Big Idea

A "Big Idea" is a kind of overarching principle, trend or method that explains or solves an issue or problem (this definition is subject to change).

Every now and then, we all come to see or realize many such things. It would be interesting to post and discuss them here.

Here's my first:

Clausewitz once said war is an extension of politics by other means. this may or may not be so always, but what is always true is that war is an instrument of policy. What does this mean? It means wars are fought in a certain way to achieve policy aims. this often gets lost when debating the need for war. the assumption being, largely, that in a war you go in, depose the ruling regime, and either take over or install a regime more to your liking.

If this young century has taught us anything, it's that such scenarios all to often have messy resolutions and involve much longer, and harder, wars than would seem to be the case. Not to mention they often lead to unexpected outcomes. Witness Iraq and Afghanistan. and lastly they cost a lot more in lives and money as well.

There is much talk of "exit strategies." There is little, if any, discussion about policy aims.

This is not to say that clear aims will necessarily provide a limited, quick war, see WWI in part. It does mean things like regime change are not easy nor cheap aims to achieve.

Consider Iraq. The casus belli was its possession of weapons of mass destruction (remember that?), and the continued refusal of Saddam to abide by treaties demanding the dismantling of such weapons, including his refusal to allow inspectors in.

Now, sporadic bombings and sanctions only can accomplish so much. regime change, as we've seen, is too costly and unpredictable. there is no doubt Saddam was a terrible dictator who deserved to be deposed and then executed. But life after Saddam has been even worse for most Iraqis. Hindsight is 20/20 and all, so this is not a direct criticism of US policy regarding Iraq.

So hindsight and all, it might have been a better idea to send in troops, do an extensive aerial campaign, and demand Saddam open up and allow us to see what he's got.

Would that have worked?

Unknown.

No WMDs were found, past those already identified and secured beforehand by prior inspections. It seems Saddam was bluffing, but ti's not entirely clear whom he was bluffing. the West? The US? Iran? All? So he might have no relented even then.

The point is there were other options, and we'd be wise to keep such things in mind for the future.

WMD was the hype, a slogan. Its like Fighting For Democracy.

Case in point: Venezuela.

Yes, the situation there is intolerable. Maduro is a heartless dictator and should be removed. But keep in mind all these problems would vanish if oil shot up to as little as $80 per barrel (*)

So what can the world outside of Venezuela do?

Surprisingly little. We can further isolate the country economically until it collapses. Pressure can be placed on maduro to resign, or to reach a compromise with the very substantial opposition. But that won't work without further economic sanctions. It might help if a country were to offer Maduro safe passage and asylum. this seems counterproductive, not to mention it rewards a dictator for his rottenness. But often dictators hand on to power because it means hanging on to life itself. If deposed, they may be executed or imprisoned (see Fujimori in Peru).

How about a military intervention?

Well, how do you justify one? Venezuela poses no threat to any other country, nor is it currently fighting a civil war (and see how involvement in civil war turned out in Syria), nor are government and anti-government forces distributed along geographical lines. essentially, you'd have to go in and conquer the country, depose the dictator and his support structure, set up a new structure, set up a new government, etc. Just like Iraq (and look how that turned out).

I know too little about Venezuelan politics to tell what might shake loose in such a war. You probably won't have religious fanatics, but there are nationalist and socialist fanatics aplenty. A few of these might fight guerrilla-style for years. A few more might attack Western targets in Venezuela or abroad. Do you know what happens then? Not to mention a growing suspicion of latinos in the US?

And let's be frank. there are plenty of other countries with miserable, and decaying, standards of living with a dictator or a clique on top. Were it not for the oil reserves, Venezuela would be largely ignored outside Latin America.



(*)Venezuela's crude is mostly heavy and less valuable. The benchmark price is for the higher quality light, sweet crude. So Venezuela wasn't selling oil at $100 per barrel, and it's not selling it at $50 per barrel now. Still, an increase would benefit its economy.

This si gestating and I need to do some research on it, but I'm beginning to see a pattern:

Partisanship is not the problem, it's a symptom.

A symptom of what? of political disengagement.

Greco-Roman democracy int he heyday of Athens, Sparta and the Roman Republic was participatory. Those elegible partook in government in various capacities (not in all of them), serving the various offices available to them. This is one reason the Roman bureaucracy was rather small, even into the early Imperial era.

Today's democracy is representative. We have career politicians and bureaucrats running things, and we just vote some of them in and out of office. While these groups are large, the vast majority of the people don't take even their de jure minimal part in the process. See the rates of electoral abstention and what various countries try to do about it, too.

The abstention rate is even worse, or at least higher, in primary elections. The presidential primaries get a bigger share of votes, but not the congressional ones, and less so those for elective state offices (where they even exist).

Those who don't abstain, those who are engaged and vote, currently tend to be more more radical. Given gerrymandering of Congressional districts, seats tend to be "safe" for one party or another. But the people representing such districts are vulnerable in primaries. So they'll pander to the base who do vote in larger numbers in such elections. And thence we get partisanship in the legislative and executive branches of government.

It's worth noting that Greco-Roman democracy was limited to the nobility and those with money or wealth independent from government. So only a small percentage of the population was actively involved in government.

What to do?

Increasing involvement won't be easy. Most people simply lack the time or the interest. My own interest in politics waxes and wanes. But a good first step would be to reform the rules by which congressional districts are drawn up. Rather than bipartisan comisionas and such, I propose a radical solution:

1) set up a commission of an equal number of people from each party, whether 1 or 100 each doesn't make a difference.
2) flip a coin
3) the party that wins the toss up, gets to draw the congressional districts in any way they want.
4) the party that loses the toss up gets to approve the districts.
5) the map is definite only when the second party approves it. No exceptions.

This is a variation on splitting a piece of cake between to people. One cuts the cake, the other chooses a piece. This gives an incentive to both to be fair to the other.

Yes, I know it's completely unworkable and absolutely impossible.

Those of you who have seen a Total Solar Eclipse may have noticed that photographs of the Sun's Corona seldom look anything like the real thing.

It's weird. Consider this:

The Corona is about as bright as the full Moon, but it's spread out over a lot more sky.

It's covered by a very dark Moon, right? not quite. The side of the Moon facing earth is illuminated by sunlight reflected off the Earth. How bright is Earthlight on the Moon? Much brighter than the full Moon on Earth. Think back and try to remember whether the Moon looked completely dark, or whether it was faintly visible (Earthlight reflected from the Moon back to Earth is very dim).

And there are stars all over the place. Photographs seldom show them.


What gives?

Partly is how your eye captures light vs how a camera does so. But the other part is how your brain processes the impulses it gets from your eyes.

When explaining eyesight, there are often analogies made to cameras. But they all end with capturing light. They shouldn't. Just as your brain processes the "raw data" from the eyes, the camera now has a microprocessor that processes the raw date from the camera.

Could we improve the quality of certain images, or at least make them more like what we see every day, by imitating the way the brain processes visual information?

Re partisanship.

In his interview with Patrick Wyman (http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/1214/7/#post83725), Mike Duncan made a rather insightful observation on the parallels between Rome and America:

After Rome defeated Carthage definitively in the Third Punic War and finished gobbling up the Mediterranean, Roman politicians turned on each other. This led to several civil wars and eventually to the ascension of Augustus in the formation of the Roman Empire (though they kept up the pretense of still being a Republic, but then so did the Byzantines long afterwards).

America defeated the USSR in the Cold War in 1991. This was as definitive a defeat as the one Carthage suffered, though in a more humane way (Moscow wasn't razed to the ground). But this is also the time the two major parties turned on each other. In a more gradual way, perhaps, and thus far without a civil war or, worse, a proscription list.

It took the Romans decades to move from the Third Punic War to the Gracchi bothers, Marius, Sulla, Crassus, Pompeii and Caesar, with civil wars starting with Marius and Sulla. America seems well on the way there.

16 years ago when the US was attacked by terrorists, the parties managed to come together briefly. We can blame Bush for detouring to Iraq and shattering the unity, except the Democrats authorized Iraq and then took their regret out on Bush and the GOP. Obama was more concerned with leaving a legacy than uniting the country. While Obamacare was open to hearings and even incorporated amendments made by the GOP, this was more show-process rather than a democratic process. And Trump simply wants to stomp on his enemies, real or imagined, and perhaps provide a good show to his base.

I won't say this is the last chance before a major disaster happens (*), but a good chance for unity lies in opposition to trump on both parties. But this won¿t happen until both sides realize the other side is not the enemy, and recalls the warning from John Quincy Adams against looking for monsters to slay.


(*) I don't think there will be a civil war int he US, but a break up of the country is very conceivable.

Quote: Nareed

I don't think there will be a civil war int he US, but a break up of the country is very conceivable.

There is virtually no geographic continuity that would allow a break up.

Quote: Pacomartin

There is virtually no geographic continuity that would allow a break up.

I call to your attention the fact that West virginia seceded from virginia, after the latter seceded from the Union.

The country need not break up along state lines.