Month: February 2006

"You’ve probably received lots of emails about your post about Haiti yesterday. I am an American living in Haiti, sitting at home right now because there are crowds out burning tires in the streets and the school where I work is closed.

I found it curious that you called the Haiti elections "self-run" – it’s true that the CEP is a Haitian body, but we had the UN, the EU, and the OAS helping with the elections, and certainly paying for them (60 million dollars, reportedly, as one friend of ours figured, about $21 US per vote). And to say that everyone accepts the results is a bit premature.  First, we don’t HAVE official results yet, and secondly, people are marching in the streets protesting the concept that anyone but their candidate could possibly win."

I may have allowed hope to overcome experience. I am grateful for the reality check.

Don’t miss Glenn Greenwald’s update. It’s very funny how his most vociferous critics prove him doubly right.

"President Bush exercised the powers of the imperial presidency to the utmost in the area in which those powers are already at their height — in our dealings with foreign nations. Unfortunately, the record of the administration has not been a happy one, in light of its costs to the Constitution and the American legal system. On a series of different international relations matters, such as war, international institutions, and treaties, President Bush has accelerated the disturbing trends in foreign policy that undermine notions of democratic accountability and respect for the rule of law."

Who said this? Me? Marty Lederman? Bob Barr? Al Gore? Nah. It’s John Yoo, the architect of George W. Bush’s torture and rendition policies, the man who believes it’s ok not just to waterboard and beat detainees but to crush the testicles of their children, if the president deems it necessary for national security. But a confession: I changed one word throughout the quote. Yoo is describing Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush. How soon they change.

Crowley has the transcript. Go, David! If only more reporters would respond to the latest White House blather with: "I’ll calm down when I feel like calming down. You answer the question."

It’s immensely enjoyable, isn’t it, although I’ve yet to read or hear the best jokes. I guess I’ll wait for Jon Stewart tonight. All I have to add is that the way in which the veep’s office handled the incident reminded me exactly of similar mishaps among Britain’s royal family. The job of telling the media is handed to some unfortunate lackey or courtier; the official line is always that the prince/king/queen/Cheney did nothing wrong; there’s always a short media blackout so as not to put the monarch on the spot; then there’s a backlash. The British royals have gotten better than they used to be. Our own elected monarchy could take a few lessons from them in media management.

It’s Orwell:

"I do not think one need look farther than this for the reason why the young writers of the thirties flocked into or towards the Communist Party. It was simply something to believe in. Here was a Church, an army, an orthodoxy, a discipline. Here was a Fatherland and ‚Äî at any rate since 1935 or thereabouts ‚Äî a Fuehrer. All the loyalties and superstitions that the intellect had seemingly banished could come rushing back under the thinnest of disguises. Patriotism, religion, empire, military glory ‚Äî all in one word, Russia. Father, king, leader, hero, saviour ‚Äî all in one word, Stalin. God ‚Äî Stalin. The devil ‚Äî Hitler. Heaven ‚Äî Moscow. Hell ‚Äî Berlin. All the gaps were filled up. So, after all, the ‘Communism’ of the English intellectual is something explicable enough. It is the patriotism of the deracinated." – George Orwell, "Inside the Whale."

I think something similar applies to those lefties like Stanley Fish whose sympathies lie more with those outraged by the Danish cartoons than with those who drew them; and also to those conservatives who couldn’t live with the golden era of the 1990s – the Clinton-Gingrich Settlement – because it didn’t energize them enough, didn’t give them the "politics of meaning" they so longed for. They needed a new faith – stronger than liberalism and not as restrained as market capitalism. Richard John Neuhaus, to take one example, had once been a Marxist and a believer in dialectical materialism. Why would he subsequently be content with a neutral public square, with social progress and economic and technological miracles? Bourgeois hooey. So he switched sides and now worships Benedict XVI the way previous generations worshipped Stalin – even to the point of resistance to what theocons have called the American "regime". Many Republicans have found the appeal of an unbending faith – Protestant fundamentalism – more emotionally satisfying than the challenge of rational and questioning belief. Others still have responded to the empty center of liberalism by flocking to a new cult of the leader who can do no wrong – Bush. Others still are so blinded by partisan loyalty they can call torture – torture! – by another name, and vie with one another to extend the reach and power of government. But there are many sane liberals and principled conservatives prepared to confront modernity’s empty center with skepticism, private faith, public moderation, and a commitment to limited government. They are becoming the real opposition to the muddle of fundamentalisms, passivity and hero-worship that now pass for establishment conservatism and post-modern leftism. And I have a feeling we have only just begun to hear from them.

(Hat tip: Gil.)

Or how Jonah Goldberg became an "authoritarian cultist." Enjoy.

What’s there to say? It’s hilarious, now that it appears the poor schmuck who got in the way is going to be okay. But if you’re going to find a spinner for the veep, why not Mark Levin? Hey, this guy can defend waterboarding, and beating the crap out of innocent detainees. A little buck-shot in a GOP big-shot is way below his pay-grade. 

What does a monarch do when one of his servants refuses to go along with the torture of military detainees? You fire him, of course.

Mickey goes for broke today in his campaign against Brokeback Mountain (now $100 million in global take). I should say that I’m not interchangeable with Frank Rich in this respect. I’m perfectly aware of the visceral resistance to gayness that many straight men feel, as I have spent my entire life around it (which is a little tougher than living fifty-odd years with a couple of moments of discomfort or, in Mickey’s words, a "visceral surface revulsion"). I think that assuming a huge, overnight shift in sentiment toward gay men is foolhardy. At the same time, the pace of change these past couple of decades is astonishing. And can I really be blamed for being heartened by the way in which so many people, including many straight men, now seem able to deal with the idea of gay love? That’s what Brokeback is about; and it’s what the marriage campaign is about: putting love at the core of gay identity, rather than merely sex (while not being anti-sex at the same time).

I guess I’m saying that Mickey’s own homophobia is not as widespread as he thinks it is, while not as rare as Frank Rich hopes. We’re in a period of cultural transition. (By the way, Mickey would do well to study how many people, back in the 1960s, described their feelings about inter-racial sex. Many more were opposed to interracial marriage in 1967 than are now against marriage for a gay couple. They all described their feelings as "visceral surface revulsion.") Still, there are benefits to the increasingly deep hole (no pun intended) that Mickey has dug for himself. You get to see him rant about anal sex and germs while brandishing a toy moose, for example. You don’t see that on Fox. And he even gets to concede that I was a "very good editor" of The New Republic. If true, one reason was my getting Mickey to write every other week. I liked his compelling honesty, and still do. Even when he embarrasses himself in the process.