Dahlia Lithwick (via that same post) quotes Felix Frankfurter giving a line I very much like. He discusses those who "afford brutality the cloak of law." The quote comes from Rochin v. California [342 U.S. 165, 173 (1952)]. The case there involved police officers forcibly trying to extract drug capsules from a suspect's mouth, then after he swallowed him, applying a stomach pump to force him to vomit them up. This case is also where the phrase "shocks the conscience" entered our legal lexicon. The type of techniques President Bush wants to preserve for his use are the epitome of what should shock the conscience, and I certainly hope our collective conscience has not atrophied so much so that it no longer does.
***
Andrew McCarthy calls anti-torture Senators "anarchronisms." Publius has another idea of what truly constitutes an anarchronism.
***
Representative Peter King (R-NY)--one of the few representatives who can fairly be said to have explicitly supported terror and terrorists--has had a change of heart. But so far, the progressive turn that leads him to believe that wanton depravations of human dignity (such as terrorism) are bad has yet to cause him to turn against torture as an interrogation tactic. In somewhat related news, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, sums up the extent of his inquiry on this issue: "We'll do what the President wants." That's GOP oversight.
***
Brian Tamanaha: Don't make a deal with the devil. Some temporary security is not worth sacrificing our nation's immortal soul.
***
Finally, a TPM Reader nails it: It really doesn't matter who ends up winning the torture debate. By virtue of having it, we've already lost. This isn't about censorship. This is about there being some redlines in our moral psyche which we shoul refuse to even consider, much less cross. If someone offered you a considerable sum to sell your children into slavery, the proper response isn't to deliberate over the offer, weigh the pros and cons, and come to a decision--even if that decision is "hell no!" There is a type of moral sacrifice in even debating the subject, regardless if one holds the line on the right outcome.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Two Views of the MBD
Jonathan Martin (behind a TNR firewall) and Terry Smith both comment on the election of White representatives in majority Black districts (MBDs). It's interesting to see how each frames the issue. Mr. Martin focuses on Tennessee's 9th district (vacated by Harold Ford Jr. for his Senate run). A White Jewish Democrat by the name of Steve Cohen (who pledged that, if elected, he would seek to become the first member of the Congressional Black Caucus) just won a heavily divided Democratic primary with 31% of the vote. Mr. Martin focuses on some of the tensions between Jews and Blacks that emerged here, specifically the feeling amongst many Jews that their strong civil rights background gets ignored and that they just get lumped into a generic category of "White" without any distinguishment or qualification. Sometimes, though, the problems go beyond that:
It's a mistake to overstate things--Mr. Cohen had strong showings in minority precincts, and just won the endorsement of the black mayors of both Shelby County and Memphis (which is not just a case of "anyone but the GOP." Another member of the locally dynastic Ford family has jumped into the race as an independent). Still, I think that it is important to at least recognize the Jewish cross-cuts Whiteness as an identity, so that when analyzing these races, we at least keep the issue in mind.
Professor Smith's Garvey-esque Black nationalism has always grated me, and this post is no different. He talks about both the Tennessee race, as well as the just concluded race in New York's 11th district, where a Black Democrat narrowly beat out a White Democrat in a tight four-way race. Smith comes down hard on both White politicians who seek to exploit divisions in the Black vote in MBDs, as well as overly ambitious Black politicians who put these seats at risk because they care more about their own advancement than coalescing behind one candidate and thus insuring that the seat remains in Black hands. To the former, he argues "a white candidate whose candidacy in a black district per se illustrates an indifference to black under-representation [cannot] possibly claim to be capable of representing black interests[.]" To the latter, he claims:
I think there is a fair amount of presumption in these post, especially with regards to how much of the votes of the "splinter" Black candidates would have gone to Cohen or David Yassky (the White candidate in New York) had they dropped out. Cohen, at least, ran relatively strong in Black precincts, as noted above, and unlike Yassky, he is longtime denizen of the district and didn't move there to run. Smith also complains that even when Black candidates win in MBD, a White minority there can still act as a moderating influence that prevents them from selecting the precise candidate the community would want. I'm not a fan of "majority of my majority" politics in the first place, and the example he uses (Cynthia McKinney's "struggles") seems to buttress my point: any system that knocks her out of office (especially when it replaces her with another solid Black representative) counts as a feature in my book, not a bug.
But the worst part is at the end, where Professor Smith calls for (in so many words) the creation of Black political machines:
Forming machines like this may help keep Black faces in congress, but in it is a virtual recipe for corrupt and unrepresentative politicians who will do nothing but shame the Black community. That's the case of any machine, mind you--but it should set off alarms when you want to bring that type of trouble onto your own community. Certainly, any person who claims to appreciate history, as Smith does, should know that machines are completely antithetical to the goal of "equal opportunity 'to participate in the political process and to elect the representatives of their choice.'"
I understand the desire for diverse representation, and I support the principle--I really do. But there has to be some crossover point where color is subjugated to content. Creating a machine system in Black communities would be catastrophic for that community's interests. Albert Wynn and Sharpe James are machine politicians. Barack Obama and Cory Booker are the politicians one gets when Black voters push politicians who have genuine talent and universal appeal. Who do you think is going to do more for the Black community?
One black candidate publicly pointed out that Cohen's election would mean that "for the first time in thirty years," the city "could be without African American representation." Another paid for a push poll in which recipients were reportedly asked, "Are you more likely to vote for a born-again Christian or a Jew?" A third, just three days before the primary, went even further. Pouncing on Cohen's pledge to join the CBC, longtime Shelby County Commissioner Julian Bolton sneered, "The only reason he wants to join is that he wants to get money for Israel."
It's a mistake to overstate things--Mr. Cohen had strong showings in minority precincts, and just won the endorsement of the black mayors of both Shelby County and Memphis (which is not just a case of "anyone but the GOP." Another member of the locally dynastic Ford family has jumped into the race as an independent). Still, I think that it is important to at least recognize the Jewish cross-cuts Whiteness as an identity, so that when analyzing these races, we at least keep the issue in mind.
Professor Smith's Garvey-esque Black nationalism has always grated me, and this post is no different. He talks about both the Tennessee race, as well as the just concluded race in New York's 11th district, where a Black Democrat narrowly beat out a White Democrat in a tight four-way race. Smith comes down hard on both White politicians who seek to exploit divisions in the Black vote in MBDs, as well as overly ambitious Black politicians who put these seats at risk because they care more about their own advancement than coalescing behind one candidate and thus insuring that the seat remains in Black hands. To the former, he argues "a white candidate whose candidacy in a black district per se illustrates an indifference to black under-representation [cannot] possibly claim to be capable of representing black interests[.]" To the latter, he claims:
The struggles to obtain a black franchise, the lives that were lost, and more specifically the efforts to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965, were not endeavors to create employment opportunities for black political aspirants. In the words of the Voting Rights Act itself, the goal was to give black voters equal opportunity "to participate in the political process and to elect the representatives of their choice." I think that goal is lost on black candidates when they risk black representation for their own advancement.
I think there is a fair amount of presumption in these post, especially with regards to how much of the votes of the "splinter" Black candidates would have gone to Cohen or David Yassky (the White candidate in New York) had they dropped out. Cohen, at least, ran relatively strong in Black precincts, as noted above, and unlike Yassky, he is longtime denizen of the district and didn't move there to run. Smith also complains that even when Black candidates win in MBD, a White minority there can still act as a moderating influence that prevents them from selecting the precise candidate the community would want. I'm not a fan of "majority of my majority" politics in the first place, and the example he uses (Cynthia McKinney's "struggles") seems to buttress my point: any system that knocks her out of office (especially when it replaces her with another solid Black representative) counts as a feature in my book, not a bug.
But the worst part is at the end, where Professor Smith calls for (in so many words) the creation of Black political machines:
Black voters will ultimately have to take matters into their own hands by forming strong community-based satellite parties (often referred to as political clubs) to conduct informal caucuses among black aspirants as a means of winnowing the field. There's nothing to compel the losers in such a process to abide the results, but there is likewise nothing to prevent the satellite party from punishing the sore loser, both by concentrating resources on its preferred candidate and by visiting electoral and professional retribution on the black candidate who risks a district's loss of black representation for his own personal interests.
Forming machines like this may help keep Black faces in congress, but in it is a virtual recipe for corrupt and unrepresentative politicians who will do nothing but shame the Black community. That's the case of any machine, mind you--but it should set off alarms when you want to bring that type of trouble onto your own community. Certainly, any person who claims to appreciate history, as Smith does, should know that machines are completely antithetical to the goal of "equal opportunity 'to participate in the political process and to elect the representatives of their choice.'"
I understand the desire for diverse representation, and I support the principle--I really do. But there has to be some crossover point where color is subjugated to content. Creating a machine system in Black communities would be catastrophic for that community's interests. Albert Wynn and Sharpe James are machine politicians. Barack Obama and Cory Booker are the politicians one gets when Black voters push politicians who have genuine talent and universal appeal. Who do you think is going to do more for the Black community?
Two Views of the MBD
Jonathan Martin (behind a TNR firewall) and Terry Smith both comment on the election of White representatives in majority Black districts (MBDs). It's interesting to see how each frames the issue. Mr. Martin focuses on Tennessee's 9th district (vacated by Harold Ford Jr. for his Senate run). A White Jewish Democrat by the name of Steve Cohen (who pledged that, if elected, he would seek to become the first member of the Congressional Black Caucus) just won a heavily divided Democratic primary with 31% of the vote. Mr. Martin focuses on some of the tensions between Jews and Blacks that emerged here, specifically the feeling amongst many Jews that their strong civil rights background gets ignored and that they just get lumped into a generic category of "White" without any distinguishment or qualification. Sometimes, though, the problems go beyond that:
It's a mistake to overstate things--Mr. Cohen had strong showings in minority precincts, and just won the endorsement of the black mayors of both Shelby County and Memphis (which is not just a case of "anyone but the GOP." Another member of the locally dynastic Ford family has jumped into the race as an independent). Still, I think that it is important to at least recognize the Jewish cross-cuts Whiteness as an identity, so that when analyzing these races, we at least keep the issue in mind.
Professor Smith's Garvey-esque Black nationalism has always grated me, and this post is no different. He talks about both the Tennessee race, as well as the just concluded race in New York's 11th district, where a Black Democrat narrowly beat out a White Democrat in a tight four-way race. Smith comes down hard on both White politicians who seek to exploit divisions in the Black vote in MBDs, as well as overly ambitious Black politicians who put these seats at risk because they care more about their own advancement than coalescing behind one candidate and thus insuring that the seat remains in Black hands. To the former, he argues "a white candidate whose candidacy in a black district per se illustrates an indifference to black under-representation [cannot] possibly claim to be capable of representing black interests[.]" To the latter, he claims:
I think there is a fair amount of presumption in these post, especially with regards to how much of the votes of the "splinter" Black candidates would have gone to Cohen or David Yassky (the White candidate in New York) had they dropped out. Cohen, at least, ran relatively strong in Black precincts, as noted above, and unlike Yassky, he is longtime denizen of the district and didn't move there to run. Smith also complains that even when Black candidates win in MBD, a White minority there can still act as a moderating influence that prevents them from selecting the precise candidate the community would want. I'm not a fan of "majority of my majority" politics in the first place, and the example he uses (Cynthia McKinney's "struggles") seems to buttress my point: any system that knocks her out of office (especially when it replaces her with another solid Black representative) counts as a feature in my book, not a bug.
But the worst part is at the end, where Professor Smith calls for (in so many words) the creation of Black political machines:
Forming machines like this may help keep Black faces in congress, but in it is a virtual recipe for corrupt and unrepresentative politicians who will do nothing but shame the Black community. That's the case of any machine, mind you--but it should set off alarms when you want to bring that type of trouble onto your own community. Certainly, any person who claims to appreciate history, as Smith does, should know that machines are completely antithetical to the goal of "equal opportunity 'to participate in the political process and to elect the representatives of their choice.'"
I understand the desire for diverse representation, and I support the principle--I really do. But there has to be some crossover point where color is subjugated to content. Creating a machine system in Black communities would be catastrophic for that community's interests. Albert Wynn and Sharpe James are machine politicians. Barack Obama and Cory Booker are the politicians one gets when Black voters push politicians who have genuine talent and universal appeal. Who do you think is going to do more for the Black community?
One black candidate publicly pointed out that Cohen's election would mean that "for the first time in thirty years," the city "could be without African American representation." Another paid for a push poll in which recipients were reportedly asked, "Are you more likely to vote for a born-again Christian or a Jew?" A third, just three days before the primary, went even further. Pouncing on Cohen's pledge to join the CBC, longtime Shelby County Commissioner Julian Bolton sneered, "The only reason he wants to join is that he wants to get money for Israel."
It's a mistake to overstate things--Mr. Cohen had strong showings in minority precincts, and just won the endorsement of the black mayors of both Shelby County and Memphis (which is not just a case of "anyone but the GOP." Another member of the locally dynastic Ford family has jumped into the race as an independent). Still, I think that it is important to at least recognize the Jewish cross-cuts Whiteness as an identity, so that when analyzing these races, we at least keep the issue in mind.
Professor Smith's Garvey-esque Black nationalism has always grated me, and this post is no different. He talks about both the Tennessee race, as well as the just concluded race in New York's 11th district, where a Black Democrat narrowly beat out a White Democrat in a tight four-way race. Smith comes down hard on both White politicians who seek to exploit divisions in the Black vote in MBDs, as well as overly ambitious Black politicians who put these seats at risk because they care more about their own advancement than coalescing behind one candidate and thus insuring that the seat remains in Black hands. To the former, he argues "a white candidate whose candidacy in a black district per se illustrates an indifference to black under-representation [cannot] possibly claim to be capable of representing black interests[.]" To the latter, he claims:
The struggles to obtain a black franchise, the lives that were lost, and more specifically the efforts to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965, were not endeavors to create employment opportunities for black political aspirants. In the words of the Voting Rights Act itself, the goal was to give black voters equal opportunity "to participate in the political process and to elect the representatives of their choice." I think that goal is lost on black candidates when they risk black representation for their own advancement.
I think there is a fair amount of presumption in these post, especially with regards to how much of the votes of the "splinter" Black candidates would have gone to Cohen or David Yassky (the White candidate in New York) had they dropped out. Cohen, at least, ran relatively strong in Black precincts, as noted above, and unlike Yassky, he is longtime denizen of the district and didn't move there to run. Smith also complains that even when Black candidates win in MBD, a White minority there can still act as a moderating influence that prevents them from selecting the precise candidate the community would want. I'm not a fan of "majority of my majority" politics in the first place, and the example he uses (Cynthia McKinney's "struggles") seems to buttress my point: any system that knocks her out of office (especially when it replaces her with another solid Black representative) counts as a feature in my book, not a bug.
But the worst part is at the end, where Professor Smith calls for (in so many words) the creation of Black political machines:
Black voters will ultimately have to take matters into their own hands by forming strong community-based satellite parties (often referred to as political clubs) to conduct informal caucuses among black aspirants as a means of winnowing the field. There's nothing to compel the losers in such a process to abide the results, but there is likewise nothing to prevent the satellite party from punishing the sore loser, both by concentrating resources on its preferred candidate and by visiting electoral and professional retribution on the black candidate who risks a district's loss of black representation for his own personal interests.
Forming machines like this may help keep Black faces in congress, but in it is a virtual recipe for corrupt and unrepresentative politicians who will do nothing but shame the Black community. That's the case of any machine, mind you--but it should set off alarms when you want to bring that type of trouble onto your own community. Certainly, any person who claims to appreciate history, as Smith does, should know that machines are completely antithetical to the goal of "equal opportunity 'to participate in the political process and to elect the representatives of their choice.'"
I understand the desire for diverse representation, and I support the principle--I really do. But there has to be some crossover point where color is subjugated to content. Creating a machine system in Black communities would be catastrophic for that community's interests. Albert Wynn and Sharpe James are machine politicians. Barack Obama and Cory Booker are the politicians one gets when Black voters push politicians who have genuine talent and universal appeal. Who do you think is going to do more for the Black community?
Friday, September 15, 2006
Euston Manifesto
I almost signed this petition, called the Euston Manifesto, sight unseen. I actually did skim it, and it is a great indicator of the type of liberalism that desparately needs to reassert itself. Unapologetic in its stance against racism and oppression, with a clear recognition that unconstrained relativism is a threat to liberal and progressive ideals. Just as importantly, it recognizes that the West has to both see itself and be seen as an ally in the struggle for universal human rights--irrational prejudice and irrational pride are both barriers to creating a more just world.
Via Obsidian Wings, I think this speech by Tory Leader David Cameron perfectly exemplifies the type of commitment embodied in the Euston Manifesto.
Would that American politicians (of any party) could speak of those ideals (much less implement them).
Via Obsidian Wings, I think this speech by Tory Leader David Cameron perfectly exemplifies the type of commitment embodied in the Euston Manifesto.
I fully appreciate the scale of the threat we face. I believe that the leadership of the United States, supported by Britain, is central to the struggle in which we are engaged.
I believe that the neo-conservatives are right to argue that extending freedom is an essential objective of western foreign policy.
And I agree that western powers should be prepared, in the last resort, to use military force.
We know from history that a country must be ready to defend itself and its allies.
More than that, we and others are justified in using pre-emptive force when an attack on us is being prepared, and when all means of peaceful dissuasion and deterrence have failed.
Furthermore, I believe that we should be prepared to intervene for humanitarian purposes to rescue people from genocide.
Liberal Conservatism
But I believe that in the last five years we have suffered from the absence of two crucial qualities which should always condition foreign policy-making.
Humility, and patience.
These are not warlike words.
They are not so glamorous and exciting as the easy sound-bites we have grown used to in recent years.
But these sound-bites had the failing of all foreign policy designed to fit into a headline.
They were unrealistic and simplistic.
They represented a view which sees only light and darkness in the world - and which believes that one can be turned to the other as quickly as flicking a switch.
I do not see things that way. I am a liberal conservative, rather than a neo-conservative.
Liberal - because I support the aim of spreading freedom and democracy, and support humanitarian intervention.
Conservative - because I recognise the complexities of human nature, and am sceptical of grand schemes to remake the world.
A liberal conservative approach to foreign policy today is based on five propositions.
First, that we should understand fully the threat we face.
Second, that democracy cannot quickly be imposed from outside.
Third, that our strategy needs to go far beyond military action.
Fourth, that we need a new multilateralism to tackle the new global challenges we face.
And fifth, that we must strive to act with moral authority.
Would that American politicians (of any party) could speak of those ideals (much less implement them).
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Flip The Switch
Aharon Barak's legacy as a profoundly Jewish justice on the Israeli Supreme Court is explored here in the Jerusalem Post. Barak's vigorous protection of minority rights is in keeping with the best traditions of Judaism and Jewish arbiters, including Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I reference one of those decisions, dealing with religious freedom in a nation where Synagogue and State are still far too intertwined for my tastes. But in general, his work on the court has been superb and a model for other judges--of all nations--to follow when navigating the difficult currents between religion and state, and liberty and terror.
Unlike Christianity or Islam, Judaism remains dominated by its liberal wing (this isn't to say there aren't committed liberal Christians or Muslims, only that the predominant manifestation of those religions in the public sphere is not particularly liberal). By itself, this is an important message--religious faith is not incompatible with the ideal of building a progressive world. Protection of minority rights is not something stands in opposition to traditional Jewish values, it is the epitome of them.
The irony, of course, is that unlike in nearly every other nation, "protection of minority rights" in Israel does not mean protecting Jews, but protecting other groups (mostly Israeli Arabs or Palestinians, but sometimes also non-Orthodox Jews) from a Jewish majority. Majority rule is always in tension with minority rights, and there is nothing intrinsic to Judaism that should make us expect that tension disappear. I chuckled to read the same accusations leveled against Justice Barak as are thrown at liberal jurists here in the states--"activist", a "dictator", far too interventionist in the affairs of a democracy. Yet Israel--already held to an absurdly high standard by an unsympathetic world community--can only survive and thrive if it always pursues its goal of becoming a "light unto nations." Justice Barak has done much to lead them down that path.
Unlike Christianity or Islam, Judaism remains dominated by its liberal wing (this isn't to say there aren't committed liberal Christians or Muslims, only that the predominant manifestation of those religions in the public sphere is not particularly liberal). By itself, this is an important message--religious faith is not incompatible with the ideal of building a progressive world. Protection of minority rights is not something stands in opposition to traditional Jewish values, it is the epitome of them.
The irony, of course, is that unlike in nearly every other nation, "protection of minority rights" in Israel does not mean protecting Jews, but protecting other groups (mostly Israeli Arabs or Palestinians, but sometimes also non-Orthodox Jews) from a Jewish majority. Majority rule is always in tension with minority rights, and there is nothing intrinsic to Judaism that should make us expect that tension disappear. I chuckled to read the same accusations leveled against Justice Barak as are thrown at liberal jurists here in the states--"activist", a "dictator", far too interventionist in the affairs of a democracy. Yet Israel--already held to an absurdly high standard by an unsympathetic world community--can only survive and thrive if it always pursues its goal of becoming a "light unto nations." Justice Barak has done much to lead them down that path.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Maryland Votes
I voted in the Maryland primary (via absentee ballot) yesterday. It's a surprisingly spry primary season here, even with Martin O'Malley cruising to the gubernatorial nomination with the withdrawal of Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan (due to a diagnosis of clinical depression). The senate race pitted Ben Cardin against Kwesi Mfume, two excellent candidates that had me on the fence until the end. The comptroller race was very dramatic, as Maryland political institution Donald Schaefer--whose old age and tendancy to make racist and sexist "gaffes" (to say the least) made him vulnerable--might finally be taken down. And there was plenty of close races down ticket, as well as a surprisingly competitive primary in the 4th district (I live in the 8th district, where Chris Van Hollen is now firmly entrenched).
First, the Senate race. While I liked both candidates, I ended up voting for Ben Cardin. Why? Well, he got the Washington Post endorsement. And faced with two candidates between which I had no preference, that seemed like as good a reason as any to vote off of. I highly respect the Post, and I think both candidates can beat Lt. Gov. Michael Steele in the general.
Yet, after casting my ballot, I was filled with a lot of regret. Why? Well, one of my friends here at Carleton made a last second plea for Mfume, which shook my confidence slightly. But also, it seems rather weak for a supposed progressive, who believes that the Senate should have more Black members, faced with a choice between two candidates who I basically believe are completely equal in every sense, votes for the White male over the Black NAACP leader. I mean, isn't this a bit of a litmus test? Sure, I'd vote for Barack Obama over nearly any other politician in the country (hell, I'd vote for him over Gandhi), but all that says is that I am willing to vote for the perfect Black candidate. A Black candidate should not have to be Obama-esque to win White voters. So this was distressing to me.
However, it looks like Cardin will win (without my help--my absentee ballot probably hasn't even arrived in the mail yet) the nomination. There has been chatter that nominating Cardin could drive a large portion of Black voters (a key Democratic base) into Steele's camp, as Steele is Black and the Mfume's loss could be seen as a repudiation of a community that has already begun to murmer discontent at being taken for granted by the state party. Nevertheless, I doubt this is so. Shavar Jefferies makes a great point about politicians who "must really think Black folk are stupid." Make a few references to Jim Crow, nominate a couple token Black candidates, and they expect the Black community to come rushing to them (this isn't only a GOP problem, by the way). There is a lot of disrespect accorded to Black voters, and this is only the tip of the iceberg.
In any event, it is my experience that Maryland as a whole has an unusually politically savvy polity. Turn out was apparently massive, which is always a good sign. I have no doubt that Steele is out of line with the majority of Black voters in the Old Line State, and will receive votes accordingly. If he can attract them on the basis of his positions or values, all power to him. But I don't expect Maryland Blacks to rush blindly into his arms, and it's quite patronizing to suggest otherwise.
Meanwhile, UMD Law Professor Sherilynn Ifill reports on the severe problems in MD voting booths that delayed the polls (and now the results) for hours. The only good thing you can say about it is that the problems seemed evenly distributed across White and Black areas, which is progress of a sort (I guess). It's not all that much, because any delay can force many poor Black voters to abandon poll lines (as they have to get work). There is no good excuse to not make Election Day a federal holiday, and regular primaries a state holiday. Seriously--this is an embarassement.
First, the Senate race. While I liked both candidates, I ended up voting for Ben Cardin. Why? Well, he got the Washington Post endorsement. And faced with two candidates between which I had no preference, that seemed like as good a reason as any to vote off of. I highly respect the Post, and I think both candidates can beat Lt. Gov. Michael Steele in the general.
Yet, after casting my ballot, I was filled with a lot of regret. Why? Well, one of my friends here at Carleton made a last second plea for Mfume, which shook my confidence slightly. But also, it seems rather weak for a supposed progressive, who believes that the Senate should have more Black members, faced with a choice between two candidates who I basically believe are completely equal in every sense, votes for the White male over the Black NAACP leader. I mean, isn't this a bit of a litmus test? Sure, I'd vote for Barack Obama over nearly any other politician in the country (hell, I'd vote for him over Gandhi), but all that says is that I am willing to vote for the perfect Black candidate. A Black candidate should not have to be Obama-esque to win White voters. So this was distressing to me.
However, it looks like Cardin will win (without my help--my absentee ballot probably hasn't even arrived in the mail yet) the nomination. There has been chatter that nominating Cardin could drive a large portion of Black voters (a key Democratic base) into Steele's camp, as Steele is Black and the Mfume's loss could be seen as a repudiation of a community that has already begun to murmer discontent at being taken for granted by the state party. Nevertheless, I doubt this is so. Shavar Jefferies makes a great point about politicians who "must really think Black folk are stupid." Make a few references to Jim Crow, nominate a couple token Black candidates, and they expect the Black community to come rushing to them (this isn't only a GOP problem, by the way). There is a lot of disrespect accorded to Black voters, and this is only the tip of the iceberg.
In any event, it is my experience that Maryland as a whole has an unusually politically savvy polity. Turn out was apparently massive, which is always a good sign. I have no doubt that Steele is out of line with the majority of Black voters in the Old Line State, and will receive votes accordingly. If he can attract them on the basis of his positions or values, all power to him. But I don't expect Maryland Blacks to rush blindly into his arms, and it's quite patronizing to suggest otherwise.
Meanwhile, UMD Law Professor Sherilynn Ifill reports on the severe problems in MD voting booths that delayed the polls (and now the results) for hours. The only good thing you can say about it is that the problems seemed evenly distributed across White and Black areas, which is progress of a sort (I guess). It's not all that much, because any delay can force many poor Black voters to abandon poll lines (as they have to get work). There is no good excuse to not make Election Day a federal holiday, and regular primaries a state holiday. Seriously--this is an embarassement.
Parting Shot
Aharon Barak, a giant in Israeli legal circles, is retiring from his position as Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court. In his role there, he has played an intricate role in strengthening the protections for Israeli minority groups (as well as Palestinians), with key oversight of the separation barrier to attempt to minimize the damage it does to Palestinian civilian life. He will be sorely missed, but it appears his successor plans to follow in much the same direction, which is heartening news.
In one of his final decisions, Barak led the court in holding that religious courts could not annul marriages between a Jewish and non-Jewish partner. Israel's mixture of religious courts into family law stem from rules dating back to the Ottoman Empire's control over the region, inheirited by the British colonial mandate and then rolled over to Israel when it became independent. It currently stays do to joint support by religious Jews and Muslims in the Knesset, who want to maintain this institutional prerogative. Even still, this mix of Synagogue (/Mosque/Church) and State is an embarassement to a free country, and I am glad that it's grip has been weakened considerably by this ruling.
I believe in Israel as a Jewish state, but not as a theocratic state. Remember that non-Orthodox Jews (such as myself) aren't considered full religious Jews in Israel either. So I have a stake in ending this arbitrary discrimination as well. Fortunately, the trend lines appear to be moving in my direction. But pressure has to continue on this front.
In one of his final decisions, Barak led the court in holding that religious courts could not annul marriages between a Jewish and non-Jewish partner. Israel's mixture of religious courts into family law stem from rules dating back to the Ottoman Empire's control over the region, inheirited by the British colonial mandate and then rolled over to Israel when it became independent. It currently stays do to joint support by religious Jews and Muslims in the Knesset, who want to maintain this institutional prerogative. Even still, this mix of Synagogue (/Mosque/Church) and State is an embarassement to a free country, and I am glad that it's grip has been weakened considerably by this ruling.
I believe in Israel as a Jewish state, but not as a theocratic state. Remember that non-Orthodox Jews (such as myself) aren't considered full religious Jews in Israel either. So I have a stake in ending this arbitrary discrimination as well. Fortunately, the trend lines appear to be moving in my direction. But pressure has to continue on this front.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Movin' On Up...
In addition to my posting duties here (and rest assured, The Debate Link remains my home blog), I have joined First Movers, a blog for future legal scholars hosted by Jim Chen of Jurisdynamics (and Minnesota law school).
You can find my introductory post here. I hope you find me and my fellow aspiring scholars to be interesting and enlightening.
You can find my introductory post here. I hope you find me and my fellow aspiring scholars to be interesting and enlightening.
The Anbar Question
So the story racing around the blogosphere is a report by the Marine Corps chief of intelligence that we've lost the Anbar province. Not that we're losing, not that the situation is dire, but we've lost, plain and simple. We were defeated. There is nothing more we can do there.
That's the central question, isn't it? I have not signed on to a troop withdrawal yet, primarily because I agree with Tom Friedman when he says that "we've got to find a way to salvage something out of Iraq." Not just for the Iraqi's sake, but for our sake too. Leaving that country in a state of anarchic civil war would be morally catastrophic, and would permanently damage America's standing in the eyes of the world (on top of the beating we've already taken on that score). Defeat in this war would do indescribable damage to any American effort to lead on any number of pressing international issues: from loose nukes, to brutal tyrants in Iran and North Korea, to the Israeli/Arab conflict.
But reality has a way of intruding on what "we've got to" do, and at some point we have to objectively assess whether or not Iraq is beyond our help. Call me a "defeat-o-crat" if you want, but eventually we've got to ask ourselves whether there is any hope for salvation. Have we reached that point yet? I don't know. But this assessment of Anbar certainly has to raise the question.
That's the central question, isn't it? I have not signed on to a troop withdrawal yet, primarily because I agree with Tom Friedman when he says that "we've got to find a way to salvage something out of Iraq." Not just for the Iraqi's sake, but for our sake too. Leaving that country in a state of anarchic civil war would be morally catastrophic, and would permanently damage America's standing in the eyes of the world (on top of the beating we've already taken on that score). Defeat in this war would do indescribable damage to any American effort to lead on any number of pressing international issues: from loose nukes, to brutal tyrants in Iran and North Korea, to the Israeli/Arab conflict.
But reality has a way of intruding on what "we've got to" do, and at some point we have to objectively assess whether or not Iraq is beyond our help. Call me a "defeat-o-crat" if you want, but eventually we've got to ask ourselves whether there is any hope for salvation. Have we reached that point yet? I don't know. But this assessment of Anbar certainly has to raise the question.
Vintage Al Gore
Kevin Drum reprints a classic Al Gore speech that is eerily prescient in its evalution of the threats we face, and its cautions of where we might go astray. A taste:
As Mr. Drum comments:
Amen.
As important as identifying Iraq, Iran and North Korea for what they are, we must be equally bold in identifying other evils that confront us. For there is another Axis of Evil in the world: poverty and ignorance; disease and environmental disorder; corruption and political oppression. We may well put down terror in its present manifestations. But if we do not attend to the larger fundamentals as well, then the ground is fertile and has been seeded for the next generation of those born to hate us, who will hold these things up before the world's poor and dispossessed, and say that all these things are in our image, and rekindle the war we are now hoping to snuff out.
As Mr. Drum comments:
Liberals may be uncomfortable fitting his words into their current-day view of Gore as anti-war prophet; conservatives will be uncomfortable seeing Gore as someone plainly more dedicated to waging a real fight against terrorism than the guy they've been supporting for the past five years. And all of us would do well to remember what it's like to listen to someone who has at least a modest command of the ways and means of statecraft.
Amen.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Looking Behind The Mirror
Steve Benen points me to a very heartening story. Gary Christenot, writing for the far-right WorldNetDaily spent some time in an area of Hawaii dominated by the Shinto and Buddhist faiths. Thus, all the prayers at school games and what not stemmed from those traditions. Experiencing life as a minority for the first time, he realized the severe discomfort even being forced to stand and observe another faith's prayer service can cause in a public environment. It's quite powerful stuff, and demonstrates quite powerfully the dilemma Justice Kennedy so ably noted in Lee v. Weisman: students who attend official ceremonies that include prayers from a background they are not a part of are forced to "participate or protest." As Christenot writes:
Well said.
This is a classic demonstration of why diversity is important and why it is crucial to listen to the voices and claims of minority groups. It took an actual lived experience for Mr. Christenot to realize the damage school prayer can cause to those of minority faiths. Presumably, though, prior to this trip he was at least aware that many members of minority faiths found school prayer to be objectionable on precisely the grounds he identified, and chose to disregard their claims. Most Christians will not get the chance to live in rural Hawaii and duplicate Mr. Christenot's experience. So the best we can hope for is to try and enhance the diversity of voices and stories that religious Christians hear, so that they can imagine our experiences, even if they never actually get the opportunity to step in our shoes.
See also: The Wall of Separation
We often advocate the practice of Judeo-Christian rituals in America's public schools by hiding behind the excuse that they are voluntary and any student who doesn't wish to participate can simply remained seated and silent. Oh that this were true. But if I, as a mature adult, would be so confounded and uncomfortable when faced with the decision of observing and standing on my own religious principals or run the risk of offending the majority crowd, I can only imagine what thoughts and confusion must run through the head of the typical child or teenager, for whom peer acceptance is one of the highest ideals.
Well said.
This is a classic demonstration of why diversity is important and why it is crucial to listen to the voices and claims of minority groups. It took an actual lived experience for Mr. Christenot to realize the damage school prayer can cause to those of minority faiths. Presumably, though, prior to this trip he was at least aware that many members of minority faiths found school prayer to be objectionable on precisely the grounds he identified, and chose to disregard their claims. Most Christians will not get the chance to live in rural Hawaii and duplicate Mr. Christenot's experience. So the best we can hope for is to try and enhance the diversity of voices and stories that religious Christians hear, so that they can imagine our experiences, even if they never actually get the opportunity to step in our shoes.
See also: The Wall of Separation
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Constitutional Scavenger Hunt
Minnesota Law Professor Jim Chen has created a "Constitutinal Scavanger Hunt": 21 questions the answers of which can be found by a close reading of the Constitution.
You can download a hard copy via SSRN, or alternatively, the text is online here.
Happy hunting, legal eagles!
UPDATE: In the same vein, submit your best constitutional poetry. Presumably, that's anything that isn't libelous, slanderous, obscene, a "fighting word," or fraudulent. Good luck!
You can download a hard copy via SSRN, or alternatively, the text is online here.
Happy hunting, legal eagles!
UPDATE: In the same vein, submit your best constitutional poetry. Presumably, that's anything that isn't libelous, slanderous, obscene, a "fighting word," or fraudulent. Good luck!
We Promise
Great news everyone! Kofi Annan reports that Syria is willing to police its own border with Lebanon to stop illegal arms shipments to Hezbollah. They're willing to deploy an entire battalion (600-800 troops). The border is 375 kilometers long, of course, but I'm sure this a genuine effort and not a bald-faced diplomatic lie.
Kofi Annan is so cute when he's naive.
Kofi Annan is so cute when he's naive.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Back at Carleton
I'm back at Carleton. And I have writer's block.
Presumably, it is a byproduct of the stresses of moving back in (which is still a work in progress). Presumably the blog will get back on its feet at least by Monday--hopefully before.
Presumably, it is a byproduct of the stresses of moving back in (which is still a work in progress). Presumably the blog will get back on its feet at least by Monday--hopefully before.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Anti-Semitism Update
Jewish leaders are reporting a significant rise in anti-Semitic activity in Canada and Australia (the latter reaching record highs since data began to be compiled in 1945), in addition to the aforementioned spike in Great Britain.
Speaking of Britain, Arab Anglicans are apparently furious that the Anglican Church has decided to enter into a dialogue with the Jewish community. Not Israel, but the Jewish community.
That nasty Jewish lobby turns its head once more. Is nobody safe?
Meanwhile, via Opinio Juris, UN Watch has released a report on the first three months of the new UN Human Rights Council. Though the council was created, in part, as a reaction to the obsessive anti-Israel fixation possessed by its predecessor, it appears the new one is little better:
Ah, progress.
I'm leaving for college tommorow, so most of today and tommorow will be spent packing/traveling. Full time blogging will resume once I settle in Northfield.
Speaking of Britain, Arab Anglicans are apparently furious that the Anglican Church has decided to enter into a dialogue with the Jewish community. Not Israel, but the Jewish community.
"Senior people of the Church of England informed me that the whole event came to appease Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Israel and the Jewish lobby because of what happened at the Synod of the Church of England regarding the issue of divestment," Bishop Riah [Abu al-Assal of Jerusalem] said. "My personal opinion is that it is not the right time - given the events in Palestine and the Middle East at large."
That nasty Jewish lobby turns its head once more. Is nobody safe?
Meanwhile, via Opinio Juris, UN Watch has released a report on the first three months of the new UN Human Rights Council. Though the council was created, in part, as a reaction to the obsessive anti-Israel fixation possessed by its predecessor, it appears the new one is little better:
The imposition of public scrutiny to the election process led to some improvements: former Commission members Sudan and Zimbabwe did not seek Council membership this year, and Iran was not elected. However, the Council nevertheless remains significantly non-democratic, with a membership that includes such serial human rights abusers as China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Non-democracies control the Council's two largest regional groups, Africa and Asia, which together hold a majority of Council seats. The UN's Islamic group, the Organization of the Islamic Conference ("OIC"), dominates these two groups as well, in addition to holding more than one-third of Council seats overall and thereby the absolute power to convene the body in special session.
Regrettably, its OIC members have been more interested in using the Council to promote their anti-Israel political agenda than to promote human rights--and to the fledgling body's great detriment, they have been able to do so. They have been aided in this endeavor not only by repressive regimes like China, Cuba, and Russia but also by some of the Council's free, democratic members--Argentina, Brazil, India, Mexico, Peru, South Africa, and Uruguay--from whom one would expect better. Only a minority of eleven Council members--Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom-- have consistently defended the values and principles that the Council is supposed to promote.
The result? In its three sessions to date, the Council has ignored the vast majority of the world's human rights violations. Even the dire situation in Darfur merited only passing mention by a few members, and resulted in no statement or action by the Council against Sudan. Instead, the OIC-dominated Council devoted most of its debate, 100% of its country-specific resolutions, two special sessions, one "fact-finding" mission, and a "high-level commission of inquiry" to one-sided, politically motivated condemnations of Israel. It said nothing when its subsidiary body,the Sub-Commission, broke its own most basic rules in order to one-sidedly condemn Israel as well. It also enacted a resolution on another OIC cause celebre, condemning "incitement to religious hatred" and "defamation of religions"--an attempt to legitimize last year's violent reaction to Danish cartoons and to silence Middle Eastern dissidents by equating democracy with blasphemy.
Ah, progress.
I'm leaving for college tommorow, so most of today and tommorow will be spent packing/traveling. Full time blogging will resume once I settle in Northfield.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
I'd Imagine Bush Feels The Same Way
I wonder just how many administration officials believe roughly the same thing:
Via The VC
"Let me explain the government to you. There's God, then there's the president and then there's my father."
-- Jack Roberts, 6-year-old son of Chief Justice John Roberts, overheard speaking to one of his young peers on the last day of summer camp
Via The VC
Monday, September 04, 2006
Deathblow
Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is calling it quits, saying that he is done with being a political leaders and admitting that his calls for peace and restraint are ineffectual.
This, to put it lightly, is a problem.
Ali al-Sistani is probably the most respected Shi'ite leader in all of Iraq. He has, from the start, been a voice in favor of peace and democracy in Iraq. Not that he's perfect of course. But as I wrote over a year and a half ago, "If anybody can hold the country together while negotiating a reasonable US departure time, it is him." I'm not the only one who thinks so. David Ignatius saw the warning signs a month ago, warning in July that:
Matt Yglesias believes that Sistani could have been the "silver bullet" that got us out of this jam. Certainly, I can't imagine that he wouldn't have had to play a crucial role in the Bosnia-esque peace summit that Tom Friedman thinks is our last best hope. Even conservative Jonah Goldberg admits "it sure doesn't sound good."
No, it doesn't. And I think this might be the straw that breaks the camel's back, with regards to Iraq's future.
Via Steve Benen.
"I will not be a political leader any more," he told aides. "I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."
[...]
Al-Sistani's aides say that he has chosen to stay silent rather than suffer the ignominy of being ignored. Ali al-Jaberi, a spokesman for the cleric in Khadamiyah, said that he was furious that his followers had turned away from him and ignored his calls for moderation.
Asked whether Ayatollah al-Sistani could prevent a civil war, Mr al-Jaberi replied: "Honestly, I think not. He is very angry, very disappointed."
He said a series of snubs had contributed to Ayatollah al-Sistani's decision. "He asked the politicians to ask the Americans to make a timetable for leaving but they disappointed him," he said. "After the war, the politicians were visiting him every month. If they wanted to do something, they visited him. But no one has visited him for two or three months. He is very angry that this is happening now. He sees this as very bad."
This, to put it lightly, is a problem.
Ali al-Sistani is probably the most respected Shi'ite leader in all of Iraq. He has, from the start, been a voice in favor of peace and democracy in Iraq. Not that he's perfect of course. But as I wrote over a year and a half ago, "If anybody can hold the country together while negotiating a reasonable US departure time, it is him." I'm not the only one who thinks so. David Ignatius saw the warning signs a month ago, warning in July that:
He has been our crucial ally. He is very quiet. You don't see him, he doesn't give speeches, he doesn't meet with Americans. But if he decides the game is up, the game is up.
Matt Yglesias believes that Sistani could have been the "silver bullet" that got us out of this jam. Certainly, I can't imagine that he wouldn't have had to play a crucial role in the Bosnia-esque peace summit that Tom Friedman thinks is our last best hope. Even conservative Jonah Goldberg admits "it sure doesn't sound good."
No, it doesn't. And I think this might be the straw that breaks the camel's back, with regards to Iraq's future.
Via Steve Benen.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Anti-Semitic Uptick in Britain
The UK is reporting a significant rise in anti-Semitic activity since the start of the Lebanon war, much of which is connected to general anti-Israel sentiment. A parliamentary inquiry will report that "anti-Semitic violence has become endemic in Britain, both on the streets and university campuses."
"We are all Hezbollah now" indeed.
I will say that, contrary to some, I think the focus on the link between anti-Semitic violence and anti-Israel sentiment is not meant to serve as a justification, but rather is an important notification of how intertwined the anti-Israel movement is with classic anti-Semitic bigotry. I don't think one can analyze the anti-Israel forces without undertaking an analysis of anti-Semitism (not that anti-Israel has to equal anti-Semitism, only that one has to keep a watchful eye for it), and vice versa: I don't think one can really analyze anti-Semitism without seeing how anti-Israel sentiment acts to nourish and sustain it. Similarly, I'm not sure why Muslim leaders casting themselves as victims of anti-Islamic backlashes in the West "makes it more likely that these kinds of attacks will occur against Jews." I think anti-Semitic violence is underreported, but I don't think that the cause of it is that the Western community is too vigilant against anti-Islamic sentiments. That's a bit of a leap.
The attackers, when visible, are from across society, [Mark Gardner] said. "When it's verbal abuse, it's just ordinary people in the street, from middle-class women to working-class men. All colours and backgrounds. We hardly ever see incidents involving the classic neo-Nazi skinhead. Muslims are over-represented."
In hate-mail to senior Jewish figures, ordinary Jewish people were being blamed for the deaths of Lebanese civilians. "There are also references to the Holocaust, saying that Hitler should have wiped out the Jews."
Mr Gardner said that the rise in attacks reflected increased hostility to Israel and Jews in the media and across society: "The number of anti-Semitic attacks reflects the mood music around Jews and Israel."
There have been several attacks in Golders Green and Hampstead Garden Suburb in North London, where there is a large Jewish population. La Maison du Cafe in Golders Green Road was targeted two weeks ago by two young men who threw chairs at the restaurant, punched workers and threatened to kill the owner, Ruth Cohen, with a knife.
Ms Cohen, 34, said: "They asked if it was a Jewish restaurant. They said they were going to kill me and called me a 'dirty Jew', a 'stinking Jew'. One of them had a knife. A colleague came out. They started punching him and throwing chairs."
In Hampstead Garden Suburb, swastikas and the words "Kill all Jews" and "Allah" were daubed on the house and car of Justin Stebbing. Dr Stebbing, who works at a hospital, said: "I felt violated. It's horrible."
Jon Benjamin, of the Board of Deputies, said: "The problem is the spin that Israel is an irredeemably evil regime, and we are concerned that it may become common currency to connect British Jews with this."
"We are all Hezbollah now" indeed.
I will say that, contrary to some, I think the focus on the link between anti-Semitic violence and anti-Israel sentiment is not meant to serve as a justification, but rather is an important notification of how intertwined the anti-Israel movement is with classic anti-Semitic bigotry. I don't think one can analyze the anti-Israel forces without undertaking an analysis of anti-Semitism (not that anti-Israel has to equal anti-Semitism, only that one has to keep a watchful eye for it), and vice versa: I don't think one can really analyze anti-Semitism without seeing how anti-Israel sentiment acts to nourish and sustain it. Similarly, I'm not sure why Muslim leaders casting themselves as victims of anti-Islamic backlashes in the West "makes it more likely that these kinds of attacks will occur against Jews." I think anti-Semitic violence is underreported, but I don't think that the cause of it is that the Western community is too vigilant against anti-Islamic sentiments. That's a bit of a leap.
Friday, September 01, 2006
I Would Have Died!
Both Lindsay Beyerstein and Jon Swift have great responses to the furious response coming out of some quarters of the right that kidnapped Fox News journalists Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig did not choose death instead of their televised gunpoint conversion to Islam.
Beyerstein asks why, since David Warren (one of the primary critics) "assume[s] they are not Christians" (since such "few journalists are"), he expects them to martyr themselves for a faith they don't believe in.
But it is Swift who has (true to his name) the truly breath-taking parody. A taste:
Hasn't anybody ever heard of a Marrano?
Beyerstein asks why, since David Warren (one of the primary critics) "assume[s] they are not Christians" (since such "few journalists are"), he expects them to martyr themselves for a faith they don't believe in.
But it is Swift who has (true to his name) the truly breath-taking parody. A taste:
But conservatives were most troubled by a video that was released showing the men converting to Islam at gunpoint. David Warren, who writes for the Ottawa Citizen and Real Clear Politics, deplored their "cowardice" for converting with guns to their heads instead of dying as martyrs. "The two Fox journalists, whom I will not stoop to name, begged for their lives even though, in retrospect, their lives probably weren't in danger," wrote Warren, who risks his life everyday living in Canada, a place I must confess I am afraid even to visit. "They could see nothing wrong in serving the enemy, so long as it meant they'd be safe."
Hasn't anybody ever heard of a Marrano?
Thursday, August 31, 2006
He Started It!
It's a juvenile taunt, but it's apt here. Responding to statements by Tom Friedman in my interview of him, Paul Mirengoff thinks that any Bush partisanship is justified because Democrats have criticized his wartime conduct:
Before I go any further, I have no idea how FDR would have reacted had someone (of any party) challenged him on Japanese internment, but I damn well wish they would have. Such naked human rights violations are never tolerable, and they should have never been even considered in the land of the free and the home of the brave. That we have patriots willing to criticize analogous contemporary human rights violations (torture, "black sites", etc) shows that we've grown as a society, and that is something to be proud of (although the fact that we are still committing these wrongs is a black mark that will haunt us for generations). Nothing animates me more--as someone who believes in the importance of this struggle--than insuring that we fight it in a manner consonent with our basic moral values as human beings.
Back to the main. The key question is: Who acted first? That is, we all agree that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Democrats and Republicans united and put partisan divides behind them for the good of the country. What cracked that divide?
There are a couple candidates for the dishonor, but the one that did it for me at least was the fiasco surrounding the Department of Homeland Security. Remember, that was a Democratic proposal that Bush opposed, until he realized it polled well. Then he flipped, created an out-of-the-blue technical reason for opposing the plan that he knew would be a Democratic poison pill, and then used their "opposition" as a cudgel in the 2002 elections. This was after Bush had threatened to veto nearly every proposed increase in Homeland Security spending--including ones with bipartisan support. I've told more than one person that this event was what changed my perspective of Bush from a likeable bumbler who I disagreed with, to a loathsome and detestable public figure who viewed even America's security as nothing but a political opportunity. That action was a totally unprovoked stab in the back of Democrats who thought American security was something that transcended partisan politics. And it occurred months before the events regarding the Iraq war that Paul alludes to.
The other major problem is that Bush has not just blurred, but utterly erased the line between those who oppose his foreign policy and those who oppose his domestic policy. From tax cuts for the wealthy to drilling in ANWR, everything on the Bush agenda became tied to the war on terror. It didn't matter if you supported every move Bush made in the foreign sphere (the wiretapping scandal didn't even hit until after the 2004 elections). The primary victims of Bush's post 9/11 purge were moderate, hawkish Democrats. The type of Democrat who was voting against the war in Iraq was never seriously at risk, because they were all in safe Democratic seats. Bush deliberately set out to target Democrats who were politically vulnerable, not politically disagreeable. And he targeted them in the worst ways possible--such as the appalling "Osama Bin Laden" ad that went against Georgia Senator Max Cleland. Indeed, any objective look at how President Bush behaved from 2002 to 2004 betrays a fundamental lack of seriousness in prosecuting this war on terror, and taking positions that would actually keep America safe, rather than keep his congressional flunkies safe.
What Paul and his Powerline cobloggers refuse to grapple with is why folks like Friedman (and myself, for that matter) who supported and still support the Iraq war are so furious at Bush now. They want to just tag us as crazy partisan liberals. But that doesn't fly. It doesn't explain why we supported the war in 2002, and it doesn't explain why we still support it now. Nor does it explain the growing numbers of ertswhile loyal Republicans (e.g., John Cole, Daniel Drezner) and conservatives (Andrew Sullivan) who feel the same way. Something happened to make the center, center-left, and large parts of the center-right apoplectic with Bush.
I'm not mad at Bush because I've suddenly become a hyper-leftist. I'm not angry in spite of my centrism, but because of it. The isn't left-wing anger, it's centrist anger, and that's what the Bush partisans can't fathom about us. Tom Friedman took a lot of flack for his stance in 2002, and for holding true to it up until today. He did ignore partisan lines when he made his decision, only to find that for this administration, the only thing that mattered was the partisan line. That's why we're angry. That's why we're furious. We took this war seriously, only to find that President Bush didn't. It's a basic lack of respect, not just for us, but for every American in the armed service who deserves to more than just a pawn in the GOP's political game. And while Democrats have done their fair share of sniping--sometimes justifiably, sometimes not--it was Bush and his administration that started the trend of viewing the GWOT as an electoral war game. And that's unforgivable.
History will, indeed, be very unkind to these people.
For example, Friedman accuses the administration of "fraud" in conducting the war in Iraq because it didn't send enough troops. He also attacks the administration for using the war on terrorism as a wedge issue, asking "would Roosevelt have done that?" The answer to that question I'm pretty sure is yes -- if the Republicans had advocated pulling our troops out of Europe or the Pacific before they had defeated the enemy I'm confident that Roosevelt would have made that an issue. So too if the Republicans had attacked Roosevelt's effort to promote safety on the home front, including surveillance of Nazis and, for that matter, internment of Japanese-Americans.
Before I go any further, I have no idea how FDR would have reacted had someone (of any party) challenged him on Japanese internment, but I damn well wish they would have. Such naked human rights violations are never tolerable, and they should have never been even considered in the land of the free and the home of the brave. That we have patriots willing to criticize analogous contemporary human rights violations (torture, "black sites", etc) shows that we've grown as a society, and that is something to be proud of (although the fact that we are still committing these wrongs is a black mark that will haunt us for generations). Nothing animates me more--as someone who believes in the importance of this struggle--than insuring that we fight it in a manner consonent with our basic moral values as human beings.
Back to the main. The key question is: Who acted first? That is, we all agree that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Democrats and Republicans united and put partisan divides behind them for the good of the country. What cracked that divide?
There are a couple candidates for the dishonor, but the one that did it for me at least was the fiasco surrounding the Department of Homeland Security. Remember, that was a Democratic proposal that Bush opposed, until he realized it polled well. Then he flipped, created an out-of-the-blue technical reason for opposing the plan that he knew would be a Democratic poison pill, and then used their "opposition" as a cudgel in the 2002 elections. This was after Bush had threatened to veto nearly every proposed increase in Homeland Security spending--including ones with bipartisan support. I've told more than one person that this event was what changed my perspective of Bush from a likeable bumbler who I disagreed with, to a loathsome and detestable public figure who viewed even America's security as nothing but a political opportunity. That action was a totally unprovoked stab in the back of Democrats who thought American security was something that transcended partisan politics. And it occurred months before the events regarding the Iraq war that Paul alludes to.
The other major problem is that Bush has not just blurred, but utterly erased the line between those who oppose his foreign policy and those who oppose his domestic policy. From tax cuts for the wealthy to drilling in ANWR, everything on the Bush agenda became tied to the war on terror. It didn't matter if you supported every move Bush made in the foreign sphere (the wiretapping scandal didn't even hit until after the 2004 elections). The primary victims of Bush's post 9/11 purge were moderate, hawkish Democrats. The type of Democrat who was voting against the war in Iraq was never seriously at risk, because they were all in safe Democratic seats. Bush deliberately set out to target Democrats who were politically vulnerable, not politically disagreeable. And he targeted them in the worst ways possible--such as the appalling "Osama Bin Laden" ad that went against Georgia Senator Max Cleland. Indeed, any objective look at how President Bush behaved from 2002 to 2004 betrays a fundamental lack of seriousness in prosecuting this war on terror, and taking positions that would actually keep America safe, rather than keep his congressional flunkies safe.
What Paul and his Powerline cobloggers refuse to grapple with is why folks like Friedman (and myself, for that matter) who supported and still support the Iraq war are so furious at Bush now. They want to just tag us as crazy partisan liberals. But that doesn't fly. It doesn't explain why we supported the war in 2002, and it doesn't explain why we still support it now. Nor does it explain the growing numbers of ertswhile loyal Republicans (e.g., John Cole, Daniel Drezner) and conservatives (Andrew Sullivan) who feel the same way. Something happened to make the center, center-left, and large parts of the center-right apoplectic with Bush.
I'm not mad at Bush because I've suddenly become a hyper-leftist. I'm not angry in spite of my centrism, but because of it. The isn't left-wing anger, it's centrist anger, and that's what the Bush partisans can't fathom about us. Tom Friedman took a lot of flack for his stance in 2002, and for holding true to it up until today. He did ignore partisan lines when he made his decision, only to find that for this administration, the only thing that mattered was the partisan line. That's why we're angry. That's why we're furious. We took this war seriously, only to find that President Bush didn't. It's a basic lack of respect, not just for us, but for every American in the armed service who deserves to more than just a pawn in the GOP's political game. And while Democrats have done their fair share of sniping--sometimes justifiably, sometimes not--it was Bush and his administration that started the trend of viewing the GWOT as an electoral war game. And that's unforgivable.
History will, indeed, be very unkind to these people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
