The Dish

The usual suspects – Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Rigoberta Menchu, and Aldolfo Perez Esquivel – back Castro’s totalitarian state, a state where these artists and writers wouldn’t be able to practice their craft freely. Very distressing to see Nadine Gordimer sign on to such moral blindness.

BEGALA AWARD NOMINEE: “Under Nazi rule there was never any doubt about “big business” being subordinated to the political regime. In the United States, however, it has been apparent for decades that corporate power has become so predominant in the political establishment, particularly in the Republican Party, and so dominant in its influence over policy, as to suggest a role inversion the exact opposite of the Nazis’. At the same time, it is corporate power, as the representative of the dynamic of capitalism and of the ever-expanding power made available by the integration of science and technology with the structure of capitalism, that produces the totalizing drive that, under the Nazis, was supplied by ideological notions such as Lebensraum. In rebuttal it will be said that there is no domestic equivalent to the Nazi regime of torture, concentration camps or other instruments of terror. But we should remember that for the most part, Nazi terror was not applied to the population generally; rather, the aim was to promote a certain type of shadowy fear – rumors of torture – that would aid in managing and manipulating the populace. Stated positively, the Nazis wanted a mobilized society eager to support endless warfare, expansion and sacrifice for the nation.” – Sheldon Wolin, arguing that today’s America represents “inverted totalitarianism,” in the Nation.

Very useful summaries from Will Saletan in Slate and Jake Tapper in Salon. I concur with Will on Dean. I will always revere Dean for his principled defense of gay equality, but he has a truly mean, contemptuous streak (I debated him once and saw this side of him all-too-closely) that will turn off voters. But then Kerry has that streak too. Glad to see Lieberman find his footing at last. He’s ahead in South Carolina.

BLAIR AND GOD: At the Dems’ debate, there was an interchange of quotes from the Bible – Lieberman and Sharpton swapping chapters and verses. In most other countries, this kind of public theologizing would be unimaginable. “We don’t do God here,” remarked Tony Blair’s media adviser in the middle of an interview of Blair by Vanity Fair’s David Margolick. According to a story in the Times of London, Blair was even barred from ending one of his addresses to the nation during the war with “God bless you:”

While having make-up applied for his screen appearance on the eve of hostilities in Iraq, the Prime Minister reportedly told his staff: “I want to end with, ‘God bless you’.” At this point, according to The Times article, there was “a noisy team revolt in which every player appears to be complaining at once”. Staff said that this was “not a good idea”, to which an irritated Mr Blair – raising his voice – responded: “Oh no?” One unidentified member of the Blair team reportedly replied: “You are talking to lots of people who don’t want chaplains pushing stuff down their throats.” When the Prime Minister responded by saying: “You are the most ungodly lot I have ever . . .”, his speechwriter Peter Hyman, who is Jewish, replied tartly: “Ungodly? Count me out.”

This bar on religious expression in public life strikes me as extreme, as extreme as the views of people like Rick Santorum or Kenneth Connor of the Family Research Council who seem to see no distinction between religion and politics. Can’t we have some sort of middle way in this respect?

I concur with Mickey Kaus that the conversion of D.C.’s mayor, Tony Williams, to the idea of school vouchers in D.C. is a big deal. I wonder if Williams’ Catholicism had anything to do with this (since Catholic schools will play a major part in saving the next generation of inner-city kids). Either way, it’s great news, and a feather in the cap for my friend, David Catania, a bright, young and, yes, gay Republican who has been pushing for this innovation on the city council for a very long time. Now if only Congress would let D.C. run itself, who knows what other innovations this place could pioneer? Medical marijuana? We voted for it. Gay marriage? In my dreams.

A hefty majority thinks I’m being too tolerant. I’m going to think some of this over today and get back to you. Here’s an email that suggests I simply don’t know that much about big-time gambling (which is true; I’ve never been in a casino in my life) and that this makes a difference:

Bill Bennett, for once, for the very first time, you’ve got it all wrong. I can’t believe somebody as intelligent as you would be so far off target. Just because Bill Clinton was an unprincipled, disreputable person doesn’t mean you should go to bat for Bill Bennett. Mr. Bennett has- a very serious problem on his hands and, if nothing else, by his conduct and his associations he’ll never be able to serve in government again, and shouldn’t be allowed to. And if he goes around giving lectures on virtue again, he should be laughed out of town. Not a single personnel security adjudicator anywhere in the civil service would give Bennett a security clearance, even at the confidential level. By any measure, he’s unsuitable for federal service–in any capacity. This is a man who was the chief advisor on drug enforcement to the President of the United States and he’s carrying around a world class gambling habit and you don’t see anything wrong or out of line about it? There is a monumental Jones on Bennett’s back that surpasses the sickness that afflicted Pete Rose in his most out-of-control periods. I can’t believe your naivete. Do you know any professional gamblers? Do you know what kind of shady people we’re talking about here? Do you know what it’s like to be in heavy hock to them? Do you know what FBI agents would say about a man who walks out of a Vegas casino down $1.4 million? They would say this man is in deep trouble and desperately needs help. And they would say such a man should not be advising Presidents on drug enforcement. He shouldn’t be advising Presidents on anything. He shouldn’t be allowed in the company of Presidents. I’d certainly never let him in on advance inside information about a big planned drug bust, not ever again. Gambling at the Bennett level is not bean bag. The connection between drug dealing and organized gambling is clear and people who are in one pursuit are always – always! – linked to the other. You’ve led a sheltered life if you think betting hundreds of thousands of dollars on one evening in a crummy gaming hall is just one man’s altogether acceptable way to find relaxation after a tough day at the office. Such behavior is sickness, it is high-risk, it is self-destructive, it is suicidal and it is no way for an adviser to Presidents to behave. Big-shot operatives in the Republican Party shouldn’t behave like that either. This is an astonishing development and my recommendation to you is not to break your pick for this guy. My sense is that we’ve just begun to learn about his life in the casinos. Clinton was bad, Bennett is bad too, for different reasons. If the Republicans try to make hay of this, don’t blame them. Blame the man with the habit.

My problem with this is that I don’t particularly like “blaming” people with habits. But, as I said, I’ll think about this some more. For those of you who think I was tougher on Bill Clinton, you’re wrong. I strongly defended his sexual privacy. I just had an issue with sexual harrassment and the law. More feedback on the Letters Page.

Another spectacular column by Colbert King today on the lingering pockets of urban despair in our major cities, and the apparent inability of the police or our public authorities to do much to help the situation. He’s right that non-profits and voluntary groups are doing the only seriously productive long-term work here, although many cops do the best they possibly can under the circumstances. But this column has a special resonance for me. The corner of 17th and Euclid Streets is the corner where I live. This is my block. It’s right outside my window as I write this. While I advocate for disarming militants in the West Bank, I walk past armed teenagers every day just to take the beagle to the park. I also have to ask whether I’ve done enough. Apart from some minor engagement with local kids, these gangs simply scare me into retreat and withdrawal. How to overcome these barriers? As King suggests, a radical reorientation of resources; a transformation of social services as profound as our military transformation. School vouchers can help. But also, surely, a greater sense of personal responsibility for the lives around us. I plead guilty to a too-easy resignation.

What, I ask myself, has he conceivably done wrong? He has done nothing illegal. He has done nothing hypocritical. Only in the minds of a few religious fanatics, has he done anything immoral. This invasion of his privacy and attempted smearing of his character have been perpetrated for transparently political reasons and are yet another sign of how our culture is making it increasingly difficult for any actual living, breathing, fallible human being to function in public life, without profound personal costs. Is it relevant that Bennett is a “moralizer”? Not in the slightest. He hasn’t moralized against the alleged “vice” he has engaged in; in fact, the record shows the opposite. Yes, he has hob-nobbed with the likes of James Dobson and other theocrats. I hope this episode might open his eyes to the extremism of their agenda. But if our standards for anyone in public life are human perfection, we will have no public life. And if no one can advocate virtue or responsibility or morality without also being a saint, then our common moral life will also collapse. Bennett deserves privacy; he deserves whatever means he can legally use to relax when he is off duty. He is a human being. His smearers on the left merely show what has happened to our politics. When the Washington Monthly does in this decade what the American Spectator did in the last, you can see how widespread the rot has gotten.

“I had some different reactions to Bush’s speech. I thought the setting for Bush’s speech was brilliant. The bright daylight illuminating the colorful flags and uniforms against the battleship grey was arresting. The soldiers’ anticipation as they waited silently for Bush’s entrance made their applause during the speech feel, to me, genuine and joyful, quite moving. This visit was all about contrasts. Bush lands on an aircraft carrier, a heart pounding first for an American president, and sleeps on board. Contrast the feel of this visit with the idea of Cheney hiding out in Secret Location X and Bush retreating to Camp David throughout the war. This was much like his visit to Ground Zero after 9/11. I want to see the president going right to the soldiers, highlighting their accomplishments, expressing gratitude, live. He needs to publicly thank our soldiers for us, and he needs to thank them as Commander in Chief, which is why I disagree that it looked like he was using the military for partisan purposes; it’s his job to be there. I felt in awe of our pilots and sailors and could even tolerate Bush for a few minutes, a unique feeling for me. If people around the world see him on a aircraft carrier and associate us once again with miltary might, good. We are attempting to teach people how to treat us, are we not? I’m OK with people feeling intimidated if the alternative is thinking they can get away with flying airplanes into our skyscrapers.”

Fascinating quote from Tony Blair about the president. Fascinating because it flies in the face of so much dumb liberal commentary about Bush:

“He is highly intelligent, and it’s not clotted by so many nuances that the meaning is obscured. The good thing about (Bush) is that once he does really think that an issue has to be tackled he has big reserves of courage for doing it, and he won’t really be diverted… I trust him, and that is extremely important at our level of politics.”

Say what you like about Blair but I think he gets Bush’s character right. Pity he sometimes listens to Karl Rove too much.

EURO ANTI-SEMITISM WATCH: In the same interview, David Margolick notes how one major anti-war campaigner, Labour MP, Tam Dalyell, uses classic anti-Semitic tropes to attack the prime minister:

quoted Labour Member of Parliament Tam Dalyell, the longest serving member of the House of Commons, as saying he thought Blair was unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisors. Margolick said Dalyell named Peter Mandelson, a former Blair cabinet member, Lord Levy, Blair’s chief fund-raiser and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, an Anglican who has a Jewish grandparent.

Charming, huh?

POT, PORN, AND AMERICA: I’m not sure I buy the statistic that pot, porn and illegal labor constitutes a black market worth ten percent of the official American economy. But I don’t doubt – who could? – that these industries are huge. Porn, mercifully, is legal, for the most part. But can you imagine the revenue gains for the government if the huge marijuana industry paid taxes and the money spent on trying to shut it down was actually used for something worthwhile?

QUOTE OF THE WEEK: “By the year 2002, we can have a federal government with a balanced budget or we can continue down the present path towards total fiscal catastrophe.” – Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, 1995. Ah, but that was when there was a Democratic president. Now a Republican is in office, that “fiscal catastrophe” is vital public policy! Mike Kinsley nails Republican hypocrisy on deficits in Slate. Frankly, anyone who expects consistency from politicians is asking a little too much. All I worry about is the damage being done to the long-term health of the economy by the administration’s fiscal recklessness.

OKAY, OKAY: Like Glenn Reynolds, I’m besieged by people who think I’m wrong about the tone of Bush’s campaign speech last night. Fair enough. It’s a subjective judgment call, and I certainly respect those who took it otherwise. But what amazes me is the vituperative tone, and how many then accuse me of being anti-war, anti-Bush and anti-American. Me? Are politics so polarized that you have to either engage in hagiography or hatred of our leaders? Is there nothing permissible in between?

EQUALITY IN CANADA: While Republicans rally behind a man who believes private gay sex should be criminalized, the Canadian courts grant equal marriage rights. Given the enormous interaction of the two countries, the rate of immigration, the volume of travel and trade, this surely is a big deal.

I’m pretty sure it was an effective campaign speech. The president is exactly right to remind people of the war that began on September 11; he’s right to connect the liberation of Iraq to that event; he’s right to remain vigilant; and to embrace the new concept of a war that can break a regime while freeing a people with a minimum of civilian casualties. i deeply admire his determination and clarity, and felt goosebumps at certain moments. But I agree with Glenn Reynolds that the whole backdrop, including the fighter-pilot entrance, was – how do I put this politely? – hubristic. It’s one thing to arrange a beautiful and moving photo-op to commemmorate an historic event, as Reagan did so masterfully at Normandy. It’s another thing to mark the end of a liberation by addressing the military and the nation at the same time. Boisterous cheers from American troops are great; those amazing people deserve our thanks. But I’m not sure this was the occasion for that. It was an address to the nation at the conclusion of a conflict, one that shouldn’t be interrupted by foot-stomping and cheering. It made it look as if the president was using the military for partisan purposes – and that’s not right. It is probably effective politics; and great visuals. But less is often more. This president used to exemplify that kind of restraint. I hope this war hasn’t gone to his head and we see more of the old Bush self-effacement soon.

A friend’s nephew was in the Iraq war and she forwarded me this email from one Captain Jack Murphy (love the name). I liked it better than I did the president’s speech:

Because of where and what we were engaged in doing, I was extremely busy and out of contact for a while, so please forgive me for being distant. I understand there was skepticism and negativity about the war, admittedly for some clear reasons. As someone on the tip of the national policy spear, I had my own concerns about what we were getting into. I was introduced to Saddam’s devious war machine up close and personal, witnessed his campaigns of intimidation and oppression, and the vast disparity between gluttony and poverty. I was also privileged to see thousands upon thousands of newly liberated people celebrating in the streets and on the rooftops of As Asawama, the first Hajj pilgrimages to the holy cities of Karbala and An Najef in two decades, proud fathers holding up their newborn babies to me. I don’t have any doubts anymore. War cannot be antiseptic and bad things can happen to good people, but we did the right things for the right reasons. So, as I step off my soapbox …
P.S. – I got a great tan.

Persuasive, no?

MAILERMAN: “Mailer’s latest analysis of the WAM psyche reminded me of an argument I used to have with my friends in grade school – Who would win in a fight between Superman and Batman? In the end it was a completely pointless argument because they don’t exist but at least we didn’t try to turn it into our line of work. What is the white American male psyche? It’s a fiction of Norman Mailer’s mind of course, but it’s also a way for him group unique and individual people together and wag his omniscient finger in their faces and let them know how hip and with it he still is. The WAM psyche is ultimately the “NISE” (Norman Is Still Employed) delusion.” – more feedback, on the Letters Page.