The Dish

A reader writes:

I’m a little puzzled by your post snickering over the debate on the right about immigration.  First, you acknowledge that opposition to the bill  arguably is legitimate, so what you condemn is the volume, or hysteria, of the debate. Since when was the aesthetic of measuredness in rhetoric your primary criterion for the substantive value of a given debate? I mean, you’ve often characterized yourself as "excitable", and many of your blog posts reflect that.  It’s one of the reasons I read you every day – you’re certainly not boring! So why does National Review have to be boring, if you don’t? 

Second, you identify the "circular firing squad" as further evidence of the weakness of what passes for conservatism these days. In other words, because Republicans are debating amongst themselves so vociferously, this shows their movement is cracking up. But in the past, what you’ve identified as the weakness of the movement is its robot-like behavior – following the Bush/Rove machine off of a cliff on one issue after another, all the while betraying one principle after another of conservatism.  Again, which is it?  Are Republicans fascist zombies who march in lockstep with one another, or are they at each other’s throats?  I contend that the furious dialectic between rank and file Republicans and their leadership on this is issue is a sign that the elephant may not be dead.   What’s the alternative?  Cynical Kos "winnerism" – a policy-neutral approach to politics where all that matters is figuring out what position will appeal to a majority of the electorate?

And of course, what one can’t really discern from your post is what your own position on the bill is, substantively.  Or do you have any positions anymore, other than that whatever Republicans do is a sure sign of political weakness and intellectual bankruptcy?

Well, I hope not. I spelled out my own views on illegal immigration, and don’t see the internecine GOP debate as unhealthy at all. My issue is with the level of animus and hysteria which are as unpleasant as they are self-defeating. I actually feel a bit for Bush in this. Nonetheless, I’ve been in Southern California these past few days on a speaking trip and got an earful from several people about the toll illegal immigration has had on their communities, and I may well have been insulated from the frustrations many feel. But, as always, the readers let me know.

Ah, the good old days. How I miss them. But here’s a terrific, if somewhat nostalgic, dissection of the latest blather from Mr Fisk, wherein his pretensions to know anything about linguistics are comprehensively disrobed.

US forces and Afghan soldiers ambush and kill 70 Taliban militiamen.

The truth is: I don’t know. But there are clearly signs that American evangelicals – especially in the younger generations – do not share the conflation of faith and partisanship of the Falwell era. In this, of course, they are returning to the historical evangelical norm – and Falwell’s harsh, exclusionary and condemnatory Republicanism is the real exception. Abortion remains non-negotiable, and I understand why. But I sense that more and more Christians realize that speaking out about the moral enormity of abortion, and attempting to restrain and decrease its prevalence, is not indistinguishable from legal prohibition in all cases. People’s moral views on this are changed in the heart and soul, not by political power. And the depth of Christianity’s rejection of earthly power is so great the temptations of Christianism can be resisted in the long run.

As for the Republican party’s travails, the good news is that James Dobson won’t endorse Giuliani or McCain, two of three GOP frontrunners. I have a feeling they won’t endorse back. And the obvious Christianist standard-bearers – Santorum, Allen, Brownback – aren’t viable any more. Hence Frank Rich’s schadenfreude. But Frank may be a little too ahead of himself. Romney, after all, has already signed on the dotted, Christianist line. The obious caveat – will Christianist voters back a Mormon? – is still unknown…

Romney’s low numbers in South Carolina, however, aren’t encouraging for him. I think Romney deserves to be judged on the merits of his public policy positions and his character – not his religion. If others share this view, and he’s prepared to say and do whatever Dobson and Hewitt et al. want, then I don’t see the Christianism wave necessarily subsiding. In the short term, at least.

Nonetheless, it was striking to me that same-sex marriage was not on the radar screen in the first two GOP debates. Is this battle over? On an intellectual level, it seems to me that only a handful of stragglers are clinging on. When the best argument against same-sex marriage is the recitation of a dictionary definition of heterosexual marriage, then you know they don’t have much ammo left. The continuing drops in hetero divorce rates in the era of same-sex marriage doesn’t bolster the case of the alarmists either. And the next generation of Christians have come to know gay people – and gay Christians – as their peers and fellow pilgrims. The demonization of the past is waning. But again, I wouldn’t be too complacent. Maybe the attempt to roll back marriage rights in Massachusetts will galvanize the issue again in 2008. Or maybe the base really is exhausted from hysteria about gay couples who merely want to be treated equally under the law. I certainly hope so.

In this climate, I can understand why many tolerant and inclusive conservatives are drawn to Giuliani. His defense of his abortion position in South Carolina was as good as it’s going to get, and it had the rare quality of actually being honest. Giuliani’s political stance on abortion is pretty close to my position, except I really can’t countenance public funding for the evil of abortion, and, frankly, he just doesn’t sound convincing to me when he speaks of his personal horror of abortion. On the sole single-issue question of what’s "good for the gays", Giuliani has a persuasive case. But, despite the party line on me from the anti-gay right, I’ve never been a one-issue person. I endorsed Bush in 2000 fully aware of his position on marriage. I like McCain and he’s against a reform I’ve dedicated a lot of my life to. My patience ended at the president’s proposition to amend the federal constitution on the matter. And mercifully, that proposal is now surely dead. I don’t see the Christianist wing of the GOP being any stronger in the Congress in the foreseeable future than they were in the first Bush term, and if they couldn’t come close then, I can’t see them engineering the FMA back in the much more Democratic future.

My issue with Giuliani is a simple one: I don’t trust him not to abuse power. In the current global situation, I don’t think we need an authoritarian hothead in the White House. We’ve had plenty of will. We need a little more wisdom. And wisdom is not something one associates with the ferret-phobe from Manhattan. After another Jihadist attack, I can only begin to imagine what powers Giuliani would give himself in the wake of the Cheney era. You think we’re polarized now? Wait till Rudy has had a shot. Good for the gays? Maybe. But that has never been and shouldn’t be the only question.

(Photo: Nicholas Roberts/AFP.)

A mouthful, I know, but the theocrats in Tehran need to feel more pressure. Good news about growing academic resistance here.

An impressive showing. The Republichameleon is not to be under-estimated.

The Brits now have experience of the transition to a modern, inclusive, professional military. A total non-event. Except, of course, for the many honorable and admirable gay servicemembers now able to serve without fear, deception, dishonesty and isolation.

Larry Flynt remembers. Money quote:

Over time, Falwell was forced to publicly come to grips with the reality that this is America, where you can make fun of anyone you want. That hadn’t been absolutely clear before our case, but now it’s being taught in law schools all over the country, and our case is being hailed as one of the most important free-speech cases of the 20th century.

No wonder that when he started hugging me and smooching me on television 10 years later, I was a bit confused. I hadn’t seen him since we’d been in court together, and that night I didn’t see him until I came out on the stage. I was expecting (and looking for) a fight, but instead he was putting his hands all over me. I remember thinking, "I spent $3 million taking that case to the Supreme Court, and now this guy wants to put his hand on my leg?"

Like Glenn Close out of the bathtub. Reality has a habit of provoking these things, doesn’t it?

This is an online poll so the usual caveat. But it’s in the Military Times, an outlet without that many general readers. With over 5,000 responses from readers, over 50 percent believe torture is legitimate simply "to gather vital information." Another 20 percent support it to save troops’ lives. Those two categories basically make torture an option for all soldiers in a dangerous war-zone. Six years after Bush’s approval, 70 percent of Military Times readers endorse torture – not even the newspeak "enhanced interrogation techniques" – as a routine military option. Congratulations, Mr President. Bonus congrats to Joel Surnow and Fox.