Month: September 2004

I haven’t read Frum in such a lather for quite a while. I don’t agree with everything he says about the liberal blogs, but he’s onto something about the way in which rancid partisans on the web have undermined their own side:

The left-wing blogs have to take a considerable share of the blame for this disaster. They were a crucial part of the in-group conversation by which the most partisan Democrats convinced each other that the country feared and hated George W. Bush as much as they did. This delusion – combined with the decision to nominate a man to whom haughty disdain came all too naturally – pushed the Democrats to mistake after mistake and blinded them to opportunity after opportunity.

That goes for some of the bile on the right as well, mind you. The good news is that the blogosphere has grown so large and robust that we can now slag each other off with abandon. Attaguys!

Yale just convened a two day conference studying … Michael Jackson.

“Obviously there will be people who have never been convinced about the original decision. But the fundamentals of the situation in Iraq are absolutely clear. You have a government supported by the United Nations. You have got massive reconstruction. You’ve got an attempt to bring democracy to the country and you’ve got these people trying to stop it. I can understand why people still have a powerful disagreement about the original decision to go to war, but what ever that disagreement, surely now it is absolutely clear we have to stay and see it through. Because the consequences of not doing so is that global terrorism will get a tremendous boost. By contrast, if we succeed and defeat these people and help the Iraqis to get what the Iraqis want, then global terrorism will suffer a defeat… So my point to people is: which side should we be on now? You might have disagreed about the conflict, but there is only one side to be on now, and that’s the side of people who are trying to bring democracy and hope to the country, not trying to plunge it into terror and chaos.” – Tony Blair, yesterday. The most recent polls show the (increasingly anti-war) Tories with a minuscule lead.

ATTENTION STEYN: Here’s more troubling data on the tenacity of the Iraq insurgency, as compiled by a private security firm:

Reports covering seven days in a recent 10-day period depict a nation racked by all manner of insurgent violence, from complex ambushes involving 30 guerrillas north of Baghdad on Monday to children tossing molotov cocktails at a U.S. Army patrol in the capital’s Sadr City slum on Wednesday. On maps included in the reports, red circles denoting attacks surround nearly every major city in central, western and northern Iraq, except for Kurdish-controlled areas in the far north. Cities in the Shiite Muslim-dominated south, including several that had undergone a period of relative calm in recent months, also have been hit with near-daily attacks… On Wednesday, there were 28 separate hostile incidents in Baghdad, including five rocket-propelled grenade attacks, six roadside bombings and a suicide bombing in which a car exploded at a National Guard recruiting station, killing at least 11 people and wounding more than 50… [A]ccording to the Kroll reports, recent violence appears to have been widespread rather than limited. On Wednesday, for instance, attacks in Salahuddin province occurred in Taji, Balad, Tikrit, Samarra, Baiji, Thuliyah and Dujayl — the seven largest population centers in the area.

Not quite Mark Steyn’s view that in most of Iraq, “life is as jolly as it has been in living memory.” I’m not saying that this a reason to give up on what we are currently doing – attempting to build up Iraqi defense forces, police, and trying to hold elections at the end of January. I am saying that the president is either dissembling to the American people about the scope of the problem there, or dangerously uninformed. Under the circumstances, I’d be more reassured if he were dissembling.

Here’s an interesting paper that examines Michel Foucault’s enthusiasm for the Iranian revolution in 1979. The story of how an avowed leftist came to support a movement that aimed at destroying human freedom, enslaving women, persecuting Jews, murdering homosexuals, and waging Jihad is not without its echoes today. The far left’s flirtation with Jihadism is alive and well – and it’s as good an insight into their moral vacuousness as any.

DATING FOR DOGS: The Brits pioneer a new personals service. I recall an ad a colleague once drafted for his own dog: “Well-hung pug seeks bitch who takes it from behind.” It never ran. Alas.

BRODER’S HARRUMPH: Much of David Broder’s worrying about the decline of the mainstream media is well-taken. But then he writes something daft like this:

When the Internet opened the door to scores of “journalists” who had no allegiance at all to the skeptical and self-disciplined ethic of professional news gathering, the bars were already down in many old-line media organizations. That is how it happened that old pros such as Dan Rather and former New York Times editor Howell Raines got caught up in this fevered atmosphere and let their standards slip.

Huh? Without the blogosphere, the arrogance and folly of Raines and Rather would have continued long past their expiration date. And the emergence of journalistic “stars” long predates the arrival of the blogosphere. It was mainly a 1990s phenomenon – and fueled by old media figures like Tina Brown and, yes, Howell Raines. Blogs have heped bring these “stars” back to earth. Which is partly why Tina is so pissy. I mean: what would you rather be doing – writing a fun blog that makes a difference, or appearing on an unwatched and largely unwatchable cable news chat show?

“I am a political junkie, as my husband will attest. I am a 33 year old wife and a mom of a 15 month old boy living in a wealthy liberal enclave of Los Angeles called Hancock Park where people go to the farmers market on Sunday, discuss the “plight of the poor” as their nannies stroll their young ones in Bugaboo Frog ($800) strollers on the magnolia tree shaded sidewalks on Fridays, and bash Bush, well, everyday. My husband (much less interested in this election than I am) and I are the only Bush-voters on the block, I believe.
So, here we are channel surfing and when my husband leaves the room to get a soda, I go to CNBC. I like Tim Russert. Well, there you and Christopher Hitchens are having a truly salient and honest Iraq discussion. First off, I cannot believe that Mr. Hitchens isn’t wearing a scarlet letter at Vanity Fair. I loved Vanity Fair: the celebrities, the dishy stories, the politics, the photography. Truly, it has become a Bush-hating guide and the Moveon.org bible (although I can’t really determine who is worshipping who). It is as if they are saying, “If Kerry can’t win this on his own, we gotta at least be unofficial PR managers for him ourselves…”.
Anyway, as you begin talking I think, terrific, a Bush supporter where you never expected one! And then in the midst of your brilliant thoughts, honest assessments, fair criticism and straight talk, I realize that you will not vote for Bush and I wince. I even begin to look more to Christopher to be the lone spokesman for my views. And then I stop. Hold on! Are your views any less brillant because you won’t vote for Bush? No. Are there still areas of agreement? Yes. Are you still clear and focused on the issues? Yes. Am I afraid of the bad news in Iraq that may hurt my candidate?…yes…
I realized Andrew, that I am somehow afraid of it all for an election and that you and Christopher were swimming in a bigger pool of thought. Regardless of the election, there must be leadership, stewardship, and focus for Iraq to succeed. However noble the goal, the success is in the doing. I was so afraid to admit that Bush hasn’t done all the “doing” that I almost shut out a staunch war advocate (in this case) just because he wasn’t towing party line. With new eyes I watched the final 15 minutes and loved them. Here were 2 journalists not discussing some petty quirk of Bush, but policy. You were not slamming Bush at every turn, but admiring the coherent goal and admonishing the failings of the pursuit of that goal. It was empowering as a viewer to watch the optimism without losing the realities.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

I thought it was fun enough, but, sadly, Matt Klam doesn’t seem to grasp how deeply revolutionary the new medium is beginning to be. It was also skewed toward the leftward part of the blogosphere – and it failed to distinguish adequately enough, I thought, between blogs that are journalistic and those that are blatantly activist. It’s not that DailyKos or FreeRepublic are “nastier”; it’s that they’re unabashedly partisan, help organize politics as well as comment on it. But, hey, there’s plenty of space for all kinds of blogs; and no piece can cover it all. The good news is that I think we may have reached a blogging tipping point in terms of public awareness. This piece helps advance that. And it was a jolly read.

NOW, NOVA SCOTIA: Yet another Canadian province allows gays to marry. I know this sounds esoteric, but Canada does make a difference here for the U.S. It’s country deeply intermeshed with this one; it is relatively easy for gay couples to go there, get married and come back with an even deeper sense of their own equality. And the psychological impact of having your relationship affirmed and supported is profound. The truth is: there is no real struggle over whether gays will get married in this country. They are and they will. Gay marriage is a social fact. What is disputed is whether society will accord these relationships any legal validity, whether such couples will live constantly with the threat of their de facto marriages being derailed by the meddling of hostile relatives, using Republican-sponsored law to undermine them and break them up. Canada and the rest of the civilized world adds a huge amount of weight to the gay side of the debate. It shows gay couples that many parts of America are the exception, not the rule. And the idea of marriage as both imaginable and a right will percolate down to the next gay generation and make marriage seem a no-brainer. That goes for younger straights, as well, who already have very few issues with two dudes loving each other and living together as a married couple. What I’m saying, I guess, is that this social movement is unstoppable. All you can do is persecute, harass and marginalize those who are a part of it. But you can’t stop them loving one another, or committing to each other, or getting actual marriage licenses (from Canada) that will reinforce the revolution. For a long time, I urged conservatives to co-opt this social change rather than resist it. For the most part, I failed. But the real victims of this, in the very long run, will not be gays. It will be conservatives.

Naomi Wolf and I agree on something: Teresa is a much bigger drag on the Kerry ticket than anyone is now admitting. Her appalling speech at the DNC did a huge amount to deny Kerry any bounce. Here’s why:

So Laura Bush, in speaking warmly of her mate’s ‘wrestling’ with issues of war and peace, enhances his potency. This does not contradict my earlier point about appealing to swing voters; it has been well established that modern women maddeningly long for men who are tender in private but authoritative in public. Unfortunately, Teresa Heinz Kerry’s speech, which all but ignored her husband, did more to emasculate him than the opposition ever could. By publicly shining the light on herself rather than her husband, she opened a symbolic breach in Kerry’s archetypal armor. Listen to what the Republicans are hitting Kerry with: Indecisive. Effete. French. They are all but calling this tall, accomplished war hero gay.
The charges are sticking because of Teresa Heinz Kerry. Let’s start with ‘Heinz.’ By retaining her dead husband’s name – there is no genteel way to put this – she is publicly, subliminally cuckolding Kerry with the power of another man-a dead Republican man, at that. Add to that the fact that her first husband was (as she is herself now) vastly more wealthy than her second husband. Throw into all of this her penchant for black, a color that no woman wears in the heartland, and you have a recipe for just what Kerry is struggling with now: charges of elitism, unstable family relationships, and an unmanned candidate.

Bingo. Of course, Kerry cannot help the fact that his wife’s a walking embarrassment. But he can keep her waaaay in the background. And pray.

Almost all the reporters or human beings I read who have been there are beginning to say that Afghanistan is a big success story. Hitch, who just returned, was almost giddy with enthusiasm yesterday. Bergen’s on board. And here’s another missive of optimism. (Hat tip: Glenn.) You can read this either way, I suppose. It can make Iraq look worse in comparison – or it can be seen as a sign that, even when things look dire, the power of the franchise and a skillful leader, like Karzai, can turn things around. Maybe in Iraq too. Man, I hope so.

“Radical Islamists were surely watching in July when the Senate voted on procedural grounds to do away with the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is like handing moral weapons of mass destruction to those who use America’s decadence to recruit more snipers and hijackers and suicide bombers. One vital goal of the war in Iraq, and the war against terrorism, is to bring democracy to the heart of the Islamic world. Our hope is to make freedom so attractive that other Muslim countries will follow suit. But when radical Islamists see American women abusing Muslim men, as they did in the Abu Ghraib prison, and when they see news coverage of same-sex couples being “married” in U.S. towns, we make our kind of freedom abhorrent-the kind they see as a blot on Allah’s creation. Preserving traditional marriage in order to protect children is a crucially important goal by itself. But it’s also about protecting the United States from those who would use our depravity to destroy us.” – Charles Colson, Christianity Today.

CHE WHAT? The moral perils of lionizing Guevara. Terrific piece by Paul Berman.

OAKESHOTT AND BERLIN: Noel Malcolm sees Oakeshott as having a more enduring legacy. I agree. I haven’t read Paul Franco’s new book, but his previous tome was exhaustive and smart.

What wimps the Washington Post editors are for pulling the latest Boondocks strip. I actually met Aaron McGruder with Bill Maher out in L.A. and I’m sure I’d disagree with him on almost everything, but he’s a very gifted cartoonist and speaks with a fresh, clear voice. South Park with soul, if you will. His reality-show parody of “The Apprentice,” “Can A N***a Get a Job?,” is pretty damn funny, and it deals with some generational divides among blacks. I laughed and learned something. Why couldn’t the tired old p.c. souls at the Post? Anyway, here’s the strip. It carries on all week. See, Big Media? You can’t stop us any more, can you?