Semi-Daily Journal

Yeah, I guess this is just propaganda.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030528/pl_nm/africa_ethiopia_geldof_dc_1

Extremely ineffective propaganda. Read the article in full. It also criticizes domestic agribusiness subsidies.

I would love to believe that Bush will be giving this much aid to Africa. I'd like to believe that there are 64 stem-cell lines available for research. I'd love to believe that missile defense systems can work without requiring that the North Koreans politely put homing devices in their incoming missiles. I want to believe that a supply-side tax cut will spur an oversupplied economy and create 1.4 million jobs.

I'm not holding my breath.

What angers me is that many times my first response was to take it at face value, only to find out the details later...

I wish there were a way to get an unbiased view of this. I have seen other blogs quoting AIDS activists as saying that Bush is showing real commitment, particularly in comparison with his predecessor. It's frustrating that the journalistic profession is so polarized that in the same week on the same issue you can read that Bush is a great leader or a total fraud, depending on whose column you pick up.

I believe those encomiums (encomia?) from AIDS activists were uttered when the AIDS money was first announced-- as per usual with this administration, with no specifics.

Those of us who've watched this bunch operate assumed there would be major catches that would leave the actuality far, far short of the rhetoric. And that's, of course, what's happened here, as in virtually everything else this administration does. (Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, anyone?)

The AIDS activists who praised the initial announcement were also consciously trying to muffle their suspicions and encourage Bush et al by publicly praising them, a tactic that works very well with household pets, but not with this crowd.

One always has to look at the context. The likelihood of an administration with this one's record suddenly turning itself upside down and doing something stunningly, massively, generously humanitarian with no strings attached is essentially nil.

One could wish that Bill Clinton had had the arrogance of this administration and moved strongly ahead on issues like AIDS (and many others) and damn the political consequences, but he chose instead to do what Democrats seem to have to do these days to get anything at all done, which was to moderate his goals and try to slip through incremental progress in an environment that was heavily stacked against him.

Maybe he would have succeeded with the kind of tactics the Bush people are using so successfully now, but I doubt it. For a whole lotta reasons, including pervasive media hostility, only the right wing can get away with this kind of thing these days.

My thinking is that a couple of the speakers cited in the article, including Mr. Geldorf, thought they were describing something they had actually seen, when in fact they were practically wedged against the subwoofer of the Wurlitzer (yes, this is a somewhat mixed metaphor. Imagine a Wurlitzer with a subwoofer. It's not hard!). Mr. Geldorf aand others were not, perhaps, in a position to observe how paltry the administration's AIDS efforts realy are, and how dishonestly they have been allocated. It perhaps sound snotty of me to point it out, but this is where an eye for economics and public policy can protect one from deception by pep rallies such as these.

Dear Dear Arnold Kling -

I suggest you read the allafrica.com/aids article set. The Administration AIDS initiative as all Administration policy has been designed by the radical right and will have far less of an impact on the lives of those who are in desperate need of assistance than should be the case.