I linked to a Slate piece last week that had Grover Norquist telling El Mundo that much of a generation – the FDR generation – was “anti-American.” That would better have been described as “un-American.” It’s all about the Spanish translation. Matthew Continetti, a rising star at the Weekly Standard, provides the context.
SAINT CLINTON: Blasphemous, but amusing.
This blog has been nominated for best Republican party coverage at the Washington Post’s Best Blogs poll. So vote for the site! We’re up against some biggies. You can do so here.
“And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq… All of a sudden you’ve got a battle you’re fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques. Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.” – vice president Dick Cheney, 1992. If John Edwards doesn’t use this in his debate, he’s nuts.
“FARG” NOT “FAG”: The DeMint email did not, apparently, use the word “fag” but “farg”, a nickname for the intended recipient. The slur “dike” (sic) was in it.
We have lots of new readers and several emails complaining about the white on navy color scheme. That’s why we have a little button just above this that says “Black And White.” If you click on it, you get a more conventional format.
Here’s an email which reminds me why I remain so conflicted about this election. I don’t think I’m the only one. The notion that the vote this year is obvious does indeed understate the complexity of the decision. Resolve versus indecision? Or incompetence versus a new path? Do we write Iraq off, or do we plow on? Here’s an email that is about as persuasive a case as I have read on why Kerry, for all his glaring faults, is still worth considering – for conservative reasons:
When the invasion of Iraq was being debated, I had just returned from two years in Morocco and my now wife had just returned from a year in Egypt. We both considered supporting the war. The Arab world is mired in a political culture obsessed with blaming others for their misfortunes and obsessing over Israel while doing nothing to find practical solutions to their own problems closer to home.
When I was in Morocco, there was a demonstration in Rabat that drew between half a million and three million demonstrators against the reoccupation of the West Bank in April of 2002. Never mind that Israel is on the other side of the Mediterranean and that their demonstration could have no impact on the Palestinians’ situation. Never mind that their own government has occupied the Western Sahara against the wishes of the native inhabitants of that territory, a situation that in some ways parallels the situation of Israel and Palestine. Never mind that, in the early 21st century, they are still ruled by a Monarchy making only feeble gestures towards instituting a democracy, and have a stagnant economy barely able to keep up with the country’s birth rate, let alone employ the millions of idle, jobless young Moroccans whose best hope in life is to emigrate legally or illegally to Europe in hopes of finding menial, low-wage labor. Few Moroccans will lift a finger to try to change their own situation, but they will pour into the streets for the sake of an impotent gesture on the behalf of the Palestinians. Political discussions tend to revolve around conspiracy theories involving “The Jews.” The 10 year old who lived downstairs from me was convinced that 4000 Jews had called in sick to work on 9/11, tipped off by the Mossad that the attack was going to occur. His father would not admit to holding this view, but probably did and would say publicly that Bin Laden was not behind the attack (Powell promised a dossier in Arabic spelling out evidence of Bin Laden’s responsibility for 9/11. This was never done, to my knowledge. A serious oversight.).
My wife had similar experiences in Egypt. We both thought that a shock to the system and a scheme to jar at least one Arab country onto the right track might be worth it. In the end, we both decided that it would be a bad idea, and for good conservative reasons. Utopian social programs rarely work domestically, in circumstances in which the architects of social engineering share a language and culture with their subjects and in which the surrounding society is stable and prosperous. If this is the case, how can we expect a radical experiment in social engineering to succeed in a foreign country with a radically different culture, and in which distrust of the United States is imbibed with mother’s milk? Arabs are fixated enough on what they perceive as past humiliations, how can adding another defeat to the list help them?
Subsequent rationales for the war were not convincing. Engage the terrorists in Iraq or face them here? Does anyone really believe that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had a one-way ticket to the US and a scholarship at a flight school but decided to turn around and have a go at us in Iraq after he heard about the invasion? Iraq, in fact, supplies a theater for attacking the US that most of the fighters there, foreign and Iraqi, would not have if we had not given it to them. If Saddam Hussein were still in power, we could continue to contain him for 2 billion per year and when his system did finally collapse, it would be up to Iraqis to sort out the mess, not us. As for Blair’s claim that Muslim militants hate the West for our very existence, I don’t buy it. Resent us, yes. Envy us, sure. But if we didn’t meddle in Middle Eastern affairs, I doubt they would attack us. Bush’s claim in his first public statement after 9/11 that they hate us for our freedom is a close parallel to the claim of Muslim militants that we hate them for their core identity and values, that is, that we hate them for being Muslims, that we hate Islam as such. The Middle East is a disaster. Its economies are stagnant, its resources are minimal and being depleted, its population is growing, its infrastructure is crumbling, its literacy rates are low and so on and so forth. There will be no stability there in the foreseeable future and the correct response to this should be to minimize involvement with the region.
Now, we are stuck fighting to try to democratize a polity that is inherently unstable. If there are democratic elections, the result is not likely to be a liberal democracy, but rather one of the illiberal sort. Defeat would be a disaster, victory will be hard to define and unlikely to bring great reward. I agree with Christopher Hitchens that it is shameful to be wishing defeat on the US in Iraq in the hopes that this translates into defeat for Bush at home. I agree that we have to face the fact that we are committed in Iraq now and cannot afford to talk about the past as though turning back the clock were an option. I am no fan of Kerry. Despite all of this, I don’t want to hand another four years to a man who brought us unnecessarily into this predicament at such great cost and who waged this war so incompetently. This, combined with the irresponsible economic policy that you have also criticized, have convinced me to cast my vote for Kerry. We cannot afford to dwell on the past at the expense of engaging with the present as it is. But neither can we forget past lapses of judgment and hope that they will not occur again.
The conservative case for Kerry. It’s worth pondering.
It gets worse. According to Kathryn-Jean Lopez of National Review, this morning on Good Morning America, John Kerry blamed his “I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it” gaffe on being tired at the end of a long day campaigning. But the record shows he said it at a noontime gathering. Trivial, I know. But if you’re a Democrat, this kind of stuff must drive you up the wall. I do think Kerry needs to pummel Bush Thursday night on Iraq; but I also fear that Kerry’s sheer awfulness as a candidate may do him in. I mean, Al Gore is more likable. Last time around, after just a few minutes of the first Bush-Gore debate, I turned to a friend and said that Bush had won. However well Kerry does on points, I have a feeling the same may be true Thursday night.
THE PRESS AS ENABLERS: Did NYT reporters tip off an Islamic “charity”? This story makes Mary Mapes seem positively above board. But the Times disputes it.
A GOP GAFFE: Here’s a story that reveals something. In the South Carolina Senate primary, a top aide to the Republican candidate, Jim Demint, sent out an email by mistake:
Lisa Hall, chairwoman of the Central Savannah River Area Rainbow Alliance, which works to raise awareness of gay and lesbian issues, in July invited both Senate campaigns to an Oct. 7 town hall meeting to discuss issues of interest to gay voters. Democratic nominee Inez Tenenbaum promptly promised to send a representative, but after receiving no reply from the DeMint campaign, Hall sent a follow-up e-mail Monday. Allen, apparently thinking she was forwarding the e-mail to someone inside the campaign, inadvertently replied to Hall. “Come on, fag, give this dike a reply,” Allen wrote.
Allen will merely be reprimanded. She wrote that email expecting this kind of joke to be understood and accepted within the campaign structure. Now ask yourself: if a top aide had written an email that contained the words “ni**er” or “k*ke” or “sp*c,” what would the consequences be?
EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Blair was eloquent, yes. And Iraq is indeed a key front–now–mainly because it is where we happen to have our troops. But it is plain that the battle should not have been carried to that front when it was, and we will be less safe in the years to come as a result. Blair’s eloquence can’t hide the evidence that Bush was intent before 9/11 on hitting Iraq at the earliest opportunity, and it is this that fuels the suspicions of an unwise diversion from the task at hand. Please, let’s not boil the issue down to who can most impressively stick out his chest and issue the most persuasive histrionics about “resolve.” This position reminds me of where Hannah Arendt quotes Rene Char about what he missed from his days in the Resistance–“the clarity”–except that now we have people rushing for the soothing balm of clarity–and falling in behind a leader who is drunk on it–when it is unwarranted by the complicated situation in front of us.”
The NYT somewhat misrepresents Tony Blair’s speech to his party conference yesterday, arguing in a headline that the prime minister had offered a partial apology for deposing Saddam. He didn’t. He merely said that he took responsibility for the wrong information that led to the invasion. It was more eloquent and more candid than anything Bush has said. And precisely because it was so candid his defense of the war – now – is more persuasive. He sticks to his view that we are indeed in a global war against Jihadist fanatics who are intent on our obliteration:
If you take [this]view, you don’t believe the terrorists are in Iraq to liberate it. They’re not protesting about the rights of women – what, the same people who stopped Afghan girls going to school, made women wear the Burka and beat them in the streets of Kabul, who now assassinate women just for daring to register to vote in Afghanistan’s first ever democratic ballot, though four million have done so? They are not provoked by our actions; but by our existence. They are in Iraq for the very reason we should be. They have chosen this battleground because they know success for us in Iraq is not success for America or Britain or even Iraq itself but for the values and way of life that democracy represents. They know that. That’s why they are there. That is why we should be there and whatever disagreements we have had, should unite in our determination to stand by the Iraqi people until the job is done.
A-frigging-men. Yes, I’ve been alarmed at the gross mismanagement of the war; and I do not believe it helps our effort to minimize or ignore it. But Blair reminds us why this current struggle in Iraq is indeed a critical struggle in the war. The reason, I think, that George W. Bush is now ahead is simply because he reminded people in New York City that this is indeed the struggle; and because people don’t believe Kerry has the will and steadiness to win it. To put it bluntly, I don’t believe Iraq is a “diversion” from the war on terror; I believe it’s the central front. If you share this view, Blair’s view, it’s extremely hard to support Kerry.
THE UN-KERRY: And Blair’s indirect rebuff to the senator from Massachusetts is clear enough. Here it is:
When I hear people say: “I want the old Tony Blair back, the one who cares”, I tell you something. I don’t think as a human being, as a family man, I’ve changed at all. But I have changed as a leader. I have come to realise that caring in politics isn’t really about “caring”. It’s about doing what you think is right and sticking to it. So I do not minimise whatever differences some of you have with me over Iraq and the only healing can come from understanding that the decision, whether agreed with or not, was taken because I believe, genuinely, Britain’s future security depends on it. There has been no third way, this time. Believe me, I’ve looked for it.
To all those on the left who seem to have forgotten that in this war against Islamo-fascism there is indeed no third way, take a look at Blair’s speech. Social justice means nothing if we are obliterated by a dirty bomb, nothing if we see our freedoms destroyed by an Islamic religious right with WMDs. And it is obscene for some people who claim to believe in progressive ideas to be finding indirect solace from the acts of Jihadist thugs. Hitch is dead-on in this respect. Bush deserves to be scolded for his arrogance, his divisiveness, and his incompetence. But not for his fundamental judgment about the world we live in. There, he’s right. And Kerry’s wrong. And that, in the end, may be all that matters.
Two differing versions – naturally – over at Volokh.
EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I have just read your piece on ‘outing’ in the TNR. As a gay man who recently ‘came out’ in his late fifties and who is well acquainted with the ‘psychological torments’ you speak of, I should like to say that I think you are wrong. I suspect that being outed might well – after the initial shock – come in the end to be a relief for people like Congressman Schrock. Honesty in one’s life is important for one’s own mental health.
And honesty in one’s life is also important where the welfare of others is concerned. If Mr Schrock had simply kept his conflicts to himself, then ‘outing’ would definitely be unjustified. But this was not the case: he was actively harming the lives of others, and the hatred he doubtless felt for himself does not justify this, whatever the sympathy one may feel for someone in his situation (and I do feel sympathy).
I share your dislike of ‘Gollum-like’ characters sidling up wanting to know whether one has the ‘goods’ on some unfortunate, but the unpleasantness of such people has little to do with the issue at stake.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.
Hugh Hewitt takes a brief swipe at yours truly for calling him a partisan, as if partisanship is a bad thing:
Keep an eye out for the folks slinging around the word “partisan.” It is often a giveaway of hackery of the worst sort — shorthand for an admission of incompetence in the art of argument coupled with an arrogance that say’s the speaker doesn’t feel the need to persuade, just dictate.
Huh? That wasn’t my point. There’s a real case for partisanship in our political system, but it’s not always compatible with being intellectually honest. No one is going to agree with everything one party stands for; and if you’re a writer, it seems to me you should say where you agree and disagree with the party you broadly support. But Hewitt boasts that his website is designed to destroy the power of the Democratic party. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think he has criticized this president once in the past several months. His response might be that of course he hasn’t. The task for him is not thinking and writing what he believes, but writing and promoting anything that helps one party stay in power. He deserves credit for admitting this. But I don’t think he should be swinging the word “hackery” around too much. Do you?
THE MASTURNADERS! Kerry liberals start using flash animation against the overweening bore.
527 SLIME: Two ads – one against Marilyn Musgrave, and one against Kerry – both seem to me to be over the top. Taking minor votes and making them seem like someone’s entire philosophy is classic negative campaigning, but it’s often grotesquely unfair. I don’t think Musgrave opposes helping our troops. I just think she’s a crazed fundamentalist. Ditto Gary Bauer’s latest ad saying that John Kerry has not opposed marriage rights for gay couples. You’d think from the ad that Kerry has backed equal rights. No such luck. The lesson for Democrats is that the far right will slime you on gays whatever you do or say. People like Bauer have few scruples in this respect. So why not stand up for what’s right?
Great email here:
I grew up in the punk rock music scene of my town, putting on all ages shows, playing in a band, etc. I feel like more and more, I see parallels between the punk movement which moved from fringe to mainstream and the blogger movement which seems to have taken more of the main stage. Let me elaborate.
Early punk music (being from England, you may have even more perspective than me on this) seemed to be largely rooted in a real social movement by an underclass who were not so much interested in creating “traditional” pop music as they were interested in speaking back at those who were controlling ideas in society. And punk rock was a relatively unrespected genre that was cast as a group that was not to be taken seriously, despite the implications the scene was having on large numbers of followers.
Similarly, bloggers seem to have started off on the same foot, initially operating as a subculture intent on delivering what was not felt to be delivered in the mainstream (primarily by the Big Media), but collectively gathering steam as loyal followers caught on to the movement. As with punk, blogging seems to have now reaching a more critical point were, like punk music, it’s crossing the line of being accepted by large groups of people, yet the forces that be continue to do everything in their power to discredit blogging as viable.
Actually, all of this up until now is more background to what I am getting at. It seems now that the bigger blogs are really gaining momentum and making a profound influence on journalism and how people are getting information, they are also simultaneously inheriting many of the same bad habits of the Big Media that they purport to be fighting against. The Dan Rather story is a good example. It seems that after contributing greatly to bringing the truth of the story to light, that bloggers would look back and reflect upon the success of the blogger movement, note its implications on Big Journalism, and then move on.
However, continually reading the self-congratulatory slaps on the back that many bloggers are giving each other in a neverending blogger love-fest only makes me think about my local news affiliate that brags for months afterwards that it was the first local network to break the mayor’s sex scandal. In other words, the constant self-validation reminds me a lot of some of things I hate about bigger media. I can only wonder if this is a gateway to lead to even worse habits that bloggers will pick up as they make even more of an influence on the mainstream media and on information gathering in general.
Yep. Let’s cut some of the hubris here, shall we?
The Dish 