On Afghanistan

 So, our forces have withdrawn from Afghanistan and the Taliban has taken over.  It seems indecent to let so momentous a development to pass without comment.

Clearly all our options were bad.  Either commit to an endless low-grade war, or permit a catastrophe.  On the one hand, I can see the viewpoint that, after all, the Afghans are the ones who will suffer if the Taliban takes their country, so they should be willing and able to fight for it.  On the other hand, the scale of the disaster makes it unbearable simply to walk away and let it happen. And, just to be clear, this is not comparable to our indefinite commitment in Europe or South Korea.  Neither of those are fighting an endless, low-grade counterinsurgency.

If we could have propped up the Afghan government indefinitely by maintaining a mere 2,500 troops in the country, I would say go for it.  But accounts are coming out about Afghan commanders agreeing to surrender as soon our our plan to withdraw was established, and there was a significant draw-down before Joe Biden was even inaugurated.  So I have to agree with people who say that the Taliban was holding back, that the prior status quo would not have held if we had changed our minds and decided to leave such a small force in place, that our options were not stay or leave, but stay or escalate.  And escalating would have meant, not just and escalation of our troop numbers, but an escalation of the war.  That would probably not have been politically sustainable.  

But what is inexcusable is the failure to get out Afghans and their families who worked with the US and who face retaliation from the Taliban as a result -- some 70,000 of them.  There are fewer and fewer people in the US government these days who are old enough to remember the fall of South Vietnam and desperate scenes of people in danger for their work with the US desperate to escape.  Joe Biden is one of them.  His inaction in that regard is inexcusable.  From Day One he should have developed and implemented a plan to get our people out.  He should have conveyed to the Taliban (through whatever discreet back channels we have) that we would stay as long as necessary and do whatever it took to get our people out.  Implicit in this is a promise that once our people were out, Afghanistan was the Taliban's to do with has they pleased.  But we should have made very clear that if the Taliban interfered with our removal of our people, we would retaliate.

Who knows what will happen next.  Taliban takeover, like the Communist takeover of Vietnam, is one possibility.  Another is endless war with regional power rivalry -- Pakistan supporting the Taliban, Iran supporting someone at least a bad, and the Russians getting their hand in as well.  I like to think that the Taliban will refrain from hosting any more terrorists who target the West, seeing what happened last time.  But who knows.  And destabilizing refugee flows.

I can think of one small piece of comfort here, and even that may be a cold one.  Vietnam long stood out as the first war we ever lost. But in the long run we won. We failed to prevent Communism from taking over in Vietnam, but in the end Communism proved to be a barren ideology and the Vietnamese abandoned it.  Turning the clock back to the 7th Century seems like an equally barren ideology.

On the other hand, Vietnam had some advantages that Afghanistan does not share.  Vietnam is a narrow strip of coastland, well suited to export-driven economic growth.  Afghanistan is a landlocked, rugged, mountainous country.  Vietnam had a long history of the state holding supreme power.  Afghanistan has a long history of warlords outside the control of the state.  And even granting that in Vietnam we won in the long run, in the short run things got extremely bad.

Sensible Center Right and Sensible Center Left on Immigration

 So, what is a sensible center-right or sensible center-left approach to immigration?

Let us begin by asking for a significant concession by the center-left.  The United States simply cannot admit everyone who wants to come here.  There are just too many.  I have heard the estimate that if we lifted all barriers on immigration from Haiti, some 70-90% of the population would come here.  There are going to have to be restrictions on immigration, and that is all there is to it.

So how do we go about it?  I like Kevin Drum's idea -- mandate E-Verify, to require employers to check employees' immigration status.  Don't abolish ICE, but end workplace and other deportation raids.  Limit its role to auditing employers and imposing fines if they don't use E-Verify.  Illegal immigration will stop if the jobs aren't here.

A few caveats here.  One is, there will have to be a lot of tweaking of work visa rules as we find out where immigrants are and aren't needed.  We need to make work visa rules flexible enough to allow necessary tweaking.  I don't think that will prove to be too controversial, since most Americans, anti-immigration activists included, do not want the jobs in question.

Another is, this will have to be accompanied with some sort of amnesty.  Just as liberals are going to have to concede that the US can't accommodate everyone who wants to come here, conservatives are going to have to concede that we aren't going to get rid of 11 million people living here without authorization, some of them for decades.  So fierce an immigration critic as Mickey Kaus has conceded that making 11 million people suddenly unemployable could be disruptive, and that he would not really want to find out what the consequences would be.  In order to make such a proposal palatable to conservatives, we would have to agree to an amnesty would not include a pathway to citizenship (a huge hot button issue on the right) or allow eligibility for any sort of government benefits (another huge hot button issue).  If Republicans could throw in other badges of inferiority, we should concede them, provided the amnesty includes protection from deportation and freedom to work (together with all necessary auxiliaries to work -- freedom to open a bank account, to buy or rent a residence, to get a driver's license, to send remittances home, etc).

Finally, and probably most seriously, contrary to Drum, the most controversial immigrants these days are not ones looking for work, but asylum seekers, fleeing violence in their home countries.  Here is my understanding of the law.  Asylum seekers are not the same as refugees.  Refugees are people who have applied for admission in third countries (i.e., not the country they are fleeing and not the US), and have been vetted and cleared for admission.  Admission of refugees is an orderly process.  There is some controversy, but it is manageable.  By contrast, asylum seekers are people who enter the US directly and apply for admission. Asylum seekers who turn themselves in and apply for asylum are entering the country legally but without pre-authorization, a category very hard for conservatives to process.  Asylum seekers can be either detained or paroled.  Pre-Trump, parole was the norm unless there was some sort of security risk.  Trump made detention universal. So far as I can tell, Biden has not changes that.  

Both refugees and asylum seekers must prove a credible fear of persecution of returned to their country.  Credible fear of persecution means being singled out in some way.  A country that is generically violent or in the middle of a civil war is merely dangerous and does not show a credible fear of persecution.  However, people illegally or unauthorized present in the US can be given temporary protected status is their country is in the midst of violence or a natural disaster.  New migrants cannot apply for the status.  Refugees who are denied admission stay in refugee camps.  Asylum seekers who are denied applications are deported to the dangerous situation they fled.

The least controversial proposal for asylum seekers is to increase the number of immigration judges so that their claims can be processed faster.  Everyone across the spectrum will probably agree to that.  Another proposal is to prioritize recent arrivals.  The theory here is that speed and certainty are the strongest deterrents -- if claims for asylum are denied quickly, people are most likely to stop making ones that are not strong.

But in the end, that is going to mean either flooding our country with uncontrolled migration or deporting people to life-threatening conditions.  What can we do about that?  And like it or not, I think Trump's remain in Mexico program is probably what we should build from.  The difference is that instead of dumping people in the streets of Mexico, with no food or shelter, and at the mercy of marauding gangs, we should spend resources making remaining in Mexico to wait safe.  And safe would mean not just from marauding gangs, but from hunger, exposure, and disease.  

To which outraged liberals would say, I am proposing to build refugee camps on our border.  And I can only answer, I don't like this option, but I think it is the least bad option we have.  It avoids the chaos on the border that is driving support for Trump and Republicans.  It allows more freedom and autonomy that being detained in the US.  And if an application for asylum is denied, we will not have to deport the applicant to the dangerous situation he/she was fleeing.  We can return the applicant to the refugee camp, just as we do with refugees not along our border.  The applicant can then decide whether to stay or go home.  It will not be a great choice, but it is better than deporting people to a life-threatening situation.*  And, of course, I believe we should work to improve conditions in countries that asylum seekers are fleeing, but that will take time, and we need to have options right here and now.

I can also see Republicans freaking out.  This will mean spending money on non-citizens, international cooperation, and maybe even involving the United Nations in the Western Hemisphere.  All of these are huge hot-button issues to right wingers.  Nonetheless, they are all also somewhat distant and abstract. Uncontrolled flooding across the border, by contrast, is immediate and concrete.  I am guessing that if the alternative is uncontrolled migration, most right wingers will learn to swallow and accept spending and international cooperative to feed and shelter waiting applicants.  

So, I am proposing a package of bipartisan reforms.  E-Verify to cut off jobs in exchange for an end to deportation raids and a limited amnesty that does not allow citizenship or government benefits.  Making asylum seekers remain in Mexico in exchange for spending money to make remaining in Mexico difficult but endurable.  So even if the parties were miraculously agree to such an arrangement, is that an end to the immigration issue?  Didn't I say that differences between the parties would remain?

To which I answer, certainly differences will remain.  Democrats will want to admit more refugees and Republicans fewer.  Democrats will want work visas to allow permanent residency and eventual citizenship and Republicans will want guest workers only.  Republicans will want to change our immigration system to a skill-based one, while Democrats will want to maintain our existing system of family-based admissions.  Disputes will continue, as is normal in a democracy.  

___________________________________________________________

*And not to make too fine a point, accommodations should be sufficient to keep people safe from marauders, hunger, cold, and disease, but not so appealing as to entice people to stay unless they are in real danger back home.

Just a Democracy Required a Sensible Center-Right, a Sensible Center-Right Requires a Sensible Center-Left

Why do I bother posting about what a sensible center-right party's views on the issues would be?  It is obvious that a sensible center-right party is not in the cards any time soon, so why bother?  And, in any event, if I think that the issues are not the issue and all we need is a party that respects election outcomes, again, why bother?  And aren't my suggestions for a sensible center-right party just a wish list?  How does my concept of a sensible center-right party differ from a sensible center-left party?

Good questions, all. I suppose I imagine what a sensible center-right party might look like so that we can recognize it if someone tries to build one.  I am also addressing issues in the belief that parties should learn, not just to respect election results and the rights of political rivals, but also the structures that rival build.  

But the last question is the most interesting.  Kevin Drum has introduced the provocative hypothesis that liberals are primarily to blame for our polarization because we are, after all, the ones wanting to change things, which conservatives are merely trying to keep things the same.  While I think that right wingers grossly exaggerate the threat and are hysterical in their over-reaction, I do also believe that radicalization on one side tends to lead to radicalization on the other.  

If the survival of democracy depends on the existence of a sensible center-right, the survival of a sensible center-right depends on the existence of a sensible center-left.  And I will admit that the need for some continuity in policy will necessarily narrow the distance between the sides.  But I do think there can be a difference between a sensible center-right and a sensible center-left and that a party can be sensible even if I don't always agree with it.

So let me speculate on some issues, starting with immigration.

My General Impression of Joe Biden

Joe Biden has been president for long enough now that I think we can get a sense of the man.  So what should be think about him.  I suppose my overall assessment would be competent, but not inspired.

Here is what I mean by that.  Biden shows a disturbing tendency no to think ahead, anticipate the obvious, and prepare for it. He is thus left scrambling to catch up when the obvious happens and is brought to his attention.  But he seems to manage things quite competently once his attention is directed to them. Guarding the border, refugee admissions, protecting our Afghan translators, and the delta variant of COVID are all instances of Biden being caught flat-footed, scrambling to catch up, and making progress.  

Certainly he could be worse.  But he could be a lot better, too.

 

Another Thing that Republicans Should Really be Thinking About COVID

 

I hear the liberals are seriously pissed

The good new about the latest COVID outbreak, our fourth wave, is that other countries' experience of the delta variant is that it peaks and drops rapidly.  We can hope that the same will happen here.

But here is a disturbing thought. So far the vaccine has not been approved for children under 12.  And the school year will be starting soon.  

And Republican leaders are determined to have schools reopen and proceed as  usual.  Ron DeSantis has forbidden schools from instituting mask mandates, even as Florida is in the midst of a serious outbreak.  How many other Republican governors will also ban vaccine mandates and mask mandate for schools?  And what if this leads to a fifth wave of infections -- this one among children?  Maybe the current wave of the delta variant will scare some sense into parents and they will get their children vaccinated as soon as the vaccine is approved for children under 12.  But what if there are still large numbers of holdouts?

Up till now, COVID has not been dangerous to children, so schools could safely reopen with only the teachers vaccinated.  The delta variant is looking to be a different matter.  At the very least, we risk it spreading like wildfire among children.  Presumably at least some of these children will get sick.  And while the proportion of serious cases will no doubt be small, given the total number of children in school, it will not take a very high rate of serious cases to make for high numbers.

Have Republicans thought this through?  I am cynical enough to believe that Republican leaders made a concerted effort to discourage their followers from getting vaccinated because they believed they could ride the resulting disaster back to the White House.  If some of their own people died or developed long-term medical problems as a result -- well, presumably their people would consider returning Trump to the White House to be something worth dying for.  And probably for a lot of Trumpsters returning Trump to the White House really is worth risking their lives and health.

But I am going to guess that the number of supporters who are willing to risk the lives and health of their children (or grand children) to return Trump to the White House is a lot smaller.  In fact, it seems safe to assume that if COVID had posed a high risk to children, the politics of the disease would have been very different.

And if the anti-lockdown, anti-mask, anti-vax push, plus the delta variant, lead to a major outbreak among children, there will be the devil to pay.

Another Thought on COVID

 Something strange is happening with COVID vaccines that I do not understand.  The groups with the lowest vaccine rates are minorities, young people, and Republicans.  That doesn't work by my math. After all, minorities and young people are disproportionately Democratic groups, making up a large portion of the Democratic Party.  Yet we are told the Democratic rates of vaccination are higher than Republican rates.  

What is going on here?

Take THAT, liberals!

Vaccine rates are ticking up.  At least some Republican thought leaders have started encouraging followers to get vaccinated.  Has the delta variant finally scared some sense into people, and if no, what else is happening?

The report from the Republican side is that of course Republicans care about the ongoing outbreak in Missouri/Arkansas/ Louisiana, etc.  After all, it is affecting their people.  To which people on my side are inclined to say, if Republican leaders care so much about their people, why did they encourage hostility to vaccines?  The usual Republican answer is that they thought we could reach herd immunity without hard core Trumpsters being vaccinated and didn't take the delta variant into account.  Which is another way of saying Republican leaders were encouraging their followers to be what conservatives profess to hate -- free riders.  

On my side of the aisle -- well we can get terribly cynical.  Some commenters have suggested it started when the stock market fell and Republican donors started to feel the pinch. That seems unlikely to me.  A falling stock market is just another way to make Joe Biden look bad and ride the results back to Washington.  A more likely explanation is that some internal polls and focus groups revealed that if there is a major outbreak or unpopular restrictions, the people urging their followers not to get vaccinated will be blamed.  One person even suggested that the margin of victory in certain swing states was so narrow that Republican leaders began to fear that disproportionate mortality among their supporters might affect the outcome. 

I am inclined to think that Republicans leadings are acting mostly out of fear of a backlash.