Month: March 2010

by Chris Bodenner

Peter Beinart predicts that the ethically-challenged chairman of Ways and Means will be one of the Democrats' biggest liabilities this fall:

Since Pelosi won’t nudge Rangel, it’s time for Obama to nudge Pelosi. After all the abuse the White House has taken for not televising the health-care deliberations, surely it has learned that for independents in particular, symbols of government openness and honesty really matter. Obama doesn’t owe Rangel anything: The Harlem congressman not only endorsed Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign, he reminded voters of Obama’s youthful drug use. And with an African-American in the White House, Rangel’s supporters will find it hard to claim he’s a victim of racism. A year ago, when Rangel was guiding health-care legislation through his Ways and Means Committee, replacing him might have been costly. But now the action has moved to the House and Senate floor.

Hot Air lays out Pelosi's glaring hypocrisy over Rangel and Delay-era corruption. Michael Tomasky broadens the critique:

The Democrats are, substantively, the party of government. They're the party that wants to tell people we can make government work for you. We want you to believe in the public sector. That party, it seems to me, bears an extra burden to make sure that the public sector operates with transparency and according to some rules.

He also thinks it will be up to Obama to push Rangel out. A showdown could be an interesting test of the president's "post-racial" mandate.

by Alex Massie

Now that the opinion polls are pointing – for the time being at least – towards a hung parliament, there's much chuntering in Tory circles. Broadly speaking, the argument is between the modernisers and the traditionalists. Labour's core argument is that despite David Cameron's eco-friendly makeover, the Tories really haven't changed. Tory traditionalists fret that Labour couldn't be more wrong. 

In some ways it's reminiscent of a line the Tories used themselves back when Tony Blair was remodelling the Labour party. Don't believe it, said the Conservatives, just you wait and see and watch for the return of Bad, Old Labour. However there really was such a thing as New Labour, even if it now seems to belong to a long-gone era. Similarly, the Cameroons really do view themselves as a new kind of Conservative party. The election campaign will be a test of their nerve. Do they have the courage of their convictions?

There are plenty of influential voices calling for a toughter line. Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, and Tim Montgomerie have both called for the party to make immigration* a major issue in the campaign. It's true that it's an issue raised "on the doorstep" but that doesn't mean that talking about immigration is a vote-winner. 

Back in 2005 there was a curious phenomenon: voters agreed with the general thrust of Tory policies on immigration or europe only to repudiate those policies once pollsters told them that they were also held by the Conservative party. Just being associated with the Conservatives made popular ideas unpopular.

That was the level of contamination David Cameron had to deal with when he became leader. There is a grave risk that tacking to the right and endorsing a populist, "robust" approach to immigration could have similar consequences again. And for all that it might help secure what Americans might call "Beer Track" votes it risks alienating "Wine Track" voters. Not necessarily because they disagree with the idea of more strictly controlling immigration but because they dislike being associated with the kind of party that harps on about immigration all the time.

Similarly, the Tories will not want to make Europe too great an issue. Yes, there's probably a euro-sceptic majority in the country, but many voters are turned off by the stridency of anti-Brussels rhetoric. They don't much care for Brussels themselves, but they're not keen on voting for a party that seems obsessed by the subject.

These then are issues that stir plenty of people up and the make a lot of noise (as the comment sections of many a blog testify) but they're not necessarily issues that win elections.

So there's a balance to be struck. Have the Tories wobbled because they've not changed enough or because they've not been Tory enough? The base – that is the 30% of the electorate who have stuck with the party these past dozen years – suspect the latter; the additional voters the party needs to reach the magic 40% mark may suspect the former. 

My own view, hesitantly reached, is that it's too late for the party to retreat to the comfort of the same old tunes. It's "modernisation" or bust and, actually, I think Labour would love it if the Conservatives reverted to type. Doing so would make a mockery of Project Dave.

*Admittedly, my views on immigration – see here and here -  are such that I'd be on the libertarian-right in the United States. This makes me an extremist in Britain. So I'm hardly in the mainstream on this and, consequently, could be wholly, massively, spectacularly wrong.

Brickbats and the like should be posted to: alexmassieATgmail.com

by Graeme Wood

Under a sleepy headline ("Dutch Withdrawal Understandable"), The Australian hints that the beleaguered NATO coalition in Afghanistan wouldn't mind help from a new source:

If the Dutch are leaving Afghanistan, perhaps China should send soldiers to fill the gap.

It is, after all, developing the country's biggest copper mine — currently guarded by US and Afghan soldiers — and has an eye on other resources.

Just a thought, prompted by the collapse of the Dutch government last weekend — although you have to admit that China, Pakistan's ally, would bring complications. But when the Dutch conclude that they have taken their share of the strain, it makes sense to turn for help to those who see a lucrative future there.

Reihan used to suggest that the United States subcontract the pacification of Iraq to the Han Chinese.  Try mounting an insurgency against Beijing, and see how far that gets you.

by Patrick Appel

Michael Singh doesn't approve of how we do sanctions:

This incremental approach is counterproductive. The sanctions’ predictability and long lead time allows Tehran to prepare for them in advance. For example, Iran is currently expanding its oil refining capacity and reducing consumption subsidies in anticipation of the sort of gasoline sanctions moving through Congress, and could be a net gasoline exporter by 2013. Incrementalism inures the Iranian regime to sanctions altogether, stripping of credibility any threats of tougher action in the future. The result is to rob sanctions of their deterrent effect and make extreme outcomes — a nuclear-armed Iran, or war with Iran — more rather than less likely.

by Graeme Wood

Pakistan's Zardari government, apparently in need of more religious controversy, is moving to alter its blasphemy law.  The law forbids insulting Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, and the penalty can include death.

Blasphemy convictions are common in Pakistan, although the death sentence has never been carried out. Most convictions are thrown out on appeal or because of lack of evidence.

[…]

Christians have long complained about the law because it offers no protection if a Muslim accuses them of violations such as tearing a page of the Quran, and many accusations are levelled to settle personal scores. Just making an accusation is usually considered sufficient evidence to register a case.

Blasphemy defendants may often get acquitted, but they are also frequently beaten to death in prison.

Qamar David, a Pakistani Christian who for some reason sent out text messages insulting Muhammad, was just sentenced to life in prison and fined $1200.  The Republic of Ireland is less forgiving of its blasphemers, monetarily; the fine there is $34,000.

by Chris Bodenner

“It is absolutely outrageous for the Cheney-Grassley crowd to try to tar and feather Neal [Katyal] and Jennifer [Daskal] and insinuate they are al-Qaeda supporters. You don’t hear anyone refer to John Adams as a turncoat for representing the Brits in the Boston Massacre trial," – retired Air Force Col. Morris Davis, who served as a chief prosecutor for the military commissions under Cheney.

by Chris Bodenner

Liz Cheney ratchets up the disgusting campaign led by Senator Chuck Grassley to impugn DOJ appointees who represented Gitmo detainees. Ackerman:

You know, [the lawyers who] provided the representation that the Rehnquist and Roberts Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled those detainees are entitled? And which even the military commissions provide for? Instead, there’s this McCarthyite tactic of calling Justice Department lawyers the “Gitmo Nine,” a name that oh-so-cleverly suggests that those lawyers were themselves detained at Guantanamo.

Of course the "Gitmo Nine" isn't devious enough for Cheney, so she goes with the "Al-Qaeda Seven." Not only does she presume that all suspected terrorists are guilty before due process, but she ignores the reality that only a fraction of the detainees held at Gitmo were even accused of Al-Qaeda ties in the first place. Ackerman has more:

Grassley knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s taking one of the strengths of the American justice system — the fact that everyone is entitled to legal representation — and implying that it’s unseemly. It’s a testament to the weakness of his character that he will never forthrightly accuse these attorneys of what he’s implying — sympathy with accused terrorists — in a way that they could refute. What a pathetic excuse for a man. Those of us in the media have an obligation to call this smear campaign what it is.

Think Progress rounds up more McCarthyite smears from the far right:

– The American Spectator escalates the number of potential terrorist “abettors” in the Department of Justice from 9 to “as many as 13 to 16.”

– David Davenport, a researcher at the conservative Hoover Institution, wrote in an editorial for the San Francisco Chronicle, “The Department of Justice is supposed to be prosecuting terrorists, not coddling them.”

– The Investor’s Business Daily headlines its editorial: “DOJ: Department of Jihad?” “Just whose side are they on?” IBD asks.

– “It’s like they’re bringing al Qaeda lawyers inside the Department of Justice,” said Debra Burlingame, who lost her brother on 9/11 and a board member of Liz Cheney’s group Keep America Safe.

by Alex Massie

As a general rule, Britain's political and media classes are too fond of importing anything and everything from American politics. This election is no different as both main parties try to emulate the successes of the Obama campaign. The biggest change, however, is the agreement to have a series of three leaders' debates.

Evidence from the United States suggests that such contests tend to confirm pre-existing trends, rather than sharply change the game. However, the US electorate is accustomed to televised debates; they remain a novelty in Britain and so it is quite possible that they will, this year anyway, have a bigger impact than might become customary in the future.

Tim Montgomerie, head of the Conservative grass-roots site ConservativeHome, lays out some of the reasons for opposing the debates here. They're cogent and not simply a question of partisan politics. Yes, the Prime Minister only agreed to the debates because of his lowly standing in the polls and, yes, Brown stands to benefit from the luxury of low expectations when it comes to the actual contests (though much will doubtless depend upon the exact format of the debates).

The biggest beneficiary of the debates, however, is likely to be Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats. Although there is no prospect of Clegg becoming Prime Minister (since his party attracts little more than 20% support) he will relish a rare opportunity of confronting Brown and Cameron on more or less equal terms. For once he won't be an afterthought.

Still, as I've suggested here and here, there's something depressing about having these contests at all. That's largely because it confirms and exacerbates the Presidentialisation of our politics, a cult of personality that sits ill with the parliamentary tradition.

A Brown vs Cameron contest is all very well and good but it turns the election into a contest between competing personality cults. That being so, far from strengthening parliament (a good idea!) it weakens it by giving the Prime Minister an even greater "mandate".

All this is perhaps inevitable and the debates are, in this sense, simply a recognition of the way the wind is blowing. Only a handful of voters will have the chance to vote for either Cameron or Brown but the debates will encourage all voters to ignore the competing claims of their local candidates and endorse instead the party, not the man (or woman). This is not the way to improve the quality of MPs.

In other words, whatever is useful (and entertaining) about the debates is countered by their drawbacks as we move towards the curious situation of electing a quasi-President via a parliamentary election. Britain will, of course and as is traditional, muddle through but the more Presidential politics becomes, so the case for rather more wide-ranging reforms becomes stronger.

But it does make one wonder what would happen if, hypothetically, Cameron or Brown were to "win" the debates but lose his seat even as their party won the election. Constitutionally, this would be of no great importance: the Queen would simply invite someone else to form a government that could command support from a majority of the House of Commons; politically, however, it might be a different matter as voters complained that they now had an "unelected" Prime Minister and a government that wouldn't quite be what any of them had voted for.

That won't happen this year but it could, as I say hypothetically, in some future election. So, even though its too late to complain about the cult of personality one should still be wary of it.