Archive for the ‘Social Commentary’ Category

Whale Wars: A New Ahab

Sunday, August 2nd, 2009

Like most people, I am sympathetic to the plight of whales, particularly endangered varieties. Once whales were an important source of oil and the pursuit of this resource radically reduced whale numbers. As the need for this resource diminished and countries recognize the need for conservation, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was agreed upon in an attempt to keep some whales from extinction. Current international agreements allow for some whale harvesting, for example for indigenous peoples and for scientific research. The Japanese have been accused of violating these agreements by using the “research” exclusion to harvest whales for the real purpose of providing a popular Japanese foodstuff.

The Whale Wars is an Animal Planet channel show detailing the exploits of the Sea Shepard organization to stop the Japanese whaling. The show has miraculously succeeded in transforming a natural sympathy for the whales into rooting interest for the Japanese whaling ships. This transformation is a consequence of antipathy for Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepard Conservation Society, who comes across in the show (I am sure unintentionally) as a petty, arrogant little Napoleon, whose Ahab-like pursuit of self aggrandizement puts others at dangers.

Watson captains the Steve Irwin, a ship named after the popular television conservationist killed in a tragic accident. Though there are some crew members with experience, the ship operates in the dangerous Southern Ocean with young people largely equipped with more zeal and eagerness for adventure than experience. Watson sends these people out in small Zodiacs, often out of contact with the Steve Irwin in attempts to throw glass bottles of foul smelling butyric acid aboard the decks of whaling ships or racing in front of fast moving whaling ships trying to deploy lines to foul the props of these ships. One can not doubt the bravery of the young people enlisted by Watson, but it is a bravery girded by the expectation that the Japanese whalers will not use lethal force in self defense.  Thus far, the Japanese have confined there responses to water cannons an disabling acoustic devices.

The publicity seeking Watson, exaggerates every defensive effort by the Japanese as deliberately endangering his crew, when it is he who puts the crew in danger. Last year two crews member so the Steve Irwin managed to board a Japanese vessel a serve papers protesting whaling. The Japanese detained the individuals, while Watson quickly called the media claiming these people were be held hostage. One gets the impression, that Watson would eagerly exploit the accidentally injury or death of one of his crew for all the publicity he could. Indeed, last year Watson tried to claim that he was shot at by the Japanese.

It should be remembered that Paul Watson has a reputation as an eco-terrorist having advocated the use of tree spikes to deter logging. Tree spikes embedded in trees can damage equipment or more dangerously injure people. Tree spiking is a felony in the United States.

I have to admit that the series Whale Wars is exciting to watch. So now I have two unwanted guilty pleasures: Finding my self rooting for Japanese whaling ships for whom I would normally have a strong antipathy and giving positive ratings to publicity seeking old fart.

The Cop and the Professor

Sunday, July 26th, 2009

The title “The Cop and the Professor” sounds like a romantic comedy on Hallmark television channel, but has turned out to be an illuminating window onto contemporary American culture. For those who have been under a rock for the last few days, on July 16  the Cambridge police were called when a passersby, according to police reports “observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks” and “one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry.”  The neighbor did not realize that the two men were Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and his driver returning to Gates’s rented home. The good professor had locked himself out. The police arrived. After this the details get murky, but Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct. According to the police, Gates was unruly while Gates says he was treated with disrespect as a “black man in America.”

When people are confronted with stories of an incident with insufficient information from which to draw a definitive conclusion, there is a tendency to draw from personal experiences. African Americans who have experienced unfair police treatment in their past would be inclined to believe the account of Professor Gates. Those who have met Harvard professors might not be surprised to find one that was loud and arrogant in response to a perceived insult. One is reminded of William F. Buckley’s oft quoted remark that he would rather live in a society governed by the first 2,000 people listed in the Boston phone book than the 2,000 members of the Harvard faculty.

Unwisely, when confronted with a question about the incident at a press conference, President Barack Obama volunteered both that he did not have all the facts and that the police “acted stupidly.” While reluctant to comment on the Iranian unrest because of a lack of information, Obama, neglecting his obligations not to bias a case as the chief law enforcement officer in the country, was willing to opine on this particular incident. Conservative commentator Bill Kristol has suggested that Obama’s touchiness on the issue may be less an act of racial solidarity than class identity. Obama just feels more comfortable with Harvard professors and is willing to believe the worst about working-class police officers.

As the facts have sorted themselves out, the police officers involved are looking vindicated. Sgt. James Crowley as turns out is unlikely racist who valiantly tried to save Boston Celtics Reggie Lewis with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation 16 years ago. Lewis unfortunately died of cardiac arrest.

Obama has offered an apology of sorts calling Sgt. Crowley a “good man.” At this point, most have reached the conclusion that if Professor Gates had a cooler head he never would have been arrested and if Obama had declined to comment on a case on which he had limited information he would have lived up to his promise of being a transitional figure in US race relations. The unfortunate part, is that police officers will continue to feel defensive, real incidents of racial bigotry will be given less credibility, and Professor Gates will have one more tale of victimhood with which to regale his students at Harvard.

Soft Despotism

Sunday, July 19th, 2009

One of the problems with Liberals is that they often look for tyranny in all the wrong places, and are blind to real conspicuous threats to liberty that come with a smile. While I disagree, there is some value of the Liberals clamoring  to extend full Constitutional criminal rights to terrorists at war with us when captured on the battlefield. It is certainly of value to question the limits of enhanced interrogation techniques. Conservatives would like to return the favor to Liberals. We remind them that if the US were to experience tyranny it would likely not be of the jacked-booted variety. Such a despotism would not wrap us in chains, but a warm blanket from which escape would be difficult. Many have pointed out that French scholar Alexis de Tocqueville described this after his visit to the United States in the early nineteenth century. I repeat his words here, this week in the shadow of health care reform, because of their uncanny accuracy and eloquence.


I want to imagine with what new features despotism could be produced in the world: I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. .  .  .

Above these an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves provided that they think only of enjoying themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances; can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living?

So it is that every day it renders the employment of free will less useful and more rare; it confines the action of the will in a smaller space and little by little steals the very use of it from each citizen. .  .  .

Thus, after taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills but it softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which government is the shepherd. .  .  .

I have always believed that this sort of regulated, mild, and peaceful servitude, whose picture I have just painted, could be combined better than one imagines with some of the external forms of freedom, and that it would not be impossible for it to be established in the very shadow of the sovereignty of the people.

Thoughts on Hypocrisy

Sunday, July 5th, 2009

“He is a hypocrite who professes what he does not believe; not he who does not practice all he wishes or approves.’’ — William Hazlitt.

“Hypocrisy is the homage which vice pays to virtue.’’ — François de la Rochefoucauld.

During a plenary session at  a large scientific conference I attended last year in Boston, Dr. Berrien Moore, a member of the International Panel on Climate Change, gave a thoughtful presentation on the dire consequences of global climate change. His well-received presentation suggested that unless there were radical reductions in future carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, the world would experience grave environmental consequences. It is not clear how many others were conscious of the irony of the situation. We were all at a conference having flown hundreds or thousands of miles from many parts of the world fretting about the consequences of modern society’s large carbon footprint. If we all took the thesis of the presentation seriously, why were we all flying many miles to attend a conference that might have been held virtually?

Now, I fully appreciate the benefits and importance of face-to-face contact at scientific meetings, but should not those who appreciate and understand the impact of climate change be the first, buy their example, to adjust their lifestyles as a witness to the importance placed onminimizing the impact of man on the environment. The fact that we ignored this implicit hypocrisy does not make the case for concern about global climate change any less or any more valid. Hypocrisy, however, corrodes credibility. If former Vice-President Al Gore can refer to the passage of the cap-and-trade bill as a “moral imperative’’ and Nobel prize-winning economist can describe opposition to the bill as “treason against the planet,’’ it seems little to ask that we save the fuel by conducting a conference virtually.

This distinction between personal behavior and public pronouncements was also conspicuous this week as Governor Mark Sanford admitted ignoring his marital pledges and jetting off to Argentina to spend time with a mistress. Sanford had publicly argued in favor of traditional family values, but clearly has difficulty in meeting these aspirations. It thus afforded an opportunity, for those who prefer a world where traditional family values are given less weight an opportunity, to ridicule Sanford. Given some of Sanford’s peculiar post-scandal behavior, it is hard to imagine a character easier to ridicule.

Pointing out the hypocrisy of advocates represents a convenient way to avoid dealing with very real issues. The high carbon footprint of those who argue for limiting carbon missions does not make the threat to the climate any more or less severe. The inability of those who argue in favor of traditional family values meet their own aspirations does not make the attenuation of these values any less socially destabilizing. Indeed, when people harp excessively on the hypocrisy of others, it is reasonable to suspect that they are motivated less by aversion to hypocrisy than the opportunity to score political points. Perhaps a better measure of consistency would be if those who fundamentally agree with an advocate of a certain position are first to criticize deviations. For example, do environmentalists take to task those of their own who live high carbon footprints, or are traditionalists quick to criticize those of their own who do not live up to their aspirations?

In Mark Sanford’s home state of South Carolina, 13 of 27 Republican Senators are calling for Sanford resignation. However, at a meeting of those who take the possibility of global warming seriously, there was nary a concern for the carbon footprint of the meeting. The latter, at least seems a bit too convenient.

Viva Canada

Sunday, June 28th, 2009

A wit once remarked that Canada was a large and diverse country, united only in their belief of moral superiority over Americans. While there is some strain of that in the Canadian disposition, for the most part Canadians (if they have any common trait) are exceedingly polite. They seek to avoid conflict by drowning contention in as sea of good cheer and cordiality.  Some of thus cordiality has been codified in a misguided attempt to limit offensive speech through Human Rights Commissions (HRCs). The job of these commission is ostensibly to maintain a culture of civility by limiting what can be printed and broadcast. Because of  cultural pleasantness is so much part of the Canadian character, it is hard for them to recognize when this pleasantness is being exploited.

A small fraction of Islamic radicals in Canada have turned these commissions into government sponsored inquisitions seeking to eliminate criticism of Islam. While it costs nothing to make an accusation, if a Canadian Human Rights Commission begins an inquiry it can cost the accused thousands in legal fees, even if the case is one that is ultimately dismissed. The net effect is to chill free expression.

One of the most conspicuous cases of this type was brought against Mark Steyn. Steyn wrote the bestseller America Alone, which made the case that declining birthrates would cause the substitution of traditional Western values for Islamic ones, particularly in Europe. An article “The Future Belongs to Islam” in McCleans caused Steyn to be brought up before the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The Ontario HRC claimed that it did not have jurisdiction over the national McCleans. It did not hold a hearing but nonetheless “strongly condemn[ed] the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims.” Without due process, Steyn’s reputation was tarnished by a government body.

The National Human Rights Commission acquitted Steyn, saying that when taken as a whole, the article was not extreme. However, the ruling left open the possibility that a Human Rights Commission could punish more extreme views. The National Human Rights Commission retained on to itself the authority to regulate speech

More recently Ezra Levant, a Canadian political activist of Conservative conviction, was able to turn the tables on an HRC. Levant in the Western Standard magazine republished the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammad that caused violent clashes in Europe and elsewhere. Syed Soharwardy of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada filed a complaint to the Alberta HRC because they found Levant’s publication offensive.

When Shirley McGovern a member of the Human Rights Commission interviewed Levant, he had the presence of mind to record a video of the meeting and to post in on YouTube. Levant eloquently stood up to the clearly dazed commissioner and challenged the right of the commission to dare restrict the rights of a free citizens to publish whatever he wants without answering to any government authority. The video was a YouTube hit embarrassing the Alberta HRC. In light of the publicity, Soharwardy withdrew the complaint. One wonders whether that would have been the final disposition if there had been no video.

Levant is a true hero for freedom and Canadians should be proud to have so eloquent a spokesperson.

By the Numbers

Sunday, June 21st, 2009

Unless you are Babe Ruth, it is risky to point to the fences to predict a homerun. Economic predictions are even more precarious then baseball ones. especially when made by politicians. Nonetheless, in the course of selling their stimulus plan early this year, Obama’s economic team confidently argued that without Obama’s Recovery Plan, unemployment would peak in 2010 at about 9%. If, however, the country adopted the Obama approach, unemployment would peak this year at less than 8%. Why would anyone oppose the Obama Recovery Plan? Congress, dominated by Democrats certainly did not stand in the way and the stimulus package passed.

The evidence is in. As of May 2009, the unemployment rate reached 9.4%, above what the Obama team claimed would be the case without the Recovery Plan at all. The economic predictions were way off even over the very short term. The blog Innocent Bystanders has been following the numbers carefully. The plot below is a reproduction from The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, published January 9, 2009, by Christina Romer, Obama appointee to the Council of Economic Advisors, and Jared Bernstein, from Vice-President Joe Biden’s office. The two lines indicate the Obama team’s prediction of unemployment, earlier this year with and without the Recovery Plan. The points plotted in red are the actual number published recently by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.



Clearly, the Obama Team overestimated the positive impace of the stimulus plan. Despite this pathetic performance, the Obama Administration is still claiming that they are creating jobs. One wonders how one can make any assumptions about the effect of policy over a year a two when predictions for a few months ahead were so wrong.  Even a straight line prediction would have been more accurate than the considered modeling of the Obama economic team.

From an historic stand point, it is interesting to compare this recession with previous ones. The plot below shows the unemployment rate for the 48 months following the minimum unemployment point for the pass recessions back to 1960. The line for the current recession is plotted in bright yellow.



This recession has experienced a far sharper increase in a shorter period of time from previous recessions. Now, we can never know what would have happened had the Obama Recovery Plan not be implemented. It is not persuasive or even plausible, however, for the Administration to argue that in face of an unprecedentedly rapid rise in unemployment, that its policies are working. Maybe they will sometime in the future. Maybe, the economy will recover in spite of the Administration.  But given the recent evidence, the Administration’s economic crystal ball is opaque.

To even have drawn the first plot above, projecting unemployment rates for a few years, with its implied precision, required an overabundance of arrogance. Prediction is hard, yet Obama’s economic advisers cavalierly assumed that they could make such predictions, and that these predictions could guide them as they expertly steer the economy. As the government seems to be running an ever expanding portion of the economy, we hope that Obama’s adviser’s hubris has been alleviated in the face of evidence of just how complicated and hard it is to predict future of the economy. Somehow, we doubt it.

The Italy I Love is Dying

Sunday, June 14th, 2009

It is impossible for all but the most regimented authoritarian mind not to fall in love with Italy. I was reminded of as much on a recent visit. We all know of the heritage of magnificent works of art and beautiful architecture from the Roman Empire, through the Renaissance, to the present. A dolce vita is manifested in leisurely dinners, evening strolls, and the conspicuous warmth of friends and family. One has to admire any country where a kiss and embrace substitute for a handshake and where women accept no contradiction between independence, intelligence and ambition on the one hand and stylishness, elegance, and beauty on the other hand. The fact that someone may fairly or unfairly judge them on their appearance is not an excuse in the perspective of Italian women to eschew the disciplines of beauty. Rather the care of appearance is a moral good as is intelligence and learning. I suspect that Italian men adhere to the same aspiration, but I could not appreciate it as much.

 

Save for the fateful decision by my American-born father to bring my Italian-born mother to the United States, I could easily been raised in Italy. Despite an appreciation for Italian culture and style, every time I visit Italy and my parents hometown, I am ever more grateful that I am an American. Judging from my contemporaries and their children, the opportunities continue to be far greater in the United States. My children have managed a level a success: wives, jobs, and homes in their early twenties, that none of their Italian cousins have achieved. It is not because these relatives are less smart or less ambitious than those in the US, but the opportunities in Italy are significantly curtailed. Education usually lasts several years longer and it is not uncommon for many to wait until their thirties before they experience significant levels of achievement. Moreover, the dependence of young people well into their twenties, by necessity, on parental support, stunts growth and delays adulthood.

 

In the United States, the current economic downturn has significantly increased levels of unemployment. Nonetheless, this is situation commonly viewed as an aberration from which we will recover in time. In Italy, a culture of unemployment induced by a generation of lost opportunities, has diminished expectations. Young people have reconciled themselves to small families, if indeed they can support families at all, resulting in a fertility rate that is far from replacement. The Italian culture we love may be a remnant of a more energetic and vital past.

 

Another consequence of diminished opportunity is a corrosive cynicism that sees the common person as a victim of elites of the government or of business. This helplessness robs people of ambition, undermines government legitimacy, nurtures a culture of corruption, and stunts economic growth. Thus is created a land of unresolved contradictions.

 

On the next ridge near the town of my ancestry a modern wind farm of a dozen turbines has been installed. Most people are simultaneously convinced that the installation is hideous (I disagree), a waste of money that went largely to insiders, and an important contribution to alleviating global warming. The only problem was that the turbines were not turning because payoffs to local organized crime have not been made in a timely manner.

 

For whatever, the reason the modern European welfare state is correlated with the withering of the Italian family and middle class aspirations. It is sad.

Middle Three Quintiles

Saturday, May 16th, 2009

Every time I hear  the mantra about the disappearing  middle class, I want to ask if percentage of households in the middle three quintiles has changed. I am sure, many on Left out of ideological reflex would assure me that it has. Of course, the middle three quintiles of any distribution of income, or grades, or heights, by definition, will always contain 60%  of the sample.

Mathematically literate people of any ideology quickly recognize this truth about the fraction of people in the middle quintile. Nonetheless, there many people who are genuinely concerned by the the observation that median household income seems to have stagnated. But this statistic is misleading, because it does not account for the changing nature of households. Households have shrunk in size. Steve Conover has shown that the income per worker has gone up. It is just that the  number of workers per household has decreased offsetting this increase. Household, rather than individuals incomes say less about the economy and more about the way people have chosen to live their lives. Perhaps as individual income increase, people are free to opt to live in smaller households.

If you look at the distribution of income per earner as a function of time as shown below:

it appears that the middle class has just been happily pushed into higher income brackets.

Despite these statistics, many people genuinely feel that the economy has changed negatively for the “middle class” over the last few decades. I suspect that the source of this anxiety is associated with two important factors as opposed to the actual income distribution.

(1) It is very difficult to maintain a “middle-class” lifestyle with a job that is low skill. A retail worker like a shoe salesman or a low-skill factory worker used to be middle class. Low skill workers now have to compete with automation or low skill workers of other countries. The fraction of the US economy that is manufacturing is the same that it used to be, but manufacturing is now being performed by fewer and fewer more productive workers. Much like agriculture that dominated the economy  in the 1800s’s, fewer and fewer people are required to produce more and more. This is as it should be. Our standard of living would be far lower if we as a country were so unproductive that low skill jobs were typical and people in them were middle income. The goal is arrange for as many people as possible to be prepared for high-skill jobs.

(2) Middle class is not what it used to be. Middle class Americans live in larger homes than their parents, have air conditioning when their parents did not, eat out more often than their parents did, and go on vacation more frequently. This does not even count the gadgets such as cell phones, computers, and large flat panel televisions that were not even available to the wealthy a generation ago. Our expectations are higher than those of our parents.

The real danger is that this anxiety will lead to government policies that reduce the dynamism of the economy in the name of security and make the progress we have already achieved less possible to sustain.

Squishy Moralists

Sunday, May 10th, 2009

We have noted previously here that there are two respective positions with regard to the use of violence. One holds that violence is sometimes justified particularly for self defense when other choice are unavailable. The violence employed, of course, must be commensurate with the seriousness of a threat.

The principled pacifist position holds that violence is inherently evil and never to be used. The serious pacifist recognizes that adherence to this position could cost that person injury or even their life. A courageous pacifist does not avoid violence by denying the existence of real danger, but chooses a principled position despite the risk. A squishy pacifist, by contrast, postures as a moralist, but denies the existence of real threat. It is easy to be brave in the face of no threat.

A similar distinction can be drawn with respect to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, when the use of them might indeed advert loss of life and catastrophe. Again the severity of the interrogation needs to be consistent with a reasonable assessment of the level of  threat. Contrary to popular notions fed by the mainstream media,  William Ranney Levi in the the Yale Law Journal  notes that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques pre-dated 9/11. [1]  In particular, he documents that “Conventional wisdom states that recent U.S. authorization of coercive interrogation techniques, and the legal decisions that sanctioned them, constitute a dramatic break with the past. This is false.”

An alternative principled position is to believe that enhanced interrogation techniques should never, under any circumstances, be used. However, there is a recognition that the cost of such a policy could be significant additional risk to innocent people. Courageous people who hold this position insist that they believe the additional risks are a severe price paid to avoid the moral stigma of the techniques.

By contrast, squishy moralists try to have it both ways. They simultaneously argue against the used of enhanced interrogation techniques and that there is no risk in shunning their use. A number of intelligence people and former CIA directors attest to the importance of intelligence gathered from these techniques. One can decide that one will forgo the  information from enhanced interrogation, but it is morally juvenile to assert that there are no costs associated with the choice.

It is possible to forgive those who hold the latter position, in the sense that they may be in a state of denial. What is less forgivable are actions by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She was briefed on the enhanced interrogation techniques while they were occurring. She was silent. If her conscience were shocked, even if she couldn’t stop the practice, she could have made a formal (if classified) objection to the use of such techniques. She didn’t, perhaps because at the time the country felt truly threatened. However, to now deny her role and express moral outrage at the Bush Administration’s decisions is at best only hypocrisy. At worst, it represents a despicable cynicism.

[1] Waterboarding may be the exception. However, the exact extent it could be used without severe harm was well-known because it had been applied to American troops in training exercises. Some techniques used in previous administrations were perhaps more exotic.  Previously the CIA has implemented “..implemented chemical, biological, and other human behavioral control methods for purposes of interrogation.”

Obama: Call Him Ishmael

Sunday, April 26th, 2009

Perhaps the most united this country has been in recent memory is in the forceful response to international threats  after the loss of more than 3000 Americans in the 9/11 attacks. The immediate response of the country was to secure itself and to pursue those responsible for the monstrous attacks. Had political expediency been a the primary motivation of the leadership, it would have been possible for Democrats and Republicans  to engage in finger pointing. Both sides instinctively understood that the country would not stand for bickering in a moment of extremus. President George W. Bush is as competitive a politician as you might want to find, but he is a decent person and decency made it impossible to try to put Clinton on the hook for  9/11.

President Barack Obama also seems like a genuinely decent person who wants to move on from divisive issues like aggressive interrogation of high-level Al Qaeda leadership. However, this innate decency gets muted by vicious Left-wing politics. The conflict between personal decency and acquiescence to the mean-spirited Left injured Obama in the presidential campaign when his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, was recorded in making vicious anti-American statements. Obama is falling into the same trap when he allows the “MoveOn” and “Daily KOs” crowd push Obama against the better angels of his nature to revive the controversy about aggressive interrogation.

The angry Left will not be happy unless there are some figurative heads on spikes from the Bush Administration. That is why the Obama Administration released the Department of Justice from the previous administration memos delineated what they consider the limits of aggressive interrogation. There is a line between showing a detainee a caterpillar he is afraid of and pulling out finger nails, and the lawyers were trying to define it. There is something dangerous and deeply antithetical to the legal process to pursue lawyers rendering legal opinions to the clients.

In the immediate aftermath of a devastating terrorist attack in the United States, Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM) , a top al Qaeda operative, was captured. The country was concerned about a next wave of attacks against the US. When questioned about this KSM, responded wit  “Soon, you will know.” Faced with this situation, the CIA asked the Justice Department for guidance on how aggressive the interrogations could become before crossing a line into torture. The Justice Department lawyers provided reasoned guidance and decided that waterboarding conducted under a limited set of rules is not torture. Both Democratic and Republican leadership in Congress were informed with apparently no dissent. This scenario hardly seems like the collapse of law. Rather is seems like a legally methodical approach for dealing with a dangerous situation. Imagine if under these circumstances, with a detainee indicating an upcoming attack, with legal opinion permitting the use of aggressive interogation techniques, and proper notification of Congress, the Bush Administration had opted against waterboarding. Further imagine that we were subsequently attacked. It is not clear that Bush would have been praised for his restraint.

Americans are a fair-minded lot at a majority of them oppose investigation of torture allegations.  The Captain Ahab-like pursuit of former Bush Administration officials is likely to be very divisive and likely to unnecessarily squander Obama’s considerable political capital. Moreover to be closely associated with weakness on dealing with terrorists is politically dangerous. Terrorists could get lucky and successfully execute an attack. An Administration not seen to use all the resources at its disposal will be severely damaged.

For his own and the country’s benefit, Obama needs to exert leadership and quash the single-minded pursuits of the angry Left. They can not be placated by  symbolic gestures. They are willing to damage the Obama presidency and divide the country for the prospect of getting a harpoon in the big white whales from the Bush Administration even if the Liberal ship-of-state is sunk.