Ah, the Democratic Party. Much is made about its prospects for a victory in Congress in November's election. Although many commentators make this seem iminent, such a goal still seems unlikely to me. Currently, the Democrats' 202 seats in the House is the second lowest in any Congress since 1930. The official 44 Democrats in the Senate (although Jim Jefford, the independent, votes with them) is also the lowest count since '30 as well. The party's at what could best be described as its nadir, and yet everyone is projecting its re-emergence. Such an event occurred between 1930 and 1932, when the Democrats shifted the balance in the House by 150 seats and 20 in the Senate. But we can thank the early years of the Great Depression for that. Why is everyone so optimistic? Is Iraq tantamount to that previous fiscal crisis?
In fact, the greatest hope for a Democratic party victory this year would be such an economic crisis. If the real estate market were to collapse, or if foreign lender-nations decided to sell their treasury bonds, then such a crisis may occur. (It might even occur if $100+ oil prices cripple the market.) Since the Democrats are linked with a robust economy (think Clinton, not Carter) and they poll better on that issue that anything else, such a turnaround could greatly benefit them. It may even throw the necessary seats their way.
But what if such a collapse fails to take place. What then do the Democrats do? One strategy is to rely on the poor numbers of the president. This theory states: if Bush is unpopular, the House Republicans will be too. History supports this assumption. Presidents with declining poll numbers (especially if they seep below 40%) lead their parties to massive losses in mid-term elections, especially in the middle of the second term (see '38, '58, and '86). Such indicators might suggest that were Bush to still be sub-40% come election day, the Republicans would lose at least 20 seats in the House. The Senate, however, is less affected, because the particular seats up in a given year can be very important. If 10 swing state seats were up this year, we could talk about strong possibility of the Democratic victory. This, however, is not the case, as only about 7 are really in contention. Thus, even if Bush's numbers remain poor, the Senate may be difficult for Democrats to wrest from Republican control.
Yet, can we truly say that relying on Bush's shortcomings is a valid strategy? I don't think we can. The larger picture suggests more obstacles for the party. The Democrats have been out of power on Capitol Hill for vitually all of the past twelve years. The party fares poorly in rural districts and, more generally, in the South and Mountain West. (One bright spot is the movement of libertarian Republicans toward the party, as a result of civil liberty crackdowns by the Bush administration. But the viability of these discontented rightists voting for a Democrat is in question.) The remnant Left of the Democrats, those for example who ersthwhile supported McGovern or Johnson's Great Society, have been almost completely neglected by the party. (Some don't think they even exist, because today such positions would be considered to the left of the Deaniacs.) New Dealism remains mostly in its regulatory legacies and desire of conservatives to retreat from it. The fact is that no mainstream politician in today's environment ever proposes the raising of taxes or increased regulation of energy or media. Just as the New Deal made Social Security and the minimum wage into accepted standards, the Reagan revolution has engrained tax cuts and deregulation into the mind of voters. As a result, the real Left is dead. The Democratic Party is controlled by the very organization, the DLC, that was once considered barely more than a joke. In that sense, we also live in the post-Clinton era, one where Democrats have to cater to business interests and eschew any notion of sacrifice for the common good. The party has losts both its voting base (especially whites) as well as its identity.
Yet, the party is somehow on the march. Today, the highlights of this (supposedly) emerging Democrat consensus include such things as the so-called liberal blogosphere. (Please don't count me within that bunch.) This blogosphere connects with 187 group websites, like MoveOn.org and others, to form the backbone of the grass-roots Left. Although they may feel that anti-Bush rhetoric and elitist, anti-elitist collectivism poses a great threat to the Right, they are mistaken. They may attract some passionate individuals to aid their cause, but all their hard work is often subverted by the candidates and party that they support. The new online Left may be the future, but they are hindered by the past. They exist in simplistic opposition to Bush while failing to eschew most of the legacies of the past two and a half decades. In this context, the push to defeat Lieberman in Connecticut is not a failure because it's an inquisition (as David Brooks suggests), but because it's a mere referendum on Bush. Lieberman is too close to this enemy for the bloggers to handle. While the result may not be that bad, the reasoning behind this challenge is simple-minded.
The Democrats must seek something beyond merely a attack, a single issue, or even a "vision". The party needs an institutional structure that will expand upon the old bread-and-butter issues. But, I do not intend to push the party toward the center, as many would have it. Instead, I feel that they should reshape the Left. To be sure, American is more prosperous than in the past and, on the whole, the average standard of living has increased. But the overall functioning of American society is highly problematic. Voters may not care about the U.S. trade imbalance or debtor culture, but they are important issues for our nation's future health. Voters, however, can understand such things as credit/loan re-regulation, increased wages, national savings plans, tiered taxes, and other economic policies that effect people's day to day lives. Today, corporations have a stranglehold over much of American society and, with this, investment culture has weakened the futures of many Americans.
In a word, the Democrats need to re-frame economic issues through the benefits that policy changes offer for a vast majority. Higher taxes brackets, assessing 50% rates on those who make over a million dollars a year for example, would affect only a tiny portion of the population and enable tax cuts for those on the bottom half of the income scale. Within this framework, the prosperity of corporate growth may spread to those who have not yet enjoyed the benefits of its security. A workable future for the Democrats exist. They just need to reframe the economy issue as a set of rights, not as a sacrifice. Tax relief for the middle class, college credits, or fuel efficiency rewards. If the party can appeal to the voters prurient interest in self-benefit, because it can pry them away from the Right.
Additionally, the Democrats need to regain kind of smart populism. Not one that attempts to vilify or mock (as many demagogues do), but one that sees an optimistic future that can be achieved through a change in priorities. The Left can never win an election on foreign policy, because they will always be perceived as weak and should be. (Sure, a candidate can lie like Kennedy about a false missile gap, but in the end, the Democrats are the party of a world reprieve after the Cuban Missile Crisis while the Republicans are the party of Iraq and the bombing of Cambodia.) The Democrats, due their consideration of issues and the failure to consider brute force as necessary, are the better party. But they do not make people feel safe. They need to focus on what they do best. I hate to use a cliched line, but it's still the economy stupid!
Additional articles on this topic will appear periodically in the lead up to the mid-term election.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Saturday, April 15, 2006
A "Wedding Gift"?
This week's NOW, the newsmagazine on PBS, detailed movements in South Dakota that seek to not only eliminate abortion (as they have just succeeded in doing) but also to impose an agenda of abstinence. As part of this latter effort, groups have established "purity balls" where young girls (it does always seem to be girls for some reason) pledge abstinence until, get this, "the day when they give themselves as wedding gifts to their husbands".
From ERA to "wedding gifts" in thirty years, women really have come a long way. Regardless of who is behind such efforts (the religious right, simple anti-feminists, prudes, etc), do we really want girls believing they are gifts to their future husbands? Here we go again with the glorification of female virginity, to such an extent that it has regained its place as a prize, a gift. Abstinence, of course, goes hand-in-hand with this approach. And, as a result, the use of contraceptive is vilified.
I see two ramifications of such a policy. First, young people become ignorant about sexuality and protection. Some studies have indicated that leads to increased STD infection rates, for the uninformed do not use condoms. In other cases, because vaginal sex is not an option, teenagers choose alternative routes of gratification. The other result may be far worse: young girls connect their importance with their sexual value. If the paramount moment of their lives is giving their virginity as a gift to their husband, then do they not associate sexuality with their chief role in society? It sounds paradoxical to the goals of the program but it may one of its chief unintended consequences.
With increased sexual imagery in the media, the means of exchange between individuals has increasingly been predicated on sexual identity. Mix this atmosphere with a program that rises to highest heights female sexuality and you have a problem. A girl's body becomes her chief commodity, more than her mind, her ambitions, her other skills. While men receive their wives are gifts, their sexuality seems to matter far less; their commodity, of course, is that they earn money for a family. Essentially, this desire to emphasis "purity" reasserts the gender roles of past centuries and subordinates females indefinitely. It also limits control of women over their own pleasure. But maybe that's the goal...
Young girls have many pressures placed upon them by peers and the images of sexuality that surround them. Instead of saving them, abstinence programs only makes their lives more difficult. For one, that are taught not to participate. On the other hand, though, they are told that their body is their greatest gift. Cognitive dissonance ensues. What happens in several cases is that teenage girls eventually give their body up. But when they do so, they are more likely to be unprotected or engage in untraditional sexual practices, those that have risen in popularity over the last three decades.
Their bodies of course are their chief means of social advance; the purity balls have told them so. So, in essence, they have the effect of degrading women's rights and hampering a woman's ability to succeed in society. But in an age where women are increasingly falling back on their traditional roles, maybe this isn't so surprising after all. It just has the unintended consequences, like blow jobs.
Update (5/7) - An article, "Contra-Contraception", from The New York Times Magazine explores similar topics to this one.
From ERA to "wedding gifts" in thirty years, women really have come a long way. Regardless of who is behind such efforts (the religious right, simple anti-feminists, prudes, etc), do we really want girls believing they are gifts to their future husbands? Here we go again with the glorification of female virginity, to such an extent that it has regained its place as a prize, a gift. Abstinence, of course, goes hand-in-hand with this approach. And, as a result, the use of contraceptive is vilified.
I see two ramifications of such a policy. First, young people become ignorant about sexuality and protection. Some studies have indicated that leads to increased STD infection rates, for the uninformed do not use condoms. In other cases, because vaginal sex is not an option, teenagers choose alternative routes of gratification. The other result may be far worse: young girls connect their importance with their sexual value. If the paramount moment of their lives is giving their virginity as a gift to their husband, then do they not associate sexuality with their chief role in society? It sounds paradoxical to the goals of the program but it may one of its chief unintended consequences.
With increased sexual imagery in the media, the means of exchange between individuals has increasingly been predicated on sexual identity. Mix this atmosphere with a program that rises to highest heights female sexuality and you have a problem. A girl's body becomes her chief commodity, more than her mind, her ambitions, her other skills. While men receive their wives are gifts, their sexuality seems to matter far less; their commodity, of course, is that they earn money for a family. Essentially, this desire to emphasis "purity" reasserts the gender roles of past centuries and subordinates females indefinitely. It also limits control of women over their own pleasure. But maybe that's the goal...
Young girls have many pressures placed upon them by peers and the images of sexuality that surround them. Instead of saving them, abstinence programs only makes their lives more difficult. For one, that are taught not to participate. On the other hand, though, they are told that their body is their greatest gift. Cognitive dissonance ensues. What happens in several cases is that teenage girls eventually give their body up. But when they do so, they are more likely to be unprotected or engage in untraditional sexual practices, those that have risen in popularity over the last three decades.
Their bodies of course are their chief means of social advance; the purity balls have told them so. So, in essence, they have the effect of degrading women's rights and hampering a woman's ability to succeed in society. But in an age where women are increasingly falling back on their traditional roles, maybe this isn't so surprising after all. It just has the unintended consequences, like blow jobs.
Update (5/7) - An article, "Contra-Contraception", from The New York Times Magazine explores similar topics to this one.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Oops! Wrong Country!
Three years after the short-lived US-Iraq War of 2003, a new enemy of "world freedom" has sprung up: Iran. This neighbor to the debacle-that-is-Iraq has been working on its nuclear program in recent years, after some help from our current ally Pakistan's mad scientist Abdul Qameer Khan. This program, in the eyes of the U.S., threatens the security of the world, because Iran will (not may) choose to make nuclear weapons. Iran, however, claims that they seek merely to use the program for peaceful purposes, in accordance with the NPT. (The U.S. is currently undermining the same treaty by allowing one nation that has skirted it--India--to have access to its nukes.)
But Iran is not truly a new enemy. In fact, for the U.S., that nation is a relatively old one. Before the Reagan government sold it arms in exchange for hostages (and to finance the Contras), Iran was a menace--kidnapping US citizens and bolstering Hezbollah in Lebanon. In the early '80s, they were feared. But after the Iran-Iraq War, in which we essentially supported both countries, our gaze shifted mainly to Sadam Hussein. But with the former dictator downgraded to a contemptable court-room presence, we have set our sights on our older nemesis.
While we invaded Iraq, partially de-stabilized the region, and scared the nuclear-program out of Libya, Iran worried about its own security and intensified nuclear experimentation. U.S. troops are right next to their country, no kidding their frightened. Before the U.S. invasion/occupation of their neighbor, Iran was leaning toward increased democracy--its president of several years, Mohammed Khatami, was a moderating influence and the mullahs were being tamed as much as possible. For some unknown reason, however, the country began to experience problems in 2003. The mullahs began a crackdown on elections and many moderate officials resigned in protest. In the past three years, the situation has only grown worse. Now, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes a provocative remark daily and the U.S. responds with condemnation. Relations between Iran and the West is the perhaps the worst it has been in 25 years.
Still, with all the controversy over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the U.S. government has refused to negotiate with the country. Instead, they have simply backed the efforts of Britain, France, and Germany. Now would be the time for U.S. to take some intiative. Furthermore, in the days following 9/11 (and in the report about the events), many spoke about the need for better human intelligence; now would be the time for that to come to fruition. In the case of Iraq, intelligence was manipulated and botched; we launched a preemptive strike, invaded a country without any clear and present danger to the U.S. Such an act is against international law. We do not want to repeat this mistake in Iran--a larger, more heavily armed and infuential state. Accurate intelligence is essential in gaging the intentions of Tehran.
No one is entirely sure what Iran is planning for their newly discovered ability to enrich uranium. Yet, according the Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, the U.S. government is currently planning for the possibility of targeted nuclear attacks against Iran to destroy any potential weapons program. Such consideration is madness, while the emphasis on the military is premature. Diplomacy must prevail. The international community can ensure a peaceful resolution to this situation, if the U.S. will allow this happen.
But Iran is not truly a new enemy. In fact, for the U.S., that nation is a relatively old one. Before the Reagan government sold it arms in exchange for hostages (and to finance the Contras), Iran was a menace--kidnapping US citizens and bolstering Hezbollah in Lebanon. In the early '80s, they were feared. But after the Iran-Iraq War, in which we essentially supported both countries, our gaze shifted mainly to Sadam Hussein. But with the former dictator downgraded to a contemptable court-room presence, we have set our sights on our older nemesis.
While we invaded Iraq, partially de-stabilized the region, and scared the nuclear-program out of Libya, Iran worried about its own security and intensified nuclear experimentation. U.S. troops are right next to their country, no kidding their frightened. Before the U.S. invasion/occupation of their neighbor, Iran was leaning toward increased democracy--its president of several years, Mohammed Khatami, was a moderating influence and the mullahs were being tamed as much as possible. For some unknown reason, however, the country began to experience problems in 2003. The mullahs began a crackdown on elections and many moderate officials resigned in protest. In the past three years, the situation has only grown worse. Now, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes a provocative remark daily and the U.S. responds with condemnation. Relations between Iran and the West is the perhaps the worst it has been in 25 years.
Still, with all the controversy over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the U.S. government has refused to negotiate with the country. Instead, they have simply backed the efforts of Britain, France, and Germany. Now would be the time for U.S. to take some intiative. Furthermore, in the days following 9/11 (and in the report about the events), many spoke about the need for better human intelligence; now would be the time for that to come to fruition. In the case of Iraq, intelligence was manipulated and botched; we launched a preemptive strike, invaded a country without any clear and present danger to the U.S. Such an act is against international law. We do not want to repeat this mistake in Iran--a larger, more heavily armed and infuential state. Accurate intelligence is essential in gaging the intentions of Tehran.
No one is entirely sure what Iran is planning for their newly discovered ability to enrich uranium. Yet, according the Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, the U.S. government is currently planning for the possibility of targeted nuclear attacks against Iran to destroy any potential weapons program. Such consideration is madness, while the emphasis on the military is premature. Diplomacy must prevail. The international community can ensure a peaceful resolution to this situation, if the U.S. will allow this happen.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
What about 9/11?
Although one could find many ills caused by the U.S. military action in Iraq, this conquest has been beneficial for the Bush administration as a diversion from 9/11 and the real threat to this country.
Many commentators have rightly noted that our presence in Iraq has weakened our military's ability to respond to other threats, allowed al-Qaeda to use it as a rallying cry and recruiting boon, and emboldened North Korea and Iran. But for the Republicans in power, it has also provided a needed distraction. The fact stills remains that 9/11 happened under Bush's watch. And, no matter how many attacks Ashcroft and other officials supposedly thwarted, 9/11 still happened. According to Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, and Bob Woodward (in their respective books), the administration did not adequately focus on terrorists and paid more attention to Iraq and other issues. Clarke was surprised at the executive branch's unwillingness to place appropriate resources on the matter and we all remember that August briefing that Bush officials ignored. To be sure, the Clinton administration bears some of the burden, but 9/11 plan still unfolded over 9 months of Bush, a period that included many warning signs coming into the CIA and FBI.
Some may say that this is history--and it is. But one of the purposes of history is to understand how the past functioned. We can also see current motives in coordination with past flaws. The Bush administration may be waging a widely misnamed "war on terror" but much of this looks simply like traditional military tactics combined with secrecy and torture. More than an actual policy, the war on terror is a justification--for domestic spying, for torture, and for the supremacy of the executive. A real "war on terror", that is a policy that seeks to prevent future attacks and to destabilize terror networks, would have done many things differently.
Firstly, such a policy may include the large-scale recruitment (and/or training) of Arab speakers. They can be used for intelligence gather and spying operations. Secondly, protection of our most vulnerable targets would be emphasized; these include increased port security (that means more money for the coast guard, not nativist insecurity over an Arab company running our ports), increased protection of chemical plants and nuclear reactors, as well as an effective screening policy that relies on innovative research and not wholesale denial. Moreover, such an anti-terror policy might seek to do something about nuclear proliferation, since it is the most powerful threat. Instead of eschewing the Non-Proliferation Treaty (as Bush did in 2001) or endorsing India's illegal nuclear program, Bush could have made strides in affirming the worldwide need to control (and never use) nuclear weapons. The administration's rhetoric on nuclear weapons appears closer to Goldwater than anyone else, and who can forget the false mushroom cloud references. Bush and his cohorts lack the necessary seriousness and vigilance than comes with a nuclear-armed reality.
Finally, a war on terror would include a campaign to change the world's image of America. If al-Qaeda was raging against western abuses of the political kind (and don't kid yourself and say that it's simply our way of life), then maybe we should begin to understand how people like them think. One important way to control this problem is by eliminating the demand, just as is the case with drugs. If we can find a way to lessen the demand for bin Laden's hateful ideas, then we may be on the path to lessening the use of terror. Instead of doing this, we inflame the Arab and Muslim world by torturing its citizens, invading one of its countries, showing wholesale indifference toward their feelings, and trying to export our way of life. In fact, many Muslims see "democracy" and "freedom" as antithetical to Islam itself. It's not that they "hate freedom," it just that they believe it to be an epithet for Western decadence or chaos. Many of the U.S. foreign actions since 9/11 constitutes not a war on terror, but a war that bolsters the U.S. economy, shrouds the executive in the justification of wartime secrecy, and ultimately avoids the very thing that attacked us nearly five years ago.
We must remember that the only unprovoked attack on the U.S. was that of September 11th. Even that action by bin Laden could be viewed as response to U.S. attacks against him in Sudan. But bin Laden's actions were criminal in its targeting of civilians. It also caused the U.S. to enter into a new era. But we failed to understand 9/11 and our government has failed us in its response to that horrifying event. The Bush administration has been thoroughly reactionary, preempting our freedoms in the name of security that they fail to provide. I may posit that the war on terror is merely a justification for secrecy, a secrecy that shrouds the administration's sins, such as their failure to heed the al-Qaeda threat as well as their pre-9/11 emphasis on Iraq and mid-East restructuring to ensure oil flow and Israeli safety. Significantly, until now, the war issue has also been used by Republicans to win campaigns. Through emphasizing their claim to protect the U.S., the always-trying-to-seem-tough Bush (and those who rallied behind him) won elections. The distraction from the the real threat (that of terrorists and a radicalized Muslim populace) has not only weakened the U.S. but provided the Bush administration with cover. Unfortunately, we will suffer these mistakes for years to come.
Many commentators have rightly noted that our presence in Iraq has weakened our military's ability to respond to other threats, allowed al-Qaeda to use it as a rallying cry and recruiting boon, and emboldened North Korea and Iran. But for the Republicans in power, it has also provided a needed distraction. The fact stills remains that 9/11 happened under Bush's watch. And, no matter how many attacks Ashcroft and other officials supposedly thwarted, 9/11 still happened. According to Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, and Bob Woodward (in their respective books), the administration did not adequately focus on terrorists and paid more attention to Iraq and other issues. Clarke was surprised at the executive branch's unwillingness to place appropriate resources on the matter and we all remember that August briefing that Bush officials ignored. To be sure, the Clinton administration bears some of the burden, but 9/11 plan still unfolded over 9 months of Bush, a period that included many warning signs coming into the CIA and FBI.
Some may say that this is history--and it is. But one of the purposes of history is to understand how the past functioned. We can also see current motives in coordination with past flaws. The Bush administration may be waging a widely misnamed "war on terror" but much of this looks simply like traditional military tactics combined with secrecy and torture. More than an actual policy, the war on terror is a justification--for domestic spying, for torture, and for the supremacy of the executive. A real "war on terror", that is a policy that seeks to prevent future attacks and to destabilize terror networks, would have done many things differently.
Firstly, such a policy may include the large-scale recruitment (and/or training) of Arab speakers. They can be used for intelligence gather and spying operations. Secondly, protection of our most vulnerable targets would be emphasized; these include increased port security (that means more money for the coast guard, not nativist insecurity over an Arab company running our ports), increased protection of chemical plants and nuclear reactors, as well as an effective screening policy that relies on innovative research and not wholesale denial. Moreover, such an anti-terror policy might seek to do something about nuclear proliferation, since it is the most powerful threat. Instead of eschewing the Non-Proliferation Treaty (as Bush did in 2001) or endorsing India's illegal nuclear program, Bush could have made strides in affirming the worldwide need to control (and never use) nuclear weapons. The administration's rhetoric on nuclear weapons appears closer to Goldwater than anyone else, and who can forget the false mushroom cloud references. Bush and his cohorts lack the necessary seriousness and vigilance than comes with a nuclear-armed reality.
Finally, a war on terror would include a campaign to change the world's image of America. If al-Qaeda was raging against western abuses of the political kind (and don't kid yourself and say that it's simply our way of life), then maybe we should begin to understand how people like them think. One important way to control this problem is by eliminating the demand, just as is the case with drugs. If we can find a way to lessen the demand for bin Laden's hateful ideas, then we may be on the path to lessening the use of terror. Instead of doing this, we inflame the Arab and Muslim world by torturing its citizens, invading one of its countries, showing wholesale indifference toward their feelings, and trying to export our way of life. In fact, many Muslims see "democracy" and "freedom" as antithetical to Islam itself. It's not that they "hate freedom," it just that they believe it to be an epithet for Western decadence or chaos. Many of the U.S. foreign actions since 9/11 constitutes not a war on terror, but a war that bolsters the U.S. economy, shrouds the executive in the justification of wartime secrecy, and ultimately avoids the very thing that attacked us nearly five years ago.
We must remember that the only unprovoked attack on the U.S. was that of September 11th. Even that action by bin Laden could be viewed as response to U.S. attacks against him in Sudan. But bin Laden's actions were criminal in its targeting of civilians. It also caused the U.S. to enter into a new era. But we failed to understand 9/11 and our government has failed us in its response to that horrifying event. The Bush administration has been thoroughly reactionary, preempting our freedoms in the name of security that they fail to provide. I may posit that the war on terror is merely a justification for secrecy, a secrecy that shrouds the administration's sins, such as their failure to heed the al-Qaeda threat as well as their pre-9/11 emphasis on Iraq and mid-East restructuring to ensure oil flow and Israeli safety. Significantly, until now, the war issue has also been used by Republicans to win campaigns. Through emphasizing their claim to protect the U.S., the always-trying-to-seem-tough Bush (and those who rallied behind him) won elections. The distraction from the the real threat (that of terrorists and a radicalized Muslim populace) has not only weakened the U.S. but provided the Bush administration with cover. Unfortunately, we will suffer these mistakes for years to come.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Time to Check the Power of Ascendant King George
Despite having one of the weakest mandates of any American president (except perhaps Ford), George Bush has decided that he possesses all the powers of the position and more. Not simply does he have those powers outlined in the constitution, but he claims implied ones stemming from his "war president" status. Some Bush admirers may be tempted to compare him to another president that had a weak mandate, Abraham Lincoln. As the 16th U.S. president, Lincoln asserted near dictatorial powers in preservation of the Union. He was rebuked a year after his death in the famous Supreme Court case, Ex Parte Milligan, which condemned not only martial law but specifically his imprisonment of so called enemy combatants without due process. Ultimately, Lincoln was declared wrong in actions. But many forget that he went through Congress to suspend habeus corpus. (Bush has not bothered with that kind of openness.) And, did not Lincoln have a higher moral imperative during the Civil War, a crisis that saw the U.S. itself divided?
Bush certainly thinks that this "war on terror" brings a similar situation. In this apparent Age of Terror, he feels that looming threats grant him overarching powers, such the unchecked detention of "enemy combatants" (even some who are US citizens), the surveillance sans FISA of American citizens, and the ability to manipulate Congress's torture ban through an executive signing statement. (Not to mention using that same final tactic over 700 other times, nearly more than all other past presidents combined.) King George, as we may rightly call him, thinks he can do whatever he wants. But his "higher moral imperative" is deeply questionable.
September 11th, 2001 supposedly changed everything and there's certainly no denying its scale. But this up-to-now isolated incident has yielded immerse violence directed by the U.S. against other parts of the world. The aftermath of regime-toppling actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost thousands of civilian lives and over 2,500 U.S. lives, not to mention 20,000 or more casualties. These actions, their collateral damage, and the U.S. losses are justified in the name of another moral imperative, that of spreading freedom and ending the terror. But our targets have been selective to such a point that they hypocritical. Other nations suffer from intense dictatorships and several also oppress women in ways tantamount to those under the Taliban. (Not too mention that several other states do much more to aid terrorist networks.) But no other nations have been so prominently hostile as Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides Bush's personal gripe with Iraq, the exiles from the country were even more persistent than the old Cubans in pushing for regime-change; and, within the Bush administration, they found friendly ears to give them a whole-hearted listen. Meanwhile, Afghanistan became a (semi-appropriate) scapegoat for our anger and impotency following the September 11th attacks. We regained our self esteem once with this initial war. And then, when things were looking grim again, we boosted it again with a second military action. (How happy we were when Bush declared Mission Accomplished! nearly three years ago.) Now we have post-partum depression for what we have birthed. Afghanistan is a corrupt, poppy-going warlord state where the Taliban still operates. And Iraq teeters on the brink of civil war, while much of its infrastructure remains destroyed. All this and Al Qaeda has two events that bolster their recruiting drives. To top it off, we may be growing home-grown Iraqi anti-Americanism as well.
But our losses are not limited to these chaotic countries that we've created. Our legitimacy and power in the world is as weak as it was in 1973. Not only do we look foolish for our actions, but our economy has been desperately hurt by the war debt from Iraq. We are in a unique position of economic weakness on the world stage. We rely on foreign nations (mainly Asian and Middle-Eastern) to finance our debt, and oil has increasing become a more problematic lifeblood. Another terrorist attack in the U.S. could theoretically cripple the American economy, as could instability in Saudi Arabia or Iraq.
Meanwhile, as we paid attention to our "War of Terror" (as excusively "fought" in Afghanistan and Iraq) we ignored growing problems in North Korea and Iran. Our negotiations with each nation fell apart as a result of wars and our misplaced resources; this allowed these two "axis of evil" nations to buy time, four years in fact. In that time, the threat poses by each country has multiplied many times. We may no longer be able to diplomatically restain them. And we have neither the stategy-advantage nor the human resources to fight a war with either state.
Still, in spite of all these faults, maybe Bush does still have the moral imperative to do as he pleases. Maybe all these points of mine are sidenotes to the main issue, digressions you might say. Perhaps. But the President has not shown that he is using all his powers to protect the U.S from the kind of attack that would justify his power. Ports as well as chemical and nuclear plants have not been sufficiently protected, even though they represent some of the worst case scenarios involving terrorist attacks. Meanwhile, the recent decision to help India acquire more nuclear arms not only increases the chance proliferation among other countries, but it represented a rebuke to the Pakastani self esteem. Internal criticism in that state could destabilize the Musharaff regime and lead to hard-line, unfriendly Islamic control of the country. On the domestic side, much of what Bush has done (wiretaps, detention, torture) have not yielded certifiable results. Our country has not been attacked since 9/11 but this may be out of sheer luck. Remember, eight years elapsed between the two attacks on the WTC in New York. Not only do the Bush administration's tactics cross the civil liberties line, they have also not been proven effective.
My greatest fear is that Bush is not committing a political ploy with his power grab (as any token third-world dictactor), but that he actually believes he has this so-called "moral imperative". (I can think of another famous leader who had a similar drive.) If that's the case, no logic or reason will stop him; he is driven by faith in himself, not by the events of the world around him. The only way to stop him is through the Constitutional system of checks-and-balances. Congress must stand up, as should the US Supreme Court. If they both together challenge his power, he will be forced to yield his executive supremacy. If our country fails to do this, the Imperial Presidency (something feared 33 years ago during Nixon's reign) may finally become a reality.
Bush certainly thinks that this "war on terror" brings a similar situation. In this apparent Age of Terror, he feels that looming threats grant him overarching powers, such the unchecked detention of "enemy combatants" (even some who are US citizens), the surveillance sans FISA of American citizens, and the ability to manipulate Congress's torture ban through an executive signing statement. (Not to mention using that same final tactic over 700 other times, nearly more than all other past presidents combined.) King George, as we may rightly call him, thinks he can do whatever he wants. But his "higher moral imperative" is deeply questionable.
September 11th, 2001 supposedly changed everything and there's certainly no denying its scale. But this up-to-now isolated incident has yielded immerse violence directed by the U.S. against other parts of the world. The aftermath of regime-toppling actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost thousands of civilian lives and over 2,500 U.S. lives, not to mention 20,000 or more casualties. These actions, their collateral damage, and the U.S. losses are justified in the name of another moral imperative, that of spreading freedom and ending the terror. But our targets have been selective to such a point that they hypocritical. Other nations suffer from intense dictatorships and several also oppress women in ways tantamount to those under the Taliban. (Not too mention that several other states do much more to aid terrorist networks.) But no other nations have been so prominently hostile as Iraq and Afghanistan. Besides Bush's personal gripe with Iraq, the exiles from the country were even more persistent than the old Cubans in pushing for regime-change; and, within the Bush administration, they found friendly ears to give them a whole-hearted listen. Meanwhile, Afghanistan became a (semi-appropriate) scapegoat for our anger and impotency following the September 11th attacks. We regained our self esteem once with this initial war. And then, when things were looking grim again, we boosted it again with a second military action. (How happy we were when Bush declared Mission Accomplished! nearly three years ago.) Now we have post-partum depression for what we have birthed. Afghanistan is a corrupt, poppy-going warlord state where the Taliban still operates. And Iraq teeters on the brink of civil war, while much of its infrastructure remains destroyed. All this and Al Qaeda has two events that bolster their recruiting drives. To top it off, we may be growing home-grown Iraqi anti-Americanism as well.
But our losses are not limited to these chaotic countries that we've created. Our legitimacy and power in the world is as weak as it was in 1973. Not only do we look foolish for our actions, but our economy has been desperately hurt by the war debt from Iraq. We are in a unique position of economic weakness on the world stage. We rely on foreign nations (mainly Asian and Middle-Eastern) to finance our debt, and oil has increasing become a more problematic lifeblood. Another terrorist attack in the U.S. could theoretically cripple the American economy, as could instability in Saudi Arabia or Iraq.
Meanwhile, as we paid attention to our "War of Terror" (as excusively "fought" in Afghanistan and Iraq) we ignored growing problems in North Korea and Iran. Our negotiations with each nation fell apart as a result of wars and our misplaced resources; this allowed these two "axis of evil" nations to buy time, four years in fact. In that time, the threat poses by each country has multiplied many times. We may no longer be able to diplomatically restain them. And we have neither the stategy-advantage nor the human resources to fight a war with either state.
Still, in spite of all these faults, maybe Bush does still have the moral imperative to do as he pleases. Maybe all these points of mine are sidenotes to the main issue, digressions you might say. Perhaps. But the President has not shown that he is using all his powers to protect the U.S from the kind of attack that would justify his power. Ports as well as chemical and nuclear plants have not been sufficiently protected, even though they represent some of the worst case scenarios involving terrorist attacks. Meanwhile, the recent decision to help India acquire more nuclear arms not only increases the chance proliferation among other countries, but it represented a rebuke to the Pakastani self esteem. Internal criticism in that state could destabilize the Musharaff regime and lead to hard-line, unfriendly Islamic control of the country. On the domestic side, much of what Bush has done (wiretaps, detention, torture) have not yielded certifiable results. Our country has not been attacked since 9/11 but this may be out of sheer luck. Remember, eight years elapsed between the two attacks on the WTC in New York. Not only do the Bush administration's tactics cross the civil liberties line, they have also not been proven effective.
My greatest fear is that Bush is not committing a political ploy with his power grab (as any token third-world dictactor), but that he actually believes he has this so-called "moral imperative". (I can think of another famous leader who had a similar drive.) If that's the case, no logic or reason will stop him; he is driven by faith in himself, not by the events of the world around him. The only way to stop him is through the Constitutional system of checks-and-balances. Congress must stand up, as should the US Supreme Court. If they both together challenge his power, he will be forced to yield his executive supremacy. If our country fails to do this, the Imperial Presidency (something feared 33 years ago during Nixon's reign) may finally become a reality.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Continuing Death in Darfur...and Now Chad
New York Times Columnist Nicholas Kristof's op-ed today revisits Darfur and the death sentences that Sudan's government has imposed on thousands of black Africans. He notes that the Khartoum government and their proxies, the janjaweed militias, have crossed the border into Chad and begun razing the ad hoc villages that the refugees have created for themselves. This is horrible not just on the sheer level of how it affects these people, but in that may also tigger an actual war between Sudan and Chad. Currently, each government is backing the rebels in their neighbor's country. The whole thing is a mess.
Two years ago, I argued in a college newsppaer that the world must start paying attention to
In the summer of 2004, I felt some degree of hope that
I still remember talking with the editor of an alternative newspaper and asking him why he had not paid more attention to
One of the common myths is that
Even in terms of the agreement with the Southern rebels, the compromise leader selected from the South—an Ivy-league educated man—died in mysterious circumstances only a couple months after his entry into the government. This again shows that
What’s stopping intervention?
As a result of the
Some will argue that the same logic and role that brought us into
It’s too late, we’ve screwed up. The world has watched while a hundred thousand die. But there’s no reason to turn away forever from our moral lapse. Instead, we can save the millions of others clinging to life, hoping for some miraculous help from abroad. It’s damn time that, as I said two years ago, we give it to them.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
An Upset Win for CRASH ?
It's been about 3 and half hours since Crash unexpectedly defeated Brokeback Mountain for the Best Picture crown. Nikki Finke, on her LA Weekly blog, gives us a big "told ya so"! She wrote an article a month ago about the Brokeback backlash, that is the whispers that homophobic male Academy members refused to see Mr. Ledger and Mr. Gyllenhaal rought it up. As a result, she predicted that less-controversial (and certainly not gay) Crash would end up with the Academy's top prize. She was right, but she was also wrong. Around the same time as Finke's article, Larry Gross wrote about how Brokeback wasn't really all that gay in the first place. (The old: I'm gayer than you. Sorta like: I'm blacker than you.) But authencity aside, Gross made some good points. Most of the people involved in Brokeback tried to sell it as a love story that transcends its gay roots. It may be that they had little personal stake in the film; none of the filmmakers or actors are gay. I tend to think that Brokeback comes up short, both in its gay rights campaign and in its aesthetic virtues. It has a highly effective score (honored tonight), some solid performances, but it's essentially a closet story and a slow one at that. And, for a gay rights, hearing "I ain't no queer" doesn't really help in any context.
So Brokeback wasn't that gay and it lost. No, I am not trying to prove any cause-and-effect, but I wouldn't dare say that its defeat is purely a result a homophobia in the Academy, though this could have partially contributed. It lost because it was slow and because it wasn't the best film of the year. Crash may not have been either, but it was set in L.A. Plus, it featured everyone's favorite black actor of the moment Don Cheadle (deserving so I must say) and a dozen other sigificant actors. What's not to love? If this film came out in Decemeber, no one would question it's ascendence. Another side story is the campaign launched by Lions Gate. While Universal put forward expensive mini-books in the trades, Lions Gate responded by showcasing the film itself to every member of nearly every significant guild. If memory serves, about 20,000 copies. That's one sizable campaign. And they were helped by the fact that so many of those people, and the Academy members specifically, live in Los Angeles. What Crash does is provide a touchstone for Angelenos? They applaud their own understanding of the situation. (Yeah, I know about this racism, I LIVE HERE!) If the Oscars are a self-congraduating affair (they are), then Crash is the ultimate self-congraduating film---celebrating their star city, a diverse colleciton of film stars, and everyone's favorite million dollar baby Paul Haggis, not to mention social issues and, lest I forget, Don Cheadle.
Sure, tonight's Oscars were about George Clooney; no one's name was dropped more --- even the 3-6 Mafia got in on the action. But Crash was part of the side story, of course. It won the biggest prize and upset the most-joked-about film of year. Hopefully, those will now go by the wayside. Hollywood has selected a pretty good film for its showcase and one that has the potential to connect with a mass audience if people seek it out. Brokeback doesn't have that (business in the deep south, for example), nor does Capote, Good Night, and Good Luck, and Munich. All of the latter films are either too slight or obscure. Crash has the greatest universal relevance and it comes as no surprise then that it's the least subtle. No film this year pulls the strings greater than Crash, a quality which is both laudable and detestable. I do really appeciate the film, but I find it's stab at social issues to be more duh! than revelation. And it makes us feel good at any right. We're all racist--and maybe that's okay. The only problem is that it's not.
So Brokeback wasn't that gay and it lost. No, I am not trying to prove any cause-and-effect, but I wouldn't dare say that its defeat is purely a result a homophobia in the Academy, though this could have partially contributed. It lost because it was slow and because it wasn't the best film of the year. Crash may not have been either, but it was set in L.A. Plus, it featured everyone's favorite black actor of the moment Don Cheadle (deserving so I must say) and a dozen other sigificant actors. What's not to love? If this film came out in Decemeber, no one would question it's ascendence. Another side story is the campaign launched by Lions Gate. While Universal put forward expensive mini-books in the trades, Lions Gate responded by showcasing the film itself to every member of nearly every significant guild. If memory serves, about 20,000 copies. That's one sizable campaign. And they were helped by the fact that so many of those people, and the Academy members specifically, live in Los Angeles. What Crash does is provide a touchstone for Angelenos? They applaud their own understanding of the situation. (Yeah, I know about this racism, I LIVE HERE!) If the Oscars are a self-congraduating affair (they are), then Crash is the ultimate self-congraduating film---celebrating their star city, a diverse colleciton of film stars, and everyone's favorite million dollar baby Paul Haggis, not to mention social issues and, lest I forget, Don Cheadle.
Sure, tonight's Oscars were about George Clooney; no one's name was dropped more --- even the 3-6 Mafia got in on the action. But Crash was part of the side story, of course. It won the biggest prize and upset the most-joked-about film of year. Hopefully, those will now go by the wayside. Hollywood has selected a pretty good film for its showcase and one that has the potential to connect with a mass audience if people seek it out. Brokeback doesn't have that (business in the deep south, for example), nor does Capote, Good Night, and Good Luck, and Munich. All of the latter films are either too slight or obscure. Crash has the greatest universal relevance and it comes as no surprise then that it's the least subtle. No film this year pulls the strings greater than Crash, a quality which is both laudable and detestable. I do really appeciate the film, but I find it's stab at social issues to be more duh! than revelation. And it makes us feel good at any right. We're all racist--and maybe that's okay. The only problem is that it's not.
THE RETURN
Yeah, it's been about 10 months since I last posted. It wasn't like this log was all that interesting for the five or six post before that. But I hope in the future that this will become a place of interesting commentary about everything. Yes, everything. It will be slanted toward political and entertainment commentary (much like something like Drudge, in subjects tackled if not ideology), but I will try to cover several different pages. I am giving up on the idea of formality and, instead, I will just write whatever, whenever, in whichever format I desire at the time. So, there it is. - (e)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
