Category: Old Dish

After the frogs, the locusts:

I’m an old Tory. I don’t want anyone telling me how to live, and I think society will keep its shape well enough if we all cleave to some common, traditional understandings, support a strong executive leadership on the rare occasions it’s called for, give over our minds to communal religious observances for an hour or two per month, and mind our own businesses the rest of the time. I don’t want anything to do with the law, unless I get mugged and need to stand witness, or my neighbor starts dumping his garbage in my yard. I think Congress should sit no more than ten days a year, 15 max. Leave us alone, for Pete’s sake. The purpose of law is (a) to suppress private feuds, and (b) to identify and punish criminals. It’s not to tell me how or where to live, or when to die. Let me figure that stuff out for myself. Otherwise, leave me alone. This used to be bedrock Americanism. Nowadays it’s come to sound eccentric.

Yep, that’s John Derbyshire, the constant object of my ire. Yes, what he means by “common, traditional understandings” is not what I mean. And I’m not going to take back my criticisms of some of his more prejudiced harrumphs. But at some deep level, we agree about politics’ role, and disdain for religious zeal in politics. He was as horrified as I was by the Schiavo hysteria. Maybe it’s our common English roots (although I have a very hefty dose of Irish genes). But I’m glad to see that not everyone at NRO has been drinking the big moral government Kool-Aid.

The president’s press conference last night was, I think, perhaps his best ever. He was confident, in command of the facts, moderate in his views, engaging and appealing. It was much better than anything we’ve seen in a very long time; and it makes me wonder why his handlers keep him in such hermetically-sealed partisan settings. He’s better than that; and it seems to me he keeps getting better in these contexts. I tend to agree with him on social security reform, although I’m unconvinced that we can actually afford the transition costs, given how profligate his administration has been for the past four years. It was also gratifying to hear him distance himself from the abuse of religion for political purposes that much of his base and Congressional allies have been indulging in lately. Presumably he understands the need to pull back from the fundamentalist temptation. He described his notion of religious faith as essentially “personal” and one in which people lead by example, not by legislating their own religious views. Sounds more like my position than, say, Ramesh Ponnuru’s. He was also strong on Bolton. The weaknesses, however, were also evident. He really doesn’t have a coherent strategy toward North Korea, which is getting more dangerous by the day. His defense of rendition struck me as weak. He referred to states to whom we send alleged terrorists as those “who say they don’t practise torture.” Not exactly reassuring, especially as he’s referring, among other countries, to Syria and Egypt. He knows they practise torture; just as he knows that his own administration has refused to disclose the techniques that the CIA still uses. The evidence of escalating terror attacks was also a weak spot. He could say that the increase in terror is a function of our going on the offensive, but he meandered around the point. Still, it was an impressive performance over all: at ease, in command, and effective. I doubt it will shift the public mood, which is souring on the Republican hegemony. But it certainly reassured me that he is trying to tack away from the extreme right. Whether he can keep riding the tiger of religious zeal, while not falling off, remains to be seen. But in this press conference he struck me as a conservative of doubt more than one of fundamentalist faith.

A DEBATE ON TORTURE: Marty Lederman reports on a fascinating Columbia Law School debate between Professor Jeremy Waldron, of Columbia, and John Yoo, of the Boalt Law School. Yoo was in the Bush administration and was an architect of the decision to allow torture of detainees captured by U.S. soldiers. Well worth reading and pondering. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal continues its attempt to excuse the widespread abuse and torture as a function of a handful of unsupervised rogues. This sentence stands out:

The media and Congressional Democrats flogged the Abu Ghraib story for months throughout the 2004 election year, with a goal of stripping the Iraq War of moral authority and turning President Bush into another LBJ.

Really? Has it occurred to them that many people objected to what happened because they were morally outraged, because they thought this hindered the war effort, because White House memos seemed to give a green or amber light to these abuses, and because official reports cited those memos as adding to the circumstances that made Abu Ghraib and the murder-by-torture of over 30 detainees possible. The WSJ claims that none of the abuses were related to interrogation. It’s worth repeating: there were no instances of prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan and Guantanamo that were discovered in any military facilities that were not geared toward interrogation.

Banning new books in public libraries that feature any gay characters or are written by gay authors? There are no theocratic tendencies among the Republicans, are there? My favorite quote from the bigot behind this: “I don’t look at it as censorship,” says Alabama State Representative Gerald Allen. “I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children.” The guy wanted to ban some Shakespeare. But Capote, Wilde, Auden, Proust and who knows who else will be barred. Government as the protector of souls. What are these “hysterics” worrying about “theocratic impulses” going on about?

Alan Dershowitz calls it like it is.

I was hoping to generate something of a debate with my recent piece on conservatism’s growing incoherence. I’m grateful for the many emails, and I’ll be posting more with my responses in the coming days. But Ramesh Ponnuru has also engaged the essay with his usual scalpel. Rather than clog up the Dish, I’ve created a debate page on the blog here. I’ll link to or reproduce all the most salient criticisms and do my best to engage, rebut or concede them. My responses to Ramesh and Jonah are now posted.

THE VICAR OF ORTHODOXY: My brief take on Benedict XVI’s theological circles is now posted. I am deeply indebted to Michael Novak’s fair and penetrating critique here. Once I get past a couple of deadlines, I will try and respond.

Pace Glenn Reynolds, I don’t think and have never said that we’re in the grips of a “theocracy.” We live in a constitutional democracy. Iranians live in a theocracy, and I am aware of the difference. But one element of our politics – one that happens to have a veto on Republican social policy – does hold that religion should dictate politics, and that opposition to a certain politics is tantamount to anti-religious bigotry. They’re very candid about that, as we saw last Sunday. As Bill Donahue put it: “The people on the secularist left say we think you’re a threat. You know what? They are right.” Very senior Republicans echo the line that there is a filibuster against “people of faith.” This isn’t just about gays, although we’ve felt the sting of the movement more acutely than most. It’s about science, stem cell research, the teaching of evolution, free access to medical prescriptions, the legality of living wills, abortion rights, censorship of cable and network television, and so on. The Schiavo case woke a lot of people up. I was already an insomniac on these issues. Maybe I’d be more effective a blogger if I pretended that none of this was troubling, or avoided the gay issue and focused on others. But I’m genuinely troubled by all of it, and by what is happening to the conservative tradition. I’d like to think that a qualified doctor like Bill Frist could say on television that tears cannot transmit HIV. But he could not – because the sectarian base he needs to run for president would not allow it. I’m sorry but that’s nuts. I’m glad Glenn is now calling attention to all of it.

THE BRITISH ELECTION: Only a quarter of British voters now trust Tony Blair. He’s responding by all but ditching the idea of joining the euro – once one of his key objectives. A brutal campaign impugning his integrity by the Tories appears to be gaining traction, and the prime minister looks rattled. To make matters worse, someone in the government leaked confidential legal advice from 2003 telling the prime minister that the war in Iraq might not be legal. Blair had declared in public that the advice had said otherwise. If these polls are accurate, he’ll still win. But low turnout could create some surprises. I wish the Tories were presenting a real alternative. But they have failed, like the Republicans, to persuade people that less government actually means more freedom and better essential services. I also fear that the battering of Blair means a future Brown government will keep increasing spending and so hamper Britain’s post-Thatcher renaissance. I’d happily vote Tory this time on those grounds alone. Of course, no one on the Labour left in Britain is proposing the kind of government spending that Bush Republicans are engaged in. In that sense, Bush is far to the fiscal left of anyone in current British politics. What an irony. We used to think that even British Tories were more liberal than America’s Democrats. But Bush’s and DeLay’s massive spending and borrowing makes Blair look like a born-again Thatcherite.

A reader asks:

Do you mean to say that the war is being used as political cover to push a theocratic agenda (sounds about right), or that the reason we undertook the war was as cover for a theocratic agenda (sounds cynical and hysterical)?

I mean the former. I’m sorry if I confused anyone. Or more simply: many people voted for Bush on national security grounds, a position with which I have much sympathy, and decided that fretting about the religious right was overblown. My position was that the national security differences between Bush and Kerry were not so great as to risk the domestic Kulturkampf that the religious right would unleash if Bush were to win. Others believed I was “hysterical” and concentrating too much on the gay issue. I think events since the election have buttressed my case. Gays could see this more clearly because we were so often the convenient target for the far right in the first term (although they have even more ambitious plans to curtail gay freedom in the second). But the religious right’s agenda is far more ambitious than merely stripping gays of civil rights or even minimal privacy. It’s about controlling the bodies and behaviors of all Americans to more faithfully conform to Biblical absolutes. Hence Schiavo; hence the need to purge the judiciary of any opposition; hence the abolition of a threatened judicial filibuster; hence the political alliance with the new papacy; hence “Justice Sunday.” These people are no longer merely one Republican faction. They control the GOP. We are now seeing that more clearly, while the war – understandably – obscured that a little. With Iraq less in the headlines, the domestic agenda of the new big government sectarian GOP is far clearer. My “hysteria” may eventually be seen as clarity – even to anti-anti-religious right contortionists like Mickey Kaus.

Instapundit has just discovered that the Republican party may actually be controlled by the religious right. Alleluia. Then he says:

The Republicans’ weakness is that people worry that they’re the party of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. They tried, successfully, to convince people otherwise in the last election, but they’re now acting in ways that are giving those fears new life.

Well, let’s say they successfully convinced some people in the last election that they weren’t the party of James Dobson and Rick Santorum, i.e. the ones with wool pulled firmly over their eyes, the ones who preferred to peddle (without fully endorsing) smears about John Kerry’s war service than look at the radical attack on liberty that the new Republicans were determined to advance. I’d like to think that bringing the evangelical right along was part of building a coalition to fight the war. I’m certainly not impugning Glenn’s good reasons for voting for Bush on those grounds. But in my darker moments, I wonder whether the war wasn’t a cover to persuade good, open-minded folk like Glenn to enable the theocratic impulses of the Republican base. Of course, Glenn can wait and see. Gay couples who have had basic rights taken away from them since November, might feel more aggrieved. My take on the fundamentalist threat to the conservative coalition can be read here.

THE LEFT SINKS LOWER I: Norm Geras, whom I had the pleasure of meeting last week when he was in D.C., has a suitably jaundiced view of the Euro and british left’s hatred of Blair, of the U.S. and indeed of all Western-led liberations from Islamist or Baathist tyranny. Here’s his post on the latest anti-Blair tirade in the Guardian.

THE LEFT SINKS LOWER II: The air-brushing of Rachel Corrie has now become near sanctification. A new play in London perpetuates the myth. Tom Gross explains.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “If I did everything the Pope said, I wouldn’t have my two beautiful daughters: one brought into this world via IVF, and the other via IUI (think turkey baster). I sincerely doubt God is going to hold it against my wife or I that we had to do it this way, irrespective of pronouncements of the Panzer Pope. Keep up the fight.”

DEEPER DATING: The trend toward coupling among gay men continues – and of better ways of meeting compatible potential mates. Bears now join the trend. Some of this is doubtless spurred by the possibility of marriage. And no doubt social conservatives are appalled. Gay men settling down? Or seeking intimacy and commitment? I’m sure Stanley Kurtz and Maggie Gallagher are horrified. Don’t gays realize that our role is to be forever marginalized, in bath-houses or alone? How else will straights keep their social structures healthy if they cannot point to “sick” gay people as psychological reinforcement? I’m also struck by a new wave of clubs and events for gay men, events that do not seem to me to be driven by harder and harder techno that sounds like car alarms but by great music enjoyed by a variety of more masculine-oriented gay men, old and young, fat and thin, hairy and smooth. D.C.’s “Blow-Off” is taking off. There are similar versions in New York City and London. Gay men, ever flexible and creative, are remaking their world.

NEUHAUS AND SHARPTON: An interesting observation from a reader:

More evidence of the alarming trend towards post-modernist epistemology in the wrong-headed right.
Neuhaus disclaims any ability to tell what actually occurred decades ago (i.e., what ordinary people used to call “the facts”). But he can tell that the accusers are malicious, so they must be bearing false witness, so he can be “morally certain” that what they say is false. And so his “moral certainty” trumps the small question of what actually occurred. It’s “true for him”, you see, and that’s what matters–if it’s true for the abusers that their lives were ruined, well, everyone has their own perspective, and surely there’s no truth beyond that.
Every question reduced to “he said she said”. No interest in the truth, just in perceptions of the truth and how they can be spun. Yes, Clinton and his enablers bear some of the blame for it. But Rove and his gang have elevated it to the standard epistemological stance of the radical right.
And then they say that liberals are to blame for relativism?

The truth is what Neuhaus or Ratzinger say it is. Period. Our job is not to question but to accept.

Fun and fear in the British election. My favorite quote: “They are intelligent and furious young conservatives, driven by hatred of Western liberalism in all its forms, and absolutely convinced they are being viciously persecuted by the ‘infidel’ state. It is very hard to engage them in a political dialogue that makes sense.” Just to clarify: The guy is talking about some fanatical British Muslims, not the fine fellows at the Family Research Council.

MACIEL’S DEFENDERS: In fairness, I should point to Richard John Neuhaus’ defense of Father Maciel, the prelate credibly charged with condoning and practising the sexual abuse of boys and teens in his care:

Forty and fifty years after the alleged misdeeds, there is no question of criminal action. Even were there any merit to the charges, which I am convinced there is not, the statute of limitations has long since run out. And what can you do to an eighty-two-year-old priest who has been so successful in building a movement of renewal and is strongly supported and repeatedly praised by, among many others, Pope John Paul II? What you can try to do is to filch from him his good name. And by destroying the reputation of the order’s founder you can try to discredit what Catholics call the founding ‘charism’ of the movement, thus undermining support for the Legionaries of Christ… A cardinal in whom I have unbounded confidence and who has been involved in the case tells me that the charges are ‘pure invention, without the slightest foundation.'”

Hmmm. And what cardinal may that have been? Neuhaus dismisses the National Catholic Reporter as a “left-wing tabloid,” and says he has thoroughly investigated the charges himself:

I can only say why, after a scrupulous examination of the claims and counterclaims, I have arrived at moral certainty that the charges are false and malicious. I cannot know with cognitive certainty what did or did not happen forty, fifty, or sixty years ago. No means are available to reach legal certainty (beyond a reasonable doubt). Moral certainty, on the other hand, is achieved by considering the evidence in light of the Eighth Commandment, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” On that basis, I believe the charges against Fr. Maciel and the Legion are false and malicious and should be given no credence whatsoever.

If that sounds tortured, you should read the entire defense. It is somewhat undermined, I’d say, by the fact that Pope Benedict XVI recently re-opened the investigation. The Legion of Christ has its own defense of Maciel as well. It can be read here. This may be a defining early issue of Benedict’s papacy. Except by reopening the investigation, he imposes complete silence on everyone involved. Expect the same kind of process that the White House and military have deployed on prisoner abuse and torture. Other bloggers comment here. It seems to me that this is a story that the blogosphere should keep on stressing.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I think Goldwater would be doing quite well with the Republicans right now, as are many who would agree with the statement of his that you posted. I’m a religious person, probably more than you could really imagine (that doesn’t mean I’m perfect, but I am trying), but I agree very much with Barry’s comments, and I know many others who feel the same way. In fact, I think most of the so-called Religious Right would agree with him, despite the portrayal in the media.
I don’t want a religion running the government, here or anywhere else. We’ve seen that happen too many times, and with too many dire results – some of them quite recent – to want to do that again. On the other hand, I do think it is fair for people to allow their religions to guide their lives. I might prefer that my governmental officials vote or act in certain ways, and sometimes those ways are because of my religious beliefs, but that’s something that everyone does. Separating our religious beliefs from our moral beliefs from our ethical beliefs from whatever other sort of beliefs we have is just not generally possible. Examples of this are too numerous to completely enumerate, but I’ll mention two:
The desire, often attributed to liberals, to care for the poor and the disadvantaged is based upon the belief that it is the right thing to do. Is that a religious belief? A moral one? An ethical one? Well, whatever it is, it is someone’s value and that person is entitled to it. If the majority of the people share those values – for whatever reason – then it is fair that those values be reflected in the law.
Some people feel strongly that the death penalty is wrong, while others believe it is right. To hold either position is to have some sort of belief about it, and many people on both sides attribute it to their religious beliefs. I don’t believe it is improper for them to hold their views or to attempt, through legislation, to have their views enacted into law, even if the reason for their beliefs is because of religion.
This, by the way, is why I have a problem with too much judicial activism. It is the imposition of the morals of the judge (or judges) on the rest of society. Such matters should be decided by a majority of the people or their representatives, else we are again looking at something of a theocracy. It is rarely called such because the judges don’t usually phrase their arguments in religious terms. (Former California Supreme Court Justice Rose Bird is a good example of this: she opposed the application of the death penalty in every case. She tried to hide it behind legalisms but eventually she was too outspoken and it became known that she was personally opposed to the death penalty. The public came to believe that she was not following the law but imposing her own moral values, so she was removed. She might have denied that her values were religious, but whatever she might have called them the effect was the same.)
And that, finally, is why Goldwater wouldn’t have much trouble in the Party today. He would not want people to use their religions to impose controls upon him, but he would also recognize that people on the other side were just doing the same thing (and not calling it religion). He was an independent man and would maintain his independence against both sides, but he was also a conservative man and that wouldn’t change, either. He would be right, I believe, to fight a religious takeover of the Rebublican Party, but this is a constant battle in both parties and he knows that.”

They’ve been giving microphones to hecklers at rallies with the Tory leader, Michael Howard. Of course, they’re unbiased.

OOPS: Another Britney cover- this time by Max Rabbe, in the style of Weimar Berlin.

LOVED IT: I take it all back. The Nationals-Phillies game was great fun at RFK last night. Vile but irresistible hot dogs; a new foodstuff known as dippin’ dots; occasional flashes of excitement interrupted by really hot guys with guts spitting into the grass; and, the piece de resistance, Karl Rove down front, chatting on his cell-phone. We had a blast.

QUOTE OF THE DAY I: “However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.'”- Barry Goldwater, September 16, 1981. I wonder if Goldwater could even exist within today’s Republican establishment.

QUOTE OF THE DAY II: “I remember the joie de vivre of the local lads, firing their gun salutes – which was their way of welcoming Christ as a head of state, the Head of State, the Lord of the world, present on their streets and in their village.” – Pope Benedict XVI, reminiscing about his bavarian Catholic childhood, in “The Feast of Faith,” 1986. Christ as the Head of State. It doesn’t get more explicit than that.