Dan Feidt's log on Minnesota, Information Operations, spinstorms and latent contradictions.
[We have picked up another contributor, Vanilla Gorilla. VG will provide us with specialized and unorthodox commentary on economics and African politics, in particular. We are filling up fast - if anyone else wants in email me --Dan]
One of the questions I frequently ask myself is why Americans, though seemingly dissatisfied (some intensely) with the current government, do nothing to change it? It seems to me that if European countries with no insurmountable differences in cultural traditions or legal practices can survive tolerably with different accountability systems, why can't we? Or yet another way of putting it is to ask why there is such low accountability for the American government? This bothers the crap out of me, because, as we all well know, voters are suffering from an acute case of the political equivalent of buyer's remorse.
As I was slogging through some particularly boring academic articles on the economic nature of the firm, I came across a hidden gem of a topic: appropriable quasi rents. OK, I admit it, whatever it is does not sound sexy, is not related to any terrorist group, and will not attract government spooks to swarm the server. But I do think it has some explanatory power with regard to America's busted democracy. But before I start, I'd like to preempt that terrible joke you were going to make by saying that the term quasi-rent has nothing to do with any half animal hybrids living in the apartment down the hall. [Dan: Bush put a stop to that, thank Jesus]
The definition of an appropriable quasi rent can best be seen through an example. Consider an oil field and a refinery connected by a pipeline, all owned by separate parties. The pipeline buys from the oil field, and sells it to the refinery. In this scenario, the pipeline has both the refinery and the oil field held hostage. It has to pay the oil field only as much as the field could sell the oil to someone else for, which is not much because they have no way of moving the oil without the pipeline. Likewise, it will charge the refinery up to the amount that it would cost to get their crude outside the pipeline. Quasi rent refers to the difference between the value of the oil to the pipeline and the amount at which another buyer/seller could offer an alternative transaction. In this case, the pipeline appropriates all of both rents, innit?
Here is the NY strip: Isn't the government pushing harder and harder in a exactly symmetrical situation? The cost of revolution is incalculable, but the costs of a less dramatic change are substantial as well. Political change isn't as simple as politely asking Canada to come to dinner and please bring their low crime and good healthcare. We are faced with a high cost of alternatives, and thus we are being "charged" a higher and higher portion of our well-being as a result.
It is difficult to think of an aspect of governance that doesn't bear this out, from rising economic inequality due to tax/corporate policy, to loss of life and freedom under the auspices of the war on terror. Hell, if you don't feel like the no-bid contract to Halliburton was Cheney's way of cock-slapping you in the face, I won't be able to convince you of this fact. The truly sad thing is that this is only one way of warming over the leftovers of every social scientist since at least Machiavelli.
In this respect, though, the issue isn't limited to corpulent America, the whole world gets in on the dish. Those precocious Neocons have shown that they're willing to oppress anybody to satisfy their desires, and as such, everyone else needs to decide how much their willing to pay for an alternative. Who's it going to be, China? Some EU-like creature going to step up? Iran got the nuts to stand up? Or can everybody just stand pat? As a parting shot, I think it is interesting that many Americans, who are *supposed* to be willing to sacrifice freedom only at death, live tiny lives hedged into unrewarding careers etc., while a supposedly oppressed society in need of our liberation is full of people willing to pay the ultimate price for their liberty.
[Score 1,000,000,000 bonus points for Vanilla Gorilla. Anything involving pipelines is genius! Right on. --Dan]
Lots of people in Minnesota have seen these "Midwest Heroes" ads by now. They remind us of how Al Qaeda in Iraq is trying to destroy America. Well done. Who is plunking the cash down? The "Progress for America Voter Fund," run by such luminaries as Ken Mehlman, the director of the Republican National Committee, and various Swift Boat conspirators.
Nick Coleman called it the Swift Boating of Iraq, otherwise Swift Boating in reverse. Also a bit here. Hindrocket applauds that "My own guess is that liberals aren't afraid that the Midwest Heroes are wrong. They're afraid they're right."
So the oddity is that on my boss' radio show, one of the guys, Stephenson I think, was on there, and of course Janecek praised him, while Lambert was more critical. But what sort of media transaction is this? Why is this message an ad buy? Who is pushing it?? Well the director of the Republican Party. That simple.
PFA has some really nice Republican attack ads from 2004 on their site. "Why do we fight?" is cheesy. "Finish it" has a really funny part at the end. "John Kerry has a 30 Year Record of Cuts in Defense and Intelligence and Endlessly Changing Positions on Iraq. Would You Trust Kerry up against these fanatic killers. President Bush didn't start this war, but he will finish it."
Which I think is especially amusing because he sure as fuck won't finish it. Well, it would be amusing if it weren't a national disaster. My point is that this is a 527-style wing of the Republican attack machine. And they are using Minnesota as their test TV market for November.
They offer this on MidwestHeroes.com and the PFAVoterFund site:
About PFA Voter Fund
Some politicians are working overtime to push their failed policies on America and distort the accomplished public policy records of conservative leaders across this nation. These policies thwart the ability of American families to support the War on Terror, keep more of what they earn, provide a safe environment for educating their children, and continue to expand employment and grow the economy.
Progress for America Voter Fund ("PFA-VF") is a conservative issue advocacy organization dedicated to setting the issue record straight about these critical issues.
Here are the goals of the PFA-VF:
1. Level the playing field on issue advertisements — it may not be possible out raise even George Soros alone, but the PFA Voter Fund must try to reduce the lopsided advertising advantage that liberal 527s have on the campaign trail today.
2. Reinforce the messages of conservatives across the nation -- we have messages we know will work and energize the base; we just need the resources to deliver these messages.
As a diverse coalition of concerned citizens, nonprofit organizations, and other players in the political process, PFA-VF is dedicated to educating the American people regarding the public policy positions of candidates for federal, state and local office and mobilizing conservative voters. These activities provide the American people with the information they need to see through the misleading public policies and campaign themes of liberal politicians.
Well there ya go. Good times. If only we could get George Soros to keep ruining everything, liberals could finally take over.
Hello to the rest of America, this is like $10 billion dollars in November's generic Republican attack ads distilled to about 30 seconds. Set your brains on "drool" and prepare to be bombarded 600,000 times.
It doesn't get any more pure than this. But wait!! Look at all this fucking progress in Iraq!!!! Thanks MidwestHeroes, for giving us this Stuff that The Bush Hater Liberal Media Wants To Hide!!
“Iraqi Students Now Carry Laptops That Connect At Internet Cafes To The World’s Web Sites And Libraries Where Before They Had To Rely On Pencils, Slide Rules And Outdated -- Often Censored -- School Textbooks.” (Robert M. Kimmitt, “Iraq’s Post-Saddam Economy,” The Wall Street Journal, 12/9/05)
“Iraq Is Laying The Groundwork For A Self-Sustaining, Market-Based Economy.” “Only a year-and-a-half after regaining its full sovereignty, Iraq is laying the groundwork for a self-sustaining, market-based economy which can serve as an engine of growth for that nation and for the broader Middle East.” (Robert M. Kimmitt, Op-Ed, “Iraq’s Post-Saddam Economy,” The Wall Street Journal, 12/9/05)
“Iraq’s economy is expected to grow by nearly 4% this year and accelerate to nearly 17% in 2006.” (Robert M. Kimmitt, Op-Ed, “Iraq’s Post-Saddam Economy,” The Wall Street Journal, 12/9/05)
“Per capita income should soon exceed $1,000 -- nearly double the level in 2003.” (Robert M. Kimmitt, Op-Ed, “Iraq’s Post-Saddam Economy,” The Wall Street Journal, 12/9/05)
“More than 30,000 new businesses have been registered and many have set up shop.” (Robert M. Kimmitt, Op-Ed, “Iraq’s Post-Saddam Economy,” The Wall Street Journal, 12/9/05)
There are also lots of Department of Defense Press releases, and quotes from an editorial in the Indianapolis Star!!
This is some kind of joint project of the "Families United for our Troops and their Mission", whatever precisely that is. I started drifting over their blog and found this chestnut.
Monday, February 06, 2006: Information Warfare
Information warfare, what’s the big deal? Gold Star families are working to tell their stories to anyone willing to listen, including the media. One Gold Star mom said this of her husband, “He would talk to the moon about our son”. One reason we tell their stories is to keep the memories of our loved ones alive. Another reason is to continue to serve our country.
The battle continues to be waged, at home and abroad. Every war is fought on two fronts. Every war must be won on two fronts-the battlefield and the field of public opinion. President Lincoln set down the perimeters of the battle when he said, “With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.”
We will win the War on Terror, on the battlefield. We must continue to share the successes of the war in the media so that the public opinion is not swayed for defeat by misinformation on the home front.
“The American Enterprise” March, 2006, published an article written by John Guardiano. The article entitled, Information Warfare, stated: “Like most veterans of the war, I am amazed and dismayed at the relentlessly negative—and very misleading—media portrait of our efforts.” He cited this example, “Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan is a media cause celebrity; but Diane Ibbotson, Debby Argel Bastion, and countless other mothers who have lost their sons (and daughters) and continue to support the war are ignored. This despite the fact that they are more articulate and serious –minded than Sheehan, with personal stories that are just as compelling.”
So we “soldier on” in the cause that our loved ones gave their lives for, to win the battle on the home front that our Armed Forces are winning on the battlefields. We will continue to tell the stories of America’s fallen heroes, of veterans service and sacrifice, of the resolve of families who support the military and their mission.
Posted by Diane Ibbotson @ 11:55 AM
And Ken Mehlman is master of Information Operations.