My reaction to Netanyahu's speech to Congress on March 3, 2015

Here are my tweets in response to Bibi Netanyahu's speech to Congress on March 3, 2015, and some further comments beneath them:

#Netanyahu: reject deal, #Iran will blink, better deal to emerge. Evidence? None. That's been #Bibi approach to #Palestinians w/zero results

9:11 AM - 3 Mar 2015

.@SenFeinstein Excellent observations on #Netanyahu speech, its strengths, weaknesses. Bibi short on concrete alternative but evokes symbols

9:36 AM - 3 Mar 2015

Netanyahu, GOP can rail against Obama's #Iran nuclear deal as weak. #Bush43 & #GOP sure reined in North Korea's nuclear weapons. Not! 👎

9:48 AM - 3 Mar 2015

@RepAdamSchiff Agree w/you on @wolfblitzer. Bibi alternative? Iran blinks. Likely? Not really & P5+1 may relax sanctions, #Iran develop bomb

10:21 AM - 3 Mar 2015

I would like to see Obama respond publicly to Netanyahu's speech, calmly but with force and emotion outlining the rationale for his approach

10:23 AM - 3 Mar 2015

While I believe Netanyahu gave an impressive speech that may serve his political purposes in Israel where parliamentary elections are scheduled in a few weeks, and may buttress Republican opposition to President Obama's negotiations with Iran, I do not think he effectively laid out an alternative approach for the negotiations between Iran and the P5+1.  Essentially, Netanyahu argued that the terms of the deal apparently on the table are bad and that if the United States walked away from negotiations and increased sanctions, Iran would ultimately blink, return to the bargaining table and negotiate terms better for the United States, Israel and the world. But Bibi offered no evidence that such an outcome was highly likely, or even likely, other than to evoke the Persian bazaar and Middle Eastern bargaining proclivities.

It isn't very clear that the other world powers involved in the negotiations would accept the rejection of the present deal and the sanctions regime, rather than being intensified, might collapse. As well, the Iranians would redouble their efforts to develop sufficient fuel for nuclear weapons, apparently a goal they are not far from achieving.

That leaves the threat of war or war itself as the final way to stop Iran, something Netanyahu threatened in a veiled way in his speech. War itself, which could occur if no deal is reached or if Iran violates a deal that is reached, is an outcome most Americans, including Obama, strongly oppose. As to the threat of war inducing Iran to capitulate to stronger restrictions, including such a threat from Israel, such a possibility cannot be completely ruled out but the evidence at this point that it would work to bring about stronger restrictions in a deal isn't apparent.

I was struck by Senator Dianne Feinstein's reaction to the speech. She too noted the absence of concrete alternatives but she noted that she favored a deal with a longer breakout period for Iran to develop sufficient nuclear fuel if it violated the deal's terms and a longer period during which the deal would remain in force. Will Obama seek better terms on these issues? Will Netanyahu's speech and the reaction in this country play a role in securing these stronger restrictions? Or will Iran's negotiating position remain unchanged, leaving Obama with the choice of the deal as presently understood or no deal at all? I suspect Obama will opt for the deal he recently sketched out over no deal: a one year breakout period and a 10 year period for the restrictions on Iran in the deal. And I support the President in this matter.

On Pete Carroll's Play Call to End Seattle Seahawks' Drive and Lose Super Bowl XLIX and Bill Plaschke's Column

Bill Plaschke, Los Angeles Times sports columnist, posted a column after the game called "Pete Carroll blows it for Seahawks in Super Bowl XLIX."
 http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-super-bowl-plaschke-20150202-column.html.  In it he expresses the disappointment of many but, in his case, cites to an earlier play call Pete Carroll made while coaching at USC that was also second guessed and considered by many a huge mistake.

Below is my email to Bill in response to his column and Pete Carroll's play call:

Bill,

I was among those who were rooting for the Seahawks and crest fallen by the interception to end their drive.  But, two thoughts:

1. I'm not quite sure Carroll's play call was the "the worst coaching decision in the history of American sports championships," a position you didn't quite embrace but which you cited in your column.  Other columnists have noted that the call had some statistical support.  See Neil Greenberg http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2015/02/02/the-play-call-that-costs-seahawks-super-bowl-victory-wasnt-a-bad-one/; and, Matt Bonesteel http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2015/02/02/seahawks-marshawn-lynch-isnt-exactly-money-from-the-1-yard-line/.

2. I offer you my own tweet that I posted shortly after the play:

The Lord giveth (Kearse catch), the Lord taketh away (Butler interception). #SBXLIX @Patriots @Seahawks  https://twitter.com/donaldnewm/status/562092558101532672

Who expected Kearse to end up with the football on the prior play? Was that not a gift, particularly as the second Patriot player, thinking the ball was falling to the ground, simply leaped over Kearse rather than kick the ball, pounce on Kearse (and risk a penalty) or otherwise assure that the ball fell harmlessly. Surely there was some "magic" or at least luck in that. Similarly, Butler's interception was a bit of magic or luck as well.  Things balancing out?

I enjoyed your column, particularly the historical perspective on Carroll's play calling, and, yes, the ghosts will haunt him.  But his or his offensive coach's call may not have been the dumbest imaginable.  Had the ball been given to Lynch and had Lynch failed to score or, worse yet, fumbled it while trying, the critics would have been all over Carroll for not first trying a pass to catch New England off guard (whether they were, in fact, or not) or at least keep them honest.

Thanks for your columns!  I enjoy them.

Donald 

On behalf of Uber

I got an email this morning from David Plouffe. I thought I had finally stopped the unending avalanche of emails flooding my inbox every day from this or that political figure on behalf of Obama. Why had one snuck through, I asked myself. How did I know it was on behalf of Uber!

I used to be a political junkie

I used to be a political junkie.  The State of the Union address was a high point for me, not only in listening to the President, whoever he was, speak to members of Congress and others of the political leadership and lay out his program, but even just in watching him enter the chamber to recognition and applause from both sides of the political aisle, a sign of our political stability despite political paralysis.

But my passion for politics has ebbed in recent years.  Old age (mine)?  Perhaps in part, particularly in that I have been older than our three most recent presidents (and arguably wiser!).  Gridlock in Washington?  Absolutely.  Extreme partisanship on cable news?  Most definitely.  Same old same old (plus ça change plus c'est la même chose)?  You said it.

I'll likely watch tonight but my heart is no longer in it.  Maybe I should run for office!  (just kidding, ladies & gentlemen, and others!)

In Mourning Over Yesterday's Election Results

I'm in mourning over yesterday's election results.  Were it only the case that Republican policies in recent years (decades even) have actually helped the economy and in particular the middle and working classes.  Not in my view.  Oh well, at least those who chose to vote have spoken.  Now they, and those foolish enough not to have voted, must live with the consequences.  

But I know that I want a woman as President in 2016 and she isn't Sarah Palin.  Nor is she Elizabeth Warren.  Yes, call me backward looking if you like, but I want to see Hillary Clinton as the first female U.S. President.  Okay, back to my tissues to accompany my mourning.

Hold Back on Anointing Putin a Master Player, Doyle McManus

In the May 28, 2014, Los Angeles Times, regular columnist Doyle McManus wrote a piece entitled "Vladimir Putin, master player" in which he literally praised Putin for his deft handling of events in Ukraine.

McManus wrote, in part: "Let us now praise Vladimir Putin.  Yes, Russia's president is a cold-hearted autocrat.  And yes, he rules through a network of nasty oligarchs bent on squeezing profit from their country's oil riches.  If he covets a piece of territory, he's liable to try to grab it.  But he's not a madman.  Putin has played an old-fashioned game of international brinkmanship masterfully -- and so far, he's coming out ahead."

McManus's full piece may be found at: Putin, master player.

I respectfully disagree with McManus's rush to anoint Putin and have responded by email to McManus as follows:

Dear Doyle,

I think you take a very narrow and, frankly, overly conventional and misguided view of events in Ukraine and Vladimir Putin's talents in your column, "Putin, master player," in today's (May 28, 2014) Los Angeles Times.

Too many pundits, including you, look with wonderment and fascination at Putin's actions in reclaiming Crimea and causing instability in Ukraine, and pronounce him, as you have, a "master player."

There is no question he is not a madman although it also seems clear that he is acting with great emotion rather than cold reason in his actions.  But keep in mind the events surrounding his actions.  A Russia leaning, constitutionally elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, was pushed out of power by a popular, but hardly universal, uprising in Kiev and the European-leaning western part of a deeply divided Ukraine.  Ukraine, long an integral part of the Soviet Union and literally on the doorstep of Russia itself, appeared not only to be drifting westward toward the EU but there were at least some voices calling for its inclusion in NATO.

Recall the Bay of Pigs, Doyle?  You're old enough, I believe.  I'm 71.  You were also taught the Monroe Doctrine as a small child, I am sure.  Well, it isn't so surprising that Putin, and likely many other Russians, look upon Ukraine in a  way somewhat similar to the way our country has looked upon Cuba, Granada, Central America (e.g., Panama) and even South America.  Having built an Eastern European bloc in part as protection against invasions and other challenges from Central and Western Europe, suddenly Russia faced the possibility that, without an election, Ukraine might be incorporated into NATO, as was Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the latter three small Baltic states done without much attentiveness from the American people.

In any case, while I am NOT defending or justifying Putin's actions, I wouldn't call them the mark of a master player.  Putin likely saw events in Ukraine as a threat to Russian interests and even, with possible NATO expansion, Russian security.  And he acted.  As for Crimea, it appears to have been "gifted" to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic by Russia in 1954, although it remained Russia's key military port on the Black Sea.  Again, that is not to justify Putin's land grab, but it is to put it into a perspective you fail to provide.

Actually, I think President Obama deserves considerable praise for his "handling" of the events in Ukraine.  While the McCain crew (John, Lindsey and now Kelly who has replaced Joe) criticized Obama's response and called for strong American measures including military aid and some Americans even called for a token American military presence, Obama remained cool to any such direct intervention or involvement.  Instead, he remained calm and rallied Western European allies to impose a gradually more severe set of sanctions against Putin and his allies.  News reports indicated that very influential German industrialists were lobbying Merkel not to impose any serious sanctions yet it appears Obama persuaded her to at least strongly consider making such moves.

I share the belief of many that Putin's latest actions pulling back some Russian troops and indicating a willingness to negotiate with the new Ukrainian president are in part due to the threat of increased Western sanctions.  But Putin's actions are not explicable entirely in that way.  The costs to Russia of further Russian territorial expansion into eastern Ukraine, even apart from sanctions, would likely be prohibitive. 

Putin appears to have restored a large measure of Russian influence over Ukraine's Kiev government, which was likely a large part of what he sought.  But, in many respects, isn't such a relationship the "normal" expectation regarding a country on Russia's border that had been part of the Russian empire for centuries, rather than an incredible feat by a "master player?"  I think so. 

As I said, I think Obama deserves considerable credit if you're handing out awards to alleged master players.  Let's be more begrudging before anointing Vladimir Putin a "master player."

Sincerely,

Donald

My Response to George F. Will's "Progressives are Wrong about the Essence of the Constitution"

In a column entitled "Progressives are Wrong about the Essence of the Constitution," published in the Washington Post dated April 16, 2014, George F. Will praised a new book that he claims "lucidly explains the intensity of conservatism's disagreements with progressivism."  The book is "The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty," by Timothy Sandefur, which I have not read.

Will claims that "The fundamental division in U.S. politics is between those who take their bearings from the individual’s right to a capacious, indeed indefinite, realm of freedom, and those whose fundamental value is the right of the majority to have its way in making rules about which specified liberties shall be respected."  He criticizes a comment apparently made by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer that the Constitution is "basically about" one word, "democracy," and contends that "Democracy is America’s way of allocating political power. The Constitution, however, was adopted to confine that power in order to 'secure the blessings of' that which simultaneously justifies and limits democratic government — natural liberty."

Will and apparently Sandefur contend that progressives, in considering that democracy is the source of liberty, have reversed the Founders' premise, which is that liberty preexists governments which are legitimate only to secure natural rights.  Will writes that: "Conservatives believe that liberty, understood as a general absence of interference, and individual rights, which cannot be exhaustively listed, are natural and that governmental restrictions on them must be as few as possible and rigorously justified. Merely invoking the right of a majority to have its way is an insufficient justification."

Will, and apparently Sandefur, attribute to the Founders a Lockean perspective on the origin of civil society and government.  In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke opined that, prior to civil society, men and women lived in a state of nature, which he described as a state of liberty, in which each was "free to dispose of himself or his possessions" subject to the law of nature which, according to Locke, was reason, which teaches that, "because we are all equal and independent, no-one ought to harm anyone else in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." In Locke's state of nature, each person enjoyed the right to enforce the law of nature and punish offenders.  But, under Locke's construct, given the challenges of individual enforcement, individuals came together to form a civil community and, in doing so, consented to relinquish their individual power to enforce the law of nature. The civil community then chose a form of government whose purpose was to enforce the law of nature and individual freedoms.

In attributing to the Founders and to the Constitution they wrote Locke's concept of the state of nature, the law of nature, and the purposes of civil society and government, Will and Sandefur describe a concept of liberty termed by the eminent philosopher Isaiah Berlin, in his 1958 essay "Two Concepts of Liberty,"as a "negative concept of liberty," meaning that freedom or liberty constitutes the absence of external restraint. 

In contrast to this negative concept of freedom stands a "positive concept of freedom" or liberty. Under this concept, freedom involves self-mastery, controlling one's own fate or destiny. This appears roughly similar to negative freedom but it diverges when the concept of self-mastery takes into account that individuals often feel themselves struggling against their own internal demons, and that real freedom or self-mastery represents overcoming these demons and realizing one's "true" or higher self. At the same time, realizing one's higher self often involves incorporating or striving for standards or measures external to oneself, be they religious principles, political ideals or other values. The matter of who determines the nature of the "higher" self often leads to a corruption or manipulation of the "positive concept of freedom" in which organizations and individuals apart from oneself dictate the "higher" nature to which one should be striving.  Students of political philosophy are familiar with Jean Jacques Rousseau's concept of being "forced to be free."

In American history two different schools of thought have emerged each of which is often described as "conservative" in today's vernacular.  One school embraces Berlin's "negative concept of liberty" and is actually descended from the Lockean tradition as well as 19th century liberalism. This school of thought embraces reason as a core concept and in today's world continues to support a free market and individual freedom as conceived of as the absence of external restraint. Some who claim to be libertarians fall into this category.  Interestingly enough, many who describe themselves today as liberal or progressive also embrace this negative concept of liberty although they differ with conservatives and libertarians on the extent to which government is needed to level the playing field so that all Americans may be able to develop their reasoning powers and exercise individual freedoms and choices.

But another school of thought in today's America that usually describes itself as "conservative" is far more associated with Berlin's "positive concept of freedom."  This school tends to be steeped more in religion and religious values and other highly valued concepts such as community, duty, service, devotion and honor.  While adherents of this school of thought speak of individual freedom, quite often they think of freedom as self-mastery that involves overcoming hedonistic and selfish proclivities and acting consistent with the values identified above. For example, for many adherents of this school, freeing oneself from addiction to drugs or liberating oneself from certain sexual proclivities constitute achieving personal freedom even if done under the tight control and direction of a charismatic leader or organization, which is not the same as acting in the absence of external restraint.

In his column, George Will avoids any reference to or acknowledgment of this second school of thought despite its prominence today in American society and in Republican political circles. While he champions "natural liberty" and Berlin's "negative concept of liberty" as the essence of the U.S. Constitution, he fails to acknowledge that many conservatives today reject a woman's right to choose, certainly an instance of personal freedom as the absence of external restraint, as well as the right of same sex marriage, just two instances involving the exercise of the "negative concept of freedom."  Even libertarians tend to stumble when it comes to a woman's reproductive rights, particularly the right to an abortion.

As well, for decades conservatives were not strong supporters of the First Amendment's right of freedom of speech.  Rather, conservatives tended to emphasize competing social values, such as national security or social order, when it came to imposing regulations on free speech.  Supreme Court Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas took what came to be called an "absolutist position on the First Amendment," asserting, typically in dissent, that free speech was absolute and not subject to a balancing test vis-a-vis other social values.  This was not a position conservatives embraced, until recently in selective situations.  Now conservative Supreme Court justices and other conservatives trumpet an almost absolutist position of free speech when it comes to the expenditure of millions of dollars by wealthy Americans and American corporations in political campaigns. The notion of balancing this right against other social values, such as free, fair and meaningful elections, seems foreign to them.  And this absolutist position is even more on display when it comes to gun and firearms regulation. Conservatives have adopted an absolutist position on the 2nd Amendment despite a long history by conservatives of balancing individual freedoms against other significant social values even in instances where the language of the Constitution does not speak of balancing.

I believe that years ago, during the course of Will's political evolution, he drew distinctions between, on the one hand, those American conservatives descended from Barry Goldwater (and from others going back long before him) who reflected 19th century liberal concepts such as laissez faire, free speech and freedom as the absence of external restraint, and, on the other hand, those American conservatives whose views reflected the writings and beliefs of the 18th century English philosopher Edmund Burke as well as more religiously oriented conservatives who were no friends of "natural liberty" but rather embraced a more traditionalist, non-Lockean view of society and its origins and whose concept of freedom was closer to Berlin's "concept of positive liberty." These distinctions among American "conservatives" still exist but Will fails to acknowledge them in this column.

As well, it is questionable that either Locke or the Founders would embrace Will's description of the essence of the Constitution as fostering "a capacious, indeed indefinite, realm of freedom ... understood as a general absence of interference ... ." Locke made clear that a state of liberty in the state of nature was not a state of license and that the law of nature, reason, dictated that "no-one ought to harm anyone else in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." The Founders, who may have harbored more of a darker Hobbesian rather than Lockean view of human behavior, were quite concerned about the dangers of factions, as reflected in Federalist #10, which included what we would describe today as interest groups, PACs, and even political parties.  While they were not willing to strip individuals of personal freedom to limit the dangers of factions but rather favored structural mechanisms to keep their effects in check, the Founders were certainly concerned that the excessive pursuit of individual freedom could undermine the public interest.

But the biggest flaw in Will's argument is his contention that progressives are above all else concerned about democracy, which he describes as a process, rather than individual liberty, which he describes as a condition. Liberals, a term I prefer to progressives, in the 20th and now in the 21st century, have never abandoned the commitment of 19th century liberals and earlier thinkers of the Enlightenment to personal liberty and the dignity of the individual as opposed to a glorification of the State, Church and Nobility, long the focus of conservative thinkers and groups. However, whereas the Church and State were often in opposition to individual freedom prior to the 20th century, in the 20th century the rise of powerful financial institutions, corporations and capitalism led liberals committed to personal liberty to turn to the State as a way to counterbalance the growing power of corporations over the lives of average citizens. The commitment of liberals to protecting and fostering civil liberties and civil rights, rights often opposed by the will of the majority and by conservative groups, attests to their focus on individual liberty rather than democracy.  At the same time, in seeking to use the State to hold in check the growing power of corporations over the lives of individual workers and the public in general, 20th and 21st century liberals have recognized that democratic institutions, rather than government dominated by the wealthy and corporate interests, are more likely to come to the aid of individuals and assist them in pursuing life, liberty, health, possessions and happiness.