Why did President Obama appoint Gil Kerlikowske?

In 2009 President Obama appointed former police chief Gil Kerlikowske as head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, a position informally referred to as 'drug czar.'  When President Obama took office there was a great deal of hope that he would move to end the failed war on drugs.  Indeed, candidate Obama had made repeated statements that he would do so.  Unfortunately, despite his past statements and the wishes of most Americans, the Obama administration has only intensified counter-productive law enforcement efforts.

What can explain that sudden shift in policy?  It cannot be because doing otherwise would be unpopular, nor is it the case that doing so would such changes would imperil efforts to control increasingly terroristic drug cartels.  Even as the Obama administration has been stepping up enforcement efforts there has been a growing consensus that prohibitionistic policies are a part of the problem.  Foreign leaders like Felipe Calderon and Juan Manuel Santos have called for the exploration of market-based solutions that would stop the revenue from marijuana sales going to violent cartels.  They aren't alone.  Recently the U.N.'s Global Commission on Drug policy, made up of former Presidents from Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia, endorsed the same solution.

It is doubtful that the continuation of the drug war has been a result of President Obama's direct efforts.  After all, the President of the United States is a very busy man.  Drug policy is carried out by political appointees, in this case Mr. Kerlikowske.  A brief look at the personal history of Kerlikowske reveals shocking misconduct that ought to render him unfit for his office.  That he was appointed by President Obama is, at best, evidence of remarkable hypocrisy on the part of the administration. 

In 2007 Kerlikowske was the Chief of the Seattle PD.  In this capacity he made exceptional efforts to protect officers accused of wrongdoing despite the existence of clear video and audio evidence against them.  In one case an artist with no criminal record was beaten while officers made racially inflammatory statements.  Forensic evidence and recorded audio validated the artist's story, and the office overseeing cases of police misconduct found two of the officers guilty of using excessive force.  Chief Kerlikowske overruled that finding on a technicality resulting from misplaced paperwork, allowing the responsible officers to escape any punishment.

In another instance Kerlikowske again ignored the recommendations of the Office of Professional Accountability Review Board in a case where officers accused of planting drugs on a suspect found their stories contradicted by video evidence.  Because Kerlikowske chose repeatedly to protect officers despite despite the evidence the NAACP called for his resignation.

Despite his despicable record and the NAACP's past resignation calls Gil Kerlikowske was chosen by President Obama to represent the administration's drug policy.  It is unfathomable how Obama could make this choice in good conscience.  One presumes that Obama does not believe that his own life would have been made better by a drug arrest, particularly had the arrest been a result of evidence planted by corrupt officers.  Had that happened it is questionable whether the young Barack Obama would have been able to continue his education or go on to a career in politics.   

Gil Kerlikowske protected police officers who were found to have grossly abused their positions of power.  He is unfit for his current high office.  Given his record there is no reason to believe that reform of our nation's drug laws can occur while such an unrepentant drug-warrior remains in his position.  In 2012 President Obama will once again be candidate Obama.  To continue his time in public office he will badly need his former supporters.  As the election nears those supporters should send him, and other Democrats, a clear message that they will not receive electoral support so long as they continue to say one thing and appoint people to do another.  Let the Obama campaign know that they won't have your support unless the President takes begins to take responsibility and stop the escalation of counterproductive drug policies.   

God in politics: Time for a lit review.

Today Michele Bachmann made some comments about a possible relationship between America's well-being and the disapproval of Abraham's God.  To quote her: "I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending."

Since Mrs. Bachmann is a candidate for our highest office it behooves scholars to subject her analysis to rigorous theological scrutiny.  International relations scholar Dan Drezner has done his duty in this to the best of his ability.  But despite my respect for his IR qualifications I have to question his methods in this case.  Most egregiously, Drezner has omitted any literature review from his analysis.  We shouldn't forget that eminent scholars have long studied the relationship between deities and nation states. If we want to take this argument further we ought to take into account the debates that have already been had. While we could take this back to the ancient world, we should start elsewhere if we're accepting that the relevant deity is Abrahamic.

I submit for consideration the writings of King James I, specifically his True Law of Free Monarchies.

Here is a conclusive passage: "I grant, indeed, that a wicked king is sent by God for a curse to his people and a plague for their sins; but that it is lawful to them to shake off that curse at their own hand, which God hath laid on them, that I deny and may do so justly. Will any deny that the king of Babel was a curse to the people of God, as was plainly forespoken and threatened unto them in the prophesy of their captivity? And what was Nero to the Christian church in his time? And yet Jeremiah and Paul (as ye have else heard) commanded them not only to obey them but heartily to pray for their welfare.  It is certain, then (as I have already by the law of God sufficiently proved), that patience, earnest prayers to God, and amendment of their lives are the only lawful means to move God to relieve them of their heavy curse."

We see here that the proper response to heavenly censure is not further rebellion against the authorities God has installed but patient submission and repentance. Rebels like the woman Bachmann may think that they can do better in governing than the authority God has chosen, but as King James tells us that "in place of relieving the commonwealth out of distress (which is their only excuse and color), they shall heap double distress and desolation upon it; and so their rebellion shall procure the contrary effects that they pretend it for."

It is a grave danger that our leaders are so lacking in theological education that they call Godly things which are only hateful treasons. I propose that all such malignants be sent to monasteries, so that they might learn and contemplate quietly the true meaning of the Scriptures.

Libya: Now for the difficult stuff

Hugo Chavez might miss him, but most people have been pleased to hear that the Gaddafi family is on its way out in Libya.  While there's no doubt that Gaddafi was an erratic and violent tyrant, there are also plenty of reasons to be skeptical about the triumphalism of those who called for NATO intervention.  To put it simply: getting rid of Gaddafi was the easy part, and whatever happens next will be messier than the interventionists expect.

Once NATO intervened no one doubted that the regime's days were numbered.  Mercenaries just don't have much of a chance against coordinated air power.  But as we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military component of regime change is the easiest part; the aftermath is where policy making becomes uncertain.  This isn't to suggest that post-Gaddafi Libya is doomed to state failure, but commentators need to keep in mind that recent events are a beginning rather than an end.  Whether rebels are overthrowing a king or a Brotherly Guide the removal of the autocrat they united against leads to a splintering of political unity. 

This instability can be exacerbated by a lack of preexisting institutions, as is the case in Libya.  In the coming months the TNC will be required to come up with an entirely new constitution.  If they do so too quickly they will risk creating leaving out key groups, but if they do not act quickly enough then they allow a power vacuum to fester.  Either way creates opportunities for charismatic leaders, warlords, and radicals to derail the political process.  Add the widespread availability of advanced weapons and a provisional government already showing divisions and you have a recipe for political violence.

NATO has been uncharacteristically wise in rejecting committment to any open-ended presence in Libya.  Nonetheless, there is a continuing danger that sufficient instability would require robust military intervention.  Gaddafi's former arms stockpiles present a real terrorism threat.  If shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles like the SA-7 become widely available on the international market they will undoubtedly end up in the hands of Jihadists, providing militants an unprecedented capacity for endangering commercial aircraft.  If prevailing instability resulted in Libya's becoming a terrorist staging ground it is difficult to see how a new occupation could be avoided.  Bad as Gaddafi was, this outcome would likely be worse for both the occupying coalition and the people of Libya.

Rick Perry wants to lynch Bernanke?

Monetarism is now 'almost treasonous' according to candidate Rick Perry.  His comments on Fed Chairman (and Bush appointee) continued: "[if he] prints more money between now and the election, I don't know what y'all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas."

Is that an endorsement of lynching?  We've come a long way if the brainchild of Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan has now become so anathema to Tea Partiers that elected officials are musing about mob justice.   

Assorted Links

The first is a piece from the Economist, it's definitely the smartest thing I've read about Britain's relationship with the EU in quite some time: http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/07/britain-and-eu?fsrc=rss

The second is from FP, I thought the author very succinctly explained the relationship between the Oslo terrorist and the non-violent but obviously irrational Islamophobes who informed his ideology: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/25/breivik_s_swamp

If you don't believe this one, there's an article in the Torygraph that validates the connection.  People like Glenn Beck make these outrageous comparisons, and then all it takes is a true believer to take the next step.  There's no mystery to it, these people are openly political and happy to explain where they're getting it from..  

I don't mean to constantly be plugging Dave Weigel, but he's one of the most consistent reporters I'm aware of.  His writing on the debt ceiling negotiations has combined a detailed knowledge of the Tea Party movement and an unrivaled understanding of the mechanics of the legislative process.  Here is his most recent piece: http://www.slate.com/id/2299996/

The only comment I can add is that John Boehner has to be one of the most skillful  politicians we've seen in years.  He's coolly courted disaster while managing an impossibly recalcitrant wing of his party, and now it looks like he's about to be rewarded for it with a substantial political victory.  If he is able to pull off the outcome Weigel describes, he'll have simultaneously avoided angering the Tea Party and gotten the Democrats to agree to cuts and spending constraints without any accompanying tax rise.  It would be a clear victory for Boehner and the Republicans, and they'd end up attaining all of their real goals while denying the Democrats any concessions.  Boehner's looking awfully brilliant, in a purely cynical sense of course.

After Obama's drawn out punt on Afghanistan and miserable compromise on health care, it's hard to say how much more the Democratic base is willing to take.  Disappointment in a party's base is, of course, an immeasurable variable in electoral outcomes, and it will likely be offset to some extent by voter's awareness of the current Republican's radicalism.  Still, Obama cannot count on anything like the same enthusiasm he benefited from in 2008.    

I'll leave you with a photo I found on Reddit.

Der Ring des Republican

There aren't many reporters I like better than Slate's Dave Weigel, so there was no way I couldn't link to this blog post.  Anyone who can usefully relate contemporary politics to Wagner gets an A in my grade book.  "The best way to think about Grover Norquist's influence in the Republican party is to think about Wotan in the Ring cycle. Wotan's power is entirely reliant on contracts."

Apt parallels aside, we should hope for a different ending.

How I learned to stop worrying and love the debt ceiling.

If you've been reading the news you'll be aware that there is a chance, however small, that we are teetering on a precipice overlooking the most extreme financial collapse since the Depression.  Were the current debt ceiling negotiations between the White House and the House Republicans to fail, and were the U.S. government to default on its bonds, then the resulting economic collapse would be truly cataclysmic.  A U.S. default would destabilize banks around the world, create a new worldwide recession far worse than 2008, and lead to such an extreme collapse in GDP that it would take decades for America to recover.

There is really no way of overstating how bad this outcome would be.

Were this economic Armageddon to occur it is hard to imagine that there wouldn't be blood flowing in the streets somewhere in the world, maybe somewhere closer to home than usual, and those conflicts would further damage the world economy.  This is clearly not something anyone desires or can accept, and so the world press is watching nervously as our Congress slowly creeps towards disaster.

Given that this potential death sentence is merely days away a person might be surprised to see that the Dow is still above 12,000, that there have been no bank runs, and that the only people stockpiling ammunition are those who have been doing so since we elected a man they believe to be a radical Muslim.  If a catastrophe is coming then it seems that no one expects it.  That wouldn't be unprecedented, no one thought June of 1914 was going to end as it did either, but it would be very surprising.

As the post's title alludes I do not think that we should be particularly worried about the worst case scenarios the press has imagined.  This is not because I believe that a default would be good for the American economy as some badly misguided individuals claim.  I remain unconcerned because I do not believe that this nuclear bomb will ever be detonated.  A reader might think this position to be overly sanguine.   Given the development of the current debate and the persistent intransigence of the Republican party such incredulity is excusable.  There is, however, a persuasive case to be made that the worst will not come to pass.  I will make that case here.

The first thing to remember is that Republican politicians have an electoral incentive to appear to be as obstinate as possible.  After 2010 Republicans are aware that their base voters are both angry and highly motivated.  Many of them are also very ignorant, even to the point of believing that a government default would be a genuinely positive thing.  Republicans aren't worried about losing these votes in general elections, Tea Partiers aren't going to switch parties, but such people are the population that is very important in Republican primaries.

What the Republican party leadership is genuinely worried about is the possibility that primary challenges will unseat competitive candidates and replace them with unelectable nutbags.  This has already happened.  2012 looms large in their planning.  A candidate like Mitt Romney has a real shot at winning the Presidency.  Someone like Michele Bachmann does not; her name is toxic with too many independent voters and her stated positions are so extreme that she lacks real credibility.  She is the Pat Robertson of 2012, capable of a strong showing in the Iowa primary but totally unrealistic nationwide.  The party leadership needs to inoculate itself against talk radio accusations of ideological infidelity so that the voter base does get upset enough to promote unelectable candidates like Bachmann.  This is accomplished by delaying compromise on the debt limit until the last possible minute; the party needs to be able to tell its voters that they did not back down lightly.

The other reason why the Republicans might allow an agreement is that failing to do so could hurt them badly in 2012.  The people in power now remember Newt Gingrich's mistake in 1996, when a government shutdown damaged Bob Dole in the general election.  No one wants to repeat that experience.  Least of all Senate Minority Leader Mitch Mconnell, who was kind enough to honestly explain the political implications: "They want to blame the economy on us. The reason that default is no better an idea today than when Newt Gingrich tried it in 1995 is that it destroys your brand and would give the president an opportunity to blame us for the bad economy. Look, he owns the economy. He’s been in office nearly three years now. We refuse to let us entice us in to co-ownership of a bad economy."

It also should be remembered that none of the vested interests the Republican party relies on for support could accept a default.  The Chamber of Commerce and the Koch brothers have more to lose than most in the event of a real disaster.  Business people are rarely so ideologically committed that they are prepared to accept things that would destroy their ability to do business; those who have the most at stake financially are also those least willing to support a political party whose actions lead to economic collapse.

If the only thing preventing catastrophe on August 2nd was the ability of Republican leaders to stand up to Tea Party pressure then my confidence would not be anywhere near as firm as it is.  The other factor that can potentially stop a default is Barack Obama's unilateral action.  The treasury secretary is a member of the Executive branch.  If we reach August 2nd with no deal in sight Timothy Geithner has the practical ability to continue signing the government's checks.  The Constitutionality of this would be unclear, but the Administration could argue that since the Congress has already passed a budget it has given the Executive implied permission to borrow the money necessary to meet that budget.

I am not a constitutional lawyer and I cannot vouch for the validity of that argument, but it is plainly the case that in practical matters such as this the Constitution does not mean anything.   No matter however well loved it may be it remains a piece of paper.  It cannot itself act.  The courts charged with enforcing it are themselves very slow and are often reluctant to act for it.   After all, we've been deploying air strikes in Libya and attempting to kill a formerly recognized head of state for months now while the Administration argues that Congressional approval is unnecessary because these efforts are not properly defined as 'hostilities.'

The Obama administration has the same ability to take licenses with the Constitution in this case, and if it came down to a choice between allowing a new global depression and offering a potentially weak legal argument I fully expect that they would choose the latter.  There would be politicized outrage, but in 2012 Obama could go to the electorate and tell them that even though he had offered a deal consisting of $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in new revenue the Republicans were unwilling to accept the closure of a few tax loopholes and instead preferred to court an unprecedented financial collapse.  I I expect he would get the better of that argument.

One way or another our politicians will prevent the debacle of default.  The open question is how that will be done and who will benefit or be harmed politically.  I look forward to seeing how it plays out.  In the mean time though, I'm not about to lose any sleep over these negotiations.  Even if an economic Apocalyspe remains a small possibility, there are so many inexplicably bad choices that would have to be made by reasonably competent people that expecting disaster remains a paranoid view.