Beinart acknowledges that Republicans have become more religiously tolerant, but he thinks it "virtually impossible to imagine a practicing Muslim winning a Republican primary for the House or Senate, as Democrat Keith Ellison did recently in Minnesota":
The GOP’s basic problem is that many Republicans equate Christianity, or at least Judeo-Christianity, with Americanism. They do not believe it’s possible to truly uphold American ideals unless you identify with the religious traditions that supposedly underlie those ideals. In a country with a growing Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Mormon and atheist population, that’s a significant source of political bigotry. Is it good that the South Carolina GOP has embraced a South Asian woman? Of course. When that woman can practice whatever religion she wants, without fear that it will wreck her political career, then Republicans will truly deserve to crow.
The discussion of the morality of veganism makes me think of preaching against homosexuality. It strikes me that a lot of homophobic preaching comes from one of two motivations. In one, someone with suppressed homosexual desires preaches against what they themselves are tempted. "You must not" is for them an amplified "I must not (though I feel tempted)". The hypocrisy and denial is surely corrosive. The other motivation comes from those who feel no such temptations and know that the vast majority of their audience feels no such temptation.
The second motivation is what interests me most, and I think it applies to a variety of subjects. Whenever the Dish engages in a discussion about atheism we get a deluge of emails from atheists and agnostics who simply don't care about questions of ultimate purpose. They are theological equivalent to vegetarians who never liked meat; they didn't have a hard time abandoning religion because, for whatever reason, they never got much out of it in the first place. And they often don't understand how anyone could. Whatever religion's failings, and there are many, it is one of a handful of institutions that compels us to contemplate unanswerable questions. The new atheists mostly neglect questions of meaning, probably because they and their followers don't obsess about those questions to the degree the devout do.
My goal is not to make a value judgment here; just to make one side of the debate comprehensible to the other. Can anyone think of other times of where one side of a debate projects their own preferences upon their opponents?
If being woven into a giant global brain means the further intertwining of our fates with the fates of others, maybe there’s something to be said for giant global brains. And if people respond wisely to this spiritually challenging predicament, maybe the life of a cell won’t be such a bad life after all.
A big thanks to David Frum and Dave Weigel for a fine week of filling in for Andrew.
In Weigel's last round of posting, he responded to criticism of his NBP coverage, reiterated his exasperation with the NAACP, replied to TNC about the TPM backlash, doubted that policy will get much coverage if Palin gets the nomination, rolled his eyes at Politico's coverage of the Palin-Romney spat, knocked Pawlenty for opening the wound of Al Franken's contested win, built on Krauthammer's assessment of the Obama presidency, showcased Gene Weingarten, talked video games, and signed off with a final dispatch from Unalaska.
Frum tackled immigration policy, countered Rove's op-ed on his biggest mistake during the Bush years, and highlighted Kirchick's op-ed on Madrid's gay-pride exclusion of Israelis. He also aired responses to his bleg about how to reform the conservative movement. Frum's own input here, here, and here.
Reax of the financial reform passage here. Patrick sounded off on a forthcoming book on Iran and a reader dissented. More posts about sex and monogamy here, here, here, and here. Hilarious gender-swapping here. MHB here, VFYW here, and FOTD here.
Thursday on the Dish, BP finally stopped the leak and Argentina became the tenth nation to legalize same-sex marriage. Sharron Angle showed her cards on her media strategy, Jean Howard-Hill called out the GOP for blank-checking the Tea Party, and TNC sided with the NAACP. Patrick compared two new polls on Palin, Litbrit rebutted Weigel over Trig, readers piled on, and Chris Rovzar saw everything work out for Bristol.
Weigel examined the comparison between militias and the New Black Panthers, checked in on Alvin Greene, looked at how Hayek is making a comeback, downplayed the Mama Grizzlies video, broke down the polling on Al Gore, scratched his head over Politico's coverage of him, and filed another dispatch from Unalaska. Frum received kindergarten insults from Mark Levin.
Eli Lake reported on how US espionage delays Iran from getting a bomb, Elizabeth Weingarten observed the decline of polygamy in Saudi Arabia, Veronique de Rugy argued the political upside to spending cuts, Andrew Gelman reviewed the politics of stimulus, and James Capretta scrutinized Obamacare over the cost curve. Dana Goldstein and Tracy Clark-Flory wondered if we're getting free birth control, Julian Sanchez mulled over liberaltarianism, Erik Voeten covered nudges, and Ryan Avent followed up on manufacturing.
The monogamy thread continued here, here, and here. Other readers sounded off on eating habits and another on budget cuts. OKCupid exposed faux bisexuality. Xeni Jardin found some tragically comic illustrations on DADT. Incredible parking garage here. Cool ads here and here. MHB here, VFYW here, and FOTD here.
Wednesday on the Dish, Bristol and Levi got engaged – again. A reader summed up reaction in the inbox, Pareene bemoaned the MSM's role, and Jesse Griffin reported a damning detail on Levi. In other news, a Tea Party spokesman fueled the NAACP's fire, Dan Choi got off the hook, John Cloud relayed research on cougars, and Pew showed how the blogosphere lives off traditional media. DOMA coverage here and especially here. Cannabis coverage here and especially here.
Weigel responded to reader objections over Trig, destroyed Megyn Kelly for fomenting racial discord, went after Beck for the same, analyzed the defeat of two Tea Party darlings, dissed Democrats for their economic politics, spotlighted a particularly unjust obscenity case, and filed another colorful dispatch from Unalaska.
In other Palin coverage, Michael Kazin frowned at Cottle's admiration of her PR and Drum dreaded the spread of it. Plumer and Fallows compared BP to other oil giants, Balko defended the cop accused of murdering Oscar Grant, Jonathan Cohn touted Mariah Blake's piece on medical supplies, and Bill Peckham criticized the kidney trade. Dan Savage scolded a Dish reader and advised on open relationships while Patrick injected disease into the monogamy debate.
Readers joined the discussion on eating habits, another corrected Wilkinson on Singapore's healthcare system, and another sounded off on markets. Goddard launched a political dictionary. Badger-blogging here. MHB here, VFYW here, and FOTD here.
St. Louis, Missouri, 10.43 am
Tuesday on the Dish, the NAACP leveled the racism charge at the Tea Party, tea-partiers punted on the DOMA ruling, Jesse Jackson played the slavery card over LeBron, and Susanna Ferreira warned us about anticipated violence after the Cup. In Palin coverage, Dave Weigel went after Andrew's take on Trig, Michelle Cottle marveled at her media strategy, Tim Mak downplayed her PAC haul, and readers doubted her ability to maintain a campaign staff.
Weigel, blogging from a remote island in Alaska, covered the NAACP uproar, clarified the record on the New Black Panther case, showed how the GOP is getting aggressive for Byrd's supposedly safe seat, and wished Rand Paul wasn't so boring now. David Frum, our other guest, dwelled on the state of libertarianism, addressed the prisoner problem in America, drew a deeper lesson from the NewsRealBlog row, praised a new pro-Israeli group, noted Limbaugh's new digs, and suggested a website (as did Weigel).
In other coverage, Greenwald dug up more examples of people praising Fadlallah, Andrew Napolitano called for the indictment of Cheney and Bush, and Nick Kristof confessed to constructing a "Western savior" narrative. Pot-blogging here. A reader joined Andrew Sprung in tackling Social Security reform and another sympathized with cops. Ryan Avent undercut the mythologizing of manufacturing, Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman claimed the decline of creativity, Dan Ariely explained behavioral economic, Wilkinson shouted a libertarian solution to healthcare, and Patrick talked rhetoric. Some final installments on the monogamy thread here and here.
Cool ad here. MHB here, VFYW here, and FOTD here. A particularly fun window contest here.
Weigel honored Nate Henn, the American who died in the World Cup bombing (and who happened to grow up with Weigel in Delaware). He also filed a dispatch from Anchorage, featured a new profile on John McCain, undermined a right-wing myth about the New Black Panthers and Obama's DOJ, gave a platform to a conservative critic of the GOP's fiscal record, and dug up a bit of trivia about a popular Weekly Standard cover.
Frum highlighted the dire financial markets, talked inflation and deflation, noted welfare reform in Australia, showed how Obama is ignoring a Supreme Court uproar in his hometown, bristled at the president for bringing up his middle name to explain Israeli mistrust, invoked his grandfather in a post on Christian Zionism, summed up the controversy between a FrumForum blogger and NewsRealBlog, pointed out the success of aggregators, and took a jab at the publishing industry.
In Palin news, her path to the nomination got much clearer (though she floundered on "The Factor" for the second time). San Francisco tried to ban the sale of pets. DOMA update here. Mariah Blake's expose on the medical supply industry is a must see.
In assorted commentary, Dayo Olopade celebrated the progress Africa displayed this World Cup, Nate Silver slammed the Pentagon for surveying servicemembers on gaydar, William Galston was gloomy about the Dems prospects this fall, Bernstein assessed Palin's chances in '12, and Larison compared her to Giuliani. Beinart thought Obama was no FDR, TNC tackled the fear felt by cops, Joe Keohane explained how our biases shape the facts we receive, Felix Salmon defended minimum wage laws, and Patrick circled back to one of his pet topics, the kidney trade. A comprehensive update on Social Security reform here. Recession view here. A great case of journalism here.
By far the most frequent objection to my proposed mission statement however was to its inclusion of the phrase "peaceful American-led world order."
Plaintively in some cases, ferociously in others, people asked: why should American world leadership be a goal of any kind of conservative politics?
My answer: consider the alternatives. For 60 years, the democratic countries have known ever-rising levels of affluence and security. This benign system of collective security and free trade has extended outward to encompass more and more countries: beyond western Europe to include central and eastern Europe, beyond Japan to reach the small countries of the Pacific Rim. We have not done so well in Latin America and the Middle East, but Chile at least has joined the system and Brazil likely soon will.
This construct is the work of no one country, but it ultimately rests upon the reassuring fact of American power. As Murray Kempton said of Dwight Eisenhower, it is the great tortoise on whose broad shell the world sat in sublime disregard of the source of its peace and security.
Just as even the most self-equilibriating markets need a lender of last resort, so even the most stable international system needs a security guarantor of last resort. Some describe the post-1945 system as a "democratic peace." But democracy alone did not suffice to keep the peace after 1918. It's an American-sustained peace, and should the day come when America loses the power or will to sustain it, the international system that will follow will be not only more dangerous but also less hospitable to liberal values in the broadest sense of the word liberal.
If I am certain of any one belief, I am certain of that.
And with that credo, it's time to express my thanks for this week of hospitality at AndrewSullivan.com. First to Andrew himself, speaking of liberal in the broadest sense, for opening his floor to some very divergent perspectives indeed – although I realize now I never did around to posting those links to Zionist summer camps.
Next to Andrew's never-resting colleagues Patrick Appel and Chris Bodenner, who make the blogs run on time.
And finally to you, the thoughtful and challenging readers of this remarkable place in cyberspace. I hope we can extend these discussions in the weeks ahead at my usual lemonade stand, FrumForum.com.
Participants wrestle during the 13th Annual Boryeong Mud Festival at Daecheon Beach on July 17, 2010 in Boryeong, South Korea. The festival features mud wrestling, mud sliding, and a mud king contest. By Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images.
Another fundamental objection to my proposed mission statement for conservative reform is that it is not libertarian enough. One reader offered this alternative statement:
Conservatives believe our central purpose is to promote freedom; we do this by promoting individual liberty, supporting the division of powers through Federalism, reducing government to the lowest level necessary, and supporting free markets while keeping taxes low.
No question: conservatives do believe those things. I believe them too, and they are at the core of my draft mission statement. But they cannot be all we believe, or else we end up turning our backs on questions of vital concern to fellow-citizens, from the environment to terrorism.
Two other things need to be considered as well:
1) In a globalizing economy, the free market distributes rewards increasingly unequally. I wrote about this in an article published two summers ago:
Inequality within nations is rising in large part because inequality is declining among nations. A generation ago, even a poor American was still better off than most people in China. Today the lifestyles of middle-class Chinese increasingly approximate those of middle-class Americans, while the lifestyles of upper and lower America increasingly diverge. Less-skilled Americans now face hundreds of millions of new wage competitors, while highly skilled Americans can sell their services in a worldwide market.
Those potential losers from a globalized free market are voters too. If they get the idea that freedom is not delivering for them, then freedom's political basis becomes shaky.
2) This divide between winners and losers may explain something otherwise baffling about the way conservatives talk about freedom. The United States is a vastly freer country in 2010 than it was a generation ago. Yet when you talk to libertarian-minded people, and with the rare exceptions of a Brink Lindsey or a Virginia Postrel, what you usually hear is a lament for a vanished better past.
You can argue that they are wrong, remind them that we used to have a draft and airline regulations and bans on private ownership of gold. Or you can listen for the truth underneath the mistake – and understand that while people want government limited, they also want society to work. And if they feel their society used to work better, it's cold consolation to tell them that at least the government now does less.
Several comments insisted that one would never become friends with someone unless there was something to be gained. This is certainly true. Close friendships are not simply exercises in altruism. Friendships that come to resemble relationships between donors and recipients begin to fray. Eventually they come to look like something other than friendships. The non-economic character of friendship does not lie in its altruism, but in its lack of accounting.
The Dish 