Posted on by rjonakait

Panama Redux

The Republicans almost produced a government shutdown again and may have merely postponed it for a few months. As a result, the Speaker of the House may be out in the cold in several weeks and the GOP may then show its fractures even more clearly. While this brouhaha was going on, Trump was talking about seizing the Panama Canal. This all brings to mind my previous post about the Panama Canal treaties, which I have reproduced below.

Knowledgeable people find the roots of the Republican Party’s current dysfunction in the hyperpartisanship practiced by Newt Gingrich when he became Speaker of the House in 1995. Others find tentacles spreading from the Tea Party movement, which emerged in 2009 and brought conspiracy theories into mainstream politics. But seeds were planted twenty years earlier with the now largely forgotten battle over the Panama Canal treaties. In his book, Drawing the Line at the Big Ditch: The Panama Canal Treaties and the Rise of the Right (2008), Adam Clymer explains how the fight over the Panama Canal Treaties helped fuel the rise of the modern Right.

Both treaties were signed in 1977. One treaty gave the United States the right to use force to assure that the canal would remain open to ships of all nations. The second treaty gave Panama control over the canal starting in 2000.

In order to take effect, the treaties not only had to be signed by the leaders of Panama and the United States. They also had to be ratified by appropriate bodies within those countries. After Panama did so in a plebiscite, a political battle ensued in the United States Senate over their ratifications. According to Clymer, this led to the emergence of Richard Viguerie, a founder of modern conservatism, the use of direct-mail marketing, and the rise of single-issue PACs designed to raise money and defeat moderate Republicans.

Although it was President Jimmy Carter who signed the pacts, the negotiations had started under President Nixon. The treaties were thought desirable because they gave America the right to assure the canal’s neutrality, and they removed a flashpoint for much of Latin America, and Panama in particular, by giving Panama control over the canal. Those supporting the treaties maintained that they would increase the security of the canal by helping to remove the threats of guerrilla attacks, which were almost impossible for America and Panama to prevent. 

The treaties were backed by prominent conservatives, including Henry Kissinger and William Buckley, but they were also attacked by other conservatives in near-hysterical terms. Opponents maintained that this was a surrender of American sovereignty, and furthermore, the military leader of Panama was pro-Communist. Marxists would control the canal and Panama, and the harm to the U.S. as a result would be disastrous.

What is surprising to a modern surveyor of the political scene is that some Senators supported the treaty simply because they thought it was the right thing to do even though they knew that their ratification votes would harm them politically. The single-issue PACs targeted some of these Senators, and, through direct-mail marketing (enter Richard Viguerie), inflamed a cadre of voters. Republicans who supported the treaties were defeated in primaries when they stood for reelection. Their overall record did not matter. Their vote on this one issue doomed their political careers. On the other hand, Ronald Reagan opposed the Treaty, and some, including Bill Buckley, maintained that the treaty controversy helped elect Reagan president.

This issue is now largely forgotten even though its aftermath continues to affect the United States. A lesson from the controversy has been absorbed, even if that lesson’s source is not remembered. Republican politicians now fear that if they don’t toe some single-issue lines, a portion of conservatives will target them and defeat them in the primaries. The result is that the politicians cannot develop nuanced positions; compromises are verboten. Instead, the “wrong” stance on individual issues can result in a primary defeat even if the politician accepts the conservative line on other matters. If I don’t completely accept the NRA’s positions, I may be defeated in the primary. If I adopt a moderate stance on abortion, I may be defeated in the primaries. If I have concerns about tax cuts, I may be, in today’s terms, “primaried.” And so on. The result is a lockstep, hard-right conservatism. Back in 1978, some conservative Senators studied a complex situation and decided that a ratification vote for the Panama Canal treaties was in the best interests of the country. What is remembered is not that their position was right, but that some lost their political careers as a result.

History, of course, has shown the proponents to be correct. The Canal functions just fine. Panama is not a hotbed of anti-American Communism. Those who were wrong, however, did not pay a price for their belief; they continued in office. And most of us have forgotten the debate.

In what now seems impossible, Democrats and Republicans joined together to ratify the treaties. Fifty-two Democrats and sixteen Republicans voted for ratification, while ten Democrats and twenty-two Republicans voted against. We have seen little of such bipartisanship since the Panama Canal treaties. On the other hand, since that 1977 controversy we have seen many conservatives benefit even when proved wrong.

The Republican party has been on a forty-year path to its present dysfunction.

Posted on by rjonakait

Sandra Day and Henry K.

Sandra Day O’Connor and Henry Kissinger recently died only a few days apart. I glanced at some of the obits, memorials, and reminiscences about them. There was a striking difference. Nary a bad word was said about O’Connor. Not so for Kissinger. We were reminded of some of his positive accomplishments, but many comments dwelled on what were seen as immoral decisions leading to the deaths of tens of thousands and brutal dictatorial actions. Much of this commentary was summarized in a political cartoon that had Kissinger on escalator descending into hell. I thought of Jackie “Moms” Mabley’s take on the well-worn adage: “They say you shouldn’t say anything about the dead unless it’s good. He’s dead. Good.”

I first became aware of Kissinger when in a college political science course in 1965 I was assigned to read Kissinger’s book Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy. In certain (but small) circles it had garnered much attention. In the book, Kissinger criticized President Eisenhower’s stated policy of massive retaliation if the United States were to be attacked. The theory was that one party would not attack if it knew that the response would assure the destruction of both sides. Later this policy became known as mutually assured destruction whose acronym indicates how easy it was to mock the Strangelovian doctrine of massive retaliation. Even so, Kissinger was one of the first to criticize it openly.

The book, however, did not just criticize massive retaliation. It also promoted the use of nuclear weapons. Kissinger did not want the United States to eschew their use, but to employ tactical nuclear weapons in our conflicts. I did not know then, and am not sure now, what a “tactical” nuclear weapon is, but I thought even in my college days that their use would lead to widespread noncombatant deaths. That apparently was ok with Kissinger if the US was engaged in some righteous cause, but he did not define, at least to my satisfaction, his notion of righteousness. I had the feeling that he might mean that the US never did inappropriate things, and therefore America would always be justified in the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

I didn’t think much of Kissinger one way or the other after reading the book until he obtained nationwide recognition when he was appointed National Security Advisor by President Richard Nixon in 1969. A friend of mine, however, met Kissinger before he took federal office. The friend was working for the first hedge fund created by Alfred Winslow Jones. Someone trying to obtain some of the fund’s investment money came to the offices with Kissinger in tow. Kissinger then held an academic position at Harvard, but he was also happy to make additional money by advising rich and powerful businessmen. (Later in life he had a consulting firm. He did more than ok in these ventures. Several sources report that he was worth $50 million when he died.)

Kissinger addressed this hedge fund in early 1968 when the country was bogged down with the war in Vietnam. Kissinger confidently said that the war was unwinnable. After Kissinger concluded his remarks, my friend asked, “If this is apparent to you, surely it must be to the advisors to the President.” Kissinger replied, “I am sure it is, but the President can always choose who he listens to.”

A year later, Dr. Henry Kissinger was National Security Advisor to the newly elected President Richard Nixon. Kissinger, at least from what he had said to my friend a year earlier, was convinced the war could not be won. So, America’s involvement in Vietnam ended once Nixon and Kissinger got power. Of course, not. The United States did not withdraw its troops until 1975, and from the time Nixon took office until that messy, embarrassing withdrawal, another 20,000 Americans were killed in Vietnam. Furthermore, Nixon and Kissinger escalated the war by bombing Cambodia and increasing the unacknowledged bombing of Laos. (See the post on this blog, “Bombs Away” on April 24, 2017.) Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Southeast Asians died because of the war after Nixon and Kissinger ascended to power. (No accurate count of Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian deaths exist, but by one estimate three million Vietnamese died in the war, two million of whom were civilians.)

Perhaps, even though Kissinger had previously said the war was unwinnable, instead of helping end it, he supported its escalation because he had an honest conversion. Somehow, perhaps, he became convinced that although the extensive bombings in Vietnam had not worked, more extensive, more brutal bombings would bring the enemy to the bargaining table. That Kissinger ever thought that is hard to believe. That kind of fantasy hardly fits with Kissinger’s realpolitik mystique.

Instead, as discussed on Harry Shearer’s fascinating radio program Le Show (This was the fortieth anniversary of Le Show. Who knew?), the White House tapes of conversations between Nixon and Kissinger show that the continuation of the war was strictly politics. The war could not be won, but Nixon and Kissinger did not want to be blamed for losing the war, at least not before 1972 when Nixon desperately planned to be reelected. The war had to be maintained for at least four years after Nixon and Kissinger took office. And, consequently, many, many had to die to ensure Nixon would remain in office.

Posted on by rjonakait

Remember the Panama Canal Treaties

Knowledgeable people find the roots of the Republican Party’s dysfunction in the hyperpartisanship practiced by Newt Gingrich when he became Speaker of the House in 1995. Others find tentacles spreading from the Tea Party movement which emerged in 2009 and brought conspiracy theories into mainstream politics. But seeds were planted twenty years earlier with the now largely forgotten battle over the Panama Canal treaties, which I learned about when I read Drawing the Line at the Big Ditch: The Panama Canal Treaties and the Rise of the Right (2008) by Adam Clymer.

Clymer explains how the fight over the Panama Canal Treaties helped fuel the rise of the modern Right. Both treaties were signed in 1977. One treaty gave the United States the right to use force to assure that the canal would remain open to ships of all nations. The second treaty gave Panama control over the canal starting in 2000.

In order to take effect, the treaties not only had to be signed by the leaders of Panama and the United States, they also had to be ratified by appropriate bodies within those countries. After Panama did so in a plebiscite, a political battle ensued in the United States Senate over their ratifications. According to Clymer, this led to the emergence of Richard Viguerie, a founder of modern conservatism, the use of direct-mail marketing, and the rise of single-issue PACs designed to raise money and defeat moderate Republicans.

Although it was President Jimmy Carter who signed the pacts, the negotiations had started under President Nixon. The treaties were thought desirable because they gave America the right to assure the canal’s neutrality, and they removed a flashpoint for much of Latin America, and Panama in particular, by giving Panama control over the canal. Those supporting the treaties maintained that they would increase the security of the canal by helping to remove the threats of guerrilla attacks, which were almost impossible for America and Panama to defend against. 

The treaties were backed by some prominent conservatives, including Henry Kissinger and William Buckley, but they were also attacked by other conservatives in near-hysterical terms. Opponents maintained that this was a surrender of American sovereignty, and furthermore, the military leader of Panama was pro-Communist. Marxists would control the canal and Panama, and the harm to the U.S. as a result would be tremendous.

What is surprising to a modern surveyor of the political scene is that some Senators supported the treaty simply because they thought it was the right thing to do even though they knew that their ratification votes would harm them politically. The single-issue PACs targeted some of these Senators and through direct-mail marketing, inflamed a cadre of voters. Republicans who supported the treaties were defeated in primaries when they stood for reelection. Their overall record did not matter. Their vote on this one issue doomed their political careers. On the other hand, Ronald Reagan opposed the Treaty, and some, including Bill Buckley, maintained that the treaty controversy helped elect Reagan president.

 This is an issue that is now largely forgotten even though its aftermath still affects the United States. A lesson from the controversy has been absorbed, even if that lesson’s source is not remembered. Republican politicians are in fear that if they don’t toe some single-issue lines, a portion of conservatives will target them and defeat them in the primaries. The result is that the politicians cannot develop nuanced positions; compromises are verboten. Instead, the “wrong” stance on individual issues can result in a primary defeat even if the politician accepts the conservative line on other matters. If I don’t completely accept the NRA’s positions, I may be defeated in the primary. If I adopt a moderate stance on abortion, I may be defeated in the primaries. If I have concerns about tax cuts, I may be defeated in the primaries. And so on. The result is a lockstep, hard-right conservatism. Back in 1978, some conservative Senators studied a complex situation and decided that a ratification vote for the Panama Canal treaties was in the best interests of the country. What is remembered is not that their position was right, but that some lost their political careers as a result.

History, of course, has shown them to be right. The Canal functions just fine. Panama is not a hotbed of anti-American Communism. Those who were wrong, however, did not pay a price for their belief. They continued in office. And most of us have forgotten the debate.

In what now seems impossible, Democrats and Republicans joined together to ratify the treaties. Fifty-two Democrats and sixteen Republicans voted for ratification, while ten Democrats and twenty-two Republicans voted against. We have seen little of such bipartisanship since the Panama Canal treaties. On the other hand, since that 1977 controversy we have seen many conservatives benefit even when proved wrong.

The Republican party has been on a forty-year path to its present dysfunction.

Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

More bad news: Two recent studies conclude that mosquitos are more likely to land on those drinking beer than on other people.

The headline was a frightening thought: “Kissinger Turns 100 With His Brain as Sharp and Wise as Ever.”

Florida is limiting the ability of Chinese nationals to buy property. Should the many Jewish Sunshine State residents worry that they may not have a place to dine on Christmas?

A billionaire hedge fund guy said that a billionaire banking guy should run for president. Bill Ackman said that Jamie Dimon is “extremely smart,” respected by all aspects of the political spectrum, beloved by his employees, and a centrist. Ackman, without further elucidation, said that Dimon is “supportive of well-designed social programs and rational tax policies that can help the less fortunate.” And Dimon “is pro-business and pro-free enterprise.” Ackman did not mention that the natural tendency for business is to manipulate government for its own benefit and to seek monopolies and cartels. Thus, many businesses try hard not to be part of a free-enterprise system. Pro-business and pro-free enterprise seldom, if ever, go together.

Kurt Andersen, in Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America, A Recent History (2020), maintains that the optimal tax rate on high incomes is the rate that raises the maximum possible revenue. He reports, “Economic research shows convincingly that the self-defeating level of taxation is much higher than our highest federal income tax rate has been for the last forty years” or a top marginal rate of at least 48 percent and maybe as high as 76%.

I have heard often of the “undeserving poor,” but never of the “undeserving rich.” Aren’t there a lot in that latter category?

I went recently to Yankee stadium to see my first in-person game of the season. Many kids were also in attendance. After the sixth inning, we all watched what is now a ritual: the grounds crew drags the infield to the song “Y.M.C.A.,” but they stop and drop their equipment at the appropriate moment and do the arm gestures to spell out the song’s title. As I watched many in the stands, including many kids, join in, I wondered if this song is banned at sporting events in the Don’t-Say-Gay State.

The original video by the Village People of “Y.M.C.A.” did not include the movements to spell out the title. One source says they were created by dancers on Dick Clark’s American Bandstand.

Some people maintain that the song was only meant to be about playing sports at a YMCA and nothing to do with gay behavior, but that original video prominently featured the singers in front of a sign for Ramrod, a bar that sought straight members but not a straight clientele.

“In God We Trust” was the decal on the back of the truck. I doubted that meant, as it should have, the driver of the vehicle would never possess a gun for “personal protection.” I thought about the awkward construction of “In God We Trust,” and how it might be blue-penciled into “We Trust in God.” Then I wondered if there is a difference in meaning between “We Trust in God” and “We Trust God.” Sometimes, you must keep your mind occupied on I-80.