The View from Right Field

Increasing Our Presence in Eastern Europe. The Obama Administration Gets It Right.

I spend a lot of time in this blog criticizing President Obama’s foreign policy, so now that the Obama administration has done something good, let me applaud them.

On Tuesday, the White House announced a huge increase in funding for the European Reassurance Initiative,¹ up from $789 million this year to $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2017 (which starts October 1, 2016).  This will pay to acquire and preposition equipment for a brigade-sized force in locations in Poland and the Baltic states and to keep a brigade present there, different units rotating in and out, full time.  This is a big deal.  While a single brigade couldn’t stop a Russian invasion,² it will give Vladimir Putin something to think about before trying it, and it should make it easier for NATO to respond to “little green men” attacks like what Russia did in the Crimea.

While I do have some comments around the edges on how the decision could have been better (see below), the main thing is that we’re doing a lot here.  It is a big step in backing up President Obama’s pledge in Tallinn, Estonia, in 2014:

Is Socialism the Next New Thing?

But for a couple of coin flips, Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist,” might have won the Iowa Democratic caucuses on Monday.  Senator Sanders’ support was highest among the young.  He got 84% of those under 30 and a strong majority of those between 30 and 44.  As Peggy Noonan said last week, and Megan McArdle noted earlier this week, for young people, socialism doesn’t seem to have the nasty associations that it does for those of us who are older.  Wonderful.  (That’s sarcasm.) 

Does this mean we are going to have to live through the Gulag, the Berlin Wall, the Cultural Revolution, and the Killing Fields of Cambodia again, all because 20- and 30-year olds haven’t read history (or visited Berlin)?  That’s a pretty high price to pay because some people aren’t willing to learn from things that happened before they started to pay attention.

Glasnost and Perestroika In the House of Saud?

Karen Elliott House writes in today’s Wall Street Journal about the changes going on in Saudi Arabia.  Since the House of Saud’s founder, Abdulaziz ibn Saud, died in 1953, the Saudi throne has passed among ibn Saud’s 36 sons.  Now, however, the current king, 80-year-old King Salman, has appointed his own 56-year-old nephew, Mohammed bin Nayef, as crown prince.  If Mohammed bin Nayef does become king, he will be the first of the third generation of the House of Saud to ascend to the throne.  Perhaps more interestingly, the king appointed his 30-year old son (and Mohammed bin Nayef’s younger cousin), Mohammed bin Salman, as deputy crown prince and second in the line of succession.

Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has begun to shake things up in Saudi Arabia.  He has severed diplomatic ties with Iran, jumped into the civil war in Yemen, helped organize a 34-country Islamic coalition against terrorism, and met with a number of world leaders, including Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping.  Domestically, he is doing the same.  The National Transformation Plan 2020, which he is supervising, envisions transforming the Saudi economy from one based on government jobs paid for by oil money to an economy led by private-sector growth.  All while maintaining the control of the House of Saud.

An American Looks at Waitangi Day

You can find my most recent post on my other blog, “A Different New Zealand,” here.

Will the “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” Finally Get Hillary Clinton?

Back in 1998, during the investigations of Bill Clinton (including the Monica Lewinsky “situation”), Hillary Clinton went on “The Today Show” to complain about

“this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”

Obviously, the vast right-wing conspiracy never did get Bill Clinton.  However, I’m beginning to think it might get Hillary Clinton.  Not directly, of course; but indirectly.  Let me explain.  It’s not that there is some vast right-wing conspiracy that is trying to defeat former Secretary Clinton (unless you are referring to the Republican Party).  Rather, it’s that Secretary Clinton’s belief such a conspiracy exists may wind up causing her to beat herself.

Secretary Clinton has said she set up her now-famous private e-mail account, and server, so she would only have to use one device; i.e., to make things easier. I don’t think anybody believes that.  I think she wanted to keep tighter control over her emails.  She remembers Kenneth Starr, etc., investigating Bill and her, and she didn’t want every right-wing crazy group in the country being able to look at her emails by just subpoenaing the State Department.

Which Democrat “Won” Iowa and What Difference Does It Make?

I am always fascinated by candidates who claim they “won” an early primary or caucus state, and the media that trumpets their victory, when they all got was a miniscule number of votes more than the other candidate.  For example, in Iowa last night Hillary Clinton apparently received 49.9% percent of the vote and Bernie Sanders got 49.6%.  This may or may not translate into one more delegate to the Democratic National Convention for Secretary Clinton than Senator Sanders.  But really, to use a phrase made famous in another context, “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?” 

This is not Florida in November of 2000; it’s Iowa in February of 2016.  There are dozens of primaries and caucuses left, and hundreds of delegates to be elected.  What difference does 0.3% and maybe one extra delegate make at this point?  Especially if you remember that, in 2012, Mitt Romney was declared the winner of the Iowa caucuses the night of the vote, and only a couple of days later, after Mr. Romney got all of the credit for “winning,” did the absolute final vote total show that Rick Santorum actually got more votes.  (Oops.  And here.)  But what difference did those few hundred votes make anyway – other to the “winner”-obsessed media?

The fact is this was the first state.  What counts is that both candidates got virtually the same number of votes and that all of the other states are still coming up.  A few hundred votes one way or the other just isn’t that big of a deal.