By now you've probably heard about or read yourself, this NYT--frontpage--column detailing, again, that although the Republicans are in trouble, Democrats don't have an alternative plan to present to voters, thanks to Howard Dean the party is short of cash on hand, and the party leadership and its 2006 candidates are divided on Iraq, health care, taxes, and whether or not to campaign on George Bush's rug fetish.
No doubt articles like these, which seem to be used as regular page A1 filler about every other day now, have got you down, and combined with the rather underwhelming efforts to enumerate a Contract with America like document by the DNC and the CAP, have you ready to go hunting with Dick Cheney.
But fear not.
Read this. And this. And what E.J.Dionne says, too.
I've come to believe, as these authors have, that there's no great need, and very little utility in, having Democrats come up with a national plan of bulleted items for its candidates to campaign on.
Why not? Well, the Democrats main objective needs to be to blunt the Republicans' agenda. Electing Democrats is the best way to do that. And if the Democratic Party is going to return to majority status someday, it probably is going to do so by assembling a weird patchwork of coalition partners spread across different regions, united by its diversity. The Republicans are the party whose ideology over the long run demands conformity and uniformity. The liberalism of Democrats, I would argue, does not.
But there are some more immediate reasons why trying to assemble a unifying message right now is unlikely to work. For one, the issues, and the various messes the country finds itself in right now--exploding deficit and national debt, the war in Iraq, cleaning up from Katrina, rebuilding FEMA as well as the Gulf Coast, brewing conflicts in Iran and North Korea, the election of Hamas in Palestine, etc--don't lend themselves to quick or simplistic solutions or slogans. And they don't necessarily carry the same weight across every state or congressional district. Finally, when the enemy is drowning, don't throw them a life-line. The public seems to have gotten the message that the Iraqi conflict has not gone as planned, and is not close to being resolved peacefully, without the aid of an informative, unbiased media, and without the aid of a visible anti-war movement. The Democratic Party doesn't have to help by giving the Republicans an easy target--such as would be the case for example if the party decides to run with a "bring the troops home now" kind of message (more about this later). Letting individual candidates decide on the best strategies for their campaigns and their regions is a more likely key to success than any awkward attempt to establish some kind of consistent theme or themes equally relevant and compelling to all the country's voters.
So, let's not take the bait being offered here to force the party or any of its particular candidates into a box of the media's, or the Republican Party's, liking. We're ahead--but the media is intent on lowering the expectations bar for Democrats. Let's keep it that way.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Syllabus of Errors
Ever wonder what the Golden Age of church supremacy was like? Try this papal document from 1864 on for size.
Some statements the encyclical condemned as false include:
"human reason... is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil" (No. 3)
"...hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind." (No. 4)
"in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship." (No. 77)
"Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church" (No. 18).
"the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." (No. 55)
"every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (No. 15) and that "it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship." (No. 78)
"the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization." (No. 80)
It may seem unfair to bring up material from almost two centuries ago, but keep in mind church apologists are attempting a little "historical revisionism" to rehabilitate the church's image in the West. The church is particularly anguished about the downturn in its hold over Europe, where attendance at, and support for, the Roman Catholic church, and Christianity in general has been in sharp decline for decades. The turning away from the church in states where the church is given official status should be a hint and a half for today's rabid evangelicals, dedicated to eradicating the separation of church and state. Meanwhile, today's conservative church spokesmen tend to attribute the church's decline in the West to a sufficient lack of orthodoxy among its leadership (among conservative Catholics, the modifications in the lurgy resulting from Vatican II are brought in for particular scorn) rather than the church's documented history of hostility to democracy, freedom and human rights.
On a somewhat related not, I've picked up a book about Opus Dei, the strict, secretive Catholic sect portrayed in The Da Vinci Code, but also known for its real life wealth, and the elites that comprise its membership, including Robert Hansen, the FBI agent caught spying for Russia a few years ago, as well as U.S. Senators Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, both of whom have been mentioned as presidential candidates in '08. The case of Sam Brownback is particularly interesting, since he was until recently a devout evangelical, and hails from a part of the U.S. that is likewise strongly protestant.
Some statements the encyclical condemned as false include:
"human reason... is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil" (No. 3)
"...hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind." (No. 4)
"in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship." (No. 77)
"Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church" (No. 18).
"the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." (No. 55)
"every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (No. 15) and that "it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship." (No. 78)
"the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization." (No. 80)
It may seem unfair to bring up material from almost two centuries ago, but keep in mind church apologists are attempting a little "historical revisionism" to rehabilitate the church's image in the West. The church is particularly anguished about the downturn in its hold over Europe, where attendance at, and support for, the Roman Catholic church, and Christianity in general has been in sharp decline for decades. The turning away from the church in states where the church is given official status should be a hint and a half for today's rabid evangelicals, dedicated to eradicating the separation of church and state. Meanwhile, today's conservative church spokesmen tend to attribute the church's decline in the West to a sufficient lack of orthodoxy among its leadership (among conservative Catholics, the modifications in the lurgy resulting from Vatican II are brought in for particular scorn) rather than the church's documented history of hostility to democracy, freedom and human rights.
On a somewhat related not, I've picked up a book about Opus Dei, the strict, secretive Catholic sect portrayed in The Da Vinci Code, but also known for its real life wealth, and the elites that comprise its membership, including Robert Hansen, the FBI agent caught spying for Russia a few years ago, as well as U.S. Senators Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, both of whom have been mentioned as presidential candidates in '08. The case of Sam Brownback is particularly interesting, since he was until recently a devout evangelical, and hails from a part of the U.S. that is likewise strongly protestant.
The Hits Keep on Coming
Army Opens Criminal Probe of Tillman's Death
Probably not going to help rehabilitate the President's public standing.
Probably not going to help rehabilitate the President's public standing.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Facing Religion
Regular readers of this blog know I've been wringing my hands waiting for leading Democrats to put together some type of response regarding the role of religion in public life, rather than letting Republicans and their "tear down the 'wall' between church and state" interest groups hog the spotlight with only one highly distorted view of faith and religion.
Well, E.J.Dionne has a column in today's Post outlining just such a statement by Catholic Democrats in the House, 55 of them to be exact who have signed on. If the excerpts reflect the document's content, I think it could prove a useful blueprint for other Democrats and media pundits:
"As Catholic Democrats in Congress," the statement begins, "we are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition -- a tradition that promotes the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need. As legislators, in the U.S. House of Representatives, we work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has moral purpose."
The statement is only six paragraphs, which gives it clarity and focus. After a paragraph on Catholic social teaching about the obligations to "the poor and disadvantaged," the writers get to the hard issue, insisting that "each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term."
What's significant is that this is not a statement from pro-choice Catholics trying to "reframe" the abortion question. The signatories include some of the staunchest opponents of abortion in the House, including Reps. Bart Stupak, Dale Kildee, Tim Holden, James Oberstar and James Langevin.
In other words, Democrats on both sides of the abortion question worry that it is crowding out all other concerns. And in very polite language, the Catholic Democrats suggest that their bishops allow them some room to disagree. "In all these issues, we seek the church's guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience," they write in an echo of Kennedy. "In recognizing the church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes from being in disagreement with the church in some areas."
With any luck, this statement will provoke two debates, one outside the Catholic Church and one inside.
One of the troubling aspects of 2004 was the extent to which partisan politics invaded the churches and seemed to enlist them as part of the Republicans' electoral apparatus. But there is a difference between defending the legitimate right of churches to speak up on public questions and the hyperpoliticization of the church itself.
For Catholics with moderate or liberal leanings, the argument from some bishops that they could vote only for staunch foes of abortion posed a wretched dilemma. It seemed to demand that such voters cast their ballots for conservative or right-wing candidates with whom they might disagree on every other question -- social justice, war and peace, or the death penalty. All are areas where liberals are often closer to the church's view. "Our faith does and should affect how we deal with issues," DeLauro said. "But we're rebelling against the idea of a one-issue church."
If nothing else, these Catholic Democrats will haul out into the open a discussion with their bishops, with their fellow Catholics and with their constituents that has been festering underground. "We were silent for too long," DeLauro said. "And that meant you were defined by others, not by yourselves."
These excerpts reflect what appears to be strong, yet wide-spanning statement, one that acknowledges differences of opinion about sexual issues, such as abortion, and that affirms the church's right, indeed urges it, to speak out on those as well as other issues of moral significance. Yet it asserts the rights of parishioners and church members to make decisions based on freedom of conscience, reminding church leaders, and other politically motivated members, of the wide array of moral choices that parties and candidates espouse, and from which church members are able to choose.
Even were I to hold a staunch anti-abortion position, it hardly seems reasonable to make that the one issue upon which to vote, a decision that would in effect give conservative Republican mizers a pass on every other matter of public policy, from tax cuts and health care, to worker and consumer rights, voting rights protection, the right to privacy, war and foreign policy, and a host of other important matters.
Even if one issue were to carry significantly more weight than any other, an important element or elements in making a voting decision on that issue would be the matter of whether government policy requires or allows a questionable action and what the balance of power in the relationship is. This is particularly important regarding abortion, where the "actor" or "oppressor" is either left undefined by anti-choice advocates or is misdefined to infer that the government, in the form of the courts or liberal Democratic members of Congress, is morally responsible for the behavior of medical providers and the private decisions of women. Since anti-choice legislation either penalizes no one or penalizes only the doctor (see the S.D. legislation for an example) and leaves the person getting the abortion uncharged, the anti-choice movement is essentially disregarding the moral choice of the woman, a strange policy decision in the sense that the woman is not regarded as being a relevant actor in the situation, although because penalizing the woman would no doubt cause a firestorm of protest, this decision by anti-choicers is at least somewhat understandable, however illogical.
For a church hierarchy to make this one issue (or any one issue) essentially the only one of importance for its members is to do a great disservice to parishioners and the public. Considering the backtracking church leadership has had to do on a number of issues and decisions over the course of history, from the burning at the stake of people innocent of any crime other than doctrinal heresy (such as John Huss) to the punishing of scientists such as Galileo for daring to pursue knowledge apart from the church's belief in scripturally revealed "truth", and the support of Protestant churches in the south for slavery and segregation, the church, in its Catholic and Protestant manifestations, has good reasons to be careful in the area of public policy, at least in so far as it threatens to restrict its membership to one political party or on the basis of any one issue.
This isn't to say that the "church" should only speak out on economic issues, or only on behalf of the poor, or that the church should otherwise shut up about issues of sexual morality. I doubt the church would or could be restricted in that way, and even for those of us who may vigorously disagree with conservative bishops or theologians on any particular issue, I believe its vital that the churches give us the benefit of their study and reflection.
I also recognize that churches and doctrinal belief systems are inherently conflictual and controversial, and I don't expect religious leaders and believers to avoid any and all offensiveness. Most moral choices of necessity carry with them such offensiveness and conflict. I'd hope the church would eventually start siding with have nots rather than the haves of society, but I will welcome their contributions to the realm of public policy in any case. But Democrats need to come prepared to debate these issues and provide their constituents with the information and advocacy they deserve. These issues have been forced underground, not the least of which by Democrats themselves. It's time to bring them out of the closet, and for Democrats to be more assertive about discussing, and criticizing where need be, institutions and principles of faith.
In any event, bravo to Rep. DeLauro and her co-sponsors. I look forward to reading the document in its entirety.
Well, E.J.Dionne has a column in today's Post outlining just such a statement by Catholic Democrats in the House, 55 of them to be exact who have signed on. If the excerpts reflect the document's content, I think it could prove a useful blueprint for other Democrats and media pundits:
"As Catholic Democrats in Congress," the statement begins, "we are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition -- a tradition that promotes the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need. As legislators, in the U.S. House of Representatives, we work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has moral purpose."
The statement is only six paragraphs, which gives it clarity and focus. After a paragraph on Catholic social teaching about the obligations to "the poor and disadvantaged," the writers get to the hard issue, insisting that "each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term."
What's significant is that this is not a statement from pro-choice Catholics trying to "reframe" the abortion question. The signatories include some of the staunchest opponents of abortion in the House, including Reps. Bart Stupak, Dale Kildee, Tim Holden, James Oberstar and James Langevin.
In other words, Democrats on both sides of the abortion question worry that it is crowding out all other concerns. And in very polite language, the Catholic Democrats suggest that their bishops allow them some room to disagree. "In all these issues, we seek the church's guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience," they write in an echo of Kennedy. "In recognizing the church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes from being in disagreement with the church in some areas."
With any luck, this statement will provoke two debates, one outside the Catholic Church and one inside.
One of the troubling aspects of 2004 was the extent to which partisan politics invaded the churches and seemed to enlist them as part of the Republicans' electoral apparatus. But there is a difference between defending the legitimate right of churches to speak up on public questions and the hyperpoliticization of the church itself.
For Catholics with moderate or liberal leanings, the argument from some bishops that they could vote only for staunch foes of abortion posed a wretched dilemma. It seemed to demand that such voters cast their ballots for conservative or right-wing candidates with whom they might disagree on every other question -- social justice, war and peace, or the death penalty. All are areas where liberals are often closer to the church's view. "Our faith does and should affect how we deal with issues," DeLauro said. "But we're rebelling against the idea of a one-issue church."
If nothing else, these Catholic Democrats will haul out into the open a discussion with their bishops, with their fellow Catholics and with their constituents that has been festering underground. "We were silent for too long," DeLauro said. "And that meant you were defined by others, not by yourselves."
These excerpts reflect what appears to be strong, yet wide-spanning statement, one that acknowledges differences of opinion about sexual issues, such as abortion, and that affirms the church's right, indeed urges it, to speak out on those as well as other issues of moral significance. Yet it asserts the rights of parishioners and church members to make decisions based on freedom of conscience, reminding church leaders, and other politically motivated members, of the wide array of moral choices that parties and candidates espouse, and from which church members are able to choose.
Even were I to hold a staunch anti-abortion position, it hardly seems reasonable to make that the one issue upon which to vote, a decision that would in effect give conservative Republican mizers a pass on every other matter of public policy, from tax cuts and health care, to worker and consumer rights, voting rights protection, the right to privacy, war and foreign policy, and a host of other important matters.
Even if one issue were to carry significantly more weight than any other, an important element or elements in making a voting decision on that issue would be the matter of whether government policy requires or allows a questionable action and what the balance of power in the relationship is. This is particularly important regarding abortion, where the "actor" or "oppressor" is either left undefined by anti-choice advocates or is misdefined to infer that the government, in the form of the courts or liberal Democratic members of Congress, is morally responsible for the behavior of medical providers and the private decisions of women. Since anti-choice legislation either penalizes no one or penalizes only the doctor (see the S.D. legislation for an example) and leaves the person getting the abortion uncharged, the anti-choice movement is essentially disregarding the moral choice of the woman, a strange policy decision in the sense that the woman is not regarded as being a relevant actor in the situation, although because penalizing the woman would no doubt cause a firestorm of protest, this decision by anti-choicers is at least somewhat understandable, however illogical.
For a church hierarchy to make this one issue (or any one issue) essentially the only one of importance for its members is to do a great disservice to parishioners and the public. Considering the backtracking church leadership has had to do on a number of issues and decisions over the course of history, from the burning at the stake of people innocent of any crime other than doctrinal heresy (such as John Huss) to the punishing of scientists such as Galileo for daring to pursue knowledge apart from the church's belief in scripturally revealed "truth", and the support of Protestant churches in the south for slavery and segregation, the church, in its Catholic and Protestant manifestations, has good reasons to be careful in the area of public policy, at least in so far as it threatens to restrict its membership to one political party or on the basis of any one issue.
This isn't to say that the "church" should only speak out on economic issues, or only on behalf of the poor, or that the church should otherwise shut up about issues of sexual morality. I doubt the church would or could be restricted in that way, and even for those of us who may vigorously disagree with conservative bishops or theologians on any particular issue, I believe its vital that the churches give us the benefit of their study and reflection.
I also recognize that churches and doctrinal belief systems are inherently conflictual and controversial, and I don't expect religious leaders and believers to avoid any and all offensiveness. Most moral choices of necessity carry with them such offensiveness and conflict. I'd hope the church would eventually start siding with have nots rather than the haves of society, but I will welcome their contributions to the realm of public policy in any case. But Democrats need to come prepared to debate these issues and provide their constituents with the information and advocacy they deserve. These issues have been forced underground, not the least of which by Democrats themselves. It's time to bring them out of the closet, and for Democrats to be more assertive about discussing, and criticizing where need be, institutions and principles of faith.
In any event, bravo to Rep. DeLauro and her co-sponsors. I look forward to reading the document in its entirety.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Stop Me Before I Read Joe Klein Again
You know, as much as I want Democrats to win in 2006 and 2008, there's a vindictive part of me that hopes the GOP stays in control. Joe Klein, like many members of the media, is a Republican addict: He won't admit he has a problem until "he has hit bottom", as attendees of 12-step groups say. It isn't enough that you and I are feeling the pain. The Republican addict still doesn't get it. It may take another 2 to 4, maybe even six years for them to truly admit their problem, the first step in any successful recovery program. Of course, the world may be on fire by then. But if that's what it takes...
Fighting the Iraq War with "One Arm Tied Behind Our Backs"
Along with the "blame the left" theme that will be trumpeted by conservatives in and out of the media when Iraq crumbles into oblivion and civil war (as if it hasn't already), prepare to hear another Vietnam era line as well: we didn't win in Iraq (Vietnam) because we had to fight the war "with one arm tied behind our backs".
If we had just dropped the bomb on them...if we had just been allowed to incinerate their cities, mosques, and oil lines...if we had been allowed to torture them at will...if we weren't just so darned concerned about morals and treating the enemy nice...if the media hadn't...if the politicians had just stayed out of it and let the military run the war...if the Democrats in Congress had just...if we had just ignored Abu Grab...if we had had a draft...if...if...
If we had just dropped the bomb on them...if we had just been allowed to incinerate their cities, mosques, and oil lines...if we had been allowed to torture them at will...if we weren't just so darned concerned about morals and treating the enemy nice...if the media hadn't...if the politicians had just stayed out of it and let the military run the war...if the Democrats in Congress had just...if we had just ignored Abu Grab...if we had had a draft...if...if...
Conservatism's Legacy
Mcjoan at the DailyKos says:
As exemplified by the moment Dick Cheney said the United States would be "greeted as liberators" in his March 2003 interview on Meet the Press, never in the history of U.S. governments has an Administration been as consistently and wildly wrong and incompetent.
While most Democrats and other thinking people would undoubtedly agree with this statement, the fact is that the administration's "wildly wrong" judgments and "incompetent" managing doesn't come from anyplace strange.
Consider the recent comments by Arnold Schwarzegger at this weekend's California Republican convention:
One of the biggest rounds of cheers came when he reminded the delegates that he had blocked efforts to allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses. And going forward, he promised, he would show "bold" leadership, invoking Abraham Lincoln, Dwight D. Eisenhower and, naturally, for the California crowd, Ronald Reagan.
"We Republicans have a history of boldness," Mr. Schwarzenegger said. "I love that. Abraham Lincoln struck down slavery. Teddy Roosevelt fathered the environmental movement. Dwight D. Eisenhower built the Interstate highway. And Ronald Reagan tore down the wall and defeated Communism. This is a time in California's history that calls for similar boldness."
First, consider the line that got the most applause at the convention (according to the article): driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. If the high point for conservative Republican government has been reduced to preventing people from getting driver's licenses, than conservatives, and thinking people everywhere, might reasonably question the movement's usefulness, intellectual heft, and democratic motivations.
Second, the governator reaches into the past for examples of Republican "boldness" and comes up with ending slavery, "fathering" the environmental movement, building the interstate highway system, and defeating Communism. Of the four, the first three of these are "bold" only in the sense that they are clearly, liberal, progressive policy goals and accomplishments. The institution of slavery resided in what was then, and remains so today, as the nation's most violently conservative region. Slavery's defenders included the most reactionary conservative elites in the country, namely the South's wealthy plantation owners and the Christian Church. The ending of slavery was that era's most radically liberal and progressive initiative; and conservatism's vision ultimately lost.
The second, "fathering" the environmental movement, is, needless to say, anathema to today's conservatives. Supporters of maintaining the environment that enables life, such as Al Gore, are regaled by conservatives of nearly every stripe today as "fanatics"; the science of global warming denied and ridiculed as "loony" and anti-business. In some quarters, environmentalists are the de jure "terrorists of choice" for the media and the right when fires consume new housing developments, for example (the fires in southern Maryland were found to have been initiated by dis-satisfied racists wanna-bes).
Meanwhile, "internal improvements", such as interstate highway systems are equally blasphemous to movement conservatism. If you think I'm wrong, consider this comment by a conventioneer:
Mr. Schwarzenegger defended his plan to spend $222 billion on public works, including highways and schools, as an example of bold leadership.
But conservatives have criticized the plan as costly spending, and Jon Fleishman, a former state Republican Party executive director and editor of the widely read Flashreport blog, said, "I thought the speech was a safe double when he could have hit a home run." Mr. Fleishman called it short on specifics and a missed opportunity to say he would fire the chief of staff, Susan Kennedy, and roll back his public works plan.
The only item of the four that could be considered a genuine conservative aspiration is the "defeat" of Communism. Although most thinking people and students of history would point out that Soviet Communism fell on its own accord, and that U.S. "containment" policies such as the war in Vietnam and the toppling of the Iranian government (among other interventions against democratically elected regimes) were spectacular failures that, particularly in the latter case of Iran, have spawned decades of Islamic revolution and international terrorism, it should at least be conceded that the ending of global communism was a genuine conservative goal.
But in any event, one out of four ain't very good.
Moreover, Schwarzenegger would undoubtedly have enjoyed being able to claim other examples of bold leadership over the past two centuries of American politics--the dramatic expanding of the voting franchise, first to propertyless whites in the nineteenth century, than to women early in the 2oth , the establishment of Social Security, college student loans, Medicare, Civil Rights, and Voting Rights protection for blacks, for example, he can't very well point to these because these were not only Democratic initiatives, they were extremely liberal ones to boot.
The governator could have mentioned Theodore Roosevelt's trust-busting policies, but that would have been another "liberal" policy goal I'm guessing his crowd would just as soon not recall.
Fast forward to the present, it shouldn't be surprising that, having been wrong about virtually everything else over the past two centuries, conservative Republican leadership, elected in substantial part by regressive elements of the American body politic, would soon make short and catastrophic work of the budget and international terrain.
As exemplified by the moment Dick Cheney said the United States would be "greeted as liberators" in his March 2003 interview on Meet the Press, never in the history of U.S. governments has an Administration been as consistently and wildly wrong and incompetent.
While most Democrats and other thinking people would undoubtedly agree with this statement, the fact is that the administration's "wildly wrong" judgments and "incompetent" managing doesn't come from anyplace strange.
Consider the recent comments by Arnold Schwarzegger at this weekend's California Republican convention:
One of the biggest rounds of cheers came when he reminded the delegates that he had blocked efforts to allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses. And going forward, he promised, he would show "bold" leadership, invoking Abraham Lincoln, Dwight D. Eisenhower and, naturally, for the California crowd, Ronald Reagan.
"We Republicans have a history of boldness," Mr. Schwarzenegger said. "I love that. Abraham Lincoln struck down slavery. Teddy Roosevelt fathered the environmental movement. Dwight D. Eisenhower built the Interstate highway. And Ronald Reagan tore down the wall and defeated Communism. This is a time in California's history that calls for similar boldness."
First, consider the line that got the most applause at the convention (according to the article): driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. If the high point for conservative Republican government has been reduced to preventing people from getting driver's licenses, than conservatives, and thinking people everywhere, might reasonably question the movement's usefulness, intellectual heft, and democratic motivations.
Second, the governator reaches into the past for examples of Republican "boldness" and comes up with ending slavery, "fathering" the environmental movement, building the interstate highway system, and defeating Communism. Of the four, the first three of these are "bold" only in the sense that they are clearly, liberal, progressive policy goals and accomplishments. The institution of slavery resided in what was then, and remains so today, as the nation's most violently conservative region. Slavery's defenders included the most reactionary conservative elites in the country, namely the South's wealthy plantation owners and the Christian Church. The ending of slavery was that era's most radically liberal and progressive initiative; and conservatism's vision ultimately lost.
The second, "fathering" the environmental movement, is, needless to say, anathema to today's conservatives. Supporters of maintaining the environment that enables life, such as Al Gore, are regaled by conservatives of nearly every stripe today as "fanatics"; the science of global warming denied and ridiculed as "loony" and anti-business. In some quarters, environmentalists are the de jure "terrorists of choice" for the media and the right when fires consume new housing developments, for example (the fires in southern Maryland were found to have been initiated by dis-satisfied racists wanna-bes).
Meanwhile, "internal improvements", such as interstate highway systems are equally blasphemous to movement conservatism. If you think I'm wrong, consider this comment by a conventioneer:
Mr. Schwarzenegger defended his plan to spend $222 billion on public works, including highways and schools, as an example of bold leadership.
But conservatives have criticized the plan as costly spending, and Jon Fleishman, a former state Republican Party executive director and editor of the widely read Flashreport blog, said, "I thought the speech was a safe double when he could have hit a home run." Mr. Fleishman called it short on specifics and a missed opportunity to say he would fire the chief of staff, Susan Kennedy, and roll back his public works plan.
The only item of the four that could be considered a genuine conservative aspiration is the "defeat" of Communism. Although most thinking people and students of history would point out that Soviet Communism fell on its own accord, and that U.S. "containment" policies such as the war in Vietnam and the toppling of the Iranian government (among other interventions against democratically elected regimes) were spectacular failures that, particularly in the latter case of Iran, have spawned decades of Islamic revolution and international terrorism, it should at least be conceded that the ending of global communism was a genuine conservative goal.
But in any event, one out of four ain't very good.
Moreover, Schwarzenegger would undoubtedly have enjoyed being able to claim other examples of bold leadership over the past two centuries of American politics--the dramatic expanding of the voting franchise, first to propertyless whites in the nineteenth century, than to women early in the 2oth , the establishment of Social Security, college student loans, Medicare, Civil Rights, and Voting Rights protection for blacks, for example, he can't very well point to these because these were not only Democratic initiatives, they were extremely liberal ones to boot.
The governator could have mentioned Theodore Roosevelt's trust-busting policies, but that would have been another "liberal" policy goal I'm guessing his crowd would just as soon not recall.
Fast forward to the present, it shouldn't be surprising that, having been wrong about virtually everything else over the past two centuries, conservative Republican leadership, elected in substantial part by regressive elements of the American body politic, would soon make short and catastrophic work of the budget and international terrain.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Time for another Truthiness Tour?
Remember this?
"The reason why we are doing it is we are sick and tired of seeing and hearing headlines by the mainstream media about our defeat in Iraq," Melanie Morgan, a talk radio host for KSFO Radio in San Francisco and co-chair of Move America Forward, said.
Morgan said the media is "imposing a Vietnam template on this war."
"This is not Vietnam," she said. "War is war, and it's dangerous, and the killing is taking place all of the time. At the same time, where there is danger, there is success and there is a mainstream media that is determined to shut out that success."
It's hard to believe that the infamous radio-escapade to Baghdad's Green Zone was only last July. Seems like a million years ago.
If that isn't enough to tickle the funny bone, you can always cue up this oldy-but-goody from March 16, 2003:
MR. RUSSERT: The army's top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement.
Bwwaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!
Meanwhile on Fox's Beltway Boys, Mort and Fred were left whining today that Democrats "want to see us fail in Iraq."
Now, if your occupation is going swimmingly, my bet is you aren't going to be making statements like that. So that probably tells you all you need to know about our "success" in Iraq. And as the condition deteriorates there, we can expect the "blame the left" chorus to elevate.
Then again, for some people, the mosque bombing and subsequent rioting and assassinations last week actually indicate Bush's strategery is working.
"The reason why we are doing it is we are sick and tired of seeing and hearing headlines by the mainstream media about our defeat in Iraq," Melanie Morgan, a talk radio host for KSFO Radio in San Francisco and co-chair of Move America Forward, said.
Morgan said the media is "imposing a Vietnam template on this war."
"This is not Vietnam," she said. "War is war, and it's dangerous, and the killing is taking place all of the time. At the same time, where there is danger, there is success and there is a mainstream media that is determined to shut out that success."
It's hard to believe that the infamous radio-escapade to Baghdad's Green Zone was only last July. Seems like a million years ago.
If that isn't enough to tickle the funny bone, you can always cue up this oldy-but-goody from March 16, 2003:
MR. RUSSERT: The army's top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement.
Bwwaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!
Meanwhile on Fox's Beltway Boys, Mort and Fred were left whining today that Democrats "want to see us fail in Iraq."
Now, if your occupation is going swimmingly, my bet is you aren't going to be making statements like that. So that probably tells you all you need to know about our "success" in Iraq. And as the condition deteriorates there, we can expect the "blame the left" chorus to elevate.
Then again, for some people, the mosque bombing and subsequent rioting and assassinations last week actually indicate Bush's strategery is working.
Brave New Year
It wasn't long ago that the media was pronouncing Bush's bad 2005 a thing of the past and prognosticating a brighter year in 2006.
So how's that working out?
And, geez, I know it's NewsMax and Dick Morris, but good gosh, man:
Katrina has the capacity to shape the second Bush term in the same way Sept. 11 shaped his first term — not only in rebuilding New Orleans but in taking preventative steps around the nation to bolster our defenses against natural and manmade disasters and terror strikes. Responding to disasters is a source of presidential strength and popularity, and Bush is about to show how it is done.
Update: Wouldn't you know it? The Carpetbagger was thinking just like me:
Never fear, the Bush gang said, 2006 is when everything gets back on track.
Two months in, how's that working out for the White House?
In lieu of the near identical language, I should like to point out, however, that my post came up Yesterday (02/25), and the Carpetbagger's on 02/26. True, he or she at Carpetbaggerreport writes better than me and does better research, but I still think this near simultaneous blog posting, using almost identical language, is a perfect excuse to call for another Blogger Ethics Panel.
So how's that working out?
And, geez, I know it's NewsMax and Dick Morris, but good gosh, man:
Katrina has the capacity to shape the second Bush term in the same way Sept. 11 shaped his first term — not only in rebuilding New Orleans but in taking preventative steps around the nation to bolster our defenses against natural and manmade disasters and terror strikes. Responding to disasters is a source of presidential strength and popularity, and Bush is about to show how it is done.
Update: Wouldn't you know it? The Carpetbagger was thinking just like me:
Never fear, the Bush gang said, 2006 is when everything gets back on track.
Two months in, how's that working out for the White House?
In lieu of the near identical language, I should like to point out, however, that my post came up Yesterday (02/25), and the Carpetbagger's on 02/26. True, he or she at Carpetbaggerreport writes better than me and does better research, but I still think this near simultaneous blog posting, using almost identical language, is a perfect excuse to call for another Blogger Ethics Panel.
I'm Special
You can be, too. Stop by Ciro Rodriguez's place and a drop a dollar or two in the bucket.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Is the "Port Controversy" Good for Democrats?
It's hard to understand the Bush administration's tactics here, even if the substance on the ports issue is not as dire as many in the media and party leaderships are making it out to be. Of course, I didn't and have never quite understood it's motivations in going to war in Iraq so what else is new? But the administration's baffling strategery and rhetoric is threatening to split its party, endanger its media-bestowed "national security" advantage, and thereby hand desperate Democrats a gift horse in the mouth that it would do just as well not to look at. Not surprisingly, some Democrats have jumped head first into the apparent breach, hoping to gain something from the spectacle.
While we would hate to throw the sinking Bush Administration a line, this squabble, and the Democrats' contribution to it, could have unforeseen, and negative consequences for Democrats.
For one, the media reaction I've seen is starting to remind me of the worst pandering and fear mongering we saw between 9/11 and March 2003. For liberal blogs happily linking to Lou Dobbs' rantings and railings against the administration over the past week, be careful. Dobbs is not a friend to liberalism and would just as soon stab it and us in the back as he would be to do anything.
Second, by harping on port security, Democrats run the risk of making it appear as if such a thing as total port security and total fool-proof protection against terrorist attacks exists or could be established. While it's undoubtedly true that "we could do better" on ports and in other areas of securing the homeland, it's hard to foresee the circumstances that would allow us to prevent any and all security threats.
Many Democrats and pundits have correctly made the link between Bush's post 9-11 fear mongering and the backlash such antics have had for his interests in this case. When we say things like "you're either with us or against us" and "bring it on", it's hard to suddenly decide to be cautious and deliberate, fair-minded and rationalistic towards a particular race of people or foreign country.
But Democrats might well corner themselves by echoing the same tough talk and reactionary tactics we've heard and seen from Republicans and their media mouthpieces. When the next attack comes, or when the next security threat appears, Democrats may find as a result of their pandering on this issue, that the public is in no mood to be reasonable or rationale.
On the other hand, is their a risk for Democrats if they don't appear to be taking a strong stand on the issue? If they allow the Republican Congress to buck their president on this, Democrats may feel the GOP would reap the rewards of public support, leaving themselves behind. Again.
I report. You decide.
While we would hate to throw the sinking Bush Administration a line, this squabble, and the Democrats' contribution to it, could have unforeseen, and negative consequences for Democrats.
For one, the media reaction I've seen is starting to remind me of the worst pandering and fear mongering we saw between 9/11 and March 2003. For liberal blogs happily linking to Lou Dobbs' rantings and railings against the administration over the past week, be careful. Dobbs is not a friend to liberalism and would just as soon stab it and us in the back as he would be to do anything.
Second, by harping on port security, Democrats run the risk of making it appear as if such a thing as total port security and total fool-proof protection against terrorist attacks exists or could be established. While it's undoubtedly true that "we could do better" on ports and in other areas of securing the homeland, it's hard to foresee the circumstances that would allow us to prevent any and all security threats.
Many Democrats and pundits have correctly made the link between Bush's post 9-11 fear mongering and the backlash such antics have had for his interests in this case. When we say things like "you're either with us or against us" and "bring it on", it's hard to suddenly decide to be cautious and deliberate, fair-minded and rationalistic towards a particular race of people or foreign country.
But Democrats might well corner themselves by echoing the same tough talk and reactionary tactics we've heard and seen from Republicans and their media mouthpieces. When the next attack comes, or when the next security threat appears, Democrats may find as a result of their pandering on this issue, that the public is in no mood to be reasonable or rationale.
On the other hand, is their a risk for Democrats if they don't appear to be taking a strong stand on the issue? If they allow the Republican Congress to buck their president on this, Democrats may feel the GOP would reap the rewards of public support, leaving themselves behind. Again.
I report. You decide.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Happy Conservatives
Lacking anything else to write about, George Will adds a chapter to the press's War on Liberalism. This one contends that conservatives are happier than liberals, based on a public opinion poll.
You probably think I'm going to rail on Will and the column, froth at the mouth at such a blasphemous allegation.
But I won't. For one, if I did, it would prove Will's argument. Second, the column is just too stupid to be legitimately angry over. Third, despite it's stupidity, I don't doubt that at least some conservatives are happier than some liberals, and that therefore, Will may have a point.
I'll get to the column's empty-headedness later, but for now, let me offer some evidence for why conservatives may be happier than liberals. While I don't know any happy conservatives, there are some sound theoretical reasons why they could be happier. First, let's consider some conservative typologies. One type of conservative is the religious fundamentalist conservative. Religious conservatives could be happy people because they have allowed themselves to jettisone all reason. If you don't worry about reason or evidence, if as Sam Harris notes in The End of Faith, there is no evidence that would cause you to change your religious beliefs, than reason really is of minimal importance for you, and you could conceivably be a pretty happy person, believing you go to heaven when you die, to live throughout eternity with your friends and family. As the famous Christian apologist and novelist G.K. Chesterton says in his book Orthodoxy, "an insane person is not someone who has lost his reason, he is someone who has lost everything except his reason". So reason may be holding us liberals back. I'll concede that. Of course, because faith also tends to be joined by strict and, by most measures, unreasonable rules, in real life faith does not always lend itself to happiness. Particularly if church teaches you to be insecure in your salvation. Roman Catholicism and Weslyian Protestantism tend to emphasize the role of works in salvation and the importance of always staying on guard less you lose your faith. Calvinistic Protestants, on the other hand, who preach a version of pre-destination, hold that certain people, believers, are pre-destined to be saved and for them, salvation is assured because God's grace covers us. The latter would theoretically be happier than the former.
The other type of rabid conservative is the racist conservative. I know racism is a heavy charge to levy, but these are the conservatives you will find pushing for English only laws, building a wall on the Mexican border, "invading Muslim countries and making them convert to Christianity"*, and otherwise expressing displeasure when the "other" is benefited by government policy. These people, from my experience, are rarely happy, believing as they do that the world is conspiring against them.
Mainstream conservatives (you might be wondering if I think any exist) are essentially moderate liberals, and probably hold generally libertarian view points, preferring the government not be involved in either the economy or a person's bedroom. Maybe these are the conservatives Will knows. By his column I'm forced to conclude he doesn't know either the religious or racist conservatives.
Which brings us, I suppose, to the moronic parts of Will's column today.
You might be wondering, if, as Will claims, conservatives are just a happy go lucky bunch of folks, where do the Rush Limbaugh's and Michael Savages of the world fit into this picture of conservative utopia? You know, the ones that talk about exterminating liberals, and how "liberalism is a mental disorder"?
Good question. Mr. Will?
Nevertheless, normal conservatives -- never mind the gladiators of talk radio; they are professionally angry -- are less angry than liberals.
Ah. The "gladiators" get a pass. They don't count. Sounds a little selective for this social scientist. If you subset the conservative sample by deleting Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Little Green Footballs, John Gibson, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Bennet, and the WSJ editorial page, then how many conservatives are left?
Anyway, after dismissing the influence of "the gladiators of talk radio"--who only have millions of listeners by the way--Will wraps up the column by charging liberalism with being "scoldish".
You see? Liberalism is a complicated and exacting, not to say grim and scolding, creed. And not one conducive to happiness.
Liberalism as "exacting" and "scoldish"? I thought liberals were "moral relativists". How can we be indifferent, morally relativistic"libertines"** and be "exacting" and "scoldish" at the same time?
Part of the problem we see in Will's worldview is the conventional wisdom of labeling conservatives as defenders of traditional values, as advocates of moral absolution, while labeling liberals as moral relativists. This view denies that both ideological extremes are highly moralistic, "exacting" and "scolding". Conservatives and liberals just care about different stuff. For conservatives, being gay is morally evil. For liberals, saddling our descendents with our debt, and bombing innocent civilians are morally evil. Both philosophies are heavily moralistic.
But the conventional wisdom, spoon-fed to the Deborah Howells and Jim Brady's of the world (Abramoff "directed" money to both parties) by the Republican Noise Machine*** is undeterred.
So when liberals are found to be concerned about an issue and desiring political action, they are labeled as "scolds", while when conservatives mount a challenge to the behavior of others, they are labeled as "conservatives" concerned with "traditional values".
Anyway, my job is done here. After watching some moral relativism on TV, I'll be off to my anger management session.
*see Coulter, Ann
**see O'Reilly, Bill
***see Brock, David
You probably think I'm going to rail on Will and the column, froth at the mouth at such a blasphemous allegation.
But I won't. For one, if I did, it would prove Will's argument. Second, the column is just too stupid to be legitimately angry over. Third, despite it's stupidity, I don't doubt that at least some conservatives are happier than some liberals, and that therefore, Will may have a point.
I'll get to the column's empty-headedness later, but for now, let me offer some evidence for why conservatives may be happier than liberals. While I don't know any happy conservatives, there are some sound theoretical reasons why they could be happier. First, let's consider some conservative typologies. One type of conservative is the religious fundamentalist conservative. Religious conservatives could be happy people because they have allowed themselves to jettisone all reason. If you don't worry about reason or evidence, if as Sam Harris notes in The End of Faith, there is no evidence that would cause you to change your religious beliefs, than reason really is of minimal importance for you, and you could conceivably be a pretty happy person, believing you go to heaven when you die, to live throughout eternity with your friends and family. As the famous Christian apologist and novelist G.K. Chesterton says in his book Orthodoxy, "an insane person is not someone who has lost his reason, he is someone who has lost everything except his reason". So reason may be holding us liberals back. I'll concede that. Of course, because faith also tends to be joined by strict and, by most measures, unreasonable rules, in real life faith does not always lend itself to happiness. Particularly if church teaches you to be insecure in your salvation. Roman Catholicism and Weslyian Protestantism tend to emphasize the role of works in salvation and the importance of always staying on guard less you lose your faith. Calvinistic Protestants, on the other hand, who preach a version of pre-destination, hold that certain people, believers, are pre-destined to be saved and for them, salvation is assured because God's grace covers us. The latter would theoretically be happier than the former.
The other type of rabid conservative is the racist conservative. I know racism is a heavy charge to levy, but these are the conservatives you will find pushing for English only laws, building a wall on the Mexican border, "invading Muslim countries and making them convert to Christianity"*, and otherwise expressing displeasure when the "other" is benefited by government policy. These people, from my experience, are rarely happy, believing as they do that the world is conspiring against them.
Mainstream conservatives (you might be wondering if I think any exist) are essentially moderate liberals, and probably hold generally libertarian view points, preferring the government not be involved in either the economy or a person's bedroom. Maybe these are the conservatives Will knows. By his column I'm forced to conclude he doesn't know either the religious or racist conservatives.
Which brings us, I suppose, to the moronic parts of Will's column today.
You might be wondering, if, as Will claims, conservatives are just a happy go lucky bunch of folks, where do the Rush Limbaugh's and Michael Savages of the world fit into this picture of conservative utopia? You know, the ones that talk about exterminating liberals, and how "liberalism is a mental disorder"?
Good question. Mr. Will?
Nevertheless, normal conservatives -- never mind the gladiators of talk radio; they are professionally angry -- are less angry than liberals.
Ah. The "gladiators" get a pass. They don't count. Sounds a little selective for this social scientist. If you subset the conservative sample by deleting Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Little Green Footballs, John Gibson, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Bennet, and the WSJ editorial page, then how many conservatives are left?
Anyway, after dismissing the influence of "the gladiators of talk radio"--who only have millions of listeners by the way--Will wraps up the column by charging liberalism with being "scoldish".
You see? Liberalism is a complicated and exacting, not to say grim and scolding, creed. And not one conducive to happiness.
Liberalism as "exacting" and "scoldish"? I thought liberals were "moral relativists". How can we be indifferent, morally relativistic"libertines"** and be "exacting" and "scoldish" at the same time?
Part of the problem we see in Will's worldview is the conventional wisdom of labeling conservatives as defenders of traditional values, as advocates of moral absolution, while labeling liberals as moral relativists. This view denies that both ideological extremes are highly moralistic, "exacting" and "scolding". Conservatives and liberals just care about different stuff. For conservatives, being gay is morally evil. For liberals, saddling our descendents with our debt, and bombing innocent civilians are morally evil. Both philosophies are heavily moralistic.
But the conventional wisdom, spoon-fed to the Deborah Howells and Jim Brady's of the world (Abramoff "directed" money to both parties) by the Republican Noise Machine*** is undeterred.
So when liberals are found to be concerned about an issue and desiring political action, they are labeled as "scolds", while when conservatives mount a challenge to the behavior of others, they are labeled as "conservatives" concerned with "traditional values".
Anyway, my job is done here. After watching some moral relativism on TV, I'll be off to my anger management session.
*see Coulter, Ann
**see O'Reilly, Bill
***see Brock, David
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Paradoxes of Modernity
It's rare I find the Wash Post op-eds thought provoking, but this column by David Ignatius offers two inadvertent, and counterintuitive consequences of globalization, and the worldwide information technology revolution.
The question Ignatius poses is why with the increase in "connectiveness" between world governments and the global community, is U.S. foreign policy continually beset with messiness, be it the aftermath of the "cartoon" riots, the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, the insurgency in Iraq, or the resurgence of fundamentalism, or at least international hostility from the regime in Iran, and so on.
Based on conversations with two international and communications specialists, Ignatius relates two major elements of blowback from increasing international communication and expanding technology.
The first is a tendency for increased trade, technology and communication to widen the divide between the governing and the governed. Governmental, economic and intellectual elites become disconnected from the mass of their populations, setting the stage for major upheavals. Ignatius points back to Iran in 1975 as an example of a country that appeared to be heading successfully into the modern era, only to fall back into medieval Islamic fervor and control. Although Ignatius doesn't go there, and it may not be the case in every society, but the increase in trade and technology has undoubtedly helped widened the gap between the haves and have nots of a society as well, providing an additional source of, yes, class conflict.
The second element is the sad reality that increased technology has too often served as a means whereby ignorance and hate gets spread faster than ever before. Hence the cartoon riots. Ignatius also points readers to the "American blogosphere", having in mind no doubt the responses that poor ombudswoman, Deborah Howell experienced several weeks ago when the Washington Post was caught peddling GOP talking points regarding Jack Abramoff.
Ignatius's complaints about the "American blogosphere" aside, I couldn't help but think that not only do these two elements of connectiveness apply in a negative way just on the "Arab street" or in other parts of the world, but that America itself is a confusing picture of modernity and medievalism colliding. I'm thinking in particular of the rising influence of Christian fundamentalists. Conservatives have been quick and happy to point out that so-called liberal or moderate denominations are stagnating while conservative evangelical churches have been t thriving. While education is increasing, consumer goods more abundant, and developments in science and medicine increasing exponentially, America is at the same time becoming more ignorant and paranoid. The events of 911 obviously had a great impact on the American mood, much for the worse. The dominance of Fox News and her cable imitators have poisoned the well further, although Roger Ailes might validly argue that his network's success is the result of the public mood, rather than a cause of it.
In any event, we seem to be faced with both rapidly expanding technological prowess and education wherewithall at the same time we're busy reverting to 13th century feudalism in our religious dogma and international reactiveness.
A disturbing confirmation of this troubling trend and paradox is China. It's a gospel tenet of utmost sanctity in educated circles that free markets and capitalism lead to greater economic growth and prosperity, which in turn begets political pluralism and democratic freedoms.
But while near enough to truthiness in some cases, China has been a glaring exception, as recent reports about the roles played by Internet giants Yahoo! and Google in China have indicated. Although loosening the grip of the Communist Party's rigid economic dogma in China, Beijing's leaders appear more determined than ever to prevent the next evolution of political liberalization to accompany its economic one.
The disturbing implication is that the U.S. could continue to get richer and more technologically savy, free trade, globalization and all, and still takes steps backward politically, back into the pre-modern era that so many conservatives, especially religious ones, seem only too eager that we embrace at their behest.
One final area of discomfort concerns The Emerging Democratic Majority thesis put forward a few years ago by political scientists John Judis and Ruy Teixeira. The authors basically contend that demographic and labor force trends are moving the Democrats way; the proportion of minorities is increasing, the shift to a knowledge-based economy, and increasing levels of education, among other factors, will help liberalize the future electorate, if not in name, at least in partisan outcomes.
While there is undoubtedly some basis for optimism from increasing education, urbanization, and so on, a political scientist observing the political scene in the 1970's could have been forgiven if he or she had forecast much of the same thing for our own era. Civil Rights reforms had enfranchised large numbers of African-Americans. The voting age was just about to be lowered to 18. Women would continue to enter the labor force better educated and in greater numbers than ever before. More people, thanks to federal aid, were going to college. More people were waiting longer to marry and have children, and on and on. But the last three decades have been, at least in partisan terms, Republican instead of Democratic. Meanwhile, while Republicans have gained across the country, the culture, thanks in part to a changing economy, has gotten more liberal. As Thomas Franks notes in What's the Matter with Kansas?, the conservatives' cultural war has been a bust. Abortion continues. Gays are more accepted. Trashy TV still sells (just ask Fox).
Everything is Paradoxical.
The question Ignatius poses is why with the increase in "connectiveness" between world governments and the global community, is U.S. foreign policy continually beset with messiness, be it the aftermath of the "cartoon" riots, the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, the insurgency in Iraq, or the resurgence of fundamentalism, or at least international hostility from the regime in Iran, and so on.
Based on conversations with two international and communications specialists, Ignatius relates two major elements of blowback from increasing international communication and expanding technology.
The first is a tendency for increased trade, technology and communication to widen the divide between the governing and the governed. Governmental, economic and intellectual elites become disconnected from the mass of their populations, setting the stage for major upheavals. Ignatius points back to Iran in 1975 as an example of a country that appeared to be heading successfully into the modern era, only to fall back into medieval Islamic fervor and control. Although Ignatius doesn't go there, and it may not be the case in every society, but the increase in trade and technology has undoubtedly helped widened the gap between the haves and have nots of a society as well, providing an additional source of, yes, class conflict.
The second element is the sad reality that increased technology has too often served as a means whereby ignorance and hate gets spread faster than ever before. Hence the cartoon riots. Ignatius also points readers to the "American blogosphere", having in mind no doubt the responses that poor ombudswoman, Deborah Howell experienced several weeks ago when the Washington Post was caught peddling GOP talking points regarding Jack Abramoff.
Ignatius's complaints about the "American blogosphere" aside, I couldn't help but think that not only do these two elements of connectiveness apply in a negative way just on the "Arab street" or in other parts of the world, but that America itself is a confusing picture of modernity and medievalism colliding. I'm thinking in particular of the rising influence of Christian fundamentalists. Conservatives have been quick and happy to point out that so-called liberal or moderate denominations are stagnating while conservative evangelical churches have been t thriving. While education is increasing, consumer goods more abundant, and developments in science and medicine increasing exponentially, America is at the same time becoming more ignorant and paranoid. The events of 911 obviously had a great impact on the American mood, much for the worse. The dominance of Fox News and her cable imitators have poisoned the well further, although Roger Ailes might validly argue that his network's success is the result of the public mood, rather than a cause of it.
In any event, we seem to be faced with both rapidly expanding technological prowess and education wherewithall at the same time we're busy reverting to 13th century feudalism in our religious dogma and international reactiveness.
A disturbing confirmation of this troubling trend and paradox is China. It's a gospel tenet of utmost sanctity in educated circles that free markets and capitalism lead to greater economic growth and prosperity, which in turn begets political pluralism and democratic freedoms.
But while near enough to truthiness in some cases, China has been a glaring exception, as recent reports about the roles played by Internet giants Yahoo! and Google in China have indicated. Although loosening the grip of the Communist Party's rigid economic dogma in China, Beijing's leaders appear more determined than ever to prevent the next evolution of political liberalization to accompany its economic one.
The disturbing implication is that the U.S. could continue to get richer and more technologically savy, free trade, globalization and all, and still takes steps backward politically, back into the pre-modern era that so many conservatives, especially religious ones, seem only too eager that we embrace at their behest.
One final area of discomfort concerns The Emerging Democratic Majority thesis put forward a few years ago by political scientists John Judis and Ruy Teixeira. The authors basically contend that demographic and labor force trends are moving the Democrats way; the proportion of minorities is increasing, the shift to a knowledge-based economy, and increasing levels of education, among other factors, will help liberalize the future electorate, if not in name, at least in partisan outcomes.
While there is undoubtedly some basis for optimism from increasing education, urbanization, and so on, a political scientist observing the political scene in the 1970's could have been forgiven if he or she had forecast much of the same thing for our own era. Civil Rights reforms had enfranchised large numbers of African-Americans. The voting age was just about to be lowered to 18. Women would continue to enter the labor force better educated and in greater numbers than ever before. More people, thanks to federal aid, were going to college. More people were waiting longer to marry and have children, and on and on. But the last three decades have been, at least in partisan terms, Republican instead of Democratic. Meanwhile, while Republicans have gained across the country, the culture, thanks in part to a changing economy, has gotten more liberal. As Thomas Franks notes in What's the Matter with Kansas?, the conservatives' cultural war has been a bust. Abortion continues. Gays are more accepted. Trashy TV still sells (just ask Fox).
Everything is Paradoxical.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Religious Tolerance:What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been
Over the weekend I happened upon a "religious" program, one of the ones usually dedicated to the spreading of conservative politics, but which on presidential weekend, was conservative politics and theocracy to the nth degree.
The guy's remarks went something like this:
The puritans came over on the Mayflower to get away from religious intolerance in the old world, but then were intolerant themselves of religious minorities, such as Roger Williams who was exiled off to Rhode Island to start a new colony of religious dissidents. Later, congregationalists, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Mormons, and other religious minorities came in for their own persecution. Then came intolerance for the atheists and secularists.
So far so good, right? Sounds about accurate.
But then the double kicker: the guy proceeds to say something to the effect that, hey, you know, Christians are always hearing how intolerant they are, but the fact is that even though Christians in America were intolerant towards other factions of Christians and other minorities, these groups eventually became accepted, so that proves how tolerant American Christians are. Or something. But now it's conservative Christians who are facing intolerance from other religions and atheists. Intolerable.
So even though conservative Republicans dominate all three branches of government, and an increasing share of state and local governments as well, and despite the fact that conservative evangelicals are said to comprise 35%-40% of the Republican Party, conservative Christians are under seige in America, afflicted, scorned, hated, chased from their homes, disowned, deprived of their churches and bibles, barred from home-schooling, and imprisoned for their faith.
How, despite all the seeming evidence to the contrary, do claims such as this one find an audience? Like the myth of the "liberal media", the myth of the persecuted conservative Christian grows by leaps and bounds by the minute.
Undoubtedly these myths persist because they are incubated within the realms of very secluded, narrow social groupings and associations, whose members are urged to listen only to approved sources of information, not that many members need the urging. The language and psychology of victimization, which the Right is so normally and loudly condemning of, has been adopted by the Right to aid its organizational cash-flow and its political agenda. The fact that the religious persecution myth is trumpeted from a well-to-do establishment of radio networks and cable television stations aids in this process, and may in fact, suggest a vast over-representation of financially and politically induced paranoia among religious conservatives.
The guy's remarks went something like this:
The puritans came over on the Mayflower to get away from religious intolerance in the old world, but then were intolerant themselves of religious minorities, such as Roger Williams who was exiled off to Rhode Island to start a new colony of religious dissidents. Later, congregationalists, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Mormons, and other religious minorities came in for their own persecution. Then came intolerance for the atheists and secularists.
So far so good, right? Sounds about accurate.
But then the double kicker: the guy proceeds to say something to the effect that, hey, you know, Christians are always hearing how intolerant they are, but the fact is that even though Christians in America were intolerant towards other factions of Christians and other minorities, these groups eventually became accepted, so that proves how tolerant American Christians are. Or something. But now it's conservative Christians who are facing intolerance from other religions and atheists. Intolerable.
So even though conservative Republicans dominate all three branches of government, and an increasing share of state and local governments as well, and despite the fact that conservative evangelicals are said to comprise 35%-40% of the Republican Party, conservative Christians are under seige in America, afflicted, scorned, hated, chased from their homes, disowned, deprived of their churches and bibles, barred from home-schooling, and imprisoned for their faith.
How, despite all the seeming evidence to the contrary, do claims such as this one find an audience? Like the myth of the "liberal media", the myth of the persecuted conservative Christian grows by leaps and bounds by the minute.
Undoubtedly these myths persist because they are incubated within the realms of very secluded, narrow social groupings and associations, whose members are urged to listen only to approved sources of information, not that many members need the urging. The language and psychology of victimization, which the Right is so normally and loudly condemning of, has been adopted by the Right to aid its organizational cash-flow and its political agenda. The fact that the religious persecution myth is trumpeted from a well-to-do establishment of radio networks and cable television stations aids in this process, and may in fact, suggest a vast over-representation of financially and politically induced paranoia among religious conservatives.
Monday, February 20, 2006
President's Day Off
It may not have exactly been Ferris Bueller's Day Off, but I took advantage of the federal holiday to pay a visit to the National Cathedral. First I discovered that the church was not Roman Catholic, but is in fact, Episcopal. However, the church doesn't apparently actually belong to the Episcopals or anyone else. It seems to have a kind of independent status. According to the signs, the church also doesn't have an official membership, although it does provide regular services, including a daily mass, which I happened upon at the end. It turns out the service was officiated by a woman. Most UnRoman Catholic of it, if I hadn't known it already. The woman priest (priestess?) seemed quite gracious to the handful of parishioners who had stopped by to attend the noon-time mass.
The building itself was of course, for someone of my bland vanilla Protestant upbringing, quite impressive. Towering ceilings, colorful stained glass windows. I wandered for a while downstairs in the crypt, among the various smaller chapels, before realizing the main church was up above. Before I went up there, I learned that several people are buried in the church, including Helen Keller (her ashes, actually).
I also spent several minutes browsing the souvenir shop, in particular, the many books for sale. The store was well stocked with a wide range of religious books, many of them of the unorthodox variety. From the interned socialist and famous blind author and activist, to the female priest/ess and the modernist books available, I got the sense the church was lib, welcoming to gays, feminists, and federal bureaucrats working on their PhD's. This is a church I'd probably be happy to attend it it weren't so far from my home base in Columbia, MD.
From the cathedral proper, I went up the road to Bethesda's Landmark theatre and a 1:50 pm showing of Capote. I enjoyed the movie, which was set almost entirely in and around Capote's observation and writing of In Cold Blood. I hadn't realized Capote was friends with Harper Lee, the author of To Kill a Mockingbird. Just one of the tidbits I learned. Capote and Lee were both southerners, but living in NYC by the time they became famous (Helen Keller, mentioned earlier, was also from the south). The movie and the acting were good, although it was a little long and drawn out, for those of you fond of speedier films.
To wrap up the day I browsed the Barnes and Noble across the street, dutifully purchasing a book of Capote's short stories, although not In Cold Blood, which was on sale, but which I've read before.
So was my day for my benefit only, or did I have some larger good in mind, the saving of a friend who desperately needs to break out from under his family's oppressive rigidity by running his father's expensive car out the back windows of his equally expensive hill-top home? And how come these teens in John Hughes' movies lived so richly anyway?
Bueller? Bueller?
The building itself was of course, for someone of my bland vanilla Protestant upbringing, quite impressive. Towering ceilings, colorful stained glass windows. I wandered for a while downstairs in the crypt, among the various smaller chapels, before realizing the main church was up above. Before I went up there, I learned that several people are buried in the church, including Helen Keller (her ashes, actually).
I also spent several minutes browsing the souvenir shop, in particular, the many books for sale. The store was well stocked with a wide range of religious books, many of them of the unorthodox variety. From the interned socialist and famous blind author and activist, to the female priest/ess and the modernist books available, I got the sense the church was lib, welcoming to gays, feminists, and federal bureaucrats working on their PhD's. This is a church I'd probably be happy to attend it it weren't so far from my home base in Columbia, MD.
From the cathedral proper, I went up the road to Bethesda's Landmark theatre and a 1:50 pm showing of Capote. I enjoyed the movie, which was set almost entirely in and around Capote's observation and writing of In Cold Blood. I hadn't realized Capote was friends with Harper Lee, the author of To Kill a Mockingbird. Just one of the tidbits I learned. Capote and Lee were both southerners, but living in NYC by the time they became famous (Helen Keller, mentioned earlier, was also from the south). The movie and the acting were good, although it was a little long and drawn out, for those of you fond of speedier films.
To wrap up the day I browsed the Barnes and Noble across the street, dutifully purchasing a book of Capote's short stories, although not In Cold Blood, which was on sale, but which I've read before.
So was my day for my benefit only, or did I have some larger good in mind, the saving of a friend who desperately needs to break out from under his family's oppressive rigidity by running his father's expensive car out the back windows of his equally expensive hill-top home? And how come these teens in John Hughes' movies lived so richly anyway?
Bueller? Bueller?
Sunday, February 19, 2006
The Da Vinci Code
I'm re-reading The Da Vinci Code. Partly because the movie's release, scheduled for May, has piqued my interest again. And partly because when I read it the first time, I read it mostly for the story, not paying real strict attention to the religious details. Although the religious angle was obviously central to the book's intrigue, and is a high interest of mine, I didn't take the book's various allegations all that seriously. I was just along for the ride.
My initial feeling about it was that while the book did include a lot of what devout Christians, or at least conservative Catholics would consider to be blasphemous references, the end of the book seemed to blur that effect somewhat. So to me the book really didn't come down all that hard on orthodox Christianity, despite the claims of the book's and the author's detractors. It seemed to me that the author's portrayal of the Catholic church in general, and of the secretive organization, Opus Dei in particular, was more sensitive than many popular accounts of the book make it seem. In any event, critiques of the church's origins, the nature of Christ, and so forth, fictional or otherwise, aren't all that unusual, given how little we really know of ancient times without printing presses and Internet connections, and given the Catholic church's sordid history along many other lines, such as the inquisition, the various scandals surrounding many of the popes, it's many false claims that modernity has exposed (such as those surrounding Galileo and the earth as the center of the universe), and so on.
So why the big deal about this book?
Maybe the church thinks people are more attentive to religious detail in non-sanctioned works than they really are. Maybe the fact that the allegations of church fraud and cover-up are so recent has caused it to respond more vigorously to this book than would seem warranted. And of course, that a gazillion copies of the book, hard-cover no less, have been sold has been a critical factor in the church's response (by both Roman Catholic and Protestant it should be mentioned).
Aware that a call for a boycott would undoubtedly stir up greater interest in the movie, the church has been somewhat cautious in its criticisms of the upcoming release, preferring to instead try to counter the book's arguments through its own media outlets and institutions, hoping to ensure that the faithful are kept in line, or at least are given adequate tools to respond so as to make sure their faith is not unsettled. Preaching to the choir, so to speak, rather than taking their complaints mainstream.
In any event, I'm re-reading it hoping to clarify some of the book's religious claims, which the author says are factual.
My initial feeling about it was that while the book did include a lot of what devout Christians, or at least conservative Catholics would consider to be blasphemous references, the end of the book seemed to blur that effect somewhat. So to me the book really didn't come down all that hard on orthodox Christianity, despite the claims of the book's and the author's detractors. It seemed to me that the author's portrayal of the Catholic church in general, and of the secretive organization, Opus Dei in particular, was more sensitive than many popular accounts of the book make it seem. In any event, critiques of the church's origins, the nature of Christ, and so forth, fictional or otherwise, aren't all that unusual, given how little we really know of ancient times without printing presses and Internet connections, and given the Catholic church's sordid history along many other lines, such as the inquisition, the various scandals surrounding many of the popes, it's many false claims that modernity has exposed (such as those surrounding Galileo and the earth as the center of the universe), and so on.
So why the big deal about this book?
Maybe the church thinks people are more attentive to religious detail in non-sanctioned works than they really are. Maybe the fact that the allegations of church fraud and cover-up are so recent has caused it to respond more vigorously to this book than would seem warranted. And of course, that a gazillion copies of the book, hard-cover no less, have been sold has been a critical factor in the church's response (by both Roman Catholic and Protestant it should be mentioned).
Aware that a call for a boycott would undoubtedly stir up greater interest in the movie, the church has been somewhat cautious in its criticisms of the upcoming release, preferring to instead try to counter the book's arguments through its own media outlets and institutions, hoping to ensure that the faithful are kept in line, or at least are given adequate tools to respond so as to make sure their faith is not unsettled. Preaching to the choir, so to speak, rather than taking their complaints mainstream.
In any event, I'm re-reading it hoping to clarify some of the book's religious claims, which the author says are factual.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Somebody Woke Up with a Horse's Head Underneath His Covers
Shooting Victim Apologizes to Shooter
Harry Whittington said Friday he was sorry for what Dick Cheney and his family have "had to go through" after the vice president shot him in a weekend hunting accident.
Man Shot by Shooter Says He's Sorry for Shooter
"My family and I are deeply sorry for everything Vice President Cheney and his family have had to deal with," he said.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Op-Ed Round Up
First, George Will lambastes the administration's NSA spying policy, making the same connection Senator Bulworth made at this very web blog last month:
Anyway, the argument that the AUMF contained a completely unexpressed congressional intent to empower the president to disregard the FISA regime is risible coming from this administration. It famously opposes those who discover unstated meanings in the Constitution's text and do not strictly construe the language of statutes.
The administration's argument about the legality of the NSA program also has been discordant with its argument about the urgency of extending the USA Patriot Act. Many provisions of that act are superfluous if a president's wartime powers are as far-reaching as today's president says they are.
So the Senator isn't alone in wondering how one's "strict constructivism" and judicial "originalism" beliefs are supposed to mesh with the highly ambiguous, extra-constitutional, loosey-goosey, "unitary-executive" theory and the presidential activism inherent in "presidential signing statements".
Meanwhile, on the Shooter front, David Brooks has been reading our blogs, and isn't pleased with our conspiracy-mongering:
So in the days following the Cheney-Whittington accident, liberal pundits had to live up to their responsibility to manufacture a series of unsubstantiated allegations while turning the episode into a Clifford Odets-style tale of plutocrats gone wild. "Was he drunk? I mean, these are ultrarich Republicans, at a weekend, fun-time hunting," the pundit Lawrence O'Donnell wondered on MSNBC.
Meanwhile over at the blogosphere, the keyboard jockeys had a responsibility to sniff up vast conspiracies and get lost in creepy minutiae. "The 50,000 acre Armstrong Ranch is in Kenedy County. So I figure the Armstrongs probably have a lot of pull in county government. So, just a question: how thorough was the investigation of what happened?" the influential blogger Josh Marshall queried darkly. Earlier, he veered off, as he must, into picayune and skin-crawling theorizing about the path the pellets took through Whittington's body:
"Would the weapon and ammunition Dick Cheney shot have the force to imbed pellets near Whittington's heart at 30 yards? ... These pellets would have to have pierced his clothing, his skin and then lodged inside the body cavity, somewhere near or around his heart. The shot came from the right and the heart is on the left so that might add to the amount of tissue needing to be traversed."
Hear that, you liberal web-bloggerers? So the VP shot some guy, didn't allow himself to be interviewed by authorities until some 14-18 hours after the incident. Big deal. Doesn't mean he was too drunk to do so. It just means that the VP, even though he did have something to smooth over the edges before going hunting, didn't want to concern the authorities with the fact that he accidently shot some bb's into his friend, who was really at fault anyway, for getting hisself shot. Probably Shooter didn't want to risk his friend being arrested for not announcing himself properly.
Beyond that, Josh M and Jack Cafferty, Howie sez that Cheney's choice of Hume to "interview" him was a fair and balanced one, since the F network is the number one cable "news" station and of all the networks out there, only the F one gives the Repubs a fair shake. So double double there, you far left bloggerers.
Anyway, the argument that the AUMF contained a completely unexpressed congressional intent to empower the president to disregard the FISA regime is risible coming from this administration. It famously opposes those who discover unstated meanings in the Constitution's text and do not strictly construe the language of statutes.
The administration's argument about the legality of the NSA program also has been discordant with its argument about the urgency of extending the USA Patriot Act. Many provisions of that act are superfluous if a president's wartime powers are as far-reaching as today's president says they are.
So the Senator isn't alone in wondering how one's "strict constructivism" and judicial "originalism" beliefs are supposed to mesh with the highly ambiguous, extra-constitutional, loosey-goosey, "unitary-executive" theory and the presidential activism inherent in "presidential signing statements".
Meanwhile, on the Shooter front, David Brooks has been reading our blogs, and isn't pleased with our conspiracy-mongering:
So in the days following the Cheney-Whittington accident, liberal pundits had to live up to their responsibility to manufacture a series of unsubstantiated allegations while turning the episode into a Clifford Odets-style tale of plutocrats gone wild. "Was he drunk? I mean, these are ultrarich Republicans, at a weekend, fun-time hunting," the pundit Lawrence O'Donnell wondered on MSNBC.
Meanwhile over at the blogosphere, the keyboard jockeys had a responsibility to sniff up vast conspiracies and get lost in creepy minutiae. "The 50,000 acre Armstrong Ranch is in Kenedy County. So I figure the Armstrongs probably have a lot of pull in county government. So, just a question: how thorough was the investigation of what happened?" the influential blogger Josh Marshall queried darkly. Earlier, he veered off, as he must, into picayune and skin-crawling theorizing about the path the pellets took through Whittington's body:
"Would the weapon and ammunition Dick Cheney shot have the force to imbed pellets near Whittington's heart at 30 yards? ... These pellets would have to have pierced his clothing, his skin and then lodged inside the body cavity, somewhere near or around his heart. The shot came from the right and the heart is on the left so that might add to the amount of tissue needing to be traversed."
Hear that, you liberal web-bloggerers? So the VP shot some guy, didn't allow himself to be interviewed by authorities until some 14-18 hours after the incident. Big deal. Doesn't mean he was too drunk to do so. It just means that the VP, even though he did have something to smooth over the edges before going hunting, didn't want to concern the authorities with the fact that he accidently shot some bb's into his friend, who was really at fault anyway, for getting hisself shot. Probably Shooter didn't want to risk his friend being arrested for not announcing himself properly.
Beyond that, Josh M and Jack Cafferty, Howie sez that Cheney's choice of Hume to "interview" him was a fair and balanced one, since the F network is the number one cable "news" station and of all the networks out there, only the F one gives the Repubs a fair shake. So double double there, you far left bloggerers.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Can Someone Please Page the "Liberal" Media?
The NYT this morning has a piece in the Arts section (reminding us, however unintentionally, that the media is an art, as opposed to a factual or reality based production) on CNN's Lou Dobbs, emphasizing the host's immigration obsession seen through his nightly "broken borders" segment, which usually comes complete with some hysterical reference to the impact of "illegals" coming over the border from Mexico, the threat from terrorism, regular crime, and jobs that said brown people speaking a funny language have on good old Americans.
Anyway, the piece says
Night after night, Lou Dobbs slides into his anchor chair, turns to the camera and becomes the sober and steady face of CNN. At 60, he has more than three decades of experience, silvering hair and a voice that rumbles with authority. And for most of his program, he looks and feels like a traditional, nothing-but-the-news television host.
Then the topic turns to illegal immigration, and the sober newsman starts breathing fire.
Mr. Dobbs batters the Bush administration for doing too little to stop millions of migrants from slipping across the border with Mexico. He slams businesses and advocacy groups for helping illegal aliens thrive here. He hails the beleaguered officials who struggle to enforce immigration laws. As his scorching commentaries spill across the nation's television screens, first-time viewers might be forgiven for rubbing their eyes in wonder.
Here is Mr. Dobbs, discussing the Roman Catholic Church's opposition to legislation that would make it a federal crime to assist illegal immigrants: "Tonight, the effort to secure this nation's borders has a new opponent. It is the Catholic Church."
Here he is on the Minutemen, the civilians labeled "vigilantes" by their critics for patrolling the border — sometimes armed — in search of illegal immigrants: "I support the Minuteman Project and the fine Americans who make it up in all they've accomplished, fully, relentlessly and proudly."
And here he is criticizing the White House: "How about a congressional investigation of this administration that refuses to enforce either immigration laws or border security, period?"
(snip)
Many conservatives praise him for giving a rare national platform to people who fear that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from Americans, fueling violent crime and threatening national security. Critics deride him as anti-immigrant, racist and biased, charges he fiercely denies. One Democratic congressman was so incensed that he stood up on the House floor last year to denounce Mr. Dobbs's continuing series "Broken Borders" as a "broken record."
But Mr. Dobbs remains unapologetic. He says he has no interest in assuming the conventional role of the anchor who reports the news dispassionately. His mission, he says, is to tell American viewers the truth, no matter how uncomfortable or controversial.
"There's nothing fair and balanced about me," said Mr. Dobbs, tweaking his Fox News rivals' slogan, as he settled into his office overlooking Central Park one recent afternoon. "Because there's nothing fair and balanced about the truth. 'He says, she says' journalism is a monstrous cop-out."
"I happen to believe strongly and passionately that we are a nation of immigrants," he added. "But only fools with an agenda can defend illegal immigration."
(snip)
But by repeatedly presenting his forceful opinions on illegal immigration and other subjects — on "Moneyline" he criticized the Justice Department for indicting the accounting firm Arthur Andersen in the Enron scandal — Mr. Dobbs has stepped squarely into the debate over whether cable news anchors are breaching the bright line that has traditionally separated commentary from news.
(snip)
But for the fans of Mr. Dobbs's segments on illegal immigration, it is precisely his melding of reporting and forthright opinion that is such a powerful draw. "People across the country tune in to Lou Dobbs because they know their views on immigration will be presented," said Rosemary Jenks, director of governmental relations at NumbersUSA, a policy group that favors reducing immigration. "He is a hero to a lot of people."
Mr. Dobbs's critics, who sometimes appear on his program, acknowledge that he explores the issue of immigration more deeply than any other anchor on television. But, they complain, he fails to point out that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are hard-working people who take jobs that Americans don't want.
Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, Democrat of Illinois, became so frustrated with the program that he invited Mr. Dobbs to Washington in 2004 to hear the concerns of about 12 members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. He said Mr. Dobbs listened politely, but his program remained the same.
It was Mr. Gutierrez who denounced the program on the House floor last year. "He says, 'I'm fair,' but then he portrays immigrants as purely law breakers and as a threat to our national security," Mr. Gutierrez said. "Meanwhile, he praises other lawbreakers — such as the vigilantes in the Minutemen. And I watch this, and I can't comprehend it."
Mr. Dobbs, who was born in Texas and grew up in Idaho, says he has worked on farms alongside migrant workers, picking beans, hauling potatoes and bailing hay. He says he appreciates the contributions that immigrants have made to this country, though he refuses to discuss his own immigrant heritage.
"One of the things I hate is hyphenated Americans," Mr. Dobbs said testily when a reporter tried to draw him out about his family's history. "I don't give a damn about all of that. We're just Americans."
Mr. Dobbs said he tried to include the voices of "people who would be ignored" because, in his view, too many reporters are too politically correct to give critics of illegal immigration a fair hearing. "Their voices have been denied," he said of many of his guests and viewers.
Mr. Dobbs, who owns a horse farm in New Jersey, says he has never hired an illegal alien. And as for offering a more nuanced portrayal of illegal immigrants on his program, he says he has no interest in treading that territory.
Instead, he plans to continue exposing what he describes as the collusion between the Bush administration, business executives and the Mexican government to disregard immigration laws so as to ensure that America's businesses have a steady stream of cheap labor and Mexico has an outlet for its poor.
"I know firsthand from my own experience that migrant workers are good people," Mr. Dobbs said. "That isn't the issue. We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. If we fail as a nation of laws, the rest doesn't make one bit of difference."
So, after being exposed to snippets of Dobb's vitriol about immigrants through most of the piece we get to the end where the pugnacious cable tv "news" hosts says that his real concern is that we are a "nation of laws". He doesn't hate immigrants, mind you, he just cares about the law.
But strangely, we read earlier in the piece that Dobbs didn't like it that the Justice Department went after the accounting firm Arthur Anderson, as a part of the Enron investigation. I mean, after all, if Arthur Anderson was complicit or negligent regarding its Enron audits, they should be held accountable under the law, right? Apparently not, for lifelong Republican and big business schooze Lou Dobbs.
And maybe this has you wondering what Dobbs thought of the Plame scandal and the Fitzpatrick investigation into the violation of a CIA agent's cover. That's the law, right? Nation of laws, nobody's above the law? Dobbs was on the side of "the law" in that case, right? Dobbs was concerned that the sanctity of the law be enforced in this case, right? Um, no.
Maybe you wonder what Dobbs thinks of the law and Tom DeLay? He's on the side of the prosecutor, right? He cares about finding out whether Tom DeLay broke any campaign financing laws, right? Um, no.
So the law is important when it concerns Mexicans immigrants, but not anybody else, at least not his white skin, white collar buddies.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
A Plea for Civility
Events of the past several weeks have compelled me to issue a plea to my fellow lefty blogospherites to please be nice to the right-wing bloggers and media personnel behind the protective bubble. They're not used to being challenged, and quite frankly, don't deserve it.
I'm glad that Michael Berube has stepped forward to accept responsibility for his snarking of David Horowitz. That's a start. Michael should know that just because David made a harmless, unconfirmed report about some professor showing the movie Fahrenheit 911, which apparently never happened, to one of his classes, that that's no reason to suspect that David does not have the best interests of America's college students and America's universities at heart. Sure, sure, he gets a little carried away sometimes on his website and in his books, mocking free thought and calling for a McCarthite purge of the academic ranks, but really, let's cut the guy some slack. It's not like he's calling for affirmative action for conservative would-be professors who are too greedy to accept the profession's long hours and modest pay, and too anti-intellectual to put up with the profession's rigor and insufferable working conditions just to go through the exercise of getting advanced degrees.
But just as Michael was apologizing, Glenn Greenwald goes and makes things worse. Mr. Greenwald should know that the perfessor, Glenn Reynolds, also known as Instapundit, is a very busy man, so busy in fact that he can't put the time in to allowing comments on his blog*. So Greenwald shouldn't have troubled Perfessor Reynolds by asking readers to email the perfessor asking him to comment on or refute the "raghead" comments of fellow CPAC speaker Ann Coulter.
Mr. Reynolds, who shouldn't have to put up with this stuff, because really, he's just too busy, didn't care for the slew of emails that came his way. Why did Greenwald feel it necessary to rouse Perfessor Reynolds? Glenn Reynolds has long said that he just "ignores" Ann, why shouldn't we? It is true, as Greenwald says, that Reynolds has reached out to Democrats and lefty bloggers hoping to get them to repudiate the comments of someone like Ward Churchill, who just happens to be the chairperson of the Colorado Democratic Party, and speaks on behalf of all Democrats, when he says something outlandish. And it is true that Coulter is routinely on TV parrotting the Republican Party line, has called for Democratic party officials and liberal leaning justices to be assassinated, has several best sellers, is rabidly promoted by right wing blogs and news sites, and is the headline act at conservative conferences, but she really doesn't have anything to do with the Republican Party, so Greenwald should just butt out. Besides, Glenn had to contend with all these emails from "lefties" filling his mail box, and as has hopefully been made abundantly clear, he's just too busy for this kind of stuff.
Finally, I have to object to the way that poor wallflower of an editor, Jim Brady, has been treated by my brother and sister bloggers. I know, I know. Wasn't this matter over and done with, after the online "conference" (also attended by perfessor Reynolds despite his many time demands) where Jane sat before the inquisitors and faced their accusations of uncivility on the Internets? So, yes, I was surprised that Mr. Brady felt compelled to write yet again about the matter this past week, but that just shows how upset we've made him.
So, please, everybody, don't upset The Man. Moreover, let's take the Republicans' advice and cut our ties with any and all Democratic elected officials so that our bad odor won't rub off on them, causing them, the Democrats, to lose control of Congress and the presidency.
We can do it, if everyone will do their part.
*Washington, D.C.: Hi, my question is for Glenn and then maybe Jane would like to comment.
Why is it that most of the high traffic right-wing blogs don't take comments, while most of the left-wing blogs do?
From my perspective, it looks like the conservatives can dish it out, but can't take it, that they are uncomfortable subjecting their ideas to scrutiny on their own Web sites.
Jeff Jarvis: Heh.
Glenn Reynolds: I think that one reason has to do with media treatment. Charles Johnson, for example -- who does have comments -- has repeatedly faced media stories about his site in which comments made by his readers are directly attributed to him, as if he had written them. I certainly worry about that sort of thing, too. I think that lefty sites expect, and get, less of that kind of mistreatment.
I've never had comments. I get about 1000 emails a day, and I don't have time to look at those, post on my blog, AND moderate comments. And unmoderated comments raise a risk of the kind of thing I mention above, as well as possible libel and copyright issues. I've actually considered bringing someone in to do that, but that seems too impersonal.
Jeff Jarvis: But, Glenn, isn't it also true that your audience misses out on the wisdom your audience brings to you? Just as I'd tell the Post, the Times, the Guardian, et al, that they should take advantage of -- that is, enable and share -- the wisdom of their crowds, I think your public would be as interesting to read as you are. Of course, I grant that there is a cost that comes with this if you do moderate at your level of traffic v. mine. But I would love to see you find some way to be more interactive. Nick Denton and Gawker Media made that -- appropriate for them -- into a velvet-rope club where you have to be invited in. I wouldn't say that would work for you -- accusations of an echo chamber would follow. But I wonder whether isn't some way to increase your interactivity. But then the question is: Do you want to?
Glenn Reynolds: I don't know. My blog is a spare-time activity for me, and the sort of thing you describe would be another commitment of time. The Washington Post can have editors for their comments; I'd have to do it myself, or hire someone.
I am annoyed, though, by the sense of entitlement that some people bring to this discussion. The barriers to entry in blogging are very low. You want to get your ideas out? You can start a blog in 15 minutes. So why do you feel entitled -- and that's not too strong a word for what I hear sometimes -- to put your comments on someone else's site?
I'm glad that Michael Berube has stepped forward to accept responsibility for his snarking of David Horowitz. That's a start. Michael should know that just because David made a harmless, unconfirmed report about some professor showing the movie Fahrenheit 911, which apparently never happened, to one of his classes, that that's no reason to suspect that David does not have the best interests of America's college students and America's universities at heart. Sure, sure, he gets a little carried away sometimes on his website and in his books, mocking free thought and calling for a McCarthite purge of the academic ranks, but really, let's cut the guy some slack. It's not like he's calling for affirmative action for conservative would-be professors who are too greedy to accept the profession's long hours and modest pay, and too anti-intellectual to put up with the profession's rigor and insufferable working conditions just to go through the exercise of getting advanced degrees.
But just as Michael was apologizing, Glenn Greenwald goes and makes things worse. Mr. Greenwald should know that the perfessor, Glenn Reynolds, also known as Instapundit, is a very busy man, so busy in fact that he can't put the time in to allowing comments on his blog*. So Greenwald shouldn't have troubled Perfessor Reynolds by asking readers to email the perfessor asking him to comment on or refute the "raghead" comments of fellow CPAC speaker Ann Coulter.
Mr. Reynolds, who shouldn't have to put up with this stuff, because really, he's just too busy, didn't care for the slew of emails that came his way. Why did Greenwald feel it necessary to rouse Perfessor Reynolds? Glenn Reynolds has long said that he just "ignores" Ann, why shouldn't we? It is true, as Greenwald says, that Reynolds has reached out to Democrats and lefty bloggers hoping to get them to repudiate the comments of someone like Ward Churchill, who just happens to be the chairperson of the Colorado Democratic Party, and speaks on behalf of all Democrats, when he says something outlandish. And it is true that Coulter is routinely on TV parrotting the Republican Party line, has called for Democratic party officials and liberal leaning justices to be assassinated, has several best sellers, is rabidly promoted by right wing blogs and news sites, and is the headline act at conservative conferences, but she really doesn't have anything to do with the Republican Party, so Greenwald should just butt out. Besides, Glenn had to contend with all these emails from "lefties" filling his mail box, and as has hopefully been made abundantly clear, he's just too busy for this kind of stuff.
Finally, I have to object to the way that poor wallflower of an editor, Jim Brady, has been treated by my brother and sister bloggers. I know, I know. Wasn't this matter over and done with, after the online "conference" (also attended by perfessor Reynolds despite his many time demands) where Jane sat before the inquisitors and faced their accusations of uncivility on the Internets? So, yes, I was surprised that Mr. Brady felt compelled to write yet again about the matter this past week, but that just shows how upset we've made him.
So, please, everybody, don't upset The Man. Moreover, let's take the Republicans' advice and cut our ties with any and all Democratic elected officials so that our bad odor won't rub off on them, causing them, the Democrats, to lose control of Congress and the presidency.
We can do it, if everyone will do their part.
*Washington, D.C.: Hi, my question is for Glenn and then maybe Jane would like to comment.
Why is it that most of the high traffic right-wing blogs don't take comments, while most of the left-wing blogs do?
From my perspective, it looks like the conservatives can dish it out, but can't take it, that they are uncomfortable subjecting their ideas to scrutiny on their own Web sites.
Jeff Jarvis: Heh.
Glenn Reynolds: I think that one reason has to do with media treatment. Charles Johnson, for example -- who does have comments -- has repeatedly faced media stories about his site in which comments made by his readers are directly attributed to him, as if he had written them. I certainly worry about that sort of thing, too. I think that lefty sites expect, and get, less of that kind of mistreatment.
I've never had comments. I get about 1000 emails a day, and I don't have time to look at those, post on my blog, AND moderate comments. And unmoderated comments raise a risk of the kind of thing I mention above, as well as possible libel and copyright issues. I've actually considered bringing someone in to do that, but that seems too impersonal.
Jeff Jarvis: But, Glenn, isn't it also true that your audience misses out on the wisdom your audience brings to you? Just as I'd tell the Post, the Times, the Guardian, et al, that they should take advantage of -- that is, enable and share -- the wisdom of their crowds, I think your public would be as interesting to read as you are. Of course, I grant that there is a cost that comes with this if you do moderate at your level of traffic v. mine. But I would love to see you find some way to be more interactive. Nick Denton and Gawker Media made that -- appropriate for them -- into a velvet-rope club where you have to be invited in. I wouldn't say that would work for you -- accusations of an echo chamber would follow. But I wonder whether isn't some way to increase your interactivity. But then the question is: Do you want to?
Glenn Reynolds: I don't know. My blog is a spare-time activity for me, and the sort of thing you describe would be another commitment of time. The Washington Post can have editors for their comments; I'd have to do it myself, or hire someone.
I am annoyed, though, by the sense of entitlement that some people bring to this discussion. The barriers to entry in blogging are very low. You want to get your ideas out? You can start a blog in 15 minutes. So why do you feel entitled -- and that's not too strong a word for what I hear sometimes -- to put your comments on someone else's site?
The Cheney Shooting
I've delayed by approximately 48 hours commenting on this story that the VP's office initially delayed by 18 hours, largely because of the potential for something like this to happen.
Being shot in the face is no minor incident for a 78-year old man.
Update: What I meant was, I won't comment on this story except to say that this is disgusting. What are these people thinking? At long last, sir, have you no shame? Former U.S. Senator from Wyoming:
"When it's all through after a few days, people are going to laugh at the media for their overreaction," Mr. Simpson said in an interview from his home in Wyoming. "This is a hunting accident, created by the victim. Dick Cheney didn't do anything. He's a master hunter. And they're portraying him as some sort of assassin. I mean the headline I saw today was 'Cheney Bags Lawyer.'"
Being shot in the face is no minor incident for a 78-year old man.
Update: What I meant was, I won't comment on this story except to say that this is disgusting. What are these people thinking? At long last, sir, have you no shame? Former U.S. Senator from Wyoming:
"When it's all through after a few days, people are going to laugh at the media for their overreaction," Mr. Simpson said in an interview from his home in Wyoming. "This is a hunting accident, created by the victim. Dick Cheney didn't do anything. He's a master hunter. And they're portraying him as some sort of assassin. I mean the headline I saw today was 'Cheney Bags Lawyer.'"
Amateur Hour on the Campaign Trail
Although the president's low approval ratings, combined with 12 years of Republican rule of Congress, might otherwise be occasion for a Democratic tide in 2006, there are disturbing omens emenating from the campaign trail.
First, Paul Hackett is not only dropping out of the Ohio Senate race, machinations by Congressional Democratic campaign chairs behind the scenes for him to so has soured him on the party and any campaigns at least this year. Kos seems to think Hackett over-reached by going for the Senate instead of a House rematch with Jean Schmidt, and consequently, is eager to pass this off as much ado about nothing. I don't buy it. Neither do Steve Gilliard, the Alt Hippo, or Atrios, among others.
From everything I've seen of Hackett, he's the kind of bold candidate Democrats have been sorely lacking for the last several decades. Maybe Sherrod Brown, a traditionally liberal Democrat from the House, will be enough to beat DeWine. Perhaps. But the damage done by alienating Hackett and other potential candidates of his nature and background, could be substantial and long-lasting regardless of the short term outcome in this race.
But I'm afraid it gets worse.
Consider the role, surprisingly, of race. Republicans have essentially nominated one black gubernatorial candidate (and a well-known one) already in PA, and are apparently poised to add another in Ohio. What's more, the Republicans have at least one Senatorial candidate in Maryland, and maybe another in Michigan. Steve Gilliard, whose opinion on these matters I trust a great deal, is pretty dismissive of how these black GOP candidates will play, not only with black voters but with white, conservative ones as well. While I hope he's right, the fact that the Republicans are prepared to lead with black candidates in four different states at two important levels of government should give Democrats pause for concern.
How are the Democrats responding? The only black Democrat running for high office that I can think of is Kwasi Mfume for the U.S. Maryland seat, and by most indications, he's lagging behind the presumed front runner, congressman Ben Cardin, who's about as bland as the man he's vying to replace, and that's saying something. If Cardin outduels Mfume in the primary, than so be it.
But what efforts are Democrats making to cross their own cultural and demographic divide in reaching out to new voters, like military vets? Torpedoing Hackett's candidacy was not a step in the right direction.
Chuck Schumer has done well making money for the Senate Campaign Committee. And if former Secretary of the Navy James Webb ultimately runs against George Allen for the U.S. Senate seat from Virginia, it could be a major coup for the party. But Webb's potential candidacy aside, Democrats face tough campaigns just to HOLD Senate seats in 2006 in places like Maryland and New Jersey.
Meanwhile, Democratic gains in PA and Montana appear promising, while states like Missouri and Rhode Island (the latter of which should ordinarily be a lock) are in play for now.
Other states, unfortunately, like Nevada and Indiana, might not have a competitive Democrat running.
So while nothing ever goes as planned, the party goofed bit time in Ohio. Given the disasterous position of the Republican Party in that state, it would be the height of misfortune not to capitalize on it this year, and with their actions in the case of Paul Hackett, Senate Democrats have given Republicans a life line.
Update: a Hackett partisan, Lindsay Beyerstein, points out that Hackett was trailing Brown in the polls and falling behind in fundraising, so maybe this was inevitable in the primary context. In addition, Hackett's "I'll take my football and go home" bit was probably not the wisest course of action. Still Lindsay is optimistic Hackett we'll be back (and hopefully still on our side). As she says, "we need him".
First, Paul Hackett is not only dropping out of the Ohio Senate race, machinations by Congressional Democratic campaign chairs behind the scenes for him to so has soured him on the party and any campaigns at least this year. Kos seems to think Hackett over-reached by going for the Senate instead of a House rematch with Jean Schmidt, and consequently, is eager to pass this off as much ado about nothing. I don't buy it. Neither do Steve Gilliard, the Alt Hippo, or Atrios, among others.
From everything I've seen of Hackett, he's the kind of bold candidate Democrats have been sorely lacking for the last several decades. Maybe Sherrod Brown, a traditionally liberal Democrat from the House, will be enough to beat DeWine. Perhaps. But the damage done by alienating Hackett and other potential candidates of his nature and background, could be substantial and long-lasting regardless of the short term outcome in this race.
But I'm afraid it gets worse.
Consider the role, surprisingly, of race. Republicans have essentially nominated one black gubernatorial candidate (and a well-known one) already in PA, and are apparently poised to add another in Ohio. What's more, the Republicans have at least one Senatorial candidate in Maryland, and maybe another in Michigan. Steve Gilliard, whose opinion on these matters I trust a great deal, is pretty dismissive of how these black GOP candidates will play, not only with black voters but with white, conservative ones as well. While I hope he's right, the fact that the Republicans are prepared to lead with black candidates in four different states at two important levels of government should give Democrats pause for concern.
How are the Democrats responding? The only black Democrat running for high office that I can think of is Kwasi Mfume for the U.S. Maryland seat, and by most indications, he's lagging behind the presumed front runner, congressman Ben Cardin, who's about as bland as the man he's vying to replace, and that's saying something. If Cardin outduels Mfume in the primary, than so be it.
But what efforts are Democrats making to cross their own cultural and demographic divide in reaching out to new voters, like military vets? Torpedoing Hackett's candidacy was not a step in the right direction.
Chuck Schumer has done well making money for the Senate Campaign Committee. And if former Secretary of the Navy James Webb ultimately runs against George Allen for the U.S. Senate seat from Virginia, it could be a major coup for the party. But Webb's potential candidacy aside, Democrats face tough campaigns just to HOLD Senate seats in 2006 in places like Maryland and New Jersey.
Meanwhile, Democratic gains in PA and Montana appear promising, while states like Missouri and Rhode Island (the latter of which should ordinarily be a lock) are in play for now.
Other states, unfortunately, like Nevada and Indiana, might not have a competitive Democrat running.
So while nothing ever goes as planned, the party goofed bit time in Ohio. Given the disasterous position of the Republican Party in that state, it would be the height of misfortune not to capitalize on it this year, and with their actions in the case of Paul Hackett, Senate Democrats have given Republicans a life line.
Update: a Hackett partisan, Lindsay Beyerstein, points out that Hackett was trailing Brown in the polls and falling behind in fundraising, so maybe this was inevitable in the primary context. In addition, Hackett's "I'll take my football and go home" bit was probably not the wisest course of action. Still Lindsay is optimistic Hackett we'll be back (and hopefully still on our side). As she says, "we need him".
The West Wing Comes to Town
I went to hear Bradley Whitford speak at American University last night. His appearance was sponsored by the school of public affairs. He was introduced by someone from the school who bore an uncanny resemblance to Donna Moss (Janel Moloney), who played his assistant on the show, but who in the past season went to work for Vice President Bob Russell's (Gary Cole) campaign, while Whitford's character (Josh Lyman) lined up with future nominee and dark horse candidate, Texas Congressman Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits).
In any event, Whitford gave what I would label as a free wheeling speech, interweaving anecdotes and observations from his West Wing experience (and a delicious, self-deprecating reference to the Adam Sandler vehicle, Billy Madison, in which Whitford played the scheming brother--Whitford claims to not ever having actually watched the movie) with his political opinions and endeavors.
He joked that on behalf of the acting president, he thanked them for welcoming him.
On the substance, Whitford criticized the descent of political discourse, particularly on cable television (which reminded me of Jon Stewart's rap on his renowned Cross Fire visit), which he argued amounts to not much more than each side trading programmed talking points and insults, after which no one learns anything and no minds are changed, or at least even affected.
Whitford also deadpanned the acting business and the habit of celebrities to venture political opinions. He referred to these types of people, in typical self mocking style, as Meat Puppets. He admonished the audience that when people like him speak out to consider the speaker's motivation and their actual knowledge of the issues.
Still, he defended his and other's responsibility to speak out, and to not be intimidated into silence by some other self-appointed celebrity spokesman like Bill O'Reilly. Whitford says that while he and his Quaker family were politically in tune throughout his life, he was led to take a more active, public role in the past six years with the advent of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and towards the environment and his own emerging role as a father (his wife is actress Jane Kacsmarek of Malcolm in the Middle).
Of his West Wing experience Whitford is proud the series has emphasized the sad reality of how much time politicians spend worrying about how a particular issue will "play" rather than on what a particular policy's effects might be and what the right thing is to do. He also noted that the show transcends the limits of conventional political debate by casting its characters as neither totally villanous or virtuous, but as combinations of both.
Of the present, Whitford lamented the influence the media, in particular television, has on the selection of the country's political leaders. Saying its unfortunately more important for a candidate to "seem presidential" and to come across appealing on television than be a person of character and smarts, Whitford lamented the fact that schmoozers like Clinton and Bush get elected rather than more untelegenic candidates like Al Gore. Of Clinton, Whitford observed the former president is someone who, because of his troubled family background, has a very visible need to be loved, which affected his actions as president, while someone like Gore, who had a much stronger family background, was more content and not as inclined to try to make people like him, but that this paradoxically, made it harder for someone like Gore to relate well to the public.
Whitford also related his experience at the All Souls Church he attends in California, which because its pastor spoke out before the election became the object of an IRS investigation. Whitford says the pastor did not make an explicit candidate preference public and in fact, held up both Bush and Kerry to the scrutiny of Christian morals and found both lacking. Whitford went futher and called out the president and his evangelical backers on the matter of not practicing the faith they claim to uphold. Whitford noted that while the president has said that Christ has "changed his heart", Whitford hoped that knowing Christ would soon cause Bush to "change his policies".
What does Whitford plan to do after the West Wing ends this season? "Pursue opportunities in the private sector", he joked.
Whitford encouraged the audience to speak out, to be active, to engage in the right they hold as participants in a democracy, echoing the words of Nelson Mandella whom he quoted as saying that what people fear is not their inadequacies, but their power. People are more afraid of the light than the darkness in themselves, Whitford said.
Afterwards, Whitford didn't follow the practice of other celebrities, but went out of his "bubble" to take questions, the first of which was from a young woman who, in addition to asking a policy question, asked if she could get a lock of his hair. Surprisingly, the actor obliged the latter request.
Update: Sorry about all the updated posts today but I just remembered the most important comment of the night from Whitford. That comment was about how conservatives have succeeded, unfortunately, at making the word "liberal" a curseword. Whitford identified himself as a liberal, lamenting the treatment this term and the good works that have been carried out under its name has received from the media and political establishment.
Whitford didn't pick this ball up and run with it, but as readers of this blog will recognize, I think this is THE issue Democrats have to face in today's political debate and in future elections. If Democrats don't succeed in reversing the way labels like "conservative" and "liberal" are conceived and spoken of in public forums and cable tv news shout fests, they will have a much harder road to climb in winning back power. If the Democrats choose to run as conservatives (i.e. stressing "competence" or "corruption" over ideology), any electoral victories will ultimately prove to be temporal, resulting in all of us having these "what's wrong with the Democrats" conservations ten and twenty years from now.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Laura Bush is Angry
My usual policy is to keep the wives and families out of it, which is why you won't read any Jenna and NotJenna comments here.
But Laura Bush is one angry first lady. She ripped Hillary Clinton's comments about her hubby president.
So our topic for today is, Is Laura Bush Too Angry To Be First Lady? And Is George W. Bush A Panty-Waste For Letting His Wife Do His Fighting For Him? Can George W Bush Be President With Such An Angry First Lady?
Our Fair and Balanced debate on this topic will include Brit Hume, William Bennett, William Kristol, Ann Coulter, and Fred Barnes.
But Laura Bush is one angry first lady. She ripped Hillary Clinton's comments about her hubby president.
So our topic for today is, Is Laura Bush Too Angry To Be First Lady? And Is George W. Bush A Panty-Waste For Letting His Wife Do His Fighting For Him? Can George W Bush Be President With Such An Angry First Lady?
Our Fair and Balanced debate on this topic will include Brit Hume, William Bennett, William Kristol, Ann Coulter, and Fred Barnes.
Cowboy Presidents
After digging my car out of the 21 inches of snow dumped on Columbia, MD yesterday and last night, and after an around the corner trip to Dunkin' Donuts, I settled in to watch the tube. I usually skip the sunday talking heads shows, but I happened upon the beard's Late Edition where the guests were the media's favorite Democrat, Joe Lieberman, and the media's second favorite Republican, Chuck Hagel (maybe John McCain was on one of the other shows) and the discussion I dropped in on was about Iran.
Hagel talked for about five minutes without saying very much--"the administration seems to be going about it (dealing with Iran) the right way", "we need to work with Iran, provide the right kind of incentives, carrots, to dissuade them from going nuke, blah blah blah". I hear a lot about this notion of offering the right kind of inducements to get Iran to back off, but I can't imagine what sort of inducements we could offer, and the Senators, as well as their media hosts, don't usually specify.
Enter Joe Lieberman to say that while inducements are great and we've been trying them, it may come time to use the stick, which in this case Lieberman suggested would take the shape of diplomatic and economic sanctions, but I'm not sure what sort of economic sanctions Lieberman thinks would be meaningful or could be enforced. Diplomatically, I don't think we've had much of a relationship with Iran since 1979 and again, I'm not sure what countries the U.S. government would be in the position of getting to go heavy on Iran.
Which brings us to Iran's neighbor, Iraq. Iraq was a counterbalance to Iran, or at least that's what our government believed for several years until it felt incumbent to flex its muscles after 911 and topple one of the only secular Islamic regimes in the region.
But now, with Saddam Hussein's Baathist Sunni Muslims on the outside looking in as the new Shiite majority prepares to take over, we might wonder what the impact of our Iraq invasion has on our international efforts regarding Iran.
The Beard, in a moment of clarity, asked how the fact that the U.S. government was wrong about Iraq's nuclear and WMD capability affected the Bush regime's efforts to mobilize opposition to Iran's WMD?
Hagel, in an additional moment of insightfulness, responded that the U.S. status in Iraq is about the worst its been (presumably since the invasion) and that this obviously doesn't help the U.S. cause at all. Furthermore, Hagel quipped that from Iran's standpoint, there's a nuclear armed Israel in its locale and substantial U.S. military presence in its neighbor Iraq, so from Iran's point of view, it is undoubtedly acting in its own national security interests in its pursuit of nukes.
Lieberman followed up by complaining about the new (elected) Iranian president and how he had made comments in the line of wondering what the world would be like without the U.S. and of course the fact that he wished Israel to be wiped off the map.
The new Iranian president is a kind of cowboy when you think about it. Shoots from the hip, has this sort of reckless, one of the homeboys image, the kind of guy I bet a lot of Iranians would like to have a drink with. He says a lot of nationalistic, politically incorrect things, campaigned as a kind of reformer, restoring the religious revolution of the old days, would buck international efforts to tell his country what to do.
If we had an independent media in this country, we might hear some of them making comparisons between Iran's cowboy president and our own cowboy president.
And maybe if Iran's president had David Frum working for him, he might have already labeled the U.S., Israel, and Great Britain as the Axis of Evil.
Hagel talked for about five minutes without saying very much--"the administration seems to be going about it (dealing with Iran) the right way", "we need to work with Iran, provide the right kind of incentives, carrots, to dissuade them from going nuke, blah blah blah". I hear a lot about this notion of offering the right kind of inducements to get Iran to back off, but I can't imagine what sort of inducements we could offer, and the Senators, as well as their media hosts, don't usually specify.
Enter Joe Lieberman to say that while inducements are great and we've been trying them, it may come time to use the stick, which in this case Lieberman suggested would take the shape of diplomatic and economic sanctions, but I'm not sure what sort of economic sanctions Lieberman thinks would be meaningful or could be enforced. Diplomatically, I don't think we've had much of a relationship with Iran since 1979 and again, I'm not sure what countries the U.S. government would be in the position of getting to go heavy on Iran.
Which brings us to Iran's neighbor, Iraq. Iraq was a counterbalance to Iran, or at least that's what our government believed for several years until it felt incumbent to flex its muscles after 911 and topple one of the only secular Islamic regimes in the region.
But now, with Saddam Hussein's Baathist Sunni Muslims on the outside looking in as the new Shiite majority prepares to take over, we might wonder what the impact of our Iraq invasion has on our international efforts regarding Iran.
The Beard, in a moment of clarity, asked how the fact that the U.S. government was wrong about Iraq's nuclear and WMD capability affected the Bush regime's efforts to mobilize opposition to Iran's WMD?
Hagel, in an additional moment of insightfulness, responded that the U.S. status in Iraq is about the worst its been (presumably since the invasion) and that this obviously doesn't help the U.S. cause at all. Furthermore, Hagel quipped that from Iran's standpoint, there's a nuclear armed Israel in its locale and substantial U.S. military presence in its neighbor Iraq, so from Iran's point of view, it is undoubtedly acting in its own national security interests in its pursuit of nukes.
Lieberman followed up by complaining about the new (elected) Iranian president and how he had made comments in the line of wondering what the world would be like without the U.S. and of course the fact that he wished Israel to be wiped off the map.
The new Iranian president is a kind of cowboy when you think about it. Shoots from the hip, has this sort of reckless, one of the homeboys image, the kind of guy I bet a lot of Iranians would like to have a drink with. He says a lot of nationalistic, politically incorrect things, campaigned as a kind of reformer, restoring the religious revolution of the old days, would buck international efforts to tell his country what to do.
If we had an independent media in this country, we might hear some of them making comparisons between Iran's cowboy president and our own cowboy president.
And maybe if Iran's president had David Frum working for him, he might have already labeled the U.S., Israel, and Great Britain as the Axis of Evil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)