Paul O'Neill is the one on the left.

Just like I always write, only in the New Yorker...

Check out this, from James Surowiecki. He's wrong that this practice dates from the 70s (the South has been on this bandwagon since the 30s, at which time such corporate goodies frequently faced state constitutional challenges), but he's right that it's a big waste, money thrown away on economic inefficiencies. These cities and states are essentially buying employment, which they could do more cheaply by using the money to pay their citizens to dig holes and fill them up. As Surowiecki also points out, companies lured by tax incentives are not anchored very strongly, and frequently leave when their cost equation shifts the slightest bit.

Surowiecki notes that cities are engaged in a prisoners' dilemma over this practice, but in mentioning Irvine, California, he points out that there are other options. Consider (gasp) the Triangle of North Carolina, where state money has been used to fund higher education and assist in the development of land for new businesses, but not for much else. By creating a center of human capital, NC hasn't had to pay millions to lure businesses (we speak of the Triangle, upstate where human capital levels are much lower, the guvmint checks to corporations fly fast and furious).

Seems so obvious, really, that spending money on education, infrastructure, and quality of life projects might be a better long term strategy than corporate handouts. Maybe the case Surowiecki addresses will force cities and states to take that route.

From the Department of Repetition Department

Today in a Post editorial, TNR's Peter Beinart saddles up the horse he rode last week in his home magazine. He is, it would appear, a man on a mission, determined to spread the gospel that Islamic totalitarianism is the new "great political reality," akin to Soviet totalitarianism in another age, and that Dems will keep losing elections until they realize this and get tough. I disagreed earlier this week, and I disagree still.

Set aside the fact that Islamic fanatics don't have nukes (yet, four more years of Bush and we'll see) and divisions of Soviet tanks ready to overrun Europe (I'm leaving out Pakistan for the moment, but even if it did become a radical Muslim republic, it wouldn't pose nearly the threat to us that the USSR did). Doesn't it show a startling lack of imagination to say that Islamic totalitarianism is today's "great political reality?" What about the rise of China? What about the declining influence of the West? What about the utter failure of development in Africa? Islamic totalitarianism is significant as a political reality because the Bushies made it that way, elevating it above other important issues for the sake of reelection. Even the Bushies don't think Islamic totalitarianism is much more than a centerpiece for an ad campaign, or they would take a lot of problems in the Middle East more seriously. For instance, if we're worried about IT, why not make good on your economic promises to Pervez, shoring up his position against fundamentalists? Why attack a secular nation (Iraq), while letting a theocracy (Iran) develop nukes? Why not secure Afghanistan from border to border? Why ignore the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for four years?

I hope Beinart doesn't stay on this kick much longer. Dems need a more aggressive, more coherent foreign policy, but they don't need to find it in the pages of the Bush game plan.

Lessons from the Hardwood

College basketball season is upon us, and I'm happy to see that Tobacco Road is 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the Coaches' Poll. Basketball is a religion in portions of the south, and, like any religion, it can offer lessons about life and leadership. I'd like to take a moment to recall a moment of tribulation from the gospel of Ryan, in the hopes that we can all learn something from my shortcomings.

In my last year at NC State, I was entrusted with the position of Chair of the Student Affairs Committee, a job which carried with it the solemn responsibility of athletic ticket distribution. As basketball season rolled around, it was up to me to determine which distributions should have campouts and how those campouts should be conducted. As the date for the State-Carolina game approached, my committee began planning the campout for those precious tickets. Having handled one already that season for a lower profile game, we felt confident in our organization, and we focused most of our efforts on securing entertainment for the campers, rather than considering the wherewithal of our basic arrangements.

It was a disaster. Team success had brought demand, and the original line-up process hinted at failures to come. Overwhelmed by a crush of students, the procedure for assigning line spots dragged out over hours. When spots had been assigned, we found that the campsite was inadequate for the number of campers who'd shown up. Shouting matches broke out over line spots and over our inability to project who would and would not receive tickets, as we'd not appropriately checked the number available for students. As day turned to night, close quarters, frustration, beer, and poor management of rules for open fires led to mayhem. Property was destroyed, students and fire-fighters assaulted, and the day of distribution found thousands of students angry at not receiving tickets they'd been told they would based on our poor ticket accounting.

The days and weeks that followed were filled with recriminations and repercussions. Campout, one of the great student traditions of our school, was cancelled for the foreseeable future. What faith there was in the ability of students to self-govern was lost. And this public servant, having failed spectacularly to do his duty, took himself out of student government for the remainder of his college career. Plus, we lost to Carolina.

So what's the lesson? At 21 I learned that you cannot plan any big event without asking hard questions about every aspect, every contingency. I failed because I failed to imagine possible difficulties, but I know now, and I won't repeat that mistake. Last night, John Stewart played a clip of Paul Wolfowitz testifying before someone or another, saying he could not imagine that it would take more troops to secure Iraq than to invade. As news organizations report that CIA cables are calling the situation in Iraq more troublesome than commonly thought, it deserves asking, why didn't the Bush Administration take time to ask the hard questions? To imagine the difficulties? Had they never been called to account for past failures? Perhaps that's the risk in electing someone whose life has been so insulated from hardship.

Go Wolfpack.

Soft-thinking on "Softs" and Hards"

Last week, The New Republic posted a rather feisty piece by Peter Beinart, suggesting that Democrats have performed so poorly in recent elections, and will continue to do so, because the party's liberal base has not adjusted its worldview in the wake of September 11th. The principle comparison Beinart repeatedly draws in the article is that of modern lefties ignoring the Islamo-fascist scourge to old lefties cuddling up to Communism.
I reject this argument because it's patently wrong. I hope I'm not the only one who recognizes the difference in the historical examples. Soviet Russia was an empire, a victor in a World War that left half of Europe under its thumb and half of Europe fearing that any day might bring the rumble of Red tanks. The Soviets had a thousand-warhead strong nuclear arsenal, and the bombers, boomers, and ICBMs to deliver the goods. The also had on their side Communism, an ideology that found sympathetic ears in nations the world over, including the factories of America, where it took the nasty Joseph McCarthy to eliminate Communism as a viable political belief system. In the postwar US, it was reasonable to fear invasion, nuclear war, and Communist revolution.
In the post-September 11th US, it is not clear if we are the more victimized by terrorists or by our own government. How many American lives were lost last year to terrorism (outside of Iraq)? How about the year before? It is true that in 2001, almost 3,000 Americans died from terrorism, but in the ten years before that combined, had even 500 lost their lives? Michael Moore is not wrong when he says that terrorism is no more a danger than automobile accidents or pneumonia. In terms of fatalities, it's many times less a danger. That so many American voters place such emphasis on the struggle against terrorism is a result of the way in which the Bush Administration has manipulated public sentiment in a harmful way.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a liberal hawk, someone who has long believed that American power should be used to spread Democracy and prosperity. I also recognize the dreadfully illiberal ideology of Muslim fanatics, the attractiveness of their message for many individuals, the harm illiberal regimes can do to their citizens, and the threat, though it be small, of terrorism against nations outside the Middle East. But I also believe in having an honest discussion about matters political, and for Peter Beinart to suggest that the Dems need to get harder to win elections is to say the Dems need to be every bit as misleading as Republicans to get elected. Which may be true, but is not to be desired, and it probably shouldn't be called a new liberalism either.
It was absolutely right to deal with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. That state represented a safe harbor for terrorists from which Al Qaida could have planned more serious attacks. That Bush has failed to adequately secure Afghanistan speaks to a lack of seriousness on this issue that should have harmed him in elections, but did not. Meanwhile, it is completely unacceptable that so many Americans still believe Saddam and Osama worked together to attack the US. There is a lingering ignorance about foreign affairs in this country, and adopting the language of the Bushies is not going to solve that problem. Kerry spoke repeatedly and seriously about Bush's inability to catch Osama, to secure the nation's ports and cargo holds, and stem weapons proliferation, and it did him no good. Perhaps it would have been better for him to say, we're going to pay terrorists the attention they deserve, and meanwhile focus on fighting illiberalism, injustice, poverty, and the rest. I doubt it, though. Democrats can't win on terrorism, because the discussion is no longer based in reality.
There is a terrorist threat in America, but it is minute. We should be pressing toward democracy abroad both for selfish reasons and because it is the right thing to do, not because Islamist devastation hangs over our head like the Red Menace once did.
In America's current political climate, it is suicide to question the seriousness of the terrorist threat, and it would be wise for American citizens to ask why that should be the case. The ability of political actors, journalists and private citizens to speak about political issues honestly has been damaged by Administration propaganda. I live in DC, a target for terrorists if ever there was one, and I'm much more frightened by the fact that so many Americans continue to believe we've found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq than I am by a terrorist attack.