DADT: What Now?

Cohn does some crystal ball reading:

While the judge has decided that DADT is unconstitutional, she hasn’t said what, exactly, the government has to do in response. If she says the government has to stop enforcing DADT, then Justice has to appeal, for the reason I said. But, based on what I've seen, it sounds like it’s possible that she would just order the reinstatement of the plaintiffs in this case. If so, then it is barely possible–unlikely, but imaginable–that the government would just drop the case. That is because a decision by a district court does not establish a precedent binding on anyone. I could imagine the government saying that it’s not worth spending the time and money on an appeal when the case establishes no precedent and just requires the reinstatement of a couple of service-members.

The Case For Modesty In Afghanistan, Ctd

Andrew Exum calls Joshua Foust's criticism of the Afghanistan Study Group report "the most clinical and devastating take-down of a policy paper I have ever read." Josh:

[T]he best way to ensure Afghanistan does not fall into chaos is to leave the country as stable as possible. Reducing it to a Special Forces and Drone targetting range, which the group recommends, is just as unsustainable in the long run as the current counterinsurgency effort. Maintaining an active drone program to preemptively bomb any new al Qaeda camps that might spring up will be difficult if not impossible without a massive human intelligence network to support it—and that HUMINT network cannot be maintained without a significant U.S. military and intelligence presence in the country (which is difficult to do if 80% of the force is withdrawn over the next 18 months, as ASG suggest).

D’Souza’s Duct Tape

As noted earlier, Newt Gingrich is touting Dinesh D’Souza's latest nonsense. Weigel retorts:

D'Souza uses a lot of duct tape to put this together — his argument that one quote from the NASA administrator means that Obama has invented a "curious mandate to convert a space agency into a Muslim and international outreach (sic)," for example. It's the kind of analysis that puts greater import on quotes from speeches and interviews then from the theory and research that inform the thousands of staffers who actually import policy, which is fun, but a little wispy. It's not — not — a wink at any conspiracy theories. But it is a knowing attempt by Gingrich to shift the Overton Window and make sure a heretofore crazy-sounding idea — that the president's view of the world comes from 1960s anti-colonialism and Marxism — gets discussed by serious people. And it will!

The Year 1919 Or 1920

Nine years after 9/11, George Packer looks at the path we've taken since:

Crazy, murderous violence hasn’t spread across the land. But unreason, cheered on by cable news, has won the day. We have undeniably gone sour on interfaith tolerance. We have turned inward in sullen exhaustion. The staggering chain of consequences and characters that followed 9/11—Kabul, Tora Bora, Daniel Pearl, John Yoo, Bagram, Guantánamo, Baghdad, Sergio Vieira de Mello, Madrid, Falluja, Abu Ghraib, Nick Berg, London, Zarqawi, military commissions, Samarra, eavesdropping, Sean Hannity, the Taliban’s return, Benazir Bhutto, Mumbai, Hakimullah Mehsud—seems like a fever dream of can-you-top-this atrocities from which we can’t wake up. The bill is finally coming due at home. It turned out that the Bush rhetoric of religious understanding and freedom was a lot less potent and durable than the Bush policies.

Our Wilsonian phase just took too much effort, required too much suspension of deeper, stronger feelings. And we are out of it now. In Wilsonian terms, we are around the year 1919 or 1920. The noble mission to make the world safe for democracy ended inconclusively, and its aftermath has curdled into an atmosphere more like that of the Palmer raids and the second coming of the Klan. This is why Obama seems less and less able to speak to and for our times. He’s the voice of reason incarnate, and maybe he’s too sane to be heard in either Jalalabad or Georgia. An epigraph for our times appears in Jonathan Franzen’s new novel “Freedom”: “The personality susceptible to the dream of limitless freedom is a personality also prone, should the dream ever sour, to misanthropy and rage.”

Freeing You From The Burden Of Pressing Enter

Alexis Madigral weighs the pros and cons of Google Instant, which displays search results as you type. Here are "two pretty glaring downsides":

First, it is a visually intense experience, possibly even an overwhelming one. Tech journalist John Pavlus described it as "like having a websearch seizure. [The] screen explodes with noise as you type." Second — and this is more subtle — I worry that Google is driving more traffic to the most statistically probable searches. The most-trafficked ways of searching for something will get more trafficked. I wouldn't be surprised to see the number of unique searches drop because people see something in the list that makes sense, even if it's not exactly how they'd have put it.

The feature is spreading to Twitter, YouTube, and iTunes. Alexis in earlier post addresses Google's "Odd Vision for the Future of Search." Jason Newman "present[s] to you the full power of Google Instant via the most obvious song: Billy Joel's 'We Didn't Start the Fire.'"

Conservative Degeneracy Watch

Yuval Levin is one of the right's brightest intellectual stars. He has written intelligently on many subjects and although I don't know him, he seems the kind of person conservatism will need if it is to recover. So imagine how one feels reading a paragraph like the following:

Democrats, as the president’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel explained in 2008, have sought to use the ongoing economic crisis to achieve all kinds of unrelated goals: health care policy they have craved for decades, environmental policy that has little to do with the economy, more protections for unions, a greater role for government in the financial and automotive sectors, and on and on.

The health-care plan to provide access to insurance for the tens of millions was a clear part of Obama's election campaign. It eschewed the left's dream – single-payer – and eliminated a public option. It was supported by the drug and insurance companies. It needs constant monitoring and improvement if it is to control costs, but it has set up a market in insurance that could be a model for future conservative innovation. It strongly resembles Mitt Romney's legacy in Massachusetts. None of this was snuck through in the stimulus package described by Rahm Emanuel's infamous aside. It was the result of almost two years of painful attempts at some kind of bipartisan agreement. It reduces the deficit over the long run if the CBO is to be believed – unlike the unpaid for, budget-busting Medicare D that Bush and Cheney foisted on the next generation.

Yuval then writes the befuddling phrase: "environmental policy that has little to do with the economy." In fact, as we know, no gains have been made in curtailing climate change, unless you include some of the green energy components in the stimulus package, and Obama's biggest gesture was to endorse off-shore oil-drilling, to make his environmental policy close to identical to John McCain's. Climate change legislation – cap-and-trade – didn't occur, but even there, that strategy is designed to minimize disruption to markets and came from the right, not the left in the 1980s and 1990s. Again, Yuval makes it seem as if this comes from nowhere, as if the evidence that America is being trounced by China in this vital new industry and if the climate isn't clearly veering toward unpredictable crises were phantasms of the mind.

Then: protection for unions. Again, there is no card-check legislation. It was not a priority. It was not snuck into the stimulus package.

Lastly "a greater role for government in the financial and automotive sectors." What you will notice is that there is no reference in any of this to the appalling economic circumstances Obama inherited which determined both policies. It's like describing FDR's policies as if the Great Depression never happened. What a leap toward Kenyan anti-colonialism that was. Indeed, in the Weekly Standard's headline "madness".  Levin, of course, makes no reference to the deregulated chaos that precipitated the financial meltdown that created the worst recession since the Second World War ( or are Richard Posner and Alan Greenspan Kenyan anti-colonialists now as well?). And what Obama has done to rein in some of the abuses is relatively modest, wrought by such radicals as Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, to the consternation and contempt of the left. As for the auto companies, the emergency aid given has been a gleaming success with Detroit managing to turn things around far more quickly than most imagined. Ditto the banks, where the government may actually be making money off its bailout soon, just as GM is eager to sell off its government-owned stock to the private sector.

I leave behind Obama's refusal to prosecute war criminals, drastic escalation of the war in Afghanistan, continuation of Bush policies in Iraq, or disdain for advancing gay equality. This "madness" is presumably something the Republicans would continue.

All this Yuval knows. He is not a Beck or Palin with no grip on reality at all. And yet this is what the intellectual right at its best is now dedicated to: pure propaganda on the crudest old right-left axis, arguing that a recession caused in part by a Republican administration's neglect and in part by failed Republican policies can be rectified merely by Republican rule.

Again, I thought it would get worse before it got better on the right. But that we have propagandistic, intellectually dishonest dreck like this coming from their brightest stars – and that large swathes of the American public seem to be buying it – brings one close to despair.

The Liberal Psyche

Chait is exasperated with liberals' disappointment over Obama, "a president with the most effective progressive record in more than four decades":

Liberals tend to imagine progress occurring in a blaze of populist glory, but almost inevitably it requires grubby compromises with powerful and unseemly interests. Medicare, Social Security—they were all half-measures that involved a devil’s bargain. In 1949, Arthur Schlesinger identified the “doughface” progressive tendency as a discomfort with the realities and compromises of governing. “Politics becomes, not a means of getting things done,” he wrote, “but an outlet for private grievances and frustrations.”

I don’t think this trait describes all of Obama’s (or Clinton’s) liberal critics, and certainly not [John] Judis. But it does reflect a persistent liberal uneasiness with power.