Libya interventionists

Justin Logan at Cato makes a good point answering the interventionist logic. If the goal is to remove Qaddafi, then logic says remove him -- send in the necessary military forces and overthrow him. But this won't fly in public and international opinion, so the interventionists are proposing a half-measure that I suppose is an incremental process of getting rid of Qaddafi, but this creates doubts about the plan, Why pretend we are only creating a no-fly zone, which if we create committs us to deal with any military response from Qaddafi? This is how we get bogged down in between victory and defeat. We don't want to admit defeat, but we want to do what's necessary to accomplish our mission, so we flail and bog down in the mud hole.

Plus, we don't know what forces are fighting for control. It's a complex problem, and I certainly don't want to see innocent people slaughtered, but why does America have to be involved when there are countries closer in the region with national interests at stake? There has to be a point where America backs off and says "No more", especially in the Middle East and Northern Africa.

Putting spending cuts in perspective

Cato@Liberty provides a chart to show the hyperbole on the Left regarding economic damage caused by Republican spending cuts.

What's really sobering is the chart itself and the fact that spending is out of control. The Left is on the wrong side of this issue.

More on Egypt

Christopher Preble at Cato reflects my thoughts on the subject. Our support of Mubarak through the years might be justified by realpolitik, but things change, and now there's a good chance that the people of Egypt are ready for something different. I don't know if I accept that radical Muslims will fill the vacuum of power, if there is one, even though I'm sure this is the result planned by Iran (the leaders of Iran might again find themselves the target of protest soon). The best result will be that the country can have free and fair elections and decide for themselves what they want.

Neither the status quo under a dictator nor the powergrab of Islamist extremists are good options, but Egyptians deciding their own fate will be a positive end to this. American leaders can at least make this much clear.

Obamacare and Medicaid

Michael Cannon at Cato presents a not-so-rosy scenario regarding the increase in state medicaid costs is Obamacare goes through unchanged.

As I've been writing lately, we need to move past political means and images and concentrate on economic means and economic reality.

Cultural in what way?

Roger Pilon at Cato has a post up about the Arizona controversy regarding political speech and the profound differences we now experience in a divided society.

Pilon links to Daniel Henninger at WSJ and, while I had not read this piece, it fits in with my post The Political Art of Obfuscation. The question is what type of foundational, cultural differences do we experience? I suppose there are many, but I would suggest the most meaningful distincton to make in this case is between a political culture practicing political means and private sector culture practicing economic means -- these two cultures are broad and over-arching, but the more specific differences of gender, geography, race, etc, I believe, while important in their own specific ways, are not as clarifying as this broader division between political means and economic means, especially when we're talking about unemployment, national debt, the healthcare law and other things related to our financial crisis -- and this is where the conflict lies in the political/economic realms.

The culture of the political class is foreign to many who produce and work in the private sector, and  political means appear manipulative and ineffective to many who understand where jobs and economic growth originate. The private sector culture is foreign to many in the political class, as we see from how they talk about the private sector, Fat Cats and the need for more infrastructure spending, and how their actions to solve problems appear counter-productive to business people. We also cool down the rhetoric by lifting the debate to this level of concern, while the other differences are ironed out in communities, national conversations focused on these issues and between individuals. The problem is that these other cultural issues are brought into the debate and they obfuscate the broader division making it difficult to solve problems which affect us all, which are related to the economy and government intervention into the economy. When we politicize every issue affecting our society, dividing "culture" between two political parties, it creates the kind of ballistic back and forth so many are condemning.