathologies is the manipulation of the press.

The international press does major damage when reporting on the question of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. On this topic they don’t inform, they propagandize. When reporting about Israel the majority of journalists forget the reporter code of ethics. And so, any Israeli act of self-defense becomes a massacre, and any confrontation, genocide. So many stupid things have been written about Israel, that there aren’t any accusations left to level against her. At the same time, this press never discusses Syrian and Iranian interference in propagating violence against Israel; the indoctrination of children and the corruption of the Palestinians. And when reporting about victims, every Palestinian casualty is reported as tragedy and every Israeli victim is camouflaged, hidden or reported about with disdain.

And let me add on the topic of the Spanish left. Many are the examples that illustrate the anti-Americanism and anti-Israeli sentiments that define the Spanish left. For example, one of the leftist parties in Spain has just expelled one of its members for creating a pro-Israel website. I quote from the expulsion document: “Our friends are the people of Iran, Libya and Venezuela, oppressed by imperialism, and not a Nazi state like Israel.”

In another example, the socialist mayor of Campozuelos changed Shoah Day, commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, with Palestinian Nabka Day, which mourns the establishment of the State of Israel, thus showing contempt for the six million European Jews murdered in the Holocaust. Or in my native city of Barcelona, the city council decided to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel, by having a week of solidarity with the Palestinian people. Thus, they invited Leila Khaled, a noted terrorist from the 70’s and current leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terrorist organization so described by the European Union, which promotes the use of bombs against Israel. And so on and so on.

This politically correct way of thinking has even polluted the speeches of president Zapatero. His foreign policy falls within the lunatic left, and on issues of the Middle East he is unequivocally pro Arab. I can assure you that in private, Zapatero places on Israel the blame for the conflict in the Middle East, and the policies of foreign minister Moratinos reflect this. The fact that Zapatero chose to wear a kafiah in the midst of the Lebanon conflict is no coincidence; it’s a symbol.

Spain has suffered the worst terrorist attack in Europe and it is in the crosshairs of every Islamic terrorist organization. As I wrote before, they kill us will cell phones hooked to satellites connected to the Middle Ages. An yet the Spanish left is the most anti Israeli in the world.

And then it says it is anti Israeli because of solidarity. This is the madness I want to denounce in this conference.

Conclusion:

I am not Jewish. Ideologically I am left and by profession a journalist. Why am I not as anti Israeli as my colleagues? Because as a non-Jew I have the historical responsibility to fight against Jewish hatred and currently against the hatred for their historic homeland, Israel. To fight against anti-Semitism is not the duty of the Jews, it is the duty of the non-Jews.

As a journalist it is my duty to search for the truth beyond prejudice, lies and manipulations. The truth about Israel is not told. As a person from the left who loves progress, I am obligated to defend liberty, culture, civic education for children, coexistence and the laws that the Tablets of the Covenant made into universal principles. Principles that Islamic fundamentalism systematically destroys. That is to say that as a non-Jew, journalist and lefty I have a triple moral duty with Israel, because if Israel is destroyed, liberty, modernity and culture will be destroyed too.

The struggle of Israel, even if the world doesn’t want to accept it, is the struggle of the world.

Greece and California

When the proposed currency unification of the members of the European Union was adopted I predicted it would fail. I was pleased to have been proven wrong - or so I thought. Now, I see I may have been right. As so often happens, the undrelying economic realities take longer than expected to assert themselves.

The underlying realities are these. A common currency implies a common monetary policy. By agreeing to adopt the same currency, the members of the currency union agree in effect to relinquish independence in monetary policy decisions. So France cannot adopt a more inflationary posture than Germany without straining the agreement. Whoever controls the supply of the currency will ultimately determine the degree of inflation. The ability of the independent states to create money to cover government deficits is removed.

In this way Greece is like California. California has no independent currency or central bank. When it runs a defiicit it can only cover it by spending less or taxing more. A third option is to go to the Federal Government to "bail it out." The Federal Government has its own exploding deficit. The difference is that the Federal Government can borrow money from the Federal Reserve System by issuing debt - as long as the Fed is willing to buy the debt or get the public to do so. The Fed can arrange the borrowing from the public (or foreign governments) if the Treasury is willing to sufficiently raise interest rates to make its debt attractive in these uncertain times, or (since high interest rates are unpopular) it can simply buy the debt by creating new deposits for the Treasury. This is commonly called "printing money." In this way, by adding to the Treasury's need to borrow, California can contribute to the policy dilemma of the United States.

California, with its huge deficits, is not the only perpetrator of profligacy. New York, New Jersey, and many other states, to various degrees, are guilty. By coming to the rescue of profligate states the Federal government forces those states who act relatively frugally and responsibly to shoulder the irresponsible consequences of the spendthrifts. Even more important, by so doing the Federal Government encourages irresponsible behavior and discourages fiscal responsibility.

I ardently hope that the decision is made not to come to the rescue of California, New York or any other needy state - even if this means the defaulting of state government debt and the crisis that will entail. Pay now or pay more later.

By the same token, the senior members of the EU should not bail out Greece - whatever the consequences. Greece today, Spain tomorrow and there is no visible end. Greece will not live up to any austerity conditions placed upon it and failure to stick to the tough love approach may well mean the end of the common currency that has worked quite well to date.

Obama wants America to be more like Europe - in health care, the environment, public transportation - and no doubt in hypocrisy too. The Europeans are contempruous of his admiration. They will not allow him to take away their reasons for hating America. Regarding California, as with most everything else, we should not be aspiring to be like them.

Kill Bill and Save Jobs

The "jobs bill" that was recently passed in the Sennate, with the help of a few Rebpublicans, will probably not do much of anything. But it does contain some good elements. Among other things, it aims to stimulate employment by removing payroll taxes. Payroll taxes (aka Social Security, Medicare-Medicaid taxes) are the worst taxes we have. They hurt low income earners most. Removing them could be a great boost to jobs. It reduces the cost of employment.

Of course, since the removal is only temporary, it is doubtful that it will have any permanent effect. Its impending reversal will inhibit even a short-run response. But its a great idea. Problem - how would we pay social security if we abolished the tax. Only one way. We'd have to reduce government expenditure elsewhere sufficiently to do so. A simple 10% cut accross the board would do it. Don't hold your breath.

You have to admire Obama's perseverance and tennacity. He refuses to allow his health bill to die. One may wonder: is there is any way to finally Kill Bill? The latest round, while tossing a lot of back-dealing baggage, maintains the universal insurance mandate and introduces a new doozy. Price controls on insurance premiums! Insurance premium prices will now be suject to government fiat - like a price board during war-time.

Economics 101 - lesson 2 or 3 - price controls cause shortages or surpluses and a lot of pain and often corruption and other things. They are the crudest, most primative types of interventionist economic policy. I know that some law-students do take elementary economics courses. Evidently this one didn't. So why should we suffer?

Illegal Immigration - Ivry Man (IM) asks Dr. Know (DK) for Guidance

         At the appointed time Ivry finds Dr. Know seated on his usual park bench. Ivry extends his hand.

IM.    Greetings Dr. Know. So nice of you to take time out of your busy ego-boosting schedule to talk to me.

DK.   [Warm smile] Oh it’s my absolute pleasure. How can I help you?

IM.    Well, I see the immigration question is on the agenda again.

DK.   Really, I hadn’t noticed.

IM.    Angry eyes] So I am wondering what the debate is about. Surely its straight-forward. These people break the law to come here and then they take away American jobs. We just need to plug the holes – step up enforcement, stop the buggers from coming in. Right?

DK.    [Looking thoughtful] Maybe we should look at this a little more carefully. Why do you     suppose they break the law to come here?

IM.     To get work obviously, our work.

DK.    Yes, but why not simply stay home, in Mexico say, and work there?

IM.    The jobs in the U.S. pay more.

DK.    Indeed, probably a lot more. Else it would not be worthwhile to go to the trouble – the     time and effort – and undertake the risk of an illegal immigration, right?

IM.    I suppose so.

DK.  Well that is what the evidence (and the logic) suggests. As menial and low-paying as these jobs are, they pay a multiple of what the illegal migrants could earn at home. They are very low wages in the U.S. context but much higher than the alternative for them. It’s all relative.

This being the case, there is evidently a very strong economic pull fueling the flow of illegal immigration. It’s like two connected water tanks, in which the level of water in one is higher than the other. There is an inexorable tendency for the water in the tank with the higher water level to flow into the other tank until the water levels are equal. The only way to stop this is to sever the link between the tanks. With water tanks this may be easy (inexpensive). With labor flows it is likely to be prohibitively expensive – to plug the holes, as you say. Every dollar spent chasing illegal immigrants is a dollar that could be spent somewhere else. And even if we doubled, or tripled, the money, people and equipment devoted to it, we could probably not stop it completely. Our borders are too long and too porous.

IM.    So what are we to do? There are an estimated 13 million illegals in the country and although the flow has slowed now during the recession, it is bound to pick up when our economy does. We have to do something.

DK.   Maybe. Consider, however, the costs and benefits of immigration in general. Immigration is a kind of trade and trade is invariably mutually beneficial. The immigrant adds value to the product she produces and receives a part of that value in a wage that is attractive to her. The employer receives the other part of the added-value. Both parties gain. What is the problem?

IM.    [Looking peeved] Of for goodness sake, have you gone soft in the head.? The problem is that the immigrant is taking away a job that a good American citizen could be doing for a higher wage.

DK.  [Looking earnest] Are you sure about that? The evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, suggests otherwise. It suggests that illegals overwhelmingly do jobs that Americans will not – do not have to – do.

         But let’s assume you are correct, just for a moment. Am I to understand that the job lost by a good-citizen-American worker is self-evidently more important than the job gained by the immigrant? Change the terms in the previous sentence from “American” to “white” and “the immigrant” to “a black worker” and what do we have? Good old-fashioned racism. Hullo! I thought that immigrants were also human beings. Their alternative is often extreme deprivation or starvation. But its self-evident that we ought to send them back in pursuit of saving low-paying jobs for Americans who frequently have other alternatives?

         And let’s not forget the interests of the employers. Is it self-evident that their decreased cost of labor is not worth the alleged loss to the American workers? And consumers also gain because of reduced product prices.

IM.    [Indignant] Now wait a minute! Are you suggesting that we should be the economic savior of poor workers of the world. Why is it our problem? If they are going to starve it’s the fault of their government and it's bad economic policies.

DK.  How convenient. So whatever happens to them our conscience is clear?

         It’s not a question of being the savior of the world. It’s a question of trying to carefully weigh all the aspects of the issue, all of the costs and benefits broadly understood. Do we really want to put such a high weight on protecting domestic jobs that most Americans probably would not want anyway when the human cost to the immigrants is so great? Immigrant workers want to work. Employers want to employ them. The harm to third parties is dubious to say the least. The value-added exceeds the value-lost. This country was, and continues to be, built by immigrants – legal and illegal.

         It seems to me that increased enforcement is a solution in search of a problem.

IM.    [Incredulous] So we don’t have a problem with immigration?

DK.   Not really, no. We have an opportunity.

IM.    How so?

DK.  Immigration is selective. For the prospective immigrant immigration is a form of investment. It takes initiative, courage, persistence and motivation to succeed at it. Immigrants often have these characteristics. They are mostly young, family-oriented, hard-working people. They are prepared to do what it takes to provide their children with opportunities they did not have. They do the jobs that established Americans will not do. They save, they have babies, and they contribute to our social security and Medicare-Medicaid.

IM.    [Red in the face] Oh no, excuse me. That’s another problem you are neglecting. Isn’t it true that these illegals come here and use our social services – our public schools, our hospitals – at the taxpayer’s expense and, because they are illegal, they don’t contribute anything? They become expensive free riders. Also, they add to the crime rate.

DK.    [Sad, concerned] Another set of myths, harmful myths I am afraid.

         I really doubt that the evidence can support this conclusion. It is likely that immigrants are law abiding in general – being immigrants they are more careful to obey the law for fear of being deported.

        On the question of social services, many illegal immigrants have fake IDs. So they pay social security and income tax, etc. but will never collect a dime of social security. The potential problem of genuine free riders is worse in states, like California, who have extensive welfare systems, than in states like Texas, who do not. It seems to me the problem there is the bankrupt welfare system not the illegal immigration. It is more logical to reform welfare than to attempt to close the immigration hole.

         Californians know they have to reform their state’s finances. If you offer something for nothing you invariably attract free riders, legal and illegal. You produce dependency. That is the problem and that is what needs to be fixed.

         In any case, if we could resolve the illegal status of these workers we could fix this problem.

IM.    [Eyes light up] Aha! So how on earth do we do that? We are dealing here with criminals by definition – people who broke the law. Are you suggesting that we simply forgive them with some sort of amnesty? Is this not unfair to those millions of legal immigrants who got in line and followed the law, rather than trying to evade the line. Now the illegals will reap the reward of their criminality.

DK.   [Somewhat exasperated] So dramatic. Why do you want to call them criminals? If they are guilty, they are guilty of a victimless crime. I tried to explain this to you.

         Not all laws are good laws. There are many examples of laws in history that are bad laws (by my morality and I suggest by yours). I am not advocating breaking the law – though some laws are clearly worth breaking – like some of the laws that existed in Nazi Germany or Apartheid South Africa. But, we could remove this bad law and forgive its violators. Maybe we could specify that in order to receive amnesty, proof of gainful employment is required or at least one-year’s residence. We needn’t give them an automatic passage to citizenship, we could provide (what is now being provided to Haitians) immediate permanent residence – like guest workers. Though I personally see no harm in allowing them on to the citizen track. What’s the big deal? The right to vote?

         And yes, those who went the legal route may feel cheated. They are cheated by a bad law that some people disobeyed. Their outrage is worth the benefits of the reform.

IM.    [Horror and disgust] Ugh. This just gets worse. Don’t you realize that if we do what you suggest there will be a lot of new Hispanic, and other foreign, voters? It will upset the balance of power and over time threaten domination of the American culture by foreigners. Even the status of English as an official language is threatened.

DK.  [Disguised disgust] Hmm. Forgive me but do I see racism in another form here? What makes you think these new Americans will be any less committed to the American culture (and our Constitution) than the old Americans. This is and has always been the strength and the uniqueness of America. To be an American is, more than anything, to embrace the ideal of universal individual freedom. These people understand that better than many Americans by birth. They have often lived in oppressive police states. They understand the source of the opportunities they are pursuing. Their children will speak English and they will be Americans in every sense. Paranoid ethnocentrism is an unworthy and baseless norm on which to base any American policy. We should embrace the diversity of cultures that embrace us – as we always have.

IM.    You are breaking my heart Dr. Know. What about the terrorists? And the Moslem extremists? Are we not sending an open invitation?

DK.  I suppose a reformed, streamlined, more liberal immigration policy might make it easier for potential terrorists to come here. I am not sure about this though. With less resources devoted to the general apprehension of illegal immigrants more resources could be targeted to terrorists in particular.

IM.   So what exactly are you advocating.

DK.  I am advocating amnesty for illegals – immediately – and a reform of immigration law that pretty much moves us to more open borders. I think the EU has it right in this respect. I also think we should look carefully at the highly skilled end of the spectrum. Most of our software engineers, many of the academics, doctors, paramedics, nurses, etc. are immigrants. We should open this door wider. We need their human capital. If politically necessary we could ask them to pay for their Green Cards. But, this seems to me a no-brainer.

         However, let me be clear about one thing. In suggesting that we welcome diverse cultures and ethnicities to America to participate in the “American dream” I am absolutely not suggesting that we tolerate cultures that are by their nature intolerant of or inimical to American values. On the contrary that is another aspect of our legal environment that needs to be reformed. We need to be less tolerant of intolerance. Those groups that advocate an overthrow of Western civil society and the imposition of one true religion, in America and in the world, ought to be able to use the first amendment right of free speech. But they ought not to receive any government, taxpayer funds, and they ought not to receive any protection against the free speech of others to expose their noxious message. Right now we are so sensitively politically correct that we provide these people all manner of funds and protections that ought to be withdrawn immediately. We have to fight darkness with light, searing light. And when they are exposed and we see them for what they are, we can challenge them, we can shun them, we can monitor them and defend ourselves against them.

        But this has very little to do with the immigration question in general.

IM.   [Frustrated resignation] OK, OK, but listen, what about drugs? Don’t narcotic traffickers produce some of the illegal immigrants. How would you handle the drug problem.

DK.  I am glad you asked. I would decriminalize drugs of course. But that is a matter for another discussion another day. Have to go.

        He rises and ambles off in the direction of … .

Only some things considered.

NPR's All Things Considered read a letter today about a story they ran in which an economist suggested that creating jobs in the government costs about $200,000. The letter writer disputed the number quoting a rival economic study saying it was "only" $92,000. The NPR anchor opined, "it all depends which economist you listen to."

Could they really have missed the point so badly? Lets assume the lower number is right. Do you think the average employee in these "created jobs" is going to be paid $92,000? Is that what the jobs are worth? Or just what they cost? If they are worth less than what they cost, who is paying the difference? Taxpayers right? How many jobs does this extra tax burden destroy?

And of course, since the government seldom really produces anything, whose jobs are paying for these new ones? Would we not have been better off if we required these employees to get a real job?

I guess they don't pay radio reporters to think.