Month: December 2004

Striding Lion weighs in.

DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ AND PALESTINE: Some Arab voices are beginning to wonder why voting isn’t possible elsewhere in the Muslim Middle East.

WRONG = LEFT: Jonah gets emails very much along the lines I do. If you quibble with any aspect of conservative-Bush orthodoxy, you’ve gone “left.” This is, of course, moronic. A realist critique of Bush’s interventionism is not left-wing. A small government criticism of deficits is not liberal. A defense of states’ rights against the Bush Justice Department is not left-wing. Now, you may agree with the Bushies on all these issues – but the notion that all disagreement is “liberal” is loopy. It comes, I think, from the moronic Hannity-style conservatism that has essentially degenerated into high-school name-calling of anyone who dares dissent. “Liberal” means nothing to them but a term of abuse. Of course, in many ways, the best strain in contemporary conservatism is the last resort of old-school liberalism. But that would just confuse the demagogues, wouldn’t it?

NO GAYS IN FICTION: An Alabama state rep wants to ban all gay characters in fiction set in public schools. It just keeps getting better, doesn’t it?

A color-code terror alert system – for Iraqis. (Example: Green is “low”: “No major attack expected on your house in the next hour. Chance of being burned alive or decapitated only 40 percent.”)

“I disagree with your assessment of Stott’s influence in the evangelical community in the United States. Not only is Stott a theological heavyweight, but his books are required reading for any serious evangelical. And, he is easily a more important and influential figure to the evangelical community in the United States than are Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. The influence James Dobson has had on evangelicals cannot be argued away–it has been tremendous. However, Stott and Dobson have influenced the evangelical community in two completely different ways. The best way to describe the differing type of influence that Stott and Dobson have had is to describe our relationships as “vertical” and “horizontal.” Stott has had tremendous influence in giving advice regarding our vertical relationship–the relationship with God. Dobson on the other hand has been successful in giving advice regarding our horizontal relationships–those we have with other human beings. The two cross over at times, but in simple terms, that describes it best. In reality, both have been very significant and influential. However, if we had to discern which of the two men has had more influence on evangelicals with regard to their FAITH, it is Stott without a doubt.

With that said, even having attended a religious/evangelical university I never once read a single writing of Falwell or Robertson’s nor did we ever study the men–except in a modern American studies course where we learned that they wrote the “how-to” book on political failure by squandering their influence. The same with Dobson. With the exception of excerpts from maybe one or two of his most popular books about raising children, I don’t remember his work being nearly as heralded as Stott’s. In contrast, Stott was on nearly every student’s bookshelf sitting next to Schaeffer, Tozer, Sproul, Lewis, Piper, and other modern evangelical must-reads. While it is obvious that you disagree with Dobson’s agenda, as do many, this is no reason to minimize the influence of John Stott. Doing so would be much like minimizing the influence of James Carville in the Democratic party because Michael Moore is louder and equally influential to a large number–but not all–of Democrats.”

More feedback on the Letters Page.

I’m in the middle of reading all the gruesome documents related to the Abu Ghraib fiasco for a book review. Now we read this:

Until now, U.S. military officials have characterized the problem as one largely confined to the military prison at Abu Ghraib — a situation they first learned about in January 2004. But Herrington’s report shows that U.S. military leaders in Iraq were told of such allegations even before then, and that problems were not restricted to Abu Ghraib. Herrington, a veteran of the U.S. counterinsurgency effort in Vietnam, warned that such harsh tactics could imperil U.S. efforts to quell the Iraqi insurgency — a prediction echoed months later by a military report and other reviews of the war effort.

Brutality and torture were unofficial policy, as they also have been at Guantanamo. “Everyone knows about it,” an intelligence officer told Herrington. And Herrington was no hand-wringer. Herrington also noticed counter-productive sweeps of the general Iraqi population, over-crowding in detainee centers, the “disappearing” of prisoners and taking female relatives hostage to get suspects turned in. Do the Bush people really expect us to believe, after all we now know, that Abu Ghraib was a one-off event caused by a handful of underlings? The terrible truth is that it was anything but. And no one in this administration will ever be called to account for it. Because they never are.

WOMEN IN EGYPT: I’m sorry but something is terribly wrong with a society in which women expect regular beatings if they don’t obey their husband’s every whim.

AMERICA: FUCK YEAH! A music video of the new Jacksonianism, with apologies to Trey Parker. Yep, it’s vulgar. But so is America at times. And if you didn’t get to see “Team America: World Police,” get it on DVD when it comes out. It was the best film of the year. (Hat tip: Steve Clemons.)

CIVIL WAR? It hasn’t happened yet in Iraq, argues Greg Djerejian. And maybe it never will. A case for measured optimism.

That’s what the backers of Michigan’s state constitutional amendment against gay couples’ rights said during the campaign. Proposal 2 backers claimed their amendment was “only about marriage … this is not about rights or benefits or how people choose to live their life.” This is the same claim made by Matt Daniels of the federal amendment, an amendment that would deny gay couples any of the “incidents” of civil marriage under any name. Well, in Michigan, we now see what the real agenda is. There’s an existing agreement in Ohio granting domestic partner benefits to gay couples who are state employees. One Republican legislator wants that agreement torn up:

“It’s unfathomable how, before the ballot boxes are hardly put away, some state leaders are going against citizens’ wishes to even consider this issue in the labor contract negotiations process,” [Rep. Ken] Bradstreet said in a news release.

Now let’s see whether Matt Daniels cavils at this attack on gay couples’ rights. (Correction: In the first version of this item, I confused Ohio with Michigan. Fixed now. Apologies.)

ATTLEE BEATS CHURCHILL: Here’s a wonderful insight into the bias within the British academy. A poll of 139 British historians and political scientists placed Clement Attlee ahead of Winston Churchill in a ranking of the 20th Century’s prime ministers. Britain is still recovering from the damage Attlee did to the British economy by a wholesale government take-over. Without Churchill, there wouldn’t have been an independent Britain to wreck. And you thought America’s professors were left-wing! (Hat tip: Clive Davis).

How influential, exactly, is John Stott on the political agenda of America’s evangelicals? Not too much, I’d say. By picking a theologian in London, David Brooks strains somewhat to exculpate his conservative allies from the taint of intolerance. Yes, many of us need to understand the reality of evangelical conservatism better. And I’m delighted to see Brooks deride Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as “bozos”. I hear the same thing privately from many other conservatives. But the real test is whether any leading Republican would ever publicly call such people “bozos”? McCain did – and look what happened to him. Who else has? Frist? Hastert? Bush? Never. I’m afraid David cannot have it both ways. If the real religious right is not represented by these blow-hard haters, why can’t a leading Republican say so? If the Democrats are always being required to castigate their extremes, why can’t the Republicans? The really interesting case study for David would be James Dobson. Dobson has said that granting gays civil marriage rights would lead to the “destruction of the earth.” Bozo or not a bozo? Nut-case or proud member of the big tent? Inclusive or intolerant? That’s a slightly more pressing and relevant question, I’d say, than the oeuvre of John Stott.