Centerfield

I basically agree with the notion that America, largely due to its prosperity, has become comparatively complacent.

IMO, it's not correlated very closely to the partisan divide, it afflicts us all, red state or blue. We all tend to revel in the luxury of construing even enlightened self-interest as narrowly as possible. And no matter what wakes us from this dream, we will long to return to it.

I wouldn't worry too much about Republican accusations. After all they're the ones who lost.

I'm not personally a Democrat, but since Republicans seem to believe this is already a Republican country I think they may be in for a surprise two years from now when they fall short of returning to power in Congress.

I do think, however, that Nancy Pelosi will go the way of Newt Gingrich but in only 2 years, not 4 like Newt.

The bright side of this is that it likely means some power will flow back to the Committee Chairs. But Steny Hoyer is waiting in the wings.

Rice doesn't seem so complacent.

Retread CPD.

Wow John. What is that about? Like Brian I agree with the article, but what does it have to do with partisanship? It seems to speak more to human nature and societal trends throughout history to me.

I basically agree with the notion that America, largely due to its prosperity, has become comparatively complacent.

IMO, it's not correlated very closely to the partisan divide, it afflicts us all, red state or blue. We all tend to revel in the luxury of construing even enlightened self-interest as narrowly as possible. And no matter what wakes us from this dream, we will long to return to it.

Brian just hit this one out of the park. The other thing I'd add is that Western Europe is quite a few miles ahead of us on the Road to Complacency-- in fact, many have completely restructured their "militaries" so they cannot participate in combat operations, even for universally-respected engagements like removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan or preventing genocide in the Balkans or Africa.

The traditional concept of relying upon our European allies is going to have to change if we want it to be anything more than a one-sided deal where they get to sit at the table and influence our decisions, but we're the ones who have to take all the action. No one-- Republican or Democrat-- is going to be comfortable with that, ocne they come to understand the nature of such an arrangement.

Thanks Bobby, I thought I was losing my mind.

Now how big a military do we need to do that?

Brian just hit this one out of the park.

And Bobby, the best part is that I'm a free agent. If JD Drew can get 14 million per from the Red Sox as a not-quite top tier producer who may be injury prone and who isn't that well liked, I'm going to ask for 15.

Time for a friday hot stove open thread! BTW, thanks for the book recomendations back when. I already finished the Schwarz, which I believe either you or Marc recommended and I'm slowly working my way through the Baseball Prospectus one, which is very rich.

I see. I guess I was so thoroughly unconvinced by his arguments per se that I decided he must be unhappy about the election, or why would he be writing this?

OK, screed revoked in favor of an eye-rolling.

I mean, consider what things were like during the era of appeasement that resulted in the bad situation from which Churchill's quote comes: Hitler being allowed to go from powerless and unpopular goon to menace threatening Europe. Now, THAT was complacency. How can we inferior modern humans hope to compete with that ;-)?

In theory, I do have to wonder if reducing our military would lead to Europe increasing its. There almost seems to be a feeling that as long as the US spends it money on the military, Europe does not have to becuase the US is not going to attack them and would defend them if they were attacked. Does the US want to get engulfed as actually being the worlds lone superpower and the costs involved?

While the US expends it resources on military issues, the EU focuses on economic development feeling prefectly safe becuase someone else, the US, is paying the cost of securing the peace for them. In this aspect, a strong powerful military has a very strong free-rider with it. In the long term, it may be economically detrimental to be the world cop.

I've wondered the same thing Jim. It was one of the anti-war thoughts I had in 2002. I mean the mid-east is as much a Euro problem as it is ours, and we were trying to bail them out (in part)cost free.

I'll admit to being one of those that was happy with Clinton's cuts in the military. It was to be the long peace after the cold war right? If the human population could find a way to war no more think of the immense amount of resources that could be poured into humanitarian and productive ventures. Or in Europe's case if they can count on the US to bear the costs they get a double dip. Savings to them plus a drain on a competitor.

But I'm thinking that as long as we show a willingness to bare the brunt of the costs most of the countries we umbrella with our military might will see no reason to incur these "needless" costs. Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.

I guess I was so thoroughly unconvinced by his arguments per se that I decided he must be unhappy about the election, or why would he be writing this?

Dr. Hanson is actually a Democrat. Some of his views can be found here. The following quote, however, gives some clue as to his politics:

The Democratic Party reminds me of the Republicans circa 1965 or so—impotent, shrill, no ideas, conspiratorial, reactive, out-of-touch with most Americans, isolationist, and full of embarrassing spokesmen.

Well, I'll second with him on the impotent, no ideas, and full of embarrassing spokesmen parts. But the fact that he considers the Democratic Party to be isolationist, in my view, reveals how out of touch Dr. Hanson is. The Democrats in congress supported the war in Afghanistan, and a large number of them voted for the war in Iraq (much to my chagrin). They also seemed to have no problem promoting interventionistic policies back in the 90's, when Clinton was nation-building and bombing Iraq on a frequent basis.

But Dr. Hanson has been a supporter of the Iraq War from the very beginning and has been very quick to criticize its critics. If he thinks fair-weather Democrats are isolationists, I wonder what kind words he'd have for Libertarians, Greens, and paleoconservatives who have opposed the Iraq War from the very beginning.

Jim and Dennis,

In theory, I do have to wonder if reducing our military would lead to Europe increasing its. There almost seems to be a feeling that as long as the US spends it money on the military, Europe does not have to becuase the US is not going to attack them and would defend them if they were attacked.

While the US expends it resources on military issues, the EU focuses on economic development feeling prefectly safe becuase someone else, the US, is paying the cost of securing the peace for them.

I've done a lot of thinking about this, too, and to be perfectly honest, I think that the time for this kind of an arrangement was probably during the Cold War, when Western Europe actually understood that there were real and undeniable threats to their way of life.

Today, Western Europeans believe they have transcended military force and have consistently defunded their military programs, such that today (with a few notable exceptions) they lack the capability to deploy on extended operations, even if they had the will (which they don't). Afghanistan is a perfect example-- endorsed by the global community, Europe (again, with a few exceptions) has thus far been able to supply only token participation-- and almost always dedicated to the peacekeeping and reconstruction operations and not to the actual combat operations against the Taliban. And even this very minimal commitment (less than 50,000 soldiers combined over the last five years) has driven many Europeans to the point where they don't believe they can sustain it, and aren't even sure if they want to sustain it.

I'm all for being multi-lateral-- I've worked for three different multinational commands, and have served alongside officers and soldiers from more than forty countries-- but I think the key to future multinational operations lies with an alliance not with the Western Europeans, but with the Johnny-Come-Latelies who understand they haven't transcended traditional security concerns-- Japan and Korea in East Asia; Thailand and India in South and Southeast Asia; some of the Central and Eastern European republics (Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary); and some Central and South American countries, as well (El Salvador, Honduras, Colombia, Chile).

No, they're not the NATO "Gold Standard" (although having fought alongside them, I'd probably choose South Korea to partner with over most of the European militaries)-- but if the "gold standard" is going to sit back and wait for America to take action in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Afghanistan, and the Sudan (again all noble missions that Europeans claimed to favor), then it might be time to look toward the "silver" or "copper" that at least will be willing to participate, help out, and put their troops where their mouth is.

Max,

Now how big a military do we need to do that?

Again, I really don't think the US military needs to be any larger than it already is, though we could benefit substantially by changing its configuration. I really think the key is to establishing new security partnerships and arrangements with allies and other countries from whom we could actually rely on their support in expeditionary operations. Europe's time has passed as a military ally, and the sooner we accept that, the sooner we'll be able to put together an alliance system that actually works.

Brian,

I already finished the Schwarz, which I believe either you or Marc recommended and I'm slowly working my way through the Baseball Prospectus one, which is very rich.

The Numbers Game and Baseball Between the Numbers are two of the best books I read last year (and this year). And, if anything, I'm sad because I haven't been able to find anything lately that even compares. Schwarz, in particular, totally blew my mind and the way I think about things-- it's just fantastic.

________________________________________

The Road to Republican Recovery
By Dave Jenkins, Government Affairs Director
Republicans for Environmental Protection
Tuesday's election debacle shows clearly that the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan has lost its way.

Party leaders have fallen prey to a toxic combination of shrill ideological extremism and venal pandering to special interests. To regain the electorate's trust and find a clear path to electoral success, the Republican Party must rediscover traditional conservative values and focus constructively on solving the pressing problems, especially energy and climate change, that have vast ramifications for America's security, economy, and quality of life

The foundation of recovery must be the party's rediscovery of true conservatism - the ideals articulated by conservative thinkers such as Edmund Burke, Michigan native Russell Kirk, and Richard Weaver. Conservation and environmental stewardship are central to conservatism and are based on fundamental conservative tenets - thrift, prudence, humility, restraint, piety towards creation, freedom with responsibility, and our moral obligation to leave a healthy inheritance to future generations.

The Right Diagnosis

Republicans lost because too many of the party’s elected leaders poisoned the well for them. The Republican Party was justifiably perceived as the party of excess and arrogance that pandered to greedy special interests, let cronyism and corruption cloud their judgment, failed to deal constructively with the nation's most pressing problems and trampled on traditional conservative values -- including the conservation ethic that is central to true conservatism.

Voters, especially independent-minded citizens, were fed up with the corruption, radical ideology, and grubby machine politics of our party leaders. They took out their dissatisfaction on all Republicans, even those incumbents who had records of integrity, had resisted poorly conceived legislation, and had conscientiously represented their constituents. This toxic political environment unfortunately cost some of our most conscientious, responsive, and conservation-minded Republican lawmakers their jobs.

Still, it is worth noting that Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP) endorsed 28 incumbents for the House and Senate, and the incumbent Republican governor of California. Nineteen of the REP endorsed incumbents in Congress won, most without difficulty.

The Right Cure

The most spectacular win among REP-endorsed candidates was that of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who defied the "blue wave" and secured re-election in a landslide. His electoral triumph demonstrates for Republicans the right way to build trust with the electorate, broaden their political appeal, and govern effectively. Schwarzenegger impressed his constituents with a results-oriented performance that skillfully blended conservative principles and political pragmatism.

Schwarzenegger bargained constructively with the Democrat-controlled Legislature and compiled a breathtaking record of environmental achievement - for example, ocean protection, forest conservation, solar energy development, and the most sweeping policy in the United States to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are destabilizing the global climate. Schwarzenegger himself pointed to his record of putting performance above partisanship, including his environmental achievements, as the key to his wave-defying victory.

The broader lesson of Schwarzenegger's triumph for the Republican Party is that a return to traditional conservative values, including a strong conservation ethic, and a willingness to work constructively with Democrats on solving urgent national problems will appeal broadly to citizens who are increasingly worried about global warming, oil dependence, and the risks they pose to our nation's security, economy, and quality of life. By turning away from the corrupting influence of special interests and returning to a spirit of principled public service, the Republican Party will take the right lessons from 2006.

We know that the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan can do better, much better than what citizens have seen in the last few years. REP wants to help our party find a clear path to renewed vigor, principled commitment, and electoral victory in 2008 and beyond.