Matt Yglesias

An Empire of Sentimentality

I think this kind of sentiment from Dave Dilegge at the COIN hotspot Small Wars Journal reflects some dangerous trends in American culture:

Ain’t this just dandy and a pisser to boot – those who have strived – and died – to ensure Iraq’s freedom and future place as a responsible partner on the world scene are brushed aside for the latest bash Bush melodrama and a ‘real hero’ is on the scene – Iraqi who threw shoes at George Bush hailed as hero via The Times. Plenty on this elsewhere, on the dailies and wires – most likely more tomorrow – meanwhile back in the real word… People care, they die or suffer serious wounds, and their contributions are tossed aside for this. A damn shame it is, indeed.

Americans love and respect the men and women who volunteer for military service under our flag. And those of us who’ve had friends serve in Iraq, and especially those who’ve personally served in Iraq and watched friends be killed or maimed, think only the best of the people who’ve been doing dangerous jobs in difficult circumstances. But I think it’s crucially important not to allow these positive sentiments about soldiers and marines to deteriorate into sentimentality about the mission they were undertaking in Iraq. The Iraqi people didn’t ask to be liberarted conquered and occupied by a foreign power that destroyed their country and then immediately set about meddling in Iraqi politics and until just a month or so ago was struggling mightily for the right to permanently station military forces on Iraqi soil contrary to the will of the Iraqi public. Not only did Iraqis not ask for such services, but nobody anywhere has ever asked for them.

The harsh reality is that this was not a noble undertaking done for good reasons. It was a criminal enterprise launched by madmen cheered on by a chorus of fools and cowards. And it’s seen as such by virtually everyone all around the world — including but by no means limited to the Arab world. But it’s impolitic to point this out in the United States, and it’s clear that even a president-elect who had the wisdom not to be suckered in by the War Fever of 2002 has no intention of really acting to marginalize the bad actors. Which, I think, makes sense for his political objectives. But if Americans want to play a constructive role in world affairs, it’s vitally important for us to get in touch with the reality of what the past eight years of US foreign policy have been and how they’re seen and understood by people who aren’t stirred by the shibboleths of American patriotism.

Cophenhagen Airport

I’d really like to visit Copenhagen some day. For now, I’ll need to settle for Copenhagen Airport. Extremely elegant architecture and design here at the transfercenter as I’m waiting for my connecting flight to Helsinki to get a gate assignment. Also: A 7-11. Hadn’t realized there were 7-11s abroad.

Blogitecture in Helsinki

Kids — I’m off today for a week-long trip to Helsinki, Finland where I and some other DC-based policy thinkers and writers are going to be guests of the Finnish government to learn about their education system. Finland is a world leader in PISA scores and other measures of educational success, so as the United States tries to reverse the current disturbing trend toward declining educational attainment, it seems that perhaps we have something to learn not only from how Finnish schools function, but from the larger social and economic policy context in which children learn.

In general, I think the United States has a lot to learn from the social models prevailing in northern Europeans countries such as Finland. Finland’s per capita GDP is roughly the same as America’s, but Finland’s gini coefficient is far lower, suggesting that typical Finns enjoy higher material living standards than do Americans. Add to that longer life expectancy, lower crime rates, and lots of modernist design and architecture and it seems like a nice place. On the other hand, they have worse weather. I once spent an extremely long layover in Helsinki Airport where I was surprisingly well treated by Finnair rather than given the usual “we’ve stranded you here and it’s all our fault but we refuse to apologize or take responsibility” schtick one usually gets form airlines, so I’ve long felt a deep appreciation for the Finnish way and I’m very eager to see some non-airport portions of the country (the view from the terminal looked nice).

At any rate, you know the drill — blogging will continue, but on a reduced and somewhat sporadic schedule. Of course you should expect some commentary on Helsinki’s public transportation (metro, tram, and commuter rail — a veritable trainapolooza) system.

Majority Rule: The New Coup

I once had the unpleasant experience of being subjected to an unhinged attack from Cato’s Ilya Shapiro who’s apparently the kind of libertarian who sees dogmatic American nationalism and attacks on other people’s patriotism as the highest form of classical liberal values. Later, I had the more pleasant experience of learning from some colleagues of Shapiro’s that he’s actually a Canadian.

So naturally, he now has an item ranting and raving against the “palace coup” that’s going to take the Conservative Party out of power in favor of a center-left alliance between the Liberals and the NDP acting with the tacit support of the Bloc Québéquois. He raises some substantive objections to the new coalition’s agenda — reacting in particular with a righteous fury against the claims of French Canadians that seems odd for such a patriotic fake American. The main point, though, is to try to raise procedural or fairness type objections to what’s happening.

But to review, at the most recent election left of center parties won a majority of votes. Thanks to the operation of Canada’s electoral system, some left of center parties received a much lower proportion of seats than they got proportion of votes. But the generally left of center BQ got a higher proportion of seats than its proportion of votes would imply. But the left of center bloc was divided, and a clear plurality of seats was won by the Tories. Traditionally in Canada, a plurality party forms a “minority government” without the support of formal coalition partners and that’s what the Conservatives’ Stephen Harper did. But a government in that place needs to tread cautiously — it doesn’t have a majority of seats. And when the government in that position is also relatively unpopular — securing the votes of only thirtysomething percent of the population — it really has good reason to tread cautiously. Instead, Harper moved very boldly with measures that the opposition parties deemed intolerable. His high-risk bet was that the opposition would be unable to collaborate effectively and thus he would be able to push through a controversial agenda with a minority of seats and a minority of popular votes. But he was wrong and no a combination of parties representing a majority of Canadians will displace him.

The Basketball Presidency

Yesterday, I argued that the new basketball-centric administration was well-positioned to forge a close alliance with Spain, home of the world’s second-best pro league. It was pointed out to me that this is imprecise — the Euroleague, which is basically European basketball’s version of a “champion’s league” taking the best teams from different national leagues, is the second-best league in the world after the NBA. But that’s only if you count it. I would consider Euroleague more like a tournament than a league as such. And in terms of national basketball leagues, my understanding is that after the NBA, Spain is tops closely followed by Italy and then Russia.

What I hadn’t realized, however, is that Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero likes to play basketball, though based on that article he doesn’t quite seem to have Obama’s skills.

The Accord

For those who share my interest in Canadian politics, here’s the text of the unprecedented Liberal-NDP accord that will bring the New Democrats into government for the first time ever.

Harper on the Hot Seat

One happy result of recent election outcomes is that now liberal Americans get to tease our liberal Canadian friends about the role reversal — they’re the ones saddled with government by rightwingers, and they’re the ones who’ll need to flee ‘cross the border to enter the bountiful Land of Obama. Except it seems that America’s moment in the sun may be short-lived, as a three-party opposition coalition seems to have hatched a plot to boot Canadian PM Steven Harper from office.

For background, Canada has evolved toward a multi-party political system. But Canada doesn’t have a tradition of diverse coalition governments like you see in small continental European countries. Instead, Canadian parliamentarism closely resembles British political traditions. In practice, that means that when no party secures a majority in parliament, you get a “minority government” led by the plurality party. This can be a stable situation if conditions are right. But at the moment, the alternative parties — the centrist Liberals, the left-wing New Democrats, and the separatist Bloc Québéquois — are all to the left of the Conservatives on the main issues. So in principle they ought to be able to find a way to agree on a Liberal-led coalition that all will prefer to a Conservative minority government. At the moment, it seems they’re still having some trouble ironing out the details but if they manage to reach an agreement that’ll be the end of Harper.