Month: January 2002

I caught a late lunch with Dick Morris today. It was the first time I’d met him (we were instructed to meet by a memo direct from Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Headquarters). First off, he reminded me that I had trashed his last book for the New York Times Book Review. Still, he was immensely good-natured about it. I’d completely forgotten, of course. One reason I keep my social life to my non-political friends is that I’ve written so many tough words about fellow hacks that I usually spend cocktail parties hiding behind couches. Anyway, Morris struck me as a real original. When he’s right, he’s amazingly perceptive, even close to genius. When he’s wrong, he’s really wrong. He also struck me as very human, vulnerable, smart, emotional. He had managed to keep his own identity apart from his public identity – no easy thing given the circles in which he runs. It was a private affair so I won’t kiss and tell but I was curious about his take on Clinton’s record on terrorism. He told me that he’d been able to interest Clinton about almost any subject … except terrorism. When the subject came up, Clinton’s eyes would glaze over and his interest would trail off. I also inquired about Buddy. All Dick said was that he had never seen Clinton so much as touch a dog in private. Figures. Generally speaking, I’ve found Morris’s political predictions to be pretty uneven, but he seems to feel the Dems may well take all of Congress this fall. After a while, Charles Krauthammer spotted us and invited us up for coffee. More plots. Dropped by TNR for chat. The Goldhagen piece on the Church and anti-Semitism is indeed out – and the cover-story. (The glacial pace of TNR’s website means it isn’t posted yet, alas.) I hope to read it this weekend and report back.

Ron Rosenbaum gives his opinion.

MORE ON IRAN: Check out Frankie Foer’s piece on the administrations odd priorities – thus far. But they seem to be changing.

People I trust close to the administration tell me not to fret about any loss of momentum or resolve in the war on terrorism. I believe them. But I hope president Bush makes clear in his State of the Union address that we are as yet only at the end of the beginning of this war. The “loose ends” in Afghanistan, as the New York Times calls them today, are more than that. Those loose ends are the al Qaeda leadership, the rogue Pakistani intelligence services, and even some less than disciplined authorities in Kandahar. Until these loose ends are firmly tied, we should be wary of moving on too precipitously. I see no problem with focusing next on Somalia, the Philippines, or Yemen. There are also practical reasons for a lull – replenishing armaments, rotating troops, managing the Pakistani-India stand-off. But we cannot delay Iraq or Iran indefinitely. I linked yesterday to a Yossi Klein Halevi piece on the growing Iranian threat. Today’s Safire column about the Iranian money behind the PLO’s latest shipment of weaponry adds urgency to the endeavor. The simultaneous appearance of Reza Pahlavi’s op-ed in the Washington Post today suggests a sea-change in elite opinion is underway. At the very least, we should now step up rhetorical and financial aid to the opposition movements in both countries. We know one thing: we will never be safe until the current regimes in Baghdad and Tehran are destroyed. What Bush should know is that mere reactive efforts – the Clinton strategy – are less than worthless. We must take the war to the enemies of civilization just as relentlessly as they have taken the war to us and our democratic allies. And we must keep surprising.

WHO KILLED BUDDY?: Inquiring minds demand to know.

THE UNVARNISHED TRUTH: Victor Davis Hanson doesn’t mince words in this expansive essay in the new City Journal:

“If Israel did not exist, the Arab world, in its current fit of denial, would have to invent something like it to vent its frustrations. That is not to say there may not be legitimate concerns in the struggle over Palestine, but merely that for millions of Muslims the fight over such small real estate stems from a deep psychological wound. It isn’t about lebensraum or some actual physical threat. Israel is a constant reminder that it is a nation’s culture-not its geography or size or magnitude of its oil reserves-that determines its wealth or freedom. For the Middle East to make peace with Israel would be to declare war on itself, to admit that that its own fundamental way of doing business-not the Jews-makes it poor, sick, and weak.”

The rest of the essay, “Why The Muslims Misjudged Us,” is just as robust. What’s particularly refreshing is the strength of Hanson’s serene faith in the superiority of Western democratic culture. It is not somehow racist or condescending to believe in the universal validity of democratic principles, or to see the struggle between those principles and tyranny as a constant theme in world history. And the attempt to redescribe such faith as somehow evil or suspect – whether on the far right or the post-modern left – is a central part of what has gone wrong in our culture, and what we are now, thankfully, putting right.

WHAT THE E.U. IS ALL ABOUT: Forget the common currency. Here’s at least part of what makes the European Union what it actually is. It’s a story about E.U. regulations on when a “sauce” becomes a “vegetable.” Apparently, the growing popularity in Europe of chunky sauces has caused panic among the control freaks and tariff-mongers in the Brussels bureaucracy, so they’re raising the “lump” limit for sauces. If they can’t define something, it can’t be regulated, protected from foreign competition or vetted for legal trade. So you end up with hilarious lump-splitting like this. And you wonder why the sensible Brits are a little leery?

YVES SAINT RUG?: Here’s a question: what credibility can a fashion genius have when he has hair like this. Maybe it’s a rug. That might even be reassuring. But the guy looks like Steve Allen with his finger in a socket.

DRUDGE VERSUS KONNER: Nice catch, Matt. Anyone in journalism has long known that Joan Konner, former head of the Columbia School of Journalism, is a case-study in leftist media bias. Touting herself as independent, she is, in fact, a big donor to left-feminist groups, like Emily’s List, and can barely contain her disdain for non-leftist media. Thus Fox news is biased, but CBS is a model of neutrality. Puh-leeze. She makes Tom Shales look like a fount of reason.

BLOGGER DOWN: My apologies for sporadic posting. I rely on Blogger, a free and wonderful service, that appears to be in a moderate meltdown right now. I haven’t been able to post all day. If you’re reading this, I got lucky.

SPEAKING OF ORIENTALISM: A reader recommends this takedown of Edward Said from the New Criterion a while back.

A defense of Paula Zahn and “A Beautiful Mind,” etc.

It’s hilarious to hear the harrumphing and denials and shock from senior CNN honchos over the recent promo CNN aired for Paula Zahn. The promo for Zahn’s new “show” went as follows: “Where can you find a morning news anchor who’s provocative, super-smart and – oh – just a little sexy?” Apparently, the sound of a zipper being unfastened overlaid the voice-over. The higher-ups professed shock and horror, and maybe they were shocked and horrified. But wasn’t this the television version of a gaffe – that rare moment when networks say publicly what they mean privately? (Dammit, but I’ve just read her new column and Maureen Dowd beat me to the punch on this.) Television, after all, is a visual medium. The most powerful visual symbols are sexual. The notion that you can have successful television without sex is simply utopian. In a highly competitive environment, the premium on sexual imagery is going to be even higher. Hence the prominence of a Paula Zahn. The idea that Zahn has been hired for her crack-journalism skills is ludicrous. This is the woman who put psychics on her show to search for Chandra Levy. She makes Connie Chung look like Sandra Day O’Connor. Of course she’s on the air because she’s hot. When you’re catering to straight men, in particular, a cute face and decent boobs are a huge advantage in capturing and keeping your audience. The tele-bimboes may be competent at what they do – but if they weren’t sexy, they simply wouldn’t be there. Why can’t television executives just admit the obvious?

IRAN WATCH: A very useful piece from Yossi Klein Halevi on the terrorist threat still posed by Iran.

THE THINNEST OF REIDS: I’ve now read Bob Wright’s piece on the war in Slate a couple of times and I’m still befuddled. What is he trying to say? He now concedes that he was basically wrong in his early hyper-skepticism about the Afghanistan campaign:

“I’m not saying that the Persian Gulf War, on balance, wasn’t justified. And I’m not saying that the Afghanistan war won’t in the long run have been a plus. And I’m certainly not saying I didn’t get anything wrong about the war.”

So what is he saying? You try and figure it out. I think he’s saying that even if we did amazingly well in the war on terrorists and terrorist states, there will always be anger against us, and this anger could always find one or a few men to fight back. Sure, but who exactly is denying that fact? The conundrum of what to do with failed societies and failed states is not one that Wright or Charles Krauthammer or anyone I know has managed to solve. And the danger of technology in the wrong hands will always be a danger – and not simply from abroad. What if, say, young Charles Bishop had found some anthrax? I guess what I’m saying is that this problem is logically separate from the problem of this particular war, as is the irrational hatred of some for the U.S. around the world. Some cranks will hate us whatever we do. But that shouldn’t prevent us from defending ourselves and attacking those who wish us harm.

SO WHAT DOES BOB SUGGEST? : Beats me. Some kind of global government is his ultimate goal, though quite how or why that would solve this problem escapes me. The closest I can get to a concrete Wright proposal is the following paragraph:

“And here is the crucial point: Five or 10 or 15 years from now-thanks partly to the Bush administration’s refusal to earnestly seek an international regime for policing biological weapons-the Reids of the world could be much more highly leveraged. Three or four Richard Reids (or slightly more competent versions of him) might kill 10,000, 30,000, even 300,000 people.”

So the solution to global terrorism is an international regime for policing biological weapons? Like the great international regime that managed to contain Saddam Hussein’s nuclear-chemical-biological programs? And such a regime would not only prevent Iraq from unleashing terror but it would also contain the handful of truly determined lone terrorists, the deranged or evil or fanatic? C’mon, Bob. You’ve got to do better than that.

HEADS UP: The buzz at The New Republic is that Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, author of the stunning book, “Hitler’s Willing Executioners,” has an explosive piece on anti-Semitism and the Catholic Church in the upcoming issue. Stay tuned.

ORNAMENTALISM: Several acute readers corrected me on a remark I made about Avishai Margalit and Ian Buruma’s essay on “Occidentalism” in the New York Review of Books. I interpreted the following sentence as a rebuke to Edward Said: “But if one thing is clear in this murky war, it is that we should not counter Occidentalism with a nasty form of Orientalism. Once we fall for that temptation, the virus has infected us too.” In fact, it may be better read as a mild endorsement of Said’s theory of “Orientalism,” rather than a rebuttal. The broader argument, I’d still insist, is obviously counter to Said’s. Another reader suggests that the smartest Said rebuttal is, in fact, David Cannadine’s book on the British Empire, “Ornamentalism.” Cannadine suggests in the book that the British Empire, rather than being fixated on race, was actually based on class. English elites identified with, say, Indian elites more than they did with those lower down the totem pole. Worth checking out.

HOLY SHIT: Among all the whining special interest groups out there, the Catholic League is one of my least favorite. It’s a right-wing version of a left-wing victim group, eager to pounce upon perceived anti-Catholicism anywhere. So it’s always amusing when they trip up. Here’s a story that speaks for itself. American Catholics take offense at a Catalonian folk custom of placing defecating figurines in nativity scenes. The custom has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Catholicism, but the Catholic League has a cow anyway. Don’t they have anything better to do with their lives?

So where the hell is it? Mark Steyn searches in vain.

GO, STUART: Reading Stu Taylor’s measured, calm eviscerations of Tony Lewis’ liberal bigotry is a true pleasure. And it will continue all week in Slate. Don’t miss it.

Iran is now objecting to a new British ambassador because he is a Jew. And we want to cozy up to these bigots?

CHARLES BISHARA?: Was that Charles Bishop’s real name? Was his absent father Arabic? Could that help explain the kid’s confusion?

The Washington Post has a good editorial today on the dangers of president Bush diverting his attention to the economy. Yes, it’s okay for him to blast Tom Daschle for wanting to raise taxes (and not having the guts to say so); but there is still a war on. Bin Laden may still be at large. The next terrorist strike is surely only a matter of time. A massive shipment of arms was just uncovered being smuggled to the PLO; the State Department is being persnickety about funding the Iraqi opposition; there is al Qaeda re-grouping in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan. I’m with Michael Ledeen on this one. No let-up!

ABROAD AT HOME: In that context, I’m not sure whether to be relieved or worried by Paul Wolfowitz’s interview with the Times today. If Wolfowitz is downplaying Iraq, who’s focusing on it? Still, Wolfowitz’s thoughts about extending the war to Somalia, the Philippines, Indonesia and the Yemen are reassuring. They certainly indicate the enormous task ahead of the administration, one which it needs to devote almost all its energies to. Besides, Bush’s concentration on the economy seems to me to be a misreading of his father’s record. The September 11 War is not the Gulf War. It has affected Americans far more directly and they are far more willing to cut the government some slack for being preoccupied with it. The economy will recover anyway. It needs a stimulus like Dick Cheney needs a hair-piece. More important, Bush needs to make the argument that Tony Blair has been making: our economic well-being is directly connected to our international security. A set-back in the war on terrorism will be far more damaging to the economy than the failure of a pork-ridden stimulus package. So stay the course, Frodo. No wobbles, please. As the Post urges, let’s hear those sentences again that we heard on September 20: “I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.”

LETTERS: The great Lord of the Rings analogy-fest. Guess who’s Gollum.

IT’S A SAD WORLD I: I guess I shouldn’t feel moved by this story of a troubled teen who killed himself in Tampa by flying his plane into a building. But this story of an isolated, desperate early adolescence is heart-wrenching stuff. Yes, I know he seemed to have sympathy for bin Laden. But he was 15 years old. Can we also have sympathy for him?

IT’S A SAD WORLD II: Britain’s chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown, holds his 10-day old premature baby as she dies in his arms.

“The extreme critics, like the Wall Street Journal, really pine for the days when there were few or no blacks at Harvard, when the undergraduates were largely stamped from the same upper-class and middle-class mold.” – Anthony Lewis, Slate. The unbearably pious Lewis thus accuses the Journal editors of being out and out racists. Perhaps he actually believes this. Perhaps he doesn’t. I’m not sure which is the more troubling explanation.