MAKES SCALIA LOOK LIKE A LIBERAL

“As a student at the Catholic University School of Law I read with great interest your commentary on Doug Kmiec as a potential candidate for a seat on the D.C. Circuit. Having been a student at the Catholic University’s law school for one and a half years under Dean Kmiec’s tutelage, I feel uniquely qualified to offer further insight Kmiec’s particular viewpoint. What troubles me most about the possibility of Judge Kmiec is that he has an abiding inability to divorce his ultra-conservative religious views from his use of garden-variety logic.” – this, and a Democrat defends Trent Lott, on today’s Letters Page.

WILL BUSH SPEAK OUT?

A hopeful sign from Michael Kramer’s column:

Unofficially, the Bushies are beside themselves. “We need this like a hole in the head,” says one. “At a time when we’re trying to reach out to black voters, Lott’s an embarrassment. Gore’s right on the substance and also on the politics. If he runs again, blacks are going to remember that Gore was the one who bashed Trent early, and I can easily see all those Democratic commercials replaying [Lott’s] words ad nauseam.”

Dan Drezner has more.

THE CHORUS SWELLS

James Taranto has a superb and measured condemnation of Trent Lott today. So does the American Prowler. Josh Marshall discovers Lott defending Bob Jones University’s old segregation policies. Still no official word from 43d Street. Maybe the New York Times actually wants to keep Lott as Majority Leader. They know how damaging he is to the Republican Party.

THREE EMAILS

Different perspectives but similar conclusions:

I’m from Mississippi and until now, a Republican. Trent Lott’s patently racists remarks horrify me on many levels. I wholeheartedly agree with you, he must step down as Senate Majority Leader. And I am enraged that Lott spoke as if all Mississippians agree with his vile remarks.
Then, today, the staggering practical damage becomes clear. Until now, the Republican party, nationally and in Mississippi, seemed finally to be breaking free of its stolid, exclusive image — thanks largely to President George W. Bush. And it’s now time down here to recruit candidates for state legislative elections next year. I have been encouraging several black friends to run as Republicans in a number of key races. Now I hardly know what to say to these people.
Unless the GOP quickly disavows Lott in no uncertain terms, it will take decades to undo the damage with black voters, who were until now receptive to Republican ideas. The loss of these good people because of Lott’s indefensible statement sickens me. I cannot continue to consider myself a Republican so long as Trent Lott is a party leader.

And this one from a black Democrat, who also sees problems within his own party:

My roommate turned me onto your site some time back and I enjoy it immensely, but I disagree with you a bit on the Trent Lott fiasco. While I agree that bringing up Robert Byrd is not a sufficient response (Lott should resign immediately, before the inevitable pressure from the press and the Democrats make it look like caving-in rather than acting on principle.), neither is it beside the point. The Democrats and members of the press, including you to a certain extent, have used this mess to make sweeping statements about the Republican party. In that context, isn’t it reasonable to point out the Democrats’ similar behavior?
I’m a lifelong Democrat, and Black, but this seems like a golden opportunity to spotlight my party’s hypocrisy. They talk a good game when they’re trying to get out the Black vote, but between elections they act no better than the opposition, and in some cases even worse. I cannot stand the man, but George Bush got about 5% of the Black vote and his cabinet looks like Showtime at the Apollo.
I’m beginning to wonder if my loyalty is misplaced.

And then there’s this email from one half of an inter-racial marriage:

I’m adrift. I’m the white half of an interracial couple, and my politics might be described as leaning-libertarian. I was pleased that Bush beat Gore, and equally pleased with the results of the latest midterms. But I’m not a Republican, and I did not cast my vote for Bush.
While I don’t suspect racism, latent or otherwise, in the heart of the President, there’s a reason why I couldn’t cast my vote for him: his appearance at Bob Jones University. In that single moment of sad acquiescence to the bigot wing of the party, George W. Bush lost my vote. And Trent Lott’s recent comments represent yet another, even more jarring “Bob Jones Moment” for me.
Simply put, if Trent Lott is allowed once again to assume the mantle of majority leader, without dissent from the President or anyone in the President’s party, how can I ever vote Republican again? How can I look my black wife in the face after doing so? How can I live with my own conscience?
This could be a moment of truth for the Republican Party. It certainly is for me.

Me too. We’re waiting for you to speak out, Mr President. This is your moment of truth as well.

A GENERATION GAP?

It has been really encouraging to see many conservative outlets coming out and decrying Trent Lott. It tells you something when the Washington Times has editorialized and the New York Times hasn’t. The best piece so far is Jonah Goldberg’s. It has a brutal sentence: “[Lott is] a deal-cutter who seems to stand for nothing except massive amounts of pork to his home state and, occasionally, sticking up for Jim Crow.” My gut tells me that this contempt for Lott is particularly acute for younger conservatives/libertarians/classical liberals. In arguing for a race-neutral society, we have an obligation to repudiate with even more vehemence those formally racist institutions of the past. A loathing of Jim Crow is a critical part of our attempt to persuade people that our opposition to, say, affirmative action is not a function of racism, but a function of anti-racism. With this comes an obligation, especially from non-blacks, to acknowledge the uniquely hideous legacy African-Americans have endured. Indeed, it should not be up to blacks to complain about this kind of statement. That’s why I’m heartened by the conservative reponse. It’s a watershed. But that’s also why having someone like Lott as the leader of the Republicans in the Senate is such an intolerable affront. Lott makes the Left’s point for them. And he undermines a politics of race-neutrality that is still empathetic to the historic plight of African-Americans while eager to move on. Perhaps older conservatives can look beyond this. Younger ones, who were born after Jim Crow, can’t. It’s time for Lott to go. And it’s time for Bush to say so.

ANTI-WAR SPIN: Someone out there has begun to realize that the anti-war movement needs a radical make-over. Plagued by Marxist nut-cases, anti-Semites, and varied extremists, it has come to seem to many indistinguishable from a pro-Saddam movement. So in some ways, it’s encouraging that this particular message is now being re-tooled. “Win Without War” has this as its credo:

We are patriotic Americans who share President Bush’s belief that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq cannot be allowed to acquire weapons of mass destruction. We part ways with the president, however, on the issue of pre-emptive military attack against Iraq.

So what do they propose? The best guess is that they will argue as Saddam wants them to argue: that Iraq is fully compliant now with the international community, that inspections are all we need to verify this, and so on. Indeed, one of the new slogans is “Let The Inspections Work.” But don’t they realize that the only reason we have inspections at all is the threat of military force? Meanwhile, the photograph acompanying the new York Times’ sympathetic account shows a protestor with a sign declaring that president Bush is an “international terrorist.” Ah, yes. Let the inspections work …

TRENT LOTT MUST GO

Sorry to those who think I’m making too much of this. But it seems to me that the G.O.P. has zero credibility on racial matters until they get rid of this man as Senate Majority Leader. When I’m in agreement with the Family Research Council, a virulently anti-gay group, you know something’s got to give. Last night’s revelation – that Lott had said almost identical things over twenty years ago – clinches in my mind that this was not a poor choice of words. It was a classic political gaffe – where the politician in question accidentally says what he truly believes. And no, I don’t think bringing up Robert Byrd, another old bigot, is a satisfactory response. It’s a sign that you cannot defend someone when you respond by attacking someone else. Lott had a chance to repudiate his words and he chose to side-step the issue. He’s flirted with racists before. He’s said the same things before. It seems to me that president Bush now has his Sister Souljah opportunity. Just as Clinton secured centrist backing when he repudiated the anti-white racism of Sister Souljah, so Bush needs to repudiate the anti-black racism of Lott publicly, clearly and irrevocably. If he doesn’t, then I’m afraid he will lose any black support indefinitely and the respect of many decent voters who aren’t black as well. Lott’s remarks are, in fact, a direct insult to black members of the administration and the Republican Party. Mr. President, we’re waiting for you to say something.

RAINES AWARD NOMINEE: This is how the Washington Times spins the Trent Lott story today: “Black lawmakers upset with Daschle.” At least Howell Raines has some sophistication.

PAY-UP WEEK UPDATE:Alas, we’re still in the dark about a truly accurate up-to-the-moment tally. Amex reports things late and the mailbag won’t reveal its truths for a while yet. But the good news is: yesterday looks almost as good as Monday. We’re close to 3,000 paid-up subscribers to the site, which represents a stunning step forward for the blogosphere, and for this blog. I’m really, really grateful. But we’re still short of our goal. If you’ve paid up already, my eternal thanks. If you read this blog regularly, and haven’t paid yet, please do your part in keeping it alive. We’re asking $20 for the year (including the past two years, if you’re counting), which is about as good a media deal as you’re likely to find anywhere. The money will pay me a decent salary, allow me to hire help, and spend more time on the blog. So please, make Paul Krugman’s day. Click here to give a little back to the site.

THE AXIS OF EVIL I: Remember all those people who derided president Bush’s inclusion of North Korea in his “axis of evil?” Remember all those who said there was no logical connection between them? I wonder what they’ll say about the interception of North Korean scuds bound for some party in the Middle East? Particularly appropriate on the day when the uber-appeaser Jimmy Carter got the Nobel “Peace” Prize, don’t you think?

THE AXIS OF EVIL II: Have you been following the news from Iran? It’s a little hard since the major media seems intent on burying news from this country that could be on the brink of a world-changing revolution. But this story in yesterday’s Times caught my eye. Why, I wonder, wasn’t it on the front page?

HOW TOUGH IS THIS FORD? Plenty, it seems. I enjoyed this piece by Time’s Jack E. White. I was unaware of the racist, Uncle Tom rhetoric used against Congressman Harold Ford by the Congressional Black Caucus. But given the state of racial rhetoric on the left these days, I’m not surprised. If he plays his cards right, Ford could become a post-racial politician for the next generation. I certainly hope so.

THE TIMES’ MATH: Jacob Levy does a simple math job on a recent, completely bogus story in the New York Times on an alleged collapse in the advancement of minorities in higher education. As usual, the Times doesn’t let the facts get in the way of a purely ideological piece.

THE TIMES’ CLUELESSNESS: A while back, the New York Times ran a glowing profile of an Indian guru, Sai Baba. Check out MSNBC’s cursory investigation into the story. The guru is an alleged serial pedophile, with complaints against him for abusing children well-reported in the Daily Telegraph and India Today. UNESCO dropped participation in a conference with Baba for the same reason. But nowhere in the Times piece is there even a reference to the charges. Why? Don’t they have Google over there?

MY GAY PASSION: Just a word in response to some emails that have been telling me I’m all reason when it comes to most subjects but all emotion when it comes to homosexuality. I think you’ll find, if you read my work on the gay topic over the years, that I have done more than most to channel my natural emotions on this subject into reasonable discourse. Many who disagree with me on this topic have been kind enough to concede this. But undoubtedly my feelings run high on the topic; it’s close to home; it affects my loved ones – living and dead. It affects my own life directly every day. So when I hear arguments that essentially assume that gay people are somehow depraved or sick or vile or embarrassing, it’s hard not to respond with passion. I’m actually proud of that. Maintaining my liberal principles – on issues like hate crime laws – has led me to become a pariah in some gay circles, an object of scorn and hatred. Equally, maintaining my Catholic – yes, Catholic – principles about the inherent dignity and equality of gay people – on issues like marriage and military service – has alienated many on the other side. All I can say is that I have learned to do without much support on this issue but try daily to balance reason with emotion, to make sure I don’t confuse feelings for an argument. Most of the time I succeed. Sometimes, I don’t. I’m only human. But when your own identity is being raised as something up for discussion, it’s hard to stay cool. And at times, I think anger is thoroughly justified. It’s obviously not my only passion – on terrorism, on the Church, on the nihilist left, I can be just as energized. But it is one passion, for which I do not apologize. All I can say in defense is this: imagine if you had to defend your heterosexual marriage from charges that it will debase civilization and is one step away from child abuse. Imagine that it had no standing in law. Imagine that some civilized people you respect and who otherwise respect you nonetheless feel contempt for the love you have for another human being, and believe deep down that you are mentally or psychologically disordered. Now try not to be angry and hurt. It’s difficult. I’m not playing the victim card here. I’m just trying to explain.

KURTZ

My piece opposite responds to some of the fears fanned by Stanley Kurtz in recent articles on National Review Onine. One amendment to the piece: I wrote, “Read [Stanley Kurtz’s] original piece, “The Right Balance,” in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment and try and find a mention of equal protection. Good luck.” With a bit of luck, you can, in fact, find a reference. My bad. There is one sentence at the end of a paragraph where he mentions it. It’s a little easy to miss since almost the entire argument is devoted to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. My point remains, however. Kurtz once first fanned the flames of hysteria, by saying that the FFC would nationalize gay marriage. Now he says that equal protection arguments will nationalize it. The first is almost impossible; the second extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future. But Kurtz wants to amend the U.S. Constitution right now even to avoid the remote possibility of gay citizens enjoying equal rights under the law at some time in the future.

KMIEC AND THE BISHOPS

How far out there on the far right is Douglas Kmiec? Waaaay out there. If you’re worried about the erosion of the separation between church and state, you should start panicking. If you believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees individual rights against the state rather than, in Kmiec’s view, representing Catholic natural law that can mould citizens’ souls, then be afraid. Worse than that, Kmiec is a supporter of the discredited Church hierarchy in its attempt to cover up its own tolerance of child-abusers and just penned an op-ed against California’s attempt to find a way to allow victims to sue in civil court for the abuses that occurred long ago. Earlier this year, he blamed the Church crisis on homosexuals and opposes the current Court’s decision, giving some limited protection for gay citizens, in Romer vs Evans. If the president chooses this man for the federal appeals court, he will be sending a clear signal. He will be saying that he supports the Catholic right’s political and social agenda, and wants to see its influence spread through the judiciary. He will be telling gay voters and their families that he is not their ally or friend but supports those who would continue scapegoating gays and denying them even a modicum of legal protection. A great week for compassionate conservatism: the Senate majority leader says he regrets desegregation and the administration floats the idea of nominating a far-right social conservative to the federal appeals court. Ah, yes. Hubris in the White House. Suddenly the Democrats seem more palatable, don’t they?

THE BLOGOSPHERE AND LOTT: Howie Kurtz notices how much quicker on the draw the blogosphere was on the matter of Trent Lott’s declared regrets for the passing of Jim Crow. I’m still stunned at how little the New York Times made of it (although Krugman seems to have drawn from lots of blogosphere arguments for his column today). Why this discrepancy? I don’t really know. One thought I have is that the media bigwigs really do operate socially in Washington and find it hard to pounce on people they know, like, respect or need as a source. That’s one reason I try hard to remain pretty socially reclusive in DC; and why I think occasional periods away from town actually helps you be a better journalist. The way in which people like David Broder or Bob Novak simply brushed this one aside is a sign, I think, less of their craven politics than of their DC socialization. Another advantage for the blogosphere. We don’t give a damn. And by and large, we say what we believe.

PLEDGE WEEK UPDATE

As always, you match generosity with wit:

“Pledge Week?” Is it possible that you want to subliminally associate yourself with NPR? Why not post a picture of Daniel Schorr or Loren Jenkins? Call it anything but Pledge Week. Money Week, Payment Week, Shakedown Week, Gimme Week, Gotcha Week, Greed Week, Goodies Week, Dollar Week, Howell Raines Week, Pain In The Ass Week, Party Week, Orgy Week, Eagles Week….

Fair enough. And you’re right about my misplaced use of the term “begging.” I’m not begging. I’m asking to get paid. As to the results, we’re a little in the dark, since we don’t know what’s in the mail; and some of the Amex reporting has yet to come in. But Robert’s rough estimate puts the current tally – as of this posting – at payments from around 1,800 people. Thanks so much. I’m really grateful for your support. But, alas, we’re not there yet. Our goal was to have a core supporting readership of around 5,000 or more. If we get that, we can make this a professional enterprise, pay our expenses, hire an intern, and pay me a real salary. After a mere 14 hours, we’re close to the halfway point, which is real encouraging. My heartfelt thanks to all of you who’ve given so far. But if you’re one of the 98 percent of our weekly readers who hasn’t chipped in yet, we’re relying on you. It’s only $20 a year. And you’ll keep this site alive. If you enjoy it, or visit it regularly, please realize that it takes time, effort and money to keep going. We need your support. Click here to contribute. We’ve got four more days to reach the target. Help us get there.

WHAT IS FRIEDMAN TALKING ABOUT? What loopiness masquerading as hard truths in Tom Friedman’s column today. How on earth does rescinding future tax cuts help us win the war against Islamism, Saddam and al Qaeda? How on earth does firing Karl Rove help that either? Or cutting farm subsidies? Friedman has largely managed to absorb the idea that we are at war and that we need to win. good for him. But because there’s not a Democratic president, he’s conflicted. So he’s telling Bush to adopt Democratic policies at home in order to win abroad. Run that by me again, would you? It’s not that I disagree with Friedman on everything – although any columnist who resorts to that lame old crutch of calling for a Manhattan Project on anything needs to take a vacation. I just don’t see the connections he draws. We face a perilous economic situation with deflationary pressures – so let’s suck demand out of the economy by raising taxes! We need to defang the appeal of Islamism – so lets import Pakistani grain! Puhlease. The most important thing you have to do in a war is simply win it. Yes, let’s do our best to rebuild Iraq as effectively as we can afterwards. Yes, let’s spread the tax cut more evenly. But spare us the grandiose appeal for a Republican president to become a big government liberal if he wants support for the war on terror. It may help persuade Howell Raines that Friedman’s not an evil neocon. It may help some sane pro-war liberals to get over their disdain for a sucessful Republican president. But to the rest of us, it sounds desperate and silly.

THOSE DOUBTING MUSLIMS: If you have a few moments, do yourself a favor and read David Warren’s transcript of a lecture he recently gave at Toronto’s St. Michael’s College Alumni Hall. It’s a meditation on the fate of Islam and the Islamic world from someone who cares deeply about it and knows much. It tackles some of the myths of Western liberals and conservatives about Islam and yet seems, to my mind, even more urgent in its concern about what awaits us than some of the most pessimistic conservatives. I was struck by many insights, but this one in particular:

It is a commonplace today that Christians in the West have lost their faith, whereas Muslims in the East are still believers; that what we now have is a confrontation between decadent post-Christian secularists, and sincere if possibly misguided Muslims. The first part of this proposition often seems true enough, especially of contemporary Europe. But I really think the second proposition is false. I think one of the reasons Islamism has erupted with such gale force in the Muslim world is indeed the very loss of faith, and the fear that comes from this.
They are, again to speak very crudely, in a position a little like that of our own ancestors of the later Victorian and Edwardian era, those many who had lost their faith, but continued to observe the outward forms of religion. It is exactly this kind of mind that creates the biggest welcome for the devil. I have often thought that the violent combustion of Europe in the 20th century was, at the deepest level, the fallout from the loss of faith; of the transformation of spiritual into political energy. Communism and Nazism were themselves pseudo-religions; and indeed all ideological systems, including political Islamism, are pseudo-religions — replacements for the real thing. They take infinite longings and turn them towards finite ends, and seek a new redemption not in heaven but on earth.

The relationship of doubt to fundamentalism is a deep and fertile one. But I’ve never seen it so eloquently explored with respect to Islam.

THOSE DISCARDED POLICIES: So now we have Gore, Sharpton and Jesse Jackson piling on. For once, I think they’re right. Meanwhile, Lott gives a weird non-apology apology: “A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embrace the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement.” Let’s unpack this. Everyone deserves a break for a “poor choice of words” but it wasn’t the words that really offended. It was the plain meaning of the words. What other words would have sufficed? Notice also the adjective Lott now uses to refer to segregation: “discarded policies.” Not immoral. Not wrong. Not abhorrent. Merely “discarded.” And notice too the weasel politician way of not apologizing: only “some” were offended; and it’s only those to whom Lott feels obliged to apologize. And of course, his position as the Republican spokesman in the Senate remains unchallenged by his fellow partisans. It’s at times like this that I realize why I’m not a Republican. I could never be in a party that included someone like Trent Lott.

CAPE FISHERMEN ISSUE STATEMENT ON IRAQ: Actually, I’d care a lot more about what they think than this bunch of self-regarding, brainless wonders.

SONTAG AWARD NOMINEE: “The atrocity in New York was predictable and inevitable. It was an act of retaliation against constant and systematic manifestations of state terrorism on the part of the United States over many years, in all parts of the world.” – playwright Harold Pinter, in a speech to the University of Turin. In the speech, he also remarked that the plight of the Palestinian people is “the central factor in world unrest.” The central factor in world unrest?

EURO-ANTI-SEMITISM WATCH: Greta Duisenburg, the wife of the chairman of the European Central Bank, became famous earlier this year for joking about the Holocaust and orgnaizing boycotts of Israel. She’s now being honored with the the 2002 Prize for Human Rights from the Flemish League for Human Rights.

THE TIMES’ BLINDERS: I vowed I wouldn’t go there for a while, but I just can’t help it. Reading the New York Times’ sympathetic account of the new Rhodes scholar, Chesa Boudin, I was reminded again of the double-standards of the left. Of course, Boudin deserves praise for winning a Rhodes (although Rhodes scholars are among the most irritating mediocrities on earth) and of course he shouldn’t be held responsible for the terrorist crimes committed by his parents. But all this sympathy for a young man who grew up with incarcerated parents should surely have been balanced by some reference to the nine other childern left fatherless by his parents’ murders. Emily Yoffe has the goods at Slate. It’s a devastating little piece.

UH OH: Isn’t it a mite bit embarrassing that the new candidate for Treasury secretary ran a company, CSX, that didn’t pay a dime in federal taxes for the last four years, despite making profits? I think I just wrote Paul Krugman’s next column.