Professional Documents
Culture Documents
T H E H O OV E R I N S T I T U T I O N S TA N F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y
The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace was established at Stanford University
in 1919 by Herbert Hoover, a member of Stanfords pioneer graduating class of 1895 and the
thirty-first president of the United States. Created as a library and repository of documents,
the Institution approaches its centennial with a dual identity: an active public policy research
center and an internationally recognized library and archives.
Understand the causes and consequences of economic, political, and social change
Analyze the effects of government actions and public policies
Use reasoned argument and intellectual rigor to generate ideas that nurture the
formation of public policy and benefit society
Herbert Hoovers 1959 statement to the Board of Trustees of Stanford University continues to
guide and define the Institutions mission in the twenty-first century:
This Institution supports the Constitution of the United States, its Bill of Rights,
and its method of representative government. Both our social and economic systems are based on private enterprise, from which springs initiative and ingenuity.
. . . Ours is a system where the Federal Government should undertake no governmental, social, or economic action, except where local government, or the people,
cannot undertake it for themselves. . . . The overall mission of this Institution is,
from its records, to recall the voice of experience against the making of war, and
by the study of these records and their publication to recall mans endeavors to
make and preserve peace, and to sustain for America the safeguards of the
American way of life. This Institution is not, and must not be, a mere library.
But with these purposes as its goal, the Institution itself must constantly and
dynamically point the road to peace, to personal freedom, and to the safeguards
of the American system.
By collecting knowledge and generating ideas, the Hoover Institution seeks to improve the human condition with ideas that promote opportunity and prosperity, limit government intrusion
into the lives of individuals, and secure and safeguard peace for all.
The Hoover Institution is supported by donations from individuals, foundations, corporations, and
partnerships. If you are interested in supporting the research programs of the Hoover Institution or
the Hoover Library and Archives, please contact the Office of Development, telephone 650.725.6715 or
fax 650.723.1952. Gifts to the Hoover Institution are tax deductible under applicable rules. The Hoover
Institution is part of Stanford Universitys tax-exempt status as a Section 501(c)(3) public charity.
Confirming documentation is available upon request.
HOOVER DIGEST
RE S E A R C H + OP IN ION ON P U BL I C PO L I CY
SP R I N G 2 015 HOOV ER D I G E ST.O R G
HOOVER DIGEST
R ESEA RC H + O PI N ION ON P U B LIC P OLICY
S PRING 2015 HOOV ER D IG EST.OR G
The Hoover Digest explores politics, economics, and history, guided by the
scholars and researchers of the Hoover Institution, the public policy research
center at Stanford University.
The opinions expressed in the Hoover Digest are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Hoover Institution, Stanford
University, or their supporters. As a journal for the work of the scholars and
researchers affiliated with the Hoover Institution, the Hoover Digest does not
accept unsolicited manuscripts.
The Hoover Digest (ISSN 1088-5161) is published quarterly by the Hoover
Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, Stanford CA
94305-6010. Periodicals Postage Paid at Palo Alto CA and additional mailing
offices.
HOOVER
DIGEST
PETER ROBINSON
Editor
CHARLES LINDSEY
Managing Editor
BARBARA ARELLANO
Acting Managing Editor,
Hoover Institution Press
CONTACT INFORMATION
SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
(650) 723-1471
hoover@press.uchicago.edu
Reprints:
hooverpress@stanford.edu
(650) 498-7880
ON THE COVER
The flotilla on the cover of this issue was
one of a series of muscular military images
turned into posters for the British home
front during World War II, which ended
seventy years ago. The posters were meant
to encourage citizens to save money, work
hard, obey the rules, and keep their chin
up. The battleships firing their big guns in
this poster were classical symbols of military might, especially for a sea power such
as Britain, but their days were numbered.
The future would belong to the air. See
story, page 200.
@HooverInst
FACEBOOK www.facebook.com/HooverInstStanford
YOUTUBE
www.youtube.com/HooverInstitution
ITUNES itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/hoover-institution
HOOVER
INSTITUTION
THOMAS J. TIERNEY
Chair, Board of Overseers
BOYD C. SMITH
THOMAS F. STEPHENSON
Vice Chairs,
Board of Overseers
JOHN RAISIAN
Tad and Dianne Taube Director
STEPHEN LANGLOIS
Senior Associate Director
MICHAEL FRANC
Director of Washington, DC,
Programs
DONALD C. MEYER
Counselor to the Director
ASSOCIATE
DIRECTORS
CHRISTOPHER S. DAUER
COLIN STEWART
ERIC WAKIN (Robert H. Malott
Director of Library & Archives)
ERYN WITCHER (Bechtel
Director of Public Affairs)
ASSISTANT
DIRECTORS
DENISE ELSON
MARY GINGELL
JEFFREY M. JONES
NOEL S. KOLAK
VISIT HOOVER
INSTITUTION
ONLINE AT
www.hoover.org
Spring 2015
HOOVER D IG EST
T E R R OR ISM
9
18
23
Aux Armes!
The French are now on the front lines of the struggle against
radical Islam. Can they hold it back? By Reuel Marc Gerecht.
27
34
37
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
T HE ECO N OMY
41
Room to Soar
We can get this sluggish recovery off the ground. By John B.
Taylor
44
Keynesians in Retreat
Theyve been too wrong for far too long. By John H. Cochrane.
49
52
IN EQUA LIT Y
62
Dishonest Demands
The inequality warriors dont really care about enhancing
the nations prosperity. What they really want is power. By
John H. Cochrane.
HE A LT H CA R E
66
Medicare Disadvantage
For an older population, relying on government-run health
care is a very bad idea. By Scott W. Atlas.
70
CA L IFORNIA
75
79
84
F OR E IGN P OL ICY
89
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
96
E N E R GY
100 Saved by the Drill
Drill, baby, drill was derided as a political punch lineuntil
it worked. By Victor Davis Hanson.
IM M IGRAT ION
104
T HE M IL ITA RY
108
115
An Army of None?
Why the United States still needs a versatile, cost-effective
Army. By Michael J. Arnold.
T HE M IDDL E E AST
121
Irreconcilable DifferencesPerhaps
A two-state solution could give Israel and the Palestinians
the fair divorce they want. But it would require two willing
partners, not just one. By Richard A. Epstein.
R USS I A
127
Army of Trolls
It sounds like something from Middle Earth: mindless trolls
carrying out their leaders malevolent will. But the leader is
Vladimir Putin, and the battles are taking place in cyberspace.
By Paul R. Gregory.
IN T E RVIE W
135
IN M EMORIA M : MA R T IN ANDERSO N
148
Policy Powerhouse
Both a scholar and a skillful practitioner of the art of practical
politics, the late Hoover fellow Martin Anderson took
transformative ideas and made them real.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
T HE GR E AT WA R C E N T E N NI AL
160
HOOV E R A R C HIVE S
188
T E R R OR I SM
Political Islam:
Will It Bury Us?
Said to have no place in the modern world,
Islamist extremists may bury that modern world.
By Charles Hill
trick question often contains the answer to itself, and the best
trick questions start a cascade of other consequential questions and their answers. The question imposing itself on us
today is this: How and why is it that political Islam appears to
have failed wherever it has been tried in the modern world? Is there a basic
incompatibility with modernity?
Something like that question was asked during the course of the Cold
War about Marxist communism; often the answer was, Because it hasnt
been tried yet. That same answer might also apply to political Islam or
Islamism, but then produces the further question: what is political Islam?
The answer to this would certainly be that the Islamic State (a.k.a. the
Islamic State of Iraq and al-ShamISIS, or, ISIL when al-Sham is translated
as the Levant), which appeared in mid-2014, is political Islam. Secretary
of State John Kerry pronounced on that: There is literally no place for their
barbarity in the modern world. And that cycles us around to the question:
What is modernity?
All of which leads us to the most dramatic question of all: political Islam
may well be incompatible with modernity, but what if it is modernity that is
failing in the world today, while political Islam is succeeding?
All this is not a medieval-like matter of angels dancing on the head of a
pin as it may first appear. The answer to the primary question about political Islams compatibility with modernity is that political Islams purpose is
not only to be incompatible with modernity but also to oppose it, demolish it,
and replace it in every regard.
A RADICAL REJECTION
The modern world, despite all its various attributes, may be summarized
as a series of intellectual movements, institutional achievements,
and generally accepted ideas that across the span of the
past three or four centuries have slowly shaped
a basically workable and common international order: the Renaissance
10
H O O V E R D IG E S T S P RING 2015
11
12
The premise of all modernitys dimensions is multifariousness, diversity as desirable, while Islam is doctrinally uniate, requiring oneness in all
things.
And to these incompatibilities may be added the findings in 2002 of the
United Nations Arab Human Development Report, which described Arab societies as failing to meet modern standards for human rights, the acquisition
and exchange of knowledge, and freedoms for women. So, taken all together,
political Islam stands in stark opposition to the established modern world
order.
Two phenomena of recent decades have weakened the condition of the
international system. Every Arab-Islamic regime has governed its territory as a state and has been accepted as legitimate in its statehood by the
United Nations and international diplomacy. Yet all the while, the regimes
ruling these statesas hereditary monarchies, military juntas, or one-party
autocratshave failed to respond to their peoples needs and aspirations, a
reality that produced the 2011 Arab Spring, which was quickly crushed by
the old regimes or replaced by ideologically radical Islamist forces, all leading to the Hobbesian war of all against all now ravaging the region. So the
modern international state system is barely surviving across this large swath
of the world.
And as the Middle East has come to a turning point whether it will shore
itself up within the modern state system or fall out of the established
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
13
world order and become adversarial to it, the system itself has deteriorated drastically across the past several decades. The Cold War did
substantial damage to it, damage that was not repaired because uniquely
in the history of major modern warfare, no postwar settlement was
attempted by the surviving side. Then the 1990s became a time of belief
in the peace dividend, implying that international order could stand a
time of deferred maintenance and pretty much coast forward on its own
strength. And anyway, the intelligentsia of the West began to declare that
the building blocks of the systemthe state, sovereignty, defense, and so
onwere outmoded concepts.
The European Union redefined itself as a benign form of anti-international
system, taking sovereign powers away from the states and giving them to
something that never became clear; the European Union today is neither a
state nor an empire and has deprived itself of much of its international influence. And the recent American message to the world that the United States
will be comfortable stepping back from world leadership in order to do
nation-building at homeone of President Barack Obamas favorite phraseshas left the international system not only leaderless but also rudderless.
In the rhetoric of the corridors of the Kremlin and the pages of strategic
journals in Beijing, the line has emerged that the international state system
that may be traced back to 1648, and has been coextensive with the modern
era itself, is coming to an end. Russia
and China have been moving, sometimes brutally, sometimes step by step,
Political Islam may only
to prepare for the new world order to
now be approaching the
come, which will be a world of big powmoment in history, at least
ers without the constraints of universalsince the seventh century,
ity that the modern system assumed.
when it can experience
The United States has shown itself
compatibility with the age
to be politically unable to deal with
it inhabits.
the challenge posed by political Islam
and what needs to be done to meet it.
The states of the international state system, including those of the Middle
East, are vertical entities whose greatest threat across modern history has
come from horizontal ideologies capable of mobilizing masses of people in a
fighting cause that transcends state loyalties; communism was that, and so
is Islamism. Each is a fully comprehensive doctrine that rejects the nationstate as the fundamental entity of world affairs and aims to replace it with
a one-size-fits-all, top-down form of global governance.
14
American strategies since September 11 have failed to grasp this reality. Counterterrorism, or the war on terror, could try to confront only
a tactic, not an ideology; counterinsurgency conceivably could start
to shore up troubled states but was
In the corridors of power in
soon abandoned by the United States
Moscow and Beijing, the
on the grounds that we dont do
view has emerged that the
nation-building.
international state system
The emergence of ISIS was the
is coming to an end.
horizontal movements breakthroughan army that could take and
hold territory. The United States does not have an Authorization for the Use
of Military Force that comprehends this reality. Thus when Obama called for
American military action to degrade and destroy ISIS, he could only use the
word terrorism to describe the challenge faced. Here is a case where strategists from Confucius to Thucydides to Machiavelli understood that actions
cannot be successful when words lose their meaning and their connection
to what needs to be done.
At the same time, in the assemblies, cafs, and faculty lounges of the West
the intelligentsia of the postCold War period declared the state to be outmoded and sovereignty irrelevant. We were to welcome a new era of nongovernmental activism, of diplomacy without need of strength, of global issues
that would transcend small-minded national interests. The European Union
epitomized these yearnings as it proceeded to dismast national ships of state
and amass bureaucratic powers in a supranational entity whose nature was
and remains undelineated. The very word modern seemed unserious, giving way for a while to post-modern, which then, in turn, went out of fashion,
leaving the age we inhabit with nothing but contemporary to describe our
time and its meaning.
INDIFFERENT TO DEMOCRACY
Much of the current situation can be summed up by the recent US decision
to recognize Castros Cuba, autocratic government and all. The international state system, beginning with the Treaty of Westphalia, set out a small
number of procedural requirements that a state would have to endorse to be
a member in good standing of the system. What political form the state chose
for its internal governance didnt matter to the stewards of the system. The
United States and the course of the major wars of the twentieth century, following the thinking of Kant and Tocqueville, increasingly made the case that
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
15
democracy was not just one of the many political forms of governance around
the world but was itself a necessary procedure.
In subsequent years, however, the political propensities of the intelligentsia
and the variety of troubles encountered by the democratizing states and the
American-fought wars of the early twenty-first century caused a reappraisal.
Francis Fukuyama, the political philosopher who at the end of the Cold War
had declared the end of historymeaning that democracy had finally been
recognized as the best form of governancelater recanted his position. China, which always had been grudging about the Westphalian system, stepped
into the new century with its China Modelin other words, an open
economy and a closed political system. Other autocratic or dictatorial states
followed in that direction. All this has given the Cuban Communist Party,
otherwise on the ropes, new life and confidence. The Cuban regime sees itself
following the China Model, having long since perfected all the mechanisms
needed to gather in for itself every dollar coming into Cuba while pretending
to pay the Cuban people with pesos.
The United States thus had a choice of scenarios: either the ever-popular
rosy scenario in which a change in American policy would sweep away the
old Fidelistas as a thriving
capitalist-tourist economy
modernized the island, or
Islamism, like communism, is a
watch the Cuban Communist
fully comprehensive doctrine that
Party use the change in US
aims to replace the nation-state
policy to keep doing what it
with a one-size-fits-all, top-down
has been doing, only now with
form of global governance.
ever more US dollars to vacuum up for party commissars
and cadres. So Obama changed the policyand heres the kickerdeclaring
with satisfaction that it would enable Cuba to follow the China Model, something he suggested would be a victory for US policy.
But, as we have seen, China and Russia and their one-party state blocs
increasingly are opposed to the idea of democracy as the best procedure for
the international system and have begun to position themselves for the next
world order, which will not be procedural and internationally legal but hierarchical and power-dominated, very likely no longer a Free World at all.
So the modern age, and modernity itself, may be coming to be seen as
just one more in the historic sequence of time periods measured by the rise
and fall of cultural themes, systemic structures, and leading intellectual and
moral actors. Put in terms of Thomas Kuhns theory about the structure
16
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
17
T ERRORI S M
Defend the
Offender
A healthy society strikes this deal: to be tolerated
yourself, you must tolerate what offends you.
By Richard A. Epstein
they spur everyone to re-examine the fundamental principles of social cooperation needed to combat an ever-widening cycle of death and destruction.
We must come to terms with todays deep tension between skepticism and
fundamentalism. A small group of Muslim terrorists insists that there is only
one right answer to any question of practice or faiththeir own. Armed with
that false confidence, they leap to the conclusion that any use of force in the
defense of their faith is legitimate. To Muslim fundamentalists, infidels in
the West have to be treated like outlaws. Open critics of their position, from
Salman Rushdie to the staff of Charlie Hebdo, are singled out for a cruel fate
and must be killed on sight. It is impossible to reason with these fundamentalists. Anyone raising doubts about the truth or soundness of the position
Richard A. Epstein is the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover
Institution and a member of the steering committee for Hoovers Working Group
on Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Prosperity. He is also the Laurence A.
Tisch Professor of Law at New York University Law School and a senior lecturer
at the University of Chicago.
18
only supplies conclusive evidence of their wanton disregard of the truth, and
must perish for their sins.
No one should claim that Muslims are unique in their intolerance. Historically, such adamant certitude has also been part of the Western religious
tradition. But over time, and only after much painful experience, Western
extremisn was tempered by moral skepticism. The skeptics began with the
simple proposition that not all inconsistent
religious and social belief systems can be
You disarm, we disarm;
true. The only certainty in life, therefore, is
but if you fight, we fight
that ones own religious and social beliefs
harder.
could prove wrong in light of further reflection and experience. So chastened, the
consistent skeptic must find a way out of his bind. How can he defend his
bedrock beliefs when he has just announced in advance that no worldview is
immune from criticism?
Answering this question requires an appeal to an abstract philosophical
adherence to parity between rival fundamentalist camps. That parity in turn
could be of two sorts. The first allows each side to kill each other as a matter
of right so that the Hobbesian war of all against all becomes a war to the
death among religious and political factions. Talk about social arrangements
that make life solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short! No one comes out a
winner within the confines of this worldview.
Evidently, therefore, for the good of all humankind, the pendulum of equality has to swing sharply to the opposite pole. Each group has to tolerate the
offense that they experience when other groups practice alien beliefs. No
religious or political group is allowed to use force, or the threat of force, to
subjugate or destroy those who do not bend to their will. Moral skepticism
leads to an embrace of a global nonaggression pact. All sides are far better
off with the mutual renunciation of force than they are with the unabated
warfare that the Muslim extremists practice, seemingly at every opportunity.
One theoretical challenge to this position is whether, and if so how, this
principle is reconcilable with John Stuart Mills great pronouncement from
On Liberty: That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent
harm to others. This clarion call to liberty unfortunately carries with it a
potentially fatal internal ambiguity. As stated, the harm principle places no
extrinsic limits on what counts as harm to others. With only a little ingenuity, the exception can swallow the rule, authorizing the creation of a large
state and, in a pinch, the use of private violence.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
19
20
individuals took at the burning of the flag did not justify criminal prosecution
of that conduct, no matter how vulgar and disrespectful the conduct.
The libertarian rule treats simple offense as harm that receives no legal
redress. In these cases, the only thing the indignant person gets is a stomach ulcer. He cannot parlay that indignation into a new set of rights. As the
rate of return from anger is reduced, the willingness to work ones self into a
frenzy will necessarily be reduced as well. The key move is never to fan the
fires of discontent by using them as reasons to use force against others.
Of course, individuals can seek to persuade others to align with them, but
they will know that those on the other side of the issue can seek to mobilize
public opinion against them too, as in Paris. Some fine points arise when
individuals engage in defamationthat is, false statements about the plaintiff
that the defendant makes to third parties. But these cases are not an exception, because defamation violates the libertarian prohibition against fraud
and thus has been long regarded as actionable like other forms of deception.
The hard question, then, is what to do with those who refuse to accept the
universal truce not to use violence against those who dare to utter statements they regard as blasphemous.
Here again the libertarian theory offers the first step. By their refusal,
these violent actors become outlaws. Those who are prepared to use force
should be subject to the full range of criminal and civil sanctions. Individuals and the
All sides are far better
state may use force to resist force, they may
work hard to ferret out threats of the use
off with the mutual
of force before they materialize, and they
renunciation of force.
may root out conspiracies of individuals for
particular acts of violence. Similar hostility is the order of the day against the
nations and groups that practice the use of unlawful force or harbor those
that do. Once again, it is critical to note that the libertarian vision seeks to
preserve a large domain for protest and dispute, but it is relentless against
those do not play the game in accordance with those rules.
Its basic principle is: you disarm, we disarm; but if you fight, we fight
harder.
At this point, the practical program should be clear. It is no longer defensible to try to soft-pedal the enormity of the difficulty by announcing some
supposed parity between murderers and the people they murder. Supposed
social grievances against those who ridicule and deal in satire must fall on
deaf ears. Moral equivocation worsens our ability to maintain an ordered
liberty. Force must be met with force. France, the United States, and other
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
21
nations must conduct massive manhunts against those who commit terrorist actions, properly labeled as such. They must go further and deprive these
individuals of the sanctuaries from which these attacks can be brought,
which means troops on the ground as well as planes in the air.
It cannot do for a weak, indecisive President Obama to allow a force like
ISIS, with thirty thousand men under arms, to hold territory indefinitely
until local troops hopefully become strong enough to root them out. We need,
as I have said before, a return to the Pax Americana. If the nations of the
West and the rest of the free world do not insist on the universal adherence
to the principles by which they bind themselves, an angry public through the
political process should displace them with new leaders who are prepared to
wage war against those who wage war against us.
Reprinted from Defining Ideas (www.hoover.org/publications/definingideas), a Hoover Institution journal. 2015 by the Board of Trustees of
the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.
22
T E R R OR I SM
Aux Armes!
The French are now on the front lines of the struggle
against radical Islam. Can they hold it back?
the early 1990s, when Algerias savage war between the military junta and
Islamists began to spill over into France, the French internal-security service, now known as the Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intrieur, or
DCRI, began to ramp up its capacity to monitor Muslim militants.
On November 27, 2001, Frances premier counterterrorist magistrate, JeanLouis Bruguire, was pessimistic about autonomous jihadist cells in Europe
and North America that dont need to receive orders to pass into action. The
Iraq War added to this widespread anxiety. Many believed that the Anglo-American invasion would provoke a maelstrom of holy warriors against the West.
It didnt happen then. But it may be happening now.
The lethal attack in Paris on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdowhich
has made a specialty of mocking both sides of the too-much-Islam-in-Europe
debate, and in 2012 famously published caricatures of the Prophet Muhammadprobably isnt a lone-wolf affair. But it may represent what Bruguire
feared: native jihadist cells that can act independently of foreign terrorist
Reuel Marc Gerecht is a contributor to the Hoover Institutions Herbert and Jane
Dwight Working Group on Islamism and the International Order and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
23
organizations, like Al-Qaeda or Islamic State, but may act in concert, and
certainly in sympathy, with these groups.
The DCRI, easily the most effective domestic-intelligence organization in
Western Europe, has been sounding the alarm for over a year, warning that
the Syrian insurrection against the Bashar al-Assad regime was becoming
too bloody and too irresistibly magnetic for French Sunni Muslims. Several
hundred of them have traveled to Syria and Iraq to fight under the banner of
Islamic State and other radical groups. Hundreds of other European Muslims appear to have joined them. The French bastion against domestic terror
appears to be cracking.
This isnt good news, because Americas dependence on the French service
and Great Britains domestic-intelligence outfit, MI5, cannot be overstated.
They are part of Americas front line in the war against Islamic holy warriors. Take away communications intercepts, an American forte, and Washington has effectively no unilateral capacity to monitor Islamic militants on
European soil. Other Western European services are quick to confess that
the British and French are their models and have been indispensable in their
own efforts to understand and check Islamic radicalism in a continent that is
now effectively without borders.
If the French, who have more police and security officers per capita than
any other Western country, cannot monitor and check Muslim extremists at
home, Islamic radicals in Europe and elsewhere will surely take note.
The ability of Western European citizens to travel without visas offers
enormous opportunities for jihadists whose dream target remains the United
States. There are now so many European Muslims it is impossible for American officials to identify suspect radicals without European assistance. Even
random, targeted selections and entry denials, based on best guesses, could
cause serious diplomatic problems with Americas European allies, who must
protect the travel rights of their citizens. The Europeans carry the heavy
load of American security in addition to their own.
The rise of Islamic State in Syria and Iraqthe first time jihadism has
successfully conquered and occupied any large territoryhas introduced a
historically evocative charisma into Islamic fundamentalism. Islamic charismatics are always bad news for Westerners, even if their primary targets are
Shiites, Kurds, and Yazidis. The spillover is unavoidable, given the anti-Western core of modern Islamic militancy.
Part of the problem for Europe is undeniably homebrewed. The alarming, so far unchecked rise of anti-Semitism and violence against European
Jews that is practiced by both Muslim and non-Muslim Europeans isnt
24
26
T E R R OR I SM
worlds 1.5 billion Muslims do not directly aid and abet the spate of Islamic
extremism.
How then to focus on the Islamic terrorists without polluting the surrounding sea in which these sharks swim?
Do historys radical movements assume initial or even ongoing popular
majorities to ensure their viability? Obviously, the vast majority of Germans,
Japanese, Italians, and Russians did not support the extremists who came to
power with Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, and Lenin. Indeed, besides carrying out
the Holocaust against the Jews, Hitler killed thousands of his own Germans,
an array of homosexuals, communists, domestic critics, and the physically
handicapped. Stalin caused more deaths among his fellow Soviet citizens in
the Twenties and Thirties than the Wehrmacht later did.
Victor Davis Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the
Hoover Institution and the chair of Hoovers Working Group on the Role of Military History in Contemporary Conflict.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
27
The point is that extremist movements, even when they become strong
enough to reach power, are not always particularly kind to their own or well
liked among them. That Muslim radicals kill Muslims in their midst does not
necessarily mean that they do not prefer to kill non-Muslims.
The continued influence of radical Muslims who engage in terrorism
hinges on whether they bring power, prestige, and resources to the people
they otherwise usually oppress. Islamic theocrats control governments
28
only in the Gulf, Iran, and Gaza, and are trying to cobble together a
caliphate largely in Syria and Iraq. Turkey likewise is moving toward
theocracy. But Islamists are active, both above and below the radar,
in almost every Muslim-majority nationand they can manage this
even where they enjoy very little popular support.
MILLIONS LOOK THE OTHER WAY
A great deal of attention has been given to radically changing
views toward Islamist terrorism in the
Middle East, after the disintegration of Syria and the rise of
H O O V E R D IG E S T S P RING 2015
29
the Islamic State, along with the bloody rampage of Boko Haram in central
Africa.
But what is even more striking is the large minorities who still either are
willing to state their support for terrorists or say they are unconcerned
about their activity. According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, Muslim
support for suicide bombing has dropped in recent years. Yet even so, in 2014
in major Islamic landsthe Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Egypt, and
Jordansomewhere between 18 and 46 percent of the population expressed
approval for the proposition that
suicide bombing against civilian
Islamists are active, both
targets can often/sometimes be
above and below the radar, in
justified in order to defend Islam
almost every Muslim-majority
from its enemies.
The vast majority of Musnationeven when they enjoy
lims no longer express support
little popular support.
for the late Osama bin Laden,
but sizable minorities in some countries still do: 15 percent in Egypt, 23
percent in Bangladesh, and 25 percent in Palestine. The polls suggest
two disturbing possibilities. In a world of 1.5 billion Muslims, perhaps 150
million Muslims worldwide10 percentstill admire bin Laden, are not
concerned about Islamist violence, and support suicide bombing against
the perceived enemies of Islam. While Muslim majorities are beginning
to react negatively to the escalating violence in their midst, millions of
Muslims still do not.
In a historical sense, under political and religious systems that tolerate
no dissentit is still a capital crime in most Muslim countries to slander
the Prophet Muhammad or to become an apostate from Islamit is hard to
assess what percentage of the population at any given time supports radical
leadership. Hitler was extremely popular with the German people after the
fall of France in June 1940, but he was generally disliked by mid-1944, the
time of the heavy bombing of German cities, the invasion of Normandy, and
the collapsing German front in the east.
Yet throughout those years, the Allies nonetheless used the inexact rubric
Germans without concern for the fact that over the duration of the war
sometimes many, sometimes very few Germans supported what was done by
the Third Reich in the name of Germany. Just as foreigners more recently
talked inclusively of Americans without regard for Republicans or Democrats, who had far different views by 2006 on the Iraq War, and as people
speak of Christians to mean everyone from Southern Baptists to Brazilian
30
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
31
While there is great talk in the West that only a small minority of Muslims
support Islamic terrorism, and that the remedy for such terrorism must be
found within the world of Islam, there is not much logical or historical evidence that such truisms matter much. Ten percent is a tiny minority of any
population. But if 10 percent of Muslims worldwide support ongoing terrorist
movements, that is still 150 million Muslims, who comprise a large enough
pool to aid and abet terrorism, either by giving moral and financial support
or by acting as pressure groups within mostly autocratic political systems.
If just 10 percent of the French population is Muslim, and perhaps just
10 percent of that subset supports Islamic violence, there remains a pool
nevertheless of perhaps six hundred thousand radicalized French residents
of Middle Eastern descent that offers the sort of environment in the French
suburban ghettos that spawns the current terrorist violence.
Moreover, theoretical support or rejection of terrorism as evidenced by
polls does not necessarily translate into real-life consequences, especially in
non-democratic societiesas we know from supposed German disenchantment with Hitler during the last year of World War II. Were we wrong in
January 1945 to keep bombing the Germans, given that most by then both
did not like the Nazi government and yet did not dare to actively oppose it?
The truth is that to the degree that radical Muslim terrorists kill other
Muslims inside Islamic countries and make collective progress impossible,
or, by their actions, do tangible damage to the reputation of these Islamic
countries overseas, they will become unpopular and eventually find too little
support to continue their violence.
However, if Islamic-inspired violence abroad does not directly and negatively
affect the Middle East, or if it creates a fear of radical Islam among Westerners
that does not translate into hardship for the Muslim worldor that perhaps
even succeeds in winning a sort of warped prestigethen there is no reason to
expect the Islamic community to take the necessary measures to curb it.
ANGRY AND INSECURE
The sense of perceived persecution in the Middle East is realanalogous
to Germanys lamentations over the Treaty of Versailles. The retreat into
Islamic-inspired terror reflects a larger, complex stew of anger at the reach
of Western globalization into traditional and conservative Muslim societies
and of envy of the wealth and influence of the Western world, combined with
an inability to offer self-critical analyses about the role of tribalism, statism,
gender apartheid, religious fundamentalism, intolerance, autocracy, and antiSemitism in institutionalizing poverty and instability.
32
For a sizable minority of Muslim immigrants to the West, a sense of inferiority is sometimes enhanced rather than diminished by contact with Western
liberal society. The longer and further immigrants are away from the mess
of the Middle East that caused them to flee or at least stay away, the more
they are able under the aegis of Western freedom, prosperity, and security to
romanticize what provides them with
the sense of self they have not earned
When Islamic-inspired
in their adopted countries.
violence can conjure up
In the Middle East, when modern
a sort of warped prestige,
societies reach such a point, they
there is no reason to expect
prefer to blame Jews or the decadent
the Muslim community to
West rather than their own pathologies for a perceived descent from
curb it.
the glories of a pastand religiously
pureage. Liberal internal reform would be the only lasting cure of their
maladies, but, tragically, such an impetus is usually thrust upon them by
forces from the outside, even if only a small but influential and activist minority is responsible for acting out such self-destructive agendas.
When the nihilism of radical Islam manifests itself not just in the bombings
in Paris or Boston but right at home with the rise of the murderous Islamic
State, or when the Arab Spring is hijacked by Islamists who typically leave
Somalias in their wake, or when Middle Eastern Muslims find it hard to emigrate to and reside in Western countries or to freely import Western goods,
or when states that behead and stone are shunned by the West, then support
for the terrorists and what produced them will begin slowly to fade.
Reprinted by permission of National Review Online. 2015 National
Review, Inc. All rights reserved.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
33
T ERRORI S M
By Joseph Felter
ogy is at the root of the most serious threats we face in the Middle East and
defines the war in which we have embarked.
Early in what would be a protracted war against ideologically motivated
extremists, an American president admonished the nation that we face
a hostile ideology global in scope. . . ruthless in purpose, and insidious in
method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration.
While eerily similar to the political discourse in the early years of the war
on terror, this warning was made by President Eisenhower in his farewell
address to the nation on January 17, 1961. Eisenhower continued with a warning that to meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional
and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry
forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged
and complex struggle with liberty the stake.
The United States and our NATO allies mobilized all instruments of
national power in what indeed became a steady approach to the prolonged,
complex struggle that eventually defeated Soviet communism, effectively
Joseph Felter is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a senior research scholar
at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University.
34
winning the Cold War almost three decades later. Notably, the multifaceted
effort to defeat communism included concerted efforts to know the enemy:
not just Soviet military forces and those the USSR supported in places such
as Cuba, Vietnam, and satellite states, but the ruthless and insidious communist ideology itself.
In the course of the US and Western victory over Soviet communism, great
efforts were made to understand the underpinnings and complexities of this
hostile ideology. Our finest academic institutions and other centers created
entire disciplines to study communism, its thought leaders, and its ideological
roots. These efforts exposed communisms internal inconsistencies, ideological fractures, and other weaknesses. Scholars and analysts learned to identify
debates over strategy, and internal disagreements over timing and tactics,
among communist leaders and ideologues. Eventually the fault lines and failures of communism were exposed, contributing to its end.
The implosion of Soviet communism is relevant to Americas attempts to
reboot its policies in the Middle East and gain a deeper understanding of the
most pernicious threats there to US national security. We have failed to heed
an important, hard-earned lesson from our Cold War victory: a key part of
a comprehensive strategy to defeat an ideologically motivated enemy is to
exploit opportunities to discredit and delegitimize that ideology in the eyes of
its misguided adherents.
Most Americanseven those who came of age long after the defeat of Soviet
communismrecognize the names and even images of influential communist
ideologues and leaders like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Guevara,
and Castro. Almost fourteen years since nineteen ideologically motivated terrorists of Middle Eastern descentfifteen of them from Saudi Arabiaattacked
the United States, and amid a resurgent Islamist threat in Iraq and Syria, the
average US citizen and a majority of our policy makers are far less likely to be
familiar with the thought leaders inspiring the adherents of radical Islam.
The most important thought leaders dead or living in Al-Qaeda, for
example, are not Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, or other well-known
operational leaders. A rigorous analysis by the Combating Terrorism Center
(CTC) at West Point, led by William McCants, found otherwise. Instead,
efforts at identifying influence in the jihadi Salafist network led to Middle
Easterners unknown to most Americans and Westerners: people like Abu
Muhammad al Maqdisi, Abu Basir al-Tartusi, Abd al-Qadir ibn Abd al-Aziz,
and Abu Qatada al-Filistini.
There is clear evidence that the grand ideas developed by these scholars and other ideologues little known in the West inform the radicalization
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
35
36
T E R R OR I SM
The American
Way of Satire
Why dont US publications skewer religion the
way Charlie Hebdo does? For one thing, most
Americans dont think of religion as a menace.
By Josef Joffe
together against this act of war on our most sacred of freedoms. Charlie
Hebdo may well be Europes 9/11.
The reaction in the United States was sympathetic but subdued. Americans will never forget 9/11, nor will they forget the thousands who have fallen
in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the slaughter of twelve in revenge for cartooning is beyond the American imagination.
Could something like the Charlie Hebdo massacre happen in the United
States? In the twisted world of Islamist terror, anything is possible. But there
is no Charlie Hebdo in America, though the magazine was named after the
Peanuts character Charlie Brown. Chalk one up to the American exception.
Josef Joffe is the Marc and Anita Abramowitz Fellow in International Relations
at the Hoover Institution, a member of Hoovers Working Group on the Role of
Military History in Contemporary Conflict, a senior fellow at Stanford Universitys Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and publisher-editor of
the German weekly Die Zeit.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
37
What is the difference? The killers of 9/11 attacked the twin towers as a
symbol of American might. The United States harbors some of the worlds
greatest newspapers and magazines. But there is no American publication
of weight that deals in equal-opportunity religion-bashing, whether directed
against Christians, Jews, or Muslims. The absence of blasphemy laws in
Gods own country makes this restraint even more astounding.
There is almost nothing to keep an American paper from replicating the
audacity of Charlie Hebdo, which depicted such scenes as a priest advising
a bishop on how to beat a pedophilia charge, or a masked terrorist beheading the Prophet Muhammad. There is no federal law criminalizing ridicule
or contempt. There is just the holiest of holies, the First Amendment, which
enshrines freedom of religion, speech, and the press.
Some states still have antiblasphemy laws that reach back to the Founding or before, like a 1697 Massachusetts Bay statute threatening with prison
whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God. The last person so
jailed was the radical evangelist Abner Kneeland in 1838. Thirty years later,
the Fourteenth Amendment decreed that the Bill of Rights constrains not
only the federal government but also the states.
No Western nation gives so much latitude to free speech as the United
States. So why no Charlie Hebdo? The answer comes in three parts.
Culture. No other Western nation has flung itself full-speed into modernity
and yet retained its religiosity. Pollsters regularly ask: is it necessary to believe in
God? More than half of US respondents say yes. In Germany, the number falls to
33 percent, in Britain to 20 percent, and in France 15 percent. Church attendance
reveals a similar divide. Sixty percent of Americans go to church at least once a
month. In Southern Europe, only 36 percent do so; in the North, 27 percent.
So theres a God gap across the Atlantic. America keeps on praying while
Europe is de-Christianizing. Such figures suggest an almost tautological
conclusion: the more religious a nation, the more it will respect religion, be it
yours or mine. Hence neither derision nor denigration.
A free market for religion. Since Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of religion, the United States has none, let alone a
state religion. It has only Thomas Jeffersons wall of separation. It is a free
market for religion, and America is owned by many gods. The consequences
have been entirely salutary. No mighty church, no mighty enemy, no target
for contempt masking as satire.
So why fight the clergy? In the United States, it is much easier to start
a new creed, to build another church or synagogue. Lets pray to the same
God, but do it in a hundred different ways, as reflected in as many Protestant
38
40
T H E ECON OM Y
Room to Soar
We can get this sluggish recovery off the ground.
By John B. Taylor
ope flickered last year when the economy grew at more than
a 4 percent clip in the second and third quarters. But then
came Februarys news that fourth-quarter growth slowed to
2.2 percent, a gloomy revelation that the rebound was tempo-
rary. Economic growth for 2014 clocked in at about 2.3 percentthe same
disappointing pace since the recession officially ended in 2009. What is the
problem?
For years I and many others have argued that a return to the principles
of economic freedom would convert this not-so-great recovery into a great
one. But Washington has not seriously considered pro-growth policyno tax
reform to lower tax rates and spur hiring, no regulatory reform to scale back
costly regulations, no new free-trade agreements, no entitlement reform to
stop the debt explosion, and at best only a hint at monetary normalization to
reduce uncertainty.
One reason: there is growing skepticism that these tried-and-true policies will boost growth rates. It is too late now, pessimists say. The economy
missed the 6 percent or 7 percent 1980s-style growth at the start of the
recovery, and it is impossible to make it up. Or even more pessimistically, an
incurable secular stagnation plagues the economy with permanently diminished rates of return on investment and ever-increasing income inequality.
Why bother with difficult reforms if they wont make much difference? At
least were doing better than Europe.
John B. Taylor is the George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in Economics at the Hoover
Institution, the chair of Hoovers Working Group on Economic Policy and a member of Hoovers Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy, and the Mary and
Robert Raymond Professor of Economics at Stanford University.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
41
42
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
43
T H E ECONOMY
Keynesians in
Retreat
Theyve been too wrong for far too long.
By John H. Cochrane
ast year the tide changed in the economy. Growth seems finally to
be returning. The tide also changed in economic ideas. The brief
resurgence of traditional Keynesian ideas is washing away from
the world of economic policy.
John H. Cochrane is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the AQR Capital Management Distinguished Service Professor ofFinance at the University of
Chicagos Booth School of Business.
44
Keynesians told us that once interest rates got stuck at or near zero, economies would fall into a deflationary spiral. Deflation would lower demand,
causing more deflation, and so on.
It never happened. Zero interest rates and low inflation turn out to be
quite a stable state, even in Japan. Yes, Japan is growing more slowly than
one might wish, but with 3.5 percent unemployment and no deflationary
spiral, its hard to blame slow growth on lack of demand.
Our first big stimulus fell flat, leaving Keynesians to argue that the recession would have been worse otherwise. George Washingtons doctors probably argued that if they hadnt bled him, he would have died faster.
With the 2013 sequester, Keynesians warned that reduced spending and
the end of ninety-nine-week unemployment benefits would drive the economy
back to recession. Instead, unemployment came down faster than expected
and growth returned, albeit modestly. The story is similar in the United
Kingdom.
These are only the latest failures. Keynesians forecast depression with
the end of World War II spending. The United States got a boom. The Phillips curve failed to understand inflation in the 1970s and its quick end in
the 1980s, and disappeared in our recession as unemployment soared with
steady inflation.
Still, facts and experience are seldom decisive in economics. Maybe Washingtons doctors are right. There are always confounding influences. Logic
matters too. And illogic hurts. Keynesian ideas are also ebbing from policy
as sensible people understand how much topsy-turvy magical thinking they
require.
Hurricanes are good, rising oil prices are good, and ATMs are bad, we
were advised: destroying capital, lower productivity, and costly oil will raise
inflation and occasion government spending, which will stimulate output.
Though Japans tsunami and oil shock gave it neither inflation nor stimulus,
worriers are warning that the current oil price decline, a boon in the past,
will kick off the dreaded deflationary spiral this time.
I suspect policy makers heard this and said to themselves, Thats how you
think the world works? Really? And stopped listening to such policy advice.
Keynesians tell us not to worry about huge debts, or to default or inflate
them away (but please, call it restructuring or repairing balance sheets).
Even the Obama administration has ignored that advice, promising longrun solutions to the debt problem from day one. Europeans have centuries
of memories of what happens to governments that dont pay debts, or that
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
45
need to borrow for a new emergency but have stiffed their creditors once too
often. More debt? Nein danke!
In Keynesian models, government spending stimulates even if totally
wasted. Pay people to dig ditches and
fill them up again. By Keynesian
logic, fraud is good; thieves
have notoriously high
marginal propensities
to consume. Thats
a hard sell, so
stimulus is routinely dressed
in infrastructure
clothes.
46
Clever. How can anyone who hit a pothole complain about infrastructure
spending?
But people feel theyve been had when they discover that the economics
is about wasted spending, and infrastructure was a veneer to get the bill
passed. And they smell a rat when they hear economic arguments shaded for
partisan politics.
Stimulus advocates: can you bring yourselves to say that the Keystone
XL pipeline, LNG export terminals, nuclear power plants, and dams are
infrastructure? Can you bring yourselves to mention that the Environmental
Protection Agency makes it nearly impossible to build anything in the United
States? How can you assure us that infrastructure does not mean crony
boondoggle or high-speed trains to nowhere?
Now you like roads and bridges. Where were you during decades of opposition to every new road on grounds that they only encouraged suburban
sprawl? If you repeat in your textbooks how defense spending saved the
economy in World War II, why do you support defense cutbacks today? Why
H O O V E R D IG E S T S P RING 2015
47
is infrastructure spending abstract or anecdotal, not a plan for actual, valuable, concrete projects that someone might object to?
Keynesians tell us that sticky wages are the big underlying economic
problem. But why do they just repeat this story to justify inflation and stimulus? Why do they not advocate policies to undo minimum wages, labor laws,
occupational licenses, and other regulations that make wages stickier?
Inequality is fashionable. But no government in the foreseeable future is
going to enact punitive wealth taxes. Europes first stab at austerity tried
big taxes on the wealthy,
meaning on those likely to
Keynesians told us that once interinvest, start businesses, or
est rates got stuck at or near zero,
hire people. Burned once,
Europe is moving in the
economies would fall into a deflaopposite direction. Magical
tionary spiral. It never happened.
thinkingthat, contrary to
centuries of experience, massive taxation and government control of incomes
will lead to growth, prosperity, and social peaceis moving back to the
salons.
Yes, there is plenty wrong and plenty to worry about. Growth is too slow
and not enough people are working. Even supporters acknowledge that
Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare are a mess. Too many people on the bottom are
stuck in terrible education, jobless poverty, and a dysfunctional criminal justice system. But the policy world has abandoned the notion that we can solve
our problems with blowout borrowing, wasted spending, inflation, default,
and high taxes. The policy world is facing the tough tradeoffs that centuries
of experience have taught us, not wishing them away.
Reprinted by permission of the Wall Street Journal. 2015 Dow Jones &
Co. All rights reserved.
48
T H E ECON OM Y
When legislation is proposed, the CBO has the job of estimating its fiscal
consequences. In most cases, the CBO assumes there is no effect on economic growth, positive or negative. This old approach, which ignored effects on
economic growth, has been defended as neutral, a way to prevent political
pressure from affecting nonpartisan CBO calculations.
The White House has opposed the change, based on the supposed neutrality of the old approach, and argued that the new rule will introduce bias. But
the House, not the White House, has it right. Ignoring the macroeconomic
impacts of legislation is far from neutral.
COUNTING THE COSTS
Every piece of legislation has economic consequences. Most are small but
some are significant. When the CBO ignores them, it disregards the detrimental effects on economic growth of bad legislation as well as the positive
effects on growth of good legislation.
Edward Paul Lazear is the Morris Arnold and Nona Jean Cox Senior Fellow at
the Hoover Institution, co-chair of Hoovers Conte Initiative on Immigration Reform, and the Jack Steele Parker Professor of Human Resources Management and
Economics at Stanford Universitys Graduate School of Business.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
49
For example, when the CBO initially estimated the impact of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, it ignored any effects the law might have on gross
domestic product, including job losses due to the laws employer mandate.
But these effects, detailed by Casey Mulligan last September, are a direct
cost to the economy that should have been recognized at the time the estimates were made. In February 2014, the CBO released an appendix to its
original estimate acknowledging that there would be some adverse consequences for employment.
Additionally, the CBO routinely fails to acknowledge that reduced GDP
growth has an adverse effect on tax revenues because less tax revenue is
collected in a smaller economy. Conversely, a tax cut that enhances economic
growth is penalized when the effect on growth is assumed to be zero.
Failing to take into account the positive effects of tax cuts on GDP and in
turn on tax revenues biases the record against them. Because the loss in revenue from a tax cut is overstated, more spending cuts or increases in other
taxes are required to make the legislation revenue-neutral, which also works
against passage of tax cuts.
Taking macroeconomic effects into account is not a radical change. The
CBO currently uses models to estimate economic growth every time it puts
out an economic forecast or annual projection of the budget situation. The
CBO also estimates the effects of stimulus packages on economic growth.
In 2009, for example, it estimated the GDP effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and updated its estimates periodically after that
date. To do that, the CBO employed models capable of assessing the effects
of spending on economic activity.
The CBOs estimates are plagued by another consideration that has
nothing to do with macroeconomic impacts of legislation. Justifiably,
the CBO must take the bill as written, not as the CBO believes it will be
implemented. When the Affordable Care Act was proposed, the increased
spending was assumed in the legislation to be covered in part through
higher taxes and in part through cuts in Medicare. Even though it seemed
highly unlikely that Medicare cuts would be realized, the CBO was
required to assume they were real, again underestimating the likely effect
on the deficit.
The same is true of the alternative minimum tax. Each year, Congress
patches the AMT legislation so that AMT affects many fewer taxpayers
than would be affected were the bill to remain as originally written. Consequently, budget projections, which ignore annual patches in the AMT, are
too optimistic because they assume more tax revenue than will actually be
50
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
51
T H E ECONOMY
Adam Smith,
Life Coach
The great economist pondered not just markets
but the people who use themand how honorable,
happy citizens represent the true wealth of
nations. Hoover fellow Russell Roberts explains.
By Nick Gillespie
writer. Hes fun to read, hes charming, hes the Jane Austen of economics
which is maybe damning with faint praise, but I think not. He can really write
a beautiful sentence and he had some deep insights into human nature and
what were here for, what were able to achieve, and happiness. I thought that
was worth trying to convey to a general audience.
Gillespie: He revised Moral Sentiments over the course of his life, but actually
he wrote that before The Wealth of Nations.
Roberts: I like to think of Moral Sentiments as the book that was ever with
him. It was the book he started with and the book he ended with. It really
bookends The Wealth of Nations and its about a very different set of issues.
Gillespie: Talk about that. Moral Sentiments is not about commerce. In a way
its about public life but not mercantile life.
Roberts: Correct. Its about dealing with the people around youboth in
your business dealings and your personal dealings. The Wealth of Nations is
about the wealth of nations: why some nations are rich or poor, is free trade
good or bad, etc. But Moral Sentiments is about: why do we do nice things
given that were self-interested? How much can we feel for other people?
What motivates us to do good things for other people? Then the related question is: what makes us happy and brings us satisfaction?
Its kind of shocking to realize that Adam Smith, the person most people
would call the father of economics, didnt think the pursuit of wealth was
a very good idea. He thought it was corrosive. He thought ambition was bad
for you and the pursuit of fame would destroy your character, happiness,
and tranquillity. Some people have suggested theres a paradox here. Heres
this guy who writes a book about self-interest and how it makes the world
go round. But heres this other bookwhich you could say he wrote when
he was young, but actually he wrote it when he was young and when he was
oldthat says, actually self-interest isnt the only thing that matters to us
because we care a lot about other people.
LOVE AND DEREK JETER
Gillespie: You kind of sum up the main message of Moral Sentiments in the
phrase we should seek or strive to love and be lovely. What does that mean?
Roberts: Thats my favorite sentence in the book. He says man naturally
desires not only to be loved but to be lovely. Most of us concede, when were
pushed, that we like to be loved. By loved Smith didnt mean romantic love.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
53
He included that, but he really meant what we would call respected, honored, admired, paid attention to. Thats a huge source of our contentment: that we have friends, a reputation, etc. Then he takes it a step further.
He says we dont just desire to be loved, we desire to be lovely. That is, we
desire to earn the respect, honor, and admiration of our friends and fellows
by being truly worthy. Thats what he means by lovely. He doesnt mean a
nice shirt or a pretty painting.
Gillespie: Smith seems to put a pretty high premium on following customs
and etiquette and not rocking the boat in a lot of situations. Whats going on
there?
Roberts: Smith says there are different ways to be loved. You can be famous
or rich, and people will pay attention to what you say and do. If you are
powerful, similarly people are going to pay attention to you and want your
love. Derek Jeter is loved.
So thats one way: fame,
Hes fun to read, hes charming,
celebrity, money, power.
hes the Jane Austen of economics.
But Smith says thats the
wrong way to be loved. The
right way to be loved is
to be lovely, and the way to be lovely is to be proper and virtuous. Proper is
the minimum standardwhat we would call proprietybut you really have
to get to virtue if you want to be truly lovely. Then youll be loved, not in the
way that Derek Jeter is loved, but youll be respected by a smaller circle of
friends. I think he had in mind someone like David Hume, who was his best
friend and whom he respected tremendously.
So lets talk about propriety now. In our day, propriety sort of means stiff
and staying within tradition and custom. I would give a slightly larger range
for that idea. I think its really about meeting the expectations of the people
you interact with: not surprising them, not going off the rails and shocking
them in a way that makes it hard for them to interact with you in a normal
way. If you have a great success or a great tragedy, you share that differently
with people youre close to than with people youre not so close to. A great
success, for example, you might share with your spouse but youre not going
to share it with a stranger whos maybe a little bit envious of you or whos
having a tough time. That would be improper. Similarly, people pour out their
hearts sometimes to people who cant empathize with them. Smith talks a
lot about the degrees to which we can empathize with tragedy or success. So
propriety is about meeting those standards.
54
How we interact with the people around us is really the stuff of life. Its
what we do all day. We dont think about it much, and I think one of the virtues of Smiths book is that it forces you to think about these kinds of interactions in a way you normally dontand its a beautiful thing.
VIRTUE AND THE APPLE WATCH
Gillespie: Propriety is a kind of way station to virtue. How is he defining
virtue?
Roberts: Smith has a lot of different virtues. The big three for him are
prudence, justice, and benevolence. These are words that are a little bit
old-fashioned. Heres the way I simplify it to capture what hes talking about.
With prudence, if you want to be lovely you have to take care of yourself.
Dont become an alcoholic or a drug addict. Dont be a spendthrift. Spend
your money carefully, your time wisely. Dont spend all your time playing
video games or on your smartphone.
Gillespie: I was reading your book as the iPhone 6 came out, when ten million iPhones were sold over the first weekend. People waited for a day and
a half in line, and Smith actually anticipated this. Talk a little about that
incredibly prescient passage, which was first written in 1759.
Roberts: Its kind of stunning. He says, basically, that we fall in love with little
conveniences. He calls them frivolous trinkets of utility, which is really what
our gadgets are all about. In particular, he picks on the watch, which is ironic
given that the Apple Watch has just come out. He makes fun of the person
who pays a premium for a watch thats a little more accurate, just because its
kind of amazing. But it doesnt make the person any more punctual; theyre
not more accurate, they just know how inaccurate they are. So, he makes fun
of the fact that we love these gadgets. And what kind of gadgets were there
in 1759? The things he talks about, theyre not so attractive: an ear-picker, a
machine for cutting the nailsnail clippers.
Gillespie: You point out that on a certain level there was probably a much
better utility to that than taking a dull knife to your fingertips.
Roberts: Correct, just like my iPhone brings me a lot of legitimate pleasure.
Im going to confess right here that I have some iPhone 6 envy, even though
I can make a perfectly good phone call with my iPhone 5. I mean, what am
I really getting thats better? But we have a cravingwhich he understood
back in 1759for the latest thing, for the coolest thing.
56
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
57
identifiedand I think there are reasons to question thisas a particularly continental sensibility. In contemporary times, when people like Bruce
Caldwell, the intellectual biographer of Hayek, said the substitution of formulas and the appropriation of techniques from the physical sciences to social
sciences, particularly economics, gives this false sense of certitude. What are
the ways to push back on that? Because economics now occupies the place of
pride in the social sciences or arguably in the academy. It seems that economists are rock stars now. Theyre being called into political situations to fix
things. Janet Yellen, the highly respected academic economist, goes into
running the Federal Reserve. Greenspan was the Oracle of Delphi: whenever
he picked his nose, markets would plunge. How do we get out of this mindset
that economists really are running the show?
Roberts: I think a number of people know the emperor doesnt have so much
clothing on. Economists are highly respected, thats true. We do have a lot
of power, thats true. But I think a lot of people are kind of skeptical of us
and rightfully so. I think its important for economists within the profession
to admit that sometimes the emperor has no clothes. We dont know whats
going to happen when this tax cut passes or this spending program passes or
this law is changed in this particular way. Every time we fail to predict those
accurately, I think smart people start to think, hey, this isnt science.
Id like to see us be more like historians, which is what I think is our level of
credibility. Nobody pretends to measure the impact of, say, one of the treaties
before World War I on causing the war. We say, well, the treaty had something to do with it, these alliances sprang into motion, but they were there for
a while and they didnt cause war, so why then? Well, there were these forces
of nationalism, the Serbian
thing, the Russian desire for
We have a cravingwhich he
expansion into a port, and all
understood back in 1759for the
these things worked together.
latest thing, for the coolest thing.
Well, which one was 27 percent? How much was this a
factor? Well, I dont know, its history. People disagree about what happened.
They dont pretend to know what happened. I think we should have that
same level of honesty.
I invite my fellow economists to join me, and every once in a while one of
them does concede that this is true. I recently interviewed Lars Hansen,
Nobel laureate in economics, and he said, yeah, models about systemic risk
are very flawed. I said, maybe thats inherent in the process. His view is that
58
we just need to do a little bit better, we need a better one. Im hoping someday people will come to the viewwhich is the Hayekian viewthat you dont
need more data points. The problem is inherently unsolvable, as Hayek said
in his 1974 Nobel address, The Pretense of Knowledge. You have the pretense of knowledge, not the real thing. You have scientism, not real science.
LIBERTY AND OPPORTUNITY
Gillespie: Why is liberty so important to you? Why is it so important that the
government not do this, that, or the other thing?
Roberts: Thats a tough question. One thing I have learned is that I dont have
those views because of what I like to think is the answer, which is: well, I looked
out into the world and I saw the
evidence and weighed it and then
When I interviewed Milton
I came to this view that liberty
Friedman in 2006 right before he
is good. I dont think thats really
died, he was very sad....He kept
why I think liberty is good. It has
saying the glass is half empty,
to do partly with where I chose
to go to school and the jobs I
theres so little weve achieved.
took. Some of us like being like
other people. Some of us like pushing back against other people. I know a lot of
people in the liberty movement who are not such attractive human beings and
are not the best spokespeople for our cause because they like being antagonistic. There are people on the left like that also.
Gillespie: To bring it back to Smith: he was one of the people at a particular stage in Western development or in world development who were of a
privileged class, he was a professor, he was a man, he was a world-renowned
author, and one of the most radical things he said was that everybody should
have more room to make choices in their life. Thats the classical liberal
project, really, to say that even the lowest among us might be able to buy
whatever they want, dress how they want, or vote how they want
Roberts: Think how they want.
Gillespie: Are we still moving forward on that project or do you feel like
things are starting to either plateau or go backwards?
Roberts: The most pessimistic thing is that in what you could argue is the
worlds freest countrythe United Statesgovernment just seems to inexorably get larger and larger. This strange view that somehow the 80s, the
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
59
60
theyd all say yes. Where is the evidence thats a good idea? We have a lot of
evidence thats a bad idea. So, please join me in trying something different.
Id get the government totally out of it and rely on private charity to help
poor people. The system has poor people suffering horribly and not getting
a decent education; our system is not working. Some say, well, we just have
to do it better. Thats a nice idea, but you have to tell me how youre going to
make it happen rather than just desire it. Thats not enough.
On the optimism side, I know that youre old enough to remember when
our views were like kooky ideas. There was nobody joining us, nobody understood it, and nobody read about it. Its ironic that we live in this time when
people complain about how people dont read anymore and theyre stuck
in front of screens. I hope theyre stuck in front of your screen watching
ReasonTV because its extraordinary how many people are interested in liberty and the ideas of Hayek, Friedman, and others. Its a glorious time in that
way and Im always optimistic. I always think we can make some progress.
Excerpted by permission of ReasonTV (www.reason.com/reasontv).
2014 Reason Foundation. All rights reserved.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
61
I N EQUAL I TY
Dishonest
Demands
The inequality warriors dont really care about
enhancing the nations prosperity. What they
really want is power.
By John H. Cochrane
John H. Cochrane is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the AQR Capital Management Distinguished Service Professor ofFinance at the University of
Chicagos Booth School of Business.
62
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
63
Is eliminating the rich, to eliminate envy of their lifestyle, really the best
way to stimulate savings? Might not, say, fixing the large taxation of savings
in means-tested social programs make some sense? If lifestyle envy really
is the mechanism, would it not be more effective to ban Keeping Up with the
Kardashians?
If we redistribute because lack of
Keynesian spending causes secular
If abuse of government
stagnationa big ifthen we should
power is the problem,
transfer money from all the thrifty, even
increasing government
poor, to all the big spenders, especially
power is a most unlikely
the McMansion owners with new Teslas
and maxed-out credit cards. Is that an
solution.
offensive policy? Yes. Well, maybe this
wasnt about spending after all.
There is a lot of fashionable talk about redistribution thats not really the
agenda. Even sky-high income and wealth taxes would not raise much revenue for very long, and any revenue is likely to fund government programs,
not checks to the needy. Most inequality warriors, including President
Obama, forthrightly advocate taxation to level incomes in the name of fairness, even if those taxes raise little or no revenue.
When you get past this kind of balderdash, most inequality warriors get
down to the real problem they see: money and politics. They think money
is corrupting politics, and they want to take away the money to purify the
politics. As Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez wrote for his 2013 Arrow
Lecture at Stanford University: top income shares matter because the
surge in top incomes gives top earners more ability to influence [the] political process.
A critique of rent-seeking and political cronyism is well taken, and echoes
from the left to libertarians. But if abuse of government power is the problem, increasing government power is a most unlikely solution.
If we increase the top federal income-tax rate to 90 percent, will that not
just dramatically increase the demand for lawyers, lobbyists, loopholes, connections, favors, and special deals? Inequality warriors think not. Stiglitz,
for example, writes that wealth is a main determinant of power. If the state
grabs the wealth, even if fairly earned, then the state can benevolently exercise its power on behalf of the common person.
No. Cronyism results when power determines wealth. Government power
inevitably invites the trade of regulatory favors for political support. We limit
rent-seeking by limiting the governments ability to hand out goodies.
64
So when all is said and done, the inequality warriors want the government
to confiscate wealth and control incomes so that wealthy individuals cannot
influence politics in directions
they dont like. Koch brothers,
no. Public-employee unions,
Even sky-high income and
yes. This goal, at least, makes
wealth taxes wouldnt raise
perfect logical sense. And it is
much revenue for very long, and
truly scary.
any revenue is likely to fund govProsperity should be our goal.
ernment programs, not checks
And the secrets of prosperity
to the needy.
are simple and old-fashioned:
property rights, rule of law,
economic and political freedom. A limited government providing competent
institutions. Confiscatory taxation and extensive government control of
incomes are not on the list.
Reprinted by permission of the Wall Street Journal. 2014 Dow Jones &
Co. All rights reserved.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
65
H EALTH CARE
Medicare
Disadvantage
For an older population, relying on governmentrun health care is a very bad idea.
By Scott W. Atlas
merica is facing the greatest health care challenges in its history. Unprecedented demand is a certainty. According to the
Department of Health and Human Services Administration on
Aging and US Census Bureau statistics, the number of Ameri-
cans sixty-five and older has exploded by a full 6 million in the past decade
to over 13 percent of the overall population. The population of oldest old
those eighty-five and olderhas increased by a factor of ten from the 1950s,
to todays 6 million.
Older people harbor the most disabling diseases, including heart disease,
cancer, stroke, and dementiathe diseases that depend most on specialist
care and complex technology for diagnosis, management, and treatment.
Yet the Obama administration has wrongheadedly focused on shifting
Americans to government insurance. Of the 8.5 million individuals newly
insured under ObamaCare at the end of the first half of 2014, more than 6
million were enrolled into Medicaid, based on analysis by Edmund Haislmaier and Drew Gonshorowski of the Heritage Foundation using Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data.
Scott W. Atlas, MD, is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at the Hoover
Institution.
66
After the laws Medicaid expansion and with the population aging into
Medicare eligibility, the 107 million under Medicaid or Medicare in 2013
rapidly increases to 135 million just five years later, according to CMS projections. By the end of the decade, a full 140 million Americans will have their
health care access directly controlled by the US government, a growth rate
far higher than private insurance.
The problem is that government insurance does not correspond to
access to medical care, nor does it imply good health outcomes. Medicaid
is already refused by more than half of doctors across America, according to 2013 data from a 2014 Merritt Hawkins survey. Likewise, more
than 20 percent of primary-care doctors already accept no new Medicare
patients, five times the percentage who refuse new privately insured
patients.
In 2012 alone, CMS reported that almost ten thousand doctors opted
out of Medicare, tripling from 2009. And, counter to the administrations
demonization of
private insurers,
it is Medicare that
Eighty percent of Americans say being
consistently ranks
able to get the most advanced tests,
at the top of the
drugs, and medical procedures is very
charts for the highimportant or absolutely essential.
est rates of claim
refusals, more than
nearly all the comparison private insurers every year, according to the AMAs
2013 National Health Insurer Report Cards.
Here is another important reality to consider. Virtually all patients with
serious diseases today are managed by specialists and with advanced technology. For seniors, visits to specialists have increased from 37 percent of
visits two decades ago to 55 percent today. And thats appropriate, because
those are the doctors who have necessary training and expertise to use the
complex diagnostic tests and devices, state-of-the-art procedures, and novel
drugs of modern medicine.
Fittingly, Americans unambiguously prioritize the latest medical
technology. Surveys by Harris/Wall Street Journal Online demonstrate
that 80 percent of Americans say being able to get the most advanced
tests, drugs, and medical procedures and equipment is very important
or absolutely essential; 67 percent say technologies like digital imaging and advances in health information will improve patient care and/
or reduce medical costs, while only 10 percent think these advances cost
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
67
more than they are worth. In a Health Affairs study, Americans showed
a 50 percent higher interest in new medical discoveries than citizens of
Western European nations.
We often hear of the Association of American Medical CollegGovernment insurance doesnt
es projected shortage of primary
care doctors, but little attention is
correspond to access to medipaid to the fact that almost twocal care, nor does it imply good
thirds of the 2025 doctor shortage
health outcomes.
of 124,000 will be in specialists,
not in primary care. Yet this administration has been naively prioritizing
generalist care at the expense of specialists.
The governments Medicare Payment Advisory Commission already
recommended substantial cuts to specialists: 16.7 percent over three years
and then frozen, equivalent to a 50 percent decrease after the decade, considering inflation. It is counterproductive to restrict the autonomy and cut
salaries of those whom we need the most, thereby reducing the jobs attractiveness to the best and brightest who already have a wide range of career
choices.
More directly, ObamaCare is eliminating access to many of the best
specialists and best hospitals for middle-income Americans. To meet the
laws requirements, major insurers all across the country are declining to
participate in the exchanges or only offering plans that exclude many of
Americas best doctors and hospitals. McKinsey reported that 68 percent of
ObamaCare insurance options only cover narrow or very narrow provider
networks, double that of one year ago.
For cancer care, the overwhelming majority of Americas best hospitals in
the National Comprehensive Cancer Networkincluding MD Anderson Cancer Center, New Yorks Memorial
Sloan Kettering, Barnes-Jewish
More than 20 % of primaryHospital in St. Louis, and the
Seattle Cancer Care Alliance
care doctors accept no new
are not covered in most of their
Medicare patients.
states exchange plans.
The narrow network strategy is about to hit even more Americans in
2015, as ObamaCare exchanges from California to New Hampshire further
restrict access to top doctors and hospitals in an attempt to quell insurance
premium increases caused by the law itself.
68
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
69
H EALTH CARE
By Charles Blahous
Key points
Fix the Affordable Care Act by
addressing clear,
substantive problems.
Any fix should
improve the laws
finances or at
least not worsen
them.
Reformers
should begin with
repairs that can
attract bipartisan
support.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
71
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
73
money because of causes such as adverse selection. The CBO has scored this
provision as having no costs (even slight savings), but I am skeptical; the estimate is based on prior experience with Medicares Part D prescription drug
benefit, which involved a different risk pool. Congress could take a number of
approaches to modifying these risk corridors, including tighter certifications
of budget neutrality, requiring timely repayments from recipient companies,
imposing TARP-style restrictions on recipients, and outright repeal. Though
the politics of these options are unclear, this is an issue with bipartisan
potential, as it allows legislators to prioritize the interests of taxpayers over
those of health insurance companies.
The Cadillac plan tax. The Cadillac plan tax will only become more
controversial as we near its 2018 effective date. It is bad policy, though it
has the upside of undercutting the historical tax preference for employerprovided insurance. If repealed, it should be replaced by a better policy such
as lessening or eliminating that tax preference.
Unearned Income Medicare Contribution. One of the biggest problems
with this new tax on high-income Americans is that the income threshold is
not indexed; thus over time more and more Americans (80 percent within
seventy-five years) would be subjected to it. At the very least this indexation
issue will need to be addressed at some point, though again any revenue
forgone is best replaced with spending growth reductions.
The ACA contains myriad problems; these and other provisions will come
under increased scrutiny going forward. As lawmakers approach repairs,
they will need to bear in mind what is politically achievable as well as what is
fiscally responsible.
Reprinted by permission of e21. 2014 Economic Policies for the 21st Century. All rights reserved.
74
CA LI F OR N I A
Brown Should Go
All-In
Hes popular and California is (temporarily)
solvent. This is the moment for Jerry Brown to put
California into the black.
By Michael J. Boskin
erry Brownnow in the last of his second pair of terms as governor of Californiashould command broad national attention
and not only as a possible presidential candidate if Hillary Clinton
falters.
Browns policies are more complex and nuanced than those of a typical
75
76
ONE MORE TIME: California Governor Jerry Brown points to his relatives in
the gallery during his fourth inauguration in the state Capitol last January.
Brown has presided over a budget that moved from an $18 billion deficit in
2011 to a projected $2 billion cash surplus in fiscal 201516. But many hope he
also will leverage his popularity to put the state on a more stable fiscal footing.
[Reuters / Max Whittaker]
To deal with the deficit in funding teacher pensions, Brown last year
shifted most of the cost to local school districts. This will crowd out teacher
hiring, school construction, and equipment.
Brown proposes a dialogue with the public unions about health costs. But
his nibbling around the edges of pension reform, where costs are accruing
far more rapidly than his modest savings, suggests similarly small health
reforms.
Although he inherited them, Brown is presiding over the most rapid
expansion of unfunded liabilities in state history. Such cost pressures in a
private business at a minimum would lead to enhanced efficiency. Opportunities are plentifulthe state spends more per incarcerated inmate
than the take-home pay of the median family. But no serious consideration
of welfare or Medi-Cal (the states Medicaid program) reform is under
discussion.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
77
Brown spent the first half of January on a triumphal tour of the state,
including a ceremonial groundbreaking for his signature initiative, a highspeed rail system to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco. The project
was originally billed as a $9 billion
state bond expense out of a total projected cost of $33 billionthe balance
The governor missed a shot
from federal and private funds. The
at stabilizing the states
projected cost is now $68 billion and
revenue system.
will use more existing rail, slowing the
speed considerably. No private funding
is in sight, nor is any more federal money likely beyond the $2 billion from
President Obamas 2009 stimulus.
California is a leader in technology, home to the most innovative companies
and a remarkable array of talent and great universities, and the harbinger of
demographic and cultural trends. But it is also home to some of the nations
most difficult problems: between 2004 and 2013, the population grew 2.25
million, while the number on assistance programs grew by 2.9 million. Even
before ObamaCare, the state had more Medicaid recipients than taxpayers.
No one expects Jerry Brown to govern like Chris Christie or Scott
Walker. Still, his election to a third and fourth term has raised expectations
that he would leverage his popularity to put the state on a more stable fiscal footing. Getting there would require reforms that are politically challenging. But overcoming these challenges is the essence of leadership and
will define his legacy.
Reprinted by permission of the Wall Street Journal. 2015 Dow Jones &
Co. All rights reserved.
78
CA LI F OR N I A
California, There
She Goes
When Senator Boxer leaves officethe first of
Californias big three to retireexpect havoc and
mayhem.
By Bill Whalen
79
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
81
first Latino senator (at present, only one Latino holds statewide office in
California: Democratic Secretary of State Alex Padilla). And, yes, the Latino
voterepresenting nearly one in five likely California voters, nearly triple
the number of black votersis a sleeping giant.
Unfortunately for Villaraigosa, that same sleeping giant tends to catch
forty winks come election time, with the Latino turnout underperforming in
most California votes. Moreover, in California primaries, Latinos tend to turn
out stronger in such pockets as the Central Valley and Silicon Valleys Santa
Clara Valley, which are well beyond Villaraigosas Los Angeles base.
One other challenge facing Villaraigosa, who left office in 2013 because
of term limits: being a Los Angeles mayor is the kiss of death for statewide
aspirations. Tom Bradley ran for governor twice in the 1980s and failed, as did
fellow Democrat Sam Yorty in 1966, 1970, and 1974 (Yorty also sought the presidency in 1972). Richard Riordan, a Republican, gave it a go in 2002 and couldnt
survive the partisan primary. The closest thing to a happy ending in Hollywood
is William Stephens, who served for a week as Los Angeless acting mayor in
March 1909 before going on to become Californias governor eight years later.
That leaves the nations largest state with the distinct likelihood of Harris as
its next senator (no Republican has won a Senate race since Pete Wilson in 1988,
which is also the last time California went with the GOP in a presidential election).
82
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
83
CA LI FORNI A
But the West is not running out of water, nor are prolonged fights over water inevitable. Modest changes
in water use could have big results: a reduction of just
4 percent in agricultural consumption would increase
the water available for residential, commercial, and
industrial uses by roughly 50 percent, according to
our analysis of US Geological Survey data.
Yet even after the current drought ends, the West
will continue to suffer water shortages thanks to
population growth, economic development, and the
Key points
Traditional solutionsdiversions,
new reservoirs, or
wellswill no longer substantially
increase the water
supply.
States should
create short-term
fixes based on
market incentives.
Water should
go toward the
highest-value and
most-efficient
uses.
Gary D. Libecap is the Sherm and Marge Telleen Research Fellow at the Hoover
Institution, co-chairman of Hoovers John and Jean De Nault Task Force on Property Rights, Freedom, and Prosperity, and the Donald Bren Distinguished Professor of Corporate Environmental Management at the University of California,
Santa Barbara. Robert Glennon is a law professor at the University of Arizona.
84
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
85
86
the right to use the broccoli growers water. The almond producer pays
a yearly premium to guard against times when water shortages would
result in the loss of his orchard. The proceeds from the option give the
broccoli grower a guaranteed revenue stream and thereby provide a
hedge against a drought that might destroy his annual cropmitigating
risk for both parties.
The United States has a national interest in encouraging more efficient use
of water everywhere. While Americans used to fret about running out of oil,
water also fuels the American economy. A 2013 survey of the worlds largest companies by Deloitte Consulting found that 70 percent of respondents
identified water as a substantial business risk,
either in direct
H O O V E R D IG E S T S P RING 2015
87
operations or supply chains. Companies with water challenges include obvious ones, such as Coca-Cola, and surprising ones, such as Intel, which needs
large quantities of water to produce its processors.
The Western water crisis is basically an imbalance between supply and
demand. Opening water resources to trade has the potential to reduce
the imbalance by rewarding water conservation, ensuring that water goes
toward the highest-value and most-efficient uses, and providing the financial
tools to mitigate fluctuations in water availability.
Reprinted by permission of the Wall Street Journal. 2015 Dow Jones &
Co. All rights reserved.
88
F OR E I G N POLI CY
By James E. Goodby
diplomacy, has shrunk to the point where deterrence against their use is
almost their sole purpose. The technology of the nuclear components of the
weapons advanced spectacularly for many years but has now leveled off. The
types of weapons perceived to be needed for deterrence have changed from
city busting multi-megaton weapons to lower-yield weapons.
There have been constants, too, in the nuclear arena, primarily on the
political-psychological side. One of them is that progress toward ending reliance on nuclear weapons for defense purposes has depended on factors other
than a cost-benefit analysis of the weapons themselves. These factors include
national leadership attitudes and the state of the relationships between
James E. Goodby is an Annenberg Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover
Institution and a member of Hoovers Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy
Policy and Arctic Security Initiative.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
89
nuclear-armed nations. One of the basic nuclear constants has been public
confidence in the ability of nuclear weapons to preserve peace and protect
the safety of the homeland. British Prime Minister Winston Churchills
dictum of 1955 is still broadly accepted: Safety will be the sturdy child of
terror, and survival the twin brother of annihilation. Churchill described the
practice of nuclear deterrence as a sublime irony. So it must have seemed.
But Churchill envisaged an end to reliance on nuclear deterrence, that it
would someday reap its final reward, enabling tormented generations to
march forth serene and triumphant from the hideous epoch in which we have
to dwell.
The dilemma that tormented generations face now is how to judge that
nuclear deterrence has reaped its final reward, how to decide that whatever
utility it had as an immediately usable instrument of unprecedented destruction to the planet has ended. Some of the assumptions made about nuclear
deterrence need serious reconsideration. We ought to understand why.
Nuclear deterrence, in the form of an assured ability to inflict massive
damage on an enemys homeland even after absorbing an initial nuclear
attack by that enemy, has been a constant in American strategic doctrine
almost since the beginning of the US-Soviet nuclear competition. Nuclear
deterrence has been assumed to work under different levels of nuclear
forces and very different doctrines for employment of nuclear weapons.
What the threat of a nuclear strike actually deterred was always a matter
of conjecture and had to remain so. Nuclear weapons have not been used
since 1945 and never at all in a two-sided nuclear war. All the certitudes
about the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence are based on theory, not on
practice.
Another onetime constantthe upward trajectory in the numbers of
nuclear weapons held by the United States and the Soviet Unionendured
for about a quarter of a century. That trajectory then made a sharp transition downward. Today the worlds nuclear arsenals contain only about onethird of the numbers they held in 1986. Why did this happen?
WHAT WILL BRING CHANGE?
In their foreword for a 1997 publication of Stanford University, George Shultz
and William Perry wrote:
History has shown that Reykjavik was a true turning point. Three
major treaties between the United States and the Soviet Union
were negotiated by the end of 1992; they resulted in substantially
90
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
91
92
concept. But deterrence in any form is not necessarily the best intellectual
construct for addressing twenty-first-century problems.
A new form of medievalism threatens all responsible governments and
the international order itself. The availability of deadly force on a large
scale is no longer the monopoly of governments. An order based on the
preservation of nation-states is no longer the goal of some extremist
groups. This threat is not one that can be deterred by the threat of crushing retaliation with nuclear weapons. It may not be influenced by any form
of deterrence.
Insurrections and civil wars rage in Africa and the Middle East. Deterrence in any form lacks the credibility to stop them. Russia has used force
in Georgia and Ukraine to protect its perceived interests. Russia was
not deterred by the opinion of other nations and military retaliation was
never considered by other nations. Todays threats require the integration of all elements of national power to serve US national interests. The
point is not to take force off the table but to elevate other factors to more
prominence in the US approach to international relations.
Deterrence as a tool of statecraft is here to stay. Nuclear deterrence,
especially as practiced during the Cold War, is not. Moral arguments
have been part of the conversation about nuclear weapons since the
1940s. They have not swayed national leaders, with very few exceptionsRonald Reagan being one. But
arguments about nuclear deterrence
and nuclear weapons reductions based Nuclear deterrence only
makes it harder to deal with
on the disutility of nuclear weapons
have gradually been having an effect
the real problems in the
on how nuclear weapons are viewed
world today.
by political leaders and military planners, at least in the United States.
In a documentary called Nuclear Tipping Point, General Colin Powell said,
And the one thing I convinced myself of, after all these years of exposure
to the use of nuclear weapons, is that they were useless. They could not
be used. This experience and new realities of the last decade should have
changed public attitudes about nuclear deterrence. But that has not happened. Perceptions derived from the Cold War still dominate most of the
public debate.
Technology has been one of the major drivers of evolving theories of
deterrence. Future concepts of deterrence are likely to be shaped by
technologies only now emerging as potential game-changers in warfare.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
93
94
assume that nuclear deterrence will always and forever work successfully,
even in very different conditions, is an exercise in wishful thinking.
The goal of seeking a world without nuclear weapons as a core element of a
new global security commons would deal with the most devastating weapon
humanity has ever devised. Creating the conditions to achieve this goal will
highlight issues that need to be resolved if nuclear weapons are ever to be
eliminated.
Excerpted and adapted from The War that Must Never Be Fought: Dilemmas of Nuclear Deterrence, edited by George P. Shultz and James E.
Goodby (Hoover Institution Press, 2015). 2015 by the Board of Trustees
of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
95
F O R EI GN POLICY
Good Enough
Governance
In both wars and nation building, America has
sacrificed the good to pursue the perfect. We need
to temper our ambitions.
By Stephen D. Krasner
Key points
Modern liberal
democracy will
not automatically
spring into being.
In most of the
world, rulers
act in their own
self-interest and
in defiance of US
desires.
Wilsonian
aspirations are
unreachable and
counterproductive.
dollars into the Iraqi army, it fell apart in the face of a few thousand initially
lightly armed Islamic State fighters.
Conditions in Afghanistan are in some ways far better than they were
before 9/11: life expectancy has jumped by more than five years, and many
more children, girls as well as boys, attend school. But the Taliban remains
an active threat. Kabul is haunted by the fear of terrorist attacks. Foreigners
have fled. Opium production is up. Corruption is rampant. In Iraq, the likelihood that the country will become a well-governed, unified state is nil even if
Islamic State is degraded over time. Libya is descending into chaos.
We have not lost because the military and its leaders failed to adapt or
because military resources were misdirected. We have lost because weour
civilian leaders, our countryhave accepted objectives that are not attainable. Our goal has been to put countries on the road to modernity, to move
them toward well-governed, prosperous, democratic states that respect
human rights, have an active civil society, treat women and men as equals,
have a free press, extend the rule of law to all
members of society, and encourage marketWhat our military canoriented economic activity.
not dowhat no one
Our military knows how to fight effectively
against an enemy as unconventional as the Tal- can dois transform
iban, Al-Qaeda, or Islamic State, but also how
domestic political and
to train their Iraqi and Afghan counterparts to
economic institutions
pull off complicated military maneuvers.
in unstable countries.
But what our military cannot dowhat no
one can dois transform domestic political and economic institutions in
these countries. We, our leaders and our people, are guilty of assuming that
the United States is not only a city on a hill but also the natural model for
how human beings should organize political authority. We think that modern
liberal democracy is what many countries should aspire to and that, absent
obstacles, it will spring into existence. This is a chimera.
For most of human history in most of the world, rulers who wield power
have invariably acted in their own self-interest. Controlling the state is the
path to personal wealth and power. Corruption is not an aberration; it is the
lubricant that makes their governing possible. Modern election outcomes in
these places are often perverted or produce leaders who have no interest in
sustaining accountable governance, even though the United States has spent
hundreds of millions of dollars to provide technical election assistance, support political parties and civil society organizations, and establish election
monitors.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
97
It does not matter how well our military is trained, how wisely we deploy
our defense dollars, or how conscientious our politicians might be. Our
military intervention cannot put these countries on the path to modernity.
We must change our goals if we are to enhance our own national security and
provide a better life for the citizens of the countries where we send our men
and women to fight.
Our objective should be good enough governance, which means ensuring
that a state is capable of keeping order within its own boundariesat least
enough order to contain transnational terrorists. The provision of this order
may sometimes be arbitrary and brutal. Maintaining order in some countries
might require an American military whose primary mission would be to
degrade transnational terrorist entities and perhaps intervene to maintain a
balance of power among local strongmen.
Where ethnic conflicts have eroded trust, we should encourage decentralization. Ideally, good enough governance would include providing some
public services such as health care and primary education that would not
threaten the local elites ability to extract resources and stay in power. Some
degree of economic growth might be possible provided we recognize that
these rulers always require their cut of the profits.
Unless we accept that our Wilsonian aspirations are unreachable and
counterproductive, the United States will not be able to align its assetsmilitary and civilianwith policies that have a chance of keeping us safer. Such
a development just might leave some countries better off than they were
before we intervened.
Reprinted by permission of the Los Angeles Times. 2015 Los Angeles
Times. All rights reserved.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
99
EN ERGY
siahas prompted the oil-rich Persian Gulf sheikdoms to keep pumping oil
even as the price falls. In their game of petro-chicken, the desperate sheiks
hope that either their poorer enemies will run out of cash, or that fracking in
the United States will become unprofitable and cease.
Everyone seems to have forgotten about peak oilthe catchphrase of the
new millennium.
The world in general, and the United States in particular, supposedly had
already burned more oil than was left under the earth. Under President
Barack Obama, gasoline prices had soared. When he entered office in January 2009, gas prices averaged around $1.60 per gallon. Four years later, by
spring of 2013, gas prices had climbed beyond $3.50 a gallon.
The Obama administration never worried much about high energy costs.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama promised that under my plan...electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Shutting down coal plants and using
higher-priced but cleaner natural gas would pave the way for even pricier
mandated wind and solar generation.
Victor Davis Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the
Hoover Institution and the chair of Hoovers Working Group on the Role of Military History in Contemporary Conflict.
100
STEADY WORK: Oil rig worker Ray Gerrish works on a drilling site near Watford City, North Dakota, in January. US oil exploration vastly increased the
supply of what was supposedly a permanently declining resource, thereby
helping to drag down prices. [ZUMA Press / Newscom / Jim Gehrz]
In the vice presidential debates of 2008, Joe Biden mocked Sarah Palin
for the supposedly mindless campaign mantra of drill, baby, drill. Biden
intoned, It will take ten years for one drop of oil to come out of any of the
wells that are going to be drilled.
The energy secretary-designate, the professorial Steven Chu, in 2008 had
unwisely voiced a widely held but wisely unspoken progressive belief that
somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the
levels in Europeor about $9 a gallon.
Just two years ago, when up for re-election, Obama reminded Americans,
We cant just drill our way to lower gas prices.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
101
102
grandees, kick-started the economy where federal subsidies had failed to.
They, not the policies of the Obama administration or the rhetoric of Secretary of State John Kerry, weakened our enemies.
Almost everything Obama tried for six years in an effort to rev the
economy failed. Yet the US economy is slowly recovering with cheap energy.
Consumers have more money. Industries are returning to US soil.
Abroad, spendthrift oil producers such as hostile Iran, Russia, and Venezuela are nearly broke. Friendly rivals such as Japan and the European Union
cant compete with the US energy edge.
What Obama once ridiculed is now saving him from himselfafter he had
championed policies that nearly destroyed him.
The Greeks had a word for it: irony.
Reprinted by permission of National Review. 2014 National Review, Inc.
All rights reserved.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
103
I MMI GRATI ON
Immigration that
Works
How to mend a broken system.
To fix a system the president admits is broken, Congress can pass legisla-
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
105
for five years or more and have no criminal record. The visa would allow
them, their spouses, and their children to stay, provided that they pay an
annual visa fee of, say, a few hundred dollars. Anyone with a Z visa could
apply for a green card but would go to the end of the queue, continuing
to have Z status during the waiting period, as long as the annual visa fee
was paid.
Holders of the Z visa would be able to work while they wait for their green
cards. A useful and equitable extension of the Z-visa system would be to
allow a limited number of those who are not already in the country, but have
106
been waiting patiently, to obtain Z visas and pay the visa fee while they await
regular green-card status.
Finally, Congress should create appropriate incentives to apply for legal
status. Employer
enforcement is
Give priority to skills for which demand is
essential to ensure
most outpacing supply.
that the undocumented do not choose to stay in the shadows rather than pay the fee for a Z
visa. Programs like E-Verify are necessary and should be enhanced. Firms
should be fined heavily for hiring those here illegally, but given safe harbor as
long as they check the status of new employees.
A system that penalizes employing those without legal status in the United
States is also the best way to keep new illegal immigrants out. Border
enforcement is necessary, but immigrants who cannot work cannot afford to
live in the United States. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, nearly half
of all illegal immigrants in the United States entered the country legally and
overstayed their visas. The only way to close that avenue is to eliminate their
employment possibilities.
Reprinted by permission of the Wall Street Journal. 2014 Dow Jones &
Co. All rights reserved.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
107
T H E MI L I TARY
Dont Retreat on
the Draft
The Pentagon may need reforms, but a return to
conscription? That would be double marching in
the wrong direction.
By Timothy Kane
Key points
An Army of draftees
would be less competent, making the
nation less secure.
The quality and reliability of our volunteer troops remain far
superior to those of
previous eras.
A draft is a burden.
Voluntary military
service is a privilege.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
109
110
111
have adopted the worst of modern bureaucracy but none of the nimbleness of
contemporary entrepreneurial culture.
My favorite example of the current Pentagon rigidity is that George
Washington would never be allowed to serve as a general in todays Army.
He was a farmer for over a decade before rejoining the ranks and leading
the Continental Army. Today, anyone who leaves the ranks is not allowed
back in, with rare exceptions. Eisenhower, Lee, Nimitznone would make
flag officer today. This is where we should focus our attention on closing
the gap.
If the military were open to rehiring veterans, even those out of uniform
for a decade, it would create what people in the Pentagon are calling a continuum of service that could quickly and flexibly supply critical skillsthink
cyber, database management, cryptography, and biowarfare. It would also
break down the wall between civilian and military experiences.
THE BURDEN OF CONDESCENSION
Another sophisticated critique of the all-volunteer force comes from James
Kitfield:
For their part, members of Congress have not exercised their
constitutional prerogative to declare war since World War II.
They increasingly seem inclined to cede decisions on the use of
military force to the executive branch, preferring to criticize and
score political points from the sidelines. For the generations of
Americans who have come of age in the all-volunteer era, war has
become an abstraction, something best left to the professionals.
Kitfields lengthy cover story in National Journal was titled The Great Draft
Dodge, and it also worried about invisible troops, echoing his essays protagonist, retired Army three-star General Karl Eikenberry.
The desire to reinstate conscription is based entirely on a vision of a fairer
sharing of the burden of military service. Kitfield describes the accumulating burdens of a decade of conflict. Fallows talks about the burdens placed
upon the American military tribe.
In theory, a draft would randomly select young men and women, treating everyone from every community fairly. Advocates ignore the reality
of conscription, which, in all countries and eras, exploits poorer and lesseducated citizens by granting numerous exemptions to others. That was
the Vietnam experience. I challenge anyone to read Fallowss powerful 1975
story about escaping the draft and wish its return. They walked through the
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
113
examination lines like so many cattle off to slaughter. . . . While perhaps four
out of five of my friends from Harvard were being deferred, just the opposite
was happening to the Chelsea boys.
Critics warned that the volunteer force would be even worse. A young
James Fallows, among others, called attention to the skyrocketing percentages of poorer, less-educated enlistees throughout the 1970s. He wrote
in 1980 that America needed to return to the draft. The fairness critique
evaporated, however, when the newly elected Reagan administration gave
volunteer soldiers significant pay raises. By the time Reagan left the White
House, the quality and reliability of our volunteer troops were far superior to
those of previous eras, and have stayed high ever since, a point Obama makes
all the time. Instead of the low-quality recruits Fallows and other AVF critics
warned abouta valid point in 1979 when half of enlistees had no high school
diplomamodern enlistees have more education than the typical civilian.
So the critique has changed, if not the critic. Now we are given little
sermons about the burden. Always the burden. What if the troops who
volunteer dont think of their service as a burden, but rather think of it as an
honor? To wear the Marine uniform is not imposed on any American today.
Quite the contrary. Most Americans cannot qualify for the Marines, let alone
attempt to earn the stripes they wear.
The simple truth is that a draft is a burden, but voluntary military service
is a privilege. Certainly for the past decade, the millions of Americans who
enlisted did so by choice. They chose to fight these wars. I think we who discuss military service should keep that in mind and speak a bit more respectfully about it. To be sure, serving in uniform is hard work, but its not a yoke
to be shared in the way that so many writers assert.
America is a free country. Freer by definition when military service is voluntary. Any other kind of service isnt service, after all. Its servitude.
Reprinted by permission of Commentary (www.commentarymagazine.
com). 2015 Commentary Magazine. All rights reserved.
114
T H E M I LI TA RY
An Army of None?
Why the United States still needs a versatile, costeffective Army.
By Michael J. Arnold
services, to articulate what it provides and why our nation still needs it.
This challenge is especially problematic when considering the publics war
weariness after thirteen years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Compounding
this problem for the Army is the escalating usefulness of various technologies that many perceive as a replacement for boots on the ground. Senior
policy makers, pundits, and academics increasingly question the role of
ground forces for specific combat missions and wonder whether the cost of
maintaining an active-component force structure of 450,000 is simply too
high. The Army finds itself in a conundrum of trying to explain what the
United States gets for its money and how much readiness actually costs.
This strategy paper provides a summary of the Armys core mission statements and, combined with its recently released document, US Army Operating Concept: Win in a Complex World, explores recommendations for the Army
to reframe its strategic message. It also explains the relevance, in light of
growing skepticism, for ground forces. Finally, it illustrates why a smaller,
Colonel Michael J. Arnold (US Army) is a national security affairs fellow at the
Hoover Institution. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and
do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US Government.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
115
116
IN COUNTRY: U.S. Army Spec. Kevin Welsh provides security before boarding a CH-47 Chinook helicopter after a mission in Chak Valley, Afghanistan,
in 2010. Boots on the ground are the most visible, tangible symbol of the
United States commitment to a particular crisis. [US Army / Sgt. Russell Gilchrest]
AN UNMISTAKABLE SYMBOL
The first tenet of a new strategic narrative must clearly articulate that
ground forces are the most visible, tangible symbol of the United States
commitment to a particular crisis. Deployment of ground forces, or the
deterrent value of military preparedness to occupy territory, conveys an
unmistakable message of American resolve to aggressors, allies, and friends.
Admittedly, using ground forces for prolonged deployments and nationbuilding has proven to be a chaotic endeavor. However, an early deployment of a sizable professional American land force can control a situation
before it spirals out of control, preserve our interests, and allow others to
take over long-term constabulary roles, as Conrad Crane noted in Parameters, the US Army War College quarterly. Therefore, keeping sufficient
force structure in the total Army falls squarely in line with President
Obamas stated policy objectives of mobilizing allies and partners to take
collective action.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
117
118
than 3 percent of the total federal budget. Nonetheless, the Army struggles to
articulate the payoff in national readiness: what America gets for its money,
or what the Army does, its output or corporate product. The best way to
address this is by specifying that the Army is the most versatile branch of the
military to provide strategic options for an uncertain, unpredictable security
environment.
Better funding for readiness will require that the Armys leadership work
with Congress to take a hard look at base realignments and closings and
eliminate some congressionally mandated defense
The bottom line: the Army is a team
programs.The results will
of trusted professionals.
create more flexible, costeffective response options
when national interests are at stake. In this context, the US Army can mitigate the notion that its force structure costs too much and is too expensive to
maintain.
The third aspect, the cost of maintaining political support, as addressed in
the US Army Operating Concept, stresses that the Army will now operate by
using regionally aligned forces to help build capacity, assure allies, and deter
adversaries. This is not to say that the Army or even a military response
has a role in every circumstance. However, if US foreign policy now stresses
the importance of mobilizing partners and allies to take collective action
in dynamic and unpredictable environments, as the president said last year,
the Army plays a highly versatile role in providing logistics support, ballistic
missile defense, engineering support, and a communications architecture
for joint and combined forces in austere environments. Building these types
of partnerships will underscore the cost-sharing nature of conducting contingency operations.
AN ARMY OF EVERYONE
The third tenet of the narrative should stress that the Army is part of the
fabric of our society and touches every community in America. At a time
when the civil-military divide is tenuous, it is important to use the Total
Armythe active, reserve, and National Guard forcesto connect with citizens. The US Army will continue to demonstrate through action that it is not
a disconnected caste system of warriors. The Army is not a faceless organization that dispatches boots on the ground to conflict abroad. Rather, it is
the neighbor right here in America helping with disaster relief, such as after
Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina. It is protecting the homeland as part of a
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
119
trained and ready team and is willing to sacrifice for the good of our nation.
In essence, in the words of the chief of staff of the Army, General Raymond
Odierno, the US Army is a team of trusted professionals.
Rather than being overwhelmed by political stalemate and letting misinformation pull investment away from the Army, the Army must continue to
stress these tenets, shaping an accurate understanding of its versatile nature
that will resonate with the American people and elected officials. Providing
a wide range of decisive capabilities at a reasonable cost, as Steven Metz
put it, in a security environment that is plagued by uncertainty and unpredictabilitythis may be the identity it needs to inspire and attract support
and prove that America does, in fact, still need an Army.
Special to the Hoover Digest.
120
T H E M I DDLE E AST
Irreconcilable
Differences
Perhaps
A two-state solution could give Israel and the
Palestinians the fair divorce they want. But it
would require two willing partners, not just one.
By Richard A. Epstein
both sides happy. And you can always tell a good settlement because it leaves
both sides unhappy. Those words came back to haunt me on my recent trip to
Israel, where I had a chance to inquire about the difficult dynamics of the IsraeliPalestinian negotiations, which have soured even further since I returned home.
In principle, I share the common belief that a two state solution offers
the only way out of the impasse. Indeed, one of the more disturbing signs
in Israel were the maps used by tour guides that showed a unified greater
Richard A. Epstein is the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover
Institution and a member of the steering committee for Hoovers Working Group
on Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Prosperity. He is also the Laurence A.
Tisch Professor of Law at New York University Law School and a senior lecturer
at the University of Chicago.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
121
Israel, including Samaria and Judea, without any recognition of the strong
Palestinian claims to those portions of what they term the occupied territories, a.k.a. the West Bank. I can think of no more reckless course for the
Israelis to take than a formal annexation of these territories, which would
make the Palestinians second-class citizens in a state that they have grown to
abhor. Israel would come to regret a decision that could lead to its ruination.
By the same token, a one-state solution with a joint Israeli-Palestinian
government is a prelude to political strife and
social calamity. The divided control would
The fairness problem
lead to one manufactured crisis after another,
is especially thorny in
which would be quickly followed by a coup or
political negotiations.
invasion that would once again leave the Israelis helpless against an implacable foe. Just
contrast two events: Lebanons 1943 national pact between the Muslims and
the Maronite Christians, which resulted in civil war by 1958, and the painful
separation of India and Pakistan in 194748, which has produced an enduring,
if uneasy, peace.
A two-state solution seems the only way forward. The question, then,
is on what terms. In a recent column in the New York Times, Roger Cohen,
who writes frequently about the Arab-Israeli conflict, spoke with the distinguished Israeli novelist and essayist Amos Oz. Cohen echoed Ozs demand
for a fair divorce between the two sides. The op-eds provocative title, A
Time for Traitors, reminded me of Hermione K. Browns general dictum: the
only leaders who can work some kind of permanent peace are those who are
prepared to make concessions their own supporters will resent.
Thats the good news. The bad news about the Oz-Cohen position is that it
does not offer decisive insight on the two questions that really matter: what
the fair divorce should look like, and how it could be reached in negotiations. Both are formidable issues.
IS IT FAIR?
The term fair, as in fair divorce, conceals the enormous difficulty in
obtaining that lofty result through voluntary negotiations. Fairness has
a storied career in all areas of legal theory and practice. In a competitive
market with multiple buyers and sellers, the idea plays only a limited role in
policing bargaining practices. A fair deal is one that is reached by parties of
full capacity where neither uses force or fraud against the other. So long as
those procedural prerequisites are satisfied, no government official or private observer has any reason to develop an independent substantive theory
122
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
123
an alien population. Third, it helped improve (at least for a short time) Israeli
standing in the hostile capitals of Europe. Fourth, it left the Israeli government
with the unhappy but important opportunity to reply with force in the event
that Gaza became a staging ground for direct attacks on Israel. Recall that an
unrepentant Hamas has used both rockets and tunnels to undermine Israeli
security and has provoked three warsOperation Cast Lead in 2008, Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012, and Operation Protective Edge in 2014in the
past ten years. And, last, the withdrawal offered a test case of what might happen if the Israelis were to remove themselves from the West Bank. As events
have turned out, this is now even less likely.
During my stay in Israel, several academics I spoke to thought that it was
a worthwhile gamble to organize a staged withdrawal from the West Bank
in an effort to phase in the control of that area by the Palestinian Authority
(PA), which has formally broken with Hamas. I am uneasy with this situation
because of the serious risk that the Fatah government could lose, or even
fitfully cede, control to Hamas, at which point the entire peace of the region
would be at stake. A revived and legitimated Hamas government would be
able to launch direct attacks on Jerusalem and invite in other nations, for
instance Iran, to help in the fight against Israel.
But many writers thought that a slower staged withdrawal could guard against
that risk by encouraging economic cooperation and allowing for a shared authority until the new Palestinian state had gained its footing. Gaza need not be used
as a crutch for refusing to make concessions on the West Bank.
Now, alas, it may well be that the political risks are too great. The efforts
for on-the-ground reconciliation seem to have foundered. Indeed, the danger
now is that the Fatah group that heads the PA will form an active if uncertain
alliance with Hamas in an effort to achieve a political or military outcome
that puts Israel at mortal risk.
AN END RUN AROUND NEGOTIATIONS
The effort to force the United Nations to extend membership to the Palestinian Authority represents a recurring threat because it bypasses the entire
process of voluntary negotiations between the two sides. The PA decision to
apply for membership in the International Criminal Court to charge Israel
with war crimes for activities in Gaza marks a true low pointit has already
provoked the Israelis to freeze payments of tax revenues to the PA and could
lead even the ever-reluctant Obama administration to cut its aid to the PA.
This immediate Israeli response has been to forgo the carrot and to rely
heavily, if not exclusively, on the stick. It may well be that this choice is
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
125
126
R USSI A
Army of Trolls
It sounds like something from Middle Earth:
mindless trolls carrying out their leaders
malevolent will. But the leader is Vladimir Putin,
and the battles are taking place in cyberspace.
By Paul R. Gregory
world. In his parallel universe, the aggressor is the victim, strangers appoint
themselves premiers of nonexistent republics, hundreds of soldiers mysteriously perish in border exercises or on vacation, a certified nationally
elected government is a neo-Nazi junta, and hundreds of tanks and heavy
weapons crossing borders are optical illusions.
Putins version of Alice in Wonderland can be wacky, mind-boggling, irritating,
disgusting, cynical, and incorrigible, but underlying it is a sinister narrative cleverly designed to promote Putins goals and head off effective Western action.
Putin has used a troll army throughout his presidency that went largely
unnoticed before the Crimean invasion. The Kremlin indeed requires an
army to construct a new universe parallel to the real universe in which
we live. Google counts 1.5 million media entries under Putin attacks
Ukraine. The trolls must convince their audience that the Google title
should read instead Ukraine attacks Russia. Quite a job!
Paul R. Gregory is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the Cullen
Distinguished Professor of Economics at the University of Houston and a research
professor at the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
127
128
Dear PAUL, can we badly know English language, but only one
thing I want to say, YOU understandFack You. [Russians have
trouble pronouncing u.]
The Andreys have been replaced by ace trolls, such as Jeff and
RussM, with an occasional guest rant by aij against filthy Jewish bankers. My most prolific troll, Jeff, usually posts multiple commentsat times
almost fifty per column. My trolls do not limit themselves to the written
word. One appeared in person to pester me at a panel discussion.
Elsewhere in the trolls parallel universe, there is doubt as to whether I
even exist. One troll volunteered that my bio is pure fiction. There is no Paul
Gregory of the Hoover Institution. Putin assumes his enemies do what he
does. Why should someone claiming to be me not be someone else?
Most comments are generic boilerplate that trolls cut and paste into multiple comment sections. The most common comment is the ad hominem smear.
According to my trolls, I am a stupid, pig-faced, fascist, Neocon, Russian and
Jew hating hohol (derogatory slang for Ukrainian), who works as a Kiev-based
agent of the Ukrainian fascists.
Aside from the ad hominem
The trolls must convince their
attack, trolls rely heavily on
moral equivalence. Did the United audience that the headlines
States not attack Iraq and did its
should read Ukraine attacks
police not gun down black teenRussia. Quite a job!
agers in Missouri? Yes, Russia
may be aiding the rebels, but are not American troops, CIA, and Blackwater
operatives swarming all over Ukraine? Yes, the shooting down of Malaysia
Airlines Flight 17 was a tragedy, but did not the United States down an Iranian passenger jet a while back?
Trolls never concede even when their back is to the wall. When I published
video clips showing the same Russian actor playing the triple role of heroic
surgeon, neofascist financier, and innocent bystander on Russian television,
one troll saw no contradictions, while another (pretending to be from the
BBC) claimed that his team staged fake photos of crying people and dead
bodies during the Georgian conflict.
Trolls dismissed my disclosure that a Facebook portrait of a physician anguished by neo-Nazi atrocities was lifted from a North Caucasus dental-clinic brochure. When Russias Channel One showed crude
faked photos of a Ukrainian jet shooting down the Malaysian airliner, the
trolls countered that Russian television is not in the business of certifying
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
129
130
INTERLOCKING LIES
The seeming chaos, chutzpah, and outrageous lies of trollism have a logical structure. The trolls follow common scripts and talking points from
Kremlin information technologists. As the Guardian explains, trolling on
Ukraine-related issues (is) organized, as the trolls are given talking points
and certain phrases were used again and again. In the same vein, Buzzfeed
concludes that the campaign (is) directly orchestrated by a Putin insider.
The trolls therefore open an unintended window on the hopes and fears of
Putin and his inner circle. If scholars applied social science to the millions
of troll comments, they could gain invaluable insights into the mind of Putin.
Lets hope that someone is conducting such research.
The Kremlins Ukraine narrative consists of a series of interrelated stories.
If one is not accepted, the whole narrative falls apart.
Ukraine is an illegitimate and criminal state unworthy of the Wests
assistance and trust.
The Putin Ukraine narrative: neo-Nazi extremists unseated a democratically
elected president in the Maidan coup dtat of February 2014. Russia, aware
that the new Ukrainian junta was planning genocide in the east, had no
choice but to protect ethnic Russian separatists, spontaneously mounting a
counter-Maidan revolt. Crimea, with its large Russian population, was most at
risk, so Russian forces had to enter, and accept the popular will of the Crimean
people to be annexed. Nor could Russia prevent patriotic volunteers and
military-intelligence officers crossing the Russia-Ukraine border (with their
heavy military equipment) to aid their Russian World brethren in their civil
war against Ukrainian extremists. Throughout, Russia has been an innocent
bystander rooting for peace, with little control over separatist allies.
The successful Ukrainian presidential election last May and parliamentary
election of October threatened the troll narrative of an out-of-control and
genocidal neo-Nazi state. Putin (under threat of sanctions) was forced to
admit that he respected (not recognized) the election results. No bother.
The trolls turned their attention to the neo-Nazi militias fighting against the
separatists and to the CIAs purported control of its Kiev puppets. The trolls
preached to Europe that Ukraine is not worth the trouble with its corrupt
officials and collapsing economy. The deceitful Ukrainians, they warned, will
siphon gas meant for Europe, if Europe does not read them the riot act.
The narrative of an illegitimate, criminal, and problematic Ukraine is
a cornerstone of Putins other world in which the separatists constitute
a legitimate force battling an illegitimate regime. Russia cannot prevent
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
131
volunteers from joining the good fight. Although the new Ukraine wants
to join Europe, Europe is better off without it. The only path to peace is negotiation between the legitimate representatives of southeastern Ukraine (the
separatists) and the semi-legitimate Kiev government. No need to bother
Russia, which is not involved.
The United States will trigger World War III by supplying weapons
to Ukraine.
Whereas the illegitimate-Ukraine narrative is multilayered, the troll message on US-supplied weapons is blunt: US arms to Ukraine will set off World
War III. Is America ready to die for Ukraine?
My essay Five Compelling Reasons for Military Assistance to Ukraine elicited 167 comments, including a record 46 from Jeff. Aside from Jeffs critique
that the article is full of dog poo,
the trolls focused on the threat of
Pro-Kremlin trolls overwhelm
a US-triggered conflict. In such
comments sections and render
a conflict, they said, the resolute
Putin would not hesitate to use
meaningful dialogue impossible.
nuclear weapons (the weak West
would not), and the West would lose. Note the trolls rather dramatic escalation:
twenty-five antitank weapons would lead to the end of the world as we know it.
The trolls ask their American audience why the United States should
risk nuclear destruction for the sake of bloodthirsty Ukrainian Nazis, who
(according to the first narrative) delight in murdering women and children
and who came to power by illegal means. Troll aij adds that Americans
should know that the US and EU (are) puppets of the wicked Jews (who)
started the mess in the Ukraine.
Besides, everyone knows that the United States is already covertly funneling huge amounts of military assistance to Ukraine, so all this talk is about
nothing, the trolls say. (If this assertion is true, I wonder why we are not
already in World War III.)
The US weapons equal World War III campaign is an orchestrated pas de
deux between Putin and the trolls. As Putins aircraft penetrate NATO and
North American airspace and he brags about Russian nuclear capabilities and
defense experts debate whether Russia could beat NATO with tactical nuclear
weapons, the troll army provides backup. The trolls claim that the hardened
Russian army, under Czar Vladimir, can beat the softies of NATO.
The troll rhetoric is boiling over for good reason. With a Republican majority in the Senate, bills to supply arms to Ukraine stand a good chance of
132
passage with strong bipartisan majorities. It is no wonder that the trolls are
pulling out all the stops with their babble about nuclear war.
Although both the European Union and the United States do not believe
a military solution is possible in Ukraine, the Kremlin understands that a
modernized Ukrainian army, backed by a mobilized Ukrainian state, can beat
mercenary separatist forces. Putins Novorossiya campaign can therefore
only be pursued by inserting more regular troops into southeast Ukraine at
the cost of substantial Russian casualties.
There are no Russian casualties.
In Putins alternate universe, there are no Russian troops in southeast
Ukraine. There may be volunteers or a few paratroopers who lost their
way, but there are absolutely no regular troops. None!
Russian casualties in Ukraine are among the tightest of Kremlin secrets.
The refrigerated trucks marked with a red cross carrying slain Russian
soldiers back to Russia do not exist in the troll narrative. They ignore the
fact that wives and parents cannot extract information about fallen soldiers.
Burials take place in the early hours and survivors are threatened to keep
their mouths shut. Civic groups, such as Societies of Soldiers Mothers and
Gruz200, face legal action. Local representatives who speak out are beaten
within an inch of their lives.
Putin promised the Russian people that the heavy lifting was being done
by dedicated pro-Russian separatists, fighting for their homes, language, and
culture. It is a civil war of Ukrainian against Ukrainian. Russia, the innocent
bystander, need not risk Russian lives. The troll army must back this narrative and smear any talk of Russian casualties.
Rising troop casualties, especially in one-child Russian families, will inevitably turn Russian public opinion against Putins Novorossiya and Russian
World ventures. The trolls cannot let this happen. A recent survey by the
Levada Center finds that 68 percent of
Russians polled do not want their sons
One troll reassured readers
to fight on the side of pro-Moscow militants. Only 13 percent accept the official
that I dont really exist.
claim of no Russians fighting in Ukraine.
My Forbes essay Will Sanctions or Casualties Deter Russia? struck a
nerve, eliciting 95 troll comments, composed largely by ace Jeff with RussM
brought in as reinforcement. The trolls were particularly infuriated by my
citing the estimate of fifteen thousand to twenty thousand Russians killed or
wounded, put forward by a Russian civic organization. The trolls accused me
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
133
134
I N T E RVI E W
I Owe the
President My
Best Military
Advice
General Jim Mattis on what US fighting forces
need most: a clear mission and clear goals.
By Peter Robinson
135
for the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia. General Mattis is now a
fellow at the Hoover Institution. Jim Mattis, welcome.
Jim Mattis: Thank you.
Robinson: I should state that you insist that I call you Jim and not General.
Mattis: Thank you.
Robinson: Is it true that you always kept with you a copy of the Meditations
of Marcus Aurelius?
Mattis: It is, Peter. That one and quite a few other books, actually.
Robinson: So, a Roman
emperor who died
eighteen centuries ago
remained relevant to you
as a commander in the
United States Marine
Corps. In what way?
Mattis: It was good for me to be reminded that I faced nothing new under
the sun. Technology throws a few odd wrinkles in. But the bottom line is, the
fundamental impulses, the fundamental challenges, and the solutions are
pretty timeless in my line of work.
Robinson: Let me quote to you from something you wrote as you were
preparing to deploy to Iraq back in the early 2000s: For all the intellectuals running around today saying that the nature of war has fundamentally changed, I must respectfully say not really. Alexander the Great
would not be in the least perplexed by the enemy we face right now. What
would Alexander the Great have seen in radical Islam that he would have
recognized?
Mattis: When he was fighting in the same region several thousand years ago,
he confronted basically what looked like an implacable foe, someone with a
very different worldview. He was unconcerned in some ways about his own
tactics. He had confidence that he knew how his forces could act and their
behavior on the battlefield; what he was concerned with was how to understand this enemy. So he sought to understand it. And as he understood it, he
understood how he would go after it.
Robinson: So, before committing to combat, understand the enemy.
136
Mattis: Absolutely.
Robinson: Jim, you testified in January before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, under the new chairman, fellow military man John McCain. And
instead of sitting there and telling the senators what you thought
The fundamental impulses,
they ought to do, you sat there and
the fundamental challenges,
told them the questions that you
and the solutions are pretty
thought they ought to ask. Id like
to take a few of the questions you
timeless in my line of work.
proposed to John McCain and his
colleagues and ask them of Jim Mattis. Heres the first: When the decision
is made to employ our forces in combat, the committee should ask, are the
political objectives clearly defined and achievable? Explain that.
Mattis: Since World War II, weve entered probably five major conflicts;
four of those did not turn out well. We went into them enthusiasticallyinto
Korea and into Vietnam. Desert Storm was an outlier. And then, we did
Afghanistan and Iraq.
Robinson: Desert Storm is the one that went well.
Mattis: Yes, Desert Storm went well because it had a very clearly defined
political end state. The president emeritus of Dartmouth College, Jim
Wright, wrote an article in the Atlantic in July 2013. He asked, what did we
learn from the Korean War? Basically what I drew from that was if you have
murky or changing political end states, then you dont know how to end that
war. And if you dont know how to end the war, the war will go on and on,
the enemy will mutate, and the American people will understandably lose an
appreciation for what it is theyre fighting for. So if you dont get the political
end state right up front, youre going to be engaged in a war you dont know
how to end on favorable terms.
Robinson: Jim, does that mean President George H. W. Bush in the Gulf War
was correct? He came in for criticism for years afterwards, to some extent
even today, for not continuing all the way to Baghdad and toppling Saddam
Hussein. He had said that the aim of the campaign was to drive Iraq out of
Kuwait, and once he had done that, he stopped. Was that the right thing to
do?
Mattis: Absolutely, it was. He clarified the political objective, he drew
together a worldwide coalition to support it, we went in, and we did it. And
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
137
then he did not allow mission creep; he did not do what would have broken
the political coalition the military was simply the most forward part of. So,
yes, he was absolutely on target and thats why we were able to end that war
in a very few number of days once the fighting started.
Robinson: So, Iraq War. We invaded in 2003 and for three weeks everything
goes beautifully. We advanced north, opposition melting away, and at the end
of three weeks Saddam Hussein and his regime were gone. And then, roughly
four years later President George W. Bush instituted the surgewe changed
tactics, we added troops. But, theres a period between those first four weeks
and the surge when things just go sideways. How does the military man
understand, how do you think about what went wrong?
Mattis: First, the attack did go very well for the first three weeks on conventional terms, although I assure you it wasnt that swimmingly smooth for the
lads on the front line. Its just something to remember. But, what happened
at that point is its revealed that we dont have a clearly stated political end
state. And now we start wandering. Were in search of a political end state,
so strategies, which are where you connect those means to achieving the
political end state, now have got to start accommodating uncertainty. Uncertainty is sufficient on a battlefield to cause any strategy headaches, but its
absolutely impossible if you havent figured out on your own part what you
intend to do. So, if you havent got that part figured out, you have no constant
objective that youre aiming towards. And now you start wandering on the
battlefield, you start wandering intellectually.
Robinson: In the American system, good military men take it as a kind of a
sacred matter that they defer ultimately to the civilian authority. But youve
just said in four engagements out of five major engagements since the Second World Warthese are my words, you would never put it this waybut
one of the things youre saying is the civilians screwed up, they did not give
the professionals clearly defined objectives. When the professionals find the
civilians failing to provide clear objectives, what is the professionals duty?
Mattis: Well, the duty for generals, for admirals, is to press to try and get
clearly stated political objectives. In our form of government, the military
is subordinate to the civilian leadership. The commander in chief is elected
by the American people. I was never elected by the American people. I was
promoted with the consent of the US Senate; thats not the same as being
elected. So, I believe the role of senior military officers is to be heard. They
should insist on being heard. They must never insist on being obeyed in our
138
CORDIAL: General Jim Mattis laughs with former defense secretary Chuck
Hagel at the 2013 ceremony where Mattis turned over command of US Central Command (CENTCOM) at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. Speaking of
commanders relationships with civilian leaders, Mattis said, You just have
to keep working at it, and try to walk a mile in their shoes as you try to close the
gap between the appreciation the military has for the situation and the way
its seen by the political leadership. [Department of Defense / Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo]
form of government. But, as they insist on being heard, they have to try to do
this, carry out this national dialogue without creating adversarial relationships with the political leadership. Try to avoid that. And what you want to
do . . .
Robinson: That is hard.
Mattis: Well, it is hard. But, what I learned over many years is something
that Secretary Bob Gates made very clear in some of his writing, that is, at
the highest levels it all depends on personal relationships. And so, youve
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
139
got to try to maintain your best military advice without creating any kind of
animosity at that level. It is hard, you just have to keep working at it, and try
to walk a mile in their shoes as you try to close the gap between the appreciation the military has for the situation and the way its seen by the political
leadership. And this is not unique
to our times. We had the same
If you have murky or changchallenges between FDR and
ing political end states, then
General Marshall in World War
you dont know how to end
II. And certainly, Abe Lincoln had
that war. And if you dont know
challenges with his generals. So
how to end the war, the enemy
this is just part of maintaining a
government of the people by the
will mutate, and the American
people and for the people that
people will understandably
needs military defenders, but at
lose an appreciation for what it
the same time it does not exist for
is theyre fighting for.
a military purpose.
Robinson: Two quotations on Afghanistan. Heres one. President Obama on
December 28 last year: For more than thirteen years, our nation has been
at war with Afghanistan. Now our combat mission is ending and the longest
war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion. Quotation
two. This is Jim Mattis testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee
in January: Gains achieved at great cost against our enemy in Afghanistan
are reversible. We may not want this fight, but the barbarity of an enemy that
kills women and children and has refused to break with Al-Qaeda needs to be
fought. In your view, were not done in Afghanistan. Is that right?
Mattis: Peter, in my line of work, the enemy gets a vote. Its the way we put
it. You may want a war over, you may declare it over, the enemy may not
agree and you have to deal with that reality. We have irreconcilable differences with the Taliban. Secretary Clinton, when she was secretary of state,
gave three conditions for the Taliban to be brought back inside the body
politic of Afghanistan. One, break with Al-Qaeda; two, quit killing people,
stop using violence; and three, obey the Afghan constitution. They have
refused that very low bar that would have allowed them to step over and
come over to bring in their political ideas to see if the Afghan people would
buy into them. The reason they dont do it, the reason they use bombs
instead of going to the ballot box, is they know the Afghan people will not
buy into it. So, they will continue to support Al-Qaeda, they will continue
to do this kind of terrorism that they conduct over there every day. And
140
as they do that, for us to declare arbitrarily that the war is over may not
match the reality on the ground.
Robinson: All right. When youre in uniform, you insist on being heard, not
you personally, but a leader, military professionals, insist on being heard but
never insist on being obeyed. Now that youre out of uniform, you spoke very
eloquently and very carefully but you didnt say a word against President
Obama.
You testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee and again you were
very careful not to attack the president directly. How do you see your duty?
You know a lot, you love your country, you understand the military, and you
draw different conclusions from the administration, but youre being careful
about what you say.
Mattis: Well, Im not too careful. Ive gotten into some trouble over the years.
But Im basically saying the same thing that I said in private meetings and
even in public meetings back when I was on active duty. The bottom line I
think is that I owe my best military advice. And at times its uncomfortable
for a democracy that believes in
freedom and it believes in peace
I believe the role of senior
and prosperitythe idea that this
level of evil can exist is incompatmilitary officers is to be heard.
ible with our view of what we would They should insist on being
like to see as we turn over this
heard. They must never insist
world to our children. But Im also
on being obeyed in our form of
convinced, having dealt with this
government.
enemy since 1979, which is the first
time I sailed into those waters on
US Navy ships, that were up against an enemy that means what they say and
we should not patronize them. When they say girls dont go to school, youre
not going to talk them out of it by simply having a picnic in the backyard
and resolving your differences. Their views of the role of women, their views
of modernity, their views of tolerance for people who think differently, are
fundamentally different from ours.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. made very clear that between two irreconcilable
world views, its probably going to turn into a fight. And thats what were in
right now, whether we want it to be over or not.
In regards to the president and loyalty, I was forty-odd years an officer,
and loyalty, I learned, only counts when theres a hundred reasons not to
be. I would just tell you that the presidents had a tough enough year and
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
141
he doesnt need generals coming out now and characterizing him in negative terms. We owe the country, we owe the president, our best advice. But,
I dont choose to take part in going beyond that and characterizing peoples
motives or their performances as unsatisfactory. Were all trying to make
sense of this world.
Robinson: Got it. Another of your questions to the Senate, which Im now
going to put to you: As President Eisenhower noted, the foundation of our
military strength is economic strength. No nation in history has maintained
its military power if it failed to keep its fiscal house in order. How do you halt
the damage caused by sequestration? This is when Republicans and Democrats in Congress could not agree on what needed to be cut, so they set up a
few automatic cuts. The idea was that the cuts were so draconian they would
force both sides to get together. They never did get together, and the cuts
took place. President Obama is now projecting that hes going to propose
defense spending at about 6 percent over sequester. Is that enough?
Mattis: Well, I dont know if its enough, but I know one thing for certain. If
you want to cut the defense budget, you should do it wisely, and reducing
your strategic end, your political aims, make certain that you
Were up against an enemy
dont have a policy that requires
a military thats larger than what
that means what they say and
youre willing to fund. The way
we should not patronize them.
were doing it right now is were
When they say girls dont go to
doing it with arithmetic. Lets put
school, youre not going to talk
it in terms of family budget. If a
them out of it by simply having
cut comes to your income and
a picnic in the backyard and
you have to take a 10 percent cut
resolving your differences.
in your familys budget, you dont
cut vacations 10 percent, food 10
percent, life insurance 10 percent, rent 10 percent. You may cut out all your
vacation or your restaurant meals and you wisely take that into account.
What were doing right now is these salami cuts of everything. And the
result is you have a mindless application of our money, in many cases going
to priorities that no one agrees should be funded. This is just silly. The engine
for our national security has always been our economy. And whether you look
back at the Roman empire or you look at the Spanish empire or the British
empire, the Soviet Union, no country has maintained its military strength
if it did not maintain its fiscal house in good order. And right now we are
142
Robinson: How can an ordinary American, who cant begin to go through all
the detail, know the Pentagon budget is right? Dwight Eisenhower said our
military strength rests on our economic strength. But in his farewell address,
he also warned about the military-industrial complex, those contractors who
are going to lobby congressmen for contracts. How do you know its being
done right?
Mattis: Well, its hard. And we can always find in a budget these large things
that are waste or in all likelihood we dont need. The challenge is how to set
up processes to audit it, to govern it, to allocate those resources in a responsible manner. And what I found over many years in many different organizations is if you take good people and good ideas and you match them with bad
processes, the bad processes will win nine out of ten times. Weve got to work
this in a manner that creates processes that return managerial integrity to
the system. We know what to do with corruption and we put people in jail for
that sort of thing.
Robinson: Another of your questions for the Senate Armed Services Committee that Im turning on you: is the US military being developed to fight across
the full spectrum of combat? Let me just take you around the world. Do you
believe we now have the proper spectrum of forces to deal with a rising China?
Mattis: In light of Chinas bullying in the South China Sea, I dont think were
building enough ships. I think we are going to be forced to pull home more of
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
143
our forces from the Cold War days, and thats appropriate. But were going to
be forced into a more naval strategy. We may have to give the Navy a bigger slice of the budget to carry out the kind of operations that reassure our
friends and temper our adversaries designs. Its all well and good that were
trying to get along with China,
and I completely endorse that. I
If they want to fight, they
dont think China sees any value
should pay a heck of a price for
in going to war with the United
what theyve done to innocent
States. But at the same time,
people out there.
there are a lot of nations out in
that region that would like to see
more US Navy port calls in their harbors, from Vietnam to the Philippines,
from Malaysia to Taiwan and Japan. If you dont have enough ships, then
youre going to have a hard time doing that. Sometimes the best ambassador
you can have is a man-of-war. So were going to have to look at this to make
certain were making the military fit for its time.
Robinson: Do we have the spectrum in place to deal with Iran?
Mattis: Yes. Obviously, it would take more forces if we had to go with the
military option for Iran, which the president is not taking off the table. But,
yes, we can handle Iran.
Robinson: Youre comfortable with that one.
Mattis: I have no doubt.
Robinson: All right. Thank you, because I will sleep better tonight at least
with regard to Iran.
Mattis: Well, remember now, Peter, war is fundamentally an unpredictable
phenomenon. So Im not saying that it would be carefree, Im not saying we
can be careless. It would be bloody awful; it would be a catastrophe if we
have to have another war in the Middle East like that. But could we handle it
from a military point of view? Absolutely.
Robinson: ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Do we have the
proper spectrum of forces in place to deal with ISIL?
Mattis: We have the forces available; theyre not in place, but that reflects
the political decision. The question is, do we have the political will to deal
with ISIL in an intelligent and effective manner? Theyre a little bit like Lebanese Hezbollah in terms of trying to create social services. Theyre a lot like
144
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
145
with their God or whatever their source of spiritual strength is, kinder, more
compassionate.
There was a Civil War general named Chamberlin who rose to be the president of Bowdoin College in Maine, and he said combat makes good men better and bad men worse. So there is the reality that not everyone reacts the
same way. But I dont buy that somehow if you came home from Iwo Jima, or
Gettysburg, or Iraq, or Afghanistan that somehow youre limited in what you
can do. The greatest generation
came home from World War II,
the worst war in world history.
We have an obligation to turn
And they created good communithis free country over to young
ties, they rose to be college presimen and women with the same
dents, started industries that crefreedoms that we got when we
ated wealth for the working men.
grew up in it.
I just dont buy that somehow we
are handicapped because weve
been in those circumstances. I recognize the grim realities. I dont recognize
the limited potential of the human being when they come out of that.
Robinson: You joined the Marine Corps as a kid. You were eighteen years
old. What would you say to an eighteen-year-old today? When you joined up
the United States was self-confident enough to be engaged in and ultimately
win a forty-five-year conflict, the Cold War. There are questions about how
self-confident the country is today. We face this complicated new enemy. At
the same time, the private economy has produced opportunities for eighteenand nineteen-year-old kids that they didnt face when you were a kid in the
farm country up in Washington state. What would you say to a kid about why
a career in the armed forces of the United States would still be a worthwhile
way to spend twenty or more years of your life?
Mattis: Well, I think what you want to explain is that there comes a point
in your life when you want to know that you served a purpose in this world.
Theres a gravestone in Cypress Hills Cemetery in New York where the guy
we all loved when we were kidswe all wanted to be Jackie Robinson . . .
Robinson: Sure.
Mattis: . . . and if you go to that grave today, it says a life is not important
except in the impact it has on other lives. He wrote his own epitaph, by
the way. I think that when you look at this experiment we call America, we
should not look at the people who founded it as if they had an easy time of
146
it and they are now just faces on dollar bills. We should not look at this as
something that is just automatically our inheritance. Were going to have to
work for it. And at times, were going to have to fight for it. Because we might
have been born here, most of us, by complete accident, good fortune. We live
here by choice. But we have an obligation to turn this free country over to
young men and women with the same freedoms that we got when we grew
up in it. And if you want to be part of something that keeps you from sitting
in a psychiatrists chair when youre forty-five and wondering what to do with
your life, you cant go wrong in joining the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the
Coast Guard, the Marine Corps, and spending four years. And if you like it,
you stick around for longer.
Robinson: General James Mattis, United States Marine Corps, thank you.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
147
Policy Powerhouse
Both a scholar and a skillful practitioner of the art
of practical politics, the late Hoover fellow Martin
Anderson took transformative ideas and made
them real.
draft. His work on the draft included promoting an all-volunteer force as director of research for Richard Nixons presidential campaign; he is often credited as a significant factor in ending conscription in the United States. After
receiving his PhD in industrial management from the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology in 1962, he became a professor of finance at the Graduate School
of Business at Columbia University, one of the youngest professors to receive
tenure there. After joining the Hoover Institution in 1971, Anderson continued
to intersperse his academic career with public service and political campaign
advising, serving presidents and candidates Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Pete Wilson, and Robert Dole.
Andersons later work, coauthored with his wife, Annelise Anderson, was
largely dedicated to the life and legacy of President Reagan. Together they
became nationally renowned Reagan scholars, with academics and policy
makers visiting the Hoover Institution to draw on their knowledge.
The Hoover Institution lost a colleague and dear friend in Martin Anderson on January 3, Hoover Institution Director John Raisian wrote in his
statement announcing Andersons death. Throughout the span of his four
decades at the Hoover Institution, he left an indelible mark.
Martin Anderson was the Keith and Jan Hurlbut Fellow at the Hoover Institution.
148
LASTING IMPRINT: Martin Anderson, the Keith and Jan Hurlbut Fellow at
the Hoover Institution, made his mark in policy development, academia, and
history. He devoted his last years to drawing out insights on the life of Ronald
Reagan, his last boss at the White House. [Mike Evans]
150
outstanding managerial skills on the one hand and a remarkably broad, curious intellect on the other, qualities rarely combined in one person.
Ill be forever grateful to Marty for including me on the campaigns Tax
Policy Task Force. We proposed lowering tax rates la Kemp-Roth, indexing
the brackets, accelerating appreciation, and introducing IRAs and allowing
401(k)s. Remarkably, it became law with only minor alterations. The progrowth tax reforms, combined with disinflation, helped launch a quarter-century of growth. From a parochial perspective, it was beyond wonderful for a
young scholar to see policies his research supported actually enacted.
Marty and Annelise were a truly remarkable team for a half-century,
culminating in a historically important series of books on President Reagan,
authored after their return to Hoover following public service. They forever
corrected the terrible mal-descriptiondeliberately fostered by the media
and his political opponents, in my opinionof Ronald Reagan as simply an
actor reading his lines, unable to think for himself.
Ill always remember that special twinkle in his eye and smile on his face when
Marty felt he was onto something big, something really important. For example:
a few years ago, he and Annelise, after a laborious process, finally got permission
to examine confidential documents under seal, such as National Security Council
meeting notes. Of course he had to be careful what he told me, but his enthusiasm was contagious. That delighted look will always be my home page for Marty.
JOHN B. TAYLOR (SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION)
Perhaps the most important interface between economics and economic policy is the work of economists in political campaigns. That is where the policy
decisions get made. No one was better at this than Martin Anderson. He cut
his teeth going to work for the 1968 Nixon campaign. People in the campaign
had read and heard about Martin and asked him to help out, and he was soon
running the policy shop. He and Annelise had been planning a sabbatical
year in Europe. He later said: We were going to have a wonderful time, and
instead we signed up for the campaign and I was the issues director.
One of his campaign ideas was to put one economist on the plane with the
candidate and to make sure that economist is in constant touch with headquarters. That is what he did with Nixon when he developed an amazing network
of people. He was usually on the campaign plane and would get on the phone
with Alan Greenspan back in headquarters; or he would call Arthur Burns
and Milton Friedman. He recommended that approach to me. And in the 2008
campaign I flew around the country with John McCain, and I kept in touch
with others back in Arlington. It did not work as well in 2008 as in 1968.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
151
152
A GIFT: Martin Anderson, center, presents President Reagan and his Cabinet with
a historic poster from the Hoover Institution. After joining Hoover in 1971, Anderson interspersed his academic career with public service and political campaign
advising, serving presidents and candidates Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald
Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Pete Wilson, and Robert Dole. [Hoover Institution]
H O O V E R D IG E S T S P RING 2015
153
154
his history of the Reagan era, Revolution, provides a glimpse at his seminal
thinking on a host of policy issues that continue to challenge us today.
He spoke of welfare dependency and the bureaucracies of universities
long before these were popular subjects. He urged President Nixon to cut
marginal tax rates, rein in federal spending, and decrease federal regulation.
Alas, these policies were not implementednot until Martins next tour in
the White House under Ronald Reagan.
It was Martin Anderson the presidential historian who uncovered the
hidden depths of his last real boss. In the 1990s he expressed his concerns
to friends, including me, of how misunderstood and underrated President
Reagan had been. A tireless researcher, Martin pored over manuscripts of
Reagans radio broadcasts and his newspaper columns. He also examined the
drafts of Reagans speeches and read thousands of his personal letters.
This led to a new phase in Martins career: uncovering the real Ronald
Reagan and reintroducing him to the world. This wasnt Reagan the docile,
cue-card-reading ex-actor, as political opponents and media pundits had
unjustly labeled him. But Reagan the careful thinker, principled analyst, and
realistic assessor of the prospects for American renewal.
With the bestselling 2001 book,
Reagan, In His Own Hand, Martin,
It was Martin Anderson the
together with his wife, Annelise,
presidential historian who
and Hoover fellow Kiron K. Skinuncovered the hidden depths of
ner, reminded Americans of the
true depth of Reagans underhis last real boss.
standing and the substance of
Reagan as the author of his own ideas. This was followed by Reagan: A Life in
Letters (also co-written with Annelise Anderson and Kiron Skinner), an equally
revealing portrait of the man.
As longtime Reagan aide and confidant Ed Meese has said of him, Martin
was a loyal and energetic Reaganaut. For all of this, and for so much more,
we owe him a tremendous debt.
DARRELL TRENT (RETIRED SENIOR RESEARCH
FELLOW, H OOVER INSTITUTION)
In 1962, I was a graduate student at Columbia University School of Business. I
had signed up for a finance course and was seated when a young man walked
down the aisle, up behind the desk, and to the front of the room. No one was
paying much attention because he looked younger than most of the students.
When he asked the class to come to attention, everyone was surprised.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
155
That was my introduction to Professor Martin Anderson. I was twentyfour and he was twenty-six. I did not know at the time, but it was the beginning of one of the most meaningful and rewarding friendships of my life.
Marty had just joined the Columbia faculty and was in his second semester
teaching at Columbia. At twenty-eight, he would become one of the youngest
tenured professors in the country. He had finished his PhD at MIT, focusing
on the federal Urban Renewal Program.
The program professed to benefit the less-privileged by eliminating
blighted areas within the inner cities and replacing them with better
environments.
In 1964, Marty published his doctoral thesis in a widely acclaimed book
called The Federal Bulldozer. He found that the Urban Renewal Program was
sadly lacking in its professed objectives. His study
At twenty-eight, he became one
showed that the effect of
of the youngest tenured profesurban renewal, clearing distressed areas, was that the
sors in the country.
less fortunate were moved
out and became displaced people. Those who lost their homes were not given
better places to live.
The book had a major impact. More than five decades later, a scholar
working for the Chinese government has requested permission to translate
Martys book into Chinese for publication in China, where similar problems
are being faced.
And so Martys legacy lives on!
Special to the Hoover Digest.
156
Remembering the
Lusitania
The sinking of the famed liner, torpedoed within
sight of land, helped draw the United States into
the war. It remains a source of fascinationand
speculation.
By Bertrand M. Patenaude
submarines reportedly lurking in these waters. One pair of eyes scanning the
horizon from the starboard bow belonged to eighteen-year-old Leslie Morton.
Morton, an extra lookout assigned to the 2:00 to 4:00 watch, had been on
duty for about ten minutes when he caught sight of what he later described
as a big burst of foam about five hundred yards away, and then a thin
streak of foam making for the ship at a rapid speed, followed by a second,
parallel streak. Immediately grasping what it meant, he picked up a megaphone and yelled to the bridge, Torpedoes coming on the starboard side!
At that moment, the crew of the Lusitania had about one minute to avert
disaster. The helmsman would have had to steer the ship hard to starboard
in order to avoid the path of the deadly missile. As it happened, however,
no one had heard young Mortons cry of alarm. About thirty seconds later,
Bertrand M. Patenaude is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.
160
a second alarm call from another lookout alerted the captain and the crew
to the threat, but by then it was too late. The torpedo struck on the starboard side near the middle of the ship. The impact delivered a great shock,
Morton later testified. It shook me off my feet. A second explosion, which
Morton took to be the result of a second torpedo strike, rocked the ship and
it rapidly began listing heavily to starboard. The Lusitania sank by the bow
in only eighteen minutes. Nearly 1,200 of the total 1,959 men, women, and
children on board perished that afternoon, 128 of them Americans.
When word of the disaster reached London, Edward House, President
Woodrow Wilsons closest confidant, was attending a dinner sponsored by the
American ambassador to Great Britain, Walter Page. The United States had
remained neutral since the outbreak of the European war the previous August,
and House was in London to assess the prospects of a US mediation of peace
between the belligerents. House had sailed to England on the Lusitania only
weeks before, and perhaps that disconcerting connection, as well as the forceful
opinions expressed by his dinner companions (Ambassador Page was ardently
pro-Allies), influenced the intensity of his reaction to the incredible news.
America has come to the parting of the ways, when she must determine
whether she stands for civilized or uncivilized warfare, House cabled President
Wilson. We can no longer remain neutral spectators. Our action in this crisis
will determine the part we will play when peace is made, and how far we may
influence a settlement for the lasting good of humanity. We are being weighed in
the balance, and our position among nations is being assessed by mankind.
British military historian B. H. Liddell Hart, looking back on the Lusitania
disaster in 1930, called it a spectacular brutality which shocked the conscience of the world. And yet, he went on to observe, US military intervention in the war against Germany would come later than seemed likely on
the morrow of the tragedy. Today, a hundred years on, Americans learning
about the fate of the Lusitania and the furious reaction it triggered will likely
be surprised to discover that the United States somehow managed to maintain its neutrality for two more years. Yet in retrospect it seems apparent
that the incident ignited a long, coiling fuse that would lead, in April 1917, to
the entry of the United States into the First World War.
DUELING BLOCKADES
When the Lusitania sailed from New York on May 1 on its final voyage, the
liner faced dangers that the British government and the ships British owner,
Cunard, fully understood. After the war broke out, the British established
a naval-and-mine economic blockade of Germany in an attempt to starve it
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
161
OUTRAGE: This 1915 poster distributed in Ireland shows the Lusitania plunging beneath the waves, the water full of survivors. The attack had special
resonance for the Irish, having taken place just 11 miles off shore. [Poster CollectionHoover Institution Archives]
into submission. Unable to challenge Britain on the sea, Germany had to rely
on neutral ships for its imports. The British then sought to tighten the noose
by inspecting and diverting neutral ships in order to prevent Germany from
receiving any goods that might benefit its war effort. This British interference met with loud objections on the part of neutral
America has come to the parting of
countries, none louder
the ways, when she must determine
than those of the United
whether she stands for civilized or
States. President Wilson,
although sympathetic to the
uncivilized warfare.
Allied cause, was a staunch
defender of US interests, and his protests strained US relations with Britain
to the point where a break in those relations began to appear unavoidable.
By early 1915, as trench warfare on the Western Front settled into a stalemate, the German government, growing desperate to end the stranglehold of
the British blockade, turned to the submarine. Germanys naval staff, like the
general public, saw the U-boat as a super weapon, the undersea counterpart to
that other German technical wonder, the high-flying zeppelin. On February 4,
1915, Berlin declared the seas around the British Isles to be a war zone (Kriegs
schauplatz) and that beginning February 18, Allied ships entering the zone
would be sunk on sight. This German escalation prompted Wilson to deliver a
stern warning that he would hold Berlin to a strict accountability for any loss
of American ships or citizens that might result from a submarine attack.
The laws governing the conduct of war at sea, codified before the invention
of the submarine, required the submarine to observe the same rules as a conventional warship: it must warn a merchant ship before attacking it and take
steps to ensure the safe evacuation of its passengers and crew. But in order
for that to happen, a submarine would have to surface, which meant losing the
advantage of surprise and leaving the relatively small, fragile, and slow vessel
vulnerable to attack. Moreover, as German intelligence had learned, the British
naval authorities were advising merchant ships to steer directly at any U-boat
that surfaced, unless the ship could safely flee. By obeying the letter of the law,
in other words, a stealthy submarine could become a sitting duck.
The Lusitania, whose maiden voyage took place in 1907, was designed to
be convertible into a heavily armed merchant ship in wartime. At the wars
onset, the British Admiralty designated the liner as an armed merchant
cruiser, meaning it was subject to call-up if its services were required.
Although the Lusitania was never outfitted with the twelve six-inch guns it
had been equipped to carry, the ship was transporting contraband on its final
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
163
[Library of Congress]
164
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
165
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
167
had swung inward against the ship and could be lowered only with great
difficulty. The ships distress calls reached Queenstown (today called Cobh),
whence a motley assortment of rescue vessels raced to the scene. Of the total
1,959 passengers and crew on board, 764 were rescued that afternoon, three
of whom later died from their injuries. In the end, only six of the Lusitanias
forty-eight lifeboats were successfully launched and retrieved.
TOO PROUD TO FIGHT?
Most of the victims of the Lusitania disaster were British or Canadian
citizens, yet the percentage of American fatalities was high: 128 out of 139
passengers. That fact no doubt intensified the storm of indignation the sinking aroused in the United States, where the headlines screamed and editorials raged. Germany surely must have gone mad, declared the Richmond
Times-Dispatch on May 8, the
day after the disaster. Two
The Germans bitterly complained
days later, President Wilthat American passengers on the
son was in Philadelphia to
Lusitania allowed themselves
address an audience of some
to be used as human shields or
four thousand newly naturalized American citizens.
guardian angels.
The question hovering over
the proceedings that day was whether the president would also choose to
address the elephant in the room. Wilson decided not to mention the Lusitania directly, but his indirect reference was impossible to miss. The example
of America must be a special example, he declared, in a passage stamped
with his characteristic idealism:
The example of America must be the example not merely of peace
because it will not fight, but of peace because peace is the healing
and elevating influence of the world and strife is not. There is such
a thing as a man being too proud to fight. There is such a thing as
a nation being so right that it does not need to convince others by
force that it is right.
This peculiar riff on the theme of American exceptionalism was promptly
perceived as a political blunder, especially as its headline phrase, too proud
to fight, was taken out of context. Wilson was quick to recognize his error,
and at a press conference the following day he tried to distance himself from
his remarks, claiming they were not a statement of American policy but
merely a personal attitude, that was all.
168
LAWS OF WAR: The text of this 1917 German poster reads: This is how your
money helps you fight! Turned into U-boats, it keeps enemy shells away.
Thats why you should subscribe to war bonds! German intelligence had
learned that British naval authorities were advising merchant ships to steer
directly at any U-boat that surfaced, putting the sub at risk. Hence Germany
felt justified, morally if not legally, in sanctioning the sinking of Allied merchant ships without warningespecially ones thought to be carrying military
matriel. [Poster CollectionHoover Institution Archives]
THE INNOCENTS: This shocking image, by the artist Fred Spear, shows a
drowned woman and baby drifting to the bottom of the sea. The torpedoed
Lusitania is not shown but the meaning is unavoidable. The figures resemblance to a Madonna and Child heightens the effect of sacrilege. [Poster CollectionHoover Institution Archives]
Wilson may have chosen his words poorly that day, yet his statements and
actions in the days and weeks after the Lusitania disaster were in tune with the
general mood of the American public. There was plenty of popular outrage, but
not, it seems, a desire to see Uncle Sam roll up his sleeves and venture forth into
the European conflict. Wilson issued a series of stern diplomatic notes to the
German government, demanding that it apologize for the sinking, compensate
the American victims, and pledge to prevent a recurrence. The presidents tough
stance nearly led to a break in US relations with Germany, and it provoked his
pacifist secretary of state, William Jennings Bryan, to resign in protest.
Negotiations ultimately defused
the diplomatic crisis, and the
The sinking of the Lusitania
German ambassador in Washspawned entire schools of red
ington assured the new secretary
of state, Robert Lansing, that
herrings, and these have at
Germany would no longer target
times tended to obscure the
large passenger ships like the
legitimate questions that still
Lusitania. U-boat attacks dropped
surround the tragedy.
off sharply, and by the fall of 1915
so did the tensions between Washington and Berlin. Wilson would run for reelection the following year on the levelheaded slogan He kept us out of war. But
Wilson was at the same time taking steps to prepare the country for war, securing passage, in May 1916, of the National Defense Act, which doubled the size of
the regular Army and expanded the National Guard, and, in June, of the Naval
Appropriations Act, which set a goal of making the US Navy equal to the largest
in the world within a decade. These and other initiatives introduced in the name
of limited preparedness were not nearly enough to mollify the presidents most
hawkish critics, such as former president Theodore Roosevelt, but Wilson was
certainly not idling the ship of state in neutral.
In Germany, meanwhile, the governments decision to prohibit U-boat captains from attacking large Allied passenger ships was extremely unpopular
with the admirals. The sinking by torpedo of the White Star liner SS Arabic
on August 19, 1915, resulting in the deaths of forty-four passengers, three of
them Americans, raised another international outcry. This time the German government disavowed the act and pledged to refrain in the future from
attacking any passenger ship, no matter its size and origin. But Germanys
self-restraint came at a high cost. The British merchant fleet continued to
lose between fifty and a hundred ships a month to submarine attack during
1915, but could maintain supply to the home country nonetheless, explains
historian John Keegan. Meanwhile, the Grand Fleet and its subordinate
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
171
FACING PAGE: Munich metalworker Karl Goetz struck a small number of commemorative medallions of the Lusitania sinking. The medals, which showed
Death issuing tickets for the doomed liner, mocked both Cunard and Britain.
The privately produced medal proved a publicity windfall for the British government, which portrayed it as both predicting the Lusitania attack and gloating over it. The Hoover Institution has two replicas and this original produced
by Goetz showing the correct date of the sinking, May 7. ABOVE: This US
poster, printed after the United States decided to enter the war, combines both
the drowned-innocents image and the Goetz medal in an appeal to Americans
to buy bonds. [Medal Collection; Poster CollectionHoover Institution Archives]
174
GONE, NOT FORGOTTEN: Sheet music for a 1917 tune, Remember the
Lusitania, shows how the ship also sank into the popular imagination. The
lyrics urge Americans to strive to free the entire world from grasping Prussian
autocrats, personified as a wild war lord, who violates all treaties, evry rule
of war, and respects not international law. Less recalled today is that the outrage against the wild war lord failed to stir America from its neutrality until
two years after the ship was torpedoed. [Library of Congress]
176
On the reverse side of the medallion, Death, in the form of a human skeleton, stands behind the counter of the Cunard ticket office in New York serving a crush of customers. A small drama plays out to the left of the queue,
where a man, his jaw agape, reads a newspaper with the front-page headline
U BOOT GEFAHRmeaning U-Boat Danger, presumably a reference to
the German embassys warning to anyone thinking about booking passage on
the Lusitania. Standing close by, a bearded figure in a top hat, possibly meant
to represent a German diplomat, raises a warning finger. The text along the
upper edge reads GESCHFT BER ALLES, or Business Above All Else.
Goetzs initials, K.G., are visible along the very bottom.
Goetzs use of the incorrect date for the disaster was framed as evidence
that he had been tipped off to a German plot to sink the Lusitania, and that
unforeseen circumstances had delayed the massacre by two days. The satirists innocent error thus became a propaganda windfall for the Allies. The
British made the most of the opportunity, portraying Goetzs privately struck
medallion as an official commemorative medal, a macabre form of German
patriotic gloating. From there the myth took hold that the medal had been
awarded to each member of the valiant crew of U-20.
The Lusitania medal was little known in Germany, where Goetz had struck
only a few hundred pieces, and then later a few dozen more with the corrected
date of the sinking. In Britain, however, Goetzs coin was the propaganda gift that
kept on giving. British officials enlisted department store magnate Harry Gordon
Selfridge to produce and sell a replica of the medal. Packaged in an attractive case
and priced at a shilling each, more than 250,000 of these replicas were sold, with
the proceeds donated to war-related charities. These reproductions served to
keep fresh the memory of the catastrophe, helping to ensure that when the United
States finally did enter the war, American doughboys making their way to France
would be encouraged to avenge the Lusitania.
Special to the Hoover Digest.
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
177
178
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
179
Stalins
Monstrous Will
The first book of Hoover fellow Stephen Kotkins
new history of the Soviet Union presents a portrait
of absolute power.
By Norman M. Naimark
Norman M. Naimark is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. He is also the Robert and Florence
McDonnell Professor of East European Studies at Stanford University, where he
is the Fisher Family Director of the Global Studies Division. Stephen Kotkin is a
research fellow at the Hoover Institution and the John P. Birkelund '52 Professor
in History and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and History
Department of Princeton University.
180
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
181
182
In his activities among workers in the oil industry in Baku, he was known
to be aloof, conspiratorial, and sharp-tongued. The Baku radical milieu was
famous for its hostage taking, ransoms, and piracy. Crucial, too, was Stalins attraction to a particularly extreme socialist ideology, Vladimir Lenins
Bolshevism. But none of this, Kotkin reminds us, can be seen as presaging his
extraordinary rise to the pinnacle of political power in Soviet Russia.
WAS HE LENINS CHOSEN ONE?
It was Leon Trotsky who began a long tradition of deprecating Stalins talents as a political leader when he called the Georgian nothing but an errand
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
183
boy for Lenin in the revolution of 1917. As Stalins rival from the get-gothe
two seemed to have a visceral hatred of one anotherTrotsky (and after
him, a number of biographers) portrayed Stalin as a mediocre and ignorant
bureaucrat, representing the self-serving interests of a class of incompetent
and petty bourgeois functionaries who would take Russia down the path
toward a Thermidorian Reaction. Kotkin emphatically and convincingly
refutes this take, suggesting instead that Stalin, after Lenin, was one of the
most important figures in the Bolshevik seizure of power and the civil war
that followed.
As general secretary of the Communist Party, Stalin essentially built the
party and the Soviet state, always attentive to Lenins wishes and ideas,
ready to proffer his own conceptions, but also willing to comproIdeology was the lens through
mise and learn, especially when it
which Stalin saw the world
came to the admonitions of Ilich
(Lenin). Stalin was able, hardworkand interpreted both opportuing, and focused, as well as connivnities and dangers.
ing and manipulative. When Lenin
suffered a series of strokes in 1923 and died in January 1924, Stalin was in
many ways Lenins most natural successor. Trotsky, of course, did not see
it this way, nor did a number of other contenders for power. Moreover, the
Georgian was little known outside of narrow party and government circles.
Still, Stalin had served as Lenins chief deputy, was a diligent student of the
Bolshevik masters thought, and had already amassed a considerable following among the middle level of the party.
The struggle for succession began before Lenins death. The stricken leader
was eventually confined to an estate outside of Moscow, only episodically able
to come to the Kremlin for consultations. Though he desperately tried to influence the course of Bolshevik policy and thus the succession, he was increasingly incapable of expressing himself either on paper or in speech. Lenins testament, released in late May 1923, called into question the capabilities of all
the major contenders for party leadership. About Stalin, he wrote: Comrade
Stalin, having become general secretary, has concentrated boundless power in
his hands; and I am not sure that he will always be able to use that power with
sufficient caution. This wise (if rather hypocritical) observation was followed
by an addendum, released in June 1923, that emphasized: Stalin is too rude
and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in relations among us
communists, becomes intolerable in a general secretary. That is why I suggest
the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin.
184
Kotkin lines up with some recent scholarship that suggests these documents may have been fakedthat Lenins wife and secretaries, who saw to
the infirm leaders daily care, may well have published the testament and
addendum without any dictation from Lenin. They did this, the argument
goes, not so much to keep Stalin from leadership as to maintain a balance
between Stalin and the other contestants for power. Kotkin shrewdly argues
that the testament proved to be a Damocles sword hanging over Stalin,
constantly threatening him with the humiliating revelation that Lenin had
rejected him. This was not just a threat to his political ambitions but also a
blow to his sense of self as Lenins most loyal lieutenant.
Kotkin suggests that Stalins later vindictive murderousness derived in
part from the resentment, self-pity, and sense of victimhood he inherited
from a long struggle with the testament and its meaning. In short, the
testament, fake or not, had a crucial effect on the development of Stalin and
Stalinism.
Once Lenin died on January 21, 1924, Stalin moved to assume the formal
mantle of leadership by swearing fealty to Lenin and Leninism in a liturgically structured orationbefitting the seminary student he had beenat
the dictators funeral. (Conveniently for Stalin, Trotsky was on his way to a
cure in the south and did not consider it necessary to rush back to Moscow
for the ceremony.) In order to present
his ideological credentials for leadership,
Leon Trotsky began a long
Stalin also published The Foundations
tradition of deprecating
of Leninism, which, Kotkin tells us, was
plagiarized from a minor comrades work. Stalins talents as a politiBut succession in the Soviet system was
cal leader. He called the
never assured, and Stalin was faced with
Georgian nothing but an
struggles from the left, meaning not
errand boy.
just Trotsky but Grigori Zinoviev and
Lev Kamenev, and from the right, meaning Nikolai Bukharin, Alexei Rykov,
and Mikhail Tomsky. Kotkin adds the intriguing finance expert, Grigori
Sokolnikov, who called for Stalins removal from the Politburo in 1925, to the
cast of characters involved in the mix of policy prescriptions and political
alignments.
The political struggle was sharp, intense, and dangerous for Stalin; there
were moments when he might well have been removed. During the 1920s,
writes Kotkin, Stalin developed an increasing hyper-suspiciousness bordering on paranoia that was fundamentally politicaland it closely mirrored
the Bolshevik Revolutions inbuilt structural paranoia, the predicament of
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
185
186
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
187
H O OVER ARCHIVE S
and indiscriminate killing. They were exempted neither from execution nor
from deportation or forced labor. For the duration of the war, women played
an especially important role in political propaganda used to demonize the
enemy, sell war bonds, and beguile young men to join the colors.
Women were called on to serve their nations, and they often responded
with energy and enthusiasm. Some went to the front as nurses and ambulance drivers, others as soldiers, notably in the east. They contributed on the
home front, replacing men in fields and factories and filling new jobs. They
volunteered; they knitted and sewed clothing for soldiers, sent letters to the
front, and campaigned to conserve food and clothing. Ultimately, countless
women lost loved ones on the battlefields.
Their voices survive in letters and memoirs that convey their feelings of
expectation and tragedy. These images represent some highlights of the
Hoover Institutions collections that illuminate the events, and the people, of
the Great War.
Research and presentation: Samira Bozorgi, assistant archivist for exhibits at the Hoover Institution. Bertrand M. Patenaude, research fellow at the
Hoover Institution. Katherine Jolluck, senior lecturer in East European history
at Stanford University.
188
RAPE OF BELGIUM: This 1917 US Army enlistment poster is one of the most
famous propaganda images of the Great War. The monstrous apecomplete
with the German helmet of Militarism and a bloody club labeled Kultur
steps onto American shores with a captive woman. The rape of Belgium
became shorthand for Germanys atrocities, real or imagined, and its violation
of nations. The artist was San Franciscoborn Harry Ryle Hopps (18691937),
who later had a career as an art director in Hollywood. Many people find this
poster suggestive of King Kong. [Poster CollectionHoover Institution Archives]
GIVER: In one of the more unusual images calling for womens help, this
poster encourages the women of Magdeburg, Germany, to sacrifice something
personal: their hair. Raw materials became increasingly scarce in blockaded
Germany, and human hair could be used in place of hemp and leather to make
machinery belts and insulation. [Poster CollectionHoover Institution Archives]
HEALER: The Great War did much to propagate a sanitized view of wartime
nursing, yet caring for the wounded was demanding, gritty work. Nurses near
the front lines were called on to treat terrible wounds (often resulting in amputations), infections, mustard gas burns, and shell shock. They risked their
lives in field hospitals close to the front lines, aboard hospital ships vulnerable
to submarine attacks, and at base hospitals subject to long-range shelling.
The American Red Cross (above) had twenty thousand nurses in uniform by
Armistice Day. Some were decorated for outstanding service, including three
awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. In Germany (right), with its strong
Red Cross traditions, some ninety-two thousand women served as nurses
during the war. Soldiers and citizens in all countries recognized nurses courage and resilience. Even so, the novels, songs, and propaganda posters of the
period mostly portrayed nurses as romantic foils to the male warriors. [Poster
Collection; World War I Pictorial CollectionHoover Institution Archives]
192
LABORER: Women everywhere took unaccustomed jobs in offices and factories as men marched off to fight. In Britain, thousands worked in munitions
factories, a critical occupation. These munitionettes worked long hours
under hazardous conditions, risking their health from prolonged exposure to
harmful chemicals and toxic fumes and earning less than half a mans pay.
The rosy cheeks of this munitions worker contrast with the sallow complexion of real munitions workers, who were dubbed canary girls. [Poster CollectionHoover Institution Archives]
SOLDIER: Maria Bochkareva, a Russian peasant who fled an abusive family life to join the Imperial Russian Army in 1914, was the wars most famous
female soldier. She was not alone: an estimated 400 to 1,000 women and
girls enlisted in the czars army. Bochkareva faced ridicule and sexual harassment, as did other female soldiers, but she proved herself in battle. After the
Romanovs fell in March 1917, the Provisional Government allowed her to form
the Womens Battalion of Death, whose heroic example, she hoped, would
shame demoralized Russian men into resuming the fight against Germany
and Austria. After the Bolshevik Revolution, she traveled to America, where
she dictated her memoirs and met President Wilson. Returning to her homeland in 1918, she tried to oppose the Bolsheviks but was captured. She was
executed by firing squad in 1920. [Hoover Institution Library]
HERO: The death in Brussels of British nurse Edith Cavellshot by a firing squad as a spy at dawn on October 12, 1915, by the German occupation
authoritiesshocked the world. Cavell, matron of a Belgian nursing school,
was accused of concealing British and French soldiers who had been caught
behind the lines of the rapidly advancing German troops. Her actions involved
great personal risk, which she is said to have undertaken readily. Cavells execution became an international cause clbre, held up as damning evidence
of German barbarity, and her image and story became ubiquitous in wartime
propaganda. Today she is memorialized across the Commonwealth, with a
statue in downtown London and her name attached to streets, monuments,
and parks. [Poster CollectionHoover Institution Archives]
COMFORTER: Soon after America entered the war in 1917, the Salvation
Army sent female volunteers to huts behind the front lines where soldiers
could rest and socialize, write letters, and get their clothes mended. The huts
were also cherished for offering doughnuts, which were originally cooked in
soldiers helmets. The women running the huts were affectionately known as
doughnut lassies. [Joseph Newton Hillhouse Photograph CollectionHoover Institution
Archives]
MOURNER: When the Great War ended, there were millions of new widows
along with women who had lost sons and brothers. Many soldiers bodies
were never found, sharpening the grief in societies unable to perform traditional burial rites. Historian Jay M. Winter has said that the massive losses
forced women to learn how to configure a void, how to configure a family
when the father isnt there. [Joseph Newton Hillhouse Photograph CollectionHoover
Institution Archives]
On the Cover
200
battlewagon that could have shown the graceful Vanguard what was in store.
Then the Vanguard was towed away and scrapped. The worlds surviving
battleships are tourist attractions.
Charles Lindsey
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
201
Board of Overseers
Chair
Thomas J. Tierney
Vice Chairs
Boyd C. Smith
Thomas F. Stephenson
Members
Marc L. Abramowitz
Victoria Tory Agnich
Barbara Barrett
Robert G. Barrett
Donald R. Beall
Stephen D. Bechtel Jr.
Peter B. Bedford
Peter S. Bing
Walter E. Blessey Jr.
Joanne Whittier Blokker
William K. Blount
James J. Bochnowski
William K. Bowes Jr.
Dick Boyce
James J. Carroll III
Robert H. Castellini
Rod Cooper
Paul Lewis Lew Davies III
John B. De Nault
Steven A. Denning*
Dixon R. Doll
Joseph W. Donner
Herbert M. Dwight
Gerald E. Egan
202
H O O V E R D IG E ST S P RING 2015
Distinguished Overseers
Martin Anderson
Wendy H. Borcherdt
William C. Edwards
Robert H. Malott
Overseers Emeritus
Frederick L. Allen
Susanne Fitger Donnelly
Bill Laughlin
John R. Stahr
Robert J. Swain
Dody Waugh
203
HOOVER DIGEST
SPRING 2015
Terrorism
The Economy
Inequality
Health Care
California
Foreign Policy
Energy
Immigration
The Military
The Middle East
Russia
Interview
In Memoriam: Martin Anderson
Values
The Great War Centennial
History and Culture
Hoover Archives