Category: Old Dish

Although Mickey Kaus, Virginia Postrel and Geitner Simmons don’t disagree with my readers’ assessment of how some Southern whites became hyper-liberals, they all have something interesting and nuanced to add. Another great thing about the blogosphere – you can throw an idea out there and all sorts of other interesting ones come back.

Impressive evidence that if the president makes the case clearly, if we demand meaningful inspections first (and I mean meaningful), we’ll win the battle of public opinion over the battle with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Maybe, as some of you imply, Bush has indeed played this superbly. He has let the debate unfold, without tipping his hand too much. He has let the anti-war left overplay their hand. He has identified who his real domestic allies and opponents are. And he has used the time to orchestrate an arms buildup for the Iraq campaign. Is he Lincoln? I wish I could concur with David Warren. But Bush sure is smarter than many of his opponents believe. And, I hope, braver.

BLOG, MABLOG: Check out my email correspondence with Kurt Andersen now up and running on Slate this week.

BACK FROM VACATION: It appears I was wrong to hope for a long-term improvement in the New York Times’ front-page polemics against the war against terror in Iraq. In his remarks on the Newshour, Howell Raines clearly explained that he sees this as another Vietnam. It’s his gut feeling. So he wants to use the Times’ front-page to campaign. On the web version today, the lead story is a straightforward opinion piece against the notion of pre-emptive action in the war on terror. Here’s the opening graf of the op-ed by “reporter” David Sanger:

President Bush’s declaration today that he would seek the approval of Congress to oust Saddam Hussein amounted to an acknowledgment that he cannot proceed alone and that he needs to move quickly to try to resolve a rift within his administration, with many of his father’s cautious advisers, and with his reluctant allies.

It’s followed by a front-page interview with Chancellor Schroder warning against war. Schroder is playing the war for his own electoral benefit in a very tight race, but he also helps Raines make the case for appeasing Saddam. Why not interview prime minister Blair, a man of the center-left actually taking a political risk in the terror war, the man scheduled to come to Camp David soon? Off-message, I guess. In contrast, the Washington Post leads with the news that Iraq has been trying to develop the means to deliver chemical weapons through the air. You have the difference between a newspaper and a viewspaper right there.

WHAT’S GOOD FOR US: Rick Hertzberg defends Mayor Bloomberg’s attempt to rid New York City bars and restaurants of smokers for good and all. Rick’s bottom-line is that the smokers themselves would like to be rid of their addiction, so, by curtailing their enjoyment and socialization, we’re actually doing them a favor. Would he say the same thing about bath-houses or strip-joints? And why not, by the same argument, ban drinking alcohol in bars as well? Juice only, guys. After all, aren’t many alcoholics desperate to be told they can’t drink any more? I know that smokers are now reduced to the respect level of pharmaceutical executives and Catholic priests, but is there no end to the puritan impulse out there? Even at the allegedly liberal New Yorker?

THOSE LITERATE VICTORIANS: Andrew Wilson writes the following in today’s Daily Telegraph:

Guilt at what [the Victorians] had done made the more foolish among them seek for collectivist solutions, such as the disastrous idea, first mooted in the 1870 Education Act, that the state should control schooling. At that date there was 92 per cent literacy in England. Without compulsory education, you had to learn in order to survive.

Wow. 92 percent literacy wth no public education. And we’re scared of vouchers?

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: “It is a lamentable fact that the democracies in their dealings with the dictators before the war, not less than in their attempts at propaganda and in the discussion of their war aims, have shown an inner insecurity and uncertainty of aim which can be explained only by confusion about their own ideals and the nature of the differences which separated them from the enemy.” – F.A. Hayek, “The Road to Serfdom.”

SCOWCROFT AWARD NOMINEE: “A bombing campaign in Afghanistan brings special perils, beyond what the Pentagon refers to as holding civilian casualties to “an acceptable minimum.” In the first place, there’s not much there to hit, and in the second place, we are up against the dismal fact that the bombing campaign could well cause the starvation of literally millions of Afghans who never did anything to us.
And if mass starvation does occur, we will lose this war against terrorism whether or not we find bin Laden, since such a tragedy would instantly create more terrorists as well as wreck the coalition. And that is why some of us think it is even more important to figure out how to get food into Afghanistan before winter hits than it is to find bin Laden. Our resolve to nail him will outlast the winter – the Afghan people may not.” – Molly Ivins, November 12, 2001.

“Joseph Nye argues in his new book, The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone, that anti-Americanism thrives on the perception that we don’t give a rat’s behind how the rest of the world feels about anything. That’s the famous “arrogance” for which we get criticized.
On that count, a war with Iraq could play right into terrorist hands. It’s apparent that our ally Saudi Arabia has a far stronger connection to Sept. 11 than our enemy Saddam Hussein, so attacking Saddam makes us look like hypocrites willing to sell out our foreign policy for oil. That we’d also have to kill a whole of lot of innocent Iraqis (next guy who uses the words “precision bombing” has to eat them) should count for more than it probably does with all those hard-nosed Bush foreign policy advisers who have never seen war … Seems to me that the lesson of Sept. 11 is that we cannot afford to ignore what the rest of the world thinks.” – Molly Ivins, August 25, 2002.

What does it say about the anti-globalization left that it began its heckling of Colin Powell today when he criticized the insane, dictatorial, racist and famine-producing policies of Robert Mugabe? Yes, Mugabe in their eyes is morally superior to the secretary of state of the United States. And we expect them to worry about Saddam?

RICH UPDATE: A reader emails to add a detail to Frank Rich’s Scowcroft Award nomination:

Just had to add a comment on Frank Rich’s use of “Blackhawk Down” author Mark Bowden to attack the pro-Iraq invasion side. Rich left out the immediately following sentence from Bowden: “But the question of war is not just an exercise in cost-benefit analysis. It’s about doing the right thing. It’s important to go down such a road with eyes open, firm conviction and a steady hand.”
The article pointed out we killed massive amounts of attackers in Mogadishu and did it without the firepower we’d bring to Baghdad and without the numbers. He does raise the possiblity of heavy casualties in street fighting (well, yeah, no big revelation there) but does not use that as a reason to refrain from invading Iraq.

The Times keeps getting confused in its roster of anti-war voices, doesn’t it?

The Times corrects itself on Kissinger.

“The greatest risk now lies in inaction. The history of the last century showed us clearly what the price of paralysis can be. The public debate over Iraq policy must continue. But the readiness to act, once the time is ripe, should not fade away.” – Ehud Barak, in the New York Times today. Now let’s get on with it.

BLAIR’S THATCHER MOMENT: I’m awe-struck by Tony Blair’s impassioned defense of president Bush and the need to tackle Iraq yesterday. When his own party is gripped by anti-American bigotry and the tabloid media have fueled irresponsible hatred of president Bush, Blair showed real guts by coming out swinging in defense of American action. He described some of the criticism of America as “wrong, misguided and dangerous. I also think that some of the criticism of George Bush is just a parody. The person that I know and work with operates on these security issues in a calm and sensible and measured way.” He went on: “Some of the talk about this in the past few weeks I have to say has astonished me. You would think that we’re dealing with some benign little democracy out in Iraq.” Exactly. “Was Sept. 11 a threat to British national security or not?” he said. “My answer to that is yes. It wasn’t just a threat to America – they can perfectly easily have done it in London or Berlin or Paris or anywhere. And therefore it’s right that we respond to it together. If Britain and if Europe want to be taken seriously as people facing up to these issues do, then our place is facing them with America – in partnership, but with America.” With this speech, Blair ranks for the first time with Margaret Thatcher, a leader who, on the most important issue of the day, manages to take a moral, clear and brave stand. I repeat: Now let’s get on with it.

SCOWCROFT AWARD NOMINEE: Readers may remember how last October and November, large numbers of pundits, analysts and experts both opposed the war in Afghanistan and confidently predicted its failure. Undeterred by their failures last time around, some of the same people are now opposing a war against Iraq. It seems to me a public service to remind readers of some of these people’s records. Brent Scowcroft, one recalls, opposed the war in Afghanistan and was a loyal fan of murderous tyrants in Moscow and Bosnia and Beijing throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Yet few major media outlets cited these failures of judgment in anointing Scowcroft as a serious commentator on our current predicament. Readers are therefore invited to send in examples of some commentators’ opposition to the war last year juxtaposed with their current deliberations. Our first nominee is a mild, but telling, one. It’s from New York Times columnist, Frank Rich. Last November 10, he saw the declining popularity of the war in Afghanistan as a sign it might fail:

“Like politicians’ assertions that terrorism at home can be deflected by cheap fixes and oratorical optimism, disingenuous official claims of our allies’ strengths and our enemies’ weaknesses will come back to haunt the administration if all does not go smoothly. Already a Newsweek poll shows that only 56 percent of the country believes ‘the war in Afghanistan is going as well as American officials say.'”

Here’s a passage from his most recent column accusing the president of cynically inventing a new war against Iraq to shore up his domestic political standing:

“‘An all-out attack on Iraq will entail a level of risk and sacrifice that the U.S. has not assumed since Vietnam,’ wrote the author of “Black Hawk Down,” the combat journalist Mark Bowden, this week. As this reality sinks in, support for war with Iraq is falling – from 70 percent last fall to 51 percent now, according to the new Time/CNN poll. A Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that only 40 percent would approve if there are ground troops and significant American casualties.”

If you find any other strange parallels between pundits against the war in Afghanistan and those against the war against Iraq today, please send them in under the “Scowcroft Award” heading. (Special mention will go to Vietnam analogies. And don’t pick on Colin Powell. It’s too easy.)

THE CONTINUING RISK: Don’t miss Mike Crowley’s typically superb overview of our remaining vulnerability to weapons of mass destruction from routes other than Iraq. It’s a damning piece about the Bush administration’s lack of real progress in tracking down porous nuclear plants around the world, plants that are tempting targets for al Qaeda and others. Be afraid.

SOUTHERN HYPER-LIBS: Thanks for the input. How could we have forgotten Bill Moyers? Then there’s Bill Kovach, Tom Wicker, and, of course, Dan Rather and James Carville. To be fair to them, they may be reacting in part to Northern prejudice. As one reader opined,

In any lefty circle, being a white Southerner is perceived as a huge character fault, regardless of that Southerner’s ideologies. Lefties hear a Southern accent and cringe. So to earn points with colleagues in notoriously left-leaning newsrooms, Southerners overcompensate for the flaw of being Southern by abandoning all sense of reason and out-lefting anyone in sight. It’s a phenomenon something along the lines of the fight for gender equality in the workplace – the old saying about women having to do twice the work of men for the same pay.

That captures part of the dynamic, don’t you think?

WHY NOT IRAN? You may have noticed from Maureen Dowd’s recent column that one of the latest flimsy excuses for doing nothing about Iraq is that we should expedite regime change in Saudi Arabia as well. After all, they’re a terrorist-sponsoring, Islamist-funding, barbaric autocracy as well. Amen, MoDo. But first things first. Let’s get Iraq’s and Russia’s oil supplies up and running first, can we? But the really interesting thing about the belated liberal fixation on the evil of Saudi Arabia (with which I concur) is the strange absence in their argument of any mention of Iran. Why isn’t the New York Times on the warpath there? Well, the obvious reason is that it might mean some support for president Bush, which is unthinkable. But the second reason is that it might reveal that the assertion that Iran is already some kind of democracy would collapse. Michael Ledeen has another astute piece on National Review, showing the Times’ blind eye to the evil regime in Tehran. Don’t miss it. (And if you want a real guide to the context of our war on terror, don’t miss his book, “The War Against the Terror-Masters,” which is our book club selection this month. You won’t find a more concise and informative primer on why we are at war, and how we can win.)

IS BUSH READING SUN TZU? Okay, it’s a long shot. But Bush’s long silence, the contradictory messages from his administration, and mysterious arms buildups around the world leads one reader to wonder whether the president has been boning up on the art of war. Two maxims stand out: “When near, make it appear that you are far away, when far away that you are near.” And: “O
ffer the enemy a bait to lure him; feign disorder and strike him.” Wishful thinking no doubt. But then this president is often under-estimated.

THE WORLD IS ENDING: Krugman blames someone other than Bush for the post-bubble economy. He even suggests that the root of the problem lies in the 1990s … Who knows where that line of inquiry could lead?

The British prime minister gets it on Iraq. My prediction: strong British support to stop the emergence of a nuclear-armed, germ-warfare waging Iraq. But we’ll have to do the U.N. inspections dance first.

I didn’t mean to leave out National Review’s “The Corner,” from the blogs I often read, enjoy, and learn from. Ditto Tapped. Well, not quite ditto, but you know what I mean. It’s hard not to be accused of either a) ignoring small up-and-coming blogs or b) being pretentiously blogophilic. I’ll take this correction to mean that after a beneficent start to the new season, I’ll try and avoid being nice in future. I’m clearly not cut out for it.

There are times when you marvel at the discipline of the Bush administration. And then there are times when you despair. How on earth did the president let his secretary of state and his vice-president say two superficially contradictory things about U.N. weapons inspection in Iraq within days of each other? That kind of mixed message can only cause glee in the hearts of the anti-war coalition from Saddam to Mandela and Chirac (not to mention Brent Scowcroft and Howell Raines). Or does it? Cheney says inspectors are useless. Powell says they’re necessary. Is it possible that both could be right? Much of the global hostility to dealing with Saddam cannot be avoided. It comes from America-envy and the usual appeaseniks and terrorist-lovers. But some of it could be headed off if a Cheney-Powell Bad Cop-Good Cop routine became part of American diplomacy. Why not ask Cheney to come up with a rigorous weapons inspection regime that could actually do the job – dozens of inspectors, random visits, no limits on what they can investigate and look at, and so on? Then ask Powell to endorse it and demand instant compliance from Baghdad.

WHAT’S THE DOWNSIDE? I’m not sure there is one. If the U.N. balks at the stringent conditions for new inspections, then we tried. If the U.N. complies and Iraq balks, then we have added yet another justification for the war. Either way, our international position is strengthened. What if Saddam says yes to genuine inspections? He won’t. If he says yes and then tries to wriggle out as he has so often in the past, then we can invoke U.N. resolutions, and have a mighty force in the region with which to destroy his regime. And both parts of the strategy help each other. Our military buildup can be the force behind the inspections regime and its insurance policy. And our last-ditch diplomatic effort can help justify our action in the minds of those few world leaders who can swallow their America-envy and see what’s best for the entire planet. There are increasing signs that we may have more allies in this than now seems possible. But whatever strategy the president follows, he needs to understand that he cannot let this debate drag on any further without his presence. The drift is empowering the forces of appeasement. It is way past time for a major, impassioned counter-offensive.

SPEAKING OF COUNTER-OFFENSIVES: Our first book club selection of the fall is Michael Ledeen’s “The War Against The Terror Masters.” It’s a brief, crisp and extremely timely primer on how the forces of terror and their state sponsors are closely connected and deeply dangerous. Reading it this past month, it helped remind me of how perilous it is to revert to pre-9/11 beliefs about how terrorism is an isolated phenomenon, how it isn’t truly a part of geopolitics, how it can be defeated by piecemeal police work, rather than a concerted military and diplomatic offensive. I’ve known Michael for years and admire his dogged monitoring of the forces of evil now arrayed against us. He’s particularly sharp on the mullahs who control Iran. As the appeasement brigade gathers strength, and as they use classic tactics of distraction, delay and diversion to derail the war, this book couldn’t be more timely. Michael introduces it on the site today. We’ll start the debate September 23. You can buy the book here and also help to support the site.

THE DIFFERENCE: One society guns down “collaborators” on the street. The other wrings its hands about civilian deaths in the war on terror. It doesn’t get much starker than this, does it? (D’Oh! Oxblog just beat me to the punch on this.)

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: “The truly and deliberately evil men are a very small minority; it is the appeaser who unleashes them on mankind; it is the appeaser’s intellectual abdication that invites them to take over. When a culture’s dominant trend is geared to irrationality, the thugs win over the appeasers. When intellectual leaders fail to foster the best in the mixed, unformed, vacillating character of people at large, the thugs are sure to bring out the worst. When the ablest men turn into cowards, the average men turn into brutes.” – Ayn Rand, The Objectivist, “Altruism as Appeasement,” January 1966.

HARD ROCK AND THE LEFT: Why the hostility?, asks blogger Andrew Ian Dodge.

THE FIRST: Two guys get wed. In time, this story will be boring. But not yet.

THAT SOUTH AFRICAN MARCH: There it was on the front page of Sunday’s New York Times. The Times’ caption read as follows: “MARCH ON POVERTY: Protestors demonstrated in South Africa’s Alexandra township yesterday before a United nations meeting on development. The marchers seek help for the poor and criticized president Bush for not attending.” My suspicions were raised simkply by looking at the picture itself. “Israel Is A Rogue State,” says one banner, urging “help for the poor.” “Israel, USA, UK: The Toxic Axis.” “Ariel Sharon: the War Criminal,” is another legible banner. The Times’ report cites the presence of some Palestinians opposed to Irsale’s policies, but leaves the seamier side of the march untouched. Here’s another report from a more local source. According to South Africa’s Independent , “Muslim protesters under the banner of the Palestinian Solidarity Committee made up a major block at the rear of the civil society march that began at Alexandra Stadium, north of the city. Among the chants of “Free, free Palestine” there were also shouts of “Viva bin Laden” and “Phanzi (down with) George Bush”. One man wore a T-shirt saying ‘Long live Osama bin Laden’.” I wonder how the New York Times missed that part of the march. (Just kidding).

BUSH’S CORPORATE PROBLEM: It seems to me that he does have one. The awful steel tariff decision, the cosiness with energy companies, the comfort with corporate welfare, and so on, need, in my view, to be tempered with a far more aggressive attempt to exapnd free trade, cut corporate subsidies, tackle agricultural welfare and lower taxes for more middle- and working-class Americans. Do I sound like Paul Krugman? I hope not. With any luck, I sound like James Surowiecki, the excellent economics writer for the New Yorker. Check out this column if you want to appreciate an argument made well for being made without all the extremist, pa
ranoid rhetoric of, say, the economics columnist for the New York Times.

RAINES VINDICATION: I was worried that, while I was lazing through the dog-days of August, no-one would monitor Howell Raines’ continued abuse of the New York Times’ erstwhile reputation as the paper of record. How wrong I was. The number of Times critics seemed to balloon in August, after a particularly unhinged series of slanted non-stories against the administration. From Will to Kaus to Krauthammer to Gigot to Kurtz and then even to lefties, Cynthia Cotts and E.J. Dionne (who both largely support the Times’ new slant), the consensus is overwhelming. The coup de grace was Bill Keller’s memorable admonition of Raines on the Times op-ed page no less! I may be hallucinating but I’ve also noticed a slight amelioration in the last week or so, as I mention in my latest London column. Some Iraq stories even seemed to be attempts to provide real information and analysis, rather than Nation-style propaganda. Has someone had a word with Captain Queeg?

BLOGS WORTH READING : In my break, I found myself able to browse blogs not because I was searching for material but simply for the pleasure of it. I’ve long been hooked on Lileks and Welch. But OxBlog, from my alma mater, is also top notch. Their dissection of a recent thought-free Dowd column was excellent. Geitner Simmons is also a graceful writer and fair thinker who rarely strikes a wrong note. Norah Vincent is finally up and running. Kausfiles just gets better and better. I’m not sure how Paul Krugman can ignore the fact-checking any more, but, hey, it’s Raines’ Times. The facts barely matter. My favorite black lesbian is also now online. Eric “Too Vile Not To Read” Alterman has undoubtedly mastered the formula. Instapundit is right to call him a natural. Brad DeLong gives a pretty good impression of a fair-minded liberal, even though he thinks the New York Times is ideologically neutral. Brink Lindsey is also consistently well-mannered and astute. In fact, I could learn a little from his restraint. John Ellis is always worth a gander (yes, he’s a friend and donor) and Julian Sanchez is a rising star, as are Two Blowhards. Volokh is now an institution. Have I missed anyone? Probably. But it just goes to show that pleasurable and informative surfing is now possible completely outside the established media. Together, these blogs rival any op-ed page in the country. And they’re all free.

SOUTHERN HYPER-LIBS: A reader writes in, following my piece on the New York Times’ evolution under Howell Raines:

You touched briefly on one of the underlying reasons for Raines’ leftist ideological posturing – a guilt ridden southerner who wishes to expunge himself of the original sin of having been born in the South. I note that in recent years the most vehemently liberal journalistic ideologues seem to have been produced in the South. The list of these secular “born-again’s” is quite long and I would like to see a column of yours on the phenomenon of the Southern-born leftists in journalism.

My correspondent mentions Bob Beckel, Paul Begala, Jack Nelson. Molly Ivins also springs to mind, along with Clinton apologist Gene Lyons. It seems to me important to distinguish between genuine Southern liberals, and those who seem to pursue an extremely liberal agenda precisely because they feel the need to credentialize themselves with blue America colleagues. Any further suggestions?

There aren’t many rock concerts where you can tell a friend, “Hold on a minute. I’m going down to the front to check on the gender of the drummer.” But last night’s performance by Space Pussy at Provincetown’s Crown and Anchor was one such concert. The band included a hot ’80s style keyboard player, complete with British school tie, Union Jack wristband, and eye-shadow, a lesbian bass-player with curly black mop-top and shapeless blue smock, a skinny, pale straight-looking (and awesome) electric guitar player and a drummer out of an acid trip: extremely tall, male, with a long, Cher-like wig and a red bikini outfit. Of course they did a cover of Psycho-Killer by the Talking Heads. The crowd was varied – a few hairy bears, a mosh-pit of sorts full of dykelings, grungy straight couples tonguing in the back, and a smattering of punky townies, exhausted from a summer of service jobs. Gay? Straight? The categories are blurring all the time. Pop? Rock? Heavy metal? The genres are as varied as the sub-sub-cultures. But we had a blast. For any gay kid who grew up on rock and roll, it was an assimilative epiphany – one of so many now occurring as the culture churns on. It’s on nights like this that I feel like I’ve seen the future of gay separatism and identity politics. There isn’t one.

Here’s one last August entry from Camille Paglia, who has filled in for me manfully this past month. It’s a dissection of the decline of the Left in America and elsewhere. Some sharp points as always. I’m really grateful for her contributions. The last one garnered 75,000 visits in a single day. From the hammock, I’ve been monitoring the latest twists and turns in the debate on war with Iraq. It’s been a deeply revealing month – both because of what it has revealed about those who oppose war with our enemies under any circumstances and those who have merely spent the month taking no position themselves but quibbling at every possible element of a pre-emptive strike. The good news is that sooner rather than later, the anti-war left will actually have to take a stand – against war with Iraq, against preventing Saddam from getting nukes, against continuing the war against terror to its sources in the terror-sponsoring Islamist states of the Middle East. So far, very few have had the cojones to take such a stand, especially in Congress. (There are some honorable, principled exceptions among traditional pacifists, leftists and hard-core foreign policy ‘realists.’) But soon, even Howell Raines will have to take responsibility for backing a passive policy of leaving America and our allies vulnerable to massive destruction. Far from ducking this vital debate, those of us who believe our national security is at stake should embrace the discussion enthusiastically. And each side should be held accountable for the difficult and unknowable consequences of our respective stands. After all, what is at issue is the possible future murder of thousands of American citizens, nuclear blackmail from a rogue state, or chemical warfare waged in American cities by agents in close contact with the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Saudi axis. It’s hard to think of a graver moment in recent American history. For my part, I’ll leave you with a quote from an unpublished piece of writing by Michael Oakeshott. He wrote it in 1943, and I discovered it in a new doctoral dissertation on Oakeshott’s work:

“No settlement with our enemies will ever be satisfactory unless it arises from a real confidence in our civilization.”

That’s the rub, isn’t it? Do we believe in the fundamentals of Western civilization? Or do we think they can bartered and appeased away?