Here’s a new group that it seems to me is worth supporting. Contrary to popular myth, Democrats have always supported the military and are very religious. But we do believe that everyone, especially those in the military, have a right to be free of religious or political coercion. Here’s yet another former Republican and Reagan official who has come over to our way of thinking:
Former Reagan White House counsel, Air Force veteran, U.S. Air Force Academy graduate and activist, Mikey Weinstein, today announced the launch of a new nonprofit organization, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), which is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. Weinstein, who filed a federal lawsuit last October to halt illegal proselytizing and evangelizing throughout the Air Force, will serve as president of the charitable organization.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation will serve as a watchdog organization – educating the public and the media on issues related to the separation of church and state within the Armed Forces, and litigating when necessary. Weinstein is joined by some of the nation’s leading military and civic leaders who have united together as founding members of the board. The MRFF will also work with local leaders throughout the country to coordinate grassroots efforts.
“I created the Military Religious Freedom Foundation so that others could join in the fight to assure that our Armed Forces preserve the Constitutional guarantee of the separation of church and state and ensure that junior officers and enlisted personnel are protected from coercive proselytizing and evangelizing by their superiors,” said Weinstein.
[…]
Weinstein began his efforts to combat the disregard of the Constitutional guarantee of the separation of church and state within the Armed Forces when he learned that his sons, cadets at the Air Force Academy, were subjected to taunts and derision because of their Jewish faith and that each had faced proselytizing both from their peers and superiors. He led a nearly two-year struggle to end evangelical religious bias at the United States Air Force Academy, reaching out to government officials and Air Force academy leadership. When these efforts failed, Weinstein, a practicing attorney, took the next step and filed a lawsuit against the Air Force.
A founding tenet of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is that it adheres “strongly to the principle that religious faith is a deeply personal matter, and that no American has the right to question another American’s beliefs as long as these beliefs do not unwontedly intrude on the public space or the privacy or safety of another individual,” according to the foundation’s mission statement.
Although the photos are a disturbing visual account of particular incidents inside Abu Ghraib prison, they should not be viewed as representing the sum total of what occurred.
Your tax dollars at work, boys and girls. Truly an education in how Bush is bringing democracy to Iraq.
(BTW, I would imagine that at least a few folks will download all this stuff before the Feds try to get Salon to pull it, so it will be available somewhere. Nevertheless, you should get over there soon.)
John at Crooks and Liars has the video of Bush congratulating Jason McElwaine the basketball player who has autism. I know that it was a cheap stunt on many levels, but I’m with John — it was a nice thing for Bush to do on its own merits. And I have to say that Bush actually seemed like a real human when he was talking about it. For the first time in, well … ever.
If you haven’t seen Jason’s amazing feat, go over to C&L and check it out.
So the Republicans are finally coming right out and saying that Russ Feingold is helping the terrorists by calling for censure. I’m just surprised it didn’t happen sooner. Bill Frist pretty much said it himself on Sunday:
George, what was interesting in listening to my good friend, Russ, is that he mentioned protecting the American people only one time, and although you went to politics a little bit later, I think it’s a crazy political move and I think it in part is a political move because here we are, the Republican Party, the leadership in the Congress, supporting the President of the United States as Commander in Chief, who is out there fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban and Osama bin Laden and the people who have sworn, have sworn to destroy Western civilization and all the families listening to us. And they’re out now attacking, at least today, through this proposed censure vote, out attacking our Commander in Chief. Doesn’t make sense.
(Don’t you just love the idea that “our” Commander in Chief is “out there” fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban and Osama bin Laden?” Maybe the Delta Force has rendered them to Crawford where Rambo Bush and Dirty Cheney hunt them like plucked turkeys.)
Bush’s latest success came as part of a supposed “concession” to Congress that would grant two new Republican-controlled seven-member subcommittees narrow oversight of Bush’s warrantless wiretapping of Americans.
While “moderate” Republican senators — Mike DeWine of Ohio, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska — hailed the plan as a retreat by the White House, the deal actually blesses Bush’s authority to bypass the courts in spying on Americans and imposes on him only a toothless congressional review process.
Indeed, the congressional plan may make matters worse, broadening the permissible scope of Bush’s wiretaps to include Americans deemed to be “working in support of a terrorist group or organization.”
Given Bush’s record of stretching words to his advantage — and his claim that anyone who isn’t “with us” is with the terrorists — the vague concept of “working in support” could open almost any political critic of the Bush administration to surveillance.
Now we have Republican senators saying explicitly that Russ Feingold is helping the terrorists. You do the math. Everyone is supposed to simply “trust” a president and his rubber stamp bedwetters to not use such sweeping laws against political opponents.
Very recent history shows that we are very wise to be suspicious of such things. It is not only not unimaginable, it was definitely done, within my adult lifetime, by a former GOP president and many of that president’s staff and acolytes who are now in the Bush administration. Congressional oversight was what nailed them before and they are determined not to be tripped up by that pesky constitutional requirement again.
For a full primer on this issue, read this fascinating article about conservative southern Democrat, Senator Sam Ervin, whose devotion to civil liberties led him to pursue inquiries that led all the way to the White House:
“For the past four years, the U.S. Army has been closely watching civilian political activity within the United States.” So charged Christopher H. Pyle, a former intelligence officer, in the January 1970 edition of Washington Monthly. Pyle’s account of military spies snooping on law-abiding citizens and recording their actions in secret government computers sent a shudder through the nation’s press. Images from George Orwell’s novel 1984 of Big Brother and the thought police filled the newspapers. Public alarm prompted the Senate Subcommittee on ConstiÂtutional Rights, chaired by Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina, to investigate. For more than a year, Ervin struggled against a cover-up to get to the bottom of the surveillance system. Frustrated by the Nixon Administration’s misleading statements, claims of inherent executive powers, and refusals to disclose information on the basis of national security, the Senator called for public hearings in 1971 to examine “the dangers the Army’s program presents to the principles of the Constitution.”
[…]
Although he did not know it at the time, Senator Ervin had started down the road to Watergate. It was during the subcommittee’s investigation of Army surveillance in 1970 and 1971 that Ervin stumbled onto the secretive programs and questions of executive power that would lead him to chair the famous Watergate Hearings in 1973. Ironically, it was at the same time that Ervin began his investigation into military spying that Richard Nixon and his men began their own political espionage that put them, too, on the road to Watergate.
[…]
Attorney General John N. Mitchell provided the legal basis for the increased domestic surveillance soon afterward. According to the Attorney General’s spokesman, the Administration had the right to collect and store information on civilian political activity because of “the inherent powers of the federal government to protect the internal security of the nation. We feel that’s our job.” Thus, the Administration claimed a virtually unchecked power — not subject to Congressional oversight — to carry out unlimited domestic surveillance on anyone it wished.
The Church Commission, formed after the Nixon administration, recommended the creation of the FISA court as a direct result of the abuses of the previous few decades on the part of both Democratic and Republican administrations. Republicans were upset by this:
An intense debate erupted during former U.S. president Gerald Ford’s administration over the president’s powers to eavesdrop without warrants to gather foreign intelligence, newly disclosed government documents revealed.
Former president George Bush, current Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney are cited in the documents. The roughly 200 pages of historic records reflect a remarkably similar dispute between the White House and Congress fully three decades before President George W. Bush’s acknowledgment he authorized wiretaps without warrants of some Americans in terrorism investigations.
“Yogi Berra was right: it’s deja vu all over again,” said Tom Blanton, executive director for the U.S. National Security Archives, a private research group that compiles collections of sensitive government documents.
“It’s the same debate.”
You have to give these guys credit for having patience. They lost a debate 30 years ago but the minute they were able to get an airheaded puppet in the white house and a bunch of blind eunuchs in the congress it was as if it never happened. They never liked the law so they just didn’t follow it.
Donna Brazile broke from the establishment today and wrote this in Roll Call:
Don’t Ignore the Feingold Resolution. Embrace It
The progressive blogosphere is on fire right now. Web loggers are pumped up about the effort by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to censure President Bush for breaking the law on domestic surveillance and taking matters into his own hands. Feingold, a potential 2008 presidential contender, announced the controversial resolution Sunday on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” (Full disclosure: I was a participant in the show’s roundtable conversation.) Since then, this topic has activated the party’s base online and generated an onslaught of babble on talk radio stations across America. Feingold hadn’t even left the studio when Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) condemned the proposal as “a crazy political move.” I disagree. It’s a desperate political move to save our democracy.
[…]
Many bloggers say they want Democrats to be bold and decisive when it comes to protecting the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law. For those who worry that this issue will create more tension between the progressive “net-roots” types and the party’s base, I say fear not. Let’s use this resolution to talk about what’s really troubling so many Democrats and other astute Americans: the lack of Congressional oversight and accountability. No sooner had Feingold made his announcement than Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) was on CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer” urging caution. In other words, hold your powder — wait until the investigation, if any occurs, is completed before urging action.
As a Beltway insider, I am convinced that we cannot continue to tell those who have loyally supported our Democratic leaders to wait. Wait for what? Wait until our pollsters give us the green light to speak up? Should we continue to wait, hoping that the Republicans will finally invite Democrats into the room when important decisions affecting our national security are made? All I know is that people outside the Beltway have grown deeply impatient with our focus-group style of politics. They want to see some bold changes and some new leadership.
It’s time to break with the same-old, same-old and use the Feingold resolution to force the Republican-controlled Congress to commit to serious oversight of the controversial, but increasingly popular, surveillance program. The message from the left-leaning blogosphere is clear: Democrats should understand the real issue. The point is not censure or impeachment; it is Congress’ lack of oversight and its failure to hold anyone accountable for major mistakes or missteps. And especially, it’s about clearly misleading the American public…While the Feingold resolution is not going anywhere given the full Republican control of Washington, D.C., a change in leadership in the fall would make this a ripe item for conversation and action in 2007 and beyond.
Yes, it looks as though we have to clean up the same messes we cleaned up the first time these miscreants were in power and we’d better start preparing the public for it. Saying “trust us” isn’t going to cut it:
Civil liberties watchdogs worry that, in the reaction to 9/11, security agencies are going overboard, much as they did during the 1960s and early ’70s, when huge programs of illegal spying and dirty tricks led to reforms (box).”These agencies haven’t remembered what happened to them in the ’70s,” says University of Georgia scholar Loch Johnson, who as a staff member on the House and Senate intelligence committees helped draft those reforms. “You heard the same arguments back in the Johnson and Nixon administrations: ‘Why do you want to shackle our hands?'”
Why indeed. Given their history, we’d be fools to accept their assurances that they are not using their extraordinary police, military and intelligence power to spy on their political opponents. That’s what they always do. There are many, many examples of this administration’s “grown-ups” lying in wait for a quarter century to roll the clock back to a time of Richard Nixon and the Imperial presidency.
Call your Senators. Get Feingold’s back. Brazile is right on this. The establishment Dems and the weak-kneed courtiers in the pundit and strategist class who whisper in their ears are on the wrong side of history and they’d better get right with it. Here’s an email I got today from a reader:
At times like this I feel that the U.S.A. has been lost and will never again be found. Here we have a president who failed to protect us from foreseeable threats, lied us into an imprudent and unnecessary war (with tremendous loss of national treasure), presided over the destruction of one of the great American cities, spies on the American people and lies about it, and is currently seen as unfavorable by 2/3 of the American people. Yet our Democratic leaders are too timid to even criticize him for fear of being considered against the war on terrorism or being partisan.
With all due respect, Democrats should be kicking Bush in the teeth every chance they get. Every word from their mouths should remind people of what Bush has brought to this country.
I am embarrassed to be a Democrat after seeing the reaction to Feingold censure resolution. I am mortified for our country. I don’t think there is any hope. Our party is the party of Neville Chamberlain. The way we are acting as a party we don’t even deserve to be compared to Americans.
These are your people, Democrats. You’d better listen to this or they are going to be hard pressed to leave the house this November and vote for you. As Rove says, “politics is TV with the sound turned off” to millions of people in this country. All they see is another Democratic retreat. They may not like the Republicans but they also don’t see how a party like ours can beat them.
Democrats’ biggest enemy right now is rank and file Democratic defeatism. They ignore it at their peril. The Republicans aren’t and they will spend every minute of every day working to make Democratic voters feel powerless and weak, no matter how low the GOP falls in the polls. This kind of thing helps them make their case.
Update: Brazile was on Blitzer this afternoon and said this:
BLITZER: Because you know a lot of Democrats are nervous about this resolution.
BRAZILE: Well, they’re nervous — when Jack Murtha spoke out about a timetable, they were nervous. Now the president is almost embracing it.
So just hold your horses, get behind Russ Feingold. Things will be OK in the morning.
Torie Clarke went on to say “bring it on” to try to intimidate the Dems into continuing to believe that they cannot criticize the president on national security. They really need to stop saying that. It hasn’t been working out for them.
Update II: Here’s an interesting analysis of the polling on the issue by Mystery Pollster.
I would suggest that the more Democrats say they approve of the program, the more people will believe there isn’t anything wrong with it. Funny how that happens.
I got an e-mail from the writer of this post called “I’m Not Sick of Atrios or Digby: Building a Team Means Religious and Secular Liberals Hearing Each Other Out” in which Atrios and I are taken to task for our hostility to religion.
I love Atrios, but he’s not exactly politically savvy when it comes to the concerns of religious moderates and liberals–the fastest growing part of the Democratic Party base. One would think that just as a matter of real politic that the fastest growing part of your coalition would be entitled to some basic respect if not props. But, alas, not from Atrios.
[…]
Digby also weighs in: Perhaps some of these religious politicans (sic)could speak to the flock about giving some respect to the non-faithful. It’s the Christian thing to do.
We’re not politicians here, but that’s exactly what groups largely led by the religious community do: the Interfaith Alliance, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, etc etc Come on, guys. No one is trying to convert you–we’re just asking for the most basic respect.
Unfortunately, he excerpted the only paragraph in my piece in which I say that secular Dems should be treated with more respect, which was actually sort of a wry joke. The rest of my long post was spent pointing out that the vast majority of Democrats are religious and that those of us who aren’t, contribute to, work and vote enthusiatically for those who are. My main beef with Amy Sullivan and others like her was that she seems to have internalized facile GOP talking points and unthinkingly uses them against Democrats. (That is also, I believe, what Atrios was claiming he was “sick of.”) To portray the left as being “knee jerk” anti-faith is unfair and plays into the negative image that Republicans have spent years cultivating. Let he who casts the first GOP meme be chastized.
I take the point about building coalitions. But, those moderates whom Sullivan claims would vote for Democrats if only they didn’t believe the Republican campaign to protray us as hostile to faith, will undoubtedly be moved to do so if religious Democrats make clear that the vast majority of our policies and our politics stem from faith as well, which everyone acknowledges. Many of our values about equality and community and fairness and tending to those less fortunate come from the religious tradition. The civil rights movement grew directly out of the church and there are no liberals who repudiate or belittle it. When Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson or Jimmy Carter or John Kerry or any number of the Democratic politicians I mentioned in my post speak in the language of faith we non-believers vote for them without a second thought.
All of us Democrats share a common set of political values and principles, regardless of religion. As a member of the small minority of non-believers in the party I have no problem with our leaders using religious language and emphasising the religious nature of those commonly held principles and values.
But unsurprisingly, I’m not crazy about being the scapegoat for Democratic losses, particularly since the data does not bear that out. Nor do I think most Democrats agree with the proposition that the party needs to adopt conservative social positions in order to win. If there is hostility to religion, it’s hostility to conservative religion — and not because it’s religion but because its conservative. We are liberals after all. If Sullivan and others want to move the party to the right on social issues let’s put religion aside and talk about that. Using religion to bludgeon Democrats into believing that they are offending the faithful unless they change their attitudes about personal liberty is cheap.
It’s also important to point out, in the interest of keeping the facts squarely on the table, that numbers of religious liberals and Democratic moderates may be growing, but they are not the fastest growing part of the Democratic base. Indeed, they are not the fastest growing part of the nation:
— Catholic adults increased from 46.0 million to nearly 50.8 million, but their proportion in the population fell by nearly two percentage points.
— Although Protestant and other non-Catholic denominations remain the majority, with more than 105.4 million adult adherents, their proportion slid sharply from 60% to 52%.
— 2.8 million adults give their religion as Jewish, down from about 3.1 million in 1990. Another 2.5 million, who say they have no religion or identify with another religion, are of Jewish parentage, were raised Jewish or consider themselves Jewish.
— The number of adults who identify with a non-Christian religion rose sharply, from about 5.8 million to 7.7 million. However, their proportion remains small, 3.7% up from 3.3% in 1990.
— Muslim/Islamic adults total 1.1 million — nearly double the number in 1990. Those identifying their race as black are 23% of the group; the others overwhelmingly identify as white or Asian.
One of the most striking 1990-2001 comparisons is the more than doubling of the adult population identifying with no religion, from 14.3 million (8%) in 1990 to the current 29.4 million (14.1%). The 1990 figure may be downwardly biased due to a slight change in the wording of the key survey question in 2001. In seeking a more accurate measure of identification, the clause “if any” was added this year to the question, “What religion do you identify with?” The prior wording may have subtly prompted respondents to name some religion.
ARIS 2001 goes further than its predecessor in investigating such new territory as membership in a place of worship, change of religious identification over one’s lifetime, and religion of the spouse or partner of respondents. Findings reveal, among other things, a huge gap between religious identification and affiliation with a place of worship. Although 81% of America’s adults identify with a religion, only 54% reside in a household where anyone belongs to a church, temple, synagogue, mosque or other place of worship. About 20% of those who say they have no religion (including many atheists and agnostics) nevertheless report that they or someone else in their household is a member of a religious congregation. About 40% of adults who describe themselves as “religious” report no membership in any religious congregation.
Since 1991, the adult population in the United States has grown by 15%. During that same period the number of adults who do not attend church has nearly doubled, rising from 39 million to 75 million – a 92% increase.
I’m not suggesting that because you don’t go to church, you aren’t religious. But it does suggest that the coveted evangelical vote, which is very church based, may not be where the religious action is.
And I don’t point any of this out to say that the party should cater to non-believers. The total number of admitted non-believers may be growing, but they are just 14 pecent of the country — a small minority. The Democrats know this very well. No politican in the country can win if he is not sufficently religious and they wouldn’t dare to even try.
But these numbers do back up the fact that this isn’t about religion. It’s about social conservatism. That’s a different argument.
When you dig into American religiosity you find some very interesting data and many contradictions. It is not a monolith by any means, not even within the various factions of the “born-again.” What people say and what they do and what they really believe are often different. As opposed to the 7% of people who believe in Evangelical Christianity, which has a very cohesive set of beliefs, faith in America in general is incredibly complicated.
The outcomes suggest that faith does have an impact on how people live, according to George Barna, who directed the research. “It seems that areas of life most clearly related to religious beliefs, such as moral behavior and serving the needs of disadvantaged people, are somewhat affected by involvement in church or through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The data also show, however, that areas of life that are less overtly associated with people’s religious beliefs – dimensions such as economics, political influence or entertainment choices – may not be impacted by their faith. People need more help in determining how their faith speaks to life issues beyond the obvious connections.
If the religious left would like to engage their fellow religionists on these issues, I’d be very happy. Build that coalition. But trying to slice off the one small faction of organized religous conservatives who currently vote for Republicans based on their (allegedly) shared beliefs on sexual morality is a stupid strategy. There appear to be many millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, New Agers, and unchurched who could be persuaded by faith based liberal appeals. Democrats do not need to change their values of tolerance and equality and liberty to accomodate them. We already share them.
For those of you who are interested in the breakdown of believers to non-believers and how it impacts politics, check out this fascinating state by state breakdown of religious belief.
And it’s terrific, of course. Obviously, I care a lot more about religion than Atrios does (all religious expression, not just one), and there are a few “secularists” that have a public face – but no major politicians who are out and proud of their secularism.
But these are quibbles and besides the point because his conclusions are right on:
We also have some left-leaning Christians who seem to think this perception problem is due to hostility to religion by secular liberals… I don’t understand this. People who perpetuate right wing talking points about Democrats always piss me off especially when they have no basis…
Advocates for the separation of church and state are not advocating secularism, aside from government secularism, they’re simply trying to defend freedom of religion.
[Update: In comments, some excellent distinctions between Wilsonianism and Bushism were drawn by anand. I’m not sure they profoundly change the essential point I was trying to make, vis a vis idealism, but they are extremely helpful in more precisely defining what Wilson meant by Wisonianism. Whether Fukuyama sees Wilsonianism in that way is an open question. It seems pretty clear that he was mashing together two foreign policy extremes, and the invocation of Wilson was rhetorical, to avoid using the term “realistic idealism,” which is almost as hilariously Pynchonian as Catatonic Expressionism.]
Michiko Kakutani reviews Fukuyama’s latest typing in the NY Times, which she calls “an astute and shrewdly reasoned book.” Uh huh. Here’s one of his astute, original observations:
… the tremendous margin of power exercised by the United States in the security realm brings with it special responsibilities to use that power prudently.
Now where did I hear that before? Wait a minute, Yes! Now I remember:
Now in all seriousness, I don’t see any harm in a man considered to be one of the most important brains in international affairs cribbing his ideas from comic book characters. Because when you think about it, it makes a helluva lot more sense than having less than five qualified Arabic translators in the entire FBI pre-9/11 (if that). And it is true, after all, that, well, with great power does come great responsibility – Peter Parker had a smart uncle or whatever he was. And he sure was an astute, shrewd reasoner.
But what is unconscionable is this summary Kakutani provides of one of Fukuyama’s least defensible astute observations:
These errors were worsened in the walk-up to the war in Iraq, Mr. Fukuyama adds, by an us-versus-them mentality on the part of many neoconservatives, who felt they were looked down upon by the foreign policy establishment.
The hell they were! They weren’t looked down upon enough.
They should have laughed Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Kristol, and you, too, Fukuyama out of public influence for the rest of their lives. But nooo…They took them seriously enough to “engage” them. But how do you engage an insane idea except by colluding with the insanity?
And now a chastened Fukuyama admits the errors of his ways – and boy, was that mofo wrong, twice signing PNAC letters urging US presidents to pre-emptively invade Iraq. And what does he advocate now? Dig: Fukuyama calls for a “realistic Wilsonianism.”
Now, there’s a shrewdly astute idea. Make the world safe for democracy; and be realistic about it, utlitizing “soft” power.
Get it, people? Can you believe that this blithering, incoherent fool is considered a serious intellectual about anything, even comic book philosophy? Okay, let me take a deep breath, lower my blood pressure, and briefly explain what’s wrong with “realistic Wilsonianism.”
First, the US has no mission to make the world safe for democracy. Wilsonianism is just America’s ugliest expansionist desires topped off with a smiley face. Second, realism in foreign policy sense is a disaster for US foreign policy. It has encouraged a dangerous ignorance of a foreign country’s culture and politcs (see above re: dearth of Arab translators).
Clearer now? “Realistic Wilsonianism” is a perfect description of the spectacular combination of lies, good intentions, imperial ambitions, cluelessness, and just plain stupidity that eventually led to the proposal and execution of the Bush/Iraq war.
That’s right: what Fukuyama has proposed as a solution to the problem of Bushism is more of the same bullshit that led to Bushism in the first place. Sure, sure, we’ll make war with economic policy instead of guns. As if that isn’t just as stupid and deadly. As if it won’t escalate rapidly right back into Bushism.
So what’s the alternative, you might ask, if not Fukuyama’s hooey? The answer is patently obvious: a liberalism in international affairs – or if you prefer jargon, a liberal pragmatism – that navigates between the Scylla of idealism and the Charybdis of realism, using prudence and caution.
What is so difficult to understand or accept in that? Does it sound too timid? As if it’s somehow cowardly to use the brains God gave us to avoid forseeable disasters. Besides, look where “bold” and “audacious” has got us. Too vague? Not half as vague as the neo-conservative call for The End of Evil – what are they talking about? On the other hand, a pragmatically liberal foreign policy would have recognized the necessity of removing Saddam from power* and balanced that with an equally crucial recognition that the removal of Saddam by US-led invasion would cause Iraq to rapidly reach the Hobbes threshold.
If Fukuyama is considered a serious American intellectual, we are in deep trouble. Guess what? He is. We are.
(Edited and slightly expanded after orignial posting.)
[UPDATE: In case the above sounded like a distinction without a difference, I”d like to point out that Fukuyama’s formulation, as described in the review, focuses on combining two extreme views of foreign policy, neither of which is an intelligent way to behave in the world. My point is that framing a foreign policy by trying to mash together two bad ideas is a terrible idea; it will rapidly lead to extremism. My suggested alternative assiduously steers clear of either extreme and is never idealistic or realistic, but simply pragmatic, prudent, cautious and sensible. ]
[*This is a sloppy overstatement and I apologize for that. What I actually believe is that it was necessary to intensively pressure Saddam, to insist upon inspections and to demand that human rights norms be upheld. Prior to the Bush invasion, Saddam was indeed under considerable pressure, and it was working. No wmd have been found. Regarding human rights, the record was more mixed, but I’m certain that an international effort that eliminated sanctions and effectively compelled adherence to human rights standards was possible.
In other words, there was no necessity to remove Saddam and certainly not by invasion! I clearly misspoke by writing in haste, as I’ve been consistent from day 1 about this.]
There are many people who refuse to go to horror or action films because they find screen violence so upsetting. I’ve always been puzzled by that because, no matter how gory it looks, it is, after all, nothing but ketchup or Karo syrup and dye. We all know that afterwards, the actors simply open their eyes, get up off the stage set, take a shower, and go off to have dinner with their friends and families.
Scenes of real violence never look like a Terminator movie, or even much like Spielberg’s “Munich.” Real violence comes in blurred, random images poorly framed, without slo-mo, without artfully symmetrical splatter patterns and goosed soundtracks with shrieking bird-like fiddles. A movie of real violence isn’t a Peckinpah or Hitchcock movie, but a cheap, fourth-generation video with bad sound, showing a reporter getting his head sliced off. Or it shows those insignificant little things falling off the burning skyscraper, things which happen to be real people, with real children, real friends, real enemies, real thoughts, real fears, and real lives that are about to end. For real.
And when real violence gets reported in words, it’s with one or two inadequate adjectives standing in for the ghastly, reeking smells and the unspeakable textures and sounds of mass murder. And since I have a very active imagination, reports of real violence never fail to revolt me. I know how many countless tragedies – many still to come – are created by each death, and then compounded:
Police found at least 65 bodies in Baghdad in the past 24 hours, including 15 men bound and shot in an abandoned minibus, in a gruesome wave of apparent sectarian reprisal attacks, officials said Tuesday.
The timing of the killings appeared related to the car bomb and mortar attacks in the Shiite slum of Sadr City in east Baghdad on Sunday in which 58 people died and more than 200 were wounded.
The sectarian violence marked the second wave of mass killings in Iraq since Feb. 22, when bombers destroyed an important Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra, north of the capital.
The minibus was found on the main road between two mostly Sunni neighborhoods in west Baghdad, not far from where another minibus containing 18 bodies was discovered last week.
The bodies of at least 50 more men were found discarded in various parts of the capital, police said. All had been shot and many also had their hands and feet tied.
It is only moral – since after all our tax dollars helped create the State of Nature in which these murders happened – to ask each of us to sit quietly and imagine the last 2 or 3 minutes of these people’s lives. And what their mothers, and their children, and their husbands and wives were thinking about, perhaps wondering where they were, if they were just late, or playing with friends… Not that any of these dead are innocent heroes. They are just people -good, bad, and indifferent – who were killed as the result of the dreadful violence unleashed in Iraq on America’s watch. And for which all of America will be blamed.
And with the images of their deaths, and the images of their living loved ones and friends in our mind, it’s time to ask a few questions:
Anyone care to defend anymore the ridiculous proposition that the Bush/Iraq war was a good idea? Or the corollary absurdity that this level of horror could have been avoided simply by 25,000 or 50,000 troops, or “better planning”?
This catastrophe was predictable. The people who refused to listen have blood, not ketchup, on their hands.