Are We Too Powerful?

What is wrong with our foreign policy? Is it that our military is too big? Review of "The Power Problem", by Christopher Preble.

What is power? A simple and evocative word, but a complicated concept that we Americans seem naive about. We have the most nuclear bombs of anyone on the planet. But would we ever use them? Obviously not. So they do not really increase our power in many, most, and possibly any practical ways. The only setting where nuclear bombs are useful is the precise opposite of the one we occupy- a case like North Korea, which with only a handful deliverable bombs, and the madness to use one, can effectively deter us from ever attempting to overthrow their system. It represents power in only the most existential extremity, and none at all in the usual hurly burly of diplomacy, conflict, terrorism, and small wars.

Similar considerations apply to other levels of military power. We can precision-bomb anyone, anywhere, but does that make us powerful? Not if power really means getting other people to do what you want. Over the last couple of decades, terrorists have shown that they have the power to make us to what they want- start wars, drop bombs all over the place, aggravate a lot of friends, create ungoverned spaces, and make air travel miserable for millions. But have we had the power to make them do what we want? Precious little, other than the extremely blunt method of killing them piecemeal in a game of whackamole which is reaching a dispiriting state of functional surrender in Afghanistan, and stalemate elsewhere.

For people will do what they want, and military methods are never a good or efficient way to make them do otherwise. Rome ran a very militaristic and terroristic system, which is the way things have to be if others are going to bent to one's will by military means. This is the problem of international relations, and particularly our problem having taken on the role of the world's policeman, and gotten embroiled in numerous conflicts ranging from bitterly disappointing (Vietnam, Syria, Afghanistan) to catastrophic (Iraq).

Preble is writing out of the Cato Institute, (and in the realist tradition I have reviewed recently), and adopts a nuanced libertarian stance- that we should not do so much, should allow others to do more, that standing down a little bit would benefit everyone, especially ourselves. The record of the last few decades speaks for itself- that we have made several very bad blunders, mostly by rushing to the "military option" with too little thought. Preble puts a lot of focus on the military- how expensive it is, how intrusive into the rest of society, how wasteful, and how its very size and capability encourage policy makers to use it, like the proverbial hammer. He is an exponent of the Powell doctrine, which sought to hedge our enthusiasm by asking some critical questions, principally whether a particular military action really addresses a national security interest of the United States. Preble is of the opinion that our true interests are quite narrow- simply defense of the continental territory, and that everything else about our world-wide hegemony is not a core interest and could be de-emphasized, if not jettisoned.

Exhibit A is our Middle East policy. The word "inane" comes up in Preble's discussion, and it is hard to disagree. Despite our alarm over the Arab oil embargos of the 1970s, oil has generally found a way to market whatever we do. When we have tried to block exports from countries such as Iraq and Iran, their oil has found markets anyhow, if in reduced amounts, for the simple reason that they have little else to live from. Not even the richest petrostates can refrain from exports for very long. So our decades of support for some of the most retrograde governments imaginable, including garrisons in Saudi Arabia (now shuttered), Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and elsewhere in the Gulf, to "keep the shipping lanes open" and "maintain the flow of oil" have been mostly a waste of time and resources- a deep strategic error. Our only policy should be to deny broad control over the oil centers to strategic enemies such as Russia, or now China. But ISIS? How are they so different from the Saudis? Each sells oil as enthusiastically as it can.

This points to the real problem of US power, which is not so much the seductions of military Rambo activities, but the plain stupidity that they enable and amplify. We have a foreign policy run by amateurs, by definition. The president is rarely elected for foreign policy credentials, and then builds a team (see Hillary Clinton) hardly any more knowledgeable or judicious. Our ambassadorial ranks are filled with political donors and flaks. The congress has given up any hope of retrieving its war powers.  And our professionals, in the State Department and wider intelligence community, have numerous problems as well. How can we make this system work better?

I don't think that trimming our ambitions and letting the world go to the dogs, which is to say, to whichever other powers such as China and Russia have the ambition to take our place, is the only solution. We have good intentions (at least outside of the current administration) and have been generally justfied in our post-World War 2 Pax Americana, despite numerous costly blunders. We have also been served by those good intentions, which generate acquiescence, if not enthusiasm, on the part of our many allies and friends towards our dominant role, which in turn brings us benefits in economic and strategic terms. Not enough to offset the cost, perhaps, but having a stable world is difficult to value, really. Having and keeping many friends is the surest way to proceed to a peaceful world, which is our ultimate goal. In this sense, our competition with China should be on the basis of who can be friendlier and more supportive of an orderly state of affairs among the many other countries of the world.

The question is how to continue our relatively benevolent services without winding up in grievous error because we want to "fix" some problems a bit too enthusiastically. Preble raises the question of alliances, pointing out their inherent danger. If we promise mutual protection with a vast number of frontier countries, from South Korea to Ukraine, we should not be surprised to be drawn into conflicts not of our choosing, which may be unwise. Allied countries naturally feel a bit more free to provoke their neighbors given such protection, and we only need to think of World War 1 to understand the danger of such interlocking, tripwire alliances. So one approach is to make our relations with other countries more contingent, dependent on continuing good relations rather than legalistic (which is ultimately fictitious anyhow) in character. We should have friendship treaties with many, but alliances with few. But that is a minor point, since most of our rushes into action have been justified in other ways.

The deeper problem is not in having a military that is too strong, or alliances that are too promiscuous, but in having a policy-making apparatus that lacks intelligence. For all our NSA, CIA, and other capabilities, we blundered into Iraq for reasons that involved personal psychology (Bush, Cheney), intelligence failures (CIA), failures of integrity (Rumsfeld, the military, CIA), failures of institutional balance (State vs military and CIA), and further failures of intelligence- in lacking knowledge not only of the state of Saddam's power structure and capabilities, but of the culture we would be faced with were we to succeed in removing him. It was portrayed as the liberation of Paris all over again, plus lots of oil. The absurdity of this vision comes down to the insularity of everyone in power and the weakness of countervailing institutions (i.e. the State Department) that might have had a better grasp of the matter.

So while Preble is dubious about expanding the State Department, "its aim is to relate to foreign nations, not to run them", that is exactly where we need to go to gain a more intelligent foreign policy. But in a very specific way. We need more knowledge of local cultures that is useful to us. Right now, the customary tour is for a two or three years. This is enough time to get a feel for local conditions and make lots of high-level contacts. But it is no way to gather deep knowledge of the wellsprings of local sentiment, and the wheels that make everything work in that culture. It is that knowledge that we were missing in Iraq, and in Vietnam, and in the Balkans, and many of our other misadventures. We should keep the short tour officers- they are less likely to be captured by the local culture, and keep their service-to-America discipline. But we should add a cadre of officers that are a sort of cross between Peace Corps and Foreign Service, who specialize in learning about one other place for the long haul, and are not under threat or obligation to move elsewhere, unless they wish to do so. A sort of Lawrence of Arabia model, who might make themselves useful by writing books about the local culture, reports for the local embassy, etc. They would necessarily be more loosely tied to the US government bureaucracy, and their knowledge would come with some caveats. We probably cultivate a variety of locals currently who provide such key knowledge, but it seems that it does not always make a sufficient impression to affect our policy, due to failures in translation.

Knowledge is power. Some white privilege and great cinematography doesn't hurt either.

The next question is how to slow the rush to war, and weigh expertise more heavily in our foreign policy councils, such that all this deep knowledge and intelligence from the field gets used to actually make decisions, rather than brushed aside by an incurious or incautious executive. The current structures of departments and the interdepartmental process through the NSC, are effective in shaping rational policy. But again, there are a lot of amateurs at this table. Every one at the top level is a political appointee, other than the President herself. While the Secretary of State should be speaking for the arm of the government that is deeply knowledgeable in foreign affairs, and for its expert employees, that is hardly a given. The NSC needs at least one representative from the professional ranks of the State Department, and also needs at least one representative from Congress, to exercise its oversight and constitutionally balancing role. In compensation, the council could probably do without the drug policy advisor, Energy Secretary, and White House Chief of Staff. This would make our core foreign policy-making institution more professional, accountable, and responsive to knowledge from the field. It needs also to take its long-term policy role more seriously, and spend less energy on micromanagement.

Turning back to our over-militarized stance in the world, using force less requires not so much that our military be made smaller. We have prowling through all the oceans shockingly powerful submarines to which no one pays much attention or wishes to use. No, the problem is one of strategic conception- that we fail to realize how limited the effective role of military action is, compared with the vast scope for friendly and constructive engagement with other nations.

Military power is simply the power to kill people, not to make them do or think what you want. As we learn in the old Westerns, coercion is the least effective, least humane, and least durable way to run a society. The model of global policing (if that is what we are doing) needs to be one of community policing, not of SWAT teams dropped from Apache helicopters. In Afghanistan and Iraq, we routinely killed the wrong people because we did not know true local conditions and got our "intelligence" from bad sources. That is what you get with the SWAT team model. Our own civil war can serve as another touchstone here. What if some other country had barged in and told us what was right, and had started an occupation? That would not have gone over well. The opportunities for insurgency and simmering ongoing warfare would have been quite a bit higher, though there was plenty of that in the postwar South as it was. The point is that our blithe talk about "the military option" routinely fails the most elementary test of foresight- to put ourselves in the other party's shoes.

• Our total debacle in Syria. But warning.. propaganda is likely here.
• Smart is sexy.
• Factory farming- not a pretty sight. 
• Some charter schools are frauds.
• Who could be less qualified than Herman Cain to serve on the Fed?
• Yes, it looks very bad.
• Brain injury is common, and dangerous.
• In Australia, a war on cats.

New Phases in the Nucleus

Special molecular interactions generate new phases of matter in various globs within the nucleus... but why?

One of the great events, near or at the orgin of life, was the advent of membranes- stable, flexible, but also rather tough structures build from amphipathic molecules, with water-loving head groups at one end and water-repellent, oil-like chains elsewhere. They sandwich together spontaneously to make the membrane (bilayer) sheet, which constitutes a separate phase from both the outside and inside of the cell. Getting across it is impossible for many molecules, which is highly protective, but has also necessitated a large zoo of transporters, channels and other mechanisms for transactions cells need to make with the outside.

Typical membrane, with a hydrophobic, oily interior that keeps it structurally coherent and impermeable to most aqueous substances. Note that it is, on a molecular scale, quite thick- bigger than most proteins.

It has gradually become apparent that the nucleus (whose envelope is a double membrane and which was borne of another great event in life- the origin of eukaryotes) harbors quite a variety of other phases of macromolecules, constituting zones, globs, speckles, assemblies- organelle-like structures that make study of the nucleus rather interesting. The story begins with the nuclear pore, which is where any moderate to large size molecule, up to partially constructed ribosomes, has to go to enter or leave the nucleus. Such cargo typically has a short segment in its protein chain that serves as a "signal", either for nuclear export or import. These signals bind to specialized transporter proteins which themselves have an unusual decoration of hydrophobic protein segments (HEAT repeats). The nuclear pore is lined with proteins carrying another decoration, forming an unstructured hydrophobic and homophilic mesh or gel of FG-repeats (named for their composition of phenylalanine and glycine) inside the pore. The transporter HEAT repeats can bind weakly,  but specifically, to these FG-repeats, or perhaps better, melt into them, and thus pass easily through the pore. It is a very clever scheme for controlling transport tightly with a mechanism that costs virtually no energy, since the transport is passive, going down the various molecules's concentration gradients.

Diagram of one nuclear pore complex. showing especially the mesh of FG-repeat protein tails that compose its interior and fringes. These interact with compatible transporter molecules to let large proteins and complexes through by selective diffusion.

But that is not all. The nucleus has long been known to have a large zone, the nucleolus, where ribosomal RNA genes are transcribed and where much of the assembly of ribosomes takes place. It is a dense mass of DNA, RNA, and proteins specialized to these tasks, a veritable factory for making this most abundant and complex component of cells.

An electron micrograph of one ribosomal gene in the act of being transcribed. Each rRNA transcript is a separate "branch" on this Christmas tree, showing the conveyor belt/factory nature of the process. Image at top, tracing at the bottom. The field is about 2.5 micrometers. This is only one of many ribosomal generation processes taking place within the nucleolus.

More recently, several other structures have been discovered in the nucleus, including speckles of RNA splicing components, Cajal bodies, PML bodies, paraspeckles, and others. And researchers have now realized that some transcriptional activation machinery forms similar blobs, called "super-enhancers". These have particularly high gene expression activity and seem to comprise a critical mass of regulatory RNAs, DNA-binding transcription factors, and a mess of mediators, histone modifiers, and other regulatory proteins in a sort of molten glob that segregates from the rest of the already-dense nuclear milieu. These are regarded as distinct liquid phases. Since DNA and RNA can bend, particularly between long-range enhancer regions and the promoter and coding regions of genes, it is possible to pack a lot of activity into a small, furiously active glob. And the high cooperativity that is implicit in the formation of such a glob is modeled, by a recent paper, to cause a sharp rise in transcriptional activation as well.

Model of condensed super-enhancers, (C, bottom), compared with run-of-the-mill enhancers, (C, top).  Their transcriptional activity (red) is, due to their greater size and stability, likely to be higher and far more consistent than that of even strong enhancers.

Why? One reason is that physical stability helps to keep the machine going, in contrast to usual interactions in the nucleus and elsewhere that are more sporadic, and fall apart as soon as they come together. Transcriptional activation, to take one example, relies on the coalescing (collusion, if you will!) of dozens of different proteins and complexes, all of which have to be available for other interactions as well, if dynamic gene regulation is to take place all over the genome. Most of these interactions are thus weak, so there is a critical mass (and perhaps composition) that distinguishes enduring, high-activity enhancer complexes, which can then be termed super-enhancer globs, from the normal form of enhancer that comes together on a far more temporary, ad-hoc basis. It is yet one more way, based on, but emergent from, the detailed composition of an enhancer, to turn up the gain on the target process that they regulate- transcription.

Different phases of matter thus have very significant roles in the cell, especially in the nucleus, allowing the establishment of mini-organelles / factories for operations that can be more efficient via the time-honored route of separation and specialization. They add to the sense of a sort of convergent evolution, since we already knew that there are conveyor belts, (DNA and RNA templates), just-in-time material and metabolic logistics, transport networks (actin, microtubules), and extraordinarily complex management methods in play.

• The pathological tau proteins in Alzheimer's bind to the nuclear pore proteins and gum up the works.
• One reason why our tax filing system is insane.
• Even evangelicals are getting fed up.
• Krugman is has it sort of backwards- Medicare for all may be politically difficult, but other countries show it can be done. Accomplishing much via a Green New Deal, on the other hand, is, while critically important, also very difficult.
• We have a savings glut.
• Craven catering to the Taliban, cont.
• Religiosity and brain damage?
• Impeachment richly warranted, but unlikely due to craven corruption.
• Veblen and the rot of inequality.
• Another view of MMT.

Breaking Secrets

A small way to increase labor power.

Why is inflation so persistently low? Even when the government is on a spending and tax-forgiveness binge, and interest rates have been rock-bottom for a decade? I have been spending some time with a left-inflected economics textbook from the 80's by Samuel Bowles et al., which gives a view of our situation that contrasts significantly from the mainstream free-market, neoliberal economics we have been fed for the last few decades. Perhaps its basic point is that capitalism only works when labor is exploited, yielding a surplus product. No profits = no capitalism. Thus the overarching aim of capitalists is to extract excess value from labor, over what is being paid out.

This extraction process has many dimensions, but a few of the salient ones deal with a odd role of markets in capitalism. Most people working in the capitalist system are not working in markets. They are employees, whose work is not bid on an hourly basis, who do not personally sell what they personally make, in a market. They exist in a command economy, quite divorced from this fantasm called "the free market". If they do not get along with their boss, they are fired. They are evaluated, not by market outcomes, but by subjective opinions of others around them, and are subject to a complex bureaucracy of control by the firm they are employed by. While the firm has market interactions with the outside, on the inside it is hardly different from a communist enterprise, indeed a good deal more heartless. Much of what corporations and the capitalist class lobbies for is not freer markets (heaven forbid!), but more ways to control workers, whether that is by right-to-work, weakening unions, keeping disputes out of open court, colluding with each other to not poach workers, staging "team-building" activities, stealing worker pay, reducing safety net programs, etc. So, contrary to the right-wing ideology of freedom, one of the main tasks of capitalists and their political servants is to reduce the freedom of workers.

The principal sword dangling over the employee is unemployment. That is the ultimate sanction, and is essential to the functioning of the whole system. Unlike other markets for goods, the labor market never clears, or settles on the stable demand/supply point. As the book comments, employers do not need to have a line of unemployed machines standing outside the gates to encourage the machines inside the factory to work harder. But they do need unemployement, both to support the command economy inside the firm, and also to keep the wages paid below the actual value given by labor. This connects additionally to one of the reasons for the business cycle- to raise unemployment and thereby "discipline" worker demands, in addition to moderating input prices and clearing out inefficient firms. It turns out that the full business cycle, including recessions, is as central to capitalism as capital itself. We can not have only good times, if corporations are going to clear profits by exploiting workers.

Which ultimately brings us back to inflation. We had a "great" recession in 2008, which led to very high unemployment and durably reduced output. Workers were very well disciplined, to the point that large numbers left the work force entirely. One consequence of all this discipline and lowered expectation has been that employers could get away with not raising pay. The trend of economic growth/benefits going entirely to the capitalists and rich, and none to workers, has continued at an accelerated pace through the period. A side effect of all this low pay is low inflation. This is in dramatic contrast to the late 1960's and 1970's, when worker power was high, unionization was high, and demands for pay were high. Workers expected not just cost of living raises, but seniority and productivity raises as well. Incidentally, the public sector, which is highly unionized and in a special position with political power over its employers, is a relic of that outdated world, resulting in bloated pay and pensions, which are now unheard of in the trenches of the real economy.

Workers have not gained from productivity increases for forty years.

So things are, from a long-term perspective, unbalanced. And what did voters in their wisdom do about it in 2016? They elected a hypercapitalist, who conned them into thinking that he wanted to do something for workers. Ha! Obviously, the progressive agenda is far more pertinent to workers, seeking to reduce instead of increase capitalist power. Progressives seek to increase worker power in a myriad of ways- regulation, a higher minimum wage, better safety net, more public services, higher wealth and income taxes. The strongest proposals so far aim at the lowest end of the scale- setting a living minimum wage, and also establishing the principle of jobs for all- a job guarantee that would set an even more robust floor for the job market and seriously impair the fear that unemployment inspires. Will capitalism survive? I think so- the Scandinavian countries have far more civilized regimes of public goods and worker protection, and seem to do OK.

But what about the bulk of workers in the middle rungs of the economy? Some additional thinking needs to be done to bolster their prospects in the fight with capitalists. While unions are highly beneficial for their members, their benefits are intrinsically balkanized and can be highly damaging to their industries- think of the car industry. A better way is to institutionalize broadly some of the benefits that unions have pioneered, such as the weekend, regulatory worker protections, and rights of political and economic organization.

One idea that I think would be very useful would be to break the secrecy on salary. One of the principal benefits of union membership is the transparency that it provides to workers- knowlege of what everyone is being paid, as a step to negotiating contracts. One of the greatest powers that corporations have, to steal pay and discriminate against classes of employees, is to keep pay secret, as though it were some kind of sacred trust. But many workplaces have transparent pay structures, such as union shops, boardrooms, and professional sports teams, and the sky has not fallen. What average workers need is government mandated transparency on pay in every workplace, so that everyone can see how they and others are being treated. Few measures would as effectively show injustice, generate fairer treatment, and give workers a more realistic picture of their prospects at a current or a future employer.

Would we get more inflation? Perhaps. But there are many ways to skin that cat, with credit, monetary and fiscal policy, rather than worker suppression. It is time for a little capitalist suppression- to right an economy, and a society, far out of kilter.

• How best to raise taxes?
• Stiglitz on the thorough-going corruption of the Trump administration.
• Lying without shame.. will it win the next election too?

That's Cool: Adolescent Brain Development

Brain power and integration increases with development, particularly in the salience network and in the wakeful, attentive beta waves.

We see it happen, but it is still amazing- the mental powers that come on line during child development. Neurobiologists are starting to look inside and see what is happening mechanistically- in anatomical connectivity, activity networks, and brain wave patterns. Some recent papers used fMRI and magnetoencephalography to look at activity correlations and wave patterns over adolescent development. While the methods and analyses remain rather abstruse and tentative, it is clear that such tendencies as impulsivity and cognitive control can be associated with observations about stronger brain wave activity at higher frequencies, lower activity at lower frequencies, and inter-network integration.

An interesting theme in the field is the recognition that not only is the brain organized physically in various crinkles, folds, nodules, etc., and by functional areas like the motor and sensory cortexes or Broca's area, involved in speech production, but that it is also organized in connectivity "networks" that can cross anatomical boundaries, yet show coherence, being coordinately activated inside much more densely than outside the network. An example is the default mode network (DMN, or task-negative network), which happens when adults are just resting, not attending to anything in particular, but also not asleep. This is an example of the brain being "on" despite little conscious mental work being done. It may be our unconscious at work or play, much like it is during sleep on a much longer leash. As one might imagine for this kind of daydreaming activity, it is strongly self-focused, full of memories, feelings, social observations, and future plans. Anatomically, the DMN extends over much of the brain, from the frontal lobes to the temporal and parietal lobes, touching on regions associated with the functions mentioned, like the hippocampus involved in memory, temperoparietal areas involved in sociality/ theories of mind, etc. There are roughly twenty such networks currently recognized, which activate during different mental fuctions, and they provide some answers to the question of how different brain areas are harnessed together for key functions typical of mental activity.

Two networks relevant to this current work are the salience network (SN) and the cingulo-opericular network (CN or CO). The latter is active during chronic attention- our state of being awake and engaged for hours at a time, termed tonic alertness. (This contrasts with phasic alertness, which is much shorter-term / sporadic and reactive).  It is one of several task-positive networks that function in attention and focus. The salience network spans cortical (anterior insula an dorsal anterior cingulate) and subcortical areas (amygdala and central striatum) binding together locations that play roles in salience- assigning value to new events, reacting to unusual events. It can then entrain other brain networks to take control over attention, behavior, thoughts, etc.

fMRI studies of the activity correlations between brain networks. The cingulo-opercular and salience network connections (gray) take a large jump in connectivity to other regions in early adolescence. At the same time, fronto-parietal network connections (yellow), characteristic of frontal control and inhibition of other networks, take a dive, before attaining higher levels going into adulthood.

Here we get to brain waves, or oscillations. Superimposed on the constant activity of the brain are several frequencies of electrical activity, from the super-slow delta waves (~ 1Hz) of sleep to the super-fast gamma waves (~50 Hz) which may or may not correlate with attention and perception. The slower waves seem to correlate with development, growth, and maintenance, while the faster waves correlate with functions such as attention and behavior. Delta waves are thought to function during the deepest sleep in resetting memories and other brain functions, and decline sharply with age, being pervasive in infants, and disappearing by old age. Faster waves such as theta (5-9 Hz), alpha (8-12), and beta (14-26 Hz) correlate with behavior and attention, and are generally thought to help bind brain activities together, rather than transmitting information as radio waves might. Attention is a clear example, where large brain regions are bound by coordinated waves, depending on what is being attended to. Thus the "spotlight of attention" is characterized both by the activation of selected relevant brain areas, and also by their binding via phase-locked neural oscillations. These are naturally highly variable and jumbled as time goes on, reflecting the saccadic nature of our mental lives.

One of the papers above focused on theta and beta waves, finding that adolescents showed a systematic move from lower to higher frequencies. While fMRI scans of non-oscillatory network activity showed greater integration with age, studies of oscillations showed that the main story was *de-coupling mainly at the lower frequencies. What this all seems to add up to is a reduction of impulsivity, via reduced wave/phase coupling between especially between the salience and other networks, at the same time as control over other networks is more integrated and improved, via increased connectivity. So control by choice goes up, while involuntary reactivity goes down. It is suggested that myelination of axons, as part of brain development along with pruning extra cells and connections, makes long-range connections faster, enabling greater power in these higher frequency binding/coordination bands.

Brain wave phase coordination between all areas of the brain, measured by frequency and age. Low frequencies associated with basal arousal, motor activity, and daydreaming are notably less correlated in adults, while beta-range frequencies about 25 Hz, associated with focused attention, are slightly more correlated. 

Is this all a little hand-wavy at this point? Yes indeed- that is the nature of a field just getting to grips with perhaps the most complicated topic of all. But the general themes of oscillations as signs/forms of coordination and binding, and active sub-networks as integrating units of brain/mental activity on top of the anatomical and regional units are interesting developments that will grow in significance as more details are filled in.

• Teens and risk- more punishment is indicated!
• Status of the Muller report.
• Will the recycling industry survive?