Surprise, Surprise, Frank Gaffney isn't too bright

Via Dave Weigel:

Mr. Obama said he looked forward to the day “. . . when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.” Now, the term “peace be upon them” is invoked by Muslims as a way of blessing deceased holy men. According to Islam, that is what all three were - dead prophets. Of course, for Christians, Jesus is the living and immortal Son of God.

But Jesus really is a holy man in Islam! He's regarded as one of the prophets, and a significant one at that. Jews and Christians are, according to Muslim sacred texts, the "people of the book" and receive some recognition and appreciation for believing in precursor beliefs instead of full-on Islam. Admittedly, history has hijacked that special status to some degree, but it is based on what these folks actually believe.

Gaffney has become the beachhead for the "Obama's secretly a Muslim" conspiracy theories. If he wants to convince anyone else, he's going to have to do a lot better than this. Occam's Razor would explain this sort of thing as Weigel does, which is that Obama is merely using local and religious jargon in an attempt to reach his audience. This isn't exactly an obscure rhetorical device--I remember it well from SCOM 101 back in college. All conspiracy theories ultimately fail the Occam's Razor test, which is basically to say that there are always simpler explanations for the facts. Of course, if one is obsessed with the idea that the President is secretly a Muslim--why that would matter in the first place is still a mystery to me, as few Muslims are al-Qaeda--one will find evidence of that in otherwise innocuous-seeming places.

On Democracy Promotion

Jonah Goldberg and Peter Beinart tangle on democracy promotion, with expected results. Goldberg, arguing that we can impose democracy, notes the examples of Japan and Germany. Beinart doesn't push back on this. Therefore, I will.

Let's clear out Germany first, because it's easier. Germany was a Western nation, and its people were well aware of Western liberal values. As a matter of fact, one suspects that Germans wouldn't have abandoned the noble values of the Weimar Republic were it not for the Great Depression. Bringing Germany (specifically, West Germany) back to democracy was not so much the introduction of a totally alien set of values and norms but rather a return to an earlier, and never totally abandoned, state of German liberalism. This is, therefore, less than a compelling example for people who thought that invading Iraq was a good idea.

Japan seems like a better example of grafting a new and alien form of government onto a country that has no history of it. But this example doesn't exactly cut the mustard either. Japan was a democracy in name only, due to extensive meddling from the United States in the form of money as well as support for Nobusuke Kishi, one of the most notable statesmen of postwar Japanese politics, who was bought and paid for by the CIA. This is sort of like saying Greece was some sort of great example of the Western liberal consensus during the Cold War, when in fact we fixed the Greek elections in 1956 to ensure that the Christian Democrats would win. Indeed, Japan's democracy is less than ideal today--it's essentially a one-party state, though it is admittedly stable. That's not nothing.

The truth is that there simply wasn't any good precedent for assuming that our little Iraq experiment would work, though these flimsy examples were certainly good enough for Bush, who used them constantly. It is unsurprising that neither he nor Goldberg really knew much about history, aside from perhaps having seen an hourlong History Channel documentary or two. The truth is that all this pablum about how democracy is the natural state of man is just wrong. Humanity went for millennia before discovering democracy, and while I like it and find it more appealing than the other forms of government I find it a sign of a remarkable hubris to suggest that it's somehow built into the genetic code of humanity, while evidently evil isn't, and is rather something that Bush, Cheney, and John McCain thought we could defeat. Then again, "George W. Bush doesn't understand much about the religion he is a part of" is pretty much a dog bites man story at this point.

No, evil can't be defeated, as it's in every human heart along with good. One doesn't have to dig deep to find the chinks in the neocon worldview, as one immediately sees signs of a lack of understanding of human nature and history, coupled with an intolerable smugness and hubris. Many conservatives take their country for granted when they make arguments that are variations on "My country, right or wrong". Indeed, Goldberg does a variation of just that, and Beinart's rebuttal is thoroughly satisfying. What the neocons did, basically, is to take democracy for granted. As I stated, I like democracy an awful lot and wouldn't have it any other way, but there are some very real problems associated with democracy, and in particular American democracy, as any blogger could no doubt tell you.

Kevin Drum has some good stuff as well:

In fact, Bush always struck me as less serious about democracy than his predecessors. To him it was a nice slogan — every American politician is in favor of democracy, after all — but anyone who's serious about democracy knows that it's not the kind of thing you can get overnight. It depends critically on education, on institutions, on culture, on overcoming corruption, on property rights, on the rule of law, and a dozen other things. None of these were things that Bush ever seemed to have the patience to bother dealing with.

This gets at the practical difficulties of democracy promotion. The focus on elections was mostly a function of Bush's particular methodology--the much-vaunted MBA president who, like all MBAs, needs to have everything quantified. Having elections in countries provides quantifiable results, but as Bush learned those results can make things even worse for the United States. A lot of the stuff Kevin mentions is important, but difficult to quantify. This doesn't even get at the question of whether we have either the right, the responsibility, or the wisdom to do this kind of thing. I am dubious that we have any of them. I think it's become clear, throughout decades of meddling in the Middle East and Latin America, that this sort of influence, regardless of how it's intended, tends to do little more than breed anti-American hatred and suspicion. And the notion that America--home of the routine bunker-busting budget deficit--somehow has the credibility to tell others how to govern themselves would be laughable if so many people didn't actually believe it.

In his book, Heads In The Sand, Matt Yglesias made a point that the neocons have yet to answer: if one assumes that the arc of politics bends toward democracy, if that is the final stage in human development (as ex-neocon Francis Fukuyama wrote), then why do we need to wage expensive wars to bring democracy about in foreign lands? Shouldn't we take a cautious and restrained approach, aiding democratic movements from behind the scenes? It's amazing how quickly the tapestry falls apart, and all one sees afterward are arrogance, restlessness and unjustified expansionism, and ignorance. How these people ever held power is a mystery to me, though the only way they could was by waiting for a suitable crisis to ram through a bunch of wooly abstractions that only made sense because Karl Rove's organization scared the living hell out of everybody.

Charlie Rangel, S.O.B.

Gee, I wonder what the honorable congressman means here:

"You cannot support the governor, prepare for re-election, and at the same time say that you're keeping your options open for a primary. I think that there might be an inclination for racial polarization in a primary in the state of New York. And since we have most African-Americans registered as Democrats, and since you would be making an appeal for Democrats, it would be devastating in my opinion."

Shorter Rangel: nice state you got here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it.

Look, I thought we went over this last year. Opposing a female nominee doesn't necessarily mean that one is sexist. Opposing a black nominee doesn't make one a racist. Obviously, sexist and racist people might do those things for exactly those reasons, but this isn't an if and only if proposition--a lot of people opposed Obama out of concern for his experience, and a lot of people opposed Clinton out of concern for her calculation. There didn't need to be racial and sexual components to these things, and my hypothetical support for Clinton was dashed once she started with all that garbage. The identity aspects of that primary were dirtier than the general election was in that respect, to John McCain's credit (though I wouldn't give him too much credit, as this is still the dude that okayed the smut for kindergarteners ad).

But it looks like Rangel is out to reverse that verdict. When he says that opposing Governor Paterson might cause racial tension, he's ensuring that such an event will occur, perhaps by him. He's adding this element into the narrative to try to save an incompetent and gutless governor. If things were the other way around, and Paterson were considering mounting a challenge on an unpopular Governor Cuomo, one can be sure that Rangel would be singing a different tune.

One wonders whether Obama will step in if things get out of hand, and Rangel seems to have anticipated that. Rangel and Bobby Rush are part of the old order of black politicians that are unafraid to dirty themselves with this sort of, well, racebaiting--this is an order that seems to be crumbling. They're angry and they see the writing on the wall. Interestingly, it seems like Al Sharpton is trying to remake himself more along the Obama lines--it seems like, these days, you're more likely to see him in the news working on education policy than for stirring up shit. He gets it. The times, they are a-changin'.

Finally got around to reading Ross Douthat's column this week, and...it's good. I think this is the first one that a) is completely sound and b) that I agree with. I, for one, would like to see something along these lines:

There are bipartisan ways that the Court could be reined in, and the legislative branch reinvigorated. Shugerman, Caminker and others have proposed a supermajority rule, for instance, requiring a 6-to-3 vote to overturn federal legislation. To get conservatives on board, the rule would have to be extended to state legislation as well. This isn’t as crazy as it sounds — versions of the supermajority idea have been batted around by left and right alike since Reconstruction, and merely proposing it might spur the Court toward greater consensus, and perhaps greater modesty as well.

I do think it's clear--to honest conservatives as well as to liberals--that we need to add some additional checks to the Court's power. They do have a tendency to act up, and sometimes just making a push to bring them under control--think of FDR's failed court packing scheme--sometimes is enough to bring them in line. I generally oppose the filibuster as it is presently constituted, but I think that it might make some sense with respect to judicial nominees, to ensure that nobody too radical winds up on the bench. Then again, it wouldn't have worked with John Roberts, so maybe what Douthat's suggesting is better.

Checking in with the cousins

The British general election is next year. A lot is on the line, and it looks like the Conservative Party might soon find itself back in power for the first time in over a decade. One good sign that things are falling apart for Labour is the multitude of scandals in the current government, which is reminiscent of nothing more than the collapse of the Major government in the 90s, that paved the way for Tony Blair.

Now, I have some admiration for David Cameron, the Tory Leader. He's clearly a smart and polished young leader, one more reminiscent of Blair than of Thatcher, and I suspect that eventually American conservatives will pattern themselves after him after a style, if he's successful. When they do, we'll all be better off. But I just find it baffling that Britain, after the past several years of virulently anti-Iraq public opinion, would elect someone who supported Iraq wholeheartedly. I find it baffling that, after a global crisis in which HBO Scotland and other British banks had to be nationalized, that the party closer to business would be the one voters think ready to pick up the pieces. This is a structural weakness of two-party systems--that the party out of power might not really be equipped to fix the problems that cropped up with the last crew. The funny thing is that Britain actually has a fairly large third party--the Liberal Democrats, who initially looked like a more clearly-left alternative to New Labour before breaking dramatically toward the right and moving into the same crowded middle space that Labour and the Conservatives already occupy. In retrospect, this was even a dumber move than originally thought, as Labour has been thoroughly disgraced and unless the party dumps Gordon Brown as a leader it doesn't have a chance. And, when you get down to it, Britain doesn't really have a clear choice. There is some open space on the British left, considering recent corporate malfeasance. That the Lib Dems didn't take it will probably be the deathknell of that party, which only really got any power because of student opposition to the Iraq War in the first place.

I do think it's interesting that, when you get down to it, the West tends to move together in terms of politics. Right now, neoliberalism is dominant in America as well as Europe, and the result has been that center-right, neoliberal parties in Europe as well as America (until very recently) have been placed in power. Before that, Thatcherist politicians were being elected in many nations, from Britain (obviously) to Israel (pick an Israeli PM from the 80s) to America (Reagan, of course). And before that, politics in the West were substantially more to the left. I just wonder if neoliberalism is beginning to fade out, and Obama represents what might be the next stage in the West's continued political evolution. It will be curious to see what changes he might propagate.

No Apologies

I was thinking more about this topic, and it seems to me that Americans should never, ever apologize for mistakes seems even more batty than it did before. In my personal life, the people I admire most are the ones who are willing to admit when they make a mistake. This is not a sign of weakness but of strength--it shows not only self-confidence enough to insist that one's talents are valuable despite the mistake, but it also shows self-awareness that one is not perfect--in other words, humility. Admitting that one made a mistake means that the moment can be teachable, that one can emerge stronger and wiser from the experience.

Now, obviously, the rules governing states and individuals are different. For example, an individual might lay down his life for a family member or close friend, but no nation will ever destroy itself even for its closest ally. And I do think that using a forum like the Cairo speech to just trash the motives and results of the Bush Administration might well have been in poor taste (this is not, of course, what Obama did). But this notion that America should never apologize, should never listen, should never submit, strikes me as evidence that it is pride that is driving the neocons at this point. There's a reason why theologians decry pride as one of the worst, if not the worst, of all the sins. It's crippling, isolating, and deranging. It forces one to ignore one's limits because one simply wants to be better than others, everything else be damned. It causes one to ignore one's own faults by comparing them with others', and it ultimately leads to an unhealthy state of affairs in which one cannot trust anyone else, and thus cannot see their impending doom.

This is largely C.S. Lewis's analysis of how pride works on an individual level. Tell me that this doesn't sound exactly like the neocon conception of foreign policy. And the only way to combat pride, ultimately, is by admitting we have it and moving toward humility by acknowledging our weaknesses and mistakes, and by being honest. I suspect this is why the neocons hate Obama so much: he throws their personal failings--and, as I've said before, the neocons' personal feelings and arguments are at the heart of their foreign policy ideas--into very stark relief. Oh, and he's legitimately interested in peace, and could detonate their entire worldview if successful.

Funemployment beats unemployment!

The Hater pokes a particularly vapid piece of lifestyle "reporting" here.

In favor of family/education assistance

I realize that the right dislikes entitlements, but it seems like paid family leave should be an exception. For a party that talks about the importance of families so much, it's a no-brainer. Here's Matt Y:

This is basically a recognition on the part of everyone from Japan to Norway to Canada that having a child isn’t just a random consumption choice that we should leave entirely up to the free market. Parents have a special social role to play, and it’s important to all of us to put them in a position to play it well.

I looked quite a bit at these sorts of issues a few years back, and the truth is that there are a lot of fairly minor things we could do to make things vastly easier on parents. We could, for example, change the school day so that it corresponds with the work day--i.e. 8 to 5--and the extra time will mean that important stuff like the arts and P.E. will be safe. This would be better for kids all around, and it would be easier on parents, and save them a bundle on child care. We could further help by expanding the school year so that parents don't have to find arrangements for their kids for the ~3 months they're off school. Plus, since kids lose intellectual steam during vacations, this would help alleviate that. Obviously, these changes would cost money--we'd have to pay more to keep schools open longer and to pay teachers for more time worked. So they'd require some tax increases. However, they would help parents a lot, and I would think that this would be a compromise that society like ours would be willing to make.

I wonder how potent a political issue this would be. I suspect that these would be pretty swell issues for Obama to run on in 2012, after global warming and healthcare are done.

Quote of the Day

I just had to share this, because of its self-negating nature: "We need to accept the role of the loyal opposition much more gracefully than our opponents did. If you haven't noticed, the meanest people in politics are on the American left."

Not to be obtuse, but I hadn't noticed that. Good to know--I'll remember that the next time I'm crusing between Mark Levin and Sean Hannity. This quote shows a certain compartmentalization, if nothing else: evidently, in Mitch Daniels's universe, calling the opposition a bunch of mean people isn't mean. It's graceful opposition.

Obama's Cairo Speech

It's really good.