Why only Nixon could go to China and Clinton finish the Reagan Revolution

The secret of winning the swing vote is having policies slightly different from your opponent. Recall Tyler Cowen and Daniel Sutter’s Why Only Nixon Could Go to China in Public Choice.

 

File:Nixon Mao 1972-02-29.png

Cowen and Sutter say that a policy could depend on information – on which policies or values everyone could potentially agree, or on which agreement is impossible.

Politicians, who value both re-election and policy outcomes, realise the nature of the issue better through inside and secret information and superior analytical skills (or access to those skills), whereas voters do not have access to such information base or skills.

Only a right-wing president can credibly signal the desirability of a left-wing course of action. A left-wing president’s rapprochement with China would be dismissed as a dovish sell-out. The Nixon paradox held because citizens could vote retrospectively on the issue.

Left-wing parties adopt right-wing policies because they are good ideas that will get them re-elected. Bob Hawke, Tony Blair, and Bill Clinton were firmly camped over the middle-ground.

Only centre-left economic reformers can credibly signal the desirability of their economic reforms because of the brand name capital they invested in distributional concerns and protecting the poor.

Because of their proven record and brand name, they do not jeopardise their support or credibility by seemingly departing from their core values. They must have done so because it was the right thing to do given events and the long-term interests of the lower-income groups they represent.

Bill Clinton balanced the budget and introduced sweeping welfare reforms in 1996 after vetoing two earlier bills because this finally fulfilled his 1992 campaign promise to “end welfare as we have come to know it”. As he signed the bill on August 22, 1996, Clinton stated that the act:

gives us a chance we haven’t had before to break the cycle of dependency that has existed for millions and millions of our fellow citizens, exiling them from the world of work. It gives structure, meaning and dignity to most of our lives.

Jimmy Carter was a bigger deregulator than Reagan. Obama uses drones far more often than Bush did.

Major labour law reforms were passed in Germany under a left-wing government after decades of 10% unemployment rates and average German unemployment spells for about a year. The key part of these reforms came into play just before the global financial crisis hit and was a major reason for the unemployment rate in Germany falling despite the onset of GFC.

Why Only Nixon Could Go to China also explains why hawks such as Reagan and Begin and other right wing party leaders were able to negotiate peace treaties that eluded more dovish politicians who ran on ‘peace now’ slogans.

Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, walked with Gorbachev in Red Square and seriously offered complete mutual nuclear disarmament in Reykjavik in 1986. Any other American President who offered complete mutual nuclear disarmament would have been impeached.

https://i0.wp.com/www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c47345-10.jpg

Hawks also have the right negotiating stance. Robert Aumann argues that:

If you are ready for war, you will not need to fight. If you cry ‘peace, peace,’ you will end up fighting… What brings war is that you signal weakness and concessions.

Only then will both sides negotiate because they know that the other side is willing to walk away and perhaps not come back for a long time. Unless it gets reasonable offers that will be binding on both sides for a long time because both win more for honouring their promises rather than threatening war again soon.

Left-wing politicians can deliver economic reforms because they can deliver new voting blocs to the realignment of political coalitions. This new bloc of centre-left voters and some members of existing political and special interest groupings benefit from regrouping and joining new political coalitions that push through the reforms. An ageing society, budget deficits, technological innovations and shifts in production cost structures and in consumer demand can all make the existing political coalitions less rewarding than in the past.

Obama, Iran, Tom Schelling and the Bomb

If Obama was interested in peace, he should pay more attention to the writings of Thomas Schelling.

Schelling said that he did not know of any way to stop the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons and it is therefore important to have sophisticated enemies.

  • It took the U.S. 15 years after World War II to think seriously about the security of its nuclear weapons.
  • Before that, U.S. nuclear weapons did not even have combination locks, let alone complex electronic security codes!
  • Now, most nuclear weapons will not detonate even if given the right codes unless they are at their designated targets.

The Soviet Union always had civilian officials in charge of nuclear weapons, and never let an aircraft carrying these weapons out of Soviet airspace. China has a separate army unit for this purpose too.

What are the safeguards against theft, sabotage or unauthorised use, and how will the Iranian weapons be protected? Iran must learn from this. Schelling’s and Herman Kahn’s writings in the early 1960s on nuclear wars starting through accidents and misunderstandings led them to work with Kubrick on the script of Dr. Stangelove.

The ayatollahs do not want their own nation wiped off the map. They know that Israel has enough nuclear weapons and delivery systems to destroy Iran in retaliation for any attack. This would deter them.

The government of Iran is repulsive, but it has never given evidence that it is suicidal. In all likelihood, rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map is ideological blather.

Any government in Tehran would have to realise that an attack on America would be a regime-extinguishing event. Such an attack would be suicide, both politically and literally. 

The United States managed to deter some unpleasant and unpredictable people, including Stalin and Mao Zedong, from using nuclear weapons during the Cold War despite the USA’s own best efforts to provoke them from time to time. Israel and Iran may have noticed the success of that strategy too.

The USSR and China also played the ‘I am a crazy ideological zealot’ card too. Remember Mao and Khrushchev.

  • China became a nuclear power under Mao Zedong, a leader who exceeded even Stalin’s record of genocide. Mao’s publicly enunciated views on nuclear warfare were also alarming in the extreme.
  • China also emerged as a nuclear power on the eve of the Cultural Revolution. China, during that orgy of fanaticism, makes today’s Iran look like a normal, even sedate, country.

The Iranian mullahs take full political advantage of appearing to be mad and unpredictable. Iran’s leaders have nonetheless exhibited remarkably well timed moments of prudence and pragmatism. They have even fully reversed course when confronted with defeat such as when they started to really lose their war with Iraq.

Iran could always go for nuclear latency: the condition of a country possessing the technology to quickly build nuclear weapons without having actually yet done so. This avoids the costs and risks by refraining from exercising the overt nuclear capability option.

Because such latent capability is not proscribed by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a work-around of the treaty is sometimes called the “Japan Option”. Japan is a clear case of a big advanced country with the complete technical prowess and nuclear materials to develop a nuclear weapon quickly.

A country does not test weapons nor declare its latent nuclear potential. Yet just keep the resources for a latent nuclear potential on hand for a crash programme.

Schelling defined diplomacy as being based on having some control over something that the other country wants. There must be something each has to bargain over.

No communications should be sent to Iran; there should be no informal dialogues. Wait for Iran to come to you because you have something they want. Only then will it become serious in striking a bargain.

How to negotiate a treaty on global warming

I found the best writer on global warming to be Thomas Schelling. Schelling has been involved with the global warming debate since chairing a commission on the subject for President Carter in 1980.

Schelling is an economist who specialises in strategy so he focuses on climate change as a bargaining problem. Schelling drew from his experiences with the negotiation of the Marshall Plan and NATO.

International agreements rarely work if they talk in terms of results. They work better if signatories promise to supply specific inputs – to perform specific actions now.

  • Individual NATO members did not, for example, promise to slow the Soviet invasion by 90 minutes if it happened after 1962.
  •  NATO members promised to raise and train troops, procure equipment and supplies, and immediately deploy these assets geographically. All of these actions can be observed, estimated and compared quickly. The NATO treaty was a few pages long.

The Kyoto Protocol commitments were not based on actions but on results, to be measured after more than a decade and several elections and a recession or two in between.

Climate treaties should promise to do certain actions now such as invest in R&D and develop carbon taxes that return the revenue as tax cuts. If the carbon tax revenue is fully refunded as tax cuts, less reliable countries, in particular, have an additional incentive to collect the carbon tax properly to keep their budget deficits under control.

Trade is a powerful force for peace in the Ukraine

Russian TV is starting to spin a Putin back-down in the Ukraine. Channel surfing, I came cross a Russian TV story alluding to Russians that the revenues from the Russian gas pipelines across the Ukraine to the EU are a major lifeline of the Russian economy.

The mere threat of repeated sabotage of these gas pipelines to Western Europe are an easy way to hurt Russia if it overplays its hand. That was the round-about topic of the TV story.

Trade was a powerful force for peace and is a defence against war, as the great Manchester liberal Richard Cobden championed in mid-19th century.

Both Russia and China have much more to lose and much less to gain from war because of their extensive trade links with their neighbours and their former Cold War rivals, including with each other. China’s extensive trade and investment links with Taiwan are the best guarantee of peace between them.

As Joseph Schumpeter observed, when free trade prevails, “no class” gains from forcible expansion: “foreign raw materials and food stuffs are as accessible to each nation as though they were in its own territory”. Patrick McDonald recently called free trade the invisible hand of peace.

Si vies pacem, para bellum

The Roman maxim ‘If you want peace, prepare for war’ is about the power of credible commitments in avoiding a violent form of bargaining called war. If you look threatening – have a great power to hurt – you can compel people to do what you want, which includes not attack you. Threats are cheap especially when you do not have to carry them out. You get what you want without any fighting.

Those that show the greatest credible prior commitment – those that burn their bridges – extract much more from bargaining that those that have options to fall back on. People fear cornered opponents.

Who picks a fight with someone who looks crazy or cannot back down? Who picks a fight with someone who carries himself or herself like a seasoned bar fighter?

As explained by David Friedman:

“Consider a bar room quarrel that starts with two customers arguing about baseball teams and ends with one dead and the other standing there with a knife in his hand and a dazed expression on his face.

Seen from one standpoint, this is a clear example of irrational and therefore uneconomic behaviour; the killer regrets what he has done as soon as he does it, so he obviously cannot have acted to maximize his own welfare.

Seen from another standpoint, it is the working out of a rational commitment to irrational action – the equivalent, on a small scale, of a doomsday machine going off.

Suppose I am strong, fierce, and known to have a short temper with people who do not do what I want. I benefit from that reputation; people are careful not to do things that offend me.

Actually beating someone up is expensive; he may fight back, and I may get arrested for assault. But if my reputation is bad enough, I may not have to beat anyone up.

To maintain that reputation, I train myself to be short-tempered. I tell myself and others that I am a real he-man, and he-men don’t let other people push them around. I gradually expand my definition of “push me around” until it is equivalent to “don’t do what I want.”

We usually describe this as an aggressive personality, but it may make just as much sense to think of it as a deliberate strategy rationally adopted.

Once the strategy is in place, I am no longer free to choose the optimal response in each situation; I have invested too much in my own self-image to be able to back down…

Not backing down once deterrence has failed may be irrational, but putting yourself in a situation where you cannot back down is not. Most of the time I get my own way; once in a while I have to pay for it.

I have no monopoly on my strategy; there are other short-tempered people in the world.

I get into a conversation in a bar. The other guy fails to show adequate deference to my opinions.

I start pushing. He pushes back. When it is over, one of us is dead.”

Tom Schelling’s fellow Nobel Prize winning game theorist Robert Aumann argued well that the way to peace is like bargaining in a medieval bazaar. Never look too keen, and bargain long and hard, for otherwise people will take great advantage of you! But again to quote Schelling:

“A government never knows just how committed it is to action until the occasion when its commitment is challenged.

Nations, like people, are continually engaged in demonstrations of resolve, tests of nerve, and explorations for understandings and misunderstandings…

This is why there is a genuine risk of major war not from ‘accidents’ in the military machine but through a diplomatic process of commitment that is itself unpredictable.”

That is why there was World War I. A state also can be tempted to start a war now to avoid having to deal with a stronger opponent in the future. That is why Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939.

Should we fight for the Ukraine?

Murray Rothbard, in the context of the 1980 Afghan war, quoted Canon Sydney Smith – a great classical liberal in early 19th century England who wrote to his warmongering Prime Minister, thus:

“For God’s sake, do not drag me into another war!

I am worn down, and worn out, with crusading and defending Europe, and protecting mankind; I must think a little of myself.

I am sorry for the Spaniards – I am sorry for the Greeks – I deplore the fate of the Jews; the people of the Sandwich Islands are groaning under the most detestable tyranny; Baghdad is oppressed, I do not like the present state of the Delta; Tibet is not comfortable. Am I to fight for all these people?

The world is bursting with sin and sorrow. Am I to be champion of the Decalogue, and to be eternally raising fleets and armies to make all men good and happy?

We have just done saving Europe, and I am afraid the consequence will be, that we shall cut each other’s throats. No war, dear Lady Grey! – No eloquence; but apathy, selfishness, common sense, arithmetic!”

Next Newer Entries

In My Tribe

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Coordination Problem

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Libertarian Land

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Arin’s Substack

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

David Andolfatto

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Monetary Non-Neutrality

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Reason Magazine

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Coyote Blog

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Thoughts from the North

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Fardels Bear

A History of the Alt-Right

Vincent Geloso

Econ Prof at George Mason University, Economic Historian, Québécois

Bassett, Brash & Hide

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Truth on the Market

Scholarly commentary on law, economics, and more

The Undercover Historian

Beatrice Cherrier's blog

Matua Kahurangi

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Temple of Sociology

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Velvet Glove, Iron Fist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Why Evolution Is True

Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.

NoTricksZone

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Homepaddock

A rural perspective with a blue tint by Ele Ludemann

Kiwiblog

DPF's Kiwiblog - Fomenting Happy Mischief since 2003

The Dangerous Economist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Watts Up With That?

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

The Logical Place

Tim Harding's writings on rationality, informal logic and skepticism

Doc's Books

A window into Doc Freiberger's library

The Risk-Monger

Let's examine hard decisions!

Uneasy Money

Commentary on monetary policy in the spirit of R. G. Hawtrey

Barrie Saunders

Thoughts on public policy and the media

Liberty Scott

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Point of Order

Politics and the economy

James Bowden's Blog

A blog (primarily) on Canadian and Commonwealth political history and institutions

Science Matters

Reading between the lines, and underneath the hype.

Peter Winsley

Economics, and such stuff as dreams are made on

A Venerable Puzzle

"The British constitution has always been puzzling, and always will be." --Queen Elizabeth II

The Antiplanner

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Bet On It

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

History of Sorts

WORLD WAR II, MUSIC, HISTORY, HOLOCAUST

Roger Pielke Jr.

Undisciplined scholar, recovering academic

Offsetting Behaviour

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

JONATHAN TURLEY

Res ipsa loquitur - The thing itself speaks

Conversable Economist

In Hume’s spirit, I will attempt to serve as an ambassador from my world of economics, and help in “finding topics of conversation fit for the entertainment of rational creatures.”

The Victorian Commons

Researching the House of Commons, 1832-1868

Books & Boots

Reflections on books and art

Legal History Miscellany

Posts on the History of Law, Crime, and Justice

Sex, Drugs and Economics

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

European Royal History

Exploring the Monarchs of Europe