A friend sends along this review of Walt and Mearsheimer which points out that it was not a very good book. And indeed it was not. But plenty of bad foreign policy books have been written before by famous people. Most of them committed the same error of vastly overstating the influence of whatever group they were describing. Few are as vilified as Walt and Mearsheimer, or as often facilely dismissed with insinuations of bigotry. I think that's a real problem. You cannot have a serious policy discussion if you are obliged to pretend that only one side has all the interest groups.
This is something that conservatives find maddening when liberals do it--pretending that Exxon is a lobby while Sierra Club is a bunch of rationally disinterested observers. I think that conservatives should appreciate that part of the contribution. On the other hand, the meat of Walt and Mearsheimer's argument does something that properly drives conservatives and libertarians nuts, which is to grotesquely oversimplify the way that lobbies work. I think they were out of their depth dealing with domestic lobbying, and simply projected their own understanding of IR onto domestic politics. But inter-state politics is very, very, very, very, very different from intra-state politics.
In some ways, the Israel lobby is more powerful than Walt and Mearsheimer posit, because like most muckrackers trying to expose the influence of powerful groups, they tend to assume conspiracy where affinity is a better explanation. Environmentalists excoriating the environmental lobby, for example, gloss over the fact that it is Detroit's union jobs, not its CEOs, that Michigan representatives labor so mightily to protect--that votes are usually a better explanation for politician behavior than campaign contributions. Similarly, Walt and Mearsheimer are prone to overestimate the Israel lobby's ability to snap its fingers and get its way, and vastly underestimate the public choice reasons for its success, much less the simple possibility that they consistently win because many Americans strongly agree that they should.
The problem is that W&M's critics often bypass useful criticism of their work, and try to put everything they say into the "lunatic conspiracy theorist" box. The accusation that someone secretly believes in an international Jewish conspiracy is nearly uniquely powerful in American culture, and merely hinting at it ends an argument.
Now, Walt's thought experiment may not be a good one, and I'm sure we could have a rousing argument about what a perfectly just counterfactual would be. But Ross didn't raise any of those issues. His retort is, simply, that Walt thinks there's an Israel lobby, and his book isn't very good. Both things are true. But they don't make Walt's questions any less useful, or urgent.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
"And indeed it was not"
Why not?
"Similarly, Walt and Mearsheimer are prone to overestimate the Israel lobby's ability to snap its fingers and get its way, and vastly underestimate the public choice reasons for its success, much less the simple possibility that they consistently win because many Americans strongly agree that they should."
I'm getting the impression that you didn't actually read their book. Frankly, this reads like a sad attempt at trolling Walt's new blog.
"Similarly, Walt and Mearsheimer are prone to overestimate the Israel lobby's ability to snap its fingers and get its way"
Seeing as just today we learned that Israel's prime minister can literally pick up the phone to get Bush to reverse his administration's policy, I'm not so sure you're right about this.
Fair point. But I still think Walt and Mearsheimer overstated the case they had.
They did, but then if the most damning criticism of W&M is that they overstated their case, that's not really much of a criticism. Everyone overstates their case. Especially Realists.
But they don't make Walt's questions any less useful, or urgent.
By "urgent", I assume you mean you would like the U.S. to order Israel to stop attacking Gaza?
"Few are as vilified as Walt and Mearsheimer, or as often facilely dismissed with insinuations of bigotry."
Which is the worst part of the vilification? The international speaking tour, including stops in Israel? The huge sales of their book? The speaking engagements in America? The fact that two unknown academics are now household names the world over?
It couldn't be that this actually benefited them, could it?
By the same token, we conservatives do something that leaves liberals aghast: we are perfectly aware that our institutions are political, that they are biased, that they are profit-motivated, and that they do not work as well as they could... and we're generally okay with that.
Fundamentally, both camps are chasing perfection. The liberal insists that we can have it if we try harder. The conservative insists that we can't have it no matter how hard we try, so we may as well cut our losses at some point and serve our own selfish interests. The liberal calls this "hypocrisy".
And, in a way, it is. But we're generally okay with that. ;)
And as for Israel's influence, did we not just have an extensive story about how Bush rebuffed Israel's request to use Iraqi airspace to mount an attack on Iran's nuclear program? The New York Times.
Actually, I found that Ross's reply did raise part of that. Walt asked "would the United States be denouncing those Jews in Gaza as "terrorists" and encouraging the Palestinian state to use overwhelming force against them?"
As Ross points out, if you are like Walt, and "prone to overestimate the Israel lobby's ability to snap its fingers and get its way," then you would say, "Yes, the US would denounce them because the Israel lobby would be weaker."
OTOH, if you believe that US support for Israel has to do with Americans being strongly supportive of Israel being a Western-style democracy-- then you'd also say yes.
On the third hand, if you believe that US support for Israel is because of evangelical affinity for the Jews, then you might say "No, the evangelicals would still have affinity for the Jews." (This ignores a separate question of whether the revolution in evangelical attitudes towards Jews would have occurred, though.)
"Similarly, Walt and Mearsheimer are prone to overestimate the Israel lobby's ability to snap its fingers and get its way, and vastly underestimate the public choice reasons for its success, much less the simple possibility that they consistently win because many Americans strongly agree that they should."
This is both exactly right and the reason why it's plausible, at least, to think that Walt & Mearsheimer are bigoted. They seem to consider it impossible for anyone (or at least anyone who isn't Jewish) to side with Israel without having been paid off or bamboozled by this pernicious lobby. I think most Americans support Israel because it's a civilized, democratic country that doesn't advocate killing all its neighbors. Anybody who hasn't noticed that this makes them quite different from many of those neighbors is blind; either because of prejudice or perhaps for some other reason.
You know Israel's American lobbying arm is good when a book simultaneously gets these guys generally killed as antisemites domestically and receives decent reviews in Israel
"This is something that conservatives find maddening when liberals do it--pretending that Exxon is a lobby while Sierra Club is a bunch of rationally disinterested observers."
I freely admit that both Exxon and Sierra Club are lobbies. The difference liberals see is that Exxon is a corporately funded lobby that blindly pursues the goals of a single entity at the expense of the nation and the health of the planet, whereas The Sierra Club is a donation-funded group motivated by a genuine and passionate belief in the importance of conservation. So they are fundamentally different even though they are both lobbies.
That's something that liberals find maddening when conservatives do it-- Pretend that the maximization of Exxon's corporate profit is of equal and indistinguishable importance with the preservation of the earth's ability to sustain human life through biodiversity.
Exxon probably has more shareholders who benefit from its profits, directly or indirectly (as pension recipients) then Sierra Club has members . . .
Megan writes: "In some ways, the Israel lobby is more powerful than Walt and Mearsheimer posit, because like most muckrackers trying to expose the influence of powerful groups, they tend to assume conspiracy where affinity is a better explanation."
Did you actually read the book? Or, at the very least, the essay the book was based on? W&M went to great lengths to very explicitly explain that the lobby is not some grand conspiracy but a confluence of disparate interests.
Reading a couple of book reviews is not the same as reading the book itself. I'd expect this sort of thing from Yglesias, which is why I'd rather read you than him.
Yes, I think affinity is the best word for these kinds of groups. It explains the NRA's apparently out-sized clout as well.
I've always thought that most people overlook the other half of W&M's argument: that other than pleasing the Israel lobby the US has NO rational interest in supporting Israel.
This is taken as a given on the left, even though the most enlightened and progressive Arab regime trails behind Pinochet's Chile on every human rights measure.
Outside of the middle east, can anyone think of non-socialist states that get so much uncritical support and praise from the left?
tyler writes:
Outside of the middle east, can anyone think of non-socialist states that get so much uncritical support and praise from the left?
I wonder if tyler can share chapter and verse with us about which Middle East states get "uncritical support and praise from the left."
@rjm: Everyone overstates their case.
This is a perfect little gem that should not go unremarked.
@MM - You're missing my point when you counterargue by toting up the profit participants on both sides, but your answer reveals itself. There probably ARE "more people who profit from Exxon than members of The Sierra Club", but notice that you couldn't write "more people profit from Exxon than PROFIT from The Sierra Club". The reason you couldn't write that is that NOBODY PROFITS from The Sierra Club, which is precisely what makes it qualitatively different from the Exxon lobby. Which was exactly my point: One lobby is a corporate shill, the other lobby is a group of committed individuals standing up for the shared benefit of all humankind.
This is to say nothing of the hidden costs of Exxon. If we used true-cost accounting to evaluate Exxon, then we'd see the degradation of the world environment caused by petroleum exploitation (or even just the damage caused by Exxon's admittedly tiny piece of that industry) as a distinct disadvantage to this entire country. We'd see the national security crisis created by the resistance of lobbies like Exxon's to moving our economy away from imported oil. But these aren't the kinds of costs that conservatives like to admit to, because profits looks so much tidier on a balance sheet. This is, however, one of the core value differences between liberals and conservatives, and I doubt we will resolve this today.
I do wonder, though, and this is a serious question: If you had your way, would we just allow corporations to exploit everything until the skies over America looked like the skies over Beijing? Should all our natural blessings be commercialized until there isn't a nice spot anywhere on earth? I imagine you will say no to this, but then again, so would the Bush administration.
Sauce for the gander:
"Similarly, if we used true-cost accounting evaluate the Sierra Club, then we'd see the degradation of our standard of living caused by the Sierra Club's squelching of industry as a distinct disadvantage to this entire country. But these aren't the kinds of costs that progressives like to admit to, because idyllic landscapes look so much more appealing on a fundraising mailer. This is, however, one of the core value differences between progressives and conservatives, and I doubt we will resolve this today."
"Exxon probably has more shareholders who benefit from its profits, directly or indirectly (as pension recipients) then Sierra Club has members . . ."
I would argue that, while true, this is indicative of very little. The benefits of Exxon's activities arguably extend beyond its shareholders or even its pension recipients, all the way to anyone who uses a gas pump. This doesn't change the fact that Exxon's activities are directed by the self-interest of everyone involved - i.e. Exxon's bottom line - and thus inevitably cause an immense amount of destruction along the way to said benefits.
Contrast this with the Sierra Club, whose activities not only also provide benefits that extend far beyond its circle of members, but whose activities are directed at something fundamentally other than the members' own self-interest. This not only makes the Sierra Club far less destructive than Exxon in the grand scheme, it makes objectively morally superior as well.
But, of course, the benefits of rising stock prices and cheap gas in our tanks are far easier for most of us to comprehend than the benefits of a healthy ecosystem.
Thank you Squid, there we have it, the baldest possible statement of that value difference. Of course, it's fundamentally inaccurate to say that The Sierra Club has 'squelched industry', as industry has been undeniably IN CHARGE over the last fifty years or so, during which time the exact environmental degradation that us crazy progressives worry about has come to pass. But oh well, at least allowing industry to dominate our national conversation and politics has allowed America to emerge from the twentieth century with out economic hegemony securely intact and our way of life/standard of living assured. Oh wait, I guess that's not what happened at all. Sure wish we had all that environment back, since if we had allowed the environmentalists free reign we could not possibly have ended up in a worse economic position than the one in which we currently find ourselves.
Do I sound bitter? I guess I am bitter. But the inclusion of corporate profits as a fundamental value in this country, as or more important than the long-term preservation of our way of life, is not only insane, it's bitterly, bitterly disappointing.
Oh, and I freely admit that lobbies like The Sierra Club squelch corporate profits...by pointing out all the little inconveniences that corporations would rather ignore. But it's not something I'm denying, just to be clear, Squid.
whose activities are directed at something fundamentally other than the members' own self-interest.
I think smugness in one's superior personal virtue comes under the heading of "self-interest."
@Rob Lyman - I realize your comment wasn't directed at me, but I thought Jeffrey made a good point so I'll stand up for him: This isn't an episode of 'Southpark', and you don't get to dismiss his point by calling him smug. Maybe (and I mean only maybe) he could have made his point in a humbler way, but it isn't smug at all to devote your time and money to a cause greater than your own self-interest. And he is absolutely correct to point out that such a devotion is precisely what the Sierra Club is doing, and what Exxon is NOT doing.
it isn't smug at all to devote your time and money to a cause greater than your own self-interest
I never it was. What I meant was, the product that the Sierra Club sells to many (most?) of its donors is smugness, which is very much in their self-interest and contrary to the notion of pure altruism. That Jeffrey called it "objectively morally superior" was merely an amusing illustration of the phenomenon.
Jeffrey is assuming--as are you--that the Sierra Club is right in some absolute sense: that its balancing of trade-offs (success of industry that makes modern life possible vs. future modern life which is imperiled by environmental destruction) is superior to Exxon's. That is certainly possible, but it is not unarguable or even intuitive. If you were to make the opposite assumption--that oil is critical to modern life and environmentalism is obsessing over tiny issues at the expense of the larger ones, then any claim of being "objectively morally superior" goes over the side. Suddenly the Sierra Club becomes a Luddite cult and Exxon, whatever its motivations and intentions, becomes a defender of virtue, however accidental and temporary.
The fact that the Sierra Club wants to be virtuous and its members believe it to be virtuous does not actually make it virtuous.
But it is not from the good will of the butcher, baker and tailor that we receive our food and clothing, but from their self interest.
So one group does good because they want to do good, the other group does good because we have set up a great deal of complex structures to ensure that doing good matches their self interest. And somehow this makes the first group better?
Does this meant that if the sierra club were suddenly to become profitable, that everything they say would suddenly be tainted by the evil stench of profit.
That's deep doctorpat.
"Does this meant that if the sierra club were suddenly to become profitable, that everything they say would suddenly be tainted by the evil stench of profit."
Well, I think people would be more likely to believe that it means they're now influenced by profit. As far as the whole good/evil dichotomy goes, I don't know but will immediately ruminate upon just where profit fits on this evil scale. Like more of a 5 or a 9.
Steve Sailer would like to know where you got your doctorate from. And most importantly, if you're white.
Actually, I wouldn't deny at all that a large portion of the people involved in the environmental movement are smug/self-righteous. And though I don't live in San Francisco, I'll also admit to being one of the smell-their-own-farts types Parker and Stone were aiming at. (One of my favorite episodes, BTW.)
But none of this changes the fact that the Sierra Club is aiming at a set of issues and policies which are far more holistic than the Exxon lobby, and thus far more constructive to the long term ecological health of the planet. (And, by extension, far more constructive to the long term health of our own society.) That they are aiming in that direction is directly tied to the fact that they are lobbying for something other than their own economic/material self-interest.
Actually, human nature being what it is, you could probably make a good argument that for people to be willing to commit to policies and modes of behavior which cut into their own capacity for consumption and quality of life, they need to be able to receive some other value in exchange for that sacrifice. And one value worth offering is the opportunity to engage in a certain level of self-righteousness. The attitude, which seems prevalent in much of the country, that such an exchange isn't worth it, strikes me as bizarre.
And yes, I do think that Sierra Club is right in exactly the absolute sense Rob describes. So I stand by my "objectively morally superior" comment. Rob disagrees. One of us is wrong, unless we're going to start arguing for postmodern relativism. Such is politics.
Doctorpat, I would argue that what makes the doctor or the butcher good, even though they act out of self-interest, is that they must balance their own interest against other entities of equal strength. That balance does not exist for an international corporation on the scale of Exxon. The only institution that could provide such balance - the government - has made the ideological choice over the last few decades to abstain from doing so.
Whether Sierra Club would be less good if its behavior suddenly became profitable is an interesting question, but under what possible circumstances could it become profitable without fundamentally changing the nature of what it does and the values which direct it?
Actually, human nature being what it is, you could probably make a good argument that for people to be willing to commit to policies and modes of behavior which cut into their own capacity for consumption and quality of life, they need to be able to receive some other value in exchange for that sacrifice.
I'll take that tradeoff when we find a way to properly regulate smugness emissions so that they don't exceed the corresponding cuts in consumption. And no buying papal indungences/smugness credits just because you're rich.
BTW, the Sierra Club is a highly profitable smugness sales operation. As you yourself point out, if people weren't permitted to be smug about their membership, they would be less willing to give money. That's why you will never, ever see the Sierra Club take an anti-smugness-emissions stand; they've sold out to Big Smugness.
To be a little less ridiculous, the Sierra Club's virtue or lack thereof has nothing to do with profit or self-interest. Lots of people think the NRA is evil, but its members are merely promoting a vision of society that they think is in everyone's best interest, often at personal expense. The judgment turns entirely on the policies they promote, not the alleged selflessness of its members.
Back to the topic at hand, if the Jews were going to descend into a bitter, destructive group that simmered with spite over the 1948 war that they lost, I would not support them.
Instead, Israel has fought more than a few wars for their survival, won them, and has managed to build a pretty respectful western-style democracy in spite of their neighbors.
Whereas the Palestinians have descended into a bitter, destructive group simmering with spite. Wars have consequences when you lose them. If the Palestinians insist on continuing to fight them, they deserve to continue to lose them.
And how many nation's borders were set by war? Should we insist on Russia handing all of Karelia back to Finland? Should Germay be able to recliam the territories lost after WWII?
The Finns and Germans moved on after losing these various territories, and are better for having moved on. The Palestinians have been unable to move on, and are the worse for it. I cannot support a people who exhibit the behaviors and attitudes that they do.
I'm not going to get into the whole smugness/moral debate because it's completely semantic and I can't really even tell if you guys are being serious at this point. Let me just say that 'smugness' is not a real product that one can sell, unlike 'oil' or 'guns' (in the case of the NRA, which is supported in large part by firearms/weapons manufacturers, and therefore not at all like Sierra Club, and not at all promoting 'a vision of society'.) and leave it at that.
My real point here is that you guys (Rob Lyman) are setting up a false choice between industry and the environment. If it were a simple trade-off between the two, then we would have difficult choices to make, but it isn't. The dominance of industrial lobbies has brought up environmental degradation, of course, but IT HAS ALSO BROUGHT US ECONOMIC RUIN! This happens because corporations do not plan long term (at least not in America). They can't, they have to answer to shareholders every quarter. But to say that if we just let the industrial lobbies decide everything we'd be better off EVEN IN A STRICTLY ECONOMIC SENSE has not been borne out by recent history.
Which brings me back to my central point: The Sierra Club AS A LOBBY (not it's individual members, whose smugness or lack thereof I will not debate) is looking to advance in a long-term sense the sustainability and viability of America and out planet. The Exxon lobby is looking to make as much money as possible as fast as possible. So it's not some righteous moral calculation that makes me say The Sierra Club is different and better than the Exxon lobby, it's a frank, utilitarian appraisal of their goals, plans, and recent history.
I think it demonstrates the lack of ethnic (or antiethnic) fervor re: Jews or Israel in the US that you have a blogpost over the Israeli lobby, and we argue over Exxon and the Sierra Club.
@Half-Canadian - You're right, of course, this debate over lobbies is only a side topic from the original post, but since she put that one sentence in there I wouldn't consider this too egregious of a thread-jack.
The problem with Israel/Palestine is that it's both so hopelessly complex and ruthlessly simple that it's frankly boring to talk about: It's both of their holy land, neither is ever, EVER going to give it up. They are going to keep fighting, and we are going to keep supporting Israel. That much is perfectly clear. The rest is impossible to predict, so what is there to say?
Oh and just for the record, I don't support either of them. Hamas is clearly worse than Israel tactically, and morally (from within a western value system), but Palestine was there first, and Israel performed a pretty naked land grab, not very long ago at all. So they are all wrong, the only solution is a two-state solution, and that's totally impossible because there are forces on both sides which refuse to accept that and are willing to resort to killing to stop it.
The Exxon lobby is looking to make as much money as possible as fast as possible.
If they did that by, say, agitating to restrict development of oil fields in environmentally sensitive regions and institute some kind of greenhouse gas limits (because they have fields developed in less sensitive regions, and because they hope to participate in a carbon trading scheme) would they still be evil?
OGWiseman-
The NRA receives its support largely from members. Firearms manufacturers are represented by the Sporting Arms Manufacturing Institute.
@Rob Lyman - First of all, 'evil' is your word. To me this is not a moral debate, and I haven't used that word to describe anyone. As I wrote in my last post, allowing industrial lobbies to dominate our political conversation has not benefited us economically, (e.g. Detroit, Wall Street, our continuing dependence on foreign oil) while degrading out environment. So my distinction between the two types of lobbies is a utilitarian one, not a moral one.
And to answer you directly, if oil companies came up with the strategies you proposed, they would gain a big bump up in my calculation. But if they, say, came up with a proposal to use their windfall profits to fund green energy R&D, with matching funds put up by the feds? Then they would get a much larger bump, and they would own proprietary technologies that will be critical to infrastructure in the coming century.
In the end, that's what really got me about this, is the mistaken idea that people who love the environment are anti-business. Some are, of course, but most of us are not. We just recognize that industrial lobbies have dominated for SO LONG, and have such structural advantages in our current political system (read: money), that the environment needs to get a little back.
@bombloader - I learn something new every day, and it reminds me of the old maxim: "Talk out your ass and somebody will plug it up for you." I must admit a shocking ignorance of the NRA's financial plumbing (although I support gun rights). But to be fair, what I said about the NRA was not at all central to my overall point.
Agreed. I'm not terribly interested in debates about the morality of various lobbies anyway. Most people already have their minds made up about who's right in each case, so attempts to argue about why they support whatever they support is mostly about poisoning the well anyway. I just thought I'd correct this all to common misconception about the NRA.
@bombloader - I'd tend to agree about poisoning the well, although that kind of thinking brings up existential questions about the entire blogosphere. My own rule is that I usually don't respond directly to commenters. If I enter a thread, it's because of something the actual blogger wrote. In this case, Megan made a rather snide point (but I still read your blog, MM!) about liberals that I thought rang false, so I decided to respond. And once I write something, I feel obliged to argue my point with people who do respond, particularly on a blog with limited comments (as opposed to, say, a news site) where a real back and forth is even possible.
Half Canadian writes:
The Finns and Germans moved on after losing these various territories, and are better for having moved on. The Palestinians have been unable to move on, and are the worse for it. I cannot support a people who exhibit the behaviors and attitudes that they do.
I think I can find Finland and Germany on the map whereas I cannot find Palestine anywhere the map. I suspect both Finns and Germans would also have been "unable to move on" had outsiders completely erased Finland and Germany from the map. I wonder how Americans (and Canadians) would respond had the world allowed their nations to be erased from the map.
Firearms manufacturers are represented by the Sporting Arms Manufacturing Institute.
You mean the National Shooting Sports Foundation. I believe that SAAMI (Arms and Ammunition) is mostly about standards.
And no, not central to any discussion.
OG: I guess in fairness my question should be addressed to Jeffrey, who brought moral superiority up.
NDM:
There is a Palestine, but they call it Jordan instead.
Prior to 1948, the area was called 'Trans Jordan'. When the Jews revolted and formed Israel in 1948, there was still a huge chunk of land left lying around. They call it Jordan now.
So basically, there never has been a Palestinian nation. So why there should be one now . . .
There'll be a Basque nation before there'll be a Palestinian one that actually works.
I think they were out of their depth dealing with domestic lobbying, and simply projected their own understanding of IR onto domestic politics
Why would an economics blogger with no demonstrated expertise in political analysis assert that two pretty well established political scientists were "out of their depth" and then dive in the same end of the pool? I see no issue in disagreeing with them or attempting to explain where they are mistaken, but even if Walt nd Mearsheimer are IR specialists, political scientists generally are trained to understand and be able to analyze thngs like power, influence and political institutions. Would Mghan argue that Dan Drezner, another IR specialist, is not qualified to conduct domestic political institutional analysis?
Half Canadian writes:
There is a Palestine, but they call it Jordan instead.
Who is they?
Half Canadian continues:
So basically, there never has been a Palestinian nation. So why there should be one now . . .
Perhaps Israel should have thought of that in 1967 - but it is far too late now for such an argument.
There's an explanation for the US's support of Israel independent of any Israeli lobby. It goes as follows:
1. Israel has nuclear weapons (because France passed the technology to them).
2. The Israeli government would likely use those weapons if they believed that the alternative was destruction of Israel (the bit in the movie Independence Day when the US president ordered nukes to be used on the aliens was I think the most believable decision by anyone in the movie, admittedly there was very little competition for this honour).
3. The US government does not want a nuclear war in the Middle East.
4. Therefore the US government has an interest in ensuring that the Israelis see many alternatives to using their nuclear weapons.
Anyone wishing to discourage the US government from supporting the Israeli government probably is best off trying to persuade government officials that a nuclear war in the Middle East would not harm American interests, or at least would be a better outcome than supporting Israel.
It's both of their holy land, neither is ever, EVER going to give it up.
Israel gave up Gaza, didn't it? I think you just sunk whatever point you thought you might have.
As I wrote in my last post, allowing industrial lobbies to dominate our political conversation has not benefited us economically
Going with your assumption that industry has "dominated" over the last century, are you really going to claim that there have been no economic benefits? By just about any objective standard, we're much better off than we were 25 or 50 years ago.
The dominance of industrial lobbies has brought up environmental degradation, of course, but IT HAS ALSO BROUGHT US ECONOMIC RUIN!
Oh good grief. We're in a recession; it's not the end of the world as we know it.
My real point here is that you guys (Rob Lyman) are setting up a false choice between industry and the environment.
True; there are things we could do that would benefit both industry and the environment. Nuclear power comes immediately to mind, and I'm glad that the Sierra Club is behind it. Oh wait. (As a side note, it's amusing that liberals generally correctly note that fears of terrorism are overblown, except when it comes to nuclear power where going from 100 to 150 plants means a mushroom cloud over NYC).
In the end, that's what really got me about this, is the mistaken idea that people who love the environment are anti-business. Some are, of course, but most of us are not.
Most individuals aren't, but I do believe that most of the leaders of environmentalist organizations are. Or rather not so much "anti-business" as assigning zero or negative value to economic growth and the benefits that result from it.
So in short, its not a good book because they overstate their case. According to a certain blogger named Megan McArdle.
Gee, who needs books when you can find out everything you need to know with such insightful commentary!
Megan, if the US supports Israel because of important "public choice reasons" and because "many Americans strongly agree that [it] should," then what work does a theory of an "Israel Lobby" actually do? To talk of a "lobby" is to focus the conversation on the process by which policy wins support -- it is not to talk about the merits of that policy. The suggestion behind talk of an "Israel Lobby" is that Israel comes by US support dishonestly, or that it has circumvented or undermined the democratic process in some relevant way. THAT is the claim that needs to be supported. It seems to me you simply don't agree that this is so. So why talk of an "Israel lobby" at all, even if you graciously avoid capitalizing the L in lobby?
W&M could have written a much better book if they simply talked about why they think US policy in Israel is wrong. It could be called: "Israel: The American Mistake" or something like that, and it would have argue that US support for Israel is bad for the US and also immoral, and that Americans have misjudged their own interests and made a moral mistake in supporting Israel. I would have disagreed with them, of course, along with most Americans. But the book they did write was not about that. It insisted -- and failed to demonstrate -- that a malevolent group of people have perverted US policy and public opinion, and simply assumed (without any argument) that reason and morality was on their side.
THAT is what is meant by talk of an Israel Lobby. Since you don't think it's true, stop using the term -- or else explain why the term is useful!
@Glorious - Yes, Israel gave up Gaza. It's a tiny portion of their land, which doesn't contain the holy city of Jerusalem, but they gave it up all right...Oh, except for all those settlers.
@brian - We aren't in a recession, it's much worse than that. We have a structural flaw in our economy, and if it takes years to get out we'll be lucky. Let me guess, a year and a half ago you were one of those saying that everyone predicting disaster was crazy, and everybody should get their money into financial stocks, right?
And no, I don't think we are better off economically than we were fifty years ago. At that point, a family could buy a home and survive easily on one income from a job that required only a high school education to get. The US dominated the world's economy in essentially every area, and we had a vibrant, lush, boundless array of natural resources at our disposal. Does where we are now really sound better than that to you?
Oh, except for all those settlers.
The Gaza settlers are gone and their homes have been bulldozed. Get up to date.
a family could buy a home and survive easily on one income from a job that required only a high school education to get.
If you're willing to tolerate a 50's standard of living, including 1 pretty crappy (by modern standards) car, kids sharing bedrooms in a relatively small house, mom doing all cooking from scratch, eating out once a month, and keeping her sewing skills sharp by patching clothes and updating her frocks herself, Dad carrying a lunch pail to work with leftovers, and--it gets really good here--50's medical and dental care, then you can surely do this today.
The US dominated the world's economy in essentially every area
Bombing the snot out of everyone else's factories and bridges will do that for you.
@Glorious - Yes, Israel gave up Gaza. It's a tiny portion of their land, which doesn't contain the holy city of Jerusalem, but they gave it up all right...Oh, except for all those settlers.
O
Once again, a Palestinian apologist gets even the most basic of facts about the conflict laughably wrong.
The Gaza settlers are gone and their homes have been bulldozed. Get up to date.
Yes, thank you Rob. I'll use this opportunity to mention how these were the same D9 bulldozers used to destroy Palestinian homes. That was declared a "war crime" and lead to Caterpillar disinvestment campaigns, but I won't hold my breath waiting for any Palestinian apologist to mention them.
NDM:
There is a Palestine, but they call it Jordan instead.
Who is they?
Well, every map I've come across . . .
So basically, there never has been a Palestinian nation. So why there should be one now . . .
Perhaps Israel should have thought of that in 1967 - but it is far too late now for such an argument.
What? Israel won the 6-day war. And even though they had the Sinai peninsula from it, they still gave it back to Egypt because Egypt recognized their right to exist.
Perhaps when the Palestinians offer the same right, Israel will turn over the West Bank, settlements and all.
Is it really silly to suggest that Israel bribe somewhere like Chad to accept every Palestinian as an immigrant, and then pay the palestinians 5 years wages to move?
Palestinian average income $2000, so that's $10 000 per family (assuming women don't have serious income).
For 2.5 million inhabitants of the West Bank, 75% Muslim, 44% not children, (assuming women don't have serious income)... that gives $5.25 billion dollars.
How does this compare to current military spending?
Is it really silly to suggest that Israel bribe somewhere like Chad to accept every Palestinian as an immigrant, and then pay the palestinians 5 years wages to move?
Not at all. But what do you do with those who don't take the offer and continue to wage war?
Not at all. But what do you do with those who don't take the offer and continue to wage war?
You continue to contain them, in the knowledge that their social networks are shrinking, their economic base is shrinking, their supply of recruits is shrinking, they have fewer and fewer innocent civilians to hide behind. Even a slightly less crowded west bank is a more pleasant west bank, so perhaps the rate of young men turning to despair will reduce, which in turn makes it nicer still....
It really depends on the degree of uptake. If 20% of the population takes the offer, you've reduced your problem by a little bit. If 80% go, then you've largely won the war.
Remember you only pay the people that actually leave. If it doesn't work at all, it hardly costs anything.