TDB | The transition to competence

The word is that Obama will pick Arizona governor Janet Napolitano to head the department of homeland security. And in one simple but smart move, the Bush-created department that has for seven years existed without a raison d'etre is given new life and new purpose. It will - get this! - protect the homeland! The queen of a border land will now be queen of borders.

MAKES SENSE, NO?

It's a small move, but symbolic of how far from competence the Bush administration has been for these many years. Even though so much good can be done with a pragmatic (as opposed to ideological) spirit, some clear headed people, and a bit of dedicated thinking about basics, the present administration 'process' never considered these virtues.

Anyway, it's nice to see the return of plain American solutions driven competence...

...and (somewhat similarly) the rise of an American leader who can't imagine life without his blackberry.

MY GOD - HE'S ONE OF US!

TDB | In Case You Need Another Reason

Another reason, that is, to feel confident about the upcoming Obama administration.

Whatever you may think of Exxon, you can't fault it on management grounds. It is widely considered the best company in the world, speaking strictly in financial and management terms. More people in the know have confidence in the 'Exxon way' than in any other set of practices. And it just so happens that the 'Exxon way' is almost identical to the 'Obama way':

What might be called the Exxon Way can be summed up in three ideals: discipline, patience and long-term vision.

Team Obama adhered closely to these ideals during the campaign, to great effect. If an Obama administration can do the same (and there's ample evidence to suppose confidently that it can) the US could see competence coming from Washington for the first time in nearly a decade.

ike/Speaking Generally

Colin Powell is appearing on Meet the Press Sunday and the expectation is that he'll endorse Barack Obama. Powell's admiration for Obama has been evident since early 2007 and he has openly discussed the "electrifying" nature of an Obama presidency.

By and large, political endorsements are overrated. But Colin Powell, long-viewed as a dissenting but participatory voice in the Bush administration, adds credibility to Obama's foreign policy bonafides.

ike/Quote of the Day

"Fox News accused me of fathering two African-American children in wedlock."

--Barack Obama

ike/Quote of the Day

"Gov. Palin and her husband were obsessed with Wooten the way Capt. Ahab was obsessed with the Great White Whale. No Wooten, no peace. Has Gov. Palin committed an impeachable offense? Hardly. Is what she did indictable? No. But it wasn't appropriate, especially for someone elected as an ethical reformer. And her Orwellian claims of "vindication" make this blemish on her record look even worse. You asked us to hold you accountable, Gov. Palin. Did you mean it?"

--The Anchorage Daily News

ike/Jumping Ship

Bye Bye.

ike/Quote of the Day

"Last week's so-called town hall event showed Sen. John McCain to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience."

--Christopher Hitchens



The intellectual, conservative class continues its sprint away from John McCain.

ike/That Sound You Hear...

Is the Straight Talk Express jamming on the brakes and turning around.

ike/quote of the day

"And so, politically, the G.O.P. is squeezed at both ends. The party is losing the working class by sins of omission — because it has not developed policies to address economic anxiety. It has lost the educated class by sins of commission — by telling members of that class to go away. "

--David Brooks


While these are historic times economically, they are also historic times politically. We are watching the death of this version of the Republican Party, a party that has lost the coalition that elected and re-elected W. The GOP has become a caricature of itself, represented now only by its fringiest and most socially conservative elements. At least Sean Hannity is happy.

ike/Quote of the Day

"Last night, he (McCain) took that position on the housing issue of buying up everybody's mortgage. Conservatives are scratching their heads today and saying, ‘What happened?’ What on earth is that about? Then you got to ask, which houses? The condos in southern Florida, where people bought $500,000 homes as a second home and now can't pay for them? Are we buying those, too?”

--Mike Huckabee

I for one am perplexed and unsure of what McCain's base is at this point. I would say the social conservatives in the middle but they are Palin's base.

TDB | Quote of the Day

Alan Woolf, quoted on The New Republic's blog, The Plank:

Americans are denouncing Wall Street. But their hostility is too diffuse and incoherent to help them channel it constructively. The past eight years have seen the enactment of public policies that time after time rewarded lobbyists, increased the wealth and power of the already best off, and redistributed income away from ordinary Americans. Yet by and large Americans accepted all this without protest. Now, all of a sudden, they are speaking like Populists of old, attacking greed and calling for regulation. Their protest, alas, is more symbolic than concrete. As such, we are unlikely to witness blame assigned where it belongs; nor are we apt to see the passage of serious reforms dealing with long-term structural changes in the economy or any diminution of lobbyist influence. A scary economic moment will transform itself back to politics as usual in the blink of an eye.

ike/Quote of the Day

A"t a moment of economic calamity, international perplexity, political failure, and battered morale, America needs both uplift and realism, both change and steadiness. It needs a leader temperamentally, intellectually, and emotionally attuned to the complexities of our troubled globe. That leader’s name is Barack Obama."

--The New Yorker

ike/McCain's No Good, Horrible, Very Bad Week

If I were teaching a class on political races, I would focus some serious class time on messaging. Messaging represents the overarching idea of a campaign and a candidate, the core rational to inspire a voter.

Often, candidates are described as being "on message" or "off message." Here's an example of Barack Obama being on message. Here's an example of Barack Obama being off message.

In the first clip, Obama is in his comfort zone, clearly "on message," underscoring his core message of change, highlighting his opponent's long-standing ties to a broken system and desperate attempts to use the same old divisive politics to attack him. Being "on message" also means being consistent, repeating refrains that reinforce what a candidate stands for.

In the second clip, Obama is "off message." He is discussing his church membership and the remarks of his controversial pastor. He is forced to talk about all of the issues he doesn't want to address: black militantism; fringe elements in his campaign; whether he shares these ideas with his former pastor.

I write these past paragraphs to give some context for what I'm about to say; I haven't seen a candidate have a worse week of messaging than the one John McCain has just endured. Let's review:

On September 15th, John McCain famously declared that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong," which allowed Barack Obama to get back to talking point number one, as seen here.

Well, how sound was the economy? It was so sound, that it caused John McCain to suspend his campaign until the crisis was solved.

So to DC traveled the knight in shining armor, a true leader and the apparent missing link to a bipartisan deal to save Wall Street and the credit markets. Except according to several reports, McCain's presence in Washington only made things worse.

Of course McCain then had to attend the first presidential debate last Friday even though Congress had not reached a deal on a financial rescue package for Wall Street — something that McCain previously said was a condition for his attendance.

Could it get worse? Sadly for McCain, the answer is yes. Minutes after the bailout bill was rejected in the House, with Republicans voting against it at a 2-1 clip, we found out that McCain press guru Steve Schmidt had actually touted McCain's contributions to the "agreement."

"What Senator McCain was able to do was to help bring all of the parties to the table, including the House Republicans, whose votes were needed to pass this," Schmidt said.

No wonder new polls are showing the McCain candidacy floundering. For John McCain, it truly was a no good, horrible, very bad week.

TDB | Obama (stupidly) starts the name game

I don't quite understand why the Obama campaign decided to link McCain to Rush Limbaugh. First of all, it was pretty clear to anyone paying attention as McCain closed in on the Republican nomination that Limbaugh was not happy. In fact, he was livid.

Moreover, Limbaugh is very, very well liked by the Republican base, which McCain has been courting since before he beat Romney. McCain has a fairly legitimate concern that, when the chips are down, 'conservatives' won't embrace him. They are more likely to now that Obama has essentially given McCain the 'genuine' Limbaugh endorsement that he's hitherto failed to get from the man himself (a normally enthusiastic Limbaugh has fallen well short of enthusiasm about nominee McCain).

But most importantly, by attacking McCain via Limbaugh, Obama opened up the guilt-by-association game, the one game that Obama does not want to play. He had all but avoided the issue of his very real ties to Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, and of his less credible but still very real tie to Tony Rezko. Sure, these names have been mentioned by McCain surrogates; but a real attack along such lines has been (noticeably) lacking. Sadly, it will be an all-too-noticeable part of the campaign from now on.

TDB | An Obama Foreign Policy Coup

Senator Obama has an opportunity for a foreign policy coup of sorts.

When Russia went to war with Georgia nearly six weeks ago, neither candidate was particularly impressive in their response. McCain continued to toe his long standing hard line with Russia, while Obama said very little and continued his vacation in Hawaii - about as far away from the action as could be.

The man who became Obama's running mate, on the other hand, was intimately involved - as he has long been - in the Caucuses situation. He's surely knowledgeable enough about the events - and the American response - to inform Obama that the Bush administration has made a serious and dangerous mistake.

Bush decided to punish Russia by essentially 'freezing' all American/Russian relations.

We rely on Russia to help keep the world safe. We especially need their help in preventing the development and spread of WMDs. But, as the LA Times reported yesterday, the congressionally appointed Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism has been asked to not go on its upcoming Moscow fact-finding mission. This is part of the Bush administration's 'Russia freeze'. But the freeze couldn't come at a worse time.

Yes, something needs to be done in response to Russia's aggression in Georgia - and, more recently, their support for Venezuela. But it needs to be done intelligently. Recent intelligence has shown that the Caucasus are increasingly becoming a 'crossroads for Islamic extremists, criminal mafias, black market traffickers and corrupt government officials'. These are basically the four sorts of people who threaten the world - and especially America - by their interest - financial or ideological - in WMDs.

It seems to me that Obama could profit by making this an issue in the upcoming debate over foreign policy. He could use it to highlight the difference between smart foreign policy and 'strong' foreign policy. He could give Americans a real reason to support the former - and thus Obama. McCain is very likely, in response, to continue his long-held anti-Russia position and to criticize Obama as being soft on Russia, to which Obama could respond that he's being hard on WMDs and smart about Russia.

ike/Quote of the Day 2

"She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials. You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything. I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, 'I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia.' That kind of thing is insulting to the American people."

--Chuck Hagel

ike/Inside Beisbol

Wick Allison, who joined the board of National Review at the request of one William F. Buckley, and served as its publisher, endorsed Obama today.

If you read the endorsement, which I highly recommend, you'll learn that Allison gave the maximum allowable donation to John McCain during the primary.

He is a tried and true conservative.

He, like a great number of the intellectual class of his party, including the co-founder of this blog, will vote for Barack Obama in November.

John McCain, with his mendacious and cynical campaign, has become a fringe candidate.

If Obama can just garner the Colin Powell endorsement, we could all go home.

ike/Quote of the Day

"And since McCain’s willingness to make speeches that have nothing to do with his actual beliefs is not matched by an ability to give them, he wound up sounding like Bob Dole impersonating Huey Long."

--Gail Collins

ike/A Swiftly Tilting Planet

The incumbent president's scarcity on the campaign trail should not come as much of a surprise. Even his annotated convention speech in St. Paul lacked a certain bluster to which we have become accustomed. Approval ratings in the low 30's certainly will take the spurs off a cowboy.

But something else is happening too. The Bush administration, over the past few months, has begun to fall in line with the recommendations and initiatives articulated by the Obama campaign.

I posted about the amazing convergence on Iraq withdrawal among the Iraqi administration, the Obama campaign and the Bush White House months ago.

Yesterday, in an under the radar story, we witnessed another shift towards national public acceptance of Obama's foreign policy.

Five former secretaries of state, Henry Kissinger and James Baker among them, agreed that the United States should have dialogue with Iran.

So while foreign relations neophyte Sarah Palin was busy saber-rattling on the potential need for war with Russia, some of the most experienced policy minds in the country were agreeing with Obama's core, foreign policy belief: that talking solves problems.

I have never seen, on any level, a campaign as separated from reality as the McCain bunch.

TDB | The gist of the grist...

"It's a little scary that the world's largest insurance company hasn't planned for a rainy day." - Tyler Cowen

ike/Quote of the Day

"She doesn't need to know the Bush Doctrine; she is the Bush Doctrine."

--Jon Stewart

TDB | The other feminism

I have nothing particularly positive to say about Sarah Palin. In fact, the idea of her as president scares the stuffing out of me. But statements like the following inspire me to say something about what she represents:

Mrs. Palin is everything that liberal feminists loathe: a gun-toting evangelical, a polar bear-hating former beauty queen, a mother of five who opposes abortion right and celebrates the fact that her pregnant teenage daughter has ‘chosen life’ [who] during her campaign for Alaska’s lieutenant-governorship in 2002 [] called herself as ‘pro-life as any candidate can be’.

Whether or not her opinions and beliefs are right or wrong, they clearly belong to a woman who has never felt that her gender put anything out of reach. There are scores upon scores of ‘feminists’ who do nothing but nit-pick and complain and thereby give feminism (a very worthy cause) a bad name (n.b., anyone ready to accuse me of stereotyping women here can go to hell – men nit pick and complain just as much if not more than women).

I am my mother’s son through and through (for good and bad), and thus a feminist to my very core. And my mother was a feminist in the vain of Sarah Palin – an athlete, a beauty queen, a workingwoman and a mother. Growing up, I heard her cheer deserving women and castigate ‘deserving’ men with a fierceness born of KNOWING that her opinion counted - and that if someone was discounting it, they wouldn't go on doing so. To her credit, mired oftentimes in a swamp of misogyny, she never shy away from calling out every misogynist she met.

Yes, there are many, many ‘feminist’ accomplishments that go far beyond such characteristics. But the strongest thing I’ve ever seen a woman do (or anyone for that matter) was to stand up to the most hard-hearted unfairness – that of biology – and resolve, unflinchingly and without complaint, to wage a battle she knew would never end, against a disease that attacked her in large part because she is a woman; and then to repeat this performance against a cancer that grew in large part from the weakness the disease had caused. It doesn’t get much more unfair than being diagnosed with lupus in your twenties and advanced lymphoma in your forties. But she never stood down – and she beat the hell out of what oppressed her.

No matter how much I dislike Sarah Palin’s politics and worry that she is unqualified to lead the country, I see in her the same kind of feminism that I see in my mother – who, btw, is still very much alive and kicking – a kind of feminism that is just as deserving of praise as the other, better known kind.

ike/Quote of the Day

"McCain, by the way, is the Republican nominee for president. You may remember him from the Sarah Palin convention in St. Paul, where he gave a speech and was congratulated by Sarah Palin."

--Gail Collins

ike/Palin Comparison

Regarding the pick, here are my two cents. My first reaction was to think the pick was incredibly cynical, aimed at women using the lowest common denominator. Through that lens, early indications are that the pick is a failure. Check out these focus groups post speech:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/michigan-indepe.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/female-clinton-supporters_n_123794.html

But I think there was more to it. We know now that McCain was dying to pick Lieberman. Apparently, all that convinced him to go in a different direction was the fact that he would face an all out civil war at the convention if he picked someone pro choice. Rove attributes the entirety of Bush’s margin of victory in 2004 to the three million evangelicals they turned out who hadn’t ever voted before. McCain probably came to the conclusion, after watching the Democrats avoid a train wreck in Denver, that his last best chance was to rev up the base and try to pull in the remaining, disaffected Clinton supporters. So yes, I believe the pick was purely political. There’s no way to justify it otherwise.

It seems ironic and somewhat twisted that, running for president during an unfavorable time for the GOP brand, the maverick rebel would have to embrace the fringiest part of said brand. However, they yell the loudest. And while I believe the 2008 presidential election was decided three years ago when Americans witnessed the fundamental incompetence of their federal government while an entire city drowned, picking Palin may prevent McCain from the embarrassment of a landslide in November.

That being said, I think the pick will have some disastrous repercussions. The pick not only undermined his core, articulated rationale for voting for him (judgment, country first, mature and measured leadership), it also undermined his core, articulated rationale for not voting for his opponent (where’s the beef, charisma isn’t everything, youth, inexperience).

While I’m an unabashed liberal Democrat, I tend to be dispassionate and analytical about political races. I don’t mean this in any sort of shrill, partisan way, but watching the Republican Convention was a little sad. I’ve rarely seen so many uninspired, old, fat white people in one place. Their chants sound like dirges. And I can’t help but feel like we are watching the last gasps of this version of the Republican Party. After the massive losses it’ll endure in November, the GOP will no doubt regroup around core principles: fiscal responsibility; low taxes; strong defense. And I don’t doubt, that with Democrats controlling all facets of government, some scandal over the course of the next decade will allow the GOP to re-introduce itself to American voters. But right now, John McCain is cowtowing to a base that believes that abortion shouldn’t be legal in cases of rape or incest, the world was created in seven days and the war in Iraq was ordained by a higher power. Good luck winning those arguments with a pissed off general electorate after eight years of the most incompetent administration in the history or our country.

ike/Quote of the Day

"To be fair, Bill Kristol does not actually have a heart of stone. He has a heart made of Dick Cheney's discarded heart parts."

--Stephen Colbert

ike/"And You KNOW What I'm Talking about"

I'm excited about this new blog feature, entitled, "And You KNOW What I'm Talking about."

The quotation comes from a 2006 speech by Hillary Clinton (fast forward to 1:30 to see the clip), in which she told a room of African Americans that Congress was run like a plantation. "And you know what I'm talking about," she exclaimed after making the comparison. Suffice it to say, they didn't. And neither did anyone else. So this space will be reserved for those comments uttered without irony that make us wonder exactly what it was the person was talking about. Simple enough, right?

I couldn't think of a better way to begin than with this John McCain gem.

"We're all Georgians?"

WTF?

How many more regional, ethnic conflicts do we have to enter before we learn that not every dispute in Asia is over communism and not every dispute in the Middle East is about al Qaeda?

I hate sounding like a Democratic talking point, but nowhere, NOWHERE are the similarities between John McCain and George Bush more profound than on the "lessons" they learned from the Vietnam War.

Bush's words are eerily reminiscent of John McCain's worldview on Iraq and foreign policy in general:

"There is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields."

It was Ted Kennedy who responded to Bush's inane assertion that the legacy of Vietnam was anything other than the perils of involving ourselves in wars that should never be waged in places we never should have been.

"America lost the war in Vietnam because our troops were trapped in a distant country we did not understand supporting a government that lacked sufficient legitimacy with its people," Kennedy said.

Let's hope Barack Obama is blessed with the same backbone.

ike/ Michelle, My Bell

I think the Republicans realize their best shot at winning the presidency this year is to turn Obama into a caricature: a muslim; a communist; a terrorist; an elitist; a portend of the apocalypse.

It appeared to me that the Dems played defense against that line of attack on Day 1 of the convention in Denver.

Michelle Obama gave, what on tv was, a very sophisticated speech. Her cadence and rhythm were better than many career politicians. Her content was traditional: closed steel plants; parental love; hard work.

Seems to me, there will be plenty of time to draw contrasts between Obama and Bush/McCain. I would imagine Hillary will draw some feisty ones tonight.

Most importantly, I don't think Michelle will be an effective GOP talking point after that speech. Nobody who saw that speech could possibly doubt her passion, her depth, her commitment to family, her rags to riches story or her love of country.

ike/Quote of the Day

"What we have learned this summer is this: McCain’s trigger-happy temperament and reactionary policies offer worse than no change. He is an unstable bridge back not just to Bush policies but to an increasingly distant 20th-century America that is still fighting Red China in Vietnam and the Soviet Union in the cold war. As the country tries to navigate the fast-moving changes of the 21st century, McCain would put America on hold...Is a man who is just discovering the Internet qualified to lead a restoration of America’s economic and educational infrastructures? Is the leader of a virtually all-white political party America’s best salesman and moral avatar in the age of globalization? Does a bellicose Vietnam veteran who rushed to hitch his star to the self-immolating overreaches of Ahmad Chalabi, Pervez Musharraf and Mikheil Saakashvili have the judgment to keep America safe?"

--Frank Rich

ike/Quote of the Day

"We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold, are well worth having in such an agreement."

--Condoleezza Rice in Baghdad after a meeting with Iraq Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari about a schedule for troop withdrawals

TDB | Quote of the Day

Barack Obama takes up my basic argument:

[T]he political culture of my formative years was much more conservative.  It partly explains why, if you look at not just my politics, but also I think who I am as a person—in some ways, I'm pretty culturally conservative. I was always suspicious of dogma, and the excesses of the left and the right. One of my greatest criticisms of the Republican Party over the last 20 years is that it's not particularly conservative. I can read conservatives from an earlier era—a George Will or a Peggy Noonan—and recognize wisdom, because it has much more to do with respect for tradition and the past and I think skepticism about being able to just take apart a society and put it back together. Because I do think that communities and nations and families aren't subject to that kind of mechanical approach to change. But when I look at Tom DeLay or some of the commentators on Fox these days, there's nothing particularly conservative about them.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

ike/HILLARY-ous

I have filled these pages with the rationale behind picking Tim Kaine for Vice President. He complements Obama's core change message, is an outsider and probably puts Obama over the top in a southern state he might not be able to win otherwise. Kaine is also deeply religious and speaks fluent spanish--both of which appeal to important, targeted constituencies with which Obama believes he can do better than Gore or Kerry.

But the landscape has changed a bit in previous weeks and it appears that Obama is leaning more towards selecting someone tough with bonafied foreign policy credentials, appeal to blue collar white voters and experience.

Joe Biden has emerged as the frontrunner.

Here's my question: if Obama is choosing a running mate through this lense, why not select Hillary Clinton, the preferred candidate of the middle class, rust belt, midwest and New Hampshire?

ike/Saddle Up

David Gergen epitomizes the mainstream reaction to Saturday night's "debate" between Barack Obama and John McCain at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in California.

Even the usually dependable Frank Rich appears nervous that McCain owns the general election momentum.

As with all debates, the coverage, the aftermath is more important than the event itself. In the past 72 hours, coverage has told us that McCain was direct with answers while Obama was more measured, more careful. The event has been framed as a turning point for McCain, a crucial moment when the man convinced the evangelical base that he was "one of them" on the issues that matter most.

The truth is that John McCain faces myriad problems in the changing religious community.

It is Barack Obama who is the religious candidate in this race, the only one comfortable talking about personal faith.

As my friend noted, the evangelical movement has been married to conservative politics for almost three decades. And while Obama doesn't threaten the foundation of this union, he does possess the ability to peel off some religious voters in important swing states like Iowa, Colorado and Virginia.

Can you imagine John Kerry or Al Gore appearing at an event at a place like Saddleback? It never would happen. Of course McCain drew a positive response for his ardent pro-life stance--look at a poll of his audience.

But as usual the media missed the important story: Obama's ability to communicate with religious voters will likely provide his comfortable margin of victory in November.

TDB | Democrats and Evangelical Christians

According to E.J. Dionne:

The notion that Christianity in general and evangelicalism in particular are by nature right-wing creeds has always been wrong. How can a faith built around a commitment to the poor and the vulnerable be seen as leading ineluctably to conservative political conclusions?

But history shows us ample evidence that Christianity - indeed any faith - can orient itself behind conservative political conclusions.  Religions - though, not 'faith', in my opinion - are about power relations as much as they are about ideals.  Often times they are about power in support of ideals.  And that power can become reactionary - often mistaken for conservative - when those ideals lose a once widespread acceptance.  

This is what has happened with evangelical Christianity.  Though the numbers of such Christians grows, it becomes increasingly obvious that we no longer live in a 'Christian' society.  In its refusal to accept this trend - or constructively accommodate it - evangelical Christianity has allied itself with anti-progressive aspects of American society.  Its chief impact on American politics has been anti-progressive.  And it is this type of evangelicalism that I oppose - though I certainly have never been anti-Christian.  

If indeed the defining characteristics of the McCain/Obama event at Saddleback mark a revolution in evangelical Christianity, in which Christians realize they have more in common with progressive ideals of commitment to the poor and vulnerable than they do with either anti-modern bigots or corporate powers, then a continuing Christian influence is to be welcomed.  But I can't help worrying that evangelical Christians will continue to support the same politicians - with their deplorable antics and failed policies.  It will be hard to give up such support when the leader of the progressives can't give them his straight and honest answer - no matter how unpopular it would have been in such company.  

Barack Obama is never going to have the agreement of evangelicals when it comes to abortion.  Likewise, he'll fall short of winning due consideration - and perhaps their votes - if he continues with a strategy of ducking the abortion issue by claiming - however cleverly - that the issue was above his pay grade. 

I can't  help but think the Democrats have a long way to go before they win over evangelical Christians en masse. 

ike/ Response to Hamdan

I quote from Jane Mayer's excellent book, "The Dark Side." This from chapter 8:

"The CIA, concerned by the paucity of valuable information emanating from the island,(Guantanamo) in the late summer of 2002 dispatched a senior intelligence analyst, who was fluent in Arabic and expert on Islamic extremism, to find out what the problem was...The report he wrote up...is classified top secret. But after he left the Agency, he described what he found. After spending several hours with each of about two dozen Arabic-speaking detainees, chosen in a random sampling, he concluded that an estimated one-third of the prison camp's population of more than 600 captives at the time, meaning more than 200 individuals, had no connection to terrorism whatsoever. If the intelligence haul was meager, his findings suggested, one reason was that many of the detainees knew little to nothing...Many, he felt sure, 'were just caught in a dragnet. They were not fighters, they were not doing jihad. They should not have been there...'

A later study undertaken by a team of law students and attorneys at Seton Hall University Law School bolstered the CIA officer's anecdotal impressions. After reviewing 517 of the Guantanamo detainees' cases in depth, they concluded that only 8 percent were alleged to have associated with Al Qaeda. Fifty-five percent were not alleged to have engaged in any hostile act against the United States at all, and the remainder were charged with dubious wrongdoing, including having tried to flee U.S. bombs. The overwhelming majority--all but five percent--had been captured by non U.S. players, many of whom were bounty hunters." Endquote.

The Hamdan case is not a triumph of justice. It is not proof that military tribunals can administer fair trials. Its outcome does not excuse or condone any of the absurd activities of the Bush administration's last seven years. In fact, a Pentagon spokesman has gone on record stating that when Hamdan's sentence is complete, his status may return to that of an "enemy combatant" where he can be held indefinitely by the United States government.

The logic used to hold Salim Hamdan, to punish Salim Hamdan, is the same logic used by Osama bin Laden to justify killing innocent Americans. According to bin Laden, the American government did evil things so anyone supporting it (taxpayers) was evil too. The only crime that the thousands of innocent victims of 9/11 committed was living, breathing and working in a system deemed evil by a leader wholly dedicated to bringing down that system.

Hamdan's crime was perhaps being born in Afghanistan, or perhaps it was living at a time where he needed to work in the employ of a murderous man to support his family. He testified that he was "shocked" when he found out about the 9/11 attacks. "It was a sorry or sad thing to see innocent people killed," he said at his trial. "I don't know what could be given or presented to these innocent people who were killed in the U.S. I personally present my apologies to them, if anything what I did have caused them pain."

It was Nietzsche who said, "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

It has never been more true.

TDB | Quote of the Day

Slavoj Zizek, from his interview in The Guardian:

What makes you depressed?

Seeing stupid people happy.

What do you most dislike about your appearance?

That it makes me appear the way I really am...

What does love feel like?

Like a great misfortune, a monstrous parasite, a permanent state of emergency that ruins all small pleasures.

What or who is the love of your life?

Philosophy. I secretly think reality exists so we can speculate about it...

Have you ever said 'I love you' and not meant it?

All the time. When I really love someone, I can only show it by making aggressive and bad-taste remarks.

TDB | Pregunta for the Junta

How did you, in less than a single decade, lose for America its status as a world power?

Utter American impotence, which we've long suspected, has emerged as a fact of international relations. The French, once more, have proven themselves more vigorous and responsible - if not quite successful - in dealing with world crises. And apparently not because they have brilliant and original solutions to offer; but rather simply because we have been forced into abandonment.

There was a time when it meant something to be an American ally. Why has that meaning disappeared - why, rather, is it hiding, cowering? Why is AMERICA forced to hide and cower at all? Why have we learned to be complacent - more than complacent, almost satisfied - with shameful inaction?

A U.S. government analyst and Russia expert, quoted in the Los Angeles Times:

The regular [foreign affairs] tool kit does not really work here... The Russians have plenty of money now, and we need their oil more than they need our credits.

We are we approaching a terrible abyss in international relations - the abyss of the unneeded. And what's more we have become defined by our own neediness.

America's greatness has always come from its willingness - and moreover its capacity - to thoroughly offend extant sensibilities in repeated efforts to improve the world. How is it that we've allowed ourselves to become so fearful of causing offense that we are no longer recognizably American?

We've become a pathetic and impotent force internationally. We don't even deserve the status of World Power anymore. We used to have - or find - solutions; now we don't even have options. Why can't you employ that wealth of evil genius otherwise so prominent in your administration to think of a course of action that, if nothing else, lands us blessedly short of total embarrassment - and well clear of any exacerbation?

TDB | The NYTimes Should Be Ashamed

This morning The New York Times featured an article reporting its own 'reticence' regarding the John Edwards story:

A number of news organizations with resources far greater than The Enquirer’s, like The New York Times, say they looked into the Edwards matter and found nothing solid enough to report, while others did not look at all.

What utter crap!

Some of their comments point to a lack of interest in a story about the private conduct of an also-ran presidential candidate, and a distaste for following the lead of a publication they hold in low esteem.

Ah, a bit more plausible!

The New York Times essentially admits (with an alacrity that one could mistake for an overreaction to former reticence) that it wasn't interested in doing their job, or at least what the degenerate state of American media now considers its job: investigating, assembling and reporting a very real story of infidelity (and dishonesty) by a perennial Presidential contender.

Yet the same paper (for which I have great respect most of the time) went out of its way some months ago to 'investigate,' 'assemble,' and 'insinuate' (as they had enough class - or more likely sense - not to go so far as to 'report' it, then or since) an apparently unreal story of infidelity by a perennial Presidential contender.

Such glaring (egregious) inconsistencies are why The New York Times is suspect by so many Americans. It's no excuse that Fox News or the Washington Times editorial writers are blatantly biased in the other direction. The New York Times is (or was) the paper of record in this country; it is (or was) in a class way, way above these others, essentially 'right wing' mouthpieces.

In addition to the Times, I read the Financial Times and the Washington Post everyday, as well as other papers. In the three years I've been reading it rather religiously, I've come across nothing in the Post even approximating the degree of bias shown by the Times (mis)treatment of Edwards and McCain. The FT, with the exception of a few typos, has rarely fallen short of perfection. These successes show that bias is not inherent in journalism - even if it is inherent in journalists.

The Times needs to take this opportunity to purge itself.

TDB | The Stupid Party

Paul Krugman wrote this in his Friday column:

Republicans, once hailed as the “party of ideas,” have become the party of stupid... What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.”

Republicans have no doubt become the stupid party - though Democrats are mostly just as stupid. The GOP has abandoned the 'intellectual' tradition of slow-moving prudence, of realistic, historically grounded analysis of problems and informed application of 'solutions'. Republicans have shown these qualities occasionally in their history. Considering only the last half century, we saw hints of them in the 94 revolution and in the first George Bush - their full and sustained expression, though, hasn't been seen since the eight years of Eisenhower, who expressed them so well, so quietly and subtly (as they should be), and with such a lack of presumption, that people thought him dangerously passive. History has vindicated Ike, though. His years were comparatively peaceful and prosperous; they saw not insignificant progress and left us plenty of lasting accomplishments - American monuments.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, the 'intellectual' qualities are essential to Conservatism, which is opposed to the macho attitude of surety and the simple mantras by which it is expressed. But that's apparently all that defines today's Republicans. The realist's appreciation for complexity has been overtaken by a visceral rejection of anything not ridiculously simple; finesse and slow, prudent application have been overtaken by unwavering reliance on force; patience and a desire for exposition have been overtaken by impatient and obsessive 'message' proffering; a willingness to debate and compromise has been overtaken by a childish need to 'talk back' to one's opponent and reject anything they say, responding with SOME countermeasures - almost ANY countermeasures - no matter how ignorant they might be.

The Republicans who are currently making a racket in the (otherwise recessed) Congress might wind up ‘scoring points’ over energy; and the Republicans who are currently directing John McCain’s campaign may wind up steering their man to victory. But such wins are losses for America. They deserve a realistic, well-planned and exhaustively considered energy solution, a thoughtful compromise between right and left that makes use of ALL America’s resources – its untapped oil, its inexhaustible coal supplies, its unlimited access to nature’s energy, whether from sunlight, from wind or the from the atom.

And Americans deserve a president who will move us away from the (unfortunately) ruling characteristics of Republican rule. I’m no Democrat; I’m a Conservative to the core. But Conservative ideals have a better chance of returning to politics, and America has a better chance of succeeding, if the Democrats are in power for a while – or, more importantly, if the Republicans are forced (perhaps only temporarily) out of power, to regroup or rebuild or, hopefully, fundamentally refashion themselves.

TDB | Hamdan

I want to say a few things about the Hamdan trial and its outcome.

First, whatever issues we have with the whole process of detainment, with the existance of Gitmo, at least the Hamdan case proved the possibility (and perhaps indicated the probablity) that those detained will get a fair trial. Granted, this assessment ignores a more thorough application of the term 'fair.' Thoroughness would extend the term to the whole issue of detainment, ruling out for many the possibility of a 'fair' trial at this late moment regardless of what happens in the trials themselves. The existence of a trail only after such drama precludes any possblity of fairness.

But, as I see it, the Hamdan case proves something valuable. At least (some) Americans are still capable of (and disposed to) administering justice even after the Bush regime has so egregiously forsaken justice everywhere it reached its greedy hand. The last seven years has pushed American minds and hearts (even those like mine which tend toward understanding if not forgiveness when it comes to the maintenance of order) away from a long-solid faith - that America is essentially just; that it works for the expansion of justice in the world; that, as a government, it accepts the dignity of individual human lives, whether or not they happen to be American; that our system of government and its attendant institutions are part of a mission that seeks to see good done in the world. I've had to question these assumptions for more than a quarter of my life. So, regardless of all the other issues it raises, I'm happy to see the Hamdan trial proceed and conclusion as it did since it hints at a renewal of 'justice' as a possibility (if sadly no longer an assumption) of American life.

For those who believe, like my friend, that Hamdan should never have been subjected to his ordeal of detainment; that his role was unworthy of such a major trial; and that its outcome was nothing more than a continuation of years of mistreated, let's not forget that Mr Hamdan was indeed guilty of something quite serious. He at the very least neglected to prevent American deaths when he could have, if he did not indeed contribute to their deaths by aiding the activities of Bin Laden, &c. Whether or not he knew the locations and the timing of Al Qaeda attacks on America/American interests, he knew that Al Qaeda, the people he worked for, were guilty of killing Americans and were likely (if not clearly certain) to do it again. Thus, he could have prevented American deaths - though I understand why he didn't. He even said the reason he stayed in the employ of such a group was that he could find no other job that paid enough to support his family. I don't doubt this. But in the end, what Hamdan did is a crime, and it was for that crime and (rather remarkably) only for that crime that he was convicted. He was no conspirator; if 'terrorist' is the word we apply to Bin Laden or Zarqawi, he was no terrorist; the court understood this and ruled accordingly. Moreover, after his sentence of five and a half years was issued, his time at Gitmo was rightly recognized as time served.

Whether or not Gitmo should exist should not be too much a part of any consideration of the Hamdan trial and its results. I know my friend thinks the very existence of the prison camp is deplorable. And while I agree that it is deplorable in actuality, I can't go so far as to call it unnecessary. In this I've clearly made (some) peace with having at times to accept hard and harsh facts; and admit otherwise deplorable responses as valid and acceptable. I would like to know what my friend suggests we should have done with 'enemy combatants,' with people who we captured fighting against our country (as we have in so many other wars) and who needed to be 'locked up' (i.e., out of action) for the duration of hostilities - and hostilities have not ended. These people (not all of them, of course) would still be hostile towards America and would simply turn around and fight against our soldiers or blow up our civilians once more. I have no doubt that American lives were saved by having kept 'enemy combatants' locked up (deplorably) over the last seven years. Moreover, I'm sure a good number of them provided valuable intelligence which led to a greater understanding of Al Qaeda and of conditions in Afghanistan if not the exact whereabouts of wanted terrorists.

I do hope, however, that the Bush administration realizes (though it almost certainly will not) that Mr Hamdan is no such person and that he should be released - though (and this is just one of the many issues raised by such a long and 'deplorable' detainment) one wonders where he would go and what he would do.

TDB | More Mephistopheles, Please!

Seymour Hersh, from his conversations with Ed Luce of the FT:

Who, in Hersh’s opinion, has been the worst person in the US government these past 40 years? Which official really harmed the world? From Hersh’s point of view, knee-deep in American wrongdoing since Vietnam, it might be a tough question. Was it Richard Nixon, whom Hersh helped to impeach through his part in exposing the Watergate scandal? Or Henry Kissinger, whom Hersh calls a war criminal? How about the popular choice, George W. Bush? None of the three, it turns out. Rather, he answers: 'Cheney. Easy.'

ike/Quote of the Day

"Open your fucking minds. Open your minds. Be accepting of different people and let people be who they are. You know how many people came to me calling me gay cause I wear my jeans the fresh way? Or because I said hey, dude, how you gonna say 'fag' right in front of a gay dude's face and act like that's ok. That shit is disrespectful. Coming from Chicago, where if you saw somebody that was gay you were supppoed to stay ten feet away. It should be time to break out of the intuitions that I was sayin', the steretypes, or the fear, the backlash that I would get if you don't believe in what I believe in, acceptin' people for who they are…they're very talented and if they do something special in the world and they're discriminated. I've flown across the world y'all, and I've come back here to tell you — open your minds and live a happier life…"

--Kanye West

ike/Reply to Mislabeling Obama: Admirably Modern, Not Postmodern

I wanted to respond to my friend's post, which criticizes columnist Jonah Goldberg's understanding of postmodernism.

As my friend pointed out, Goldberg attacked Obama for defining sin as "being out of alignment with my values." Goldberg criticizes Obama for applying his own personal definitions to sin.

Jonah Goldberg has been an eager and willing "soldier" in the right wing smear movement. And he should be--he owes his entire career to its modern dawn.

When the man finally admitted that invading Iraq in 2003 was a mistake, he couldn't help but mutter this nugget about those who opposed the war, nevermind the fact that he admitted they were right:

"In other words, their objection isn't to war per se; it's to wars that advance U.S. interests."

Does this remind you anyone else?

Goldberg's ridiculous assessment of Obama supposes that Obama prescribes to his own, self-created, independent moral code.

Goldberg knows better. The truth is that Obama's views are shaped by the same system to which most Americans prescribe--religion--and another to which fewer prescribe--the law.

"I learned that my sins could be redeemed and that if I placed my trust in Christ, that he could set me on the path to eternal life when I submitted myself to his will and I dedicated myself to discovering his truth and carrying out his works."

Barack Obama said that.

While Goldberg can't ever let the facts get in the way of a good smear, this one is especially audacious.

Here comes the smear machine, parsing words to emphasize the idea that the guy has a messianic complex.

It is sad that the pundits, and John McCain himself, have resorted to these baseless and pathetic arguments. But it is a testament to how desperate they have become in the face of mobilizing and unique opposition.

I don't think my friend's post was wrong. I just don't think Goldberg's words warranted his thoughtful response.

TDB | Quote of the Day

"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant'

Barack Obama, 'in response to the McCain campaign's tire gauge stunt that mocked his suggestion to keep tires properly inflated'

TDB | Mislabeling Obama: Admirably Modern, Not Postmodern

In his column today, Jonah Goldberg makes the following argument: 

Asked to define sin, Barack Obama replied that sin is "being out of alignment with my values." Statements such as this have caused many people to wonder whether Obama has a God complex or is hopelessly arrogant. For the record, sin isn't being out of alignment with your own values (if it were, Hannibal Lecter wouldn't be a sinner because his values hold that it's OK to eat people) nor is it being out of alignment with Obama's  — unless he really is our Savior.

By ‘Postmodernism’ Goldberg means the movement’s worst tendencies – nihilism and (moral) relativism.  And there is, no doubt, a risk of nihilism where there is an absence of values by which to judge things (moral or otherwise).  In such a case, there’s no wrong or right in any meaningful sense – there’s certainly no sin. 

But to say that sin is ‘being out of alignment’ with one's values implies that values do still exist in some sense.  This isn’t nihilism – such a situation falls well short of the worst of postmodernism, though Goldberg would have us believe otherwise.

When the believability of religion - especially religious dogma - sinks to unsalvageable levels - which, for many people, it already has – there remains something precious and beneficial (with regard to values).  There's still our innate sense of being human, which for most of us involves strong convictions – which tell us when we would be doing right or wrong, when we would be speaking truth or lie, when we see good or evil.  This feeling is strong in many people – including myself.  If you want to call it inkling or a remnant or a pathway to god, so be it.  But it isn't necessary.

Even Postmodernists like Richard Rorty, with his ironic understanding of morality and values, isn't totally without a basis for judging - there's something, as opposed to nothing - even if that something is a piece of literature, Nabokov in Rorty's own example, that 'teaches' us to be more human.

I think Goldberg is flat wrong when he assumes that Hannibal Lecter thinks what he's doing is okay.  Lecter is a frightening character - not a misguided character.  (The misguided tend to invoke pity, not fright).  Lecter gets under our skin and scares us because he knows how wrong his actions are but does them anyway.  There's something wrong with flagrantly affronting the natural 'values' we are inclined towards as human beings - our humanity.  

But beyond Hannibal Lecter is an even more frightening world - a world of nihilism where there are no values, no right no wrong, no truth or lie, no good or evil.  This horror world threatens to become reality (and then normality) as the religion-based values we've long held slip away into the abyss of the unbelievable.  The only thing that stands in the way is our humanity - the inherent values Obama referred to above.  Let's not mistake our savior for our enemy: the postmodernism that Goldberg brings up is a real possibility - a probability if we destroy (even mistakenly) the only values that stand in the way. 

ike/High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Ron Suskind, is publishing a book that claims that President Bush was informed unequivocally in January 2003 that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. Regardless, Bush decided to invade Iraq three months later — with a forged letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam, linking the now-executed former Iraqi leader with al-Qaeda.

The Bush camp, as its prone to do, has already pushed back with its unique brand of "kill the messenger."

Tony Fratto, a deputy White House press secretary, had this to say:

"Ron Suskind makes a living from gutter journalism. He is about selling books and making wild allegations that no one can verify, including the numerous bipartisan commissions that have reported on pre-war intelligence."

Before the smear machine hits full throttle, I wanted to pass on one relevant nugget:

In 2004, weeks before the election, Suskind wrote this piece in the New York Times magazine. It caused quite a stir, especially the revelation that Bush planned to privatize Social Security in his second term--a claim that team Bush denied at the time but which proved true.

If true, Suskind's recent allegations are clearly impeachable offenses and would be the latest and greatest evidence that our country is and has been run by war criminals.

While it has seemed that, regarding this administration, absolute power has corrupted absolutely, let's all hope that we weren't led into war on a premise that our leaders knew was completely fabricated.

TDB | Dumbest Argument Before 8 AM

I'm throwing this out there as a possibility for new post category. Continuing it or not depends on whether the blog world keeps uttering stupidities early each day. Over the last few weeks, they've averaged just about one per morning.

Anyway, our inaugural inanity (a word that always reminds me of Sean Hannity, for some reason) comes from Ezra Klein - (actually, one of my favorite bloggers):

[My] hunch now is that [Obama's VP pick will] be Evan Bayh, if for no other reason than Evan Bayh is the single whitest man in America, and I have a feeling that the Obama campaign wants America's Whitest Man in some pictures these days.

Bayh may very well wind up as Obama's pick, and he is a very white man; but I have a greater opinion of the Obama campaign (and a lesser opinion of whiteness) than to believe they would base such a weighty decision on such a stupid quality. Plus, we just spent 7 years under an uber-white Veep. I'll be bold this morning and suggest there might have been someone better for the country than him - no matter what color.

ike/Quote of the Day

"Less asinine was McCain's two-pronged lie that Obama would rather lose a war than a campaign and that he snubbed injured troops in Germany. The former is repulsive and you can tell McCain knows it because he has a weird habit of saying it and then grinning broadly and humming a little to himself as a semi-laugh. He doesn't own the statement even as he says it. The charge itself is about as uncivil as it is possible to be, close to calling Obama treasonous, right? And the troop snub jibe is simply, demonstrably untrue, as the McCain camp was forced to semi-concede. So McCain's main moves these past two weeks have been either childish or disgusting, and both times he has signaled he didn't really believe his own message.
He doesn't seem like a serious president to me."

--Andrew Sullivan

ike/The God Delusion

How the mighty have fallen.

For decades, John McCain has cultivated an image of an outsider, not a leader who could usher in a period of post-partisan politics, but a senator for whom party bickering held little interest, a senator who seemed to enjoy bucking his party's leadership to accomplish what he thought was important: campaign finance reform; immigration; opposition to tax cuts for the wealthy.

Yet perhaps convinced by consultants that he can't win the presidency without mobilizing his base, John McCain is running in large part in 2008 against his well-known and probably well-earned persona--"after all," the consultants must be saying, "how well did it work for you in 2000?"

Let's face the, ahem, facts on the ground; John McCain faces unprecedented odds in building a winning coalition in this election. The Republican brand could not be more unpopular. In key electoral swing states like Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and New Hampshire, Democrats are poised to win high-turnout senate seats. He will face a magnificent fundraising deficit.

As I've stated before, this election has been over for a long time. But the guy is almost 72 years old and has dedicated the last 30 years of his life for the opportunity he has now--so he has to go down swinging.

But he's doing it all wrong. John McCain faces immense problems in the religious community, the same community Karl Rove almost singularly credits with W's 2004 margin of victory. Of course, his difficulties are compounded by the fact that Obama is investing serious resources in a grassroots movement aimed at evangelicals who are increasingly interested in core Democratic issues: healthcare; the environment; an empathetic immigration policy; ending the war in Iraq. If Obama picks Tim Kaine as his running mate, the Democratic ticket will be comprised of two deeply religious and proud Christians.

I certainly understand my friend's point that McCain's provocative ad calling Obama "The One" appeals to a certain portion of the religious community. But George W. Bush, who ran two tremendously disciplined presidential campaigns, appealed to these communities with detailed, local, church-based organizing campaigns and direct mail--not national tv ad buys. He dedicated his television commercials, especially in his introduction to voters, targeting base conservatives and latinos, a minority group that was integral to his re-election.

The ad itself is laughable--considerably more laughable than his earlier ad blaming his opponent for high gas prices, which was hard to surpass. Not only does he not offer any contrasts to the image of Obama he attempts to create, he doesn't even level any direct criticisms of Obama. First we couldn't vote for Obama because his pastor was a nut. Next we couldn't vote for him because his wife wasn't patriotic. Now we can't vote for him because his supporters are rabid? How about some actual contrasts on the issues.

The problem is, McCain can't win on the issues. Is he going to win on not providing healthcare? On permanent bases in Iraq? On record deficits?

Hillary Clinton was able to score some points against Obama in the primary because she could say, "he's all words." She could then pivot and talk about her plan to provide healthcare to every American and to end the war. Her presence reminded Democratic voters of a more peaceful and uncomplicated time. McCain can't pivot. His recent advertising has showed that he recognizes this fact better than anyone. All that's left to do is try to convince voters that the other guy isn't suitable for office. Referencing him as the anti-christ and signalling that his election would bring about the end of the days is more likely to convince them of the exact opposite.

TDB | The Five Percent Doctrine

I'm an environmentally friendly fellow; and I don't really agree with Thomas Firey; nor do I disagree with Paul Krugman. But doesn't Krugman's reasoning about the climate threat seem ridiculously similar to Dick Cheney's reasoning about the terrorist threat (what became known as 'The 1 Percent Doctrine"), which Ron Suskind so brilliantly documented for us? The matched logic behind the two strands of reasoning even leads to the (exact) same place - an insistence that anyone who is not with us in the fight is against us, and consequently should (must?) be branded morally reprehensible (er, um....'evil' perhaps).

Paul Krugman’s column in today’s NYT laments the lack of a national policy to combat global warming. He writes:

It’s true that scientists don’t know exactly how much world temperatures will rise if we persist with business as usual. But that uncertainty is actually what makes action so urgent. While there’s a chance that we’ll act against global warming only to find that the danger was overstated, there’s also a chance that we’ll fail to act only to find that the results of inaction were catastrophic. Which risk would you rather run?

He then cites the work of Harvard economist Martin Weitzman, who surveyed the results of a number of recent climate models and found that (in Krugman’s words) “they suggest about a 5 percent chance that world temperatures will eventually rise by more than 10 degrees Celsius (that is, world temperatures will rise by 18 degrees Fahrenheit). As Mr. Weitzman points out, that’s enough to ‘effectively destroy planet Earth as we know it.’”

Krugman concludes, “It’s sheer irresponsibility not to do whatever we can to eliminate that threat” and he calls for opprobrium against those who might impede global warming legislation: “The only way we’re going to get action, I’d suggest, is if those who stand in the way of action come to be perceived as not just wrong but immoral.”

We can't help but be left wondering why the threat of global terrorism should not demand the same stance. I think most would agree that nuclear terrorists (nuclear war, surely) are at least an equal if not a greater threat to the planet (given that the likelihood of terrorist success is much higher than 5%). Surely Krugman has something important to answer - and I admire him enough to hope he would not resort to claiming the distinction lies somewhere in those 4 percentage points.

TDB | 'Fallacy of the Day'

Ali over at Think Progress commits a common error, dismissing good ideas simply because they belong to an 'unacceptable' class 0r category:

Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) spoke to the National Urban League, a group “devoted to empowering African Americans to enter the economic and social mainstream.” When an audience member asked him how he planned to reduce urban crime, McCain praised Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s efforts in New York Cirty before invoking the military’s tactics in Iraq as the model for crime-fighting:

MCCAIN: And some of those tactics — you mention the war in Iraq — are like that we use in the military. You go into neighborhoods, you clamp down, you provide a secure environment for the people that live there, and you make sure that the known criminals are kept under control. And you provide them with a stable environment and then they cooperate with law enforcement, etc, etc.

There is nothing wrong with doing exactly what McCain proposes. If a proposal includes good ideas - in this case, the exact right ideas - then surely we should not dismiss it, as Ali does, simply because of a categorical misalignment. We are naturally inclined to recoil when we encounter things 'military' in a place assumed to be well within the realm of 'domestic law and order'. But it's stupid to assume that because something is part of, in this case, military m.o. it is exclusively so. It can also work in other situations. In fact, in our case, it's only fitting that it should work in other situations: what the military provides is a basic of security and order; and it's only upon such foundations that institutions can function and law can reign.

The 'military tactics' used in New York (occasional instances of indefensible and egregious actions notwithstanding) were not employed in order to establish military authority; rather, they were used to prevent a kind of military authority from from having to be established. They were used to return to a state where 'domestic law and order' - and the family, community and governmental institutions that essential to it - could function. And that is exactly exactly what is needed in many of our crime-ridden urban areas.

TDB | Implying The Antichrist

I just watched for the first time the McCain ad that derisively refers to Obama as 'The One'. From what I've read, critics of the spot fault the McCain camp for the dubius tactic - the nature of which seems universally agreed upon - of questioning whether someone of such celebrity status is, qua uber-celebrity, a fit leader for America. But regardless of whether one is critical or praiseworthy, all seem agreed that the purpose of the ad is to prod viewers toward a fear that Obama is a hollow shell painted in neon shades of excitement and adoration alchemically constructed from one part hype and two parts newness.

But there is something more subtle going on in this ad - something that appeals particularly (exclusively perhaps) to born-again Christians, raised, as I was (though I have long shed such beliefs), to fear the 'End Times,' as conveyed by God through John in the book of Revelations. Born-again Christians (and many mainstream Christians as well) believe that, when such times are finally upon us, an Antichrist will come. That he will be beautiful in the eyes of the masses, who are thirsty for redemption; that he will convince them that he is, in fact, the messiah - that he is The One, as Jesus was The One, come again to salvage a wrecked and lost mankind.

With regard to Celebrity, Jesus Christ was arguably the biggest celebrity of all; and Christ returned would surely seem the only rival to the celebrity of Jesus, the son of Mary. Moreover, the Antichrist will come as lucifer, the bringer of The Light - it is by this 'light', essentially, that He will trick mankind into following him. True and good Christians, of course, know better; and they will resist the light by any means possible. Etc, etc. You get the gist, surely.

The point is, the McCain ad touches unmistakably (for those 'in the know') on all these traits of the Antichrist - the redeemer; the One; the bringer of The Light; a supreme celebrity who fools the masses mankind and moves them - seemingly by some magic - to enthusiastic adoration. The rhythmic, seemingly hypnotized chants of "Obama, Obama" in the background bring one right back to childhood warnings of fire and brimstone, of being condemnded to hell for following the antichrist and his ways.

For a campaign that a) needs to secure its evangelical Christian base; and b) decided long ago (as seems plainly clear) to invest in a strategy of fear-mongering, an ad with these very undertones would seem almost too perfect a solution.

TDB | Quote Of The Day

David Brooks, from his column in today's New York Times:

Today power is dispersed. There is no permanent bipartisan governing class in Washington. Globally, power has gone multipolar, with the rise of China, India, Brazil and the rest. This dispersion should, in theory, be a good thing, but in practice, multipolarity means that more groups have effective veto power over collective action. In practice, this new pluralistic world has given rise to globosclerosis, an inability to solve problem after problem... Moreover, in a multipolar world, there is no way to referee disagreements among competing factions. In a democratic nation, the majority rules and members of the minority understand that they must accede to the wishes of those who win elections. But globally, people have no sense of shared citizenship. Everybody feels they have the right to say no, and in a multipolar world, many people have the power to do so. There is no mechanism to wield authority. There are few shared values on which to base a mechanism.

ike/Pregunta for the Junta

We're adding a new feature to the blog. TDB named it, "Pregunta for the Junta;" it aims to ask important questions of the Bush administration. Here goes:

While you haven't been exhibiting it lately, you were a famously disciplined and well-messaged presidential candidate....twice. Why do you insist on pile driving any hopes your pal, John McCain, had to win the presidency into the ground?

A quick follow-up: if you were running the McCain campaign, where would you slot yourself in at the Republican National Convention?

TDB | 'Fallacy of the Day'

The New York Times editorial writers made this argument today:

Governments in developing countries say they must shield the poor from high energy prices. They worry that eliminating [oil] subsidies might lead to inflation at a time when prices are rising broadly. But these subsidies are misguided and mainly benefit the well-off, who own big cars and fly in jets, as well as energy-intensive industries, which are not usually those that create most jobs.

Surely the New York Times (a liberal rag, I've heard) should be more honest about what effects subsidy reduction has on the poor. By saying certain companies and certain rich people 'mainly benefit' by the subsidies that are in place, they imply that, if those subsidies were removed, said certain people and companies would feel the most 'pain'. In fact, the poor work within much smaller financial margins than companies - and have significantly fewer options and resources when it comes to rearranging expenses. Something similar applies for the well-off. If the subsidies were removed, most rich people companies would find ways to make due, though they would not be happy about it. For less well-off individuals, however, the removal would in a great many cases be life changing. Countless people would finally and fatally descend from their long-held but precarious perch just above the poverty line to become a statistic among the poor.

Note: contrary to what one might assume, I do am not a subsidy-supporter. Rather, I understand and acknowledge the difficulty in removing them once they are in place.

TDB | 'Hellofa Good Point'

From a letter to the editor in yesterday's New York Times:

When reading is reduced to meaning only the acquisition of information, it is no surprise to find that minds are impoverished. Do you agree or disagree with “Jane Eyre”? With “Hamlet”? With “Their Eyes Were Watching God”? The question is meaningless, beside the point. As more and more people fail to “read,” it becomes easier for the powerful to hoodwink them because extended narratives disappear, to be replaced by the quick conclusions available in a Google search. We no longer see that we are repeating old narratives, no longer see how we got to where we are. To engage with democratic processes — to participate in making difficult decisions or answering challenging questions (shall we go to war? whose fault is poverty?) — requires the ability to examine multiple perspectives, to hold conflicting ideas simultaneously in the mind. Such qualities of thought are practiced and honed by reading, not by scanning text for information. As readers have become replaced by users, so our ability to understand what happens in our name will continue to be diminished.

TDB | Why I Am (Still) A Conservative

I apologize for the length - I have a lot of self- defending to do...

I am a conservative. I say it proudly and confidently – though not without a great deal of thought (of personal Q & A). That is, for a long time I've been concerned about ‘conservatism,’ both personally and intellectually. I’d questioned at times whether I could still consider myself a conservative if I supported someone as progressive as Barack Obama; consequently, I questioned the adequacy of even being a conservative at all if ultimately I’d admitted the need to support progressivism. Most of all, I questioned conservatism as it had been represented and understood, for as long as I could remember, by the Republican Party.

But, as it turns out, the Republicans are – and have long been (with very few interruptions since the party of Lincoln) – the antithesis of conservatism. Conservatism doesn't have anything to do with Christian fundamentalism; with free-market fanaticism (or any kind of fanaticism); Conservatism isn't, for that matter, endeared to any any particular economic school (and would probably prefer Keynes - a consummate conservative, btw - to monetarists and supply-siders). Conservatism isn't opposed to a strong government that provides otherwise unprovided services; that intervenes occasionally for the 'welfare' of its citizens. Conservatism is not in favor of waging war on drugs or even war on crime if that means stupidly inflicting harsh but ineffective punishments; Conservatism has no inclination toward gruesome corporal punishments or torture; it doesn't conveniently forget to be humane - or forget that a criminal (or, more importantly, that we as punishers) are still human beings. Conservatives don't spend imprudently - or do anything imprudently, for that matter... The list could go on forever. The point is, the Republican Party is not the conservative party.

There hasn’t really been a conservative party in America since the Federalists, and only a faction (ironically) within that party actually embodied Conservatism. No doubt, there have been Conservatives throughout American history, but they have belonged to all the many American parties – and they have been few and far between (at least on the public stage). As it happens, by the time most would-be conservatives have become national figures they are more ‘politician’ than anything else (not overly pragmatic, which, as we will see, is a conservative trait; but overly opportunistic).

But conservatism is, I think, the natural disposition of Americans – as much the creed of the country bumpkin as of the establishment elite. But most Americans have been caught up in a confused dualism (Republican and Democrat) that demands (usually as a family inheritance) that one pledge allegiance to a party as much or more than to the flag; and most Americans have considered it only too natural to employ a set of given (though eternally misused) ideological labels - ‘conservative,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘progressive’) – in their search for political self-understanding (however pathetically short-lived or short-sighted it may be).

But it turns out I can be a conservative while still being liberal – because what I want is to conserve liberal values and institutions; and I can be a conservative while still championing progressivism – because I want liberal values and institutions to progress – to evolve – as anything must if it is to survive and remain healthy. But I want that progress to be careful, pragmatic and fair – and, most of all, I want it to be based on skepticism of ‘progress’ itself, on an honest confession that we don’t necessarily have the answers; that our effort at progress will be based not on moving in a certain direction (e.g., a religious society, a free market society, a truly secular society) but moving intelligently. To paraphrase Barack Obama on the war, ‘A conservative isn’t opposed to movement; he’s opposed to stupid movement’.

Which brings me to the nexus of this whole issue….

I can – moreover, I should – support Barack Obama and still be a conservative; I can, moreover, want absolutely nothing to do with the Republican Party – not now and maybe not ever – and still be a conservative. And proudly, no less! But only if I know –and can let others know – what that means.

And so, I’ve indulged in a bit of manifesto writing – for which I apologize. But I think it’s important that I explain how and why I am a conservative.

I am a conservative in that I vehemently desire to conserve the existing values and institutions of American society, not in the interest of the prosperous part of that society but in the interest of American society at large, and especially in the interest of the less prosperous among us – for the immemorial values and institutions of America are the best friend the downtrodden citizen can have.

I am a conservative insomuch as I have an unshakable skepticism of human nature, of human reason, of human actions, &c; because I believe in community nearly as much as I believe in liberty – but ultimately I believe that liberty without community is dangerous, as is the converse.

I’m a conservative because I believe in domestic law and order; because I believe in a strong military – but not a military that ever descends in any form upon America itself.

I’m a conservative because I see the need in supporting existing spiritual authority – regardless of whether the creeds supporting such authority is ‘true’ or not. But I also see – and just as clearly – the need to support existing secular authorities – and to support their essential separation from spiritual authority.

I am a conservative in that I am a great lover of my country. Whether one calls me a patriot or a nationalist, I could care less. But I do care whether one understands that I do not believe in American exceptionalism – and I certainly I do not think we should view our country or our values in messianic terms. I see the value of international institutions, of globalization, of multiculturalism – but only to a certain extent. For, as a conservative, I believe moreover in the importance (and the essential centrality) of the Nation State. Human beings are hard enough to improve individually and in small groups – they are never perfectible; and thus the world, in my view, is simply too big a place (and too full of humans) to be improved as a whole – though we may certainly improve it ON the whole. Human beings are capable of great things – but they can never be great things. The individual will always be just that; he is a fleeting thing, and great things are not fleeting – they are lasting if not eternal. But nobility, because it is a fundamental possibility for human beings, will survive as long as our species.

For the sake of that existence, and for many other reasons, I believe, as a conservative, in the value of family – and that means gay families, too. What matters is the community that grows out of love and proximity – its supreme naturalness, which is an amazing (and stubbornly metaphysical) thing. Human beings are thrown into the world, as Heidegger taught us; the world is experienced through Dasein. But we can escape Dasein (our unshakable and ultimately dreadful individuality), in a very real way, through the love we have for father and mother, for brother and sister, for husband, son and daughter – a love that is almost as natural and as fundamental as Dasein. We can – and do – learn to think of life, its possibilities and its dangers, in terms of ‘we’ and not just ‘I’. And that is the beginning – the necessary point of departure – for any concern we may learn to feel for the world at large. Thus the family must be preserved – its power conserved.

I am a conservative in that I am suspicion of Rationalism. I do not believe in grand theories or grand schemes. This applies, of course, to Marxism, etc – but also, and to the same degree, to Christianism (meaning Christian dogma – Christianity is a mode of living and understanding personally) or Islam. It is a fundamentally conservative trait to be wary of dogma, and, moreover, of anyone promulgating dogma or anything dependant on dogma. I certainly don’t believe anyone has the right to impose their version of the truth upon anyone else. This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in ‘truth’ or even ‘the truth’; I am not a nihilist. But as a conservative I do not believe we can know ‘the truth’ or ‘the good’; but I do believe human beings have an innate ability to perceive when they are doing good and when they are telling the truth. And for this reason, and (once more) I believe in personal responsibility – and thus also in allowing a human being to be generally ‘free to choose’. We can, however, guide one another, but as concerned friends or caring family members; not as coercive moralists or ‘improving’ technocrats.

I am a conservative because in that I believe there is simply too much complexity and to much human variance to ever ‘really know’ about anything. And to the degree that, and with Hayek, I believe the exchange of goods (whether material or immaterial) to be simply too complex to ever allow of the ‘knowledge’ requisite for socialist planning. Thus, I believe fundamentally in market capitalism. But there are more important things than money, which has never been a fundamental conservative concern (or interest). ‘Fairness’, for example. And, as I believe in an innate human capacity to recognize their actions as ‘good’ or their utterances as ‘true,’ I also believe in an innate human capacity to recognize whether something is ‘fair’ or not. Belief in the market can attain a level of allegiance that makes it essentially indistinguishable from any other kind of fundamentalism, any other kind of systematizing – it can, in short, become a dogma. And in so far as I am a conservative, I am opposed to the dogma of market capitalism as much as I am to any other dogma.

Though I don’t believe we can plan the economy, I do believe we can plan generally in life. We can be prudent and maintain a healthy concern for the future. We can pay attention.

I am a conservative in that I find egalitarianism suspect – though I believe wholeheartedly in equality – especially before the law. But, while respecting contracts, I am also conservative in that I basically impossible to honestly understand society as a contract entered into by individuals – it is better to understand it as a partnership between generations – between the dead, the living, and the not yet living. Thus I desire – as a conservative - that our planet as well as our country and our society is handed down to our children in a healthy state and in recognizable form. Thus I am a conservationist and, to a degree, an environmentalist; and value the earth and nature more than money and the profit motive. I am therefore not opposed to regulation – so long as it is actually doing good. Regulation for regulation’s sake is stupid.

I am a conservative in that I am a pragmatist. Pragmatism is the only acceptable solution for someone who does not swear blind allegiance to anything. While I do value allegiance – to family and country and even party (though rarely) – and principles very much, I do not consider them absolute values. Thus I am a conservative insofar as I am willing to compromise, though that doesn’t rule out occasional stubbornness. I hate to see things be given up on too quickly.

Finally, I am a conservative because I believe that there is much to learn – though we can never learn everything, never know it all; thus I believe in education – especially in history and literature, which are so often passed over as inconsequential. That is a mistake – it is indeed praiseworthy to be successful in life, to be a successful professional, to be technically proficient – even dominant; but it is infinitely more praiseworthy to be successful AT life. When we face death – and we all must – our possessions and our know-how are valueless; but we are comforted by having understood life through history and literature – and, moreover, through living humanely.

And ultimately, it is a desire to live humanely (with all its varied meanings and implications) that is the fundamental desire of a conservative, like me.