Turnaround

A piece by Indiana Professor Alvin H. Rosenfeld, entitled "'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism" has been causing a bit of a stir in some circles, apparently. The argument is that certain Jews, through unjustifiably virulent and vicious criticism of Israel, are feeding into a larger climate of anti-Semitism and thus deserve to be condemned. These Jews are "proud to be ashamed to be Jewish." Unsurprisingly, some of its targets have cried foul, claiming that the piece is designed to stifle harsh criticism of Israel. Rosenfeld, for his part, carefully draws his line between legitimate and illegitimate criticism at the claim that Israel should not exist as a state (coupled with equally vitriolic assertions that Israel is committing "genocide" or other such hyperbole).

Tony Judt responded that "I don't know anyone in a respectable range of opinion who thinks Israel shouldn't exist," so perhaps the theoretical gap between the camps is not as far as it is made out to be. Nonetheless, Rosenfeld does identify several Jewish writers have had made just such a claim, so perhaps we could all unify in condemning them at least, no? As usual, the poles should be clear: There is criticism of Israel (from liberal or conservative positions) that is not anti-Semitic, and there is criticism of Israel that is anti-Semitic. Determining what is legitimate and what isn't may be a controversial endeavor, but it cannot happen unless those two end-points are conceded.

For my part, I first want to draw attention to the quotation marks around "progressive" in the title, of which I wholeheartedly approve of. The people who would ask for the suicide of my people, condone violence against us as Jews, who wish to recreate our exile and insure our perpetual state of marginalization, are not progressives. They have no right to appropriate the term, and I refuse to yield it to them. Their claim of the label is an insult to those of us truly committed to the goal of freedom and liberation, and makes a mockery of the ideals humankind should aspire to. This, again, does not include every critic of Israel. It does include those whose response to violence against Jews on behalf of "anti-Zionism" is a resounding "Who cares?"

On the same story, Matthew Yglesias attempts to argue making "extreme or over-the-top criticisms of Israel" is completely unrelated to anti-Semitism, because it conflates Jews-as-a-people with the state. This exhibits almost willful blindness about the manner in which anti-Israel politics and anti-Semitic politics interrelate. Sometimes, the link is direct, as when critics utilize anti-Semitic slurs or stereotypes in their diatribes. This would include both more explicit references (the despicable "what if Hitler had won" poster at the UN anti-racism conference), as well as subtler moves (talking about the Zionist-controlled media, or Jewish wealth and resources being the only reason it gets support). But moreover, I think there disproportionate attacks create an indirect (but still salient) link to anti-Semitism as well. As a commenter notes, since Israel is the only Jewish-run state, disproportionate attacks on Israel vis-a-vis much worse human violators around the world (Zimbabwe, Sudan, China, etc..) can be seen as powerful prima facia evidence of anti-Semitism. To borrow from race theory, saying that the world's only Jewish state is the most brutal, vicious regime on the planet as (among other things) the Darfuri death toll ticks towards a million is "unexplainable but by anti-Semitism." There is no other possible motivating factor for such prejudicial blindness.

Again, this not only strikes me as intuitive, but is an argument that should be familiar to liberals from the race relations context, which is why it is so aggravating to watch Yglesias and his friends be always the first to assure their leftist buddies that there's no anti-Semitism to see here, continue on as normal. If saying that Jews who support Zionism are exhibiting "collective insanity" is not anti-Semitic, what qualifies? What would cross Yglesias' line? This is why I made my Yglesias/Clarence Thomas comparison in the last post. Yglesias doesn't usually indulge directly in the type of over-the-top Israel condemnation I'd condemn, but what he's doing is enabling, pure and simple. I have no doubt that he wants to see nothing but the best things for Jews, and his actually policies on Israel are not, in themselves, objectionable. But his primary contribution to the debate recently has been to serve as cover for non-Jews who don't want to grapple with how anti-Semitism may be informing their opinions on the Jewish state. And thus, his capper sentence attacking Rosenfeld is bitter irony indeed, "The idea, basically, is to scare the goyim who figure that while liberal Jews can take the heat, they probably can't, and had best just avoid talking about the whole thing." Fortunately, Mr. Yglesias is there, so that the next generation of Christians who want to call Israel the 4th Reich can have a ready-made shield against anti-Semitism: "I read Jewish bloggers--I can't be anti-Semitic!" "I have Black friends, I can't be racist!"

Good for you. Good for you.

Who Cares About Federalism?

A little while back, there was a bit of a multi-blog debate on the issue of federalism and rights. The starting point was that many liberals today are skittish of federalism, mainly associating it with Jim Crow resistence to Civil Rights reforms. However, federalism defenders say that this is nothing inherent to federalism, but rather a historical happenstance, and it is quite easy to imagine a scenario where a state might try to experiment with increased protection of minority rights, only to be shut down by the federal government. I missed this discussion the first time it went around the blogosphere, but Ilya Somin gives me a chance to weigh on the topic, remarking on Paul Horwitz's post on the Mormon cases:

Americans tend to think of federalism as antithetical to minority rights because of the history of local minorities (such as African-Americans in the Jim Crow South) being oppressed by local majorities. Utah, however, represents an important case where a minority at the national level achieved majority status within one would-be state (Utah was still a territory when the Mormons first settled there) and tried to protect its values by controlling that state government. Their experiment was, of course, cut short by federal intervention that undercut the state's autonomy.

The problem here is that all this seems to prove to me is that I shouldn't really care about the federalism issue at all (or more accurately, should completely subsume it to the issue of rights protection). If minorities sometimes are treated more justly by a federalist system, and other times by a centralist system, then the moral I take is that there is no advantage to prioritizing either one. Instead, I'll be a federalist when that creates a more just system, and a centralist when that creates a more just system.

In other words, there is no way for me to circumvent the basic obligation, which is to support systems which treat people fairly, by running to the meta-structural debate, about where political power should rest. At the end of the day, if neither federal nor centralized systems can be said to be causally related to that goal, they lose their status as primary goals and instead become purely instrumental. Instrumental debates matter, of course, but the framework changes--since I'm affirmatively putting rights over power distribution, the entire federalism/centralism debate is contingent on the degree to which either will assist in the ultimate goal in a given situation. They are not free-existing standards anymore.

"Guilt" and "Innocence"

Regarding the Duke Lacrosse Rape case, Kathleen Bergin reminds us some pertinent facts that have dropped out of the media narrative as the legal case for rape begins to fall apart:

(1) that team members called the two women "niggers" and "bitches"; (2) one threatened to rape them with a broomstick; (3) another spoke of hiring strippers in an e-mail sent the same night that threatened to kill "the bitches" and cut off their skin while he ejaculated in his "Duke-issued spandex;" and (4) one shouted to the victim as she left the team's big house, "Hey bitch, thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt." These facts are undisputed and highlight the sick and wretched depravity of this racialized episode.

The prevailing wisdom at the moment is that, at the very least, there is not enough evidence to garner a conviction in the case. And it is quite possible that a rape did not occur here. If that is true, then the defendants should be found not guilty.

But, as Bergin points out, that determination does not make them "innocent." Innocent of a particular crime, sure. But not "innocent." I can be spared all the talk about how folks lives have been ruined here.

Res Life Can Die

The following is an email I am seriously considering sending to ResLife.

***

Dear Room Draw (suitably abstracted),

The following email is somewhat overwrought, but be assured that my anger is quite genuine and is very much directed at the people whose policy decisions I blame for the current state of affairs.

A great "Family Guy" episode once showed two Jewish slaves in Egypt conversing. One tried to cheer the other up: "Think of it this way: Every group of people has to go through some tough times. But us Jews are getting ours out of the way early. From here on out, it's going to be smooth sailing!"

Being Jewish, I had much the same thoughts my Freshman year, when my draw number was a catastrophic third from the bottom. I consoled myself by realizing that, surely, my misfortune would be counterbalanced in the years to come. Unfortunately, three straight years of having draw numbers above 350 have disillusioned me of any hope in justice and instead made me an embittered shell of a man. Tragically, the fact that these numbers are randomly generated offers no solace to those of us who are the victim of statistical clustering. And so we curse to the heavens, destitute in the knowledge that our pleas for justice will go unheeded, and that the fates laugh cruelly from impenetrable towers.

Knowing full well that room draw is a stressful time for Carleton students of all years, there should be some effort to attempt balance so that students who get screwed in year A don't continue to be at the bottom in years B and C. Obviously, someone needs to be at the top and others at the bottom, but a little bit of distributional justice is not too much to ask from this otherwise stern bastion of liberalism. We have many extraordinarily bright CS majors who I'm sure would be quite eager to create such an algorithim. It's absence can only be explained by bureaucratic apathy or outright sadism towards its charges, which currently lies at the root of my hatred for life and by extension those directly responsible for my impending exile to Musser.

Seriously--why me?

Sincerely,
David Schraub, '08
494, 370something, 465

***

The numbers refer to order in class, so "465" means I'll be the 465th (out of 495) person in the class of '08 to draw for a room. So, I've been easily in the bottom 25th percentile (and often significantly worse) each and every year.

Seriously--I'm not sure I've ever been as upset at Carleton as I am right now.

Shvartze

A good article by Shmuley Boteach on "Shvartze", a Yiddish term referring to African-Americans. Literally, "Shvartze" is just the Yiddish word for "Black," but over the years it has acquired a negative and condescending connotation that makes it inappropriate for a people who should always be at the fore of the fight against racism. Boteach says that it is time to stamp out its usage in the Jewish community. Needless to say, I concur entirely.

My exposure to Yiddish is actually surprisingly limited (my very secular Jewish friend--you may have heard of her--has a far deeper Yiddish vocabulary than I do), so with the exception of a passing reference in Maus, I had never heard the term Shvartze. But to the extent that it is prevelant in some Jewish circles, it needs to be jettisoned. There is no reason to keep it, and plenty of reasons to abandon it.

Sensitivities

Captain Ed is outraged by the "sexism" of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her discussion of being the only women on the Supreme Court. Quoth Ginsburg:

Of herself and O'Connor, the court's first female justice, Ginsburg said: "We have very different backgrounds. We divide on a lot of important questions, but we have had the experience of growing up women and we have certain sensitivities that our male colleagues lack."

What's distressing about Ed's post is not just that he's misreading Ginsburg, it's that it seems to be willful. This is how Ed describes her comments

She then told the students that men lack the sensitivity than women bring to the bench....While decrying the supposed sexism that has left her isolated on the bench, Ginsburg wants law students to understand that one has to have two X chromosomes to understand the sensitivies [sic] of the law.

But that's not what Ginsburg said at all. She didn't say men were less "sensitive." Nor did she say that men could not "understand the sensitivities of the law." She said women possess certain sensitivities, by virtue of growing up as women, that men do not. For example, they would be more attuned to the impact of misogyny, because it is something that exists in their actual experience, rather than something studied as an abstract academic enterprise. That's a) an entirely different point than the one Ed tries to pin on Ginsburg, and b) one that's almost undeniably true.

But how does it relate to law? Ed doesn't think it does:

However, a jurist's job isn't to formulate or enforce policy; it's to render judgments based on the law. Especially at the level of the Supreme Court, "sensivitivities" shouldn't enter into decisions about the Constitutionality of a law or whether proper procedure was followed by a trial court. "Sensitivities" interfere with the dispassionate evaluation of whether the law was applied properly and whether it passes Constitutional muster.

Tragically, Ed is wrong. If a jurist is trying to determine, for example, whether sexual harassment was "pervasive" enough to violate anti-discrimination laws, or whether an abortion restriction constitutes an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose, these sensitivities become instrumental in being a well-informed jurist. Indeed, it is impossible to make a decision utilizing these standards without some degree of sensitivity to how policy/procedure X impacts litigant Y. That is the essence of the dispute before the Court, attempting to exile it from the sphere of law is exiling law from law. It makes legal decisionmaking completely incoherent, and utterly demolishes the principle that cases should be decided as cases.

The legal formulas outlined above directly ask for the material impacts a given laws or actions have on a woman's ability to interact freely and equally in American society. It's not that men cannot fathom that impact, it's that their experience is--at best--second hand rather than immediate. Never having experienced pervasive misogyny, a male jurist may simply miscalculate the degree to which it is debilitating and prevents equal standing (and that miscalculation means that the jurist will likely just get the decision wrong). This risk is greatly magnified when there is nobody on the Court who can speak to the actual rather than the abstract. Having a female voice on the court substantiates previously abstract concerns and thus leads to more information and better decisions by all the justices. Justice Ginsburg's argument isn't that women judge better than men. It's that gender-diversified judiciaries judge better than single-sex (in this case, patriarachal) judiciaries.

It's worth noting that when this experience-based theorizing gets brought into legal spheres, people start gasping about how it isn't real law.

Is it possible that such "sensitivities" would inhibit women, making them less objective in the practice of judging cases?....Women may bring distinct gifts into the public sphere, but there is a time to cherish the differences and a time to stick to the rules so that we don't corrupt them. Ruth may be a marvelous mother and grandmother, but her ovaries have to be kept in check on the Bench so that the law remains the law. If she wanted to live by her "senses," then perhaps a different vocation should have been pursued.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

What is being missed here is that the mascaline "professional" voice isn't more "objective," it's just different. And as noted above, the lack of direct experience by men, without countervailing checks, leads to bad decisions as a matter of law in cases where the jurist needs to gauge how the law impacts women qua women to determine if a constitutional or statutory bar has breached. I've noted in other contexts that taking a "sympathetic approach" to law can sometimes lead to better decisions under almost any barometer, while still being completely "legal" in every meaningful sense. Ironically, while purporting to argue against female supremacism, what this piece actually forwards is that masculine views of law are superior by virtue of their masculinity. This should be troublesome.

Incidentally, the reverse is also true--if a legal question specifically and disproportionately impacts men qua men, it is important to have a male perspective to make the most accurate decision possible (I'm think castration cases, maybe?). But a) these cases are rarer, and b) in any event, we don't suffer from a shortage of male judges.

D'Souza Plays Defense

Dinesh D'Souza, author of the appalling "Enemy at Home," is forced to play some defense in the Washington Post. For those of you who don't know, D'Souza's book blames the American Left for 9/11, saying that our liberal policies on abortion and homosexuality are what offends the Muslim world, and that we should thus make common cause with traditional Muslims on these issues to drive a wedge between them and the radicals. In other words, if the problem is that we have too much freedom, the answer is capitulation.

It's worth noting that he seems intent on pinning the whole controversy on the usual liberal suspects, when my impression is that even some conservatives have piped up to say D'Souza crossed the line. Even still, what's noteworthy is that he really can't escape the upshot of his argument: that we're being attacked because we actually respect freedom and the civil liberties of our citizens:

Contrary to the common liberal view, I don't believe that the 9/11 attacks were payback for U.S. foreign policy. Bin Laden isn't upset because there are U.S. troops in Mecca, as liberals are fond of saying. (There are no U.S. troops in Mecca.) [And liberals don't say their are--what drugs is he on here? --ed] He isn't upset because Washington is allied with despotic regimes in the region. Israel aside, what other regimes are there in the Middle East? It isn't all about Israel. (Why hasn't al-Qaeda launched a single attack against Israel?) The thrust of the radical Muslim critique of America is that Islam is under attack from the global forces of atheism and immorality -- and that the United States is leading that attack.

Contrary to President Bush's view, they don't hate us for our freedom, either. Rather, they hate us for how we use our freedom. When Planned Parenthood International opens clinics in non-Western countries and dispenses contraceptives to unmarried girls, many see it as an assault on prevailing religious and traditional values. When human rights groups use their interpretation of international law to pressure non-Western countries to overturn laws against abortion or to liberalize laws regarding homosexuality, the traditional sensibilities of many of the world's people are violated.

So....yes. Problem: When the US tries to act like the beacon of liberty we were founded to be, there is a backlash. Solution: Stop supporting liberty. D'Souza can twist and turn all he wants, but that is the nut of his thesis.

Even as the cultural left accuses Bush of imperialism in invading Iraq, it deflects attention from its own cultural imperialism aimed at secularizing Muslim society and undermining its patriarchal and traditional values.

Undermining patriarchy? Say it ain't so! Again, the argument from D'Souza is clear: America's conception of liberty (including, we now know, opposition to patriarchy) is exported around the world. Traditional Muslims don't like this. Hence, the US needs to reassert patriarchal values here. I.e., capitulate.

When D'Souza says that Muslims don't hate us for our freedoms, he may be right. But one thing is clear: D'Souza does hate us for our freedoms. And his book is a not-so-subtle call for eliminating them.

Racism, Marty Peretz and Anti-Semitism

Marty Peretz is the owner of The New Republic, my personal sourcebook for political news and commentary. Oddly enough, I feel like Peretz is somewhat out of step with his own magazine, being considerably more conservative than nearly all of his writers. The type of material you'd read from Peretz differs sharply from that of Jonathan Chait, Michelle Cottle, or even Peter Beinart.

Peretz is currently being bandied about the blogosphere (Yglesias starts the firing, more on that below) for making supposedly racist comments about the Arab world. Since I am an admitted cheerleader for TNR, I feel obligated to weigh in on Peretz (if not this particular aspect of the controversy).

Peretz has always struck me as more of a tragic figure than anything else. My understanding is that he played a major role bankrolling the new left in the 1960s, until they took a nasty anti-Israel (and often, anti-Semitic) turn. Peretz felt justifiably betrayed, and his subsequent career to this point has been one large response to that moment in his life. As a result, his writings on the Arab world, while sometimes worthwhile, are more often quite grating, and in my opinion do crossover into outright malice or racism. It's not a sentiment I see reflected in TNR proper by the flagship writers, but it is still unfortunate that it should be associated with the magazine (I like Ezra Klein's riff on this). And it should be called out more often. I've been able to mentally split Peretz from the rest of TNR, but I'm not sure if that's a tenable move in the long-run, for myself or for the magazine at large.

So, that's my thoughts on Peretz. But there is at least one other charge that's come up that I feel the need to address. Unfogged:

Yglesias deserves a ton of credit for taking on Peretz and people who are quick to charge anti-Semitism. Only a smart, tough Jew could have done it, and Yglesias has been up to the task. Not only do spurious charges of anti-Semitism stifle debate and devalue the charge, but they also give cover to real anti-Semites, who use the spuriousness to accuse Jews of dastardly sophistry.

To which Kevin Drum adds: "Right."

That particular claim came up, not in addressing anything Peretz did, but rather another TNR writer who deigned to criticize Wesley Clark for saying, regarding war with Iran:

"You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."

Yglesias defended Clark from charges of anti-Semitism, and was so lauded by Unfogged for his contribution.

I was a Clark supporter in 2004, and would still consider supporting him in '08, but I think there is a very strong prima facia case for labeling that quote "anti-Semitic," if only for the veiled "New York money people" reference. That strikes me as the rough equivalent of saying Black pressure on an issue comes from "the ghetto preacher" set. Calling Jews "New York money people" has a long and sordid tradition in this country. Rhetoric matters in these cases.

But even if we're going to say the issue is up in the air, I'm very disturbed by Unfogged's rhetoric here, and the manner in which an otherwise sane liberal (Drum) jumped to affirm it. Because the argument he made is, not just similar to, but exactly the same argument conservatives use to dismiss claims of racism from the Black community. It's virtually verbatim. Allow me to rewrite:

[Thomas Sowell] deserves a ton of credit for taking on [Sharpton] and people who are quick to charge [racism] Only a smart, tough [African-American] could have done it, and [Sowell] has been up to the task. Not only do spurious charges of [racism] stifle debate and devalue the charge, but they also give cover to real [racists], who use the spuriousness to accuse [Blacks] of dastardly sophistry.

Sound familiar? It's a well-developed pattern. Critique minority group for being ever too quick to pull the [race/anti-Semitism] card. Trot out selected member of the minority group to denigrate the charge. Assure oneself that, by doing so, you're the one who is really contributing to the fight against [racism/anti-Semitism], while the [Black/Jewish] critics are actually responsible for increasing its salience. It's a fundamentally dishonest move, and liberals normally know better than to treat it seriously.

Aside from the fact that Yglesias should be a bit concerned he gets to play a Jewish Clarence Thomas in this little skit, liberals at large should be worried when they start pulling from this playbook. It's not that every single charge of anti-Semitism by the Jewish community at large has to be accepted on face. But liberals are rightly incensed when conservatives reflexively reject (and then applaud their bravery in rejecting!) any Black claim of racism that doesn't come from the "right" people. It shows a fundamental inability to grapple with racism in general and the concerns of the Black community specifically. When people start applying that same standard to Jews, liberals should show equal concern--not gleefully jump in and participate.

Violent Revolution

The US, if you may recall, was founded via a violent revolution by the people against the ruling government. "Treason never doth succeed, for when it does, none dare call it treason." Perhaps, and perhaps our sole definition of what constitutes a "just" revolution is a revolution that it a) occurred and b) succeeded. But in theory, at least, we should be able to construct a theoretical account about just rebellion--when would violent resistance to the ruling regime, up to and including overthrowing the government, be considered just?

I ask the question generally, but I have a specific case in mind. Specifically, a full-scale revolt by American Blacks against the United States in the 19th century. This never actually happened, but there are smaller-scale examples. We tend to be appalled by Nat Turner's slave revolt, because it killed innocents. Which it did--but not all of them. Nat Turner gave the orders to kill every White person he found--probably unjust, but perhaps understandable in his situation--and this ended up including many women and children, and probably some male non-slave owners as well. But what if the slave revolt restricted itself to a) members of the authority (soldiers, policemen, etc.) and b) adult slaveholders? Is there any moral standard by which we can condemn a slave killing his master or mistress, much less do so while still upholding the idea that American colonists could justly revolt over a 3-pence tax hike without representation? How about a full-fledged revolt, complete with guerilla warfare and marching on capitals and all the other sundries of war as conducted in the 19th century.

I think the case in favor of the justifiability (not necessarily the wisdom) of armed revolution by Blacks can plausibly extend at least to the civil rights era (though I myself would push the date back to the apex of Jim Crow in the 1920s or 30s). Certainly, my intuition is that any argument which justifies the American Revolution in 1776 could not at the same time foreclose a total Black slave rebellion in 1856. But I'm curious, because I don't think we really grapple with this scenario when talking about the evils of racism or slavery. It's not just that they were evil. It's that they were evil to such an intense degree that they would have made it perfectly justifiable for their victims to violently overthrow the government of the United States and end the American experiment entirely.

No? Why not?

Black Empowerment in Baltimore

Via Blackprof, the inspiring story of the Algebra Project, by which some inner-city Baltimore teens are fighting the school board--indeed, challenging its very legitimacy, in order to get the money and support they are due under state law.

I obviously would prefer if such radical action were not required. But when the state shows itself so persistently non-responsive to its constituents needs, the people have every right so speak out. And nothing makes me happier than seeing the teens of Baltimore recapture the radical tradition that has been one of the few avenues for racial reform in America.

Them Crazy Atheists

That's funny, because I always thought that obsessive devotion to slavery was what led to civil war.

Repentance

The Washington Post reports that former President Jimmy Carter apologized for one of the most controversial passages of his new book on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

In particular, some students [in the audience at Carter's talk at Brandeis University] challenged Carter on a sentence that has brought him much grief. On Page 213 of his book, Carter wrote: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

This sentence, the students noted, suggests that suicide bombings are a tactic of war, to be suspended only when peace is achieved. Carter agreed -- and apologized -- and said this sentence was a great mistake on his part.

"The sentence was worded in an absolutely improper and stupid way," Carter said. "I apologize to you and to everyone here . . . it was a mistake on my part."

The apology came during his heavily publicized visit to Brandeis University, a historically Jewish college outside of Boston. There had been previous questions over whether Carter would attend, centering around whether Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz could debate him. The compromise was that Dershowitz would not debate, but would be allowed to give a rebuttal after Carter had left.

More important than the apology, though, to my ears, is the fact that this is the first time I have heard Carter acknowledge the validity and substance of his critics. Up until now, it has been tirade after tirade about how the media isn't giving him a fair shake, how about everyone is too intimidated to say what they really think, and other polemics in that vein. This is a welcome change in tenor, and hopefully a sign that Carter is finally coming to grips with the fact that many fair-minded and knowledgeable people from across the political spectrum have legitimate problems with his work. As Dershowitz ended up saying in his rebuttal, "If Carter had written a book more like his comments, I do not believe there would have been so much controversy."

The Experience Machine

The topic of "experience" has been the only major valid (i.e., the Madrassa smear doesn't count) strike against Obama's Presidential prospects that's been raised thus far. I'm not saying it's the only one, just the big one that is floating around currently. It's a legitimate concern, but Sandy Levinson asks--just how well has "experience" correlated to executive performance?

Let me suggest the following question: Who among our 43 presidents have been the most "experienced" in terms of the resumes they brought with them to the Oval Office? And, concomitantly, who have been the most "inexperienced"? My own answers to the first question, in chronological order, would be James Madison (former member of Congress, secretary of state, not to mention constitutional drafter and co-author of the Federalist); John Quincy Adams (former member of Congress, ambassador, secretary of state); James Buchanan (governor, senator, Secretary of State); Richard Nixon (Former member of both House and Senate, vice president); and George H.W. Bush (U.S. ambassador to U.N., China, head of CIA, vice president). The most inexperienced have included Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.

Eclectic list. What about evaluations? Among the "experienced" Presidents, we had some successful ones (Madison, Adams), some failures (Buchanan, Nixon), and some utterly forgettable ones (Bush Sr.). Among the "inexperienced" set, we also had some successful ones (Lincoln, Roosevelt), some failures (Harding, Carter), at least one with a mixed resume (Wilson), and several forgettable ones (Fillmore, Pierce). I'm going to dodge the obvious fight and say that history is still out on Clinton and W. Bush.

So it seems that experience does not play that much of a role in giving us our best or worst Presidents. Levinson argues that this shows that

The office is truly sui generis, and success requires a combination of intelligence and judgment as much, if not more, than it requires a resume that includes holding certain jobs.

On the question of pure intellect, Obama is arguably at the top of the field, 2008 and even historically. On judgment, it may be too early to tell, but I've liked his instincts thus far. Of course, if the office is truly truly sui generis, then it may be that there is no way to really predict, prior to the fact, who will make a good President and who will not. But Obama deserves the same chance as everyone else to earn our faith and gain our trust.

Israel in NATO?

The Jerusalem Post has an article up claiming that Israel is going to try and push for entry into NATO. Intriguing prospect, to be sure, albeit one I highly doubt will go anywhere. But assuming it's viable, what is the upshot?

From the perspective of my own political commitments, it's certainly tempting at first glance. Putting Israel in NATO would tighten its links to the western security establishment considerably. And the Israeli military would add a surprising amount of punch to NATO forces. It has more tanks than France or Germany, a lot of on the ground experience (obviously), probably the most experience in what basically amounts to counter-insurgency warfare in the world, and all-in-all has a unique background regarding terrorism that stacks quite well given that anti-terrorism operations likely is where NATO will evolve in the near future (along with peacekeeping).

Meanwhile Monday, in an exclusive interview, former Spanish prime minister Jos Mar a Aznar told the Post that "Israel needs to join NATO as soon as possible."

According to Aznar, the Iranian threat serves as "an excellent occasion to enforce [Israeli] deterrence by making Israel a member of NATO."

The former Spanish leader and current president of the FAES Spanish think tank said that if Israel became a member of NATO, "the perception in Iran would change, knowing that it's not only Israel [they are dealing with], but all of NATO."

Aznar said that NATO needed to change its focus to counter the growing threat of global terrorism.

"The threat today is terror and we need to restructure NATO to deal with this threat," he said.

That being said, there are serious problems. For one, as the article notes, most NATO countries do not want to be locked into a strategic alliance with a country embroiled in so many tense (to say the least) situations with its neighbors. For two, it would obviously strain relations between the NATO bloc and the Islamic world. Unfortunate, and possibly worth biting, but still a real concern. The third issue, however, which I think might be overlooked, is how Israel's contribution to NATO might be severely circumscribed by geopolitical realities. The article questions whether Israel will want to contribute troops to foreign peacekeeping operations. That, by which I mean Israeli willingness, I don't see as a major problem. The issue is that many of the locations for peacekeeping won't be willing to accept Israeli contributions. Putting Israeli troops in a peacekeeping force in Darfur, for example, would be a colossal PR disaster and would immediately be seized upon by the government (who, if you recall, already blames the Jews) and would make the job that much tougher. There are plenty of areas in which an Israeli contribution, though materially useful, would be diplomatically suicidal, and that I feel would create a serious strain on the alliance.

So in all, I lean against formally inducting Israel into NATO (obviously, I feel that NATO bloc countries should defend Israel against Iranian and other aggression). What do y'all think?

UPDATE: IR Prof. Seth Weinburger's post raises some interesting points as well, and offers a solid response to at least one of the points I made (that Israel won't be able to effectively participate in peacekeeping operations). He notes that, by and large, the US doesn't either, and that doesn't appear to be problematic. Point well taken, although Israel's mere presence in the alliance offers opportunities for folks like the Sudanese government to tar the whole endeavor as a Zionist Plot (not that much is stopping them anyway).

The First Amendment Does Not Require Applause and Candy

Last week, I blogged about a complaint sent to the Justice Department regarding activities by the "Jewish Lobby" that were perceived as anti-Muslim. Professor Volokh noted that nearly all the activities cited in the brief were constitutionally protected speech, and thus the Justice Department would have no jurisdiction to enjoin the "Jewish Lobby" even if it wanted to.

The author of the brief wrote an email to Volokh, effectively protesting that Jews don't show equal regard for the 1st amendment when the subject is Holocaust denial or "wiping Israel off the map." Indeed, she avers, when that speech is uttered, Jews are quick to label the interlocutor "anti-Semite"!

It's a spectacularly stupid argument, and Volokh dispatches of it neatly. First of all, he notes, by and large the Jewish establishment has spoken out against legal censorship of anti-Semitic views, citing to such prominent Jewish figures like Alan Dershowitz and Nadine Strossen, as well as non-Jews like, well, himself. This is free speech, like it or not, and for all the mythical power of the "Jewish Lobby" one thing it has not tried to do is criminalize criticisms (or even outright slurs) against Israel, Jews, or Judaism.

However, we most certainly do call people who deny the Holocaust or praise Hitler "anti-Semites." And why shouldn't we? What, precisely, should my reaction be to such comments aside from round condemnation and social ostracism? As Volokh notes, this is precisely the suggested liberal response to distasteful or hateful speech--legal protection, but social condemnation against the speaker. Indeed, I'm really not sure what my other options are here, besides ignoring the speech on the ground that it doesn't matter (which flies in the face of the entire liberal justification for avoiding censorship, that "bad" speech should be aggressively met on the battlefield with competing ideas), or applaud the speech and express my support, which, begging all my neo-Nazi reader's pardon, will happen when Hell freezes over.

There are arguments to be made about why the 1st amendment shouldn't be read to cover "hate speech." But those arguments are best made by people who at least understand the basic liberal position that one can (and should) criticize certain opinions vociferously while still not supporting their legal prohibition.

Funny Pages

I just received and quickly devoured The Book of Ratings. Basically, TBoR takes a topic (say, breakfast cereal), trots out five or so examples, gives a brief evaluation, and then gives each a grade, from A+ to F (he's only given one "F" though--Scrappy Doo). It's delightfully amazing. There's an online version too, which you should only read if you have seven hours of spare time and no shame at giggling like a toddler with gas.

Anyway, aside from missionizing for one of my favorite humor sources (it's so rare Jews get to evangelize, so I try to seize the opportunity whenever I can), I wanted to make a note about two different forms of humor, and whether other people have a preference between them. On the one hand, you have "I was thinking the exact same thing!" Example: Garlic on pizza is infinitely recursive, there is no amount of garlic you can add such that more garlic wouldn't make it better. On the other hand, you have "I never thought of it that way before!" Example: Objectively speaking, The Wizard of Oz should have turned into cinema's first slasher flick the moment the Tin Man realized he had an ax and Dorothy had a heart.

I personally like both. Is anything revealed here, other than that I have a twisted personality?

Talk of the Town

Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy was here today. He spoke at our Friday Convocation, on the topic of race betrayal and being a sellout. He also attended discussions held at the Black Students interest house, and the Alumni Guest House.

It was very illuminating, all in all. Unfortunately, two negative events marred the day. Kennedy's convocation address, as previously mentioned, was on race betrayal. And when the floor was opened for questions, that was what the questioners inquired upon. The last questioner, however, felt compelled to ask the ever-so-tiring "isn't affirmative action just reverse racism?"

Now first of all, I was annoyed because I'm quite tired of hearing that question generally. But more importantly, I was pissed off because Professor Kennedy's speech had little to nothing to do with affirmative action. It was scarcely mentioned. And I am sick of Black racial progressives being called to the mat to defend Affirmative Action every time they make a public appearance. It's not as if Professor Kennedy is the public face of affirmative action defenders, either--certainly, he supports it, but it is not like he's made a career based upon it's advocacy. Fortunately, Professor Kennedy's response was beautifully brutal (I've heard the questioner was angry about it, but serves him right), laying out at least four different reasons affirmative action is not racism, and making a wonderful historical anecdote about how the same "reverse racism" claim was made by President Andrew Johnson in vetoing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Even then, the first response to any measure trying to remove the shackles placed upon African Americans and foster their empowerment was that it would give them "special rights." If that argument could be trotted out with a straight face just a year after slavery's demise, why should we trust its good intentions now?

So that one had a (more or less) happy ending. Unfortunately, the other altercation went less smoothly. At the Alumni Guest House, one of the questioners inquired as to whether Black men of means and influence, like Professor Kennedy, should do more to work in lower-income communities, rather than elite institutions such as Carleton. He recounted how at his poor Houston school, the only speakers who came were men from prison. Just having a Black man show up and say "I'm Black, and I'm a professor at Harvard" could do so much for these students.

Professor Kennedy answered with what was, to my mind, maddening vagueness and refused to endorse even the idea that ideally, folks like him should do more (or much at all) to assist inner-city communities. At this, several other Black students (not the original questioner) took exception. They accused him of showing insufficient commitment to his community, that his presence here was a paean to complacency, and insinuated that his motivation for attending here was that we could pay more money. Things rapidly escalated, with an attending faculty member admonishing the students that they were "guests" here--at which point at least three walked out of the room in disgust, with them and Kennedy trading attacks on the way out.

I've never seen a meeting with an outside speaker at Carleton result in such bitter animosity. And it's really demoralizing. I didn't even really realize how affected I was right away--I was chatting with one of my friends who also attended, and we pretty much had the conversation that could have happened had the discussion not broken down. But once I got back to my dorm room, I immediately was awashed in a wave of depression. You attend these sessions so desperately wanting to make progress--not agreement, just progress. Gaps bridged, if not closed; ideas developed, if not adopted. It is so rare that these conversations begin in the first place, and to watch one die in such a spectacular burst of flames is crushing.

So what do you do? I guess you pick yourself up, and try again. And again, and again, and again.

The Price is Wrong

A complaint filed by the National Association of Muslim-American Women alleges that the "Jewish lobby"

have provided misleading and highly politicized information, and testimonies to US law enforcement agencies, and also the US Congress that was, and is aimed at creating a political, legal, social, and financial environment that is hostile to Muslims and Arab Americans, and that causes Muslim and Arab-Americans to suffer discrimination, persecution, and the deprivation and denial of Constitutional rights, and equal protection under the law.

To be clear, the "Jewish lobby" is not my addition, the complaint specifically refers to its targets by that moniker.

It's not a very professional complaint (at the bottom, it wrongly misspells Rep. Deborah Pryce's name as "Price"), and as Eugene Volokh notes, with the exception of one fleeting reference to perjury, there is nothing in the complaint that would be within the Justice Department's jurisdiction to investigate anyway. I'm doubtful that the Jewish community really has a formal "enemies list", for example, and even if certain organizations have people they deem to be hostile to their interests, that's perfectly in their rights. Furthermore, while I think certain neo-conservatives come off as anti-Islamic, citing a column attacking Islamists doesn't prove the case.

The entire thing would be worth but a fleeting mention if not for the fact that it's author is also on the board of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, one of the largest and most influential Islamic organizations in the US. This doesn't really say anything about CAIR or its official positions, any more than Dennis Prager's bloviations are representative of the US Holocaust Memorial Council. Still, it would be nice if the CAIR disassociated itself from this move, which is yet another manifestation of the classic "Jews control the media" slander whose revival act is getting very tiresome.

UPDATE: Volokh issues a correction. The writer is not currently on the board of the CAIR, although she used to be. So the CAIR really doesn't have to do any distancing at all.

Boomerang the Ricochet

The latest attempt to slow the Barack Obama train comes courtesy of Insight Magazine, a conservative publication:

Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?

Barack Hussein Osama Obama educated in a Madrassa!

Insight, for its part, blames folks from Hillary Clinton's network for the revelation. As Jason Zengerle points out, that may be true in a technical sense, but the information is appearing in right-wing rags, not the liberal press. Don't let them ricochet their smears and blame it on the left.

An Abstract Question

My blog-soulmate The Belle has a post up on abstracts, as does Mike Madison (these are from a while back). I wrote an abstract (sort of) for an article today. I got an email from the Political Science departmental assistant about a journal with an upcoming deadline for article submissions. By "upcoming" I mean "less than a week's notice." So I quickly recomposed one of my seminar papers, added an epilogue, and sent it in.

Back to the pseudo-abstract I wrote for the submission email. The abstract (and, to be honest, the epilogue) was not just a summary (though it did that) but also a veiled (how thinly, I don't know) argument for why it should be accepted for publication. Why it's important, why the topic is underappreciated, etc.. Is this a good thing to do in the abstract?

Not The Charming Kind Either

You got to give them credit for boldness. John Judis explicitly asks in The New Republic: "Is America a Rogue State?"

What exactly are we doing in the Horn of Africa, where we have encouraged the Christian government of Ethiopia to invade Somalia and replace its Islamic government? As far as I can tell, we have violated international law, committed war crimes, helped Al Qaeda recruit new members, and involved ourselves in a guerrilla war that could last decades. It's Iraq writ small. And it can't be blamed on Donald Rumsfeld.

The accusation of war-crimes isn't hyperbole either--Judis claims that we used an AC-130 to target a town suspected of harboring al-Qaeda operatives, indiscriminately gunning down civilians in the process. If true, that is a massacre.

James Kirchik has a response which legitimizes the legality of the action, but Brad Plumer's rejoinder is rather compelling:

Maybe this is all perfectly "legal" in some sense. And maybe you can argue that backing Ethiopia's invasion was a good idea on the merits (here's reason to think otherwise). But it's difficult to see how it doesn't undermine the international order in some way when the United Nations is pushing for a diplomatic resolution and suddenly the United States and its ally decide to "solve" the matter through military force. Am I missing something?

Regardless of the merits, it used to be that would not find such questions outside the farthest fringe of the left-wing wastelands. Now, some of the more prestigious journals of the mainstream feel compelled to deal with it. What hell have we wrought on ourselves (much less the world)?

Not The Charming Kind Either

You got to give them credit for boldness. John Judis explicitly asks in The New Republic: "Is America a Rogue State?"

What exactly are we doing in the Horn of Africa, where we have encouraged the Christian government of Ethiopia to invade Somalia and replace its Islamic government? As far as I can tell, we have violated international law, committed war crimes, helped Al Qaeda recruit new members, and involved ourselves in a guerrilla war that could last decades. It's Iraq writ small. And it can't be blamed on Donald Rumsfeld.

The accusation of war-crimes isn't hyperbole either--Judis claims that we used an AC-130 to target a town suspected of harboring al-Qaeda operatives, indiscriminately gunning down civilians in the process. If true, that is a massacre.

It used to be that would not find such questions outside the farthest fringe of the left-wing wastelands. Now, some of the more prestigious journals of the mainstream feel compelled to deal with it. What hell have we wrought on ourselves (much less the world)?

My One Prejudice

I've often remarked to my friends that my one prejudice in life is against Virginia. It's not against the south generally--I used to vacation in South Carolina, I have close friends from North Carolina, and my grandparents live (or in one case, lived) in Florida. It isn't even really against all of Virginia--Northern Virginia is fine (NoVA is to the rest of Virginia as Austin is to the rest of Texas), as is UVA. But the state generally I am not a fan of, not just because it has a habit of doing remarkably stupid things, but because it is close enough to Maryland to know better.

Anyway, check out this story coming out of the VA House of Delegates:

There were furious denunciations in the General Assembly after a Virginia legislator stated that black people "should get over" slavery.

Hanover Delegate Frank Hargrove made the comment about slavery in an interview published Tuesday in The Daily Progress of Charlottesville.

In the same interview about whether the state should apologize to the descendants of slaves, Hargrove wondered aloud whether Jews should "apologize for killing Christ."

Alexandria Delegate David Englin, whose Jewish ancestors immigrated from Nazi-occupied Poland, criticized Hargrove's comments in the House of Delegates.

Hargrove then told Englin that his skin is a "little too thin." Other lawmakers gasped and groaned in disbelief.

Black lawmakers in the House denounced Hargrove's comments.

Delegate Dwight Jones, head of the Legislative Black Caucus, said that he is "absolutely appalled" that someone would tell him to "get over" slavery.

Maryland: Last bastion of intelligence before the wastelands of idiocy.

Apology Accepted...Wait, Come Again?

In a certain episode of Futurama ("A Taste of Freedom," for those of you who whose fandom has not yet approached obsession like mine has), the character Dr. Zoidberg is convicted of desecrating the flag (by eating it). After "the Court orders an apology," Zoidberg's immediate response is "apology accepted. Just don't let it happen again."

Keep that in mind when you read this excerpt from a recent interview with President Bush:

PELLEY: Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?

BUSH: That we didn't do a better job or they didn't do a better job?

PELLEY: Well, that the United States did not do a better job in providing security after the invasion.

BUSH: Not at all. I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.

The "blame the Iraqis" movement is in full swing. Whose first reflex, after a catastrophic war which plunged their entire nation into chaos, is to wonder if the its the Iraqis fault for not doing a better job?

To be fair, President Bush thinks that "most Iraqis" express that "huge debt of gratitude" we're owed. The problem Americans have is that we don't know it (presumably, because the liberal media keeps shoving images of their country alight down our patriotic throats).

What's Next in Colorado?

With Republican Senator Wayne Allard's announced retirement at the end of this term, Colorado immediately shoots to the top of Democratic pick-up targets come 2008. Democrats already hold the other seat in one of 2004's rare bright spots, and are coming off a wave of House pickups, as well as a surprisingly dominant win in the gubernatorial race in the 2006.

While it may be too early to start calling this seat for the Democrats, it is true that the Colorado GOP is in dire straits (and do not have a clear candidate for this race). The big question on my mind is, with the DNC being held in Denver, will the Rocky Mountain state be in play in the Presidential election?

Lord, My Roommates Are Half-Wits

I'm locked in my room right now, as three of my roommates are watching R. Kelly's "Trapped in the Closet" music video (with Kelly's audio commentary) in the suite.

Happy MLK weekend.

China Turns

One of the less-developed pieces in the Darfur puzzle is China's role. In the past, I've noted that China has sought to use the Darfur conflict as a tool to enhance its own stature and influence across Africa. China has used its security council veto, diplomatic influence, and economic heft to protect its client states from hostile foreign interference. Since China has been perfectly willing to trade with even the most vicious human rights abusers, the message sent to Africa is that going under the Chinese umbrella is a sure-shot way to insure that your political oppression won't result in nasty diplomatic or economic sanctions (or worse yet, military intervention). Sudan was to be the ultimate test case: if China could forestall meaningful intervention even while Khartoum was in the midst of genocide, it would be a powerful signal that it could be an effective ward for nearly any other tin-pot dictatorship in the region.

Without getting too optimistic, it may well be that China has changed its tune. The Washington Post reports that China was instrumental in pressuring Sudan to accept a cease-fire and perhaps further foreign intervention:

The U.S. special envoy to Sudan said Friday that China has pushed the Sudanese government recently to help resolve the bloody Darfur conflict and ease the plight of the region's nearly 3 million refugees.

The Chinese intervention marked a shift from past policy under which Beijing seemed reluctant to use its influence in Sudan, according to the envoy, Andrew S. Natsios. "I think they're engaging much more aggressively," Natsios said at a news briefing after four days of talks here with Chinese officials.

There are reasons to be skeptical. China has engaged in bait-and-switches regarding Darfur before, simultaneously pledging and undermining efforts for peace in the region. And of course, it would be quite fair to say too little, too late. But assuming this act is genuine and lasting, what is the upshot?

Well, obviously I'd be pleased that China is using its considerable influence for good instead of evil, for once. But why the shift? It's possible that China thinks that America's weakening hold on the mantle of human rights (in the wake of Abu Gharib, Guantanamo Bay, and other quasi-police-state moves of the Bush administration), offers an opportunity for them to gobble up legitimacy in the respect. The world is probably better off if China begins to consider human rights implications in its foreign policy. But it's probably worse off if China supplants the US as the go-to state on human rights concerns. It would be unforgivable if the US ceded that position on President Bush's watch.

Administration Limbo

How low can they go?

The bureaucrat in charge of Guantanamo Bay policy tries to start some dark rumors about the law firms assisting in defending the detainees there. He suggests that companies might want to boycott the law firms, and worse, implies they might be funded by terrorists themselves. Because rule of law is a scary, scary concept.

Fortunately, most everybody seems outraged over this. The Washington Post wrote a scathing editorial that describes what, exactly, was said:

MOST AMERICANS understand that legal representation for the accused is one of the core principles of the American way. Not, it seems, Cully Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs. In a repellent interview yesterday with Federal News Radio, Mr. Stimson brought up, unprompted, the number of major U.S. law firms that have helped represent detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

"Actually you know I think the news story that you're really going to start seeing in the next couple of weeks is this: As a result of a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request through a major news organization, somebody asked, 'Who are the lawyers around this country representing detainees down there,' and you know what, it's shocking," he said.

Mr. Stimson proceeded to reel off the names of these firms, adding, "I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out."

Asked who was paying the firms, Mr. Stimson hinted of dark doings. "It's not clear, is it?" he said. "Some will maintain that they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart, that they're doing it pro bono, and I suspect they are; others are receiving monies from who knows where, and I'd be curious to have them explain that."

Condemnation has been fast and furious, from a variety of sources. Steve Benen, Michael Froomkin, Lindsay Beyerstein, Kevin Drum and Paul Horwitz aptly represent the liberals. On the right, we have critcism from Eugene Volokh, Andrew Sullivan, and Jonathan Adler.

Adler says that the administration official might just have been shooting from the hip, rather than expressing an official view. Potentially. But as Horwitz points out (via The WSJ Law Blog), another story in the Wall Street Journal also quoted a "senior administration official" making similar noises. That doesn't make it a policy, of course, but it starts to look more like a talking point (of one of the more abhorrent varieties). So while Adler is looking for quick repudiation from the administration, that seems very unlikely.

Other voices on the matter:
Richmond Democrat

Desert Beacon

Gun Toting Liberal

Amazingly, I did not find a single person--left or right--defending Mr. Stimson. Then again, outside the VC contributors and Mr. Sullivan (both relatively moderate and always thoughtful and fair-minded), I didn't see any conservative bloggers talking about it either.

Love the Stranger

For we too, were once strangers in a strange land....

A Samuel Freedman article in the Jerusalem Post says that Jews should do more to develop solidarity with America's Latino population, rather than basking in the past glory of our participation in the Civil Rights struggle. Freedman does not propose that we abandon Black or Black/White race issues. Rather, he claims that

the leading moral cause today among domestic issues is the preservation of the United States as a society open to and embracing of immigration. In practical terms, this means creating a rational route to citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants. They inhabit a netherworld, holding jobs that Americans cannot or will not take while having to pretend they do not exist. In the 21st century, the successor to Ralph Ellison's invisible man is now a landscaper named Raul or a maid named Flora.

In some ways, I think Freedman is too cavalier in describing the issue of Black civil rights as already having been won. But in general, I think the point is solid--if we are to preserve our culture's value on being allies of the oppressed and in solidarity with the stranger, we have to do more to express our support for the challenges faced by America's Latino population (especially, of course, by condemning the viciously dehumanizing rhetoric associated with undocumented workers).

Moving Up and Out

Publius, of the spectacular Legal Fiction blog, has decided to close his place down and join forces with the crew at Obsidian Wings. I don't know why I'm sad (LF was a great blog, but I read Obsidian Wings just as regularly, so it's not like I'll be missing his writing), but I am. Maybe it's because I suspect the voice of a solo blog writer is different than what that same writer will do on a group blog.

In any event, I look forward to seeing his posts at his new home (Oh, by the way, may be the only site in the running for best slogan and best mascot in the blogosphere. I love the sniper kitten!). And best of luck at becoming a law professor (but don't take my job!).

Revelation

I could be wrong, but I believe this post was my only major contribution to the whole Carter apartheid book kerfluffle. It was a silly book, even my more leftist friends at Carleton pretty much were of the opinion that he was a hack, and--for all his talk about how true conversation about Israeli policies is impossible in America--he's demonstrated absolutely zero inclination to actually debate the points he's raised. So I felt no particular compunction to deal with the story.

But, via Eugene Volokh, I see that Emory Professor Melvin Konner has seized upon a sentence in Carter's book that probably deserves some explanation:

"It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel." (Pg. 213)

Konner had volunteered to advise Carter and Emory's Carter Center on the controversy over the book, but withdrew after further consideration. There were a variety of reasons for this, among them that

President Carter has proved capable of distorting the truth about such meetings and consultations in public remarks following them.... [and] in television interviews I have seen over the past week, President Carter has revealed himself to be so rigid and inflexible in his views that he seems to me no longer capable of dialogue.

However, this sentence was a major part of his withdrawal. As Konner and Volokh both note, there doesn't seem to be a way to read it that doesn't have it specifically approving of "suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism" until such time as Israel "accepts" (whatever that means) international laws and the Roadmap for Peace (presumably, as interpreted by Carter and said Palestinian groups, as I'd imagine Israel would claim it does this already).

Now, one can believe that Israel is in grave breach of international law. One can even say that they don't care about the peace process (though this strikes me as an empirically far less tenable position). However, my impression was that one of the horizons for respectable discourse on the Israeli/Palestinian issue was that terrorism must be rejected at all points in the process--it is not a bargaining issue, just something that has to happen. Under the most charitable reading of Carter's work, he's rejecting this position to instead say that Palestinian actors won't move against terrorism their demands are met (which, of course, would lead to an indefinite stalemate). Under a less charitable reading, this is not an observation but a threat--terrorism will continue to occur, with our blessing and approval, until Israel capitulates. But since he is not just making a prediction, but specifically asking Palestinian groups to set this as their policy, it's difficult for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Either way, this is not peace. These are not words of peace. These are the words of someone who has absolutely no qualms about violence against Israel, violence against the Jewish citizens of Israel, and is perfectly willing to have that continue for the indefinite future without a word of condemnation or concern.

An Israeli First

Kevin Jon Heller reports that Israel will have its first Muslim minister in government, with the appointment of Raleb Majadele to the ministry of culture, science, and sports. Majadele is a member of the center-left Labor party. He is not the first Israeli Arab minister: Salah Tarif was given a cabinet level position by Ariel Sharon in 2002, however, Tarif is Druze, not Muslim.

An excellent and heartening step forward for Israeli democracy. When you think about it, it's rather amazing that the US got its first Muslim congressman at the same time as Israel's first Muslim cabinet member (Israel, of course, has had Muslim representation in the Knesset for decades).

In somewhat less heartening news from the region, Palestinian leaders have decided to name a youth soccer tournament after the dearly departed Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a strong supporter of Palestinian terrorism, giving thousands of dollars to the families of "martyrs" killed while killing Jews. The Fatah Party (President Abbas' party) also announced it was created a joint memorial stone dedicated to Hussein and Yasser Arafat, which is strangely appropriate.

Round and round we go....

Return of the Radio Star

The radio appearance went fine (albeit brief). I said my bit in response to Debbie Schlussel, who argued that we needed far more troops than 20,000 (she said more like 200,000) to make an impact. Basically, I pointed out that a) where are we going to find that many troops, and b) there's no political will to send those troops, and no political will to keep them there. So all we'll see is perhaps a temporary increase in security, and then everything will fall apart again.

What was rather surreal was what happened next. Who do the hosts recruit to respond to my (ever so erudite) comment? None other than Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, noted neo-conservative, PNACer, and current fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In other words, a big name, certainly in the neo-con circles that have driven Iraqi policy for this administration.

Kind of flattering when you think about it. To be honest, though, he made pretty weak points I thought. Basically, he thought that if the surge worked (and he wasn't even willing to commit to that), it would show Americans we were winning, restoring our faith in the war effort and thus giving us the space to undertake in more longterm reconstruction projects. The prospect that the escalation will actually restore American confidence in the war such that we would support remaining in country for another half dozen years or so struck me as delusional, but alas, they cut to news before I could say anything.

Still, a whole bunch of fun for me.

Oh, and ironically, I just got an email from the host of the political talk show I do at Carleton. Everyone else is out today, so I'm doing the normally 4-person show solo.

Kaplan on the Surge

Lawrence Kaplan has an interesting piece on TNR on the proposed Iraq "surge". There's a lot in there, but I have trouble getting beyond the conclusion:

What the president did not mention was that, on the only battlefield that matters--the living rooms into which his speech was televised--it's probably too little and too late. An effective counterinsurgency strategy requires time and patience. Americans have run out of both.

To be fair, it's difficult to continue have patience in an administration whose policies in this arena have failed time after time. Even if I felt like the surge might be effective (and I lean towards the view that the situation is beyond hope), it's difficult to fault the American people for no longer having faith in the policies proffered by President Bush.

Video Killed The Radio Star

Good morning, Northfield! Just writing to let you know that I should be making an appearance on the radio show "World Have Your Say," which is broadcast from 18:06 - 19:00 on BBC World Service (that's around 1-2 PM eastern, and 12-1 PM central. All other time zone conversions you have to do yourselves). I gather you can listen to a live stream here, though I'm skeptical that I'm intelligent enough to make it work (but maybe you are!). The topic is on Bush's proposed Iraq "surge" ("escalation", if you prefer).

I say that I'll be on, but I've never done this before, so all I can actually guarantee you is that from 12 - 1 PM, I'll be sitting in my room staring at the phone. Kind of like waiting for a prom date to call, really.

In any event, hope you'll tune in, and wish me luck!

Friendly Neighborhood Terrorism

We read excerpts from de Tocqueville's Democracy in America in my constitutional law class today (which is focusing on Church/State issues). De Tocqueville is an interesting case, and to me is a clear cut example of why making arguments based on "venerable old guy X believed it" is problematic.

To modern ears, de Tocqueville presents an interesting position. On the one hand, he extols the importance of religion in preserving America's democratic character. He thinks that religion serves several crucial and irreplaceable benefits to the state, and that it must be fostered--the private is public. Furthermore, he says that there is no major disagreement among the (Christian) religions in America on the important issues of religious outlook, and that this checks against strife, makes religion an important unifying force and prevents the ruinous religious warfare seen in Europe. On the other hand, he is equally vocal in giving credit to absolute church/state separation for causing this effect. Somewhat counter-intuitively, he holds that government involvement in religious affairs tends to have detrimental impacts on the positive aspects of religious experience.

So, liberals might use de Tocqueville to show why church/state separation is good. And conservatives might use him to point out that horrible things will happen if the general American belief in God is abandoned.

Two stock responses might immediately present themselves. First, de Tocqueville was far too sanguine about the level of religious unity in America at the time (even excluding non-Christian religious practices like Native American religions and animist religions brought over by African slaves--neither group probably was considered to be real people by de Tocqueville). Right around the time that he was happily writing about how great it was to be a Catholic in America, anti-Catholic bigotry really began to ramp up in the States (the Philadelphia Bible Riots, for example). So even if the consensus was true at the time he was writing (and I'm skeptical), it fractured very quickly. Second, one could simply note that whatever the level of religious pluralism in the 1840s, today we live in a highly diverse society. It is unclear how much his analysis applies to contemporary America, regardless of its aptness 160 years ago.

But even under his own terms, de Tocqueville is significantly more disturbing than we tend to portray him as. In class, I noted that de Tocqueville seemed to ignore the aforementioned anti-Catholic wave that was beginning to hit America at the time of his visit. My Professor responded that, to some extent, this might have been intentional--not because it was an inconvenient fact, but because it was actually encompassed in what de Tocqueville believed. De Tocqueville is quite explicit that the reason for religious consensus in America is because anyone who deviates from the orthodox position is simply afraid to speak up. And if they do assert an alternative position (e.g., atheism), American society will smite them down without blinking. Indeed, it is a bit unnerving how cheery he is at this prospect. If social (not governmental) pressure is de Tocqueville's favored method for ensuring religious unity, then a few friendly neighborhood acts of religious terrorism (to suppress potential fissures) may be exactly what is called for under his paradigm.

We tend to valorize people like de Tocqueville, so when they talk about how wonderful something is (like church/state separation, or religious unity), we think that their conclusion can simply be taken wholesale as a policy without dealing with the underlying analysis. We push under the rug the fact that the analysis might be based on false premises, or that the tactics might be of the sort modern Americans frown upon. But the problem is that his theories don't work without them. All the wonderful benefits that flow from unifying the public religious sphere only occur if we're willing to brutally suppress dissenters. If we're not willing to do that, then it's back to the drawing board.

Shell

I have no doubt that, sometime in the future, we will look back on Jose Padilla and ask: What have we done?

Jose Padilla may be a terrorist. Or he may not be. We really don't know. We seem far less confident that he was particularly dangerous now than back in the days we were accusing him of plotting to set off a dirty bomb. There is a non-trivial chance that he is entirely innocent. Even if he isn't, though, there is little to justify the horrors we, in the name of the red white and blue, visited upon him while in our custody. What lines were we not willing to cross? What simply would have been too much?

In any event, whatever his backstory is, there is little that we can hope to glean from him about terrorism now, several years after his capture. Often times, such detentions are justified by what's known as the "mosaic theory," that good intelligence requires finding as many small bits of information as possible, which can be arranged into a big picture--even though individual holders of information may not have anything to do with its broader significance or even be aware of it.

That's probably solid analysis, as far as it goes. But there is a problem:

[The mosaic theory] also implies that useful information can be obtained even from people who have no idea that they know anything of importance, and are not affiliated with any terrorist group: such individuals might have noticed something whose significance is apparent only "to those within the FBI or the intelligence community who have a broader context within which to consider a questioned item or isolated piece of information."

The mosaic theory makes sense to me: of course counterterrorism agents should try to discover as many little bits of knowledge as possible and try to fit them together into a broader picture. But it is also an invitation to abuse: to incarcerating people who might have done nothing wrong, and holding them indefinitely on the off chance that some tiny useful fact of whose existence they are completely unaware might emerge during the millionth round of questioning. It therefore stands in desperate need of some countervailing restrictions on how long people can be kept on the off chance that they might produce a tiny fragment piece of the mosaic, and whether they can be held at all absent any reason to suspect them of a crime.

The problem, of course, is that there has been no interest, no pressure, and no incentive to create these countervailing restrictions. So long as there is some plausible intelligence justification for holding Padilla (which, to be fair, there is--but scarcely more than that which could justify holding me or you), the administration has apparently concluding it can do anything for any amount of time, and it's all gravy under the President's war powers. This cannot be allowed to stand. And when history looks back on that decision, it will do so with a very critical eye. Of that, I have no doubt.

Pointing Fingers

I'm no expert on the matter, but doesn't this sound like blaming the troops?

We've got lots of soldiers sitting on megabases all over Iraq. They should be out and about, some of them embedded, others just moving around, tracking the terrorists, hunting them down. I don't know how many guys and gals are sitting in air-conditioned quarters and drinking designer coffee, but it's a substantial number. Enough of that.

That's from Michael Ledeen at The National Review.

Clearly, our problem is that our troops are living the cushy life in Baghdad. Why, they might as well be in Boston for all the danger they're facing! Get out there, and gun down some terrorists, lazy ingrates!

Via Publius.

Alive

...For you I'm awake (Godsmack).

Today was not exactly a triumph for awake-kind. I woke up for a late afternoon meeting with two of my professors, ate lunch, and promptly fell right back to sleep for the remainder of the day. Only now am I finally up for the count (I think). Dinner, a meeting, and a debate practice remain. Oh, and all my homework.

Cue The GEICO Commercial

I've noticed that the folks at Powerline have--belatedly--begun to make strides towards reality with regards to Iraq. They aren't there yet, but every once in awhile you see glimmers of recognition: recognizing there is a lot of violence in-country, or that the war just isn't all that popular in America anymore and may just be an albatross for the GOP in the coming elections.

This post, for example, starts off promisingly enough. It cites the Washington Post's report that almost 23,000 Iraqi civilians and policemen (and possibly more) died in 2006, with the vast majority of the deaths occurring in the latter half of the year, according to the Iraqi government.

But they've got some good news!

But here's something you're unlikely to read about in the Post -- Iraq is making substantial economic strides.

James Roberts in the Washington Times points to an article in the end-of-the-year edition of Newsweek international called "Iraq's Economy is Booming" by Silvia Spring. It notes that real estate prices have gone up several hundred percent since the fall of Saddam Hussein; that Iraqi workers' salaries have increased more than 100 percent during the same period; that the number of cars in Baghdad has grown by 500 percent; that the Iraqi construction, retail and wholesale trade sectors are growing substantially; that the number of registered businesses has increased four fold in three years; that taxes are lower and government revenue higher; that the Kurdish region is booming; that Iraq's GDP grew by 17 percent in 2005, with 2006 growth projected at 13 percent by the Global Insight firm (and 4 percent by the World Bank); and that foreign investment from neighboring countries is pouring in.

We'll pause for the moment, so we can all reflect on the difference between what the Washington Post and the Washington Times feels is important regarding Iraq. There is a reason why one is a real newspaper, and one is cat fodder.

So, taking into account both the level of violence and the economy, is Iraq better off now than it was under Saddam? If you're a Sunni living in a mixed neighborhood in Baghdad, no. If you're a Shiite living in such a neighborhood, probably not. But if you're a Shiite living in the south or a Kurd living in the north, then you're almost certainly much better off now.

So, if you live in the majority of the population centers, including the capital, your life (if you still have it), sucks. Worse than it was under a brutal totalitarian regime, in fact. But all is forgiven, because more Shi'ites down south have imported cars!

Am I the only one who couldn't believe there wasn't an estate-tax repeal reference in that post? I mean, it really seemed like the natural direction to go in. It would "kill two birds with one stone," shall we say. I can't believe they missed it.

Get Out

According to the Washington Post, we're finally starting to hear some conservative outrage at an administration inadequacy that actual deserves protest. Specifically, the manner in which the Bush administration's hideously overbroad anti-terrorism laws are being used to prevent bona fide refugees from getting asylum in America.

The critics say the administration's interpretation of provisions mandating denial of asylum to individuals who give "material support" to terrorist groups is so broad that foreigners who fought alongside U.S. forces in wars such as Vietnam can be denied asylum on the grounds that they provided aid to terrorists.

Advocates for refugees add that people who were forced to aid terrorist fighters at gunpoint could be labeled as supporters and turned away; such cases include a nurse who was abducted and told to treat a guerrilla fighter in Colombia and a woman in Liberia who said her father was killed and she was raped and forced to stand by as rebels occupied her home for several days.

Sick. Bureaucratic inefficiency is probably a governmental constant, but this administration has expressed so little interest in the innocent people caught in its anti-terrorism net that it is impossible to hold them blameless for this policy catastrophe. There's a reason that even the conservatives protesting candidly admit that any change hinges on leadership from the new Democratic Congress.

The problem reaches it's most distressing in Iraq, where it is nearly impossible for people to gain refugee status--even if they've been working for the US. Being seen working for the occupier is close to a death mark in-country. The ever-worsening situation there prompted George Packer, in a much-read TNR article, to argue that we need to "Save Whomever We Can" on our way out. To do otherwise would be to subject those who already have sacrificed so much for the cause of freedom to be brutally slaughtered as the US sits on its hands. Yet the Bush administration, afraid of making a move that would seem to acknowledge our failings in Iraq, has been highly reticent to let fleeing Iraqi into the US. The Baghdad embassy doesn't issue visas (would these be the "diversity visas" Rep. Goode was so angry about?). The number of refugees resettled here is appallingly low--in the low triple-digits. We blame the UN for dragging its feet, but refuse to take independent initiative ourselves.

I believe in preserving American as a beacon of hope for the lowest among us. When we undermine that dream for anyone, we do a disservice to all of us. The fact that our very allies, our brothers and sisters in the battle for democracy, would be abandoned on the field because this administration puts its pride over its principles is simply too much to bear. We can only hope that the new Congress will step in to show leadership where the current President has shown none.

Pointless

I've (probably belatedly) noticed that I very much like ending my posts with a passage going somewhat like this:

The point isn't to say [blah blah blah]. The point is to say that [blah blah blah].

I almost definitely overuse this structure. The goal, I imagine, is to prevent my pieces from being strawmanned, which I despise. I doesn't actually work--I still get strawmanned all the time. But including it does make me significantly more likely to blame the strawmanner for being an idiot, rather than myself for not being sufficiently lucid in my posting.

Nozick and God

From Anarchy, State, and Utopia by the late Robert Nozick:

However, once a person exists, not everything compatible with his overall existence being a net plus can be done, even by those who created him. An existing person has claims, even against those whose purpose in creating him was to violate those claims. (38)

He's not talking about God, and God probably did not create us with the purpose of violating our claims. Nevertheless, we still have claims as humans, and those claims can be pursued, even against our Creator.

Card Me

A post by Ampersand on feminist anti-transsexual arguments reminds of something I've been kind of curious about: "Cards." Not as in playing cards, or even Magic Cards (though both are very interesting), but as in "you're playing the X Card," where X is usually some identity group or ism (race card, anti-Semitism card, etc..). Sometimes it is expressed directly as such, but generally it comes in the form of a whine: "Even the mildest criticism of [targeted group] gets labeled as [prejudice against that group]. I'm being silenced!" Amp cites to a quote found here on trans-issues that exemplifies:

Here, my experience, again, is, if someone offers a differing view of transgender issues than the one you hold...then that person gets immediately labeled "transphobic." At that point, the discussion really ends. There's nothing more to be said.

I've also noticed this same dynamic occurring regarding Jewish issues as well. This Matthew Yglesias post set off a flurry of commenters talking about how, despite not being anti-Semitic at all!, their perfectly rational and mild criticisms of Israel got them labeled as the next coming of the Inquisition. Stop playing the anti-Semite card, I'm trying to have a serious conversation here!

I'm mildly intrigued by such conversations, mostly because I find the race parallel fascinating. I think the original manifestation of all such "card" analysis is the "race card." I'm going to push the trans-issue to the side for now (because I don't know enough about the internal fissures in feminism here), but what's interesting about the "race card" versus the "anti-Semite card" is that it is mostly conservatives who complain about the former, and liberals who complain about the latter.

Since the race card discussion has been around longer, the conversation has gotten more sophisticated, and liberals now have a few stock answers to the "race card" complaint. But before we get into them, I want to observe that the card complaint does have a grain of truth to it. As a society, we have not yet mapped out the terrain by which one can simultaneously be in solidarity with and criticize a historically marginalized group (Jews, Blacks, gays, whomever). That isn't to say it's impossible, or every critique is immediately met with a hail of "isms." It just means that, in my estimation, most people are unclear about what will set off a landmine, and in that sense do feel quite constrained in their discussions on the matter. This is problematic, and something that needs to addressed.

That being said, I still believe that illegitimate applications of the "race card" (claiming racism to stifle legitimate criticism) pale in comparison to illegitimate cries of the "race card card" (saying someone is playing the race card to subvert real analysis of possible racist undertones or tropes in the original statement). The race card card typically trumps the race card. Liberals would argue that those who are so quick to disclaim they are not a racist ("I'm not a racist, but....") may need to look a little bit more carefully at what and how they are arguing. A bit of self-reflection goes a long way here.

Surprising nobody, I'm completely onboard with the liberal position here. We can concede that you're not secretly pining for the reinstitution of slavery, while still trying to inform you that their might be racist undertones to an argument--ones you might not even be aware of. Furthermore, we'd argue that the bare fact that most Blacks perceive a given line of attack as racist or hostile to their people is powerful (not controlling, but powerful) evidence that it is--or at least that you have to consider the prospect, rather than dismiss it out of hand.

In other words, I believe that when it comes to race, people need to be a bit more humble when someone points out that many in the targeted group would perceive a given line as racist. Great. I think many liberals are onboard with me so far. But what about anti-Semitism? Why isn't the same standard applied? Rather than retreating into a defensive shell and loudly proclaiming how not anti-Semitic you are (to be clear, I don't think most liberal voices challenging Israel are plotting the next Holocaust in a dark room), why not take a step back and ask yourselves why the critique is being made? If your answer is, "because the Zionists have taken over and dominate public discussion of Israel," perhaps its time to re-read that sentence and blink at what you're saying. The point isn't to deny that we're still somewhat feeling out how to have these discussions. The point is to demonstrate that liberals probably should be a bit leery that--to many Jewish ears--they sound precisely like Ann Coulter on Affirmative Action when the subject turns to anti-Semitism in Israel/Palestine debates.

Liberals have done stellar work in deconstructing the manner in which identity cards are played in the public discourse. I just wish that they would apply their lessons to my people as well.