Author: Andrew Sullivan

Palin vs The Mosque, Ctd

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Understanding Real America in Wasilla
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

A reader writes:

Honestly, I think one thing that is driving me absolutely bonkers about this whole issue is that Palin constantly paints New Yorkers (and everyone on the eastern seaboard) as not being of "real" America.  Yet here she a) rushes in to defend New York-as-America when she happily throws the east coast under the bus the rest of the year to appeal to voters elsewhere and b) clearly does not understand the fundamental value of freedom of religion that drove the founding of this country.

Another writes:

Let us not forget that Palin adores Manhattan, as evidenced by her RNC-funded shopping sprees at Saks Fifth Ave, Barney's and Bloomingdale's.  So maybe her concerns about what is built in that city can be justified. But as long as she's claiming NYC, she has to give up the fake small-town, "heartland," one-of-us charade.

Another:

I don't normally write in to blogs, but this issue is so infuriating to me that I felt compelled to add something.

I live in Astoria, Queens, one of the more ethnically diverse neighborhoods in New York, and I love it here. I live a few blocks away from a stretch of Steinway Street that's been dubbed "Little Cairo," because it's attracted a substantial Middle Eastern population, and you can see it in the hookah bars and Arabic script on the front of the stores. A few blocks in the other direction is a mosque and Muslim community center, which I frequently pass when I go for a run. Next door to my apartment building is a barber shop for Arab men.

Living around Middle Eastern and Muslim communities is part of normal life for me, as I would argue it is part of normal life for any New Yorker, even if they don't realize it. And that is why Sarah Palin's comments anger me so: she claims to speak for "us," to stand up for the common New Yorker who was so hurt by 9/11. And, of course, she's not "us"; in fact, she goes out of her way to demonstrate that she's not "us," and that we urban elites are what's wrong with this country. And now she wants to stand in for "us," because there is an even more nefarious "them" on which to focus her scorn and paranoia. The presumptuousness is astounding, and hurtful.

Yglesias Award Nominee

"The simple reason Andrew Breitbart owes an apology is this: He alone released the edited video – that did not include the rest of Sherrod’s story, in which she shows how her original reaction was wrong and how she moved on, and then helped the white farmer as best as she could- thereby indeed saving him from foreclosure and saving his farm. He and his wife have been Sherrod’s friends since then. Breitbart now says over and over “They made it about her,” as he did on a TV interview. No, HE made it about her, by releasing the misleading video. If he refuses to own up to his mistake, he has then squandered any credibility he may have had.  So, I repeat: Andrew, apologize to her and to all of us," – Ron Radosh.

Malkin Award Nominee, Ctd

Yglesias gets his hits in:

One gets the sense that Gingrich’s reasoning is so weak here because he actually has no idea why it would make sense to prevent mosque-construction in Lower Manhattan. He just knows that this has become a far-right cause celebre and he likes to ride the far-right wave. If the far-right wants anti-Muslim bigotry, then he’ll provide it. But he’s an “ideas guy” so he has to try to think up a reason.

And look who he's following: Palin.

Why Israel Serves America’s Interests, Ctd

A reader writes:

I find it impossible not to comment that everything Frum says about Israel applied to US support for, and dependence on, the Apartheid-era South African regime. Giving the US influence in the region? Check. Using South Africa's power as a proxy? Check. Intelligence-gathering partner? Check. Source of information on weapons and tactics? Check. Confirmation of the superiority of a market economy? Check. You only have to ignore that, in both countries, the benefits of that superior economy only applied to the chosen people.

The future of Israel as a democratic Jewish state depends on Israel's adoption of a fair two-state solution, soon. US policy should be to facilitate that solution, or to abandon Israel as just another of the region's religious autocracies.

I agree almost entirely. The "almost" is because Israel's Arab citizens in Israel proper have immensely more rights than black South Africans ever had. Another writes:

Where does Turkey fit into Frum's calculus? All of the reasons Frum makes for US interests benefiting from a close relationship to Israel also would be true for a strong relationship with Turkey … yet, we seem willing to sacrifice our relationship with Turkey which, historically, has been as reliable an ally as Israel.

I can't speak for David, but I think that the core reason for backing Israel rather than Turkey is the pro-Israel lobby and the general sense among Americans that Jews are more "like us" than Turks. But that's not an assessment of our interests; it's foreign policy by domestic lobby (like the Cuba policy, but far more strategically damaging). One reason I think the lock-step support for anything Israel does in Congress is so hurtful to US interests is precisely exemplified by losing Turkey as a critical ally in dealing with Jihadism because of Israel's hubristic belligerence in the last few years. And sure enough, neoconservatives are now anti-Turkey.

The British Example

CAMERONChristopherFurlong:Getty

Douthat believes that American conservatives could learn a thing or two from David Cameron:

Cameron’s critics missed the forest for the trees: They took note of every centrist lunge, every compassionate-conservative gesture and every touchy-feely gimmick, while failing to recognize that the Tory leader and his brain trust were putting together a more sweeping and serious blueprint for cutting and decentralizing government than we’ve seen from any Republican politician since Newt Gingrich, and maybe Ronald Reagan.

Whether that agenda can succeed is still very much an open question. But its very existence offers an impressive example to American conservatives, and a rebuke to those on the right who see any attempt to reform and modernize the G.O.P. as a betrayal of conservative principle.

I couldn’t agree more. Check out this first-hand account of how conservative thought and policy are thriving in Britain, infused with some liberalism from their coalition partners. They have not clung to Thatcherism as the GOP has to Reaganism, because they are Tories and know that societies and problems change, and so too must policy. This strikes me as very sharp:

James Forsyth made the point that Cameron himself is not a particularly ideological thinker. He is a traditional organic Conservative. The combination of the electorate’s distaste for politicians and the financial swamp which emerged after the credit-crunch, means that his government must be a truly reformist administration. Modern Conservatives’ big and radical ideas are driven by the huge and deep-rooted problems that were left on Cameron’s desk when he arrived at No10.

No wonder he and Obama get along – although, of course, Obama is more liberal than Cameron on the economy and more authoritarian on civil liberties. Here’s the future:

New politics and new economics will have the greatest chance of success if they are born in relationships that are based on trust. One of the roles of Government needs to be in creating open trust networks where people do not need bureaucracy because there exists ethos and intimacy. Those who cynically dismiss the possibilities of this happening should look at Zopa, the person-to-person lending service, or E-bay, the on-line auction house. In a system such as E-bay a person’s trust rating is often worth more than a single financial transaction. This fact and the innate human desire to live in a fair and orderly society means that 135 million people each year give money to complete strangers for products they mostly have never seen. By tapping into the nature of trust it should be possible to significantly reduce transaction costs. 

Phillip predicts that the Coalition will deliver mass mutualism because our future relies heavily on the success of relationships in economic environments. 

They take climate change and civil liberties seriously; they are investigating torture; they are including everyone in conservative values. Can a reform Toryism save American conservatism? Or should I have stayed in Blighty?

(Photo: David Cameron and Nick Clegg by Christopher Furlong/Getty.)