Month: March 2010

Greenwald tweeted:

Conservative Conor Friedersdorf: “Why Self-Respecting editors should be embarrassed to publish Marc Thiessen”

Friedersdorf winces:

[A]ffixing “conservative” to my name…is meant not to identify the tradition of thought that I find persuasive, but rather to place me into a political coalition for rhetorical effect or as context for readers: “Why look, this guy is a member of the same political coalition as Mark Theissen, and even he, a fellow conservative, thinks that Mr. Thiessen is an embarrassment.”

I understand why this might seem like a legitimate thing to do if one didn’t think about it long enough. But I don’t share a political coalition with Mr. Thiessen or his allies — that is to say, those on the right who argue that waterboarding isn’t torture, that the Bush Administration took the appropriate approach to detainee issues, and that lawyers who represented War on Terror detainees are equivalent to mob lawyers. I’d never support a candidate who believed those things, I write against them, and insofar as I care about the Republican Party at all, I do my utmost to steer it in as far in the opposite direction as possible. When it comes to the War on Terrorism, Mr. Theissen and I share neither an ideological nor a political coalition, even those we both call ourselves conservative — as far as I can tell, that’s because he is using the word to refer to the political coalition called the conservative movement, whereas I am using the word to refer to a body of thought contained in old books. On domestic policy, I think there is still some overlap between these camps, but on foreign policy, not so much.

A reader writes:

I don't mean to pry, but I know you and your husband were married in Massachusetts. I'm wondering, will DC recognize your marriage, or will you have to go through the process again?

Either way, congrats on this auspicious day.  Marriage advocates across the country should rejoice.  I'm a heterosexual woman and closet romantic. I looked at many of the photos from the day simultaneously overjoyed and wondering if hetero marriages in DC have already begun to disintegrate from this grievous affront.

Our marriage was already recognized by DC before this wonderful day. Now for the joint tax returns! Except we file a married return for state taxes and then have to say we are total strangers for the federal returns.

Even though we have been together for six years, shared a household for five and a half years, pooled our finances for five and a half years and will be celebrating our third wedding anniversary this summer, we are total strangers as far as the federal government is concerned. And if the federal government recognized our marriage, I would have been an American citizen three years ago. In fact, if I had married a longtime female friend 20 years ago, I would be a long-standing citizen right now. (Yes, a heterosexual marriage would have voided the HIV ban automatically for the past 22 years.)

What does the federal government call a legally married man who has paid taxes for twenty-two years and has a PhD, and a job? A faggot.

Ponnuru and Lowry respond to the many critics of their essay on American exceptionalism. Samuel Goldman interjects:

Ponnuru and Lowry admit that Obama has explicitly acknowledged America’s exceptional principles and role. But they dismiss this with the observation that it  “would be remarkable if any president did not say such things.” Which is true enough. But in that case, the argument becomes trivially psychologizing: Obama SAYS he believes in American exceptionalism, but he doesn’t really MEAN it.  As far as I can tell, Ponnuru and Lowry present no evidence for that conclusion except some quotes in which Obama suggests that the election of a black man, namely himself, to the presidency was sort of a big deal.  I guess that can be seen as narcissistic.  But I seem to recall a similar sentiment expressed in the pages of NR and Commentary back in November.

Chait draws a connection:

This seems to be another case of life-imitates-The-Simpsons — specifically, the episode where incarcerated attempted murderer Sideshow Bob calls into (the obvious parody of) Limbaugh's program and casts himself as a conservative unfairly railroaded by the liberal justice system. Limbaugh turns him into a martyr. See this video, starting at approximately 4:40 and continuing for about two minutes

A reader writes:

You're justified in pointing out your opposition to Medicare D and the energy bill in 2003 as evidence of your longstanding fiscal conservatism. I think an honest accounting, however, would also need to justify your support of Bush's budget-busting tax cuts as well (which you were still supporting and defending at least as late as 2006). What principle justifies exploding the deficit for the purpose of giving cash to rich people but condemns it for giving prescription drugs to old people?

Well here goes, with a quick answer:

Because in 2000, we had a growing surplus and I was alarmed it could be siphoned off into more entitlement spending, and naively believed the tax cuts would prevent this. I did not realize that the Bush administration would both cut taxes and explode spending and launch two massive wars off-budget. That's why I endorsed Kerry in 2004. I still believe that prescription drugs for the retired should be means-tested, as healthcare spending has been distorted by politics to favor the affluent retired rather than the working poor.

The explosion in medical costs since 2000 or 2003, along with the brutal recession, and a greater awareness of the real suffering this has created, has also convinced me that systematic reform is necessary, as long as it is fiscally responsible. After a decade of stagnant wages, and dramatically rising inequality, this conservative, persuaded largely by Obama, has come around to favoring universal access to insurance as a core matter of re-balancing the polity for social stability and helping an increasingly beleaguered middle class, whose vibrancy I regard, following Aristotle, as a key element in social order.

(Hat tip: Dvorak.)

The Leveretts sum up their trip to Iran:

Conversations and observations in Tehran confirm our assessment that the Green Movement’s social base is shrinking, not growing.  We met a number of young people who claimed they had supported Mousavi’s presidential candidacy (and, in some cases, said they had participated in demonstrations against the results in the first few days after the election) but who now say they are deeply disappointed in Mousavi—in particular, for having continued protesting against the outcome after failing to produce evidence of electoral fraud.

I’m not impugning their evidence; but I don’t believe it is in any way indicative of the broader support for fundamental change.

Lexington sums up Philip Jenkins' argument:

Gay-bashing in Uganda was common long before any American preachers showed up and gave unpleasant speeches. Rivalry between Islam and Christianity for adherents ensures that preachers of both faiths compete to offer the most anti-gay vision, because that is what a lot of Ugandans want. As in many parts of Africa, openly gay people risk being lynched. The idea that Africans are passive puppets waiting to be told what to do by Americans is both wrong and insulting, says Mr. Jenkins.

Two things I'd add: this was given legitimacy and a spark from the American Christianist right; and there is also in Africa an emergent gay rights awareness, and a fledgling gay rights movement. I think assuming rank homophobia among all Africans is too broad a brush. In Africa, it's now America in the 1950s. I believe Africa's movement toward greater gay awareness in the 2010s will happen more swiftly than in America in the 1950s, not least because of the international examples that now abound.