Month: January 2004

That’s Bush’s advantage over a generic Democrat in one of the most conservative states in the country. Not encouraging for the White House.

TAKING THE TEST: So I took Dan Drezner’s cue and went to the Presidential Match Guide, which asks various questions about public policy and then determines whom you should vote for. I was a little taken aback. It’s probably my liberal instincts on things like the death penalty, gay rights, and immigration, but George W. Bush ended up my last choice – after every single Democrat. He’s behind Al Sharpton! Of course, they didn’t have a question like: do you think a race-baiting demagogue would be a good president? Or: does the mental stability of former generals play a role in your decision? Still, I’m struck that I turn out to be such a Democrat on the issues. For the record: my computer-generated preferences were in descending order: Lieberman 100 percent, Kerry 95, Clark 90, Edwards 88, Sharpton 86, Dean 83, Kucinich 76, Bush 61. I think this basically debunks the entire exercise. Or else it’s more evidence that I am one conflicted political animal. But then you knew that already.

PICKING A NIT: I’ve wrestled for a few days with whether I should post a correction about my comments on Josh Marshall’s recent review essay on American “imperialism.” A few readers have pointed out that, despite my assertion to the contrary, there is too a mention of 9/11 in Marshall’s essay. He refers to it once at the beginning of the piece, and incidentally once thereafter – so I’m an idiot. Can I read? Nyah, nyah, nyah, etc. Of course, I am aware that there is a single chronological mention of the date in an essay of several thousand words. I wasn’t engaged in linguistic computer analysis of the piece. My point was and is that the event plays no role whatever in Marshall’s analysis. It might as well not have happened. You can make your own mind up about the piece, which is why I provided a link. But my reading, I think, is a completely cogent one. Now technically speaking, there is one direct mention of 9/11 in a piece of several thousand words. For the record, I feel bound to correct that. I also made a dumber error that I do not proffer as an excuse, just an explanation: I intended “nary” to mean “barely.” My original version of the item – on my draft document sheet – says simply ‘not.’ Realizing that was technically not true, I changed it to “nary” on the blog, thinking that would cover it. Not according to the dictionary. My bad. Here endeth the penance. My nit is hereby picked.

My interview with Front Page and my Time magazine piece on Bush’s penchant for micro-managing people’s lives are now posted opposite.

Here’s the choice we may face in November. It’s how John Kerry understands the threat of terrorism:

The war on terror is less — it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.
But it’s primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world – the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven’t embraced, because otherwise we’re inviting a clash of civilizations.
And I think this administration’s arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path. I will make America safer than they are.

Back to the 1990s or post-9/11 Bush. Law enforcement versus war. It’s a clear and important distinction. Let’s put it at the center of this debate, where it belongs.

ABC News, hardly a pro-war outlet, details Saddam’s bribes.

Good for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

The very idea that gay people are trying to tear down marriage is nonsense; heterosexual people are doing quite fine on their own in that regard and hardly need the assistance of others. Gay people have not caused the divorce rate to soar. Gay people haven’t caused the rise in single-parent families. To make gay people the scapegoat for the problems that plague modern marriage is absurd on its face.

In fact, to the degree that gay Americans wish to join in marriage, it ought to be seen as an endorsement of the institution, as a recognition that the civilizing merits and rich emotional rewards of marriage appeal not just to people of all cultures, races and ages, but to people of all sexual preference as well.

The interest of gay Americans in getting married is a celebration, a validation of marriage. It is not a threat.

Ten, 20, 30 years from now, we’re going to have to go back into the Georgia Constitution to pull this hateful language out. And some of the very politicians who today will vote in favor of that language will no doubt be there when it is repealed, sheepishly trying to explain how it wasn’t really about hate and discrimination, how back then they were just worried about protecting marriage and the family.

And you know what? Nobody will believe them. Nor should they.

I sure won’t.

Even in New Hampshire.

All the signs are that the Republicans plan to disinter the old “l-word” campaign against Kerry. Liberal, liberal, liberal. To which the best response is: dated, dated, dated. The Finklestein strategy is very tired. Like an ad campaign that has lost its punch, it might backfire badly – making it look as if the Republicans are simply negative and still living in the past. A much smarter move, it seems to me, would be to paint Kerry as simply all over the map. Show not just how liberal he has been – but how conservative he has tried to seem in the past as well. Use his war votes – against the Gulf War in 1991 (but for it in letters to constituents) and for the Saddam War in 2003 (but against the $87 billion to make it work) – to cast doubt on whether he really is decisive enough to be president at a time of war. Make him look weak and vacillating rather than extreme and liberal. That makes the case for Bush’s war-leadership indirectly – and therefore more effectively.

I’m struck in chatting with British friends by how rare it is to find many in England currently rejoicing over the humiliation of the BBC. It’s not that the Beeb is well-loved; or that the criticisms aren’t valid. It’s that the Blair government has become extremely unpopular – and its vindication might actually intensify that. Here’s a typical email:

Everyone I have spoken to here who is not directly involved in politics (but who keeps a “watching brief” on events as they affect our daily lives) is horrified. We seem effectively to live in an elected dictatorship: over-reaching powers of Tony Blair without any check whatsoever; supine parliament (whose powers of scrutiny have been wrecked by said Prime Minister); pliant judiciary; and a commercial media hamstrung by regulation preventing any form of political partiality. The inquiry seems to have suddenly clarified the unease that a number of us here have felt deep down for some time.

The Hutton inquiry was a joke. Procedural lapses in the BBC news department were seized upon as examples of the worst sort of behaviour. But hardly a word was said about the fact the the Prime Minister held high-level meetings at 10 Downing Street on the two days before the MOD released Kelly’s name WITHOUT ANY MINUTES BEING TAKEN (at least, that is what we are told). None of those present at those meetings were ever questioned about this, shall we say, procedural lapse, and it remains the greyest area about the whole affair.

The damage of trust to such an institution as the BBC, is damage to the fabric of trust in Britain. It was threadbare last week: now it barely exists. A Guardian poll today shows that 30 percent of people regard the BBC to be more truthful than the government. only 10 percent believe the opposite. We cannot continue to have an active polity with such disgust and contempt swilling around: things will have to change or it will spill over into something nasty.

We’ve had the Hutton bomb-shell. The fallout has only just begun and may be far bigger than any of us realise. Now that you’ve got your sacrificial lambs, please think about those of us who actually have to live here and have suddenly found our country even less pleasant and comfortable to live in.

Worth pondering. Sometimes, American love of Blair reminds me of British fondness of Clinton in the 1990s. The closer you get to both men the more loathing you find. And vice versa. (There’s more feedback and criticism of yours truly on the Letters Page.)

Now Rush is in on the act. Does Bush think that Tony Kushner is going to vote Republican now that the NEA is getting more money? Or is this purely a favor to Laura and a tribute to the great work Dana Gioia has been doing? Who knows? All I know is that the Bushies seem to have lost their political touch to a worrying degree. But this quote is worth passing on:

There is not even the smallest thing “conservative” about tax cuts and spending increases as far as the eye can see. Republicans who pretend otherwise are selling a “free lunch” that wastes wealth, decapitalizes the country and burdens the next generation with a massive negative compound interest problem. All that is being done is a con job on public in which the people are fooled into thinking they and the country are wealthier than they really are – and that govenment goodies are a costless “free lunch”. Well, there is no free lunch. The classic “unseen” cost of this “free lunch” shell game is the cost which will be borne by later generations who will be burdened with the massive weight of government debt, rather than advantaged by the wealth stream made possibly by private sector capital goods investment.

My feelings entirely.

A KURTZ PARALLEL: A Reason reader comes up with an identical form of argument to the one Stanley Kurtz deploys in his recent Weekly Standard article. It’s worth throwing into the debate:

The rate of interracial marriage in the United States has boomed during the last thirty years. Over the same time period, rates of divorce and premarital sex have climbed, and marriage rates have dropped, abortion has surged, and the number of children born per couple has declined. Ergo interracial marriage is to blame for divorce, promiscuity, abortion, low rates of childbirth and the decline of marriage.

Of course! And if you had the existing prejudice against inter-racial marriage, you’d overlook the fact that no causation has been proved at all.

Altogether now – awwwww:

This is the hardest e-mail I’ve ever written.
In a few minutes I’ll be announcing to the outside world that I’m leaving after four years as Director General [of the BBC]. I don’t want to go and I’ll miss everyone here hugely.

However the management of the BBC was heavily criticised in the Hutton Report and as the Director General I am responsible for the management so it’s right I take responsibility for what happened.

I accept that the BBC made errors of judgement and I’ve sadly come to the conclusion that it will be hard to draw a line under this whole affair while I am still here. We need closure. We need closure to protect the future of the BBC, not for you or me but for the benefit of everyone out there. It might sound pompous but I believe the BBC really matters.

Throughout this affair my sole aim as Director General of the BBC has been to defend our editorial independence and to act in the public interest.

In four years we’ve achieved a lot between us. I believe we’ve changed the place fundamentally and I hope that those changes will last beyond me. The BBC has always been a great organisation but I hope that, over the last four years, I’ve helped to make it a more human place where everyone who works here feels appreciated. If that’s anywhere near true I leave contented, if sad.

Thank you all for the help and support you’ve given me. This might sound a bit schmaltzy but I really will miss you all. I’ve enjoyed the last four years more than any other time in my working life.

Raines. Boyd. Davies. Dyke. Does it get any better for fair journalism? The Beeb’s spoiled brats, meanwhile, are livid.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “It is wrong for the United States to force other countries to become democratic. True, facism and tyranny are the opposite of what we believe in, but going over to another country and deposing facist dictators or tyrants to replace them with our political system is nothing but American imperialism, which runs contrary to democracy. As a Salvadorean who lived thru the turmoil of Central America’s communist insurrection in the late 70’s and early 80’s, I can tell you that revolutions are never imported; they rise from within. Going over to Iraq and bombing the hell out of that country because our misguided prez thought that there were WMD’s there aimed at our shores is almost justified; but saying that we went to Iraq to depose a dictator and ‘free’ the Iraqis so that they could become a democracy is shameful and a crime.” Yep, for some on the left, the liberation of people from tyranny is indeed now a shame and a crime. More feedback on the Letters Page.