Month: June 2001

The obvious choice for the next Tory leader is Michael Portillo, a brash, handsome, smart, fiscal conservative and social liberal. He was once a fire-breather of the Right, but a few years ago, after plenty of rumors, he confirmed that he had once had affairs with men in college, and had something of a change of tone. The usual suspects on the far right found this so abhorrent that they immediately scotched his chances to be a future Tory leader. Worse, the usual suspects on the left – i.e. gay leftists – berated him for alleged hypocrisy for many years and generally for not being a statist like them. Portillo braved it out and now looks set to run for the leadership. I wish him well. His private life, and his sexual orientation, have nothing to do with his ability to be a good politician or party leader. He’s married now and his private life should remain just that – private. Moreover, his experience of being pummeled in this way – and the dignity with which he put up with it – speaks well of him. I wish he’d be less defensive about his gay past; and I also hope that in his very late ‘coming out,’ he doesn’t go wobbly on a whole range of other matters. Now more than ever the British Tories need to stake out clear positions to the right of Tony Blair: much lower taxes, privatization of large parts of the National Health Service, more autonomy for schools, more inclusion of gays and racial minorities, and stiff opposition to the growth of a socialist federal European state. The Tories don’t have so much talent that they can afford to throw away a good potential leader because of gay intolerance on the left and straight intolerance on the right. If they waste Portillo, they’ll deserve more wilderness years. And if Portillo wins, his first task should be to make sure William Hague has a central role in the party. I know I’m biased, but William is a decent man who did right by his party. He deserves a little gratitude; and the Tories cannot afford to waste his talents either.

BUSH IN EUROPE: The usual suspects are bleating that the Europeans are upset about President Bush and that this is a good reason for Bush to change policies to suit, er, the New York Times. This is one of the dumber arguments around right now. If you disagree with Bush’s policies on, say, global warming or missile defense, make the arguments on their merits. But to use European opposition to American policies as proof that the U.S. is wrong is a non-sequitur. Like the Europeans were right in the 1980s when they wanted to keep appeasing the Soviet Union? Like they were right in the 1990s when they kept going on about Kyoto while doing nothing themselves to enforce it? Like they were right in the Balkans when they stood around opening and shutting their mouths until the U.S. took charge? Fareed Zakaria has a typically helpful piece in Newsweek this week clarifying some of these issues. I particularly like his point about unilateralism. When the Europeans send a mission to North Korea entirely to embarrass the Americans, it’s diplomacy. When Bush demurs on North Korea, it’s unilateralism. Go figure. I just hope Bush sticks to his guns in Europe and charms the epaulettes off their dinky and swiftly downsizing armies.

FLORIDA AGAIN: Glad to see the Washington Post’s ombudsman has taken the paper to task for being suckered by the leak of the biased and unpersuasive report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about alleged voting rights abuses in Florida. Read his column and feel better if, like me, you were taken aback by the Post’s coverage.

DON’T HAVE A HEART ATTACK, DUDE: In the annals of silly science, could anyone come up with a daffier one than the notion that pot should stay illegal because it can give you a heart attack if you’re in middle age? I’ve no doubt it’s true. But it’s also true that jogging in middle age can give you a heart attack; so can having sex; so can watching Geraldo. But no-one’s trying to ban any of the above (although one might have reveries about the latter). Cocaine, on the other hand, is apparently harmless in this respect. I guess this is relevant for aging boomer dudes – be careful, guys! – but I don’t see much broader significance than that. But how long will it take the pleasure police to use this material in their war against people’s private choices? Take it away, Gauleiter Walters!

EARTH TO HERBERT II: Finally, the media are beginning to get it. Here’s a good piece from the Washington Post today about the limits of cheap anti-retrovirals in Africa. “AIDS here is not a medical issue. It is a developmental problem, linked to social and economic conditions. It’s a poverty issue.” That’s not me. It’s Marc Aguirre, a doctor in the Ivory Coast. How long, I wonder, before Bob Herbert calls him a racist for telling the truth?

Take a look at this map. Look familiar? Just reverse the colors, as Labour is red in British parlance and the Tories are blue. Notice the rural-urban divide?

HEADS UP: I’m on Jeff Greenfield’s new show on CNN tonight at 10.30pm. We’re talking about McVeigh and the death penalty.

A beautiful few days in New York City. The highlight was the ordination of an old and dear friend of mine as a Jesuit priest. The ceremony was held at Fordham University in the Bronx. I went through a couple of cab-drivers before I finally found one who knew the way from Manhattan. He turned out to be a Puerto Rican Pentecostalist so I had to endure twenty minutes of Catholic-bashing before I got there. But it was worth it. I’d never been to an ordination before – and it defeated all expectations. The ceremony lasted two and a half hours and was presided over by Cardinal Egan, whose homily didn’t exactly raise expectations of an intellectually distinguished term of office. But the rite itself swept all before it. As I saw my old friend lie prostrate in the aisle, face down, as a symbol of his submission to God and the Church, I found tears coming to my eyes. As the chorus, “Veni Sancte Spiritus,” slowly ascended in octaves and volume, you could almost feel the Holy Spirit fill the place with a sort of serious joy. Part wedding, part graduation ceremony, the rite filled me with new hope and enormous admiration for my friend. He has been a priest all his life, in some ways. Some people are like that. They simply serve others – ordained or simply there. And when my friend slowly rose to his feet and the church filled with applause, it felt as if a circle had been completed, and what had been the inner core of his life could now also be his outer identity. I hugged him afterwards and almost called him father. But then I stopped myself and called him something just as sacred: friend.

EARTH TO HERBERT: Bob Herbert, ever on the cutting edge of analysis, has just discovered the notion that the Bush administration is reluctant to provide anti-HIV drugs to South Africa. He argues that the Bushies think prevention measures would be more effective since the drug regimens are too costly and complicated for countries without a decent medical infrastructure. All of this is a preamble to the point of his column – actually the point of almost every single column he writes – which is that some white people he knows or has heard about are racists. But does Herbert know that refusing anti-HIV drugs in favor of prevention measures is exactly the current policy of the South African government? If he does know, isn’t his column a deliberate attempt to divert attention from where it obviously belongs? And if he doesn’t, what on earth is he doing writing a column as ill-informed as this one?

A FEW DAYS TOO LATE: William Hague must be cursing the Guardian newspaper today. The paper has declared that a cure for baldness seems imminent. Yay! I’ve been on Propecia for a while, and I’ve definitely grown more hair. I once proposed it to William as a potential cure for his image problems, but he rightly pointed out the media would soon find out and blast him as a phony. Sucks for him. Well, actually, sucked. The bright side of losing the election is that he can get to have a life again. Here’s to more hair and more down-time for the guy. Meanwhile, I’m out tomorrow to buy shares in Glaxo SmithKline.

HARVEY MANSFIELD’S NIGHTMARE STUDENT: Harvard just graduated their first all A student. Not even a single A- in his transcript. How long before 20 percent of the class follows suit?

“DIVINELY ORDERED”: A stunning development in Anglican theology has emerged in a new catechism for the Anglican and Episcopalian churches. The catechism has been endorsed by the second highest ranking English bishop, and says the following: “Homosexuality may well not be a condition to be regretted but to have divinely ordered and positive qualities… Homosexual Christian believers should be encouraged to find in their sexual preferences such elements of moral beauty as may enhance their general understanding of Christ’s calling.” Wow. Now let’s see what the more traditional African and Asian wings of the Anglican Church have to say about this. But the very fact that this catechism has been published and endorsed from almost the very top suggests a sea-change in the West at least.

Actually, it turns out I was spot-on on the British elections. When I went to bed this morning, they didn’t have the percentage figures. Sullivan’s prediction: Labour 43 percent, Tories 32 percent. Actual result: Labour 43 percent, Tories 32 percent. My problem was not caring about the Lib Dems who robbed William of much of a gain in seats. If I were Jonathan Alter, I’d be whining about a system which doesn’t more accurately reflect the popular vote. But then I’m not Jonathan Alter.

Could I have been more wrong about the British elections? I guess my friendship got the better of me. Bottom-line: it was the same result as last time with a smidgen of an improvement for the Tories. The turn-out, however, doesn’t exactly portend a triumph for Tony Blair. It was the lowest turnout in Britain since 1918. Most people, it seems, were disillusioned with Labour but felt they deserved a second term after 18 years of the Tories to make good on their promises to improve the public services. Alas, the Blairites won’t and they can’t. The way that healthcare is provided in Britain is the last remnant of the Soviet Union left on the planet – a vast, bureaucratic, dilapidated, under-funded, sclerotic rationing system designed in the mid 1940s – and Labour is committed to pouring even more resources into it. What William should have done – and what his natural caution prevented him from doing – was to stake out a position much more radical: a retrenchment of the National Health Service, a vast expansion of private healthcare, more independence for schools, much lower taxation, and opposition to the euro. As it stands, Labour now has four more years of near-dictatorial powers, with pressure from the left to use it to drag Britain back away from the reforms of the Thatcher years. Blair won’t do that – he’s too smart. But he’s also trapped – between moving right to privatize parts of the public services in order to deliver and staying on the left to keep his own party together. So more water-treading until the Tories come up with a real policy alternative. As I write – at 3am New York time – the news is that my old buddy William Hague has announced his intention to resign as party leader. I was wrong again. Poor William. An uphill struggle, a good campaign, but not enough. Classy of him to take responsibility. Deeply sad (at least from my point of view) that he had to.

HIV-HUH?: My skeptical look at the alleged recent rise in HIV infections is posted opposite in the new TRB. It’s based on nothing but the CDC’s latest studies – and the absence of much solid data behind them.

When culture-war types like Bill Bennett and Joe Lieberman argue against racy lyrics or sexy movies, they always take pains to point out they just want to shame record companies, radio stations, movie studios and so on to clean up their acts. They always profess shock when anyone accuses them of wanting to impose censorship. Well what else can describe the FCC’s recent $7,000 fine for a Colorado radio station for playing an already expurgated version of Eminem’s “The Slim Shady”? This is one of the first more public initiatives of the FCC under Michael Powell. Uh-oh.

EURO-BLAH: A classic editorial from the New York Times that could have been written at any point in the last thirty years. The Times worries that competing visions of the future of the E.U. from France and Germany could lead to “paralyzing gridlock.” Why would this be a problem? Because European integration is good. Why is European integration good? Because it has been in the past. Why will it be in the future? Is there a limit to such integration? What are the merits of the French and German arguments? Should the E.U. harmonize taxes, leave NATO, and so on? The Times doesn’t answer these questions. But they’re the only relevant questions. What U.S. foreign policy needs to think about now is exactly what kind of European integration is in American interests in the next twenty years. Sadly, we won’t have any help from the Times in actually figuring it out.

WHO SAID THIS ON TUESDAY?: “When we talk about fighting a modern day disease like HIV/AIDS and discuss huge dollar amounts and statistical data, it’s always in my mind that we’re talking about real people – people with loved ones – people with names and hopes and dreams. That’s what makes marking the 20th year of AIDS such a painful commemoration. That pain is deepened by the knowledge of what we have lost. The talents and the lives of those who have died. They are people we have known… people we have loved … people who have contributed greatly to our communities. Their memory drives us and their legacy inspires us to end the tragedy of this disease.” These moving words were uttered by Tommy Thompson, Secretary of State for Health and Human Services at the Kaiser Family Foundation. They are among the most compassionate words spoken about AIDS by a Republican federal office-holder I know of. Which may be why, of course, the media and AIDS activist world largely chose to ignore them.

WHAT THE HECK?: Here’s my prediction for the British election today. (Remember I thought Rick Lazio would win the night before.) Labour: 42 percent; Tories: 33 percent; Lib-Dems: who cares? The Tories will pick up enough seats to keep my buddy William in the hot seat. He will defeat Gordon Brown in the next election in 2005. No-one can accuse me of not putting myself on the line. Please don’t send me any lightly basted crows if I’m wrong. Deal?

Several readers have noticed that, in his interview with Frank Bruni, President Bush’s avowal to deal with the things he can change, live with the things he cannot and know how to tell the difference is uncannily similar to the pledge of Alcoholics Anonymous. Well, good for W. Maybe there’s some zone of privacy and anonymity after all – even for a president.

HOME NEWS: As part of our continuing house-cleaning in advance of our redesign, my 1999 piece, “What’s So Bad About Hate?,” a cover-story for the New York Times Magazine, is now up on the site. You can read it here or in the Culture section of the Greatest Hits. It’s also included in “The Best American Essays 2000.”

You know what I like about President Bush? He knows his limits. He has boundaries, as the shrinks say. In his interview with Frank Bruni of the New York Times (Bruni’s a one-man refutation that the Times is universally anti-Bush), I was struck by Bush’s statements about what he couldn’t or wouldn’t do. Here’s a classic:
“Q. What sort of signals are you sending to Lott or the leadership about how they should proceed with the transfer of power?
A. That’s up to the Senate. One of the things you will learn from the executive branch is that the executive branch should not tell the Senate or the House how to organize. That’s a sensitive – that’s a matter of internal politics, internal procedures.”
Or how about this:
“Q. Don’t you ever just get a knot in your gut at times like that [the Jeffords defection]?
A. Not yet.
Q. Nothing? Not China?
A. A president is – there’s a lot on my plate on a daily basis.
Q. That would suggest the knot would be constant.
A. Well, there are some things over which I have no control and some things I t can influence. And I’m able to distinguish between the two.
Q. And you really think the Jeffords thing, no influence —
A. If a person makes up their mind that they want to make the decision he made, it’s awful hard to change a fellow’s mind. And I talked to him about it as plainly as I could. . . .”
Okay, I know some of you think I’m a complete sap for the guy. My friend Dan Savage came up with the felicitous phrase that I am always looking for the corn in each of President Bush’s turds (thanks, Dan!). But I’m serious when I say this guy seems to have a sense of proportion, of humility, and of common sense. So sue me for saying so. He reminds me of William Hague. Pity not a lot of other people seem to agree on that last one.

A VOICE OF STEELE: Shelby Steele’s essays on race in the 1980s were the most formative contemporary inspiration for my own attempts to rethink some of the assumptions behind gay politics. His piece today in the Wall Street Journal is a brave and good one. Brave because he dares conservatives, i.e. old-style liberals, not to be afraid of their principles – “merit, accountability, competition, the pursuit of excellence,” – against the well-meaning but ultimately empty compassion of today’s liberals, i.e. leftists. And good because he connects these principles to the real and urgent task of bringing everyone more fully into the American experiment. This requires courage. It’s not easy to take on certain entrenched interests who will doubtless demonize those who want minorities to help themselves as “mean-spirited” or “right-wing.” And courage – in a closely divided polity – is not always the political strategy pollsters and advisers urge. I fear George W. Bush is not up to this task. It is not his style. But Steele is right to remind us of Machiavelli’s dictum that taking risks sometimes lessens risk. Think Thatcher and Reagan. Think Truman. And hope, I guess. Hope.

Interesting Washington Post piece on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’s inquiry into Florida’s election machinery. Bottom-line: the machinery sucked – and African-American voters seemed disproportionately affected. Still I have a few caveats. Why was this commission made up of four Democrats, three Independents and only one Republican? Wouldn’t it have more credibility if it had been more balanced? These are deeply partisan waters, after all. I’m also a little suspicious of the fact that the report was leaked before Governor Jeb Bush or Secretary of State Katherine Harris had a chance to provide a prepared response. Again, if you’re trying to present a serious report about a vital civil rights matter, isn’t it unseemly to try to spin the press this way? My last point is that the report, even when weighted so far to the left, exonerates the state of Florida from the charge of deliberately aiming to disenfranchise minority voters. There is “no conclusive evidence” of a “conspiracy” of this kind. The reason that this is a civil rights matter is therefore simply because the result of incompetence, over-zealous cleaning up of the voting felons, and so on, was de facto discriminatory against minorities. But this is not the same as deliberate discrimination. And that distinction, to my mind, matters. Racism doesn’t exist unless it is deliberate and conscious on the part of one human being. I don’t buy the notion of structural racism or economic racism and so on. When this report is used to inflame racial tensions even further (as some McAuliffe Democrats clearly intend), this distinction needs to be kept in mind.

A DAMN GOOD SHOT: Who says that Britain’s famed Eton College can’t raise distinguished scions of empire any more? Eton was the school that gave us Dipendra, the heir to the Nepalese throne, or “Dippy” as his Etonian class-mates called him. He was renowned at school, according to Tunku Varadarajan, for being a “damn good shot” in his formative years. Princes William and Harry went to Eton as well. Be afraid, Camilla. Be very afraid.

MUST READ OF THE WEEK: Check out the inimitable Sam Tanenhaus in this week’s New Republic for a stunning essay-review which helps cement the case that George W. Bush is not the extremist that some on the left are now asserting. The piece is convincing because it takes the long view of what has been going on in the Republican party for a generation or two and sees Bush in that context. Who’d have thought? Political analysis that looks back longer than the last news cycle? This piece is one reason I love my own magazine, even when I disagree with it. Without TNR, American liberalism in its rightful, thoughtful sense would truly be more beleaguered.

LETTER FROM EUROPE: Great email from a European immigrant to the U.S. on my point about liberalism as a religion. (For the record, several readers have let me know that Rush Limbaugh has been voicing this argument for a few years. My apologies for not accrediting him earlier). Here’s the email: “Concerning liberalism as religion: isn’t it simply that the U.S. is experiencing an episode of good old ideological folly? (I am using the word ideology in the sense of Hannah Arendt, or L. Giussani, or in the spirit of Dostoevsky’s “Demons”). I grew up on the continent (in Italy) in the 70’s and I can still recognize a Jacobin when I see one. When I came to this country I expected to find a haven of Anglo-Saxon pragmatism. I was amazed to discover that this country is now pervaded (possibly for the first time in its history) by aggressive ideologies (both left and right), without having any of the anti-bodies that continental Europeans have been developing since 1789 (including an unhealthy amount of cynicism). I also find interesting that the current ideological wave has been building up in the last few decades at the same time when the traditional WASP elite has been replaced (especially in politics, academia and the law) by newcomers whose ethnic/cultural background is much closer to our traditional revolutionaries in continental Europe. Maybe, rather than Locke and Hobbes, it is time to go back to Edmund Burke.” To this I would only add that Burke was the lubricant that made Locke work. It’s not either-or. Surely, it’s both.

THANKS: May was a bumper month for us. 172,000 unique visitors. Wow. Also close to 1200 emails in the last week or so. Their eloquence and passion and concern make me realize how lucky I am to have a site like this and readers like you. I’ve worked overtime to answer almost every one. Onward …