Who Are You?

Two posts over at BlackProf cause me to think of my old posts on intersectionality and minority conservatism.

The first post is about a supposed formula to determine which Congressional Black Caucus members best represent the interests of African-Americans. I'm a bit conflicted here, because I think that such an indice is, at least abstractly, useful and because the author of the post (GW Law Professor Spencer Overton) specifically acknowledges the possibility that the methodology used (like any methodology) could be flawed. Nonetheless, two things caught my eye. The first was that the breakdown of "best" and "worst" representatives almost completely tracked "most liberal" to "least liberal." Among the "best" were far left names like Barbara Lee and Cynthia McKinney (as well as Congressional All-Corruption Team nominee Maxine Waters). The "worst" included moderate names like Harold Ford and Albert Wynn. Second, the title of the post was "Black Enough?" Taken together, its a disturbing message--that not only is being hyper-liberal the sin qua non of helping black people (I presume folks like Stephen Carter would disagree), but those that don't fit the paradigm aren't even black at all.

The second post was by Iowa Law Professor Adrien Wing, and was a plea that minorities not be taken in if President Bush nominates a minority conservative to the Supreme Court. I'll admit to confusion though--Wing seems to think that even other minority conservatives should be rallied against a minority conservative Supreme Court nominee. I see no rationale behind this--even granting the implicit argument holding that conservativism is hostile to minority interests (which, to be fair, I think is often true), clearly minority conservatives think differently (otherwise they'd be minority liberals). Wing is calling for racial solidarity to precede political solidarity, but this effectively marginalizes minority conservatives by placing them as outsiders, deviant, threatening to the community at-large. As I argued in a previous post:

[Minority Conservatism] is a minority story--especially given intersectionality theory. This posits--correctly in my view--that the experience of a double minority is different than the sum of the two minority groups she belongs. For example, the status of a Black Woman is not merely Woman + Black. Similarly, the status of a female minority conservative is not just Female + Minority + Conservative. The simplest reason why this is so is because whereas becoming a conservative by itself means joining a relatively popular and broad group, becoming a minority conservative means being subjected to endless taunts of being an "Uncle Tom" or traitor, accusations (and occasionally, true moments) of being "used" by majority peers, and other hardships. In other words, while my (White) life would not be significantly changed by switching my political affiliation, for a minority, this switch comes with a lot of baggage. Because the tropes associated with "conservative" are contingent upon one's other identities, one can't simply atomize conservatism (or any other identity) and examine independently of the rest.

The framework Professors Overton and Wing operate in reifies this mindset. It is the deliberate and tactical suppression of a disfavored identity as inauthentic, false, or dangerous (not "Black enough"). In a way, it isn't anyone's fault that we do this. The folks most well-versed in intersectionality theory are almost all leftists, so convincing them to play nice with conservatives is a difficult endeavor. But their critique doesn't lose any of its potency just because the targeted group this time is one that is positively despised by the leftist critics themselves. It just makes it harder to see.

This doesn't, by the way, mean that we should fetishize the move of some blacks to more conservative circles. I was appalled by this NYT article which argued that the Republican Michael Bloomberg's gains amongst black voters in the NYC mayoral race was a sign of growing political "maturity" in the black community. Meaning what? That for the most part, black people are ignorant political babies who vote based on their irrational, pre-adolescent whims? (But look! Some are voting Republican now! Sigh...they grow up so fast...). This is patronizing and paternalistic to the extreme. We should respect black voting decisions as rational, autonomous choices (at least as far as we do for other groups)--not just assume they are in some primordial state of political infancy, waiting to emerge.

Bad Bad Men (and Women)

DKos points to an LA Times article listing one groups notation of the 13 most corrupt members of congress. The report, titled "Beyond DeLay" (the exterminator was exempted from the list), has a variety of familiar faces, and consists of 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats. The full set:

-Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) (Senate Majority Leader)

-Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) (House Majority Whip)

-Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT)

-Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH)

-Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)

-Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-CA)

-Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)

-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) (Republican Conference Chair)

-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham

-Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA)

-Rep. Charles H. Taylor (R-NC)

-Rep. Marilyn N. Musgrave (R-CO)

-Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ)

We should be dismayed that, including Rep. DeLay two of the top three leaders in both the House and the Senate are among Congress' most corrupt (Santorum's position places him #3 in the Senate leadership hierarchy. The two congressmen in leadership that aren't on the list are Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) (Speaker of the House) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (Assistant Senate Majority Leader)). What does this tell us about the current state of affairs in Washington?

We should also note that Kos did not shirk from splashing the Democratic names over his website either. While Rep. Jefferson is the type of Blue Dog Democrat that the lefties tend not like much anyway, Rep. Waters is a stalwart in the House Progressive Caucus. That they put her name up shows that, extreme politics aside, they still care more about clean government than defending even friendly politicos. That's heartening.

UPDATE: Into the Traffic Jam we go.

Locke-d In

Paul Horowitz puts forward an interesting question regarding Justice Scalia's views on governmental restrictions on speech that it is funding.

Scalia first made his views on the subject known in National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley (524 U.S. 569 (1998)). In that case, Scalia [EDIT: concurred in holding that making "decency" a consideration in the awarding of NEA grants did not violate the first amendment. He argued further that the NEA could engage] in content discrimination when giving out it's grants. He wryly noted that were the NEA's actions upheld, "Avant-garde artistes such as respondents [would] remain entirely free to epater les bourgeois; they are merely deprived of the additional satisfaction of having the bourgeoisie taxed to pay for it." He continued then to argue that it is absurd to equate a lack of taxpayer subsidization with an effort to suppress unpopular ideas. And he specifically claimed that "The nub of the difference between me and the Court is that I regard the distinction between 'abridging speech' and funding it as a fundamental divide, on this side of which the First Amendment is inapplicable....The government, I think, may allocate both competitive and noncompetitive funding ad libitum, insofar as the First Amendment is concerned."

Horowtiz thus inquires:

What relevance should this position have for Justice Scalia in cases involving public funding of religious programs, or public funding of non-religious activities carried out by religious groups? Does this suggest Justice Scalia believes it is constitutional to impose conditions on such groups -- for instance, that no money flowing to such a group be spent on anything that may contain religious content, or that a religious group receiving government funds may engage in x religious speech but not y religious speech? This is not a gotcha post; commenters are welcome to discuss the ways in which Justice Scalia is or is not consistent in his views on this point. But I think it's an interesting subject for musing and discussion.

What with the controversy over President Bush's "faith-based initiatives" and the desire amongst some to make sure these funds only are distributed to groups that meet certain non-merit-based requirements (not discriminating against homosexuals, for example), this is an issue that will eventually come up. So what's the end result?

It's not an exact fit, but the closest case we have in explicating Scalia's views is the recent case of Locke v. Davey. There, the Supreme Court upheld a Washington law in which college scholarships could not be used by students studying theology or other religious vocational training. The Court specifically allowed the possibility that Washington could, if it wished, grant the scholarships (in other words, the discrimination was not constitutionally compelled), however, it said that Washington was equally free not to. Since the decision was discretionary, I think it is safe to say that Washington made its decision based on some presumably distasteful or negative quality of theological training (either that funding it breaches the separation between Church and State, or that theological training is not something the state wishes to foster, or some other reason--it really doesn't matter what).

Scalia dissented quite forcefully from this decision. He argued that

When the State makes a public benefit generally available, that benefit becomes part of the baseline against which burdens on religion are measured; and when the State withholds that benefit from some individuals solely on the basis of religion, it violates the Free Exercise Clause no less than if it had imposed a special tax.

In other words, he was not very much swayed by his previous argument in Finley--that nobody is being stopped from pursuing theological training, they are just deprived of the pleasure of having the secular state subsidize it as well.

Perhaps the analogy might best be understood with regard to Lee v. Weisman. If Locke represented the state privileging a secular viewpoint without providing an equivalent for (but not prohibiting the private expression of) a religious choice, then Lee represents the reverse--the state privileging a religious viewpoint (in this case a graduation prayer) without providing an equivalent secular choice (but not prohibiting the private expression of secularity, by letting the student either stay home from graduation or not join in the prayer). In Lee, the Court held this dualism to be unconstitutional--persons of dissident religions should not be put in a "participate or protest" dilemma, and that it is unfair to effectively kick them out of public activities if they do not adhere to the dominant religious sensibilities. It would be absurd to respond that the dissident student could have her own, private graduation with her own prayers (or lack thereof) and that this would make the First Amendment problem just go away. Instead, it is sufficient to note that the state cannot publicly put religion and non-religion (or majority religion and minority religion) on unequal terms--it must either provide equal opportunity to all, or abstain from the endeavor entirely.

This would mesh very well with what Scalia is saying in Locke--but for the fact that he dissented vigorously in Lee. In Lee he proclaimed the long standing tradition of religious prayers (it should be noted that the Locke statute was in accordance to a long standing provision of the state constitution) and derided the notion that participation the religious portion of the ceremony in any way coerced their assent to religious dogma. This is merely "respect for religion" that the government is perfectly permitted to foster in the public sphere--the student, as noted above, is still perfectly free to believe what he wants in private. Why then cannot the state ask its citizens to be secular in public and in public funding (in accordance with its popular mandate), and abide by whatever religious sensibilities it has in private? It seems that Scalia cannot make sense of his Locke argument given his sweeping dismissal of the logical vein in Lee (one other argument Scalia might use, that religious views gain higher protection than "mere" speech also falters via Lee--Scalia specifically labels the two equivalent: "The government can, of course, no more coerce political orthodoxy than religious orthodoxy.").

I should note that I agree with Scalia when it comes to Locke--I think it was wrongly decided and that it represents state-sponsored discrimination against religion. But that's because I take the broader view of what state-sponsorship means--the view that Scalia rejected for both free speech (Finley) and freedom of religion (Lee) cases. I do not think that Scalia is being consistent here, nor do I think he even realizes he's being inconsistent. But Scalia's religion clause jurisprudence has always been--ironically, since he is one of the loudest critics of this supposed ailment in our legal tradition--among the most incoherent and non-cohesive on the Court.

Evil on Earth

Restless Mania directs us to this shocking post by Mr. Sun regarding the investigation of sex abuse in the Philadelphia Archdiocese. A grand jury found that Cardinals John Krol and Anthony Joseph Bevilacqua deliberately concealed sex abuse amongst priests in their diocese--and that due to the statute of limitations, they could not indict anybody.

That, as Mr. Sun points out, is the real tragedy, that the cover-up worked exactly as planned. The Archdiocese is claiming vindication despite clearly getting off on a technicality, and nobody will be punished for their part in this display of raw evil. As Cardozo Law Professor Marci Hamilton put it:

Let's put the technicality of the statute of limitations aside, and look at the substance of the report. It is unequivocal. On the merits, but for the statute of limitations, the dozens of priest perpetrators, who were placed in one parish after another, were guilty of rape, statutory sexual assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, endangering welfare of children, and corruption of minors. The tragedy is that victims need such a long period of time to come forward and none had the capacity to come before the grand jury within the statute of limitations. It is still everyone's hope involved in this investigation that those who were more recently abused will be able to stop the cycle of abuse and come forward now.

Mr. Sun wants as many bloggers to link Cardinal Bevilacqua's name to "evil" so that his escape from justice does not bring an escape from notice. Lady Penelope and Uncle Willy have already done so--we need to bump that number up.

What makes this all the more twisted is that what seems to be literally the only response from the Church hierarchy is not to crack down on pedophiles and those who abetted them, but a crackdown on homosexuals as such. The new rules coming out of the Vatican are expected to ban ordination of any homosexual person--celibate or not. They will now be considered, as a class and as persons irrespective of conduct, fundamentally unfit for the priesthood. Andrew Sullivan is justifiably outraged--and I am done making excuses for Pope Benedict XVI. This is simply appalling. I once asked a conservative Catholic friend of mine what gay and lesbians should do--how can they be full and functioning members of the Church community. He responded that they should suppress that part of themselves. Obviously, I don't find that answer satisfactory. But now even that position has been kicked out the door. Now even homosexuals willing to be celibate--willing, in other words, to never commit a homosexual act--are still closed off from full equality in the Catholic Church. They are deemed, in Mr. Sullivan's words, Untermenschen. And of course, it goes without saying that the implication that homosexuals are the root of the pedophilia problem, a claim utterly unsubstantiated in reality and being used to insure the real perpetrators go unpunished, is a morally unconscionable.

What's most distressing about this is that I truly believe these actions do not come close to the true beliefs of most Catholics. I have many Catholic friends, some liberal, some conservative. All of them are good-hearted persons with genuine respect for their fellow human beings, regardless of orientation. A few bad apples shouldn't discredit their whole faith. But what do you do when the bad apples are Cardinals and the Pope himself?

I'm Gonna Be That Guy

The fall out over this NYT article on Ivy League women who want to be stay-at-home moms continues with this thoughtful post by Heidi Bond.

What I want is for men to have the real opportunity to be child rearers in our society. This means that if I had the choice between expanding maternity leave for mothers and acquiring paternity leave for fathers who are not full time caretakers, I'd vote for the fathers.

It means that if I had a choice between reducing stigma for women who take years off to rear children, and reducing the stigma for men to take time off at all to rear children, I'd vote for the men. Of course most women will opt to take time off to take care of kids; the option to take time off is rarely available to the man, if he has a wife that appears to be functional. It's not always actually available, and even if policies dictate otherwise, it's rarely socially available.

So really, I want men to have the same opportunities as women.

Now, as regular readers know, I want to be a law professor. An event which (tragically, perhaps) first requires me to attend law school. Knowing my social skills, if I end up meeting someone whom I feel enough for to get married, it will probably be there. And since the odds of finding another future law professor seems astronomical, I can very easily see myself marrying what one of my Georgetown friends lovingly refers to as (and aspires to become) "a corporate whore." In which case, I'd probably be the guy staying at home--that guy who would benefit from what Ms. Bond is talking about. So yeah, it'd be nice.

So, is there stigma? Well, I don't really know, since for me it's still all speculative at this point. I've told a few people (mostly female) that I'd be willing to be a stay-at-home dad with no ill results. But still, there is that expectation of being the big macho breadwinner (and we all know how macho law professors are seen in today's society). Furthermore, a law professor is a job that probably would be effected least by taking some time off or reduced time to raise children (most schools now, or so I hear, will delay tenure review in these cases). But writing and researching is something I can do from home (I may be underestimating the distracting powers of stopping a two year old from choking to death on a grape). Finally, I'll admit some degree of semi-sleazy quid pro quo at work here--I'm willing to be a stay-at-home dad because in doing so I'll have the opportunity to be a professor and still get all the financial perks of being a lawyer. If, by some miracle of societal intervention, I met someone who wasn't going to be a lawyer (or some similarly high-power hyper-job) I might re-evaluate my stance. In other words, I'm willing to be the primary care-giver, but I don't necessarily desire it. Does that make me a bad person? Probably. But if I was a good person, I wouldn't want to attend law school at all, now would I?

Racial Costs of Don't Ask/Don't Tell

UCLA Law Professor Devon Carbado has written a very interesting post exploring the link between racism and heterosexism in the lives of gay blacks. He gives a number of statistics, but the one that really caught my eye was this one:

Black partners in same- and different-sex couples have similar and higher rates of military service (21% and 22% respectively ) than individuals of other races in same-sex (13%) and different-sex (15%) couples.

The higher proportion of blacks in the military compared to whites is well known, but I did not realize it extended to homosexual couples as well. What does this mean?

Well first, the 21% figure also should raise eyebrows because it shows that the "problem" of gays in the military is not isolated. Many homosexuals have served; undoubtedly many more would gladly volunteer if the terms of service didn't include official self-marginalization.

But there is a second problem more intimately connected to the economic realities gay blacks live in. I'm not an expert on DADT, but I assume that gay couples can't get the same type of benefits that accrue from military service as do straight couples. This includes both monetary benefits as well as social support groups. Coupled with the disparity in incomes between black and white homosexual couples, and this becomes very distressing. Carbado quotes statistics saying that black homosexual couples make, on average, a little over $60,000/year, while other same-sex couples earn just over $90,000/year. In other words, gay blacks serve more and need the benefits that come with service more, but don't get them because of discriminatory military policy. DADT isn't the only offender here--any military policy which seeks to cut, defer, or otherwise reduce benefits harms blacks disproportionately because blacks serve disproportionately. But gay blacks are particularly vulnerable because of there twice-removed state of oppression--they are even less sympathetic victims than gay whites or straight blacks, since the observer (or would-be supporter) has to both transcend racism and homophobia to relate. Even amongst "natural" allies, this can be a problem (racism in the homosexual community, or heterosexism in the black community, for example). So a policy whose main victims are not just gays and not just blacks, but gay blacks, is likely to avoid any groundswell of opposition, and will also slide to the backburner of black and gay rights organizations (if it hits the radar screen at all).

What to Do With JetBlue

I try to fly JetBlue as often as possible, so obviously the report of a plane which had to make an emergency landing at LAX due to a landing gear failure was a bit distressing (I'm also a JetBlue stockholder, so that was a bit distressing too). I certainly am having some nasty little flashbacks of how my family always used to fly ValueJet--another low cost airline which went out of business because, well, because its planes had a disturbing habit of dropping out of the sky. But, as tragedy seems to have been averted, I now wonder how we should view the Blue in its wake?

As far as I can gather from the reports, the crew was as professional and adept as could be expected in the situation. Sure, leaving the satellite TV feed on so the passangers could watch their own drama live might not have been the best choice in retrospect. But aside from that, the pilot got the plane on the ground, the crew in the air instructed the passengers to do the things necessary for their own safety, the crew on the ground got the plane down as quickly as possible (no bureaucratic snafus here), and the emergency workers were on the ready as soon as the plane landed. JetBlue immediately promised an inquiry, while at the same time noting that the planes they use--Airbus A320s--are designed so they can land with precisely this sort of failure. So it seems they took and are taking all the right steps.

Obviously, man is somewhat of an irrational beast, so for many this will mean they will never fly JetBlue again. However, from a human perspective (as well as a business perspective--they seem to overlap here), I think we couldn't ask for much more out of JetBlue. Of course, all that assumes that nothing untoward comes out of the inquiry.

Big Ups Indeed

I was tooling around the new blog Black Prof (you'll note it's now on my blogroll) and I stumbled across a very neat article by one of the contributors, GW Law Professor Paul Butler: Much Respect: Toward a Hip-Hop Theory of Punishment, 56 STAN. L. REV. 983 (2004). Don't let the name fool you--it's a serious and readable article that has some tremendous insights on how we ought to think about the criminal justice system. However, I knew it would be fun to read when I saw the introductory footnote:

Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School. This Article was presented as a work-in-progress at Washington University School of Law and at a Stanford Law Review Symposium. I thank the participants in those events. Special shout out to Daniel Solove. Mad props to Christopher Bracey, Kimberly Jade Norwood, and Dorothy Roberts. Big up to my research assistants Jeremy Medovoy, Michael Robinett, and Eduardo Rodriguez.

When's the last time you've seen that in the Stanford Law Review (or, for that matter, the first epigraph being from Nas)?

I do have "much respect," though, for the thesis of the article. It argues that:

Every society has seen the need to punish. The hip-hop nation is no different. Three core principles inform its ideas about punishment. First, people who harm others should be harmed in return. Second, criminals are human beings who deserve respect and love. Third, communities can be destroyed by both crime and punishment. (at 999)

Butler notes that the hip-hop community does not claim that wrongdoers should not be punished--there are plenty of verses promising retribution for harming the community. What is present, and missing from current discourse, is the concept of "respect"--that criminals too are human beings and should not be seen as mere statistics or indicators of how we've gotten "tough on crime." Especially when a massive proportion of blacks in prison are there for non-violent drug crimes (and come from regions where drug dealing is one of the few economic options open), this is a concept that needs to be taken seriously. The final prong of the analysis--impact on the community--also is critical. When a criminal justice scheme is constructed so that virtually all young black men are locked away in jail, we have to start wondering if the societal benefits of the system are not outweighed by the harms. To put it another way, while it certainly is true that drug addiction is a serious problem in poor black communities and one that is a significant barrier to overcoming poverty, that problem pales in comparison to the barrier posed when the entire black male population of the town is in prison on crack possession charges.

Overall, an insightful and relevant piece of literature. Of course, here at The Debate Link we've known for a long time that rap's contributions to political theory are greatly undervalued.

Raising the Dead (Story)

Just when you think that Cindy Sheehan is finally going to drop out of the news--the Police shut down her speech for lacking a permit to use a loudspeaker.

Wonderful--now in addition to being a voice for the anti-war movement, she's a voice being suppressed by the evil censoring government.

Can't we just let her burn out? Keep this up and she'll never go away.

Carnival of Miseries

Kevin Drum has a full plate of bad news blog posts--but he's not the only one.

#1: The Abramoff/GOP corruption scandal nets yet another Bush staffer. Like all other stories focusing on corruption in the Republican party, this one too will have the life span of a Mosquito in December.

#2: It's time to bury once and for all the idea that retail-based politics have even the slightest bit of connection to who wins real elections. In fact, what really wins elections is pure full-on spin style, because nobody pays attention to issues anyway. Why don't we just nominate our favorite actors to be Governors, or something?

#3: In related news, Drum argues, contra Shakespeare's Sister, that Americans of all stripes (not just the hardened ideologues) love to hear disingenuous rhetoric--it just has to be in disguise. It's true--I just melt whenever I hear someone telling me about genuine interparty dialogue--even if I know perfectly well that man is a back-stabbing partisan hack (I'm looking at you, Tom "crossword puzzle" Coburn).

#4: Another Hurricane may be headed New Orleans' way. Terrific.

#5: The Bush war on expertise continues as, among other things, noted disaster maven Karl Rove is put in charge of Katrina reconstruction. I will admit though, when I think Karl Rove, "disaster" is one of the first words that springs to mind. Though, I have to ask, isn't Rove usually more on the supply-side of catastrophic events?

#6: On the incompetence ledger, the federal response to Katrina continues to top itself. Forcing a doctor to leave a dying patient because he didn't have specific credentials from FEMA to operate there? See, this is why I can't just become happily jaded and cynical--there's always another level of idiocy I haven't fathomed yet.

Bottom of the Barrel

Powerline directs us to a very interesting site: Eye on the UN. I haven't gotten a chance to really tool around the site, but this statistic certainly was eye-opening.

Most Human Rights Actions taken by the UN:
1) Israel-- 274
2) Sudan-- 122
3) Democratic Republic of the Congo-- 120
4) United States of America-- 91
5) Myanmar-- 90

Israel as #1 will surprise precisely nobody (but is still appalling), and the US clocks in ahead of such luminaries as Syria, Iran, Cuba, China, North Korea--well, basically every country that isn't either a) Jewish or b) in the midst of a multi-million death genocide.

So if we elect Joe Lieberman as President and start killing all our minorities, we should soar to number one in no time!

This is Funny on So Many Levels

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez claims that the U.S. is planning to invade his country, and that he has the "documentary" evidence to back it up (I'm assuming that's a typo by CNN for "documented," but who knows? Maybe Michael Moore embarked on another project). The nerve of us, after all the help they gave us after Katrina! We should be ashamed. [/sarcasm]

But Chavez knows how to play hardball too. In the event of an invasion, Chavez warned, American can "just forget" about receiving any more oil from the country (you just can't make this stuff up). And, he added, if they occupy Caracas, he might not send flowers to the States on the 4th of July (okay, that part I made up).

Not that I think there is a whit of evidence we are going to attack Venezuela, but if we did? Call me skeptical, but I really don't think that Chavez will be able to stop us from getting however much oil we want. But maybe I'm wrong, and the unknown and untested Venezuelan military will win the biggest upset since Vietnam (ranking only slightly ahead the Red Sox coming back from down 3 games to beat the Yankees last year).

Set your bets now, ladies and gentlemen.

Thought over the Weekend (I)

I realize I haven't been blogging as much recently. And I feel badly. All the more so because the reason is that I've been doing some fasicinating non-blog reading and writing which I'm not sharing.

So to at least partially make it up, I figure I'll pluck out some of the more thought-provoking passages from the stuff I've been reading, and hand it off to y'all. Consider this a modified version of my "debater cards" feature. Feel free to discuss, flame, argue, or do whatever with it.

Today's edition comes from Patricia J. Williams's superb book "The Alchemy of Race and Rights" (Cambridge: Harvard U.P., 1991)

The tyranny of the majority has survived in liberal political theory as a justification for all manner of legislative restraint, particularly economic restraint. But what [John Stuart] Mill did not anticipate was that the persuasive power of the forum itself would subvert the polis, as well as the law, to the extent that there is today precious little 'public' left, just the tyranny of what we call the private. In this nation there is, it is true, relatively little force in the public domain compared to other nations, relatively little intrusive governmental interference. But we risk instead the life-crushing disenfranchisement of an entirely owned world. Permission must be sought to work upon the face of the earth. Freedom becomes contractual and therefore obligated; freedom is framed by obligation; and obligation is paired not with duty but with debt. (43)

Maybe not earth-shattering, but still interesting. The very tools we used to free ourselves from feudalism and other caste systems (indeed, the very things we conceptualize as "freedom") are in the process of enslaving us.

Look Over There!

In an inversion of my usual practice, I wrote a long post over at TMV and are pointing you to it from here. So, if you want my opinion on the most recent Pledge decision, check it out over here. Since it is a response to a previous post my bloghost Joe, the specific arguments it covers are an abbreviated legal argument, a normative claim as to why "under God" in the pledge is harmful to religious minorities, and a response to the claim that it is only a few agitators making the case and thus they should be ignored as out of step with the vast quantity of mainstream society.

If, for some odd reason, you want the opinion of someone who actually knows what they're talking about, you can try...

Hillel Levin

Ethan Leib (happy birthday Ethan!)

Self-described "fervent atheist" Jim Lindgren with a conservative critique.

And Armen shows us just how much fun lower court judges have in dealing with the Courts crystal-clear Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

And after that--well, you can read me again.

If you haven't noticed, I've been blogging less frequently of late. I hope this is merely a temporary bout of fatigue. To be honest, the major reason for the slowdown is that I'm reading some really interesting books (specifically "The Alchemy of Race and Rights" by Patricia J. Williams and "Jews and Blacks: Let The Healing Begin" by Michael Lerner and Cornell West), am finally making progress again in my (off-blog) writing, all of which, when topped with interesting classes (including Feminist Theory and Philosophy of Law) are taking up all my intellectual energy. Leaving little time for blog posts.

But if, as will inevitably happen, these things lose their novelty, I'll be back. I always come back.

Storytime!

Gather round, boys and girls. It's time for a story from your Uncle David.

I'm considering using the following tale as an introduction for a paper I'm writing. I'm curious therefore to know what people's reactions are to it, what they think the "message" is (if any), whether it seems superficial (or too obtuse), etc etc.. Of course, any comments on grammatical or stylistic matters would also be greatly appreciate.

----
It's been the end of a long day at the end of a long week. A young, white male rides down the subway escalator, anxious to return home. Today will be the first time he's been home before 9 o'clock since Sunday. It's hot inside the station and hot outside the station--no day to be wearing a suit. As he goes through the turnstiles, he sees a train is already on the platform ahead, picking up passengers. Quickening his pace, he strives to catch it before it leaves the station.

"Metro's been spotty this whole week. Who knows when the next one will arrive?"

As he approaches the car, he sees that it is rapidly filling up. Jammed to the hilt, it seems. Still, there is room for one more...

Just before he reaches the subway, a black woman appears seemingly out of nowhere and slides inside. They connect as he goes by--not quite a collision, but not quite a brush either. The train is full, the doors close. The young white man is left on the outside.

"Hey, what the hell? What are you trying to pull?" The young man screams. The car hasn't left yet, the African-American can still see him through the window. He gesticulates wildly, ranting, yelling, upset even though he doesn't really know why. The woman's eyes widen--she looks afraid, but he doesn't notice. He continues, animal, bestial, consumed.

"Fuck you" he finally says. She can't hear him (the windows block out the sound), but she can see his raised middle finger. He stalks off, to wait for the next car.

* * *

He's home now. The rage has worn off. He knows he over-reacted. Why was he so angry? He doesn't really know. "Must have been the heat," he thinks. Stress too.

He remembers the look on the woman's face as he yelled at her. My God, she probably thinks I'm a racist!" The thought weighs heavily upon him. He knows he's not a racist. He votes for progressive candidates. He supports affirmative action. He even attended rallies for racial justice when was in college. He can't be a racist...right?

She, of course, didn't know any of that. Which means that she is probably home right now, thinking about her near miss with the racist white guy in the subway station. For a flash, he's angry at her again. She should know better--it was rush hour, everybody is touchy. How dare she consider him a racist!

"Am I a racist?" The question pops unbidden, jarring, disconcerting. Was this an anomaly, a fluke, an unfortunate byproduct of, as he had justified it before, heat and stress?

He ponders this for a moment. Why was he so upset? Because she had taken the last spot on the train, that's why. He would have been angry no matter who it was. "And," he reminds himself, "I'd be upset afterwards about my reaction. It's not right to treat anyone that way."

In fact, he thinks, there’s no reason to think of this in racial terms at all. This was a tense moment between two rushed commuters at rush hour. Happens thousands of times across the country, every day. For that matter, why did he just assume that the woman thought of the incident as race-related? That's not fair to her—that's the very type of race-conscious thinking that does cause racism. Nope--this was just a tragic case of stress. He wasn't racist, she didn't think he was racist--racism was entirely, completely, totally irrelevant.

The man makes a mental note to apologize to the woman if he saw her again, knowing that in the multi-million person metropolis they lived in, the chances were slim to none. He feels bad about that--but what can he do?

He relaxes. All is calm again.

[Sniff] This is the Happiest Moment of My Life...

George W. Bush has taken responsibility for something that went wrong (thanks to John Cole)!

I'm stunned. Seriously, I am. I've never heard Bush take responsibility for anything before--what was supposed to motivate him to start now? I mean, now that "Brownie" resigned I had assumed the GOP would go back on the assault, same as always. But no! He threw a change up at us this time. And boy has it thrown the blogosphere for a loop.

Hostile bloggers like Steve Soto, Josh Marshall, Lean Left, and The Talent Show are all disoriented. They think that it was the right thing to do, but are convinced that it was a completely political calculation designed to dodge true accountability. As TTS puts it:

It will be interesting to see if this kind of "aknowledgement" [sic] of responsibility becomes the basis by which, as always, Bush and Co. manage to skate by without actually being held responsible by anyone. My feeling is, sadly, that we will once again see any serious attempt to reform the system stymied, and the only people to suffer any political punishment will be the people who were most vocally calling for accountability in the first place.

But if anything, it's worse for the right. At least liberals believe that Bush actually did screw up Katrina. Conservatives (or should I say, the more intellectually dishonest of them) are now caught between their pathological desire to attack liberals and their sycophancy to President Bush (or their oh-so-brave "challenges" for him to be yet more conservative). LaShawn Barber, for example, avoids the issue of Katrina entirely--only asking that Democrats apologize for welfare and demanding that Bush apologize for "fail[ing] to harness the power of a conservative government, squandering precious time and resources." Yes, that's really the problem here. A rather neat turnabout, to tell the truth: it attacks Bush for his liberalism and liberals for their liberalism, making this apology just another case of liberals being wrong. Woohoo.

Unsurprisingly, my co-blogger Joe has a characteristically thoughtful and erudite post on the matter.

Federalist Society Inducts Kos Blogger As Newest Member

Jim Lindgren plays a bit with Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' claim that a judge should be an "umpire," rather than one who plays the game himself. Lindgren notes that different umpiring philosophies might translate to different legal philosophies:

First umpire: "Some are balls and some are strikes, and I call them as they are."

Second umpire: "Some are balls and some are strikes, and I call them as I see 'em."

Third umpire: "Some are balls and some are strikes, but they ain't nothin' 'til I call 'em."

Translating roughly to an essentialist "natural law," traditional liberal, and a realist or CLS model, respectively.

Angus Dwyer of the Yale Federalist Society takes it even a step further though. Noting that there is some dispute as to what rules are the "real rules," he asks:

My point is: it's not enough to say "I will neutrally enforce the rules" without answering the question "which rules are the rules?"

To put it differently, does Judge Roberts believe in the wide strike?

Upon reading that, a memory was aroused. What did Kos blogger Armando say on the subject?

It is an interesting analogy Judge Roberts draws. And it seems to me to be an excellent argument for why Judge Roberts must answer the questions put to him by the Senate. As any baseball fan knows, umpires are not uniform in the delineation of the strike zone. Some are "hitters" umpires. Some are "pitchers" umpires. Some call the high strike. Some call the outside pitch.

And when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States, it is important that we know what Judge Roberts' "strike zone" is.

Basically the same thing.

Who'd have thought that The Daily Kos and the Federalist Society would see the Roberts nomination so similarly? Satan, get your skates on.

Crescat tipped me off originally. De Novo also opines.

Don't Waste Your Tears on Me

Jazz feels bad for me. I'm under some delusion that I'm a liberal. Apparently, neo-liberal "is code for neo-conservatives who want to sway people toward the hypnochrists." And to think I thought I was Jewish too--apparently, in addition to being a pawn of the Bush administration and "Dean Asmay acolyte" (someone whom I've rarely read--the point of confusion was that Tom Strong read Asmay, and I considered the arguments Strong found persuasive the same I do. My actual influences run closer to Tom Friedman, Peter Beinart, and Jonathan Chait), I'm also an unwitting member of Jews for Jesus. Who knew?

Let's start off with what Jazz got right--that I was indeed a bit ruffled by his first post. This was due to my false assumption that it was an attack on me. Alas, what we have here is a classic case of mistaken identity. Jazz simply refuses to believe my self-described motivations for my policy positions. He isn't making an argument, his post was the intellectual equivalent of covering his ears and going "I can't hear you."

For example, when I disclaim any support for Bush, he responds

Ok. You don't endorse Bush. You endorse his war in Iraq and his attempts to "spread democracy" (as if you believe that) in the Middle East. Fair enough. You don't endorse him. You simply endorse his worst policies. My apologies.

Even a cursory glance at my prior blogging would belie this (see, e.g., here, here, and here). I am appalled by Bush's horrific mismanagement which jeopardizes the democratic principles that caused me to support the war in the first place. Saying "I told you so" may be a valid attack (though it has very little critical bite, since the impact, "don't trust Bush," I've absorbed by myself, thanks). Saying that I'm a consistent shill for the Bush administration is simply facile. I support Bush as deep as the statement "I support the war" goes. In terms of conduct, preparation, justification, success metrics, and virtually any other indicator, we split.

His defense of the WMD statement? Same problem:

Ok. But you then go on to say, "I'm a neo-liberal anti-Bushite who believes in an at least partial WMD disarmament..." Oh, so you believe in PARTIAL WMD disarmament, do you? And since I'm wrong, I assume that you think the USA should give up their WMD's and Turkey, N. Korea, Iran and Russia should keep them, eh? Pull the other one, Senor... it doth have bells on it. You believe in the "bad people" disarming.

Actually, what I meant by disarmament was that both the US and Russia should significantly reduce their WMD stockpiles, and we should aggressively combat the proliferation of WMDs to other nations (it should be noted that one can be anti-proliferation without wanting ANY reduction in current WMD levels--proliferation being the spread of WMDs, not anything to with the status quo. But that's not my position). The "partially" was merely to denote that WMDs still have some deterrent effect on conflict and thus we should preserve SOME nukes--but we don't need as many.

Of course, some of this confusion may be related to my doubts as to whether Jazz even read my piece at all. Certainly, he did this discourse no favors by skipping over all the meat of my analysis (non-intervention as a conscious choice which reifies oppression and murder). Moreover, he completely mangles my characterization of his position. He says that I call him a "liberal" and a "pacifist." I do neither. I actually say that while his argument masquerades as being a pluralist case for non-intervention ("pluralists for tyrannies"), a look beneath the surface reveals a fundamental conservatism. Since the ultimate sticking point between us was whether or not my opinions could be characterized as liberal (as he puts it, to take my arguments and "couch them in a cloak of faux liberalism...borders on insulting"), it is rather integral to show that the counter-argument he makes against intervention cannot under any stretch be called liberal. Indeed, I specifically label it conservative ("...you can see the conservatism in the argument itself."), so it's a bit weird that he thinks me critique was that he was liberal. What we're disputing is what liberal is. My claim is that while the argument draws from leftist theories of pluralism, in effect it is a conservative position which justifies political inaction and marginalization of outsiders. You can even see the conservative influence in his invocation of his armed service--he served in Desert Storm (thanks for that, by the way. I'm totally serious), so his opinions on war are utterly and completely beyond reproach. Geez, where have I heard that type of argument before? As to the pacifism thing--I registered no claim as to what Jazz feels about any given war. I critiqued his objection to foreign policy intervention, but then, these subtleties seem to be escaping him.

The straw men keep coming. Why do I hate the UN? Because of oil-for-food (actually, it's because the UN has consistently refused to stand up to genocide occurring in front of it's very eyes: see, e.g., Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia, Congo, Iraq (Anfal campaign). And when other people try to pick up the slack, they declare the war illegal, see Kosovo. I have no use for an international organization who ignores its own explicit mandates to stop genocide for the sake of political expediency). Why do I hate Europe? Because they're "old Europe" (I actually don't hate Europe, but given their history of colonization in the middle east, they too have little credibility when it comes to liberation). What's the most important thing in the world to me? Fitting in the Rovian agenda (I hate, hate, Karl Rove). The post is a giant imputation of false motivations that can be disproved simply by reading my archives. What we have here, is a failure of imagination. Jazz cannot argue against anybody who isn't a neo-con. To compensate, he just insists that anybody who disagrees with him is a neo-con, and works from there. Sorry dear, but it just ain't flying.

Amidst all of that straw-bashing, there is a tiny, tiny, bit of substantive clash. It comes in the following two passages. Referring to my defense of democratization as an ideal (as oppose to America) as an ideal, he writes:

Do you honestly think that democracy is the only functional form of government in the world? Dave, ours is barely functional at this point. And there have been many successful ones that have lasted far longer than the gnat's lifespan that ours has been here. Democracies often implode, also. It's a hard form of government to run over the long haul. Others take other choices. Your desire to "democratize" puts the lie to your first statements.

Note, incidentally, that Jazz claims that authoritarianism is a "choice" by citizens in the third world. That's odd: how did they choose? Did they vote for it? The conception of "choice" in government is inextricably bundled with democratization--if you're supporting choice you're supporting democracy. This may seem paradoxical, but it isn't--unlike other forms of government democracy is characterized by its indeterminancy: the citizens of France can vote for one type of government and the citizens of Indonesia can vote for an entirely different one. Two totally different choices, both under the framework of "democracy." In dictatorships, by contrast, the only person choosing is the dictator. This is why Jazz's case is so easily deconstructed, again, it's defending dictatorships from the position of free choice.

Passage two:

David seems to think that when we went in and took out Saddam and his party every other Iraq was waiting to cheer and exclaim, "Finally! Finally, we can have equal rights for our women and for gays and for people of all religions!" Here's a tip, David. The Iraqis who do support us do so because they hate us slightly less than they did Saddam. Why do you think they are quickly moving to form a theocratic bond with Iran?

Societies change from within. Do you really think we can have a trooper standing at the dinner table with every Iraqi Man saying, "Embrace your wife's rights! Embrace your gay son!" Yeah. That will work. Cultures evolve over centuries. You don't do it at gunpoint. But David and the "spread Americanism at the end of a rifle" crowd somehow think you can.

Paired with the passage above, this boils down to a "democracy isn't so hot" argument paired with "democracy can only be home-grown."

I've never been the biggest democracy fan as a theory--I support it pragmatically because I'm Churchillian, I think that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried.

Jazz tells me there are other "functioning" governments besides democracy. Alright Jazz, I'll call your bluff: what are they? Obviously this depends a lot on what the definition of "functioning" is. If it's just keeping order, then sure, there have been loads of functioning non-democratic states. The USSR, Nazi Germany, Communist China, to name a few. If "functioning" implies a basic level of rights for citizens, though, then suddenly the list becomes a bit tighter. Indeed, on an empirical level, and even controlling for economic development, democracies have outperformed autocracies on almost every level. Joseph T. Siegle, Michael M. Weinstein, Morton H. Halperin wrote in the September/October 2004 edition of Foreign Affairs that:

People in low-income democracies live, on average, nine years longer than their counterparts in low-income autocracies, have a 40 percent greater chance of attending secondary school, and benefit from agricultural yields that are 25 percent higher. The latter figure is particularly relevant because some 70 percent of the people in poor countries live in the countryside. Higher levels of agricultural productivity mean more employment, capital, and food. Poor democracies also suffer 20 percent fewer infant deaths than poor autocracies. Development practitioners should pay particularly close attention to these figures because infant-mortality rates capture many features of social well-being, such as prenatal health care for women, nutrition, quality of drinking water, and girls' education.

More integral to the point I'm trying to make is the link between authoritarian states and mass death. R.J. Rummell, Professor at the University of Hawaii, compiled the statistics and found that:

While 36 million people have been killed in battle in all foreign and domestic wars in [the 20th] century, at least 119 million more have been killed by government genocide, massacres, and other mass killing. And about 115 million of these were killed by totalitarian governments... There is no case of democracies killing en-masse their own citizens. The inverse relationship between democracy and foreign violence, collective domestic violence, or government genocide is not simply a correlation, but a cause and effect...[T]he more democratic freedom a nation has, the less likely its government will commit foreign or domestic democide...through democratic institutions social conflicts that might become violent are resolved by voting, negotiation, compromise, and mediation. The success of these procedures is enhanced and supported by the restraints on decision makers of competitive elections, the cross-pressures resulting from the natural pluralism of democratic--spontaneous--societies, and the development of a democratic culture and norms that emphasizes rational debate, toleration, negotiation of differences, conciliation, and conflict resolution. Moreover, democratic leaders see others, even political opponents, as within the same moral universe, as equally nonviolent, as disposed to negotiate differences peacefully."

That comparison should be astounding. In the 20th century, totalitarian governments beat democratic governments in terms of democidal deaths by a total of 115 million to 4 million. Given that reality, the argument that Iraqis won't immediately vote for gay rights pales.

As to the argument that democracies can't be established via military force, this is factually inaccurate. Just ask the folks in Germany, Japan, and Kosovo, where we did(/are doing) just that. University of Chicago Political Scientist Daniel Drezner notes that

But what of governments imposed via military occupation? Surely they're the exception to this optimistic rule. Actually, the empirical evidence of the last 50 years is rather evenly split on the question. Postwar Germany, Japan, Bosnia, and Kosovo are all, to varying degrees, democratic success stories; Somalia and Haiti are probably safely considered failures. (Let's be generous and say the jury is still out on Afghanistan.) Still, the more relevant point is that the key difference between the democratic haves and have-nots is not the conditions that prevailed prior to war; it's the occupiers' commitment to the democratization process once the fighting ends. In the words of a compelling new RAND Corporation study, America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq...:

'What principally distinguishes [successes from failures] are not their levels of Western culture, economic development, or cultural homogeneity. Rather, it is the level of effort the United States and the international community have put into their democratic transformations. In Germany and Japan, for example, substantial American aid reduced social, political, and other obstacles to the reconstitution of parliamentary politics and facilitated a transition to democracy.

Military force may not be ideal for creating democracies, but it certainly isn't antithetical to it. And even if it were true that totalitarian states will naturally evolve into democracies (something I'm skeptical of and in any event contradicts Jazz's earlier claim that dictatorship is a deliberate and happy "choice"), I really wouldn't care all that much, because waiting for dictatorships to squeeze every last murder, torture, rape, and robbery they can out of their state before they are overthrown doesn't strike as a particularly moral(/liberal) way to conduct foreign policy. Being a liberal means aiding the oppressed now (or as soon as is reasonably feasible), not letting history take it's whim and hoping for the best.

Not that I expect this post to matter. If it even gets a response, it will be yet another sad attempt to force me inside a neo-conservative box, where I can be slapped around like Rummy and Wolfie and all the other folks who have destroyed the credibility of Wilsonian Foreign Policy for generations to come. Oh well.

Pluralists for Tyranny?

In the midst of a kind of rambling and overall poorly written post on the role of narratives in political discourse, I wrote the brilliant line that "superficially going to war doesn't seem to mesh well with pacifism."

Okay, maybe not my best work, even though it was intended to be ironic. The underlying point was that the if pacifists adopt that position instrumentally in order to pursue "deeper" values (like social justice or avoidance of harm to individuals), then a well-constructed narrative could convince an erstwhile pacifist to support a certain war (say, one to end a genocide) by reinforcing, not refuting, their pre-existing value system. But whatever--it was inartfully worded, and I deserved to be mocked.

And mocked I was, by Jazz Shaw of Running Scared. But then he steps past that and makes me a convenient straw man to bash all sorts of nasty things. Specifically:

A thumbnail description of why people following this particular theory try to call themselves "liberal" while endorsing Bush, preemptive wars and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as long as it's among "the good countries" could not be crafted in the space available. However, the crux of it is that "we" (and by "we", the theory refers exclusively to America) are essentially perfect. And as perfect beings, we somehow need to "save" the other countries of the world from themselves and their inferior societies, if necessary, by war. Spending our most precious capital -namely the blood of our youth - is somehow seen as "for the greater good" as long as we can bring them to see the light.

I'd write a long argument against this, but let's face it... it falls apart on its own. There are so many religions in the world... so many forms of government... so many opinions. Most all of them are valid for people of good intentions who love their own countries and societies and cultures. The mind reels. I welcome you to read the short but stunning (you fill in exactly why it's stunning) work of... David Schraub.
[...]
I can't tell if it's more amusing or frightening. What I do know is that it perfectly sums up the "theory" of the neocons who want to use preemptive war to project American power and "theory" on other cultures. To take those theories, even if you seriously believe them, and couch them in a cloak of faux liberalism, though, borders on insulting.

Somehow, I endorse Bush (I don't), advocate the spread of WMDs (again, I don't), believe that only American ideas/religions/opinions are worthwhile (take a guess), and am a neo-conservative who wishes to project American power (I'm not). In all actuality, I'm a neo-liberal anti-Bushite who believes in an at least partial WMD disarmament and is committed the liberation of those suffering under tyranny and oppression.

Since some folks don't seem to understand the difference between neo-cons and neo-libs, I'll try and spell it out. Neo-cons, as Jazz helpfully points (and rather unhelpfully ascribes to me) believe that America is "perfect" or nearly so, and that a just world is an Ameicanized world--whatever that means. If America is perfect, than anything we do in the pursuit of perfecting the world (torture, indefinite detention, etc) is justified. Neo-liberals, by contrast, are committed to certain ideals, among them democratization, equal rights, and other liberal mainstays. For us, America is instrumentally useful for achieving those goals--but certainly does not inherently embody them. So we'll loudly press for American-led democratization--while at the same time condemning American-caused atrocities like Abu Gharib. Where we join forces with neo-cons is that we do not see an alternative to an American led effort to secure these ends. No other organization or nation is remotely capable of achieving these goals. Ideally, would I prefer a nation or group that has a better track record than America to undertake this project? Sure. But who is out there? The UN? The EU? Don't make me laugh. At the moment, the US is the only choice we have.

Okay, now that we've gotten identity out the of the way, let's look at just who's argument falls apart on it's own terms, eh? Poor word choice aside, it seems quite reasonable for liberals of any stripe to push for the liberation of oppressed peoples. And realists of any stripe recognize that sometimes asking nicely doesn't work. So a liberalism that is in touch with reality has to occasionally sanction the use of force--and it certainly can't indulge in the sort of soft post-modernism Jazz embodies with his fuzzy talk of "so many opinions."

That, of course, is what makes Jazz's argument really ironic. "Pacifists for armed intervention" may be silly, but no more so than his "pluralists for tyrannies" objection. I recognize that Iraqis have many opinions--some of which are different from mine. In fact, I'm so cognizant of the fact that I'd actually like to give them the chance to express them! The right to self-determination, to be free of rape rooms and torture-on-whim, these aren't American rights (we too have violated them before). They're human rights--and at the moment America is the only chance of securing them.

What Jazz doesn't realize is that a "look-the-other-way" foreign policy is a conscious choice--one that dooms millions to rape, mutilation, and death. So when the US refuses to intervene to overthrow dictatorships, it isn't a "neutral" act but a positive affirmation of the current state of affairs. Effectively, Jazz is using pluralism to prop up authoritarianism--a contradiction in terms if I ever saw one. Jazz acts as if the contemporary global situation is natural and inevitable--that American efforts to rectify the situation are an illegitimate imposition on the way things "should be." Such a view is nakedly conservative--it not only asserts the naturality of the wretched state of the third world, but it implies that it is their choice to be that way. If trying to create progressive democracies is pushing an "American" theory or way of life, then the corollary is that the status quo--totalitarianism, oppression, poverty--is "their" way of life. That isn't liberalism. That's rationalization for refusing to rectify the pervasive inequalities that plague the modern world. If that's the new liberalism, then call me a moderate, call me a conservative, call me something else. But I refuse to believe it.

If you look closely, you can see the conservatism in the argument itself. Note what Jazz labels the "capital" being expended here: "the blood of our youth." Presumably also our money, our resources, and our attention. Of course, not a word is said about the capital expended when we do nothing: the blood of their youth (and adults), their money, resources, and attention (in quantities, proportionally, that dwarf what we'd expend). For an argument that purports to critique ethnocentrism, it sure does a damn fine job of marginalizing the Other. What of them? It is highly revealing that the interests of Iraqis or Afghanis or what have you play precisely no role in Jazz's moral calculus. After all, we both claim to be speaking for the best interests of the oppressed. Yet while at least the neo-liberals can provide concrete methodologies to improve the lives of the worst well-off, the leftist stance Jazz postulates consists mostly of looking in the mirror and beating ourselves bloody. We use the poor to whip ourselves, and then say what good persons we are because we're incorporating them into our discourse! Hurray for us! But true liberation isn't a product of making the oppressed our intellectual playthings, it's about seriously and materially working to improve their lives. We can't do that behind a podium in Turtle Bay--and it's willful ignorance to pretend otherwise.

Obviously, liberalism is a contested subject. But at the point where the "liberal" position is one that justifies inequality, shies away from reform, attacks liberators, and defends the status quo even in the face of sickening atrocities--at that point the term becomes distorted beyond recognition. Jazz can believe what he wants--but I'll defend my position as the true heir to liberalism any day of the week.

UPDATE: I go yet further into depth here.

First Thing We Do, Let's Burn Down The Synagogues

So the last Israelis are out of Gaza. How should the newly independent Palestinians celebrate? How about by burning all the synagogues to the ground?

And some people say there isn't anti-Semitism in this conflict (Eric Muller with the link).

PS: By the way, I did see that the Israelis originally promised to tear down the Synagogues themselves, then changed their minds. Big deal. The Gaza pullout already exacted a tremendous emotional toll on the Israeli populace and military--a giant step toward peace which, one might point out, was made with no promise of comparable concessions by the Palestinian side. It is not at all unreasonable to spare these soldiers the further trauma of having to tear down their own holy places. The Palestinian protestation is just another indication of their unapologetically maximalist positions and failure to even consider compromise. And in any event, respecting the holy places of other religions shouldn't be on the negotiating table anyway. Anyway you cut it, even if (like me) you supported the Gaza pullout, this was deplorable.