Comments on: Sanford

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:25:07 +0000

The point he was making is that you can’t pursue an inflationary policy as a way of creating wealth. He understands the destructive effects of inflation, which are most dramatically demonstrated by the basket-case misrule in Zimbabwe. Yes, our monetary policy is designed to be inflationary, which is why it is a terrible sort of policy.

By: Justin

Justin — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:01:47 +0000

I’m surprised you’re defending the Zimbabwe remarks. The base of the criticism is that there’s currently miniscule inflation in the United States–barely above zero, as opposed to the multimillion percent inflation that Zimbabwe has suffered. And that’s in spite of the fact that monetary policy in the United States is currently designed to be inflationary–the fed could quickly raise interest rates if inflation increases.

There’s some kind of explanation needed. From where I sit, it’s hard to see even a grain of truth in the comparison (it’s not as if this is just hyperbole).

By: kevinjjones

kevinjjones — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:57:37 +0000

If we must keep the bird metaphors in war policy, I suggest “owlish” as a middle term between hawkish and dovish. It has the (happily self-serving) connotation of wisdom, though it also possesses an ambiguous connotation of nighttime sneak attacks.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:29:59 +0000

I would sooner have someone who defends a local base, as unnecessary as it might actually be, to someone who signs off on campaigns that necessitate the creation of a dozen more on the other side of the planet. Of course it would be ideal to have someone who consistently opposes unnecessary military spending, but I am sympathetic to politicians who defend their local bases when we still have an empire of them scattered around the globe. I can’t think of any good reason why American towns and cities should be economically battered by the loss of income base closures represent while we fritter away billions on, say, Camp Bondsteel and other truly useless installations around the world. But then I’m biased–my hometown is heavily dependent on Kirtland AFB and Sandia Labs, and a huge part of the city would probably have to relocate if one or both of these went away.

On the separate Russian bomber question, it seems that the proposal is just an idea that is being floated hypothetically. That’s good news, and it alleviates most of the concerns I had in my previous comment.

By: Sean S.

Sean S. — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:21:29 +0000

Except I didn’t hear Sanford cheer the potential downscaling/closing of Fort Jackson, the Army’s basic training factory in the middle of prime Columbia real-estate. It’s nice to cast protest votes, and even nicer to issue proclamations about defensive wars when you’re sitting in a state house, but he lined up with everyone else to defend Fort Jackson against potential slimming down like every other local politician.

This is not to suggest anyone else would have done anything differently. But it help’s, when writing hagiography about politicians, to point out that when push comes to shove, he’s not especially sterling. And its salient to point out that the first wave of budget cuts that happened in the state were not due to the economic downturn, but mostly due to the swiss cheese of exemptions that SC’s tax code has, especially the virtually non-existent property taxes. It’s also salient to point out that on just about any metric, SC is either first in all the areas it shouldn’t be, or dead last in all the one’s it should be first. Either Sanford is responsible for the state of affairs (which isn’t true in my opinion), or has done little in his eight years to change it (which I think is).

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:09:09 +0000

On the Russian matter, it is empty grandstanding, and grandstanding that they cannot afford at this point. It is also a continuation of the Kremlin’s perhaps unhealthy habit of mimicking in Latin America the stupid sorts of things our government has done in their near-abroad. If we have sent military advisors to Georgia and have brought their next-door neighbors into NATO, they will send planes and ships to various Latin American states whose governments don’t like us and which we don’t like. They don’t propose to bring these states into the SCO, much less a military alliance, so the parallels are not exact, but it is unnecessary bluster that makes it harder to make our Russia policy more sane. File it under “definitely not helping.” Presumably if we go ahead with some sort of missile defense in Europe, they will build some kind of installation in one of these quasi-client states, and all the same people who kept insisting that the missile defense had nothing to do with Russia will freak out and declare a second Missile Crisis and proof that the “Soviets” are on the march, blah, blah, blah. Between the Kremlin’s apparent need to show off and the stupid reaction it will inevitably provoke, we could have a serious problem brewing. One more reason to be thankful that McCain is not President.

By: jetan

jetan — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:59:01 +0000

As another of the at-the-time unfashionable few who opposed the engagements in Kosovo and in Iraq, to say nothing of Somalia, and who continues to have the gravest misgivings about Afghanistan, I was also pleased and surprised to read that Sanford had maintained an admirably consistent policy with respect to foreign military action. I might add that, in the case of Iraq, he was swimming upstream in terms of his party so he gets an extra gold star for that. i had previously assumed that his motions toward declining a portion of the stimulus package funds were mere political posturing. Perhaps he deserves a little more credit.

i agree completely with your prognostications regarding the script for the Iraq withdrawal and the increasing commitment in the Afghan war. Which is very depressing.

I look forward to your read on the Russian threat (is there any other word?) to station bombers in Venezuela and Cuba. On the one hand, it looks to me like the emptiest grandstanding. On the other hand, it seems almost unbelievably reckless.