Mandelson Does His Bit for Doha

Much has been made (including by me) of French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s feud-by-press-release with Peter Mandelson, European Commissioner for Trade, over the EU’s offers in the World Trade Organization’s Doha round of trade talks. And a statement delivered yesterday by Mr. Mandelson clarifies why President Sarkozy feels he can get political mileage out of criticising the EU’s negotiating tactics.

Speaking to the main negotiating group of the WTO at the start of a week of intense negotiations (in the hope of putting this seven-years-old and four-years-overdue round to bed), Mr. Mandelson delivered the EU’s opening statement. The trade press went a bit wild (by trade press standards) when Mr. Mandelson appeards to increase the EUs market access offer in agriculture from an average 54 percent tariff cut to an average 60 percent tariff cut. Other WTO members suggested, and Mr. Mandelson seemed to confirm, that the “improved offer” was really just a recalculation using the type of convoluted accounting tricks favoured by Social Security administration officials. But in amongst Mr. Mandelson’s statement was this gem:

“On agriculture, the EU will be the major net loser in any deal.” (italics in original)

With statements like that from the EU’s chief negotiator and major promoter of the WTO trade talks, is it no wonder that mercantalism is rife in the EU? Mr. Mandelson is (unwittingly?) playing right into the hands of President Sarkozy and other critics of open markets in agriculture.

Farm subsidies in Europe currently account for about 40% of the EU budget, and Europeans currently pay high prices for, among other goods, dairy, sugar, bananas and beef. They deserve a break. While the farmers may fume, the EU would be a net gainer from the Doha Round overall. That’s the message Mr. Mandelson should be delivering to the WTO members and the world at large.

The raison d’etre of the WTO (and the GATT before it) was to allow countries to take politically difficult steps away from serving special interests, like farmers, under cover of promoting exports for other sectors. While I may lament this mercantalist mindset, it has achieved liberalization and avoided a repeat of the tariff wars of the 1930s. But maybe this whole idea has served its purpose. Maybe Brink was on to something.

Terrorist Attacks on Aviation - 11 Per Day!

… or so you would infer from a statistic reported on the Threat Level blog.

Threat Level reports on a new policy that has the Transportation Security Administration doing deep dives into people’s public-record dossiers when they arrive at airports without government-issued ID: “The new rules went into effect June 21, and in the first five days, 1705 people out of 10 million attempted to fly without identification and 59 of those were denied access to the plane.”

Fifty-nine refuseniks in five days works out to more than 11 terrorist attacks thwarted per day.

Of course, these weren’t actually terrorists. These were people whose papers weren’t in order. When this happens, TSA employees at its operations center in Virginia dig into public records databases and relay questions to screeners at the airports. If a traveler passes the test, he or she can fly. If the database information is wrong, or if the traveler is forgetful, he or she is stranded.

We were already quite a long way from getting any actual security benefit out of these programs, but as Threat Level suggests, all one need do to impersonate another is memorize the information about them in public records. I think this will happen most often among siblings and family members, who already know such info. But we’re talking about public records. They are collected, packaged, and sold by services like Lexis-Nexis. Sophisticated criminals and terrorists could get them just like anyone else.

Or they could present government-issued ID, having adopted the “clean-skin terrorist” technique that was recently reported to Capitol Hill by DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff.

Riddle Us This

I’m currently attending Cato University – extraordinary academics, so-so athletics – so I’ve neither been able to get to the edublogs in too timely a fashion, nor ruminate extensively on their content. I have, though, managed to get to a few blogs, and couldn’t help but notice a question-and-answer in need of facilitation.

Over at Flypaper – the blog of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation – Mike Petrilli has returned from vacation and not missed a beat in his national-education-standards march. Picking up on a recent Jonathan Alter column dealing largely with crippling teacher-union obstructionism, Petrilli declares that:

if we harnessed the resources we currently spend on our fifty-state system of tests for one common system, we could afford to measure subjects beyond reading and math, online, in a way that encouraged intellectually-challenging schoolwork rather than test prep.

My concern here is not with the money-saving proposition. It’s with the “intellectually-challenging schoolwork” assumption. It goes back to an argument I’ve made many times before, but this time another blogger has brought it up, and one quite different than libertarian ol’ me. Asks Andy Rotherham over at Eduwonk, contemplating the gaming of state tests under No Child Left Behind:

Can someone explain exactly how a national, federal, or “American” in the new parlance, test will be any different?  If indeed there is a political pathology out there to make schools look better, regardless of whether they are better, a proposition that seems pretty spot on to me, then how are the politics somehow so radically different at the national level?  National test proponents have never really answered this question except to point to the NAEP.  But, the NAEP is a no-stakes test right now so it really doesn’t make the point.

Terrific questions, Andy, to which I’d just add: How especially would you expect high-stakes national tests to escape gaming pressures when the National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, American Association of School Administrators, National School Boards Association, and just about every other major education interest group has its headquarters right in the DC area?

I – and I assume Andy – would love to hear the answers to these questions.  

The Bloggingheads of the Conservative Legal Movement

On May 14 I ran a book forum for Steve Teles’s insightful and provocative new book, The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement.  The book is groundbreaking, in part because Teles is neither a lawyer nor a conservative – yet remains completely objective and analytical toward his subject matter.  Well, it seems that the book tour/publicity train keeps going, and yesterday Steve appeared on that vaunted new media institution, bloggingheads, opposite Newsday columnist and Fox News commentator Jim Pinkerton.    I’ve only watched a brief bit so far, but it looks pretty good.

Pre-K Pushers Pathologically Panglossian?

The preschool evangelists will not shrivel before arguments or facts, for they believe. Their faith in preschool is strong and pure.

Just because the short-term gains for low-income students don’t last doesn’t mean they can’t last. If we can just make all preschools high-quality, and then make all elementary schools high-quality, and then make all high-schools high-quality, and then make all parents high-quality … then preschool might sustain something other than negligible improvements.

Perhaps, but almost certainly not.

More likely, if we had all high-quality schools and parents we’d once again find that whether a child learns her letters at 4 instead of 5 doesn’t make one flea-hair’s bit of difference by the time she (hopefully) graduates high-school.

Finland should give the preschool activists pause. It doesn’t, but it should.

Children don’t begin formal schooling until around 7. At first, no surprise, they don’t score as well as many countries who park their kids in classrooms at age 3 or 4. By high school, however, Finland’s students are at the top of the pack internationally, and far outperform the laggard US.

So why this national obsession with preschool? Is it to take the blame off of our ossified government k-12 system? More money for the teachers unions?

I don’t think Sara Mead and many of her fellow travelers are henchmen for the union bosses.

Perhaps it provides hope to progressives who place their faith in the power of government but have witnessed only an unyielding failure to sustain effective and meaningful reform in the government k-12 school system.

Perhaps preschool offers a distraction from the despair and fatalism fostered by so obvious a failure of the public sector. A crusade to invigorate the faithful.

Preschool is not our educational salvation, and “reform” of a moribund government k-12 system is a fool’s errand.

The most certain way to improve academic performance and life outcomes for all students in this country, rich and poor, is to expand educational freedom. Oh, and it would save each state billions of dollars too.

Look for more soon in what will soon be the inaccurately-named Preschool Tetralogy

Arrogant European Bureaucracy Run Amok

The European Commission is an unelected bureaucracy that is slowly but surely seizing powers to govern member nations. This is bad news for national sovereignty and jurisdictional competition, but it also leads to crazy regulations, including proposals to prohibit the British from using acres instead of hectares, banning the traditional preparation of Peking Duck, and detailed rules about the proper size and shape of vegetables. 

But regulatory overkill is just the tip of the iceberg. Far more troubling is the effort to subvert democracy in order to further centralize power in Brussels. The EU Constitution, which would have expanded the powers of the European Commission, was rejected by the voters of France and the Netherlands a few years ago. Rather than shelve the proposal, the European elites renamed it the Lisbon Treaty and said that it no longer was necessary to let the people vote. Fortunately, Ireland still has the rule of law and held a referendum - and the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty was decisively rejected. 

The French President has since asserted that the Irish should vote again (and presumably again and again) until they reach the “right” decision. But perhaps the most Kafkaesque reaction came from a French bureaucrat, who was quoted in Le Figaro stating, “It isn’t about putting pressure on the Irish.  We well understand that they have expressed themselves democratically.  But so have the other 26!” Only the French could deny their people the right to vote and then claim their voters (and the disenfranchised people in the European Union’s other 25 nations) had somehow expressed their views.

Naomi Klein Doesn’t Know What She’s Talking About

Johan Norberg has done the world a service with his workup of Ms. Klein’s rubbish, but now here’s Jonathan Chait to pile on:

[Klein] pays shockingly (but, given her premises, unsurprisingly) little attention to right-wing ideas. She recognizes that neoconservatism sits at the heart of the Iraq war project, but she does not seem to know what neoconservatism is; and she makes no effort to find out. Her ignorance of the American right is on bright display in one breathtaking sentence:

“Only since the mid-nineties has the intellectual movement, led by the right-wing think-tanks with which [Milton] Friedman had long associations–Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute–called itself ‘neoconservative,’ a worldview that has harnessed the full force of the U.S. military machine in the service of a corporate agenda.”

Where to begin? First, neoconservative ideology dates not from the 1990s but from the 1960s, and the label came into widespread use in the 1970s. Second, while neoconservatism is highly congenial to corporate interests, it is distinctly less so than other forms of conservatism. The original neocons, unlike traditional conservatives, did not reject the New Deal. They favor what they now call “national greatness” over small government. And their foreign policy often collides head-on with corporate interests: neoconservatives favor saber-rattling in places such as China or the Middle East, where American corporations frown on political risk, and favor open relations and increased trade. Moreover, the Heritage Foundation has always had an uneasy relationship with neoconservatism. (Russell Kirk delivered a famous speech at the Heritage Foundation in which he declared that “not seldom has it seemed as if some eminent neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States.”) And the Cato Institute is not neoconservative at all. It was virulently opposed to the Iraq war in particular, and it opposes interventionism in foreign policy in general.

Finally, there is the central role that Klein imputes to her villain Friedman, both in this one glorious passage and throughout her book. In her telling, he is the intellectual guru of the shock doctrine, whose minions have carried out his corporatist agenda from Santiago to Baghdad. Klein calls the neocon movement “Friedmanite to the core,” and identifies the Iraq war as a “careful and faithful application of unrestrained Chicago School ideology” over which Friedman presided. What she does not mention–not once, not anywhere, in her book–is that Friedman argued against the Iraq war from the beginning, calling it an act of “aggression.”

It ought to be morbidly embarrassing for a writer to discover that the central character of her narrative turns out to oppose what she identifies as the apotheosis of his own movement. And Klein’s mistake exposes the deeper flaw of her thesis. Friedman opposed the war because he was a libertarian, and libertarian conservatism is not the same thing as neoconservatism. Nor are the interests of corporations always, or even usually, served by war.

No word on any forthcoming apology from John Cusack.