Tag-arkiv: USA

Ugens citat: Thomas om selvretfærdige, venstreorienterede lynch-mobs

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 30. september 2007. 10 svar

Den Ayn Rand-beundrende, Richard Epstein-citerende, Cato Institute-støttende, amerikanske højesteretsdommer Clarence Thomas har netop udgivet sine erindringer, “My Grandfather’s Son”.  Jeg har af gode grunde ikke kunnet læse dem endnu, men vil gerne da jeg har indtryk af, at Thomas’ livshistorie er ganske interessant, og at han er væsentligt mere interessant og sympatisk, end hans modstandere normalt fremstiller ham.  Jeg har dog set en del af omtalen (bl.a. i Washington Post men også–med tilføjelse af WaPo-udeladelser–her).  Her er et prægnant citat om dengang i 1991, da Thomas blev nomineret som den kun anden afrikansk-amerikanske højesteretsdommer nogensinde og fik en ganske hård medfart i medier og senat, og som fortjener at blive gengivet:

“As a child in the Deep South, I’d grown up fearing the lynch mobs of the Ku Klux Klan; as an adult, I was starting to wonder if I’d been afraid of the wrong white people all along … My worst fears had come to pass not in Georgia, but in Washington, D.C., where I was being pursued not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony.”

Gore '08?

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 25. september 2007. 13 svar

Stiller fhv. vicepræsident Al Gore op som Demokraternes præsidentkandidat i 2008?  De fleste ædruelige mennesker vil givetvis sige “nej” (og de fleste frihedsorienterede sjæle vil måske føle et koldt gys ned af ryggen).  Prisen for en Gore future hos Intrade.com ligger da også p.t. på beskedne ca. 8.

Men dette er jo ret beset rimeligt højt i betragtning af, at manden ikke stiller op (og væsentligt højere end flere af dem, der rent faktisk stiller op–hvilket må være noget ydmygende for dem).  Så hvad nu hvis Gore oveni dette års Oscar også får den Nobel Fredspris, som han på forunderlig vis er blevet nomineret til?  Så mener Slate‘s Christopher Hitchens, at sandsynligheden går mod 1–og den er vi faktisk villige til at gamble på.  Det er formodentlig også den eneste måde, hvorpå man kan undgå, at Hillary Clinton får Demokraternes nominering–hvilket p.t. synes at ville medføre, at hun også vinder Det Hvide Hus.  Her taler vi virkelig pest eller kolera.  Spørgsmålet er blot, om det betyder noget som helst for Republikanerne.  Disse synes p.t. at være så sikkert på vej mod, ihvertfald på kort sigt, at udradere den styrke, de samlede i 1980erne og 1990erne.

WSJ om "freedom fetishists" og værdier

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 12. september 2007. 5 svar

Wall Street Journal har dd. en længere kronik, “Freedom fetishists: The cultural contradictions of libertarianism” af Kay Hymowitz fra City Journal.  Fokus er, som titlen siger, den amerikanske “libertarianske” bevægelse og dennes syn på moral og kulturelle værdier–eller mangel på samme. 

Man kan være enig eller uenig med forfatteren i mangt og meget, men emnet er interessant, kronikken er velskrevet og niveauet er alen over, hvad man kan finde i danske debatter om samme emner–hvis de da overhovedet findes.  Her kommer nogle brudstykker:

“More than perhaps any other American political group, libertarians have suffered the blows of caricature. For many people, the term evokes an image of a scraggly misfit living in the woods with his gun collection, a few marijuana plants, some dogeared Ayn Rand titles, and a battered pickup truck plastered with bumper stickers reading “Taxes = Theft” and “FDR Was A Pinko.”

The stereotype is not entirely unfair. Even some of those who proudly call themselves libertarians recognize that their philosophy of personal freedom and minimal government can be a powerful magnet for the unhinged. Nor has recent political history done much to rehabilitate libertarianism’s image as an outlier.

The Libertarian Party’s paltry membership has never reached much beyond the 250,000 mark, and polling numbers for Ron Paul, the libertarian candidate the Republican presidential nomination, remain pitiable. Worse, despite Bill Clinton’s declaration that “the era of big government is over,” antistatist ideas like school vouchers and privatized Social Security accounts continue to be greeted with widespread skepticism, while massive new programs like the Medicare prescription-drug benefit continue to win the support of re-election-minded incumbents. A recent New York Times survey found increasing support for government-run health care, and both parties are showing signs of a populist resurgence, with demands for new economic and trade regulation.

And yet, judging by their output in recent years, libertarians are in a fine mood–and not because they are in denial. However distant the country may be from their laissez-faire ideal, free-market principles now drive the American economy to a degree unimaginable a generation ago. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who as a young economist sat at the knee of the libertarian guru Ayn Rand, presided in the 1990s over one of the most prosperous stretches in American history, with the support, no less, of a Democratic president. When the avowedly libertarian economist Milton Friedman died last November, he was lauded just about everywhere, and even given respectful treatment in places like the New York Review of Books.

Nor have libertarian victories been limited to the economic arena. Americans are increasingly laissez-faire in their attitudes toward sex, divorce, drugs and gay marriage. In the personal sphere as in the world of business and finance, freedom has become the guiding principle, especially for the young. As the motto of Reason magazine, the movement’s flagship publication, trumpets: “Free minds and free markets.”

… Doherty disabuses readers of the idea that libertarianism is exclusively concerned with economics. As he emphasizes, it has a political and moral dimension as well, “a vision of a radical and just future.” … Many of the figures described by Mr. Doherty believe that libertarianism is also good for the social fabric. Capitalism may not lead to the fraternité naively dreamed of by more conventional revolutionaries, but it does expand the circle of human trust beyond the traditional limits of family and tribe; social bonds thrive in an atmosphere of freedom. Indeed, several of Mr. Doherty’s subjects (particularly Hayek) argue that government meddling positively discourages the human instinct for association. If politicians and bureaucrats would get out of the way, people would more readily cooperate and support one another. As David Friedman (the anarchist son of Milton) concluded in studying the economics of tipping, people are capable of developing their own rules for distributive justice, and will pay for social goods of their own free will.

… Mr. Lindsey goes well beyond most libertarians in his claims for the moral benefits of the creed. In his view, it is not simply freedom that improves morals; it is the prosperity that follows in freedom’s wake. Wealth allows us to transcend “the cruel dilemma of lifeboat ethics,” in which scarcity prevails. Moreover, wealth expands human tolerance and imagination. Drawing upon the psychologist Abraham Maslow’s theory of the hierarchy of needs, Mr. Lindsey proposes that once people are confident of their survival and comfort, they feel free to pursue “postmaterialist values.” They have the time, energy and ease of mind to try to perfect themselves.

… Even on social and cultural questions, where libertarians have often tangled with tradition-minded conservatives, Mr. Lindsey is on to something in his talk of a “libertarian synthesis” combining self-expression and self-restraint. If the country was slouching toward Gomorrah for a while, it has at the very least straightened up a bit. Many of the indicators of social meltdown that received alarmed attention in the 1980s and early ’90s–high crime rates, “children having children,” teen drug use, rampant divorce–have improved lately.

But they have not improved nearly as much as one might wish–and it is difficult to separate the reasons for our abiding social disarray from the trends that Messrs. Doherty and Lindsey praise and for which libertarians bear a measure of responsibility. Despite Mr. Lindsey’s protestations to the contrary, libertarianism has supported, always implicitly and often with an enthusiastic hurrah, the “Aquarian” excesses that he now decries. Many of the movement’s devotees were deeply involved in the radicalism of the 1960s.

Nor should this come as a surprise. After all, the libertarian vision of personal morality–described by Mr. Doherty as “People ought to be free to do whatever the hell they want, mostly, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else”–is not far removed from “if it feels good, do it,” the cri de coeur of the Aquarians. 

… On the one hand, libertarians make a fetish of freedom; it is their totalizing goal. On the other hand, libertarians depend on the family–an institution that, in crucial respects, is unfree–to produce the sort of people best suited to life in a free-market system (not to mention future members of their own movement). The complex, dynamic economy that libertarians have done so much to expand needs highly advanced human capital–that is, individuals of great moral, cognitive and emotional sophistication. Reams of social-science research prove that these qualities are best produced in traditional families with married parents.

Family breakdown, by contrast, limits the accumulation of such human capital. Worse, divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing leave the door wide open for big government. Dysfunctional families create an increased demand for state-funded food, housing and medical subsidies, which libertarians reject on principle. And in courts all over the country, judges who preside over the manifold disputes occasioned by broken families are forced to be more intrusive than the worst mother-in-law: They decide who should have primary custody, who gets a child on Christmas or summer holidays, whether a child should take piano lessons, go to Hebrew school, move to California, or speak to her grandmother on the phone. It is a libertarian’s worst nightmare.”

Ugens citat: DR's Jens Blauenfeldt om 11/9

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 12. september 2007. 23 svar

Med hat-tip til Uriaspostens Kim Møller bringes her et dagsaktuelt citat af DR Aftenshowet’s studievært, Jens Blauenfeldt, som vel formodentlig meget godt udtrykker det, som mange tænkte i visse cirkler men som de fleste dengang endnu var for smarte eller diskrete til at sige offentligt:

“Jeg var faktisk på arbejde, og kan huske at jeg sådan blev kaldt ind – nu sker der noget derinde i fjernsynet, og der var jo så brand i World Trade Center, og jeg er faktisk lidt flov over at indrømme det, men jeg tænkte – heh det er amerikanerne, nu får de smæk – det har de faktisk godt af.”

Anti-amerikanisme eller bare BDS?

Af admin, den 5. september 2007. 24 svar

Her på denne blog bruger vi en del kræfter på at kritisere dækningen af USA i medierne, og med typisk storbysforblindelse især Berlingske Tidendes dækning.

Derfor bør det fremhæves, at den ene af Berlingskes dynamiske duo i USA i dag forsvarer avisens dækning (desværre, ingen links tilgængelig). Argumentet er kort fortalt, at man skam ikke er anti-amerikansk, man kan bare ikke lide Bush. Det argument støttes så yderligere af, at mange andre heller ikke kan lide Bush, både i USA og i resten af Verden.

Tja, det rejser jo spørgsmålet, hvad der kom først? Var det den ensidigt negative dækning, som MSM i almindelighed og Berlingske i særdeleshed dyrker, der skabte modviljen, eller skyldes denne ensidighed virkelig den udbredte uvilje, som korrespondenten vil have os til at tro.

Et andet spørgsmål, der trænger sig på, er, om hadet til Bush virkelig kun angår ham eller USA. Her nytter det ikke noget at vise, at uviljen mod USA er steget efter Bush, for der kan jo være andre grunde til det. F.eks. at USA har indledt to store krige i Mellemøsten, hvor man før kun førte små krige, herunder en i Europa mod Serbien, hvor de fleste europæere (bortset fra Grækenland) kunne se det gavnlige i, at USA ragede kastanjerne ud af ilden, når nu man ikke rigtig selv kunne finde ud af det. Men selv da var modviljen mod USA udbredt, og selv under Bill Clinton, der siden er blevet næsten helgenforklaret, var det en udbredt opfattelse, at USA var krigerisk og førte fupkrige for at aflede opmærksomheden fra egne forhold, som fremstillet i Clinton-æra filmen Wag the dog. Spørgsmålet er, hvis Al Gore var blevet præsident og havde startet de samme to krige, og det tror jeg godt vi kan tillade os at formode, ville han mon ikke være blevet undergivet den samme dæmonisering af en venstreorienteret mediaverden, der siden barnsben har drømt om en ny Vietnamkrig?

Anyway, som de siger derovre. Det er da godt, at journalisterne på Berlingske erklærer, at de ikke er anti-amerikanske. Man kan undre sig over, at det er kommet så vidt, at de føler det nødvendigt at forklare den slags, men vi er nok ikke de eneste læsere, der har undret sig. Hvis det virkelig bare er Bush Derangement Syndrome, kan vi altså håbe på, at deres dækning ophører med at være ensidigt negativ, når der vælges en ny præsident. Håbet er lysegrønt.

Og nu, hvor vi alligevel er i gang med at drøfte uhæmmet ensidighed, kan vi lige så godt give et ypperligt eksempel, som l næppe får lov at læse i danske medier. Det er ingen ringere end mørkets fyrste, Karl Rove, der giver sit billede af George W. (her).

Ugens citat: Ron Paul om "stem cell research"

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 1. september 2007. 3 svar

Et prægnant citat fra den Republikanske præsidentkandidat Ron Paul (omhandlende andre Republikaneres modstand mod at bruge akkumuleret celle-materiale fra fostre til medicinsk forskning):

“The trouble with issues like this is, in Washington we either prohibit it or subsidize it. And the market should deal with it, and the states should deal with it.”

–og det altimens næsten alle andre præsidentkandidater i bedste fald lyder som noget fra en kedelig komedie.

Kilde: en portrætartikel i Boston Globe , der kalder Ron Paul for Paul “the Ralph Nader of the right”–hvilket enten er en stor fornærmelse eller en stor ros.

Dr. No som præsident II

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 24. juli 2007. 6 svar

Tre-fire måneder før nogen danske MSM opdagede, at der blandt de Republikanske præsidentkandidater var et vist kongresmedlem, Dr. Ron Paul, skrev vi om ham her på stedet. Nu er andre medier ved at følge efter, i takt med at den libertarianske “Dr. No”‘s position som den eneste Republikanske præsidentkandidat, der er–og hele tiden har været–imod Irak-krigen, er ved at manifestere sig. Paul har ganske vist ikke en jordisk chance for at vinde hverken nominering eller præsidentembede, men han er i det mindste et interessant indslag. New York Times havde f.eks. en stor og lang portrætartikel, “The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-
Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul” i søndagsudgavens magasin. Heri hed det bl.a.:

“Paul represents a different Republican Party from the one that Iraq, deficits and corruption have soured the country on. In late June, despite a life of antitax agitation and churchgoing, he was excluded from a Republican forum sponsored by Iowa antitax and Christian groups. His school of Republicanism, which had its last serious national airing in the Goldwater campaign of 1964, stands for a certain idea of the Constitution — the idea that much of the power asserted by modern presidents has been usurped from Congress, and that much of the power asserted by Congress has been usurped from the states. Though Paul acknowledges flaws in both the Constitution (it included slavery) and the Bill of Rights (it doesn’t go far enough), he still thinks a comprehensive array of positions can be drawn from them: Against gun control. For the sovereignty of states. And against foreign-policy adventures. Paul was the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate in 1988. … In Congress, Paul is generally admired for his fidelity to principle and lack of ego. “He is one of the easiest people in Congress to work with, because he bases his positions on the merits of issues,” says Barney Frank, who has worked with Paul on efforts to ease the regulation of gambling and medical marijuana. “He is independent but not ornery.” Paul has made a habit of objecting to things that no one else objects to. In October 2001, he was one of three House Republicans to vote against the USA Patriot Act. He was the sole House member of either party to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act (final tally: 412-1). In 1999, he was the only naysayer in a 424-1 vote in favor of casting a medal to honor Rosa Parks. Nothing against Rosa Parks: Paul voted against similar medals for Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II. He routinely opposes resolutions that presume to advise foreign governments how to run their affairs: He has refused to condemn Robert Mugabe’s violence against Zimbabwean citizens (421-1), to call on Vietnam to release political prisoners (425-1) or to ask the League of Arab States to help stop the killing in Darfur (425-1).”

Ikke alle amerikanske libertarianere/liberalister er dog lige begejstrede for Ron Pauls kandidatur. En af de mest begavede akademikere, jeg nogensinde har kendt, er jura-professoren Randy E. Barnett, som i snart 30 år har været kendt som en af de mest velformulerede men også mest “hard core” liberalister i amerikansk samfundsdebat. Han havde i sidste uge et lidt overraskende frontalt angreb på Ron Pauls kandidatur, i en klumme, “Libertarians and the war”, i Wall Street Journal:

“While the number of Americans who self-identify as “libertarian” remains small, a substantial proportion agree with the core stances of limited constitutional government in both the economic and social spheres–what is sometimes called “economic conservatism” and “social liberalism.” But if they watched the Republican presidential debate on May 15, many Americans might resist the libertarian label, because they now identify it with strident opposition to the war in Iraq, and perhaps even to the war against Islamic jihadists.

During that debate, the riveting exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul about whether American foreign policy provoked the 9/11 attack raised the visibility of both candidates. … The exchange also drew attention to Mr. Paul, who until then had been a rather marginal member of the 10-man Republican field. One striking feature of Mr. Paul’s debate performance was his insistence on connecting his answer to almost every question put to him–even friendly questions about taxes, spending and personal liberty–to the war.

This raised the question: Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war? The simple answer is “no.”

First and foremost, llibertarians believe in robust rights of private property, freedom of contract, and restitution to victims of crime. They hold that these rights define true “liberty” and provide the boundaries within which individuals may pursue happiness by making their own free choices while living in close proximity to each other. Within these boundaries, individuals can actualize their potential while minimizing their interference with the pursuit of happiness by others.

When it comes to foreign policy, libertarians’ severe skepticism of government planning in the domestic arena carries over to the government’s ability to accomplish anything positive through foreign aid, whether economic or military–a skepticism they share with most Americans. All libertarians, I suspect, oppose military conscription on principle, considering it involuntary servitude. To a libertarian, any effort at “nation building” seems to be just another form of central planning which, however well-motivated, is fraught with unintended consequences and the danger of blowback. And, like most everyone, libertarians oppose any war of aggression. In all these regards, Mr. Paul is a mainstream libertarian.

But like all libertarians, even Mr. Paul believes in the fundamental, individual right of self-defense, which is why libertarians like him overwhelmingly support the right to keep and bear arms. And most also believe that when the territory of the U.S. is attacked militarily, the government–which claims a monopoly on providing for national defense and extracts billions of tax dollars for this purpose–is justified in using the military in self-defense. For this reason, many libertarians (though not all) who now oppose the war in Iraq supported U.S. military actions against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which had aided and harbored the al Qaeda network that organized the 9/11 attack.

But here is the rub. While all libertarians accept the principle of self-defense, and most accept the role of the U.S. government in defending U.S. territory, libertarian first principles of indiv
idual rights and the rule
of law tell us little about what constitutes appropriate and effective self-defense after an attack. Devising a military defense strategy is a matter of judgment or prudence about which reasonable libertarians may differ greatly.”

Herefter skifter Barnetts klumme til en stil, der bedst kan betegnes som “tredje-person flertal”, men som uden tvivl må læses som beskrivende hans eget synspunkt:

“[Some libertarians] supported the war in Iraq because they viewed it as part of a larger war of self-defense against Islamic jihadists who were organizationally independent of any government. They viewed radical Islamic fundamentalism as resulting in part from the corrupt dictatorial regimes that inhabit the Middle East, which have effectively repressed indigenous democratic reformers. Although opposed to nation building generally, these libertarians believed that a strategy of fomenting democratic regimes in the Middle East, as was done in Germany and Japan after World War II, might well be the best way to take the fight to the enemy rather than solely trying to ward off the next attack.

Moreover, the pro-war libertarians believed there was “legal” cause to take military action against Saddam’s regime–from its manifold violations of the ceasefire to firing on American planes legally patrolling the “no fly” zone and its persistent refusals to cooperate with weapons inspections. Saddam’s regime was left in power after its unprovoked invasion of Kuwait on these and other conditions that it repeatedly had violated, thereby legally justifying its removal by force if necessary. Better to be rid of Saddam and establish an ally in the war against Islamic jihadists in the heart of the Middle East, the argument goes, and then withdraw American troops.

Naturally, the libertarians who supported the war in Iraq are disappointed, though hardly shocked, that it was so badly executed. The Bush administration might be faulted, not so much for its initial errors which occur in any war against a determined foe who adjusts creatively to any preconceived central “plan,” but for its dogged refusal to alter its approach … when it became clear that its tactics were not working. …

These libertarians are still rooting for success in Iraq because it would make Americans more safe, while defeat would greatly undermine the fight against those who declared war on the U.S. They are concerned that Americans may get the misleading impression that all libertarians oppose the Iraq war–as Ron Paul does–and even that libertarianism itself dictates opposition to this war. It would be a shame if this misinterpretation inhibited a wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that would promote the general welfare of the American people.”

Update: Se også Reason Magazines artikel om Ron Paul.

Update II: 180Grader.dk har onsdag en artikel om Ron Paul.

Plame nok en gang – Libby benådes

Af admin, den 6. juli 2007. 23 svar

Det er allerede old news, men af respekt for ophavsretten kommer denne posting først nu.

Som bekendt har Bush valgt at benåde Scooter Libby fra den del af hans straf, der angik fængsel.

Der var været en hel opfordringer hertil, blandt de mere begavede bidrag kan nævnes Hitchens i Slate (se her).

Jeg vedkender mig gerne en betydelig svaghed for gamle Hitch, der efter min vurdering er nutidens svar på Eric Blair, men jeg deler ikke hans trotskime og heller ikke hans opfattelse på dette punkt. Benådningsretten forekommer mig at være en af de få anakronismer i den amerikanske forfatningsret, som de burde klare sig foruden.

Det har været kendetegnet for hele Plamesagen, at den er blevet genstand for en del hysteri — selv synes jeg, at det mest har været fra venstrefløjens siden, men jeg er jo også biased.

Det kan i den forbindelse være nyttigt at se på, hvad dommer Walton sagde ved domsafsigelsen (her iflg. WaPo):

“My take on it,” Walton said, is that the trial did not prove Libby knew that Plame worked in an undercover capacity when he disclosed her identity to several reporters. Still, the judge added, “anybody at that high-level position had a unique and special obligation before they said anything about anything associated with a national security agency [to] . . . make every conceivable effort” to verify their status before releasing information about them. (…)

While there is no evidence that Mr. Libby knew what the situation was, he surely did not take any efforts to find out,” Walton said. “I think public officials need to know if they are going to step over the line, there are going to be consequences. . . . [What Libby did] causes people to think our government does not work for them.”

Der synes således ikke at være meget hold i formodningen om, at Plame blev outet for at ramme hendes status som undercover agent i CIA og dermed påføre hende og hendes mand skade — et mere nærliggende gæt er fortsat, at hun blev nævnt for at vise, at Wilsons løgnagtige påstande var en del af kampagnen fra CIA for at få placeret ansvaret for de manglende WMD hos regeringen — men samtidig forekommer det mig at være en rimelig afgørelse at kræve en højere grad af agtsomhed fra en højtstående embedsmand som Libby. Om man så kan undskylde ham med hans hårde arbejdspres, som Hitch tilsyneladende gør, er en smagssag. Jeg er ikke overbevist.

Fængselsstraffen er vist heller ikke usædvanlig. Fra børsrettens område ved jeg, at man sjældent får knaldet folk for børskriminalitet, der kan være svær at bevise, men derimod ofte på, at de lagde hindringer i vejen for efterforskningen, f.eks. ved at slette filer i panik.

Berlingskes dækning var helt forudseelig, herunder deres forsøg på nok en gang at fremstille Wilson som den ærlige kritiker og Bush som løgneren, selvom det – i hvert fald på lige netop dette punkt – faktisk forholdt sig anderledes. Linket er desværre ikke til deres opregning af “myter og fakta”, men kan vel bruges alligevel (her).

Lige så forudseeligt var det, at jeg samme dag sendte et debatindlæg, der for Gud ved hvilken gang mindede om Butler-rapporten og al det der. De var fair nok til at bringe det dagen efter (i går), dog var overskriften ikke lige min idé. Jeg kan ikke skaffe et link, så det kommer her i fuld tekst:

Skandaler af den kaliber burde rydde forsiden

Under overskriften ”Myter og fakta om Plamegate” gennemgår Berlingske Tidende 4. juli sagen om Valerie Plame, der er gift med Joe Wilson, og hvis identitet som CIA-agent blev afsløret, efter hendes mand havde kritiseret George Bush for at lyve om, at Saddam forsøgte at skaffe uran i Niger. Anledningen er, at Bush har benådet en betroet medarbejder Libby fra den fængselsstraf, som han fik for at lyve om, hvornår han havde kendt til Plames arbejde i CIA. Jeg har i en kronik 18. marts gennemgået sagen, da Libby blev dømt. I min kronik kritiserede jeg medierne for at give en ensidig og ofte faktuel forkert gengivelse af sagen, hvor man ihærdigt forsøgte at give indtryk af, at Bush havde løjet, da han i en tale til nationen omtalte uransagen og henviste til britiske efterretninger herom. Den seneste gennemgang af sagen synes desværre kun at bekræfte denne kritik.

Avisens gennemgang har en del mangler, som vanskeligt kan betragtes som tilfældige, men synes at skulle redde den dækning af sagen, man tidligere har bragt. Som bekendt var det mest interessante ved forløbet, at Wilson først hævdede, at Bush havde løjet om uransagen, og at det skulle fremgå af en undersøgelse, som Wilson have lavet i Niger forud for krigen. Men derefter fastslog to rapporter begge fra juli 2004 og fra hhv. det amerikanske Senat og et britisk udvalg ledet af Lord Butler, at det var Wilson, der løj, mens Bush fortalte sandheden. Dette forløb søges nu underspillet. At Wilsons rapport faktisk bekræftede de irakiske henvendelser bliver affærdiget som ”rene luftkasteller, som Wilson for fuldstændighedens skyld tog med i sin rapport”. Det nævnes ikke, at rapporten aldrig blev forelagt de højere kredse i regeringen, netop fordi den bekræftede CIA i, at Saddam faktisk var på jagt efter uran.

Det nævnes heller ikke, at forløbet støttes af Duelfer-rapporten, som efter krigen undersøgte Saddams regime og konkluderede, at han var opsat på at få a-våben, fordi han – meget fornuftigt – troede, at Iran var i gang med det. Kontakten til Niger kom kort efter, at Saddam havde smidt FNs våbeninspektører ud, og det er derfor ikke overraskende, hvis han på det tidspunkt eftersøgte uran, da FN havde forseglet hans egne depoter. Endelig nævnes det ikke af avisen, at Wilson i perioden, indtil Senatet afslørede indholdet af hans rapport, hævdede, at der ikke var noget som helst grundlag for mistanken mod Saddam, altså at Wilson løj.

I hele avisens dækning af sagen har man omhyggeligt undladt at nævne Butler-rapporten, hvilket er påfaldende, da rapporten er den sidste i rækken af britiske rapporter, der udtrykkeligt afviser, at de britiske formodninger om Saddams uraninteresse skyldtes falske dokumenter.

Rapporten gik endda så vidt som at citere Bushs tale til nationen, hvor han nævner de britiske efterretninger, og kaldte det ”velbegrundet”. Frem for at nævne dette og dermed for første gang inddrage rapporten i dækningen, anfører avisen nu blot, at mange tror, at briterne alligevel baserede deres efterretninger på de falske dokumenter. Hvis dette virkelig er rigtigt, har vi en fantastisk skandale. Tænk, at det uafhængige udvalg under ledelse af den respekterede Lord Butler lyver så åbenlyst og åbenbart er med i en kæmpe konspiration. Men hvis avisen virkelig tror på en sådan skandale, hvorfor så denne forsigtige, næsten halvkvalte gengivelse af beskyldningerne? Ved skandaler af den kaliber burde man enten rydde forsiden eller holde sig for god til at insinuere.

Det mest triste ved avisens dækning er næsten det, der blev overset. Avisen giver kun to muligheder for, at Wilsons kone blev afsløret. Enten var det ”et uheldigt resultat” eller det var en hævnakt, der skulle skade Wilson personligt, hvilket tilmed kategoriseres som hhv. myte og faktum. Avisen overser hermed den mest nærliggende forklaring: at regeringen ville imødegå Wilsons stilling som neutral ekspert og fremhæve, at han havde personlige forbindelser til CIA, der på det på tidspunkt var involveret i et opgør om ansvaret for, at Irak ikke havde de abc-våben, man troede. Hele denne spændende historie, der omfatter utallige lækager fra CIAs side af oplysninger, der kunne skade regeringen, og den efterfølgende udrensning i CIA, da Kerry tabte til Bush, er ellers godt
stof, der giver et intere
ssant indblik i USA med dets mange forskellige magtcentre.

Uanset hvad man mener om Libbys brøde og efterfølgende benådning, forbliver det ærgerligt, at danske medier har dækket sagen så dårligt. Vi fortjener bedre.

Fourth of July II

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 5. juli 2007. 15 svar

I går var 4. juli og dermed som bekendt årsdagen for en af de helt store begivenheder i frihedens idéers historie–vedtagelsen af den amerikanske uafhængighedserklæring.  Det er–synes denne punditokrat–et usædvanligt smukt dokument, og det giver mig altid helt bogstaveligt en klump i halsen at læse det (hvilket ca. 140 deltagere i en sommerhøjskole i går kunne bevidne).

Vi har skrevet om “Fourth of July” før her på stedet, og da vi heller ikke har tid til at skrive noget nyt om emnet, skal vi spare læserne for at tærske langhalm på et ellers godt emne.  Men i stedet kan man jo læse Wall Street Journal, der som bekendt er et godt supplement til denne blog.  Her var der i går en klumme om, hvor institutionelt visionære og forudseende “the founding fathers” var.  Ovre hos venner på MarginalRevolution har man også lidt om Jefferson, mens min gamle ven Bryan Caplan ovre hos EconLog på sædvanlig vis har et Rasmus Modsat-synspunkt.

Ugens citat: WSJ om GOP og indvandring

Af Redaktionen, den 27. juni 2007. 1 svar

Fra dagens Wall Street Journal leder lidt om den igangværende kongres-behandling af Bushs forslag om en ny indvandringspolitik.  Den har den sigende titel: “Immigration and the GOP: How to make Republicans a minority party once again”:

“We’ve written often about the merits of immigration reform, and we have our own problems with parts of the Senate bill. But it’s worth spending some time on the larger politics of the issue, especially for Republicans. They’re caught between a passionate minority of their party–who oppose any reform that allows illegals a path to citizenship–and the larger electorate, which is more moderate and wants to solve the problem. Like Democrats on national security, this is a classic case in which pandering to the base will harm the GOP overall.

… No doubt this gets applause in some Republican precincts. But in the near term, meaning through 2008, Republicans would be far better off helping President Bush and John McCain pass something that takes immigration off the table. If the issue remains central to the 2008 debate, it will divide the GOP and the media will play up the split. Given the passions that immigration evokes on the right in particular, the issue could easily drown out other domestic policy messages the candidates would prefer to run on.

The longer term danger is that the GOP is sending a message to Latinos that it doesn’t want them in the party. And if that message sticks, Republicans could put themselves back in minority party status for a generation or more. Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority in the country, and their voting numbers continue to grow. Hispanics were estimated to be 8% of the electorate in 2006, compared with 6% in 2004 and 5.5% in 2000. Census data show that the number of Latino voters could rise to 10% or more by 2008. The demographic reality is that the GOP can’t be a majority party with Anglo-Saxon votes alone.

Like most voters, Hispanics care about more issues than immigration. But also like most voters, they take pride in their cultural identity and will reject candidates who send a message of hostility to their very presence in America. They know that when Tom Tancredo calls for an immigration “time out,” he’s not talking about the Irish. He means no more Mexicans, Hondurans or other Hispanics. If the GOP wants to be deserted by Hispanics for the next few election cycles, that sort of talk should do the trick. 

A recent WSJ/NBC News poll showed that Hispanics now self-identify as Democrats rather than Republicans by 51% to 21%.

 … In 2004, exit polls showed Republicans winning 44% of the Hispanic vote, up from 35% in 2000 and 38% in 2002. As Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg noted after last year’s elections, “the Latino vote had swung more heavily into the Republican camp than any other vote in America. They went from 21% in 1996 to 44% in 2004. This was a doubling of the Republican market share, one of the most significant political achievements of the Bush era.”

But in the run-up to last year’s midterm elections, Republicans chose to make immigration their lead issue. The GOP leadership in Congress encouraged talk radio and cable news shows to inflate the illegal alien problem, and Republican candidates took a hard-line anti-immigration stance in hopes of turning out GOP voters. It didn’t work. Not only did the strategy fail to help Republicans hang on to their majorities in Congress, but support from Hispanic voters fell to 29%, the lowest level this decade. If running against illegal immigration were a winner, Arizona’s J.D. Hayworth would still be in Congress.

By the way, the growth in the Hispanic population will continue regardless of what happens with immigration from now on. The number of Hispanics who already hold green cards guarantees that their share of the electorate will increase over time even if Congress could seal the Southern border tomorrow. The GOP should be competing for these voters rather than driving them away with a barely concealed message of “Mexicans, go home.”

Notwithstanding the small but loud segment of the GOP base preoccupied with the issue, hostility to immigration has never been a political winner. Like trade protection, people protectionism always polls better in telephone surveys than on Election Day. For a Presidential candidate especially, it sends a negative message rather than one of optimistic leadership.”

Amerikanske Tilstande II

Af Jacob Mchangama, den 25. juni 2007. 19 svar

Blandt de værste klicheer om effekten af det frie marked på almindelige mennesker hører anklagen om, at markedet skaber egoistiske og atomiserede individer, der alene tænker på sig selv og ikke er solidariske med deres medmennesker.

Særligt det amerikanske samfund bliver ofte anklaget for at være sådan skruet sammen. Virkeligheden er som så ofte ganske anderledes.

AP kan fortælle, at amerikanerne i 2006 gav næsten 300 milliarder dollars til velgørende formål, hvilket er rekord. Her lidt fra notitsen:

Donors contributed an estimated $295.02 billion in 2006, a 1 percent increase when adjusted for inflation, up from $283.05 billion in 2005. Excluding donations for disaster relief, the total rose 3.2 percent, inflation-adjusted, according to an annual report released Monday by the Giving USA Foundation at Indiana University’s Center on Philanthropy.

Giving historically tracks the health of the overall economy, with the rise amounting to about one-third the rise in the stock market, according to Giving USA. Last year was right on target, with a 3.2 percent rise as stocks rose more than 10 percent on an inflation-adjusted basis.

“What people find especially interesting about this, and it’s true year after year, that such a high percentage comes from individual donors,” Giving USA Chairman Richard Jolly said.

Individuals gave a combined 75.6 percent of the total. With bequests, that rises to 83.4 percent.

The biggest chunk of the donations, $96.82 billion or 32.8 percent, went to religious organizations. The second largest slice, $40.98 billion or 13.9 percent, went to education, including gifts to colleges, universities and libraries.

About 65 percent of households with incomes less than $100,000 give to charity, the report showed.

“It tells you something about American culture that is unlike any other country,” said Claire Gaudiani, a professor at NYU’s Heyman Center for Philanthropy and author of “The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism.” Gaudiani said the willingness of Americans to give cuts across income levels, and their investments go to developing ideas, inventions and people to the benefit of the overall economy.

[…]Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7 percent. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73 percent, while France, with a 0.14 percent rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany.

Såfremt det overhovedet giver mening at tale om et begreb som sammenhængskraft, er ovenstående i mine øjne et langt bedre eksempel derpå end den tvangsmæssige “solidaritet”, som velfærdsstatens høje skatter angiveligt skulle medføre.

Europæiske mentaltilstande?

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 24. juni 2007. 6 svar

Den forgangne uge har budt på lidt mediedebat om “amerikanske tilstande”, og jeg har på fornemmelsen, at vi kommer til at vende det emne igen her på stedet. Men lad i mellemtiden denne punditokrat kort berøre en tilfældig lille passage, som jeg i dag snublede over i Berlingske Søndag, og som måske siger noget om de mentale tilstande i Europa. Det var såmænd i en artikel af mad- og vinskribenten Søren Frank, hvor han skrev om en australsk vinproducent. Midt i det hele stod så denne passage

“[Han er] prototypen på en aussie: Easygoing, gæstfri og charmerende. Fuldstændig som man troede, at amerikanerne var, indtil man forstår at deres venlighed er ganske overfladisk og dækker over et hjerte, som udelukkende banker for penge.”

Det stod der. Midt i en artikel, der ellers ikke handlede om USA, men blot om australsk vin.

For min skyld må mennesker såmænd have alle de fordomme, de vil. Jeg kan synes, at det i det ene eller andet konkrete tilfælde er utiltalende eller ubegrundet, men så længe de ikke lader fordommene omplante sig til at krænke andre menneskers frihed, så kan jeg såmænd godt leve med det. Man kan endda sige, at nogle “fordomme” ofte fanger noget akkumuleret, empirisk viden, og at de fleste mennesker faktisk ville have svært ved at klare sig igennem tilværelsen helt uden fordomme. F.eks. nyttige fordomme såsom at fynboer er lidt fjollede, og at mad- og vinanmeldere ofte ikke har opfundet den dybe tallerken.

Alligevel er passagen grotesk på sin egen arrogante, selvsmagende og euro-centrerede måde. SF mener altså, at det er problemløst at generalisere om et land, der fylder det meste af et kontinent, har mere end 300 mio. indbyggere fordelt på 50 stater og en række territorier, og hvor der i en stat alene (Californien) tales mere end 150 forskellige modersmål? SF har set så brede dele af USA og så dybt ind i amerikanernes kollektive sjæl, at han ikke bare ved, hvad de gør og ikke gør, men hvad der motiverer dem? Og SF kan helt umotiveret smide et sådan udsagn ind, et sted hvor det iøvrigt intet har gøre?

Kunne man forestille sig dét gjort med nogen anden nationalitet eller større identificerbar gruppe, uden at man straks ville blive beskyldt for nationalisme, xenofobi, uanstændighed, etnisk diskrimination, racisme eller det, der måtte være værre? Næppe. Men hvis det er amerikanerne, det handler om, så synes Janteloven og uvidenhed at være fuldt tilstrækkeligt til at legitimere ethvert tænkeligt synspunkt. Tsk, tsk.

President Thompson? VII

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 20. juni 2007. 10 svar

Jeg har kraftig lyst til at sige, “hvad sagde jeg?”, men det er nok at sælge Det Hvide Hus, før Valgmandskollegiet er taget i ed–for nu at blande lidt metaforer på bedste Bernard Woolley facon.

Men altså: Som denne blog var stort set det første medie i Danmark til at forfægte, så ser Fred D. Thompsons chancer for at blive præsident bedre og bedre ud. Netop i denne uge er han begyndt at ligge foran Rudy Giuliani i meningsmålingerne (se f.eks. her hos de vidende folk hos Rasmussen Reports)–som den første af kandidaterne, der har præsteret det i år. Og siden sidste uge har hans “futures” hos Intrade.com ligget højere end Giulianis. Nuvel, det er statistisk insignifikant, og at føre er jo ikke det samme, som at han får nomineringen, endsige vinder valget–en del taler p.t. imod det. Men det er godt nok imponerende i betragtning af, at han endnu ikke officielt har meddelt sit kandidatur.

***

Her er noget “pastet” fra en af mine kommentarer fornylig, og som måske sætter Thompsons politiske observans i perspektiv:

Jeg har selv ganske mange gange sagt, at “det mindste af to onder er også ondt”. Men her tror jeg dog–som jeg tidligere har beskrevet–at Fred Thompson uden at være perfekt trods alt er den, der scorer bedst på kombinationen af “electability” og “track record” m.h.t. at være frihedsorienteret. Her er nogle tal fra Republican Liberty Caucus’ rating af kandidaterne p.b.a. deres afstemningsadfærd i kongressen (på en skala fra 0 til 100):

  • Ron Paul: personlig frihed: 87; økonomisk frihed: 90; gennemsnit: 88.5
  • Sam Brownback: personlig frihed: 76; økonomisk frihed: 90; gennemsnit: 83.0
  • Fred Thompson: personlig frihed: 70; økonomisk frihed: 87; gennemsnit: 78.6
  • Tom Tancredo: personlig frihed: 65; økonomisk frihed: 87; gennemsnit: 75.9
  • John McCain: personlig frihed: 62; økonomisk frihed: 79; gennemsnit: 70.4
  • Newt Gingrich: personlig frihed: 60; økonomisk frihed: 78; gennemsnit: 68.8
  • Duncan Hunter: personlig frihed: 60; økonomisk frihed: 73; gennemsnit: 66.7

Der er ikke sammenlignelige tal for Giuliani og Romney (som jo ikke har været medlemmer af kongressen), men begge må efter hidtidig adfærd skønnes at ligge dårligere end McCain, vil jeg tro–og måske dårligere end alle de ovennævnte. Tommy Thompson kan jeg slet ikke bedømme.

Dertil kommer så en anden, endnu uerklæret Republikansk kandidat:

  • Chuck Hagel: personlig frihed: 72; økonomisk frihed: 86; gennemsnit: 79.1

Tear down this wall!

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 12. juni 2007. 5 svar

Advarsel: I sidste uge skrev jeg en post om Ronald Reagans “The Boys of Pointe du Hoc”-tale (1984), og allerede nu er jeg så i samme boldgade igen.

Men lad mig lige begynde et andet sted.  Jeg er som antydet forleden p.t. i Cambridge, og der stødte jeg forleden til en celeber middag på smukke Clare College aldeles uventet ind i min gamle, gode ven, Finn Ziegler (den piberygende økonom og liberalist og 180grader-skribent, ikke den engang cigarrygende, men nu afdøde violinist).  Finn har jeg kendt i knap 25 år, og hvad jeg i sin tid først lærte om public choice teori, lærte jeg ved at ryge pibe sammen med Finn og vores fælles mentor, Otto.

Nå, men henover college-portvinen gjorde Finn og jeg, hvad man så ofte gør, når man får tyndere hår og højere humør, nemlig at mindes “gode gamle dage”.  Og dér slog det mig pludselig: I disse dage for præcis 20 år siden befandt netop Finn og jeg os sammen, på vores første tur til Guds Eget Land, hvor vi var ovre sammen, for som studerende at deltage i et sommerseminar på Marymount College, arrangeret af Institute for Humane Studies.  Vi var ankommet til New York, hvor vi skulle spendere et par dage, inden turen videre til Washington og Virginia.  I den store by havde vi allerede første dag shoppet bøger i stor stil i den nu mere eller mindre hedengangne Laissez Faire Books, som dengang lå på Broadway.  Det var før internettet–før man kunne bestille bøger fra den anden side af verden med et klik på få sekunder, og før man med e-mail kunne lære alle mulige at kende uden nogensinde at møde dem.  Så nu var vi–med en upassende blandingsmetafor–i frihedens Mekka, hvor vi kunne se og købe flere interessante bøger, end vi troede eksisterede, og hvor vi kunne drikke kaffe og hyggesludre med alle mulige andre, der mente de samme gakkede ting som os selv–inkl. den navnkundige nestor blandt amerikanske libertarianere, Roy Childs.  Vi boede til med i en lejlighed på Upper West Side hos LFB’s medarbejder Charlie Fowler; hvordan vi lige præcis endte hos ham, husker jeg faktisk ikke, men jeg husker, at hans “casa” var vores “casa”, fordi han skulle ud og rejse, og at han inden da arrangerede store dele af vores besøg i Washington ved at ringe rundt til frihedsorienterede venner og bekendte.  (Som sagt, det var før internettet.  Det var også dengang før liberaliseringerne af flytrafikken, og jeg husker endnu, at den billigste returbillet kostede ca. 7.000 kr.) 

Anyway … Finn og jeg nød dagene i NYC, traskede byen tynd og stod på toppen af World Trade Center og blev fotograferet med Frihedsgudinden i baggrunden.  Vi var henholdsvis 22 og 20 og følte os ganske frie i frihedens eget land.  Det omfattede uvilkårligt også, at vi fik drukket nogle øl, og jeg husker klart, omend med smerte, den næste morgen.  Det var hamrende varmt, som næsten kun NYC kan være om sommeren, når solen bager ned i asfaltjunglen og blandes med de fugtige rester af den caribiske strøm sydfra–og så tømmermænd.  Jeg gik ind i stuen, hvor Finn havde sovet på en madras på gulvet, og hvor han nu sad og zappede på de 117 kanaler.  Ret mange af dem viste det samme, nemlig en live-reportage direkte fra Brandenburger Tor.  Og dér–i dag for 20 år siden, den 12. juni 1987–stod han, Ronnie-manden, “the Gipper”, og holdt talen:

“Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. From the Baltic, south, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers. Farther south, there may be no visible, no obvious wall. But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same–still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women the will of a totalitarian state. Yet it is here in Berlin where the wall emerges most clearly; here, cutting across your city, where the news photo and the television screen have imprinted this brutal division of a continent upon the mind of the world. Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German, separated from his fellow men. Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar. 

President von Weizsacker has said, “The German question is open as long as the Brandenburg Gate is closed.” Today I say: As long as the gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind.

… In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: “We will bury you.” But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind–too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.

Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Whoa! Og, som man siger, “the rest is history …”

Update: John Fund skrev tirsdag om årsdagen i Wall Street Journal, og ovennævnte Finn Ziegler onsdag aften i en klumme på 180grader.dk.

Capice?

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 11. juni 2007. 9 svar

Ok, denne post har ikke spor med politik, økonomi, filosofi, statskundskab, eller noget som helst relateret at gøre. Intet. Zip. Det eneste, den har med denne blog at gøre, er, at jeg tidligere her på stedet har skrevet om, hvad jeg opfatter som den absolut bedste TV-serie, jeg nogensinde har fulgt: The Sopranos. Bedre bliver TV-underholdning næsten ikke. Relativt få i min omgangskreds har dog fulgt serien fast, hvilket jeg kun kan forklare med, at man i Danmark ikke har forstået–eller villet–vise serien på et tidspunkt, hvor børnefamilier endnu er vågne (omend børnene nok helst skal være andetsteds).

Men, men … om knap en time (EST) ruller så afsnit nr. 86, “Made in America”, over skærmen på HBO i USA, og så er det uigenkaldeligt bada bing! for Tony e famiglia. Og skal man tro rygterne er sidste sæson mere blodig end The Untouchables, Goodfellas, Casino og alle tre Godfather film tilsammen–og iøvrigt fyldt med skjulte, referencer til sidstnævnte. Jeg er helt syg over ikke at kunne få set det sidste afsnit, før dansk eller svensk TV får taget sig sammen til omsider at sende hele sæsonen. Indtil da kan man se en masse gode clips fra serien her. Men hvis nogen her eller andetsteds formaster sig til at afsløre, hvordan det hele ender? Fughedaboutit! Så er vedkommende en fanook, der bliver whacked og fundet i 31 små og store stykker på en affaldsplads på Danmarks svar på New Jersey (Amager). Capice?

PS. Hvis der er alligevel er nogen læsere, der insisterer på, at dette skal have en politisk vinkling, kan de jo læse min gamle post og kommentarerne til den.

Gimme that ol' time religion

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 9. juni 2007. 20 svar

Her er nogle passager, der godt nok lyder som noget lige ud af en religiøs prædiken.  Men læs dem og gæt, hvad de faktisk handler om, og hvem der har formuleret dem:

“[It] offers us the chance to experience what very few generations in history have had the privilege of knowing: a generational mission; the exhilaration of a compelling moral purpose; a shared and unifying cause; the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict that so often stifle the restless human need for transcendence; the opportunity to rise …

When we do rise, it will fill our spirits and bind us together. Those who are now suffocating in cynicism and despair will be able to breathe freely. Those who are now suffering from a loss of meaning in their lives will find hope. …

[Then] we will experience an epiphany as we discover that this crisis is not really about politics at all. It is a moral and spiritual challenge.”

Dem, der kan gætte rigtigt i denne quiz, vinder en pose varm luft.  De rigtige svar og lidt kølig analyse kan læses her . 

Myter om USA's sociale tilstand

Af Christian Bjørnskov, den 8. juni 2007. 14 svar

I store dele af den danske befolkning hersker der en række myter om USA. Ifølge disse myter, er USA et voldeligt, raceopdelt og kynisk samfund, hvor enhver er sin egen nærmeste og alle er ude på en ting: At tjene millioner. De er ligeglade med miljøet mens de kører derudaf på livstruende overvægtig førsteklasse, direkte mod afgrunden mens de rige ikke værdiger de millioner fattige et blik. Det var denne karikaturbillede af amerikanerne, som min nevø havde fået fra sin venstreekstremistiske far før han skulle til USA på sommerferie sidste år. Og selvom det er en karikatur, kan vi vel alle sammen genkende dele af billedet fra den danske debat.

Forleden udgav statsministerens søn, Henrik Fogh Rasmussen, så en bog om ”Amerikanske Tilstande”, hvor han gør op med disse myter. Jeg skal blankt indrømme, at jeg ikke har læst bogen endnu, men har nøjedes med forfatterens kronik i Berlingske Tidende forleden. Da jeg synes formålet med bogen er vigtigt, skal den lille detalje derfor ikke forhindre os i at skyde et par myter ned her på stedet.

Den første er myten om de fattige amerikanere, altså at der er en stor befolkningsgruppe, der lever i dyb fattigdom. Det er korrekt at USA har større forskelle mellem rig og fattig end Danmark, men man skal aldrig forveksle relativ fattigdom med absolut fattigdom. Og hvis man tager de seneste tal for indkomstfordelingen i de to lande, tjener de fattigste 10 % faktisk den samme andel af nationalindkomsten – 18 %. Det betyder, at amerikanske fattige har en gennemsnitsindkomst på 6465 dollars, mens de tilsvarende danskere må nøjes med 5120 (købekraftskorrigerede) dollars (kilder: Penn World Tables, mark 6.2 og the World Income Inequality Database). Grunden til, at USA er mere ulige er ikke, at de fattige er fattigere, men at de rige er væsentligt rigere. Når man kombinerer det med det forhold, at amerikanerne som gennemsnit er væsentlig rigere, kommer billedet af fattigdommen i USA altså til at se en anelse anderledes ud. De to lande håndterer derimod forskellene på to ulige måder. I USA fokuserer man på at skabe muligheder for de fattigste, i Danmark får de offentlige overførsler og bedøves dermed af systemet, så de ikke ’truer’ en høj fagforeningsbestemt løn for dem med fodfæste på arbejdsmarkedet. (I den henseende er det faktisk lidt skræmmende at bemærke, at den fattigste tiendedel i både Frankrig, Tyskland og Storbritannien tjener noget mere end i USA eller Danmark)

En anden myte er, at USA som helhed er stærkt kriminelt. Mens det som helhedsbillede er korrekt, dækker det dog over store forskelle. I 2005 blev der dræbt 6,9 mennesker per 100.000 indbyggere i Californien, et tal der synes at præge den danske debat selvom det er højere end det totale for USA (på 5,6 per 100.000). Men for det første peger Henrik Fogh Rasmussen helt rigtigt på, at de høje mordrater er koncentreret i relativt små områder – dårlige etniske kvarterer i storbyer som Washington og Los Angeles – og for det andet er der ganske store forskelle mellem de 50 stater. Hvis man vil have et andet billede af landet, kan man tage til New Hampshire eller Vermont – begge i New England – hvor det tilsvarende tal i begge stater er 1,3. I Danmark har den årlige mordrate svinget mellem 1 og 1,5 de sidste femten år, så man må spørge sig selv, om der virkelig er så stor forskel. Faktisk er der færre mord i disse New England-stater end i, for eksempel, Tyskland og Storbritannien, men ingen taler nogensinde om ’tyske tilstande’.

Sidst, men ikke mindst, har jeg ofte, når jeg har været ude at tale om min tillidsforskning, hørt folk udbryde, at der da må være meget lav tillid i USA. Svaret her er, at det vist må afhænge af øjnene der ser det. Danmarks tillidsniveau er ekstremt højt – to tredjedele af befolkningen i de tre skandinaviske lande svarer, at man kan stole på de fleste mennesker – mens niveauet i Storbritannien er 30 % og 33 % i Tyskland udenfor Slesvig-Holsten (50 %) og det tidligere DDR (25 %). I den seneste General Social Survey i USA er niveauet for landet som helhed 35 %, men igen dækker det over store forskelle mellem de ni amerikanske census regioner. Både New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island og Vermont), Mountain-regionen – staterne lige øst for Californien, og West North Central, der blandt andet tæller skandinavstaten Minnesota, har tillidsniveauer på cirka 40 %. Det er faktisk mere end ti procent over det globale gennemsnit og altså markant højere end i Tyskland eller England. Som sådan er det vel ikke helt skidt?

Hvis man glemmer myterne et øjeblik og ser på de hårde fakta for USA, er det først og fremmest svært at se det som ét land. For eksempel er den rigeste stat (Connecticut) cirka 80 % rigere end den fattigste (Mississippi), og en række andre forhold varierer også ret markant på tværs af staterne. Vi begår desværre den fejl igen og igen, nøjagtigt ligesom amerikanerne taler bredt om ’Europa’, som om det var et land. Som sådan er det for det første svært at tale om amerikanske tilstande, for hvad er USA andet end 50 stater med en fælles forbundsregering og 200 års forsøg på at blive en nation? For det andet er der, når man ser på tallene, en række af de myter vi går og tror på, der er lodret forkerte. De amerikanske fattige tjener ikke mindre end de danske, og New England staterne har ikke flere mord per indbygger end Danmark.

På en så central parameter som folks tillid til deres medborgere – et centralt mål for et lands sammenhængskraft – er særligt New England tættere på os end de fleste af vores europæiske naboer. Som min nevø sagde, da han kom hjem fra tre ugers sommerferie i USA: Jamen, de er så flinke! Jeg har altid samme følelse af at være velkommen, når jeg kommer til USA – ikke just den samme fornemmelse som når man lander i Paris. Så i stedet for at sige, at vi nok egentlig ikke er så forskellige fra tyskerne, englænderne, eller hvem vi nu siger det om, skal vi måske til at sige, at vi ikke er så forskellige fra dem i New England? Hvis man ser objektivt på det, er det faktisk mere rigtigt end det sædvanlige euro-mantra.

The Boys from Pointe du Hoc

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 6. juni 2007. 3 svar

Denne Punditokrat er en gammel sentimentalist, og jeg kan godt lide mindedage–mestendels de glade og symbolsk højstemte. Jeg bliver glad, når de markeres, og ærgerlig når de glemmes–og forbandet på mig selv, når jeg f.eks. glemmer at tænde lys i vinduet 4. maj.

I den forbindelse tænkte jeg i dag en del over, at jeg (der i disse dage befinder mig i smukke Cambridge) reelt havde overset, at det i går var Grundlovsdag derhjemme i Danmark. Men så blev jeg mindet om, at i dag sådan set også er en anden, værdig mindedag: D-Dag. Det er i dag 63 år siden, at De Allierede gik i land i Normandiet, og i det store billede er det en af de dage, der klart må regnes som ikke bare en af de vigtigste i det 20. århundrede men en af de afgørende i frihedens historie.

Men det betyder også, at det i dag er 23 år siden, at præsident Ronald W. Reagan holdt en af sine bedste taler. Måske ikke den mest ideologiske, men klart en af de smukkeste, mest sentimentale (i ordets bedste betydning) og mest velskrevne–og selvfølgelig skrevet af Peggy Noonan. Talen, kendt som “The Boys from Pointe du Hoc”, blev holdt foran rækker med overlevende “Rangers” fra D-Dag, og den findes hér på audio (under datoen June 6, 1984) og hér som tekst. Her er et par uddrag:

“We’re here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved, and the world prayed for its rescue. Here in Normandy the rescue began. Here the Allies stood and fought against tyranny in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.

… The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the next. It was the deep knowledge — and pray God we have not lost it — that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

… [But not] all that followed the end of the war was happy or planned. Some liberated countries were lost. The great sadness of this loss echoes down to our own time in the streets of Warsaw, Prague, and East Berlin. Soviet troops that came to the center of this continent did not leave when peace came. They’re still there, uninvited, unwanted, unyielding, almost forty years after the war. Because of this, allied forces still stand on this continent. Today, as forty years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose: to protect and defend democracy. The only territories we hold are memorials like this one and graveyards where our heroes rest.

… Here, in this place where the West held together, let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for.”

Ugens citater: Wall Street Journal om avisfilosofi

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 6. juni 2007. Skriv et svar

Det se r ud til, at en af Punditokraternes yndlings-aviser, Wall Street Journal, er ved at skifte hænder.  Bancroft-familien er vistnok ved at sælge Dow Jones & Co. imperiet til Rupert Murdoch.  Det kan der vist både være godt og skidt ved, men på ledersiden i dagens udgave er der ihvertfald en artikel , der handler om dette og avisens filosofi, og her er to-tre gode citater.

Det første er fra en af avisens første debatredaktører, den eksil-skotske, fhv. liberale politiker, William Peter Hamilton:

“Don’t believe the man who tells you there are two sides to every question. There is only one side to the truth.”

Avisen har–i modsætning til stort set alle andre amerikanske aviser–ikke anbefalet en præsidentkandidat siden Herbert Hoover, fordi man bevidst foretrækker at rose eller kritisere kandidaternes ideer og specifikke forslag i.f.t., hvad der er avisens udgangspunkt. Som avisens tidligere chefredaktør, William Grimes, sagde, da Truman i 1948 angreb den for at være “Republikanernes bibel”: “our loyalties are to the economic and governmental principles in which we believe and not to any political party.”

Og hvad var og er de så? Det svarede Grimes på i en leder, “A Newspaper’s Philosophy,” 2. januar 1951:

“On our editorial page we make no pretense of walking down the middle of the road. Our comments and interpretations are made from a definite point of view. We believe in the individual, in his wisdom and his decency. We oppose all infringements on individual rights, whether they stem from attempts at private monopoly, labor union monopoly or from an overgrowing government. People will say we are conservative or even reactionary. We are not much interested in labels but if we were to choose one, we would say we are radical.”

Det er sgu’ da en Punditokrat-avis!

Muhammed, Danmark & ACLU

Af Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, den 25. maj 2007. 3 svar

Kender man lidt til amerikanske forhold, og er man grundlæggende positivt indstillet overfor klassiske frihedsrettigheder, så må man næsten også per definition have et lidt ambivalent forhold til den amerikanske borgerrettighedsorganisation, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).   Blandt mange amerikanske konservative (men ikke alle–mere her) er den afskyet, fordi den bliver opfattet som en “left liberal, bleeding heart” organisation, hvis medlemmer er “bløde”, når det gælder den nødvendige retshåndhævelse.  Men blandt mange andre–klassisk liberale som venstreorienterede–er der en stor respekt for, at organisationen ofte tager slagsmål til fordel for klassiske frihedsrettigheder.

Denne punditokrat har ihvertfald altid selv haft et lidt ambivalent syn på ACLU.  Jeg har fundet det fremragende, at de ihærdigt har forfægtet habeas corpus, ytringsfrihed, adskillelse af kirke og stat, o.s.v.  Men jeg har også fundet deres læsning af den amerikanske Bill of Rights lidt selektiv–de har sjældent gjort meget ud af det 2. forfatningstillæg, selvom det altså sådan set også er en borgerrettighed, og mens de mange kommunister, som var med til at stifte ACLU godt kunne lide adskillelse af stat og kirke, gik de aldrig meget op i, at religionsfrihed også betyder retten til at udøve ens religion.

Og med den politiske korrektheds fremmarch i 1980erne og 1990erne var det næsten forudsigeligt, at denne også på et tidspunkt kunne få ACLU til at tippe endnu mere i den retning, som jeg ihvertfald ikke værdsætter.  Netop det emne var forleden omtalt i detaljer på Wall Street Journals debatsider, i kronikken “The American Liberal Liberties Union”, hvori advokaten Wendy Kaminer argumenter, at ACLU er ved at blive ret selektiv på ytringsfrihedens front–og midt i det hele dukker Danmark og Muhammedkrisen op.   Her kommer et langt uddrag:

“ACLU Defends Nazi’s Right to Burn Down ACLU Headquarters,” the humor magazine The Onion announced in 1999. Those of us who loved the ACLU, and celebrated its willingness to defend the rights of Nazis and others who had no regard for our rights, considered the joke a compliment. Today it’s more like a reproach. Once the nation’s leading civil liberties group and a reliable defender of everyone’s speech rights, the ACLU is being transformed into just another liberal human-rights group that reliably defends the rights of liberal speakers.

This transformation is gradual, unacknowledged and not readily apparent, since evidence of it lies mainly in cases the ACLU does not take. It’s naturally easier to know what an organization is doing (and advertising) than what it is not doing. But a review of recent free-speech press releases turns up only a handful of cases in which ACLU state affiliates defended the rights of conservative, antigay or otherwise politically incorrect speakers. And lately the national organization has been remarkably quiet in several important free-speech cases and controversies.

One of the clearest indications of a retreat from defending all speech regardless of content is the ACLU’s virtual silence in Harper v. Poway, an important federal case involving a high-school student’s right to wear a T-shirt condemning homosexuality. Of course, the ACLU doesn’t speak out on every case, but historically it has vigorously defended student speech rights, as its Web site stresses. It is currently representing a student in a speech case before the Supreme Court, Morse v. Frederick (involving the right of a student to carry a nonsensical “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner at an off-campus event). The ACLU pays particular attention to the right to wear T-shirts with pro-gay messages in school, proudly citing cases in which it represented students wearing pro-gay (as well as anti-Bush) T-shirts. This year, the ACLU awarded a Youth Activist Scholarship to a student who fought the efforts of her school to bar students from wearing T-shirts that said “Gay, Fine by me.”

So in 2004, when Tyler Chase Harper was disciplined for wearing a T-shirt declaring his religious objections to homosexuality, civil libertarians might have expected the ACLU to protest loudly. Mr. Harper was barred from attending classes when he wore the antigay T-shirt to school on an official “Day of Silence,” when gay students taped their mouths to symbolize the silencing effect of intolerance. Represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, he sued the school district. That same year, the ACLU initiated the first of two actions against a Missouri school that punished students for wearing “gay supportive T-shirts,” eventually securing a promise from the school to “stop censoring,” the ACLU Web site boasts. Mr. Harper, however, was unsuccessful in his quest to stop school censorship. In a patronizing, antilibertarian decision in which Judge Stephen Reinhardt stressed the imagined feelings of gay students, the Ninth Circuit rejected Mr. Harper’s First Amendment claims. (There was a sharp dissent from Judge Alex Kozinski.)

… The Harpers didn’t need representation from the ACLU. But the organization frequently speaks up for the rights of people it does not represent, like Guantanamo detainees, and often files amicus briefs in important civil liberties cases. Given its focus on student rights and religious liberty (one of the ACLU’s priorities), it’s hard to explain the ACLU’s apparent equanimity about the violation of Mr. Harper’s First Amendment rights–unless you consider the content of his speech. 

This case does not appear to be anomalous. Despite its professed commitment to religious liberty, for example, the ACLU tends to absent itself from cases on college campuses involving the associational rights of Christian student groups to discriminate against gay students, in accordance with their religious beliefs. But conservative students might be grateful for the ACLU’s absence. Consider its intervention in a successful federal court challenge to an unconstitutional speech code at Georgia Tech, brought by the Alliance Defense Fund in 2006 on behalf of two conservative religious students. The ACLU of Georgia filed an amicus brief proposing a substitute but still overbroad “antiharassment” policy that included a prohibition on “injurious communications . . . directed toward an individual because of their characteristics or beliefs.” In other words: Students should be punished for sharply criticizing or satirizing each other’s beliefs if their remarks are deemed “injurious.”

Og så til Danmark:.

“The ACLU was even AWOL in one of the most visible and frightening free-speech controversies in recent years–the Muhammad cartoons, which many condemned as “hate speech.” When Muslim groups violently protested the cartoons (first published in the Danish press), when American newspapers declined to publish them for fear of reprisals, and when the U.S. State Department condemned their publication–the ACLU exercised its right to remain silent. In fact, its press office actually advised ducking questions about the cartoons that might arise during discussions of torture at Abu Ghraib. A set of talking points from the press office recommended responding to questions about the cartoons by exhorting the U.S. government to “demonstrate . . . that it is taking the Abu Ghraib images seriously.” (This was later spun as an effort to stay on message about abuses at Abu Ghraib.)

Not until an ACLU donor complained about this silence on the cartoon controversy, and questions about it were
raised before the ACLU bo
ard, did ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero speak up–quietly. He mentioned the controversy in a relatively obscure dinner speech to the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. He sent a letter to the University of Illinois urging it not to discipline student editors who published the cartoons in a campus paper. In a letter to the ACLU board, Mr. Romero both denied and defended the ACLU’s relative silence: “With regard to the cartoons, rather than put out a hortatory statement that no one would read (except insiders) but might make us feel good about ourselves, we have tried to engage in thoughtful forums and discussions that relate to the issue. Speaking out on an issue involves more than slapping a paragraph together and posting it on a website.”

…

Why did the ACLU avoid issuing a loud and clear public statement decrying violent efforts to suppress the Muhammad cartoons? Its silence may have reflected growing sympathy among ACLU leaders and supporters for restricting what many liberals condemn as hate speech. “Take hate speech,” Mr. Romero remarked to the New York Times in May 2006. “While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities.” (He was commenting on a proposal to bar board members from criticizing the ACLU–a proposal that was amended only after being exposed in the Times.) “

Kronikøren leverer flere lignende eksempler og sammenfatter:

“This is not the same organization that once took pride in its costly, principled decision to defend the rights of neo-Nazis to march in a community of Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Ill. Of course the ACLU hasn’t definitively abandoned its defense of speech: Large, national organizations change incrementally. But people should no longer depend on the ACLU to defend what they preach (especially at a cost), if it disapproves of what they practice.”