Dumb and dumber?

Prof.,
you answer your own question: "A small group reaps the benefits of this policy while the costs are dispersed across the whole population."

These wrong-headed policies are usually supported by small groups who are both very vocal and contribute to political campaigns.

This is possible because the current form of lobbying is considered legal, whereas most people would consider it illegal bribery.

It is sensible for them to do so, as what they usually get from Treasury greatly exceeds the amounts needed to grease the palms of the politicians. (Israel Lobby is best case in point here, as is the defense industry, pharma, etc.)

AIPAC-boosting right-wing militant zionists are less than 0.5% of the U.S. population but take a lot of our taxes for Israel, and also skew our foreign policy.

Other cases: the Airline industry -- huge subsidies there, whereas Amtrak gets crap-all in comparison.

The Missile "defense" you mention is an excellent other case:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09338.pdf

Pork for defense.

If Iran wanted to nuke us, it would sail a boat over with a nuke, not commit national suicide by launching an ICBM with a return address. And anyway, Missile "defense" encourages the target state to stockpile more weapons in the knowledge that maybe 50% of them will be shot down.

Founding fathers encouraged us to petition the govt -- but not with these amounts of money, and not in this perverted institutional form. You want to petition the govt? Write your rep a letter.

Lobbying, in general, sucks and is counter to the aims of the founding fathers.

Prof:
Another such "dumb" lobby is the financial industry (and "rich" people in general): grease the palms of the politicians to get less corporate oversight and/or less taxes.

Benefits a small coterie and harms all of us -- as we have just witnessed.

Good first three choices. An industry has grown up around each of the policies which do their utmost to see that the gravy train keeps rolling by.

1.) Farm Subsidies and Agricultural Trade Barriers.

Like other industrial countries, the United States subsidizes a host of agricultural products and erects various trade barriers against foreign imports. This happens because the farm lobby is defending the narrow interests of the farm sector and many democratic systems give small groups (in this case farmers or agribusiness) disproportionate influence. (It's the usual story: A small group reaps the benefits of this policy while the costs are dispersed across the whole population). This policy makes food more expensive, encourages farmers to grow the wrong crops, squanders energy, and hinders economic development in poorer countries, thereby contributing to political instability. These policies also make it much harder to negotiate multilateral trade deals that would raise prosperity world-wide. So although nearly every detached observer thinks the policy is wrong, they also know that the political power of farm interests (both here and abroad) makes it excruciatingly difficult to change course.

This is all true, although I should point out that a nation has a legitimate strategic interest in ensuring its capability to feed itself. That said, it would help if they'd move away from trade barriers and towards subsidies, and get rid of some of the particularly egregious examples of protection (like the peanut and rice subsidies).

2.) The Cuba Embargo.

We all know the old line that insanity consists of doing something over and over again but expecting different results. By that standard the U.S. embargo on Cuba is demented. If an embargo was going to topple Castro's regime, it would be long gone. The current embargo has been in place for nearly five decades, persisting even after the Soviet Union had collapsed and when it is clear that an old and feeble Fidel poses no threat. Hardly anyone thinks it is the right policy anymore (if it ever was), but it remains in place because a small number of well-organized and politically active Cuban-Americans care about the issue and the rest of the country doesn't care enough to override their preferences. Because Florida is a swing state and its politicians remain sensitive to the Cuban-American lobby, a policy that has probably helped Castro stay in power remains in effect. Maybe this policy will finally change under Obama (or when Fidel dies), but don't bet on it.

It may change with the next generation of Cuban-Americans, who don't have the "we must fight Castro at all costs" mentality as the older ones.

That said, it's another type of ethnic lobby, although in reverse. I don't like ethnic lobbies.

3.) The "War on Drugs."

This one is a bit more controversial, in the sense that there is still a genuine debate on some of these issues. But there seems to be a growing consensus that the "war on drugs" (which we've been waging far longer than the "war on terrorism") is both ill-conceived and poorly executed. In the United States, as in many other countries, our anti-drug policies focus primarily on the supply-side: we go after growers, traffickers, dealers and users. And the United States is especially quick to incarcerate anyone who possesses narcotics, even for relatively minor offenses.

Indeed. Just look at Mexico, for example, as a result of this type of policy.

The results are almost certainly worse than the problem itself: our policy helps enrich drug lords and make it possible for them to destabilize whole governments, as they are now doing in Mexico and Afghanistan.

This is where it gets tricky, because not all of these drugs are alike. Marijuana, for example, should almost certainly be legalized (although subject to the same anti-smoking laws as tobacco, plus stronger DUI laws to help curb bad behavior while intoxicated). It's completely ludicrous to ban this drug when north of 1/3 of the American population has admitted to using it, large numbers of people use it without completely fucking up their lives, and it is certainly no more dangerous to your health than alcohol and tobacco. Coupled with the crime its ban creates, and the downside - greater usage and abusage of the drug - seem much less than the costs of prohibition.

Other drugs are trickier. I'd oppose the legalization of meth, for example (although not necessarily the de-criminalization), because the drug is horrifically addictive and powerful, as well as quite dangerous to its users. Cocaine has that problem as well, although cocaine was widely used in patent medicines at the turn of the century, so I'm not as concerned (and ending the whole international crime trafficking centered around it sounds pretty sweet). Perhaps with cocaine, you could restrict its usage to "coke dens" (places with licenses to sell the stuff, who would be required to have plans on hand to deal with potential overdoses and to cut people off when they've had too much), and severely punish anyone caught intoxicated by it outside of these places and their own homes.

Again, it is important to emphasize that this is a trade-off - history suggests that we're trading greater usage, abuse, and drug-related issues (like DUIs) for essentially crippling a whole brand of international crime. Make your choice.

Criminalizing narcotics possession has created a burgeoning prison population that is expensive to maintain and whose long-term incarceration produces a host of other social ills. (For a depressing analysis of some of them, see sociologist Bruce Western's Punishment and Equality in America). As The Economist recently argued, "the war on drugs has been a disaster, creating failed states in the developing world even as addiction has flourished in the rich world. By any sensible measure, this 100-year struggle has been illiberal, murderous and pointless." Reasonable people still disagree on what a better approach might be, but decriminalizing narcotics possession and focusing on education and treatment programs would cost less and probably leave us no worse off in terms of addiction and its consequences.

It depends on the drug, of course, and some would argue that with some of these drugs, the costs of greater usage from legalization would be higher. You'd probably see more DUIs, for example, with legalized marijuana, although perhaps you could couple legalization with severe punishment for the above and other abuse-related crimes.

But a politician who seriously proposed such a course of action would almost certainly face a firestorm of criticism, so the current failed policy is likely to continue more-or-less unchanged.

It's still a popular policy among many older folk, and in particular with the conservative religious population (many of whom see drug usage as a moral issue), and in the "concerned parents" category, who rightfully are concerned about what legalization might mean in terms of the spread of drugs into their communities and to their children.

It seems that Obama is already changing the policy on drugs:

Obama drops 'war on drugs' rhetoric for needle exchanges

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/16/drug-policy-obama-needle-exchange

We are at a point, where the drug debate has really become about whether we are wrong to make drugs illicit. Capitulation by any other name.

The "War on Drugs" has failed to live up to its name - and to blame it for impoverishment and erosion of state power in the third world - is wrong.

We need a real war on drugs, one that lives up to the term "war". Eradication of all poppies, and cocoa leaves in countries where their production cannot be controlled by the state.

And we need to reform law so that anyone snorting crack receives the same jail-sentence as selling it. The problem really is on the end user, who thinks he is the victim of dumb laws which prohibit an activity that "should" be legal.

Nothing could be further from the truth - but go and argue with the pot-smoking elites, and see where you go. Peter Hitchens is a great reference for this.

I hope that you can forgive some comments from a foreigner, who has spent a considerable amount of time working in your country. The US consititution must register as one of the greatest human achievements of the past millenium but at its heart there is an assumption about democracy. In a nutshell, in your great country anyone is free to raise money and buy a politician. This has served you well for more than 200 years making you the greatest nation the world has ever seen. It does, like all human creations have some weak points. Vulnerability to special interests, however, is the other side of the coin to protection of the legitimate interests of minorities. Perhaps this is just a dilemma that you have to live with.

It's not just that the policies are stupid, it is that our experts tell us DON'T DO IT but Washington does it anyway (e.g. Charles Wilson, Arabists warning about Wahhabis, etc.) The policies are willfully stoopid.

To an outsider, not an American that is, this policy which has impacted Cuba but not brought it to its knees, has more or less made the country stand still in time. Embargos do that particularly when the country is primarily an agricultural country and one which has not been able to rise out of that environment through scientific research or manufacturing pursuits. What this has achieved for the US is hard to see outside of the obvious threats of the ex-Cubans now weaving their hatred of that little island, once their homeland, into their lives and of course, the lives of their children while making successive US governments bow down to their pressure. I have always considered it to be a very sad state of affairs, born out of an inability by the US to accept a judgement by a majority of a people to supplant yet another US supported dictator, standard fare for the US, go in a direction that was not to their liking. Sadly the history of South America is full of examples of this level of arrogance evident today in attitudes to countries like Venezuela. That continent is now a graveyard for millions of people over time who have had a different viewpoint than various US governments. Chile was an action that the rest of the world will never forget, forcing that country as it did to accept a US supported reign of terror from a real dictator, Pinochet, for 16 years. These are the actions of a bullying superpower which has generated a lingering dislike by the world for years and which is never likely to change. Sadly this misplaced policy has been continued by both parties to their discredit.
From Castro's viewpoint and supported by many documentaries showing the hatred still evident in the Cuban residents of Miami, many such people quite obviously had they nefarious activities brought to a sharp end with Castro's rise to power and therefore conveneiently represent the change to a socialist government/dictatorship, call it what you will, as a desperate mistake, contrary of course to the rest of the Cuban population at that time.
Cuba is just another black mark on the Foreign Policy of the US one which should really be corrected under an Obama Presidency. But then this will depend on the relative importance of Miami on the political maps of the two parties won't it? Life goes on, as it always has, ad nauseum.
It is difficult to look kindly on arrogance, hypocrisy and injustice whenever and wherever it raises its ugly head.

I generally agree with that all three of these issues are short-sighted. Debate has been swelling about the removal of the electoral college in favor of the popular vote a move which many believe would significantly weaken the influence of these special interest groups.

Additionally, and I haven't given much thought to this, is there a strategic advantage to a nation maintaining at least the capacity for farming. In a world war scenario where international trade and shipping are significantly weakened I can see the how such capabilities would be very valuable, even if they are never utilized. I'm just throwing this out there to get additional thoughts. So... thoughts?

This may be a tenuous argument but I'll make it anyways.

Recent U.S. policy toward North Korea has ranged from engagement+carrots (Agreed Framework) to engagement+sticks (maintenance of sanctions) to hostile neglect (Axis of evil). Although it appears that recent engagement strategies have produced better outcomes than the hostile strategy used during Bush's early tenure, even engagement in the form of 6-Party Talks have provided few tangible benefits. In 2009, we are still basically in the same position as we were in 1991 when the nuclear facilities at Yongbyon became widely recognized as a threat.

We can draw some analogies to North Korea using both Cuba and Iran. First, like Cuba, North Korea hasn't collapsed from the decades of sanctions -- but the people have continued to suffer. Second, like Iran, it seems that the U.S. hasn't sufficiently considered North Korea's own security interests. Since the collapse of the Soviet bloc in the late 1980s, North Korea has been without protection so it is understandable from their perspective why they would want to develop a nuclear deterrent.

One option that the U.S. should consider pursuing, and I readily admit that there would be serious opposition, is to alleviate North Korea's security concerns immediately through a non-aggression agreement in addition to a formal peace treaty that would replace the 1953 armistice. Of course, this move wouldn't eliminate the threat of nuclear weapon or technology proliferation but it would reduce the basis for North Korea to maintain a nuclear weapons program. This being said, it would be difficult to imagine a scenario where North Korea willingly gives up its weapons program -- and we may have to accept a reality where North Korea is a nuclear weapon state. But bringing North Korea into the fold as a responsible stakeholder in the international community would go a long ways toward reducing overall tension in Northeast Asia.