Skip to content

Month: March 2008

In The Long Run

by digby

Dick Cheney explains why he doesn’t care care what the people think about the war in Iraq:

The president of the United States, under these circumstances, dealing with these kinds of issues, can’t make decisions based on public opinion polls; he shouldn’t. . . .

I had the experience, for example, of working for Jerry Ford, and I’ve never forgotten the travails he went through after he had been president for 30 days when he issued the pardon of former president Nixon. And there was consternation coast to coast…I know how much grief he took for that decision, and it may well have cost him the presidency in ’76.

Thirty years later, nearly everybody would say it is exactly the right thing to do, that if he’d paid attention at the time to the polls he never would have done that. But he demonstrated, I think, great courage and great foresight, and the country was better off for what Jerry Ford did that day. And 30 years later, everybody recognized it.

And I have the same strong conviction the issues we’re dealing with today — the global war on terror, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq — that all of the tough calls the president has had to make, that 30 years from now it will be clear that he made the right decisions, and that the effort we mounted was the right one, and that if we had listened to the polls, we would have gotten it wrong.

Gee, I wonder if the Bush Doctrine includes a provision for premptive pardons?

Cheney’s memory is a great fallacy that haunts us today, just as the misbegotten Iraq war will haunt us 30 years from now. It was a huge mistake to pardon Richard Nixon and I say that as someone who thought it was the right thing to do at the time. I was very young and had a soft heart and thought that it was gratuitous to punish him more after his terrible humiliation and that it would be good for the country to “move on.”

Allowing Nixon to get away with his crimes while his fellow Republicans angrily stewed over the injustice of his downfall is what led to the ongoing usurpation of the constitution under Republican rule. They believe the president is above the law and the constitution. Why wouldn’t they? They do these things and there’s no accountability so they do it again the first chance they get, always upping the ante. When they finally lose an election and take a breather from illegal wars and pillaging and shredding the constitution, the Democrats are so busy beating back political attacks and trying to clean up the mess that they decide accountability isn’t worth it. They “bind up the wounds” allowing the infection to fester until the next time it happens.

Cheney thinks that history vindicated Ford and therefore history will vindicate him too. Not in a million years. History will show that from Nixon to the Codpiece, the Republican Party has been progressively more criminal and more aggressively undemocratic and imperialistic. But the problem is, to quote our Dear Leader(ironically paraphrasing Keynes and not even knowing it) “history … we’ll all be dead.” And unfortunately, a lot of people are dead much sooner than they need to be because people like Dick Cheney know they can get away with murder.

.

Grown-up In Charge

by digby

John McCain is going to solve our economic problems by convening a meeting of the nation’s accountants.

He also thinks that people should be forced to put bigger down payments on their houses, but he also that mortgage lenders should be like GM after 9/11 and give zero down payment loans.

Oh, and the banks don’t trust each other and now they don’t trust the people. Prices go down as well as up. He will not allow dogma to override common sense.

He explained all this to us as if we were five year olds.

If you liked having the idiot George W. Bush in charge during a national security crisis, you’re going to love having the moron John McCain in charge during an economic crisis.

Update: Via Drum, Chuck Todd explains why McCain gets away with such things:

Even if he gets dinged on the experience stuff, “Oh, he says he’s Mr. Experience. Doesn’t he know the difference between this stuff?” He’s got enough of that in the bank, at least with the media, that he can get away with it. I mean, the irony to this is had either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama misspoke like that, it’d have been on a running loop, and it would become a, a big problem for a couple of days for them.

Here’s the thing. It’s not just McCain. They let Reagan and Junior get away with it too. The media allow Republicans to speak nonsense to the public all the time and don’t challenge them. Meanwhile Democrats are derided for being dishonest, boring eggheads who can’t be trusted.

The Republican nominee just spoke in classic Bushian gibberish on the nation’s most pressing issue and everyone will call it straight talk. This is a problem and it’s bigger than St John.

Here’s the Todd video from C&L

.

The Great Unraveling

by dday

Iraq is actually falling apart on all sides. There’s a reason that Gen. Petraeus and Ryan Crocker are calling for a pause in drawing down troop levels. There’s a reason that we’ll keep 140,000-plus troops in the country through the rest of Bush’s term. There are major fires burning on both sides of the sectarian divide.

As I discussed last week, substantial numbers of the Sunni Awakening groups are contemplating a general strike, frustrated with delays in cash payments and the refusal of the central Shiite government to integrate them into the Iraqi security forces. Marc Lynch has been tracking these increasing problems.

Because I’ve written so very much about this I’m not going to belabor the point, other than to repeat that this isn’t just an unfortunate development in an otherwise sound approach. It’s structural, and gets to the essence of the strategic failure of the surge. The Awakenings strategy was a smart, tactically successful adaptation to developments on the ground, and Petraeus’s team has done the best it could with the hand it was dealt. But it has always been the case that the Awakenings strategy built up military power outside of the Iraqi state, and has never had a plausible theory of how that power would be harnessed into a unified, legitimate state. It achieved some of its short-term tactical ends, but worked against the strategic goal of creating an effectively sovereign Iraqi state with a security architecture sustainable without US forces.

Lynch thinks the US should give Nouri al-Maliki an ultimatum to stop payments to these Sunni groups and transfer the responsibility to the Ministries of Interior or Defense (who can use all that oil money the government is hoarding), because without integration there will never be a hope to reconcile the disparate sectarian groups and instead you’ll simply have this extra-governmental armed force. But as the Bush Administration’s goal is merely to keep a lid on violence until the next President takes over, that’s not likely to happen. I always have thought that the payments would dry up the day after the election of a Democratic President, as trip wires are set to pin the failure on someone else. However, if the central government and the Awakening forces remain at odds, I don’t see those payments mattering in the long run.

As for keeping a lid on violence, this is extremely worrisome.

A cease-fire critical to the improved security situation in Iraq appeared to unravel Monday when a militia loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr began shutting down neighborhoods in west Baghdad and issuing demands of the central government.

Simultaneously, in the strategic southern port city of Basra, where Sadr’s Mahdi militia is in control, the Iraqi government launched a crackdown in the face of warnings by Sadr’s followers that they’ll fight government forces if any Sadrists are detained. By 1 a.m. Arab satellite news channels reported clashes between the Mahdi Army and police in Basra.

The freeze on offensive activity by Sadr’s Mahdi Army has been a major factor behind the recent drop in violence in Iraq, and there were fears that the confrontation that’s erupted in Baghdad and Basra could end the lull in attacks, assassinations, kidnappings and bombings.

The fighting in Basra show the intra-Shiite tensions bubbling over between the Sadrists and Shiite government forces, which is breaking down into such a bloodbath that the US is asking for a British surge in the south to deal with the splintering. What’s actually more worrisome is the nationwide civil disobedience called for by Muqtada al-Sadr. In protest of the American and Iraqi forces taking advantage of his cease-fire to arrest Mahdi Army members, Sadr is closing down stores and having his supporters pour into the streets. Without a history of Martin Luther King-like civil disobedience in the country, I can’t see how this remains nonviolent. And that has the potential to negate the security gains that the escalation supposedly provided.

The drop in violence in Iraq has generally been attributed to four elements 1) More American forces and the change in tactics to counterinsurgency; 2) The Awakening movement; 3) The Sadr ceasfire; and 4) The ethnic cleansing and physical separation of the various sides.

It’s hard to say for sure, which of these factors was the most important. The Bush Administration will tell you it’s all about the troop levels. I’ve tended to believe it’s more of a mix and was most inclined towards the Anbar Awakening and the sectarian cleansing as the important factors. But when you look at the data it really seems to indicate that the Sadr ceasefire may have been the key.

And that ceasefire is quite tenuous in the midst of a general strike and civil disobedience. If and when the Iraqi security forces imprison, punish, or God forbid scatter bullets at the striking Sadrists, would ANYONE expect a calm and measured response? Would anyone expect the ceasefire to continue?

Of course not. And since nobody suffers more than George Bush for all the death and destruction in Iraq, expect him to bear the burden even more in the coming months. Their goal is of course to keep the country together just long enough to blame the eventual failure on the Democrats, but it appears that events on the ground may overtake that strategy.

.

Naivete

by tristero

From what I can tell, Matt Nisbet has no idea who or what he is dealing with, nor any clue as to who his real friends are. Nisbet youtubes a clip from a new creationist propaganda film, interviews with Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers. He summarizes the scene as follows:

…the message is spelled out via the interviews provided by PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins.

Notice the very clear translation for audiences as to what supposedly establishment science believes:

A) Learning about science makes you an atheist, it “kills off” religious faith.

B) If we boost science literacy in society, it will lead to erosion of religion, as religion fades away, we will get more and more science, and less and less religion.

C) Religion is a fairy tale, similar to hobgoblins, a fantasy, and even evil.[Emphasis in original]

Indeed the takeaway is as Nisbet claims. But…

First of all, Nisbet is not quite accurate here. If you actually watch the clip and suffer through the insufferably bad music, you will find fairly innocuous statements by Dawkins and PZ (the “fairy tales” stuff is a bit gratuitous, but hardly offensive compared to what McCain bff Pastor Hagee has said about Catholics). In fact, the Dawkins/Myers material is actually pretty thin and uncontroversial. Hence the unbearable, ominous music and more importantly, the addition of a third interviewee – not Dawkins or Myers – who declares religion “evil” and who serves as the button for the segment.

Secondly, NIsbet fails to realize that Dawkins and PZ didn’t create the takeaway message. The producers of the film did, by deliberately misleading them about the nature of the film in the first place, asking questions that provoked certain hoped-for answers, and most critically, editing the film in such a way as to turbo-charge the message. When you’re dealing with dishonest filmmakers – Matt, they lied about the nature of the film in order to snag face time with PZ and Dawkins – then no matter who they had “representing” science – including Nisbet himself – they would be slathered with bad music and edited to look like the Devil Incarnate.

Nisbet concludes

As long as Dawkins and PZ continue to be the representative voices from the pro-science side in this debate, it is really bad for those of us who care about promoting public trust in science and science education.

Oh, he couldn’t be more wrong. The lies behind the making of the film are the clue to what is really going on.

The effort to undermine American science and science education – did I just accuse creationists of being anti-American? Yep – is not being conducted by honorable men and women but by extreme right ideologues who will not take yes for an answer. They are funded by men such as billionaire Howard Ahmanson, a passionate follower of the loathsome R.J. Rushdoony, an avowed theocrat, and a man who was far to the right of Pat Robertson.

In short, Nisbet is urging compromise with the American Taliban. It won’t work. Ever. There is no middle ground. Or rather, through the refusal of the American Taliban to recognize anything other than their will to power as legitimate, those that compromise with them end up moving the middle ground progressively rightward. Today, it’s teach the controversy in biology classes. Tomorrow, it’s questioning the Big Bang theory in astronomy.

There is only one reasonable response and that is to insist, loudly, that those working to undermine American science should have no standing in the larger public discourse about the role of science and science and science education. That will take a plethora of honest knowledgeable voices including PZ’s and Dawkins’, but also Ken Miller, Genie Scott, Barbara Forrest, and Neil de Grasse-Tyson. Each person will speak with his/her own accent and styles. Each, to the extent they are working scientists, “represents” science. None is THE official representative of science and may the Flying Spaghetti Monster preserve us from there ever being such a thing.

Matt, I know you mean well and care deeply about science (as well as carving out a career to communicate science to a wide public). But you are dead wrong here, both tactically and morally. You cannot reason with the American Taliban but you can render them less powerful. Furthermore, it is simply reprehensible to urge people who have been deceived and mistreated to shut up and let others speak for them. You clearly haven’t thought this through. Please consider changing your mind. I know it’s hard to admit mistakes but better to do so than compound the error. THEY are not your friends; they want to crush you no matter how much effort you expend to “frame” things in an effort to placate them.

O’Hanlon’s Lament

by dday

Michael O’Hanlon is deeply upset that he’s not able to pontificate so much anymore on his brillliant concept to get American soldiers held hostage doing police work on the streets of Baghdad.

Five years later, the United States remains at war in Iraq, but there are days when it would be hard to tell from a quick look at television news, newspapers and the Internet […]

“I was getting on average three to five calls a day for interviews about the war” in the first years, said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow on national security at the Brookings Institution. “Now it’s less than one a day.”

What a sad life, ONLY getting called once a day to spout the same patently false blithering nonsense again. I mean how can he go on, right? He’s merely had 13 op-eds in major newspapers in the last seven months. You call that a life in the public spotlight?

Of course, his lack of visibility is all those treacherous Democrats’ fault, anyway:

He argued that Americans who support the war might not have wanted to follow the news when it was bad, and that Americans against the war are less interested now that the news is better. And the presidential candidates, he said, have shown “surprisingly little interest in discussing it in detail.”

Actually, many of us are well aware that the news is not better, that arming and funding both sides of a sectarian divide is bound to catch up with us in both the Sunni and Shiite communities, and the ones disinterested in discussing the war in detail are those fabulists telling us how the news is so much better, people like… Michael O’Hanlon:

In an event at the American Enterprise Institute today, Brookings analyst Michael O’Hanlon — sitting next to hawks Fred Kagan and Ken Pollack — praised the Iraq surge, saying the surge architects would make former Green Bay Packers head coach Vince Lombardi “proud”:

“I want to call them the Lombardis of this war. … And in addition to Fred and Ken who have been two of the most important people. Andy Krepinevich is another important think tanker. Retired Gen. Jack Keane from the outside. A small group of people inside the administration, smaller than it should have been, but people like Meghan O’Sullivan. […]

These people did two things that I think would have made Vince Lombardi proud. One, they stuck with it, and they persevered through difficult times. And two, they stayed focused on fundamentals.”

Y’know Mikey, maybe if you didn’t spout such irresponsible and ignorant tripe like that, on the same day that we mark 4,000 dead American soldiers (which is actually a ridiculously low number that doesn’t take into account contractors, journalists, coalition forces, Iraqi security forces and civilians), you’d get something like two calls a day. And wouldn’t that just make life more worth living for you!

.

Bush League Science

by tristero

If it ain’t broke, break it:

Scientists plan to put one of the twin Mars rovers to sleep and limit the activities of the other robot to fulfill a NASA order to cut $4 million from the program’s budget, mission team members said Monday.

The news comes amid belt-tightening at NASA headquarters, which is under pressure to juggle Mars exploration and projects to study the rest of the solar system.

The solar-powered rovers Spirit and Opportunity have dazzled scientists and the public with findings of geologic evidence that water once flowed at or near the surface of Mars long ago.

Both rovers were originally planned for three-month missions at a cost of $820 million, but are now in their fourth year of exploration. It costs NASA about $20 million annually to keep the rovers running…

“Any cut at any time when these rovers are healthy would be bad timing,” Callas said. “These rovers are still viable capable vehicles in very good health.”

Appeals are planned. Those of us who followed the rovers know how important their contribution to science is – what they have accomplished is simply awesome. And in some ways just as important, the rovers also represent a scientifically passionate and competent America.

To shut them off in order to save such a small chunk of change is simply criminal. And it reminds us that the Bush administration goes much further than not caring about competence, expertise, or excellence. They feel compelled to crush it.

Reading Stupid

by digby

There’s been a lot of chit-chat these last few days about McCain having what Brit Hume called a so-called senior moment when he “accidentally” said repeatedly that Al Qaeda in Iraq was being trained in Iran. George Will said his gaffe was “not damaging at all because people say it’s a given that this man knows what he’s talking about.”

And today we see that George W. Bush “accidentally” said more than once that Iran has said it wants a nuclear bomb to destroy people. Bush’s flacks said he was engaging in shorthand for the fact that Iran is an enemy of Israel.

Both men are given a pass for these ridiculous statements — and in McCain’s case it’s actually assumed that he is some sort of “expert.” Here’s another example of McCain’s foreign policy expertise:

In a small, mirror-paneled room guarded by a Secret Service agent and packed with some of the city’s wealthiest and most influential political donors, Mr. McCain got right to the point.

“One of the things I would do if I were President would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, ‘Stop the bullshit,'” said Mr. McCain, according to Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi, an invitee, and two other guests.

That’s deep. And reminiscent of his president who famously told Tony Blair during the Israeli Lebanon war:

“What they need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit.”

It’s tempting to simply say they are both dumb as posts, and believe they can move nations and people around like chess pieces, which they are. But that’s not the problem. The problem is that their uninformed worldview is always tilted toward confrontation.

In their comments of the last few days about Al Qaeda and Iran wanting to build nukes to threaten nations, it all leads in one direction: war with Iran. The only question is whether it would happen before Bush leaves office or after McCain takes office. Either way, you can tell by their “gaffes” that they both believe that Iran is a threat to the US. And there is no doubt that they both believe the US has the right under the Bush Doctrine to preempt Iran.

Anyone who votes for McCain in November is voting for war with Iran. It’s that simple.

.

Faces

by dday

4,000.

Every one of these deaths was a preventable tragedy.

Also, as Brandon Friedman notes, 25 of these men and women died in the past two weeks, an uptick of violence not seen since last summer.

We are now entering a period of Iraqi restlessness in which Sunni Sahwa militias are growing restive, Muqtada al-Sadr’s ceasefire is on the verge of unraveling, and little political progress is being made. In fact, I received an email today from a friend in the Green Zone who told me he slept in his body armor last night–something not typically done these days. And it’s not a good sign.

Perhaps this will give John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman pause to stop patting themselves on the back for five minutes in order to realize that they are not vindicated, they are still wrong, and any sort of resolution in Iraq will require a serious change from the current short-sighted Bush administration strategy of “pay them off until I’m out of office.”

.

Wright And Wrong

by digby

*Note: this is a tediously long post. If you are inclined to spout off in anger at me about it, could you please do me the favor of reading the whole thing before you do it.


I finally got a chance to hear Senator Obama’s speech in full today and I couldn’t help but think of a piece Rick Perlstein wrote for the Washington Post a few weeks back. He wrote:

One of the most fascinating notions raised by the current presidential campaign is the idea that the United States can and must finally overcome the divisions of the 1960s. It’s most often associated with the ascendancy of Sen. Barack Obama, who has been known to entertain it himself. Its most gauzy champion is pundit Andrew Sullivan, who argued in a cover article in the December Atlantic Monthly that, “If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man.”

No offense to either Obama or Sullivan, but: No he isn’t. No one is.

[…]

A President Obama could no more magically transcend America’s ’60s-born divisions than McCarthy, Kennedy, Nixon or McGovern could, for the simple reason that our society is defined as much by its arguments as by its agreements. Over the meaning of “family,” on sexual morality, on questions of race and gender and war and peace and order and disorder and North and South and a dozen other areas, we remain divided in ways that first arose after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. What Andrew Sullivan dismisses as “the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation” do not separate us from our “actual problems”; they define us, as much as the Great War defined France in the 1920s, ’30s, ’40s and beyond. Pretending otherwise simply isn’t healthy. It’s repression — the kind of thing that shrinks say causes neurosis.

The events surrounding the videos of Reverent Jeremiah Wright’s controversial sermons over the past week or so bear that out, don’t you think? It would be pretty to think that the culture war and symbolic boomer battles stuff is all old news, but it clearly isn’t. We have made great strides since the 60s and continue to, but these are hard intractable differences that have to be faced and dealt with at each stage of improvement. This was why I took issue with Senator Obama using the myths created by the Republicans about the 60’s. I knew that his statement that the country had “moved on” from all those contentious issues would be unsustainable over the course of the campaign and saw little point in pretending otherwise since it was going to be used against us anyway.

Among other things, he said then:

“What I’m saying is I think the average baby-boomers have moved beyond the arguments of the 60’s but our politicians haven’t. We’re still having the same argument… It’s all around culture wars and it’s all … even when you discuss war the frame of reference is all Vietnam. Well that’s not my frame of reference. My frame of reference is “what works.” Even when I first opposed the war in Iraq, my first line was I don’t oppose all wars, specifically to make clear that this is not an anti-military, you know, 70’s love-in kind of approach.”

I certainly understood why Senator Obama would take the technocratic approach and say he was about “what works” rather than about ideology or civil rights. He naturally didn’t want to turn his campaign into a free for all over what the right pejoratively named “identity politics.” But it was clear to me that the Republicans would never cooperate and these issues were going to be engaged whether he liked it or not. American politics are identity politics, whether it’s a phony Texan or a California movie cowboy or an east coast “ethnic.” We have always voted largely on image (granted, it was variants on the white, male image until now) and the first African American and the first female president were not going to be able to pretend forever that race and gender were not in play. Conservatives have, after all, been winning by stoking primal fears on those very issues for decades and they certainly weren’t going to stop using them when the Democrats put forth a couple of historic candidacies which literally embodied them.

Which brings me to Reverend Wright. Perhaps I have a different sense about this than others, but I personally didn’t find what he said to be all that shocking. Many of his comments on racial issues were as true as they were discomfiting and his views on American error weren’t illogical or unprecedented. Like virtually everyone else, I understood immediately upon hearing them that they were going to be a political problem, but on the substance (except for the HIV stuff, which is rank conspiracy theorizing) they weren’t indefensible. Indeed, they speak to the essence of what separates us from the lockstep, chauvinistic , American exceptionalism of the right. No, we aren’t “blame America first” fifth columnists. But neither are we “blame America never” which means that we have a much clearer eye about our government’s sometimes irrational and immoral actions than conservatives do. It’s why we tend to be civil libertarians and skeptical of inscrutable military adventurism.

Here’s a case in point, again from Andrew Sullivan, who wrote an explanation of his evolution on the question of the Iraq war for the five year anniversary. He gave a number of reasons, but it’s this one that I think is most telling:

[M]y biggest misreading was not about competence. Wars are often marked by incompetence. It was a fatal misjudgment of Bush’s sense of morality.

I had no idea he was so complacent – even glib – about the evil that men with good intentions can enable. I truly did not believe that Bush would use 9/11 to tear up the Geneva Conventions. When I first heard of abuses at Gitmo, I dismissed them as enemy propaganda. I certainly never believed that a conservative would embrace torture as the central thrust of an anti-terror strategy, and lie about it, and scapegoat underlings for it, and give us the indelible stain of Bagram and Camp Cropper and Abu Ghraib and all the other secret torture and interrogation sites that he created and oversaw. I certainly never believed that a war I supported for the sake of freedom would actually use as its central weapon the deepest antithesis of freedom – the destruction of human autonomy and dignity and will that is torture. To distort this by shredding the English language, by engaging in newspeak that I had long associated with totalitarian regimes, was a further insult. And for me, an epiphany about what American conservatism had come to mean.

I know our enemy is much worse. I have never doubted that. But I never believed that America would do what America has done. Never. My misjudgment at the deepest moral level of what Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld were capable of – a misjudgment that violated the moral core of the enterprise – was my worst mistake. What the war has done to what is left of Iraq – the lives lost, the families destroyed, the bodies tortured, the civilization trashed – was bad enough. But what was done to America – and the meaning of America – was unforgivable. And for that I will not and should not forgive myself either.

That is a mistake that Reverend Wright would never make. Neither would I. And not because we hate America or even hate George W. Bush. I can’t speak for Wright, but I love many things about my country and being an American is as much a part of my identity and worldview as my family and life experience. I get tearful about the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, which I consider to be among the most idealistic, progressive documents in human history. I miss it when I’m away too long.

But our nation has a past which should preclude any person who’s taken a high school level course in American history to believe what Andrew Sullivan claims to have believed prior to the invasion of Iraq. America has a long history of immoral deeds, done by men who at the time we all might have assumed were moral and upright too. Unless you think that Native American genocide, slavery, lynching, jailing without due process, apartheid, medical experiments on prisoners and military personnel, forced sterilization, wars of aggression etc are moral acts, you can’t possibly think that what Bush has done is unique to despoiling “the meaning of America.” The meaning of America has always been ambivalent and confused. (Thomas Jefferson, the writer of that great document about liberty and unalienable rights owned slaves, for gawds sakes)

Of course Bush was capable of immoral acts. He’s a human being. That is why we should never blindly trust our leaders’ (mostly manufactured) “characters” and rely instead on the rule of law and the constitution. And it’s why we must be vigilant in defending ourcivil liberties an d democratic processes even when we really, really love our leaders. Humans are flawed, power corrupts, leaders are stupid, shit happens. You can’t depend on powerful people’s good intentions. It’s more than a little bit silly that so many adults seem to need to maintain a romantic fiction that elected leaders are more prophet than politician, but many of them do. (Sullivan especially is susceptible to this phenomenon.)

For me, the fact that Barack Obama may have sat through those sermons and listened to them and didn’t stand up and march out as people seem to think he should have done, settles some important questions. I have not been able to discern until now whether he truly understood the fault lines that run through our nation’s history or had any sense of just how hard it was going to be for him to make good on all these promises of reconciliation. I couldn’t honestly tell if he got that we have to fight for progress and sometimes get bloodied up, both literally and metaphorically. Those sermons answered that question for me. If he’s been listening to Reverend Wright then he understands that very well.

Yes, Wright is an example of unreconstructed 60’s style African American confrontational politics. And for those of us who weren’t in the know, we learned over the course of several days of fevered discussion of the issue that it isn’t just him, but rather that he represents a widely held philosophy in much of the African American church, one of the bedrocks of American liberalism. And when those views came to the surface through those video tapes, his parishioner Barack Obama, the urbane, modern, post racial, transcendental politician who wanted to cast off all those musty old politics from the past, was forced to use his tremendous rhetorical skills for something more than political process talk about “getting beyond the divisions of the past.” He had to talk about it, straight up. And that was a very good thing.

I realize that many of you love Obama because of his heartfelt appeal to hope and change, two abstract idealistic and inspirational concepts. But I’m unmoved by abstract, quasi religious language that demands faith because well — I’m not much of a believer in faith, particularly when it comes to politicians. But that doesn’t mean I don’t love a great speech or understand the power of words. In my view there is no skill more valuable to a politician than the ability to explain complex issues in accessible, human terms and employ political rhetoric to speak to higher truths. So, while I’ve read his book on the subject (and it is quite moving) I have been waiting for Obama to use his great gift to say something real about these divisions and he did. It was a great speech, a milestone, which had heft and substance and spoke to something more than feel-good exhortations about the value of “hope.” This was the kind of speech I’ve been waiting for him to give.

Now, am I under any illusion that the speech put the issue to rest and Wright’s sermons aren’t going to continue to dog Barack Obama’s campaign? Of course not. Here on planet earth, Wright’s words are decidedly un-mainstream and there is nothing more important for a presidential candidate than to be seen as mainstream. The subjects of race and religion make people uncomfortable and challenge their own view of themselves creating all kinds of emotional dissonance. We saw that with Katrina, when even the most committed liberals didn’t want to admit that race played a part in the response to the tragedy or the conditions that led to it. Time and again I was challenged on the subject by those who insisted it wasn’t about race, it was about class, and by discussing it racial terms I was perpetuating the myth. I disagree. It is no myth. Progress has been made, but as I wrote at the time, the single most powerful lingering vestige of racism is an irrational fear of an angry black mob — led by an angry black man. That informs the perpetual fear among whites that Obama mentions in his speech and that’s the political minefield Obama and Reverend Wright walked into when those tapes surfaced.

The Republicans have been laying the groundwork for sometime to portray Obama as an ultra-liberal, anti-American, black militant (Muslim) in a nice suit. Tim Russert didn’t get all obsessed about the Farrakhan out of nowhere — he’s well known to call up GOP oppo shops and ask for tips, you know. (David Niewert does a nice job showing how the media’s own racist tendencies come to the fore with stories like these.) I’m not surprised, and I’m sure Senator Obama is not surprised, that the reaction to the flap among the public, particularly among political independents, was mixed:

March 20, 2008

Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, we asked, “Taking all this into account, are you more or less likely to support Obama for president?”

Less likely (52%)
More likely (19%)
About the same (27%)
No opinion (2%)

[…]

The disturbing numbers for Obama are the independent voters. By 56% to 13%, they said they’re less likely to vote for him because of the speech.

This CBS poll has a different result, showing that the only area in which Obama suffered was his “ability to bring the country together” — which actually makes some sense, since the country got a refresher course in how the conservative movement and their friends in the media handle these things. (Update: The Gallup poll shows him back in the lead over Clinton, so at least with Democrats he seems to have come back to his previous position before the Wright scandal broke. How this will affect the general election is obviously still unknown.)

Lest anyone think that I am making an electablility argument in favor of Hillary Clinton, I’m not. If anything, it’s quite clear that she would have an even harder time getting past these deep intractable stereotypes than Obama. Kevin Drum wrote about that recently, showing that while many people are still racist in America, even more of them are sexist — and willing to admit it outright. (Paul Lukasiak crunches some numbers on the gender gap here ,to demonstrate the same thing.)

The fact is that faced with circumstances that make the prospect of a victory easier than they could usually expect, Democrats have used that opportunity to break through some long standing barriers to blacks and women in spite of the fact that it would lessen their advantage. This is an unusual and counterintuitive step for a party out of power to take — generally they go the safe route after being beaten two elections in a row and nominate the most mainstream candidate they can find. So, good for the Democrats for using their advantage to do more than just win an election. ( And truthfully, when else could they possibly do it? When the Republicans are on a roll?)

As a liberal who’s been watching all this take place over the course of half a century now, I am thrilled at the prospect of crossing those boundaries with an African American or female president. But the sexism and racism we’ve seen in the campaign so far is a reminder that these things don’t happen by magic or positive thinking. (Look at the racial make up of the prison population or the gender pay gap for illustration.) They happen because people are always out there fighting for it, over time, vigilantly manning the barricades against the conservative aristocrats (there aren’t any other kind) and the people they purposefully manipulate with fear to keep full equality and true liberty from coming to fruition.

And sadly, those who do that fighting are often considered to be “unamerican” and “unpatriotic” because by demanding that America change, they are making a case that America is not perfect. For the chauvinist, nationalist, exceptionalist right, (and the mindbogglingly provincial thinkers in the village) that is something you are not allowed to admit.

I have long believed that Democrats will win in the fall and I still think so. But no election is guaranteed and running the first African American and the first woman undoubtedly made it harder than it otherwise would have been. But that’s the price you pay for progress.

Oh, and as for Obama’s church? I am not qualified to weigh in on the theological acceptability of the various people politicians pray with and I don’t make political decisions based on religion anyway. However, I might be more persuaded by the arguments of people like Pat Buchanan, who says that Obama should repudiate his pastor and the teachings of his church, if Buchanan himself weren’t a member of a church that enabled and covered up for pedophile priests for decades. Perhaps my freethinking ways make it impossible for me to see the proper theological distinctions. I’ll leave it to others to sort that all out.

Update: If you haven’t read Glenzilla’s post today illustrating certain current racial attitudes, go here.

.

Berman

by tristero

I have been trying to wrap my head around Paul Berman’s nearly incomprehensible screed Why Radical Islam Just Won’t Die and for the longest time couldn’t figure it out.

In his defense, the headline is probably not his fault. He makes a point of using the more accurate term “radical Islamism” to describe a political movement that exploits the symbology and traditions of Islam in its attempt to gain adherents. But he provides us with exactly two examples of radical Islamism and here’s where I start to have problems:

I declared myself happy in principle with the notion of overthrowing Saddam Hussein, just as I was happy to see the Taliban chased from power.

There are many ways I’d describe Saddam Hussein – for example, as an odious mass murderer whose hand Donald Rumsfeld was all too eager to embrace – but he, and his regime, were the exact opposite of the Taliban. In fact, Saddam was loathed by the radical Islamists descended from Qutb, decried as a secularist. He thought himself the reincarnation of Saladin, not Muhammad

So what do these two utterly different ideologies (to the extent Baathism is an ideology) have in common? I honestly couldn’t think of much, but I’m no expert (and if you happen to be a scholar of the area, please enlighten us in comments if I’m wrong here). But finally, towards the end of the essay, Berman tells us:

…instead of enjoying the unstinting support of their non-Muslim colleagues, the Muslim liberals find themselves routinely berated in the highbrow magazines and the universities as deracinated nonentities, alienated from the Muslim world. Or they find themselves pilloried as stooges of the neoconservative conspiracy — quite as if any writer from a Muslim background who fails to adhere to at least a few anti-imperialist or anti-Zionist tenets of the Islamist doctrine must be incapable of thinking his or her own thoughts.

So that’s it. Sort of. The defining ideologies of radical Islamism are “anti-imperialism” and “anti-Zionism.” All the rest is frou-frou. Well, actually, so is anti-imperialism – after all, Saddam overran Kuwait and the oft-stated goal of radical Islamists to re-establish the Caliphate. Some anti-imperialists. Perhaps he means “anti-Americanism,” but if he does, he should come out and say so.

I don’t think I’m erecting a straw man here by saying that leaves us ,in Berman’s world, with anti-Zionism as the only essential characteristic of radical Islamism, or at least the only one he deemed important enough to mention here. But hold on, it doesn’t even appear that “anti-Zionism” per se fully defines radical Islamism. Rather radical Islamism seems to be a reaction against the specific kind of Zionism held by American neo-conservatives.

In which case, I am a radical Islamist. But there’s a problem with that. You see, I’m not a radical Islamist. I’m not even an anti-Zionist, as some irate commenters here would be happy to inform Dr. Berman. I fully support Israel’s right to exist even as I strongly protest their treatment of Palestinians, the bombing of Lebanon, and other actions.

It is precisely Berman’s kind of incoherent pseudo-reasoning that led us into the current mess, at least on the intellectual level. Saddam did not equal Mullah Omar. Wahabbism is not the dominant practice in Iran. It is impossible to imagine enthusiastic support for Al Qaeda in Iraq from the mullahs in Iran. And strenuous objection to Likudism is not extremism, let alone de facto support for islamist goals.

I can only speak for myself but it distresses me to see the incomparably brave Ayaan Hirsi Ali align herself with the neoconservatives, even as I understand it – what does she know or care about American foreign policy except to the extent it impacts her immediate concerns? Those of us who know neoconservatism and the damage it’s done are just as understandably repulsed, reluctant to enter into an alliance with Ali that provides these scoundrels and buffoons any credibility.

In short, Dr. Berman: it’s the neo-conservatives, stupid. True, liberals need to articulate better an objection to radical Islamism that will enable people like Hirsi Ali to join us. But that is no reason for liberals to form an alliance of convenience with some of the dumbest people on the planet. Put another way, just as a viable alternative to bin Laden is not George W. Bush, a viable opposition to radical Islamism is not neo-conservatism.