Ports: Policy and Politics

There is little new that I can add to the policy discussion of a Dubai-owned company taking over management control of 6 American ports. Dubai has been firmly in the "with us" column since 9/11 and provides significant support to US military and intelligence operations in the Middle East. The takeover has been vetted by multiple US government departments at the bureaucratic, rather than the political, level and has been approved without objection. And the 'management' of a port is at least one step removed from actual port security implementation, a job that still falls to the Coast Guard and US Customs. The only argument against the takeover that has some validity is that you're placing managment control of the ports in the hands of a country whose population has significant anti-US sentiments, thus possibly increasing the probability that radical elements will infiltrate the system. Naturally, this small increase in risk must be balanced against the strategic cost of slapping an Arab ally in the face by rejecting such a high-profile takeover. As serious policy discussions continue, the initial "hell no!" knee-jerk reaction will appear less and less justified.

The politics is a little more interesting. The Democrats, torn between their traditional resistance to xenophobic reaction and the rare opportunity to appear tougher on security than the President, have clearly opted for the latter. Politically, it's probably the correct choice. If the deal fails, they can claim credit for 'securing our ports'. If the deal goes through, they can use the issue to innoculate against appearing 'weak on security'. The very definition of win-win.

The Republican response, by contrast, has been a political disaster. For 5 years, congressional Republicans have toed the administration line on all matters of security and foreign policy. To think that they can distance themselves from the administration on these issues now is a joke. Some, like John McCain, appear to have taken this fact into account when they formulated their response. The majority of others, however, appear to have lost sight of their long-term political interests in their rush to appear 'tougher' than the Democrats.

Which brings us to the time extension for further review of the deal, offered so considerately by the Dubai company itself. Many commentators see this as nothing more than a chance for the White House to back-pedal and save face in some way - that the deal is dead. Nothing could be further from the truth. The extension is indeed a chance to back-pedal and save face, but for congressional Republicans. With the extension in place, the Republicans can justify scuttling any Democrat legislation regarding the deal - "We'll get a chance to review, what more do you want?". After a month or two of going over the same info the US agencies went over when they approved the deal, the Republicans will announce that it's Kosher (maybe they'll add a condition or two that Dubai will happily accept). And to look like they did something 'tough', they'll probably introduce legislation to increase spending on container inspections and port security by US Customs and the Coast Guard.

So my prediction is that the deal will go through, and that the Republicans will sustain some damage at the polls because of it, but no where near the damage they'll sustain if they decide to really fight the administration on this issue.

O Happy Day!

Tuesday was one of the happiest days of my life. Mostly because the American TV press does such a bad job. Let me explain.

They generally report the facts of given story correctly, but they do a terrible job of analyzing that story. For example, let’s say a senator criticizes the president. Does the press consider whether the senator’s criticism is valid? Barely. Do they consider the long term policy effects? Maybe. Or do they consider the senator’s partisan and electoral motivations and the short term political results? Almost exclusively. All that matters is the horse race. The only things analyzed are the cynical personal motivations of the players in question and their marginal political gains.

One of the many other things the cable press does badly is choose stories. How many stories do I have to see of missing pretty white girls? Or judges giving short sentences to child molesters? Or newlyweds getting lost at sea? This is not news, this is sensationalism.

But every once in a while bad TV journalism is just what’s needed. As everyone knows, last Saturday, Dick Cheney shot his 78 year old hunting buddy in the face. By actual journalistic standards, this is a minor story. Even the attempted half-assed cover-up is a minor story. But that didn’t stop the cable political talk shows from jumping up and down all over it. And thank God! Because bad TV news is the only venue that can do justice to such a wonderful story.

On Tuesday John Stewart’s the Daily Show churned out 15 minutes of solid gold humor. At one point the screen had a banner that read “Vice President’s Bullet Intercepted by Man’s Face”. I can’t remember the last time my heart was filled with such unadulterated joy! To be fair, my reaction was partly partisan. But mostly I could not believe what an incredibly funny thing it was that the Vice President had shot a 78 year old man in the face. Seriously.

But it isn’t news. But it is a profound moment in American pop culture. It ranks up there with Elvis rocking-n-rolling on Ed Sullivan and George H. W. Bush puking all over a Japanese state banquet. And it touches a chord in our consciousness in the same way. And where better does such a story belong than on a show like Keith Olbermann’s Countdown, where they show things like poodles pedaling tricycles? When ultimately meaningless but bizarre and hilarious and compelling things like this happen only bad TV journalism can give the story the treatment it deserves.

First Post

Hello and welcome to AmateurPundits. The three of us posting to this blog disagree on many political, economic, and ideological issues, but we've always managed to keep our disagreements intellectually honest. We hope this attitude will be reflected in what we post and discuss here.

Feel free to add comments, questions, and suggestions. It's no fun otherwise.