Grappling with the 9/11 Families

by Conor Friedersdorf

In a debate about the so-called Ground Zero mosque at a family dinner, I hit upon an analogy that seemed to persuade my interlocutors just a little bit. We were talking about the 9/11 families, some of whom are upset and offended by the project.

Here's the analogy I want to try out. Imagine a suburban street where three kids in a single family were molested by a Catholic priest, who was subsequently transferred by the archbishop to a faraway parish, and never prosecuted. Nine years later, a devout Catholic woman who lives five or six doors down decides that she's going to start a prayer group for orthodox Catholics — they'll meet once a week in her living room, and occasionally a local priest, recently graduated from a far away seminary, will attend.

Even if we believe that it is irrational for the mother of the molested kids to be upset by this prayer group on her street, it's easy enough to understand her reaction. Had she joined an activist group critical of the Catholic Church in the aftermath of the molestation, it's easy to imagine that group backing the mother. As evident is the fact that the devout Catholic woman isn't culpable for molestations in the Catholic church — in fact, even though we understand why her prayer group upsets the neighbor, it is perfectly plausible that the prayer group organizers never imagined that their plan would be upsetting or controversial. In their minds (and in fact), they're as opposed to child molestation as anyone, and it's easy to see why they'd be offended by any implication to the contrary.

Presented with that situation, how should the other people on the street react? Should they try to get city officials to prevent the prayer meetings from happening because they perhaps violate some technicality in the neighborhood zoning laws? Should they hold press conferences denouncing the devout woman? Should they investigate the priest who plans to attend? What if he once said, "Child molestation is a terrible sin, it is always wrong, and I am working to prevent it from ever happening again. I feel compelled to add that America's over-sexualized culture is an accessory to this crime." Does that change anything?

I'd certainly side with the woman who wants to hold the prayer group, and her fellow orthodox Catholics. I'd presume without investigating that almost all if not every last one of them is very much against the widespread abuse problems in the Catholic church. And I'd look with disdain on anyone who publicly speculated without evidence that these Catholics were molestation apologists. I suspect that far more than 30 percent of Americans — the percentage that support the mosque — would agree with my approach. I wonder if anyone else finds this to be a useful analogy.

If so, I encourage its use!

Yglesias Award Nominee

by Chris Bodenner

"Critics of birthright citizenship cite poll numbers and recent laws passed by European countries limiting citizenship. America is not Europe. Nor should we want to be. Europe has struggled for centuries with assimilating ethnic groups. By contrast, America’s unique melting pot of cultures and ethnicities has successfully assimilated new groups in far less time. This assimilation has made the whole nation stronger.

The 14th Amendment is one of the crowning achievements of the Republican Party. Following the Civil War, the 14th Amendment guaranteed due process for every person under the law and helped to reunite a fractured nation. It pains me to think that we may start tinkering with this fundamental fabric of our union" – Congressman Charles Djou, using the WSJ to call out Republicans who want our constitution to be more like France's.

Moore Award Nominee

"[A] traumatized America that, up until [9/11], thought it was “all that” was easily manipulated into being the blunt instrument of war that Bill Kristol and his chickenhawk buddies at PNAC had their hearts set on since the late 90’s. To them, the attack on 9/11 was the greatest fucking day of their lives because it gave them the causus belli fantasy that they had been masturbating to for years," – TBogg, adding that Kristol should "just fuck off and die, you evil piece of shit."

A Man Who Deserves To Be Viable in 2012

by Conor Friedersdorf

Imagine a successful two-term Republican governor with a credible small government record, a demonstrated commitment to civil liberties, skepticism about foreign wars, a longstanding determination to right America's fiscal ship, evidence of competent management skills in the public and private sectors, and an utter lack of ugly populist rhetoric during the whole of his substantial time in public life. You'd think he'd be a God send for tea partiers and civil libertarians, a possibility to win the GOP nomination in 2012, and an appealing alternative for those of us who think that given a sane alternative Barack Obama doesn't deserve another term.

That attractive, reality-based Republican exists! His name is Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico. Says Niall Stanage in a Salon.com profile:

Aside from his low name-recognition, he has no discernible power base. After eight years on the job in Santa Fe, he was term-limited out of the governorship at the end of 2002 and stepped back from public life thereafter. Fundraising will be arduous. And his ambitions are the object of outright scorn from the Washington establishment. 

"His chances are zero," political analyst Stu Rothenberg says via e-mail. "I'd say that they are less than zero, if there was such a thing. I'd expect his impact to be nonexistent."

Tell a savvy politico that you'd love to see former Governor Johnson win the Republican nomination and they'll tell you the same thing, usually in a condescending tone: he doesn't have a chance. It's a dynamic I might accept if the GOP field were filled with excellent options. As things are, however, there's talk of Mitt Romney reappearing in a guise that has yet to be determined, a new xenophobic version of Newt Gingrich advancing the notion that Saudi Arabia and its treatment of religious freedom should inform attitudes toward religious freedom in America, and Sarah Palin, whose crowning achievement as governor of Alaska was… well, never mind that, she's a cultural phenom and really connects with the base!!

Here's the thing about politicians and their initial rise to national attention: it's often a phenomenon driven by elites. Sometimes promising young leaders are given a speaking slot at a political convention, like Barack

Obama. Other times it's taste-makers in coastal media who launch a pol from obscurity: take Bill Kristol's role in the rise of Sarah Palin, who he championed after meeting her on a luxury cruise to Alaska. There isn't anything wrong with elites alerting the wider public to a deserving candidate. What I object to are the judgments about who is worthy of that boost.

The GOP establishment gave us George W. Bush as a fait accompli during the 2000 primary season, and taste-makers in the conservative movement remain proud of having launched Sarah Palin's career in national politics. Either the elites on the right should start alerting us to worthier leaders, or else the GOP rank-and-file should start looking elsewhere for inspiration. (Being a Gary Johnson partisan, I'd suggest Reason magazine, where writers seem more interested in advancing the careers of people who share their professed beliefs, as opposed to helping ciphers who'll advance their agenda out of a combination of policy ignorance, malleability, and personal indebtedness.) At the moment, the best way to raise your profile in the GOP is to denounce the mosque and community center being planned a few blocks from Ground Zero. Is that the incentive structure the right wants?

It remains to be seen what Barack Obama will do for the remainder of his term. And national politics tends to reveal previously unknown facts about people who enter it, so perhaps Gary Johnson is less appealing than he seems. Were our criteria for viable presidential candidates more sane, however, he'd be a strong contender, due to his experience, desire to reform obviously broken policies, apparent lack of disqualifying traits, credibility in principled statements, and alignment with a sizable chunk of the most dissatisfied voters on key issues.

Instead attention is meted out based on opaque standards that are causing us to consider Mitt, Sarah and Newt as front-runners, a status quo that does a special disservice to tea party voters who'd love a former New Mexico governor if only they knew more about him.

At the very least, it is time to give Gary Johnson a fighting chance.

An Online Ivy? Ctd

by Patrick Appel

Anya Kemenetz called TED a "new Harvard." Joyner dissents:

While maybe we don’t need the current structural system of majors, minors, and core curricula, we need some kind of structure.   Higher education isn’t simply dabbling in some interesting discussions for a few years.    Students are supposed to come away with some amount of knowledge about a whole variety of topics, the ability to write, the ability to do basic research, and the like.   You’re not going to get any of that from watching videos about the advent of modern canned spaghetti sauce.

Further, I wonder how interesting the TED talks would be to the average 18-year-old?   Even to the average entering freshman at an Ivy League school?   My guess is that they’re mostly being watched by highly educated people, who have a foundation to be provoked into thinking about niche ideas after a few years of post-college living.

The Cordoba Mosque – And Conservatism, Ctd

by Patrick Appel

Josh Barro's two cents:

What I find bizarre about some of the conservative response to Cordoba House is not just the objection to the construction of the mosque, but the conviction that it should be stopped by any means necessary—even if that means violating conservative principles about property rights, rule of law, and federalism.

Hewitt Award Nominee

By Chris Bodenner

"Paging Islamofascists: Our founding principles demand Barack Obama support Jihad. … Paging the Church of Satan: Our founding principles demand Barack Obama support your rights to human sacrifice. Carry on," Erick Erickson, still a CNN contributor.

On the other hand, the weekend crew of "Fox and Friends" took the admirable stance of defending the president and religious freedom.