Statecraft Is More Than PoliticsBasing geopolitical calculations on short-term price changes is not how a nation succeeds.
One of the most popular arguments that has been proffered against the Iran War is that it has caused a spike in gas prices for American consumers. This has been a top attack line for Democrat politicians, commentators and pundits, and social media talkers. They contend that the war against the Iranian regime is already a failure because we now need to pay more at the pump to fill our vehicles and may need to continue paying higher prices for several months, largely due to the oil supply disruption caused by the fighting. This impact on the American consumer is presented as reason enough to have avoided entering into a war against Iran and certainly a strong rationale for stopping it as soon as possible, even if that means settling on Tehran’s terms. Reader, this argument is absolute blatherskite. It is nonsense. It is so detached from the reality of how statecraft works that it should be utterly disqualifying for the person spouting it. And yet it is treated as a real ‘gotcha’ for those of us who support the conflict. It is nothing of the sort. To be sure, higher gas prices are impactful to the average American. They are one of the key expenses that most US households incur on a weekly basis and play a huge part in how we perceive the economy writ large. Higher prices at the pump are noticeable and meaningful to many Americans, especially those who have long commutes, live in rural areas, or enjoy traveling by car. In short, people don’t like paying more for gas, something which they basically cannot avoid buying. In a representative democracy like ours, public opinion matters. Citizens being upset about higher prices should be something that politicians take into account when making decisions. But it cannot be the decisive factor in those choices, particularly when it comes to long-term geopolitical or strategic calculations. Prices are fickle and highly manipulable. They are the sum total of all information about a product or service: what sort of work goes into it, the raw materials required, the incidental costs like shipping and overhead, the demand for it, the alternatives to it, the broader interests of the entity selling it, and myriad other factors. That means that any nation or non-state actor with the ability to alter any of those factors in a significant way has the ability to make a meaningful impact on the price of a good or service. Prices are highly variable for widely-traded commodities, especially those with markets as liquid as that of oil. Actions like serious threats to a trade chokepoint, direct attacks on trade, destruction of production or transfer capacity, and other supply disruptions all could be leveraged to control prices for geostrategic purposes. As we are seeing in Iran right now, even a largely imaginary threat – in that there are not frequent attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz – can be extremely potent. But America simply cannot allow these sorts of malign actors to use their disproportionate leverage to force us into backing down.
First, the price gambit cuts two ways; the market is highly responsive to actions going in either direction. America has the most powerful economic levers in the world available to us and we can use them to counter these moves or reset these markets over time. When the price is for something that is traded in the volumes that oil is, the responsiveness factor increases dramatically. In short, Iran will not be able to manipulate gas prices forever, nor would other similarly-situated actors be able to sustain their gambits in high-volume markets like oil. If we were to cower at every temporary price increase for important goods, we would make ourselves extraordinarily vulnerable to foreign enemies manipulating our society and defeating us without even having to fight. We cannot allow ourselves to be held hostage by bad actors out of mere temporary inconvenience. That is untenable for a superpower and would be tantamount to embracing national decline. Unfortunately, this is not something that the average American dealing with higher gas prices will be thinking about when he is sidling up to the pump. He does not spend his time looking out for the needs of the country in the long term, but his own needs in the here and now – as he should. He is very easily influenced by temporary, yet noticeable, changes. And that is exactly why we have elected representatives who are meant to turn that normal American view on its head, prioritizing the long-term interests of the country over the short-term interests of the self.¹ If we are to be successful, the best interests of our nation, particularly when it comes to the complexities of foreign affairs – something of which the citizenry is largely ignorant² – need to be stewarded by people who are able to abstract themselves from the vagaries of the moment. That includes price pressures, upcoming elections, or media headlines. Steering the ship of state requires a helmsman that is not going to be driven inexorably by the waves and currents of geopolitics, but one that can navigate those changing currents to arrive at the best possible destination. Statesmanship is not about bowing to the supposed political exigencies of the now or succumbing to pressure from the easily-swayed populace below; it is about persevering through them to pursue what you believe is the best path forward for the future of the nation. It is not about following the masses, but leading them. It is about using your judgment, in trust for those whom you represent, to make wise choices, even when they cause temporary discomfort. Unpopular or hard decisions are often the right ones. And long-term strategy can require short-term sacrifice. As such, statesmen can earn enormous credit over the long term, but risk suffering immense blame in the short – sometimes even for the very same actions.³ But statesmanship is not politics. Politicians succeed by getting elected and remaining in power, or getting their friends and parties elected and into power. That means being far more responsive to the temporary whims of the electorate, which are, once again, very easily influenced by malign foreign actors. It means caring more about tomorrow’s gas prices than about degrading an inveterate foe of the United States and a close partner of our greatest adversaries over the long run. That means that good politicians can make very bad statesmen. America does not need any more of these good politicians. We need some statesmen. Only time will tell if there are any more in Washington.
1
Yes, I know this is not how many politicians behave, but the aggregate movement of the national government in foreign policy over time is far more aligned with this ideal than is politics more broadly.
2
This is not a bad thing! I think it is good that most people aren’t foreign policy obsessives; they have much better things to do with their lives. This is why we outsource judgment and decisions to elected officials.
3
Winston Churchill was booted from office by the electorate in 1945, after all. Rational Policy is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Rational Policy that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment