Good Strategy/Bad Strategy: Obama Foreign Policy Division

An overview article in the Wall Street Journal about President Obama’s foreign policy, apparently fueled by White House image-polishing sources (such as noted foreign policy expert David Axelrod), brings to mind what Richard Rumelt called “bad strategy” in his opus Good Strategy/Bad Strategy. (I would have preferred to call it “anti-strategy” or “pseudo-strategy” to distinguish it from actual strategies that are bad, but we go to war with the terminology we have.) For anyone with a passing acquaintance with today’s world, the lead of the WSJ story tells the tale:

President Barack Obama gathered his foreign policy team in the White House Situation Room several weeks after his 2012 re-election for a meeting to set his second-term agenda.

Now that he was free from the politics of another presidential campaign, Mr. Obama told the group, he wanted a “blue skies” assessment of all policies worth considering, according to participants. Nothing was off the table.

What emerged was a sweeping and fundamental re-orientation of U.S. foreign policy, highlighted by four initiatives: conclude a nuclear deal with Iran; renew diplomatic relations with Cuba; elevate climate change to a national-security issue; and complete a free-trade deal with Asia.

This set of four disconnected initiatives, whatever their individual merit (my personal scoring vector: -10, -1, -2, 5) does not add up to anything like a coherent foreign policy or national security strategy. Not surprisingly, the WSJ article goes on in great detail to describe how the actual imperatives of the United States’s foreign environment–aggression and irredentism from Russia, China, and Islamic State, as well as the continuing battle with militant Islamic supremacists globally–impinged on and “crowded out” much of Obama’s agenda.

This dog’s breakfast of random objectives, even if achieved, would do little or nothing to make the U.S. stronger or safer or to advance American ideals. It is not attached to a serious diagnosis of threats and opportunities, strengths and weaknesses, or adversary and allied incentives. None of the four objectives materially reinforces another, nor do they work together to accomplish a coherent foreign-policy goal. While I could put on a debater’s hat and cobble together a diagnosis and guiding policy to which these objectives could be attached to form Rumelt’s kernel, that is not a debating position I’d expect to be able to defend effectively. Good luck, for example, trying to reconcile the elevation of climate-change objectives–which can only be accomplished by preventing emerging economies from developing along the same lines as the OECD nations–with a devotion to free-trade principles. A best-case scenario deal with Iran would inhibit that country’s use of nuclear power, a precedent that would also hinder the climate-change objective. Recognizing Cuba without preconditions sends a signal to the Iranian government that they can get what they want with minimal concessions, making a deal harder to close and ratify. And those are just the internal contradictions. The lack of contact, for the most part, between these initiatives and the actual pressing problems facing the United States is glaring.

What comes through clearly from this and other articles, as well as memoirs from Administration insiders and foreign counterparts, is how much of what passes for “big picture” thinking in the White House is purely reactionary–not to events in the world but to what are perceived as the sins and errors of past American policy. Anything smacking of the “Cold War,” whether it be opposition to Russian expansionism or to Cuban human rights violations, is automatically downgraded. Anything smacking of the “Bush Doctrine,” even such no-brainer moves as cashing in the hard-fought (and blunder-filled) victory in Iraq with a Status of Forces Agreement permitting a permanent contingent of U.S. troops to stabilize Iraq, is treated with negligence bordering on contempt. The problem, of course, is that even though the Cold War is indeed over (and even if you were lukewarm about it at the time) and even if Bush’s war in Iraq was a blunder, that has little or no bearing on the current situation facing the U.S.

The ironic thing is that in moving away from Bush’s counterinsurgency approach (population security, hearts and minds, build up indigenous state institutions) toward a pure counterterrorism strategy (assassinate enemy leaders) the Obama administration ended up doubling down on many of Bush’s legal and tactical innovations, such as broad surveillance of Americans and drone strikes. But that shouldn’t mask the fundamentally reactionary nature of the new approach. Unfortunately, countries cannot succeed with a George Costanza approach of simply doing the opposite of what they have attempted previously.


When Better Customer Service is Seen as…Anticompetitive?

NJ Governor Chris Christie has banned Tesla’s direct sales model in NJ. Now, I understand completely why an auto manufacturer would want to use franchise dealerships rather than tying up all that capital themselves — they can focus on what they do best. I have absolutely no idea, however, how one could argue that the decision to sell directly is anti-competitive. Selling electric cars is extremely complicated — it takes way more effort and education than selling traditional vehicles. There’s plenty of evidence that salespeople at traditional dealerships are not equipped to (nor interested in) investing the extra effort it takes to pitch electric cars. (Imagine your car salesman explaining how you get a city permit to install a 220 volt charger in your garage and you start to get the idea…) Thus there’s a strong case for Tesla deciding to run the dealerships themselves. They want to make the experience smooth, slick, and iPhone like. And when someone goes into a Tesla dealership, it’s not because they were hoping the salesperson would compare the Tesla’s benefits with those of the Volt or Leaf, so where is the harm to competition?

Christie, what gives? Did NJ ban GM Saturn dealerships in the 1990s? Strange move for a Republican…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2014/03/11/new-jersey-to-tesla-youre-outta-here/

New Jersey To Tesla: You’re Outta Here

Tesla Motors TSLA -1.77% is being courted by four Southwestern states for its $5 billiongigafactory, but there’s another state that is kissing Tesla goodbye.

The New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission voted Tuesday to ban the direct sale of vehicles in the state, becoming the third state in the nation to prevent Tesla from selling to consumers. That would force Tesla, founded by billionaire Elon Musk, to sell its cars through dealers.

Instead, Tesla will stop selling cars in New Jersey on April 1, according to Dow Jones. That means the auto company won’t have access to one of the nation’s most lucrative markets for luxury vehicles, while well-heeled New Jerseyites will have to pick up their Teslas somewhere else.

The commission’s vote followed month of discussions between Tesla and members of Gov. Chris Christie’s administration, according to a post on Tesla’s blog. The auto company said it thought that the commission and the administration were working to help it in the face of opposition from the New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers.

Like many other dealer groups across the country, New Jersey dealers did not want Tesla to be able to sell cars directly to customers. On Monday, Tesla said it learned that “Governor Christie’s administration has gone back on its word to delay a proposed anti-Tesla regulation so that the matter could be handled through a fair process in the Legislature.”

Tesla said it had already been issued two licenses to open dealerships in New Jersey. “This is an issue that affects not just Tesla customers, but also New Jersey citizens at large, because Tesla would be unable to create new jobs or participate in New Jersey’s economic revival,” the Tesla blog said.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Gov. Christie said Tesla officials would need to convince the state legislature to reverse the New Jersey ban on direct sales.

Christie spokesman Kevin Roberts said,  “Since Tesla first began operating in New Jersey one year ago, it was made clear that the company would need to engage the Legislature on a bill to establish their new direct-sales operations under New Jersey law. This administration does not find it appropriate to unilaterally change the way cars are sold in New Jersey without legislation, and Tesla has been aware of this position since the beginning.”

English: Headquarters of Tesla Motors Inc., lo...

Tesla Motors and New Jersey are not perfect together. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The other two states to have banned Tesla from direct sales are Arizona and Texas. Coincidentally, both states are on Tesla’s consideration list for its massive battery factory. The other states in the running are New Mexico and Nevada.

Texas’ auto dealers have said they would still fight to keep the company from being able to sell directly to customers, even though the $5 billion plant is considered one of the biggest industrial prizes ever.

The New Jersey action comes after the Tesla Model S was named the top car for 2014 by Consumer Reports magazine.

 
 

Tesla Model S

1 of 18

Photos courtesy Tesla MotorsTesla Model S


Say It Ain’t So–Baseball Hero and “Small Government” Fan Turns Failed Crony Capitalist

Over at Reason.com they have interesting text and video on the sad tale of 38Studios, New England baseball hero Curt Schillng’s collapsed videogame venture that attracted nary an independent private investor but sucked up $100 million from Rhode Island taxpayers. Some takeaways from the story:

1) When inexperienced and undermanaged quasi-public economic development corporations go chasing glamour ventures to try to cover up their state’s abysmal business climate, bad things are likely to happen.

2) When the glamour venture is headed by a star athlete with zero experience or expertise in his chosen field, and appears to have no experienced management at all, the odds go down.

3) When a venture making a totally conventional product, such as a massive multiplayer game, can’t get any private investors, there’s probably no conceivable public policy justification for a subsidy.

4) People like Schilling who claim to be against big government but then reach their hands into the taxpayers’ pockets to fund their own dreams are, at best, intellectually stunted.

5) Schillings’s pro-Bush political views may helped save the taxpayers of Massachusetts, because Democratic governor Deval Patrick turned Schilling down flat even though the pitcher is an immensely popular legend among Boston Red Sox fans.


Laundering the University of California’s Past

Apparently the University of California system decided it needed to update its image, so they cooked up this. Here are the old and the new side by side:

XJwNDJdGVZJocIK-556x313-noPad

When I see the old  logo, I think of quaint values like learning and truth. When I see the new logo, I imagine little enzymes acting like keys to unlock the stains in my laundry.

UPDATE: The UC bureaucracy folds up like a tent a mere five days after this was posted. Maybe the new logo should say vox populi somewhere. (H/t David Hoopes in the comments.)


David Stern and the Aging Emperor-CEO Syndrome

NBA Commissioner David Stern recently fined the San Antonio Spurs $250,000 and severely chastised them for the decision by Gregg Popovich, their near-legendary coach, to rest his aging stars at home rather than fly them to Miami for a meaningless (but nationally televised) tilt with the defending-champion Miami Heat. Is Stern losing his grip? Does he need an intervention and/or a forced retirement as he reaches his managerial dotage? While I haven’t heard of Commissioner Queeg–whoops, Stern–clicking steel balls in his hand or searching for the keys to the strawberries, a Caine Mutiny scenario may be approaching if he continues to deteriorate. Other firms with long-term, successful “emperor” CEOs have found their later years to be problematic. See Eisner, Michael (Disney) or Olson, Kenneth (Digital Equipment Corporation) or maybe Cizik, Robert (Cooper Industries).

Read the rest of this entry »


A Bad Day at the Lectern

Ever teach one of those classes where you’re off a beat, forget points you want to make, and ramble a little bit? Maybe your preparation wasn’t up to its usual standard. Fortunately, there isn’t an opponent in the room compounding the problem by trying to make you look bad. Barack Obama did not have that luxury tonight.

I had fun watching the president’s discomfiture, but I sure wish Romney had a better five points on the economy and that he would explain why cutting the growth of entitlements is not an optional choice. (Although his Spain remark wasn’t bad.)


Is the Resource-Based View (RBV) Useful? Yes.

I am visiting Lund University this week – and they have conclusively shown that the Resource Based View indeed is useful.  Useful for what?  As a door stop to their conference room.  (I also sent the proof/picture to Jay, one of the originators of the theory.)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 139 other followers