The Informationist, a blog written by Bruce Abramson

A New Game Dawns in the Middle East. Will the U.S. Play to Win?

A wind of change is sweeping across the Middle East.  When we look back at the coming year through the eyes of history, we may rank 2001 with 1848 and 1989 as a year of widespread revolution that reshaped a continent.  At the very least, 2011 promises to equal 1968 as a time in which widespread unrest reshaped global culture—and laid the groundwork for slower but equally certain political upheaval.

We westerners, of course, like to personalize everything.  And so, as we watch the violent scenes in Tunis, Cairo, and elsewhere, we immediately seek ways to inject ourselves into the equation. 

Did we cause these riots?  Is the military response our fault?  Is American policy to blame?  Is Israel—and American support for Israel—the root cause?  Is it Bush’s fault?  Obama’s fault?  Perhaps if Bush had not invaded Iraq, or Obama had not debased himself in Cairo or we had sent more aid or less aid or conditioned our aid on various behavioral changes, things would be unfolding differently. 

Perhaps.  Unlikely, but in the world of contrafactuals all is possible.

Either way, how should we react?  Should we continue to support pro-American authoritarians?  Should we throw our lot in with the people in the streets?  Should we increase military aid?  Decrease it?  Favor some particular new face as leader?  Should we apply the same standards to riots against “friend” (e.g., Egypt) and “foe” (e.g., Iran)?  Should we alter our long-term strategy in the Middle East?  And if so, how?

The Last Exceptional Democrat

Last week, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut announced that he would not seek a fifth term. 

This news was not surprising.  Or at the very least, I was not surprised.  I had already run through the scenarios in my head.  It seemed unlikely that Lieberman would fare better in a Democratic primary in 2012 than he did in 2006, when his party dumped him unceremoniously in favor of a lightweight named Ned Lamont.  To compete in a Republican primary, Lieberman would have to change his party registration, lose his chairmanship, and then likely face a serious challenger from his right—potentially following in the footsteps of Arlen Specter.  And a second independent bid—even from a popular incumbent—against two potentially strong opponents with real party backing, is far from a sure thing.  No, the political calculus alone told me that the Senator was likely to retire at the end of this term.  Joe Lieberman is a man with much left to contribute, but little left to prove.

The consequences of his departure, however, are disconcerting.  They speak volumes about the current state of the Democratic Party—and why folks like me no longer feel at home there. 

So What *IS* the Matter with Obama?

A few days ago, I joined a panel discussion, hosted by a group called Bay Area for Change, addressing the assigned topic: What’s the Matter with Obama?

Under normal circumstances, I might approach such an assignment by inhaling deeply, and upon exhaling ask: “Where should I begin?”  But these circumstances were not quite ordinary—at least not for me. 

My Next Speaking Engagement: Bay Area for Change 1/20 in Mountain View

A local Silicon Valley grassroots group of Obama supporters, Bay Area for Change, has invited me to be a panelist at their upcoming event, "What's the Matter with Obama?"  (Their title, not mine).

I am both pleased and honored to accept their invitation, and I hope that some of you will join me.  Those of you who know me know that I value civility and intelligent exchange above all.  The glib title notwithstanding, I do not expect this event to highlight gripes about policy from either the left or the right.  Instead, I assume that the discussion will focus on the divide between the high hopes that America shared when we inaugurated our 44th President and the overwhelming disappointment that many feel today.

To some extent, this event returns me to my roots--albeit in a new role.  I know two of the other panelists--Michelle Kraus and Donnie Fowler--from my days as an active Democrat.  I now join them as a "moderate San Francisco Republican," if you can believe the flier.  (I did not draft it).  I hope it feels good to be back.

Also, if you read the ad carefully, you will see that this event includes Chinese food, so you really can't lose by planning to attend.

How Capitalism Saved the World

For centuries, the military has driven technology forward, fostering new waves of industrialization and corporate use.

via online.wsj.com

It's taken me a couple of days to piggyback on Andy Kessler's piece, in large part because I think he understated his case. I'm writing to strengthen it.

As we learned in grade school, "necessity is the mother of invention." Some people innovate for the sake of innovation, but most people innovate to solve a problem. Innovations that require significant investments of time and resources must therefore arise as solutions to important problems.