Month: January 2004

“My friend said, ‘I’m for the UN and international law, and I think you’ve become a traitor to the left. A neocon!’
I said, ‘I’m for overthrowing tyrants, and since when did overthrowing fascism become treason to the left?’
‘But isn’t George Bush himself a fascist, more or less? I mean-admit it!’
My own eyes widened. ‘You haven’t the foggiest idea what fascism is,’ I said. ‘I always figured that a keen awareness of extreme oppression was the deepest trait of a left-wing heart. Mass graves, three hundred thousand missing Iraqis, a population crushed by thirty-five years of Baathist boots stomping on their faces-that is what fascism means! And you think that a few corrupt insider contracts with Bush’s cronies at Halliburton and a bit of retrograde Bible-thumping and Bush’s ridiculous tax cuts and his bonanzas for the super-rich are indistinguishable from that?-indistinguishable from fascism? From a politics of slaughter? Leftism is supposed to be a reality principle. Leftism is supposed to embody an ability to take in the big picture. The traitor to the left is you, my friend…'” – Paul Berman, fighting for sanity, in Dissent.

QUOTE OF THE DAY II: “In a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made [Iraq] a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate,” – David Kay, honest hawk.

QUOTE FOR THE DAY III: “Criticising the conduct of US and British policy towards Iraq is legitimate, as is disquiet about the effectiveness of the two countries’ intelligence operations. But impugning the honourable motives of those who sought to defend their countries, by dealing with a threat they believed they could not ignore, is not.” – The Financial Times, yesterday.

CLASSIC KERRY: Noam Scheiber unearths two constituent letters John Kerry wrote before the first gulf War. Kerry’s position? Pro and anti. Just like this time. Can you imagine if he actually has to make a call as president?

This is a bit of a shocker from Sandy Rios, of Concerned Women for America:

An amendment that protects marriage in name only is troublesome to us and does not go far enough… I would also like to say that we don’t think an amendment has a chance of passing at all in this Congress. And so we prefer holding back a little bit until we have a different Congress, different people sitting there before this issue’s even raised.

I think this means they don’t have the votes to push this through. It’s also clear that the hard right will not be satisfied unless the amendment bans civil unions, domestic partnerships and any benefits for gay and lesbian couples.

“Above the neck, nothing but his mouth moves.” – Will Saletan, observing the new Botoxed Kerry on the stump. Yes, I think it’s obvious. I bet it was Theresa’s idea.

SPOT THE MISSING PIECE: Josh Marshall has written an engaging and artful essay about the notion of an American empire for the liberal New Yorker magazine. I read it yesterday and then re-read it. Josh manages to write about the Clinton era “soft-imperialism” and the Bush era “hard imperialism” with nary a mention of a certain even that occurred on September 11, 2001. Maybe I missed something. I doubt if his editors noticed the lacuna. Why should they? For the Clintonites, 9/11 didn’t really happen. Everything the Bush administration has tried to do in foreign policy is perverse, neocon imperialism – despite the fact that Bush ran as less interventionist than Al Gore in 2000. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to them that this administration’s hard line against terror-sponsoring regimes and those developing WMDs was not some ideological plot – but a reaction to events. It’s important to remember that Marshall isn’t some namby-pamby dove. In contrast to many Democrats, he takes national security issues seriously, and is not averse to the use of force. At one point, he even seemed to favor action against Saddam, until it appeared it couldn’t be accomplished under perfect and optimal circumstances. After that, he deferred to president Jacques Chirac. So if Marshall hasn’t noticed 9/11, what chance is there that the rest of the Democratic foreign policy establishment has? Look, I know I’ve been critical of the president’s domestic shortcomings recently. But in the larger choice in this war there really isn’t a choice. It’s self-defense or winging it. When the consequences of winging it could be a biological/chemical/nuclear catastrophe in one of our cities, I’m not sure we have any real option but Bush.

“Such [civil union-style] statutes point to a future in which couples will have many options, from ‘covenant marriage,’ in which both parties sign a contract pledging not to divorce, to a number of less binding choices.” – gay leftist, Richard Goldstein.

“People thinking of living together would then have three choices: civil marriage, religious marriage, and household partnerships. In effect there would be a competition between these three institutions for their custom.” – National Review’s John O’Sullivan.

The much awaited Hutton report is an absolute vindication for Tony Blair and a catastrophe for the BBC. So the BBC Chairman has now resigned. Yay! Here is the BBC’s summary of the findings:

* Dr Kelly killed himself because of a severe loss of self-esteem as he felt he had lost people’s trust and as he was subjected to the media glare.

* BBC governors should have properly investigated Downing Street’s complaints as they defended the corporation’s independence.

* Tony Blair’s wish for the dossier to make a persuasive case might have “subconsciously influenced” Joint Intelligence Committee chairman John Scarlett to put the document in stronger words than usual intelligence reports.

* But Mr Scarlett had acted to ensure the dossier was consistent with reliable intelligence

* There was no “dishonourable, underhand or duplicitous strategy” by the government to leak Dr Kelly’s name covertly to help its battle with the BBC.

* The Ministry of Defence was, however, “at fault and to be criticised” for failing to tell Dr Kelly that his identity as the suspected source would be confirmed to journalists who suggested it.

It doesn’t get more definitive than that.

THE NEW YORK TIMES’ NEW BEAT: They’ve discovered a new species that they’re featuring in Science Times and elsewhere in the paper. And they even have a new reporter for it specifically. The new species is called a “conservative.” New York Times editors and reporters have long heard that such creatures exist, but, under the new aegis of Bill Keller, are determined to actually find a few. They’re even going to talk to some on the phone! There’s no limit to the lengths to which the NYT will go to provide the most comprehensive treatment of the world for their readers.

MORE ON SCANDINAVIA: I’m guilty of an error in my posting about same-sex registered partnerships in Scandinavia. I thought they were open to gays and straights. They’re not. Straights have the option of another marriage-lite option, opposite-sex cohabitation (“samboerskap” in Norway, “samboskap” in Sweden, “samboskab” in Denmark), as well as old-style marriage (“ekteskap” in Norway, “äktenskap” in Sweden, “ægteskab” in Denmark). The cultural significance of these institutions is bound up in language and cultural expectations, which is why it is difficult to make crude cross-cultural claims. RPs, however, are still not marriage (which is the critical point) – and don’t have all the rights that married couples have. They have a different name and are more like California’s civil unions but not as generous as Britain’s civil partnerships. This gets a little confusing after a while. And that’s the point as well: by creating a smorgasbord of civil options for gays and straights in different ways – civil unions, registered partnerships, domestic partnerships, civil partnerships, marriages, etc – the clarity and social power of marriage is deeply diluted. That’s what makes me a conservative on this issue. Some gays disagree with me on this – especially on the left. What’s striking is that the traditional right is now in alliance with the left on supporting all sorts of marriage-lite options in order to prevent marriage for gays. The right worries that gays will contaminate marriage; the left worries that marriage will contaminate gays. What a consensus!

Most of the day, I thought that Edwards was going to be the un-Kerry from now on. Dean was too damaged after losing both Iowa and New Hampshire. But Edwards’ disappointing fourth place showing – behind the nutcase Clark – after such a big win in Iowa has to make his candidacy more suspect. Dean did a little worse than the exit polls suggested. But his concession speech was easily the best of the night. It was authentic, uplifting, and red meat to the Democrats. It actually rang true to me as Dean’s real view of the world. It isn’t one I entirely share, to say the least, but it is genuine, represents a lot of people in this country and deserves a hearing. He seemed more affable than recently as well. He smiled more. He spoke more calmly but not ineffectively. He’s real. Kerry is so fake, in contrast, I cannot believe that Democratic primary voters will continue to support him in such numbers. Dean gave arguments. Kerry spoke in packaged Shrumisms. Dean has a vision. Kerry has ambition. If I were a Democrat, I’d vote for Dean over Kerry in a heartbeat. To my mind, this is a battle between the Democratic party’s soul and its fear. The exit polls showed how Kerry won by seeming more electable – thus trashing an old golden rule of American politics. But the more you see of Kerry the less appealing he is. I’m not sure he really is less electable than the dreary Kerry. Maybe Dean needed this early drubbing to make him more tolerable as a candidate. Maybe it’s too late and Kerry is way too far ahead to be caught. I don’t know. All I know is that what I saw in Dean’s speech – and the extraordinary crowd that accompanied it – was more authentic than anything I have ever seen Kerry say or do. That must count for something.

BUSH IS IN DEEP TROUBLE: I’d say something else. The huge turn-out in New Hampshire; the electability factor for Kerry; the passion of the Dean people: all this shows how thoroughly energized the Democrats are to win back the White House. Bush is in the Rove-Cheney cocoon right now. From the SOTU, it looks like he’s going to run on 9/11. Bad, backward-looking idea. His coalition is fracturing; his reach out to Hispanics seems to have hurt him more with the base than won him new votes; his spending has independents deeply concerned; Iraq is still a wild card; prescription drugs pandering hasn’t swayed any seniors; the religious right wants him to attack gay couples in the Constitution – which will lose him the center. More worrying: I’m not sure he even knows he’s in trouble.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Physically, Kerry’s repertoire is painfully limited. He thrusts his index finger at the audience in an overhead arc again and again, as though launching a projectile. He seems to be trying not to animate his thoughts but to expel them. Above the neck, nothing but his mouth moves. If you showed anyone a video of Kerry with his lips blacked out, they’d never know he was speaking. On television, it often seems as though Kerry is looking at you but not seeing you. In person, you realize he is looking at you but not seeing you. His words are even more stilted, particularly when he ruins a good line by adding prepositional phrases-“in this country … as a fundamental commitment … to all our citizens … regardless of circumstance”-until everyone is silently begging him to stop.” – WIll Saletan, devastatingly persuasive, on the awfulness of John Kerry.

John Ellis thinks so – unless Kerry kills his candidacy off fast.

THE BBC, NOT BLAIR: A stunning victory for Blair in the Hutton report. According to a leak, the report is harshest on the BBC for its role in the affair of David Kelly. I’ve said it before: the BBC must be radically dismantled or privatized. It has gotten out of control.

THE JOBLESS RECOVERY: The Washington Post makes a cogent argument that it can be a good thing. After listening to the pure populist bilge spouted by the Democrats, this editorial is a pleasant nugget of sanity.

THE TRUTH ABOUT ECSTASY: Yes, there are some serious side-effects.

Stanley Kurtz has written a long article about changing family structure in Scandinavia. It’s a not unfamiliar tale. In countries with high levels of secularism, a vast welfare state, and the option of registered partnerships rather than marriage, you would indeed expect traditional marriage to be in decline. There are other factors as well, as Kurtz details them: “Contraception, abortion, women in the workforce, spreading secularism, ascendant individualism…” All of this is not exactly staggering news. What is staggering is Kurtz’s attempt to show that gay marriage in these countries is somehow responsible for this shift. First off: the entire premise of the piece – that marriage for gays is legal in Norway, Denmark and Sweden – is factually untrue. There are no marriage rights for gays in the countries he cites. There are, instead, what are called “registered partnerships.” These partnerships are open to heteros as well as homos. So the entire premise of the piece is false. Even if Kurtz were able to prove in any way a linkage between the emergence of “registered partnerships” and the decline of marriage, it would have no relevance to the debate on equal marriage rights for gays in the U.S. In fact, it shows what many of us have been arguing for over a decade. The emergence of gay couples in society is a fact. Sane conservatives need to acknowledge this rather than run away from it. Given that such a presence is here: what should we do to respond to it? My answer is: co-opt gays into the existing and paramount institution for coupling, i.e. marriage. Oppose all counterfeits – like civil unions – which, because they are also open to straights, obviously do undermine marriage. Don’t let your homophobia get in the way of your conservative common sense. Defend marriage from civil unions and domestic partnerships – not from gay couples.

CORRELATION, CAUSES, LINKS, WHATEVER: Then Kurtz tries to argue that there is a causation effect between registered partnerships for gays and the decline of traditional marriage. He proves nothing. There are so many independent variables – from secularism to contraception to cultural gender roles and on and on – that such a conclusion is intellectually preposterous. Kurtz does his best to hide this obvious truth. Check the words: the decline in marriage and gay registered partnerships are “linked”; they are both “an effect and a cause”; in the same paragraph, same-sex marriage has “undermined” marriage – then it has simply “locked in and reinforced” an “existing trend;” the decline of marriage “closely tracks” the emergence of gay registered parttnerships. Please. The decline of smoking in America “closely tracks” the success of Republicans in Congress in the 1990s. So what? These kinds of unsubstantiated correlations, slippery links and simple associations would be laughed out of a freshman social science class. Did no one edit this? The truth is that for several decades, revolutions in contraception, feminism, the economy have all severed the linkage between marriage and procreation. If you want to take the institution back, go ahead and try. Or go visit Saudi Arabia (or Muslim enclaves in Scandinavia) where those connections are still tightly bound. But to pin all the change in marriage on gay couples – the only group that has had nothing to do with marriage decline in this century – is grotesque. And given that coupling – not procreation – is what civil marriage now is, we have two options. Accelerate the decline by devising new and more elaborate marriage-lite options for gays and straights (which is now, bizarrely, the position of National Review); or arrest it by bringing gays into the real institution and ask the same standards of them that we ask of everyone else. Then get rid of all the counterfeits. The great sadness of the last two decades is that many of us tried to persuade conservatives that they should put their defense of marriage before their fear and loathing of gays. For most, but not all, conservatives, we failed. What’s left is a Republican party devoted primarily to exclusion and fear – and to undermining the very institution they want to defend. And they still don’t see it. Maybe it will take their own destruction of civil marriage before they do.

CORRECTION: In tackling Krugman, I committed an error of hyperbole. I wrote that he had said that the “entire reason” for the deficit was tax cuts. He said the “main reason.” He did, however, omit any reference to the vast increase in discretionary domestic spending under Bush.

“Because of an editing error, a front-page article yesterday about David A. Kay, the C.I.A.’s former weapons inspector, misstated his view of whether the agency’s analysts had been pressured by the Bush administration to tailor their prewar intelligence reports about Iraq’s weapons programs to conform to a White House political agenda. Mr. Kay said he believed that there was no such pressure, not that there was. (His view was correctly reflected in a quotation that followed the error.)” – New York Times, today. Why do these errors almost always skew against the Bush administration?

The first indications of Saddam’s bribes to French politicians begin to emerge. Oh goody.