Hillary Derangement Syndrome

Another virus I’ve contracted, apparently:

You are usually an astute observer of the political scene, but this time, I think you’re blinded by HDS (Hillary Derangement Syndrome). You really think the Republican establishment is so publically drooling over the prospect of a Clinton nomination because they think she’ll extend Bush’s Iraq policy into the next presidency? Come on. They’re eager for the Democrats to nominate her because they see her candidacy as their only hope of retaining the GOP grip on the presidency.

Clinton isn’t nearly anti-war enough to suit me, but I give her credit where it is due. She had the huevos to vote to cut off funding for the war and has repeatedly and vociferously denounced Bush’s quagmire — as recently as this Sunday, in fact. Although she believes some troops will be necessary in the Middle East to counter terrorism and prevent genocide, she doesn’t seem at all interested in "legitimating and extending" Bush’s Iraq debacle to rescue his legacy. It’s hard to imagine an honest reading of her words or deeds that would lead to that conclusion.

I’m an Obama supporter, and as much as I disagree with the idea of keeping any troops in Iraq, it seems obvious to me that Clinton’s approach is the moderate anti-war path advocated by many centrists. Obama himself wouldn’t immediately remove every American soldier from the Middle East.

It’s so interesting to observe the extreme responses Ms. Clinton evokes — someone should do a sociological study. She’s a prism through which people see their darkest fears projected. To the wingnut right, she’s a wild-eyed Marxist who will destroy the economy and make abortion mandatory. To the usually sensible Mr. Sullivan, she’s a patrician fellow-traveler with the oligarchic Bush clan.

Another readers writes:

You are missing or overlooking the essential point of Brooks’ column: That Hil’s popularity isn’t just a DC establishment phenomenon, but supported by middle-income and working-class people who are the true base of the Dem Party.

Obama is Dean with charm and charisma: A darling of the educated elites, the Net savvy, the well-heeled who have the time and money to make Internet contributions. Dean got savaged in Iowa when "regular folks" came out to caucus. I suspect a similar fate for Obama.

We’ll see, won’t we?

Quote for the Day

"If we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will, we’ll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest," – Norman Podhoretz, confidant of the president, close advisor to Rudy Giuliani.

In the interview (YouTube here), NPod countenances that there might be some secret relief around the world for denuking the mullahs (if it’s successful), but doubts it and thinks the bombing is necessary regardless of the consequences. Regardless of the consequences: Bush’s mantra?

Cheney and Dinner Jacket

Steve Clemons blogs:

This guy is the Dick Cheney of Iran. He wants greater power in Iran’s political system — but he doesn’t have it. In fact, unless we bomb Iran, he’s on the way to being a former President with little power. He has not achieved any serious consolidation of his position in the Iranian political arena…

Ahmadinejad is failing in Iran. But we spend a lot of time fretting over his words and posture. We need to stop letting him define Iran’s character and ultimate direction. But Cheney and Ahmadinejad need each other – they push each other’s buttons.

We need to move beyond both.

Douthat vs Berube

A fun flap. Here’s Ross’s post on the canon Wars. Super-lefty Michael Berube rouses himself from blogscurity for a good splutter:

Honestly, I am so very, very weary of people who pretend that the field of literature consists of a reading list—one reading list. For every writer added, another is dropped? Ah, no. That’s what the National Association of Surlycurmudgeons will try to tell you, because that’s their job: they don’t punch out and go home until they’ve written or said something to the effect of “Toni Morrison is displacing Shakespeare because of affirmative action racegenderclass OH NOES,” but there’s no reason for a smart person like Rachel Donadio, whose work I like, to fall for this tripe. In reality, for every writer added, a writer is added to the field of literary study—perhaps to a freshman-level survey; perhaps to a lower-division undergraduate course; perhaps to an upper-division course on a literary genre or period; perhaps to an undergraduate honors seminar; perhaps to a graduate seminar—and those are just the basic possibilities for teaching assignments.

I’m with Ross. Of course, emphasis on some new writers takes up the time and space for the old ones. Students only have so much time; and the bulk now have choices other than the classic canon.

Green Orthodoxy

Green

A reader writes:

It’s good to see the largest church in Christendom finally moving towards a greener theology, but I just wanted to remind you and your other readers of the ongoing environmentalism put forth by Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, spiritual leader of all Orthodox Christians, and more commonly known as the "Green Patriarch" in Western academic circles.  Since his inauguration to the ecclesiastical throne of Constantinople in 1991, Bartholomew has been an outspoken critic of environmental abuse, especially throughout Eastern Europe, and has worked closely with scientists, ecologists, and fellow theologians making environmental concerns a central policy of political and religious concern. He has declared polluting to be a "sin" against creation and "a sacrilege" of the duties given to mankind to protect Earth and Nature.

Environmental destruction also takes place within our own bodies, he says.

Whether we commit physical acts of self-inflicted violence in the form of drug abuse or unprotected sex, or mental violence in the form of over-consumption and vainglorious narcissism, we pollute our bodies as much as our rivers, oceans, forests, and air. In an address given in Venice in 2002 before signing a dual declaration for environmental awareness with then Pope John Paul II, the Patriarch argued, “we are to practice a voluntary self-limitation in our consumption of food and natural resources. Each of us is called to make the crucial distinction between what we want and what we need. Only through such self-denial, through our willingness sometimes to forgo and to say, ‘no’ or ‘enough’ will we rediscover our true human place in the universe …Greed and avarice render the world opaque, turning all things to dust and ashes. Generosity and unselfishness render the world transparent, turning all things into a sacrament of loving communion — communion between human beings with one another, communion between human beings and God. This need for an ascetic spirit can be summed up in a single key word: sacrifice. This exactly is the missing dimension in our environmental ethos and ecological action.”

Self-indulgence also comes in the form of religious fundamentalism and xenophobia. His words on environmental awareness belies parallel references to the “pollution of religion” in the form of “selfish” and “unscrupulous” theologians and demagogues of all faiths, dumping what he calls “religious waste” into our churches, mosques, and synagogues. Much religious xenophobia in the world he says stems from historical grievances and unresolved transgressions.

In 1994, the Patriarch spearheaded, along with other major religious leaders of Turkey and Greece, what has become known as The Bosphoros Declaration, denouncing all forms of religious fundamentalism that embraces violence, xenophobia, warfare, and the physical harm of others, especially towards women and children. Directly influenced by religious tension in the Balkans, the Middle East and in former areas of the Soviet Union, Bartholomew stood side by side with his Muslim and Jewish colleagues in Turkey calling for an end to all violence perpetrated in the name of God, declaring that “a crime committed in the name of religion is a crime against religion.”

The Patriarch’s efforts to embrace environmentalism on physical, moral, and spiritual grounds is part of his broader agenda to modernize his church and bring it out of its perceived distant and insular positions after centuries of foreign domination and self-imposed seclusion. With the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe and the rediscovery of religion and traditional values by society, Bartholomew’s goals have been met with widespread acceptance from all sides of the political and religious spectrum. In trying to demonstrate that the Patriarchate and the Orthodox Church can come to symbolize a renewed Byzantine cosmopolitanism, Bartholomew is seeking to find common ground with his Christian and Muslim neighbors who share similar concerns for how their societies and communities will develop and cooperate in a globalizing and modernizing world. Sadly, some of that goodwill was sapped when Benedict XVI gave his infamous speech at Regensburg with his referencing a Byzantine (thus Greek) emperor mentioning the theological deficiencies of Islam. Nevertheless, his efforts as linking environmentalism and love of the Earth with the Love of God is a fascinating fusion of modern contemporary issues with one of the oldest and most traditional churches in the Christian world. It’s a shame he is not known more in the Western world.

Well: a few more know about him now.

The Queer Left Echoes Ahmadinejad

Ever since Michel Foucault’s repulsive embrace of the Iranian revolution, the pomo gay left has had a soft spot for Islamo-fascists. This is an email sent out by the Columbia Queer Alliance. It beggars belief. Here’s the throat clearer:

"We condemn the human rights violations perpetrated by the Iranian government under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We admonish the policies that make same-sex practices punishable by torture and death, as well as those that restrict the freedoms and self-determination of women.

But then the pomo knee jerk kicks in:

"We stand in solidarity with our peers in Iran, but we do not presume to speak for them. We cannot possibly claim to understand the multiple and diverse experiences of living with same-sex desires in Iran. Our cultural values and experiences are distinct, but the stakes are one and the same: the essential human right to express our desires freely. Moreover, we would like to strongly caution media and campus organizations against the use of such words as "gay", "lesbian", or "homosexual" to describe people in Iran who engage in same-sex practices and feel same-sex desire. The construction of sexual orientation as a social and political identity and all of the vocabulary therein is a Western cultural idiom. As such, scholars of sexuality in the Middle East generally use the terms "same-sex practices" and "same-sex desire" in recognition of the inadequacy of Western terminology. President Ahmadinejad’s presence on campus has provided an impetus for us all to examine a number of issues, but most relevant to our concerns are the complexities of how sexual identity is constructed and understood in different parts of the world."

Ahmadinejad was right, you see? There are no gays in Iran. Just ask the Queer Studies Department.

Hitch Wants Gore

I guess it’s a slow news week, but Hitch needs the mental caffeine that a Gore run might provide. His hunch is that a Nobel Peace Prize might be in the works, something that even Gore might feel is worthy of him. Then some wishful thinking:

I remind you that Gore was once a stern advocate of the removal of Saddam Hussein, and that in office he might well not be the coward or apologist that the MoveOn.org crowd is still hoping to nominate. One has the very slight sense that he contains some unexpended political energy and has acquired some dearly bought political experience. At any rate, nothing could be worse than the present dreary political routine, and if it takes a Scandinavian kick-start to alter the odds, then for once one can hope that the heirs of Alfred Nobel will have a more explosive and catalytic effect than they had intended.

Fair enough, but here’s a simple statement that I think Hitch may one day retract:

Sen. Obama cannot possibly believe, and doesn’t even act as if he believes, that he can be elected president of the United States next year.

Maybe it’s a function of being immersed in Obamarama right now for an essay I’m working on, but that is not my impression.