Over the weekend, I saw the well known clip of Donald Rumsfeld saying, “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.” I’ve always dismissed the quote because it is such an ostentatious way of saying the obvious, “There are things we don’t know.” But as I listened to it this time, I was struck by the fact that the statement is incoherent. It contradicts itself.

If there are things that we don’t know that we don’t know, that must mean that some of the “known knowns” are, in fact, unknown unknowns. There isn’t anywhere else they can come from. There can’t be a category of “unknowns we take no opinion on.” The collection of facts must be divided into the knowns and the unknowns. We can divide the knowns into those things we know we know and those we things we don’t think we know. But the same can’t be done with the unknowns. An unknown is either unknown or mistakenly thought to be known.

I think that is what makes Rumsfeld’s quote so weaselly. He doesn’t want to come right out and say that there are things we think we know but which ain’t so. What would be a good example of that? Oh, I know: thinking that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Although, as everyone should know by now, that was just the pretense for war, not the reason. But still, I don’t doubt that they did think Iraq had WMDs. It’s like the old joke, “We know Saddam Hussein had WMDs; we still have the receipts.”

But if you wanted to, I guess you could stretch and trying to make an argument in favor of Rumsfeld. It would have to be that there are facts out in the world that we are just unaware of. That would be that they are unknown not in the sense that we don’t know the truth but rather in that we don’t even know that the facts exist. The problem with this is in doing so, Rumsfeld would have created two kinds of unknowns. Because clearly you couldn’t have these kinds of unknowns known — they would instead be “known unknowns.” For example, the first kind of unknown might be WMDs: we didn’t know if Iraq had them at that time. The second kind of unknown might be Al-Qaeda in Iraq: the administration didn’t (seemingly) even consider the possibility of the rise of such groups.

Regardless of how you look at it, Rumsfeld’s idea of “unknown unknowns” was always meant to obfuscate. I remember Rumsfeld going around quoting Laozi, “Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.” The implication was, “Because I won’t tell you anything, you should trust me.” And just look at him in the video above: he’s so self-impressed. It reminds me of something I read from Matt Bruenig a while back. He was talking about libertarians and how almost all of them seem to think that they are the smartest people in any room. That sums up Rumsfeld. What he “knows” that isn’t actually true is that he’s very smart. He’s just smart enough to be really dangerous.

The Real News Network released a great interview with Christian Appy, Vietnam Blood Bath to Prove America Had “Balls.” It is in support of his new book, American Reckoning: the Vietnam War and Our National Identity. But this interview is specifically about a little discussed aspect of our war making: the need to appear “strong.” We see this clearly today. After the Iraq War started to go south and the stated rationale for it was exposed as a lie, the primary justification for staying was that we couldn’t “cut and run.” It was all framed in terms of “strength” and the immorality of “cowardice.”

The irony of this approach to war is that these appeals to strength show the terror of the proponents. A strong person isn’t worried about what people think of her. It is the weak person who is concerned that others will see her as weak. By continuing an irrational policy in the name of appearing weak shows that you are, in fact, weak. This is a problem that plagues both conservatives and liberals in modern America. There is a strong tendency to mistake bluster for strength. That’s why Marco Rubio thinks he is projecting strength by quoting action movies.

Appy’s focus is on Vietnam, and so thus on presidents Kennedy and Johnson. It was, of course, Kennedy’s bluster that caused the Cuban Missile Crisis. Appy noted, “Kennedy even went so far as to suggest that Adlai Stevenson, who was representing us at the United Nations, had wanted to sell us out…” This supposed sellout was the suggestion that the USSR remove its missiles from Cuba in exchange for our removing missiles from Turkey. That was, after all, the primary reason that the Soviet Union put the missiles in Cuba in the first first place. And Stevenson’s proposal was the deal that ended the crisis. But Kennedy didn’t want this known. But to show just how pathetic this is: the only ones who were fooled were the American people; internationally, people knew what really happened. So this isn’t even about the US looking “strong,” but just Kennedy looking “strong” here at home.

Similarly, Johnson was once in a private meeting with journalists. He was pressed about why he continued pushing forward with the Vietnam war. Eventually, Johnson pulled his penis out of pants and said, “This is why.” The fact that our leaders are about as mature as 13-year-old boys should concern us greatly. But it shouldn’t surprise us. Regardless, if we weren’t so inclined toward the sunk costs fallacy, presidents wouldn’t be able to channel their inner adolescent.

The follow quote from Appy’s book provides a good condensation of the wider process:

There is no doubt that the people, at least, start off with some “good” reason for supporting wars. These are very often humanitarian. Remember how the gassing of the Kurds was used to justify the Iraq War? But after a short time, it becomes nothing more than saving face. We’ve made a terrible mistake, but if we just keep fighting, maybe we can turn it into a win. It’s total fantasy.

Afterword

Check out the excellent documentary, War Made Easy:

I was over at Real Clear Politics looking at their 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination page. It provides their best guesses of where the various candidates — real and imagined — are in the polls. And it is interesting. In first place, of course, is Hillary Clinton with almost 64%. And at the back is the newest man in the race, Martin O’Malley, with less than one percent. I’m sure now that he’s announced, O’Malley will probably come up in the polls. But I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that he is destined for small things in 2016.

In The Onion Candidate Profile: Martin O’Malley, it notes his major name recognition with the campaign slogan, “A vote for me is a vote for Martin O’Malley.” And his goal is, “To defeat Bernie Sanders.” All I can say is, “You dream big governor!” On Friday, Brian Beutler wrote about this, Martin O’Malley Shouldn’t Be Mad at Bernie Sanders — and Shouldn’t Attack Clinton, Either. It is partly about rumors that O’Malley is angry that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is flocking to Sanders as they say, “Martin who?” But mostly, it is just Beutler wondering what the hell O’Malley thinks he’s running for. Vice-president? I think Hillary already has Maryland covered.

But the overall polling is quite interesting. Other than Clinton, the top two candidates are not running — one of them has said she will not run:

• 63.6% Clinton
• 12.5% Warren
• 9.5% Biden
• 8.8% Sanders
• 2.6% Webb
• 1.8% Chafee
• 0.8% O’Malley

Jim Webb has three times the support that O’Malley does, and he is still exploring just how much he will lose to Hillary Clinton. But like I said: O’Malley will go up in the polls. They all will likely go up in the polls after the debates start and everyone finally comes to terms with the fact that Warren and Biden are not going to run.

But I wonder about this list. It seems to me that it is largely just a reflection of most people being in favor of Clinton and the rest being in favor of someone who is not Clinton. Certainly, most of the people who now support Warren will go on to support Sanders. I really see this campaign being a two way race between Clinton and Sanders. Of course, Clinton is going to dominate. And even if she implodes, I think Sanders has a 25% ceiling for support. The “socialist” label scares Democrats — not because we have a problem with it, but because we are afraid that it will be a problem in the general election.

As for O’Malley, Chafee, and Webb (if he runs)? I don’t see them getting traction. For those who think that Clinton is too conservative and cozy with Wall Street, Sanders is the obvious choice. For those fine with Clinton, what would be the point of voting for someone who is just a little more to your liking when Clinton is (1) good enough and (2) going to win anyway? But I think it’s great that O’Malley’s in the race. I’ll be interested to hear what he has to say. And by the time this article is up, Chafee will probably be in the race. It’s all good. At least all the potential Democrats are plausible candidates and none of them are embarrassing.

Update (1 June 2015 11:33 pm)

Brian Beutler wrote an article I was kind of waiting for, Let’s Put Bernie Sanders’s “Momentum” in Perspective. He shows data that highlight what I’m talking about: Sanders is consolidating the “not Clinton” vote. He isn’t hurting Clinton at all. And in the end, he may peak early and not come to anything. But I think there are a lot of people out there like me who look forward to voting for Sanders in the primary and Clinton in the general. Will someone be able to steal his thunder? Maybe. But I kind of doubt it.

I just read Jon Ronson’s excellent new book, So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed. I will probably write about it later in a general sense. But I wanted to highlight of the cases that Ronson discusses in his sixth chapter, “Doing Something Good.” It tells the story of a guy named “Hank” who was at a tech conference. He and a friend were making jokes involving sexual innuendo to each other. It bothered another conference attendee, Adria Richards. So she snapped a picture of the two and posted it on Twitter. This lead to “Hank” losing his job. When “Hank” posted a comment on a tech website about getting fire, all hell broke lose on Richards, who ended up getting fired as a result.

This incident is presented in the book in as objective a way as it probably can be. It’s easy to look down on Richards, but her basic critique of the situation as privileged white guys misbehaving without consequence is borne out by the end result of the whole thing. “Hank” got a new job almost immediately. As of the writing of the book, Richards still hadn’t been able to find another job. But to look at this whole episode as an incident between two people is wrong.

Imagine what would have happened in this situation if neither “Hank” nor Richards had to fear for their jobs. “Hank” would have been a little shamed and would have been more careful about what he said in public. Richards would have felt that she had made the world a slightly better place. And that would have been the end of it. It was “Hank’s” employer who decided that he needed to be fired. This was not some big publicity hit to the company. Both the primary people in this incident were unknowns and very few people were even aware of the incident. “Hank’s” friend, as far as I know, was not fired.

Richards’ firing makes more sense as a result of business thinking. Because of the backlash against her, a DoS attack was launched against her company, crippling its website. But given the situation, this firing is even more outrageous. The company showed absolutely no backbone and no loyalty. It reminds me of something I hear constantly from employers, “Workers aren’t loyal anymore!” The history of this is pretty clear: it was employers who first stopped being loyal. But those involved in the DoS got what they wanted: the firing of Richards. Why was that their target?

Neither Richards nor “Hank” are powerful people, although clearly “Hank” is part of the bourgeois whereas Richards is not. But these kinds of fights have got to thrill the power elite. As long as the lower classes are fighting amongst themselves, the truly powerful have nothing to fear. This is, of course, the purpose of the bourgeois as laid out in Chris Hedges’ Death of the Liberal Class. As a result, maybe we should be attacking the “Hanks” of the world. I really don’t know. But I do know that the more direct target is the system itself, and it exists at the pleasure of the power elite. No amount of interpersonal understanding is a substitute for direct organizing for the purpose of economic change.

Afterword

Obviously, I don’t know Adria Richards. But based upon her Twitter feed, she’s a smart, articulate, and capable person. Why hasn’t anyone in the tech industry hired her? I probably know the answer: it is an incredibly insular and petty industry that nonetheless pats itself on the back (Constantly!) about how open-minded and “diverse” it is. (Look at all the diversity in the photo above!) Silicon Valley should be ashamed. But I think it lost the ability long ago.

I grew up in a family that always had small businesses. I’ve also worked for various small businesses. And as a result of this, I’m not that keen on small businesses. Here in the United States, we tend to fetishize the small business. But I think that is just a cover for being pro-corporate and pro-rich. It sounds so much better to talk about “small businesses” just like we talk about the “family farm.” But in general, I’ve been treated much better by larger businesses. Small businesses are much more likely to abuse their employees and, for that matter, the environment and the law more generally.

Just the same, when it comes to the government, it is the larger businesses that are a pox. And so it makes sense that the government should try to spend its money with small businesses. The more money that goes to big businesses, the more direct corruption there will be. Big businesses can and do lobby the government for special laws and for contracts. (In general, the way this works is that they get the requests for proposals to be structured in such a way that the particular company is at a clear advantage.) And there are other reasons, as well. For example, pushing contracts to small businesses is a way to limit inequality. Thus, the 1997 Small Business Reauthorization Act, which required that 23% of all federal contracts go to small businesses, is a good thing.

Not surprisingly, during the Bush administration, no effort was made to reach this goal. So much for the Republican Party’s pretense that it is the defender of the small business. But when Obama got into office, he promised to take this requirement very seriously. But as Matt Yglesias reported last week, The Government Says Small Businesses Get 23% of Federal Contracts. Reality Says Otherwise. It’s actually kind of shocking, but it would seem this is more about the government deluding itself rather than some effort to fool the people.

There are three ways that the percentage of small businesses getting contracts is overstated:

1. Five Year Loophole: when a small company is bought by a larger company, the government continues to consider it a “small business” for five years. This is despite the fact that the law says the company should be reclassified within 30 days.
2. Eligibility Loophole: The 23% only applies to federal contracts that are eligible to small businesses. This turns out to be only 77% of contracts. Thus, even if the 23% target were reached, it would represent only 18% of all contracts.
3. Errors: Roughly a half percent of all contracts (2.5% of the small business contracts) were simply misidentified as being given to small businesses

Yglesias noted that it may not be reasonable to expect 23% of government contracts to go to small businesses. He thinks that the government would thus be better off redefining the target and then reporting the data correctly. I wonder if this isn’t a bad way for the government to encourage small businesses. It does reek of the indirect measures so loved of neoliberals. My own experience with various micro-businesses is that various government policies that are trivial for big businesses are onerous for very small businesses. (For example: inventory taxes.) If the government actually cared, it would do something about this. Giving out contracts to small businesses is a good thing. But this whole 23% target business seems more about PR than actually leveling the playing field for smaller businesses.

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the country. It is time to write your Congressional Representative about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). I’ve heard some whispers that fast-track authority has enough votes in the House. This is it, my friends. This is the last stand. If we don’t stop this in the House, then we are going to get the TPP. And as I’ve said before, it isn’t going to be a major thing. The American worker has already been harmed almost as much as she can be. But this is yet another step in the wrong direction.

So all you have to do is call or write your Representative. But I know that most people don’t know their Representatives. So you can use the Find Your Representative tool on the House of Representatives’ website. All you need to know is your zip code. In some cases, there will be more than one Representative. It is perhaps best to get your “zip code plus 4,” which you can can look up at the USPS website. Regardless, it isn’t hard. And it is really important — for the country.

As to what to say or write, it doesn’t much matter. Just say you are against it. I’ve included the letter that I sent to my Representative, Mike Thompson. Feel free to use any part of it. The main thing is to make contact. We don’t need this “trade” deal.

Are you still here?! Isn’t there something you should be doing?

Joshua Huder over at Rule 22 wrote an interesting, but I think ultimately misleading article, Left or Right? Who’s Further From the Middle? It has to do with this recent dust up over Peter Wehner’s ridiculous claim that the Republicans haven’t gotten any more conservative while Democrats have become way more liberal. Some people have used the standard Voteview graph that shows both parties getting further away from the center, but the Republicans doing so in a much bigger way. Huder pointed out that this only represents roll call votes, and so is a skewed sample. I’ll come back to that issue in a moment.

The obvious response to this idea is that the roll call votes still tell us a lot. And Huder doesn’t disagree with that. His whole article, however, is basically an apologia for the Republicans. He certainly wouldn’t agree with that characterization. But all he’s really doing is making a political science argument that there are incentives for Congressional Republicans to push for roll call votes that allow them to show how conservative they are to their base. Fair enough. But the issue is not how conservative Congressional Republicans are in their heart of hearts. The issue is how conservative the party itself is.

All Huder adds to the discussion is that Republican politicians have reasons for what they do. This is obvious. I think we’ve been arguing this for a long time. The narrative goes something like the following. Congressional Republicans come largely from very safe districts and states. Thus, any candidate who wins the nomination will win the general election. Thus, Republican condidates compete with each other to see who can be the most conservative — the most pure. This situation is made all the worse with conservative groups like the NRA that “score” votes. But claiming that Congressional Republicans are rational to appeal to their crazy base misses the point.

Here is the Voteview graph that I mentioned above. There are a couple of things worth mentioning about it. The first is that it doesn’t show any real movement at all for northern Democrats. So the entire “liberal trend” is based upon southern Democrats. And as we know, there aren’t that many southern Democrats. Those that used to be southern Democrats are now Republicans who are as crazy or crazier than any of the other Republicans. So the Democrats, even by this accounting, are no more liberal than they were in 1960:

But I think this graph is distorted in a way that no one talks about. I’m interested in what has happened to the Democrats regarding economic issues. Voteview did provide a graph on social issues. And in that one, we’ve seen that the House Democrats have gotten much more liberal. I suspect that on the issue of foreign policy, Democrats are roughly as liberal now as they have been. This implies that on economic issues, Democrats have become more conservative. This is certainly what I’ve noticed based on observations over the years.

The point is that becoming more liberal regarding LGBT rights is great, but it isn’t compensation for allowing the minimum wage to atrophy. Or for pushing more job killing “trade” deals like the TPP. Or abandoning the labor union movement. These are the issues that most matter not just to me but to the American people. And largely the Democratic Party has managed to maintain its status as the liberal party based upon social issues. This is a major problem. We shouldn’t allow the party to do that because it really hurts the country in terms of economic debate.

So I think the discussion should be what has happened to the parties regarding economic issues. And in that regard, the Democrats have gotten more conservative. And the Republicans have gotten absurdly more conservative. So the Democratic shift with regard to these issues has actually made the extreme shift of the Republicans seem more reasonable than it actually is. People arguing that the Democrats have become more liberal should either stick to discussing social issues or be laughed out of polite society.