This is worth reading, as it illustrates a peculiar pathology in modern conservatism: The idea that the US government is too incompetent to execute domestic policy well, but it has extraordinary control over outcomes in countries it invades.
Cooke's argument — again, read it for yourself — is that because I believed Elizabeth Warren could have mounted a stronger domestic response to COVID, I'm a hypocrite for saying events in Afghanistan had spun beyond our control, and a reckoning with our overreach is overdue.
But you see this all the time. The same people who say the US government would make a mess out of a national healthcare system will tell you we can invade Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc, and remake their societies.
There are places where Cooke and I probably don't disagree: He identifies the visa process in the withdrawal as a mess, and in my column, I call it "unforgivable." Better is always possible.
But, and this is key, so is worse.
Perhaps this will sound "pseudo-scientific" to Cooke, but policymaking is probabilistic, and any alternative you try has some chance of going wrong in different, and perhaps worse, ways.
The illusion that we could control events in Afghanistan has been at the base of failure after failure. The refusal to admit that is remarkable.
Given the incredible record of failed American predictions and policymaking about Afghanistan, maybe a bit of humility is in order?
Cooke writes, "COVID-19, by contrast, was — and is — a far, far more difficult challenge."
That's wild. I think we could have matched Canada or Germany or South Korea's performance over the first 6 months.
I don't think Canada, Germany or SK could have remade Afghanistan.
But this is a way the left-right split in this country is not what it seems.
The right doesn't doubt the US government's ability to do extraordinary, seemingly impossible, things. It just doubts its ability to do those things here at home.
Just one example: The forerunner to SB9, SB1120, had died a few months before, when the Assembly passed it minutes before the clock stopped, and so the Senate couldn't vote on it.
I don't think most Californians know how much Newsom and the Democratic legislature have done in the last 18 months.
To be honest, I didn't know a lot of it, until I sat down to pick through their record. But it's impressive. nytimes.com/2021/09/02/opi…
And I want to take the moment to disagree with my friend @tylercowen's case for Larry Elder.
Tyler's view is that California Democrats need a wake-up call and the legislature could stop Elder from doing anything really nuts. bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
But on issues like housing, where symbolic gestures have dominated, California's Democrats have woken up. The state is on the cusp of ending single-family zoning!
Wrecking the political coalition that's finally moving policy on this issue would be madness.
I’ve been listening to @annielowrey think (and rage) about this topic for years, and I’m so glad to see this article come out.
Once you start looking for time taxes, you see them everywhere, and they are a profound failure of both governance and justice. theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
And don't think this is just a problem of Republican governance. Democrats have created more than their fair share of time taxes, and that has, in turn, undermined both their goals and the public's relationship to government.
Every campaign cycle we are suffused in plans to cut income and corporate taxes. I want to see plans to cut time taxes.
The danger here is the recall could win. Not because recalling Newsom is popular. 57% oppose it. But those who favor it are paying much more attention.
We could end up with Gov. Caitlyn Jenner because most Californians ignore this as a distraction. ppic.org/blog/voter-ent…
This speaks to a larger problem in CA governance: A host of ideas meant to give the people more control over the government that have, over time, decayed into avenues organized interests use to get their way.
It is hard to view your own country objectively. There is too much cant and myth, too many stories and rituals.
So over the past week, I’ve been asking foreign scholars of democracy how the fights over the American political system look to them. nytimes.com/2021/07/01/opi…
Senator Sinema's op-ed defending the filibuster is frustrating, but I want to take one argument from it seriously, because it's shared by many of her colleagues: The idea that ending the filibuster will mean ricochet legislating. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
I know people of good-faith believe this argument, and it's a reason they don't want to get rid of the filibuster.
BUT:
1. It's not true, mostly.
2. In the limited cases it is true, it's healthy.
I'm not going to try to condense this to tweet length. But I've reported and written a lot on this, and here's the counterargument: