Legislative Oversight is Overrated? Coming to a Bookstore Near You

 Today, Dave, Phil, and I got the great news that Stanford University Press is going to publish our book:

Overseen or Overlooked?

Legislatures, Armed Forces and Democratic Accountability

 

Woot!  For those who follow this blog or me on social media, you have seen my talk about this book for a long, long time, as this book sets my personal record for length from start to finish: nine or ten years depending on how long it takes for our pals in Palo Alto to publish it. 

The book started by accident, as I was surprised by a response to a question I asked a member of Canada's House of Commons defence committee--that he didn't know what the rules were for Canadian troops as he didn't have a security clearance.  This is where being a foreigner pays off, because this flummoxed me.  When I had the chance to ask a former Prime Minister, Paul Martin, when I was interviewing him about Afghanistan, to ask about this, he said "don't compare us to the US, compare us to Australia and the UK."  Great idea!  But we went further, comparing 15 countries, pretty much evenly divided 5 a piece.  I asked Dave to join me as we had much success in the previous book and he has published much on the US Congress, which shapes much of my imagination about this stuff and also that case seems to shape the civ-mil convo, even though our new book demonstrates that it is an outlier, not the norm.  I asked Phil to join us as he is super sharp on Westminster countries and he also could do interviews en francais.  

It was the hardest book to write, partly because it doubled essentially the number of cases I had done in any of my other books, and partly because three is more than two, so managing to keep the three of us on the same page was a challenge, especially during a pandemic.  Luckily, we had done most of our fieldwork before the pandemic hit.  

We are very pleased to have Stanford UP publish it as it has published many excellent civ-mil books. I am currently reading Alice Hunt Friend's Mightier than the Sword, which is a sharp book about the civilian side of the civ-mil relationship.  Risa Brooks and Elizabeth Stanley published their great comparative civ-mil edited volume, Creating Military Power, there as well.  Glad to be in such terrific company.

No cover yet although I have many pics of me in front of legislative houses.

Of course, the key step for book promotion was to come up with a soundtrack to go along with the book, as has become my habit.

The TOC:

Chapter 1       Are Legislators Watching the Armed Forces?

Chapter 2       Explaining Legislative Oversight Over the Armed Forces

Chapter 3       Westminster in the Atlantic: the United Kingdom and Canada

Chapter 4        Westminster in Pacific: Australia, New Zealand, and Japan

Chapter 5        Consensus Democracies in the Heart of Europe: Germany and Belgium

Chapter 6        Consensual Democracies in the High North: Finland, Norway and Sweden

Chapter 7        Not All Congresses: Brazil, Chile, and South Korea 

Chapter 8       Older Presidential Systems: France and the United States

Chapter 9       Conclusion:  Comparisons, Implications, and Lessons

We have a lot of people and agencies to thank, and we will do so in our acknowledgement section, of course.  But thanks to all the folks who follow me here--the conversations online over the years greatly informed what we studied, how we studied it, who we talked to, what we asked, what we inferred, and then how we put it all together.  I am tempted to thank you in each of the languages of the cases we studied, but I am not sure how to spell some of them ;) 

Trump as the Peace Candidate? FFS

 Oy, we are in the part of the election cycle where people have lost their goddamned minds and have forgotten damn near everything.  I started thinking about this stuff today because I was interviewed by a French Canadian outlet asking me what international relations would be like if Trump gets into power again.  And then I saw this:

This is, of course, after in 2016, the NYT put out this dreck:

Sure.  I happen to remember that the US nearly got into two major wars under Trump: vs North Korea in 2017 and Iran in 2020.  People forget that Trump spent his first few months in office amping up tensions with NK.  People forget that Trump almost gave the Iran hawks what they have long wanted by killing an Iranian general (Soleimani), which did lead to a bit of tit for tat with some risk of escalation.  Yes, Trump started the process of getting the US out of Afghanistan by selling out the government we had tried to build there.  He did sell out the Kurds, just as other presidents have.  But he ain't a pacifist or else he wouldn't be threatening war with Mexico.  Yes, Mexico. 

Before getting into the risks of another Trump administration, let's pause and take note of Biden's record.  It sucks on Gaza, no doubt.  Not sure any President could have done better, pretty sure Trump would have done worse.  Remember the quick coalition Biden put together to shoot down the Iranian missiles/drones?  Could Trump have done that?  I don't think so.  Re Ukraine, the US is not at war with Russia, but has, despite intra-Republican fights to block aid, kept Ukraine in the war and the US out.  While folks will argue that the US did not escalate quickly enough in its support for Ukraine, job one has been and will be keeping the US and NATO out of a war with Russia.  Biden has been very tough on Russia without putting American lives at great risk.  

Ok, back to Trump, the thing that worries me so much about another Trump administration is not a war against Mexico, although that would be awful.  It is the uncertainty.  Pretty much every President until Trump understood very well that IR theorists are right--uncertainty is mostly quite bad for peace and stability.  As a status quo power, the US spent much effort to build institutions and relationships to provide clarity and predictability, which were the foundations not just of peace (among great powers anyway) but prosperity.  With great uncertainty, countries are more likely to make mistakes that lead to wars and to escalation.  Trump's word can't be trusted, so that generates much uncertainty and fear.  I am pretty sure Chinese leaders consider Trump to be a paper tiger, which means that they think he will fold under pressure.  And that will lead to one of two bad things: China pushes the US around, causing allies to hedge (more on that in a second) or China tries to push the US around and is surprised when the US pushes back, maybe leading to a war.  Not good.

Finally, the uncertainty generated by Trump will lead to allies to hedge in a couple of ways.  First, they might ally with our adversaries who are seen as more predictable.  Second, those without nuclear weapons may attain them since they can't rely on the American nuclear umbrella anymore.  That so very few countries have developed nuclear arsenals has been a big win for US diplomacy and leadership. Which countries have attained nuclear weapons since the big five did?  Only those that the US would not protect--North Korea, India, Pakistan.  If Trump wins, maybe Poland, South Korea, and Japan.  And if they do, maybe a cascade develops.

 Again, uncertainty is bad, and Trump is an uncertainty engine.  So, no, a second Trump administration would not be our best bet for peace and security.  Very much the opposite.

Centrism, Centerism, and Polarization: Don't Expect Kamala Harris to Swerve to the Center

 Don't expect Kamala Harris to swerve to the center.  Why not?  Because she is already there.  One of the greatest fallacies of our time is that the Dems have shifted to the left of the American people.  Tis one reason why I find the term polarization to be so troubling.*  Not all parties have fled to the middle--just the GOP, which has moved further and further to the right wing, running against policies and overturning policies that have widespread support among Americans.  

Here's just one stunning example: the GOP has become pro-child labor. WTF?

On most major issues, the Dems are solidly in the middle.  On health care?  Yep, Americans want government to play a major role. ACA is popular which is why the GOP fought so hard against it. Abortion?  We know Americans don't support the radical GOP stances. Homophobia?  Americans are against it, and we could see that by how much the Dems talk about letting people love who they want. Taxing the rich? Ha.  No-fault divorce?  I am not going to bother looking up polling for that because ... duh.

Project 2025 is wildly unpopular, so much so that the GOP is now running away from it.  Good luck with that.  

So, what is the center of the political system?  Where the Democrats stand, even "hey, let's feed the kids" leftie Tim Walz.  Seriously, what is wrong with feeding the kids at school?  Anyhow, centerism is the pundit/media/whoever effort to try to get the Dems to compromise with the GOP. I illustrated it thusly:

 

To get all math-y, the Dems are at the median vote, which is where a party wants to be in the American political system.  The GOP wants to disenfranchise people because it can't appeal to the media voter--the whole #voterfraudfraud thing is such a tell--that the GOP is not anywhere near the middle.  Being halfway between, averaging the stances of the two parties, is centerism--that we need to get to being between the two parties.  Why?  Why should the Dems compromise on their values?  If the GOP stands for xenophobia and rounding up tens of millions of Americans, should the Dems compromise and stand for rounding up only a few million?  If the GOP wants to get rid of no-fault divorce, how should the Dems compromise on that?  Please tell me.  Compromising on IVF means what exactly.  How anti-trans should the Dems be so they can be halfway between where they are now and the GOP?  

Which gets to another dynamic?  If the Dems moved to be halfway to the GOP, they would then be asked what?  To move again to be halfway, to keep compromising their values and alienating their voters to get closer and closer to the GOP.  

The Supreme Court is now wildly unpopular.  Project 2025 is wildly unpopular.  Last I checked, the political science says for politicians to pick popular positions. Since the Dems are standing exactly where the public is, why the hell should it move?

Ah, I am old enough to remember Kamala Harris being criticized for being too moderate for the Dems.  Has she moved?  Perhaps a bit, but the American people have as well.  American politics is in part finding the center, and in part moving the public to where you want the center to be.  The GOP wants the public to move to the right.  Reagan was very successful at this (which is why he ain't anywhere close to "best president of my lifetime"), making government unpopular.  After a pandemic (well, not so much after since covid is still going around), many people greatly appreciate what good government does.  We see it in outcomes--the death rates are worse in states led by Republicans.  Policy matters!  And more Americans get it than don't.  

So, Kamala Harris picked a guy who was a reservist, comes from rural America, who not only has guns but shoots them very well, who coached football.  Who supports LGBTQ folks to be their true selves. Oh noes!!!  How radical!  Nope, not at all.  While the NYT wants folks to fear trans people, it just ain't so among the average Americans.  Walz is an authentic, very decent person.  No wonder the the WSJ and its ilk can't stand him.  Great choice, shows great judgment.  Unlike, say, JD Vance.

*  One last thing on polarization--no, it is not both parties spinning away from the center--just one.  But we are all now more partisan in the rest of our lives.  That liberal women don't want to date conservative men.  Oh noes, not fair.  It is not because the women don't want to argue about inheritance taxes or supply side economics.  Straight women and gay men want to date men who treat them as equals.  So, even in this, the GOP dudes have shifted away from the realm of the date-able because of what they have done and what they say.  Incels by choice?  Kind of.  To put it most extremely, women don't want to date Nazis unless they themselves are Nazis.  Which is why people are mystified by Usha Vance, as her Great Replacement husband espouses views that should cause women and women of color in particular to flee.

To sum up: the Dems have chosen the middle because it is both the right thing to do and the smart thing to do (the joy of heterogeneous coalitions may be that they force not moderation so much as empathy), and the GOP has pushed itself further and further outside the range of, yes, the normal American. Their positions are weird.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strategy, Nature, or Trap? Trump, Vance, and the Party of Racism

 Of course, the answer is:

I have written about ethnic outbidding here--that politicians competing for the same ethnic group will outbid each other to be the best supporter of that group (it was also a key dynamic for my dissertation and first two books)--and how that explains why Trump was successful in 2015/6 to get the nomination.  

The recents shambolic appearance at the conference of Black Journalists may not have been peak Trump racism but was probably pretty close and was definitely a condensed form, questioning Kamala's Black identity, ranting about Black jobs, and the rest.  Was he playing to his base by being racist to a room full of Black people or could he just not help himself because he is racist through and through?  The answer is almost certainly yes.

Why did he go to a hostile crowd? An irony given his Indian or Black take is that these people at this conference have two identities simultaneously: Black and journalist.  Trump has always had contempt for both Black people and journalists, so the move to show up there was strategy--it was a deliberate effort to do something.  What?  Damned if I know.  To put out a white supremacist message to his base?  Maybe.  To try to persuade some Blacks that Kamala Harris is not a real Black person?  That might have been strategy informed by racism--that he and his team are so racist they thought that might work a bit?  I am not so sure.  

It is hard to tell because, of course, one can be a poor strategist, and racism can make one a poor strategist.  But in the moment, it is clear that Trump is a racist to his bones.  The idea that he can say who is and who is not Black?  Jeez.  

Something that can be a bit more enlightening or educational: that JD Vance had to go along with this even though he is married to an Indian woman.  So, are his kids white or Indian?  Getting back to ethnic outbidding, it is a dynamic that becomes a trap.  That appealing on the basis of a particular identity to a specific homogeneous group becomes hard to escape, even if one wanted to, as it mobilizes and incites the extremists who then criticize almost every moderating move as a betrayal.  So, JD Vance is now trapped--that he must betray his family, whether they understand that or not.

Of course, I expect JD Vance or Trump to express as much remorse as Voldemort or JK Rowling might.  They are exemplars of the party of resentment, the party that lacks empathy.  But the siren song of resentment as strategy can lead to much damage, not just to the targets of resentment but those who embrace it. Trump's support has a hard ceiling--he only wins if the Dems don't turn out--and his latest burst of racism is probably going to lower that ceiling somewhat as there are a whole lot of people who identify with more than one race, and some of them are "independents" who always vote Republican and some are Republicans.  

Maybe that is wishful thinking on my part.  All I am sure of is this race is going to get uglier.