Democracy In Iran

What to do about Iran? The entire spectrum of options seems to have evolved into two major schools: either the President takes a more forceful position in support of the demonstrators as the riots continue, or he stands to the side and lets the Iranian people decide, and then deals with whomever is the final winner.

Unfortunately, once again we aren’t asking the right questions. And the first question has to be: what do we want to achieve? Notice that the ‘we’ in that question is not ‘the world,’ and it’s not ‘the west.’ The ‘we’ is the US, because that is the only ‘we‘ that the President can effect, and it is the one he is legally and morally responsible for.

So, what does the US want to achieve? What does the US want to happen?

The answer seems simple enough: the US wants an Iran: with a moderate, preferably democratic, government (in the sense of a liberal, that is western democracy); with greater individual freedoms and rights for its people; at peace with it’s neighbors; supporting the fight against terrorists and Islamic extremists; that is not building nuclear weapons.

If that is the case (let us assume that it is), then waiting to see who wins leaves four possibilities: first, the current regime wins, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continue their rule of the country, though almost certainly with a heavier hand, and Iran continues her current policies and builds nuclear weapons. The US achieves none of its aims.

Second, the Ayatollah squeezes too hard, the country rises up, the mullahs are thrown out and former Prime Minister Mousavi wins and the country sets out on a new course. The US may achieve some of its aims, but it will be by accident.

Third, the violence continues and, in an effort to end it, the Ayatollah decides to seek some sort of interim agreement, with a temporary power sharing arrangement followed by another election. This one would perhaps be more carefully rigged, but the outcome would still be in doubt. The US has achieved none of its aims.

Fourth, the violence continues and escalates the government collapses, the army steps in to seize power and real revolution breaks out throughout the country. This would result in one of two outcomes: either the army manages to seize control and a dictator seizes power, who may or may not bring back the mullahs, or the army eventually loses and then, if he is still alive, Mousavi becomes the president. If Mousavi is killed, then the confusion will continue. The US may achieve some of its aims, but again it will be by accident.

The long and short of it is that things have changed in Iran. It will not return to where it was, at a minimum the mullahs will rule with an even tighter ‘leash.’ What that means for the US and the west is that there is essentially no chance of getting any concessions on such issues as nuclear weapons or the infiltration of weapons into Iraq or the support to terrorists or the anti-Israeli rant if Khamanei remains. The situation is such that he must become more controlling and that means more rigid in dealings with the west and the world.

Furthermore, no matter what, if the US doesn’t get involved whatever happens just happens and the US is along for the ride. You can’t possibly affect the outcome if you refuse to get involved.

The US does not need to say that it supports Mousavi irrespective of the results of the election. But it could say that it believes that Mousavi won the election and that there should be an open recount with many international observers (it won’t ever happen, so it’s a free card, but it is worht it that we insist upon this). Failing that, the US should make it clear that it will insist on tightened sanctions on trade with Iran – that is, use of something approaching a third party embargo ('we won’t trade with you if you trade with them)'. We could aggressively apply that policy without affecting the oil trade simply because Iran must trade oil and the Ayatollha knows it. Without oil he becomes a dictator trying to sit on a broke government. Ergo, despite the rhetoric, the oil will flow.

As for those who say we should never get involved in another country’s politics, there are several obvious responses. The first is that we are involved, that is part of being the most significant political entity on the planet as well as the largest economy. The fact of just the US news media covering the story means we are ‘involved.’ When the US does nothing, that sends a signal. If that is the signal we want to send, so be it. In some cases, it is the signal we want to send. But, in issues as important as the largest country in the Mid-East, with nearly 80 million well educated people, and huge oil and mineral reserves, it is in the US interest to get involved.

As for the argument that we were involved before and it led to disaster, that story is not completely true: while the US machined the return to power of Shah Palavi in 1953 and the ouster of Prime Minister Mossadegh, the following 26 years in Iran saw massive modernization and the beginnings of an effort to bring universal education to the country-side. That Iran is as literate and as modern as it is today is to some degree a result of US involvement.

In the end there is no upside if the US stays out and tries to see ‘what the Iranian people want.’ For the US’s sake the only play is to voice real support for democracy and for those who seek it., and to apply what pressure we can to bring about deomcratic change. This happens to agree with our national mores and it also happens to support what is in out interest when viewed from the perspective of realpolitik. The President needs to speak out in strong support of the people of Iran who are rioting against their government, and use the tools available, such as a selective third-party embargo, to squeeze Tehran.

Why There Isn't Going to be a Depression

There are any number of theories as to what caused the Great Depression, but no matter which particular school you adhere to, there are the facts, and as Melvin Laird (and Sen. Moynihan) were both fond of saying, ‘we are all entitled to our own opinion, but we aren’t entitled to our own facts.’

And the pertinent facts of the great depression are these:

There was a huge over-capacity left over from World War I. During the war production of a whole host of goods was accelerated to ‘feed’ the voracious appetite of modern nations at war. Particularly in the United States many factories had been built and when the US joined the war, the rapid build-up of the army, coupled with the surge in production, resulted in very low unemployment.

Following the war the armies were demobilized around the world, and wartime production ended. The factories switched to producing other goods (or closed, in some cases), there was a rise in unemployment and economies slowed. In Germany as a result of the peace treaty reparations resulted in factories being disassembled and Germany moved toward collapse and revolution.

Over the course of the following several years every country went through a slow-down and, with the exception of Germany, a recovery. Germany’s economy went through a prolonged collapse, resulting in the infamous inflation of the Weimar Republic.

As economies recovered and grew, competition also grew, and the inherent problem of over capacity resident in all these factories resulted in an increasing efforts to seek new markets to sell goods, that is, export excess goods to generate additional revenue. Two actions followed over the course of the years from 1926 to 1929: a series of strong trade tariffs were passed by a number of countries (the US Hoot-Smalley Act was one of the strongest) to protect over-production, and government spending increased around the world.

While there were a number of other events and poor decisions by a number of world leaders that hastened the onset of the depression, the course had already been set: substantial over capacity and inventory; restrictive and damaging tariff and trade restrictions; and excessive government spending.

It was not until the US began an aggressive war-production effort in 1940 that the US unemployment rate began to show substantial reductions. It is worth noting that at the beginning of 1940 the unemployment rate was still nearly 19% but it fell throughout that year as FDR began the massive military build-up as he prepared for US involvement in World War II. The drop in unemployment was not the product of any of the works programs begun during the depression.

For those with a yen for some statistics, here are some numbers:

Year Unemployment Rate
1920 5.2%
1928 4.2
1930 8.6
1932 23.6
1934 21.7
1936 16.9
1938 19.0
1940 14.6
1942 4.7
1944 1.2

Why is all this important today and what does it have to do with leadership?

Because several points need to be made.

The first is that there isn’t going to be a depression. Before I go any further, let me define what I mean when I say that: we are not going to have 15 – 20% unemployment, substantial negative growth over a several year period, inadequate food supplies and the similar terrible litany of human tragedies that marked the United States in the 1930s. This does not mean that we can’t have hard times, or that there won’t be a few more spots on the planet that won’t suffer some severe economic conditions, but we won’t see a repeat of that situation.

Moreover, neither the US nor the rest of the world has the massive over-capacity or the massive inventory overhang that we all faced in 1929. Nor does the world have a situation such as the great dust-bowl brewing again. There are other problems, but none that look as severe as that.

Second, the world has shown some sanity and there are fewer, and substantially smaller tariffs on international trade. The absence of these two items alone makes the possibility of a true depression, a la the 1930s, very unlikely.

Why then didn’t the Bush administration discuss this? Why hasn’t the Obama administration discussed this? The closest anyone came was when McCain stated that despite the credit crunch, the fundamentals of the economy remain sound. He was, ‘of course,’ roundly criticized for this remark by many. Obama then said the same thing in March (for which he then received rave reviews). But no one has gone on to explain himself.

The fact is that there are many elements of the US economy that are, at the fundamental level, sound. The problems they have are serious, but ‘the patient isn’t going to die.’ And so, despite the problems besetting certain slices of the economy, and as terrible as it is to be part of those weaker components of the economy, there isn’t going to be a depression. Real leaders would and should be communicating this fact.

A third point needs to be made, though it is, and always will be, unpopular. The third point is simply this: bad things will happen. Claims by this or that leading politician that we are going to prevent this ‘cycle of boom and bust’ should be met with at a minimum great skepticism, and more appropriately hoots and hollers from the back row. Bad things will happen, lots of them. There will be a massive earthquake in California. There will be a flu epidemic. There will be a major recession. There will be more wars. There will be more terror attacks. Will these all happen this year? No, at least not all of them. Will they happen within 5 years? Maybe. Will they happen within the next 30 years? Probably. Welcome to the real world.

So, what’s the lesson?

Leadership is not about magic: it is about communicating. If our leaders think they can stand up and say ‘XYZ’ and the majority will agree, they will probably be right a third of the time. A third of the time they’ll probably get a half to agree with them, and a third of the time no one will agree with them. But, if they actually explain ‘Why’ they will find a lot more people willing to listen to them.

We have a great many ‘leaders’ today who believe that communicating means smooth delivery and glib sound-bites. Sadly, many in the press believe this as well.* Leaders should tell their followers what they are doing and WHY. If they don’t, it is reasonable to believe that either they – the leaders – don’t know why, or, if they do, the leader recognizes that those who follow won’t like the real reason. Either way, they should insist the leader explain why.

So if we have a recovery starting just 100 days or so into a new administration,

a) It isn’t that great a recession (unfortunately, it doesn’t look like we really have a recovery taking off)

b) The reason why this is an issue of leadership is that leaders need to explain to their followers.

Explaining isn’t pontificating, and it isn’t simple pronouncements. We need the President and other key figures – in and out of government – to stand up and explain what is happening and why and where it will lead. Leadership requires honesty and clarity. Explain both the ‘good and other’ of these actions, not simply what will happen, but why.

_________________________________________________________
*It’s also true that most reporters have little to no experience leading and, because of the nature of their business, don’t recognize the difference between good leaders and poor ones, but that is the subject of a future article.

On Being A Judge

Personal experience has no role in being a judge. Or shouldn’t. During a recent news talk show a commentator pointed out that Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said that her colleagues on the Supreme Court could not understand how a 13 year old girl would feel about being strip-searched as none of them had ever been a 13 year old girl.

This is true in a literal sense and is a good point for a psychologist. It is, or should be, irrelevant for a judge. Most judges have, I presume, never caught their husbands (or wives, as the case may be) cheating on them, and therefore, using Judge Ginsburg’s logic, can’t understand the feelings of the husband (or wife) who shot the adulterer.

But, in such a case what society should insist is that the judge know the legal definitions of temporary insanity, premeditation, manslaughter and whatever other shadings that particular jurisdiction has cared to delineate; his or her personal experiences or lack thereof should have no bearing on the outcome.

To make this point more clear, if a judge is sitting on a particularly bitter divorce case is it helpful to have a judge who has recently been involved in his or her own bitter divorce? It may be of benefit for one of the two members of the former couple. But, if so, it most certainly won’t be of benefit to the other.

As a society we most certainly should not want such a situation in our courts for any reason. If we accept the argument that judges with specific personal experience give better decisions relative to certain cases, we by definition accept that worse decisions will be made by those judges who lack relevant experiences. In fact, to start down the road that such personal experience is a plus would eventually lead to the conclusion that if your case were heard by a judge without such personal experience it would be unfair. Instead of an impartial court we would be insisting on partial or biased courts.

On the contrary, the role of a judge is, to quote, Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes “to apply the law.” To apply the law was clearly defined by another Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story: “The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them in the sense of the terms, and the intentions of the parties.”

For a judge to act otherwise is to change the law, not to apply it. And under the US Constitution and the constitutions of the states only the legislatures have the authority to change the law.

In other words, a judge is to apply the law, not his or her experiences, and to do so from the perspective of those who drafted the law. Whether a judge is male or female, young or old, rich or poor, European, Asian Latin, Indian, Aleut, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, atheist or Christian or Jew or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist, tall or short, left handed or right handed should be absolutely and totally irrelevant. The judge must study the original intentions of the drafters, and apply that knowledge to the case at hand, irrespective of any personal experience which would predispose him or her to any particular decision. Acting otherwise is to provide not an impartial decision but a partial, that is, biased decision. Do we really want biased law in our courts?

As for the idea that you need to experience something to be able to judge it, as a friend of mine once said, you don’t need to be a dog to judge the dog show.

A Jury Of Our Peers

The nomination of Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court has resulted in some discussion into the role of personnel experiences in the meting out of justice. Lost in all this seems to be the role personnel experiences have played in court proceedings for hundreds, even thousands of years.

I am talking of course, about juries. As noted by many others, including myself just a short while ago, the role of the judge is to ‘apply the law’ in as impartial and unbiased a manner as is humanly possible. Thus, as some of us have seen in courts, and we have all seen on TV, whether in reality or in movies, the judge keeps the entire proceeding inside the span of the applicable law or laws. The judge should, and usually does, strive to remain impartial and unbiased.

But, if that is so, where role does personnel experience have in a court and how does society ensure that that particular knowledge, whether it is Judge Sotomayor’s experience as a women of Hispanic origins growing up and working in the US, or any other particular life experiences? The jury, the jury of our peers, is supposed to address that concern.

Prior to the last fifty years, the overwhelming perspective on juries in the US was that juries were made up of people from the community who knew the accused, or at least came from the same local community. They knew where the accused worked, where he or she went to church, may know the children, and may even have gone to school with the accused. In short, they had experienced what he or she had experienced, and they could place specific actions in context of those experiences. They were what I would call knowledgeable juries. Did this led to biased decisions in some cases? Certainly. Though I doubt if it led to any more biased decisions – as a percentage - then do the highly contorted juries we now see in high profile cases.

There is, in fact, a small set of cases where similar knowledgeable juries can still be found, and that is in military courts martial. In that situation everyone on the jury, while they usually don’t have personal knowledge of the accused, have a great deal in common with the accused. In short, they can place the actions of the accused in context and weigh them against their own decisions. Attorney F. Lee Bailey has said that the US military legal system is the fairest and most accurate legal system on the planet. The jury system is one of the key facets of that fairness and accuracy. *

On the other hand, once a jury has heard a case and a verdict has been reached, cases return to courts based on only two issues: newly discovered facts or a demonstration that the law was improperly applied. In both cases, what society should insist upon is scrupulously accurate application of the law, not the biases of those presiding over the case.

It has been judges who have overstepped their bounds who have removed personal experience from the court. We don’t need appellate judges to replace the juries with their own experiences. We need judges to return the jury to its rightful role. If Judge Sotomayor wishes to return the personal experiences of her life to the court, let us hope she chooses to do this by strengthening the jury system and not expanding the role of judges.

__________________________________________________________________
* The other key ingredient according to Mr. Bailey was the requirement to provide investigative support to the accused.

Greatest Generation

06 June 2009 -- Today is the 75th anniversary of the landings in Normandy, known in history now simply as ‘D-Day.’ There have been a number of moving ceremonies covered in the news, mainly because of the presence of a number of participants, US, British, French, Canadian and presumably some other allies who landed on that fateful gray day – Australians, Belgians, Czechoslovakians, Greeks, New Zealanders, Dutch, Norwegian and Polish.

Those men, all in their 80s and 90s now, were properly thanked and lauded. The commentators then began discussing what it was that made them, in those now iconic words, ‘The Greatest Generation.’

One particular gentleman, a member of the 2nd Rangers (the unit that took Pointe Du Hoc) made the point that the US had been toughened by surviving the depression and that that had made them mentally ready to face the struggle of World War II. (He was also quick to point out that he didn’t want to wish a depression on anybody no matter how much it might improve them.)

It is certainly true that the depression bread a level of resilience and fortitude in the US population that was and is hard to imagine, never mind duplicate. But, the fact is that the rest of the world went through the same depression, and in some cases faired worse than the US, yet did not recover from the depression as well as did the US. Why is that?

Perhaps the real root of the strength of this incredible generation was in their virtue. The Greek philosophers identified four great virtues: temperance, prudence, fortitude and justice. These were later expanded upon by the Romans, and recaptured in the writings of many of the great Christian writers of the Middle Ages. The words were occasionally changed but the meaning remained: to look toward the future, to prepare for the next generation, to think things through and try to make wise decisions that would benefit all, even if you had to bear some hardship, to show strength of character, recognizing others before self, to take care of yourself and others, and not expect others to take care of you, to do what is right, no matter the cost.

These were the beliefs of that generation. Did some of them stray? Certainly. Did some drink and chase women and gamble? Certainly. But, to a degree perhaps unmatched elsewhere in the last one hundred years any place on this planet with the exception of the British Empire under the inspired rule of Winston Churchill, despite their individual weaknesses and failures, when the situation demanded it, they acted as men of virtue, and the world was saved from a great darkness.

And the roots of that virtue is the found in the seminal documents of this great nation – the Mayflower Compact, the Suffolk Resolves, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and finally the Gettysburg Address.

We are and should be humbled by their service and their devotion to the cause of liberty. They provided an example that we must all strive to emulate. God Bless Them All. As Gen. Patton said at the funeral of several of his soldiers: “Let us not mourn the men who died. Rather, let us Thank God that such men lived.”