The Dish

“Like it or not, nearly half of the Latino population considers itself a race.” So writes Ian Haney López, a professor at Boalt Hall. Dispiriting is the word that comes to mind.

Since the Gore defeat in 2000, left-liberals in the US have turned away from identity politics, just as Michael Lind and Todd Gitlin among others recommended in the mid-1990s. You could say that this was one of the few unambiguous intellectual victories of American conservatives, except that devotees of Old Left class politics provided much of the ammunition. At first, the multicultis blasted the likes of Lind and Gitlin as crypto-racists or, worse yet, crypto-conservatives, but fear of Bush ended all of that. The most aggressive proponents of the multicultural world-view-that America is a congeries of “cultures” defined by race, and that said “cultures” are entitled to proportional representation in key institutions, if not some kind of quasi-sovereignty-were cowed by electoral logic. Somehow, the vast majority of Americans, “people of color” included, didn’t buy the implicit anti-Americanism, to say nothing of the illiberalism, of this profoundly odious world-view, and so the multicultis remained silent as the grave.

Banished to their redoubts in the universities, the multicultis never gave up hope. They’ve been plotting a triumphant return. The hope was that it would happen now, under a newly elected Democratic administration. Because that didn’t work out, some have grown impatient and are jumping the gun. My guess is that López falls in that category. Far from presenting the “fact” of an “emerging Latino race” dispassionately, he champions it with verve. One wonders if he considers those Latinos who identify as white or black or Asian as somehow less authentic.

RACIALIZATION FOR FUN AND PROFIT: It had been my understanding, admittedly crude, that “racialization” is a tragedy-that far beyond making a trivial distinction, ascribing racial difference to an outgroup was to cause a serious harm, to cement an exclusion in a thoroughgoing and profound way. Hence the still very low rate of intermarriage between black and non-black Americans, particularly when compared to intermarriage rates between various ethnic groups of European origin. Latinos and East Asians have followed a more “European” pattern, thus suggesting that the relevant color line in this country remains that separating black from non-black.

While it’s true that segregation and a lack of income mobility, both exacerbated by mass immigration, have driven the “racialization” of Mexican American communities in California and the Southwest, it’s not clear that this makes Latinos a “race.” Rather, I’d say that these communities are facing a social crisis that demands serious revisions to social policy, not nationalist posturing from the likes of López.

The notion that the Census Bureau merely describes “sociological reality” by codifying race is flatly absurd. The “ethnoracial pentagon” drives and then reinforces a process initiated by political entrepreneurs like López. It manufactures “sociological reality.” It sharpens divisions, and only a handful of interpreters and middlemen-in the social-services industry, among the marketing gurus, and, of course, among the professors-stand to benefit. Don’t let it happen.
— Reihan

Will Wilkinson of the Cato Institute slays the beast that is “starve the beast”-the fanciful notion, advanced by a number of very smart people who ought to know better, that a revenue collapse driven by tax cuts will automatically lead to steep spending cuts. Drawing on the work of William Niskanen and Peter Van Doren, Wilkinson offers a far more plausible hypothesis:

When current spending is financed by current taxes, voters see it as their money being spent, and so are more motivated to be frugal. But when current spending is financed by debt, voters see it as future voters’ money being spent. If voters prefer to benefit now and have some one else pay later, there is no good reason to think legislators will see deficits as a reason to restrain themselves.

And so the fiscal strategy of the supply-siders has been exactly as counterproductive as the root-canal Republicans, the great Dick Darman among them, said it would be.

Read the op-ed and see why Wilkinson is the best thing to hit Cato since the bottomless largesse of some unnamed silver-haired tycoon.

TEARS OF A CLOWN: Imagine a papier-mâché mask with a wind-up device that would both a) play the melody from “Tears of a Clown” and b) slowly lower a small papier-mâché “tear,” painted light blue, from the “eye” of the mask, to which it’d be attached by a slender thread, to the ground. This, to my mind, would be the most terrifying Halloween costume of all. Please do not wear it in my presence. I might die.

MICHAEL LIND IS MAKING SENSE: The Democrats have a Greater New England problem. At one point, Lind draws a parallel between John Kerry and Charles Sumner. Fortunately, Zell Miller was never in a position to savagely beat John Kerry with a shillelagh-but really, who thinks he wouldn’t have if given half a chance?

I should add that I owe Michael Lind a lot. The Next American Nation sold me on the value of reading. I never would have picked up The New Republic otherwise, and I never would have started reading Andrew Sullivan. Instead, I’d be in the state pen, organizing a ferocious Afro-Asian gang to do battle with white supremacists and the Gangster Disciples. In homage to the historic Bandung Conference, a key event in the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement, the gang would be called “the Bandung Brigade,” and we’d perform an Electric Slide-inspired boogaloo called “the Non-Aligned Movement” to strike fear in the hearts of our enemies. In addition, we’d also sharpen cutlery and threaten to make “chow fun” of our enemies. Everybody Wang Chung tonight, for tomorrow there will be hell to pay.

“SOUTHERN BARBARIAN MONKEY”: In my never-ending quest for any and all information pertaining to monkeys, creatures I resemble in nearly all crucial respects, reckless disregard for the human taboo against going pantless in public among them, I’ve come upon an article, “From Protean Ape to Handsome Saint: The Monkey King,” by Whalen Lai (Asian Folklore Studies, Vol. 53, No. 1., pp. 29-65.). The abstract reads as follows:

The novel Monkey or Journey to the West tells of a simian’s revolt against Heaven, of its defeat by the Buddha, and of its later being recruited as a pilgrim to protect the monk Tripitaka on his quest for scriptures in India. This essay traces the Monkey’s background to a) a mythic battle between a land deity and a water deity; b) a myth about an aboriginal in a medieval forest who is converted by Buddhist missionaries and becomes a saint who protects his new faith, just as St. Christopher, originally a subhuman Dog-man in the forest, became the patron saint of travelers; c) a folk Zen parody of the Sixth Patriarch Huineng (who was called a “southern babarian monkey”); d) an ancient tradition about the Chinese Titans-the demigods of Xia-striking back at the Zhou god of Heaven that displaced them. The appendix goes into the folkore of the Frog, a chthonic deity kept alive among southern non-Chinese aboriginals.

Note the striking parallels to our own time. In his penetrating analysis of the presidential race, “How Southern Barbarian Monkey Really Won,” Mark Danner summons the spirit of the Frog-inhaled in smokable form-to outline the various ways in which Bush’s relentless demonization of the “land deity” led him to victory. Ross has dismissed this one out of hand.
— Reihan

Here they are. Or at least the first batch. Out of respect for the recently deceased, I’m renaming the Sontag awards – for moral equivalence in the war on terror – after Michael Moore, who once compared the Jihadist and Baathist thugs in Iraq to the Minutemen. But first … the right-wing nutcases, named after famed National Review bigot, John Derbyshire. And, yes, he had a great year in 2004, managing to win his eponymously named prize. More award winners in the coming days. Stay tuned.

DERBYSHIRE AWARD WINNER 2004: “My mental state these past few days: 1. The Abu Ghraib “scandal”: Good. Kick one for me. But bad discipline in the military (taking the pictures, I mean). Let’s have a couple of courts martial for appearance’s sake. Maximum sentence: 30 days CB.” – John Derbyshire, May 9, rejoicing in the torturing and murder of Iraqi prisoners.

DERBYSHIRE AWARD RUNNER-UP 2004: “If you use that logic and reasoning, that means every car bomb in Iraq would be an in-kind contribution to John Kerry.” – Mark Hyman, vice president the Sinclair Broadcast Group, October 12, defending himself against the charge that the broadcasting of an anti-Kerry propaganda movie amounts to an in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign.

DERBYSHIRE AWARD HONORABLE MENTION I: “I’m trying to find the correct name for it … this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. … I’ve never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I’m gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I’m gonna kill him and tell God he died.” – televangelist Jimmy Swaggart, September 9.

DERBYSHIRE AWARD HONORABLE MENTION II: “[Richard] Perle’s depiction of his delight at first meeting the future president reads like Fagin relating his initial encounter with the young Oliver Twist.” – Patrick Buchanan, in his new book on the neocons.

MOORE AWARD WINNER 2004: “Tillman, probably acting out his nationalist-patriotic fantasies forged in years of exposure to Clint Eastwood and Rambo movies, decided to insert himself into a conflict he didn’t need to insert himself into. It wasn’t like he was defending the East coast from an invasion of a foreign power. THAT would have been heroic and laudable. What he did was make himself useful to a foreign invading army, and he paid for it. It’s hard to say I have any sympathy for his death because I don’t feel like his “service” was necessary. He wasn’t defending me, nor was he defending the Afghani people. He was acting out his macho, patriotic crap and I guess someone with a bigger gun did him in.” – from the Daily Collegian in New England.

MOORE AWARD RUNNER-UP 2004: “The Iraqi killer of Reserve Navy Lt. Kylan Jones-Huffman has been brought to justice in an Iraqi court. Although he has since changed his story, he at one point admitted to killing Jones-Huffman with a bullet through the back of the neck while the latter was stuck in traffic in downtown Hilla. The assassin said that he felt that Jones-Huffman “looked Jewish.” The fruits of hatred sowed in the Middle East by aggressive and expansionist Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza against the Palestinians and in south Lebanon against Shiites continue to be harvested by Americans.” – Juan Cole.

MOORE AWARD HONORABLE MENTION I: “Alan (caller to Seattle’s KUOW): I am not afraid to speak out until I am shot down in the streets because I am a patriot … The president of the United States should be held before the court of international law for treason along with his administration. Lewis Lapham: I agree with everything Alan just said… Good for Alan.” You can hear the radio show here.

MOORE AWARD HONORABLE MENTION II: “I could not help but think about the hurt and fear that would cause a group of men to commit suicide by flying planes into the World Trade Center buildings. Anger as a byproduct of hurt and fear was not a foreign concept to me.” – Jayson Blair, identifying with the mass-murderers of 9/11 on the day it happened, in his new book, “Burning Down My Masters’ House.”

— Andrew

This piece from Tom Frank (the TNR reporter-researcher, not the scourge of Kansans) on why liberals shouldn’t be nostalgic for Bush I is interesting, although the author seems a little over-aggressive in his prosecution of the H.W. presidency. (Was supporting an anti-flag burning amendment that never passed really that awful, even from the vantage point of TNR?) What strikes me most, though, is not how foolish today’s left-wing Poppy nostalgists are being, but how overheated they were, way back then, in going after Bush’s cautious, uninspiring, but relatively middle-of-the-road Presidency. For instance, Frank dredges up his own magazine’s Bush the Elder send-off, and quotes:

Good riddance to George Bush, to his negligence, recklessness, and cynicism. Good riddance to his incompetent excuse for a foreign policy, to his ignorance and avoidance of the social ills of our country, to his failed economic agenda, and to his incoherent verbiage that sensible people had to accept as public discourse for four long years.

I mean, honestly — does anyone think this kind of rhetoric stands up well a decade later? Bush I, “reckless”? Bush I, a man with an “incompetent excuse for a foreign policy”? Bush I, a President with a “failed economic agenda”? I mean, sure, there was a recession during his presidency. . . but really, can’t we have a little perspective here?

And that’s just one paragraph. The editorial as a whole, when exhumed, is even more over-the-top. Which suggests, I suppose, that the poisonous partisanship of the present moment is nothing new under the sun — and that a lot today’s overheated books, columns, and yes, even blog posts (hard to believe, I know) are going to look awfully silly in the hindsight of history.

Or maybe the ’92 TNR editors were just having a bad day. After all, they had been out of power for twelve years, which is probably enough to make “even the liberal New Republic” a little crazy. Imagine what they’ll be like in 2012, when the Brownback-Pawlenty ticket is running for a second term . . .

MORE ON “DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION”: Noah Millman weighs in, intelligently.

“TASTES GREAT! LESS FILLING!”: Is everyone else as sick as I am of the argument over whether “moral values” or the war on terror tipped the election to Bush? Can’t it, just maybe, have been both?

Anyway, if you’re not bored with the debate, and if you haven’t yet heard that Bush made “security” a major issue in his campaign, then this Mark Danner article is for you.

— Ross

More on Lakoff here.
— Steven

On the Right, the rhetorical firepower is with the tax-cutters. If you’re a conservative who believes that, as Stuart Taylor Jr. beautifully put it, the Bush administration “is obsessed with shifting the tax burden from the wealthiest Americans to future generations,” you’re out of luck. Some blame K Street. I blame Ramesh Ponnuru. Because Ponnuru, National Review‘s domestic policy guru, is scarily smart, he can be scarily persuasive. You might think I’m mad, which is entirely true. But that’s irrelevant. Dubious messenger aside, I can assure you that there’s something to what one might call the “Unified Ponnuru Theory” (or UPT, like UPN, but “urban”).

Earlier this month, Ponnuru argued against comprehensive tax reform. In his view, the ’86 reforms were a failure. Rather than invest precious political capital in a sweeping overhaul, Ponnuru felt that conservatives should seek to move gradually in the direction of a consumption tax-“Operation Norquist,” for those of you sold on the “Unified Norquist Theory.” John Mueller persuaded me otherwise, and I fulminated at considerable length in this post. A comprehensive reform that would broaden the base and lower rates struck me as the right thing to do.

Well, it looks like the Bush administration disagrees. Plans for a serious overhaul seem to have been abandoned. Entrenching and expanding vast tax breaks will be the order of the day. Mere coincidence? Or is Ponnuru the Rasputin-like figure behind the move? That remains to be seen. Suffice to say, I have my suspicions.

Rather than spend countless millions on the Democrats, George Soros would be wise to endow the “Ponnuru Chair in Socialistic Studies” at an elite university, all in the hopes of wooing Ponnuru to the dark side. This would give conservative reformers the opening we need to soak the idle rich and shower largesse on families with children, in the process giving the GOP a permanent majority, until we’re annexed by Canada, at which point we’ll be forced to watch endless repeats of “Degrassi: The Next Generation”-a fate that, though I’m loathe to admit it, I’d heartily embrace.

Somehow I don’t think this is going to work out.
— Reihan

Kevin Drum observes:

The political blogosphere is far more partisan than any organ of the mainstream media, more partisan than most op-ed pages, and most of the time more partisan than even the overtly political magazines. The blogosphere is about the most partisan and least independent voice this side of talk radio.

Aaron Radcliffe, in a thoughtful gloss on this, bemoans “that peculiarly blind, unthinking leap to defend the positions — any positions — of one’s ‘man'” that he finds throughout blogdom:

The initial stand on an issue is not the product of a little bit of thought, it is always the instinctive leap to the Man’s side of the debate. The position is chosen first, the thinking comes much later (if at all), and then only to provide justification. This piffle is tiresome — and unfortunately here to stay. I haven’t noticed much post-election willingness in the blogworld to depart from the conventional stances and talking points.

Of course, there are exceptions to this, but it’s largely right, and there’s no better illustration of it than the tarradiddle spewing forth from blogdom over the Douthat-Ledeen dispute, including silly and irresponsible charges of racism that spread through “a self-replicating echo chamber.” (The phrase belongs to Hugh Hewitt, who applies it to the “old media.” But a network of interconnected websites that link to each other can function more effectively in this manner.)

Which brings up the question of the sort of political debate that blogs promote. Here’s how the “blog of the year” describes the “fundamental political debate of our time”:

It is between those who are willing to roll up their sleeves and try to make the world a better place, and those who offer no alternative but prefer to stand on the sidelines and sneer.

Which means that the “fundamental political debate of our time” isn’t a debate at all (there isn’t even another alternative), but a test of partisan will. As Noah Millman notes, in a post on American intellectuals, “We live in an increasingly fragmented culture, which makes it hard to speak to the culture as a whole.” A blogosphere that incessantly screams “Don’t go wobbly!” doesn’t seem to help matters in this regard. Which is why, though I’m not in charge of things around here, I like Mr. Millman’s idea of a Ponnuru Award “for principled opposition to a partisan position.” That sort of award seems targeted to correct blogdom’s worst tendencies. I can even think of a few nominees.

TEXT FOR THE TIMES: In related news, Arts and Letters daily links to this review today: “The point of public argument is not to be right, but to win.”
— Steven

Without adding a single other word, I’d like to cite, with emphasis added, a brief passage from Reuel Gerecht’s “The Struggle for the Middle East”:

And it is an open question, of course, whether any combination of sanctions, short of a blockade of Iranian oil, could convince the ruling mullahs to cease and desist since the nuclear program is one of the few things that the quarrelsome political clergy can agree on. It is also undoubtedly popular with many ordinary Iranians, who see the nuke as an expression of Iranian nationalism, not as an instrument of mass destruction in the hands of virulently anti-American clerics. The mullahs, who have alienated just about everyone in the country with their incompetence, corruption, and antidemocratic behavior, have accidentally discovered something that gives them prestige and nationalist credentials.

Well, I’ll add this. Long before Iran’s clerical regime came to power, the Shah initiated a low-level nuclear weapons program. The Shah’s rule was authoritarian, capricious, and cruel, and its security services, foremost among them the hated SAVAK, committed ghastly atrocities against dissidents. At the same time, the Shah’s Iran was, ostensibly, a steadfast ally of the United States. The country was ripe for a democratic revolution. It happened. It didn’t go as planned.

India-where a threatening strategic environment and domestic politics both played a role in the decision to pursue nuclear weapons-also comes to mind. That’s for another time.
— Reihan

Here. I should note that he and Pejman are quite right — I wrote “Arab countries” here, when I meant “Muslim countries,” (Iran being obviously not an Arab country) and I apologize for the misblog. In addition, while I have not read Ledeen’s book, I have read roughly 90% of his columns (I am a faithful NRO reader, after all — hi, Kathryn!) over the last few years, and it’s true that he’s written frequently about how to overthrow the mullahs. My point was not that he doesn’t have a plan, but that I’m unconvinced of the plan’s efficacy, and that I think it suffers from an unwarranted optimism about the power of the U.S. to bring about “democratic revolution” in the Muslim world. (And yes, I know, Reagan brought down the Soviet Union. But he had some help from within — and I don’t just mean the Soviet dissidents.)

Otherwise, I’ll let the arguments in this (much longer) post stand.

— Ross

I was hoping to get through this guest-blogging stint without being called a racist, but no such luck. Roger Simon pulls out all the stops: Not only am I accused of using an “off-puttingly racist locution,” but he also implies that I don’t give a damn about the victims of the recent tsunami, and that I might well have opposed the Civil Rights Movement.

(I also appreciate, in the comments below Mr. Simon’s post, being accused of being a liberal. Which is a new one.)

Anyway, just to clarify: when I quoted Michael Ledeen saying that “we have to stand with our people, everywhere,” and suggested that regarding Iranian democrats as “our people” is a mistaken approach to foreign policy, I did not mean to suggest that we do not share a common humanity with the Persians — or the North Koreans, or the Syrians, or any other people living under tyranny. Nor did I mean to suggest that they are racially inferior to us. Nor that I am indifferent to their fate. Nor that I don’t think it would be a good thing, indeed a great thing, if a “democratic revolution” came to each and every dictatorship on this planet.

OPTIMISM IS NOT A POLICY: What I did mean to suggest is that the United States has different obligations to different peoples — and that its primary responsibility is to safeguard the well-being of American citizens. (I hope this isn’t a controversial statement.) If this can be done while promoting democracy in Iran, so much the better. However, as Mr. Simon rightly points out, the primary challenge facing our government today is “the hugely dangerous proliferation issue.” And Iran is the centerpiece of that challenge — a proud nation with a history of political dominance in the region, governed by a corrupt gang of fanatics who are only months, perhaps, away from acquiring nuclear weapons.

So what are we to do? Mr. Ledeen has suggested, most recently here, that the best way to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes (and to pacify Iraq, though that’s a separate debate) is to promote democratic revolution within that nation. Fair enough. I wondered how, precisely, he intends to go about promoting such a revolution. A few days later, he wrote that what pro-democracy activists in countries like Iran need is what we gave the protestors in the Ukraine: “A bit of guidance in the methods of non-violent resistance, a bit of communications gear, and many words of encouragement.” And I asked, in the post that apparently dripped with racism — is this really a plausible strategy for dealing with Iran?

Those who think the answer is “yes” need to address a number of issues. First, taking a bold, “we’re-going-to-undermine-you-from-within-and-there’s-nothing-you-can-about-it” tack with the Iranians pretty much removes any hope of a diplomatic solution to the nuclear quandary. Well, there isn’t going to be a diplomatic solution, Ledeen, Simon, et. al. might retort — but it’s also the case that the more confrontational our rhetoric with Iran, the higher their state of alert, and the harder it will be to launch a quick military strike of the kind Reuel Marc Gerecht advises here. (Though he adds that the strongest argument “against attacking Iran’s nuclear-weapons facilities is that we may not technically be able to do it,” which doesn’t entirely inspire confidence.)

Finally, even if the mullahs were toppled, it seems extremely likely that a democratic Iran would still pursue a bomb — and more importantly, would continue to be the U.S.’s (and certainly Israel’s) major strategic rival in the region. (There’s no evidence that democracies, and particularly poor, nationalistic democracies, can’t be just as nuke-happy and bellicose as the next nation.) So it’s by no means clear that “democratic revolution” is a solution to the problem of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East at all.

Look, I’m not at all sure what what our Iran policy should be. But based on their comments, Roger Simon and Michael Ledeen seem to think that we should put our faith in the Iranian dissident movement. I’ve listened to their arguments, and I’m not convinced. I’m not trying to “throw stones at the optimist”; I’m trying to figure out what the posture of the United States government should be. And I think that on an issue as grave as nuclear proliferation, resting the security of “our people” (by which, yes, I mean Americans first and foremost) in the hands of Iran’s would-be democrats — many of whom, as Gerecht notes, “have a very jaundiced view of the United States” — is a dangerous gamble. And foreign policy is too serious a business to gamble with, just for the sake of “driving the car forward,” as Mr. Simon puts it.

A NOTE ON REALISM (AND IRAQ): I should add that I don’t consider myself a realist, and certainly not of the classic Metternich-Kissinger school, though I have respect for both men. (Well, okay, mainly Metternich.) I certainly think idealism of various kinds has a place in foreign policy, though I’m not always sure what that place is. (For instance, I would have backed intervention in Rwanda, but I’m less sure about Kosovo. Of course, we did the reverse.) And I don’t have any problem with the United States making democratization the large-scale goal of its foreign policy.

What I do have a problem with is in the notion that the proper approach to foreign policy is a mix of willy-nilly optimism about “democratic revolution” and foot-on-the-gas bellicosity — and I detect both of these qualities in Mr. Ledeen.

He might well retort that in a world filled with terrorists, loose nukes, and the potential for more 9/11-style attacks, we must at times take some significant risks in whom we support, whom we condemn, and whom we invade. And he would be right, up to a point — just as he’d be right that whenever possible, when we take such risks, we should err on the side of promoting human rights and republican self-government.

However, the last time we undertook such a risk was in the invasion of Iraq, which, whatever you think about its wisdom (and I think I am in good company in having serious doubts), has placed us in a difficult position vis-a-vis the threat posed by Iran. And I hope that at the very least, everyone (
left and right) can agree that at least a few mistakes were made during the run-up to the Iraq War . . . and that among them was a significant over-optimism about the ease of installing democracy in a Muslim dictatorship in the heart of the Middle East. So perhaps, just perhaps, we should have a little humility — heck, call it a little “conservatism,” if you want — about our ability to bring about a “democratic revolution” in the country next door.

FINALLY: Since I’m fairly new to this whole blogging thing, I’d like to thank Mr. Simon for thickening my skin. I hope that my initial seething fury has been translated into a fairly cogent post — and I apologize to the weary reader for its length.

— Ross