The Dish

The only real guessing game about U.S. foreign policy in the next year or so regards Israel and the Palestinians. My bet is that the president is serious about the roadmap, supports Colin Powell and is going to make some neoconservatives somewhat uneasy in the coming months. Why do I think that? Because the president has said so. I take his words seriously. So does Tony Blair. I thought this comment of his yesterday was revealing: “President Bush himself is completely committed to taking the Middle East peace process forward. I would take the words of President Bush, they are good enough for me, and I think they are good enough for you.” My guess is that this explicitly was the price for British support in Iraq. Yes, it’s important that new Palestinian leadership actually emerge that can make a land-carve-up credible at all. If that leadership does emerge, it will also be because of president Bush’s under-rated insistence and patience. But if that really does happen, I have no doubt that Bush will move. Iraq has made the matter far more pliable. And vice-versa.

THE FIRST POLL? I don’t know exactly what to make of this, but the first poll of Iraqis by an Indian outfit, NDTV, has found that a clear majority support the U.S. invasion. More worryingly, the younger they were, the less pro-American. But there is considerable support for a lengthy U.S. presence, making this a kind of requested temporary neo-colonization. Is that a first?

STICKING IT TO TITLE IX: Here’s a fascinating example of genuine gender non-discrimination: a boy allowed to play on a girls’ high school lacrosse team, because there were no real spots for the guy on local boys’ teams. Actually, there were no local boys’ teams. They key, I guess, is that he weighs 140 pounds. But he’s still the biggest scorer, so to speak. And the experience brought out some choice quotes: “We were checking the heck out of his stick,” opined his female coach. I bet you were, girls. I bet you were.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: “What rankles Frenchmen is the decline of France relative to other European countries. France wants to be not a world power but the foremost European nation. If the present fuel debacle brings about a decline of Western Europe, France wants to make sure that it ends up sitting on top of the heap. To solve the fuel problem by force would result in a situation in which France could not play a paramount role. Hence France will urge submission to Arab dictates. It will also be for the abandonment of Israel and the cold-shouldering of the United States.” – Eric Hoffer, “Before the Sabbath,” written in 1975. Give the guy the reverse of the von Hoffman award.

GRRRR: I’ve always been a fan of dragons, so this article today riveted me. It never occurred to me to ask why human beings had fantasized and feared such mythical creatures for so long. I assumed that the world was a scary place and that imagination had simply run wild. Nuh-huh:

In “An Instinct for Dragons” (Routledge, 2000), Dr. David E. Jones, a professor of anthropology at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, posits a biological explanation that jibes with the Jungian notion of unconscious collective fears. He argues that the dragon image, fermented in the primal soup of man’s first nightmares, is a composite of the carnivores who fed on human ancestors when they were tree-dwelling monkeys: the pythons, the big cats and the raptors.

I feel robbed. Then there’s this banality:

Bones exposed by storms, earthquakes or digging were well known to the ancients, said Dr. Adrienne Mayor, a professor of folklore at Princeton and the author of “The First Fossil Hunters” (Princeton, 2000). She argues that the myth of gold-guarding griffins arose in the red clay of the Gobi Desert, a landscape literally scattered with white Protoceratops skulls, with parrot beaks and bony neck frills.

I guess it makes sense now. But don’t we as humans simply need to create terror at the end of the world, even if only to make our everyday fears seem more manageable? Humans live in relative space and time. The avoidance of dragons makes mere survival seem like security. And without them, whom would our heroes have to slay?

REALITY CHECK: “One of your letter writers asked, ‘Do any of the other three states with sodomy laws impose jail time?’ In 1999, the state of Oklahoma raised the prison term for consensual sex by gay couples from 10 years to 20 years. A felony, consensual sex between two adult men or between two adult women in Oklahoma carries the same penalty as same-sex rape.” Just more “inclusiveness” out there. More feedback on the Letters Page.

Great editorial in the New York Sun today (reg. req.) about the criticism of Ahmad Chalabi by King Abdullah II of Jordan. Abdullah complained that “if you look at a potential future for Iraq, I would imagine that you’d want somebody who suffered alongside the Iraqi people. This particular gentleman, I think, left Iraq when he was, I think, 11 or 7. And so, what contacts does he have?” The Sun retorts to the King:

You yourself left Jordan before age 10 to attend St. Edmund’s School in Surrey, England, and then Eaglebrook School and Deerfield Academy in Deerfield, Mass. Then you went to the Royal Military Academy in Sandhurst, England.You also spent years taking degrees at Oxford, England, and at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. Isn’t it hypocritical of you to criticize Mr. Chalabi for not suffering alongside the Iraqi people? After all, you weren’t exactly suffering alongside the Jordanian people.

Actually, Abdullah’s case is worse. Chalabi, if he were to run Iraq, would be elected. Who elected the smug Jordanian king? And Chalabi, if he had stayed behind these past few decades, would have been imprisoned or murdered. Abdullah would only have missed a few summer cocktails at Oxford.

BERKELEY LIBERATED: Just weapons of mass distraction found.

JOHN LEO’S ERROR: I respect John Leo a great deal but I think he’s simply wrong about something in the Santorum case, and it’s important to correct it. I agree that the quote is a bit confusing, but it’s important to see it in its full context. Here it is:

In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality _

John argues that Santorum is distinguishing between homosexual sexual acts and “man on child” or “man on dog.” But when you look at the full context, I think it’s clear that he isn’t; in fact, he’s equating bestiality and child abuse with homosexuality. The referent throughout is to “marriage.” That’s what isn’t “man on child, man on dog,” and that is what Santorum means when he says “when you destroy that,” meaning marriage, “you have a dramatic impact…” It’s not eloquent, of course. But its meaning is pretty clear to me. Santorum himself could clear it up, but won’t. He could also clarify things and say he’s against sodomy laws, but just doesn’t think they should be broadly struck down by the Supreme Court, another completely reasonable position. But he won’t say that because he doesn’t believe it. One question in my mind: Santorum started this discussion with regard to contraception and the Griswold case. He believes that using contraception is a sin. Does he believe it should be a crime? If not, why not? If he supports sodomy laws because they violate Church teaching, then why does he not suppport laws banning contraception? Or masturbation, for that matter? These are all sins on exactly the same level as homosexual sex. Why do Santorum and other theo-conservatives want to make gay sex illegal but not the others? This is the crux of the matter. In the Texas case, the issue is even clearer. The law bans sodomy for three percent of the population but keeps it legal for 97 percent. Is it really judicial over-reach to protect a small minority from unequal treatment under the law? Someone should ask Santorum directly the criteria by which he distinguishes between all these issues. My guess is that he has no good argument except prejudice. But I’d be thrilled to be proven wrong.

Several reports over the weekend, barely covered in the mainstream American press for some reason, strike me as blockbusters. The Sunday Telegraph’s scoop of documents in Baghdad clearly linking al Qaeda with Saddam, if verified, means that an essential debate is over. Even opponents of the war against Saddam’s dictatorship said they would be more inclined to support war if there were proof of a link to al Qaeda. Now, it seems, there is. But the manner in which we found this out after the event, raises a more complicated question about foreign policy in the age of terror. We know that Saddam had elaborate designs to make chemical and biological weapons. No serious person doubts that – although whether he tried to destroy evidence before the war, how extensive it was, what exactly it amounted to, are still questions in search of good answers. (But we’re getting warmer, it seems.) So what does a free country do when confronted with an enemy state, with WMDs, that we strongly suspect is in league with terrorists like al Qaeda, but cannot prove without invading? It’s tough. My view is that, after 9/11, we have little option but to launch a pre-emptive strike and hope for retroactive justification. But I understand why people demand proof before such action. This new finding – and I bet there will be more like it – strengthens my position, I think. The threat was not the weapons as such; it was the regime, its capacity to make and use such weapons and its potential or actual alliance with al Qaeda. We had to make a judgment about how likely it was that such a link existed. We bet right. Bush clearly didn’t create that alliance. It existed long before he came long. It’s clearer and clearer that we did the right thing. And this debate is even more important to have now when we can look at the evidence than before, when we couldn’t.

PUNISHING FRANCE: I agree we shouldn’t engage in petty payback in foreign policy, especially when it might hurt us. But now we have more evidence that France acted in bad faith; that it passed on secrets of U.S.-French communications to Saddam; that it tried to undermine, at Saddam’s behest, a conference designed to highlight human rights abuses in Iraq; that it acted in ways that make it clear that the country is not an ally of the U.S.. It’s increasingly clear that the French veto “under any circumstances” of the enforcement of Resolution 1441 was motivated in part by the now-revealed deep ties between Paris and Saddam. Tony Blair is absolutely right to worry about France’s long term ambitions and policy. And the U.S. needs to develop a policy toward the E.U. and Europe in general that breaks free of wishful thinking about a country that is essentially and actively hostile to the United States.

Is the G.O.P. getting too cocky, after a deserved moment of triumph in Iraq? The signs are not looking good. My take posted opposite.

BAGHDAD BOB AND THE BLACK KNIGHT: Finally, a cartoon.

AMERICAN EMPIRE: As a practical matter, I agree with Niall Ferguson (and not just because we’re old friends). The concept is an oxymoron. But it is a necessary oxymoron. I have no more helpful suggestions than Niall does on how to make sense of this, except the obvious. American imperialism will be an essentially negative rather than positive phenomenon. It will intervene to remove dangerous threats, and its overwhelming military power will, with any luck, deter such threats from achieving critical mass in the future, thus minimizing still further intervention. That’s the best we can hope for. The guarantee of control is a solid military presence. Look at Germany. It’s not a colony, but it does house many American troops. That’s more like the model we’re looking at than the Brits in India. Is Iraq more like post-totalitarian Germany than eighteenth century India? The answer to that question is what we’re about to find out.

There’s been a huge amount of phony posturing by some people – Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, the Dixie Chicks, et al. – about how their free speech has been trampled by robust criticism and even boycotts. That’s hooey. The government hasn’t touched them; and, of course, shouldn’t. But it’s perfectly legit for other citizens to speak out, boycott, blog, and so on. But in yesterday’s New York Times, there really was something that troubled me. Last October, an aging peacenik hippy protested president Bush’s visit to South Carolina, and was arrested for trespassing by holding his sign too close to the president. The charges were then dropped. Here’s the gist of what happened next:

[L]ast month, the local United States attorney, J. Strom Thurmond Jr., brought federal charges against Mr. Bursey under a seldom-used statute that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas the president is visiting. He faces six months in jail and a $5,000 fine… A spokeswoman for the airport said officials there had established a protest area on the verge of a highway, a good half mile from the hangar where the president would be speaking… The police in Charleston and Greenville had been accommodating, [Mr. Bursey] said, when he had asked to avoid the protest zones, which he described as being “out there behind the coliseum by the Dumpsters.” It did not work this time. “We attempted to dialogue for a while, them telling me to go to the free-speech zone, me saying I was in it: the United States of America,” Mr. Bursey said. Finally, he said, an airport policeman told him he had to put down his sign (“No War for Oil”) or leave. “‘You mean, it’s the content of my sign?’ I asked him,” Mr. Bursey said. “He said, ‘Yes, sir, it’s the content of your sign.'” Mr. Bursey kept the sign and was arrested.

Now I can’t vouch for every detail of this case, but there’s clearly a trend going on that strikes me as truly chilling of free speech. These distant “protest zones” are phony attempts to insulate politicians from the rowdiness of their fellow citizens. Half a mile away? Who does W think he is? A monarch? I heard complaints of this kind throughout the campaigns in 2000 and 2002. This one looks legit. Those of us who rightly debunk phony charges of First Amendment violations need to be all the more vigilant when real ones emerge.

Well, over the weekend, after my cri de coeur on Saturday morning, I received another avalanche of emails, this time overwhelmingly supportive. I’ve tried to respond to most but forgive me if I haven’t. There were almost a thousand. There’s nothing much more to say. But I do think this last week has given me more appreciation for the blogging medium. I was able to write throughout an unfolding media and political event. I was able to link to the full remarks of Santorum, while almost all his defenders just ignored them. More to the point, your responses both informed, chastised, and then uplifted me – in real time. Nothing like this has occurred in the media with such immediacy and speed before. The criminalization of private sex is obviously an explosive issue, and emotions were very near the surface. But I think that’s all to the better. Emotion should never replace argument; but it’s more deceptive if we pretend it doesn’t exist at all. We’re all human. And I’ve learned a lot this past week – especially about elite conservative indifference to limited government, if it means offending the religious right. One factual note: I don’t consider myself a Republican. Never have. Given what some of the party base represent, I’m relieved not to carry that burden. It may be necessary to support Republicans at times – in the war on terror, for example, we have precious little choice right now. But no-one should ignore the dark thread of big-government intolerance that exists in the G.O.P. It’s still there; and it threatens you and me.

I’m on the road. Tonight, I will be part of a discussion at Boston College, on the topic, “Homosexuality in a Catholic Context: What Has Been Said About It? What Else Can Be Said?” It’s at 7 pm at the Robsham Theater on campus. On Wednesday night, I’ll be speaking at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware, on the case for same-sex marriage. That’s also at 7 pm at the Perkins Student Center. All are welcome. I had a wonderful time meeting blog-readers in Austin. So please come if you’re nearby and say hello.

The response to my offense at Senator Santorum is overwhelming, at least as far the emails are concerned. Around seven out of ten say: I’m crazy. I need to take my meds. I’m distorting what the guy said. I’m playing into the hands of the left. I should shut up, already. I’m a hysteric. I take these things too seriously. Okay, okay. I get the message. I’ve made my point. I don’t have anything else to say. Except perhaps this. The anger and, yes, hurt that I have expressed these past couple of days comes from a sincere moral conviction equal to that which animated my much more extended attempt to expose Trent Lott’s remarks. Of course, the hostility directed toward the intimate lives of gay people by Senator Santorum affects me more deeply, because I am gay. How could it not? Being gay my whole life is a huge blessing but also, of course, a difficult path. To try and reconcile it with a faith that is deep but a Church that refuses to support the innermost longings of my body and soul is not easy either. To square it with a belief in individual freedom and limited government, when so many of my gay brethren have embraced a wounded rejection of all traditional authority, and backed a radical politics in its stead, is not exactly a cakewalk either. To attempt both, and then to see that people you admire or support can actually endorse criminalizing you for expressing physical love in private, or see no problem with others’ saying so, or see adult gay love casually associated with the abuse of children and not notice, is so downright dispiriting it’s enough to make you despair. I’m writing this at 5.30 in the morning. When you feel this isolated, it isn’t easy to sleep. Sometimes you not only try to argue things (and I retract not a word of what I have argued). You feel them. The simple truth is that I and many others feel immensely wounded not so much by some clumsy, ugly remarks by someone who might even in some way mean well; but by the indifference toward them by so many you thought might at least have empathized for a second. Has that made me lose perspective? I don’t think so. I think it means I simply have a different perspective – one born out of pain and honesty and disappointed hope that we might eventually help people understand better the dignity and equality of homosexual persons. I know we have made many gains. I know Santorum represents very few. I know also that many, many good people – in the Republican party and elsewhere – do not wish gay people ill. But it is hard to express fully the sheer discouragement of this past week, capped simply by a calculated and contemptuously terse political gesture by a president I had come to trust. It makes me question whether that trust is well founded. And whether hope for a more inclusive future among conservatives is simply quixotic.

It hurts me to say this, Mr President, but your spokesman’s statement today on your behalf has just made matters far worse. Senator Santorum believes that gay people should be subject to criminal prosecution for their private, adult consensual relationships. He has equated homosexuality with the abuse of minors. He has associated homosexual relationships with bestiality. If that is an example of “inclusiveness,” then what would exclusiveness be? For the president to call the criminalization of an entire group of people the position of an “inclusive man” leaves me simply speechless. It indicates that the White House still doesn’t understand the damage that this incident is doing, the fact that it is beginning to make it simply impossible for gay people and their families – or any tolerant person – to vote for the president’s party.

NOW IT’S A CRISIS: Look, it’s possible to tolerate differences of opinion within the Republican party over homosexuality. It’s absolutely legitimate for some religious people to hold that gay sex is immoral, or to oppose marriage rights, and so on. I can happily live with that, and benefit from the dialogue. I defend their right to believe it and to say it. We can agree to disagree. But Santorum has gone far further than disagreement. He let it slip that he believes gays should be put in jail for our relationships. I’m sorry but that kind of statement is unacceptable, non-negotiable, intolerable. The Senator must withdraw it. I worry that the president means well but just doesn’t get it. So let me put it another way: Senator Santorum believes that the vice-president’s daughter should be made a criminal for her relationship. A criminal. Now do you see what I mean? Here’s what the newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times said today, in a classic statement of conservative principles:

We do not think Santorum should be stripped of his Senate leadership role for expressing deeply held religious views. But we do believe he does his nation and particularly the Republican Party a disservice by bracing himself in the door of society and trying to keep gay people out. They’re already in. The high schools where gays were terrorized when Santorum was a student now have gay/straight fellowship leagues. And one last point. How can we have any hope of creating a democratic government in Iraq free from domination by repressive religion if we cannot free our own laws of official faith-based biases inflicted on our fellow citizens?

Exactly.

SANTORUM’S THEOCRATIC RADICALISM: To see how radical Santorum’s position is, compare him, as this piece in today’s Washington Post does, with John F Kennedy. Kennedy drew a distinction between his public role as the president of a diverse country and his own private religious convictions. Santorum explicitly argues the opposite:

Santorum has declared that President John F. Kennedy’s vow to separate his faith from his policies was wrong. That approach has caused “much harm in America,” Santorum said in an interview with a Catholic newspaper last year. “All of us have heard people say, ‘I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it’s not right for somebody else?’ It sounds good. But it is the corruption of freedom of conscience,” he told the National Catholic Reporter.

Not only is Santorum damaging the Republican position among gays and their families, he is busy damaging it among Catholics. Most Catholics support John F Kennedy’s position; in fact, they take it for granted. It was a critical event in the emergence of Catholics as an equal, proud minority. Now Santorum, with Bush’s apparent blessing, is intent on destroying that compact. In fact, in this case, he is going much further. Even strict Catholics who believe homosexual sex is a grave sin nevertheless draw the Thomist distinction between sins and crimes. Just because something may be a sin doesn’t mean it should mean jail. In fact, many things – especially in the private realm – fall into that category. But by arguing for the criminalization of gay sex, Santorum goes beyond even the traditional position and heads for a theocratic one. The more he seems to represent the face of the Republican party, the more fair-minded people will simply leave it, fear it, or vote against it. As they should.

That’s Jim Pinkerton’s explanation for Santorum’s outburst against privacy in people’s bedrooms.