September 19, 2008

When the Means Aren’t Suitable to the Goals - Or, How to Be a Popular Leader Who Does Great Harm

My wife and I have just returned from Prague, where we visited the Museum of Communism. Here's a photo of the poster for the Museum:

And from the front page of the Museum's brochure:

"Dream - Reality - Nightmare." That's a powerful encapsulation of the Czech Republic's first-hand experience with Communism.

From the text of the Museum's exhibits:

In the socialist economy wages as well as prices were fixed by headquarter planners instructed by the party management. This was intended to create an impression that the socialist economy ensured satisfaction of the basic needs of the population and that is why it tried to maintain ordinary prices of goods, which would correspond to the low income of the working class. In terms of prices, the range of a socialist retail store seemed favorable, but only on paper, as goods were unavailable in reality. An absolute surplus of demand over supply led to a boom of the so-called under-the-shelve sale, during which poorly paid employees of the shops hid rare merchandise for selected customers, who were able to pay some extra money or provide a certain counter-service. Apart from the party officers, the most advantageous positions on the socialist market were occupied by doctors, repairmen, administrative officials, popular artists and other professionals, who represented the best ones to seek favor from. Society returned to primary forms of barter: the butcher exchanged his sirloin steaks for bananas from the greengrocer, but the shops were all empty.

...The principal tasks of the socialist army included ideological re-education of young men and repression against the "stubborn". Purely repressive were the Secondary technical corps, where thousands of rebellious recruits were forced into slavery without any remuneration.

...Marxism reflected the socially difficult condition of industrial labor at the beginning of the 19th century industrial revolution. Leninism developed in the underdeveloped conditions of Tsarism. The victory of Czech Communists and their seizure of power were predestined by the economic crisis and war and post-war poverty. The cold war divided the world into two irreconcilable camps. The socialist camp "was heading towards happy tomorrows" while the capitalist camp "was causing poverty, hunger, and wars". This situation was most clearly depicted by the caricaturists. The truth about the growth of western prosperity was strictly hidden from the starving populations of the socialist countries.

...The end of state terror meant the end of communist regimes in the whole soviet block.

The announced goal of the Communist movement - economic plenty for all - was appealing to many people, and continues to be today. But the means provided by the Communist movement to achieve this goal, were not suitable to the achievement of the goal; did not achieve the goal; and instead yielded tragic results.

Considering this leads to an interesting observation: leaders who announce their support for an innovative and popular goal are often trusted to provide means that can reasonably be expected to achieve that goal.  A popular and innovative goal, provides the leader with a glamor, that blinds many people to any consideration of whether the means provided are in fact suitable to achieving the goal.

Another example of this can be seen in the United States "Great Society" programs initiated the 1960's. The goals were to provide economic assistance to the downtrodden. The goals were innovative and popular. But the means provided were unsuitable to achievement of the goal. The means provided were to reward the downtrodden with money... as long as they remained downtrodden. Families with no father present in the home were rewarded with money, but families with a father present were punished by a withholding of this payment. This led to the tragic situation today exemplified by the statement of a black student in 2006: "Marriage is for white people."

The marriage rate for African Americans has been dropping since the 1960s, and today, we have the lowest marriage rate of any racial group in the United States.

It is therefore essential in all cases to examine the means provided by a leader to see if they in fact are suitable to the purpose of achieving the stated goal.

We can call this approach the Matrushka Doll analysis, following the nesting Russian "Matrushka" doll shown on the poster for the Museum of Communism, since what matters in this analysis is not what's on the outside, i.e. the stated goal, but what's on the inside, i.e. the actions to be actually taken, hopefully in pursuit of that goal.

Which brings us to Obama. His stated goal is "hope and change." The goal is innovative and popular and has in part earned him the nomination of his party. It is therefore essential to examine the means he has provided for achieving this goal, to see if the means are suitable to the purpose of achieving the goal.

Here is a Matrushka Doll Analysis for Obama - a review of a number of the programs Obama supports on two of the issues that are of the most importance to American voters: the economy, and national security.

OBAMA'S POLICIES FOR THE AMERICAN ECONOMY

Obama is against drilling for oil, at a time when dependence on expensive foreign oil is strangling our economy.

Obama has sponsored a bill, which is still a danger to this country as it has not yet been defeated, which would require the U.S. to give $845 billion to the United Nations.

A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

Obama favors vastly increasing central government control over decision-making by U.S. companies. From Obama's convention speech:

Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

Obama plans to use U.S. tax laws to exercise control over the decision-making of U.S. companies, forcing companies to follow marching orders given from a central authority in Washington D.C. Such centralized decision-making by Washington bureaucrats would paralyze American businesses.

Obama supports a near-trillion-dollar increase in government spending. From U.S. News:

Obama's Trillion-Dollar Spending Plan

What does "change" cost? About a quarter of a trillion bucks a year, according to Barack Obama.

.....Put it all together, and we are talking about a $200 billon plan, $800 billion over four years. And that does not even include fixing the alternative minimum tax, a $50 billion-a-year item that will assuredly get passed. A few thoughts:

1) Let's put aside for a moment whether the Obama plan will actually increase our standard of living, enhance productivity, or encourage innovation. As a matter of accounting, I don't get how Obama will pay for his plan. Now he claims he's paid "for every element of this economic agenda-by ending a war that's costing us billions, closing tax loopholes for corporations, putting a price on carbon pollution, and ending George Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans."

But I don't think that adds up. Take, for instance, eliminating those Bush tax cuts on top earners. That might gain $50 billion a year, assuming no negative economic effect. But Congressional Budget Office estimates already assume that the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010. So Obama gains nothing beyond, perhaps, a one-year bump in 2010 if he repeals the tax cuts a year earlier.

2) Obama clearly advocates jacking up payroll taxes as a way of creating long-term solvency for Social Security.

From the LA Times:

Obama's agenda may not add up

Some budget analysts say the Democrat's proposals for funding tens of billions of dollars in programs may not be enough.

In more than a year of campaigning, Barack Obama has made a long list of promises for new federal programs costing tens of billions of dollars, many of them aimed at protecting people from the pain of a souring economy.

But if he wins the presidency, Obama will be hard-pressed to keep his blueprint intact. A variety of budget analysts are skeptical that the Democrat's agenda could survive in the face of large federal budget deficits and the difficulty of making good on his plan to raise new revenue by closing tax loopholes, ending the Iraq war and cutting spending that is deemed low-priority.

Like predecessors who also had to square far-reaching promises with inescapable budget realities, they say, a President Obama might need to jettison pieces of Obama-ism.

"I don't think it all adds up," Isabel Sawhill, an official in President Clinton's Office of Management and Budget, said of Obama's spending plans.

"There will definitely need to be a recalibration of these proposals once someone is in office," said Sawhill, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "The fiscal situation just isn't going to permit doing what Sen. Obama or anyone else would like."

OBAMA'S POLICIES FOR NATIONAL SECURITY

Obama has pledged to cut our military capabilities:

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. And I will institute an independent defense priorities board to insure that the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Obama wants to have a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military:

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Professor Eugene Volokh writes:

So - if Obama means what he says - his civilian national security corps would cost at least another $100 billion a year, and perhaps as much as $500 billion a year. With total federal income taxes of $935 billion in 2005, Obama's proposal would mean using up to half of all federal income tax revenues just to fund his promise "to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military.

Obama's plan would likely remove money from funding our military in order to finance this ill-defined civilian force.

Obama wants to pull our troops out of Iraq, and turn our soldiers' victory into defeat, as even the Washington Post has now admitted. Barack Obama's web site still states unequivocally:

Plan for Ending the War in Iraq

"Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.

So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden- as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer."

But from the Washington Post:

While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have 'never been closer to defeat than they are now.' ..... Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the 'this-war-is-lost' caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

CONCLUSION

The policies of Barack Obama reviewed here are not suitable for achieving his stated goal of "hope and change." They would bring about changes, but the changes would reduce, rather than increase, the hope of Americans for a more successful future.  Instead of increasing Americans' hope for a more successful future, Obama's policies would have harmful consequences:

• His opposition to oil drilling would continue to strangle our economy with high oil prices.
• His support for the so-called"Global Poverty Act" would transfer close to a trillion dollars over 15 years away from U.S. taxpayers and into the hands of the corrupt U.N.
• His plans for vastly increasing U.S. government control over the decision-making of U.S. companies would paralyze U.S. business decision-making.
• His proposed near-trillion-dollar increase in U.S. government spending would lead to higher taxes and increase the power of the government over U.S. citizens.
• His insistence on reducing U.S. military power would reduce our ability to defend our nation.
• His proposed "civilian national security force" would reduce money available for our military to use for defense of our nation, and would vastly increase government control over U.S. citizens.
• His insistence on ending the war in Iraq without victory would turn our soldiers' achievements into defeat.

Obama is in the tradition of leaders who benefit from the glamor of an innovative and popular goal, which blinds many people to the nature of the policies they propose. As the above examination shows, Obama's policies are not suitable to achieving his stated goal of "hope and change." Instead, his policies would have harmful effects on the nation.