This is no Way to Organize Chaos.

The official announcement for Kristol:

William Kristol, one of the nation's leading conservative writers and a vigorous supporter of the Iraq war, will become an Op-Ed page columnist for The New York Times, the newspaper announced Saturday.

Mr. Kristol will write a weekly column for The Times beginning Jan. 7, the newspaper said. He is editor and co-founder of The Weekly Standard, an influential conservative political magazine, and appears regularly on Fox News Sunday and the Fox News Channel. He was a columnist for Time magazine until that relationship was severed this month.

Mr. Kristol, 55, has been a fierce critic of The Times. In 2006, he said that the government should consider prosecuting The Times for disclosing a secret government program to track international banking transactions.

In a 2003 column on the turmoil within The Times that led to the downfall of the top two editors, he wrote that it was not "a first-rate newspaper of record," adding, "The Times is irredeemable."

In the mid-1990s, Mr. Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, an influential policy study group. Before that, he was chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle.

A native of New York City, he holds a bachelor's degree and a doctorate from Harvard.

His father is Irving Kristol, one of the founding intellectual forces behind modern conservatism.

Now I said I was looking for a reason Kristol was hired. This announcement tells us that Kristol is a "leading conservative" and "Iraq war supporter," hardly unique features on the current Times op-ed page. It also tells us his resume. Then there's his criticism of the Times itself. I think this is the reason they hired him. Rather than hiring a competent ombudsman or demanding more from their journalists, the paper has decided to outsource criticism to a serial liar and conservative critic that doesn't actually believe in any standard of journalistic integrity, but rather subscribes to the notion that news sources are allies when they tow the line, treasonous enemies of the state when they do not. And towing the line depends on who's in the White House, apparently. Finally, the announcement links Kristol to his father, as if to say, "we disclosed it, so it's not nepotism."

Obviously there is no case I can make against Kristol being a Times columnist that changes the fact that they can hire and fire who they want. I just don't know why they feel they need to hire someone who is consistently wrong about matters of national importance and holds the "liberal media" in such contempt. Is Kristol's voice unique? Hardly. Arguably they could have hired a different type of conservative, as others have, but instead they chose to go with a political operative. I really don't understand. Between this and their weak review of Liberal Fascism, I can't honestly say what kind of paper the New York Times wants to be. Maybe they're just trying to capture as many markets as possible in an increasingly fractured media universe. I've always thought papers should have some integrity and take a real political position. Apparently that is out of vogue these days. Depressing stuff.

UPDATE: Jonathan Stein at the Mother Jones blog makes the best and most concise case against Kristol, certainly better than what I failed to articulate here.

UPDATE II: Via Editor and Publisher:

Times' editorial page editor Andy Rosenthal defended the move. Rosenthal told Politico.com shortly after the official announcement Saturday that he fails to understand "this weird fear of opposing views....We have views on our op-ed page that are as hawkish or more so than Bill....

"The idea that The New York Times is giving voice to a guy who is a serious, respected conservative intellectual -- and somehow that's a bad thing," Rosenthal added. "How intolerant is that?"

Naturally, this raises a few questions. First, aren't there already "opposing views" on the op-ed page? What is unique about Kristol's opposing views? Second, describing Kristol as a "serious, respected conservative intellectual" is indefensible. Has Rosenthal actually read what Kristol writes? It's all an act. He dresses respectably, talks respectably, but is essentially a provocateur. He's Ann Coulter with a thesaurus. And once one decides to be intellectually dishonest, one simply ceases to be an serious intellectual. Everybody but the Times seems to know this. How can they be this clueless?

Posted by morte at 5:58 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

According to the Huffington Post, William "the butcher" Kristol may be joining the NY Times as a columnist. One wonders why. Kristol is an academically trained political philosopher who got started in politics working with VP Dan Quayle. He rose to prominence by issuing daily talking points that decisively (in my view) killed Clinton's health care reform in 1993-4. Later, Kristol founded the Weekly Standard, which, unlike his father's more sociologically-oriented Public Interest, took neoconservatism to its more recognizable level by asserting the United States had both the might and the right in the post-Cold War world to shape the world to our will. In the Bush era, Kristol has mostly distinguished himself by uttering ever more bellicose and mendacious statements in an increasing number of respectable media outlets.

I am curious to know, if this scoop is true, why the Times would hire Kristol. Do they feel they need a real necon on their opinion page? Do they feel they need a serial liar? Do they feel they need someone to make outrageous statements just for the hell of it? I have no idea. Here's Kevin Drum's theory:

The Bill Kristol phenomenon is a stellar example of what a nice suit and a sober tone of voice can do for you. When Curtis LeMay suggested bombing North Vietnam into the Stone Age and getting over our fear of using nuclear weapons, everyone saw him for what he was: a bellicose nutcase. Kristol is barely any less bloodthirsty, but he's smart enough to talk in more soothing tones. As a result, he gets columns in Time magazine, edits his own widely-read magazine, and shows up constantly on television.

Underneath it, though, he's every bit the bellicose nutcase that LeMay was. His answer to every foreign policy problem is exactly the same: a proposal to use the maximum amount of force that he thinks elite opinion can tolerate. But Kristol is well dressed, soft spoken, and a lively dinner companion. So everyone just sort of shrugs their shoulders at the fact that he basically wants to go to war with the whole world. It's a nice gig.

I think that's accurate, but it doesn't adequately explain why the Times would want him, not that I have a rival theory. If anything, this illustrates something I have yet to argue here in any detail, which is that more American news organizations ought to be engaging in outright liberal bias. That sounds incendiary, but it really isn't. I'll have to go into more detail in the future.

Posted by morte at 6:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

For American political scientists, this is a perennial question. And based on my exposure to the relevant literature, no one has advanced a comprehensive theory that explains why turnout is so low compared to other advanced countries, and why that turnout has been declining steadily since about 1960. One theory, not much in favor in academic circles but beloved by Washington journalists is that partisanship is the culprit. See, back in 1960, there was broad consensus between the parties, so the story goes, and voters liked that. But after the close of that turbulent decade and the devolution into partisan bickering that followed, voters were turned off by politics and many simply stopped voting. What we're left with is a minority of hard-core political junkies who are politically biased one way or another, and a majority that has simply dropped out of politics. The solution, then, is to recreate the atmosphere of comity that accompanied the period of high turnout spanning the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.

Are there people who are turned off by their perception of partisanship? Undoubtedly. Does this explain low voter turnout entirely? Absolutely not. There are plenty of people (insert your own personal anecdote here) who are bothered by the political process who nonetheless vote anyway out of a strong sense of obligation. Or to phrase the problem differently, we shouldn't be looking so much at attitudes or perceptions about the political process so much as we should be asking the people who don't vote why they don't vote.

Voting is a democratic process that connects individuals to their government and to their society in politically meaningful and legitimate way. If this "meaningfulness" thesis is correct, then clearly those who don't vote find no meaning in the democratic process. Why? Again, I don't have an answer, but that is the essential question. But would it make sense for the answer to be "the parties are bickering instead of getting along?" Not really, because that would suggest someone who actually pays quite a bit of attention to politics, and there is ample data to conclusively prove that people with high political awareness vote, rather than staying home. The more likely culprit would be a perception that there is no meaningful difference between the parties, rather than a gulf separating them. And if that is true, then there should have been less turnout during 1960, when there actually was less difference between the parties on policy! So partisanship seems to be something that people who pay a lot of attention to politics care about. And even then, it is only a certain subset of those people: journalists. And even then, it isn't every journalist. It seems to be the top of the journalism hierarchy who cares most about partisanship in America and is most concerned about its deleterious effects upon the democratic process.

The ridiculousness of the partisanship thesis is that it focuses on the voter but doesn't actually ask the voter (or non-voter) the relevant question. Instead it is a projection of the journalist's ideal of non-partisan politics onto the public, which is even more bizarre because it is devoid of any meaningful understanding of what made that consensus possible in the first place. Republicans and Democrats didn't suddenly just walk across the aisle, shake hands, apologize and start legislating from the center. A long-standing political majority had to be discredited by political reality (Great Depression) to create the political space for a new majority which was really a coalition of convenience. That majority finally fell apart in the 60's because of Civil Rights. Those Southern Democrats found their way to the Republican party over the course of the next 30 years and a party realignment had finally taken place. To my mind, this is a natural development. Why should conservative and racist Southern Democrats have stayed with Northern liberal Democrats in the New Deal coalition? This isn't to say that the GOP is the natural party of racists, but rather that they made a choice to embrace those disaffected Southern Democrats, just as liberal Democrats made a choice to reject them. A political realignment, not a realignment with the public. And viewed in this light, turnout appears to be an almost unrelated question entirely.

Posted by morte at 1:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

One thing I've noticed about a lot of conservative commentary on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is that they tend to use the term "murder" instead of "assassinate" when describing her fate. I don't know if this is done intentionally or not, but the effect is to deemphasize the political motivations for killing her. People of prominence are assassinated. The rest of us are murdered. So assassination is a specific type of murder, the victim killed for specific political reasons. That said, we don't know who killed Bhutto or why, but obviously it was because she stood a good chance of winning the upcoming election. Yet the conservative commentary about her murder serves to shift political violence (terrorism) to simple homicide which makes it all the easier to discuss terrorists as savages who cannot be understood or negotiated with except through brutal force. And underlying this assumption is the idea that the United States has some sort of right to deal with terror in Pakistan directly instead of leaving it to Pakistanis (assistance is another matter). And all the commentary (throughout the political spectrum) on how this effects the US presidential candidates...please.

Is it really hard to understand that while yes, a country with nuclear weapons that experiences political instability should be of interest to the United States, that the bulk of the impact of that political instability is to be felt in Pakistan and perhaps its immediate neighbors more than to us?

Posted by morte at 1:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Via Spencer Ackerman's continuing brave foray into Liberal Fascism:

There was much about McCarthy that was fascistic, including his conspiratorialism, his paranoid rhetoric, his bullying, and his opportunism; but those tendencies did not come from the conservative or classical liberal traditions. Rather, McCarthy and McCarthyism came out of the progressive and populist traditions.

Broken down logically, this would read:

A: conspiratorialism, paranoid rhetoric, bullying and opportunism (McCarthyism) is fascistic
B: conspiratorialism, paranoid rhetoric, bullying and opportunism (McCarthyism) do not come from the classical liberal or conservative traditions
C: Therefore, McCarthyism came out of the progressive and populist traditions, which are fascistic

Airtight! And not to belabor the point, but this is what happens when you make up your own definitions of terms in a way designed solely to support your conclusions. And Goldberg's conclusion? The negative--that is, fascistic--elements of McCarthyism come from the progressive and populist traditions. In other words, the devil made him do it. If only there hadn't been populists in America, McCarthy would have been so much more effective at lying about the abundance of commies in America!

What's really strange here is that I don't consider McCarthy or McCarthyism to be in the least bit "fascistic." He was a demagogue, and his conservatism was frankly immaterial to his anticommunism. That's not a defense of McCarthyism, it's a clarification, which comes when one uses coherent terms to make arguments.

Posted by morte at 12:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Krugman wonders why Bush keeps referring to terrorists as cowards. After all, is it really cowardly to blow yourself up? No, it turns out that the cowardice label is really just a way for Bush to say terrorists are cowards because they won't fight in the open with him, and thus reaffirm his masculinity. Isn't that what his "bring 'em on" comments were all about? Another way of looking at it is to say that terrorists aren't playing fair. Both of these interpretations reveal a childlike insecurity towards violence that can't be fit into the after school junior high fistfight. If these terrorists were real men, the president seems to be saying, they wouldn't be cowardly blowing themselves up but fighting the US army directly. Isn't that what the "flypaper" strategy was supposed to do?

I could go on but the point remains that the president and his supporters have no understanding about the nature of terrorism, and cover up for that ignorance by responding in a fashion that is supposed to make them look tough and the terrorists look like wimps. Kinda explains a lot, doesn't it?

(see also what I wrote last year on this subject.)

Posted by morte at 12:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

National Review comments on the Romney un-endorsement:

After the extraordinary beating it took from the Concord, N.H. Monitor - which a few days ago went out of its way to publish an anti-endorsement of Mitt Romney - the Romney campaign is sending around an email pointing out that the Monitor took some whacks at Ronald Reagan in 1980.

And then provides a selective quote from that 1980 un-endorsement:

Ronald Reagan - The former California governor is simply too old (69), too doctrinaire, too inexperienced in the intricacies of the federal government. We gravely question his capability to withstand the daily physical and emotional battering that the nation's chief executive must endure.

So let's see. Romney un-endorsement: He's a fake, pandering to conservatives, liberals, or whomever he's running against. Reagan un-endorsement: He's too old and inexperienced. According to NR, this is supposed to demonstrate what, an equivalence? Or are they courageously exposing the Monitor's liberal bias? I really couldn't say. As near as I can tell, the original criticism--and why is it considered going "out of their way?"--was pretty accurate, given that Romney has quite obviously "flip flopped" depending on the political winds. Could it be that National Review, having recently endorsed Romney themselves, are desperate to change the subject?

Not that they're not entitled, it's just that they're attempting to distract us with the Reagan example to paper over Romney's phoniness. Not only has NR lost touch with reality, they're lost all sense of integrity as well.

Posted by morte at 10:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Spencer Ackerman takes a look at Liberal Fascism and determines that Goldberg's creative definition of terms are the foundation of his whole thesis. This is what I have been arguing ever since I first caught wind of this project. Defining fascism is tricky, for amateurs and academics, something Goldberg does admit. But that doesn't mean we can ignore some very obvious traits of fascism in order to support an antithesis of "liberal fascism," which is exactly what Goldberg does. Here's how Ackerman puts it:

Fascist regimes do not impose their wills by force "or" through regulation and social pressure. They systematize violence. There isn't anything at all fascist about a neighborhood noise ordinance, and nothing at all fascist about scrunching up your noise [sic] in discomfort when someone lights a cigarette. But this is how distinctions between statism and fascism collapse, a necessary move when redefining fascism to include liberalism. If Goldberg wants to posit that statism is fascism, then he'd really better aim his Glock at George W. Bush, champion of massively expanded state power. (Though, as we'll see, Goldberg is rather soft on fascism-qua-fascism for a determined enemy of liberal fascism.)

I used to joke with friends that I'd love to open a coffee shop called "The Fascist Bean." At this cafe, customers would only be given a strict set of choices, all of which boiled down to tough-guy drip coffee, straight espresso, and absolutely no frilly drinks. Smoking would be mandatory. This "fascism" was inspired by the "Soup Nazi" character on Seinfeld, and within the confines of humor, it wasn't important for us to tease out the ridiculousness of our appellations. What Goldberg has done is to expand the Soup Nazi/Fascist Bean argument to 400 pages and describe it, memorably, as "a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care," when clearly it is anything but that. And the reason is because Goldberg isn't really interested in making an argument based on historical evidence. He is making a novel argument based on selective evidence and tailor-made definitions of terms that fit his desired result. In short, he has defined away (or ignored) the right-wing associations with fascism and instead focused on the left-wing associations. Goldberg can complain about liberal bias in the academy all he wants, but this nonsense would never be taken seriously by a reputable peer-reviewed academic journal of history.

And there you have it. As with so many conservative ideologues, Goldberg thrives off of redefining terms to suit his ideological preconceptions. The only remaining question is whether this intellectual obtuseness is deliberate or not. If deliberate, then Goldberg is simply an intellectually dishonest, ideologically-driven hack writer who is looking to make a buck off a political movement that has nourished his entire career. If not, then Goldberg really is something of a dunce, which I have been hesitant to bring up because I think it's in poor taste to question someone's intelligence (even though I have referred to several figures as "idiots" on this blog--something I'm trying to phase out of my writing) and generally isn't an argument. But honestly, what else are we to conclude from the case study of Jonah Goldberg and his tome? To further my efforts at being civil, I'll leave the insults to Ackerman: "I'm starting to think Jonah Goldberg is not an intelligent man. And I'm only on page 24."

Posted by morte at 1:10 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Thomas Sowell, last seen on this blog pining for a military coup, "takes a sober look" (in the words of NR's Corner) at the primary contenders (both parties). Highlights:

• Republicans, as usual, seem to have more people who would make good presidents than people who would make good presidential candidates. Unfortunately for them, we have elections instead of coronations.


• If Senator Thompson can beat the odds and become president, he would probably be better than most of those who have been in the White House in recent times -- though that is not extravagant praise.


• Romney and Giuliani are both articulate Republicans -- and it is rare for the Republicans to have two at one time. Some presidential election years they haven't even had one.


• She [Hillary Clinton] might even be shameless enough to put him [Bill Clinton] on the Supreme Court, where he could ruin the law of the land, as many of his own judicial appointees are already doing in the federal courts.


• As for the other candidates in both parties [after describing every frontrunner], the big question is why anyone takes them seriously [who's taking them seriously at this point?] as candidates to lead the nation at a time of huge dangers that terrorists will end up with nuclear weapons, whether from Iran or Pakistan.

A definition of sober:

1 a: sparing in the use of food and drink : abstemious b: not addicted to intoxicating drink c: not drunk
2: marked by sedate or gravely or earnestly thoughtful character or demeanor
3: unhurried, calm
4: marked by temperance, moderation, or seriousness (a sober candlelight vigil)
5: subdued in tone or color
6: showing no excessive or extreme qualities of fancy, emotion, or prejudice

It seems that National Review's relationship to reality is becoming more tenuous every day.

Posted by morte at 12:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Another day, another un-endorsement for Mitt Romney. The Manchester Union-Leader:

In this primary, the more Mitt Romney speaks, the less believable he becomes. That is why Granite Staters who have listened attentively are now returning to John McCain. They might not agree with McCain on everything, as we don't, but like us, they judge him to be a man of integrity and conviction, a man who won't sell them out, who won't break his promises, and who won't lie to get elected.

Voters can see that John McCain is trustworthy. Mitt Romney has spent a year trying to convince Granite Staters that he is as well. It looks like they aren't buying it. And for good reason.

Not as harsh as the Concord Monitor's but I'm glad opinion makers are pointing out the obvious about Romney. Doesn't change the fact that I would still like him as the Republican nominee, although Mike Huckabee would be great in that capacity as well. A McCain resurgence, if for real, would be quite a serious threat on the other hand. And although it would validate my powers of prediction (I suggested either McCain or Gingrich would be the nominee last year), I wouldn't feel too good about it.

Posted by morte at 12:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Anyone who is even casually following the presidential races ought to know that Mitt Romney is a world-class phony, so devoid of any political principle that he'll say anything to get elected. But for anyone who suggests that this is an exaggeration, please go read this anti-endorsement from the Concord (New Hampshire) Monitor:

If you were building a Republican presidential candidate from a kit, imagine what pieces you might use: an athletic build, ramrod posture, Reaganesque hair, a charismatic speaking style and a crisp dark suit. You'd add a beautiful wife and family, a wildly successful business career and just enough executive government experience. You'd pour in some old GOP bromides - spending cuts and lower taxes - plus some new positions for 2008: anti-immigrant rhetoric and a focus on faith.

Add it all up and you get Mitt Romney, a disquieting figure who sure looks like the next president and most surely must be stopped.

The op-ed goes on to cite his record of shifting positions during his stint in government and you know what? It's pretty devastating. But this advice only applies to Republican (and independent) primary voters. Democrats should be thrilled with Romney as an opponent.

UPDATE: Romney's rebuttal.

Posted by morte at 12:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This is one of the better cases I've read against Ron Paul, particularly because it is aimed at the myopic civil libertarian set (Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Greenwald) who see what they want to see in Paul and conveniently ignore the rest (my argument along the same lines here). I title this post tongue-in-cheek because even though everyone knows Ron Paul won't be the Republican nominee, there is still this insistence by more doctrinaire libertarians that Paul is at the forefront of some sort of libertarian revival and concomitant political movement (Reason's blog reports on Paul multiple times a day, for instance). Which is to say that this probably won't be the the last post I write about Ron Paul, because he still gets a good deal of attention in those circles (which I do keep up with), if not the mainstream media, which is largely ignoring him.

Posted by morte at 4:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Republican obstruction in the Senate isn't big news for those of us on the left who follow politics. But the Campaign for America's Future has put together a report [PDF] that demonstrates just how impressive (I mean that in a value-free way) the obstruction has been. Rick Perlstein calls it the biggest story of the year and perhaps it is. But can you think of any major reports in the press that actually dealt with the phenomenon and actually called it what it is--obstruction? Here's a way of looking at it:

Eric Lotke, Campaign for America's Future research director and lead author of the new report, calls the obstruction a "deliberate strategy." He observes that the congressional Republicans block legislation, then blame the Democrats for getting nothing done. "It's like mugging the postman and then complaining that the mail isn't delivered on time."

Exactly. Pundits talk about Congress' low approval ratings (and they are worse than Bush's, for some perspective) and declare it either a victory for the president or a failure of the Democratic leadership. Here's National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru describing it in a Washington Post discussion board he's moderating (topic: "A Failed Congress"):

They haven't crippled the president, who has been getting his way on policy and personnel. They haven't ended the Iraq war, and haven't even stopped Bush from committing more resources to it. They haven't even inflicted much political damage on Bush and the Republicans.

...

The remaining question: Does the Democrats' ineffectiveness reflect mostly the institutional power of the presidency, or the incompetence of Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi?

I'm glad the Post is informing its readers about the whole story here.

Posted by morte at 2:28 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A short piece at the NY Times politics blog on John McCain's relationship with Henry Kissinger caught my eye. Kissinger is a puzzling figure for me. He will frequently analyze foreign affairs correctly and then recommend policy that doesn't follow logically. Here's what he said:

"Terror," Mr. Kissinger said, "is just an expression for rejecting the existing norm."

He gave a history of how that norm came to be established in Europe, when in 1648 the Treaty of Westphalia was signed, bringing to a close years of religious bloodshed which left 30 percent of the population dead and began the rise of the nation state.

The creation of the European Union, Mr. Kissinger said, represented a transformational shift, where it was increasingly hard to get countries to do things that involve risk because the power of the individual state to compel them was fading.

This is a pretty accurate description of how power has shifted since Westphalia. Obviously the future of the EU has not yet been written but Kissinger's description of the norm--the nation-state--is highly relevant. Terrorists reject the norm, he states, but is it the state as a concept that they reject or is the particular hierarchy of states that they reject, i.e. the Pax Britannica and Pax Americana? Here's more:

In the Middle East, Mr. Kissinger said, the state was never the established model, only a creation after World War I, in part explaining the current volatility.

But he said the most pressing concern was the proliferation of nuclear weapons to countries like Iran, which stands outside the international system.

"This is a problem that will be with us for the rest of this administration and the beginning of the next administration," he said. "And we can not let it drift into a world of multiple nuclear powers."

But he then moved on to the rise of India and China.

He said the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century was dominated by the emergence of the powerful German sate.

He said that was a "relatively small event compared to the emergence of China and India."

How the United States handles their rise will be of critical importance, he said.

"That is a historic problem of our time even if the problem in the Middle East did not exist," he said.

Just to be clear, the "relatively small event" of Germany rising to power led to two world wars and millions dead. But I digress. The point is that Germany's rise was concomitant with its challenge to the global dominance of the British, and its historical rivalry with the French and Russians. The point, then, of comparing Germany to China or India is to assess whether the latter countries are satisfied with the global order or not. If they are satisfied, then the possibility of conflict between East and West greatly diminishes. If they are dissatisfied, however, then we might be looking at a scenario not unlike the years before WWI when all it took was a small spark to plunge the world, enthusiastically, into conflict.

Seen through this lens, the problem of terror and rogue states is entirely different. The rise of China, in my mind, positively dwarfs terrorism as a foreign policy priority. The goal should be to make China's rise to power complementary to American hegemony, not a threat. Viewed as a threat it would not take much in the future to ensure Sino-American conflict, particularly when there is a ready-made tinder box in the form of the issue of Taiwanese independence. Unless your goal is conflict, which is clearly the neoconservative position, and generally the position of "serious" foreign policy analysts who have forgotten that war is merely one way of conducting foreign policy.

Terrorism, on the other hand, cannot be so easily appeased. They aren't working within the Westphalian framework and are clearly dissatisfied with the global (or local) order. It is an entirely different strategic problem. The only carrots a nation-state has for dealing with terrorists is to submit to being blackmailed. That's an ugly way of putting it but essentially you are trading something in favor of your citizens not being blown up. The alternative is brute force which is more costly and whose benefits are often negligible. The "third way" is to be ruthlessly methodical and surgical in eliminating organized terrorism's ability to inflict damage. Instead of the army you use the Special Forces. Instead of torturing suspects you do the long hard work of useful intelligence gathering. In a battle of attrition, a nation-state has more resources than a terrorist does. But that's only on the global level. Home-grown insurgencies are vastly more resilient, which calls into question the effectiveness of our policy in Iraq. If we get the same result whether we leave today or leave in ten years then obviously we should leave today.

But back to Kissinger. He is looking at challenges to American power, both in the form of terrorists, who are "an expression for rejecting the existing norm" and other nation-states which he clearly views as the paramount foreign policy challenge of our time. Given this the obvious shared foreign policy problem is how to spread satisfaction. We can't stop China so how can we make them happy with their place in the world? We can't stop terrorism entirely so how do we minimize it; i.e. how do we create less dissatisfied actors who could potentially become terrorists? Kissinger doesn't provide answers here, and McCain hasn't displayed a particularly nuanced view of foreign relations, so the imperative is to elect a president who can take foreign policy in a new and meaningful direction that rejects "shock and awe." Our hard power is not limitless but our soft power is sufficient, in my view, to accommodate these power transitions in the future, given wise leadership.

Posted by morte at 12:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Via TAPPED , this report [PDF] on the rightward tilt of C-SPAN--an odd development given C-SPAN's mission to basically set up a camera and watch the sausage being made. Obviously though, C-SPAN does much more than dispassionately film Congressional activity; they also have analysts, book events, etc. The politicization of expertise does not really have a watchdog, and C-SPAN is the wrong organization to do it in the first place.

But the larger point is that even if the Republican party is reduced to irrelevancy next year, well-funded and nominally independent think tanks will soldier on with their message, and usually that message is "destroy the welfare state." Even here in supposedly liberal Portland, OR I still see libertarian think tanks advertising on public television. I don't deny them the right to do so, but we should recognize that the only way to reduce the influence of conservative think tanks is to overwhelm them with progressive/liberal think tanks. Only then will neutral organizations like C-SPAN be inclined to provide "balanced" analysis of public policy. And yes, balance shouldn't be the goal, but it is certainly better than one narrative (tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts) dominating policy analysis.

Posted by morte at 12:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It just occurred to me that the rise of Huckabee and the revulsion he inspires from the GOP establishment is somewhat of a reverse-engineered validation of Thomas Franks' What's the Matter with Kansas thesis. I don't know what the future holds for the splintering GOP coalition, but clearly social conservatives are starting to wake up to the fact that they've been exploited by the anti-tax right while the latter has belatedly come to recognize the folly of their exploitation even if they feel no remorse about it.

Posted by morte at 4:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I have no idea where Jonah Goldberg got this Tom Wolfe "endorsement" from (its neither on Amazon.com nor the internet as near as a Google search will tell me) but it is worth acknowledging Atrios' "defense" of Goldberg's broader point, that authoritarianism knows no ideological bounds.

I used to think this was obvious, but then books like Goldberg's come out where he could have saved himself a lot of mockery by just talking about the totalitarian temptations of liberalism instead of hitching it to the more specific and utterly antithetical fascist movement. Truth be told, liberalism is really antithetical to both fascist and communist totalitarianisms but it is hardly newsworthy to say that authoritarian regimes have developed under the aegis of left-wing programs of social reform. Goldberg is just trying to be "provocative" by putting the round peg of liberalism into the square hole of fascism. So who are the real authoritarians? Atrios bites:

Still it is true that there are authoritarian streaks all across the political spectrum. It isn't confined to the right and nor is it confined just to the far right and far left. These days I'd say the most powerful authoritarians are the "centrists" of the Washington Elite Consensus who have never quite gotten their heads around the whole consent of the governed idea. Fake Washington bipartisanship, Unity 08, the collected works of David Broder are all manifestations of this.

Well, yes and no. Yes, they are authoritarians in the sense that they admire, more than anything else, authority figures, and despise the ineffectual. They've bought into the "strong daddy/weak mommy" idea of Republicans and Democrats to an embarrassing degree. But that doesn't mean that they themselves have authoritarian ambitions; rather they just are intoxicated by proximity to power. And all the better when that power is unified instead of divided, hence the obsession with bipartisanship and unity. It really bothers them that this thing called politics exists and that people actually have quite different opinions about issues. It also explains their reactionary stance towards anything smacking of populism, their definition of which seems to be confined to the radicalism of 1789 or 1968.

Posted by morte at 2:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Family Security Matters, last seen compiling a list of the "Ten Most Dangerous Organizations in America," and before that publishing--then scrubbing from their website--an article arguing for Bush to follow the example of Julius Caesar, has a new list: "America's Most Dangerous College Courses." Number six stood our to me:

10. Collegiate Sexualities at Occidental College.

9. Body Politics: Power, Pain, and Pleasure at Williams College.

8. Issues Dividing America at Columbia University.

7. Whiteness and Multiculturalism at Ithaca College.

6. Truth, Lies, Politics, and Policy at Portland State University.

5. Introduction to Labor Studies at the University of Washington.

4. Speaking Out at Bucknell College.

3. Imperialism in American History at the University of California, Irvine.

2. Movements in Social Justice at Occidental College.

1. Islam in Global Contexts at DePaul University.

You see, I attended PSU as a graduate student, and I don't recall ever hearing about such a course. Here's FSM's description (abridged):

Professor Rick Wolf, who served as a senior policy advisor to far-Left Senator Ted Kennedy, attempts to teach students the "real story" as to how policy decisions are made. But what this course really does is tell you the "real story" behind how ideologues try to brainwash students with only "progressive," required texts.

First, there is no "Rick Wolf" on the PSU faculty, nor could I find one using a Google search that matched his subject area. Second, there is no course entitled "Truth, Lies, Politics, and Policy" at PSU, either in the current academic term or the two previous (the period FSM claims their list is from). Furthermore, a search for "Truth, Lies, Politics, and Policy" on Google reveals only two links--one to the FSM list and the other to a book that references the list. In other words, they made it up. Either that or they mangled their source information so badly as to render it useless. I could search the other courses, but I have a feeling the results would be mixed.

I don't understand this need for movement conservatives to establish their case to the point of manufacturing evidence. I can only conclude that it derives from their belief in the corruption of higher-ed by liberal elites. Or as they say themselves:

Arrogant professors, protected by tenure and faint-hearted administrators, use their classrooms to spread their twisted views of America and its allies. Sometimes, entire courses are focused on anti-American views; other times, professors take time from non-political classes, such as math or Kinesiology, to complain about George Bush, the war on terrorism, social justice, and whatever it is that happens to bother them at the time of their rants. Consequently, students are not being taught properly and universities and colleges are robbing their students of the well-rounded educations they are paying for and deserve.

Anyone who has spent time at a university knows this is at best an exaggeration, at worst a lie. Worse, it can never be totally disproved because there are irresponsible professors who behave in this way, but they are the exception, not the rule. So long as a few examples exist, conservatives can make this argument well into the future. The fact that they made up item 6 demonstrates that they are desperate for evidence, that their "argument" has no substance. Of the thousands of universities and colleges in this country, they couldn't find enough examples to complete a top-ten list? That's sad. I think a reasonable person would look at the evidence and conclude that their premise is faulty. That said, I'm having a difficult time defending the existence of reasonable conservatives, something of a trend in the left blogosphere lately.

Posted by morte at 11:55 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I would be remiss if I failed to mention some pre-screening in the liberal blogosphere of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism (final iteration of the subtitle: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning), due in stores Jan. 8. Previously I have been critical of the book without having read it, so I confined myself to drawing conclusions based on the title alone. They were not positive. Now that we have tidbits to work with, the absurdity of this work of "history" is becoming ever more clear. Let's allow the shyster Goldberg to speak for himself. From the book jacket:

Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism

To be fair, these aren't Goldberg's words, but the publisher's, but who could claim that they do not accurately reflect the content of the book? The next paragraph goes into more detail about the similarities between liberals and fascists:

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term "National Socialism"). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities--where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Where to begin? First there's the superficial political analysis (they were National Socialists!) that assumes a label explains everything. Then there's the conflation of liberal domestic policy goals (universal health care, publicly subsidized compulsory education, progressive taxation) with more libertarian ideas (abortion, euthanasia, separation of the church from public policy). But the theme here is the totality of the Nazi regime. In my earlier criticisms I pointed out that Goldberg repeatedly confuses totalitarianism with fascism--i.e. that the latter is a form of the former. His argument would be more coherent if he called this phenomenon "liberal totalitarianism" but then that would deprive Goldberg of the scare factor of repeatedly mentioning Nazis and fascists--a tactic he accuses the left of doing, by the way.
Finally, you can tell he's on shaky ground when the analogy becomes more tenuous (organic farming, alternative medicine, vegetarianism, animal rights). But the real kicker is the first line of the next paragraph:

Do these striking parallels mean that today's liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all.

At this point we should ask ourselves what the point of the book is. It's titled Liberal Fascism, we're given a list of conclusive evidence for this, and then told that it's all a big coincidence? Where's the payoff here? I thought I was going to be shown conclusive evidence that Hillary Clinton is the next Hitler! I want my money back! Maybe the real smoking gun is lurking within this 400-page masterpiece of political history. Maybe the book jacket is just designed to get out mouths watering. But there's no denying that Goldberg is something of a genius. I mean, behold this incredible mental dexterity:

Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared at genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a "friendlier," more liberal form. The modern heirs of this "friendly fascist" tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential liberal fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; It is a female grade-school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

As tempting as it is to mock this death, let's restrain ourselves and assess it on its own terms. First of all, was fascism really an "international movement?" To describe it that way suggests that there should be some shared credo guiding the "fascist international", as it were. But since this book doesn't seem to want to strongly argue in favor of its thesis, preferring instead to note "similarities," the jacket has to acknowledge that the "vagaries of national culture and temperament" shape the fascist movement. So is it an international movement or a local phenomenon? I assume the book goes into more detail on this point, including I assume a discussion of Franco's Spain and Imperial Japan and whether they were "fascist" or not. Second, I suspect that in addition to be being a flimsy argument, Goldberg's is not original, either. Parts of this read like God and Man at Yale or the early years of National Review. And for the record, there's already a book called Friendly Fascism which reaches a quite different conclusion that Goldberg does. Finally, it must be observed that Goldberg must be an exceptional poker player. Otherwise how else could he accuse the usual conservative bêtes noires (the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood) of being "fascist" with a straight face? And that bit about female grade-school teachers being the quintessential (please read the definition of "quintessential" to understand how absurd this is) liberal fascists? Priceless. In fact, it might just be the conservative quote of the year.

But I wouldn't be writing all this just to say "Jonah Goldberg is an ignorant ass." Rather, we should ask ourselves what would compel Doubleday to pay Jonah Goldberg to write this drivel? It seems that any political writer, as long as he or she is published in enough places (preferably with syndication) can get a book deal, which is great news for hacks everywhere. But what allowed Goldberg access to mainstream, even high-brow, periodicals in the first place? The answer is of course the conservative movement, which promotes the idea that the conservative voice is suppressed by liberal elites in the media, in the academy, in Hollywood, and in a national political party. Conservatives have been arguing this for over half a century now, and despite the building of a conservative counter-establishment over the decades, the message hasn't changed one bit. It's almost as if they thrive off feeling victimized. Goldberg fits right in with this mentality, courageously challenging the myths liberals tell you about, well, everything. Building a counter-establishment wasn't enough: an entire counter-reality had to be constructed. How can conservative ideas expect to compete when they aren't playing in the same league as liberal (or is it fascist) ideas?

It would be oddly reassuring if Goldberg was simply doing this for the money; that he didn't really believe in any of it. But his past work demonstrates that he does. And like Michelle Malkin, he desperately wants the approval of the establishment--for them to acknowledge that his work of history is serious, original and thought-provoking. Instead he has dug deep into the past to recycle the conservative movement's greatest hits and repackage them in such a way that actually serves to insult those ideas. Those earlier thinkers held a fundamental belief in the power of ideas to shape history, for better or worse (usually worse). They were, in short, serious thinkers whom I respect insofar as they made arguments that took some work to debate. For Jonah Goldberg and his ilk the history of ideas is something to be played with in the pursuit of scoring cheap and transitory political points, and no one is going to remember Liberal Fascism for long because it is cheap and transparently self-serving. Except for us fascists on the left, who will cherish its unintentional humor for some time to come.

Posted by morte at 2:45 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

An interesting discussion has developed with regards to how each of the leading Democratic candidates deal with "change" and their relationship to "the system." A good place to start is with this succinct distillation from Atrios:

Shorter Candidates

Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.

Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.

Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.

I challenge anyone to deny the truth of this, within the limits of its brevity. And clearly Clinton is the outlier, who has only recently begun adopting the language of change after a year of trying to sell us on her experience. Regardless, it is Obama and Edwards who are the more obvious agents of change but their strategies vary a good deal. Or to be more precise, Obama has a weak strategy whereas Edwards doesn't have one at all.

Obama wants us to believe that he will be the ultimate dealmaker president. And to accomplish this he'll have to be more savvy than Lyndon Johnson who, if you'll recall, had healthy Congressional majorities to work with. As Paul Krugman wrote today, this makes Obama look incredibly naïve. Movement conservatives and entrenched corporate lobbyists aren't going to negotiate away their influence or power. They have to be forced. This is what john Edwards' appeal is. He talks the talk of taking the fight to the monied corporate interests, speaks the language of a populist, and has cultivated a narrative of challenging and changing the system for the benefit of the people. I have been arguing for a new populism for at least a year now, so in theory Edwards should be my preferred candidate. But the reason he is not (well, one reason) is because he doesn't actually have a plan to match his otherwise excellent rhetoric on the subject. He needs to tell us how he is going fight and twist arms. How is he going to influence Congress, where the bulk of the corruption and lobbying takes place? Is he simply going to veto legislation he doesn't like? Bring back the line-item veto? Obama might be naïve and unrealistic, but he kinda-sorta has a plan. Edwards does not.

There is another element to this, one that Krugman alludes to. Obama's talk about bipartisanship and comity plays well in the elite press because that is what they want: and end to "partisanship." And Krugman is correct to note that the "news media recoil from populist appeals." So, given Obama's tendency to talk about solving problems the way David Broder or Joe Lieberman do, I should be repelled by Obama. I'm not for two reasons. First, I think it's pretty clear that Obama actually believes in bridging the divide. The political moment that made him into a presidential candidate was obviously his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. In that address he wasn't talking to David Broder or to the Democratic party or even the GOP. He was speaking directly to the people of the United States and making his appeal thusly: we may be polarized politically, but that doesn't mean most Americans can work together to find solutions. Whether intentional or not, Obama was making the argument that it isn't the American people who have become polarized over the past 40 years but the parties. And he was right. I would have liked it if he had taken the next logical step and placed the bulk of the blame at the feet of the Republicans who won so many battle using divisive politics, but that just isn't his style. Today, Obama has taken his argument to the level of representation: The people of the United States are reasonable, so the representatives they elected must be reasonable too. Well, no. Which leads me to the second reason I'm not repelled by Obama's rhetoric of bipartisanship: he not only believes in it, but knows it plays well in the political press, where candidates can be demonized or elevated. I can't prove this is Obama's strategy, but he's too intelligent to not know it. Why not feed the Broders of the world empty platitudes about getting together? His ego might tell him that he's truly awesome enough to melt away division, but his mind tells him to "work the refs." Every Democrat running for national office ought to have learned fundamental lessons from 2000 and 2004--if not they have no business running. I'm going to assume that Obama has, and is effectively taking the press out of the equation by telling them exactly what they want to hear. If that is true, then he knows the system even better than Clinton.

Posted by morte at 12:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday was Bill of Rights Day, celebrating the adoption of, well, you know. Over at one of the libertarian blogs I track, Tim Lynch took stock of the revered parchment and found it wanting. I was going to comment on his interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which conspicuously omits the "well-regulated militia" clause of the amendment in favor of the more NRA-friendly "right to bear arms" but I think I've already covered that ground here before. This issue, namely whether the right to bear arms is an individual right, has been in court recently, and today Adam Freedman has a fascinating op-ed int he NY TImes about the language of the 2nd Amendment--probably more than you'd want to know.

Essentially there are two ways of looking at the phrasing of the Amendment, and those readings hinge entirely on the meaning of the commas that separate the 'militia' portion from the 'right-to-bear' portion of the amendment. First, the individual right:

The decision invalidating the district's [of Columbia -- morte] gun ban, written by Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, cites the second comma (the one after "state") as proof that the Second Amendment does not merely protect the "collective" right of states to maintain their militias, but endows each citizen with an "individual" right to carry a gun, regardless of membership in the local militia.

How does a mere comma do that? According to the court, the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one "prefatory" and the other "operative." On this reading, the bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about "the right of the people ... shall not be infringed."

Why oh why couldn't the Framers have been more clear? The other interpretation?

The best way to make sense of the Second Amendment is to take away all the commas (which, I know, means that only outlaws will have commas). Without the distracting commas, one can focus on the grammar of the sentence. Professor Lund is correct that the clause about a well-regulated militia is "absolute," but only in the sense that it is grammatically independent of the main clause, not that it is logically unrelated. To the contrary, absolute clauses typically provide a causal or temporal context for the main clause.

The founders -- most of whom were classically educated -- would have recognized this rhetorical device as the "ablative absolute" of Latin prose. To take an example from Horace likely to have been familiar to them: "Caesar, being in command of the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence" (ego nec tumultum nec mori per vim metuam, tenente Caesare terras). The main clause flows logically from the absolute clause: "Because Caesar commands the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence."

None of this is conclusive, of course, but I find it a refreshing discussion that transcends the usual "live free or die" arguments one finds from the pro-gun right wing. And as I've said before, I don't desire a political battle over the 2nd Amendment, but a reasonable person can conclude that severe restrictions ought to be put on weapons which serve no purpose other than efficient killing of other human beings. Or using assault rifles for hunting (politely I'd call it "unsportsmanlike," more accurately I would call it sadistic). Instead of a blanket "right to bear arms," regardless of the weapon, perhaps we ought to be looking at the utility of the weapon. What do you intend to use it for? Self defense? Hunting? Collecting? Such criteria would guide a more reasonable policy of gun restriction, if necessary.

Posted by morte at 12:55 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Ezra Klein argues in the LA Times that it's not so much Hillary Clinton herself who is polarizing, but the process of American politics that has had a polarizing effect on her, and will have a polarizing effect on whoever the respective presidential nominees are. Needless to say, I think this is dead accurate, and is heartily supported by some historical perspective:

To dramatize the point, Gallup recently released a set of numbers providing historical context to Clinton's numbers. Before his successful 2004 reelection campaign, George W. Bush was viewed favorably by 52% of the populace and unfavorably by 47%. That means he was even more unpopular than Hillary Clinton is today -- yet he won. Worse yet, at the end of his 1992 election campaign, Bill Clinton was rated unfavorably by 49% of voters (thanks, in part, to Gennifer Flowers and allegations of draft dodging), and during his 1996 reelection campaign, 44% of voters said they had an unfavorable impression of him. Yet not only did he win both elections, he's one of the most popular political figures in the country.

Those numbers tell a couple of different stories. The first is that it's probably a mistake to compare Hillary Clinton with the other presidential hopefuls. Her many years as one of the most recognizable players in national politics leave her more comparable to a president running for reelection than a newcomer scrapping for a shot at the crown. As pollster Scott Rasmussen tells me, all the other candidates are going to see their negatives go up during the course of the campaign -- and if one of them ultimately wins the race, their negatives will go up even further. "The next president will get to where she is no matter who we elect," he said. It's not that the others are necessarily less polarizing than Clinton. It's that they're not as polarizing yet.

It's that last bit that those of us who will be voting Democratic ought to keep in mind. Worrying that Hillary will rally the right as a candidate or be the subject of exceptionally harsh campaigning isn't the right strategy. Whoever the Democratic nominee is, he or she will be demonized by the right wing. Thus it behooves us to pick the candidate who will be the best representative of a revitalized Democratic party, rather than the "safe bet," which paradoxically, also turns out to be Hillary Clinton.

Posted by morte at 12:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It still astounds me that government spending, and spending alone, is considered inherently evil by the libertarian set, without a single iota of discussion about the merits of said spending:

Whatever the political power of anti-tax rhetoric, it's clear from the last seven years that it doesn't have much effect on government spending. Despite the tax cuts of 2001-2003, Congress and the White House have found all sorts of hyper-expensive programs and actions on which to spend money, from the Iraq War and expanded overall defense spending to the new Medicare Part D, the proposed farm bill, the latest round of energy subsidies, more and more corporate welfare, No Child Left Behind, and a whole new, giant federal agency -- (forget the relative spare change of all those wacky transportation earmarks). Whatever criticisms can be lobbed against the 2001-2003 tax cuts (and lower taxes in general), it can't be said that they've hamstrung the government's ability to spend.

Defense, medicine, pointless wars, money for the kids--it's all part of the evil rise of the leviathan. Frankly I'm surprised that libertarians can even argue in favor of limited government--they really seem to prefer anarchy and markets dominating our lives completely. Very strange.

Posted by morte at 3:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Kevin Drum posts commentary from one of his conservative readers who explains why he is in favor of torture. It's actually quite telling and logical, which makes it worthy of discussion, even if I don't agree. Essentially, the conservative notes, torture is a moral decision. Terrorists are evil, involved in evil deeds, so the need to protect them from torture is less important than the need to prevent them from killing the innocent.

As I've long suspected, the "conservative" approach to the question of torture exists in a different dimension from how, say, I would approach the subject. For him, the question is a moral one, based on a simple cost-benefit analysis: the lives of the innocent easily outweigh the life of an evildoer. And of course, within the confines of his argument, he is right. But looking at the question along a different dimension (the "liberal" position?) the question isn't whether terrorists are evil or not. Their evilness is irrelevant. What matters is whether a) we gain or lose by adopting barbarian practices to battle barbarians and b) whether torture uniquely provides useful information for stopping terrorists. The question of evil doesn't come up because I'm uncomfortable with the notion of an objective moral order but because it isn't germane to the discussion. But the conservative isn't having that discussion. He's having a different one entirely. And those two dimensions don't intersect.

The frightening prospect is that due to existing in different dimensions, and given enough electoral support, the generic liberal-conservative divide might keep us in political gridlock for some time. That, of course, depends on raw numbers: how many Americans live in each dimension? I don't have the answer, but it certainly makes talk of "bipartisanship" and "comity" as political goals laughable.

Posted by morte at 2:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

For consistency's sake, I really ought to evaluate Mike Huckabee's Foreign Affairs article since I did the same for both Clinton and Giuliani. But while we can praise lines like this

American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad.

we have to wonder why the very same paragraph ends with

At the same time, my administration will never surrender any of our sovereignty, which is why I was the first presidential candidate to oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would endanger both our national security and our economic interests.

This puts Huckabee squarely in Ron Paul territory. Without going into all the details, the LOTS treaty does not "surrender any of our sovereignty" and in fact helps nations deal cooperatively with terrorists, pirates and other rogues that sail the high seas. Yarr. I should think this important to Huckabee since he writes, in the very same paragraph, mind you, that

My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists.

So to distill this down, Huckabee is saying

1. The United States needs to open up and work with other nations in common cause.


2. Terrorism is a threat to all nations.


3. As president, I will oppose treaties that help us cooperate with other nations in common cause.

As I wrote earlier, the experience component of being qualified for president is somewhat overrated and multifaceted. However, one can be nominally experienced and still be unprepared to be president. Bill Clinton obviously believed that he was both prepared and experienced enough to be president, and all he had to show for it was his governorship of Arkansas. Mike Huckabee has nearly the identical set of experience, but clearly he isn't prepared. George Bush had comparable experience (governor of a Southern state) but he clearly wasn't prepared. So obviously there ought to be a premium placed on the difficult-to-calculate variable of preparedness. But I know one thing for certain. Mike Huckabee isn't exactly impressing me with even the introduction to his FA piece. And that's where you're allowed to be vague and lofty! I'm not sure I really want to evaluate the substantive details of it. Seems like it might be a waste of time.

Posted by morte at 2:27 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Shorter Bill Clinton: Obama's inexperience makes him a risky choice for president. Obviously Clinton is being an attack dog for his wife, but let's look at this "experience" argument in a little more detail.

First of all, the only real experience one can have for being president is to actually have been president. So taken to its most literal extreme, the only people qualified to be elected president should be...sitting presidents (or presidents who served one term). Obviously this isn't what Clinton meant, so what about other government experience? He says that Obama began his presidential run after only one year in the Senate. The implication is that more Senate experience is needed to be a serious presidential candidate. Fair enough. Hillary Clinton has been in the Senate for six years. Is that the magic number for presidential experience? And what about before that? She was First Lady, which admittedly (especially in her case) gives her some insider knowledge of the office but is it really experience? Obama, by contrast, spent years in the Illinois State Senate and before that as a community organizer. So on balance, he actually has more experience as an elected official than Hillary Clinton. So if Bill Clinton is using that as the metric, then by his own standard he is misleading us.

Obviously the better metric would be judgment. But it turns out that judgment and experience actually have a pretty tight relationship: you have to have spent enough time in office (experience) in order for us to evaluate your record (judgment). In this sense, comparing Clinton and Obama really is apples to oranges: We can comment on Clinton's judgment because she has spent a term in office, whereas we can't do so with Obama because of his limited time in office. We can also compare hypotheticals, such as Obama's early opposition to the Iraq war. That is a matter of record. But there's no way we can actually prove that he would have voted against the AUMF in 2002; it is merely conjecture. But we really have no choice but to evaluate Obama by what he says--the very trait Bill Clinton calls risky because it is symbolic instead of substantive. People ask candidates every four years "what they would do as president," a tradition of hurling hypotheticals. And here we can actually do an apples-to-apples comparison of Clinton to Obama. According to Bill Clinton, we can infer, Obama's rhetoric is not substantive whereas Clinton's is. We have to conclude, accurately, that Bill Clinton is simply carrying water for his wife's presidential campaign.

Which is fine. Candidates ought to be evaluated by their record, their positions and their vision (in my opinion). I too would like it if Obama had more political experience at the national level but in some sense that is pretty liberating, as he contrasts his vision with the cynicism and dearth of ideas that echo within the Beltway. The outsider narrative behooves him. Plus it is a useful contrast with Clinton who even when not officially part of the Washington scene by dint of elected office, nevertheless was at the hub of the Clinton political machine whose largess has nurtured countless Washington insiders and consultants. Depending on your point of view, those insiders are either necessary or part of the problem. For Clinton, her association with them is a mark of experience; for Obama his association with them (hiring former Clinton administration officials is pretty much unavoidable) is supposed to be a mark of good judgment, such as his association with Zbiginew Brezinski. Brezinski is hardly an outsider, but he has shown better judgment in the area of national security and foreign policy than the Clinton team.

One final note on experience. Often political commentators confuse the experience of campaigning with the experience of being in office. Here, Clinton does have a substantive advantage against the Republicans: she's been fighting the "vast right-wing conspiracy" since she became a national figure. But is the ability to successfully endure the hellfire of American presidential politics really comparable to being in office? Like standardized tests, the only thing being tested is your ability to take the test. Shifting from campaigning to leading is sometimes a difficult transition for politicians. Bill Clinton himself didn't really stop campaigning after he won, which set up an adversarial relationship with the press that haunted him throughout his two terms. Hillary Clinton has also demonstrated a preference for tightly controlling information and a contempt for journalists. Obama, on the other hand, is said to be somewhat flawed by his affability, his unwillingness to go negative against his opponents. And it is true that you have to want to win to be president. Now that his stock has risen against Clinton, largely because of the way he has handled the negative campaign, he might have learned a few things about dealing with criticism. But obviously the guy wishes that presidential campaigns were basically national debate club championships. If it were, he could be judged on rhetoric alone, clearly one of his strengths. It's almost as if he can't wait to actually be done with the business of campaigning so he can apply his vision to the presidency. So while Clinton clearly knows how to run a campaign, Obama is a fast learner. And it won't be long before one of them will shift their attention to Giuliani/Romney/Huckabee/McCain. I daresay that both Clinton and Obama have different advantages when facing the right wing. But each will, I predict, perform well, whoever the nominee is.

Summary: I don't find the experience criterion to be essential to a candidate's chances for success. And in this case, it clearly is being used to compensate for one candidate's bad judgment (in the eyes of the party base). In this election year vision and breaking with tradition are going to matter more, and in that area I've long believed that Barack Obama has the advantage. I too can be accused of carrying water for "my" candidate, but let it be based on what I've discussed above, rather than specious appeals to "experience."

Posted by morte at 1:37 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Writing for National Review's blog:

Freedom, Faith, and Postwar Europe [David Freddoso]

To the debate over Krauthammer's piece, I'd add a Steynian note. One grave consequence of post-war Europe's loss of faith is its approaching demographic extinction. The Italians are on pace to be as dead as the Romans. The Russians are headed there even faster. Can you be free if you don't exist? Or even worse, if you end up under Islamic law?

I'd also point to pre-war Europe, whose loss of religious faith (it's not like it started in 1960 -- try 1660) had ghastly ideological consequences -- Communism, German National Socialism -- that led to countless deaths.

I agree with Ramesh -- Romney's statement isn't that absurd.

So to recap, he's talking about Mark Steyn, whose last book's thesis was that Europe was all but doomed to become an Islamofascist protectorate and that only America alone could save the world from the Muslim menace. With that in mind, savor the fact that Freddoso then identifies the decline of religious authority in Europe as responsible for their future dalliances with totalitarianism. In other words, only Catholic hegemony can oppose totalitarianism, whether it is secular or Islamic.

I can't understand how someone can actually write such shoddy historical analysis with a straight face (or conscience). Unless he actually believes this, which is actually the more reasonable explanation.

Conservatism!

Posted by morte at 1:03 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Nothing profound here, but clarifying that Gonzales is more accurately a lawyer who is newsworthy, rather than the lawyer of the year, is precisely the problem with Time's "Person of the Year." They award it to the most newsworthy, even if they happen to be horrible people. Although sometimes they overestimate the significance (Bush has been on the cover twice, for christssake; it isn't exactly newsworthy that we reelected the worst president in our nation's history, it's just depressing).

Posted by morte at 1:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Another Friday, another link to a link to a post that reiterates something I've pointed out before. Via Yglesias:

In fact, there is no ideological fighting going on, except between Ron Paul and the rest of the field. Instead, the GOP is engaged in an identity-politics-driven contest. The GOP is not debating what it stands for, nor is it a party that knows what it stands for and is looking for the best candidate to win a general election and/or to effectively carry out the party's program. The GOP is not trying to find a leader for the party. It is looking for a candidate who is the incarnation of the party. No wonder they're having a tough time.

After the 2006 midterm election I assumed that the party would seriously compete for a new vision of conservatism, with one faction doubling down on Iraq, Bush, the imperial presidency, war on terror, etc. and the other faction rejecting some or all of that program. My mistake was that I thought the party would field ideologically heterogeneous candidates who would have this debate over the future of conservatism, not trip over themselves to be the true conservative--as defined above--candidate. Now with 2007 coming to a close, understanding the nature of the conservative coalition is actually pretty straightforward. No one with a claim to a new vision is coming to the fore--or they're consciously sitting it out (Gingrich)--so all we're left with is who can best appeal to the warped identity of the hard-core conservative 25%. Problem is that the identity appeal reveals the soft underbelly of the coalition and splinters support between the plutocrats (money, organization) and the theocrats (passion, votes). Huckabee's rise in the polls is simply a belated recognition that he is the best representative of the social conservative wing. But without institutional support, he will fail against the better funded Giuliani and Romney campaigns. National Review endorsed Romney precisely because he is bland enough to potentially keep the doomed coalition together. Since he'll say anything to get elected and pretend to be whatever voters want from him, his candidacy is entirely a construct of institutional support and money--a good chunk of it his own.

Put in larger historical terms, conservative activists rescued the party from electoral irrelevance (Democratic-lite), and now self-styled conservative identity politics is tearing it apart. This was predictable given the nature of political coalitions but clearly it took a distillation to reveal the incompatibility of the deal. That distillation was caused by the Iraq war and the GOP's hostility to government as anything but a tool for personal advancement. All that's left are the true believers in the base who want a Christian Crusade and the well-heeled, once-insurgent insiders who want to drown the government in the bathtub. That's not enough to win the presidency, in my estimation.

Posted by morte at 12:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

After watching this Hardball clip, I have to say that I find Mark Penn an even more repulsive figure than I did before, and that's taking into consideration that the job of a political consultant is inherently sleazy.

Posted by morte at 12:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Sanford Levinson, over at TNR, asks, What Exactly Is Our "Broken System"? He notes Edwards' frequent citation of money and special interests corrupting the system but thinks we need to look a little deeper. In fact he argues that really it is our "undemocratic constitution" that is the problem here, clarifying that "the framers were by no means either democrats or, even more certainly, contemporary Democrats. They were republicans (note the lower case) who did what they could to put a variety of stumbling blocks in the way of anything that we would today recognize as democratic government." The other day when I argued that electoral votes should be divvied up proportionate to the popular vote, I was arguing that this ought to be done nationwide. Since the winner of the popular vote tends to win the electoral vote, why hold onto such an anachronism as the Electoral College? Eliminating the EC so would make America more democratic, but only in the procedural sense.

Democracy is both a process and a political ideal. The process is how we choose our leaders, but the results of elections don't necessarily advance the ideal of democracy. At best it promotes merit, a cornerstone of New Deal liberalism but hardly democratic. Technocratic liberalism informs people that their needs are best served by experts. Not quite elitist (the conservatives would disagree in their uniquely populist fashion), but certainly rational, and the essence of meritocracy is its rationality. Realizing the ideal of democracy would require there to be no meaningful distinction between people in terms of class, wealth, intelligence, ability, ingenuity, etc. Only then would the ideal be achievable through direct, rather than representative, democracy. I'm not the first to argue that this is an unrealistic utopia, and nor would I be the first to point out that all historical attempts at imposing this utopia from above have resulted in tyranny and oppression. But that does not put me in the camp of conservatives who see a short step from universal health care to the gulag. I do believe in the liberal (and libertarian) faith in reason although I don't expect imperfect human beings to implement it consistently or humanely, it nevertheless remains to my mind the best organizing principle we have in light of our natural inequalities and limitations.

This is all to say that we can tinker with and perhaps perfect our constitutional arrangements. Getting rid of the Electoral College is not only conceivable but would not severely alter the tenuous relationships the Constitution establishes. But what about the other undemocratic institutions? Levinson talks a good deal about our "tricameral" system whereby we have a second undemocratic house of Congress, the Senate, and a single figure, the president, in charge of a vast bureaucracy as well as veto power over Congress. Where does one begin to check these undemocratic institutions? Republicans have used the arcane rules of the Senate--notably the filibuster--to block Democratic legislation for the better part of this year. This protects us from the "tyranny of the majority," does it not? Perhaps at an abstract level, but it is very frustrating to see legislation with significant public support that favors a majority and not just a faction be stopped by the intransigence of a political party on the verge of extinction. I have argued in favor of the filibuster in the past and I will continue to do so because of my faith in reason. The Republican filibuster is not based on reason, it is based on a party who is so used to getting its way in the majority that it continues to get its way in the minority--and with a president who lives around 25% in approval polls. I can be a hypocrite and call for the filibuster to be eliminated when it is convenient for me or I can wait for a Democratic president, a larger Senate majority, and conservative Republicans to be replaced with reasonable Republicans. I'm going to take the latter. And if we are at the dawn of a new era of progressive politics, it probably isn't coming in 2008. It might not even come in 2010. 2012? We'll see. It's worth bearing in mind that Roosevelt didn't get elected in 1932 on a New Deal platform, and the enormous majorities he had to work with in Congress didn't materialized until his reelection. I think the 1932/6 example is worth holding onto as we look to the future and hopefully take a few more precious steps in the direct of rational progress, peace, economic security and the idea that there is an alternative to Hobbesian chaos.

Posted by morte at 1:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

If you're libertarian-leaning, the biggest political threat is expansion of executive authority and the welfare state. From this point of view it doesn't really matter how that expanded power is used, which allows Cato's David Boaz to see equal threat from either Giuliani or Clinton:

Clinton, always eager to wield power on behalf of her vision of the public good, has just endorsed new government mandates on health care and energy along with a $50 billion spending program for global AIDS. Meanwhile, revelations about Giuliani's secretive use of New York City police and his refusal to allow the city comptroller to audit his security spending reflect his lifelong affinity for using and abusing power.

Public good vs. abusing power. I've made no attempt here to hide my sentiment for the former as a policy. And increasingly the latter seems to be the policy preference for so-called "conservatives." So you can see why I'm confused by this supposed echo, rather than a choice in our political choices. For the self-described libertarian, on the other hand, each is equally offensive. There is no relative ranking of abuses of power. So whether you're FDR, consolidating the federal government and vastly expanding its scope, or President Bush and adhering consistently to a theory of unitary executive authority, the result is the same:

Giuliani wants power concentrated in whatever position he holds at the time, and Clinton wants the federal government to have vast powers to do good as she sees it. Not a happy choice for the voters in a free country.

You see, I think voters in this still-free country do actually want their government to do good. And polling has mostly favored Democratic domestic policy since they created the welfare state. Americans are pragmatic, not ideological in the aggregate, so they want solutions to their problems from the governemnt, and in every other case, non-interference. The libertarian position sees pretty much any governemnt action--even for good!--as an infringement on individual freedom. That seems to me an ideological position. Similarly, I don't suspect that the American people think long and hard about the philosophical implications of division of powers, limiting executive authority and so forth. In other words, there doesn't seem to be evidence of a strong public rejection of the domestic policy agenda represented by Clinton and her party, nor is there a lot of concern about Giuliani's authoritarianism--his strength is supposed to be that he is a problem-solver. And from that point of view, Boaz's critique could really apply in various degrees to any of the major candidates since the Democrats all have essentially the same domestic priorities (devil in the details) and all the Republicans are making explicit appeals to jingoistic authoritarian and militaristic rule. But since Boaz can't see shades, he picks the two national frontrunners and says the sky is falling. This is what happens when you declare freedom to be the sole end of political life--it severely limits what you can do for organizing society around some sense of what's in the public interest. And as I believe I said somewhere here earlier, the failure for libertarians to appreciate the public interest essentially dooms them to super-minority status and political irrelevance forever.

Posted by morte at 12:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Politico: "Liberal views could haunt Obama"

As always, it behooves us to ask whether anyone, ever, would print a headline claiming that some candidate's conservative views possess the ability to "haunt" him or her. I suspect not since there seems to be this odd media narrative in this country whereby conservatism is "natural" to salt-of-the-Earth Americans whereas liberalism is some sort of unnatural abomination emanating from Ivy League elites and godless coastal cities. What is so peculiar about this narrative is its inherent superficiality. Rarely is a definition provided for precisely what "liberalism" and "conservatism" are as political ideologies and even less how they operate in practice, in political reality. Instead we get inane commentary about Barack Obama filling out a survey ten years ago and that is supposed to mean what, exactly? Disqualify him for national office? Aren't presidential candidates supposed to make their pitch to all Americans? Shouldn't we expect presidential candidates to modify their views on issues when making the transition from local to national office? Where's the story here?

Posted by morte at 1:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

University of Mass., Amherst, students are in for a treat:

Lecture: All I am Saying is Give War a Chance

Full description:

Join the UMass Republican Club for yet another lively and edifying political discussion on the costs, necessities, consequences, and benefits of war. A question and answer session will be administered after the initial lecture.

Jonah Goldberg, 38, is a rising star in the conservative intellectual movement as the editor-at-large for National Review Online and a contributing editor for National Review. He is also a contributing writer for the American Enterprise. He writes a nationally syndicated column for Tribune Media Services. Mr. Goldberg has written on politics and culture for the New Yorker, the Wall Street Journal, Commentary, the Public Interest, the Wilson Quarterly, the Weekly Standard, the New York Post, National Review, Reason, the Women's Quarterly, Food and Wine, The Street.com and Slate.

Edifying! No doubt this lecture stems from Mr. Goldberg's past claims to know more about Iraq than an expert on the Middle East.

Posted by morte at 1:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

GOP efforts to change how California's electoral votes are allocated (by gerrymandered CDs instead of winner-take-all) has apparently failed according to the LA Times:

A proposed initiative that drew national attention for its potential to affect next year's presidential election will not appear on the June ballot, organizers said Thursday.

Republican backers of the measure, which could have tilted the presidential contest toward the GOP nominee by changing how California awards electoral votes, conceded that they were unable to raise sufficient funds.

Sacramento consultant Dave Gilliard, the campaign manager, said that even if a financial angel were to shower the campaign with $1 million, there was not enough time to qualify the measure for June.

"I was surprised that more people that finance these types of efforts didn't step forward," Gilliard said. "We had strong supporters and good supporters but didn't come anywhere close to making the budget."

Deadlines passed last week for submitting petitions to elections officials, who would have determined whether supporters had gathered the necessary 434,000 signatures of registered voters. Typically, gathering enough signatures costs about $2 million; organizers must overshoot their mark to allow for invalid names.

Gilliard said proponents were holding out hope that the measure could appear on the November ballot with the presidential contest. But he said that was a dicey scenario: Even if it is on that ballot and wins voter approval, it might not affect the 2008 election.

The initiative might not kick in until 2012, Gilliard said -- adding that courts likely would decide the matter.

For the record, I favor initiatives that distribute electoral votes proportionate to the popular vote, rather than by CD or winner-take-all. Of course, doing that way would make the Electoral College redundant, and why would anyone in their right mind want to make an archaic institution appear redundant?

Posted by morte at 12:55 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Sadly, it's taken us 27 years to get this straightforward headline:

"Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues"

I'm joking a little here, but far too many policymakers have come to accept the Voodoo as economic Conventional Wisdom, even though the Voodoo has no standing among academic economists. This of course means that the Voodoo is a political gambit, not an economic one, and once one makes that conceptual leap, it's easy to realize that a tight group of conservative activists with access to deep pockets aren't serious about or interested in fiscal policy but simply want the rich to be slightly richer and the rest of us to live in some sort of Dickensian misery. I'm not ideologically hitched to tax hikes or tax cuts because that isn't rational--there's a time and place for both. The Voodoo activists prescribe tax cuts regardless of the economic circumstances which should be enough evidence to tell you they are making an ideological rather than an empirical decision. But like I said, it's taken about a quarter century for that fact to really sink in.

Posted by morte at 12:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

That is, Democrats who don't sit on knowledge of CIA torture tapes until confirmation of their destruction is revealed publicly. However, if one recalls the hysteria that gripped the country between 2002-5 and the cult of personality around Bush and the "mandate" of a permanent Republican majority, then maybe, just maybe, one can appreciate why these Dems kept quiet, although one shouldn't sympathize with them, either.

Posted by morte at 11:50 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Because I haven't commented on the following large stories from the past week:

1. Rudy Giuliani's fleecing of New York taxpayers so he could show his then-girlfriend the sweet life
2. The suppressed Iran NIE that revealed, surprise surprise, that Iran isn't an imminent threat to our Western Civilization, and that Bush knew about it while warning us about "World War III"
3. Mike Huckabee's sudden rise to prominence and the sudden revelation of his ignorance ("What NIE?") and cozying up to the conspiratorial right-wing (Bill Clinton!!!! Murder!!! Conspiracy!!!)
4. Mitt Romney's push to be all things to all people, paradoxically via his Mormonism

I think that about covers it. Its a little too late to jump in at this point, so I think I'll be moving on to other topics.

Posted by morte at 11:21 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)