The U.S. has a new strategy for Afghanistan. | Fewer economic advisory councils, please. | Also: First Amendment, skewed news, statues, and hate lists.
 |
|---|
| August 26, 2017 |
The United States has a new strategy for Afghanistan: train the Afghans to fight and win, define success in terms of the security mission alone, and stop ignoring Pakistan's aiding of the Taliban. The dissolution of two of the President's economic advisory councils is probably good news. The people who make the "yelling fire in a theater" argument about free speech not only often misapply the analogy, they need to go read the bad law they are citing. You couldn't know what most Americans are like from watching the news. If statues venerating the heroes of oppressive movements should be taken down, then put statues of Che Guevara on the list. In the Southern Poverty Law Center's universe, disagreeing with the Southern Poverty Law Center makes you a hater. |
| The right strategy for Afghanistan: President Trump's change in Afghanistan policy gets three things right, says Luke Coffey: "Ultimately, it is the Afghans' country and their war. We are not there to fight for them, but to help them fight and win. The Afghan security forces are that country's ticket to long-term security and stability. If we continue to mentor, train, and fund the Afghan military, the Afghans will be able to take on the insurgency themselves. "Not only will this help the Afghans prevent their country from becoming a hub for transnational terrorism, this will eventually establish the security conditions inside which a genuine political process can take place. This is why Trump's decision to increase the number of U.S. advisers and mentors is so important. "Second, the president was right to state very clearly that the U.S. is no longer in the business of nation building, and that we do not seek to bring our way of life to Afghanistan. We are there for national security alone—ours and the Afghans'. "For many years, America's mission in Afghanistan was often defined by lofty rhetoric of 'nation building' and 'bringing democracy.' Consequently, the inability to produce what public opinion considers tangible and achievable results 16 years on has disappointed many. "Success in Afghanistan is not when 100 percent of its districts are under the complete control of the Afghan government, or when there are no more suicide bombings. Nor is success in Afghanistan achieved when every road is paved, every girl goes to school, or everyone gets the right to vote. "These things are very important in themselves, and we should hope for them, but they are neither the reasons why we went to Afghanistan nor the reasons we should remain there. It is welcome that Trump gets this. "Finally, another important aspect of Trump's speech—and arguably the most important in the long run—was the emphasis on a regional strategy. The main focus here, of course, is Pakistan and its nefarious role in harboring and providing succor to elements of the Taliban. As Trump stated very clearly: 'We can no longer be silent about Pakistan's safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban, and other groups.'" [The Daily Signal]
Not actually bad news. The dissolution of the American Manufacturing Council and the President's Strategy and Policy Forum following President's Trump comments about the violence in Charlottesville, Va., is a potential upside of last week's events. As Dan Mitchell explains: "I don't want companies to do well because the CEOs cozy up to politicians. If entrepreneurs and corporations are going to be rolling in money, I want that to happen because they are providing valued goods and services to consumers." Mitchell goes on to quote Robert Litan and Ian Hathaway writing in the Harvard Business Review: "Most people think of entrepreneurship as being the 'productive' kind, as [Economist William] Baumol referred to it, where the companies that founders launch commercialize something new or better, benefiting society and themselves in the process. A sizable body of research establishes that these 'Schumpeterian' entrepreneurs, those that are 'creatively destroying' the old in favor of the new, are critical for breakthrough innovations and rapid advances in productivity and standards of living. Baumol was worried, however, by a very different sort of entrepreneur: the 'unproductive' ones, who exploit special relationships with the government to construct regulatory moats, secure public spending for their own benefit, or bend specific rules to their will, in the process stifling competition to create advantage for their firms. Economists call this rent-seeking behavior. […] "Do we…see a rise in unproductive entrepreneurship, as Baumol theorized? …James Bessen of Boston University has provided suggestive evidence that rent-seeking behavior has been increasing. In a 2016 paper Bessen demonstrates that, since 2000, 'political factors' account for a substantial part of the increase in corporate profits. This occurs through expanded regulation that favors incumbent firms. Similarly, economists Jeffrey Brown and Jiekun Huang of the University of Illinois have found that companies that have executives with close ties to key policy makers have abnormally high stock returns." [International Liberty]
The all-purpose, usually wrong, and sometimes mangled yelling-fire-in-a-theater argument: Criticizing a National Park Service decision to issue a permit for an Alt-Right rally at a park in San Francisco Bay, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told a local news station: "The Constitution does not say that a person can yell 'wolf' in a crowded theater." She's mixing up the "boy who cried wolf" parable with the cliché about yelling fire in a crowded theater in an attempt to explain why she thinks the First Amendment permits the Park Service to police the content of speech on federal land. But, as Eric Boehm explains, the line about yelling fire in a theater comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's opinion in the case Schenk v. United States, and that's a bad ruling: "Holmes is ruminating on the the limits of constitutional protections in a theoretical way, not laying down a bright line for when the First Amendment doesn't apply. Holmes was trying to justify the conviction of two Socialist Party members who had done nothing more heinous than distributing flyers that opposed the military draft. The two claimed a First Amendment right to distribute those flyers, so Holmes concocted a limit to the First Amendment. "That ruling, including the 'falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater' bit, is bad law. It's been almost universally recognized as such in the century since Holmes wrote the ruling, and the Supreme Court has taken steps to roll back its limits on free speech. "The only people who trot out the 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' line these days are authoritarians grasping for excuses to censor people. That includes Pelosi, yes, but also Feinstein, who has used it to justify keeping conservative speakers off college campuses. New York City Councilman Peter Vallone tried to use it to get Twitter accounts shut down during Hurricane Sandy. Feinstein has used it as an argument for shutting down WikiLeaks; pundits have invoked it when calling for prosecuting the maker of anti-Muslim YouTube videos. 'Holmes' quote is the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech,' attorney Ken White, a.k.a. Popehat, wrote in a must-read takedown of the Schenck case. "The modern standard for free speech comes from the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, in which court ruled that free speech cannot be restricted 'except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.'" [Reason]
How many Americans didn't show up at an Alt-Right Rally? Food for thought from Scott Rassmussen: "In TV-Newsland, America is presented as a hopelessly divided nation where hate-filled people battle over how they can get the government to give them what they want. Extremists of all political persuasions are presented as reflecting the real views of everyday Americans. It's a scary world in which every symbolic event can be used to demonstrate that most Americans are stupid, racist, socialist or whatever other condescending view the elites wish to project. "I recognize, of course, that there's an audience for this sort of thing. Conflict sells and that's true whether it's Survivor, the Bachelorette or national politics. There's nothing wrong with entertainment executives putting on shows that draw good ratings. But it is a great disservice to the nation to equate what happens on the nightly news to what is happening in America. "More than 90 percent of Americans don't watch the evening news and experience an entirely different America. It's an America where most people want to work hard, play hard, take care of their families, help their neighbors and do what they can to make their corner of the world a little bit better. When someone falls on hard times, others look for ways to help out. "In this real version of America, there are 63 million community volunteers, 27 million entrepreneurs and tens of millions of others who serve their community in different ways. Rather than begging for a dysfunctional political system to bail them out, the vast majority of Americans recognize that these community servants are the people who can actually get things done and solve the problems before us." [Townhall]
If we are taking down statues … In Rosario Argentina, the classical liberal organizations Fundacion Bases and Friedrich Naumann Foundation have launched a campaign to take down state-sponsored monuments of Che Guevara. Federico N. Fernandez: "[D]uring the Cuban struggle, he quickly became known for his ruthlessness and violence. He executed many, both during the conflict and after the revolutionaries got into power. He not only precisely described how he blew some poor bastard's brains out but also acknowledged at the United Nations General Assembly that his government executed many and would continue executing as long as it was 'necessary.' "He was also responsible for the opening of the first Cuban concentration camp – where homosexuals and Christians were tortured and re-educated." [Foundation for Economic Education]
The Southern Poverty Law Center's game: Joseph Infranco of the Alliance Defending Freedom explains how it works: "To support the claim that [Alliance Defending Freedom] is a 'hate group' SPLC presses a variety of arguments – too many to address in one blog. But the first few quotes attributed to ADF speakers set the tone, and deserve comment. Among these, speakers express the concern that abandoning traditional religious sexual morality will lead to silencing people of faith (one quote expresses fear of 'silencing dissent'). SPLC apparently views such fears as proof of 'hate.' "But don't miss the glaring hypocrisy here. Leading up to the Supreme Court's marriage decision in Obergefell, people of faith were rightly concerned about what would follow. But those on the other side of the debate assured people of faith that expanding the definition of marriage would merely help everyone get along. Redefining marriage is about 'live and let live,' don't you know. Nothing more will come of it; move along folks, nothing to see here. "But many people and groups, including ADF, were not convinced. In his dissent in Obergefell, Justice Alito predicted that the decision '… will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy… I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.' "All this is profoundly ironic. The SPLC uses quotes – warning of attempts to silence dissent – to accuse someone of 'hate' and thereby label them a 'hate group.' Then SPLC uses the hate label to intimidate people into conformity, thereby silencing dissent." [Alliance Defending Freedom]
|
 The Heritage Foundation |
| Add info@heritage.org to your address book to ensure that you receive emails from us. You are subscribed to this newsletter as johnmhames@comcast.net. If you want to receive other Heritage Foundation newsletters, or opt out of this newsletter, please click here to update your subscription. |
-
Comments
Post a Comment