Letter 154: Judge Kavanaugh and Transparency

"More haste, less speed."
John Heywood, 1546.

"Trust but verify."
Russian proverb used by President Reagan in 1987.

UPDATE: 7th Sepetmber 2018: I tightened this letter home since it had been a comment on Facebook pasted into this space, with section headings and links added as well as incidental changes made. It does not change what I was writing four days ago. So it is right or wrong in view of subsequent testimony and events. 

What it does do is flesh out allusions to past events -- principally the 'Saturday Night Massacre' of 1973 and the 'Starr Report' and its recommendations of 1998 -- for those many who are not familiar with these events due to age or geography. For a particularly thorough analysis of the issues of transparency with respect to this Supreme Court nomination, please refer to the Slate article linked below, between the fifth and sixth paragraphs.

INTRODUCTION
The introduction by former SecState Condoleezza Rice of Judge Kavanaugh at tomorrow's Judiciary Committee hearing is a big plus for the prospective Supreme Court Justice. Judge Kavanaugh is more than adequately qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Current red herrings about a Judge for whom he clerked or his Catholic background say nothing about him or his jurisprudence. The Democrats seem shrill and unreasonable. Their arguments over transparency, however, are timely.

IF IT WALKS LIKE A BORK . . .Let's go back twenty-one years to Judge Bork. So why did Bork get Borked for his seat on the Supreme Court? At first, I attributed it to his being a goofy looking fellow. But, even then, I knew that few people are as superficial as I. What seemed obvious to me at the time was that the Democratic majority in the Senate had over-reached the proper limits of its institutional authority of advice and consent. That constitutional power relates to evaluating a nominee’s fitness for the office, not the quality of that person’s politics. While I disagreed with his politics and judicial philosophy, I found Judge Bork's answers and testimony to embody sound, often brilliant reasoning. 

https://dlj.law.duke.edu/2015/05/advice-and-consent-in-the-appointments-clause-from-another-historical-perspective/ 

Only a few years later did I find out that Judge Bork had been the hatchet-man of the 1973 Saturday Night Massacre. To recall that incident, President Nixon wanted to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Attorney General Richardson refused to do so and resigned. His deputy, William Ruckelshaus also refused to fire Special Prosecutor Cox and was himself fired. Finally, the Solicitor General carried out the President's wishes, acting as the interim Attorney General. That Solicitor General was Robert Bork. Some people believed that the Solicitor General may have been given career incentives to do to be the hatchet-man. That was a sore point for a lot of Democrats.

https://www.facebook.com/NBCNews/videos/10155996882128689/  

While I still felt sympathy for Judge Bork, I understood the visceral reaction among his opponents in 1987. Now, fast forward a score and one years to Judge Kavanaugh and the transparency issue, in which documents are being withheld that may bear on the Judge's actions and judicial temperament. This arguable suppression of documents by assertion of Executive Privilege for many -- and designation of 'Committee Confidential' of others -- has emerged as more urgent than Judge Kavanaugh’s aggressive disclosure and legal tactics vis à vis President Clinton's testimony to Independent Counsel Starr with respect to perjury involving sex with Monica Lewinsky. Judge Kavanaugh assumed the lead in authoring the case for impeachment, obviously another sore point for partisan Democrats. 

https://www.ted.com/talks/monica_lewinsky_the_price_of_shame 

Personally, that aggressive tactic toward President Clinton, both in questioning the President and then releasing that testimony to the inter-net raises troubling questions. For clarification, I came to believe that President Clinton should have been impeached and should have been removed from office. Nevertheless, I remember breaking down and crying when I saw that testimony on national television; it was unnecessary and a degradation of the office. So, those actions could be enough to question the qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh's elevation to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not merely a judicial committee; it also acts as our Council of Elders. The acute suffering that Judge Kavanaugh's discretionary actions helped impose upon Ms Lewinsky makes me question his wisdom, a quality that must encompass magnanimity. 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/brett-kavanaughs-bush-documents-show-how-much-power-hed-grant-donald-trump.html  

Though a partisan sore point, the Democrats really would rather not go there for obvious political reasons and since public tributes to, and the behavior of, Judge Kavanaugh demonstrate his exemplary personal life and public virtue. Now there is a second sore point, likely reflective of a more serious contention of accountability, the Democrats call for more disclosure, arguing that only a small percentage of the documents requested have been turned over. The Republicans claim that Judge Kavanaugh has turned over a far higher number of pages than other nominees historically. 

MANY PAGES, MANY RAGES

Both assertions are accurate but fail to answer each other and utterly miss the point being raised. The size of the hole matters less than its timing.  The part of Judge Kavanaugh's record resolutely withheld relates to those years when he was a White House Counsel and possibly involved in the policies enabling torture and kidnapping of terror suspects after the attacks on New York City and the Pentagon on the 11th of September 2001. Understandably, this is a sore point with the opponents and later critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4746754/senator-mccain-president-bush  

Republicans may argue that, at least, 15% of the Senate Democrats confirmed, as C.I.A. Director, Gina Haspel, who was more intimately involved in these odious policies (that stained the legacy of one of my favorite Presidents). Fortunately, in the case of torture, the late Senator McCain, Attorney General Ashcroft, Deputy A.G. Comey and others raised holy Hell eventually to mitigate and end the policies. The rationale for Ms Haspel’s confirmation was that she simply followed Administration policy, as determined by the civilian Commander in Chief. By logical extension, so did Judge Kavanaugh. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/17/gina-haspel-cia-director-senate-vote  

The question here is not simply a repeat of the Nuremberg defense, but one that works. The dilemma underlying these grey-zone decisions of the past pits moral agency against ethical autonomy. Simply said, the current Director of the C.I.A. arguably has a shakey moral agency but, nevertheless, she enjoys little ethical autonomy. The same can be asserted of Judge Kavanaugh’s moral agency, should his actions fifteen years ago bear out an active enabling of policies on torture.  (For me, I failed to question these policies when I knew they were in place, viewing them as regrettable necessities of war; I was wrong, terribly wrong. Citizens, even insignificant ones like me, are accountable too if not publicly, then at least to their own consciences.) 

https://medium.com/@jackkrupansky/what-are-autonomy-and-agency-1928813394c7  

Both the Judge and the Über-spook are fine people; nonetheless, their moral agency has been open to question in the past. Hey, nobody's perfect. The question for me -- and why the Democrats' demands should be met -- centers on ethical autonomy. Director Haspel has at least two superiors above her in the Executive Branch: the President and the Director of National Intelligence. So, theoretically at least, she has limited latitude in her decision and actions. The Vice President can likely pull rank, too, but would almost never be in a position to do so. 

WHO'S IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT AND WHOSE SEAT IS IT?

Judge Kavanaugh's autonomy on the Supreme Court, however, will be far more open-ended, removing institutional accountability. Outside of an impeachment and removal by Congress -- unlikely in this case in view of this man's demonstrably fine character -- a Supreme Court Justice may answer to no one. So the issue of past moral agency becomes important, if not determinant. And accountability for past behavior must occur before Judge Kavanaugh ascends to the highest bench. 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-democrats-documents-kavanaugh-20180824-story.html#  

The Republicans ought to release the documents in question since not doing so lends credence to the implicit accusation that they are seeking to protect Judge Kavanaugh from being held to full account for his role in the policies of 'enhanced interrogation'. For my part, were the nominee proven to be intimately involved, I would still view him as qualified. For me, at least, it is hard to imagine the pressures on the executive branch during the harrowing days following 9-11. While my support would remain in place, I would understand why others -- perhaps many -- would dismiss this nomination out-of-hand.

Letter 153: Fake News, Hate Speech, the Social Media and the 1st Amendment

“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” President Jefferson, 1801; first inaugural speech

“As well-meaning as they might be, warning labels and Wikipedia links aren’t likely to solve YouTube’s misinformation problem, because it’s built into the structure of the platform, as it is with Facebook and the News Feed. Social networks have an economic interest in fuelling this process, in part because it keeps users on the platform.” Matthew Ingram, 2018; Columbia Journalism Review via Pew Media Research

UPDATE / CORRECTION, 11th April 2018: The essay mistakenly states that Facebook sells data supplied by users directly to advertisers. This is not the case, as Mr Zuckerberg explains here. Facebook monetizes such data by leveraging their usefulness to advertisers (e.g., in targeting advertisements to particular users).

BLUF (bottom-line, up-front). It may be time to review what political speech is protected; a private sector solution is available.

SUMMARY. Recent news reports about manipulation of, and misinformation disseminated through, the social media raise difficult and delicate questions about how the First Amendment applies in a day when technology has arguably redefined what censorship is and how the still relevant original intent should apply.

A private sector approach may exert judgement as well as standards. Rather, the idea of product and errors-&-omissions liabilities may prove to be more operative. The social media manufacture and disseminate information for end users and the latter pay for it in kind with their personal data. The social media monetizes users' data by selling them to advertisers.

SMOKIN' in the BOYS' ROOM 

Yes, it is censorship and the free press that we discuss and I appreciate an old friend’s timely clarification between individuals and institutions. The concern over censorship raised applies very well to individuals. The defense of President Jefferson of an individual's liberty to express outrageous speech and opinions held that their open airing, subsequent debate and ultimate dismissal by the larger society would attest to the vitality of that democratic polity.

In this sphere, I concede, algorithms will have to do. The social media also have the right -- obligation -- to edit and winnow out content they deem inappropriate at their discretion. The rub occurs when it comes to an institutional adversary, particularly another nation or régime, aimed at eroding the legitimacy of a working democracy -- since popular opinion and discourse are its center of gravity -- and threatening the institutions themselves. A democracy has a duty to protect its people and its discourse.

Adversarial governments, non-state actors, and bots simply should not enjoy 1st Amendment protections inside American public discourse. How to deal with these direct threats is challenging; the danger may not be very clear but it is very present. That is the dilemma. Similar to impulses toward censorship during the ‘Red Scare’ of the 1950s, Americans need to have faith in their institutions.

Source: "Walking the Brand Protection Tightrope"; Brand Quarterly.

In addition to questions raised below, transparency of sources of the identities of disseminated content visibly attached to bot-generated posts may suffice. Yet, like the debate about the 2nd Amendment, we face a question of scale. It is reasonable to assume that the Founders -- Messrs Jefferson, Mason, Madison et al. -- could not have envisaged the magnitude of lethality of contemporary 'rifles'.

Likewise, printing up a thousand pamphlets for local distribution, with multiple printings for regions beyond, is simply on a scale altogether different from the immediate dissemination of misinformation -- arguably dangerous (though not as evident as screaming '¡FIRE!' in a theater) -- through hundreds of bots and across thousands or millions of screens.

Additionally, this misinformation has been shown to make its way into mainstream media per the C.J.R. article. I believe -- and these are beliefs we debate, not opinions dressed up as self-evident principles to justify rigid and uncritical application -- that a democratic society is not betraying its ideals and liberties by defending itself against organized misinformation aimed at undercutting it.

Recent testimony by senior execs at Google, F.B. and Twitter at Congressional and Parliamentary hearings have shown that the algo-game is much like the myth of Sisyphus. The platforms are responsive yet smart black-hats then game the new rules; it reminds me of what happened in the corruption of Wall Street during my years in banking. 

Simply relying on rules without muscular and anticipatory discretion, as articulated by Niall Ferguson*, can be damaging through an undetected and unaddressed corruption of the regulatory régime. Nevertheless, discretion by regulators without codified accountability is a prescription for the gradual onset of tyranny. Remember the uneasy balance required here will remain publicly transparent and accountable. When the balance is disturbed, the society has the means to restore the balance. We saw this occur with enhanced interrogation and the NSA domestic surveillance programs. 

SO HERE are the QUESTIONS for READERS to CONSIDER:

• Is fake news protected speech?

• Is eliminating hate-speech from the public discourse censorship?

• Do bots merit 1st Amendment protections?

• What foreign entities operating outside of the U.S., if any, have 1st Amendment protections?

• Are the social media information platforms only or are they news outlets?

• Is editorial discretion by a social media platform a form of censorship?

• Are mandatory and evenly applied waiting periods before information release -- on key words and links -- censorship via prior restraint?

• If not prior restraint for shorter periods, how short should waiting periods be -- thirty minutes, several hours, one or two days?

• Are the social media information platforms or are they manufacturers and disseminators of content and data?

• If a particular social medium manufactures and disseminates of content and data (i.e., content for users and personal data collected for advertisers), would enforceable product and errors-&-omissions liabilities apply to the social media platforms?

• Does obscenity involve only content with no political, artistic, social value in a sexual sense?

So we circle back to the basic concern over censorship as a valuable resource in making a nuanced response to a subtle threat. Hackneyed thinking is even less effective than algorithms. Ironically, the publicity of Nikolas Cruz's hateful Instagram posts could very well have benefitted the public welfare by tipping people off to intervene.

In those cases, the social media would serve the common welfare by conveying censored information to law enforcement, mental health agencies, schools, and other institutions. Perhaps, in applicable cases, parents should be clued in, too. In that manner, the risk of copy-catting or momentum toward bloodshed generated by widespread dissemination of violent content might be mitigated. Yet the dark-net complicates things.

PRIVATE SECTOR BAIL-out?
A friend’s concern of censorship driving hate-speech and fake news onto the dark net has to be kept in plain view. An emotional response with the subtlety of a sledge-hammer could drive fake news to that less visible domain, quite foreseeably to impose consequences even worse than the antecedents addressed. So, the arguments above likely will not make much headway. The problem will persist.

If not a government-led approach to curtailing destructive content aimed at de-legitimating our institutions and freedoms or calculated to incite violence, what can we do short of intervention or overt censorship? Perhaps the private sector can chip in here. The thesis proposed here is that the social media manufacture and sell two intangible products.

The more visible product is content. The less visible is user data, often behavioral. Users pay for the content they consume or create by surrendering data on preferences and interests. The platforms monetize the collected data by targeting precisely the potential buyers for paying advertisers. Viewed as manufacturers and sellers of intangible products makes the social media accountable in an extra-governmental way.

When deceptive hate-speech and other content foreseeably incite violence (e.g., the Comet Ping Pong Pizza shooting in D.C.) or when fake news squarely attacks the legitimacy of U.S. institutions (perhaps libel against an institution), a product liability exposure could arise and, perhaps, be prohibitively expensive for the social media. This idea finds more traction with the former instance of violence and its inspiration caused by a defective content distributed to the consumers of it.

For damage done to public discourse, the liability of errors-&-omissions might attach to the social media, specifically the programmers of the algorithms or those that either edit or filter content. After all, if bots should not enjoy 1st Amendment protections (as I assert), then algorithms ought to be considered as something less than people committing willful mistakes or foreseeable negligence.

Beyond trying to be clever and evade censorship restrictions, this application of basic insurance concepts really boils down to aligning private micro-incentives, born in the private sector, with the communal interest of protecting ‘protected speech’ only. That is to say: creating an over-riding economic interest for the social media to exercise editorial discretion in the same manner that The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, ‘PBS News Hour’, ‘Sixty Minutes’ and so many other media outlets, of all ideological bents, already do.

------

*Unfortunately, I can not track down the specific thought (on video) by Dr Ferguson. In essence, his thought was that the Bank of England had a better regimen of discretion and rules in the nineteenth century. As long as the regulators themselves acted as honest fiduciaries of the larger financial system, oversight worked better with direct interventions into the market to shut down or discipline institutions immediately before consequences could multiply into financial contagion. The closest example of this idea was the Federal Reserve’s intervention into the crisis precipitated by the collapse of Long Term Capital Management in 1998.

Letter 152 to friends and familiares: a defense of Senator Franken.

NOTE: this letter was written before I was aware of the emergence into the popular press of clear, if asserted, evidence of a pattern of conduct by Senator Franken. The take is largely the same. Senator Franken continued making text-book amends of apology, atonement and resolution. I regret that he felt compelled to resign. His fellow Democrats might have acted more appropriately by censuring him publicly.
--------------------------------------------------
THIS LETTER WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT BE REPRINTED BY THE MINNEAPOLIS NEWSPAPER TO WHICH I SUBMITTED IT.

PERSONAL BRANDING IS OUT OF CONTROL; ALLEGATIONS SHOULD NOT BE ADVERTISING

Dear Editors and fellow citizens in a great state,

Thank you for publishing this note from someone in Alabama looking from afar on this allegation against your junior Senator. This letter is a reminder, more to me than to you, that we all make mistakes; it is what we do about them that shows the enduring content of our characters. Truthfully, as a conservative Republican, Senator Franken’s often abrasive manner, particularly toward Alabama’s favorite son (i.e., Attorney General J.B. Sessions III), infuriates me.

Nevertheless, y’all in Minnesota are fortunate to have a man of such high character representing you. The reading on 'The View' by Ms Tweeden of the Senator’s private note of apology was distasteful, at best. The good news is that the contents of that note reveal a leader of uncommon maturity, compassion and humility in addressing, with civility, an allegation that could end his career.

Does that note excuse the Senator's behavior, if it actually occurred? No. Senator Franken’s own words, however, provide you with evidence of his ability to face up to mistakes, learn from them and grow into becoming a better man. You are the State that has produced many giants of American liberalism. Please do not turn your backs on that tradition by turning your backs on this Senator.

Oh, if my Party's Senate candidate in my State had half the virtue displayed by Senator Franken, I would be so happy.

Very truly yours,

Ned

Edward J. McDonnell III, CFA PMP
Birmingham, Alabama

Letter 151 to Friends and Familiares: Choice versus Life: ¿whose right is it, anyways?

UPDATE: 15th December 2017

In a recent discussion with a rabbi, my Jewish friend and theologian observed that, in Genesis 2:7, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." He went on to say that, under Judaic tradition, life begins when a baby draws a first breath (implicitly, from God). The implication for my thinking is staggering.

For my adult life, I have assumed "instinctively" that life begins at conception. Since this was a matter of "straight-forward intuition", I had no reason to question this premise. Fact is that I grew up in an R.C. home, though not a strict one, at least theologically.

Had I grown up in a Jewish home, however, my "instinctive" assumption would be that life started with the first breath. That would make the pro-choice position "intuitively" evident. In no way am I saying that such an argument endorses abortion as birth control. It does not. Additionally, abortion has proven not to have become a form of birth control in the last forty-three years.

--------------
"The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.” --Mother Teresa

"....Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?...She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." --Saint John 8:10 & 11

“Suddenly, I began to wonder: If one in three or four American women had an abortion at some time in her life--a common statistical estimate, even in those days of illegality-- then why, WHY should this single surgical procedure be deemed a criminal act?” --Gloria Steinem

NOTE: table added on 04may22

BLUF (bottom-line, up-front). The current legality of abortion – principally, Roe v. Wade (1973) – should remain in place unless two-thirds of voting age women (67%) consent to its being reversed.

Introduction. I have been fairly constant in my pro-life preference over time, though I believe there has to be compassionate flexibility built into the resolution of the larger issue across American society. These include the following:

• minors notifying parents of an abortion unless to do so would injure them or others;
• notification of the father – and of his anticipated responsibilities should the mother carry the pregnancy to term and not choose to place the baby into an adoption program – except when to do so would injure the mother or the baby;
• unfettered right to an abortion in cases of rape or incest;
• mandatory waiting period for the procedure with exposure to pros and cons of the decision;
• funding for pre-natal care including drug rehabilitation (if necessary), occupational training during the pregnancy and early child-care assistance after the birth of the baby;
• mandatory availability of the surgery across the country and within the states; as well as,
• affirmative adoption tax credits for the adoption of minority children.

Discussion. One point to emphasize is that, of all issues, out there in the political arena, the right to life versus choice is the one that requires the most compassion toward people facing this dilemma. Yet, the very compassion that so many pro-life moral irredentists lack remains, in my mind, inconsistent with their claims to righteousness. In the end, the only judgement publicly cast should be that of the Supreme Court in 1973.

J.C. Himself would never demonize women who terminate pregnancies – so many being poor and feeling abandoned – that many of my fellow conservatives do. One should consider seriously how (s)he might feel if a pregnant daughter or sister were unwed and, perhaps, underfed, chose to end an unwanted and crushing pregnancy. Remember what J.C. said to the adulteress who was not stoned after He said let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

If one undertakes this exercise in moral fortitude, I find it hard to believe that (s)he would over-rule every impulse toward empathy and compassion. Aside from Xian theology, the over-riding point is that a woman retains an independent moral agency to determine whether the fœtus remains a part of her body or whether it constitutes a separate life. That is to say: as long as this question is unresolved, the moral right belongs to the individual, namely the individual woman.

Our Constitution makes it clear that individual rights in everyday exercise – even implied rights protected by Amendments IX and X – can not be curtailed by the Federal government. The States theoretically can restrict abortions but I can not favor this idea unless two-thirds (67%) of the women should first consent in a concurrent referendum. The idea of a concurrent referendum of women applies Calhoun’s “concurrent majorities” to demographics, not states.

The irony of this conservative pro-life stand. As far out of step as this thinking has often been with my friends, particularly women, in practice my thinking seems to be coincidentally aligned with what the American people think – and have thought consistently since the mid-1970s – with respect to choices by a woman during pregnancy. The extensive Gallup data have, embedded deep inside them, key findings.

Women have the right to choose abortion without restrictions in the first trimester of the pregnancy. This makes sense since other data indicate that many or most unplanned pregnancies are a consequence of failed birth control, either in working or in use by the one or both parents. Of course, that nudges the door open for whether birth control is itself permissible. For me, that door is ajar and – hypocrite that I am – I intend to keep a lid tightly sealed on it.

When the issue of reversing Roe v. Wade is in contention, Americans ramp up their opposition to such a move (i.e., during a conservative presidency). These data indicate, to me at least, that people want Roe v. Wade to remain in place. Its reversal is a theoretical nicety when a pro-choice régime is in power but when the rubber hits the road, the true preferences emerge.

Summary. Women have a right of dominion over their own bodies, whether the rest of us agree or not. Like it or not, a woman’s view of the fœtus as a part of her body rather than an utterly dependent life is intellectually defensible. The American people tend to agree with this idea of free agency early on in the pregnancy, though that support fades in the second and, radically, third trimesters. The consent of women is required for any curtailment of the implied right of privacy with respect to their bodies and lives.

Letter 150: Technocracy and American Foreign Policy; brain-gang OR brain-game OR brain-blame OR brain-bust?

"You know this vision. You have seen it so often at the movies. It is the vision in all those science fiction dystopias. You know, with the gilded masterminds ruling all from their swank towers and conference rooms.
....
"It’s a quite contemporary vision. For instance, it is not far at all from the way I think the rulers of China imagine themselves and their future." --Dr Philip D. Zelikow, 5th August 2017.

BLUF (bottom-line, up-front): Dr Philip Zelikow gave a long address -- the speech takes 45 minutes, or more, to read -- at some out-of-tune wonkstock festival. His thoughts superficially remind one of those of Kennan. 

INTRODUCTION

They are not alike, primarily because this scholar is opening up the discussion and not selling its conclusion as Kennan did for SecState Marshall and President Truman. There are certain elements missing in the Zelikow's presentation by order of importance that guarantee us languishing longer in violent decline:

1. a frank recognition of the financial constraints facing the United States to usher in a more traditional exceptionalism as the American Century fades;
2. justification by technocrats of their being entitled to positions of power and privilege by 'degrees' of arrogation;
3. a clear idea by the U.S. of the end-state of a just society (i.e., an intelligibly universal appeal through a 'proposition of values' rather than a Zelikovian value proposition marketing technocracy through, of course, the current brain-gang);
4. exclusion from the 'outside-in' evaluation seeking to clarify how other peoples and governments (or élites) view the U.S. (and not how we think they view us);
5. a serious questioning of the nature of our adversaries and our role in that rivalry;
6. confusing tactics with strategy though that erudition and foot-notes often shroud that mistaken thinking; as well as,
7. a deeper inability, shown from President Reagan's time in office, of reducing the size of an over-wrought and financially unsustainable Federal government as well as the corrupting influence of (in)vested interests like the XXX-industrial complexes.

Of course, my critique is hampered by the same intellectual constraint as Dr Zelikow's far deeper and more nuanced analysis; he is a brainiac, after all. I am using a handy framework -- the recent military model that I learned in Iraq -- which is, of course, rooted in the past; not transcendent into the future; and, quite likely stale by now.

CASE STUDY OF TECHNOCRATIC VACUITY

This juncture is where President George W. Bush gets short-shrift, first by the hawk squawks led by the gang-of-four (Messrs Cheney, Libby, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld); then by Generals specialized and socialized as engineers; current intellectuals; and, lastly, the Obama Admin. President Bush understood, perhaps on an intuitive level, that, for the current wave of terrorism to be eradicated, an Arab Spring would have to occur.

Iraq was the geopolitical keystone of an arch of dictatorship and repression, resembling a reversed crescent moon from the horn of Africa on up to the 'No-man-stans'. The geopolitical mindset was easy to grasp, perhaps too easy:

• knock Iraq out in favor of a more popular government;
• link that with a far more tenuous experiment in Afghanistan; and, 
• incent the cosmopolitan middle class in Iran to grasp for the same freedoms.

From that arc, at that point primarily a Shi´ite phenomenon, others across that arc would be catalyzed into throwing off their shackles imposed by tottering Sunni dictatorships. Nations and peoples like to play ‘keeping up with the Jones’, too. WHY THEM AND NOT US? This new domino idea almost worked as seen by the 'Arab' Spring in Lebanon (2005), Iran (2009), Tunisia and Egypt (2010), Libya (2010) and Syria (2012) and beyond. 

The vision was simple but the follow-through too difficult, under-cutting the justice of the policy. The two parts that President Bush did not contemplate, due to a sweeping vision short on detail, included:

• making an all-out case for the necessity of this transformation, despite its wave of turmoil and violence; as well as, 
• warning the rest of us just how messy it would be. 

Instead of a three-dimensional thinker like Kennan to sell President Truman’s policy of containment, President Bush relied upon the lesser, if equally self-assured, minds of SecDef Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney. 

When the U.S. gained the tactical advantage in Iraq, the gang-of-four -- and their face-man desk-clerk, Ambassador Bromide -- reverted to type, seeing Iraq as ours and, now, something to lose. That compromised and eventually corrupted the end-state the President had envisioned. The rest is history: what some troops in Iraq referred to as the Texas Cheney Massacre; Texas for Halliburton-KBR, not President Bush.

The key lessons for people to learn and always to hear include, but are not limited to, the moral fortitude that change requires; the narrower than expected limits of any power, particularly fire-power; the challenge of follow through; as well as, the difficulty of keeping hands-off once a cycle of change is initiated (that is, letting history run its admittedly hazardous course). That is to say: be careful what you instigate, for its life will likely be different from yours.

The failure of the Bush policy of an aggressive promotion of democracy in response to 9-11 was not only an example of Dr Zelikow’s astute insight of wasted energy, money and people on areas of lesser importance.  Additionally, it was an ill-thought out strategy that led to a chimerical consensus. The brain-gang failed signally to consider the lowest cost options (i.e., those least deleterious to the lives and livelihoods of peoples in the 'beneficiary' countries). 

COWARDICE CROWNING CONFLICT? Yes AND no.

The failure of President Obama’s policy was an unwillingness to witness the upheaval the Bush vision had counted on during the run-up to invading and occupying Iraq. This changed to a reactive policy perceived as a lack of nerve rather than a widely shared perception of ‘strategic patience’. Many of my fellow conservatives view President Obama as a coward; that is patently untrue and unfair. President Obama was and is a man of peace. 

His appeasement – and, yes, that is what his policy unmistakably was -- may well have forestalled a conflict that could quickly have cascaded into the "systemic crisis" that the dystopian Zelikovian multiverse contemplates and for which the U.S. is anything but prepared. President Obama’s alternate view may have saved a great many lives; sadly, that systemic crisis was more likely deferred than defused. 

President Obama’s alleged but apparent cowardice may have required a quiet courage to fend of the brawny bluster of men who do not have to suffer the consequences of their own rhetoric. If cowardice be assigned at all, it would lie with V.P. Cheney, SecDef Rumsfeld and AMB Bremer -- and their staffs -- for failing to think big, like their President, and, worse, not permitting others (e.g., SecStates Powell and Rice and their competing brain-gangs) to have the floor for alternative views. 

CONCLUSION

Dr Zelikow fails properly to account for this narrative as a teachable moment. Why? Because he was, and has every intention of remaining, a part of it. Now, we labour under a President without vision and inclined toward force as the primary medicine. Fortunately, he is unpopular and being repudiated on several different levels. Otherwise, we might undertake an amputation when only an analgesic is called for.

In the end, however, technocratic élites will fail us; they almost always do. Why again? Because the very notion of technocracy is conservative, more like preservative, of a given status-quo. To expect more from the Dr Zelikows (or the far more numerous and insignificant Ned McDonnells) of the world to anticipate and structure an ex ante strategy for fundamental changes in world orders or global policy paradigms is futile.

THE MORAL OF THE QUARREL
Expecting technocracy to avoid dystopia is as fruitful as tasking mechanical engineers to invent from scratch the impressionism of palette or expressionism in poetry.

Letter #149 to Friends and Familiares: Charlottesville, what might have been

“That differences of opinion should arise among men on politics, on religion and on every other topic of human inquiry, and that these should be freely expressed in a country where all our faculties are free, is to be expected. But these valuable privileges are much perverted when permitted to disturb the harmony of social intercourse, and to lessen the tolerance of opinion.” –President Thomas Jefferson, 1809.

“I must respect the decision of the Supreme Court allowing this group (the Nazis) to express their views, even when those views are despicable and ugly as they are in this case. But if such views must be expressed, I am pleased they will not go unanswered. That is why I want to voice my complete solidarity with those citizens of Skokie and Chicago who will gather Sunday in a peaceful demonstration of their abhorrence of Nazism.” —President Jimmy Carter, 1978.

“I was raised in a household in which the only intolerance I was taught was intolerance of bigotry.” –President Ronald Reagan, 1982.

---------

BLUF (bottom-line, up-front): We could have made Charlottesville much ado about nothing. Instead we ushered in tragedy.

INTRODUCTION: Sit-Rep. The sight of white supremacists rallying on the grounds of the co-author of the Bill of Rights and the Founder of the University of Virginia, one of the nation’s great learning centers, will remain grimly ironic. Few people – liberal, conservative and moderates alike – really have the time of day for these unsavory human beings.

These ‘Unite-the-Right’ (sic) types openly challenged the sacrosanct ideal of the Freedom of Speech. Yet, sacrosanct that ideal remains. Earlier this week-end, we confronted the real-world, real-time dilemma of Free Speech.

What to do about odious speech, publicly expressed? The First Amendment intends to protect ‘protected speech’ only.

That statement is circular and anyone can see that. But its being circular does not make it specious. What it really says is that there has to be flexibility in setting limits to this precious right since unfettered Free Speech could lead, for example, to the murderous disorder we witnessed in Virginia, directly harming the more peaceable citizenry.

Dealing with Hard-Core and Political Porn. The Supreme Court grappled with this issue in the area of pornography in a case from 43 years ago, deftly deferring to community standards for the definition of obscenity (i.e., in that case, ‘hard-core’ porn). There has been controversy over the subsequent decades on how to apply that vague and federalist wisdom.

During the 1980s, a Republican U.S. Senator sought to withdraw financial support for a sacrilegious photograph and a big-city Democratic Mayor pressured vendors to pull off their newsstands an equally sacrilegious magazine. Generally, these issues revolved around how community standards were, and are, to be identified and enforced.

Something like this idea of local agency applies to what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia on Saturday 12th August 2017. Can elected officials act as agents of community standards in responding to openly disseminated hate-speech? That is what the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Mayor of Charlottesville were trying to do.

While they were in the right, as any reasonable man or woman could see the right, these leaders mismanaged a situation through political bungling. The idea of local agency to suppress bigotry makes sense. What became very difficult was agreeing upon just how much latitude these local agents should properly have.

Like pornography, one is hard-pressed precisely to define hate-speech, beyond the well known slurs and epithets, but yet any dunce, even Dylan Roof, knows it when he hears it.

That 1970s Show, Again. This current situation reminded me of a similar event in the Summer after my freshman year at W.&L. In that year, neo-Nazis planned a march, in their full dress and wretched regalia, through a Jewish suburb of Chicago. Local elected officials sought to forestall the event. Yet the American Civil Liberties Union – an organization I perceived as ‘Jewish’ (shame on me) – came to the aid of the neo-Nazis so the latter could march.

Like most others whom I knew, I wondered at the time, ‘What in the Hell is the A.C.L.U. doing?’ As the Summer moved along and I listened to interviews of the Jewish attorney taking up the case on behalf of the A.C.L.U., I gained immense respect for him and his organization for standing by the Freedom of Speech, even in this obviously odious expression of it.

After working its way up through various benches to the Supreme Court, the march proceeded without incident a year later as a counter-rally shouted down the handful of hate-meisters.

Back then, however, the country was still held together, with increasing frailty, by what many of today’s self-labelled conservatives (sic) would deride as a ‘leftist consensus’. Truthfully, it was an expectation of public civility. This more liberal consensus of decorum was fraying; its ideology exhausted. The mainstream G.O.P. was dissolving and a Democratic President struggling.

Nevertheless, the Kulturkampf had yet to arrive as a regrettable by-product of President Reagan’s conservative ascendancy. There is little doubt in my mind that President Reagan would not have countenanced today’s rally in Virginia and would have said so, decisively. But we do not have a principled Republican like President Reagan in the White House to remove this blemish publicly and pro-actively.

The Loss of Principle and Purpose in Personalities. Instead our current President is a demagogue, though he deserves some credit for his delayed and piping tepid response, to the bedlam of bigotry in Virginia. Previously, President Trump had created today’s context with slurs uttered against whole segments of the population – call them the 3M post-its written with passwords to revile Mexicans, Muslims and Mixed-genders – in word, deed or tweet.

While General Kelly may finally be imposing adult supervision on this President, it is sadly too little, too late. The cage doors of civil containment have been flung open, like Pandora’s Box, releasing the evils of the ghoulish, bad and ugly. Like Pandora’s Box, however, there is Hope, the last to exit. And what is this Hope? Three elements, at least as I view them from my limited and conservative view: deflection, humor and refutation.

Remember Skokie. And that brings us back to Skokie, 1977. At the time, one caller, apparently a steel-worker, into a radio talk show on the local mainstream station proposed an interesting response. Why not have the Skokie mayor announce that the town would permit the swastika-laden mob to march, opting for a town picnic on other side of Skokie for the residents to celebrate Judaism?

Why not seal off the parade route, requesting the Press not to cover the event? An interesting idea but one that was easier said than done, obviously. Skokie had a population of 70,000 back then, versus an almost equally unmanageable 50,000 in Charlottesville. Picnics were feasible in neither case. Additionally, the Press arguably had a stronger sense of the higher, common good in 1977.

The Press may or may not have shunned the event in Skokie, thereby effectively castrating the Nazis during their hour of provocation, truncating their fame, or infamy, to fifteen minutes. Yet, in this day of an arid yet rabid journalism that often click-baits men’s darker impulses and grievances to chalk up ad revenue, such a higher restraint seems inconceivable.

Furthermore, this year’s hate parade was many, many times the size of the eventual Skokie dud-march in 1978. Nevertheless, minimization-by-deflection may well have proven more effective and less tragic today. Imagine if a state of emergency had NOT been declared, with government leaders instead opting to call on the Press not to cover the event and to ignore Charlottesville?

Hope is a Many Splendoured Thing. Then imagine if Charlottesville’s Mayor had requested that no one from the town attend the march or for outsiders not to participate in counter-demonstrations on site? Yes, there would still be Press coverage but, perhaps, less than complete, especially if the national outlets had decided not to show up (CNN, The NYT, The WSJ, et al.). 

Imagine the optics of vacant streets portraying marchers with police protection…and nobody else around! That would likely have deflated the importance of the event, at least to all onlookers outside the Bannon-bubble. Imagine if Governor McAuliffe or Mayor Signer had not to condemned the speech so stridently, resorting to meeting fire with fire, preferring instead to attend to their routine affairs with Charlottesville and the Lee statue a million miles away? 

Imagine if these leaders – these local agents of community standards against hate speech – had preferred humor that could have fed right into ‘Saturday Night Live’? One such remark might have been, “Boys will be boys. Growing up is oh so hard to do, from the Oval Office on down…”

If this initial quip were not effective, then creative people and comedians -- ¿Senator Franken, anyone? – could surely have come up with something to say to castrate these ‘tough-guys’ publicly and indirectly. Imagine the pre-emptive optics of transforming these bigots, and the President who had unleashed them, into a collective laughing stock.  That would have been Classic Churchill or F.D.R.!