Month: February 2004

It’s amazing to me that the allure of Jean-Paul Sartre, despite some of his brilliant literary innovations, might be given any credence today. And yet Bernard-Henri Levy, the liberal French thinker, appears to find in Sartre a model of sorts. In a diverting essay, Brian Anderson asks why. (The short answer: both Levy and Sartre are French.) I tried to read Sartre long ago, in order to grapple with existentialism, but as soon as I discovered Camus, he seemed completely flat in comparison. Camus was a phenomenal mind and a far richer writer than Sartre, and he remained human. He was a thinker, rather than an intellectual, let alone an “absolute” one. The difference, perhaps, is in an appreciation of what we don’t know, a love of what we can actually cherish – love, friendship, political freedom – and a refusal to apply ideas to reality as if there were no need for compromise or restraint. I liked this part of Anderson’s essay:

It is significant, I think, that Sartre never married or committed himself exclusively to Beauvoir, disliked children and sired none of his own, regularly broke off friendships, and in general spent most of his time worshiping at his own altar. He was – to use his own language – a bit of a ‘bastard.’

I struggle myself with this over marriage rights. Am I foisting an abstract concept onto concrete reality? Or am I noting real human needs, actual relationships, and trying to make them civil? I believe the latter. And it is progress from the nightmares of the twentieth century that today’s reformers are not trying to destroy society or demean it – but to enlarge its embrace and understand its limits.

THE ONION ON MARRIAGE: Time for some light relief.

The Massachusetts legislature is debating an amendment to the state constitution to ban marriage rights for gays and lesbians. Riveting history in the making. Here’s the link.

You can listen to WBUR live on the web here.

It’s showdown in New York City.

I’ll be on WBUR radio in Boston tonight from 7 till 8 pm on marriage equality. And I’ll be on Aaron Brown’s Newsnight on CNN at 10 pm. The marriage wars are now fully engaged. So to speak.

It’s a classic bubble phenomenon. People are backing Kerry because others are backing Kerry. Will it burst? Noam Scheiber and Jon Chait weigh in.

The Onion has the scoop.

Confused about the budget picture? Here are some very helpful stats and graphs, courtesy of the Cato Institute. If you’re not worried about the spending explosion after looking at these, you’re Dennis Kucinich.

Unlike the New York Times and even Time, the Washington Post has finally realized what the religious right amendment to the constitution really means. Or at least they are fair enough to present the conflicting views about its impact:

The amendment’s authors say it is a compromise that would not stop state legislatures from allowing civil unions. Gay rights groups disagree. Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, which supports marriage rights for gays, said the White House and “the Christian right” are “being deliberately deceptive.” He said the “vague and sweeping language” of the proposed amendment’s second sentence “is intended to deny any other measure of protection, including civil unions and domestic partnerships.”

Exactly. This is the real fight. If the religious right were only interested in preventing any state from having marriage rights for gays, they would propose an amendment that would simply say: “Civil marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” That would do it. But their second sentence is a stealth bomb aimed directly at gay couples, stripping them of any rights or benefits or protections. If the president endorses the Musgrave Amendment, he will be declaring war on gay couples, in order to boost his political fortunes. That’s the reality, however they want to dress it up.

In both primaries yesterday, Kerry won close to a half of the votes and Edwards won around a quarter. But more interestingly, as Will Saletan points out in a must-read, Edwards beat Kerry on the question of the issues and among those in the more moderate wing of the party, i.e. those who were less angry with Bush and more in the “satisfied but not enthusiastic” camp. Edwards wins more pro-war voters as well. I infer that most Dem voters so far have been conned into voting for the idea of Kerry, not the reality. And the idea is that he is more electable. And that has become almost self-fulfilling. Edwards is therefore absolutely right to stay in. More Democrats like his views than like Kerry’s (whatever they are as of 1.25 am today), and more middle-of-the-roaders support him. The vast majority of delegates has yet to be decided. In a clear two-way race, it could get very interesting. Now we’ve gotten rid of Clark (see below), the media needs to create a new dynamic. I’m with the Economist on this: give Edwards a chance. Kerry is far less than meets the eye.

CLARK DEPARTS: We can all now heave a huge sigh of relief. The man had no political experience, had been on every side of a critical issue (the war against Saddam), believed in preposterous conspiracy theories, and backed any left-liberal cause regardless of his previous positions. The sole rationale for his candidacy was his military record – a record which ended in his being fired for being unstable in the Kosovo war. But what amazed me even more was how many otherwise sane Democrats seemed to take him seriously. “You’re really scared, aren’t you? I can see it” was the refrain from many liberal friends. Yes, I was scared. Not that he was a formidable figure bestriding the political scene like a colossus. But that he was a nut-case who had a shot at becoming the nominee of a serious political party. Now he can go back to what he was planning all along: raking in the usual lobbyist dough. See you at the Palm, Wes.