From today's Wash Post:
Sen. Gordon H. Smith faced a fundamental choice after his son committed suicide in 2003, the day before his 22nd birthday. He could end his political career and live out his years in an agony of "what ifs" and "whys." Or he could rededicate his professional life and powerful position to trying to make something positive come from the tragedy.
Staggered by grief, the Oregon Republican and devout Mormon seriously weighed the first option. But a church leader persuaded him to mourn his son and then "get back to work." Part of that work is a new book on a subject that cannot get too much attention: a plea for Americans to learn more about depression and suicide, and to confront mental illness openly, without embarrassment or prejudice.
"Remembering Garrett" is a straightforward, simply written account of one child's descent into despair and the nearly unbearable heartbreak his family endures.
Famous or powerful people can do more than suffer in private, however, and Smith has chosen to try, as he puts it, "to bring suicide's brutal toll and mental health's subordinate status out of the shadows. The shame and stigma our society feels about mental health must stop, and our national conversation needs to begin."
(snip)
Throughout the book, Smith takes care to blame no one, except perhaps himself, for misdiagnosing Garrett's condition or missing possible warning signs. His only ire is aimed at several unnamed House Republicans who complicated his bid to enact legislation intended to combat youth depression and suicide.
Other senators previously drafted two bills, but they rolled them into one, named it the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, and let Smith take the lead in pushing it. It called for federally funded screening of school-age children "to detect those predisposed to depression and suicide," and for funds to combat suicide at colleges.
The Senate unanimously approved the legislation, but some House conservatives objected. Smith tried to address their concerns, but writes that he was "appalled by some of their responses. " 'Your bill has Democrat sponsors!' said one. 'We don't pass bills over here that Democrats want!' "
The House approved the bill only after several changes were made, including a provision that permits the school screening only for children whose parents request it.
One wishes Smith had named names. Plausible arguments can be made for and against federal spending for mental health screening and intervention. But to attack or push a bill in order to hurt the other political party is all too typical of the partisanship that poisons today's Congress, and Smith's account of his House negotiations adds a bitter note to a book already replete with heartache.
(snip)
Smith, generally labeled a moderate Republican, says he gave modest thought to such issues before his son's death. But now, he writes, "my heart has softened," and he proudly notes that he has defied GOP leaders by opposing cuts to Medicaid, food stamps "and other safety-net programs that serve the underprivileged." Whatever one thinks of his political reawakening, none can dispute that the price was unspeakable.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Sliding Towards Absolutism
There were a couple of posts I wanted to point out, one at Mahablog and the other, a review of David Sirota's new book at TPM Cafe by Nathan Newman. While each has its own value, I didn't at first realize their connection.
The first by Mahablog is a discussion of an article in this past Sunday's NYT magazine basically on Freud, the fascist mind, and current political developments. I'm glad she pointed the article out because although I get the Sunday Times I didn't look at the magazine. I won't attempt to summarize either the whole article or Mahablog's comments, but I think it would suffice to say that a key element of both is the tendency towards absolutism and intolerance in today's conservatism, a vitriolic dislike for ambiguity.
The other post at TPM Cafe by Nathan Newman wonders who, or what, exactly, liberals think our "enemy" is. Who is the enemy of the Common Good that folks like Tomasky want us to be concerned with? If there is a Common Good, it would stand to reason that there is a force, or array of forces or processes acting in opposition to that Common Good which progressives must oppose. Newman argues that part of the conservatives' electoral successes over the past several decades has been just this quality--the ability to conjure up a class of enemies of which people of good will and proper morals should be afraid and opposed to.
I suspect this talk of "enemies" is uncomfortable for many liberals including myself. Politically it's often difficult in practice to single out any particular entity for condemnation on account of the fact that the target--some polluting corporation for example--is more than likely an employer of large numbers of people and maybe even your brother. Who votes. Likewise with religions, church leaders or denominations. We may think Pat Robertson a loon, but we likely have at least one friend or relative who watches The 700 Club, and for that reason, we might want to err on the side of politeness and ambiguity when determining a political campaign message or strategy.
On a more philosophical level, however, I think liberals by and large don't tend to think in terms of enemies, particularly at least enemies as being people, any of our fellow citizens. We may complain about Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, but most liberals don't object to the existence and participation of those different from themselves. One of the underlying features of liberalism is its pluralism--the belief that the aim of society is to somehow ensure that people of varying beliefs, practices, tempraments, etc, can live together peacefully and all more or less equally contribute to and participate in the body politic and generally be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor and the community of their fellows without undue interference by others.
Let me give you an example. It's growing convention wisdom that there exists a secular-religious divide in American, with large majorities of devout Christians voting for Republicans and secular or atheistic people voting for Democrats. But these two groups are not diametrically opposite. Atheists may not like religious expression in the public square and not want to have someone else's religious beliefs imposed on them, even if it is a belief held by the majority, but most atheists don't have a political program or philosophical belief that assumes religious believers should be excluded from society or punished for their beliefs, either in the present or in the "age to come".
Unfortunately, this is not what most Christians believe at a fundamental level. Most Christians believe in some form of eternal life and future age of utopia in which only they and fellow adherents will share Heaven with God. Unbelievers, heretics, those who have "rejected" God's love, will, after some form of judgment, either die and remain in the grave, or suffer through an eternity of torment. Although many Christians in the West tend not to highlight this dimension of their faith, or choose to believe in a form of universalism in which almost everyone on the earth is eventually "saved", there are a not insubstantial share of Christians who are taught to regard non-believers, sinners, as deserving of eternal punishing or punishment. Not all of this class advocates that that punishment be administered by civil governments. But some do, or at least could conceivably be convinced to give passive acceptance of it should a goverment or society wish it. In any event, an orthodox Christian belief system includes a philosophy that essentially makes certain people, even large numbers of people, expendable (and makes a book like The Party of Death so misleading--the argument that liberal Democrats are the "party of death" turns each party's philisophical underpinnings upside down).
In a nutshell, this is the Absolutism that more and more pundits, elected leaders, religious elites, and opinion-shapers want to urge on the country. There is a certain right way to think and act. Deviations from this order will and should at least at some point, be punished. It is reflected in a variety of lingo, the most common perhaps being "moral relativism", a particularly attractive straw man. The use of phrases such as moral relativism also carries with it the belief that there are certain, maybe even many issues that should not be issues at all, should not be matters of social or political conflict, matters on which the mass public should be concerned or engaged with. The message behind complaints about moral relativism is that certain grievances, needs, wants, or rights should not be given a forum in our democratic institutions. It is a philosophy that is inherently undemocratic. It's quest for conformity and unity and demands for absolutism are an "unhealthy" attempt to reduce conflict and eliminate the uncomfortable but inherent tension in everyday life. Consider these paragraphs from the NYT magazine article"
Freud's implicit morality is counterintuitive. Though Freud acknowledged the uses of mild intoxicants like love and art, he was nonetheless extremely suspicious of any doctrine or activity that promised to unify the psyche--or to unify the nation, the people--without remainder and to do so forever. Freud believed that the inner tensions that we experience are by and large necessary tensions, not because they are so enjoyable in themselves--they are not--but because the alternatives to them are so much worse. For Freud, a healthy psyche is not always a psyche that feels good. For Herbert Marcuse, author of a brilliant meditation on Freud, "Eros and Civilization," Freud's politics are potentially the politics of ecstasy. We can collectively undo our repressions and regress toward collective erotic bliss. For Philip Rieff, author of the equally perceptive and original "Freud: The Mind of the Moralist," Freud appears to be a deep political pessimist who thinks that the healthiest individuals will probably be those who turn completely away from politics. But another way to look at Freud is to see him as someone who suggests that a considerable measure of freedom and even relative happiness can come from following a self-aware middle way. If we are willing to live with some inner tension, political as well as personal, we need never be overwhelmed by tyranny or fall into the anarchy that giving into the unconscious completely can bring.
For Freud, we might infer, a healthy body politic is one that allows for a good deal of continuing tension. A healthy polis is one that it doesn't always feel good to be a part of. There's too much argument, controversy, difference. But in that difference, annoying and difficult as it may be, lies the community's well-being. When a relatively free nation is threatened by terrorists with totalitarian goals, as ours is now, there is, of course, an urge to come together and to fight back by any means necessary. But the danger is that in fighting back we will become just as fierce, monolithic and, in the worst sense, as unified as our foes. We will seek our own great man; we will be blind to his foibles; we will stop questioning, stop arguing. When that happens, a war of fundamentalisms has begun, and of that war there can be no victor.
There is an inherent puritanical, Final Solution-ish fetish in the frequent calls for "moral clarity" and purges of "moral relativism" (or moral relativists) by many leaders on the political "right". If everything or near everything can be characterized as "right" or "wrong" than inherently, these are matters that legislation, constitutional parameters, or court rulings cannot respond to or address. Essentially, if most matters are either/or, black or white, right or wrong, there's no need for people to elect leaders to decide most issues critical to the community. Of course, if there is a right or wrong belief or action for everything, than there must be someone or something that makes this determination. And if the people, through a constitution, or branch of government are largely not allowed to make that decision, than another entity, say the Church, must. Consequently, this form of political absolutism demands a hierarchy, an authoritarian, non-participatory form of government.
Needless to say, this is a radically different notion of citizenship and humanity than that shared by liberal Christians and non-religious people, and one that potentially presents the greatest threat to a democratic society.
Now, it's important to point out that not all Christians are political absolutists and not all political absolutists who find their home in the Republican Party are Christians. But voting trends as well as the political posturing by many recognizable religious elites do serve to highlight the relationship and conflict between a politicial absolutism, rationalized on religious grounds, and political pluralism, the social arrangement believed in by small 'd' democrats.
Confronting this challenge will not be easy for the progressively-minded. I fear that appeals to economic populism or the Common Good will not adequately defeat the more malicious designs of political absolutists, at least not for any extended period of time. And even though many of us who share an opposition to political and moral absolutism are Christians ourselves, mitigating the reach and effect of the religious right will be difficult. Our institutions and books are not generally conducive to moderation. Our religion has been tempered by tradition. A tradition of democracy, freedom, and yes, humanism. All religions are a fusion of book-based theology and historical and human tradition. In other words, our beliefs are shaped by both orthodox theologies and culture. Unfortunately, the tradition that colors many conservative religions is an older tradition based on misogymy, patriarchalism and hierarchy. It's a tradition largely hostile to the Other in community life, a tradition hostile to the values of political pluralists and democrats.
So what are progressives to do? One, I believe is we need to elevate the ideological to our campaigning (and our bloggering). Conservatives have skillfully used the instrument of language to set the parameters of political debates, chiefly by demonizing liberalism, humanism, secularism and even in some cases, pluralism itself. Liberals need to rehabilitate these words and defend their contribution and importance to American democracy. The liberal blogosphere is getting more attention these days, not all of it positive or accurate, but it does provide an opportunity to insert new words, symbols, and ideas into the political debate.
Two, to the extent that Democrats rally around an agenda based on the Common Good, it must be a Common Good that celebrates and safeguards our diversity, not one that demonizes particular groups of people or one-issue interest groups (as some on the left seem to be demanding). In debates and campaign ads, Democrats should recognize that while "some people say" that liberals, women, the poor, environmentalists, or university professors are hurting America, we say that we can't risk attacking ourselves and that we need to allow everyone the right to play a part in shaping and improving our world. It's a bit lofty and idealistic, but hey, maybe that'll work for a change.
Third, by all means we should continue to push for a fairer economy, a more just and moral economy that promotes the consumer and worker above the interests of the financial centers of power. Specifically, I don't see why any Democrats campaigning in 2006 or those hoping to run in 2008 should not make a repeal of last year's bankruptcy "reform" legislation a very public item on their will-do list. We don't need to promise a cure for every economic inconvenience or to pledge absolute equality of outcomes. But we do need to demand that individuals be protected from forces more powerful than themselves.
In short, in order for progressives to increase their electoral share and hope to influence policy, we must identify and target the main problem facing the country and having done that, articulate the nature of the problem to the public. And that problem, from my point of view, is the risks of Political Absolutism. If I'm close to being right about this, Democrats will realize their other political aims--campaign clarity, authenticity, and the like by honestly, plainly and firmly making their concerns and aspirations for the country known.
The first by Mahablog is a discussion of an article in this past Sunday's NYT magazine basically on Freud, the fascist mind, and current political developments. I'm glad she pointed the article out because although I get the Sunday Times I didn't look at the magazine. I won't attempt to summarize either the whole article or Mahablog's comments, but I think it would suffice to say that a key element of both is the tendency towards absolutism and intolerance in today's conservatism, a vitriolic dislike for ambiguity.
The other post at TPM Cafe by Nathan Newman wonders who, or what, exactly, liberals think our "enemy" is. Who is the enemy of the Common Good that folks like Tomasky want us to be concerned with? If there is a Common Good, it would stand to reason that there is a force, or array of forces or processes acting in opposition to that Common Good which progressives must oppose. Newman argues that part of the conservatives' electoral successes over the past several decades has been just this quality--the ability to conjure up a class of enemies of which people of good will and proper morals should be afraid and opposed to.
I suspect this talk of "enemies" is uncomfortable for many liberals including myself. Politically it's often difficult in practice to single out any particular entity for condemnation on account of the fact that the target--some polluting corporation for example--is more than likely an employer of large numbers of people and maybe even your brother. Who votes. Likewise with religions, church leaders or denominations. We may think Pat Robertson a loon, but we likely have at least one friend or relative who watches The 700 Club, and for that reason, we might want to err on the side of politeness and ambiguity when determining a political campaign message or strategy.
On a more philosophical level, however, I think liberals by and large don't tend to think in terms of enemies, particularly at least enemies as being people, any of our fellow citizens. We may complain about Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, but most liberals don't object to the existence and participation of those different from themselves. One of the underlying features of liberalism is its pluralism--the belief that the aim of society is to somehow ensure that people of varying beliefs, practices, tempraments, etc, can live together peacefully and all more or less equally contribute to and participate in the body politic and generally be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor and the community of their fellows without undue interference by others.
Let me give you an example. It's growing convention wisdom that there exists a secular-religious divide in American, with large majorities of devout Christians voting for Republicans and secular or atheistic people voting for Democrats. But these two groups are not diametrically opposite. Atheists may not like religious expression in the public square and not want to have someone else's religious beliefs imposed on them, even if it is a belief held by the majority, but most atheists don't have a political program or philosophical belief that assumes religious believers should be excluded from society or punished for their beliefs, either in the present or in the "age to come".
Unfortunately, this is not what most Christians believe at a fundamental level. Most Christians believe in some form of eternal life and future age of utopia in which only they and fellow adherents will share Heaven with God. Unbelievers, heretics, those who have "rejected" God's love, will, after some form of judgment, either die and remain in the grave, or suffer through an eternity of torment. Although many Christians in the West tend not to highlight this dimension of their faith, or choose to believe in a form of universalism in which almost everyone on the earth is eventually "saved", there are a not insubstantial share of Christians who are taught to regard non-believers, sinners, as deserving of eternal punishing or punishment. Not all of this class advocates that that punishment be administered by civil governments. But some do, or at least could conceivably be convinced to give passive acceptance of it should a goverment or society wish it. In any event, an orthodox Christian belief system includes a philosophy that essentially makes certain people, even large numbers of people, expendable (and makes a book like The Party of Death so misleading--the argument that liberal Democrats are the "party of death" turns each party's philisophical underpinnings upside down).
In a nutshell, this is the Absolutism that more and more pundits, elected leaders, religious elites, and opinion-shapers want to urge on the country. There is a certain right way to think and act. Deviations from this order will and should at least at some point, be punished. It is reflected in a variety of lingo, the most common perhaps being "moral relativism", a particularly attractive straw man. The use of phrases such as moral relativism also carries with it the belief that there are certain, maybe even many issues that should not be issues at all, should not be matters of social or political conflict, matters on which the mass public should be concerned or engaged with. The message behind complaints about moral relativism is that certain grievances, needs, wants, or rights should not be given a forum in our democratic institutions. It is a philosophy that is inherently undemocratic. It's quest for conformity and unity and demands for absolutism are an "unhealthy" attempt to reduce conflict and eliminate the uncomfortable but inherent tension in everyday life. Consider these paragraphs from the NYT magazine article"
Freud's implicit morality is counterintuitive. Though Freud acknowledged the uses of mild intoxicants like love and art, he was nonetheless extremely suspicious of any doctrine or activity that promised to unify the psyche--or to unify the nation, the people--without remainder and to do so forever. Freud believed that the inner tensions that we experience are by and large necessary tensions, not because they are so enjoyable in themselves--they are not--but because the alternatives to them are so much worse. For Freud, a healthy psyche is not always a psyche that feels good. For Herbert Marcuse, author of a brilliant meditation on Freud, "Eros and Civilization," Freud's politics are potentially the politics of ecstasy. We can collectively undo our repressions and regress toward collective erotic bliss. For Philip Rieff, author of the equally perceptive and original "Freud: The Mind of the Moralist," Freud appears to be a deep political pessimist who thinks that the healthiest individuals will probably be those who turn completely away from politics. But another way to look at Freud is to see him as someone who suggests that a considerable measure of freedom and even relative happiness can come from following a self-aware middle way. If we are willing to live with some inner tension, political as well as personal, we need never be overwhelmed by tyranny or fall into the anarchy that giving into the unconscious completely can bring.
For Freud, we might infer, a healthy body politic is one that allows for a good deal of continuing tension. A healthy polis is one that it doesn't always feel good to be a part of. There's too much argument, controversy, difference. But in that difference, annoying and difficult as it may be, lies the community's well-being. When a relatively free nation is threatened by terrorists with totalitarian goals, as ours is now, there is, of course, an urge to come together and to fight back by any means necessary. But the danger is that in fighting back we will become just as fierce, monolithic and, in the worst sense, as unified as our foes. We will seek our own great man; we will be blind to his foibles; we will stop questioning, stop arguing. When that happens, a war of fundamentalisms has begun, and of that war there can be no victor.
There is an inherent puritanical, Final Solution-ish fetish in the frequent calls for "moral clarity" and purges of "moral relativism" (or moral relativists) by many leaders on the political "right". If everything or near everything can be characterized as "right" or "wrong" than inherently, these are matters that legislation, constitutional parameters, or court rulings cannot respond to or address. Essentially, if most matters are either/or, black or white, right or wrong, there's no need for people to elect leaders to decide most issues critical to the community. Of course, if there is a right or wrong belief or action for everything, than there must be someone or something that makes this determination. And if the people, through a constitution, or branch of government are largely not allowed to make that decision, than another entity, say the Church, must. Consequently, this form of political absolutism demands a hierarchy, an authoritarian, non-participatory form of government.
Needless to say, this is a radically different notion of citizenship and humanity than that shared by liberal Christians and non-religious people, and one that potentially presents the greatest threat to a democratic society.
Now, it's important to point out that not all Christians are political absolutists and not all political absolutists who find their home in the Republican Party are Christians. But voting trends as well as the political posturing by many recognizable religious elites do serve to highlight the relationship and conflict between a politicial absolutism, rationalized on religious grounds, and political pluralism, the social arrangement believed in by small 'd' democrats.
Confronting this challenge will not be easy for the progressively-minded. I fear that appeals to economic populism or the Common Good will not adequately defeat the more malicious designs of political absolutists, at least not for any extended period of time. And even though many of us who share an opposition to political and moral absolutism are Christians ourselves, mitigating the reach and effect of the religious right will be difficult. Our institutions and books are not generally conducive to moderation. Our religion has been tempered by tradition. A tradition of democracy, freedom, and yes, humanism. All religions are a fusion of book-based theology and historical and human tradition. In other words, our beliefs are shaped by both orthodox theologies and culture. Unfortunately, the tradition that colors many conservative religions is an older tradition based on misogymy, patriarchalism and hierarchy. It's a tradition largely hostile to the Other in community life, a tradition hostile to the values of political pluralists and democrats.
So what are progressives to do? One, I believe is we need to elevate the ideological to our campaigning (and our bloggering). Conservatives have skillfully used the instrument of language to set the parameters of political debates, chiefly by demonizing liberalism, humanism, secularism and even in some cases, pluralism itself. Liberals need to rehabilitate these words and defend their contribution and importance to American democracy. The liberal blogosphere is getting more attention these days, not all of it positive or accurate, but it does provide an opportunity to insert new words, symbols, and ideas into the political debate.
Two, to the extent that Democrats rally around an agenda based on the Common Good, it must be a Common Good that celebrates and safeguards our diversity, not one that demonizes particular groups of people or one-issue interest groups (as some on the left seem to be demanding). In debates and campaign ads, Democrats should recognize that while "some people say" that liberals, women, the poor, environmentalists, or university professors are hurting America, we say that we can't risk attacking ourselves and that we need to allow everyone the right to play a part in shaping and improving our world. It's a bit lofty and idealistic, but hey, maybe that'll work for a change.
Third, by all means we should continue to push for a fairer economy, a more just and moral economy that promotes the consumer and worker above the interests of the financial centers of power. Specifically, I don't see why any Democrats campaigning in 2006 or those hoping to run in 2008 should not make a repeal of last year's bankruptcy "reform" legislation a very public item on their will-do list. We don't need to promise a cure for every economic inconvenience or to pledge absolute equality of outcomes. But we do need to demand that individuals be protected from forces more powerful than themselves.
In short, in order for progressives to increase their electoral share and hope to influence policy, we must identify and target the main problem facing the country and having done that, articulate the nature of the problem to the public. And that problem, from my point of view, is the risks of Political Absolutism. If I'm close to being right about this, Democrats will realize their other political aims--campaign clarity, authenticity, and the like by honestly, plainly and firmly making their concerns and aspirations for the country known.
War Addicts Need Another Fix
Some of our favorite bloggers have already weighed in on Shelby Steele's Appetite for Destruction op-ed in the Wall St. Journal. In brief: Steele blames the quagmire in Iraq on "white guilt"; if we had only incinerated the place and the people to begin with, we wouldn't have to be enduring an insurgency from a weaker and much less worthy foe. Steele's essay is rife with ignorance, recklessness, inhumanity and hypocrisy.
There are two main points I draw from this. One, there is a class among the warmongers, a class which may in fact comprise the whole of it, that is finding the Iraq war bitterly disappointing. And this is not just because the U.S. is perceived to be "losing" in Iraq. The root of the real disappointment this class feels is that after the initial Shock and Awe, Operation Iraqi Freedom has turned into, well, just so much nation-building. The taking of Baghdad, the toppling of Saddam's statue, Bush's aircraft landing, and Saddam's eventual capture, were fine for starters. But since then, it's mainly been about turning over sovereignty, holding elections, and trying to hammer out a constitution. And all of this has been rather unexciting. Sure, some of this class vicariously held up the "purple fingers" of Iraqi voters as an indicator of U.S. "success" but even with this, one could sense that their heart really wasn't in it. Giving people the vote has never been a conservative ambition. They may have bought into the whole "liberation" charade before the war started, to try to give the effort some moral legitimacy. But these conservatives mainly wanted to smash something, to intimidate the world by conquering Iraq. Destroy and dominate. Now that that isn't happening, many among the Home Field Generals are letting their true malice show. Screw the liberation. Why can't we just torch the place? Ah, White Guilt. We'd win if it wasn't for White Guilt weighing us down. As Glenn Greenwald and Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog have noted, it's at least refreshing to hear some of these guys let their real motivations show.
Second, conservative whining about the quagmire in Iraq and blaming it on someone else, anything else besides themselves and this administration is ridiculously ignorant or just plain hypocritical. The quagmire in Iraq stems from the fact that wars, especially modern wars against hostile populations and unconventional foes, can't be fought with a toothpick and a cellphone. They require large numbers of "boots on the ground" and deep levels of economic and professional sacrifice on the part of the warring state's population--neither of which have the warmongers been willing to supply or endure. If they want war, they have to be willing to contribute their all to it. The administration and its apologists wanted war, dreadful, violent, and intimidating war, on the quick and cheap. And it can't be done. Hence, the quagmire.
The warmongers are addicts. And the hit they experienced from invading Iraq has worn off. Now they either want to bomb Iran or reconquer Iraq. But like most addicts, they're both suffering from the inevitable declining marginal utility of each addictive hit while failing to recognize their well of resources is dry.
There are two main points I draw from this. One, there is a class among the warmongers, a class which may in fact comprise the whole of it, that is finding the Iraq war bitterly disappointing. And this is not just because the U.S. is perceived to be "losing" in Iraq. The root of the real disappointment this class feels is that after the initial Shock and Awe, Operation Iraqi Freedom has turned into, well, just so much nation-building. The taking of Baghdad, the toppling of Saddam's statue, Bush's aircraft landing, and Saddam's eventual capture, were fine for starters. But since then, it's mainly been about turning over sovereignty, holding elections, and trying to hammer out a constitution. And all of this has been rather unexciting. Sure, some of this class vicariously held up the "purple fingers" of Iraqi voters as an indicator of U.S. "success" but even with this, one could sense that their heart really wasn't in it. Giving people the vote has never been a conservative ambition. They may have bought into the whole "liberation" charade before the war started, to try to give the effort some moral legitimacy. But these conservatives mainly wanted to smash something, to intimidate the world by conquering Iraq. Destroy and dominate. Now that that isn't happening, many among the Home Field Generals are letting their true malice show. Screw the liberation. Why can't we just torch the place? Ah, White Guilt. We'd win if it wasn't for White Guilt weighing us down. As Glenn Greenwald and Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog have noted, it's at least refreshing to hear some of these guys let their real motivations show.
Second, conservative whining about the quagmire in Iraq and blaming it on someone else, anything else besides themselves and this administration is ridiculously ignorant or just plain hypocritical. The quagmire in Iraq stems from the fact that wars, especially modern wars against hostile populations and unconventional foes, can't be fought with a toothpick and a cellphone. They require large numbers of "boots on the ground" and deep levels of economic and professional sacrifice on the part of the warring state's population--neither of which have the warmongers been willing to supply or endure. If they want war, they have to be willing to contribute their all to it. The administration and its apologists wanted war, dreadful, violent, and intimidating war, on the quick and cheap. And it can't be done. Hence, the quagmire.
The warmongers are addicts. And the hit they experienced from invading Iraq has worn off. Now they either want to bomb Iran or reconquer Iraq. But like most addicts, they're both suffering from the inevitable declining marginal utility of each addictive hit while failing to recognize their well of resources is dry.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
FEMA Drowned in Bathtub
What Kevin Drum says.
Crippled by years of poor leadership and inadequate funding, the Federal Emergency Management Agency cannot be fixed, a bipartisan investigation says in recommendations to be released Thursday.
....Describing FEMA as a "shambles and beyond repair," [Republican Senator Susan] Collins said the overall report "will help ensure that we do not have a repeat of the failures following Hurricane Katrina."
This is truly remarkable. FEMA was a fine organization for eight years under Bill Clinton, widely recognized as one of the best run agencies in the federal government. But after a mere five years of George Bush's stewardship there's now a bipartisan consensus that it's so rundown that the only choice is to get rid of it and build a completely new agency in its place. Astonishing.
It's hard to put into words the true scope, the level of utter malfeasance embodied in this administration's--and this Congress's--Katrina debacle. Combine an administration led and staffed by people ideologically opposed to government service and crony-hires committed to savaging the previous administration and prepping for the next contract payoff with a Congress more concerned about flag-burning than bureaucratic oversight, and you get the drowning of a major American city, the death of over 1,300 people, most of them poor and black, and the demolition of a critically important and once highly respected government agency. All of this would have been awful enough even if 911 had never happened. But given what the administration's apologists claim is a threat dire enough to warrant the surrendering of our most basic civil liberties, the failure, if not purposeful strategy of crippling one of the most critical departments responsible for meeting that threat is truly stupifying.
But it would be a mistake to cast the Katrina-FEMA catastrophe as only a Bush, or even just a Republican Party failure. The cause goes much deeper than that. It symbolizes the effects of radical conservatism, from the war-mongering neocons to the hate-filled minions on talk radio and cable TV, to the Christian Reconstructionists who only want the government to criminalize abortion, gays and non-Christian worship. The conservative movement's forty year quest for power has born its worst, worm-infested piece of low-hanging fruit. It's aim for over forty years has been the destruction of the government's ability to respond to the needs of the vulnerable. And through FEMA and Katrina, it succeeded.
If Democrats want to make this an issue in the 2006 elections--and I obviously believe they should, as should any thinking or caring individual--they shouldn't pin it all on George W. Bush, who despite his failings is more of a symbol than driving force of conservatism's bankrupt politics. Democrats should point to the main culprit--radical conservatism itself. One of its main organizers and ideological enforcers, Grover Norquist, has stated that he wished for the Republican Party to shrink the size of government till it could be drowned in a bathtub. He and his elected partners have succeeded, in the case of Katrina, all too well.
Republicans have spent the last four decades laying the blame for every disaster, personal tragedy and negative statistic at the door of Liberalism. Democrats have been reluctant to respond in kind, partly because the GOP has so skillfully made liberalism a byword while elevating its own label to "third-rail" status. If Democrats want to recapture the majority, both in government and in the country at large, they will have to, sooner or later, begin the arduous but necessary task of challenging the radical conservative underpinnings and rhetorical labeling of the opposition. And the continuing aftermath of Katrina is as good a point as any to begin that process.
Crippled by years of poor leadership and inadequate funding, the Federal Emergency Management Agency cannot be fixed, a bipartisan investigation says in recommendations to be released Thursday.
....Describing FEMA as a "shambles and beyond repair," [Republican Senator Susan] Collins said the overall report "will help ensure that we do not have a repeat of the failures following Hurricane Katrina."
This is truly remarkable. FEMA was a fine organization for eight years under Bill Clinton, widely recognized as one of the best run agencies in the federal government. But after a mere five years of George Bush's stewardship there's now a bipartisan consensus that it's so rundown that the only choice is to get rid of it and build a completely new agency in its place. Astonishing.
It's hard to put into words the true scope, the level of utter malfeasance embodied in this administration's--and this Congress's--Katrina debacle. Combine an administration led and staffed by people ideologically opposed to government service and crony-hires committed to savaging the previous administration and prepping for the next contract payoff with a Congress more concerned about flag-burning than bureaucratic oversight, and you get the drowning of a major American city, the death of over 1,300 people, most of them poor and black, and the demolition of a critically important and once highly respected government agency. All of this would have been awful enough even if 911 had never happened. But given what the administration's apologists claim is a threat dire enough to warrant the surrendering of our most basic civil liberties, the failure, if not purposeful strategy of crippling one of the most critical departments responsible for meeting that threat is truly stupifying.
But it would be a mistake to cast the Katrina-FEMA catastrophe as only a Bush, or even just a Republican Party failure. The cause goes much deeper than that. It symbolizes the effects of radical conservatism, from the war-mongering neocons to the hate-filled minions on talk radio and cable TV, to the Christian Reconstructionists who only want the government to criminalize abortion, gays and non-Christian worship. The conservative movement's forty year quest for power has born its worst, worm-infested piece of low-hanging fruit. It's aim for over forty years has been the destruction of the government's ability to respond to the needs of the vulnerable. And through FEMA and Katrina, it succeeded.
If Democrats want to make this an issue in the 2006 elections--and I obviously believe they should, as should any thinking or caring individual--they shouldn't pin it all on George W. Bush, who despite his failings is more of a symbol than driving force of conservatism's bankrupt politics. Democrats should point to the main culprit--radical conservatism itself. One of its main organizers and ideological enforcers, Grover Norquist, has stated that he wished for the Republican Party to shrink the size of government till it could be drowned in a bathtub. He and his elected partners have succeeded, in the case of Katrina, all too well.
Republicans have spent the last four decades laying the blame for every disaster, personal tragedy and negative statistic at the door of Liberalism. Democrats have been reluctant to respond in kind, partly because the GOP has so skillfully made liberalism a byword while elevating its own label to "third-rail" status. If Democrats want to recapture the majority, both in government and in the country at large, they will have to, sooner or later, begin the arduous but necessary task of challenging the radical conservative underpinnings and rhetorical labeling of the opposition. And the continuing aftermath of Katrina is as good a point as any to begin that process.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Gore and the Common Good
In my last post, I outlined some reasons why I don't think Michael Tomasky's Common Good theme is good for progressive Democrats.
Since then, there have been two developments that have caused me to qualify those objections, at least a little. The first is rapidly rising (again) gas prices. The second are the reviews of Al Gore's soon to be released movie on global warming and the environment: An Inconvenient Truth. Obviously I think these two developments are convergent, and that both have implications for a Democratic vision based on notions of the Common Good.
First, the issue of gas prices. While, like Atrios, we may shake our heads at how the mainstream media is so quick to run "news stories" showing upset consumers at gas stations, David Niewert and Billmon explain why the issue of gas prices is more than just gas.
Meanwhile, at the same time as issues of energy policy are getting more attention, along comes Al Gore, who's climate-change, Powerpoint demonstration is being adapted to the big screen. Republicans had a lot of fun recalling Gore's Earth in the Balance writings during the 2000 campaign, using it as yet another link in a chain supposedly indicating how geeky and out of touch Gore was. But now, conservative critics of global warming, and of environmental causes generally, are in retreat.
For those of us uninspired by the thought of a Hilary candidacy, and hoping someone else, anyone else, with greater stature, credibility, or electability may yet enter the 2008 race, we can wonder whether Gore's moment might be arriving.
For amazing as it might sound, of all the prospective 2008 candidates, Al Gore, Al Gore! may be the visionary one. He's raked the administration over the coals on NSA wire-tapping and lambasted the attempt by Justice Sunday-Christian Reconstructionists to bulldoze the wall separating church and state. But it's his signature issue--the environment--that may give Gore his (and our) best chance to shift the national debate. Environmental protection, natural resource conservation and development, and climate change projections are issues Gore is knowledgeable and passionate about, and as it happens, also issues currently and extremely relevant to our nation's, and world's, economic futures. It seems to be that this set of issues also could prove to be the best test for a campaign and governance strategy oriented around the concept of the Common Good. It avoids the narrow-minded, leave-no-corporation-behind, Tax Cut agenda of the conservatives, as well as the standard "pocket-book", special interest driven, redistribute-the-economic-pie-type politics that many Democrats, like Tomasky, seem to find so bankrupt from our own party. Gore campaigning on the environment in 2008 would finally give the Democrats the kind of unifying, visionary, nation-wide, identity-shaping agenda that so many seem to think the Democrats have been lacking in recent elections.
Sound good? If not, why not?
Well, after feeling like I had had an epiphany, I began to have some doubts.
First, the price of gas could quickly head back down, particularly if the bomb-Iran rhetoric coming from the administration and its neocon media hawks starts to subside, negating the potential appeal to the Common Good that high gas prices may have made viable. And even if gas prices stay high, the public could very well adapt to them, making energy and environmental issues less salient generally, and Gore a less appealing candidate. If the gas issue is kaput, so is the Democrat's unifying, global vision, at least one driven by this issue.
But second, even if gas prices remain high and the public remains concerned, that doesn't mean it will be attracted to the type of belt-tightening measures an environmentally-focused, non-self-interest-based political campaign would be making. This seems especially true if Democrats hope to ride a new environmentalism from the primaries through to November.
Which brings me to what I think is another problem with the Common Good campaign model: trying to get people to look beyond their self interest could easily come across as hectoring, lecturing, or finger-pointing. And people don't take to that very well, even if they're more than happy to have a candidate hector, lecture and finger-point at someone else.
Since 1968, and particularly in 1980 and George Bush II, Republicans have been very good at two things: one, making a virtue out of ignorant, numbskullness; and two, making church-goers, construction workers, and insurance sales-persons think it's the other people who need to be personally responsible. If there's been a campaign by either party before that has centered on suggesting that its voters or the majority of Americans need to change, and that has succeeded, I am personally unaware of it.
So I'm not necessarily optimistic that high gas prices, theories of peak oil, and rising global temperatures can be the new centerpiece of a victorious Democratic governing vision or campaign strategy. I'm not sure how ready the middle-class is to restrain its consuming and spending patterns, to admit that sacrifice and responsibility may need to be exercised by all of us, and not just the "deviants". I'm not sure how politically viable it would be.
But it just might be the right thing to do.
And that would be an identity worth having.
Since then, there have been two developments that have caused me to qualify those objections, at least a little. The first is rapidly rising (again) gas prices. The second are the reviews of Al Gore's soon to be released movie on global warming and the environment: An Inconvenient Truth. Obviously I think these two developments are convergent, and that both have implications for a Democratic vision based on notions of the Common Good.
First, the issue of gas prices. While, like Atrios, we may shake our heads at how the mainstream media is so quick to run "news stories" showing upset consumers at gas stations, David Niewert and Billmon explain why the issue of gas prices is more than just gas.
Meanwhile, at the same time as issues of energy policy are getting more attention, along comes Al Gore, who's climate-change, Powerpoint demonstration is being adapted to the big screen. Republicans had a lot of fun recalling Gore's Earth in the Balance writings during the 2000 campaign, using it as yet another link in a chain supposedly indicating how geeky and out of touch Gore was. But now, conservative critics of global warming, and of environmental causes generally, are in retreat.
For those of us uninspired by the thought of a Hilary candidacy, and hoping someone else, anyone else, with greater stature, credibility, or electability may yet enter the 2008 race, we can wonder whether Gore's moment might be arriving.
For amazing as it might sound, of all the prospective 2008 candidates, Al Gore, Al Gore! may be the visionary one. He's raked the administration over the coals on NSA wire-tapping and lambasted the attempt by Justice Sunday-Christian Reconstructionists to bulldoze the wall separating church and state. But it's his signature issue--the environment--that may give Gore his (and our) best chance to shift the national debate. Environmental protection, natural resource conservation and development, and climate change projections are issues Gore is knowledgeable and passionate about, and as it happens, also issues currently and extremely relevant to our nation's, and world's, economic futures. It seems to be that this set of issues also could prove to be the best test for a campaign and governance strategy oriented around the concept of the Common Good. It avoids the narrow-minded, leave-no-corporation-behind, Tax Cut agenda of the conservatives, as well as the standard "pocket-book", special interest driven, redistribute-the-economic-pie-type politics that many Democrats, like Tomasky, seem to find so bankrupt from our own party. Gore campaigning on the environment in 2008 would finally give the Democrats the kind of unifying, visionary, nation-wide, identity-shaping agenda that so many seem to think the Democrats have been lacking in recent elections.
Sound good? If not, why not?
Well, after feeling like I had had an epiphany, I began to have some doubts.
First, the price of gas could quickly head back down, particularly if the bomb-Iran rhetoric coming from the administration and its neocon media hawks starts to subside, negating the potential appeal to the Common Good that high gas prices may have made viable. And even if gas prices stay high, the public could very well adapt to them, making energy and environmental issues less salient generally, and Gore a less appealing candidate. If the gas issue is kaput, so is the Democrat's unifying, global vision, at least one driven by this issue.
But second, even if gas prices remain high and the public remains concerned, that doesn't mean it will be attracted to the type of belt-tightening measures an environmentally-focused, non-self-interest-based political campaign would be making. This seems especially true if Democrats hope to ride a new environmentalism from the primaries through to November.
Which brings me to what I think is another problem with the Common Good campaign model: trying to get people to look beyond their self interest could easily come across as hectoring, lecturing, or finger-pointing. And people don't take to that very well, even if they're more than happy to have a candidate hector, lecture and finger-point at someone else.
Since 1968, and particularly in 1980 and George Bush II, Republicans have been very good at two things: one, making a virtue out of ignorant, numbskullness; and two, making church-goers, construction workers, and insurance sales-persons think it's the other people who need to be personally responsible. If there's been a campaign by either party before that has centered on suggesting that its voters or the majority of Americans need to change, and that has succeeded, I am personally unaware of it.
So I'm not necessarily optimistic that high gas prices, theories of peak oil, and rising global temperatures can be the new centerpiece of a victorious Democratic governing vision or campaign strategy. I'm not sure how ready the middle-class is to restrain its consuming and spending patterns, to admit that sacrifice and responsibility may need to be exercised by all of us, and not just the "deviants". I'm not sure how politically viable it would be.
But it just might be the right thing to do.
And that would be an identity worth having.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
It's the Power, Stupid
I've had some more time to think about Michael Tomasky's TAP essay on Communitarianism and the Democratic Party.
First, consider this passage from his essay:
For many years -- during their years of dominance and success, the period of the New Deal up through the first part of the Great Society -- the Democrats practiced a brand of liberalism quite different from today’s. Yes, it certainly sought to expand both rights and prosperity. But it did something more: That liberalism was built around the idea -- the philosophical principle -- that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest.
This, historically, is the moral basis of liberal governance -- not justice, not equality, not rights, not diversity, not government, and not even prosperity or opportunity. Liberal governance is about demanding of citizens that they balance self-interest with common interest.
This, I think, is exactly wrong.
First, I would argue that the "demand" (his words) for citizens to balance their self-interest with common interest is precisely the basis of just about every conservative critique of modern culture, from abortion to gay rights and school prayer. It might not have anything to do with the Republican's economic agenda, but it has everything to do with its cultural one. The conservative critique of modernity is precisely the liberal democratic notion that people should be reasonably free to live their lives on their own terms, as they see fit, provided they are not directly or significantly harming others. For conservatives, the type of individualism that allows and even encourages personal freedom of expression is anathema. In contrast, it seems vital to me that modern liberalism and the emancipation of the individual that it desires be given a voice from at least one political party in the country, and since Republicans, with their base of fundamentalist Christians are not inclined to provide it, Democrats can and must.
Second, the basis for liberal government is not "the demand that citizens place community interest over self-interest" but the belief that the purpose and vision of democracy and its correlary principle--popular sovereignty--is to shift power from royal and religious elites to the common man. Consequently, for liberal governance the essential aim of government (besides that common to all governments of securing order and protection from outside threats) is to diffuse power, to neutralize the concentration of power in the hands of economic, religious or governmental elites. The aim of liberal democratic government is therefore, to empower and liberate the individual, to pull the individual out of the group, as my political theory professor once remarked, to free him or her from the demands and conditional constraints created by private and public power centers against which the individual is unequally matched.
The essential basis of conservative philosophy is that the entity to be protected is society, and that the threat to society is the individual. This is why the conservative movement and the Republican Party have managed to fuse so well. It's economic and social coalitions are not essentially different. Both favor the establishment and enrichment of concentrated power, whether it is the corporation and wealth elite on the economic side, or the religious and cultural elite on the social side. Both demand that the individual be made subservient to a group or groups in society that dictate or constrain the individual's actions.
Attempts by Democratic Party leaders and strategists to articulate a response to the conservative menace to freedom tend to break down because, such as is the case with Communitarianism, it fails to link the economic and social wings and coalition members of the party. Tomasky's Communitarianism thus attempts to find an appealing rationale for the Party's economic agenda, be it Social Security, Medicare or aid to education, and to do so, comes forth with the notion of the public good versus individual self interest. This sounds all well and good until one recognizes that applied to the social and cultural sphere, it leads towards intrusion upon the individual and an invasion of the family's right to privacy.
The reason modern liberalism has embraced both income support and redistribution policies on the economic front, and civil liberties issues on the social and cultural front is because both aim to ensure that economic and religious foundations of power are mitigated to at least some degree, allowing the individual and the family to be more fully free.
If Democrats want to overcome the challenge to freedom and liberty represented by the Republican Party, it can best do this by emphasizing that the individual freedoms it seeks to protect (and of which Republican conservatives and Tomasky seem so contemptful) and opportunity it seeks to grant are equally important for the family as for the individual. Instead of talking about the individual right to privacy, liberals should talk about the family right to privacy. I believe this would allow the party to articulate and defend its civil liberty concerns (i.e. abortion and gay rights, voting rights, affirmative action, etc) a language that would at least partially negate the negative connotations that many in the conservative media and religious industrial complex* have tried to apply to the Democratic Party's pluralist goals and voting patterns.
For another example, consider the issue of NSA wire-taps. From Tomasky's Communitarian point of view, the president is basically right to do whatever he wants to "fight terrorism", even if that means invading a family's privacy without a warrant, because it is in the common interest, and liberal Democrats should just stop complaining about it and whining about individual rights, which are really pretty pesky things that need to be bulldozed in the name of the common good. Obviously, this will not do for a Democratic vision of governance, or at least one that seeks to provide checks on concentrated power, whether in the government or in society as a whole.
In short, the unifying element of modern liberalism is not the common good, as articulated by Tomasky, but the need to reduce the adverse effects of concentrated power. By reducing the adverse effects of concentrated power, the common good, in the pluralist and best sense of the word, is also preserved.
For an additional critique of Tomasky's Communitarianism see Digby's post.
*I'll elaborate on this concept in a future post.
First, consider this passage from his essay:
For many years -- during their years of dominance and success, the period of the New Deal up through the first part of the Great Society -- the Democrats practiced a brand of liberalism quite different from today’s. Yes, it certainly sought to expand both rights and prosperity. But it did something more: That liberalism was built around the idea -- the philosophical principle -- that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest.
This, historically, is the moral basis of liberal governance -- not justice, not equality, not rights, not diversity, not government, and not even prosperity or opportunity. Liberal governance is about demanding of citizens that they balance self-interest with common interest.
This, I think, is exactly wrong.
First, I would argue that the "demand" (his words) for citizens to balance their self-interest with common interest is precisely the basis of just about every conservative critique of modern culture, from abortion to gay rights and school prayer. It might not have anything to do with the Republican's economic agenda, but it has everything to do with its cultural one. The conservative critique of modernity is precisely the liberal democratic notion that people should be reasonably free to live their lives on their own terms, as they see fit, provided they are not directly or significantly harming others. For conservatives, the type of individualism that allows and even encourages personal freedom of expression is anathema. In contrast, it seems vital to me that modern liberalism and the emancipation of the individual that it desires be given a voice from at least one political party in the country, and since Republicans, with their base of fundamentalist Christians are not inclined to provide it, Democrats can and must.
Second, the basis for liberal government is not "the demand that citizens place community interest over self-interest" but the belief that the purpose and vision of democracy and its correlary principle--popular sovereignty--is to shift power from royal and religious elites to the common man. Consequently, for liberal governance the essential aim of government (besides that common to all governments of securing order and protection from outside threats) is to diffuse power, to neutralize the concentration of power in the hands of economic, religious or governmental elites. The aim of liberal democratic government is therefore, to empower and liberate the individual, to pull the individual out of the group, as my political theory professor once remarked, to free him or her from the demands and conditional constraints created by private and public power centers against which the individual is unequally matched.
The essential basis of conservative philosophy is that the entity to be protected is society, and that the threat to society is the individual. This is why the conservative movement and the Republican Party have managed to fuse so well. It's economic and social coalitions are not essentially different. Both favor the establishment and enrichment of concentrated power, whether it is the corporation and wealth elite on the economic side, or the religious and cultural elite on the social side. Both demand that the individual be made subservient to a group or groups in society that dictate or constrain the individual's actions.
Attempts by Democratic Party leaders and strategists to articulate a response to the conservative menace to freedom tend to break down because, such as is the case with Communitarianism, it fails to link the economic and social wings and coalition members of the party. Tomasky's Communitarianism thus attempts to find an appealing rationale for the Party's economic agenda, be it Social Security, Medicare or aid to education, and to do so, comes forth with the notion of the public good versus individual self interest. This sounds all well and good until one recognizes that applied to the social and cultural sphere, it leads towards intrusion upon the individual and an invasion of the family's right to privacy.
The reason modern liberalism has embraced both income support and redistribution policies on the economic front, and civil liberties issues on the social and cultural front is because both aim to ensure that economic and religious foundations of power are mitigated to at least some degree, allowing the individual and the family to be more fully free.
If Democrats want to overcome the challenge to freedom and liberty represented by the Republican Party, it can best do this by emphasizing that the individual freedoms it seeks to protect (and of which Republican conservatives and Tomasky seem so contemptful) and opportunity it seeks to grant are equally important for the family as for the individual. Instead of talking about the individual right to privacy, liberals should talk about the family right to privacy. I believe this would allow the party to articulate and defend its civil liberty concerns (i.e. abortion and gay rights, voting rights, affirmative action, etc) a language that would at least partially negate the negative connotations that many in the conservative media and religious industrial complex* have tried to apply to the Democratic Party's pluralist goals and voting patterns.
For another example, consider the issue of NSA wire-taps. From Tomasky's Communitarian point of view, the president is basically right to do whatever he wants to "fight terrorism", even if that means invading a family's privacy without a warrant, because it is in the common interest, and liberal Democrats should just stop complaining about it and whining about individual rights, which are really pretty pesky things that need to be bulldozed in the name of the common good. Obviously, this will not do for a Democratic vision of governance, or at least one that seeks to provide checks on concentrated power, whether in the government or in society as a whole.
In short, the unifying element of modern liberalism is not the common good, as articulated by Tomasky, but the need to reduce the adverse effects of concentrated power. By reducing the adverse effects of concentrated power, the common good, in the pluralist and best sense of the word, is also preserved.
For an additional critique of Tomasky's Communitarianism see Digby's post.
*I'll elaborate on this concept in a future post.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Recasting the War on Terror
This week brought with it two new attempts by Democratic thinkers to jump-start a 2006-2008 campaign message and articulate a broader Party rationale.
One was published at The American Prospect by Michael Tomasky. The short version is Tomasky outlines two variants of liberalism, the first a nationalistic and communitarian "responsibilities over rights", "we're all in this together" paradigm, the second an individualistic-rights-equality-justice paradigm that supposedly came out of the late 1960's and whose one-issue-interest group nature has been responsible for driving many white Democrats to the Republican Party. Tomasky favors Democrats going "back" to the first paradigm, which he says was the heritage of the good old Democrats like FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton. Tomasky makes a fair share of good points in the essay, but overall his message sounds an awful lot like DLC-light.
The second was drawn up by Democratic economists Roger Altman, Pete Orzag, and Robert Rubin. This group of Clinton era administrators has billed itself and its approach as "Hamiltonian". The authors favor balanced budgets, and greater government "investments" in education, health care, and worker retraining.
The best that can probably be said about each piece is they at least say something; they're a start. But both strike me as largely "political" approaches to recasting the party's message as opposed to viewing the party as a means of addressing the greater, structural problems the nation faces.
One example of this is that neither set of authors says much about the "war on terror" or national security. How should Democrats approach the "war on terror"? Or better yet, the question should be, what do Democrats actually think about the 9-11 attacks, Al Qaeda, and the threat of "terrorism"? Not how should Democrats spin national security as a policy matter but what do Democrats actually think about the threat of terrorism and perhaps more broadly, radical Islam?
Since I'm a progressive Democrat I'll give it a shot. There are three primary lessons I draw about Al Qaeda from 911 that would seem important for Democrats to articulate and address.
First, the terror attacks remind us that our problems are as much global as domestic. The World is Flat, as Thomas Friedman says. In other words, while improving our education systems, reducing marked income inequality, and expanding access to health care within the U.S. are important, our major challenges, particularly from the point of view of the federal government, continue to lie outside our borders. And what are these challenges? Ultimately, "oil dependency" generally, but something more serious and alarming--the disparity of well-being and resource-use between between us and the rest of the world. A NY Times article and editorial this week pointed out that the U.S. consumes 20 million gallons of oil per day, while our nearest "competitor", China, consumes 6.5 million. And China has about one billion more people than we do. Bluntly, we're consuming too much of the world's stuff. No amount of war-mongering or sabor-rattling is going to ensure our dominance in this area. Gas is back up to $3 a gallon in the U.S. If the party isn't over, the fat lady is about ready to sing. And needless to say, the issue of global income and opportunity disparities is a key contributor to the vitriolic immigration debate.
How will the U.S. begin to address these disparities? Is working towards greater free trade and open trade borders the answer? This is not an invitation to Democrats to pander to local constituencies, as legitimate as that might be, or to revert to knee-jerk protectionism rants. It's an invitation for Democrats to evaluate how our trade and international business policies are working, not just for our own immediate "good" but for the well-being of all mankind. This is not just being altruistic, although that would be OK, too. It's vital for our survival that other countries be successful economically and create the right kinds of opportunities for their populations.
Helping ourselves by helping others is important because if the Iraq war has shown us anything it's that Military Force as the one and only instrument of fighting "terrorism" is rather limited at best, badly flawed at worst. This is the second main lesson I draw from the 911 attacks on our shores. Tough talk and shock and awe will only get us so far. We can't blow up every country, or legitimately even threaten to blow up every country we think might endanger us. Liberals expressed a deep concern with the Bush administration's "pre-emptive force doctrine", but the truth is, no matter what our stated policy, military force can't be used in all, or even most cases. In fact, it can only be used rarely if at all. Three years after toppling Saddam Hussein, we have every indication that from a terrorism perspective, we may have left that country, and by extension ourselves, worse off as a result of the invasion. Nation building ain't easy. Rather than ape Republican rhetoric about being "tough" Democrats should unashamadly argue that the military is a greatly limited tool in the fighting the "war on terror" and that we need to begin to address other means of assuring other nations and their populations that we have their well-being in mind.
The third lesson is that religious fundamentalism is very dangerous. While the 911 attackers were radical Islamists, religious fundamentalism of various stripes has caused a considerable amount of bloodshed throughout history. We have an interest in ensuring that no one religion gets a monopoly on public policy or civil society. Radical Islam, like other variations of puritanical religions, is predicated on the notion that it is the only valid form of human salvation. Once that attitude is given free reign, non-believers can be cast as non-human, as The Other. True religion will protect the freedom of all religions to worship and participate equally in our democracy. Some Republicans give evidence of supporting a regressive, un-Constitutional Christian Reconstructionism. Democrats should ask their opponents if this extremism and exclusivity is what they believe in. Naturally, addressing the problems and role of faith in the public square is controversial. But one of the Democrat's greatest problems in recent years has been a seeming unwillingness to offend anyone. But the growing influence of radical religion in American life can't be ignored in the hope that it will go away. Ignoring the role of radical religion in America will be just as fatal as ignoring it in Afghanistan.
One was published at The American Prospect by Michael Tomasky. The short version is Tomasky outlines two variants of liberalism, the first a nationalistic and communitarian "responsibilities over rights", "we're all in this together" paradigm, the second an individualistic-rights-equality-justice paradigm that supposedly came out of the late 1960's and whose one-issue-interest group nature has been responsible for driving many white Democrats to the Republican Party. Tomasky favors Democrats going "back" to the first paradigm, which he says was the heritage of the good old Democrats like FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton. Tomasky makes a fair share of good points in the essay, but overall his message sounds an awful lot like DLC-light.
The second was drawn up by Democratic economists Roger Altman, Pete Orzag, and Robert Rubin. This group of Clinton era administrators has billed itself and its approach as "Hamiltonian". The authors favor balanced budgets, and greater government "investments" in education, health care, and worker retraining.
The best that can probably be said about each piece is they at least say something; they're a start. But both strike me as largely "political" approaches to recasting the party's message as opposed to viewing the party as a means of addressing the greater, structural problems the nation faces.
One example of this is that neither set of authors says much about the "war on terror" or national security. How should Democrats approach the "war on terror"? Or better yet, the question should be, what do Democrats actually think about the 9-11 attacks, Al Qaeda, and the threat of "terrorism"? Not how should Democrats spin national security as a policy matter but what do Democrats actually think about the threat of terrorism and perhaps more broadly, radical Islam?
Since I'm a progressive Democrat I'll give it a shot. There are three primary lessons I draw about Al Qaeda from 911 that would seem important for Democrats to articulate and address.
First, the terror attacks remind us that our problems are as much global as domestic. The World is Flat, as Thomas Friedman says. In other words, while improving our education systems, reducing marked income inequality, and expanding access to health care within the U.S. are important, our major challenges, particularly from the point of view of the federal government, continue to lie outside our borders. And what are these challenges? Ultimately, "oil dependency" generally, but something more serious and alarming--the disparity of well-being and resource-use between between us and the rest of the world. A NY Times article and editorial this week pointed out that the U.S. consumes 20 million gallons of oil per day, while our nearest "competitor", China, consumes 6.5 million. And China has about one billion more people than we do. Bluntly, we're consuming too much of the world's stuff. No amount of war-mongering or sabor-rattling is going to ensure our dominance in this area. Gas is back up to $3 a gallon in the U.S. If the party isn't over, the fat lady is about ready to sing. And needless to say, the issue of global income and opportunity disparities is a key contributor to the vitriolic immigration debate.
How will the U.S. begin to address these disparities? Is working towards greater free trade and open trade borders the answer? This is not an invitation to Democrats to pander to local constituencies, as legitimate as that might be, or to revert to knee-jerk protectionism rants. It's an invitation for Democrats to evaluate how our trade and international business policies are working, not just for our own immediate "good" but for the well-being of all mankind. This is not just being altruistic, although that would be OK, too. It's vital for our survival that other countries be successful economically and create the right kinds of opportunities for their populations.
Helping ourselves by helping others is important because if the Iraq war has shown us anything it's that Military Force as the one and only instrument of fighting "terrorism" is rather limited at best, badly flawed at worst. This is the second main lesson I draw from the 911 attacks on our shores. Tough talk and shock and awe will only get us so far. We can't blow up every country, or legitimately even threaten to blow up every country we think might endanger us. Liberals expressed a deep concern with the Bush administration's "pre-emptive force doctrine", but the truth is, no matter what our stated policy, military force can't be used in all, or even most cases. In fact, it can only be used rarely if at all. Three years after toppling Saddam Hussein, we have every indication that from a terrorism perspective, we may have left that country, and by extension ourselves, worse off as a result of the invasion. Nation building ain't easy. Rather than ape Republican rhetoric about being "tough" Democrats should unashamadly argue that the military is a greatly limited tool in the fighting the "war on terror" and that we need to begin to address other means of assuring other nations and their populations that we have their well-being in mind.
The third lesson is that religious fundamentalism is very dangerous. While the 911 attackers were radical Islamists, religious fundamentalism of various stripes has caused a considerable amount of bloodshed throughout history. We have an interest in ensuring that no one religion gets a monopoly on public policy or civil society. Radical Islam, like other variations of puritanical religions, is predicated on the notion that it is the only valid form of human salvation. Once that attitude is given free reign, non-believers can be cast as non-human, as The Other. True religion will protect the freedom of all religions to worship and participate equally in our democracy. Some Republicans give evidence of supporting a regressive, un-Constitutional Christian Reconstructionism. Democrats should ask their opponents if this extremism and exclusivity is what they believe in. Naturally, addressing the problems and role of faith in the public square is controversial. But one of the Democrat's greatest problems in recent years has been a seeming unwillingness to offend anyone. But the growing influence of radical religion in American life can't be ignored in the hope that it will go away. Ignoring the role of radical religion in America will be just as fatal as ignoring it in Afghanistan.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
The Chicago Way
Malone: You said you wanted to get Capone. Do you really wanna get him? You see what I'm saying is, what are you prepared to do?
Eliot Ness: Anything and everything in my power.
Malone: And *then* what are you prepared to do? If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way because they're not gonna give up the fight until one of you is dead.
Eliot Ness: How do you do it then?
Malone: You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?
Eliot Ness: I have sworn to capture this man with all legal powers at my disposal and I will do so.
Malone: Well, the Lord hates a coward. Do you know what a blood oath is, Mr. Ness?
Eliot Ness: Yes.
Malone: Good, 'cause you just took one.
We live in a strange world. Michelle Malkin publishes the names of students who opposed allowing military recruiters on campus, causing some among her readership to respond to the students with death threats and other forms of harassment. Yet, it's the "left" that's "unhinged".
Nevertheless, it's counterproductive to complain or even point out, as many of my favorite bloggers have, that Malkin's behavior is "over the line" or beyond the pale, and that she should apologize. The Rush Limbaughs, Ann Coulters and Michelle Malkins of the world don't apologize. Calling for their apologies makes them stronger and more vitriolic. It makes them think we're weak. Nor is the corporate media or their political sponsors going to call them on anything they do, no matter how outrageous.
And we've seen this before. Remember the Swiftboaters? The first reaction of the Kerry campaign and many among the left was to call for the ads to be withdrawn and the sponsors to be refuted by decent figures on the political "right" (like John McCain).
That was effective, wasn't it?
There seems to be an assumption on the part of us leftists that the "right" is supposed to be playing by the rules, and they aren't.
Calls for apologies and even factual counter-presentations don't phase the "right's" pundits, screamers and hate-mongerers. It's sad to say, but there's only one language, one tactic that the "right" understands. It's action. There's only one place it recognizes, and that's the gutter.
The emergence of Daily Kos and other Democratic web-sites is proving to be an important force in shaping party politics. But I suspect that many of us are only beginning to understand the nature of the Republican underground, as represented by its talk radio hosts, web-bloggers, cable television networks, "family" advocacy councils, reconstructionist theorists, and anti-intellectual rabble rousers, which play such a large role in elevating or destroying GOP candidacies and cowing the corporate media.
So, as "Malone" might ask of us would-be-nation changers, "what are you prepared to do?...And *then* what are you prepared to do?" Many of us, I know, would rather not play this game, not stoop to the level of raunch politics specialized in by the Michelle Malkins of the world. We live in a democracy where we strive for the values of pluralism, education, and tolerance needed to support a civil society. We'd like to do our anti-war protests and democratic participation peacefully.
But our opponents are not going to let us do that. To even have a chance of turning back the nation's slide towards fascism--and that's where the Savages, Limbaughs, Coulters, and Malkins would lead us--we have to create an environment where liberal ideas can be heard. To do that, liberal groups, individuals, and leaders need to have the protection to act. The "right's" interest is in creating a climate of fear to make sure that we can't act. That's why the UC Santa Cruz group was targeted. As seemingly minor a group or effort as they appeared to be making, the "right" needs to make them an example. Creating fear on the part of the progressive community, or creating ridicule among the mass public for the left, is what the "right" has been specializing in for the last two decades. Even if the press release had not contained contact information, don't think the "right" would be beyond finding that information anyway.
So what am I saying? If we are going to take steps to turn back the tide of militarism and authoritarianism we need to recognize what the other side is prepared to do. And when the Michelle Malkins of the world step "over the line" we need to respond with action, not plaintative words or calls for apologies. We need to become actors, not reactors. We need to become the hunter instead of the hunted. When the Michelle Malkins of the world call for hate-male and death threats from their readers, their hosts need to wonder when and where the next horse's head is going show up under their bed-covers.
That's the Chicago Way.
Yeah, I don't know why either
The perfesser:
Blogger Michael Totten has been blogging from Iraq. The latest installment is here, with links to his earlier posts.
With his detailed first-person reports and excellent photos as he travels the area, Totten is offering a kind of reporting that Big Media seem not to be delivering. I'm not sure why that is, but his stuff -- supported entirely by reader donations -- is well worth your time.
Yeah, I don't know why the corporate media isn't doing his style of reporting either. But maybe this has something to do with it:
Police on Monday found 18 bodies in Baghdad, including a prominent Sunni politician's brother who had been missing about three weeks.
Taha Mutlaq, who disappeared in late March, had been shot several times in the head and appeared to have been tortured, police said.
His brother, Saleh Mutlaq, is the head of the National Dialogue Front, which won 11 seats in Iraq's parliament.
Police also found 17 unidentified bodies around the capital, all of them shot in the head and showing signs of torture.
Twelve of the bodies were discovered in Dora, a Sunni district in southern Baghdad.
Two other bodies were found in Khadhamiya, a Shiite area of northern Baghdad, and three turned up in the Shu'la neighborhood in northwestern Baghdad.
The discovery of bodies killed in similar fashion has been a regular occurrence in Baghdad since sectarian violence flared after an attack on a revered Shiite mosque February 22.
Of course, once Iraq is pacified, a unity government is formed, and the oil is flowing again, there's always Iran.
Blogger Michael Totten has been blogging from Iraq. The latest installment is here, with links to his earlier posts.
With his detailed first-person reports and excellent photos as he travels the area, Totten is offering a kind of reporting that Big Media seem not to be delivering. I'm not sure why that is, but his stuff -- supported entirely by reader donations -- is well worth your time.
Yeah, I don't know why the corporate media isn't doing his style of reporting either. But maybe this has something to do with it:
Police on Monday found 18 bodies in Baghdad, including a prominent Sunni politician's brother who had been missing about three weeks.
Taha Mutlaq, who disappeared in late March, had been shot several times in the head and appeared to have been tortured, police said.
His brother, Saleh Mutlaq, is the head of the National Dialogue Front, which won 11 seats in Iraq's parliament.
Police also found 17 unidentified bodies around the capital, all of them shot in the head and showing signs of torture.
Twelve of the bodies were discovered in Dora, a Sunni district in southern Baghdad.
Two other bodies were found in Khadhamiya, a Shiite area of northern Baghdad, and three turned up in the Shu'la neighborhood in northwestern Baghdad.
The discovery of bodies killed in similar fashion has been a regular occurrence in Baghdad since sectarian violence flared after an attack on a revered Shiite mosque February 22.
Of course, once Iraq is pacified, a unity government is formed, and the oil is flowing again, there's always Iran.
What a Surprise
Georgia Enacts a Tough Law on Immigrants
ATLANTA, April 17 -- Gov. Sonny Perdue signed a sweeping immigration bill on Monday that supporters and critics say gives Georgia some of the nation's toughest measures against illegal immigrants.
The law requires verification that adults who seek many state-administered benefits are in the United States legally. Employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants face sanctions, and companies with state contracts must check employees' immigration status.
The law also requires that the police check the status of people they arrest.
Many of its provisions will not take effect until July 1, 2007.
The bill drew demonstrators on both sides at the Capitol here and prompted a daylong work stoppage by thousands of immigrants.
The regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Tisha Tallman, said she was studying potential legal challenges.
Governor Perdue, a Republican, said at the signing: "I want to make this clear -- we are not, Georgia's government is not, and this bill is not, anti-immigrant. We simply believe that everyone who lives in our state needs to abide by our laws."
The law will not affect emergency medical care and educational benefits for children in kindergarten through 12th grade. Federal courts have said those programs have to be provided regardless of immigration status.
Exemptions were added for other services like prenatal care and the treatment of communicable diseases.
Outside the Capitol, a few hundred supporters of the law applauded loudly when word came that Mr. Perdue was signing the measure.
The crowd waved American flags and cheered as State Representative Melvin Everson, a black Republican in the House, denounced illegal immigration as a cancer.
"The last time I checked," Mr. Everson said, "America was the land of English, not Spanish."
So the bill and the state are by no means "anti-immigrant" but one of the bill's supporters says (illegal) immigration is a "cancer" and that the last time he "checked", America was the land of the King's English, not Espanol.
Wanna know about "Mr. Everson"?
Melvin was born on September 24, 1957 to the late Northern & Willa Everson of Abbeville, Ga. He attended Wilcox High School and graduated in 1975. After high school he attended Albany State University and graduated in 1983 with a BS in Criminology. Melvin married Geraldine M. Everson and they have one son, Ricardo D. Everson who attended South Gwinnett High School and was an honor graduate. He is a recent graduate from UGA with a B.S. degree in social work. He is currently applying for Law School at UGA.
Melvin served 23 years in the military and just recently retired in 1999. He served 5 years on Snellville's Planning Commission before running a successful campaign to become a council member in 2000. He is a charter member of the Snellville Optimist Club, Associate Pastor of Salem Missionary Baptist Church in Lilburn, Ga., and served on the Take Pride in Snellville Committee. Everson served two terms as President of the South Gwinnett High School PTSA and two terms as Vice President.
Melvin was a fifteen-year employee with JCPenney Catalog as a Customer Relations Supervisor until the company ceased its Atlanta operations in July 2003. During fourteen of those years, Melvin served as the United Way Advisory Member for JCPenney for Clayton, Henry and Butts counties, and just recently completed his tenure as the 2003 campaign chair of United Way in Clayton County. Melvin is currently an Associate Pastor at Salem Missionary Baptist Church and a Probation Officer for Professional Probation Services.
So a black Republican in the South who thinks (illegal) immigration is a "cancer" and who says that the last time he "checked" America was the land of the King's English and not Espanol, although the issue of English-Espanol doesn't appear to have been at all relevant to the legislation at hand, also turns out to be an "associate pastor" of a Baptist church.
Charming. Who'd a thunk it? A Christian and a bigot. In a way, the Christian Right is "right"--it's awfully hard being a Christian these days, especially when we're represented by such fine spokesman as Mr. Everson.
You know what the sad thing is? I checked out Everson's bio because the fact that he was a black Republican in the South piqued my curiosity, and made me suspicious that the guy was probably a right-wing evangelical. And how about that? He is.
And while we're on the subject, what sort of pastor is it that doesn't appear to have anything resembling a religious education? I know I probably sound like some sort of snob, but the Bible was written in Hebrew (the O.T.) and Greek (the N.T.) with some Arabic thrown in for good measure. It usually helps if the pastor preaching the Word is familiar with the Biblical languages or at least has some awareness of the basics of theology. Guess that's not a condition for churches these days.
And what's with this guy's resume? He was born in 1957. He served in the military for 23 years. He was an employee at JC Penney for 15 years. I'm having a hard time with the math. He's 49 years old and has apparently worked for 38 years. Maybe that military career was part-time.
Anyway, it's be nice to hear, for once, of a bigot not being connected to Christianity.
ATLANTA, April 17 -- Gov. Sonny Perdue signed a sweeping immigration bill on Monday that supporters and critics say gives Georgia some of the nation's toughest measures against illegal immigrants.
The law requires verification that adults who seek many state-administered benefits are in the United States legally. Employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants face sanctions, and companies with state contracts must check employees' immigration status.
The law also requires that the police check the status of people they arrest.
Many of its provisions will not take effect until July 1, 2007.
The bill drew demonstrators on both sides at the Capitol here and prompted a daylong work stoppage by thousands of immigrants.
The regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Tisha Tallman, said she was studying potential legal challenges.
Governor Perdue, a Republican, said at the signing: "I want to make this clear -- we are not, Georgia's government is not, and this bill is not, anti-immigrant. We simply believe that everyone who lives in our state needs to abide by our laws."
The law will not affect emergency medical care and educational benefits for children in kindergarten through 12th grade. Federal courts have said those programs have to be provided regardless of immigration status.
Exemptions were added for other services like prenatal care and the treatment of communicable diseases.
Outside the Capitol, a few hundred supporters of the law applauded loudly when word came that Mr. Perdue was signing the measure.
The crowd waved American flags and cheered as State Representative Melvin Everson, a black Republican in the House, denounced illegal immigration as a cancer.
"The last time I checked," Mr. Everson said, "America was the land of English, not Spanish."
So the bill and the state are by no means "anti-immigrant" but one of the bill's supporters says (illegal) immigration is a "cancer" and that the last time he "checked", America was the land of the King's English, not Espanol.
Wanna know about "Mr. Everson"?
Melvin was born on September 24, 1957 to the late Northern & Willa Everson of Abbeville, Ga. He attended Wilcox High School and graduated in 1975. After high school he attended Albany State University and graduated in 1983 with a BS in Criminology. Melvin married Geraldine M. Everson and they have one son, Ricardo D. Everson who attended South Gwinnett High School and was an honor graduate. He is a recent graduate from UGA with a B.S. degree in social work. He is currently applying for Law School at UGA.
Melvin served 23 years in the military and just recently retired in 1999. He served 5 years on Snellville's Planning Commission before running a successful campaign to become a council member in 2000. He is a charter member of the Snellville Optimist Club, Associate Pastor of Salem Missionary Baptist Church in Lilburn, Ga., and served on the Take Pride in Snellville Committee. Everson served two terms as President of the South Gwinnett High School PTSA and two terms as Vice President.
Melvin was a fifteen-year employee with JCPenney Catalog as a Customer Relations Supervisor until the company ceased its Atlanta operations in July 2003. During fourteen of those years, Melvin served as the United Way Advisory Member for JCPenney for Clayton, Henry and Butts counties, and just recently completed his tenure as the 2003 campaign chair of United Way in Clayton County. Melvin is currently an Associate Pastor at Salem Missionary Baptist Church and a Probation Officer for Professional Probation Services.
So a black Republican in the South who thinks (illegal) immigration is a "cancer" and who says that the last time he "checked" America was the land of the King's English and not Espanol, although the issue of English-Espanol doesn't appear to have been at all relevant to the legislation at hand, also turns out to be an "associate pastor" of a Baptist church.
Charming. Who'd a thunk it? A Christian and a bigot. In a way, the Christian Right is "right"--it's awfully hard being a Christian these days, especially when we're represented by such fine spokesman as Mr. Everson.
You know what the sad thing is? I checked out Everson's bio because the fact that he was a black Republican in the South piqued my curiosity, and made me suspicious that the guy was probably a right-wing evangelical. And how about that? He is.
And while we're on the subject, what sort of pastor is it that doesn't appear to have anything resembling a religious education? I know I probably sound like some sort of snob, but the Bible was written in Hebrew (the O.T.) and Greek (the N.T.) with some Arabic thrown in for good measure. It usually helps if the pastor preaching the Word is familiar with the Biblical languages or at least has some awareness of the basics of theology. Guess that's not a condition for churches these days.
And what's with this guy's resume? He was born in 1957. He served in the military for 23 years. He was an employee at JC Penney for 15 years. I'm having a hard time with the math. He's 49 years old and has apparently worked for 38 years. Maybe that military career was part-time.
Anyway, it's be nice to hear, for once, of a bigot not being connected to Christianity.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Iran?
I'll admit I'm having a strange reaction to the "wild speculation" about Iran and whether there will soon be "wars and rumors of wars" again in the Middle East.
The strange reaction I'm having is I just don't buy it. Maybe I'm naive or deluded, I don't know which. I just don't think the administration can afford to go there, literally or figuratively. I know they're messianical and inept, but I don't think they're this crazy. Don't get me wrong, the reality based community is well within its rights to begin spreading the alarm, given the snow-balling we got between 9-11 and March 2003. But the administration, someone in the administration, has to know or at least highly suspect what some of the implications would be of an Iran war.
But maybe the administration hasn't yet learned the lesson from Iraq that history is starting to write. Maybe America's power elite thinks Iran will look like Afghanistan and the first few weeks of Gulf War II.
Someone, someday will probably go back and write a very interesting book about the wars America waged between 1981 and 2006. They will write about how after the national trauma delivered by Vietnam, America's military was seemingly resurrected, aided by new technology and the capture of the government by a new conservative elite, dedicated to recreating America as a militant, faux-Christian "City on a Hill" ruled by uncompromising patriots and inhabited by loyally unquestioning citizens.
When they inquire as to America's military excursions in the Reagan era and beyond, they'll no doubt highlight our trampling of Grenada, our clandestine support for right-wing dictatorships in El Salvador, Nicaragua and elsewhere throughout Latin America, our one-time bombing of Libya, the invasion of Panama and capture and trial of Manuel Noriega, and the Reagan era's grand finale, Gulf War I, the route of Saddam Hussein's army and the liberation of Kuwait. This survey of the new American militarism might even include the air-war over Kosovo, leading to the ending of Serb atrocities, the capture of Slabodan Milosovic, and the stabilization of the Balkans by UN and NATO peacekeepers. Finally, the events of 9-11 and the soon to be unleashed invasion of Afghanistan will come under review, serving as the high-point of American triumphalism.
Then this history will turn to Operation Iraqi Freedom, known at the ground level as Cobra II. Before Iraq 2.0, and even in its early stages, the resurgence of America's military might appeared to be a fait accompli. The Reagan tough talk and defense build-up that's been credited in some quarters to the demise of Communism, the against-expectations quick roll-back of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait within a week's time and a scant loss of American military personnel, and the also relatively successful reconstituting of Afghanistan, where America's Cold War enemy had failed, seemed to all point to limitless possibilities for American military hegemony. New technology assured military victories would be short and relatively painless. Wars were no longer really wars. Not only was a draft or full societal war mobilization necessary, ground troops themselves might rarely be needed.
In a way, it's hard to fault the planners of Gulf War II. The peaceniks had been wrong about Gulf War I and Afghanistan. No chemical or biological weapons had been unleashed as a result of GWI, nor had our oil been shut off. American troops did not get bogged down in Afghanistan as had the Soviets. History had not been a valid guide for assessing just how thoroughly dominate the American military machine had become against third world foes.
In the lead-up to GWII, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld no doubt typified the beliefs of neoconservatives everywhere when he spoke aboard the Intrepid, a WWII air craft carrier anchored in the Hudson river on February 14. His speech was entitled, "Beyond Nation Building". In it, he criticized the nation-building policies of the previous administration saying that in Kosovo, they had created a "culture of dependency". America's new strategy was perfectly illustrated by its Afghanistan campaign where the U.S. was "helping the Afghans build their own country." There was no need for significant troop deployments and nor would there be a long occupation. The Iraq campaign would be even more efficient Rumsfeld promised. Iraq was rich in oil and the administration had more time to prepare the postwar plan.*
But as the last three years have demonstrated, GWII would be the first black mark in America's new military era. Iraq has and is demonstrating that war cannot be fought on the cheap, with magical bombers that alleviate the need for "boots on the ground" and large-scale sacrifices at home. If there is an Iranian invasion, the 101st Fighting Keyboarders won't get to stay downstairs in the basement or on campus flying yellow ribbons at support the troop bake sales.
This is why I don't think there will be military action against Iran. I don't see it stopping or being limited to a few smart bombs against selected, well known targets. Air attacks on Iran would prompt a response, in Iraq and elsewhere, that would rise above the level anyone could write off as being liberal defeatism.
The neocon's military party is over. Iraq was the beginning of the end of it. If there is an Iran, the neoconservative agenda will be sent back to the stone-age.
And that book on 1981-2006 American military history will be quite a read. In the meantime, and for an alternative perspective, read what Billmon has to say.
*Taken from the book, Cobra II, by Michael R. Gordon and General Bernard E. Trainor, page 151.
The strange reaction I'm having is I just don't buy it. Maybe I'm naive or deluded, I don't know which. I just don't think the administration can afford to go there, literally or figuratively. I know they're messianical and inept, but I don't think they're this crazy. Don't get me wrong, the reality based community is well within its rights to begin spreading the alarm, given the snow-balling we got between 9-11 and March 2003. But the administration, someone in the administration, has to know or at least highly suspect what some of the implications would be of an Iran war.
But maybe the administration hasn't yet learned the lesson from Iraq that history is starting to write. Maybe America's power elite thinks Iran will look like Afghanistan and the first few weeks of Gulf War II.
Someone, someday will probably go back and write a very interesting book about the wars America waged between 1981 and 2006. They will write about how after the national trauma delivered by Vietnam, America's military was seemingly resurrected, aided by new technology and the capture of the government by a new conservative elite, dedicated to recreating America as a militant, faux-Christian "City on a Hill" ruled by uncompromising patriots and inhabited by loyally unquestioning citizens.
When they inquire as to America's military excursions in the Reagan era and beyond, they'll no doubt highlight our trampling of Grenada, our clandestine support for right-wing dictatorships in El Salvador, Nicaragua and elsewhere throughout Latin America, our one-time bombing of Libya, the invasion of Panama and capture and trial of Manuel Noriega, and the Reagan era's grand finale, Gulf War I, the route of Saddam Hussein's army and the liberation of Kuwait. This survey of the new American militarism might even include the air-war over Kosovo, leading to the ending of Serb atrocities, the capture of Slabodan Milosovic, and the stabilization of the Balkans by UN and NATO peacekeepers. Finally, the events of 9-11 and the soon to be unleashed invasion of Afghanistan will come under review, serving as the high-point of American triumphalism.
Then this history will turn to Operation Iraqi Freedom, known at the ground level as Cobra II. Before Iraq 2.0, and even in its early stages, the resurgence of America's military might appeared to be a fait accompli. The Reagan tough talk and defense build-up that's been credited in some quarters to the demise of Communism, the against-expectations quick roll-back of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait within a week's time and a scant loss of American military personnel, and the also relatively successful reconstituting of Afghanistan, where America's Cold War enemy had failed, seemed to all point to limitless possibilities for American military hegemony. New technology assured military victories would be short and relatively painless. Wars were no longer really wars. Not only was a draft or full societal war mobilization necessary, ground troops themselves might rarely be needed.
In a way, it's hard to fault the planners of Gulf War II. The peaceniks had been wrong about Gulf War I and Afghanistan. No chemical or biological weapons had been unleashed as a result of GWI, nor had our oil been shut off. American troops did not get bogged down in Afghanistan as had the Soviets. History had not been a valid guide for assessing just how thoroughly dominate the American military machine had become against third world foes.
In the lead-up to GWII, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld no doubt typified the beliefs of neoconservatives everywhere when he spoke aboard the Intrepid, a WWII air craft carrier anchored in the Hudson river on February 14. His speech was entitled, "Beyond Nation Building". In it, he criticized the nation-building policies of the previous administration saying that in Kosovo, they had created a "culture of dependency". America's new strategy was perfectly illustrated by its Afghanistan campaign where the U.S. was "helping the Afghans build their own country." There was no need for significant troop deployments and nor would there be a long occupation. The Iraq campaign would be even more efficient Rumsfeld promised. Iraq was rich in oil and the administration had more time to prepare the postwar plan.*
But as the last three years have demonstrated, GWII would be the first black mark in America's new military era. Iraq has and is demonstrating that war cannot be fought on the cheap, with magical bombers that alleviate the need for "boots on the ground" and large-scale sacrifices at home. If there is an Iranian invasion, the 101st Fighting Keyboarders won't get to stay downstairs in the basement or on campus flying yellow ribbons at support the troop bake sales.
This is why I don't think there will be military action against Iran. I don't see it stopping or being limited to a few smart bombs against selected, well known targets. Air attacks on Iran would prompt a response, in Iraq and elsewhere, that would rise above the level anyone could write off as being liberal defeatism.
The neocon's military party is over. Iraq was the beginning of the end of it. If there is an Iran, the neoconservative agenda will be sent back to the stone-age.
And that book on 1981-2006 American military history will be quite a read. In the meantime, and for an alternative perspective, read what Billmon has to say.
*Taken from the book, Cobra II, by Michael R. Gordon and General Bernard E. Trainor, page 151.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
What I Wanna Know Is
We've probably all read by now yesterday's Wash Post article on the Defense Intelligence Agency's group of British and American volunteers that went to Baghdad in May of 2003 to check out the story about the "mobile biological weapons labs" the invaders thought they found.
Although the nine members of scientific experts quickly determined the "labs" lacked the essential instruments and capabilities for producing biological weapons, and faxed a report saying the same back to headquarters, the president nonetheless went out two days later and announced that "we found the WMD", meaning the mobile labs.
Well, the Post story created a ruckus at the White House briefing where Scotty responded to questions on it by going off like a banshee and demanding that the reporters apologize for mentioning it. Scotty gave a couple of evasive, non-answers to the juxtaposition between the report's submission and the president's contrary, and soon to be determined, totally wrong statement about what the mobile labs really were. First, he says we all know now how wrong the intelligence agencies were before the war, this is old business, waddya waddya waddya, and failing that, said, well, there were other teams that investigated the labs and thought they were legit WMD, and gee, that's what we went with.
The first point is naturally just bupkis, because what the Senate's "investigation" into the pre-war case for war said was "the intelligence agencies got it all wrong" before the war, and the WH was just objectively following their evidence and so really wasn't at fault for the war shenanigans, before the war. But the matter of the mobile biological labs was clearly after the war. And the implication is the WH was as equally mendacious after the war as before.
But it's the second point that intrigues me. The Post article suggested the labs had been examined by other investigators, but didn't specify how. Scotty says the WH ain't in the intelligence gathering business (ain't that the truth) and that we should all check with the CIA.
OK, where's the CIA document?
In today's Post it mentions that in the aftermath of yesterday's revelation, the WH sent out a blitz of Setting the Record Straight emails or faxes to the press providing what I think is crucial information.
In the statements, the White House does not deny the existence of the technical team's report but portrays it as a preliminary finding, contrasting that report with a public white paper put out by the CIA on May 28, 2003. The CIA paper described the trailers as the "strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program."
The White House provided a "link" to a CIA Web site where the white paper is still posted, nearly 18 months after its conclusions were refuted by the Iraq Survey Group.
I've checked the CIA site but can't locate the document in question. It would be important to find this document and read it because even if the DIA document isn't declassified, we could tell what the basis was for the offsetting, but wrong, CIA report upon which the president stated that "we found the weapons of mass destruction", meaning the mobile labs.
What I Wanna Know Is, A, where is this document? Has anyone tracked it down? B, how did the CIA come to believe the labs were the real deal? Were they relying on pictures or Curveball's analysis? Or did they actually go out to Baghdad and look at the things? If they actually saw the things up close, how did they goof, and make something out of nothing? It sounds as if either the CIA and the intelligence apparatus is either more stunningly incompetent than we thought, that this incompetence extended beyond the start of the war, or that their analysis was flat out sloppy, and thus also, incompetent.
Where's the document and what's the story?
Update I: the document is here. I'll be back later with a summary, or something.
Update II: Well, I read the document. And I'm embarassed I made such a fuss over it. The total document is ten pages long, but one page is the title page, two pages are essentially blank, and two more pages are basically pictures or graphical depictions of the labs. Only five pages contain words that could be construed as explaining the nature of the items in question. And of those words, a good deal basically say "well, we showed these pics to our source (Curveball) and he said they looked like them." Towards the end of the White Paper the report says "we're now going to conduct a CSI-like examination of the trailer's materials, but we don't expect to find anything because Saddam had his goons pour bleach over everything...sure enough, we conducted a bio-chemical analysis of the trailers and nothing turned up...see, Saddam screwed us by destroying all the evidence."
So much for the document Scotty says the president, and later his vice-president used as the basis for declaring that the trailers we found were evidence of WMD or WMD related program activities.
And maybe everything would be fine if we just left it at that. I don't know why the DIA would send a team to Iraq to inspect the trailers and then a day after getting a report from the team, allow a CIA White Paper concluding the opposite to go out with the DIA logo on it. And I'm perfectly willing to believe that the president was poorly served by his subordinates in this case and was genuinely unaware of the DIA report. No harm, no foul.
But as they say, it's not the original misdeed that gets you, it's the cover-up.
On their webpage, the WH launches a diatribe against the Washington Post, ABC news, and seemingly anyone that would question the administration about the report or its motives. And then they include what seems to me a shockingly absurd statement about the DIA report:
But The Defense Department Field Report Was A "Preliminary Finding"
U.S. Intelligence Official: "You Don't Change A Report That Has Been Coordinated In The [Intelligence] Community Based On A Field Report.""A U.S. intelligence official, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, confirmed the existence of the field report cited by the Post, but said it was a preliminary finding that had to be evaluated. 'You don't change a report that has been coordinated in the [intelligence] community based on a field report,' the official said. 'It's a preliminary report. No matter how strongly the individual may feel about the subject matter.'" ("White House Hotly Denies Report On Iraq WMD," Reuters, 4/12/06)
You don't change a report based on a field report? Does anybody know what this is supposed to mean? Isn't a field report supposed to, you know, inform the people coordinating our intelligence reports? How else is an intelligence report supposed to be coordinated?
As I've mentioned, I can't imagine why the DIA would send a team out to Baghdad to clear up any confusion about what the trailers were or were not, and then go ahead a day after getting their report and sign on to a completely contradictory report that doesn't mention the DIA's special team report at all.
Although the nine members of scientific experts quickly determined the "labs" lacked the essential instruments and capabilities for producing biological weapons, and faxed a report saying the same back to headquarters, the president nonetheless went out two days later and announced that "we found the WMD", meaning the mobile labs.
Well, the Post story created a ruckus at the White House briefing where Scotty responded to questions on it by going off like a banshee and demanding that the reporters apologize for mentioning it. Scotty gave a couple of evasive, non-answers to the juxtaposition between the report's submission and the president's contrary, and soon to be determined, totally wrong statement about what the mobile labs really were. First, he says we all know now how wrong the intelligence agencies were before the war, this is old business, waddya waddya waddya, and failing that, said, well, there were other teams that investigated the labs and thought they were legit WMD, and gee, that's what we went with.
The first point is naturally just bupkis, because what the Senate's "investigation" into the pre-war case for war said was "the intelligence agencies got it all wrong" before the war, and the WH was just objectively following their evidence and so really wasn't at fault for the war shenanigans, before the war. But the matter of the mobile biological labs was clearly after the war. And the implication is the WH was as equally mendacious after the war as before.
But it's the second point that intrigues me. The Post article suggested the labs had been examined by other investigators, but didn't specify how. Scotty says the WH ain't in the intelligence gathering business (ain't that the truth) and that we should all check with the CIA.
OK, where's the CIA document?
In today's Post it mentions that in the aftermath of yesterday's revelation, the WH sent out a blitz of Setting the Record Straight emails or faxes to the press providing what I think is crucial information.
In the statements, the White House does not deny the existence of the technical team's report but portrays it as a preliminary finding, contrasting that report with a public white paper put out by the CIA on May 28, 2003. The CIA paper described the trailers as the "strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program."
The White House provided a "link" to a CIA Web site where the white paper is still posted, nearly 18 months after its conclusions were refuted by the Iraq Survey Group.
I've checked the CIA site but can't locate the document in question. It would be important to find this document and read it because even if the DIA document isn't declassified, we could tell what the basis was for the offsetting, but wrong, CIA report upon which the president stated that "we found the weapons of mass destruction", meaning the mobile labs.
What I Wanna Know Is, A, where is this document? Has anyone tracked it down? B, how did the CIA come to believe the labs were the real deal? Were they relying on pictures or Curveball's analysis? Or did they actually go out to Baghdad and look at the things? If they actually saw the things up close, how did they goof, and make something out of nothing? It sounds as if either the CIA and the intelligence apparatus is either more stunningly incompetent than we thought, that this incompetence extended beyond the start of the war, or that their analysis was flat out sloppy, and thus also, incompetent.
Where's the document and what's the story?
Update I: the document is here. I'll be back later with a summary, or something.
Update II: Well, I read the document. And I'm embarassed I made such a fuss over it. The total document is ten pages long, but one page is the title page, two pages are essentially blank, and two more pages are basically pictures or graphical depictions of the labs. Only five pages contain words that could be construed as explaining the nature of the items in question. And of those words, a good deal basically say "well, we showed these pics to our source (Curveball) and he said they looked like them." Towards the end of the White Paper the report says "we're now going to conduct a CSI-like examination of the trailer's materials, but we don't expect to find anything because Saddam had his goons pour bleach over everything...sure enough, we conducted a bio-chemical analysis of the trailers and nothing turned up...see, Saddam screwed us by destroying all the evidence."
So much for the document Scotty says the president, and later his vice-president used as the basis for declaring that the trailers we found were evidence of WMD or WMD related program activities.
And maybe everything would be fine if we just left it at that. I don't know why the DIA would send a team to Iraq to inspect the trailers and then a day after getting a report from the team, allow a CIA White Paper concluding the opposite to go out with the DIA logo on it. And I'm perfectly willing to believe that the president was poorly served by his subordinates in this case and was genuinely unaware of the DIA report. No harm, no foul.
But as they say, it's not the original misdeed that gets you, it's the cover-up.
On their webpage, the WH launches a diatribe against the Washington Post, ABC news, and seemingly anyone that would question the administration about the report or its motives. And then they include what seems to me a shockingly absurd statement about the DIA report:
But The Defense Department Field Report Was A "Preliminary Finding"
U.S. Intelligence Official: "You Don't Change A Report That Has Been Coordinated In The [Intelligence] Community Based On A Field Report.""A U.S. intelligence official, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, confirmed the existence of the field report cited by the Post, but said it was a preliminary finding that had to be evaluated. 'You don't change a report that has been coordinated in the [intelligence] community based on a field report,' the official said. 'It's a preliminary report. No matter how strongly the individual may feel about the subject matter.'" ("White House Hotly Denies Report On Iraq WMD," Reuters, 4/12/06)
You don't change a report based on a field report? Does anybody know what this is supposed to mean? Isn't a field report supposed to, you know, inform the people coordinating our intelligence reports? How else is an intelligence report supposed to be coordinated?
As I've mentioned, I can't imagine why the DIA would send a team out to Baghdad to clear up any confusion about what the trailers were or were not, and then go ahead a day after getting their report and sign on to a completely contradictory report that doesn't mention the DIA's special team report at all.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Paging Steven Spielberg
The self-described America's Newspaper, otherwise known around these parts as the Moonie paper, and D.C.'s reigning "pro-life" organ to boot, took a gander at yesterday's immigrant rally and opined:
More Than a Million Rally for Aliens
Aliens? Is this the War of the Worlds?
Elsewhere, an Arizona state rep had this to say:
The question is, when do we stop this activity of illegal immigration?" he said into a battery of cameras. "Right now, it's like Groundhog Day. You wake up every day and there's more of them. It will be this way until we have a closed border."
Them. The brown folks. From there.
And not to be outdone:
Brit Hume, the news anchor on Fox News, described the marchers, particularly those carrying Mexican flags, as "a repellent spectacle."
Repellent. A spectacle.
Meanwhile:
Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, described the protests with marchers carrying foreign flags as "ominous" in "their hint of a large, unassimilated population existing outside America's laws and exhibiting absolutely no sheepishness about it."
Ominous. A large, unassimilated population existing outside America's laws...
A few weeks ago, when the anti-immigrant forces were feeling their oats, Republicans in Congress and the media felt free to let loose on Roger Mahony, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, and an ally on the abortion debate, for rising above his station to oppose them and the Republican leadership on immigration. Mahony stated that if H.R. 4437 passed, he would call on his priests and staff to ignore the law's draconian threats to imprison anyone found to be aiding and abetting illegal immigrants, even if the form of aid consisted of providing food and shelter. But for the Republican Party, the Roman Catholic church should "not call--we'll call you. When we need you. If we don't need you, just shut up. "
In February, Representative Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican who opposes illegal immigration, took issue with Catholic bishops, among other religious leaders, ''for invoking God when arguing for a blanket amnesty'' for illegal immigrants. This month, two powerful Republican representatives, Peter King of New York and F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the co-sponsors of the border security bill, criticized the church leadership on ''The O'Reilly Factor'' on Fox News Channel, particularly Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, who has said he would instruct his priests and parishioners to defy the legislation if it ever became law.
Meanwhile, cable news commentators Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs have questioned whether the church should maintain its tax-exempt status, given its political activism on immigration. And in an interview, Mr. King accused church leaders of ''committing the sin of hypocrisy'' in their campaign to sway Congress and Catholic voters.
''This is the left wing of the Catholic Church -- these are the frustrated social workers,'' said Mr. King, who described himself as a practicing Catholic. ''They're giving an incentive for more illegals to come here. I don't think it's right.''
So, members and leaders of the Catholic church who disagree with Rep. King on immigration can be dismissed, even when they're the archbishops of L.A. and Washington, respectively, and even though they oppose abortion, because they're really just "the left wing of the Catholic church" and are "frustrated social workers"? And these bishops are moreover "committing the sin of hypocrisy"?
Man, that's good stuff. Bet these bishops will just LOVE you guys when you come around next time asking for their support on some other issue or during the next election.
It occurs to me that I don't think I've ever heard any pro-choice Democrat speak as disrespectfully of the Catholic hierarchy or its teachings (consider the rather gentile statement signed by 55 of the House Democrats earlier this year) as the Republican members are doing now. That may tell you something about the character of the respective parties in Congress.
But back to our story:
"...some analysts warn that Republicans need to tread carefully when they criticize the church and illegal immigrants. ''The danger of this situation politically is that you'll have an entire season in which Republican politicians are saying critical things about the Catholic hierarchy,'' said Deal Hudson, the Republican architect of the effort to court Catholic voters in 2004. ''That's not going to be helpful in terms of keeping the coalition together.''
Leo Anchondo, who directs the immigrant campaign on behalf of the Catholic Conference of Bishops, said the cardinals and bishops were not surprised there was a backlash against such efforts.
''Immigration has unfortunately become a very controversial topic,'' he said.
But Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington said he and other leaders decided they could not stay silent after witnessing the hardships endured by illegal immigrants, particularly as the wave from Latin America has surged. ''This is a justice issue,'' he said. ''We feel you have to take care of people.''
And just because the church sides with the GOP on abortion doesn't mean its vote is "in the bank":
Mahony seemed to agree when, in the interview, he married the church's position on immigrant rights to its antiabortion stance.
"People unfortunately always want to place the pro-life agenda in two boxes: abortion and euthanasia," he said, speaking of two issues opposed by most Republicans. "But our pro-life agenda encompasses a broad spectrum of issues, and [immigration] is one of them." Another aspect of that agenda is the church's opposition to capital punishment. In March 2005, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, for the first time in 25 years, launched a campaign against the death penalty -- another issue where it and many Republicans diverge.
Referring to a segment of society critical for maintaining your majority, Hispanics, as "aliens" and "them", calling their marches a "repellent spectacle" and "ominous", and attacking the Roman Catholic church, another seemingly important ally, guys, way to go. Real smart. And oh yeah, behind the electoral stupidity of it, you're on the wrong side of decency and keeping families together. Unless of course, you don't care about that.
More Than a Million Rally for Aliens
Aliens? Is this the War of the Worlds?
Elsewhere, an Arizona state rep had this to say:
The question is, when do we stop this activity of illegal immigration?" he said into a battery of cameras. "Right now, it's like Groundhog Day. You wake up every day and there's more of them. It will be this way until we have a closed border."
Them. The brown folks. From there.
And not to be outdone:
Brit Hume, the news anchor on Fox News, described the marchers, particularly those carrying Mexican flags, as "a repellent spectacle."
Repellent. A spectacle.
Meanwhile:
Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, described the protests with marchers carrying foreign flags as "ominous" in "their hint of a large, unassimilated population existing outside America's laws and exhibiting absolutely no sheepishness about it."
Ominous. A large, unassimilated population existing outside America's laws...
A few weeks ago, when the anti-immigrant forces were feeling their oats, Republicans in Congress and the media felt free to let loose on Roger Mahony, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, and an ally on the abortion debate, for rising above his station to oppose them and the Republican leadership on immigration. Mahony stated that if H.R. 4437 passed, he would call on his priests and staff to ignore the law's draconian threats to imprison anyone found to be aiding and abetting illegal immigrants, even if the form of aid consisted of providing food and shelter. But for the Republican Party, the Roman Catholic church should "not call--we'll call you. When we need you. If we don't need you, just shut up. "
In February, Representative Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican who opposes illegal immigration, took issue with Catholic bishops, among other religious leaders, ''for invoking God when arguing for a blanket amnesty'' for illegal immigrants. This month, two powerful Republican representatives, Peter King of New York and F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the co-sponsors of the border security bill, criticized the church leadership on ''The O'Reilly Factor'' on Fox News Channel, particularly Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, who has said he would instruct his priests and parishioners to defy the legislation if it ever became law.
Meanwhile, cable news commentators Tucker Carlson and Lou Dobbs have questioned whether the church should maintain its tax-exempt status, given its political activism on immigration. And in an interview, Mr. King accused church leaders of ''committing the sin of hypocrisy'' in their campaign to sway Congress and Catholic voters.
''This is the left wing of the Catholic Church -- these are the frustrated social workers,'' said Mr. King, who described himself as a practicing Catholic. ''They're giving an incentive for more illegals to come here. I don't think it's right.''
So, members and leaders of the Catholic church who disagree with Rep. King on immigration can be dismissed, even when they're the archbishops of L.A. and Washington, respectively, and even though they oppose abortion, because they're really just "the left wing of the Catholic church" and are "frustrated social workers"? And these bishops are moreover "committing the sin of hypocrisy"?
Man, that's good stuff. Bet these bishops will just LOVE you guys when you come around next time asking for their support on some other issue or during the next election.
It occurs to me that I don't think I've ever heard any pro-choice Democrat speak as disrespectfully of the Catholic hierarchy or its teachings (consider the rather gentile statement signed by 55 of the House Democrats earlier this year) as the Republican members are doing now. That may tell you something about the character of the respective parties in Congress.
But back to our story:
"...some analysts warn that Republicans need to tread carefully when they criticize the church and illegal immigrants. ''The danger of this situation politically is that you'll have an entire season in which Republican politicians are saying critical things about the Catholic hierarchy,'' said Deal Hudson, the Republican architect of the effort to court Catholic voters in 2004. ''That's not going to be helpful in terms of keeping the coalition together.''
Leo Anchondo, who directs the immigrant campaign on behalf of the Catholic Conference of Bishops, said the cardinals and bishops were not surprised there was a backlash against such efforts.
''Immigration has unfortunately become a very controversial topic,'' he said.
But Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington said he and other leaders decided they could not stay silent after witnessing the hardships endured by illegal immigrants, particularly as the wave from Latin America has surged. ''This is a justice issue,'' he said. ''We feel you have to take care of people.''
And just because the church sides with the GOP on abortion doesn't mean its vote is "in the bank":
Mahony seemed to agree when, in the interview, he married the church's position on immigrant rights to its antiabortion stance.
"People unfortunately always want to place the pro-life agenda in two boxes: abortion and euthanasia," he said, speaking of two issues opposed by most Republicans. "But our pro-life agenda encompasses a broad spectrum of issues, and [immigration] is one of them." Another aspect of that agenda is the church's opposition to capital punishment. In March 2005, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, for the first time in 25 years, launched a campaign against the death penalty -- another issue where it and many Republicans diverge.
Referring to a segment of society critical for maintaining your majority, Hispanics, as "aliens" and "them", calling their marches a "repellent spectacle" and "ominous", and attacking the Roman Catholic church, another seemingly important ally, guys, way to go. Real smart. And oh yeah, behind the electoral stupidity of it, you're on the wrong side of decency and keeping families together. Unless of course, you don't care about that.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Christ Among the Partisans
A very excellent op-ed in today's NYT by the historian Garry Wills, perhaps the foremost commentator on religion and politics today:
Christ Among the Partisans
By GARRY WILLS
Published: April 9, 2006
Chicago
THERE is no such thing as a "Christian politics." If it is a politics, it cannot be Christian. Jesus told Pilate: "My reign is not of this present order. If my reign were of this present order, my supporters would have fought against my being turned over to the Jews. But my reign is not here" (John 18:36). Jesus brought no political message or program.
This is a truth that needs emphasis at a time when some Democrats, fearing that the Republicans have advanced over them by the use of religion, want to respond with a claim that Jesus is really on their side. He is not. He avoided those who would trap him into taking sides for or against the Roman occupation of Judea. He paid his taxes to the occupying power but said only, "Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him" (Matthew 22:21). He was the original proponent of a separation of church and state.
Those who want the state to engage in public worship, or even to have prayer in schools, are defying his injunction: "When you pray, be not like the pretenders, who prefer to pray in the synagogues and in the public square, in the sight of others. In truth I tell you, that is all the profit they will have. But you, when you pray, go into your inner chamber and, locking the door, pray there in hiding to your Father, and your Father who sees you in hiding will reward you" (Matthew 6:5-6). He shocked people by his repeated violation of the external holiness code of his time, emphasizing that his religion was an internal matter of the heart.
But doesn't Jesus say to care for the poor? Repeatedly and insistently, but what he says goes far beyond politics and is of a different order. He declares that only one test will determine who will come into his reign: whether one has treated the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the imprisoned as one would Jesus himself. "Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me" (Matthew 25:40). No government can propose that as its program. Theocracy itself never went so far, nor could it.
The state cannot indulge in self-sacrifice. If it is to treat the poor well, it must do so on grounds of justice, appealing to arguments that will convince people who are not followers of Jesus or of any other religion. The norms of justice will fall short of the demands of love that Jesus imposes. A Christian may adopt just political measures from his or her own motive of love, but that is not the argument that will define justice for state purposes.
To claim that the state's burden of justice, which falls short of the supreme test Jesus imposes, is actually what he wills — that would be to substitute some lesser and false religion for what Jesus brought from the Father. Of course, Christians who do not meet the lower standard of state justice to the poor will, a fortiori, fail to pass the higher test.
The Romans did not believe Jesus when he said he had no political ambitions. That is why the soldiers mocked him as a failed king, giving him a robe and scepter and bowing in fake obedience (John 19:1-3). Those who today say that they are creating or following a "Christian politics" continue the work of those soldiers, disregarding the words of Jesus that his reign is not of this order.
Some people want to display and honor the Ten Commandments as a political commitment enjoined by the religion of Jesus. That very act is a violation of the First and Second Commandments. By erecting a false religion — imposing a reign of Jesus in this order — they are worshiping a false god. They commit idolatry. They also take the Lord's name in vain.
Some may think that removing Jesus from politics would mean removing morality from politics. They think we would all be better off if we took up the slogan "What would Jesus do?"
That is not a question his disciples ask in the Gospels. They never knew what Jesus was going to do next. He could round on Peter and call him "Satan." He could refuse to receive his mother when she asked to see him. He might tell his followers that they are unworthy of him if they do not hate their mother and their father. He might kill pigs by the hundreds. He might whip people out of church precincts.
The Jesus of the Gospels is not a great ethical teacher like Socrates, our leading humanitarian. He is an apocalyptic figure who steps outside the boundaries of normal morality to signal that the Father's judgment is breaking into history. His miracles were not acts of charity but eschatological signs — accepting the unclean, promising heavenly rewards, making last things first.
He is more a higher Nietzsche, beyond good and evil, than a higher Socrates. No politician is going to tell the lustful that they must pluck out their right eye. We cannot do what Jesus would do because we are not divine.
It was blasphemous to say, as the deputy under secretary of defense, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, repeatedly did, that God made George Bush president in 2000, when a majority of Americans did not vote for him. It would not remove the blasphemy for Democrats to imply that God wants Bush not to be president. Jesus should not be recruited as a campaign aide. To trivialize the mystery of Jesus is not to serve the Gospels.
The Gospels are scary, dark and demanding. It is not surprising that people want to tame them, dilute them, make them into generic encouragements to be loving and peaceful and fair. If that is all they are, then we may as well make Socrates our redeemer.
It is true that the tamed Gospels can be put to humanitarian purposes, and religious institutions have long done this, in defiance of what Jesus said in the Gospels.
Jesus was the victim of every institutional authority in his life and death. He said: "Do not be called Rabbi, since you have only one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, the one in heaven. And do not be called leaders, since you have only one leader, the Messiah" (Matthew 23:8-10).
If Democrats want to fight Republicans for the support of an institutional Jesus, they will have to give up the person who said those words. They will have to turn away from what Flannery O'Connor described as "the bleeding stinking mad shadow of Jesus" and "a wild ragged figure" who flits "from tree to tree in the back" of the mind.
He was never that thing that all politicians wish to be esteemed — respectable. At various times in the Gospels, Jesus is called a devil, the devil's agent, irreligious, unclean, a mocker of Jewish law, a drunkard, a glutton, a promoter of immorality.
The institutional Jesus of the Republicans has no similarity to the Gospel figure. Neither will any institutional Jesus of the Democrats.
Garry Wills is professor emeritus of history at Northwestern University and the author, most recently, of "What Jesus Meant."
Christ Among the Partisans
By GARRY WILLS
Published: April 9, 2006
Chicago
THERE is no such thing as a "Christian politics." If it is a politics, it cannot be Christian. Jesus told Pilate: "My reign is not of this present order. If my reign were of this present order, my supporters would have fought against my being turned over to the Jews. But my reign is not here" (John 18:36). Jesus brought no political message or program.
This is a truth that needs emphasis at a time when some Democrats, fearing that the Republicans have advanced over them by the use of religion, want to respond with a claim that Jesus is really on their side. He is not. He avoided those who would trap him into taking sides for or against the Roman occupation of Judea. He paid his taxes to the occupying power but said only, "Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him" (Matthew 22:21). He was the original proponent of a separation of church and state.
Those who want the state to engage in public worship, or even to have prayer in schools, are defying his injunction: "When you pray, be not like the pretenders, who prefer to pray in the synagogues and in the public square, in the sight of others. In truth I tell you, that is all the profit they will have. But you, when you pray, go into your inner chamber and, locking the door, pray there in hiding to your Father, and your Father who sees you in hiding will reward you" (Matthew 6:5-6). He shocked people by his repeated violation of the external holiness code of his time, emphasizing that his religion was an internal matter of the heart.
But doesn't Jesus say to care for the poor? Repeatedly and insistently, but what he says goes far beyond politics and is of a different order. He declares that only one test will determine who will come into his reign: whether one has treated the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the imprisoned as one would Jesus himself. "Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me" (Matthew 25:40). No government can propose that as its program. Theocracy itself never went so far, nor could it.
The state cannot indulge in self-sacrifice. If it is to treat the poor well, it must do so on grounds of justice, appealing to arguments that will convince people who are not followers of Jesus or of any other religion. The norms of justice will fall short of the demands of love that Jesus imposes. A Christian may adopt just political measures from his or her own motive of love, but that is not the argument that will define justice for state purposes.
To claim that the state's burden of justice, which falls short of the supreme test Jesus imposes, is actually what he wills — that would be to substitute some lesser and false religion for what Jesus brought from the Father. Of course, Christians who do not meet the lower standard of state justice to the poor will, a fortiori, fail to pass the higher test.
The Romans did not believe Jesus when he said he had no political ambitions. That is why the soldiers mocked him as a failed king, giving him a robe and scepter and bowing in fake obedience (John 19:1-3). Those who today say that they are creating or following a "Christian politics" continue the work of those soldiers, disregarding the words of Jesus that his reign is not of this order.
Some people want to display and honor the Ten Commandments as a political commitment enjoined by the religion of Jesus. That very act is a violation of the First and Second Commandments. By erecting a false religion — imposing a reign of Jesus in this order — they are worshiping a false god. They commit idolatry. They also take the Lord's name in vain.
Some may think that removing Jesus from politics would mean removing morality from politics. They think we would all be better off if we took up the slogan "What would Jesus do?"
That is not a question his disciples ask in the Gospels. They never knew what Jesus was going to do next. He could round on Peter and call him "Satan." He could refuse to receive his mother when she asked to see him. He might tell his followers that they are unworthy of him if they do not hate their mother and their father. He might kill pigs by the hundreds. He might whip people out of church precincts.
The Jesus of the Gospels is not a great ethical teacher like Socrates, our leading humanitarian. He is an apocalyptic figure who steps outside the boundaries of normal morality to signal that the Father's judgment is breaking into history. His miracles were not acts of charity but eschatological signs — accepting the unclean, promising heavenly rewards, making last things first.
He is more a higher Nietzsche, beyond good and evil, than a higher Socrates. No politician is going to tell the lustful that they must pluck out their right eye. We cannot do what Jesus would do because we are not divine.
It was blasphemous to say, as the deputy under secretary of defense, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, repeatedly did, that God made George Bush president in 2000, when a majority of Americans did not vote for him. It would not remove the blasphemy for Democrats to imply that God wants Bush not to be president. Jesus should not be recruited as a campaign aide. To trivialize the mystery of Jesus is not to serve the Gospels.
The Gospels are scary, dark and demanding. It is not surprising that people want to tame them, dilute them, make them into generic encouragements to be loving and peaceful and fair. If that is all they are, then we may as well make Socrates our redeemer.
It is true that the tamed Gospels can be put to humanitarian purposes, and religious institutions have long done this, in defiance of what Jesus said in the Gospels.
Jesus was the victim of every institutional authority in his life and death. He said: "Do not be called Rabbi, since you have only one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, the one in heaven. And do not be called leaders, since you have only one leader, the Messiah" (Matthew 23:8-10).
If Democrats want to fight Republicans for the support of an institutional Jesus, they will have to give up the person who said those words. They will have to turn away from what Flannery O'Connor described as "the bleeding stinking mad shadow of Jesus" and "a wild ragged figure" who flits "from tree to tree in the back" of the mind.
He was never that thing that all politicians wish to be esteemed — respectable. At various times in the Gospels, Jesus is called a devil, the devil's agent, irreligious, unclean, a mocker of Jewish law, a drunkard, a glutton, a promoter of immorality.
The institutional Jesus of the Republicans has no similarity to the Gospel figure. Neither will any institutional Jesus of the Democrats.
Garry Wills is professor emeritus of history at Northwestern University and the author, most recently, of "What Jesus Meant."
Civil War in Iraq? No Problem
The Wash Post has attracted attention today because of the blatant disconnect between it's front page reporting and editorial page ruminations regarding Joe Wilson and the administration's selective leak campaign against him.
But what I found interesting in today's Outlook was, first, an opinion piece by somebody named Caleb Carr, with the headline, Let Them Have Their Civil War. The piece basically argues that while the genocidal results of an Iraqi civil war would certainly be bad, and we shouldn't encourage a civil war or condone genocide, mind you, a civil war in Iraq really wouldn't be so bad; in fact, given the outpouring of violence that's been allowed to occur already, it might be unjust of us to try to stop it. After all, the Shiites and Kurds deserve an opportunity to exact some revenge on the Sunnis from all those years of Baathist rule, not to mention the insurgent attacks since the American occupation that really haven't been addressed by the non-existent political system in Baghdad.
Now, largely because a civil war both seems inevitable as well as beyond the American military's capability to stop, Carr may have a somewhat valid point.
But there are at least two problems, as far as I can see: one, THIS ISN'T WHAT WE WERE TOLD WOULD HAPPEN IN IRAQ. We were going to liberate the Iraqis, they'd love us and set up a peaceful Democracy, eradicating the years of oppression and bloodshed they endured under Saddam Hussein. The country wasn't told a civil war was likely, and Iraq's ethnic and religious cultures fought it out for supremacy;
And two, wasn't a primary goal of the Iraqi invasion to set up a friendly, secure state that would act as a bulwork against terrorism in the Middle East? If Iraq remains a violence-racked, failed state for an indeterminate amount of time, doesn't this, you know, kind of provide an obstacle to fighting terrorism in Iraq or elsewhere? If the state is essentially out of control, with unknown numbers of Shiite militia groups (some perhaps friendly with the Islamic regime in Iran) and Sunni insurgent groups (aided in part by Zarqawi) roaming the country, or hiding out, does this mean that we're better or worse off than we were before in regards to the "war on terrorism"?
The second opinion piece, just above it in today's Outlook is from somebody named Robert Killebrew, who argues that while the scenes being played out in Baghdad aren't for the moment especially comforting, we should remember how many American lives were lost, how much destruction occured, and how long it took for American and allied forces to secure South Korea, helping it to become the rapidly growing economy and democracy it is today.
Like Carr, Killebrew may have a point; in ten, twenty, thirty years time, maybe Iraq will resemble South Korea more than South Vietnam. But again, this isn't what we were told would happen in Iraq. The country was sold on the notion that the war would be short and awesome. Not long, drawn out, and ugly.
Both articles make the same implication that the violent mess in Iraq really isn't so bad and may in fact really be just one of many alternative paths that our liberation of that country will take. See, the fact that the country has desolved into civil war really does illustrate how much we've truly done to liberate them.
I expect this to be an increasingly popular meme in the right-wing's playbook as the 2006 election approaches.
But whether Americans have been conditioned to accept something less than certain and immediate victory, is another matter.
As Killebrew recognizes:
Truman immediately saw the North Korean invasion of South Korea as a sinister attempt by Joseph Stalin to turn the West's flank, and the war was generally accepted as the price of containing communist expansion. Truman led a nation that, though war-weary, had been through the crucible of World War II and accepted presidential leadership beyond the water's edge...In 2006, President Bush leads a much more skeptical, more networked nation that, though enraged by the events of 9/11, is less inclined to obey than in 1950.
But what I found interesting in today's Outlook was, first, an opinion piece by somebody named Caleb Carr, with the headline, Let Them Have Their Civil War. The piece basically argues that while the genocidal results of an Iraqi civil war would certainly be bad, and we shouldn't encourage a civil war or condone genocide, mind you, a civil war in Iraq really wouldn't be so bad; in fact, given the outpouring of violence that's been allowed to occur already, it might be unjust of us to try to stop it. After all, the Shiites and Kurds deserve an opportunity to exact some revenge on the Sunnis from all those years of Baathist rule, not to mention the insurgent attacks since the American occupation that really haven't been addressed by the non-existent political system in Baghdad.
Now, largely because a civil war both seems inevitable as well as beyond the American military's capability to stop, Carr may have a somewhat valid point.
But there are at least two problems, as far as I can see: one, THIS ISN'T WHAT WE WERE TOLD WOULD HAPPEN IN IRAQ. We were going to liberate the Iraqis, they'd love us and set up a peaceful Democracy, eradicating the years of oppression and bloodshed they endured under Saddam Hussein. The country wasn't told a civil war was likely, and Iraq's ethnic and religious cultures fought it out for supremacy;
And two, wasn't a primary goal of the Iraqi invasion to set up a friendly, secure state that would act as a bulwork against terrorism in the Middle East? If Iraq remains a violence-racked, failed state for an indeterminate amount of time, doesn't this, you know, kind of provide an obstacle to fighting terrorism in Iraq or elsewhere? If the state is essentially out of control, with unknown numbers of Shiite militia groups (some perhaps friendly with the Islamic regime in Iran) and Sunni insurgent groups (aided in part by Zarqawi) roaming the country, or hiding out, does this mean that we're better or worse off than we were before in regards to the "war on terrorism"?
The second opinion piece, just above it in today's Outlook is from somebody named Robert Killebrew, who argues that while the scenes being played out in Baghdad aren't for the moment especially comforting, we should remember how many American lives were lost, how much destruction occured, and how long it took for American and allied forces to secure South Korea, helping it to become the rapidly growing economy and democracy it is today.
Like Carr, Killebrew may have a point; in ten, twenty, thirty years time, maybe Iraq will resemble South Korea more than South Vietnam. But again, this isn't what we were told would happen in Iraq. The country was sold on the notion that the war would be short and awesome. Not long, drawn out, and ugly.
Both articles make the same implication that the violent mess in Iraq really isn't so bad and may in fact really be just one of many alternative paths that our liberation of that country will take. See, the fact that the country has desolved into civil war really does illustrate how much we've truly done to liberate them.
I expect this to be an increasingly popular meme in the right-wing's playbook as the 2006 election approaches.
But whether Americans have been conditioned to accept something less than certain and immediate victory, is another matter.
As Killebrew recognizes:
Truman immediately saw the North Korean invasion of South Korea as a sinister attempt by Joseph Stalin to turn the West's flank, and the war was generally accepted as the price of containing communist expansion. Truman led a nation that, though war-weary, had been through the crucible of World War II and accepted presidential leadership beyond the water's edge...In 2006, President Bush leads a much more skeptical, more networked nation that, though enraged by the events of 9/11, is less inclined to obey than in 1950.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)