I recently read Paul Berman's medidation on the current conflict, "Terror and Liberalism." Before reaching the merits of Berman's argument, one has to get past the problem that the book simply mistitled. Berman's central thesis is how the "War on Terror" is simply a continuation of liberalism's struggle against totalitarianism. More specifically, Berman sketches out an argument for why our disparate enemies in the Islamic world - Irqai Baathism (which represented the last, deadliest version of pan-Arab fascism) and Islamism in both its Sunni and Shiite forms are the intellectual heirs of western totalitarian thought. Therefore, they pose a similar threat to Liberal societies, and demand a similar struggle (as was provided against facism and communism) by liberals. Thus, in a book that seeks to clarfify the stakes and rationale for liberals in this conflict, the very title of Berman's book confuses the struggle against Islamic variants of totalitarianism with its principal tactic of terror.
Putting this non-trivial semantic failing to the side, I otherwise enjoyed "Terror and Liberalism." I was not surprised, given my ideological leanings to find myself agreeing with Berman's call to arms to liberals, but I found his writing lucid and his more specific argument (about the close connection from western totalitarian thought to Islamic totalitarian thought) tightly reasoned if at times oversold. What I found particularly enlightening were Berman's explanations of the fundamental similarity of superficially distinct forms of totalitarianism and some of the reasons for liberals failure to respond adequately to the totalitarian threats. But on the whole, I wondered if Berman's book wasn't in some sense superfluous. After all, isn't it obvious that Islamic totalitarianism (at least in its Islamist form) is a threat to liberalism, isn't it self-evident that liberal societies (and the United States in particular)have a duty to struggle against this force until it no longer poses a threat to liberal and free societies? Could any sober-minded liberal take a contrary view?
Berman's publisher, if not Berman should rest easy. The relevance of "Terror and Liberalism" has been made all too plain by the response to Peter Beinart's TNR piece challenging Liberals to place a struggle against Islamic totalitarianism at the center of their politics. In particular, for anyone who wants to comprehend why so many liberals reject the liberal hawks' views about the threat of Islamism, Berman's chapters on liberal rationalization and denial in the face of totalitarian irrationality are required reading.
I'll expand on this in further posts, but in the mean time, read the response to Beinart of Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly, his comment posters, or John Judis, author of the Not Ever to Be Emerging (If It Follows the Foreign Policy Prescriptions of Its Authors) Democratic Majority on TNR Online. All of the pathologies catalogued by Berman - the claims of exagerration, the projection of rational, appeasable objectives, the blaming of victims for the anger fomented against them - are on display. And the truly scary fact, is that this is the case barely 3 years after 9/11. How deep must the pathologies in American liberalism run for this monumental event to have faded so quickly? And can it be healed in time before Islamism abroad and corporate-evangelical Bushism at home wreck irreperable damage?
Tasty commentary on politics, law, religion and more, without the fattening dogma. (The views expressed on this blog are the author's alone, and do not represent those of any past, current or future employer or his past, current, and future soulmate.)
December 13, 2004
November 18, 2004
THE PEJORATIVE LIKUDNIK
There's an interesting discussion going on at the Washington Monthly blog on this. Here's my take on the issue.
Two different debates are getting conflated here. First, whether or not the increasing use of the term "Likudnik" in American political discourse is fueled by anti-Semitism and second, a larger question about at what point does legitimate critcism of Israeli policies cross the line into anti-Semitism.
Getting back to the original question, it is important to ask what "Likudnik" is supposed to connote in the American context. I'm pretty confident that most of the people who throw the term around are unfamiliar with the writings of Vladimir Jabotinsky.
Here are the various ways Likudnik is employed.
1) To denote supporters of the Sharon government or the Likud party against the Israeli Left. Example: American Likudniks have no idea who to support in Sharon’s ongoing struggle with members of his own party over his Gaza plan.
2) To denote supporters of a certain ideological stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue. Example: Likudniks believe that the most appropriate response to Palestinian terror is to expand the growth of settlements deep in the West Bank.
Neither of these two uses is any more problematic than say calling the Israel Policy Forum "Laborites." The problem comes from attempting to transfer the term to American policies
3) To denote supporters of an American foreign policy that supports or does not object to “Likudnik” approaches to the Israeli security policy. Example: American Likudniks do not believe our government should apply any pressure on Israel to crack down on West Bank settlement expansion.
(It should be noted, that when used employed as a pejorative by leftists and liberals, it often seems to be applied to anyone who supports American backing of various Israeli policies(e.g. the border wall and targeted strikes on terrorists) that are backed by most Israelis, including those that reject the Likud’s long-term approach to the Palestinian issue and support a negotiated two-state solution.
However, the way the term seems to be employed on an increasing basis is as way of describing the Bush administration's foreign policy in the Middle East.
4) To denote supporters of a “Likudnik” approach to American foreign policy. Example: The Likudniks real reason for going to war in Iraq was a perceived need after 9/11 that America needed to send a dramatic message to the Arab-Islamic world in order to restore its lost deterrence.
This is the more sophisticated use of the term along these lines, the analysis being that the "Likudniks" have embraced the various ideological positions of Israeli Likudniks (a belief that the Arab-Islamic world responds best to shows of force and sees conciliation as weakness, and the need for regime change as a prerequisite for lasting peace in the region) and (mis)applied them to American foreign policy. This use of Likudnik in this fashion, while not anti-Semitic in itself, stretches it to the breaking point, and too easily morphs into the more pernicious form. It frankly unnecessary to look to Israeli ideology as the genesis of Rumsfeld and Cheaney's hawkish views, as there is a long home-grown tradition (what Walter Russell Mead calls Jacksonian) that explains their worldview much more directly.
This brings us, to the final way the term is employed, and that is:
5) To denote Jewish supporters of American hawkish policy in the Middle East whose views are driven not by what they believe is best for America, but rather based on their support for Israel. Example. The Bush administration’s foreign policy was hijacked by a group of Likudniks to further their narrow agenda.
The implication is plain; that these “Likudniks” have dual loyalties, and are willing to subvert the interest of America to the benefit of Israel. When used in this fashion, “Likudnik” most definitely being used as a coded form of anti-Semitism.
To the extent, Likudnik is being used to attack concrete ideas or policies; it most likely not being used in anti-Semitic fashion, but when it is thrown about without any context as a pejorative to attack individuals, odds are anti-Semitism is at the core of that attack.
Two different debates are getting conflated here. First, whether or not the increasing use of the term "Likudnik" in American political discourse is fueled by anti-Semitism and second, a larger question about at what point does legitimate critcism of Israeli policies cross the line into anti-Semitism.
Getting back to the original question, it is important to ask what "Likudnik" is supposed to connote in the American context. I'm pretty confident that most of the people who throw the term around are unfamiliar with the writings of Vladimir Jabotinsky.
Here are the various ways Likudnik is employed.
1) To denote supporters of the Sharon government or the Likud party against the Israeli Left. Example: American Likudniks have no idea who to support in Sharon’s ongoing struggle with members of his own party over his Gaza plan.
2) To denote supporters of a certain ideological stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue. Example: Likudniks believe that the most appropriate response to Palestinian terror is to expand the growth of settlements deep in the West Bank.
Neither of these two uses is any more problematic than say calling the Israel Policy Forum "Laborites." The problem comes from attempting to transfer the term to American policies
3) To denote supporters of an American foreign policy that supports or does not object to “Likudnik” approaches to the Israeli security policy. Example: American Likudniks do not believe our government should apply any pressure on Israel to crack down on West Bank settlement expansion.
(It should be noted, that when used employed as a pejorative by leftists and liberals, it often seems to be applied to anyone who supports American backing of various Israeli policies(e.g. the border wall and targeted strikes on terrorists) that are backed by most Israelis, including those that reject the Likud’s long-term approach to the Palestinian issue and support a negotiated two-state solution.
However, the way the term seems to be employed on an increasing basis is as way of describing the Bush administration's foreign policy in the Middle East.
4) To denote supporters of a “Likudnik” approach to American foreign policy. Example: The Likudniks real reason for going to war in Iraq was a perceived need after 9/11 that America needed to send a dramatic message to the Arab-Islamic world in order to restore its lost deterrence.
This is the more sophisticated use of the term along these lines, the analysis being that the "Likudniks" have embraced the various ideological positions of Israeli Likudniks (a belief that the Arab-Islamic world responds best to shows of force and sees conciliation as weakness, and the need for regime change as a prerequisite for lasting peace in the region) and (mis)applied them to American foreign policy. This use of Likudnik in this fashion, while not anti-Semitic in itself, stretches it to the breaking point, and too easily morphs into the more pernicious form. It frankly unnecessary to look to Israeli ideology as the genesis of Rumsfeld and Cheaney's hawkish views, as there is a long home-grown tradition (what Walter Russell Mead calls Jacksonian) that explains their worldview much more directly.
This brings us, to the final way the term is employed, and that is:
5) To denote Jewish supporters of American hawkish policy in the Middle East whose views are driven not by what they believe is best for America, but rather based on their support for Israel. Example. The Bush administration’s foreign policy was hijacked by a group of Likudniks to further their narrow agenda.
The implication is plain; that these “Likudniks” have dual loyalties, and are willing to subvert the interest of America to the benefit of Israel. When used in this fashion, “Likudnik” most definitely being used as a coded form of anti-Semitism.
To the extent, Likudnik is being used to attack concrete ideas or policies; it most likely not being used in anti-Semitic fashion, but when it is thrown about without any context as a pejorative to attack individuals, odds are anti-Semitism is at the core of that attack.
November 17, 2004
CAN THE DEMS GET FAITH?
Well, with today's N.Y. Times' article on the subject, it is clear whatever number crunching remains to be done on the exit polls, the Dems initial response to the election defeat is to focus on closing the "faith" gap.
For those of us on the religious left who have been beggin the party for years to tackle this issue, I would like to extend a hearty "what took you so damn long?"
It is somewhat ironic that it is the narrow defeat of Kerry to Bush, as opposed to the down-ticket debacle that is driving this discussion. The irony comes from the fact that while Kerry's loss is far more easily attributable to his failure to close the deal on national security, the Dems tone-deafness on faith is a major reason the party is in shambles at the local, state and Congressional level. Still, progress is progress.
So how exactly is the gap to be closed?
Unfortunately the article does not really do a good job of expounding any of the these alternate approaches, nor does it coherently present the contrary view of much of the party's base, represented by Jerry Nadler (D-Village) that this is much ado about nothing. What exactly does it mean to employ "moral and religious" language. Is this as simple as nominating a candidate like Carter or Clinton to whom the rhetoric comes natural, or does it require a deeper, sustained campaign to reframe what constitute "moral" or "religious" issues in American political discourse? Similarly, the article seems to suggest that moving to the middle on cultural issues is primarily about shifting positions on abortion and gay marriage. There is no mention whatsoever of the alternate approach (on which Lieberman is way ahead of the rest of the party with his approach to family leave and regulation of entertainment) of directly addressing the aspects of the culture that worry traditional voters rather than merely reacting to the issues the GOP uses to exploit that worry.
Finally, a critical limitation that often goes unexplored in these discussions is the party's absolute financial dependance on the cultural left. (Anyone who wants to understand how this dynamics works should examine the 2000 Pennsylvania Senate race, where the anti-abortion, economically liberal congressman Ron Klink, who had an excellent shot of knocking off Rick Santorum, could not raise the funds he needed to compete from the state party's pro-choice, metro Philly donor base.)
The article in passing, however, touched upon the most important thing the Dems can do to close the faith gap - building its grass-roots ties to liberal and centrist faith communities. In the end, it is the ability of the party to tap into these communities that will determine whether or not an authentic progressive faith-based agenda can be developed that can end the current disconnect from public morality to social justice.
Well, with today's N.Y. Times' article on the subject, it is clear whatever number crunching remains to be done on the exit polls, the Dems initial response to the election defeat is to focus on closing the "faith" gap.
For those of us on the religious left who have been beggin the party for years to tackle this issue, I would like to extend a hearty "what took you so damn long?"
It is somewhat ironic that it is the narrow defeat of Kerry to Bush, as opposed to the down-ticket debacle that is driving this discussion. The irony comes from the fact that while Kerry's loss is far more easily attributable to his failure to close the deal on national security, the Dems tone-deafness on faith is a major reason the party is in shambles at the local, state and Congressional level. Still, progress is progress.
So how exactly is the gap to be closed?
But Democrats disagree about how to establish the party's spiritual credentials. Some play down the need for changes, saying poorly framed surveys of voters leaving polls are overstating the impact of conservative Christian voters. Others argue that Democrats need to rephrase their positions in more moral and religious language. And an emboldened group of Democratic partisans and sympathetic religious leaders warn that Mr. Bush has beaten Democrats to the middle on social issues like abortion that resonate with religious traditionalists, arguing that the party should publicly welcome opponents of abortion into its ranks and perhaps even bend in its opposition to certain abortion restrictions.
Unfortunately the article does not really do a good job of expounding any of the these alternate approaches, nor does it coherently present the contrary view of much of the party's base, represented by Jerry Nadler (D-Village) that this is much ado about nothing. What exactly does it mean to employ "moral and religious" language. Is this as simple as nominating a candidate like Carter or Clinton to whom the rhetoric comes natural, or does it require a deeper, sustained campaign to reframe what constitute "moral" or "religious" issues in American political discourse? Similarly, the article seems to suggest that moving to the middle on cultural issues is primarily about shifting positions on abortion and gay marriage. There is no mention whatsoever of the alternate approach (on which Lieberman is way ahead of the rest of the party with his approach to family leave and regulation of entertainment) of directly addressing the aspects of the culture that worry traditional voters rather than merely reacting to the issues the GOP uses to exploit that worry.
Finally, a critical limitation that often goes unexplored in these discussions is the party's absolute financial dependance on the cultural left. (Anyone who wants to understand how this dynamics works should examine the 2000 Pennsylvania Senate race, where the anti-abortion, economically liberal congressman Ron Klink, who had an excellent shot of knocking off Rick Santorum, could not raise the funds he needed to compete from the state party's pro-choice, metro Philly donor base.)
The article in passing, however, touched upon the most important thing the Dems can do to close the faith gap - building its grass-roots ties to liberal and centrist faith communities. In the end, it is the ability of the party to tap into these communities that will determine whether or not an authentic progressive faith-based agenda can be developed that can end the current disconnect from public morality to social justice.
November 12, 2004
NOT TO BE REDUCTIONIST...
But the more numbers-cruching of exit polls and analysis of vote totals I read (for example those at the Not Quite Emergerging Democratic Majority site), its more and more apparent the number one reason the Dems lost was national security. Its the best explanation for the dramatic decline among white, working-class women (maybe the security mom existed after all), its the best explanation for Bush's gains among secular voters (have you run into any rabidly homophobic atheists recently?), and its best explanation for Bush's surprising gains in Blue America (especially in New Jersey) that were essential to his winning the popular vote.
The good news for Democrats is that there is really no need to sacrifice any core principles on economic, social or cultural issues. The bad news - the Dems will need to get as tough on terror as they were on Communism during the Cold War, a move that will met with stiff resistance by much of the party's activist base (Hollywood, hard-line civil libertarians, Jeffersonian peaceniks). And even worse news for the Dems, it is by no means certain that the hawks will win.
But the more numbers-cruching of exit polls and analysis of vote totals I read (for example those at the Not Quite Emergerging Democratic Majority site), its more and more apparent the number one reason the Dems lost was national security. Its the best explanation for the dramatic decline among white, working-class women (maybe the security mom existed after all), its the best explanation for Bush's gains among secular voters (have you run into any rabidly homophobic atheists recently?), and its best explanation for Bush's surprising gains in Blue America (especially in New Jersey) that were essential to his winning the popular vote.
The good news for Democrats is that there is really no need to sacrifice any core principles on economic, social or cultural issues. The bad news - the Dems will need to get as tough on terror as they were on Communism during the Cold War, a move that will met with stiff resistance by much of the party's activist base (Hollywood, hard-line civil libertarians, Jeffersonian peaceniks). And even worse news for the Dems, it is by no means certain that the hawks will win.
November 11, 2004
THE DARK CLOUD OF ABU AMAR HAS PASSED
For some reason when I think of Arafat's death, I get the image of Saruman at the end of Lord of the Rings, a malevolent cloud rising into the air, hovering for a moment and then finally dispersed with a swift gust of wind from the west. Arafat will be in death as in life, more a symbol than a man. A symbol of the Arab rejection of Jewish equality and dignity and its manifestation in the state of Israel,, of the toxic romanticism of western progressives, and of the sacrifice of the very real needs of his own people and lives of countless innocent Jews on the altar of Arab and Islamic honor. With his passing, there is hope for if not peace, than tangible progress towards it.
For some reason when I think of Arafat's death, I get the image of Saruman at the end of Lord of the Rings, a malevolent cloud rising into the air, hovering for a moment and then finally dispersed with a swift gust of wind from the west. Arafat will be in death as in life, more a symbol than a man. A symbol of the Arab rejection of Jewish equality and dignity and its manifestation in the state of Israel,, of the toxic romanticism of western progressives, and of the sacrifice of the very real needs of his own people and lives of countless innocent Jews on the altar of Arab and Islamic honor. With his passing, there is hope for if not peace, than tangible progress towards it.
November 09, 2004
MORE POST-ELECTION THOUGHTS
So I've read the various analyses of why the Dems lost this election, especially the fascinating selection from Slate. The problem as I see it is that there there were two losses last Tuesday: First, John Kerry's narrow loss to Bush in the Presidential election; and second, the disastrous performance of the Democrats in Congress. As a result, the Democratic party and political liberalism is from the perspective of power and influence at its lowest ebb since before FDR.
Depending upon what you foucs on - the relative parity in popularity between the two parties, or the massive gap in power, of course leads to quite different assessments as to the seriousness of the Dems problem and how radical the solution is required.
Because of the nation's rough ideological parity, the closeness of the last two presidential elections was not a mirage. This suggests that to win next time around it will simply be enough to field a candidate that can 1) relate to cultural conservatives (as opposed to the cultural reactionaries who would cast their ballot solely on the basis of gay marriage), 2) articulate an alternate national security vision (opposing wars you think are stupid and singing the praises of multilateralism doesn't count) and 3) run a better campaign with consistent themes and sharper messages.
On the other hand, the depths of the Democrats powerlessness in the absence of holding the White House suggests that a more radical fix is necessary. Part of the Dems problem is simply due to larger structural phenomena. Majoritarianism in increasy unchecked in the Congress due to computer-modeled gerrymandering and the ideological homegenization of the parties. The Dems 49$ of the vote translates into 45% of the Senate and 46% of the House. While 45% of the Senate can still hold its relative weight (for now, but watch out for GOP moves to disable the fillibuster break, especially with respect to judicial appointments), 46% of the House now attributes for about 5% of the power in a Tom Delay led GOP Congress. And in contrast to how close the Dems are to regaining the White House, the prospects for regaining either house of Congress in the near term don't look particuarly good.
First of all, the undemocratic nature of the Senate forces the disproportionately metropolitan Dem party to fight uphill. A rough cut of the nation from this past election puts us at 25 states which Bush carried easily (to be unoriginal, lets call them "Red" states) arrayed throughout the South, Plains and West, 13 states won cleanly by Kerry (the beleaguered "Blue" states) clustered on the coasts, and the 12 swing states that until the last minute could have broken either way (those finicky "Purple" states). Thus, it is very possible for the Democrats to gather support from a clear majority of the country and barely prevent a filibuster-proof GOP majority. The fact that the Dems are now at 45 is actually testament that Democrats can win in Red America. There are currently Democratic senators from Montana, Nebraska and Louisana, and 2 Democratic Senators from North Dakota, Arkansas and West Virginia. (In contrast, the GOP has only the three anachronistic New England moderates in Blue states). And until the next census and redistricting, the Dems will be fighting an uphill battle in the House as well, due to their failures at the state level.
Which lends itself naturally to what the core problem is - the Dems are losing worst at two critical levels, both at the most mundane, concrete level in terms of local and state grassroots networks, and the opposite end - in the battle of overaching vision. (What the Dems are doing perfectly fine at is developing concrete policy proposals that consistently outscore the GOP alternatives in blind taste tests) On the ground, the Dems need to do what the GOP did 20 years ago by tapping into the religious right - develop a core grass-roots organizations that will fight the critical, less glamorous fights for school board and state legislature. It is simply not enough to rely on the declining strength of organized labor (much of which is increasingly concentrated in the public sector, where it more often than not does more harm than good to progressive policies) and episodic get out the vote campaigns. In the clouds, the Dems need to settle on a set of core principals with which to combat the GOP's clearly articulated vision of "economic liberty" (tax cuts for the rich, hand-outs to big corporations, and abdication of governmental responsibity for socio-economic problems) and "public morality" (expressed through gay-baiting and the imposition of radical theological constraints on medical research). This will facilitate the Dems ability to frame debates such that their criticism of GOP policies resonates rather than alienates mainstream voters.
These are the steps that need to be taken now, so that by 2006, when mainstream America goes to the polls uncomfortable with where an unfettered Bush administration is taking the country, they will feel comfortable turning to the Democrats as a leigitimate counter-balance. Once that happens, we are well on the way to this election being anything but the epochal landslide that depressed Dems and shameless Republicans are presenting it as.
So I've read the various analyses of why the Dems lost this election, especially the fascinating selection from Slate. The problem as I see it is that there there were two losses last Tuesday: First, John Kerry's narrow loss to Bush in the Presidential election; and second, the disastrous performance of the Democrats in Congress. As a result, the Democratic party and political liberalism is from the perspective of power and influence at its lowest ebb since before FDR.
Depending upon what you foucs on - the relative parity in popularity between the two parties, or the massive gap in power, of course leads to quite different assessments as to the seriousness of the Dems problem and how radical the solution is required.
Because of the nation's rough ideological parity, the closeness of the last two presidential elections was not a mirage. This suggests that to win next time around it will simply be enough to field a candidate that can 1) relate to cultural conservatives (as opposed to the cultural reactionaries who would cast their ballot solely on the basis of gay marriage), 2) articulate an alternate national security vision (opposing wars you think are stupid and singing the praises of multilateralism doesn't count) and 3) run a better campaign with consistent themes and sharper messages.
On the other hand, the depths of the Democrats powerlessness in the absence of holding the White House suggests that a more radical fix is necessary. Part of the Dems problem is simply due to larger structural phenomena. Majoritarianism in increasy unchecked in the Congress due to computer-modeled gerrymandering and the ideological homegenization of the parties. The Dems 49$ of the vote translates into 45% of the Senate and 46% of the House. While 45% of the Senate can still hold its relative weight (for now, but watch out for GOP moves to disable the fillibuster break, especially with respect to judicial appointments), 46% of the House now attributes for about 5% of the power in a Tom Delay led GOP Congress. And in contrast to how close the Dems are to regaining the White House, the prospects for regaining either house of Congress in the near term don't look particuarly good.
First of all, the undemocratic nature of the Senate forces the disproportionately metropolitan Dem party to fight uphill. A rough cut of the nation from this past election puts us at 25 states which Bush carried easily (to be unoriginal, lets call them "Red" states) arrayed throughout the South, Plains and West, 13 states won cleanly by Kerry (the beleaguered "Blue" states) clustered on the coasts, and the 12 swing states that until the last minute could have broken either way (those finicky "Purple" states). Thus, it is very possible for the Democrats to gather support from a clear majority of the country and barely prevent a filibuster-proof GOP majority. The fact that the Dems are now at 45 is actually testament that Democrats can win in Red America. There are currently Democratic senators from Montana, Nebraska and Louisana, and 2 Democratic Senators from North Dakota, Arkansas and West Virginia. (In contrast, the GOP has only the three anachronistic New England moderates in Blue states). And until the next census and redistricting, the Dems will be fighting an uphill battle in the House as well, due to their failures at the state level.
Which lends itself naturally to what the core problem is - the Dems are losing worst at two critical levels, both at the most mundane, concrete level in terms of local and state grassroots networks, and the opposite end - in the battle of overaching vision. (What the Dems are doing perfectly fine at is developing concrete policy proposals that consistently outscore the GOP alternatives in blind taste tests) On the ground, the Dems need to do what the GOP did 20 years ago by tapping into the religious right - develop a core grass-roots organizations that will fight the critical, less glamorous fights for school board and state legislature. It is simply not enough to rely on the declining strength of organized labor (much of which is increasingly concentrated in the public sector, where it more often than not does more harm than good to progressive policies) and episodic get out the vote campaigns. In the clouds, the Dems need to settle on a set of core principals with which to combat the GOP's clearly articulated vision of "economic liberty" (tax cuts for the rich, hand-outs to big corporations, and abdication of governmental responsibity for socio-economic problems) and "public morality" (expressed through gay-baiting and the imposition of radical theological constraints on medical research). This will facilitate the Dems ability to frame debates such that their criticism of GOP policies resonates rather than alienates mainstream voters.
These are the steps that need to be taken now, so that by 2006, when mainstream America goes to the polls uncomfortable with where an unfettered Bush administration is taking the country, they will feel comfortable turning to the Democrats as a leigitimate counter-balance. Once that happens, we are well on the way to this election being anything but the epochal landslide that depressed Dems and shameless Republicans are presenting it as.
November 03, 2004
QUICK POST-MORTEM THOUGHTS ON THE ELECTION
The Dems lost a very winnable election for three main reasons: 1) they failed to establish credibility on national security issues; 2) they were unable to respond to the GOP's gay-baiting "values" approach to domestic issues; and 3) Kerry, despite the attributes of his biography (skillfully dented by the Swift Boar smear) and his tenacity (unlike Dukakis, he fought back) was simply a poor candidate.
It is tempting to say, given how Kerry came to "winning" (as opposed to the millions of votes that separated him from legitimately winning) to think that these are relatively small problems to be fixed. But that analysis ignores the palpable weakness of Bush's re-election bud. If you look further down the ticket, 2004 was a disaster for the Dems. Decades of neglecting their grassroots has led to unfavorable congressional gerrymanders that pad the radical GOP's House majority, and besides for Ken Salazar, they got shut out of all of the competitive Senate races.
To recover the Dems need to:
1) stop treating national security and the War on Terror as a wedge issue that needs to be neutralized and more as the bipartisan struggle it should be;
2) begin a major effort to reframe the values debate. There is simply no beating or even neutralizing the GOP edge if they can define public morality as gay-bashing. I give Kerry credit for trying, especially in the debates, but in the end he came off as unauthentic. The problem is not the lack of Dems with that skill - Clinton knew how to do this, and so do Edwards & Obama, it is deeper than that. The Democrats need to begin to wage a long-term campaign to recapture terms such as "family values," and they will need to brush off the large segment of their core who are likely to respond "enough with the G-d talk!!"
3) fix the friggen nomination process to increase the likelihood of getting a candidate who can communicate to the vast numbers of socially conservative (but not fundamentalist) working class voters. Right now, until I see any else who can match him in this area, I'm backing John Edwards. He now has four years to appeared to have mastered the intricacies of international affairs. I give him until the end of the year to relax with his family, and then its back to work, John, because the last thing this country needs right now is another practising lawyer.
The Dems lost a very winnable election for three main reasons: 1) they failed to establish credibility on national security issues; 2) they were unable to respond to the GOP's gay-baiting "values" approach to domestic issues; and 3) Kerry, despite the attributes of his biography (skillfully dented by the Swift Boar smear) and his tenacity (unlike Dukakis, he fought back) was simply a poor candidate.
It is tempting to say, given how Kerry came to "winning" (as opposed to the millions of votes that separated him from legitimately winning) to think that these are relatively small problems to be fixed. But that analysis ignores the palpable weakness of Bush's re-election bud. If you look further down the ticket, 2004 was a disaster for the Dems. Decades of neglecting their grassroots has led to unfavorable congressional gerrymanders that pad the radical GOP's House majority, and besides for Ken Salazar, they got shut out of all of the competitive Senate races.
To recover the Dems need to:
1) stop treating national security and the War on Terror as a wedge issue that needs to be neutralized and more as the bipartisan struggle it should be;
2) begin a major effort to reframe the values debate. There is simply no beating or even neutralizing the GOP edge if they can define public morality as gay-bashing. I give Kerry credit for trying, especially in the debates, but in the end he came off as unauthentic. The problem is not the lack of Dems with that skill - Clinton knew how to do this, and so do Edwards & Obama, it is deeper than that. The Democrats need to begin to wage a long-term campaign to recapture terms such as "family values," and they will need to brush off the large segment of their core who are likely to respond "enough with the G-d talk!!"
3) fix the friggen nomination process to increase the likelihood of getting a candidate who can communicate to the vast numbers of socially conservative (but not fundamentalist) working class voters. Right now, until I see any else who can match him in this area, I'm backing John Edwards. He now has four years to appeared to have mastered the intricacies of international affairs. I give him until the end of the year to relax with his family, and then its back to work, John, because the last thing this country needs right now is another practising lawyer.
October 26, 2004
THE SWING INTELLECTUALS GO TO KERRY
As the election approaches, I find it harder and harder to imagine reconciling myself to a Bush victory. The past year has shown a steady withering away of my ambivalence between the Dems flawed instincts on foreign policy and national security and the GOP's horrific domestic agenda. The primary reason of course has been Bush's disastrous handling of the war in Iraq. It has gotten to the point that sensible, committed hawks like Hitchens, Drezner and Sullivan have all endorsed Kerry despite noting they are far more in line with the vision articulated by Bush when it comes to prosecuting the war on terror. In each case, reality trumped vision, competance trumped conviction.
My deepest hope is that other swing voters, no doubt turned off by the Bush's domestic peformance but skeptical about Kerry's security bonifides will choose the hope that Kerry will rise above his limitations as president rather than give into the despair that we can do no better than to watch Bush fail under the weight of limitations for four more years.
As the election approaches, I find it harder and harder to imagine reconciling myself to a Bush victory. The past year has shown a steady withering away of my ambivalence between the Dems flawed instincts on foreign policy and national security and the GOP's horrific domestic agenda. The primary reason of course has been Bush's disastrous handling of the war in Iraq. It has gotten to the point that sensible, committed hawks like Hitchens, Drezner and Sullivan have all endorsed Kerry despite noting they are far more in line with the vision articulated by Bush when it comes to prosecuting the war on terror. In each case, reality trumped vision, competance trumped conviction.
My deepest hope is that other swing voters, no doubt turned off by the Bush's domestic peformance but skeptical about Kerry's security bonifides will choose the hope that Kerry will rise above his limitations as president rather than give into the despair that we can do no better than to watch Bush fail under the weight of limitations for four more years.
October 21, 2004
GREATEST COMEBACK IN SPORTS HISTORY
As a Phillies fan (who have managed to win all of 1 of the first 99 World Series), who despite my affection for my adopted hometown, has an ingrained loathing of the Yankees, I have a special place in my heart for the Boston Red Sox. Watching the Sox finally exorcize their Yankees demons in the most dramatic fashion possible, I can't keep from grinning ear to ear. I'll try to get it out of my system before riding the subway tomrrow with a depressed mass of Yankee fans. Well, if the Red Sox can finally break through, maybe there is hope for team that breaks my heart every year. E-A-G-L-E-S...
As a Phillies fan (who have managed to win all of 1 of the first 99 World Series), who despite my affection for my adopted hometown, has an ingrained loathing of the Yankees, I have a special place in my heart for the Boston Red Sox. Watching the Sox finally exorcize their Yankees demons in the most dramatic fashion possible, I can't keep from grinning ear to ear. I'll try to get it out of my system before riding the subway tomrrow with a depressed mass of Yankee fans. Well, if the Red Sox can finally break through, maybe there is hope for team that breaks my heart every year. E-A-G-L-E-S...
October 20, 2004
BURNED BY BUSH, VOTING FOR KERRY
This article in the Chicago Tribune (thanks agains Sully) pretty much sums up my dilemma this election and my decision to vote for Kerry.
The last sentence however does quite get things accurately. Kerry has since the beginning of the campaign tried to appeal both to die-hard dovish opponents of the war, condemning the fundamental policy decisions underlining the war, and at the same time reassure liberal and centrist hawks that he would not aband
I can't speak for all liberal hawks, but I don't happen to think that Kerry's critiques of the Bush's decision to go to war ("wrong war, wrong time, wrong place") are merely sops to his party's base and that in his heart of heart he is a fellow Wilsonian. No, it is far more likely that Kerry's Jeffersonian tropes come from the heart and his more hawkish stances are the strategic counter-thrusts. No, the faith that I have with Kerry is his essential pragmatism. That even though he would never have gone to war in Iraq to begin with, he has the analytical gifts and intellectual flexibility to understand the very real national security interests America has in seeing the project of a stable and democratizing Iraq. That's what I'm praying for when I'm pulling that Working Families Party lever for Kerry on November 2.
This article in the Chicago Tribune (thanks agains Sully) pretty much sums up my dilemma this election and my decision to vote for Kerry.
For most liberal hawks, there is little doubt that Bush bungled the Iraq campaign. Many, however, still believe deeply that going to war in Iraq was the right decision, and some remain cautiously optimistic that Iraq eventually will steady itself and move in the right direction, as long as America and the world provide the necessary help.
That belief only compounds what is a heart-splitting decision.
They find Bush's policies on just about everything outside the war abhorrent. The administration's tax policy is offensive to people who believe in reducing economic disparities. The government's manipulation of science for political gain, including its approach to stem cell research and contraception, infuriates many.
Bush's support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is personally offensive to almost every liberal. And yet, Iraq still stands as the pivotal issue in the international arena, one that will have implications for the future of the Middle East, for democratization, human rights and international security.
In the end, most liberal hawks will find it impossible to vote for Bush.
They likely will stand with Kerry, praying that as president he will take the right action; that the words of the candidate on the campaign trail were aimed at gaining the vote of a sharply divided nation, concealing what they hope is Kerry's knowledge that the liberal hawks were right all along.
The last sentence however does quite get things accurately. Kerry has since the beginning of the campaign tried to appeal both to die-hard dovish opponents of the war, condemning the fundamental policy decisions underlining the war, and at the same time reassure liberal and centrist hawks that he would not aband
I can't speak for all liberal hawks, but I don't happen to think that Kerry's critiques of the Bush's decision to go to war ("wrong war, wrong time, wrong place") are merely sops to his party's base and that in his heart of heart he is a fellow Wilsonian. No, it is far more likely that Kerry's Jeffersonian tropes come from the heart and his more hawkish stances are the strategic counter-thrusts. No, the faith that I have with Kerry is his essential pragmatism. That even though he would never have gone to war in Iraq to begin with, he has the analytical gifts and intellectual flexibility to understand the very real national security interests America has in seeing the project of a stable and democratizing Iraq. That's what I'm praying for when I'm pulling that Working Families Party lever for Kerry on November 2.
October 14, 2004
THE TRIUMPH OF KERRY'S POLITICAL THEOLOGY
For decades, Republicans,with the complicity of Democrats, have managed to frame the national "values" debate in this nation as one between religious conservatives and secular liberals. In doing so, they have also managed to define public religiosity almost entirely through the dictates of holiness; that above all else what G-d demands of believers is that they uphold traditional sexual morality. For justice-seeking people of faith, this state of affairs was doubly depressing. Not only were these appeals made in the name of religion politically effective, helping to promote socioeconomic agendas antithetical to social justice, they were also a hillul hashem (desecration of G-d's name), in advancing a theological notion of a Creator mostly indifferent to injustice so long as "faith" and "piety" were advanced.
In the past, select Democrats have fought the lonely two-front battle against the GOP's twisted political theology and their own party's religious privatism. Black Democrats, treated as a "special case" as they carried the embers of the fires of the faith-based Civil Rights movement; Clinton, who intermittedly effectively employed religious rhetoric but undermined it with his own behavior; and most directly Lieberman, who drew undue villification from the party elite's secularists. It was therefore a wholly unexpected and delightful surprise for John Kerry, to shed his religious privatism and finally bring progressive political theology out of the shadows of American political discourse. Last night Kerry took our "faith-based" president (who, to his credit has at least pursued justice abroad if not at home) and put forward a far brighter political theology.
Kerry exposed the poverty of the GOP's notion of "values" by taking them to task on the injustice of their socioeconomic priorities:
Five hundred thousand kids lost after-school programs because of your budget. Now that's not in my gut. That's not my value system. And certainly not so that the wealthiest people in America can walk away with another tax cut - $89 billion last year to the top 1 percent of Americans, but kids lost their after-school programs. You be the judge.
And in a more profound way, Kerry addressed the poverty of the GOP's understanding of "faith" in explaining why true faith requires the pursuit of social justice:
Finally, Kerry powerfully delivered a political theology that America needs, one that is intolerant of injustice, while tolerant of the pluralities of holiness - the different ways in which people of different faith traditions connect to G-d.
I know that many religious conservatives Americans, already commited to Bush as "one of them" tuned Kerry out last night, and I know that many secularists and religious privatists find Kerry's public discussion of faith disturbing and a capitulation to the religious right, but if even a small minority who listened to Kerry were open-minded enough to take his words to heart, it will mean major progress for both religion and politics in America.
For decades, Republicans,with the complicity of Democrats, have managed to frame the national "values" debate in this nation as one between religious conservatives and secular liberals. In doing so, they have also managed to define public religiosity almost entirely through the dictates of holiness; that above all else what G-d demands of believers is that they uphold traditional sexual morality. For justice-seeking people of faith, this state of affairs was doubly depressing. Not only were these appeals made in the name of religion politically effective, helping to promote socioeconomic agendas antithetical to social justice, they were also a hillul hashem (desecration of G-d's name), in advancing a theological notion of a Creator mostly indifferent to injustice so long as "faith" and "piety" were advanced.
In the past, select Democrats have fought the lonely two-front battle against the GOP's twisted political theology and their own party's religious privatism. Black Democrats, treated as a "special case" as they carried the embers of the fires of the faith-based Civil Rights movement; Clinton, who intermittedly effectively employed religious rhetoric but undermined it with his own behavior; and most directly Lieberman, who drew undue villification from the party elite's secularists. It was therefore a wholly unexpected and delightful surprise for John Kerry, to shed his religious privatism and finally bring progressive political theology out of the shadows of American political discourse. Last night Kerry took our "faith-based" president (who, to his credit has at least pursued justice abroad if not at home) and put forward a far brighter political theology.
Kerry exposed the poverty of the GOP's notion of "values" by taking them to task on the injustice of their socioeconomic priorities:
The president has denied 9.2 million women $3,800 a year. But he doesn't hesitate to fight for $136,000 to a millionaire. One percent of America got $89 billion last year in a tax cut. But people working hard, playing by the rules, trying to take care of their kids, family values that we're supposed to value so much in America - I'm tired of politicians who talk about family values and don't value families. What we need to do is raise the minimum wage.
Five hundred thousand kids lost after-school programs because of your budget. Now that's not in my gut. That's not my value system. And certainly not so that the wealthiest people in America can walk away with another tax cut - $89 billion last year to the top 1 percent of Americans, but kids lost their after-school programs. You be the judge.
And in a more profound way, Kerry addressed the poverty of the GOP's understanding of "faith" in explaining why true faith requires the pursuit of social justice:
There's a great passage of the Bible that says What does it mean my brother to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead. And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people. That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith. But I know this: that President Kennedy in his inaugural address told of us that here on earth God's work must truly be our own. And that's what we have to - I think that's the test of public service.
Finally, Kerry powerfully delivered a political theology that America needs, one that is intolerant of injustice, while tolerant of the pluralities of holiness - the different ways in which people of different faith traditions connect to G-d.
And as I measure the words of the Bible, and we all do, different people measure different things: the Koran, the Torah or, you know, Native Americans who gave me a blessing the other day had their own special sense of connectedness to a higher being. And people all find their ways to express it. I was taught - I went to a church school, and I was taught that the two greatest commandments are: love the Lord your God with all your mind, your body and your soul; and love your neighbor as yourself. And frankly, I think we have a lot more loving of our neighbor to do in this country and on this planet. We have a separate and unequal school system in the United States of America. There's one for the people who have and there's one for the people who don't have. And we're struggling with that today. The president and I have a difference of opinion about how we live out our sense of our faith. I talked about it earlier when I talked about the works and faith without works being dead. I think we've got a lot more work to do. And as president I will always respect everybody's right to practice religion as they choose or not to practice, because that's part of America.
I know that many religious conservatives Americans, already commited to Bush as "one of them" tuned Kerry out last night, and I know that many secularists and religious privatists find Kerry's public discussion of faith disturbing and a capitulation to the religious right, but if even a small minority who listened to Kerry were open-minded enough to take his words to heart, it will mean major progress for both religion and politics in America.
October 12, 2004
BROOKS: BUSH IS FOR SMALL WORLD GOVERNMENT, KERRY IS FOR BIG WORLD GOVERNMENT...
For the past couple of months, GOP pundits have been furiously trying to raise the foreign policy debate above the unfortunate level of the facts on the ground to questions of vision and grand strategy. After all, from the clouds, Bush's platform of muscular democracy-promotion looks to be a far stronger long-term response to the threat of Islamist terror than Kerry's platform of international cooperation and domestic preparation. The recent article in the N.Y. Times Magazine, which aimed to reassure readers that Kerry in fact has a grand strategy in the war on Terror, acheived exactly the oppposite effect for me. Reducing the impact of terror to a nuisance level exalts a tactical objective to the level of strategic goal. However,
the reality is that on the ground Bush's lofty goals are being thwarted by the fiscal irresponsibility, cronyism, pervasive polticization and sheer incompetence of the Bush Administration.
In today's Times, David Brooks finds an original way to over-simplify the differences in worldviews of the two candidates, by mapping the Blue/Red America dichotomy onto the Kerry-Bush foreign policy agendas. Bush, the candidate of wide-open, libertarian, gun-shooting, meat-eating Red America is for small world government. Islamic terror, like Communism was, is rooted in a lack of freedom, and freedom is best preserved by the good guys - America and other freedom-loving nations (namely the U.K. and Poland) having more firepower than the bad guys. The U.N. and other international institutions are more likely to get in the way than be constructive.
On the other hand, Kerry, the candidate of crowded, communitarian, tax-and-redistribute, smoke-banning Blue America is for big world government. Islamic Terror, like illegal narcotics, environmental concerns and other trans-national problems, is rooted in a lack of order, and that order is best established through America helping to build multilateral alliances and institutions. The least constructive way to do this is for the U.S. to round up posses to dole out vigilante justice.
Putting things that way, however, it clearly the Jacksonian vision of Bush that is lacking. You simply cannot fight global problems such as failed states, nuclear proliferation and global warming with the good-will of freedom-loving nations. Too many nations are run by regimes that are any but freedom-loving, and too many nations that believe in freedom for their own citizens (France) are indifferent to the freedom of others. We need strong international institutions to solve these problems, to lock otherwise selfish nations into firm commitments the global good.
To take Brooks' domestic analogy further, we are currently at a place analogous to the 1980s debate over dysfunctional social programs. Conservatives pointed to the programs dysfunction and argued for in effect ignoring the underlying problem (whether it be poverty or education or health care) while liberals pointed to the underlying problem and ignored the programs dysfunctions. It took a New Dem, neoliberal approach to begin to reform welfare and other programs.
It is no surprise that Bush is taking the same politically effective "small government" critique on international issues. After all, the U.N. is corrupt, the IAEA impotent and the Kyoto Treaty hopelessly flawed. Unfortunately, up until now, John Kerry has played the role of the paleoliberal - so focused on the need for these institutions to work that he is denial about how little they actually do. If Kerry was able to, like Clinton on domestic issues, articulate a reform agenda for international governance, he could dramtically shift the terms of the debate. More importantly, if he were to win, a Kerry Administration might be something more than "anything but a second Bush" administration.
For the past couple of months, GOP pundits have been furiously trying to raise the foreign policy debate above the unfortunate level of the facts on the ground to questions of vision and grand strategy. After all, from the clouds, Bush's platform of muscular democracy-promotion looks to be a far stronger long-term response to the threat of Islamist terror than Kerry's platform of international cooperation and domestic preparation. The recent article in the N.Y. Times Magazine, which aimed to reassure readers that Kerry in fact has a grand strategy in the war on Terror, acheived exactly the oppposite effect for me. Reducing the impact of terror to a nuisance level exalts a tactical objective to the level of strategic goal. However,
the reality is that on the ground Bush's lofty goals are being thwarted by the fiscal irresponsibility, cronyism, pervasive polticization and sheer incompetence of the Bush Administration.
In today's Times, David Brooks finds an original way to over-simplify the differences in worldviews of the two candidates, by mapping the Blue/Red America dichotomy onto the Kerry-Bush foreign policy agendas. Bush, the candidate of wide-open, libertarian, gun-shooting, meat-eating Red America is for small world government. Islamic terror, like Communism was, is rooted in a lack of freedom, and freedom is best preserved by the good guys - America and other freedom-loving nations (namely the U.K. and Poland) having more firepower than the bad guys. The U.N. and other international institutions are more likely to get in the way than be constructive.
On the other hand, Kerry, the candidate of crowded, communitarian, tax-and-redistribute, smoke-banning Blue America is for big world government. Islamic Terror, like illegal narcotics, environmental concerns and other trans-national problems, is rooted in a lack of order, and that order is best established through America helping to build multilateral alliances and institutions. The least constructive way to do this is for the U.S. to round up posses to dole out vigilante justice.
Putting things that way, however, it clearly the Jacksonian vision of Bush that is lacking. You simply cannot fight global problems such as failed states, nuclear proliferation and global warming with the good-will of freedom-loving nations. Too many nations are run by regimes that are any but freedom-loving, and too many nations that believe in freedom for their own citizens (France) are indifferent to the freedom of others. We need strong international institutions to solve these problems, to lock otherwise selfish nations into firm commitments the global good.
To take Brooks' domestic analogy further, we are currently at a place analogous to the 1980s debate over dysfunctional social programs. Conservatives pointed to the programs dysfunction and argued for in effect ignoring the underlying problem (whether it be poverty or education or health care) while liberals pointed to the underlying problem and ignored the programs dysfunctions. It took a New Dem, neoliberal approach to begin to reform welfare and other programs.
It is no surprise that Bush is taking the same politically effective "small government" critique on international issues. After all, the U.N. is corrupt, the IAEA impotent and the Kyoto Treaty hopelessly flawed. Unfortunately, up until now, John Kerry has played the role of the paleoliberal - so focused on the need for these institutions to work that he is denial about how little they actually do. If Kerry was able to, like Clinton on domestic issues, articulate a reform agenda for international governance, he could dramtically shift the terms of the debate. More importantly, if he were to win, a Kerry Administration might be something more than "anything but a second Bush" administration.
October 06, 2004
THE VEEP DEBATE
Here are my quick thoughts on the veep debate
Cheney won the first half of the debate, for now. If points are deducted for Cheney's egregious prevarications (He NEVER linked Saddam to 9/11....nope, never happened, never, ever, ever, well, OK, a little, but he had a good reason for doing it), then he loses, which he still might in the post-debate re-evaluation if the Kerry campaign effectively follows through.
The dynamic of the foreign policy part of the debate was dramatically different than Thursday night. Cheney delievered the administration's talking points far more effectively than Bush, keeping Edwards on the defensive, where he was not particuarly impressive in defending the Dems "consistent" position on Iraq.
The problem of course is that the Kerry campaign can't decide whether or not to focus on Bush's decision to fight the war - attacking the claims of linkage between Iraq and the larger war on terror, the deceiving claims made by the administration, the disingenuous diplomacy (which would appeal to the Dem base); or rather to focus Bush's incompetence in conducting the war - failure to put in sufficient number of troops, abandoning Fallujah to Zarqawi, Abu Ghraib, etc. (which appeals to hawkish swing voters). Kerry didn't do a particularly good job on this front either in the Miami debate, but the combination of Bush's weak, non-sequiter attacks and Jim Lehrer's passive moderating let him get away with crisply delivered soundbites that sounded at lot more coherent than they were. Edwards did not have that luxury; Cheney's attacks were head on, moderated Gwen Ifel would not let Edwards dodge the issue. Edwards played the good soldier in spending much of this portion rebutting Bush's distoritons of Kerry's positions in the Miami debate. Still, especially on a day where Bremer's recent admissions were still fresh, for Edwards not to focus on the incompetence conduct of the war was a missed opportunity.
Cheney's pot-shot at Edwards absenteeism from the Senate during a campaign season was a cheap shot that the TV pundits were giving far too much credit for afterwards. Edwards countered this brilliantly by invoking Cheney's radical record in Congress, which he has effectively hidden under his cool, CEO-demeanor.
I thought Gwen Ifel for the most part did a solid job, but why on earth did we have to endure 2 questions on gay marriage? If the Bush campaign wants to distract the rest of the country from its national security and economic record by peddling their attempted stain on the Constitution, that's their choice, but I don't see why the media has to play along. Then again, along those line, why did we need 2 questions on medical malpractice reform. I feel Edwards did an excellent job digging out from the hole this framing of the health-care issue put him in.
Edwards crushed Cheney on domestic issues, but by that point in the debate, most everybody had zoned out. The tele-pundits especially overlooked Edwards effective attacks as the debate wound down.
Oh well, its now on to a fun Iraq-free town-hall for Kerry-Bush 2 on Friday, which easily has the potential to be the least memorable debate in the campaign. I'm dozing off already thinking about it.
Here are my quick thoughts on the veep debate
Cheney won the first half of the debate, for now. If points are deducted for Cheney's egregious prevarications (He NEVER linked Saddam to 9/11....nope, never happened, never, ever, ever, well, OK, a little, but he had a good reason for doing it), then he loses, which he still might in the post-debate re-evaluation if the Kerry campaign effectively follows through.
The dynamic of the foreign policy part of the debate was dramatically different than Thursday night. Cheney delievered the administration's talking points far more effectively than Bush, keeping Edwards on the defensive, where he was not particuarly impressive in defending the Dems "consistent" position on Iraq.
The problem of course is that the Kerry campaign can't decide whether or not to focus on Bush's decision to fight the war - attacking the claims of linkage between Iraq and the larger war on terror, the deceiving claims made by the administration, the disingenuous diplomacy (which would appeal to the Dem base); or rather to focus Bush's incompetence in conducting the war - failure to put in sufficient number of troops, abandoning Fallujah to Zarqawi, Abu Ghraib, etc. (which appeals to hawkish swing voters). Kerry didn't do a particularly good job on this front either in the Miami debate, but the combination of Bush's weak, non-sequiter attacks and Jim Lehrer's passive moderating let him get away with crisply delivered soundbites that sounded at lot more coherent than they were. Edwards did not have that luxury; Cheney's attacks were head on, moderated Gwen Ifel would not let Edwards dodge the issue. Edwards played the good soldier in spending much of this portion rebutting Bush's distoritons of Kerry's positions in the Miami debate. Still, especially on a day where Bremer's recent admissions were still fresh, for Edwards not to focus on the incompetence conduct of the war was a missed opportunity.
Cheney's pot-shot at Edwards absenteeism from the Senate during a campaign season was a cheap shot that the TV pundits were giving far too much credit for afterwards. Edwards countered this brilliantly by invoking Cheney's radical record in Congress, which he has effectively hidden under his cool, CEO-demeanor.
I thought Gwen Ifel for the most part did a solid job, but why on earth did we have to endure 2 questions on gay marriage? If the Bush campaign wants to distract the rest of the country from its national security and economic record by peddling their attempted stain on the Constitution, that's their choice, but I don't see why the media has to play along. Then again, along those line, why did we need 2 questions on medical malpractice reform. I feel Edwards did an excellent job digging out from the hole this framing of the health-care issue put him in.
Edwards crushed Cheney on domestic issues, but by that point in the debate, most everybody had zoned out. The tele-pundits especially overlooked Edwards effective attacks as the debate wound down.
Oh well, its now on to a fun Iraq-free town-hall for Kerry-Bush 2 on Friday, which easily has the potential to be the least memorable debate in the campaign. I'm dozing off already thinking about it.
September 21, 2004
KERRY WOULDN'T HAVE LIBERATED IRAQ, BUT THAT'S BESIDES THE POINT
By the way, as a side point, I haven't undergone any great conversion to Jeffersonian principles in my endorsement of Kerry over Bush. I am still quite queasy about Kerry's willingness to err too much against the use of military force in the war on terror. But I am getting a bit tired of reading pundits who seek to define this election as fundamental clash of ideas with respect to the War on Terror. If it were that simple, I'd be voting for Bush, whose abstract positions on the use of military force and the role of democratization in combatting terror I agree with far more than those of Kerry. But an election is not simply a referendum on a competing set of ideas - it is also about the people who are charged with executing their visions. And after 4 years it is obvious that Bush and the people around are both disingenuous about many the values they advocate, incompetant in translating these values into productive policy on the ground or both.
So the question isn't is the world safer without Saddam in power, which noone seriously disputes. Nor is the question either is the world safer with Saddam no longer in power through Bush's war in which the candidates vigorously disagree about. The real question is who is going to manage the mess we're in at the present for the next for years? The answer for me is Kerry. Kerry may not advance the strategy of defeating terror through expanding freedom in the Islamic world - but at least he won't like Bush has, through his strong embrace and weak execution of these ideas - discredit it.
IS KERRY FINALLY IN THE GAME?
If Kerry does go on to win this fall, I believe yesterday's speech on Iraq will be seen as a turning point for his campaign. For the first time since his convention acceptance speech, Kerry was clear and crisp, outlining his differences with the President unencumbered by his usual mountain of obfuscatory verbiage. On top of that he actual offered something resembling a policy to boot. The key section, in which Kerry offers a devastating critque of the Bush administration's failed assumption about Iraq was quoted by Andrew Sullivan yesterday. However, it a phrase Kerry used later in the speech to apply to Bush - stubborn incomptence - that I believe is the one that gives him the best opportunity to crack Bush's so far impregnable reputation on national security.
First, because Bush's Iraq policy has been stubborn & incompetent. Kerry reeled off some of the clearest examples of Bush's incompetence - failure to adequately train Iraqi soldiers, the inability to utilize the overwhelming majority of the reconstruction money. (To that I would add the collassal moral and strategic failue at Abu Ghraib, which Kerry needs to highlight more). In each case, Bush has stubbornly continued to deny the existance of any problems nor hold anyone accountable.
Second - labeling Bush as "stubborn" is effective political jujitsu. The public's perception of Bush after months of well-honed message form the Bush camp is that he is a decisive and steadfast leader. Rather than fighting against the pre-disposition, "stubborn incompetence" exploits it. There is fine line between steadfast and stubborn and Kerry has the very doable task of pushing the perception of Bush over that line. Bush doesn't swerve from his chosen path, but he's driving us off a cliff. This metaphor needs to pounded home ad nauseum.
Third, making the election about Bush's "incomptence" frames the election on the ground least favorable to Bush and most favorable to Kerry. The core vulnerability for Bush is the yawning chasm between his rhetoric and his real accomplishments. Kerry needs to drag Bush into the muck of the details of the last four years, and not let him retreat to platitudes. (here Edwards could be very effective, complementing Bush on his good intentions but sticking the knife in on his failed execution). The Bush administrations glib excuses for their failures "freedom's messy", "war is unpredictable" don't wear well. In contrast, while Kerry fails repeatedly at being stirring, he should be able to market himself as stable and competent.
Kerry has finally found a message that could win the election. Whether he sticks to it is another question.
August 26, 2004
SAYANORA
As much as I'd hate to miss my second Republican convention in as many elections (I had the pleasure of spending the summer in my hometown for the 2000 GOP love-in) I'm off to wonderful Nippon for two weeks for my honeymoon. And to make sure I don't miss anything important, the VCR is programmed to tape an entire week of the best political coverage on TV - The Daily Show.
As much as I'd hate to miss my second Republican convention in as many elections (I had the pleasure of spending the summer in my hometown for the 2000 GOP love-in) I'm off to wonderful Nippon for two weeks for my honeymoon. And to make sure I don't miss anything important, the VCR is programmed to tape an entire week of the best political coverage on TV - The Daily Show.
August 24, 2004
BUSH & KERRY ON IRAQ: BEYOND RECKLESS vs. FECKLESS
Recent presidential campaigns have demonstrated that you can count on the mainstream media for two things. The first, is that it will happily glom on to whatever substance-free issue comes its way to avoid any discussion of actual substantive issues. The second is that to the extent substance is discussed, it is transmitted through an uncritically accepted conceptual framework. Thus, once the motif of Stupid But Sincere Bush against Smart but Calculating Gore was established, anything that played against it (such as blatant lying by Bush on his tax plan) was downplayed, while anything that played to it (any repositioning on any issue no matter how slight by Gore)emphasized.
With respect to this campaign, on Iraq, the conventional wisdom is Bush is reckless while Kerry is feckless. And any inconvenient facts that may suggest either pragmatism/wobbling from Bush or resolution/rigidity from Kerry are ignored.
Kerry: Mostly Feckless
As liberal pundits have noted, Kerry's position on the war is not as inconsistent as the simplistic version of it offered in the media. Kerry saw his as vote as empowering Bush to bargain from a position of strength, and use force only after diplomacy failed. Thus, by only going through the motions diplomatic, Bush did things "the wrong way" and Kerry is not inconsistent in opposing the war that Bush actually fought.
However, consistency and coherency are two different things, and Kerry's proceduarlist critique is maddeningly vague. At no point does Kerry answer the relevant questions his position begs to be answered: how much time should the weapons inspections been given to verify the state of the Iraqi WMD production? How much abuse of the inspections process would he have tolerated before deciding to use force? Should a tightened sanctions regime have been the alternate in the event that the inspectors found no smoking guns, but did no received total cooperation from the Hussein regime? How should a president have handled differences of opinion with other nations as to these questions - especially from the French and others who were not negotiating themselves in good faith? Will Kerry ever answer these questions before November? Will he even be ASKED these questions? Highly doubtful.)
Bush: From Reckless to Feckless
Whatever problems the media has with accurately portraying Kerry's position on Iraq pales in comparison to its reporting on what the Bush administration has actually done there. Both liberal and conservative pundits alike portray the Bush administration as holding a unilateralist, idealist course throughout the whole Iraq process. Thus liberals decry Bush as reckless, ideologically radical (wedded to the vision of the Neocons), and completely unable to admit, let alone adapt to unanticipated circumstances. Conservatives portray Bush as dynamic, decisive, steadfast and morally grounded in holding the course he set out in 2002. What's fascinating is that both the standard attack and defense of Bush's Iraq policy has become so fixed, so ritualized that they pretty much ignore anything the administration has done over the past 12 months.
The reality is that since May 2003, while the Bush Administration's neocon/Wilsonian rhetoric has stayed the same, on the ground it has reversed itself in numerous areas, subordinating the goal of producing a functioning Iraqi democracy to the goal of shortening the occupation to a politically palatable level. In order to carry out this fundamentally Jacksonian policy, the Administration turned to the Hamiltonian experts at State and elsewhere to facilitate it.
The appointment of Bremer in May 2003 marked the beginning of this shift, but Bremer himself was responsible for disbanding of the Iraqi army in the name of de-Baathification. The real change came in October, with the reorganization of Iraq policy. Unilateral idealism was out, multilateral pragmatism was in, for better or worse. Opposition to U.N. involvement melted, transfer of sovereignty to a Iraqi government was pushed ahead of elections, anti-democratic militias in Falluja and Najaf were left intact to preserve short-term stability, Ahmed Chalabi went from ally to target. Were some of these new policies prudent? Perhaps. Cautious? Definitely. Reckless? Definitely not. A reckless crusader for democracy would have doubled down, sent in more troops and rode out the short-term criticism to present a better environment for Iraq's first elections. A purist, ideologue would have not handed over the government to a former Baathist strongman.
Both liberal and conservative pundits however would rather peddle the convenient myth of neocon consistency. For liberals, now enamored with realism, doing so would force them to admit that Bush has adopted much of their platform over the past year, and for them to face the consequences of what they advocated. For conservative idealists, facing Bush's last year squarely forces them to face just how far they have fallen, and the very real weaknesses of their hero. But the truth is Bush has been reckless & feckless. And Iraqis and Americans alike will be paying in the future just as much for the "solutions" offered by realist wise-men as they will for the problems created by neocon hubris.
Recent presidential campaigns have demonstrated that you can count on the mainstream media for two things. The first, is that it will happily glom on to whatever substance-free issue comes its way to avoid any discussion of actual substantive issues. The second is that to the extent substance is discussed, it is transmitted through an uncritically accepted conceptual framework. Thus, once the motif of Stupid But Sincere Bush against Smart but Calculating Gore was established, anything that played against it (such as blatant lying by Bush on his tax plan) was downplayed, while anything that played to it (any repositioning on any issue no matter how slight by Gore)emphasized.
With respect to this campaign, on Iraq, the conventional wisdom is Bush is reckless while Kerry is feckless. And any inconvenient facts that may suggest either pragmatism/wobbling from Bush or resolution/rigidity from Kerry are ignored.
Kerry: Mostly Feckless
As liberal pundits have noted, Kerry's position on the war is not as inconsistent as the simplistic version of it offered in the media. Kerry saw his as vote as empowering Bush to bargain from a position of strength, and use force only after diplomacy failed. Thus, by only going through the motions diplomatic, Bush did things "the wrong way" and Kerry is not inconsistent in opposing the war that Bush actually fought.
However, consistency and coherency are two different things, and Kerry's proceduarlist critique is maddeningly vague. At no point does Kerry answer the relevant questions his position begs to be answered: how much time should the weapons inspections been given to verify the state of the Iraqi WMD production? How much abuse of the inspections process would he have tolerated before deciding to use force? Should a tightened sanctions regime have been the alternate in the event that the inspectors found no smoking guns, but did no received total cooperation from the Hussein regime? How should a president have handled differences of opinion with other nations as to these questions - especially from the French and others who were not negotiating themselves in good faith? Will Kerry ever answer these questions before November? Will he even be ASKED these questions? Highly doubtful.)
Bush: From Reckless to Feckless
Whatever problems the media has with accurately portraying Kerry's position on Iraq pales in comparison to its reporting on what the Bush administration has actually done there. Both liberal and conservative pundits alike portray the Bush administration as holding a unilateralist, idealist course throughout the whole Iraq process. Thus liberals decry Bush as reckless, ideologically radical (wedded to the vision of the Neocons), and completely unable to admit, let alone adapt to unanticipated circumstances. Conservatives portray Bush as dynamic, decisive, steadfast and morally grounded in holding the course he set out in 2002. What's fascinating is that both the standard attack and defense of Bush's Iraq policy has become so fixed, so ritualized that they pretty much ignore anything the administration has done over the past 12 months.
The reality is that since May 2003, while the Bush Administration's neocon/Wilsonian rhetoric has stayed the same, on the ground it has reversed itself in numerous areas, subordinating the goal of producing a functioning Iraqi democracy to the goal of shortening the occupation to a politically palatable level. In order to carry out this fundamentally Jacksonian policy, the Administration turned to the Hamiltonian experts at State and elsewhere to facilitate it.
The appointment of Bremer in May 2003 marked the beginning of this shift, but Bremer himself was responsible for disbanding of the Iraqi army in the name of de-Baathification. The real change came in October, with the reorganization of Iraq policy. Unilateral idealism was out, multilateral pragmatism was in, for better or worse. Opposition to U.N. involvement melted, transfer of sovereignty to a Iraqi government was pushed ahead of elections, anti-democratic militias in Falluja and Najaf were left intact to preserve short-term stability, Ahmed Chalabi went from ally to target. Were some of these new policies prudent? Perhaps. Cautious? Definitely. Reckless? Definitely not. A reckless crusader for democracy would have doubled down, sent in more troops and rode out the short-term criticism to present a better environment for Iraq's first elections. A purist, ideologue would have not handed over the government to a former Baathist strongman.
Both liberal and conservative pundits however would rather peddle the convenient myth of neocon consistency. For liberals, now enamored with realism, doing so would force them to admit that Bush has adopted much of their platform over the past year, and for them to face the consequences of what they advocated. For conservative idealists, facing Bush's last year squarely forces them to face just how far they have fallen, and the very real weaknesses of their hero. But the truth is Bush has been reckless & feckless. And Iraqis and Americans alike will be paying in the future just as much for the "solutions" offered by realist wise-men as they will for the problems created by neocon hubris.
August 20, 2004
NO WILSONIAN CONSENSUS
It is tempting as a Wilsonian, to make the claim that in contrast to the Realist views of the foreign policy establishment, the American public is decidedly Wilsonian. This is how OxBlogger Patrick Belton optimistically reads
a recent PEW/Council of Foreign Relations poll on the American public's view of foreign policy.
As Daniel Drezner (another Wilsonian) notes, this finding doesn't quite jibe with the rankings on actual foreign policy issues, which place promoting democracy & improving living standards in poor nations dead last on a list of 19 priorities.
I agree, somewhat. However, there is still the question of how to explain the 72% "moral principle" figure? First, I think this poll is a perfect example of where setting out a Wilsonian (as a proxy for idealist)/realist dichotomy breaks down, and once again it is preferential to use Walter Russell Mead's categorization of the four American foreign policy traditions.
The mere advocacy of a "moral" foreign policy does not make somebody a Wilsonian. There also needs to be a commitment to American promotion of universal values such as democracy and human rights (the means - unilateral or multilateral is what Wilsonians can disagree about). Thus, the size of the American public who can be fairly characterized as having principally a Wilsonian view of foreign policy correlates with the 24% who place democracy-promotion as a top priority (which by the way matches up roughly with the 25% who value idealism).
In addition to Wilsonians, the 72% figure also encompasses Jeffersonians, who also believe in a "moral" foreign policy. The difference is that they believe America acts morally when it does not utilize its military against weaker nations, is respectful of cultural difference, and does not provide aid to "immoral" regimes. No doubt the 72% also includes a number of Jacksonians who believe America has a "moral" obligation to defend its friends, and to exact vengeance upon its enemies. Finally the number includes those who can be said to have any principle foreign policy orientation.
So in order to get a better sense of the relative strengths of the different orientations, I repeated Drezner's exercise with the list of concrete foreign policy objectives, but instead using Mead's classification(Wilsonian-Wil;Hamiltoninan-Ham;Jeffersonian-Jef;Jacksonian-Jax).
Obviously, some of my assignments are open to debate, and most Americans do not neatly fall into any one category. But it seems to me that a plurality of the American public holds primarily Jacksonian views, which explains why there has been so much pandering in that direction by both candidates. Although there is a clear difference here, in that while Bush has actually conducted an especially Jacksonian foreign policy (with its tough rhetoric and disdain for world opinion), Kerry, who would conduct a foreign policy that was anything but Jacksonian, has to rely on symbolic appeals based on his military record).
The other three groups, at least with respect to those who hold these views as primary appear to be roughly equivalent. However, the appeal of issues such as the global AIDS crisis and global hunger suggests that there is a large amount of secondary, soft support for Wilsonian ideas that is not present for the other two groups. I believe it is this combination - the breadth of support for Wilsonian ideas combined by the softness of that support - that explains why advocates for a more ambitious Wilsonian agenda believe they have widespread support, only to find that support to be fickle and fleeting.
It is tempting as a Wilsonian, to make the claim that in contrast to the Realist views of the foreign policy establishment, the American public is decidedly Wilsonian. This is how OxBlogger Patrick Belton optimistically reads
a recent PEW/Council of Foreign Relations poll on the American public's view of foreign policy.
Interestingly, it also shows the American public is solidly Wilsonian, with 72 percent believing the top priority for American foreign policy is to follow moral principles
As Daniel Drezner (another Wilsonian) notes, this finding doesn't quite jibe with the rankings on actual foreign policy issues, which place promoting democracy & improving living standards in poor nations dead last on a list of 19 priorities.
These results bolster a thesis that I've been cogitating on for the past few months: despite claims by international relations theorists -- including most realists -- that the overwhelming majority of Americans hold liberal policy preferences, it just ain't so. Even if those beliefs are extolled in the abstract, when asked to prioritize among different foreign policy tasks, the realist position wins.
I agree, somewhat. However, there is still the question of how to explain the 72% "moral principle" figure? First, I think this poll is a perfect example of where setting out a Wilsonian (as a proxy for idealist)/realist dichotomy breaks down, and once again it is preferential to use Walter Russell Mead's categorization of the four American foreign policy traditions.
The mere advocacy of a "moral" foreign policy does not make somebody a Wilsonian. There also needs to be a commitment to American promotion of universal values such as democracy and human rights (the means - unilateral or multilateral is what Wilsonians can disagree about). Thus, the size of the American public who can be fairly characterized as having principally a Wilsonian view of foreign policy correlates with the 24% who place democracy-promotion as a top priority (which by the way matches up roughly with the 25% who value idealism).
In addition to Wilsonians, the 72% figure also encompasses Jeffersonians, who also believe in a "moral" foreign policy. The difference is that they believe America acts morally when it does not utilize its military against weaker nations, is respectful of cultural difference, and does not provide aid to "immoral" regimes. No doubt the 72% also includes a number of Jacksonians who believe America has a "moral" obligation to defend its friends, and to exact vengeance upon its enemies. Finally the number includes those who can be said to have any principle foreign policy orientation.
So in order to get a better sense of the relative strengths of the different orientations, I repeated Drezner's exercise with the list of concrete foreign policy objectives, but instead using Mead's classification(Wilsonian-Wil;Hamiltoninan-Ham;Jeffersonian-Jef;Jacksonian-Jax).
Protect against terrorist attacks -- 88 (all)
Protect jobs of American workers -- 84 (Jax;Jef)
Reduce spread of AIDS & other diseases -- 72 (Wil)
Stop spread of weapons of mass destruction -- 71 (Ham;Jax;Wil)
Insure adequate energy supplies -- 70 (Ham;Jax)
Reduce dependence on foreign oil -- 63 (Jef;Jax)
Combat international drug trafficking -- 63 (Jef;Ham)
Distribute costs of maintaining world order -- 58 (Ham;Jax)
Improve relationships with allies -- 54 (Ham;Jef)
Deal with problem of world hunger -- 50 (Wil)
Strengthen the United Nations -- 48 (Ham;Wil)
Protect groups threatened with genocide -- 47 (Wil)
Deal with global warming -- 36 (Jef)
Reduce U.S. military commitments -- 35 (Jef)
Promote U.S. business interests abroad -- 35 (Ham)
Promote human rights abroad -- 33 (Wil;Jef)
Solve Israeli/ Palestinian conflict -- 28 (Ham;Wil)
Promote democracy abroad -- 24 (Wil)
Improve living standards in poor nations -- 23 (Wil)
Obviously, some of my assignments are open to debate, and most Americans do not neatly fall into any one category. But it seems to me that a plurality of the American public holds primarily Jacksonian views, which explains why there has been so much pandering in that direction by both candidates. Although there is a clear difference here, in that while Bush has actually conducted an especially Jacksonian foreign policy (with its tough rhetoric and disdain for world opinion), Kerry, who would conduct a foreign policy that was anything but Jacksonian, has to rely on symbolic appeals based on his military record).
The other three groups, at least with respect to those who hold these views as primary appear to be roughly equivalent. However, the appeal of issues such as the global AIDS crisis and global hunger suggests that there is a large amount of secondary, soft support for Wilsonian ideas that is not present for the other two groups. I believe it is this combination - the breadth of support for Wilsonian ideas combined by the softness of that support - that explains why advocates for a more ambitious Wilsonian agenda believe they have widespread support, only to find that support to be fickle and fleeting.
August 11, 2004
I DIDN'T SERVE WITH JOHN KERRY IN VIETNAM SO YOU SHOULD PROBABLY JUST TUNE ME OUT
Here are my thoughts on the whole Kerry Swiftboat nonsense
1) If you were voting for John Kerry because he won 3 people hearts in Vietnam, you're a moron
2) If you are no longer voting for John Kerry because you believe the attack ads against his Vietnam record, you're a gullible moron
3) If you produced the attack ads against John Kerry's Vietnam record, you're a sleazebag.
4) If you are making the argument that the real issue is John Kerry's veracity and therefore this inquiry into possibly exagerrated claims in his war record is really is a salient issue, you are either a soulless GOP shill, an easy mark for GOP shills, or fundamentally unserious about politics.
Look, I find the whole Kerry war-hero schtick highly problematic. First, because as it has indicated all along, the Democratic Party views national security primarily through the lens of politics, as if it were akin to gay marriage or some other cultural wedge issue that Republicans like to play whenever they are afraid working-class voters might actually realize how badly their policies screw them. So Kerry was chosen precisely with the current strategy he is now employing in mind.
The way Kerry baldly uses his personal heroism to deflect any concerns about his Jeffersonian foreign policy vision that he has consistently espoused (except when prompted by poltical necessity) for his entire public life should be fair game. But not the heroism itself. It is not only a cynical degredation of the public debate, but it exposes the very real fact that the Bushies aren't confident that they can win the national security debate substantively. When you consider the staggering record of incompetence left behind by Bush's four years, its not surprising that Rove has already turned to character assasination. After all, Kerry may not take the country where we need to go to defeat Islamist fundamentalism, but at least he'll get it wherever he's going in one piece.
John Kerry - He won't win the war on terror, but at least he won't lose it. Or something like that.
Here are my thoughts on the whole Kerry Swiftboat nonsense
1) If you were voting for John Kerry because he won 3 people hearts in Vietnam, you're a moron
2) If you are no longer voting for John Kerry because you believe the attack ads against his Vietnam record, you're a gullible moron
3) If you produced the attack ads against John Kerry's Vietnam record, you're a sleazebag.
4) If you are making the argument that the real issue is John Kerry's veracity and therefore this inquiry into possibly exagerrated claims in his war record is really is a salient issue, you are either a soulless GOP shill, an easy mark for GOP shills, or fundamentally unserious about politics.
Look, I find the whole Kerry war-hero schtick highly problematic. First, because as it has indicated all along, the Democratic Party views national security primarily through the lens of politics, as if it were akin to gay marriage or some other cultural wedge issue that Republicans like to play whenever they are afraid working-class voters might actually realize how badly their policies screw them. So Kerry was chosen precisely with the current strategy he is now employing in mind.
The way Kerry baldly uses his personal heroism to deflect any concerns about his Jeffersonian foreign policy vision that he has consistently espoused (except when prompted by poltical necessity) for his entire public life should be fair game. But not the heroism itself. It is not only a cynical degredation of the public debate, but it exposes the very real fact that the Bushies aren't confident that they can win the national security debate substantively. When you consider the staggering record of incompetence left behind by Bush's four years, its not surprising that Rove has already turned to character assasination. After all, Kerry may not take the country where we need to go to defeat Islamist fundamentalism, but at least he'll get it wherever he's going in one piece.
John Kerry - He won't win the war on terror, but at least he won't lose it. Or something like that.
August 01, 2004
BOSTON AND BEYOND
In watching the Democratic convention and the true start of the Bush-Kerry campaign, I can not help but escape from the feeling of detachment that plagues me. As a Dem, I usually have little trouble being fully caught up in the rhetoric and pageantry of a Democratic convention, in the drawing of sharp, clear contrasts between the two parties governing philosophies. And during moments of the this convention that was the cased. I awaited Barack Obama's speech with rapt anticipation. I was fully carried up in the excitement and passion of John Edwards's speech. Most of all, I was delighted in seeing the party's fighting spirit, and its vigorous efforts to wrest patriotism and faith away from their partisan abuse as part of the still effective GOP playbook laid out two decades earlier by Atwater. The home team has never looked more disciplined and yet more passionate. The combination of the two could be seen in John Kerry's surprisingly animated acceptance speech. Rather than play it safe, Kerry spoke from his heart and threw down the gauntlet against the Bush Administration - against its radical religious right agenda on cultural issues, against its abdication of responsibility on social issues, against its irresponsibility on economic issues and its fecklessness on foreign policy. It was the speech that liberal Dems wanted to hear - a speech that read as if it was scripted by Aaron Sorkin. (Indeed, the speech it most reminded me of was the one delivered by Michael Douglas's President in the American President.)
So where does the detachment come from, with such a stirring scene that warmed my left-of-center heart. It comes of course from the cold reality of the grim choice the nation faces on the most important issue facing it - the War on Terror. True, the Democratic Party went all out to show that it is no longer the McGovernite party it was from Carter to Dukakis. And this is heartening. It means that at least on the tactical, political level, the party understands that the War on Terror is not going to be won through appeasement and detente. Kerry, however, has made clear that while he understands he must cabin his Jeffersonian instincts, that when he does so, he will act in a Hamiltonian way. As Joshua Micah Marshall and other moderate Dems have written with approval, Kerry seeks to bring us a foreign policy that will be quite similar to that of Bush the Elder - restrained, multilateral, forceful when necessary, and above all realist.
Kerryt's Foreign Policy (and it very much will be Kerry who will be its foremost architect) It therefore a wholesale rejection of the neoconservative project, rather than a rejection of neoconservative hubris and Cheyney & Rumsfeld's use of Neocon idealism as a cover for their own Jacksonian agenda. As a Democratic Wilsonian, therefore, who believes that the War against Islamist Terror will be won only through the agressive promotion of democratic and liberal ideals in the Islamic world, this is enough to dampen my enthusiasm for the Kerry Administration. (I'm still waiting for Kerry to utter the word "Sudan"). But a second Bush term does not hold out any more hope. Iraq was the Neocon high tide, and even there they have lost out to the Jacksonian impulse to shy from the messy task of nation-building and the need to bring in the Hamiltonian State Department to clean up the mess of the post-war disaster that was in much due to the Neocon disdain for details. Neither side address the deep inadequacy of our current international institutions. Bush revels in it as an opportunity to pursue American policy unfettered, while Kerry appears to be in denial, placing the entire blame for America's strained relationship with those institutions on Bush's recklessness.
Perhaps the best thing for me to do is to focus on the positives of a Kerry Administration. Stem cell research will no longer be held hostage to the most fundamentalist views of the religious right. The Supreme Court and the lower branches of the federal judiciary will be stacked with more Breyers and less Scalias. The defecit will be reduced. There is hope for some progress on education and health care. The perils of climate change will finally be noted, and a serious plan for energy efficiency may get enacted. And with respect to the less-sexy, technocratic aspect of the War on Terror (searching port containers,tracking down loose nukes) Kerry will be more than up to the task. And if that doesn't quite stir me into the same fervor of my fellow Dems, it is enough to make the chances of my pulling the lever for Kerry in November, very, very likely.
In watching the Democratic convention and the true start of the Bush-Kerry campaign, I can not help but escape from the feeling of detachment that plagues me. As a Dem, I usually have little trouble being fully caught up in the rhetoric and pageantry of a Democratic convention, in the drawing of sharp, clear contrasts between the two parties governing philosophies. And during moments of the this convention that was the cased. I awaited Barack Obama's speech with rapt anticipation. I was fully carried up in the excitement and passion of John Edwards's speech. Most of all, I was delighted in seeing the party's fighting spirit, and its vigorous efforts to wrest patriotism and faith away from their partisan abuse as part of the still effective GOP playbook laid out two decades earlier by Atwater. The home team has never looked more disciplined and yet more passionate. The combination of the two could be seen in John Kerry's surprisingly animated acceptance speech. Rather than play it safe, Kerry spoke from his heart and threw down the gauntlet against the Bush Administration - against its radical religious right agenda on cultural issues, against its abdication of responsibility on social issues, against its irresponsibility on economic issues and its fecklessness on foreign policy. It was the speech that liberal Dems wanted to hear - a speech that read as if it was scripted by Aaron Sorkin. (Indeed, the speech it most reminded me of was the one delivered by Michael Douglas's President in the American President.)
So where does the detachment come from, with such a stirring scene that warmed my left-of-center heart. It comes of course from the cold reality of the grim choice the nation faces on the most important issue facing it - the War on Terror. True, the Democratic Party went all out to show that it is no longer the McGovernite party it was from Carter to Dukakis. And this is heartening. It means that at least on the tactical, political level, the party understands that the War on Terror is not going to be won through appeasement and detente. Kerry, however, has made clear that while he understands he must cabin his Jeffersonian instincts, that when he does so, he will act in a Hamiltonian way. As Joshua Micah Marshall and other moderate Dems have written with approval, Kerry seeks to bring us a foreign policy that will be quite similar to that of Bush the Elder - restrained, multilateral, forceful when necessary, and above all realist.
Kerryt's Foreign Policy (and it very much will be Kerry who will be its foremost architect) It therefore a wholesale rejection of the neoconservative project, rather than a rejection of neoconservative hubris and Cheyney & Rumsfeld's use of Neocon idealism as a cover for their own Jacksonian agenda. As a Democratic Wilsonian, therefore, who believes that the War against Islamist Terror will be won only through the agressive promotion of democratic and liberal ideals in the Islamic world, this is enough to dampen my enthusiasm for the Kerry Administration. (I'm still waiting for Kerry to utter the word "Sudan"). But a second Bush term does not hold out any more hope. Iraq was the Neocon high tide, and even there they have lost out to the Jacksonian impulse to shy from the messy task of nation-building and the need to bring in the Hamiltonian State Department to clean up the mess of the post-war disaster that was in much due to the Neocon disdain for details. Neither side address the deep inadequacy of our current international institutions. Bush revels in it as an opportunity to pursue American policy unfettered, while Kerry appears to be in denial, placing the entire blame for America's strained relationship with those institutions on Bush's recklessness.
Perhaps the best thing for me to do is to focus on the positives of a Kerry Administration. Stem cell research will no longer be held hostage to the most fundamentalist views of the religious right. The Supreme Court and the lower branches of the federal judiciary will be stacked with more Breyers and less Scalias. The defecit will be reduced. There is hope for some progress on education and health care. The perils of climate change will finally be noted, and a serious plan for energy efficiency may get enacted. And with respect to the less-sexy, technocratic aspect of the War on Terror (searching port containers,tracking down loose nukes) Kerry will be more than up to the task. And if that doesn't quite stir me into the same fervor of my fellow Dems, it is enough to make the chances of my pulling the lever for Kerry in November, very, very likely.
July 19, 2004
ISRAEL AND GAZA: DEMOCRATIC DYSFUNCTION VS. TYRANNIC DYSFUNCTION
The degree of consensus in Israel regarding the Palestinian Question is for that fractious nation remarkable. With the fantasies of Greater Israel and Olso both exposed, there is solid support for a policy of unilateral separation. This consensus extends beyond mere principles to support of concrete proposals, such as the building of the West Bank fence and the evacuation of the Gaza settlements. And yet, despite this consensus, the progress of the Sharon Government towards these goals has been agonizingly slow. The reason for this is that with the exception of the Shinui party, no political force is wholeheartedly behind this agenda. Yossi Beilin and Meretz snipe at the project from the unreconstructed left, while the settlers and their allies who recently departed the government snipe at it from the unreconstructed right. The Haredim as they always do simply want to milk the budget for every last drop to preserve their radical project of subsidizing a mass movement of schnorr-pilgrims. And the two formerly major parties of Labor and Likud, who if they were at responsive to the electorate would have formed a unity government months ago are still fractured by their splits between their pragmatic and ideological wings. This is very much the dysfunction of a thriving democracy - with interest groups and factions putting their parochial interests in the way of national interests for as long as they are able. In the end however, the odd couple of Sharon and Peres, with their unique combination of pragmatism and idealism will most likely prevail and Israel can finally begin implementing a policy that will significantly ameliorate the conflict.
Unfortunately for the Palestinians, their is no similar hope for an end to their political dysfunction. The chaos in Gaza, while blamed internationally on a diabolical scheme by Sharon, is the direct result of Arafat's misrule. Far more concerned with preventing the rise of a rival to his power than providing basic security for his people, Arafat's divide-and-conquer approach has left competing gangs masquerading as security forces. The chaos keeps international attention on the conflict, and keeps would-be rivals such as Mohammed Dahlan from emerging with a sufficient power base to oust Arafat, but makes the possibility of basic law and order emerging in the Strip after the Israeli withdrawal a herculean task. This is result of tyrannical dysfunction, which is why a decade after Oslo the possibility of a functional Palestinian State is even less likely then before "Peave" arrived.
The degree of consensus in Israel regarding the Palestinian Question is for that fractious nation remarkable. With the fantasies of Greater Israel and Olso both exposed, there is solid support for a policy of unilateral separation. This consensus extends beyond mere principles to support of concrete proposals, such as the building of the West Bank fence and the evacuation of the Gaza settlements. And yet, despite this consensus, the progress of the Sharon Government towards these goals has been agonizingly slow. The reason for this is that with the exception of the Shinui party, no political force is wholeheartedly behind this agenda. Yossi Beilin and Meretz snipe at the project from the unreconstructed left, while the settlers and their allies who recently departed the government snipe at it from the unreconstructed right. The Haredim as they always do simply want to milk the budget for every last drop to preserve their radical project of subsidizing a mass movement of schnorr-pilgrims. And the two formerly major parties of Labor and Likud, who if they were at responsive to the electorate would have formed a unity government months ago are still fractured by their splits between their pragmatic and ideological wings. This is very much the dysfunction of a thriving democracy - with interest groups and factions putting their parochial interests in the way of national interests for as long as they are able. In the end however, the odd couple of Sharon and Peres, with their unique combination of pragmatism and idealism will most likely prevail and Israel can finally begin implementing a policy that will significantly ameliorate the conflict.
Unfortunately for the Palestinians, their is no similar hope for an end to their political dysfunction. The chaos in Gaza, while blamed internationally on a diabolical scheme by Sharon, is the direct result of Arafat's misrule. Far more concerned with preventing the rise of a rival to his power than providing basic security for his people, Arafat's divide-and-conquer approach has left competing gangs masquerading as security forces. The chaos keeps international attention on the conflict, and keeps would-be rivals such as Mohammed Dahlan from emerging with a sufficient power base to oust Arafat, but makes the possibility of basic law and order emerging in the Strip after the Israeli withdrawal a herculean task. This is result of tyrannical dysfunction, which is why a decade after Oslo the possibility of a functional Palestinian State is even less likely then before "Peave" arrived.
July 08, 2004
THEY LIKE MY MONEY, THEY REALLY REALLY LIKE MY MONEY
I received earlier this week a very special invitation from our president to join him (and a squadron of GOP heavy-hitters) for dinner (all for a generous contribution to the campaign ). It was forced to share my mailbox with not one, but two appeals from the Kerry campaign. How exactly this happened is still a bit of a mystery. (Not the Kerry part, as clearly I am currently on at least two Dem mailing lists after giving to Lieberman and Edwards during the primaries), Still, it does make me feel wanted to be one of those precious swing voters. Now, to be fair, I am voting in New York and therefore don't really have to conisder the possiblity that my vote may enable a second Bush term, Still, it is a testament to how alienated I feel from the Democratic Party's national security and foreign policy to consider myself torn at this late point in the game to register a protest vote.
The member of the Bush Administration that makes pulling the lever for Kerry the most attractive has got to be John Ashcroft. Thankfully, the worst excesses of his assault upon the Constitution have gone checked by the Supreme Court. He has failed just about every test posed by the War on Terror - whether it be a sensible, targeting tightening of our immigration regime, or the need for a full-scale housecleaning at the FBI, necessary restraint in the curtailment of civil liberties for terror suspects, or resisting the temptations to expand the compromises of civil liberties necessary to fight the war on terror into regular law enforcement. Without a doubt, a Kerry Justice department will a dramatic improvement no matter who Kerry selects for the top post. As much as find Kerry's overreliance on the rule of law in the international realm troubling, his firm commitment to the rule of law domestically will be reassurring in what no doubt will continue to be a trying time in our nation's history.
I received earlier this week a very special invitation from our president to join him (and a squadron of GOP heavy-hitters) for dinner (all for a generous contribution to the campaign ). It was forced to share my mailbox with not one, but two appeals from the Kerry campaign. How exactly this happened is still a bit of a mystery. (Not the Kerry part, as clearly I am currently on at least two Dem mailing lists after giving to Lieberman and Edwards during the primaries), Still, it does make me feel wanted to be one of those precious swing voters. Now, to be fair, I am voting in New York and therefore don't really have to conisder the possiblity that my vote may enable a second Bush term, Still, it is a testament to how alienated I feel from the Democratic Party's national security and foreign policy to consider myself torn at this late point in the game to register a protest vote.
The member of the Bush Administration that makes pulling the lever for Kerry the most attractive has got to be John Ashcroft. Thankfully, the worst excesses of his assault upon the Constitution have gone checked by the Supreme Court. He has failed just about every test posed by the War on Terror - whether it be a sensible, targeting tightening of our immigration regime, or the need for a full-scale housecleaning at the FBI, necessary restraint in the curtailment of civil liberties for terror suspects, or resisting the temptations to expand the compromises of civil liberties necessary to fight the war on terror into regular law enforcement. Without a doubt, a Kerry Justice department will a dramatic improvement no matter who Kerry selects for the top post. As much as find Kerry's overreliance on the rule of law in the international realm troubling, his firm commitment to the rule of law domestically will be reassurring in what no doubt will continue to be a trying time in our nation's history.
July 07, 2004
COMING SOON TO A REPUBLICAN CONVENTION NEAR YOU....ANYTHING BUT REPUBLICANISM
So the featured speakers at the upcoming GOP convention are going to Ahnold, Pataki and McCain. It seems that the GOP enjoyed its faux integrated convention so much in Philly last time around that it is going for a Rockefeller Republican convention in NYC this time around. With that lineup, the GOP is rightly running away from their entire domestic platform - gay-bashing, handouts to the rich and corporate lobbies, environmental deregulation. The only thing they aren't running from is their hard-line stance on the War on Terror. None of this is surprising. Karl Rove didn't become the Mayberry Machiavelli without a keen sense of when to put on the show for the swing voters..
So the featured speakers at the upcoming GOP convention are going to Ahnold, Pataki and McCain. It seems that the GOP enjoyed its faux integrated convention so much in Philly last time around that it is going for a Rockefeller Republican convention in NYC this time around. With that lineup, the GOP is rightly running away from their entire domestic platform - gay-bashing, handouts to the rich and corporate lobbies, environmental deregulation. The only thing they aren't running from is their hard-line stance on the War on Terror. None of this is surprising. Karl Rove didn't become the Mayberry Machiavelli without a keen sense of when to put on the show for the swing voters..
July 06, 2004
THAT'S THE TICKET....
I wish could get excited about the selection of John Edwards as Kerry's VP choice. After all, I am big fan of Edwards and this decision has effectively preserved his national political career for at least one more election cycle. I am looking forward to the Edwards-Cheney debate, which will put the starkest contrast between the GOP's domestic policy of cronyism versus the Democratic alternative that is superior both in terms of prudence and justice. Still, at the end of the day, the top of the ticket is the top of the ticket, and Edwards' passion and vision do not erase Kerry's failings anymore than Al Gore's moral probity erased Clinton's. Moreover, the one area where it is pretty clear Edwards is going to have little say about is foreign policy. If Kerry wins it will be as much his show as it was for Bush the Elder. And that means a large, heaping dose of liberal realism.
A large part of me prefers the Jacksonian-neocon mess that stumbled into Iraq to four years of putting democracy-promotion on the back burner in the name of international consensus. I won't however, pull a lever for Bush, not even in New York as a protest vote. Not after Abu Ghraib. I'm not sure I could have ever swallowed a domestic platform based on gay-bashing, tax cuts for the rich and an ostrich-like approach to global climate change. However, up until Abu Ghraib, for the all the bumbling, Bush at least "got it" about the war against Islamist terror. But, the Jacksonian urge to "send a message" won out over the neocon dreams of a "democratic Middle East" and the whole point of the Iraq war was discarded for a short-term bump in intelligence on the insurgency. So, as upset as I am about the the Democratic abdication of America's mission, there is no point in doing anything that rewards the Cheyney-Rumsfeld-Ashcroft approach to the world either.
So maybe what I really do need, given the dark color to my thoughts on the American political landscape is to listen to few more John Edwards speeches. At least somewhere, besides the blankness of Bush and the bleakness of Kerry there's a ray of hope coming out of the 2004 election. While that might not be excitement, at least its something.
I wish could get excited about the selection of John Edwards as Kerry's VP choice. After all, I am big fan of Edwards and this decision has effectively preserved his national political career for at least one more election cycle. I am looking forward to the Edwards-Cheney debate, which will put the starkest contrast between the GOP's domestic policy of cronyism versus the Democratic alternative that is superior both in terms of prudence and justice. Still, at the end of the day, the top of the ticket is the top of the ticket, and Edwards' passion and vision do not erase Kerry's failings anymore than Al Gore's moral probity erased Clinton's. Moreover, the one area where it is pretty clear Edwards is going to have little say about is foreign policy. If Kerry wins it will be as much his show as it was for Bush the Elder. And that means a large, heaping dose of liberal realism.
A large part of me prefers the Jacksonian-neocon mess that stumbled into Iraq to four years of putting democracy-promotion on the back burner in the name of international consensus. I won't however, pull a lever for Bush, not even in New York as a protest vote. Not after Abu Ghraib. I'm not sure I could have ever swallowed a domestic platform based on gay-bashing, tax cuts for the rich and an ostrich-like approach to global climate change. However, up until Abu Ghraib, for the all the bumbling, Bush at least "got it" about the war against Islamist terror. But, the Jacksonian urge to "send a message" won out over the neocon dreams of a "democratic Middle East" and the whole point of the Iraq war was discarded for a short-term bump in intelligence on the insurgency. So, as upset as I am about the the Democratic abdication of America's mission, there is no point in doing anything that rewards the Cheyney-Rumsfeld-Ashcroft approach to the world either.
So maybe what I really do need, given the dark color to my thoughts on the American political landscape is to listen to few more John Edwards speeches. At least somewhere, besides the blankness of Bush and the bleakness of Kerry there's a ray of hope coming out of the 2004 election. While that might not be excitement, at least its something.
June 14, 2004
May 21, 2004
CONSERVATIVES FOR GAS TAXES
First Sullivan, and now Krauthammer respond to the Gas price "crisis" with a blast of common sense.
So where is John Kerry, who no doubt understands that gas prices remain radically underpriced in this country and that raising them further is essential to any realistic efforts at improving energy efficientcy and combatting climate change - pandering like there is no tommorrow by offering half-baked plans to lower gas prices. I'm still waiting for a U.S. politician to speak the truth on this issue. Maybe Al Gore, after he's done shilling for the latest enviro-disaster flic can get working on a more realistic version of the "Day After Tommorrow" in which the legacy of a decades of pandering on gas prices leads America to collapse into a major depression when the world's oil supply dries up and the backup energy sources haven't been developed.
First Sullivan, and now Krauthammer respond to the Gas price "crisis" with a blast of common sense.
So where is John Kerry, who no doubt understands that gas prices remain radically underpriced in this country and that raising them further is essential to any realistic efforts at improving energy efficientcy and combatting climate change - pandering like there is no tommorrow by offering half-baked plans to lower gas prices. I'm still waiting for a U.S. politician to speak the truth on this issue. Maybe Al Gore, after he's done shilling for the latest enviro-disaster flic can get working on a more realistic version of the "Day After Tommorrow" in which the legacy of a decades of pandering on gas prices leads America to collapse into a major depression when the world's oil supply dries up and the backup energy sources haven't been developed.
May 20, 2004
GAZA: A TRAGEDY, NOT A MASSACRE
Once again an Israeli offensive into a densely-packed refugee camp has led to howls of world outrage. Even the U.S., battered by the images of Abu Ghraib, partially joined in, abstaining in one more biased U.N. resolution and scolding the latest IDF action as "worsening the Palestinian humanitarian situation without improving Israeli security." That criticism is tame compared to the strident Arab and European cries of massacre and genocide. Lost amidst the rhapsodic Israel-bashing in the reason why the IDF was sent into Rafah in the first place - the vast matrix of tunnels used to smuggle increasingly more deadly arms into Gaza from Egypt. Those that would respond in muted shock to Palestinian missles shooting down an Israeli civilian airliner (and that is where such missles would be aimed) are the same that react with horror at Israel's efforts to prevent such an intentional massacre.
The picture on the front of all the world's papers today is that of a grieving father holding his dead child in his arms - it is of course powerful to move all but the most inhuman viewer. But what the picture does not show is anything close to the context leading up to the child's death - the countless deliberate massacres of Israeli children by Palestinian terrorists, the deliberate Palestinian tactic of using their own civilians as human shields, the decision to pepper the demonstration with just enough armed men to draw Israeli fire, with the hope of producing an image just like the picture, the creation of arms-smuggling tunnels using civilian homes as camaflouge, and of course the ongoing Egyptian violation of its signed peace accord with Israel, by failing to police its border with Gaza.
It is almost mind-numbing to have to counter the Palestinian propaganda that results from an event like this. The charges of course, are not that Israel was reckless, but that it genocidal. What happened in Rafah was a tragedy, not a massacre. But unlike Palestinian society, those Israelis that are in anyway responsible for Palestinian civilian deaths will be reprimanded - and not hailed as heros. This is fundamental difference between a moral lapse in a moral society and the acts of the an immoral society. The inability to tell the difference a critical moral failing that leads to much of the moral perversion that passes for enlightened world opinion.
If Israel is to be criticized for any part of the Rafah operation, it is the handling of the destruction of the homes covering the tunnels. This is a problem that Israel has known about for a long time, and a solution that could have accomodated those residents could have been found, had the offensive not been launched as much in anger, albeit understandable, in the wake of the butchering of Israeli soliders and defilement of their corpses. Even worse are th current noises from Sharon that he plans to raze the settlements upon exit, rather than arrange for them to help ease the Palestinian housing crunch. Smallness should not be cofused with firmness in the struggle against terror.
Parallels are being aptly drawn to the abortive 1996 "Grapes of Wrath" offensive in Lebanon against Hezbullah, launched by Peres as much as anything to distract from Hamas's concurrent terror offensive. That operation ended in disaster when an errant strike destroyed a packed building of civilians. So, too, does the Rafah offensive appear to be very much part of a political cover ploy by Sharon. But there is another parallel to be drawn with Lebanon, and that is the Barak-led unilateral withdrawal, a morally and strategically sound move that was misread by radical Arabs instead as weakness. Israel (and the Palestinians for that matter) can ill-afford for a Gaza withdrawal to result in a similar strengthening of radical Palestinians. The Rafah offensive, therefore, can not be the last crack-down in Gaza before Israel exits. It is essential, however, that the next one do a better job at limiting the collateral loss of civillian life.
Once again an Israeli offensive into a densely-packed refugee camp has led to howls of world outrage. Even the U.S., battered by the images of Abu Ghraib, partially joined in, abstaining in one more biased U.N. resolution and scolding the latest IDF action as "worsening the Palestinian humanitarian situation without improving Israeli security." That criticism is tame compared to the strident Arab and European cries of massacre and genocide. Lost amidst the rhapsodic Israel-bashing in the reason why the IDF was sent into Rafah in the first place - the vast matrix of tunnels used to smuggle increasingly more deadly arms into Gaza from Egypt. Those that would respond in muted shock to Palestinian missles shooting down an Israeli civilian airliner (and that is where such missles would be aimed) are the same that react with horror at Israel's efforts to prevent such an intentional massacre.
The picture on the front of all the world's papers today is that of a grieving father holding his dead child in his arms - it is of course powerful to move all but the most inhuman viewer. But what the picture does not show is anything close to the context leading up to the child's death - the countless deliberate massacres of Israeli children by Palestinian terrorists, the deliberate Palestinian tactic of using their own civilians as human shields, the decision to pepper the demonstration with just enough armed men to draw Israeli fire, with the hope of producing an image just like the picture, the creation of arms-smuggling tunnels using civilian homes as camaflouge, and of course the ongoing Egyptian violation of its signed peace accord with Israel, by failing to police its border with Gaza.
It is almost mind-numbing to have to counter the Palestinian propaganda that results from an event like this. The charges of course, are not that Israel was reckless, but that it genocidal. What happened in Rafah was a tragedy, not a massacre. But unlike Palestinian society, those Israelis that are in anyway responsible for Palestinian civilian deaths will be reprimanded - and not hailed as heros. This is fundamental difference between a moral lapse in a moral society and the acts of the an immoral society. The inability to tell the difference a critical moral failing that leads to much of the moral perversion that passes for enlightened world opinion.
If Israel is to be criticized for any part of the Rafah operation, it is the handling of the destruction of the homes covering the tunnels. This is a problem that Israel has known about for a long time, and a solution that could have accomodated those residents could have been found, had the offensive not been launched as much in anger, albeit understandable, in the wake of the butchering of Israeli soliders and defilement of their corpses. Even worse are th current noises from Sharon that he plans to raze the settlements upon exit, rather than arrange for them to help ease the Palestinian housing crunch. Smallness should not be cofused with firmness in the struggle against terror.
Parallels are being aptly drawn to the abortive 1996 "Grapes of Wrath" offensive in Lebanon against Hezbullah, launched by Peres as much as anything to distract from Hamas's concurrent terror offensive. That operation ended in disaster when an errant strike destroyed a packed building of civilians. So, too, does the Rafah offensive appear to be very much part of a political cover ploy by Sharon. But there is another parallel to be drawn with Lebanon, and that is the Barak-led unilateral withdrawal, a morally and strategically sound move that was misread by radical Arabs instead as weakness. Israel (and the Palestinians for that matter) can ill-afford for a Gaza withdrawal to result in a similar strengthening of radical Palestinians. The Rafah offensive, therefore, can not be the last crack-down in Gaza before Israel exits. It is essential, however, that the next one do a better job at limiting the collateral loss of civillian life.
May 18, 2004
ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE U.N. HAD BEEN PLACED OF CHARGED OF ABU GHRAIB, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TURNED INTO A BROTHEL
It is not surprising that one response to Abu Ghraib would be to conclude that this is what happens when unilateralism takes peace-keeping out of the hands of the powder-blue-helmeted professionals and into those of ill-trained American reservists. The problem with this argument, as Marc Steyn points out, is that the UN's track record is not exactly sparkling when it comes to the human rights abuses of their peacekeepers.
Unfortunately, the disfunction of the U.N. is treated as a debating point - used by unilateralists to score points, and ignored by multilateralists as inconvenient. Neither of these positions, which Bush and Kerry have stuck to with depressing regularity offer much hope for a world desperately in need of competent nation-builders.
It is not surprising that one response to Abu Ghraib would be to conclude that this is what happens when unilateralism takes peace-keeping out of the hands of the powder-blue-helmeted professionals and into those of ill-trained American reservists. The problem with this argument, as Marc Steyn points out, is that the UN's track record is not exactly sparkling when it comes to the human rights abuses of their peacekeepers.
Is the UN good? Well, I'm not sure I'd even say that. But if you object to what's going on in those Abu Ghraib pictures – the sexual humiliation of prisoners and their conscription as a vast army of extras in their guards' porno fantasies – then you might want to think twice about handing over Iraq to the UN.
In Eritrea, the government recently accused the UN mission of, among other offences, pedophilia. In Cambodia, UN troops fueled an explosion of child prostitutes and AIDS. Amnesty International reports that the UN mission in Kosovo has presided over a massive expansion of the sex trade, with girls as young as 11 being lured from Moldova and Bulgaria to service international peacekeepers.
In Bosnia, where the sex-slave trade barely existed before the UN showed up in 1995, there are now hundreds of brothels with underage girls living as captives. The 2002 Save the Children report on the UN's cover-up of the sex-for-food scandal in West Africa provides grim details of peacekeepers' demanding sexual favors from children as young as four in exchange for biscuits and cake powder. "What is particularly shocking and appalling is that those people who ought to be there protecting the local population have actually become perpetrators," said Steve Crawshaw, the director of Human Rights Watch.
Unfortunately, the disfunction of the U.N. is treated as a debating point - used by unilateralists to score points, and ignored by multilateralists as inconvenient. Neither of these positions, which Bush and Kerry have stuck to with depressing regularity offer much hope for a world desperately in need of competent nation-builders.
May 17, 2004
COLD WAR REDUX
As the "few bad apples" defense of the Bushies on the Iraqi Prison Scandal continues to crumble, it becomes more and more apparent that both sides, Left and Right are set on repeating all the mistakes of the Cold War. The Left-wing has already given us the knee-jerk anti-Americanism and apologetics for tyranny. With Abu Ghraib we see have a War on Terror version of Right-wing justification for slipping towards the moral abyss of the enemy. Moral purity in this battle is a luxury we cannot afford - the notion that terrorists like the late Shiek Yassin or bin Laden should be dealt with in a court of law is absurd. But to indiscriminately apply techniques that at best are justified in "ticking time bomb" situations to Iraq - which despite the presence of al Qaeda and ex-Baathists remained a more traditional counter-insurgency environment - demonstrates the same lack of judgment and moral backbone that led past administrations to sully America's name by partnering with "anti-Communist" despots. To win this war, the center must hold - which means we can neither afford a right-wing whitewash of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib no a left-wing backlash against using the force we need to win this war. If, as alleged, the roots of Abu Ghraib can be traced to the Pentagon, it is particularly ironic that the very
architects of the surgical attack plan that so scrupulously aimed to minimize collateral damage to civilians would be responsible for frittering away that moral and political accomplishment with such an indiscriminate approach to defending the country once taken.
As the "few bad apples" defense of the Bushies on the Iraqi Prison Scandal continues to crumble, it becomes more and more apparent that both sides, Left and Right are set on repeating all the mistakes of the Cold War. The Left-wing has already given us the knee-jerk anti-Americanism and apologetics for tyranny. With Abu Ghraib we see have a War on Terror version of Right-wing justification for slipping towards the moral abyss of the enemy. Moral purity in this battle is a luxury we cannot afford - the notion that terrorists like the late Shiek Yassin or bin Laden should be dealt with in a court of law is absurd. But to indiscriminately apply techniques that at best are justified in "ticking time bomb" situations to Iraq - which despite the presence of al Qaeda and ex-Baathists remained a more traditional counter-insurgency environment - demonstrates the same lack of judgment and moral backbone that led past administrations to sully America's name by partnering with "anti-Communist" despots. To win this war, the center must hold - which means we can neither afford a right-wing whitewash of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib no a left-wing backlash against using the force we need to win this war. If, as alleged, the roots of Abu Ghraib can be traced to the Pentagon, it is particularly ironic that the very
architects of the surgical attack plan that so scrupulously aimed to minimize collateral damage to civilians would be responsible for frittering away that moral and political accomplishment with such an indiscriminate approach to defending the country once taken.
May 12, 2004
ONE OTHER THING LA HAS OVER NYC BESIDE THE WHOLE "TURN RIGHT ON RED" THING
I watched the magnificent Game 3 of the Wolves-Kings series, one of those games that exemplifies why the NBA Playoffs are so great. It also ended around 2 in the morning EDT. You might think the NBA might want to work on that, especially when there is such a gap in quality between the Western and Eastern games. (Does anyone outside of Detroit actually like watching the Pistons play?) Right now I'm watching another fabulous game, a tight back and forth battle between the what are arguably the league's top two teams in the Spurs and Lakers. In order to function at work tommorow, I'll have to read about the 4th quarter tommorrow.
I watched the magnificent Game 3 of the Wolves-Kings series, one of those games that exemplifies why the NBA Playoffs are so great. It also ended around 2 in the morning EDT. You might think the NBA might want to work on that, especially when there is such a gap in quality between the Western and Eastern games. (Does anyone outside of Detroit actually like watching the Pistons play?) Right now I'm watching another fabulous game, a tight back and forth battle between the what are arguably the league's top two teams in the Spurs and Lakers. In order to function at work tommorow, I'll have to read about the 4th quarter tommorrow.
May 05, 2004
OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD...
During my year studying in Israel, I dated a nice Sabra/Texan, who described her mother, a die-hard Likudnik as someone who when greeted "Shabbat Shalom" (Good Sabbath) would respond "Ze lo Shalom, Ze Peres" (There is no peace. There is Peres (Prime Minister at the time)). Considering these were the people voting in last week's referendum, should it really be a shock that the Gaza withdrawal went down to defeat?
John Stewart, once again boiling the 2004 campaign down to one sentence: "Why does John Kerry sound more like a dick when he's telling the truth than Bush does when he's lying?"
If I were in charge of the U.S. response to the criminal acts of the guards at Abu Ghraib, I'd do whatever it took to give Al Jazeera and the other Arab satellite channels an image to replace that of the tortured Iraqi prisoners. How about dragging two or three of the guards shown in those pictures before a camera to confess their sins, before sending them to jail pending their military or civilian trials.
The Pistons' 78-56 suffocation of the Nets may have been one of the most impressive defensive performances in NBA history, but it was painful to watch. A Pistons-Spurs final could easily rival the Rockets-Knicks finals its utter lack of aesthetic appeal. I'm enjoying the Kings - Timberwolves series while I still can.
My choice in the current Dem veepstakes? My pick is a former senator from the Midwest, a decorated veteran with impeccible national security credentials. That's right - Bob Kerrey. As I see it, the biggest advantage of a Kerry-Kerrey ticket is that, while nobody's looking, all the Dems have to do is move one little letter, and Bush is really in trouble.
During my year studying in Israel, I dated a nice Sabra/Texan, who described her mother, a die-hard Likudnik as someone who when greeted "Shabbat Shalom" (Good Sabbath) would respond "Ze lo Shalom, Ze Peres" (There is no peace. There is Peres (Prime Minister at the time)). Considering these were the people voting in last week's referendum, should it really be a shock that the Gaza withdrawal went down to defeat?
John Stewart, once again boiling the 2004 campaign down to one sentence: "Why does John Kerry sound more like a dick when he's telling the truth than Bush does when he's lying?"
If I were in charge of the U.S. response to the criminal acts of the guards at Abu Ghraib, I'd do whatever it took to give Al Jazeera and the other Arab satellite channels an image to replace that of the tortured Iraqi prisoners. How about dragging two or three of the guards shown in those pictures before a camera to confess their sins, before sending them to jail pending their military or civilian trials.
The Pistons' 78-56 suffocation of the Nets may have been one of the most impressive defensive performances in NBA history, but it was painful to watch. A Pistons-Spurs final could easily rival the Rockets-Knicks finals its utter lack of aesthetic appeal. I'm enjoying the Kings - Timberwolves series while I still can.
My choice in the current Dem veepstakes? My pick is a former senator from the Midwest, a decorated veteran with impeccible national security credentials. That's right - Bob Kerrey. As I see it, the biggest advantage of a Kerry-Kerrey ticket is that, while nobody's looking, all the Dems have to do is move one little letter, and Bush is really in trouble.
May 03, 2004
LIKUDNIKS VOTE FOR PURITY, IRRELEVANCE
In the wake of the succesful Bush-Sharon summit meeting and the endorsement of Bibi and the other major national figures in Likud, the defeat of the plan in the recent referendum appears to be a stunning setback for the prime minister and his plan. But, as Shinui leader Tommy Lapid noted, the views of slightly more than 25% of one party doesn't exactly mean very much in light of the decisive majority of the Israeli public in favor of the plan. Looking closer, the vote says far more about the increasing irrelevance of the Likud party, and the inability of the Israeli right's grass-roots to come to grips with post-Oslo reality. In this regard, the Likudniks, with their undimmed commitment to Greater Israel and dogged refusal to give concessions to terror mirror the Israeli Left's unreconstructed Peace Processors.
The inexorable logic of unilateral withdraw, will continue to push the Sharon Plan forward, with or without Sharon. Already, the ever-hopeful Shimon Peres is calling for elections, seeing an opportunity for Labor to once more recover the pragmatic Israeli center. With Yossi Beillin now pitching Oslo knock-offs with the party formerly known as Meretz, he has a shot, but the party with the most to gain from Likud's sucidical instincts is Lapid's Shinui, who now have the ideal position on the left-wing of Sharon's coalition. All of this is speculation, however, as Sharon is far too cagy to stumble again. He will push forward, and drag the majority of his power behind him, kicking and screaming. And those that don't want to come can along can join the Herut branch of the National Union which shares the politics and name of Likud's predecessor - uncompromisiing and irrelevant.
In the wake of the succesful Bush-Sharon summit meeting and the endorsement of Bibi and the other major national figures in Likud, the defeat of the plan in the recent referendum appears to be a stunning setback for the prime minister and his plan. But, as Shinui leader Tommy Lapid noted, the views of slightly more than 25% of one party doesn't exactly mean very much in light of the decisive majority of the Israeli public in favor of the plan. Looking closer, the vote says far more about the increasing irrelevance of the Likud party, and the inability of the Israeli right's grass-roots to come to grips with post-Oslo reality. In this regard, the Likudniks, with their undimmed commitment to Greater Israel and dogged refusal to give concessions to terror mirror the Israeli Left's unreconstructed Peace Processors.
The inexorable logic of unilateral withdraw, will continue to push the Sharon Plan forward, with or without Sharon. Already, the ever-hopeful Shimon Peres is calling for elections, seeing an opportunity for Labor to once more recover the pragmatic Israeli center. With Yossi Beillin now pitching Oslo knock-offs with the party formerly known as Meretz, he has a shot, but the party with the most to gain from Likud's sucidical instincts is Lapid's Shinui, who now have the ideal position on the left-wing of Sharon's coalition. All of this is speculation, however, as Sharon is far too cagy to stumble again. He will push forward, and drag the majority of his power behind him, kicking and screaming. And those that don't want to come can along can join the Herut branch of the National Union which shares the politics and name of Likud's predecessor - uncompromisiing and irrelevant.
April 19, 2004
GOOD NEWS FROM GAZA
This past week was a disaster for the State Department, other proponents of Israeli appeasement of Palestinian terror, the settler movement and Hamas. Not surprising given the prior list, it was one of the most hopeful weeks for a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a long time. First and most importantly, the Bush administration wrested control of Israeli-Palestinian policy from the unreconstructed Oslo-ites in the State Department and set itself firmly behind a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank. Rather than attempt to link such actions to the diplomatic process, Bush instead focused on ensuring that such unilateral withdrawal not be limited to Gaza, but instead be part of a more comprehensive initiative to break the current post-Oslo stalemate.
Furthermore, Bush abandoned the State Departments destructive practice of "neutrality" on issues such as the 1967 borders and the re-settlement of Palestinian refugees and backed the Israeli red lines on such issues publicly. Whatever advantages such positions had had in giving the U.S. the appearence of being an "honest broker" in Palestinians eyes had more been offset by the message it sent Palestinian maximalists - that these issues were truly on the table, and could be potentially imposed upon Israel through terror or international fiat. There is no better way to demonstrate the bankruptcy of the post-Camp David intifada to the Palestinian mainstream than to have it result in less and not more territory in the West Bank being put on the table for a Palestinian state.
The downside to a withdrawal from Gaza has been the specter of a Hamas takeover. But here Sharon is going out of his way to avoid the mistakes made by Barak in the unilateral withdraw from South Lebanon. And therefore, Israel has struck hard at Hamas, decapitating the terror organization twice in the past two months.
These attacks have shown that the true limiting factor in Palestinian suicide attacks is operational capacity, not motivation. No doubt Hamas will succeed in commiting mass-murder again before too long, but its success rate has plummetted since Israel took off the gloves its counter-offensive against the group. A crippled Hamas, whose leader can no longer even be proclaimed in public, is no longer the front-runner to take over Gaza in the wake of an Israeli withdrawal - and that in and of itself is cause for hope. Whether or not there is any more good news from Gaza after the Israelis leave depends upon the willingness of the European Union, the State Department and other Arafat-abettors to learn from their mistakes - and provide the necessary strings to aid money winds up in houses rather than bombs this time.
This past week was a disaster for the State Department, other proponents of Israeli appeasement of Palestinian terror, the settler movement and Hamas. Not surprising given the prior list, it was one of the most hopeful weeks for a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a long time. First and most importantly, the Bush administration wrested control of Israeli-Palestinian policy from the unreconstructed Oslo-ites in the State Department and set itself firmly behind a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank. Rather than attempt to link such actions to the diplomatic process, Bush instead focused on ensuring that such unilateral withdrawal not be limited to Gaza, but instead be part of a more comprehensive initiative to break the current post-Oslo stalemate.
Furthermore, Bush abandoned the State Departments destructive practice of "neutrality" on issues such as the 1967 borders and the re-settlement of Palestinian refugees and backed the Israeli red lines on such issues publicly. Whatever advantages such positions had had in giving the U.S. the appearence of being an "honest broker" in Palestinians eyes had more been offset by the message it sent Palestinian maximalists - that these issues were truly on the table, and could be potentially imposed upon Israel through terror or international fiat. There is no better way to demonstrate the bankruptcy of the post-Camp David intifada to the Palestinian mainstream than to have it result in less and not more territory in the West Bank being put on the table for a Palestinian state.
The downside to a withdrawal from Gaza has been the specter of a Hamas takeover. But here Sharon is going out of his way to avoid the mistakes made by Barak in the unilateral withdraw from South Lebanon. And therefore, Israel has struck hard at Hamas, decapitating the terror organization twice in the past two months.
These attacks have shown that the true limiting factor in Palestinian suicide attacks is operational capacity, not motivation. No doubt Hamas will succeed in commiting mass-murder again before too long, but its success rate has plummetted since Israel took off the gloves its counter-offensive against the group. A crippled Hamas, whose leader can no longer even be proclaimed in public, is no longer the front-runner to take over Gaza in the wake of an Israeli withdrawal - and that in and of itself is cause for hope. Whether or not there is any more good news from Gaza after the Israelis leave depends upon the willingness of the European Union, the State Department and other Arafat-abettors to learn from their mistakes - and provide the necessary strings to aid money winds up in houses rather than bombs this time.
April 08, 2004
UPDATING THE BLOGROLL
I've spent enough time in the blogosphere to realize that many people consider a link to a blog as an endorsement not only of the posts on the site, but of the visitor comments as well. A quick glance to the left shows, however, that I link to plenty of sites that I have serious disagreements with on many issues, but who I believe offer thought-provoking and informative content. My own views can clearly be discerned from my own writing. On that note, I apologize for their recent dearth of posts, but when work and wedding planning settle down, I promise more blogging as soon as I am able.
I've spent enough time in the blogosphere to realize that many people consider a link to a blog as an endorsement not only of the posts on the site, but of the visitor comments as well. A quick glance to the left shows, however, that I link to plenty of sites that I have serious disagreements with on many issues, but who I believe offer thought-provoking and informative content. My own views can clearly be discerned from my own writing. On that note, I apologize for their recent dearth of posts, but when work and wedding planning settle down, I promise more blogging as soon as I am able.
March 25, 2004
PLAYING POLITICS WITH 9/11
I confess to not being as fully on top of the 9/11 Commission hearings as I'd like to be, but most of what I've read has been filtered through the lens of partisan inanity. The basic myths of each side have not really changed in the past two and half years. The GOP myth is that 8 years of the Clinton administrations passive, piecemeal approach to counterrorism opened the door to 9/11, and that when the Bushies came into power, they were able to turn the tide with a proactive, comprehensive approach. The Democratic myth is that the pragmatic Clinton Administration had counterterrorism as a high priority and well in hand until the Bushies came along, and that counterterror dropped from the radar screen because it wasn't accorded a high priority for the ideological Bush team.
It is through these lens that the Bush Administration and its opponents have reacted to Richard Clarke's new book and testiomy. Without a doubt, Clarke's version is the most comprehensive support for the Dem myth so far. Not surprisingly, he has been embraced a courageous whistleblower by Dems and exorciated as a bitter self-promoter by the Bushies. Lost in this mess is the fact that despite all the claims of Richard Clarke or Condeleeza Rice to the contrary, neither myth holds up very well under scrutiny - because of the glaring fact that both adminstrations dropped the ball on terror. Thus, the Bushies have no real answer to Clarke's searing indictment of the failure to act against al Qaeda in the first seven months of the Bush Administration. Any honest assesment of that period shows that China, Iraq and missle defense were clearly greater priorities coming in than counter-terror. The effort to go to Clarke's 2002 spin on behalf of the Bushies when he still worked for them is not a real defense, any more than quoting Dick Cheney would be today. Nor, despite the best spinning efforts of Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright, can it be said that the Clinton Admiistration placed counterterrorism as its highest priority for national security and foreign policy. It was clear that for most of the Clinton years, prority one was shepherding the Olso agreement forward - which as interpreted by the Clintonites, was clearly inconsistent with a zero-tolerance policy towards terror.
The most important question, in my view that Clarke's testimony and the attention it has focused on the 9/11 Commission hopefully raises is how have the Bushies addressed the various flaws in American counterterrorism policy demonstrated by 9/11? The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated a clear break with the passive, reactive approach abroad of the Clintonites, and despite howling by opponents of the Iraq war, on the whole have been a tremendous improvement. But what about the rest of counterrorism? the nuts and bolts of domestic security that were so badly overlooked by both administrations, such as visa tracking, port security, intelligence sharing? In the Iraq-centric debate on the terror issue, none of these things has gotten sufficient scrutiny. It look past time they did, and if the partisan sniping over what wasn't done before 9/11 leads to a greater examination of what has and has not been fixed since then, it will prove beneficial after all.
I confess to not being as fully on top of the 9/11 Commission hearings as I'd like to be, but most of what I've read has been filtered through the lens of partisan inanity. The basic myths of each side have not really changed in the past two and half years. The GOP myth is that 8 years of the Clinton administrations passive, piecemeal approach to counterrorism opened the door to 9/11, and that when the Bushies came into power, they were able to turn the tide with a proactive, comprehensive approach. The Democratic myth is that the pragmatic Clinton Administration had counterterrorism as a high priority and well in hand until the Bushies came along, and that counterterror dropped from the radar screen because it wasn't accorded a high priority for the ideological Bush team.
It is through these lens that the Bush Administration and its opponents have reacted to Richard Clarke's new book and testiomy. Without a doubt, Clarke's version is the most comprehensive support for the Dem myth so far. Not surprisingly, he has been embraced a courageous whistleblower by Dems and exorciated as a bitter self-promoter by the Bushies. Lost in this mess is the fact that despite all the claims of Richard Clarke or Condeleeza Rice to the contrary, neither myth holds up very well under scrutiny - because of the glaring fact that both adminstrations dropped the ball on terror. Thus, the Bushies have no real answer to Clarke's searing indictment of the failure to act against al Qaeda in the first seven months of the Bush Administration. Any honest assesment of that period shows that China, Iraq and missle defense were clearly greater priorities coming in than counter-terror. The effort to go to Clarke's 2002 spin on behalf of the Bushies when he still worked for them is not a real defense, any more than quoting Dick Cheney would be today. Nor, despite the best spinning efforts of Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright, can it be said that the Clinton Admiistration placed counterterrorism as its highest priority for national security and foreign policy. It was clear that for most of the Clinton years, prority one was shepherding the Olso agreement forward - which as interpreted by the Clintonites, was clearly inconsistent with a zero-tolerance policy towards terror.
The most important question, in my view that Clarke's testimony and the attention it has focused on the 9/11 Commission hopefully raises is how have the Bushies addressed the various flaws in American counterterrorism policy demonstrated by 9/11? The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated a clear break with the passive, reactive approach abroad of the Clintonites, and despite howling by opponents of the Iraq war, on the whole have been a tremendous improvement. But what about the rest of counterrorism? the nuts and bolts of domestic security that were so badly overlooked by both administrations, such as visa tracking, port security, intelligence sharing? In the Iraq-centric debate on the terror issue, none of these things has gotten sufficient scrutiny. It look past time they did, and if the partisan sniping over what wasn't done before 9/11 leads to a greater examination of what has and has not been fixed since then, it will prove beneficial after all.
March 22, 2004
SHEIK YASSIN FINALLY SENT TO HELL
After years of holding back, out of fear of backlash, out of the misguided sympathy that exists in a world that focuses more on physical disability than ethical disability, Israel finally sent Sheik Yassin to the special hell reserved for those who most profane G-d's name by cloaking mass murder in religious garb. World leaders, who managed nary a peep of protest to the hundreds of innocent Israelis butchered upon the orders and blessings of Yassin, have already protested the act, condemning Israel for killing "a man in a wheelchair" as if Yassin was nothing more than a kindly old Palestinian grandfather. But that fact of his paralysis does not absolve him of the evil perpetuated in his name, any more than a failed strike on bin Laden that left him bereft of his limbs bus still alive would somehow require our government to abandon its pursuit of that mass murderer. This was not a "extra-judicial" killing, this was not a "part of the cycle of violence" - it was justice, a legitimate act of self-defense by a people against a genoicidal leader of a genocidal enemy. Unfortunately, there will be other evil sheiks that will try to take Yassin's place and brainwash young men and women into suicidal mass-murderers, but none with the same level of authority. Now, as Israel prepares to withdraw from Gaza, is the time to continue to deliver crippling blows to Hamas, to give at least the glimmer of hope of a Gaza that someday soon is no longer the Gaza of Sheik Yassin - hell on earth.
After years of holding back, out of fear of backlash, out of the misguided sympathy that exists in a world that focuses more on physical disability than ethical disability, Israel finally sent Sheik Yassin to the special hell reserved for those who most profane G-d's name by cloaking mass murder in religious garb. World leaders, who managed nary a peep of protest to the hundreds of innocent Israelis butchered upon the orders and blessings of Yassin, have already protested the act, condemning Israel for killing "a man in a wheelchair" as if Yassin was nothing more than a kindly old Palestinian grandfather. But that fact of his paralysis does not absolve him of the evil perpetuated in his name, any more than a failed strike on bin Laden that left him bereft of his limbs bus still alive would somehow require our government to abandon its pursuit of that mass murderer. This was not a "extra-judicial" killing, this was not a "part of the cycle of violence" - it was justice, a legitimate act of self-defense by a people against a genoicidal leader of a genocidal enemy. Unfortunately, there will be other evil sheiks that will try to take Yassin's place and brainwash young men and women into suicidal mass-murderers, but none with the same level of authority. Now, as Israel prepares to withdraw from Gaza, is the time to continue to deliver crippling blows to Hamas, to give at least the glimmer of hope of a Gaza that someday soon is no longer the Gaza of Sheik Yassin - hell on earth.
March 18, 2004
MARCH (MERCENARY) MADNESS
Yes I filled out at least 2 brackets - yes, I love the drama, the fundamentals, the upsets, but the whole event is corrupt to its very core. The following are the official men's basketball player graduation rates of some of our public institutions fielding teams in the tournament. I realize these numbers underestimate actual graduation rates to the extent that they include players who move on to the NBA (and who really aren't the ones who needed a college degree to begin with) and transfers who may go onto graduate at other schools, but less than 50% is pathetic by any calculation.
Kentucky (#1MW): 33%, Oklahoma St. (#2E): 43%; UConn (#2W): 27%; Miss. St. (#2SE): 64%;
Pittsburgh (#3E): 30%; Texas (#3SE): 38%; Georgia St. (#3SE): 27%; N.C. St. (#3W): 44%;
Kansas (#4MW): 73%; Maryland (#4W): 27%; Flordia (#5E): 45%; Illinois (#5SE): 46%;
Wisconisn (#6E): 44%; North Carolina (#6SE: 55%); Michigan St. (#7MW: 56%);
Alabama (#8W: 13%); Arizona (#9SE: 23%);
Virginia Comm. (13E), Lousiana-Lafayette (13W), Alabama St. (16SE): 0%
I will be rooting for Duke: 88% (with the rest most likely being Jay Williams and other early NBA entries), and Stanford: 100%. Call me elitist, call me a snob, but at least these teams are student athletes, and not exploided, unpaid semi-pros
Yes I filled out at least 2 brackets - yes, I love the drama, the fundamentals, the upsets, but the whole event is corrupt to its very core. The following are the official men's basketball player graduation rates of some of our public institutions fielding teams in the tournament. I realize these numbers underestimate actual graduation rates to the extent that they include players who move on to the NBA (and who really aren't the ones who needed a college degree to begin with) and transfers who may go onto graduate at other schools, but less than 50% is pathetic by any calculation.
Kentucky (#1MW): 33%, Oklahoma St. (#2E): 43%; UConn (#2W): 27%; Miss. St. (#2SE): 64%;
Pittsburgh (#3E): 30%; Texas (#3SE): 38%; Georgia St. (#3SE): 27%; N.C. St. (#3W): 44%;
Kansas (#4MW): 73%; Maryland (#4W): 27%; Flordia (#5E): 45%; Illinois (#5SE): 46%;
Wisconisn (#6E): 44%; North Carolina (#6SE: 55%); Michigan St. (#7MW: 56%);
Alabama (#8W: 13%); Arizona (#9SE: 23%);
Virginia Comm. (13E), Lousiana-Lafayette (13W), Alabama St. (16SE): 0%
I will be rooting for Duke: 88% (with the rest most likely being Jay Williams and other early NBA entries), and Stanford: 100%. Call me elitist, call me a snob, but at least these teams are student athletes, and not exploided, unpaid semi-pros
March 14, 2004
TERROR IN ANDALUS
In the wake of the massacre in Madrid, when the Spanish government initially pointed the finger at ETA, I was skeptical. I couldn't fathom that ETA would be so dense as to think such a barbaric act would advance their agenda one iota. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense for al Qaeda to strike out against one of the U.S.'s firmest allies in the Iraq campaign. More so, however, Spain holds a critical place in the al-Qaeda mythos. After all, shortly after 9/11 there was reference to getting revenge for the loss of al-Andalus. The clues that have trickled out in the last few days seem to be all pointing to al-Qaeda. If so, it is a stark warning that it retains operational capabilities to strike against its "crusader" enemies. While the upcoming offensive on the Pakistani border, it is far past time that a equal emphasis be placed on properly upgrading our defenses as well.
In the wake of the massacre in Madrid, when the Spanish government initially pointed the finger at ETA, I was skeptical. I couldn't fathom that ETA would be so dense as to think such a barbaric act would advance their agenda one iota. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense for al Qaeda to strike out against one of the U.S.'s firmest allies in the Iraq campaign. More so, however, Spain holds a critical place in the al-Qaeda mythos. After all, shortly after 9/11 there was reference to getting revenge for the loss of al-Andalus. The clues that have trickled out in the last few days seem to be all pointing to al-Qaeda. If so, it is a stark warning that it retains operational capabilities to strike against its "crusader" enemies. While the upcoming offensive on the Pakistani border, it is far past time that a equal emphasis be placed on properly upgrading our defenses as well.
March 09, 2004
STUMBLING TOWARDS DEMOCRACY
So, now Iraq has an interim constitution, continuing its stumbling progress towards democracy. For most of the post-war period, I have heard liberals state with certainty that Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. But despite all of the mistakes made, all of the corners cut, all of the zigging and zagging and the best efforts of ex-Baathists and jihadis alike, the project keeps moving forward.
In the months leading up to the war, one of the most popular books among hawks in the Bush Administration was John Dower's Embracing Defeat, which tells the story of the U.S. occupation of Japan. When this fact was reported, Dower himself wrote to emphatically state that the postwar Japan was not analagous to Iraq - and that both context and culture would make a U.S. imposed democratization of Iraq far more difficult to accomplish.
I must respectfully disagree with Dower about the implications of his work (an admittedly hubristic act.) As told in Embracing Defeat, the democratization of post-war Japan was despite its success, extraordinarily messy. Policies were designed by idealogues with little knowledge of Japaneese history or culture. Amnesty policy varied radically over the time. The occupation authorites were often contradictory in their policies. And yet, despite all the mistakes made - the project suceeded. The underlying commitment and vision of American policy-makers, combined with the fundamental desire for democracy that existed even among the supposedly collectivist Japaneese people prevailed.
In Iraq as well, one can see the universal thirst for democracy and freedom and the force of the policy-makers vision pushing the project forward. The pitfalls are great, and the collective weight of all of the errors made may eventually cause the project to collapse - but so far it has not. And so, when I hear the war's skeptics profess that this or that tragic event shows that Iraqi democracy is doomed, I am skeptical of the skeptics - that is to say, still hopeful for success in this noble endeavor.
So, now Iraq has an interim constitution, continuing its stumbling progress towards democracy. For most of the post-war period, I have heard liberals state with certainty that Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. But despite all of the mistakes made, all of the corners cut, all of the zigging and zagging and the best efforts of ex-Baathists and jihadis alike, the project keeps moving forward.
In the months leading up to the war, one of the most popular books among hawks in the Bush Administration was John Dower's Embracing Defeat, which tells the story of the U.S. occupation of Japan. When this fact was reported, Dower himself wrote to emphatically state that the postwar Japan was not analagous to Iraq - and that both context and culture would make a U.S. imposed democratization of Iraq far more difficult to accomplish.
I must respectfully disagree with Dower about the implications of his work (an admittedly hubristic act.) As told in Embracing Defeat, the democratization of post-war Japan was despite its success, extraordinarily messy. Policies were designed by idealogues with little knowledge of Japaneese history or culture. Amnesty policy varied radically over the time. The occupation authorites were often contradictory in their policies. And yet, despite all the mistakes made - the project suceeded. The underlying commitment and vision of American policy-makers, combined with the fundamental desire for democracy that existed even among the supposedly collectivist Japaneese people prevailed.
In Iraq as well, one can see the universal thirst for democracy and freedom and the force of the policy-makers vision pushing the project forward. The pitfalls are great, and the collective weight of all of the errors made may eventually cause the project to collapse - but so far it has not. And so, when I hear the war's skeptics profess that this or that tragic event shows that Iraqi democracy is doomed, I am skeptical of the skeptics - that is to say, still hopeful for success in this noble endeavor.
March 02, 2004
MY PARTY JUST MADE ME A SWING VOTER
I did my part - voting for Edwards bright and early this morning in the New York primary. Unfortunately, the rest of my fellow Democrats were dead-set on nominating Kerry instead. So, as of tommorrow, when the Democrats most talented candidate drops out of the race, I officially become a swing voter. Considering that the chances of Bush reversing himself on 1) taxes and the deficit, 2) abusing the consitution with the FMA and 3) fully funding federal education mandates is negligible, there's really little chance of me heading that way. But I am rather skeptical that over the next 8 months, John Kerry can convince me that he has the vision to lead the United States in the war on terror and understands the how essential advancing democracy worldwide is in that struggle. He has 8 months to make his case.
I did my part - voting for Edwards bright and early this morning in the New York primary. Unfortunately, the rest of my fellow Democrats were dead-set on nominating Kerry instead. So, as of tommorrow, when the Democrats most talented candidate drops out of the race, I officially become a swing voter. Considering that the chances of Bush reversing himself on 1) taxes and the deficit, 2) abusing the consitution with the FMA and 3) fully funding federal education mandates is negligible, there's really little chance of me heading that way. But I am rather skeptical that over the next 8 months, John Kerry can convince me that he has the vision to lead the United States in the war on terror and understands the how essential advancing democracy worldwide is in that struggle. He has 8 months to make his case.