Category: Old Dish

You read something and a light bulb switches on. I had that feeling reading Stanley Kurtz’s piece in National Review Online about how contemporary liberalism has become a religion. Some of us who still think of ourselves as liberals in a classical sense also have faith in God to provide an over-arching meaning to our lives. So we enter political debate, guns blazing, but remain aware that it isn’t everything – that there is faith and culture and love and sex and home and friendship – and it is these things that give meaning to life. We engage in politics – or at least I do – in order to ensure that it doesn’t prevent us from enjoying life, to stop the busybodies and megalomaniacs from ruining our way of life. To paraphrase my philosophical mentor, Michael Oakeshott, I am a conservative in politics so I can be a radical in many other parts of life. But not all liberals feel this way. Liberals without faith or without a sense of private life, people who see everything as political, see their politics as the fundamental meaning of their lives. In their eyes, it is what makes them virtuous and others evil. So their liberalism becomes the opposite of what it was invented for. Liberalism was founded (by Hobbes, Locke, et al) to check religious intolerance, to create a safe political space where questions of ultimate meaning and import were set aside. But increasingly in some quarters, liberalism has become a religion of its own. There is an orthodoxy, a truth, and a religious hierarchy. New ideas are not considered for their own sakes, but simply in the context of whether they conform to the orthodoxy. Heretics are regularly singled out and punished. Opponents are not argued with, they are demonized. Little by little deviant thoughts are turned into crimes – speech-codes, loosely implemented sexual harassment laws, hate crime statutes. You see this on the racial left, the feminist left and the gay left. I’m not saying all liberals are like this. Thank God, many are not. But increasing numbers are; and we are fast approaching a very Animal Farm moment, when we look at the world view of some of the conservative fundamentalists and the world view of some of the liberal fundamentalists, and we find that they are exactly the same, bristling, insecure, intolerant creature.

SCUD REVENGE?: Maureen Dowd argued yesterday that Jim Jeffords’ revolt and John McCain’s non-revolt are responses to crude revenge tactics by George W. Bush. The evidence she provided for this is, to say the least, thin. Apparently, Jim Jeffords was not invited to a ceremony at the White House. Ouch. When Newt Gingrich griped about his lack of a good seat on Airforce One, Dowd ridiculed him for being a big baby. What’s the difference with Jeffords? Similarly, McCain. Sure, I have no doubt that Senator McCain harbors some bitterness about what happened in South Carolina – and I don’t blame him. Bush’s primary campaign there was disgraceful. But I have seen no real evidence of Bush trying to humiliate McCain since. McCain had a major speech at the convention, and didn’t meet stiff White House resistance to his campaign finance reform bill. Bush will likely sign such a bill if it reaches his desk. On the other hand, it seems likely that the Bush team has staffed the White House with people who supported Bush all along and have not hired former McCain staffers. So? This is another non-story. Did we expect Bill Clinton to hire staff from the Tsongas campaign in 1992? It seems to me that the Bush administration has been no more vengeful – and arguably much less – than any other recent administration in this respect and the attempt to prove otherwise just doesn’t hold much water. If anything, the tone of this new administration has been remarkably free of vengeful or angry talk. I hope the Bushies respond to some restlessness in their party by tacking gently to the center. I sure hope they don’t respond to this by stooping to their opponents’ level.

THE TORIES’ QUEENSLAND STRATEGY: No-one thinks that William Hague’s Tory party has a chance of avoiding humiliation on Thursday, when the Brits go to the polls. Well, the same could have been said for the opposition in the election in Queensland, Australia, in 1995. I know it sounds like a stretch, but bear with me. In Queensland, the ruling Labour party was way ahead in the polls, with a strong economy. The opposition party, the Liberal-Nationalists, all but conceded that they were going to lose. But in the last week of the campaign, they Liberal-Nationalists refocused their campaign around preventing Labor winning a landslide. The opposition’s message in a nutshell was: “if you think Labor’s arrogant now imagine what will happen if they win a big majority again.” This indeed is the final plea of the British Tories. They have rolled out a poster of Tony Blair, urging voters to “burst his bubble.” It’s desperate stuff but sometimes it works. In the Queensland election, the polls showed a huge margin of victory for Labour right up to election day. But in the vote itself, Labour saw its vote fall by 8 percent, and its big majority reduced to one seat. Could it happen in Britain? Well, Tony Blair’s only real weakness is the sense that he’s somewhat arrogant and out of touch. Plenty of people, while not wanting a Tory government, might think it worth bringing him down a peg or two. And in the last two national elections in Britain – for local seats and European seats – the Tories did far better than in the polls and actually beat Labour nationwide. I’m not saying it’s going to happen again, but I am saying it could.

In preparation for our complete redesign, we’re adding some new pieces to the site. One of them is called “The Scolds.” It’s my piece attacking creeping Puritanism in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It was the cover-story in the New York Times Magazine in October 1998.

You think Dick Cheney is scared of Bianca Jagger? The silly point of Tom Friedman’s column today is that because enviro-celebrities in England are protesting and boycotting Esso, a major oil company, over global warming, Texas oilmen will soon be putting pressure on W to go soft on Kyoto. Yeah, right. The interesting part of Friedman’s piece is a quote from a European environmentalist. “”As long as Kyoto was there, everyone could avoid real accountability and pretend that something was happening,” says Paul Gilding, the former head of Greenpeace and now chairman of Ecos, one of Australia’s leading environmental consulting firms. “But now George Bush, by trashing Kyoto, has blown everyone’s cover. If you care about the environment you can’t pretend anymore. Emissions are increasing, the climate is changing and people can now see for themselves that the world is fiddling while Rome burns.”” Can he actually mean that Bush’s impatience with lofty enviro-B.S. has actually helped focus activists on a more realistic approach to global warming than the phony Kyoto posturing? When, I wonder, will the greens acknowledge the source of their new inspiration?

BEGALA AWARD NOMINEE: “I would love to personally escort Lay to an 8-by-10 cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who says, ‘Hi my name is Spike, honey,'” – California attorney-general Bill Lockyer saying he hopes that the head of Enron Corporation is subjected to forcible male rape because of high energy prices in California. According to the Los Angeles Times, “neither Lockyer’s office nor any investigative panel has filed charges against Enron or other companies”.

LOYALTIES: A reflection on the contrasting careers of Jim Jeffords and the late Joe Moakley. See my new TRB opposite.

E.J. GOES O.T.T.: If the tax cut is law, that means it happens, right? Uh, no, according to E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post today. If it turns out that the tax cut makes it impossible to spend gazillions on prescription drugs for seniors or more, Dionne figures that the Congress can simply retroactively rescind the tax cut to pay for it. Does that mean actually asking for it back – or upping tax rates for one year? Or what? It seems to me that a budget plan of this magnitude has to hold – and, indeed, Bush will be held accountable for its results. But the notion that these laws can simply be rescinded at will, retroactively, or whenever the Democrats or Republicans want to spend more tax-payers’ money, seems loopy to me. E.J., face it. On the most important fiscal decision of the next decade, you lost. Deal with it or blame the president or urge more votes for Democrats to keep more of the people’s money. But don’t claim it hasn’t happened, or can be legislated away at will.

THE GROWING GAP: Unsurprising but still important stats from the CBO on income inequality in the U.S. Yeah, it’s growing. Because the dates of the study are 1979 to 1997, they’re a little misleading. 1997 was the recent low-point for inequality. The subsequent years saw real gains for those at the bottom of the scale. But what’s striking to me is the fact that the yawning inequality gap is independent of taxation. The gulf cited by the CBO is based on pre-tax income. Even the most punitive tax regime could do little about changing a growth in income for the very rich of 142 percent in 18 years, or a tiny decline in the very poor of around 3 percent. In fact, taxes have increasingly squeezed the rich in this period. In 1997, the wealthiest fifth paid 65 percent of all taxes – up from 57 percent in 1979. The poorest fifth’s contribution to taxes was halved in the same period. So lets forget about the notion, as Mickey Kaus argued in the 1980s and 1990s, that redistributive taxation can do anything but spit in the wind of the global economy. And let’s tackle what can really help the poor: better education, workfare, lower crime, and an open, dynamic economy.

Heads up that I’m on Hardball tonight with Chris Matthews. Political buzz, Jeffords, Jenna, Hillary, etc. And I’d also just like to say thanks to all of you who have written me emails of support during a very difficult time for me personally. Your support means more to me than I can say.

Oh yes. California Governor Gray Davis did his best to look menacing alongside the president yesterday. Today, he takes over the op-ed page of the New York Times (Jim Carville and Paul Begala had the day off) to whine yet again about how his state’s utility mess is someone else’s fault. Check out this interesting cover story in the current San Francisco Weekly, a liberal alternative weekly that is no sap to Republicans. What the story details is how California’s state bureaucracy negotiated contracts with the electricity companies that all but encouraged price gouging, that provided minimal protection against all sorts of obvious potential abuses of deregulation, and generally brought this whole steaming mess on itself. I must say the economics of electricity deregulation do not exactly set my brain-waves afire, but this was a fascinating piece. And damning for Governor Davis.

NO-ONE HAS PROVEN INTENT: Good piece in the Washington Post today about the incompetence of Florida’s attempt to clean up its voter rolls and remove convicted felons. It seems to me that this operation was clearly a scandal, disenfranchising many. But the Post ruins a good point by repeating the following mantra: “No one has proven intent to disenfranchise any group of voters, but the snafus have fueled a widespread perception among blacks that an effort was made to dilute their voting power…” So what? The issue is not what people perceive, it is what is true. Crediting some people’s perceptions, even when they may be completely wrong, is to engage in subjective fantasy. If the screw-ups were deliberate, then indeed righteous indignation is appropriate. If the screw-ups were accidental, then those responsible for the mess should be held accountable and changes made to make sure it doesn’t happen again – but at the same time, those engaging in conspiracy theories and paranoia should be debunked. The Post unwittingly lends credibility to this paranoia, while providing no reason to believe it’s justified. That isn’t reporting. It’s pandering.

A real and present danger. See the article posted opposite. My apologies for being forced to write it.

A plucky Ontario doctor, Tom McGowan, has had the effrontery to tackle Canada’s lengthening waits for cancer radiation treatment by running his own for-profit radiation clinic. Under Canada’s socialized healthcare system, it’s getting harder and harder to get prompt radiation therapy, because like all good socialist systems, rationing is the main means to keep a lid on spending. Canadians who don’t want to die have had to go to the U.S. to get treatment before their cancer does irreparable damage. But thanks to Dr. McGowan, waiting lists in Ontario have now been cut from 16 to around 4 weeks, since excess demand has been mopped up by the private sector. McGowan’s reward? A notice pinned to his door with the words “Radiation Mercenary” written on it. A photo of the cancer doc was also pinned to the hospital bulletin board, with a devil’s horns and tail added, according to a story in today’s Wall Street Journal (sorry, it’s only for paid subscribers). Of course, what Dr McGowan is doing is not illegal in a free country. It’s just a recipe for social ostracism and hate mail.

HATE CRIME LUNACY I: Why would what appears to be a stupid prank by some kids who used some left-over white paint from a church renovation become the catalyst for a hate crimes law in Texas? A recent story from the Dallas Morning News and the Dallas Observer is a classic. One night, a predominantly black church had some graffiti daubed on it, including a swastika. The paint used is a paint that matches some on a renovation project thrown into a dumpster near the church. The only witness of what might have happened has identified the culprit as a young black kid, and, according to the Morning News, “authorities have no evidence to suggest the vandalism was a hate crime.” But the “hate-crime” label stuck, legislators in Austin used the case as a reason for passing a law criminalizing bigotry, and were it not for some simple reporting, this particular prank would have been recorded for posterity as yet another example of indelible racism in America today.

HATE CRIME LUNACY II: A gruesome alleged murder by some young thug who allegedly targeted an older man because “he liked boys” just happened in Baraboo, Wisconsin. An evil crime which, if proved, should be punished. But a hate crime? Wisconsin authorities are apparently considering this measure under state law because, according to the local district attorney, “One of the areas for the hate crime is sexual orientation, and certainly an allegation that someone is a child molester goes to their sexual orientation. We believe that may support a hate crime enhancer.” Child abuse a sexual orientation? Excuse me?

DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: “You lock the door and she [Hillary] comes through the window, you lock the window and she comes up the floor boards. This is like “Alien” – she lives in Tom Daschle’s stomach. Just as the music gets soft and the scene winds down you hear the wild “Eeek! Eeek!” and she bursts out of Tom and darts through the room.” – Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, Tuesday. But who, one wonders, controls the mothership?

Idyllic Memorial Day in Venice Beach, California. Since San Diego was atypically gloomy, we decamped for the weekend at the Jolly Roger Motel in Venice and biked and roller-bladed up and down the coast trails to Santa Monica and back. Heaven – except for the sunburn. I love motels. When I first arrived here in America seventeen years ago, a buddy and I rented a car and drove through 30 or so states, from Miami to L.A. to Seattle to Boston. We often stayed in cheap motels. My favorite was one right out of a Coen brothers movie in Ozona, Texas – crazy owner, weird noises through the night, howling hounds in the back, and so on. Maybe it’s being an immigrant but I live for this kind of Americana. Perhaps for the same reasons, I also love Memorial Day. England celebrates its war-dead in far gloomier fashion – in November, with commemorative poppies, services, and so on. America does all that – but also takes the day off and celebrates the first day of summer. And what could be more American? The point of the sacrifice we commemorate, after all, was to preserve this country’s freedom, an inextricable part of which, for most Americans, is the ability to goof off, drag out the barbecue, or head to the beach. It’s memories of Memorial Days like these that probably kept many soldiers posted abroad vaguely sane over the years. Reminiscences like these are also probably what any American soldier always longs to get back to. Which is why the best way to commemorate them is to renew those memories each year; mint them anew – even in the Jolly Roger Motor Hotel.

BEGALA AWARD NOMINEE: “Mr. Bush is proposing a diminution of the government’s ability to protect its citizens that is breathtaking in its scope. His environmental agenda would put more arsenic in the water and more pollutants in the air.” Yes, it’s Paul Begala and Jim Carville in their Sunday New York Times op-ed. Of course, what they mean by the government’s ability to “protect” its citizens means protecting Americans from the right to control and spend their own money without government funneling up record amounts of it. Another interesting nugget in the piece is the frank admission that fully funding a massive, open-ended prescription drug benefit for seniors will indeed destroy fiscal health unless taxes are kept high, and in the short term, raised even higher. But heck, you gotta win Florida somehow.

AFTERLIFE: The strange post-career of an ex-president, Bill Clinton. Check out the latest piece from the Sunday Times (of London) posted opposite. Back in D.C. later today. Post-Memorial Day service will continue as soon as I touch ground.

The Democratic Party line, faithfully repeated as “news” by Rick Berke in the New York Times, is that Jim Jeffords’ defection is a result of Bush foolishly governing “from the right.” Huh? The only hard evidence of conservatism is the budget deal and tax cut, which Jeffords supported. The other major legislative achievements poised for passage are the Education Bill – a deeply bipartisan measure crafted by Ted Kennedy and boosting federal education spending by 30 percent – and the campaign Finance Reform Bill, crafted by John McCain. Ashcroft’s tenure at Justice has been moderate, bordering on liberal. Environmental policy is barely distinguishable from Clinton’s, except for terrible p.r., and a belated recognition that we need more energy sources. On abortion, which Berke dutifully cites, the administration has been completely AWOL. There hasn’t even been an attempt at a partial birth abortion ban, perhaps the minimum measure sought by the religious right. The administration is strikingly diverse on racial and gender matters and has reached out to gay Americans. Berke hauls out all the usual blowhards – from Bill Kristol to Bob Strauss (remember him?) to make what is a completely unsubstantiated case. Is this a sign of what Howell Raines has in store for the whole paper? Propaganda disguised as news? At the very least, this is over-interpreting Jeffords. If he hadn’t been able to tip the balance of the Senate, this would be a non-story, a quirky little regional piece on a fickle leftie trapped in a Republican Party were he clearly hasn’t belonged for twenty years. Jeffords was fine with the Gingrich revolution but balks at Bush? Give me a break. All this does, as I said yesterday, is ratchet down the chance that Bush will drastically remake the judiciary; make a bipartisan approach even more important for Bush; and put some real pressure on Daschle to deliver. It’s the status-quo ante with a twist. Whatever else it is, it isn’t an earthquake.

RIGHT-WING DORKS UNITE!: Kinsley has a typically smart piece about William Hague and his ilk. Only in Britain do the dorks and weirdoes actually run for office. Here, they run think-tanks, editorial pages, and, er, weblogs.

GO WEST: Dragging my near-expiring lungs into an Airbus 320 for a long weekend in San Diego with the new squeeze. Postings might be sporadic for the weekend if things go well. If they don’t, look for a forthcoming tirade against the idiocy of romantic love. No-one can say I’m not trying…

The rumors tonight in Washington are that Jeffords may not do the dirty after all. Who knows? More to the point, who cares? Jeffords is a de facto Democrat on most of the important issues. He voted for HillaryCare, for goodness’ sake. His defection will help scupper some of Bush’s more extreme judicial appointments (good), won’t jeopardize the most important part of his agenda, the tax cut, (good), and will force W into more accommodations with moderate Democrats rather than with prickly liberal Republicans (even better). If Bush and Rove don’t panic, this can surely work to their advantage. The Democrats’ strongest weapon in 2002 would have been recapturing one of the two Houses. Now they’ll have to share the burden of leadership and, to some extent, responsibility for what transpires. They have already dictated the terms of Bush’s education bill, so I don’t see any drastic damage they can do in the months ahead. And the Republicans can go into the 2002 cycle with some fire in their belly, instead of in a defensive crouch. My only worry is that Jeffords represents a kind of political creature that largely destroyed the Tory party in Britain in the 1990s. The Tory Wets, as Thatcher dubbed them, were forever bleating on about their “conscience,” moderation, etc etc, while essentially supporting an ever larger welfare state and ever higher taxes. In the long run, best to get rid of them – because they are a treacherous breed who largely want to get rid of principled conservatives. And better to get rid of them before they try and get rid of you. Are you listening, Senator Chafee?

BURYING FETUSES: An interesting nugget from Britain, where National Health Service nurses are actually campaigning for the right to bury abortions and miscarriages. “Parents should be given the same choice on the disposal of fetal remains as for a stillborn child. They should be clearly and sensitively informed of the options available to them, both verbally and in writing, by trained health professionals,” the nurses’ report advised. They refused to be drawn on whether they were implying that the fetuses should have the status of a human life. They were merely arguing, they said, that these measures were necessary to be sensitive to grieving or traumatized parents. Interestingly, it is against the law in Britain to dispose of fetuses without burial if they are aborted or miscarried in the third trimester. I have no idea what the laws are here about it, and what the Medicaid and Medicare systems mandate, but I’d be interested to hear if any of you know about it. I wonder if NARAL would object in principle to treating dead fetuses with dignity, even if they’re quite happy to extinguish live ones.