Tag: United States

A Twitter Digression on Trade and China

This week I saw an absolutely horrendous take on Twitter by Chris Arnade and felt compelled to discuss it. This is partially because the positions are incorrect, but also because his discussion itself was in bad faith and actively worsens our dialogue. Are there bad takes on Twitter every minute? Yes, but hey, I saw this one.

Here is the thread:

https://twitter.com/Chris_arnade/status/1181524435163058176

First, let’s start with the object-level fact that hundreds of millions of people were lifted out of poverty in China. The intentions of the advocates of free trade isn’t relevant to this fact, what’s relevant is whether a particular policy improved the well being and life expectancy of millions of people. This is equivalent to claiming Jonas Salk was only in it for the name recognition, and therefore, we shouldn’t have used the polio vaccine.

Next, Arnade is simply wrong about the intentions of his political opponents, claiming they only support free trade because of greed. He then obfuscates the target of his accusations by using the ever popular term “elites”. Free traders have been talking about the moral benefits of trade forever. Friedman wrote Capitalism and Freedom in 1962, 10 years before Nixon’s visit to China, and The Economist was founded to repeal the Corn Laws in 1843. Saying Milton Friedman was defending free trade just to make money off of China’s market liberalizations decades later is just lazy argumentation.

So Arnade is wrong about their intentions, but are these even the “elites”? As far as I can tell Chris doesn’t have a good definition of elites. I noted in the past:

He claimed on his interview on EconTalk, that while elites are abandoning faith, it remains an important aspect of life to more everyday people. This divide is not borne out by the data. Income doesn’t predict church attendance, and according to Gallup, the difference in church attendance between college educated and non-college educated is within the margin of error. If you want things that predict church membership, you should use age (young people are less religious) or political ideology (those identifying as “conservative” are far more likely to go to church than those calling themselves “liberal”).

If Arnade doesn’t have a good definition of elites, then it seems pretty duplicitous to then claim “elites” have any particular position since we can’t identify who he is talking about. Even if such a group existed, surely there would be many different positions and ideas within this group. Not for Chris though, everyone in this group is one in the same. And it seems especially malicious to then claim that not only does this group with no definition exist, but they have specific stated incorrect claims! In fact, Arnade has identified these claims from an imaginary group as fake and then reveals the “true” beliefs which are, of course, simply greed. This is not just a strawman, ladies and gentleman, but indeed strawwomen and strawchildren too.

It’s plausible that someone could have disagreements with free traders, but just ignoring their arguments and claiming they’re only after money is a terrible way to learn and improve our understandings of the world. We should be engaging with each other’s ideas sincerely, not attributing hidden values to people we disagree with. I guess I find this especially upsetting because EconTalk, Russ Roberts’ podcast, does such a good job of emphasizing those values of charity and understanding, and Arnade was recently a guest on that podcast. To see someone who was treated very charitably turn around and be so underhanded on Twitter is quite disappointing.

Let’s return to China. Arnade discusses a “deal” where the U.S. allowed human rights abuses hoping that democracy would follow. I know of no one who has ever said that. In fact, the opposite occurred: the Cultural Revolution killed 500,000 people, ending in 1976 and following the Great Leap Forward which killed some 18 million people in the lowest estimates. Since trade liberalizations began, nothing on that scale has occurred again.

The interest in China from Nixon was as a tool in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. Democracy was really not the goal. Moreover, the U.S. didn’t dictate to China to liberalize its economy, the market liberalizations were largely from within Deng Xiaoping’s government. In fact, I’m not really sure the U.S. would even be able to extract human rights improvements through protectionist policies. What is the model we would base it on? Cuba? Iran? North Korea? Venezuela? All have become wonderful bastions of human rights following American sanctions.

Also, I should bring up the simple libertarian critique that even if you have the perfect policy, the perfect knowledge of exactly how a foreign government will react to sanctions and trade agreement details, government is not an impartial executor of policy. Democratic forces and interest groups will always mutate policy as it passes through government, and it will not be implemented in the idealized fashion you might like. For example, what does the phrase “U.S. foreign policy human rights record” conjure up?

It’s true that China has not become a democracy, while many foreign policy types certainly believed it could happen, particularly in the 90s. Chris seems to think he predicted this outcome (not cited). Suppose you knew this, would you change policy? In a choice between a poorer China without democracy and a richer China without democracy, it seems we should choose the richer one because, you know, we want good things for all humans, not just people who live in the same country as us. 

Finally, let’s get to the economics here. There is no “us” who “exported our factories”. Individual firms make decisions in a complex economy. And those decisions have been that as a percentage of the total, manufacturing jobs peaked in the 40s prior to the establishment of the People’s Republic of China:

Arnade seems to understand that as he cites the recent scandal in the NBA where the Houston Rockets GM tweeted in support of the Hong Kong protesters, and quickly deleted it under a firestorm. Yet, Arnade switches between U.S. trade policy, governed by Congress (allegedly), and private firms making profit maximizing decisions without bothering to differentiate them.

It’s unclear exactly how Arnade wanted U.S. policy to intervene to stop private firms from making their own decisions. He cites an upcoming book, but provides no details. He also cites anti-labor policy, and I have heard similar discussions from economist Noah Smith, and many others associated with the new neoliberal movement. My problem is that given all the weird deceitfulness and strawmanning, I have no reason to trust Chris when we finally get to the policy discussion. I agree with him that the NBA or Blizzard caving to the Chinese government is a bad thing, but saying more robust industrial policy would have changed that is a non-sequitur.

Moreover, there are still tons of benefits from trade with China. The smartphone revolution changed the way we interacted with the world, and mostly in good ways I believe. This happened in part because of Chinese manufacturing allowing anyone to buy a highly complex piece of technology for cheap. On the other hand, technologies we have a dimmer view on today, like social media, are entirely U.S. grown.

There are problems in the world today, but we need to improve our level of dialogue if we want to solve them. Refusing to engage with well known arguments that critique your position and instead going on uncharitable Twitter threads is something we should avoid.

The Immigration Tariff in 500 Words

Immigration liberalization is one of the policies this blog has described as highest impact. It could have massive benefits to both immigrants and native born citizens in the United States and other developed countries. Immigration bypasses the need to solve the extremely difficult problem of “building good institutions” which is a mercurial and sparsely solved goal in development. By moving people directly to societies where good institutions already exist, we don’t have to make them. OpenBorders.info also suggests free movement of people could double world GDP, with smaller migration seeing proportionally smaller but still substantial growth.

The United States is uniquely positioned to absorb immigration. It is the largest developed country by both population and GDP by significant margins (developed country referring to either OECD member or country with HDI > 0.8). By nominal GDP the US economy remains the largest in the world, and by PPP it is second only to China. Unlike China, the US is the only large country with a large foreign born population, and indeed the US has the largest foreign born population in the world at over 46 million. The US also has a long history of immigration contributing to its excellent position as an immigration destination.

Given this blogs inclination towards the benefits of markets, self determination, and individual rights, our default position should be in support of more liberalized immigration. Current immigration policy is geared towards family connections despite much of the potential benefits of immigration stemming from economics. The U.S. also takes in less immigrants as a percentage of its population than other developed nations, despite the previously mentioned advantages the U.S. has in absorbing immigration.

Originating from economist Gary Becker, an immigration tariff would allow prospective immigrants to pay a tax or fee to enter the country and work. We have a somewhat similar although highly limited current system with H-1B visas which are sponsored by companies for employees. Expanding this and accounting for age and level of education, Congress could create a tariff schedule for various immigrants based on potential costs and tax revenue from these immigrants. They could also simply sell off additional green cards after the current legal green card approaches were filled in the current year. The Cato paper linked goes into more detail.

The benefits of any such system would be to guarantee that immigrants with the skills and ability to work productively in the United States would be able to do so, with additional monetary compensation provided up front to the U.S. to avoid any potential risk of those immigrants becoming a net cost on society. This would see benefits in terms of additional labor, entrepreneurship, and economic growth.

The issue with this approach is that immigration is a highly divisive political issue. Republicans would be unlikely to embrace this proposal due to their base’s opposition to apparently all immigration. Democrats may be more interested, but may balk at the notion of people “buying” their way to the front of the line.

Further Reading

For more on why immigration is generally a positive policy:

Book Review: Starship Troopers

I normally put my fiction book reviews on my personal blog, but after finishing Starship Troopers, I realized it fit the theme over here pretty well.  Additionally, because Robert Heinlein’s novel ended up being more thought provoking than plot driven, this post will resemble a discussion more than a review.

For starters, Starship Troopers doesn’t contain that much action anyway. Much of it takes place in flashbacks, especially involving protagonist Johnny Rico’s History and Moral Philosophy class in high school, his training camp, and eventually his time at officer candidate school. I would recommend it, as it’s a monumental book in war-based science fiction, but also the philosophy it interjects is probing. The novel does suffer slightly from what I’ll call the cliche-origin problem; reading it you may be disappointed at how unoriginal some of the future combat is, until you realize the only reason you’re so familiar with the concept of a “space marine” is because this 1959 book sculpted the concept, spawning the common sci-fi trope known today.

There’s actually an interesting gap between the book’s legacy and its content: Starship Troopers is a foundational book for futuristic warfare, yet action sequences and the technology of the future isn’t really the main thrust of the novel. Its influence is seen in classics like Ender’s Game, but the idea of soldiers in mechanized suits shows up in almost every single sci-fi war movie or videogame: for example Halo, Edge of Tomorrow, Starcraft. In some sense, Starship Troopers is interesting because it actually takes seriously the concept of space warfare and explores it. Yet the book only spends some time on action, with a heavy concentration on philosophy of warfare and training. Clearly Heinlein thought that the discussion of warfare, army psychology, training, and the relationship of society to the military was worth discussing, yet that aspect of the book is where I’d like to challenge it the most.

The question is how literally to read Starship Troopers. The book is vitally important to the genre because of its literal discussion of space wars, yet it’s undeniable that the book is a not-so-thinly-veiled critique of American policy in the Cold War against the communist threat. If we take that the book is a metaphor for how a society should organize itself for survival, does its message hold up?

Writing in 1959, the world was only a few years removed from the deadliest conflict in human history, and the U.S. was locked in an existential struggle with the Soviet Union, that many reasonable people believed would eventually lead to war, with nuclear weapons ensuring it would be a very deadly and costly one. Given the time, the apparent inexorable march of history towards deadlier and deadlier wars would have seemed obvious. The spread of communism to Eastern Europe, East Asia, and Southeast Asia had put huge swaths of the world population under communist rule. The U.S. faced existential threats, and given that reality, Heinlein created a novel where humanity faced an existential threat.

Starship Troopers is often critiqued as glorifying militarism, perhaps even fascism. I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate. Heinlein doesn’t really demonstrate that war is glorious or even good. Rico advances quickly through the ranks mostly because so many people are getting killed around him. It’s not that he wants to be a hero, but he’s forced to do a horrific and terrifying job because humanity is literally depending on the military for survival.

There’s a striking quote towards the beginning of the book from Rico’s History and Moral Philosophy teacher:

Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.“

The main problem I see with the book (and the thesis stated in the quote) is that communism wasn’t defeated by the grit and determination of infantrymen; it turned out that naked force wasn’t the only way to deal with a struggle of superpowers. The U.S. military went to Vietnam, where men fought and died in the thousands, or, in the case of Vietnamese civilians, hundreds of thousands. Yet that was a pretty colossal loss in the fight against communism. On the other hand, Nixon’s trip to China is generally seen as a big success, fundamentally changing China’s role in the Cold War, and leveraging Russia into negotiating arms limitations. In fact, seen from the perspective of the 1950s, the success of liberal capitalism and democracy over communism with so little conflict has to be one of the most incredible events of the past 60 years.

Given what actually happened in history, is Starship Troopers‘ message worth hearing? Did Heinlein have a realistic outlook on war and how societies can confront existential threats, or was his thinking bound and backwards-looking, stuck in the era of conventional war that the nuclear age had made obsolete? This is a hard question to answer. On the one hand, doomsayers of the early 50s predicting conflict were obviously empirically wrong. On the other, we came very close to nuclear conflict several times in the Cold War, and it’s possible we just got lucky. Conflicts have become less deadly and less common since the end of World War II. This could be a trend that continues, in which case, Heinlein’s book looks pretty dumb. Or, this somewhat conflict free time period could be a brief historical blip when America’s hegemonic power established a nice liberal world order for a few decades, which then collapsed in dramatic fashion, plunging the world into some pretty awful conflict later on. In that case, perhaps Heinlein’s worldview would prove true in the general case, if not for the exact conflict in which the book was written.

Thus, I would argue Starship Troopers, while establishing a foundational aspect of science fiction, puts forth a philosophy that has not been validated by the empirical experiences of our world. That may change, and the extent to which the reader believes conflict is inevitable is a vital factor in determining their appreciation of Heinlein’s novel.

Against Hillary: Foreign Policy and Trade

This is the second post in my series opposing Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. See the introduction in Part 1 here. Read my opposition to Trump here. Read why you should mathematically vote for a third party here.

Foreign Policy

Media coverage might make you think that Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson’s weakest point in comparison to Hillary Clinton is foreign policy. On the contrary, foreign policy is by far the the most important policy reason voters should reject Hillary Clinton, especially in favor of Johnson. News stories might seem to indicate that Johnson knows nothing about foreign policy, but in fact he has an excellent nuanced approach to foreign affairs. Libertarians have a reputation for isolationism, and indeed an important part of Johnson’s policy is a reduction in American military involvement in the middle east. But he is still a proponent of American diplomacy and defending American obligations in NATO. He’s also the only proponent of free trade in this election, a policy which has systematically broken down geopolitical opponents by integrating their economies into global markets and intertwining their economic success with ours. Let’s contrast this with Hillary Clinton’s policies.

The American consensus on the 2003 Iraq War is certainly negative, and I’d go as far as to say that most agree it was a mistake, especially on the left. Hillary Clinton voted to support that war, but so did many politicians on both sides of the aisle (including 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry). Of course, even some blame for a war that had several hundred thousand deaths of civilians and combatants is pretty awful. 4,507 Americans died in the Iraq war. This is significantly higher than the amount of people who died in the September 11th attacks. These are real people that likely would be alive today if not for the actions of American politicians. Yes, Hillary Clinton was not the only person who voted for this war, so perhaps she is only responsible for a fraction of this mistake. But is it that great to be responsible for the deaths of only 100 Americans who died for a mistake? What about the thousands of Iraqi Security Forces who died in the insurgency? What about the estimated five million Iraqi orphans caused by the war, or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who died?

In 2004, Hillary said she had no regrets her Iraq War vote. In 2008, she didn’t want to be flip-flopping and so did not apologize, but she nonetheless lost the nomination to Obama, with the Iraq War support being one of several factors. In her 2014 book, she finally admitted that she regrets her vote backing the Iraq War. Yet, as The Atlantic points out, she was quite sincere in her vote in 2002; this was not simply a political ploy to look strong on national security. And if indeed she has had a change of heart, one would think she would treat future policy decisions differently.

In 2011 as Secretary of State, she faced another policy decision in Libya…and again decided to push for intervention. During a Democratic primary debate a year ago when asked about the intervention, Hillary Clinton began her defense of American involvement in Libya by labeling it as “smart power at its best”. Connor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic harshly criticized Clinton’s full answer stating that her upbeat portrayal of Libya was:

…about as misleading as summarizing the Iraq War by saying that the Iraqis had a terrible leader; they had a free election after the war; and they voted for moderates. It elides massive suffering and security threats that have occurred in postwar Libya.

Also worth noting, as Friedersdorf points out, this war was not declared, and not only violated the War Powers Resolution, but went against the expressed opposition of a Libya intervention Congressional vote. Moreover, the New York Times discusses in-depth how Obama was hesitant to get involved in Libya until Clinton convinced him it was a worthwhile endeavor. This is her war, and it left Libya a failed state.

Clinton’s support of military interventions in the middle east should be very concerning to everyone. Essentially all military interventions she has supported in the middle east have been failures: Libya is most prominently hers; she voted to go to war in Iraq which was a foreign policy disaster; she also supported the Afghanistan surge in 2009 and drone bombing in Pakistan during the first Obama term. Seven years after the surge in Afghanistan, there are still thousands of American soldiers and several times that many contractors in Afghanistan today. The Pakistan drone strikes have been severely criticized, with estimates of civilian casualties varying between 250 to over 900 civilians killed.

Of course, the US hasn’t really had a successful military intervention in the middle east since the Gulf War. Yet Hillary Clinton has continued to favor aggressive hawkish interventions. Her widely touted “experience” during her husband’s administration, as a Senator, and as a member of the Obama administration seems to have created systemic bias towards intervention in her approach to foreign affairs. In the Times piece, Clinton adviser Anne-Marie Slaughter states:

“Mrs. Clinton repeatedly speaks of wanting to be ‘caught trying.’ In other words, she would rather be criticized for what she has done than for having done nothing at all.”

This may sound noble, but it should disturb anyone considering voting for Clinton. The implication that “trying” is always better than “not trying” ignores the possibility that American policy could ever accidentally cause bad outcomes. This isn’t just possible, it’s quite likely, as demonstrated specifically by Iraq and Libya. Now Clinton is proposing additional intervention in Syria, beyond what the Obama administration has pursued. This includes no-fly zones and troops on the ground to create safe zones for refugees.

You might say that Syria is different from Iraq in that the situation literally couldn’t be worse, so perhaps intervention only risks improving one of the bloodiest wars in the last decade. Yet no-fly zones would demand a confrontation with Russia (they are the ones flying the planes) and would require the US to shoot down Russian military aircraft. This is escalation, and thus it’s quite easy for imprecise or incorrect policy to actually make Syria become even worse under Clinton’s policy. A Johnson/libertarian hands-off approach has inherently less risk because there would be no soldiers involved and little to no risk of escalation with Russia. Johnson has specifically advocated working with Russia, which is also basically the policy the Obama administration is taking. Nonetheless, we should acknowledge this approach has done little to end the war in Syria.

But if anything, that’s another point to Johnson: if Clinton’s ideas are so great, it seems that the Obama administration would have already implemented them and succeeded. The implication then is that Clinton differs significantly from Obama in Syria policy. Specifically, she is willing to commit more than pure air support. This sounds suspiciously like a traditional middle eastern military intervention championed by neoconservatives/right-wing hawks. Johnson’s Syria policy is suspiciously similar to Obama’s. So the question is why would Democrats and progressives side with Clinton when the Clinton vs Johnson policies are really right-wing vs Obama Syria policies. It seems siding with Clinton over Johnson in this area means abandoning the left’s positions, including that of the sitting Democratic president.

Moreover, for Clinton’s policies to succeed, she would need to win a middle eastern conflict by building a coalition among international actors who are geopolitically opposed. This war would need to be won against both a strong dictator and a large insurgency, the latter being something the United States has failed at essentially every time in the middle east. These plans are unreasonable, unprecedented, and unlikely to work.

Voting to approve of Clinton’s continual push for war and intervention is to agree not to hold her responsible for her repeated foreign policy mistakes which have lost countless lives. It’s to agree that we can afford to spend another several hundred billion dollars on another middle east intervention. It’s to put faith in a person who has learned nothing, who is hoping her intentions in solving the Syrian conflict will overcome the reality of the middle eastern politics.

Free Trade

Trade is next due to its role in the dynamics of geopolitical relationships. Again, despite the consensus that foreign relations is Hillary’s strong point, this is the second foreign policy area where she is on the wrong side. When it comes to trade, economists are in astounding agreement that free trade is a good thing. The benefits of freer international markets are clear and the results are all around us; today we have global supply chains that reduce the cost and increase the availability of goods of all types. Integration of developing economies has raised the productivity of the global poor and allowed for sustainable, incentivized growth to pull literally billions out of poverty, a feat which government and charities have never come close. The burden is on free trade opponents to explain their position, and in this election, those opponents are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Gary Johnson is the only candidate running this year who is on the right side of perhaps the most important issue when it comes to the degree and number of people helped.

Hillary Clinton may say in private that she supports free trade, but at best then we are hoping she is lying publicly. Unfortunately, whatever political calculations she is making may not necessarily change after election day. At the very least, it seems reasonable to suggest free trade will not be a top priority of the Clinton administration given she is running as far as possible from the TPP. As an aside, the TPP itself has many non-free trade components, including extensive increases in intellectual property protections. But our president should be someone who makes the case to the American people and the to the world of the benefits of trade, cooperation, and commercial interaction (I can’t believe I’m defending Obama). The current presidential administration has created many bad policies, but in foreign affairs, both in war and trade, Clinton is somehow huge steps backwards from where we are today.

Comment on Reddit.

Picture Credit: Gage Skidmore, licensed under CC BY-SA-2.0

Against Hillary: The Rule of Law

This post is the latest in a series this year covering the 2016 election. In May, I took a look at all candidates that had run for the Democratic and Republican nominations and noted that most were flawed. I restricted much of my analysis to the candidates’ political electability, regardless of my agreement with their ideology. Obviously much of that post focused on the failures of the Republican Party to nominate someone better than Trump, but I noted that already Hillary Clinton was demonstrating some serious popularity issues. In fact, I’m pretty sure her vulnerability (and high likelihood of being the Democratic nominee) was the primary reason for so many Republicans entering the race. That notion has proven correct as the Huffington Post favorability ratings put Hillary at 43% favorable / 54% unfavorable. In comparison at this time of the race, Mitt Romney was about 46% favorable / 48% unfavorable and Obama was 45% favorable / 50% unfavorable. Against an average Republican presidential candidate, I’d bet she’d be losing badly.

But she’s not facing an average Republican, she’s facing Donald Trump, perhaps the worst major party candidate in memory. I’ve gone into extensive detail about the problems with a Trump presidency, and I’ve recommended voting for Gary Johnson (twice), or any third party, if the election isn’t close or you don’t live in a swing state. I define swing state very narrowly as states with a serious chance of their outcome determining the outcome of the election. Indeed, with only a week to go, betting markets have Clinton at over 70% chance to win the election.

However, even if my mathematical arguments make sense to you, if you are a self-identified Democrat or progressive, you might still prefer voting for a mainstream Democrat like Hillary Clinton rather than a third party just because she seems to fit your ideology better; sure, your vote likely won’t count, but perhaps you just don’t see much appeal in the third parties anyway so you might as well state your preference for a candidate you like. This post, at the very least, will lay out the case for why a Clinton presidency would be mediocre, and at best this post will persuade you to vote for Gary Johnson over Hillary Clinton. Again, this implies that there is no real chance of having a decisive vote.

Indeed, it is overwhelmingly likely that Hillary Clinton will be the 45th president of the United States no matter how you vote. While it is nice that Donald Trump will not be president, we must remember that Hillary Clinton’s victory is simply the final act in an election where our political system utterly failed.

One of the reasons I wanted to write Against Trump first was that there are so many faults you can have with Trump without encountering any Fundamental Ideological Disagreements. By Fundamental Ideological Disagreements, I mean that sometimes you encounter people where you don’t have anything close to the same goals in mind due to virtually irreconcilable ideology. A classic example of irreconcilable differences is abortion: some people believe that life begins at conception, and some people believe a fetus only gains rights once it is viable outside the womb. You can’t really get to one place from the other since each has fundamental ideological assumptions about whether an unborn fetus has rights.

Fundamental Ideological Disagreements are part of the reason I favor consequentialism; if we can at least agree on what our goals are, now it’s theoretically just an empirical disagreement on the best way to get there. With Trump, there’s a lot to dislike without considering ideology: he trolls, he flip-flops, he’s unintelligent and incompetent. Regardless of whether we agree with what a perfectly competent Trump would do, it’s apparent, through stupidity or flip-flopping, many of his promises are empty.

Hillary Clinton is not nearly as unknown. She’s done her own share of flip-flopping, but we generally know where she stands on big issues: she favors American military intervention, she favors government involvement and expansion of an expensive welfare state, she favors a regulated economy with higher taxes on the wealthy, and she favors curtailing individual liberties in the name of national security, redistribution, and social justice. To oppose Clinton is to confront these ideological differences which may be impossible to change in a blog post. But there are some critiques that virtually everyone can agree are quite concerning.

The Rule of Law

The biggest issue is the double standard of the law as applied to Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information with her private email server. FBI Director James Comey indicated that because there was no intentional mishandling of information, any case against Clinton would fail despite clear violations of the law. Yet, as Glenn Greenwald points out, this is not how low-level government employees who accidentally mishandle classified information are normally treated. In fact, according to Greenwald, the Obama administration has prosecuted “more individuals under the Espionage Act of 1917 for improperly handling classified information than all previous administrations combined.”

This includes some crazy examples Greenwald lists:

NSA whistleblower Tom Drake, for instance, faced years in prison, and ultimately had his career destroyed, based on the Obama DOJ’s claims that he “mishandled” classified information (it included information that was not formally classified at the time but was retroactively decreed to be such). Less than two weeks ago, “a Naval reservist was convicted and sentenced for mishandling classified military materials” despite no “evidence he intended to distribute them.” Last year, a Naval officer was convicted of mishandling classified information also in the absence of any intent to distribute it.

The idea that the FBI couldn’t get a case together when Clinton insecurely stored documents far more sensitive than those mishandled by low level government workers is absurd. Of course, I’m not suggesting that Clinton necessarily did something immoral; it’s also true that the American government vastly over-classifies everything and is far too zealous about prosecuting people who mishandle information. So called “classified” documents may be classified simply because bureaucrats are playing it safe and covering everything as broadly as possible to avoid any problems. They may even be classified when national security is not in danger but rather because it is simply politically expedient to do so.

But it’s clear that Clinton broke the law and was not prosecuted due to who she is. It’s also true that she repeatedly lied (or didn’t know) about breaking these laws. The stories about her include brazen lifting of NSA classified intelligence sent to unsecured email servers simply because she didn’t want to access email like a regular employee. Against a real opponent, this would be damning.

Moreover, as Scott Shackford at Reason points out, Hillary herself has specifically criticized people who released classified information, even if that information significantly changed the national debate on a topic and led to courts ruling programs unconstitutional:

We’re also talking about a woman who thinks Edward Snowden didn’t go through “proper channels” before leaking information about mass domestic surveillance to the public and should face legal consequences, though the whistleblowing channels she refers to probably wouldn’t have applied in Snowden’s situation. Despite deliberately not managing communications appropriately to make sure everything goes through “proper channels” with correct level of security, she wants to be treated differently.

Again, given Hillary will likely be the president anyway, there are plenty of alternative candidates who have never mishandled classified information that voters can and should cast their ballot for. Voting to state you disapprove of a president using this double standard seems like a worthy undertaking in its own right. At the very least, it is hugely troubling that the likely-president has already avoided the law due to political stature. The fact that our political system gave us a choice between an unpopular, incompetent, flip-flopping authoritarian and someone who couldn’t even follow the laws on classified information as a cabinet secretary is a huge indictment on the system. And any system that allows a president to win when they’ve already demonstrated the law doesn’t apply to them is dangerous. A vote for Hillary is an approval of that system.

Comment on Reddit.

Picture Credit: Marc Nozell, Hillary Clinton in Nashua, NH licensed under CC-BY-2.0

Model-Breaking Observations in the Senate

It’s rare when an idea, or piece of evidence, comes along that is so impressive, it forces you to rethink your entire model of the world. The recently released Feinstein-Burr encryption bill has done just that.

It has been described as “technically illiterate”, “chilling”, “ridiculous”, “scary”, and “dangerous“.  Not only are the issues with the bill fairly obvious to anyone with a cursory understanding of encryption, the problems are of such magnitude that it thwarts any attempt to understand the Senators’ actions.  Let’s look at the effects of the hypothetical law.

The biggest issue is that this bill will significantly damage the United States’ national security. We live in a highly insecure world where cyberattacks, both foreign and domestic, are omnipresent. The Feinstein-Burr bill would fundamentally reduce the security of all technology infrastructure in the country. Jonathan Zdziarski in a blog linked above, gives some details:

Due to the backdooring of encryption that this legislation implies, American electronics will be dangerously unsafe compared to foreign versions of the same product. Diplomats, CEOs, scientists, researchers, politicians, and government employees are just a few of the people whose data will be targeted by foreign governments and hackers both while traveling, but also whenever they’re connected to a network.

That’s awful, and even if you have the most America-first, protect-American-lives mentality, weakening American encryption is the worst thing you could do; it literally endangers American lives.

I think there’s also a strong case to be made that this will do very little to combat terrorism. Unbreakable, strong encryption is widely available on the internet for free, forever; if bad people want to use it, they will.  Moreover, terrorism, as awful as it is, is relatively rare; Americans are about a 1000x more likely to die non-terrorism related homicide. And many more “common” homicides occur due to heat-of-the-moment arguments, which means there would be no encrypted messages detailing conspiracies. All this bill does is remove the ability of average, non-technically inclined Americans to secure their data.

And the people whose data will be most at risk will be those consumers who are less educated or less technically adept. Better informed consumers might have the ability to install foreign encryption software on their phone to keep their data safe, but most uninformed consumers just use default settings.  Thus, criminals who try and commit identity theft will greatly benefit from this legislation; they wouldn’t usually bother targeting knowledgeable users anyway, and with security stripped away from phones, it will be much easier to steal data from susceptible users. The people most in need of help to protect their data will be disproportionately harmed by this legislation.

On the other hand, most companies are not uniformed users. They have IT departments who understand the value of encrypting their data, and they will continue to purchase strong security software, even if it is no longer sold in the United States.  Foreign produced software works just as well.  Banning strong encryption will debilitate the American technology sector, one of the biggest and most important parts of the economy.   This will cost Americans jobs and diminish America’s influence on the future of the world, as technological innovation moves overseas.  But this isn’t just bad for Americans; it’s not easy to simply move an entire company or product overseas. There are huge capital investments these companies have made that will not be available in other countries immediately, if ever, and this will set back the global technology industry billions if not trillions of dollars.

So this really begs the question of why Senators Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr introduced this bill; given their stated obsession with national security, and given the horrific effect this bill would have on American national security, there’s no good way to resolve their stated beliefs with their actions. Here are a couple theories to explain their behavior, and some discussion as to why each respective theory is unsatisfying.

The Senators are actually foreign spies purposefully trying to weaken American national security.  Obviously, if this theory is true, it’s self-evidently very bad that our elected officials not only don’t represent us, but actually represent foreign governments likely trying to harm Americans. Sure it’s quite unlikely since it’s very difficult to become a U.S. Senator at all, and no spy agency would send agents in with a plan to become a U.S. Senator.  Whether they were turned into foreign agents after being elected, I really can only speculate. But it strikes me as improbable. Nonetheless, it is true that this legislation is exactly what foreign security agencies would want to introduce to make the United States more vulnerable.  I was curious, so I checked the constitutional definition of treason as well as the Espionage Act, but it seems that you need to literally give secrets to other people, not just make it easier for them to obtain. But there is that one case where a high ranking official is in trouble for storing documents insecurely…

They’re power hungry politicians. The idea of the Senators being foreign spies is bit far-fetched.  But what know for sure is that they are politicians, which means they chose a career path that would give them more power to change things. Maybe Burr and Feinstein are sick of technology companies telling the FBI that they can’t assist their investigations, and they wanted to put them in their place.  If this theory is true, it’s pretty self-evidently evil; people in power using their power indiscriminately to harm citizens is the exact problem Thomas Jefferson identified in the Declaration of Independence.  Of course, it’s not usually a big problem, because James Madison helped construct a whole host of ways to check the power of government. Of course, the most important check for our situation is that senators are voted in by the people. So as long as people know about this dumb bill, they’ll kick these guys out…right?

Hanlon’s Razor (origin disputed) states that one should “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”  This theory would mean that two sitting, highly experienced U.S. Senators are too stupid to realize the ill effects this will have on national  and economic security.  Obviously, congress has to make laws in areas that its members are not always familiar with…but Burr and Feinstein are the chair and vice chair, respectively, of the Intelligence Committee. If anyone knows about intelligence, they do. And Feinstein is even on the Judiciary Subcomittee on Technology, Privacy, and the Law! If even these people are too stupid to understand what the effects of their own policies are, we might as well stop sending representatives to a legislature at all and just have run-of-the-mill uneducated voters pass everything directly through referendum. Sure, they’d have no idea what they’re doing, but apparently neither do Senators!

What I think is most likely, and most terrifying, is that American Democracy incentivizes members of Congress to make bad policy if it’s politically beneficial. With all the aides and staff Senators have, plus the amount of pressure they receive from outside groups, it seems unlikely they never heard about the bad effects of the bill. Yet, they did it anyway. Given they don’t work for law enforcement, there is no Frank Underwood endgame for passing this bill; banning encryption doesn’t directly allow Burr and Feinstein to look at their political enemies’ phones (…probably), just criminals and the police.  So then maybe their incentive was to appear tough on crime and terrorism, consequences be damned. Richard Burr is in a reelection year in North Carolina, so let’s look at the effect this horrible bill has had on his chances to win according to Predictit.org:

Primary was in mid-March, bill introduced in early April
Primary was in mid-March, bill introduced in early April

As you can see, the bill had very little effect on his perceived chances. Now, it could be that voters have already factored in Senator Burr’s position on destroying defending American national security, and he needed to introduce this legislation to maintain his position. But it looks identical to a situation where North Carolina voters couldn’t care less about Senator Burr’s position on encryption, and his introduction of legislation consequently had no effect on his reelection chances. If it’s the former, then we are in serious trouble because our legislative representatives are incentivized to make horrible policies because voters aren’t well informed.  If it’s the latter, then we have to dismiss this explanation and go back to one of the other three.

Whatever the explanation is, it reflects poorly on how the government constructs policy, and it reflects poorly on American Democracy. Moreover, assuming any of those discussed theories are true, they imply massive issues that will be difficult or impossible to solve.  Reforming democracy as many progressives would like, through campaign finance, wouldn’t even address any of these issues; it is the technology corporations and privacy NGOs which have been advocating for more privacy and making unbreakable encryption more accessible, while law enforcement and other government agencies have been advocating for less security.  But as far as I can tell, even they haven’t demanded anything like this bill.  Thus,  more campaign spending by private groups would help, not hinder good policy.

No matter how you look at it, this bill indicates a big failure for democratic government and illustrates the dangers discretionary state power.

Photo credit: Caïn venant de tuer son frère Abel, by Henry Vidal in Tuileries Garden in Paris, France, photo by Alex E. Proimos, licensed under CC-BY-2.0.