The Washington Post - USA (2022-04-10)

SUNDAY, APRIL 10 , 2022. THE WASHINGTON POST EZ RE A31

B

efore he was installed by W inston Churchill to serve as first secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organi- zation, Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay tartly summarized the purpose of the new alliance: “Keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in and the Germans down.” Some 70 years later, Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine has reawakened the West to the importance of the first two imperatives. Moscow has not given up its dreams of empire nor its will to dominate its neighbors. Russian dictator Vladimir Putin once said the disso- lution of the Soviet network of vassal states was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” a pretty strong signal that he would willingly reverse the tide of freedom even beyond Ukraine if given a chance. So Moscow must continue to be kept out. To accomplish that, the Americans must be kept in — not just because Uncle Sam has the biggest bankroll and the strongest military. The United States is a uniquely catalyzing force, unburdened by thousands of years of European history and the grudges, rivalries and suspicions such friction entails. The United States gives NATO a center of gravity. The third element of Ismay’s formu- la will not survive this crisis, however. Germany is no longer down; in fact, it is the linchpin of the resistance to Putin, thrust into prominence by a conver- gence of factors: its wealth, its geogra- phy and its ingrained fear of its worst self. Europe’s desire to keep the Germans down was certainly understandable. The formation of a single Germany from disparate lesser powers was among the most fateful achievements of the 19th century, for the young nation was both muscular and aggres- sive. Militaristic German nationalism fueled the world wars of the 20th century, leaving uncountable tens of mil- lions dead. Divided and occupied after World War II, Germany would not be whole again for 45 years. The question for the reunified Germany was how to resume its natural place as Europe’s leading economy — a function of its rich resources and central location — while remaining deliberately weak in military terms. As decades passed, the question blurred, until in recent years critics of the NATO arrangement — most nota- bly former U.S. president Donald Trump — harshly criticized Germany for spending too little on its military. No longer concerned about keeping the Germans down, these voices were now demanding that Germany step up. Meanwhile, the Germans themselves struggled under the weight of their belligerent past. In recent years, they seemed to find an answer to the conundrum of partial power by claiming the role of rescuers, rather than conquerors. Germany would lead the world’s fight against climate change. Europe’s largest producer, and consumer, of coal volunteered to go coal- free by 2038. At the same time, Ger- many would also shut down its nuclear power plants. Here, it seemed, was a way for Germany to be strong and good at the same time. But there was a catch, and Putin has exposed it. To get free of domestic coal and nuclear power, Germany came to rely on fossil fuels from Russia. However hypocritical this delicately nuanced situation might be — Ger- many outsourcing its dirty business to Russia while claiming leadership of the climate campaign — the Ukraine crisis has blown it all to bits. Days after Russian tanks rolled over the Ukraini- an border, Germany announced a major increase in military spending, a step that surely started Lord Ismay spin- ning in his grave. The Berlin government also agreed to take an active role in arming the Ukrainian r esistance. Given Germany’s history, the enthu- siasm among Western allies for these steps was striking. Anyone wondering how long Germany would be stigma- tized by its Nazi past now has the answer. Let’s hope that 77 years in timeout is enough to teach a durable lesson. For now, the West can no longer afford to neuter Germany — not when a new dictator is attempting his own nationalist blitzkrieg. But military spending is the easy part. The West’s resolve will begin to melt, and the Putin regime will go unpunished, unless Germany also rises to the formidable challenge of undoing its dependence on Russian fuels. The symbolic seizures of super yachts from Russian oligarchs make for good photo ops. Yet if Russian natural gas contin- ues to power Europe’s largest economy as though nothing has changed, Putin and his friends will have money enough to buy new yachts. Thus a strong, resolute — and tough — Germany is essential to the fight against Putin. Fascist nationalism, the same madness that made a pariah of Germany, is loose again in Europe, this time calling Germany back to battle. Behold the strange and circular work- ings of history.

DAVID VON DREHLE

Germany

is crucial

to the fascist

resistance

chicago

P

rophecy is optional folly, but predicting a convulsive crisis for the nation’s worst-governed state merely involves under- standing its present parlous condition. From 16 stories above the Chicago River, the reformers at the invaluable Illinois Policy Institute have stared into their state’s fiscal abyss and devised solutions. This libertarian think tank’s ideas might, however, be politically impossible, given the blue-state governance model that has made the mess: the Democratic Party and government em- ployee unions, bound together with hoops of steel. Illinois is gagging on government, with more units of local government than any other state, and nearly 1,000 more — not counting school districts — than its neighbors Indiana, Iowa and Kentucky combined. Illinois spends five times more on school districts’ general administrative costs than Florida, which has 900,000 more students. The nationwide, but mostly Demo- cratic, incontinence regarding pension promises for government employees has driven state and local governments’ unfunded commitments to almost $5 trillion. Illinois’ debt, relative to the size of its economy, is the nation’s worst. The unfunded liabilities of state- managed pension systems are $313 billion, which is around 30 percent of Illinois’ gross domestic product. Even sustained brisk economic growth would not solve the pension crisis under current law. And current law makes such growth impossible. In 2015, a bipartisan pension reform was scuttled by the state Supreme Court’s decision that the Illinois Consti- tution protects government employees’ pensions from any diminishment — not merely of already accrued benefits but of all potential future benefits for employees already in the system. The Illinois Policy Institute’s proposed constitution- al amendment — which would require 60 percent majorities in both houses of the legislature, then ratification by statewide referendum — would allow future pension benefits to be reduced to sustainable levels, while protecting current benefits. The amendment would make possible correcting the following conditions: State and local employees hired before 2011, whose contributions to their own pensions average only 4 to 6 percent of expected lifetime payouts, will typically receive payouts that exceed — sometimes by a lot — $2 million. The compounding of 3 percent annual cost- of-living increases, regardless of the inflation rate, doubles pensions after 25 years. Americans’ full Social Security benefits cannot be collected until recipi- ents are 67; Illinois state employees hired before 2011 can retire in their 50s. The average pension funding ratio for the 50 states is alarmingly low, but almost double that of Illinois, which has only 42.4 cents saved for every dollar promised. Illinois’ credit rating has been downgraded 21 times since 2009 and now is near that of junk bonds. Between fiscal 2000 and 2022, spending on pensions grew 584 percent, 23 times the percent increase in pre-K-12 spending. Unlike for cities (e.g., Detroit in 2013), there is no clear legal provision for state bankruptcies. So, imagine the reaction of U.S. senators from the vast majority of better-governed states when Illinois comes seeking a federal bailout. Illinois’ northern edge is north of Cape Cod, its southern tip is south of Richmond, and from the Wisconsin border to the Kentucky border, there is support for splitting Illinois into two states — Cook County (Chicago), and the other 101 counties. This will not happen, but it might educate the six members of the 50-member Chicago City Council who are members of the Democratic Socialist Party and are learning Marga- ret Thatcher’s axiom that sooner or later socialists run out of other people’s money. Chicago’s eight pension funds have more debt than 45 states. Indigo — beyond blue — Illinois has not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988; Joe Biden carried it by 17 points. With the nation’s heaviest state and local tax burden on the middle class, the state is, unsurprisingly, in a downward spiral: Sluggish growth ac- celerates population loss, which increases the per capita tax burden, which further narrows the tax base by driving away businesses. This injures Democrats’ national prospects: In eight of 10 states — the Great Lakes region, plus Missouri, Iowa and Upstate New York — more than 40 percent of voters live in working- class towns dependent on manufactur- ing. In these towns in 2020, Biden did 2 million votes worse than Barack Obama did in 2012. Nine of these 10 states account for 93 percent of the entire nation’s decline in union m embership. The Illinois Policy Institute’s proposed reforms might save the Democrat- ic Party from the deindustrializing con- sequences of its blue-model governance. If so, the IPI will accept this unintended consequence philosophically, as redun- dant proof that no good deed goes unpunished.

GEORGE F. WILL

It’s unlikely,

but Illinois

could escape

its fiscal abyss

P

sst. Have you heard? Mickey Mouse is a groomer. So wrote American Con- servative senior editor Rod Dreher, one of many on the far right who lately have wielded accusations of pedophilia and child sex abuse to slime opponents (real or cartoon) of Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law, more broadly known as the “don’t say gay” bill. This was part of an extended salvo: “About the term ‘groomers,’” Dreher later clarified, “it’s usually used to describe pedophiles who are preparing innocent kids for sexual exploitation. I think it is coming to have a somewhat broader meaning: an adult who wants to separate children from a normative sexual and gender identity, to inspire confusion in them, and to turn them against their parents and all the normative traditions and institutions in s ociety.” Ostensibly, then, this reckless de- ployment of a highly charged accusa- tion is meant to keep kids safe from sexual confusion and harm. But the “groomer” discourse isn’t really about safety. It’s about control. And it could end up doing much more harm than good. The “groomer” talking point has been taken up by political spokes - people, Fox News hosts and conservative celebrities, who have used the term to describe anyone from educators who let it slip that they have a same-sex partner to the Mouse himself. (Disney is under fire in conservative circles for having opposed Florida’s bill.) The s uggestion is that by introducing — or simply being willing to introduce — children to questions of sexual orienta- tion or gender identity, educators risk making young people more vulner- able to sexual predation or abuse. I ndiscriminately labeling teachers “ pedophiles” will help keep kids safe!

Of course, if conservatives really wanted to keep children safe from sexual predation, there is much they could do besides smear Mickey Mouse for occasionally sporting a pair of rainbow ears. They might have spent more time closing the loopholes in Tennessee’s Republican-proposed “common-law marriage” bill that would have legal- ized child marriage (an amendment to address this oversight was added to the bill only last week, after progressive outcry). They might turn a more watch- ful eye toward members of their own party — Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, for instance, is actually under investiga- tion t o determine whether he had sex with a minor and engaged in sex traf- ficking. (Gaetz has emphatically de- nied the allegations.) They could have vocally supported legislation like the Emergency Funding for Child Protec- tion Act, which was meant to support programs to prevent child abuse and neglect during the covid-19 pandemic. (That bill was eventually folded into the American Rescue Plan, which didn’t receive a single Republican vote.) None of that is happening. Which indicates that this frenzy about “groomers” and pedophiles is not about children’s well-being. Rather, it’s being used to manipulate a narrative and to discipline companies, individuals and even kids themselves. The “Mickey is a groomer” attack stems from the idea that the best way to punish Disney for not getting in line with the Florida law is to accuse the corporation of pedophilia. And the tossing around of highly charged phrases is meant to silence teachers and educators in a way that legislation never could, by equating certain teaching material with pornography and the teachers themselves (especially those openly LGBTQ) with sexual predation. As conservative pundit Jesse Kelly

put it in a Twitter thread that was later deleted: “Call them groomers and pedophiles if they oppose it. Put THEM on the defensive. Make THEM afraid.” He continued: “You have the high ground. Use it to destroy your enemy.” It’s a cynical exploitation of loaded language to make bad-faith attacks. It’s also a way for parents to control what their children hear, by making any- thing that they oppose — same-sex marriage, say, or gender fluidity — seem beyond the pale. Although I don’t agree with the tac- tic, I do have some sympathy for the motive. It’s understandable that parents want to be the ones who teach their children what to believe. It’s worth asking just how early children need to be exposed to certain information about sex, or whether certain gender ideologies need to be discussed in a kindergarten classroom. Yet taken to the extreme — and the equating of early sex education with “grooming” is certainly extreme — these valid questions disappear in a haze of QAnon- inflected invective. Plus, parents aren’t always right. And being involved in curriculum f ormation and teaching, while a worthy goal, does not mean controlling it from the top down. Sooner or later, all c hildren become their own people — or at least they should. And over- sheltering can leave kids more open to harm. This new vocabulary game might end up backfiring. The conservative movement’s insistence on brandishing hyperbolic language will make their complaints sound less credible, not more. And if everything is “grooming,” soon nothing will be — which means parents may find it harder to call out real instances of abuse and predation when they do occur. In that scenario, Mickey won’t be the one who has lost.

CHRISTINE EMBA

M-I-C-K-E-Y is a groomer, too!

MARVIN JOSEPH/THE WASHINGTON POST A Pride-themed Mickey Mouse plush photographed in 2019.

BY GRAHAM ALLISON AND FRED HU

A

t the dawn of the 20th century, as the Russo-Japanese War grew increasingly violent, the leader of a nation that had never played a role on the global stage stepped forward to become the peacemaker. After more than 100,000 Russian and Japanese soldiers died in the bloody battle of Mukden, Russia’s czar and Japan’s emperor were ready to respond to Theodore Roosevelt’s proposal. He invited each man to send a representative to the United States to negotiate a peace treaty. Could Chinese President Xi Jinping take a page from Roosevelt’s playbook to end the war in Ukraine? Many differ- ences separate Roosevelt’s United States of 1905 and Xi’s China today. And histori- cal analogues are not cookbook recipes that one can simply follow step-by-step to produce the desired result. Nonetheless, similarities between these two leaders and opportunities presented by history are instructive. In the early 1900s, the United States was a rising power exercising its influence in the West- ern Hemisphere, but it had never taken center stage in international affairs. Al- though Roosevelt had no personal rela- tionship with either the emperor or czar, he was confident that he could deal with any leader as an equal. The United States had not yet become a major military power, but Roosevelt had plans to sail the American fleet around the world, including through the seas between Russia and Japan. And the United States was emerg- ing as a major trading nation. Today, history has dealt Xi a much stronger hand — if he were to decide to play it. First, China has much thicker relations with both Russia and Ukraine

than the United States had with Russia and Japan a century ago. Given Xi’s personal standing with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and the immense stakes involved for both, neither could refuse his invitation to go to Beijing. As the largest trading partner of both Moscow and Kyiv, China also has significant lever- age it could use in trying to persuade each to compromise. Second, China’s diplomatic position strengthens its hand as a mediator. In the aftermath of Russia’s invasion, China struggled to articulate its public position. On one hand, Russia’s attack violated the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that Beijing considers pillars of its foreign policy. On the other hand, China has not wanted to alienate a nation with which Xi announced a “no limits” partnership. While awkward, this diplomatic positioning now gives Xi room to maneuver in brokering a deal. China has strong incentives to end the war. The Russian invasion and ferocious U.S.-led Western response are upending the global economy. Supply-chain i nterruptions and soaring energy prices are creating uncertainties in financial markets that have caused leading fore- casters to reduce their expectations for global growth this year by 0.8 percentage points — or $700 billion. As the largest energy consumer and exporter of goods, China risks losing more from this disrup- tion than anyone but the combatants. Having a vivid memory of the financial crisis of 2008 that almost became a second Great Depression, China’s leaders are rightly worried about risks to the global financial system. As Premier Li Keqiang acknowledged recently, China’s economy faces an increasingly “grave” external e nvironment.

A Chinese initiative for peace could also improve China’s global standing. The storm created by Putin’s brutal aggres- sion, Ukraine’s courageous resistance and President Biden’s mobilization of the West to try to make Russia a pariah are shaping geopolitics for the decade ahead. Having embraced Putin at a meeting just three weeks before the invasion, China has made itself a target for claims that it is just another Russia “with Chinese characteris- tics.” To prevent Putin’s stink from rubbing off on Xi and his fellow Chinese, prudence would dictate a policy that goes beyond the current calls for an end to the fighting. Undertaking such an initiative would require preparation, and there are count- less devils in the details. Should China act unilaterally or propose a joint venture with the United States? If these two rivals work together as peacemakers, that could help both understand the necessity for operational cooperation to reduce risks of future confrontations, including over Tai- wan. Deciding when the time is ripe for mediation also requires calculated judg- ment. But Russia’s announcement of a pivot in its campaign, together with Z elensky’s recent signals that he is willing to make significant concessions, suggests it may be soon. As Roosevelt put it at the signing of the peace treaty between Russia and Japan: “It’s a mighty good thing for Russia and a mighty good thing for Japan.” If Xi can take the lead to make peace in Ukraine, it would certainly be a mighty good thing for the world.

Graham Allison is the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at Harvard Kennedy School and the author of “Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?” Fred Hu is the founder and chair of Primavera Capital Group.

How Xi and Biden can broker peace in Ukraine

The Washington Post - USA (2022-04-10)

Get our desktop app

Company

Features

Documentation

Resources