Author: Andrew Sullivan

I’m writing this in a Starbucks in Dearborn, Michigan, (love will find a way), after a trip to LA and back to Ptown tomorrow, before NYC and then back to DC. Blogging may be a little erratic. It was fun in LA. Hanging with Bill Maher, in so far as I can remember anything from after the show, is never boring. I met Frank Gehry on the flight over as well. He overheard my talking to my London editor about my column and chimed in with an anti-Bush comment. Amazing how being pro ar anti-Bush is now a significant cultural and psychological marker in the country. My own mixed feelings are pretty rare these days. Gehry sure didn’t seem to have any.

BUSH AND THE WAR: Perhaps the most impressive achievement of the Republican convention and the Bush campaign is to present the president as a war-leader in the abstract. The most celebrated images were from the wreckage of 9/11 when Bush spoke the only truly inspired off-the-cuff remarks of his presidency. The actual concrete details of his war-leadership – the fall of Kabul, the blitzkrieg to Baghdad, the aborted siege of Fallujah – were absent. So too the protracted negotiations at the U.N. or any images of Bush with foreign leaders, or the decision to advance the war by days to get Saddam (more bad intelligence) or even the speech that launched the Iraq war. What I think the Republicans have realized is that the war on terror is far more popular and winning an issue for Bush if it is stripped of its actual events, and setbacks and triumphs and difficulties. That’s why the convention rhetoric approached propaganda – focusing not on what has happened, but on the virtues of a strong war-leader. The dynamics of both wars – of instant military success, followed by damaging and difficult follow-through – were deliberately obscured. This is good politics; but it strikes me as risky war-management. People need leaders who level with them about failures and difficulties in wartime – not gauzy North Korean-style biopics about the invincibility of the Great Leader. But then this war, vital as it is, has been exploited by the Bushies for political purposes since it began. How else to explain the “Mission Accomplished” photo-op or the bare-knuckled 2002 Congressional campaign? Some on the left would have politicized this war under any circumstances. But others might have rallied to a war that was conducted with less hardball domestic politics. In this, Bush is, of course, the opposite of Churchill, who brought in opposition leaders to play key roles in his war-cabinet. I know that’s not the American tradition, but a little less politics might have gone a long way. And made the middle-ground voter a little more sympathetic to the narrative that the Republicans are now so effectively deploying.

DIVIDE, DIVIDE: One other thing has troubled me, after mulling the NYC convention for a few days. It struck me that John Kerry at his convention did something politically shrewd but also historically significant. He took a reluctant Democratic base and emphatically backed the war on terror. Yes, he did not relinquish criticism of the war in Iraq, nor of the way in which the Bush administration had made the case for war. But it was not a left-wing convention, and it signaled a welcome shift among Democrats to a more war-oriented approach. The Republicans essentially responded by throwing back this concession in John Kerry’s face. They refused to take “yes, but” for an answer, and dredged up the divisions of the Vietnam War as a means to further polarize the electorate. Again, this might be good politics, but it is surely bad for the country. I believe in this war, which is also why I believe it is important to get as many Democrats to support it. But the Republicans have all but declared that this is a Republican war – and can only be conducted by a Republican president. I think they will live to regret this almost as much as the country will. And I fear the animosity and division that are already part of the cultural fabric (by no means all fomented by the president) could get worse in the coming years – to the glee of our enemies. In wartime, unity matters. When a campaign deliberately tries to maximize polarization to its advantage, it simultaneously undermines the war. Winning this war is more important than building a new Republican majority. But somehow I don’t think that’s how Karl Rove sees it.

OLD EUROPE ON THE BRINK: Will Hutton rightly observes the slide toward steep decline in France and Germany. But he’s wrong about Europe as a whole. Britain, unshackled by Thatcher from socialist economics, is as vibrant as it’s ever been in the past fifty years – culturally and economically. Hutton, of course, frets that this coud mean the end of the EU as a viable institution. Man, I hope so.

“The one thing I wanted to see last night was Mary Cheney on stage with her family after the president’s speech. That would at least have given me some sign of hope, but it was just asking for too much from this crowd. And, I’ve considered myself a moderate of this crowd for a while now. It really bugs me. I’m RC, married with two little kids living in the burbs of Chicago and I can’t get over how much this bothers me because it wouldn’t have been something to get to me before.” Steve Waldman makes a similar point at Beliefnet:

What possible explanation is there here that doesn’t make the Cheneys look like ghoulish parents? I suppose we should wait for more information; perhaps she had an appendicitis attack and was immobile. More likely, either they discouraged her from appearing or she voluntarily exiled herself, not wanting to embarrass her dad, at which point dad should have said, “I love you. You belong up here with me.”
As I wrote earlier, perhaps Mary said she couldn’t wound her partner by going up their without her. If that was the case, the compassionate thing for the Cheneys to do would be take away the awkwardness by having the podium scene without spouses. They would have produced a slightly less cheery photo up but made a powerful statement about love, pride and family.
And this has nothing to do with one’s position on gay marriage. Having Mary Cheney up there would have in no way contradicted either Dick Cheney or George W. Bush’s policies on gay marriage. Bush should be asked about this, too. Powerful evidence was offered that, on a personal level, Bush is a compassionate man. So why didn’t he go to Cheney and say: “Hey, don’t sweat it Dick. Mary is part of our family. Don’t worry about the politics”?

But that’s not the way they are, is it? The Republicans talk about family values; but they believe in disappearing their loved ones when politics demands it.

EMAIL OF THE DAY II: “I always find historical analogies interesting and have been pondering how the current Bush Administration compares to governments in time of change. I think there is a Bismarck analogy, but not exactly the one you used.
I agree with your discussion of Bismarck’s domestic and foreign policies. He was a firm believer in German military might, but an even bigger proponent of a pragmatic diplomacy to achieve his goals. After German unification, he was the architect of a sort of collective security system for Europe. The Reinsurance Treaty between Germany and the other great powers called for the each to come each other’s aid if attacked by one of the signers. Thus, Germany removed the threat of a two front war and the other continental powers received some assurance from being invaded (again) from what was becoming the dominant economy in Europe. The arrangement left Britain blissfully untangled in continental matters and free to focus on Empire. In the late 1800s this arrangement resulted in the biggest rivalries being between England and France in Africa and England and Russia in central Asia. It left Germany out of the colonial game, but allowed it to rapidly grow it’s economy. Unfortunately, this arrangement required a lot of diplomatic dexterity on Germany’s part, some might say, a nuanced approach.
The new Kaiser, Wilhelm II, was cool to this approach and thought it limited Germany’s freedom of action in things like colonial policy. So, with the departure of Bismarck, Germany, now clearly the dominant economy in Europe, set out to make its way outside the nuanced collective security system. It let lapse the Reinsurance Treaty which set in motion a dynamic which eventually resulted in an alliance between France and Russia clearly aimed at Germany. France began a long term effort to establish an entente with Britain, up to now its chief rival. Germany, seeking to project its power overseas, began to build a major navy, finally pushing Britain, on the eve of the Great War, to an understanding with France and Russia.
The irony was that Germany, in trying to assert itself more forcefully, now found itself isolated, surrounded by the other powers, and less secure than ever.
Any resemblance to current events is purely coincidental.”

Bill Clinton is in hospital, with an emergency bypass operation. Check in on Lucianne Goldberg’s site to see how her readers respond:

No doubt his arteries are clogged up with pounds of MacDonalds hamburgers and pizzas.

I at least hope he lives long enough to see JFK AND Hildabeast go down in flames. Then he can go down in flames, metaphorically speaking. I hope his big honkin’ bible is printed on asbestos so he can carry it with him.

Give him a enema and send him home. The widow Hillary will gather the sympathy vote in 08′

sorry, I cant muster any sympathy. I’d feel the same if they said Saddam was gettin bypass surgery. It’s a waste of time and money.

My prayers are for all those he lied to, hurt, and misused.

I wonder if this is heart damage from snorting cocaine.

Where can I send a happy meal?

Classy, no? I particularly like the equation of Clinton with Saddam. An almost perfect reflected image of the loony left.

The Washington Post details Zell’s most recent untruths about John Kerry’s record. Hey, as Zell might have put it, he was merely “trying to mislead the people of the United States.” Money quote:

Cheney, at the time defense secretary, had scolded Congress for keeping alive such programs as the F-14 and F-16 jet fighters that he wanted to eliminate. Miller said in his speech that Kerry had foolishly opposed both the weapons systems and would have left the military armed with “spitballs.” During that same debate, President George H.W. Bush, the current president’s father, proposed shutting down production of the B-2 bomber — another weapons system cited by Miller — and pledged to cut defense spending by 30 percent in eight years.
Though Miller recited a long list of weapons systems, Kerry did not vote against these specific weapons on the floor of the Senate during this period. Instead, he voted against an omnibus defense spending bill that would have funded all these programs; it is this vote that forms the crux of the GOP case that he “opposed” these programs.
On the Senate floor, Kerry cast his vote in terms of fiscal concerns, saying the defense bill did not “represent sound budgetary policy” in a time of “extreme budget austerity.”

You know, Dick Cheney has called the liberation an “occupation” and opposed many of the things Miller accused Kerry of opposing. Does that make Dick Cheney wobbly in the war on terror?

There’s more interesting background on it from Blog for Democracy. The quote came up in a debate in an election Begala and Carville were running for Miller. Here’s what happened, once Miller’s opponent brought it up:

[W]e were thrilled when Miller wheeled on his accuser and said that back in 1964 when the Atlanta Constitution had printed that so-called quote he’d marched down to the paper’s offices and demanded and received a correction. He’d never say a thing like that. A great moment.
The next day that great moment became one of our greatest nightmares. Al May, the veteran political reporter for the Atlanta Constitution, interviewed Miller as Paul drove them and Shirley Miller to an event in rural Georgia. May made small talk for a little while. Then he sprang the trap. “Zell,” he said, “I’ve talked to all the editors who were around back then, checked the morgue and the archives, and you never asked for a retraction and the paper never printed one.”
“I know,” Miller said, biting the words off the words like they were bitter herbs.
“So why’d you say all that in the debate last night?”
Miller leaned in close to May and said, “Because, Al, I was trying to mislead the people of Georgia.”

A liar and a bigot. And a hero to conservatives everywhere.

Finally, someone in the inner circle explains what motives Bush’s nanny-state, expensive, big government conservatism:

“It struck me as I was speaking to people in Bangor, Maine, that this president sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child,” [Andy] Card said. “I know as a parent I would sacrifice all for my children.”

The old “leave-us-alone” conservatism really is dead, isn’t it?

I’ll be on Real Time with Bill Maher tonight on HBO. I’m on with Arianna and Jason Alexander on the panel; and Howard Dean and Pat Buchanan will be beamed in. Tune in.

Here’s the quote. Forty years ago, Zell Miller said that Johnson was “a Southerner who sold his birthright for a mess of dark pottage.” It’s a vile, bigoted, evil statement. He has since renounced his remarks. But since Miller also resurrected an ancient and disowned quote from Kerry on the U.N., this record is fair game. The unvarnished truth is that Miller was once a proud bigot toward blacks and, now that that is no longer acceptable, he is a proud bigot toward gays. I’m appalled that the Republican party would use as its keynoter someone who was once a proud segregationist. I’m appalled that decent people like Glenn Reynolds prefer to look the other way. I’m told that doesn’t count by some Republicans because Bill Clinton used the same man – for the same purpose (and before Miller became even more rabid). That’s a defense? You know Republicans are desperate when they use Clinton as a moral exemplar. The objects of Zell Miller’s hatred have shifted; but the spirit is the same. What was once the dark stain of the Democratic party is now being used by Republicans. And it is cheered to the ceiling by people who really should know better.

“I should probably clarify here, at least in a broad stroke, my own political leanings. I generally consider myself conservative in many respects, but have been leaning more moderate on many issues lately. I cannot call myself a Republican anymore, though I once did, as the GOP has, in my mind, become a party that does not represent my thoughts. I prefer a different form of conservative political thought than that which passes for “conservative” in contemporary political parlance. Perhaps it gives you some indication of my inclinations if I mention that George Will is one of my absolute favorite writers, and that I despise Ann Coulter.
I provide this information not to show off my conservative bona fides, but rather to help explain why I was moved to write you and offer a heartfelt “thank you” for the piece you wrote about Senator Miller’s speech. I found myself in 100% agreement with what you wrote. I was thoroughly disgusted by the speech, and I have been angered too often in recent times by the attempts of the Republicans to monopolize patriotism, and to paint all legitimate opposition as “treason”. This is why I responded so strongly to your piece– it seemed to have come straight from my own thoughts on the speech, and it was welcome relief to find a prominent conservative writer who expressed so clearly and forcefully the very thoughts echoing in my head, both after that speech, and in general.” More response (and most has been virulently hostile) on the Letters Page.

Oh: and a bleg. I’m trying to track down a quote I read somewhere from Zell Miller. It may be true, or not. But it went something like: “Lyndon Johnson has sold his soul for a bowl of dark pottage.” He was referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Anybody know the provenance of this remark? Or did I misread something somewhere?

Understanding the mistakes we have made in Iraq is, of course, essential to improving the situation there and also fighting the war on terror in the future. And when you read Juan Cole’s blog, it is, at its best, stimulating and informative. Here’s a passage that is pretty damning about the Bush administration’s stance, but nevertheless cogent enough:

The Bush administration simply mismanaged Iraq. It dissolved the Iraqi army, throwing the country into chaos. That army was not gone and would have gladly showed up at the barracks for a paycheck. It pursued a highly punitive policy of firing and excluding members of the Baath Party, which was not done in so thorough-going a manner even to Nazis in post-war Germany. It canceled planned municipal elections, denying people any stake in their new “government,” which was more or less appointed by the US. It put all its efforts into destroying Arab socialism in Iraq and creating a sudden free market, rather than paying attention to the preconditions for entrepreneurial activity, like security and services. It kept changing its policies – early on it was going to turn the country over to Ahmad Chalabi in 6 months. Then that plan was scotched and Paul Bremer was brought in to play MacArthur in Tokyo for a projected two or three years. Then that didn’t work and there would be council-based elections. Then those wouldn’t work and there would be a “transfer of sovereignty.” All this is not to mention the brutal and punitive sieges of Fallujah and Najaf and the Abu Ghuraib torture scandal, etc., etc.

Too harsh in some respects, but not unconvincing. And then Cole undermines confidence in him with the following assertions:

No American president has more desperately sought out a war with any country than George W. Bush sought out this war with Iraq. Only Polk’s war on Mexico, also based on false pretexts, even comes close to the degree of crafty manipulation employed by Bush and Cheney to get up the Iraq war. Intelligence about weapons of mass destruction was deliberately and vastly exaggerated, producing a “nuclear threat” where there wasn’t even so much as a single gamma ray to be registered. Innuendo and repetition were cleverly used to tie Saddam to Usama Bin Laden operationally, a link that all serious intelligence professionals deny.

I don’t know what inside information Cole has to say that all this was a deliberate misrepresentation, but the glib and easy assignment of ulterior motives and bad faith is cheap and unhelpful. It gets worse:

So it wasn’t a catastrophic success that caused the problem. It was that Iraq was being run at the upper levels by a handful of screw-ups who had all sorts of ulterior motives, and at least sometimes did not have the best interests of the country at heart. And Bush is the one who put them in charge.

That is essentially an accusation of treason or double loyalty. So in the midst of an intelligent and well-informed critique, we have unproven accusations that this administration is deliberately working against the interests of this country. If you ask me, that’s why the far-left Middle East academic elite has had so little influence over this debate. Their shrillness crowds out their expertise.