Month: January 2004

Bush’s anti-libertarian conservatism.

I was mainlining C-SPAN yesterday. The John Kerry event was fascinating it was so awful. I must say I find his Shrum-populism sad and dumb at the same time – the pathetic demonization of drug companies, and the vapid citation of Enron and Worldcom in whatever context he feels like dumping on Bush, to name a couple of examples. The fact that he isn’t satisfied with the vast new Medicare entitlement is scary; that he wants essentially to undo solid testing standards in the No Child Left Behind Act is scarier; and that his first act as commander-in-chief would essentially be to return to the U.N. and tell them that America’s war on terror is now in their hands is terrifying. He even wants to lower the retirement age for Petessake. All of this is a major reality check for those with disappointments with this president (ahem). Kerry couldn’t even say a bad word about Malcolm X (and lapsed wonderfully into French during the post-stump chit-chat). He kept speaking of the American commitment in Iraq as entirely unilateral. He droned monotonously on, that stooped back and drooping face looming toward whichever poor schmuck he was condescending to at the moment. I know this much: he’s a shameless panderer to the paleos on the stump. I also know his voting record is all over the map, and that his policy zig-zaggery is a legend. He has, in other words, all the liberal baggage with none of the liberal fire. There’s a reason his campaign didn’t catch alight for a year! Maybe he’d provide a close race as the Newsweek poll suggests (but many readers have let me know they think that poll is dubious). But he doesn’t impress me at this point. In fact, he’s only where he is because of Dean scaring the Dems into panicked timidity. And surely there’s still time for them to realize he’s a cynical drone! C’mon, New Hampshire. Give us a shock.

A CROWD NOT A HERD: One note about the tracking polls in New Hampshire. Since January 16, two candidates have seen their support double: Kerry and Edwards. Ryan Lizza thinks Edwards may have the best of the late surges. Dean has sunk from 28 to 20 percent – but is back on the rise. Clark has sunk 5 points, and even Josh is a little rattled. In Arizona, Oklahoma and South Carolina, the tracking polls are currently showing three different victors: Kerry in Arizona, Edwards in South Carolina; and Clark in Oklahoma. Dean looks very weak after New Hampshire. I’d say that Dean has to come a good second in NH; Edwards has to win South Carolina; and Kerry just has to stay near the top to survive as the front-runner. That’s as brave as I’m gonna get right now. On polling, don’t forget to check in on John Ellis. He knows what he’s talking about.

MORE EDWARDS RAVES: “I’ve realized that it’s impossible not to believe Edwards is going to be the nominee while you’re actually watching an Edwards event. The certainty wears off a while later, of course. But while he’s got you in his crowd you’re under his spell. Tried. Tried again … No, doesn’t work. There’s some sort of hypnosis. At least in the moment, he’s that good.” – Josh Marshall. The press corps is in love again.

David Kay’s resignation puts the issue of pre-war intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq front and center. Tony Blair, to his credit, puts it baldly enough: “I am simply accepting there is a fact, and the fact is that WMD have not yet been found in Iraq. That is simply accepting the facts.” Vice president Dick Cheney still refuses to accept those facts. The president has not seriously acknowledged this important discrepancy between pre-war claims and post-war discovery. David Kay’s comments on public radio put the matter even more starkly: “I don’t think [the WMDs] exist. The fact that we found so far the weapons do not exist – we’ve got to deal with that difference and understand why.” I for one certainly believed the British and American governments when they insisted that such WMDs did exist before the war. It was one factor among many that persuaded me that the war was worthwhile. But it turns out I was wrong to believe what the intelligence services were telling me, just as Colin Powell was wrong to rest America’s international credibility on what turns out to be a mistake. Notice I said: mistake. I do not believe and there is no reason to believe that there were any deliberate deceptions. But it seems to me incumbent on president Bush to be candid in what he said before the war that now turns out not to be true. That’s called keeping faith with the American people.

A JUST WAR: And it is in the context of such an argument that the president should clearly restate that this was nevertheless a just war. It was never incumbent on the world community to prove that Iraq had dismantled its WMD program before the war. It was incumbent on Saddam to show otherwise. He refused – either because he was being lied to and wanted to conceal weapons that did not exist, or because such an admission of impotence would have been terribly damaging to the dictator’s reputation, both internally and with regard to Iran, or because he was slowly going nuts and his regime was collapsing from within. But what matters is that he refused. The responsibility for the war therefore lies squarely with the dictator. Moreover, we know that if Saddam had been left in power and sanctions lifted, he would have attempted to restart such programs – and indeed Kay has found a vast apparatus of components, scientists and plans to achieve exactly such a result. Kay has now told us that Saddam was working on a ricin-based biological weapon right up to the eve of the invasion. We know now something else: his tyranny was worse, more depraved and more brutal than we believed to be the case before. The moral and strategic case for his removal appears stronger now than ever. We also have a chance to move one part of the Arab world toward some kind of open, pluralist society. Since the appeal of Islamo-fascism is deeply connected to the backwardness and tyranny of so much of the Arab world, this is a fundamental and critical part of the response to 9/11. Iraq was and is a critical component of the war on terror. It’s an attempt to deal with the issue at its very roots. I believe the victims of 9/11 deserve nothing less.

THE WAR AS DEMONSTRATION: I also believe that the war itself – and the Herculean task afterward – was and is a critical symbol of the West’s resolve to fight back against Islamist terror. It showed we were willing to fight broadly, rather than narrowly, against regimes that sponsor terror and violate WMD restrictions. The critics that harp on the notion that Saddam was not integral to the murderers of 9/11 don’t understand that that that was always part of the point. We have given the world notice that we are not returning to pre-9/11 notions of fighting terror as a narrow crime enforcement enterprise. Iraq was proof we were serious. If we had caved, we would have suffered a terrible loss of clout and credibility. and we have removed a potential source for WMD programs in the hands of terrorists. If we end with Iraq, of course, this will be meaningless. But if the administration succeeds in disarming Libya (a direct Saddam-war consequence); if it can successfully prevent the Saudi government from subsidizing and exporting Wahhabist fanatics; if it can deal with the real source of terror in the Middle East – the mullahs in Tehran; if it can bring democracy to a united Iraq; then the administration will have proven itself up to the most important task we currently face. Certainly, none of the Democratic candidates seem to me right now to come even close to grasping what we are up against and how we can keep on the offensive. But this doesn’t and shouldn’t let the administration off the hook. Part of leadership is also integrity. The administration has to grapple with the fact that it was wrong about the actual existence of stockpiles of WMDs in Saddam’s Iraq. Not with dismissals; not with further calls for more study; not with quibbles – but with honesty, candor and determination to keep the flaw in this battle from undermining the vital case for the war as a whole.

On the radio last night, I made the point that blogger Atrios never seems to criticize the left. He denied this and called it a lie. So I asked him to cite a recent case in which he criticized the left or had anything good to say about president Bush. He couldn’t. Well, he’s now got plenty of time to prove me wrong. Let’s see a few recent examples of his taking on the left or defying pure partisanship. If he can’t, I’d appreciate him withdarwing the notion that I was committing a lie.

“Your new piece in Time makes some good points, but it appears to be a mean spirited hit piece resulting from a hissy fit over Bush’s stance on gay marriage.” This is the briefest version of a message I’ve been receiving in high volume. It’s insulting and it’s wrong. If you don’t agree with the piece, fine. Show me where you disagree or where I’m wrong. To argue that I’m a one-issue voter belies everything I’ve written about for years. To take the obvious example: The president has been opposed to same-sex marriage since before he was elected. I supported him while fully acknowledging he was worse on gay matters than Al Gore in 2000. He has held this stance for three years, during which I have supported his war on terror and still do. But I have always criticized this president when I felt he went overboard with the social right. I have always opposed faith-based initiatives. I have always, always been a traditional fiscal conservative (and like the estate tax). I once hoped for better from Bush but now know the truth. If it’s only my being gay that has awakened me to Bush’s spending binge, there were an awful lot of homos at CPAC recently. I’ve always defended the legalization of soft drugs. I have a strong libertarian streak. There is nothing in my latest Time piece that isn’t competely – even boringly – predictable coming from me.

ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE: Gets some cold feet. Here’s blogger Tacitus:

If you told me in fall ’00 that the next Republican administration would embrace mushy multiculturalism; wipe out our reputation for fiscal rectitude; preside over a massive entitlements expansion; embrace secrecy as a good in itself; and unnecessarily strain the US armed forces to the breaking point, I would never have believed it. But it has all come to pass, and we must be very clear on why it has come to pass: it is not because these things are expressions of the core principles of most Republicans — it is because most Republicans have allowed them despite their core principles.

I wouldn’t be that harsh, but it’s telling that someone else is.

More evidence that his uninspired SOTU hasn’t helped him: Newsweek shows the president slumping back to 50 percent approval ratings. More interesting, Bush is in a statistical tie with Kerry, Edwards and Clark. Of course, these are early, early days; and Rove hasn’t unleashed his torrent of negatives against Kerry. But I have the feeling that the Republican leadership think they have another 1988 on their hands. I’m not sure they do. Kerry isn’t Dukakis and the old Finklestein liberal-bashing seems tired to me and to many others. Another interesting nugget” the liberal base seems more fired up than the conservative base – 47 percent strongly want Bush defeated, versus 37 percent who strongly want to see him re-elected. I guess a major anti-gay push is now in the works at the White House. On the bright side: it’s going to be a fascinating campaign. And, er, I’m not yet ready to write Dean off. It’s painful to watch him re-clothe himself as a fiscal conservative. But they sure are a more appealing political couture to the Independents of New Hampshire.

“The top one percent in this country pays very much less than ten percent, very much less than five percent.” – Al Sharpton, cited by John Stossel. Of course, the top one percent pay 34 percent of income tax revenues.

… than any of the other candidates.” That’s how Sid Blumenthal describes John Kerry. I would not be surprised if New Hampshire deflates him a little.

ROVE’S INVITEES: An interesting aside in a National Review Online piece by one Janice Shaw Crouse, of the hard right Concerned Women for America:

I watched the speech in an auditorium in the White House with an invited group of conservative opinion leaders.

Here’s a challenge to an enterprising journalist: whom else did Karl Rove invite to watch the president throw some red meat to the evangelical base? It would be instructive, I think, of whom this administration really cares about.

BROOKS ON EDWARDS: “What John Edwards had going for him [in Iowa] is first of all he’s the best campaigner I’ve seen since Bill Clinton. His speech is the most fantastic stump speech. I followed it around four or five times just because it’s so much fun. You see the crowds. They go crazy. The best moment in the speech. He’s talking about himself as a trial lawyer. He said I was this little trial lawyer and went up against the corporate interests, the corporate lawyers, the best money can buy, dignified people. You can hear them thinking Republicans. Then he says ‘and they looked at me and said what’s this guy doing in the courtroom with us? We’re the best and the brightest.’ Then he turns to the crowd and says, ‘you know I beat them and I beat them and I beat them’ and the crowd is going crazy because they know this is the guy who can beat the corporate Republicans. Its a fantastic, its the best moment. And that’s just…he’s just a fantastic….the Republicans want to get overconfidence cure, go to a John Edwards rally.” – David Brooks, on the Newshour. This is getting to be the conventional wisdom among the press. It bodes well for the John Grisham from a boy band.

“Oh, in the Federal Reserve Board, I would be looking for someone that would set standards in this country, in terms of our banking, our — in how government regulates the Federal Reserve as we see it under Greenspan, that we would not be protecting the big businesses; we would not be protecting banking interests in a way that would not, in my judgment, lead toward mass employment, mass development and mass production.” – Revd. Al Sharpton, Democratic candidate for president, at the New Hampshire debate. Please send in any new incoherent, uninformed, ill-phrased nonsense from a man the Democrats keep pretending to take seriously.

Check out Michael Moore’s 1999 diatribe against the war to stop genocide in the Balkans. Now, we all know Moore opposes any military action to stop dictators murdering innocents. But doesn’t Moore recall that it was one, er, General Wesley Clark, who was commanding this military operation? Money quote:

Right about now, some of you, with all good intentions, are saying, “But, Mike, this Milosevic guy is a madman. He’s committing genocide. We should not ignore this as we did the Holocaust in the early days of World War II. He must be stopped by any means necessary.”
Yes, he must be stopped. But bombing the people of his country is exactly the wrong way to stop him. In fact, it has only strengthened him. There was a growing dissident movement in Yugoslavia before the war, and every letter I get from these brave souls tells me that the bombing has set back their struggle so incredibly far that they worry they will now be stuck with Milosevic for a long time. They are pleading with us to stop it. The bombing has made him a hero at a time when nearly half of the country was very unhappy with his leadership. We did not consult the anti-Milosevic movement in advance to see if they would like our help in the form of 10,000 bombing sorties. We just went off half-cocked on our own, and started killing the very people we were claiming to save. Anyone who remembers Vietnam knows that sordid logic and insanity. We have strengthened Milosevic and destroyed his opposition. Happy now?

Michael Moore: a man who never without an excuse for keeping murdering tyrants in power. But now he’s supporting the man who bombed Milosevic into submission? How about an explanation, Mr Moore?