Categories
Election 2008 Foreign Policy McCain National Security Politics The War on Terrorism

“A Clear and Present Danger to the Security of the West”

After listing the tremendous strategic blunders of the Bush administration‘s neoconservative approach to national security and foreign policy, Andrew Sullivan concludes:

Insofar as neoconservatives do not understand this, and cannot understand this, they are a clear and present danger to the security of the West. Their unwillingness to understand how the US might be perceived in the world, how a hegemon needs to exhibit more humility and dexterity to maintain its power, makes them – and McCain – extremely dangerous stewards of American foreign policy in an era of global terror. They are diplomatically and strategically autistic.

McCain’s response to the calamities of the past eight years has been to compound them all.

Categories
Morality Politics

Conservatives Dodge the Abortion Question

[digg-reddit-me]I haven’t written about this issue before because it is not an issue on which I have strong feelings.

But reading George Weigel in Newsweek explaining that Democrats were ignoring science and theology when discussing abortion, and reading Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard explaining the Catholic Church’s consistency in understanding human life as beginning at conception – it’s pretty clear that neither of them has either the patience to understand or the honesty to write anything but hack opinion pieces on this issue.

The fudging is a subtle one – but one of enormous consequence.

When I watched Nancy Pelosi on Meet the Press, I realized that she had made a mistake:

REP. PELOSI:  I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.  And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition.  And Senator – St. Augustine said at three months.  We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.  Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child – first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester.  There’s very clear distinctions.  This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and – to – that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god.  And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.  As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…

MR. BROKAW:  The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…

REP. PELOSI:  I understand that.

MR. BROKAW:  …begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI:  I understand.  And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that.  So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.  But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions.  And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions.  That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception.  My Republican colleagues do not support contraception.  If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must – it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think.  But that is not the case.  So we have to take – you know, we have to handle this as respectfully – this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been – and I’m not saying Rick Warren did, because I don’t think he did, but others will try to.

There are two confusions in what Pelosi said. First, although she acknowledges it in the end, she at first seems to state the the Catholic Church has not decided when life starts. In the past fifty years or so, the Church did make a decision regarding this – a decision that seems to be based more on politics than theology – but that is an issue for a different day. The second confusion was when she said:

…so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins…

The problem here is that she was trying to express a perfectly reasonable and true fact – but using the loaded language of the question itself. And in doing so, she mis-spoke – although what she meant is clear to anyone with an understanding of the science of embroyolgy.

If someone asks you: “When does rose life begin?” the answer is far from clear. Is a seed a rose? It contains all the same genetic material and certainly can become a rose, given appropriate conditions. But it lacks all of the characteristics of a rose – and does not function as one. As it begins to grow, it acquires more and more characteristics ofa  rose – the roots, the stem, the thorns, the buds, the flowers, the scent. At what point does the seed become a rose? Science can explain the process. Philosophy or theology can define the terms. And while making the case against abortion, pro-lifers ask: “When does human life begin?”, a more appropriate question to guide policy-makers is “At what point does an embryo become an individual protected by the law?”

And while Weigel and Barnes correctly note that the Catholic Church has always opposed abortion – there has been debate over what constituted an abortion. By acting as if making this point demonstrates how ignorant Nancy Pelosi is, they demonstrate their own ignorance – and, just as they accuse Pelosi and Obama of doing, they dodge the question.

The true rationale behind their political attacks disguised as recitations of unquestioned science and theology is to blunt the Democratic Party’s efforts to woo Catholics and other religious groups.

While Bill Clinton did not allow Governor Bob Casey to speak at the 1992 Republican Convention because of his opinions on abortion (a slight many Catholics still remember), Barack Obama asked Senator Bob Casey, the Governor’s son, to speak at this one. This Democratic Convention was inagurated with a prayer. An unabashedly liberal prayer. And Barack Obama speaks eloquently and from personal experience about his faith – while John McCain’s only story of faith seems to have been cribbed from Chuck Colson.

The Republicans are scared – and they are willing to use religion, once again, as a wedge issue. Although they seem to have no intention of overturning Roe v. Wade (Seven of the nine justices have been nominated by Republicans after it became the official policy of the Republican Party to overturn this precedent.) – the Republicans will continue to use abortion as their primary tool to get out the vote.

What Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have acknowledged is that the issue of when a collection of cells becomes a fully-human human being is complicated – theologically and biologically. This is clear to anyone who has taken the time to thoughtfully look at this issue. The counter-attacks by the Republicans have been misleading and factually false – and while they accuse these Democrats of dodging this issue, they have yet to make their case. Their attack itself is a dodge.

Categories
Domestic issues Economics Election 2008 McCain Politics The Opinionsphere

The Intersection of Rich, Out-of-Touch, and Old

Jonathan Chait to Matthew Yglesias in conversation over at Bloggingheads.tv, discussing McCain’s lack of awareness of the number of houses he owns:

Chait: It’s right at the intersection of rich, out-of-touch, and old. It’s like the perfect –

Yglesias: Right…

Chait: …it’s in the perfectly overlapped center of all these things.

Yglesias: I actually feel kind of bad…

Categories
Life Politics Prose Reflections

Quote of the Day

Like the British Constitution, she owes her success in practice to her inconsistencies in principle.

Thomas Hardy, in The Hand of Ethelberta.

Categories
Election 2008 McCain Politics The Clintons

Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?

[digg-reddit-me]
[Image by oxmour licensed under Creative Commons.]

Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno.

I just wanted to point out this McCain joke (told around the time of Chelsea’s 18th birthday) to all the PUMAs out there who have made a big deal about Obama’s disrespect of the Clintons.

Continue reading “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?”
Categories
Election 2008 McCain National Security Politics Russia

Quote of the Day

Outrage is not a policy. Worry is not a policy. Indignation is not a policy. Even though outrage, worry and indignation are all appropriate in this situation, they shouldn’t be mistaken for policy and they shouldn’t be mistaken for strategy.

Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of state under President Clinton, Russia specialist, and president of the Brookings Institution, commenting on the McCain campaign’s and the Bush administration’s response to the Georgia crisis.

Categories
Election 2008 McCain Politics

Where’s Joe Biden When You Need Him?

[digg-reddit-me]

LENO: Welcome back, Sen. McCain, for one million dollars, how many houses do you have? (Jay laughs, McCain squirms and chuckles)

MCCAIN: You know, could I just mention to you, Jay, and a moment of seriousness. I spent five and a half years in a prison cell, without—I didn’t have a house, I didn’t have a kitchen table, I didn’t have a table, I didn’t have a chair. And I spent those five and a half years, because—not because I wanted to get a house when I got out.

From Ben SmithJonathan Martin at Politico. H/t Andrew Sullivan – who calls McCain’s approach “A Noun, A Verb, and POW”.

For pure incoherence, it’s hard to beat McCain answer. As a demonstration of shameless exploitation of a dark period in his life, it’s hard to beat McCain’s answer.

It’s shameless. I don’t think a parody would have been as effective at eviserating McCain’s over-reliance on his POW status.

Categories
Economics Election 2008 Obama Politics

Obamanomics

[digg-reddit-me]In the past ten years, a Democratic consensus has emerged from opposing poles represented by Robert Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton, and Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under Clinton.

The consensus stems from a shared conclusion:

In the past generation, the American economy has been benefiting the vast majority of Americans less and less; and the trends that are causing this cannot be stopped.

There are many factors that have caused, worsened and continued to escalate this core problem:

  • the demise of America’s manufacturing base;
  • the increasing gap between the pay of CEOs and top corporate officials and the average worker;
  • the way the tax code has begun to tax labor at a far higher rate than it taxes capital;
  • the shrinking of organized labor;
  • the increasing instability due to globalization.

All of these are the symptoms and all of these are the causes.

Our economic system is breaking – the middle class is being squeezed; we are transferring a tremendous amount of our wealth to autocracies and our rivals around the world because of our dependence on oil; budget deficits are burdening our government which now practices a nefarious for of socialism, only for the rich; globalization is creating insecurity; our society is becoming more stratified ((Subscription now required.)), with many traditionally class-conscious European countries becoming more socially mobile; our infrastructure is eroding.

Barack Obama’s answer to this – accepting the Democratic party consensus – is a mix of short-term and long-term measures.

  • To alleviate the squeeze on the middle class as certain industries leave America looking for cheaper labor, he proposes to create jobs with infrastructure improvements and to push the development of a green energy industry.
  • To aid small businesses and to reduce the instability created by the greater turnover in jobs in a globalized marketplace, he proposes a universal health care plan that combines a government plan open to all citizens, various incentives for businesses to offer coverage, and various incentives for individuals to get coverage on their own.
  • With regards to taxes, he proposes tax cuts (graph) to those who need it and tax increases to those who have benefited most from our society – those making over $250,000.00.
  • To prepare the next generation for the globalized marketplace, Obama proposes various improvements to education.
  • Barack Obama is also the only candidate who has pledged to protect the foundation of the internet. (John McCain has recently come off the fence to support a policy that directly undermines the architecture of the internet since it began.)

For a more in-depth and reflective look at Obamanomics, check out David Leonhardt’s cover story this weekend in the New York Times Magazine.

Addition: What Obama and the Democrats have been struggling with is a way to frame this in a visceral way that can be easily understood. Here’s my proposition:

McCain and the Republicans want to give big corporations whatever they want – even if it hurts American in the long term. (Offshore drilling; telecom immunity; free trade without sensible provisions regarding labor and environmental regulation; tax cuts on corporations and the wealthy while the government needs more income; opposing the protection of the basis of the web, net neutrality, so that internet providers can make a bigger profit.)

Obama and the Democrats want corporations to do well, but at the same time, they want to protect American society from the destabilizing forces of globalization and to protect what has made America the most prosperous nation on earth – including a stable middle class and social mobility – both of which we are in danger of losing due to reckless Republican policies.

That’s the narrative – it’s not class warfare. It’s about protecting what has made America great against the forces of globalization, overly greedy corporations, and rapid change.

Continue reading “Obamanomics”
Categories
Election 2008 National Security Obama Politics The Opinionsphere The War on Terrorism

Dubya Made Obama Possible

The National Review seems to have come around to my position – that George W. Bush has made Obama’s candidacy possible:

My postulate is that George W. Bush’s presidency has been just bad enough to avoid destroying the core institutions that form the backbone of our society while creating a virtuous backlash that will strengthen these institutions in the long term. Bush has abused his power just enough, and aggravated festering issues just enough, and presided over a decline that was so sudden that he has created near ideal conditions to move the country in a positive direction.

Of course, Seth Swirsky thinks it was George W. Bush’s outstanding leadership and success which have made Americans “feel safe”.

On that, Seth Swirsky and I have differing opinions. The constant fear-mongering by the Bush administration has not made Americans feel safe. The colossal failures of the Bush’s administration’s War on Terror has not made Americans feel safer. The fact that the most significant effort to attack an American city after 9/11 was called off by Al Qaeda for unknown reasons instead of being disrupted by our national security state does not lead to confidence in the Bush administration. Of course, Swirsky write:

Of course, the Left insists that we’re no safer than we were before 9/11. But, until they come up with a number lower than zero, as in the number of attacks against us since then, that argument remains silly.

Is it really considered an “argument” to say:

We have not been attacked again; therefore we are safer.

There are so many assumptions behind that sentiment – many of which are specious; and there are so many alternate explanations to be proferred; and in fact, as the Bush administration and the McCain campaign have said – we will be attacked again. Doesn’t this undercut Swirsky’s point entirely?

The real point is that this is a silly statement used for political effect – and one which demonstrates how circular the Republican propaganda machine has become.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Reflections

Should. Could. Would.

There will be ups and downs – and the path will be rocky. The Republicans will get in quite a few more good digs – and in the first two weeks of October, I will want to take this back, as the campaign hits new lows. And while over a year ago I decided that Barack Obama should be the next president of the United States; and while less than a year ago, I finally realized that Barack Obama could be the next president of the United States; it was not until tonight that I realized Barack Obama would be the next President.

An excellent speech by Michelle Obama caps off a mediocre opening night of the Democratic National Convention. And somehow, in the midst of all the hubub, it struck me. I think many other people can see it, and can feel it too.