"Not on my Watch"

I just returned from a lecture by Smith College Professor and Darfur expert Eric Reeves, who also maintains a very useful website that has everything you'd ever need to know on the issue. He was absolutely spell-binding, and hit on virtually every important aspect of the conflict I could think of. Unfortunately, the upshot was a prevailing skepticism that anything will be done to stop the killing that is now a matter of routine there.

One of the areas Prof. Reeves addressed was the possibility of using the African Union troops to defuse the crisis. Brian Ulrich specifically mentioned the African Union specifically and "regional actors" in general as the preferred mechanism for stopping genocide. Unfortunately, Prof. Reeves seemed quite assured that the AU could not solve the problem. For one, they are not experienced enough--this is the AU's first major deployment and so far it has been an ignoble failure. To be fair, they have only 2000 troops with a limited mandate patrolling an area the size of France. However, that just emphasizes the second problem: The AU is still not politically stable enough to coordinate an effective response. Reeves gave the example of Nigeria, a key player in the Union. Nigeria's problem is that they are currently facing unrest in their predominantly Muslim north, and the Arab League has made it very clear that if they wish to avoid further trouble they should lay off on Khartoum. The result is that President Obasanjo has basically sold out Darfur to maintain domestic stability. And even if we could get past all of that, there still remains the problem of logistics. The AU simply does not have the equipment to facilitate the massive amounts of humanitarian aid that needs to be forwarded to the region. Reeves believes that even if the AU managed to make a full deployment to Darfur, it still is not adequately equipped to alleviate the crisis.

The UN is no better. The big problem on the UN's end of things is China. China is Sudan's largest foreign investor, and sees it as key to satisfying its future oil needs. China also has a veto on the Security Council, which it has threatened to use if the UN so much as threatens sanctions, much less the military response that clearly is necessary here. Basically, China wants to use Africa as a jumping off point for its hegemonic ambitions, so they are willing to overlook such trivialities like their allies engaging in mass murder of their own citizens (incidentally, I originally linked to that article in the context of a long post on why the GOP is philosophically hampered in fighting the war on terror). Even beyond China though, the UN has an abysmal record on genocide in the past. From Cambodia to Rwanda to Bosnia to Congo, the UN has never once shown even the slightest inclination to reacting toward genocide, even when it's occurring right in front of their own eyes (and Kofi Annan is the worst of this lot). The UN promises security, but it has given only betrayal. This is the context in which the UN refuses to even call the events in Darfur genocide because it might just compel them to act.

So what can we do? Reeves cites UN Peacekeeping Gen. Romeo Dallaire as estimating the total amount of ground troops necessary in Darfur as around 45,000--not too bad, and certainly within the capacity of NATO and the other EU nations who presumably could use this opportunity to demonstrate the vitality of the world beyond the US. But the real sticking point isn't ground troops, it's in logistical support and intelligence so that we can make strategic choices and deliver desperately needed humanitarian assistance. This is where US aid would shine, since this is something we excel at and it is a facet of our military sphere this isn't being taxed to the breaking point by Iraq. We can do this. The only question is, will we?

Professor Reeves opened his comments by describing President Bush's reaction to Bill Clinton's strategic ambivalence regarding the Rwandan Genocide. Bush is reported to have written in the margins of the paper, "not on my watch." Well, genocide is happening on your watch, Mr. President. The AU can't act, the UN won't, and the EU is waiting for a sign. It's time for you to take the lead.

Proof of Syrian Terror?

UPDATE: 2/28 @ 1:42 PM
The Moderate Voice links to a report by the Xinhau news agency that Israel has proof of Syrian involvement in last weeks Tel Aviv suicide bombing--and is briefing European diplomats on the matter.

For those of you who don't know, Xinhau is the state news agency of China, so take whatever it says with a grain of salt. Still, this could be very interesting, especially since, as TMV notes, Syria is already under intense scrutiny of its support for insurgents and possible backing of the Rafik Hariri assassination. So while normally Europe might just scrape by with a half-hearted condemnation and call for dialogue, here we might finally see some action.

Developing...

UPDATE: The Pro-Syrian Lebanese government has just resigned. This keeps getting better and better.

Observer Article Online

Hey, this is neat. Unbeknownst to me, the Carleton Observer, Carleton College's first and only non-partisan journal of politics and public policy (it's run by the Carleton Conservative Union, but don't let that fool you: after all, I write in it!), has some of its archives available online. You can find my first printed article, "Torturous Logic," (not to be confused with my earlier blog post Torturous Reasoning) in this edition. Enjoy!

The REAL Terrorists in our Midst

It's not Osama. It's not al-Qaeda. It's not even the Democrats. Nope, according to far-right wing wacko group Accountability Utah, the real terrorist is Utah State Senator Howard Stephenson (R-Draper). Helpfully reminding us that "not all terrorists wear turbans," AU argues that Stephenson has "promote[d] terrorism, violence, and lawlessness." What did Stephenson do to merit such a claim? Well, according to The Salt Like City Tribune, it's because he voted for a bill stripping illegal aliens of their drivers licenses and giving them instead "driving privilege cards" that wouldn't be acceptable as government identification.

Now, for one glorious, naive second, I assumed their protest was against a really stupid bill that both unnecessarily degrades immigrants and makes our nation less safe by pushing the illegal community further underground and farther out of reach of the law. After all, it strikes me that since the majority of illegal immigrants are generally law abiding, giving them legitimate identification would make it easier to either spot and punish the terrorists (if they tried to get fraudulent ID) or track them (if they tried to stay in the system). Pushing every illegal into the underground community just let's the terrorists blend in with the crowd, and makes it harder for the police to infiltrate the communities they hide within. But that was silly! AU is actually attacking the good senator because the bill doesn't go far enough: "Under the pretense of this reform, this legislation continues to allow al-Qaida operatives to obtain Utah driver's licenses and roam freely in our communities." And the comparison to terrorism? According to the Tribune, the organization argued that "the bin Laden comparison was not egregious because Stephenson is contributing to a society that gives incentives to undocumented workers." Moral equivalency, anyone?

Only the farthest reaches of the far right could possibly say that one is a terrorist by giving "incentives to undocumented workers." And some people say the Democrats have been hijacked by extremists...

Thanks to Wonkette for the heads-up.

Deaniacs on the Warpath

Well, it looks like the Conservatives were right. Howard Dean's rabidly liberal base will never countenance the use of American force--even in the face of genocide. Why, just look at this post over at Dean Nation, a blog "dedicated to the spirit of the Dean Movement" (link: Oxblog). It's outrageous:

"Since this nation was founded, the world has become increasingly interdependent, and at least since Woodrow Wilson worked passionately for the League of Nations, Americans have been at the forefront of efforts to build an international community based off the interests of all rather than narrow alliances for the interests of the participants. And the international community has declared that there is no greater atrocity than the extermination of those whose only crime is to be both different and inconvenient. Genocide and ethnic cleansing are not mere instances of local conflict, but threats to the very foundation of an international order based on the interactions between peoples.

The time has come to enforce these principles, not merely with the words of diplomats and campaigns of activists, but, when necessary and practical, with strength. This is not just a humanitarian principle...
[...]
As wonderful as it would be, we cannot end all war. We can, however, draw a line in the sand at indiscriminate slaughter aimed at the elimination of whole populations. And right now in Darfur, we have the chance to act. The international community must enact and enforce a no-fly zone over the region to prevent the Khartoum regime from using its helicopter gunships. We must slap an arms embargo on the Sudan, and a deployed peacekeeping force must have the strength and authority to disarm combatants within the region. Finally, we must crack down on those responsible through referrals to the International Criminal Court. I am not interested in discussing the merits of this court; this is a debate which the United States must postpone due to the clear and present danger to innocent life. The world's most powerful nation must not cower at the expense [of] children who face unspeakable brutalization."

Well, I'll be darned. Looks like there might be some spine in the Deaniac movement after all. I wrote on Centerfield that the political community should hold off judgment on Dean and his cohorts until he had a chance to prove himself. After all, once upon a forgotten past, Dean was considered a DLC stalwart and a bit of a hawk. And while this post wasn't Dean himself, it is a positive sign that one of his more rabid supporters would come out so strongly in favor of American military intervention in Darfur. And judging by the rhetoric he uses, while it would preferable for the international community to act, he agrees that the US must be willing to act alone, if necessary, to stop the brutality that is rapidly encompassing the Darfur region.

On his other blog, however, the author of the above post is slightly less encouraging. He writes there:

"In the comments, someone has already raised the issue of the U.S.'s limited manpower, and I also anticipate objections to my doctrine as stated that we cannot become the world's police. I agree with both these concerns. When I make specific suggestions, my "we" should be interpreted as referring to the broader international community. The Bush administration has actually been pretty good on Sudan. As far as the "world's police" concern, I'd argue that we need to at least be a community leader, willing to jump on these issues wherever and whenever they arise. However, the actual military burdens should be born whenever possible by regional actors who have the most at stake in a given situation. In the case of Darfur, my understanding is that the African Union can do most of what is needed, and simply lacks logistical support."

This seems quite a bit more tame than what was written on the other blog. Still, as long as "whenever possible" actually has some meat behind it, then we're still cool. Certainly, the US acting as a "community leader" on the Darfur issue, pressing the world for action, would represent a major improvement on the half-hearted condemnations that are the status quo. On this point, I disagree with the authors assertion that the Bush administration has been "pretty good on Sudan," as it has been entirely too quite and complacent in the face of the genocide there. It has in no way made any major steps geared toward compelling an international response to the Darfur atrocity. We have seen barely any substantive US action on Sudan since we labeled it a "genocide" in the first place, a "response" which I've argued is impoverishing the entire meaning of the term "genocide". If the US can label something "genocide" and still not take an action, then I think we're worse off than when we started, because it sends the message that genocide is something the world will tolerate. This emboldens the killers, past, present and future. Genocide expert Samantha Power gives the example of Serbia:

"Slobodan Milosevic saw that he got away with the brutal suppression of independence movements in Slovenia and Croatia and he reasoned he would pay no price for doing the same in Bosnia and Kosovo. Because so many individual perpetrators were killing for the first time and deciding daily how far they would go, the United States and its European allies missed critical opportunities to try to deter them. When they ignored genocide around the world, the Western powers were not intending to 'green light' the perpetrators. But because the killers told themselves they were doing the world a favor by 'cleansing' the 'undesirables,' some surely interpreted silence as consent or even support."

. Indeed, it appears we're actually regressing, as the UN still refuses to apply the term "genocide" to the situation at all. So for possibly the last time in my life I will criticize a Bush policy than even a Deaniac is agreeing with: The current US policy on Sudan and Darfur is abominable and cannot stand.

All of the above carping notwithstanding, the original point still stands: the worst nightmare of Truman Democrats like myself of the Dean ascendancy, that the US will never intervene in foreign conflicts again, appears to be unlikely to pass. Get past that hurdle, and one of my key discomforts with the modern Democratic party falls by the wayside.

Values-Based Debate

I've gotten some great emails and some intriguing comments on my earlier post regarding Bush's stance on the FMA. I want to write one, long, uber-post explaining my position on this issue and why I think it is a moral imperative that America grant marriage equality to gays.

I. The Morals Problem
The most common attack on gay marriage is that it is "immoral." The problem with that statement is that it is an entirely empty term. I have no idea what "moral" means. I happen to think that equality is "moral." Clearly, others do not. Just parroting the word "moral" over and over again doesn't get us anywhere, because it is too vague. Gay marriage must succeed or fail based on something more concrete.

Generally, something can be considered moral or immoral based on whether it violates some socially accepted value. "Morality" isn't a value, it is a term that encompasses values. Preserving the family might be considered a value. Equal protection might be considered another. Liberty could be a third. Analysis of gay marriage must begin with an examination of how it impacts into specific social values. At that point, we can begin a comparison and start weighing the benefits versus the harms.

II. Protecting the Family
The refrain one continuously hears from the religious right (usually juxtaposed next to "morals") is that they are protecting the family. Stable, secure families are undoubtedly a social value, so that strikes me as a good place to start. So the first question we can ask is: Do gay marriages help or harm families?

At no time has anyone ever pointed me to any evidence, statistical or analytical, that homosexual marriages have caused any harm whatsoever to heterosexual families. It does not threaten the benefits accorded to married couples. It does not signify a degrading of the term--unless one feels that homosexual participate in any institution automatically degrades it. Simply put, heterosexual families are not impacted in any material way by the presence of homosexual married couples. The net negative here is zero.

On the positive side of the ledger, homosexual marriage provides the same benefits to said couples, and their families, that heterosexual marriage does. It affords social legitimacy, provides standardized and streamlined mechanisms for allocating benefits, and grants stability to any children that the family may be raising. I would add another issue as well: the existence of legal restrictions against homosexuals as homosexuals legitimizes their subordinate status. Especially in schoolyard environments which are so sensitive to the prevailing social winds, this has the potential for severe harm to the children of homosexual children (see "anti-subordination" below).

III. Equal Protection
Another value we hold dear in society is equal protection of the law. Indeed, some might argue that this is the paramount value upon which all others are based. The reason that democracies cannot willy-nilly oppress minorities is that any law passed by the legislature must apply equally to the most and least powerful among us. Hence, laws that either single out one group for negative (or positive) treatment must have at least some rational basis in law. The bar is raised to strict scrutiny when the group in question is a "discrete and insular minority," or has been the past target of animus and discrimination. Homosexuals, needless to say, fall in both categories.

So now we turn to whether the prohibition on gay marriage violates the equal protection of the laws. The answer is clearly in the affirmative.

The most obvious parallel is to the prohibitions on inter-racial marriage, held unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia. The equal-protection violation in that case was clear: If White Man A married White Women B, we had a legal marriage; but if White Man A married Black Women C, then we had a crime. Since the only change was in the race of the party, it clearly was a case of racial discrimination.

Defenders of marriage discrimination rejoin that there is no similar violation here because all men--hetero- and homosexual--are equally barred from marrying other men (and of course, the same applies to women). First of all, I think that is a pretty skewed perception of what marriage means. The right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry one someone of your choice. Heterosexuals get that choice, homosexuals do not. Once again, marriage is not just about giving two people the socially sanctioned right to have procreative sex. If that was the case, we'd simply pair folks off randomly and assign them to have children. The beauty in marriage lies in two persons consciously choosing to spend the rest of their life together, as a family, often with children. However, even if you don't buy that, the above analogy is illustrative on why marriage discrimination violates equal protection. Let us recast it in terms of the debate at hand. Male A marries Female B, valid marriage. Male A marries Male C, invalid marriage. In this case, the only difference is in the sex of the party, which is also not a valid reason to discriminate under the constitution. The equal protection violation remains.

There are other equal protection shortcomings inherent to the anti-gay marriage case as well. The most prominent is that defenders of marriage discrimination make no effort to apply their logic to similarly situated persons. As I wrote in my analysis of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals case Lofton v. Department of Children and Family Services:

The vast majority of the state's claims of rationale falter because it makes no effort to apply the same standards to similarly situated people (for example, its claim that it wants children in houses with a mother and a father is undercut by the fact that it allows single people to adopt). The only analysis it gives that arguably only applies to Homosexual couples is that the state might want its children to be "normalized" and that it would be weird and possibly harmful for predominately heterosexual children to be raised by homosexual parents who are implied to be outside the mainstream. Even beyond the substantial psychological evidence which shows that any harm to children raised by homosexual parents is fictive...the flaws in this argument are transparent. First, as the dissent aptly notes, it gives no guidance on how to deal with homosexual children who presumably need a "similar" parent figure as much as heterosexual parent does. Second, it doesn't apply the same standard to other groups that could be termed "outside the mainstream" (like inter-racial couples).

Virtually all arguments against homosexual marriage come apart under this standard. If the state is seeking to encourage procreation, it shouldn't be giving benefits to non-procreative couples. If the state is worried about social stigmatization of children, then it should be precluded from allowing inter-racial couples to marry. If the state wants parents who will be good role models, then it should prevent anybody but Doctors and Lawyers from marrying. There simply isn't a shred of evidence that can be used to prevent homosexual marriage that could not also be used to strip away rights from people whom society overwhelmingly agrees should be protected. Call this the inverted slippery slope: If we affirm that homosexuals can be discriminated against under law, then there are any number of discriminatory actions we'd have to take against other groups in order to satisfy the dictates of equal protection. Which conveniently moves me to...

IV. The Slippery Slope
The slippery slope argument is another popular one to make. It basically says "even if homosexual marriage isn't that bad, it will invariably lead to X which IS horrible, so we can't set down that path." Now, as I demonstrated above, the slippery slope goes both ways so it really isn't a valid argument. However, if we deconstruct the logic behind "slippery slope," we can see how it falters.

The reason that the "X" above is presumed to be a persuasive reason not to allow gay marriage is because X is some very bad thing. Gay marriage isn't a very bad thing--if it was, we wouldn't even need to raise the comparison to X in the first place. We could simply explain all the bad things associated with gay marriage. However, is X really is that bad, it should not be that difficult to figure what makes it bad when homosexual marriage is not. Take bestiality, a common marker (thank you Senator Santorum!) that the gay marriage slippery slope is supposed to take us past. What makes bestiality bad when gay marriage is not? Animals, of course, cannot consent, while gay couples can. Since we don't allow entities to enter into relationships without giving consent (which implies the capacity to give it), bestiality can be prohibited when homosexual marriage is not. Another example is incest. Here the problem is in harm to any child formed from the relation. Children of incestuous relations are at a statistically far higher risk to any number of genetic diseases and defects. It is protecting these potential children from harm that justifies anti-Incest legislation; clearly this also does not bear any relevancy to homosexual marriage either (incidentally, we can prohibit homosexual incest as well based on equal protection arguments--it would be wrong to grant homosexual couples a right (incest) not granted to heterosexual couples). The slippery slope can be stopped rather easily.

V. Anti-Subordination
It is generally agreed that the state should not subordinate certain groups, labeling them as subhuman and unworthy of basic respect. The problem with codified discrimination is that it is stigmatizing. Law is seen by society as a reflection of reality--those that society chooses to stigmatize via the allocation of legal sanction are presumed to deserve their reduced status. This process of stigmatization can rapidly spiral out of control; even if we want to limit the stigma only to a specific aspect (in this case, that Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry), the stigma has a tendency to reproduce itself as a general proof of inferiority. Ernest Goffman elaborates:

The attitudes we normals have toward a person with a stigma, and the actions we take in regard to him, are well known...[W]e believe the person with a stigma is not quite human...We construct a stigma-theory, an ideology to explain his inferiority and account for the danger he represents...imput[ing] a wide range of imperfections on the basis of the original one...

Persons who notice that some persons are not accorded the same respect as others will condition themselves to see the disrespected person in that light. A man who grows up around slaves is being told explicitly that blacks are incapable of self-rule. Implicitly, he is likely to construct broader theories of black inferiority: Blacks are stupid, they are lazy, they are churlish, they are simpleminded, they are sexual predators. Worse yet, the sheer ubiquitousness of these social norms will likely inoculate these same values in the oppressed party--Blacks will see themselves as inferior because that is what society tells them they are. Thus, even narrow deprivations of rights reify discriminatory attitudes across the board. For homosexuals, the signal of the FMA is that they are not equal citizens, that they are something society must be afforded "protected against" under law. It is a very small leap from saying we need to protected against gay marriage, to the society claiming protection against gay sexual molestation, gay cultural abuse, or gay mental instability.

Indeed, the inoculation of discriminatory attitudes perhaps is the worst of all the harms accorded by the FMA because it precludes societal correction or change. This is because in addition to being discriminated against de jure, the stigmatized will be de facto barred from the political process. Any advocacy on behalf of the stigmatized opens the advocate to the same stigmatization, thus, the oppressed party is more likely to withdraw from political controversies so as to not provoke any further backlash. Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann terms this the "spiral of silence": as a social norm becomes more entrenched, dissenters are more likely to self-censor themselves rather than risk the repercussions that stem from challenging the dominant view. This has the effect of further entrenching that view, and a feedback loop ensues. The Supreme Court has recognized as much in its refusal to continence the endorsement of certain religious views:

Endorsement sends the message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not favored members of the political community; and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. [Lynch v. Donnelly, J. O'Connor concurring]

The harm is just as severe, indeed probably more so, when the state is specifically "endorsing" the premise that one group is to be considered legally superior to another.

VI. Liberty
America was founded on the premise of liberty. With some exceptions, it is assumed that persons can do what they like so long as it does not harm others (John Stuart Mill's famous "Harms Principle"). The law cannot, without some demonstration of harm, prevent me from putting cream in my coffee. That action does not harm society in any way, it has no impact on my neighbors, and it is totally beyond the scope of a legitimate government. If something as mundane as coffee is immune from governmental reproach, how much more protected must such a fundamental decision as marriage be! Those who would deny homosexuals the right to marry love to wax eloquent about the importance, the sheer essentiality, of the marital rites. Yet if we are prepared to declare those rites to be fundamental, to be a possession of all of mankind, then we simply have no warrant or justification to restrict marriage to those we deem worthy. The whole justification behind liberty is that every man and woman has the equal right to pursue their life as they see fit. Every time the government stands in the path of a person's life choice, it is stripping that person of their most basic right of all--the right to be. To be gay, to be straight, to be black, to be white, to be a teacher, doctor, lawyer, policeman, whomever. The right to be whatever you want to be, that is what America is founded upon.

VII. Conclusion
Allowing gay marriage fulfills many core American values. It is pro-family, prevents subordination, affirms liberty, and is in accordance with the principle of equal protection of the laws. To me, these seem like a fair cross-section of what can be reasonably be called "moral values." Weighing against those arguments we have the slippery slope and the fact that a majority of Americans are still opposed to gay marriage (IE, Democracy). The slippery slope argument falls on its own terms, as I proved above. The democratic argument is a serious one. However, our nation has never held democracy higher than the basic constitutional rights we all posses. After all,

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." [West Virginia v. Barnette]

Equal protection (14th amendment) Personal Liberty (9th amendment), and non-discrimination (14th amendment) are principles deeply ingrained in our constitutional and social traditions. Our nation cannot ignore those values without ignoring the very foundations upon which our nation stands. For those reasons, the United States must extend marriage equality to homosexual citizens.

Purely Academic

Todd Zywicki of The VC links to research done by Dan Klein showing that Republicans are vastly underrepresented in the halls of academia. The combined rate of Democrats to Republicans at Stanford and Berkeley is 9:1, and judging by the rate of tenure-track hires it is getting worse. What does this mean?

Zywicki correctly notes that if this was the gender or race based disparity, people would be throwing a fit. And certainly, these statistics are distressing. However, there are some important differences between under-represented ideologies vs. under-represented races or genders. The reason is that while there shouldn't, in theory, be any reason why a particular race would avoid academia, it is quite conceivable that a group based on ideological persuasion might prefer to do other things. That's one of the reasons that race is considered a suspect class and political parties aren't: political party members necessarily share certain values and characteristics, while race and gender based characteristics are overwhelmingly based on stereotype. So it does make a certain degree of sense that softy, idealistic liberals may want to go into teaching and sacrifice the allure of money and power, while hardheaded, realistic conservatives would either enter the private sector or think tanks where they can make more cash and influence authority. I'm not saying this is true, but it is far more reasonable a proposition than any non-discrimination based argument for why Blacks are underrepresented (I include in "discrimination" the continued economic disadvantages faced by minorities as a legacy of past discrimination).

The real question is: Are there significant numbers of Republicans who wish to enter Academia but either a) face institutional obstacles to doing so (such as biased administrators) or b) feel academia is a "hostile environment" to persons with their views? If either of those are true, then we may have a case. But more research needs to be done first.

The Irony Gods Hate Me

Typical. I receive another link from Powerline. An ensuing Power-lanche results. My hit counts go way up. And what is second from the top on the blog? Why, it's my set of proto-marxist debate evidence! That's the way to endear me to my new guests!

Powerline worries (well, maybe "worries" isn't the right word) that now that I've joined The Centrist Coalition, they don't have a favorite liberal blogger. I still like to think of myself as a Liberal, not in the reactionary Kossack/Michael Moore sense, but in the older Truman/Wilsonian sense. My positions on most social issues is still fairly leftwing (as the comments to this post--probably responding to a Powerline reader--make clear). I have a on-going love affair with critical theorists (IE, Catherine MacKinnon, Richard Delgado, et al) that you certainly won't find anywhere near the "center" of American politics. And considering that it is my old pals the Democrats who have taken up the mantle of fiscal responsibility, I guess I'm economically liberal too. So I'm socially a libertarian-style liberal, economically a fiscal responsbility/pro-poor policy liberal, and internationally a Truman/Wilsonian interventionist liberal. Which in today's political climate makes me...a Centrist.

Which is why I will never enter politics.

No More Excuses

Read Nicholas Kristof, then tell me not to intervene in Darfur. 11,000,000 people didn't die in the Holocaust so we could ethically ignore genocide. There simply is no longer any excuse. Any administration: the US, the UN, the EU, the Arab League, whomever, who is refuses to support whatever action necessary to end the atrocities in Sudan permanently forfeits any claims to moral leadership in the world.

Link by The Moderate Voice, who falls on the right side of this issue.

The Anti-Capitalist

Those of you who watched LD finals at Harvard will recognize one of the cards present here from the round. Otherwise, these cards are a gift to the trendy Marxist debater near you.

[A caveat: When I post debate evidence, it should not in any way be taken as an endorsement of the material unless I explicitly say so. Debaters need evidence from all sides of the debate, include evidence that critiques capitalism. They request, I respond]

Brian Massumi, Associate Professor of Comparative Literature at McGill University. The Politics of Everyday Fear. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993)
IN A CAPITALIST SYSTEM, PERSONS ARE IDENTIFIED SOLELY BY THE COMMODITIES THEY BUY

"The commodity endows us with identifiable qualities. It registers our gender, social status, and character traits: buckled up and prudent but still stylish; multi-time zoned jet setter; home-bodyish, with an adventurous streak. The commodity stands (in) for our existence. The ground(lessness) it stands on is the accident in its most general expression--the accident-form, exemplified as downfall, the unqualified or generic founding event. Our generic identity (our subject-form, or humanity) is the generic event (the accident-form); our specific identity (the content of which is our "individuality" or "self") is the sum total of our purchases (axiom 2). In other words, contingency is the form of identity, and identity is determined (given content) through the serial commission of the act of groundless consumption. We buy and buy, until we die. We are in free-fall, held aloft by the thinnest of credit cards. "Shop till you drop" is our motto. We know we are alive--or at least in a state of credit-suspended animation--as long as we are shopping. "I buy therefore I am" (axiom 3). The commodity encounter not only specifies but actualizes the subject of the purchase. The subject of capitalism cannot be said to exist outside the commodity relation." (7, emphasis added)

Rodney D. Peterson, Professor of Economics at Colorado State University. Political Economy and American Capitalism. (Boston: Kluwer Academic, 1991)
ECONOMIC POWER AND POLITICAL POWER ARE IRREVOCABLY INTERTWINED; EACH IS USED TO REINFORCE THE OTHER.

"As political pressure groups from different segments of the citizenry assemble to negotiate, the result is often a compromise skewed in favor of those who were most successful at using their bargaining strengths. Success is often based on the amount of persons a bargainer represents and the property and wealth backing the bargainer. Those with most political influence are often those with most economic advantage. Once both have been acquired, they reciprocate and reinforce each other, especially if the property holders are active in the political arena, pressuring to get laws passed for their benefit, or to gain privileges, subsidies, and favors for themselves from the system. All of this is a logical extension of freedom, self interest, and profit seeking…" (37)

Another line of attack is the famous "tragedy of the commons," which shows how autonomous beings acting totally rationally and without constraint will destroy the environment (for more on the intersection between capitalism and the environment, see my posts here and here)
Garett Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons," Science, 162(1968):1243-1248
Capitalism locks rational persons into environmentally destructive decisions

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.

2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision­making herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

Finally, one undeniable aspect of Capitalism is that it privileges the current generation over the future. The rational capitalist actor has perhaps some incentive to provide for his/her own children, but none whatsover to the other members of generation next. They will not consume the capitalist's products, they will not revolt against his mansion, their cries will not offend his pacified ears. This is immoral.
Philip Phenix, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. Education and the Common Good: A Moral Philosophy of the Curriculum. Harper and Bros., 1961.

"Up to now the people of the industrial nations of the world have lived as though the material bounty of the earth were inexhaustible. In this respect we have been guilty of a "plutocracy of the present," through grasping material privileges without taking account of the needs of future generations. Such a way of life is just as undemocratic as the forcible subjugation of the poor by the wealthy at any given epoch. Democratic justice as between generations requires the employment of the earth’s resources in such a way that they shall be conserved, restored, and replenished for continued use by our children and our children's children."

Reap What You Sow

It's finally happened. The Democrats are striking back. Roll Call reports that Democrats are seeking to pull a DeLay and do midterm redistricting in Louisiana, Illinois, and New Mexico--hoping to oust GOP incumbents and blunt DeLay's power grab in Texas.

There are only two ways that this country can go. Either we can universally agree to pull the redistricting process from the hands of partisan politicians, or we can collapse into an orgy of partisan in-fighting and political scuffles. Today's politicians better choose wisely.

The New Man on Court

Orin Kerr links to this NYT article about Bush's plans for Chief Justice Rehnquist's inevitable retirement. The article specifically notes four judges, Michael W. McConnell, John G. Roberts, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, and J. Michael Luttig, as on the "short list" for the spot, and mentions Samuel A. Alito as also in the running.

I must say, if accurate, this is very heartening news. When The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen wrote on possible Bush picks for the Supreme Court. The four names on the short list are the four names Rosen picked as "principled" conservatives: certainly not short on conservative bona fides, but not engaged in so-called "Constitutional-in-exile" extremism either (Alito, alas, did fall in that radical category in the article).

From my very limited independent knowledge of these persons, I also will say I'm pleased. I've been reading McConnell's law review articles on the 1st amendment (specifically Free Exercise Revisionism and the Smith Decision, 57 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1109 (1990) and "God is Dead and We Have Killed Him!": Freedom of Religion in the Post-Modern Age, 1993 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 163) and have been tremendously impressed. It is clear to me that McConnell is an intellectual giant who could do great things on the Court, and his unabashed opposition to the decision in Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, which essentially demolished the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment, is badly needed on the Court today.

I don't know anything about Roberts firsthand, although Kerr certainly speaks highly of his opinions. However, Georgetown Law Professor Richard Lazarus, who I have the pleasure of knowing through the Walt Whitman HS Debate Team, also has made known that he thinks Roberts is a brilliant jurist and fairminded individual. Their vouchers mean a lot to me. I have no problem with a Conservative taking Reinquist's spot, so long as he is a principled Conservative, and it appears that Roberts meets that standard handily.

Wilkinson and Luttig are both quite Conservative (though the latter is more so), but both are clearly excellent judges who know the law and apply it with principle. Neither would make the Court any worse off than it was with Rehnquist, and some of their opinions (especially Wilkinson's) have struck me as quite erudite and well-written.

My personal order of preference would be McConnell, Roberts, Wilkinson, then Luttig (Alito--known as "Little Scalia" or "Scalito"--is a separate issue entirely). However, this entire story is good news. My personal guess, prior to this, was that Bush was going to nominate Clarence Thomas to the Chief Justice position to draw away Democratic fire, then quietly push through a hyper-Conservative to the bench while nobody is looking (similar to what Reagan did with Reinquist and Scalia). Though I'm not counting that out quite yet, these nominees do a little to mitigate that fear.

Broken Promises

Sorry for the lack of blogging this weekend. I was away coaching my old debate team at the Harvard Debate Tournament (at the same tournament--and with the same team actually--as Powerline's Deacon). If you're interested in the results, go here.

While I was away, one of the breaking stories was on the so-called Bush Tapes. Now, when my GOP friends saw the headlines I knew they were having panicky Watergate flashbacks, but these turn out to be pretty tame. Except for one thing.

In response to requests by Christian Conservatives that he exclude homosexuals from office, Bush responded quite clearly that he would not join in "kicking gays." Noble sentiments. But that simply makes Bush's support for the FMA all the more abominable. Not only is it purely political, not only is it pandering to the basest of human instincts, but it broke a solemn promise Bush made to himself prior to running for office. If legally codifying discrimination into our constitution, if deliberately inciting a new run of anti-gay hysteria for political gain, if seeking to destroy real families while purporting to the protect "the family" is not "kicking gays," then I don't know what is. I understand that politicians sometimes posture and lie for the camera. But presumably what Bush said in that room, in private, was his real and true principle at the time. That he was so ready to abandon it for a quick political bounce speaks volumes of his character and tenure in office.

UN Anti-Semitism

The Wall Street Journal reprinted a speech by Columbia Law Professor Anne Bayefsky on the United Nations' history of anti-Semitism. She delivered it at the very first conference the UN has had on anti-Semitism (60 years after its formation, no less). It's an old column, but an important one.

What does discrimination against the Jewish state mean? It means refusing to admit only Israel to the vital negotiating sessions of regional groups held daily during U.N. Commission on Human Rights meetings. It means devoting six of the 10 emergency sessions ever held by the General Assembly to Israel. It means transforming the 10th emergency session into a permanent tribunal--which has now been reconvened 12 times since 1997. By contrast, no emergency session was ever held on the Rwandan genocide, estimated to have killed a million people, or the ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands in the former Yugoslavia, or the death of millions over the past two decades of atrocities in Sudan. That's discrimination.

The record of the Secretariat is more of the same. In November 2003, Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a report on Israel's security fence, detailing the purported harm to Palestinians without describing one terrorist act against Israelis which preceded the fence's construction. Recently, the secretary-general strongly condemned Israel for destroying homes in southern Gaza without mentioning the arms-smuggling tunnels operating beneath them. When Israel successfully targeted Hamas terrorist Abdel Aziz Rantissi with no civilian casualties, the secretary-general denounced Israel for an "extrajudicial" killing. But when faced with the 2004 report of the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions detailing the murder of more than 3,000 Brazilian civilians shot at close range by police, Mr. Annan chose silence. That's discrimination.

At the U.N., the language of human rights is hijacked not only to discriminate but to demonize the Jewish target. More than one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state's human rights violations adopted by the commission over 40 years have been directed at Israel. But there has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe. Every year, U.N. bodies are required to produce at least 25 reports on alleged human rights violations by Israel, but not one on an Iranian criminal justice system which mandates punishments like crucifixion, stoning and cross-amputation of right hand and left foot. This is not legitimate critique of states with equal or worse human rights records. It is demonization of the Jewish state.

As Israelis are demonized at the U.N., so Palestinians and their cause are deified. Every year the U.N. marks Nov. 29 as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People--the day the U.N. partitioned the British Palestine mandate and which Arabs often style as the onset of al nakba or the "catastrophe" of the creation of the state of Israel. In 2002, the anniversary of the vote that survivors of the concentration camps celebrated, was described by Secretary-General Annan as "a day of mourning and a day of grief."

In 2003 the representatives of over 100 member states stood along with the secretary-general, before a map predating the state of Israel, for a moment of silence "for all those who had given their lives for the Palestinian people"--which would include suicide bombers. Similarly, U.N. rapporteur John Dugard has described Palestinian terrorists as "tough" and their efforts as characterized by "determination, daring, and success." A commission resolution for the past three years has legitimized the Palestinian use of "all available means including armed struggle"--an absolution for terrorist methods which would never be applied to the self-determination claims of Chechens or Basques.
[...]
But I challenge the secretary-general and his organization to go further--if they are serious about eradicating anti-Semitism:

-Start putting a name to the terrorists that kill Jews because they are Jews.

-Start condemning human-rights violators wherever they dwell--even if they live in Riyadh or Damascus.

-Stop condemning the Jewish people for fighting back against their killers.

And the next time someone asks you or your colleagues to stand for a moment of silence to honor those who would destroy the state of Israel, say no.
Only then will the message be heard from these chambers that the U.N. will not tolerate anti-Semitism or its consequences against Jews and the Jewish people, whether its victims live in Tehran, Paris or Jerusalem.

For an organization formed, at least in part, in response to moral depravity of the Holocaust, the UN has been shockingly acquiescent to the murder and destruction of the Jewish people. Certainly, there are valid claims to be made for Palestinian statehood. But before claims of legitimacy can be discussed, the UN has to at least recognize who the real monsters are first.

Monkey See, Monkey Do

Looks like the good folks in Georgia have decided to take a page out of Tom DeLay's book (hattip: ACS Blog).

To be fair, the Georgia Republicans say they are trying to make the districts more compact and representative of community guidelines. Whether or not this is true (I don't know), it still seems abundantly clear that there were partisan motivations behind the move. If Georgia legislators (on both sides of the aisle) are serious about crafting fair, competitive, and equitable congressional districts, then they should follow Iowa and Arizona in making the process non-partisan and outside the realm of political disputes.

Real Monsters

It is a rare day indeed when I link to Conservative archetype Jonah Goldberg. However, this column really hit home.

"The tragedy of the imagination was that we couldn't appreciate that evil is real and it exists. In a society where everyone is a victim and it's not right to "judge" others, there's just not much room left for real monsters, while society itself becomes monstrous."

We can seek to understand the causes of evil, the rationales, the justifications, the roots. However, we can never forget that some things still just are evil. And we can never turn a blind eye to the atrocities of the present by invoking empty theories of moral relativism or ethical equivalency. For, as the Rev. Martin Luther King reminds us, "In the end, it's not the words of our enemies we will remember, but the silence of our friends." Global liberalism, "friends" of oppressed people everywhere, needs to find the voice to condemn and combat the grave injustices that occur around the world on a daily basis. Conservatives can hide behind realism and national self-interest if they want. Liberals have no such excuse. We either speak out or become accomplices in the act.

Thanks to my friend Luci Hague for originally drawing my attention to the article.

Calling a Spade a Spade

I do hate when people seek to minimize or legitimize the insurgency. But still, this was deserved:

Hopatcong, NJ: Do you, Masland and Dickey mean "F---ing Murderers" when you say "insurgents" and "fighters" in your STUPIDITY? I've grown sick and tired of you "politically incorrect" reporters. Why don't you have the gumption to call a spade a spade?
Rod Nordland: OK, you're an idiot. How's that?

With thanks to Kevin Drum.

Cruel Intentions

Read the ACLU brief for the upcoming Supreme Court case of McCreary County v. ACLU. Watch the ACLU utterly smack down the arguments for having the 10 commandments displayed in the courtroom (at least in this case). Smile and realize that the Court almost definitely will ignore the arguments and uphold the display anyway.

I got the link via Crescat's Waddling Thunder, who, while impressed with the argument, is unsure that the "Founders could have meant anything so draconian." I have never quite understood the "Framers' intent" theory of constitutional law. Basically, that theory says that we should look to what the Framers would have believed a certain clause of a law should do when interpreting that law--even, and here's where it gets messy, when that interpretation seems entirely at odds with the principle underlying the law. There seem to be several possible conclusions one can draw from that theory. The first is that the framers deliberately left their own prejudices out of the constitution for a reason--so that we were truly governed by laws, not men. That, of course, would defeat the FI theory on its own terms--it would be the framers intent that we not look at the framers intent. The second would be that the framers just assumed their prejudices were not inconsistent with the text. However, that appears to be incorrect, and it strikes me as odd that we'd ignore the text and uphold the musings of John Adams (or whomever). If the law says "free speech," but the framer thinks "but that can't possibly apply to sedition," all that means is the framer is contradicting himself. It doesn't exercise a magical power to exorcise "seditious speech" from "speech." This shouldn't be that hard of a concept. There is a third conclusion, I suppose, which is that America was meant to be in perpetual serfdom to the particular, extra-constitutional whims of Madison, et al. I would presume, however, that if this was the case, they would have given us some inkling of it in the "supreme law of the land."

Not a Big Deal

...only the wholesale betrayal of American values. The New York Daily News reports that military JAGs repeatedly objected to Guantanamo Bay "interrogation procedures" (IE, torture), but were overruled by senior Pentagon officials who "didn't think [it] was a big deal" (link: Balkinization). The Lawyers specifically drew a distinction between "battlefield interrogation methods, where slapping around a prisoner might be justifiable if it immediately saved lives," and the situation in Guantanamo, where the detainees were nowhere near a combat scene and months removed from their capture.

We cannot let this issue drop. The only thing more despicable than this being an issue in the United States is that it doesn't appear that anybody cares. So long as torture isn't on the front page and staring us in the face, Americans prefer to just pretend it isn't happening. But if we aren't willing to throw down the gauntlet at torture, where exactly is the line we "won't cross"?

A little while ago, the Legal Fiction blog wrote that it would support a primary challenge against Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman (D) due to his vote for pro-torture Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Lieberman has done more than virtually any other elected Democrat to try and make the party more formidable on national security. However, when he decides to condone torture as a matter of American policy, it is very hard to argue that he has the moral character to continue to represent us in the halls of congress.

Anti-Family

Coming by way of How Appealing, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports on the latest anti-family move by gay rights opponents.

The day in 2002 when Ulf Hedberg won a legal fight with his ex-wife and was awarded physical custody of his son should have been a happy one for him.

Instead, Hedberg calls it a "cruel victory."

That's because the Virginia judge who named Hedberg the custodial parent attached a life-altering restriction: Hedberg, who is openly gay, would be barred from living in the same house where he and his partner had been raising the boy, who is now 12.

At the time of the ruling, in 2002, the couple had been living together for 6 years. The ruling was prior to the Lawrence v. Texas decision, and was based on the presumption that a gay couple living together would automatically be engaged in illegal activity (namely, sodomy). Post-Lawrence, that analysis shouldn't hold up.

The lawyer for the ex-wife claims that she did not request the court's order to ban Hedburg's partner from living with him. However, she opposes the lifting of the order, on the grounds that "she does not want his homosexual lover to move back in," and that she "does not believe this person [the partner] is anything to her son." Note the rhetoric involved: "homosexual lover," which implies that this is merely an eight year long fling (because homosexuals can never enter into meaningful relations) and "this person" (as opposed to a respectful "Mr. Delahoussaye").

Hurray for "family values"!