03 May 2009
Jack Kemp
In what accidentally seems like further proof of the passing of an era, Jack Kemp succumbed to cancer on Saturday at age 73. The former Buffalo Bills quarterback was strongly identified with supply-side economics, and was co-author of the legislation that enacted Ronald Reagan's tax cuts. Like Reagan, he strove to embody an optimistic can-do attitude, and appeared to be sincere about it. He tried hard to reach out to minorities, and I recall it being said of him that, by virtue of his football experience, he had probably showered with more black men than many other Republicans had even shaken hands with, and thus couldn't be presumed to be racist like many of his comrades from further south. He made a try for the presidency as part of the attempt to bring down George H.W. Bush in 1988, but the closest he came was as Bob Dole's running mate in 1996. His was the generation of Republicans that thought that free enterprise could solve all problems, or at least all problems we mortals had powers to solve. His illness explains why we hadn't heard from him lately, but one wonders what he'd say about the economic crisis, whether he'd blame it on government policies, as so many other Republicans do, or whether he was open-minded enough to realize that some enterprises had been perhaps too free in recent times. But if we are seeing the end of the Reaganist era, then Kemp was dying with the world he helped to make.
02 May 2009
A Republican "Listening Tour"
Jeb Bush gave voice to a Republican party in panic mode this weekend when he said, comparing his party to the Democrats, that "you can't beat something with nothing." He's part of a group of party leaders hitting the road on a self-described "listening tour" in search of ideas from the common people. That's not a bad idea in theory, but the usefulness of the venture depends on whom you listen to. Of course, if we accept the premise that Republicans stand for something specific, then there's an inherent limit to how much they can listen to everyone and still retain their distinctive position. The challenge in that case is to listen to people presumably demanding what Republicans have in recent history refused to deliver and to find a way to accommodate them without completely compromising the party's professed principles. A pragmatic party would listen, explain how President Obama and the Democrats can't give the people what they want, and propose their own way how. The question now is whether the Republicans are so paralyzed by ideology or so terrified of the radio talkers that pragmatism becomes impossible for them. An assertion that "we've got nothing" signals that Jeb, at least, may think that Reaganism is played out. Whether people like him can gather enough forces or donations to take the party over may decide whether the GOP spends another long period in the wilderness, at least as far as Congress is concerned, as they did for most of the time from the 1950s through 1994. That's a more realistic prospect than the death of the party itself, as some people have predicted since Senator Specter's defection. As long as the Republican party exists as a fundraising institution that can finance local campaigns across the country, it will remain a major party. Whether enough disaffected people, moderate or conservative, will break away to create a new fundraising apparatus for a would-be third party is another story.
30 April 2009
Amoklauf on Wheels?
I don't trust my German enough to attempt to coin a word for today's vehicular mayhem in the Netherlands, and Dutch would be more appropriate, anyway. What we have here, from what I've heard, is the typical disgruntled guy who'd recently lost his job. Whether he was trying to do damage to the queen's tour bus or simply wanted to crash her party, I can't say. Don't be surprised, however, to hear sarcastic gun nuts say that this proves that we should ban cars.
Liberalism's Future
Liberals can be stereotyped as the people who can't help seeing both sides of every question, or those who are too easily impressed by other people's vehemence, but Alan Wolfe says they need more self-confidence and more pride in liberalism. Those are his parting words at the end of The Future of Liberalism, which is really more a statement of what liberalism is and has been than a program for the future. Because Wolfe identifies liberalism with a capacious openness, and as a proceduralist puts means before ends, it's kind of hard for him to have a program. The most he can do is offer suggestions on how to deal with the obvious issues of the future.
Openness comes into the picture when he discusses religion, immigration and globalization. Predictably enough, he comes down on the mean old atheists who can't see anything of value coming from religious faith. He knocks Hitchens, Dawkins et al for intolerant arrogance and makes much of the fact that some people are led to liberalism by religious conviction. Wolfe claims greater acquaintance with believers and from his experience argues that, in many cases, "their faith had made them far better people, bringing them out of lives of cynicism and loneliness into communion with others," adding, "A society without religious people of this sort would be far more illiberal than one with only a few of them." As for the other kind of religious folk, possibly the majority of them, Wolfe thinks they make good sparring partners. They "give liberals the opportunity to prove just how liberal they are, an opportunity that liberals would be foolish to sacrifice" (184-5).
As far as immigration is concerned, Wolfe at least acknowledges that openness should be mutual. Americans should be open to people from different cultures, but the newcomers should be open to their new host culture. "If the native-born refuse to reach out to newcomers, racism and xenophobia follow," he warns, "But if the newcomers do not reach out to the native-born, exclusion and isolation follow"(206). Wolfe disagrees with "multiculturalists" who believe in preserving the inviolate integrity of every different group, since everyone should be open to change. By extension, assimilation would also be a mutual process, with Americans learning something, one presumes, from Muslim cultures as Muslim immigrants Americanize themselves. In any event, Wolfe would refuse to dismiss any particular group as hopeless or worthless.
On a related point, Wolfe is more enthusiastic about globalization than some liberals. He believes it should be embraced (but regulated) because of the opportunities it creates for everyone. He seems to reject the idea that opportunity for foreigners is automatically a loss for Americans, but admits that globalization can be "as wrenching as it is liberating." Taking a utilitarian view, he suggests that more people on Earth are better off thanks to globalization than they were in the past, and that therefore globalization is good -- again, as long as it is wisely regulated with democratic input. Liberalism must be cosmopolitan rather than nationalistic, however, so denying opportunity to others to protect one's own would be taboo to Wolfe.
Alan Wolfe doesn't speak for an existing liberal establishment. He's tried to define what a true liberal movement should stand for, not what today's self-styled American liberals actually espouse. He sometimes sounds like what some would call a "neo-liberal," and takes positions most professed liberals would oppose, for instance favoring school choice for everyone as a matter of equality. Wolfe's book would be an admirable blueprint for a global liberal movement, but liberals in any given country must please their fellow citizens first in order to get political power. He makes a good case that liberals are almost automatically more competent rulers than Bushite republicans (Hurricane Katrina being exhibit A), but in the absence of a global parliament, liberals anywhere will have to compromise their cosmopolitan principles for the sake of national interests. A more realistic prediction of the future of liberalism would try to recommend the appropriate compromises, but Wolfe seems to prefer the ideal to the real when it comes to the present world. A book like this has its uses, but anyone who reads it must be prepared to argue with it -- and Wolfe, being a liberal, won't mind.
Openness comes into the picture when he discusses religion, immigration and globalization. Predictably enough, he comes down on the mean old atheists who can't see anything of value coming from religious faith. He knocks Hitchens, Dawkins et al for intolerant arrogance and makes much of the fact that some people are led to liberalism by religious conviction. Wolfe claims greater acquaintance with believers and from his experience argues that, in many cases, "their faith had made them far better people, bringing them out of lives of cynicism and loneliness into communion with others," adding, "A society without religious people of this sort would be far more illiberal than one with only a few of them." As for the other kind of religious folk, possibly the majority of them, Wolfe thinks they make good sparring partners. They "give liberals the opportunity to prove just how liberal they are, an opportunity that liberals would be foolish to sacrifice" (184-5).
As far as immigration is concerned, Wolfe at least acknowledges that openness should be mutual. Americans should be open to people from different cultures, but the newcomers should be open to their new host culture. "If the native-born refuse to reach out to newcomers, racism and xenophobia follow," he warns, "But if the newcomers do not reach out to the native-born, exclusion and isolation follow"(206). Wolfe disagrees with "multiculturalists" who believe in preserving the inviolate integrity of every different group, since everyone should be open to change. By extension, assimilation would also be a mutual process, with Americans learning something, one presumes, from Muslim cultures as Muslim immigrants Americanize themselves. In any event, Wolfe would refuse to dismiss any particular group as hopeless or worthless.
On a related point, Wolfe is more enthusiastic about globalization than some liberals. He believes it should be embraced (but regulated) because of the opportunities it creates for everyone. He seems to reject the idea that opportunity for foreigners is automatically a loss for Americans, but admits that globalization can be "as wrenching as it is liberating." Taking a utilitarian view, he suggests that more people on Earth are better off thanks to globalization than they were in the past, and that therefore globalization is good -- again, as long as it is wisely regulated with democratic input. Liberalism must be cosmopolitan rather than nationalistic, however, so denying opportunity to others to protect one's own would be taboo to Wolfe.
Alan Wolfe doesn't speak for an existing liberal establishment. He's tried to define what a true liberal movement should stand for, not what today's self-styled American liberals actually espouse. He sometimes sounds like what some would call a "neo-liberal," and takes positions most professed liberals would oppose, for instance favoring school choice for everyone as a matter of equality. Wolfe's book would be an admirable blueprint for a global liberal movement, but liberals in any given country must please their fellow citizens first in order to get political power. He makes a good case that liberals are almost automatically more competent rulers than Bushite republicans (Hurricane Katrina being exhibit A), but in the absence of a global parliament, liberals anywhere will have to compromise their cosmopolitan principles for the sake of national interests. A more realistic prediction of the future of liberalism would try to recommend the appropriate compromises, but Wolfe seems to prefer the ideal to the real when it comes to the present world. A book like this has its uses, but anyone who reads it must be prepared to argue with it -- and Wolfe, being a liberal, won't mind.
Idiocy Epidemic Hits Egypt
The Israeli public health bureaucracy is inadvertently getting its way as the World Health Organization has announced that it is going to stop using the "swine flu" name for the current virus. The organization reportedly made this decision in order to counter confusion over the public health risk presented by pigs. It's just as likely that the WHO has acted in order to minimize a public health risk to pigs. The announcement follows an order of the Egyptian government to slaughter the country's entire porcine population, even though there was no reason to believe that they carried the flu -- unless pigs have also been travelling to Mexico and back recently. I've also heard that many people are worried about contracting the swine flu by eating pork, as if it were "mad pig" disease.
The WHO has not taken up the Israeli suggestion of "Mexican flu" as a new name for the present epidemic. Instead, we'll all have to remember the dry, unevocative sobriquet of "H1N1 influenza A," which I suppose has the virtue of sounding less scary. Whether the public will embrace this tag is doubtful, but bureaucracies have etiquette to consider.
The WHO has not taken up the Israeli suggestion of "Mexican flu" as a new name for the present epidemic. Instead, we'll all have to remember the dry, unevocative sobriquet of "H1N1 influenza A," which I suppose has the virtue of sounding less scary. Whether the public will embrace this tag is doubtful, but bureaucracies have etiquette to consider.
29 April 2009
Wisdom from Alan Wolfe
I'll have more to say later about the final chapters of The Future of Liberalism, but this quote from Alan Wolfe deserves to stand on its own. You'll find it on page 229.
"Government, in a nutshell, is a synonym for civilization. One can, if one
chooses, imagine a society without it -- this is the favorite pastime of
anarchism, the least important political philosophy of our time -- but the
moment one begins to picture a society in which human needs are met, there
one will find government."
A New "Brown Scare?"
Listen to some Republicans and other reactionaries, and you might believe that stories like this one from the current issue of Newsweek are part of the liberal establishment's attempt to demonize all opposition to the Obama administration. Ever since the appearance of a Homeland Security report this month discussing the possibility of veterans taking up with militia groups, right-wingers have sounded alarms against a new version of what some call a "Brown Scare." While the idea of a "Red Scare" is well known, a "Brown Scare" is less familiar, yet nearly as common, according to some historians. The original Brown Scare took place just before America's entry into World War II, and involved the demonization of anyone who opposed U.S. intervention in the European conflict. Such dissidents, best known now as "isolationists," were accused of being Nazi sympathizers, as some probably were. Other alleged instances of Brown Scares were during the Kennedy administration, when the media supposedly overhyped the menace of entities like the John Birch Society and still more radical groups, and during the Clinton years, when the threat of militias was supposedly blown out of proportion at the expense of more appropriate attention to Muslim groups. These episodes are called "Brown Scares" because they involve right-wing dissidents being equated with Nazis ("brown shirts.")
Sure enough, Newsweek puts white supremacists at the forefront of elements likely to be opposed to the Obama presidency. If anything, there's more emphasis on Klansmen and Nazis, or spinoffs of either, than on the militia bogeymen of the 1990s. You could argue that the article has too narrow a focus because of its concentration on racists, but the other groups will probably see it differently. Because Newsweek emphasizes white supremacists as the face of radical anti-Obamaism, others elements will complain that people will take them to be racists if they oppose Obama just as strongly on anti-liberal or anti-"New World Order" grounds. People like this probably expect to be demonized from the start and are perfectly capable of making any report fit into that scenario.
More conventional rightists have also complained about such reports, as if any attention to right-wing or racist extremism means taking the government's eye off the Islamic ball. A competent government ought to be capable of keeping track of more than one threat, however, and it must be remembered that the worst act of home-grown terrorism in this country's history was the work of a single extremist who was influenced by white supremacism and anti-statist beliefs. If some Americans want to make every Muslim an object of suspicion because the Qur'an supposedly mandates terrorism, then Timothy McVeigh is proof enough to justify close and constant scrutiny of the ideological milieu from which he came, especially at a time in American history when people like him might be most inclined to think that the country has gone to Hell. If right-wingers don't like this, then at least they know how left-wingers have felt for more than a century. If they want people to make more careful distinctions between ideas and violent intentions, they should practice what they now preach.
Sure enough, Newsweek puts white supremacists at the forefront of elements likely to be opposed to the Obama presidency. If anything, there's more emphasis on Klansmen and Nazis, or spinoffs of either, than on the militia bogeymen of the 1990s. You could argue that the article has too narrow a focus because of its concentration on racists, but the other groups will probably see it differently. Because Newsweek emphasizes white supremacists as the face of radical anti-Obamaism, others elements will complain that people will take them to be racists if they oppose Obama just as strongly on anti-liberal or anti-"New World Order" grounds. People like this probably expect to be demonized from the start and are perfectly capable of making any report fit into that scenario.
More conventional rightists have also complained about such reports, as if any attention to right-wing or racist extremism means taking the government's eye off the Islamic ball. A competent government ought to be capable of keeping track of more than one threat, however, and it must be remembered that the worst act of home-grown terrorism in this country's history was the work of a single extremist who was influenced by white supremacism and anti-statist beliefs. If some Americans want to make every Muslim an object of suspicion because the Qur'an supposedly mandates terrorism, then Timothy McVeigh is proof enough to justify close and constant scrutiny of the ideological milieu from which he came, especially at a time in American history when people like him might be most inclined to think that the country has gone to Hell. If right-wingers don't like this, then at least they know how left-wingers have felt for more than a century. If they want people to make more careful distinctions between ideas and violent intentions, they should practice what they now preach.
28 April 2009
Hard Times
I want to mention a strange sight I saw yesterday evening. I was on the bus to Albany when it passed by the stop at the corner of Congress and Third streets, in front of the ruins of a restaurant. On the sidewalk sat a relatively well-dressed man, who appeared to be at least middle-aged, maybe in his sixties. Spread before him on a blanket were wares that a sign declared were for sale. The odd part of it was what he was selling: a box of Corn Flakes; a jar of peanut butter; a bottle of Williams Lectric Shave; a couple of cake pans and a cake mixer. It didn't look like the loot of shoplifting. It was more likely whatever he could spare from his own supplies. How much could he have expected to raise from such sales? What did he need the money for? Was he that hard up for drink or drugs? Something about him made me think not, but I may be more trusting than I should be. Nevertheless, I simply couldn't imagine anyone buying anything from him. At the same time, I wondered whether I'd see more like him soon.
The Plague Spreads
A New York City education bureaucrat hit the panic button today, declaring that there are "hundreds" of kids in the public school system sick with the new strain of swine flu. The city government confirms that two more people have been hospitalized for symptoms consistent with the swine diagnosis. So far, no American has died from the influenza, while estimates of Mexican deaths are all over the place. The question isn't whether certain people have died, but whether they died of the swine flu. Someone really needs to nail this down so people can think straight about the situation.
Meanwhile, conspiracy theories continue to proliferate. Here's an amusing top-ten list of theories that leaves out some that are already quite popular, particularly any implicating the current American government or the "New World Order." Conspiracy theories now seem to emerge to explain any unusual event. This is more than just the usual "who benefits?" reasoning, though there is a growing presumption that someone, in theory, could "benefit" from practically any phenomenon. I've seen some writers describe what we're seeing as "magical thinking," which can itself be described as the Occam's Razor of fools. The desire for the simplest explanation often leads people to deduce that there must be a conscious will behind harmful events, since for some people the easiest explanation for anything is that somebody wanted it to happen. I suppose it's a sign of progress that this thought doesn't instantly cause people to try and appease the mysterious power, but it's not too much progress if the knee-jerk response is now to fight the still-mysterious power. Unfortunately, globalization has created fertile ground for this particular plague to spread, since it's all too easy today for people to believe that their fates are decided by forces beyond their control. It'd be glib of me to suggest that the cure involves figuring things out for themselves, but plenty of people will tell you they've done just that -- and they're still infected.
Meanwhile, conspiracy theories continue to proliferate. Here's an amusing top-ten list of theories that leaves out some that are already quite popular, particularly any implicating the current American government or the "New World Order." Conspiracy theories now seem to emerge to explain any unusual event. This is more than just the usual "who benefits?" reasoning, though there is a growing presumption that someone, in theory, could "benefit" from practically any phenomenon. I've seen some writers describe what we're seeing as "magical thinking," which can itself be described as the Occam's Razor of fools. The desire for the simplest explanation often leads people to deduce that there must be a conscious will behind harmful events, since for some people the easiest explanation for anything is that somebody wanted it to happen. I suppose it's a sign of progress that this thought doesn't instantly cause people to try and appease the mysterious power, but it's not too much progress if the knee-jerk response is now to fight the still-mysterious power. Unfortunately, globalization has created fertile ground for this particular plague to spread, since it's all too easy today for people to believe that their fates are decided by forces beyond their control. It'd be glib of me to suggest that the cure involves figuring things out for themselves, but plenty of people will tell you they've done just that -- and they're still infected.
A Specter is Haunting the GOP...
MSNBC has breaking news, just five minutes old as I write, that Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania is going to switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democratic.The significance of this is that Specter's defection, once confirmed, combined with the eventual seating of Al Franken as Minnesota's second Senator will give the Democrats the sixty votes (including the independents Lieberman and Sanders) to block any Republican filibusters against liberal legislation.
Specter's move, if correctly reported, is a calculated risk. It's well known that Bushites and movement conservatives intended to mount a major primary challenge to his renomination next year. Specter may now expect Pennsylvania Democrats to repay him by not challenging him when he seeks that party's nomination. But it wouldn't surprise me that such grateful deference would provoke a third-party challenge from the left. That, too, could play into Specter's hands if, like Lieberman, he wants to position himself as an arch-centrist against extremism from both right and left.
The American Bipolarchy gives people at the top like Specter considerable freedom of action, as do the rules of Congress that make his apparent move so significant. His freedom and willingness to spite the GOP might further convince people that individuals matter more than parties, since Specter can claim to be following his conscience rather than any party's dictates, and that the Bipolarchy isn't really anything to worry about. But the Bipolarchy isn't about maintaining ideological consistency or even an illusion of eternal enmity that could be dispelled by Specter's defection. However individuals may feel, institutionally speaking neither party wants to destroy the other. Part of convincing the public that the two parties are the only real choices is maintaining the existence of two major parties for people to choose from. The Bipolarchy can tolerate incidents like Specter's reported switch because it's still happening within a bipolarchical framework. Specter isn't raising the standard of a new national party, after all, and neither did Sanders or Lieberman. He'll annoy current Republican leaders and infuriate simpleminded radio talkers, but he hasn't really challenged the system. He's trying to work the Bipolarchy to save his political career. Time will tell whether he can succeed.
Specter's move, if correctly reported, is a calculated risk. It's well known that Bushites and movement conservatives intended to mount a major primary challenge to his renomination next year. Specter may now expect Pennsylvania Democrats to repay him by not challenging him when he seeks that party's nomination. But it wouldn't surprise me that such grateful deference would provoke a third-party challenge from the left. That, too, could play into Specter's hands if, like Lieberman, he wants to position himself as an arch-centrist against extremism from both right and left.
The American Bipolarchy gives people at the top like Specter considerable freedom of action, as do the rules of Congress that make his apparent move so significant. His freedom and willingness to spite the GOP might further convince people that individuals matter more than parties, since Specter can claim to be following his conscience rather than any party's dictates, and that the Bipolarchy isn't really anything to worry about. But the Bipolarchy isn't about maintaining ideological consistency or even an illusion of eternal enmity that could be dispelled by Specter's defection. However individuals may feel, institutionally speaking neither party wants to destroy the other. Part of convincing the public that the two parties are the only real choices is maintaining the existence of two major parties for people to choose from. The Bipolarchy can tolerate incidents like Specter's reported switch because it's still happening within a bipolarchical framework. Specter isn't raising the standard of a new national party, after all, and neither did Sanders or Lieberman. He'll annoy current Republican leaders and infuriate simpleminded radio talkers, but he hasn't really challenged the system. He's trying to work the Bipolarchy to save his political career. Time will tell whether he can succeed.
Idiot of the Week: Epidemic Edition
Our first nominee is Yakov Litzman, an Israeli public health official who urges the world to rename the swine flu. That labelling of the potentially deadly virus, which has its origins in pigs, is offensive to both Jews and Muslims, the official notes generously, because both faiths regard the pig as an unclean animal. Well, the existence of swine flu might seem to confirm their ancient viewpoint, but I'm still baffled by the notion that naming it for swine somehow makes a virus more objectionable. You'll have problems enough if you catch it, but now you want to worry that it makes you unclean? That can't help but sound redundant to sensible people. But the topper that may clinch the award for this bureaucrat is his helpful suggestion that, in deference to the cultural sensitivities of Semites, the virus be renamed the Mexican flu. I imagine that those might be fighting words south of the border, or at least a good reason to celebrate Cinco de Mayo in Tel Aviv, with plenty of sneezing.
27 April 2009
The Future of Liberalism?
My political reading of the moment is Alan Wolfe's The Future of Liberalism, which seems daring by its mere assertion that liberalism has a future. It's actually a very lucid account of what liberalism stands for as opposed to both conservatism (philosophical and partisan) and radical leftism. Wolfe defines liberalism as the belief that people have to create the social conditions in which they can enjoy rights, and justifies the modern welfare state for that reason. While conservatives argue that mankind can't control its fate (and thus must accept "freedom" as the best option), Wolfe claims that liberals "have always insisted that it is because human beings live for purpose that they can establish and realize goals they themselves set. He elaborates:
Wolfe stresses, however, that identifying the common good is a collaborative project that requires compromises of interests. He doesn't disparage self-interested thinking, but demands that it be what used to be called enlightened self-interest, rational above all. He virtually concedes that some people will find liberalism boring because it requires people to be rational and calculate the possible consequences of actions. Wolfe prefers dispassionate rationalists like Jeremy Bentham to heroic Romantic types who are all too often tempted to go for broke in all-or-nothing attempts to achieve Utopia or rid the world of evil.
The strongest chapter I've read so far is "Mr. Schmitt Goes to Washington," which tends to define liberalism negatively as whatever hasn't been tainted by the influence of the German political scientist Carl Schmitt. A contemporary of Leo Strauss who stayed in Germany and served the Nazis while Strauss fled, Schmitt's influence derives from two dangerous ideas: that political sovereignty consists of the power to make exceptions to the rule of law, and that politics itself is based on an inevitable division of the state into friends and enemies. Schmitt's ideas, however indirectly transmitted, have strong appeal for both modern partisan conservatives and many leftists, Wolfe claims, because both groups are inclined to see those who disagree with them as the enemy. Liberals are defined by a refusal to do so. They prefer proceduralism and the rule of law to the heroic fantasy of the exception because, as a rule, they don't see politics as a struggle to defeat enemies, but as an attempt to reconcile different interest through appeals to reason.
Wolfe doesn't try to prove that Carl Schmitt influenced the Bush administration -- after all, it's very unlikely that George W. Bush has ever heard of the man. But Wolfe does invite you to notice the similarities between Schmitt's notion of the sovereign declaring exceptions to the rule of law and the American concept of the "unitary executive's" right to wage war unchecked by the other branches of government. He also finds it interesting that many leftists seem to admire the quasi-Nazi Schmitt, and explains that by assuming their desire to destroy ideological enemies. I might add that a revolution would also count as a "state of exception," and that some leftists I've read, particularly Slavoj Zizek, embrace the concept of the exception because they think revolutionary terror may be necessary for "the people" to assert their rightful sovereignty over the state.
Liberalism's opposition to these ideas is a make-or-break stand. Look at it one way and it makes sense if you assume that we all don't have to be enemies despite our disagreements. Wolfe carries that argument in a new direction in the chapter I'm currently reading on religion. But liberals are waging a lot on the assumption that all political or philosophical differences are either reconcilable or manageable through proceduralism, and that society can continue to advance without decisive resolutions of at least some of these differences. I don't know if Wolfe can prove those hypotheses, or whether he thinks it necessary to do so. But I still have about a third of the book to read. We'll see how it all turns out.
We are not...prisoners of economic calculations and therefore unable to influence the moral character of the societies we inhabit. Instead, we are quite capable of deciding what moral purposes we want our societies to serve and then designing our economic arrangements accordingly. It is not a planned economy liberals seek -- that is a goal more properly identified with socialism -- but a society that can decide what it stands for and do its best to realize it. There is a common good. We can know what it is. And we can achieve it. (84)
Wolfe stresses, however, that identifying the common good is a collaborative project that requires compromises of interests. He doesn't disparage self-interested thinking, but demands that it be what used to be called enlightened self-interest, rational above all. He virtually concedes that some people will find liberalism boring because it requires people to be rational and calculate the possible consequences of actions. Wolfe prefers dispassionate rationalists like Jeremy Bentham to heroic Romantic types who are all too often tempted to go for broke in all-or-nothing attempts to achieve Utopia or rid the world of evil.
The strongest chapter I've read so far is "Mr. Schmitt Goes to Washington," which tends to define liberalism negatively as whatever hasn't been tainted by the influence of the German political scientist Carl Schmitt. A contemporary of Leo Strauss who stayed in Germany and served the Nazis while Strauss fled, Schmitt's influence derives from two dangerous ideas: that political sovereignty consists of the power to make exceptions to the rule of law, and that politics itself is based on an inevitable division of the state into friends and enemies. Schmitt's ideas, however indirectly transmitted, have strong appeal for both modern partisan conservatives and many leftists, Wolfe claims, because both groups are inclined to see those who disagree with them as the enemy. Liberals are defined by a refusal to do so. They prefer proceduralism and the rule of law to the heroic fantasy of the exception because, as a rule, they don't see politics as a struggle to defeat enemies, but as an attempt to reconcile different interest through appeals to reason.
Wolfe doesn't try to prove that Carl Schmitt influenced the Bush administration -- after all, it's very unlikely that George W. Bush has ever heard of the man. But Wolfe does invite you to notice the similarities between Schmitt's notion of the sovereign declaring exceptions to the rule of law and the American concept of the "unitary executive's" right to wage war unchecked by the other branches of government. He also finds it interesting that many leftists seem to admire the quasi-Nazi Schmitt, and explains that by assuming their desire to destroy ideological enemies. I might add that a revolution would also count as a "state of exception," and that some leftists I've read, particularly Slavoj Zizek, embrace the concept of the exception because they think revolutionary terror may be necessary for "the people" to assert their rightful sovereignty over the state.
Liberalism's opposition to these ideas is a make-or-break stand. Look at it one way and it makes sense if you assume that we all don't have to be enemies despite our disagreements. Wolfe carries that argument in a new direction in the chapter I'm currently reading on religion. But liberals are waging a lot on the assumption that all political or philosophical differences are either reconcilable or manageable through proceduralism, and that society can continue to advance without decisive resolutions of at least some of these differences. I don't know if Wolfe can prove those hypotheses, or whether he thinks it necessary to do so. But I still have about a third of the book to read. We'll see how it all turns out.
The New Plague
The new Mexican strain of swine flu is part of a globalist plot to depopulate the planet and place the whole world under martial law. Actually, it's a hoax, but it provides the New World Order with a pretext to put the world under martial law. But no: the right-wing conspiracy community itself is whipping up a hysteria to further its own agendas, say left-wing conspiracists. Conspiracy theory is a kind of virus in its own right. It mutates under aggressive treatment into more resistant strains. A few years ago SARS or bird flu was going to be the pretext for the Bush administration declaring martial law. Naturally, some people now see Obama poised to do the same thing. For some people it's just a partisan reflex, believing now what they denied then, or vice versa, while others are consistent in their anxieties, convinced that Bush and Obama answer to the same shadowy masters. Few irrational observers seem to consider that the news media might have their own mercenary if not malevolent reasons to inflate the threat of the new flu. Instead, there's a compulsion to see higher powers behind everything. The difference between now and two thousand years ago, when something like swine flu might have been blamed on Zeus or Jehovah, is that now people at least believe they can fight back against the malevolent powers -- even if they still are phantoms. Whether that's a healthy form of evolution is debatable.
24 April 2009
More Torturous Arguments
When I walked in this morning it was the loudest and angriest I'd ever heard it in the editorial department without Mr. Right being around. Two of our staff do a point-counterpoint style column every Friday, and today's subject was whether Americans who torture suspected terrorists should be prosecuted. The writers were carrying on their argument in the room. The man is a relatively mild conservative who defended the torturers on pragmatic grounds. The end justified the means, in his view, and he would not want future Americans deterred from taking similarly necessary measures, as he saw them, by the threat of prosecution by a subsequent unfriendly regime. The woman took the standard liberal argument: torture is something the U.S. or any civilized state should not do, and prosecutions may be necessary to send that message.
That's always seemed to be the essential point in dispute. Defenders of the Bush administration or "aggressive interrogation" in general presumably reject the premise that there is something un-American about doing whatever seems necessary to save American lives. The reasoning seems to be that the rules of self-preservation are different from the rules of everyday citizenship. The government of the United States is no more democratic, or no more republican, or no more liberal, because Americans must torture ruthless enemies during a desperate struggle. This is not a completely implausible argument.
The problem with most people who make the argument, however, is that they don't apply it consistently. They talk of an America menaced by "evil" regimes and "dictators" around the world. How do they know these regimes are evil? As a rule, they know nothing about the internal complexities of Iranian politics, for instance. What they do claim to know is how Iran treats dissidents, or how China treats them, or how Hugo Chavez seems to treat some of them. These practices define these states or leaders as "evil" for many Americans, but aren't those countries' actions also a form of national self-defense? Many governments feel threatened by counter-revolution and feel entitled to take "aggressive" measures to preserve revolutionary regimes. Those governments often go so far as to claim that "counterrevolutionaries" are actually agents of foreign governments -- usually ours. It can be argued that in treating such subversives "aggressively" they are acting in the same way, essentially, as Americans want their country to deal with alleged terrorists. Why, then, should they be judged as "evil" regimes, leaving aside how they treat neighboring countries, solely based on the way they defend themselves against enemies? There's probably a good answer to my question, but I wonder whether most American apologists for torture are clever enough to figure it out -- and I'm not about to help them. They'll have to use torture to get it out of me.
That's always seemed to be the essential point in dispute. Defenders of the Bush administration or "aggressive interrogation" in general presumably reject the premise that there is something un-American about doing whatever seems necessary to save American lives. The reasoning seems to be that the rules of self-preservation are different from the rules of everyday citizenship. The government of the United States is no more democratic, or no more republican, or no more liberal, because Americans must torture ruthless enemies during a desperate struggle. This is not a completely implausible argument.
The problem with most people who make the argument, however, is that they don't apply it consistently. They talk of an America menaced by "evil" regimes and "dictators" around the world. How do they know these regimes are evil? As a rule, they know nothing about the internal complexities of Iranian politics, for instance. What they do claim to know is how Iran treats dissidents, or how China treats them, or how Hugo Chavez seems to treat some of them. These practices define these states or leaders as "evil" for many Americans, but aren't those countries' actions also a form of national self-defense? Many governments feel threatened by counter-revolution and feel entitled to take "aggressive" measures to preserve revolutionary regimes. Those governments often go so far as to claim that "counterrevolutionaries" are actually agents of foreign governments -- usually ours. It can be argued that in treating such subversives "aggressively" they are acting in the same way, essentially, as Americans want their country to deal with alleged terrorists. Why, then, should they be judged as "evil" regimes, leaving aside how they treat neighboring countries, solely based on the way they defend themselves against enemies? There's probably a good answer to my question, but I wonder whether most American apologists for torture are clever enough to figure it out -- and I'm not about to help them. They'll have to use torture to get it out of me.
Murphy Defeats Tedisco
Assemblyman Tedisco has conceded defeat in his race for the open seat representing the 20th Congressional district of New York by calling and congratulating the winner, Scott Murphy. It has been nearly a month since citizens voted, but the margin remained so narrow throughout the process that officials waited as long as seemed realistic for the arrival of absentee ballots. A few weeks ago, the absentee factor seemed to be in Tedisco's favor, since more voters overall are registered as Republicans in this district. But just as the district voted in now-Senator Gillibrand regardless of registration statistics, so they've elected Murphy, albeit just barely.
Democratic leaders across the country are crowing that Murphy's victory represents an endorsement of President Obama's policies, but comparing Murphy's struggle to Gillibrand's landslide last fall might tell a different story. Too many local factors are involved, however, for this election to be seen as a simple referendum on Obama or anything else. Murphy actually rose steadily in polls after initially trailing the better known Tedisco by a big margin early in the game. Democrats could argue that for a "virtual unknown" to hold the seat against a well-known local pol proves that the district is going "blue." But what were people voting for when they pulled Murphy's lever. According to Tedisco's commercials, Murphy was a "Wall Street millionaire" guilty of endorsing undeserved bonuses and outsourcing jobs. Muphy's own ads portrayed him as a mere "businessman," in favorable contrast to "Albany politician" Tedisco. In other words, the campaign's negative ads added up to a role reversal, with the Democrat being characterized the way Republicans usually are -- and yet he won. That he only won by 399 votes (by the latest count) may illustrate voters' confusion rather than their resolution for or against anything in particular.
Tedisco is to be credited for not using Norm Coleman tactics and conceding as promptly as the protracted process allowed so that the district can be represented immediately. It won't surprise me, though, to hear local Republicans air the newly-popular conspiracy theory that explains every close vote lost by their party: ACORN stole it. But they may surprise me and take their cue from their candidate. Outside the district, however, the accusations are probably already in flight.
Democratic leaders across the country are crowing that Murphy's victory represents an endorsement of President Obama's policies, but comparing Murphy's struggle to Gillibrand's landslide last fall might tell a different story. Too many local factors are involved, however, for this election to be seen as a simple referendum on Obama or anything else. Murphy actually rose steadily in polls after initially trailing the better known Tedisco by a big margin early in the game. Democrats could argue that for a "virtual unknown" to hold the seat against a well-known local pol proves that the district is going "blue." But what were people voting for when they pulled Murphy's lever. According to Tedisco's commercials, Murphy was a "Wall Street millionaire" guilty of endorsing undeserved bonuses and outsourcing jobs. Muphy's own ads portrayed him as a mere "businessman," in favorable contrast to "Albany politician" Tedisco. In other words, the campaign's negative ads added up to a role reversal, with the Democrat being characterized the way Republicans usually are -- and yet he won. That he only won by 399 votes (by the latest count) may illustrate voters' confusion rather than their resolution for or against anything in particular.
Tedisco is to be credited for not using Norm Coleman tactics and conceding as promptly as the protracted process allowed so that the district can be represented immediately. It won't surprise me, though, to hear local Republicans air the newly-popular conspiracy theory that explains every close vote lost by their party: ACORN stole it. But they may surprise me and take their cue from their candidate. Outside the district, however, the accusations are probably already in flight.
22 April 2009
Idiot of the Week? Cheney vs. Gingrich
The question: Who made the more stupid statement regarding the President's handshake with his Venezuelan counterpart, Hugo Chavez? Both made fools of themselves complaining about the encounter. Their view is that the President of the United States should not sully himself by consenting to be touched by such a monster as Chavez, whom they pre-emptively deem a "dictator" and an enemy of the United States. He was an enemy of the previous President, and is perhaps an enemy of some American corporations, but these facts alone can't govern the present President's conduct toward a fellow head of government. What the Bush administration never could accept was that in the international community all nations are equal -- except in the UN Security Council, of course. The international community is ideally a democracy of nations, and no nation has a right to put on moral airs and snub another because its leader is often genuinely obnoxious and has a more expansive view of state power than many Americans. The sort of attitude that Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich would have Obama take is all the more childish when it remains unproven that Chavez is a dictator. He may be a bully and a blowhard, but the referendum repealing term limits did not make him president for life. In any event, he is the legitimate representative of Venezuela to the rest of the world, and the U.S. has no right to demand someone else. If there are issues between the two nations, it's foolish for either leader to act as if his company is a privilege that the other guy has to earn somehow.
But on to the competition. Our contestants' statements are included in this article. If these quotes accurately represent each man's views, then this is really an easy win for Gingrich. Cheney was not so asinine, at least, as to suggest that somehow Chavez was not the legitimate ruler of his country. His experience in the executive branch of government may have given Cheney a minimal measure of common sense that Gingrich has never acquired. This creature, who was dumb enough to quit Congress and the Speakership despite his party retaining a majority in the House simply because it lost some seats, supposedly still dreams of becoming President someday. Fortunately, even most Republicans find the idea laughable -- if only they felt the same way about the rest of their leaders.
Special bonus credit goes to Dana Perino, a former Bush mouthpiece, who actually called Chavez a dictator when the others only insinuated it. But there's not so much fun in crowning such a minor personage compared to the other two idiots.
But on to the competition. Our contestants' statements are included in this article. If these quotes accurately represent each man's views, then this is really an easy win for Gingrich. Cheney was not so asinine, at least, as to suggest that somehow Chavez was not the legitimate ruler of his country. His experience in the executive branch of government may have given Cheney a minimal measure of common sense that Gingrich has never acquired. This creature, who was dumb enough to quit Congress and the Speakership despite his party retaining a majority in the House simply because it lost some seats, supposedly still dreams of becoming President someday. Fortunately, even most Republicans find the idea laughable -- if only they felt the same way about the rest of their leaders.
Special bonus credit goes to Dana Perino, a former Bush mouthpiece, who actually called Chavez a dictator when the others only insinuated it. But there's not so much fun in crowning such a minor personage compared to the other two idiots.
21 April 2009
"Traditional Values Coalition" vs. "Fairness" Part 2: The Survey
Along with a self-damning cover letter that spells out exactly how much Rev. Lou Sheldon expects to profit from his latest begging campaign, his major mailing against the alleged attempt to revive the FCC "Fairness Doctrine" includes a survey for me to fill out and return to the Traditional Values Coalition, preferably with a donation of at least $15. Sheldon's stated object is to compile the results and present them to the President and Congress as proof that politicians will suffer at the polls if they attempt to "silence" reactionary radio.
The survey is pretty much the same sort that any activist group, left or right, might send you. It includes the kind of questions that have only one plausible answer, though the TVC survey actually leaves more room for diversity of opinion than, for instance, Amnesty International's do. Maybe that's why Sheldon advised respondents, "Please don't spend too much time thinking about each answer. Your answers are more valuable if you give your first instinctive response to each question."
There are 14 questions in the survey, almost all multiple choice. It starts simply enough: "What is your view of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" as proposed by Liberal leaders in Washington?" I suppose "Liberal" is meant as a trigger word to provoke a hostile response. Your choices range from Strongly Support to Strongly Oppose, plus Undecided. I chose "Support" rather than "Strongly Support" because I partly accept the argument that today's diversity of information sources lessens the need for political diversity in every source. On the other hand, I'm not thrilled about people being able to schedule their viewing, listening or browsing to receive only those viewpoints they agree with. A fairness doctrine might expose people of all ideologies to contrasting viewpoints, so it could be a good thing.
Question 2 asks "How do you think broadcast stations will comply with this regulation?" You may predict that many will cancel reactionary talk rather than lose money by having to carry unpopular liberal shows, or that stations "will be happy to comply...even if Liberal programs lose money." Your other options are "Not Sure" and a fill-in-the-blank "Other" line. I checked off happy compliance because I deny the opposite premise.
Question 3 asks us to speculate: "What do you think is the real motive of the Liberals pushing so hard for this law?" You are allowed to suppose that Liberals "are honestly concerned with having balance on the airwaves" or that they've "found an ingenious strategy to weaken (and if possible end) Christian and conservative talk radio." I went with the first choice. We're talking about Liberals, after all.
Question 4 comes in two parts. First, we must decide whether the Fairness Doctrine is "a threat to free speech in America." If you answer Yes (I didn't), you must grade the threat as "Somewhat Serious" or "Very Serious."
Question 5 is an objective query: "How much do you listen to Rush Limbaugh?" It's either more or less than two hours, or not at all. Question 6 applies the same query to Sean Hannity.
Question 7 asks "Which of these TV news outlets do you watch the most?" Your choices are the three major broadcast networks and the three major cable news networks, but "None of these" is also available. I honestly checked MSNBC, but I'm not comfortable with admitting this, since that network's pro-Democrat talkers are increasingly obnoxious to me.
Question 8 asks "Do you think conservative talk radio...is helping or harming political debate in America?" I was tempted to say "Hurting America" based on The American Conservative's critique of the radio talkers, but because I ignore these shows rather than listen masochistically like too many liberals, I checked "Neutral."
Question 9 asks, "Regardless of your political viewpoint, do you think the government should be regulating the content of political talk shows?" I'd be surprised if anyone answered "Yes," but regulating content of individual shows is even further off the table than the Fairness Doctrine itself. To my knowledge, no one has ever suggested requiring Limbaugh to have a liberal or leftist co-host or regular correspondent.
Question 10 requires me to identify my own "political leanings." I have to choose from a spectrum of ideology ranging from "Very Conservative" to "Very Liberal," or else write something in under "Other." I wrote "Radical."
Question 11 straightforwardly asks how frequently I vote. For some reason there's an "Other" option here.
Question 12 is most clearly meant for the President's attention. It asks, "How would it affect your opinion of President Obama if he were to move forward on his own (which he has the power to do) and shut down Christian and conservative talk radio by reviving the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine?' I chose "Undecided" because I don't accept the premise that the Doctrine would shut down reactionary radio. If Obama moved in some way specifically to suppress the reactionaries, then I'd take more of a negative stand.
Question 13 dares you to trust the President: "President Obama's spokesperson claims that the Obama Administration has no plans for the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine.' But many Christian and conservative broadcasters remain unconvinced. What do you think?" You may "completely believe" Obama or "not believe" him at all, or remain "Not Sure." I checked "completely believe."
Finally, Question 14 asks if I'll add a contribution to help the TVC "STOP the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' -- which we are calling the 'Silence Christian and Conservative Broadcasters Law?'" For a while I was actually tempted to send Sheldon 88 cents as exact compensation for the alleged expense involved in mailing me this survey. But the thought that any of that money would be wasted fighting a phantom, or would go into Sheldon's pockets, convinced me to answer "No."
There's one final cute detail. In his begging letter, Sheldon suggested $15 as a minimum donation. On the back of the survey he gives a selection of donation amounts to check off. The smallest of these is $20. On the other hand, there's a separate box which you can check to signify that you'll send a sub-minimum amount of $10. You also get to signify your understanding that Sheldon will use your money to buy newspaper and radio advertising and prepare mass e-mails. You can apparently pay by cash or check, or you can give the Traditional Values Coalition your credit card number. Somehow that does not seem like a good idea.
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the results of the survey. I've never seen newspaper reports of the results of all those Amnesty International surveys, and I expect the media will threat this one the same way.
The survey is pretty much the same sort that any activist group, left or right, might send you. It includes the kind of questions that have only one plausible answer, though the TVC survey actually leaves more room for diversity of opinion than, for instance, Amnesty International's do. Maybe that's why Sheldon advised respondents, "Please don't spend too much time thinking about each answer. Your answers are more valuable if you give your first instinctive response to each question."
There are 14 questions in the survey, almost all multiple choice. It starts simply enough: "What is your view of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" as proposed by Liberal leaders in Washington?" I suppose "Liberal" is meant as a trigger word to provoke a hostile response. Your choices range from Strongly Support to Strongly Oppose, plus Undecided. I chose "Support" rather than "Strongly Support" because I partly accept the argument that today's diversity of information sources lessens the need for political diversity in every source. On the other hand, I'm not thrilled about people being able to schedule their viewing, listening or browsing to receive only those viewpoints they agree with. A fairness doctrine might expose people of all ideologies to contrasting viewpoints, so it could be a good thing.
Question 2 asks "How do you think broadcast stations will comply with this regulation?" You may predict that many will cancel reactionary talk rather than lose money by having to carry unpopular liberal shows, or that stations "will be happy to comply...even if Liberal programs lose money." Your other options are "Not Sure" and a fill-in-the-blank "Other" line. I checked off happy compliance because I deny the opposite premise.
Question 3 asks us to speculate: "What do you think is the real motive of the Liberals pushing so hard for this law?" You are allowed to suppose that Liberals "are honestly concerned with having balance on the airwaves" or that they've "found an ingenious strategy to weaken (and if possible end) Christian and conservative talk radio." I went with the first choice. We're talking about Liberals, after all.
Question 4 comes in two parts. First, we must decide whether the Fairness Doctrine is "a threat to free speech in America." If you answer Yes (I didn't), you must grade the threat as "Somewhat Serious" or "Very Serious."
Question 5 is an objective query: "How much do you listen to Rush Limbaugh?" It's either more or less than two hours, or not at all. Question 6 applies the same query to Sean Hannity.
Question 7 asks "Which of these TV news outlets do you watch the most?" Your choices are the three major broadcast networks and the three major cable news networks, but "None of these" is also available. I honestly checked MSNBC, but I'm not comfortable with admitting this, since that network's pro-Democrat talkers are increasingly obnoxious to me.
Question 8 asks "Do you think conservative talk radio...is helping or harming political debate in America?" I was tempted to say "Hurting America" based on The American Conservative's critique of the radio talkers, but because I ignore these shows rather than listen masochistically like too many liberals, I checked "Neutral."
Question 9 asks, "Regardless of your political viewpoint, do you think the government should be regulating the content of political talk shows?" I'd be surprised if anyone answered "Yes," but regulating content of individual shows is even further off the table than the Fairness Doctrine itself. To my knowledge, no one has ever suggested requiring Limbaugh to have a liberal or leftist co-host or regular correspondent.
Question 10 requires me to identify my own "political leanings." I have to choose from a spectrum of ideology ranging from "Very Conservative" to "Very Liberal," or else write something in under "Other." I wrote "Radical."
Question 11 straightforwardly asks how frequently I vote. For some reason there's an "Other" option here.
Question 12 is most clearly meant for the President's attention. It asks, "How would it affect your opinion of President Obama if he were to move forward on his own (which he has the power to do) and shut down Christian and conservative talk radio by reviving the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine?' I chose "Undecided" because I don't accept the premise that the Doctrine would shut down reactionary radio. If Obama moved in some way specifically to suppress the reactionaries, then I'd take more of a negative stand.
Question 13 dares you to trust the President: "President Obama's spokesperson claims that the Obama Administration has no plans for the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine.' But many Christian and conservative broadcasters remain unconvinced. What do you think?" You may "completely believe" Obama or "not believe" him at all, or remain "Not Sure." I checked "completely believe."
Finally, Question 14 asks if I'll add a contribution to help the TVC "STOP the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' -- which we are calling the 'Silence Christian and Conservative Broadcasters Law?'" For a while I was actually tempted to send Sheldon 88 cents as exact compensation for the alleged expense involved in mailing me this survey. But the thought that any of that money would be wasted fighting a phantom, or would go into Sheldon's pockets, convinced me to answer "No."
There's one final cute detail. In his begging letter, Sheldon suggested $15 as a minimum donation. On the back of the survey he gives a selection of donation amounts to check off. The smallest of these is $20. On the other hand, there's a separate box which you can check to signify that you'll send a sub-minimum amount of $10. You also get to signify your understanding that Sheldon will use your money to buy newspaper and radio advertising and prepare mass e-mails. You can apparently pay by cash or check, or you can give the Traditional Values Coalition your credit card number. Somehow that does not seem like a good idea.
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the results of the survey. I've never seen newspaper reports of the results of all those Amnesty International surveys, and I expect the media will threat this one the same way.
The Dying American Conservative?
The newest issue of The American Conservative reached my mailbox today, carrying an announcement that the next issue, dated May 7, will be the last unless the publishers receive major infusions of funds. At least one allegedly neocon blogger is gloating over the magazine's imminent demise. The Conservative offended the blogger by opposing an interventionist American foreign policy. In Mr. Radosh's view, the anti-war magazine combined the worst tendencies of the far left as well as the far right, especially a pronounced skepticism toward the moral claims of a certain Middle Eastern country. He characterizes the magazine as borderline anti-Semitic, which any actual reader of the publication (Radosh has apparently seen only the premier issue from 2002 and the latest) will tell you is a hysterically asinine characterization.
If the Conservative goes down, though, the worst thing won't be the victory neocons and interventionists will claim in the marketplace of ideas. Worse than that will be the victory sure to be claimed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and his loyal listeners, who will want to declare that the same marketplace of ideas has proclaimed theirs to be the true, authentic American form of conservatism. The Conservative insulted Limbaugh by portraying him as a baby in a stroller a few months ago, although the cover story criticized his manner more than his matter. Overall, however, the Conservative has been positioning itself in evolving opposition to a distorted form of conservatism identified with Ronald Reagan that fetishizes freedom and optimism at the expense of a more philosophically conservative consciousness of inherent or necessary limits on ambition and consumption. While the magazine is often called "paleoconservative," as if it expressed an outdated ideology, at its best it represents intelligent conservatism engaged in self-criticism and receptive to ideas from outside the "movement."
I wonder whether the Conservative will be a victim of history rather than economics. Above all, its identity was anti-war and anti-Bush. I'm sure I'm not the only non-conservative who subscribed because the magazine offered incisive critiques of Bushism (or Dubyaismo, if you prefer) that couldn't be dismissed as knee-jerk liberalism or cynical partisanship. But George W. Bush has departed from the political stage, and Barack Obama is the President.The American Conservative inevitably opposes Obama. This has probably cost them subscribers from outside Republican circles. At the same time, there may have been Republicans who subscribed to the Conservative to show that they didn't agree with Bush, but now may see no reason for the magazine to exist as a distinct voice when all "conservative" mags oppose Obama. In recent months, the Conservative has been trying to retain a distinct position, which is why it has tried to define itself as not like Limbaugh. But without W. as a lightning rod, there may not be enough of a trans-partisan audience out there to sustain the magazine. That would be a shame, because it represents a flickering ember of an alternative force in American politics, one that might have been best positioned to take advantage of the TEA Party enthusiasm of recent weeks under different circumstances. I would never call myself an American conservative, but most of the writers for that magazine were members of that class whom I could somewhat respect. The magazine's demise would leave them isolated voices in an online wilderness. I wish them luck.
If the Conservative goes down, though, the worst thing won't be the victory neocons and interventionists will claim in the marketplace of ideas. Worse than that will be the victory sure to be claimed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and his loyal listeners, who will want to declare that the same marketplace of ideas has proclaimed theirs to be the true, authentic American form of conservatism. The Conservative insulted Limbaugh by portraying him as a baby in a stroller a few months ago, although the cover story criticized his manner more than his matter. Overall, however, the Conservative has been positioning itself in evolving opposition to a distorted form of conservatism identified with Ronald Reagan that fetishizes freedom and optimism at the expense of a more philosophically conservative consciousness of inherent or necessary limits on ambition and consumption. While the magazine is often called "paleoconservative," as if it expressed an outdated ideology, at its best it represents intelligent conservatism engaged in self-criticism and receptive to ideas from outside the "movement."
I wonder whether the Conservative will be a victim of history rather than economics. Above all, its identity was anti-war and anti-Bush. I'm sure I'm not the only non-conservative who subscribed because the magazine offered incisive critiques of Bushism (or Dubyaismo, if you prefer) that couldn't be dismissed as knee-jerk liberalism or cynical partisanship. But George W. Bush has departed from the political stage, and Barack Obama is the President.The American Conservative inevitably opposes Obama. This has probably cost them subscribers from outside Republican circles. At the same time, there may have been Republicans who subscribed to the Conservative to show that they didn't agree with Bush, but now may see no reason for the magazine to exist as a distinct voice when all "conservative" mags oppose Obama. In recent months, the Conservative has been trying to retain a distinct position, which is why it has tried to define itself as not like Limbaugh. But without W. as a lightning rod, there may not be enough of a trans-partisan audience out there to sustain the magazine. That would be a shame, because it represents a flickering ember of an alternative force in American politics, one that might have been best positioned to take advantage of the TEA Party enthusiasm of recent weeks under different circumstances. I would never call myself an American conservative, but most of the writers for that magazine were members of that class whom I could somewhat respect. The magazine's demise would leave them isolated voices in an online wilderness. I wish them luck.
20 April 2009
"Traditional Values Coalition" vs. "Fairness"
It's been months since I received a really good fundraising letter in my mailbox, but the drought ended this morning with a masterpiece of the genre. I suspect I must blame my subscription to The American Conservative for putting me on a mailing list for the Traditional Values Coalition, which has sent me one of "A National Ballot of 1,000,000 Voters." This document invites me to protest against the reinstatement of the Federal Communication Commission's old "Fairness Doctrine."
You may recall that most other Republicans were fretting about such a prospect a few months ago, until the Obama administration made it known that it had no interest in pursuing that course. That quieted down most people, but not Rev. Lou Sheldon, the Founder-President of the TVC. "I don't believe it!" He writes, "Our sources say that Liberal lawyers in the Obama Administration and Congress are right now working on a version of the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' that would be enforced locally, rather than nationally." A conspiracy theory follows:
And here are the stakes as Rev. Sheldon sees them.
I thought the first thing dictators did was take our guns away, but I guess it depends on who you talk to.
Sheldon wants you to believe that the Fairness Doctrine, if reimposed, would drive Republican and "Christian" talkers off the air. This is based on the assumption that liberal talk shows are money losers from an advertising standpoint. If stations are required to air liberal talk shows, Sheldon suspects that they'll cancel their conservative cash cows rather than take the loss in revenue from taking on liberals.This doesn't really make sense, since it presumes that a station manager will sacrifice his regular revenue due to the mere risk of losses. But the theory doesn't have to make sense from a business standpoint, because it's Sheldon's belief that the real motive behind the (still only alleged) movement to revive the Doctrine is to drive Rush Limbaugh and his ilk from the airwaves. His theory depends on station managers being cowards who would dump Rush "rather than have to deal all the time with Liberal bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission." Christian radio would also be endangered because Christian talkers "would no longer bring up political or policy issues related to keeping families strong" lest that lead to demands for equal time.
"The intent behind the 'Silence Christian and Conservative Broadcasters Law' is clear," Sheldon insists, "to remove Christian and conservative voices from the political and public policy debate completely -- and to lock-in Liberal power permanently."
Sheldon hopes that an avalanche of petitions he'll send to the White House will convince the President not to attempt such a coup against dissent. So how can I help? First, I can fill out the attached survey, one of 1,000,000 destined for Obama's desk. But you know there's got to be more to it than that. I've gotten too many surveys in the mail from organizations left and right to know that the other shoe has yet to drop.
"My hope is that you will also include a contribution when you mail me your survey," Sheldon pleads, "As you can imagine, it's costly for TRADITIONAL VALUES COALITION to conduct a survey like this of 1,000,000 registered voters."
What makes this begging letter particularly charming, or brazen, is that Sheldon tells you exactly how much his organization expects to profit from this little crusade. He tells you straight up that "it costs us about 50 cents to mail one of these surveys to one voter. So that means it will cost TRADITIONAL VALUES COALITION $500,000 to mail ONE MILLION of these surveys to registered voters."
Postage and printing costs will add $375,000 to Sheldon's tab -- most of it from postage since "a great Christian printer" will help him out with printing. My share of that tab is another 37.5 cents. Were I in a giving mood, I'd suppose that I owe Sheldon 88 cents. But the lowest amount he suggests for a donation is $15 -- and he'd rather have $25, and for that matter "If you can send $100 or $50, that would be wonderful. Better still, "If you are blessed to be able to send $1,000 -- what a boost that would be to our effort to stop the 'Silence Christian and Conservative Broadcasters Law.'"
"Please, I am counting on a 100% reply to this plea for your help," Sheldon adds. That rules out that he's accounting for some people failing to reply when he suggests $15 as the bare minimum donation. He expects to receive at least $15,000,000 in return for his estimated outlay of $875,000. In case you were wondering about this, he does mention that "In addition to this survey, we are undertaking a major advertising, letter writing, Internet, and media campaign designed to educate Christian and conservative voters about the dire threat to free speech contained in the 'Silence Christian and Conservative Broadcasters Law.'" You know, the law that hasn't actually been introduced in Congress, and has been disavowed by the government, the one that most conservatives gave up worrying about months ago. Sheldon needs at least $15,000,000 to fight that imminent threat, so he needs to make gullible people feel threatened. Unfortunately, my hunch is that American Conservative readers are the smarter conservatives, hence the ones least likely to fall for this con. Sheldon ought to have pitched this to the outright yokels of the Christian fringes, who I suspect are his normal constituency, and he ought to have promised them God-bestowed prosperity in return for their donations, just to be sure of results. He might have had a chance then.
I'm not done with Sheldon yet, however. Tomorrow I intend to go through the survey itself, with suggestions on how to answer should you happen to find one of these things. But I leave you for now with Rev. Sheldon's own advice on that subject: "Please don't spend too much time thinking about each answer. Your answers are more valuable if you give your first instinctive response to each question."
You may recall that most other Republicans were fretting about such a prospect a few months ago, until the Obama administration made it known that it had no interest in pursuing that course. That quieted down most people, but not Rev. Lou Sheldon, the Founder-President of the TVC. "I don't believe it!" He writes, "Our sources say that Liberal lawyers in the Obama Administration and Congress are right now working on a version of the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' that would be enforced locally, rather than nationally." A conspiracy theory follows:
The idea they are working on is this.
If local Left-wing activists groups (such as ACORN and Rev. Al Sharpton) oppose the renewal of the broadcast license for a radio station that carries mostly Christian or conservative talk radio, the broadcast license would be denied.
That will likely be the new version of the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine.'
And here are the stakes as Rev. Sheldon sees them.
How important is this issue?
Ask yourself these questions:
What's the first thing that happened when the Nazis or Communists took power?
What's the first thing that happens when any dictatorship takes power?
They silence all dissenting voices.
They silence the opposition.
Why?
Because people can't act if they don't have information.
I thought the first thing dictators did was take our guns away, but I guess it depends on who you talk to.
Sheldon wants you to believe that the Fairness Doctrine, if reimposed, would drive Republican and "Christian" talkers off the air. This is based on the assumption that liberal talk shows are money losers from an advertising standpoint. If stations are required to air liberal talk shows, Sheldon suspects that they'll cancel their conservative cash cows rather than take the loss in revenue from taking on liberals.This doesn't really make sense, since it presumes that a station manager will sacrifice his regular revenue due to the mere risk of losses. But the theory doesn't have to make sense from a business standpoint, because it's Sheldon's belief that the real motive behind the (still only alleged) movement to revive the Doctrine is to drive Rush Limbaugh and his ilk from the airwaves. His theory depends on station managers being cowards who would dump Rush "rather than have to deal all the time with Liberal bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission." Christian radio would also be endangered because Christian talkers "would no longer bring up political or policy issues related to keeping families strong" lest that lead to demands for equal time.
"The intent behind the 'Silence Christian and Conservative Broadcasters Law' is clear," Sheldon insists, "to remove Christian and conservative voices from the political and public policy debate completely -- and to lock-in Liberal power permanently."
Sheldon hopes that an avalanche of petitions he'll send to the White House will convince the President not to attempt such a coup against dissent. So how can I help? First, I can fill out the attached survey, one of 1,000,000 destined for Obama's desk. But you know there's got to be more to it than that. I've gotten too many surveys in the mail from organizations left and right to know that the other shoe has yet to drop.
"thump."
"My hope is that you will also include a contribution when you mail me your survey," Sheldon pleads, "As you can imagine, it's costly for TRADITIONAL VALUES COALITION to conduct a survey like this of 1,000,000 registered voters."
What makes this begging letter particularly charming, or brazen, is that Sheldon tells you exactly how much his organization expects to profit from this little crusade. He tells you straight up that "it costs us about 50 cents to mail one of these surveys to one voter. So that means it will cost TRADITIONAL VALUES COALITION $500,000 to mail ONE MILLION of these surveys to registered voters."
Postage and printing costs will add $375,000 to Sheldon's tab -- most of it from postage since "a great Christian printer" will help him out with printing. My share of that tab is another 37.5 cents. Were I in a giving mood, I'd suppose that I owe Sheldon 88 cents. But the lowest amount he suggests for a donation is $15 -- and he'd rather have $25, and for that matter "If you can send $100 or $50, that would be wonderful. Better still, "If you are blessed to be able to send $1,000 -- what a boost that would be to our effort to stop the 'Silence Christian and Conservative Broadcasters Law.'"
"Please, I am counting on a 100% reply to this plea for your help," Sheldon adds. That rules out that he's accounting for some people failing to reply when he suggests $15 as the bare minimum donation. He expects to receive at least $15,000,000 in return for his estimated outlay of $875,000. In case you were wondering about this, he does mention that "In addition to this survey, we are undertaking a major advertising, letter writing, Internet, and media campaign designed to educate Christian and conservative voters about the dire threat to free speech contained in the 'Silence Christian and Conservative Broadcasters Law.'" You know, the law that hasn't actually been introduced in Congress, and has been disavowed by the government, the one that most conservatives gave up worrying about months ago. Sheldon needs at least $15,000,000 to fight that imminent threat, so he needs to make gullible people feel threatened. Unfortunately, my hunch is that American Conservative readers are the smarter conservatives, hence the ones least likely to fall for this con. Sheldon ought to have pitched this to the outright yokels of the Christian fringes, who I suspect are his normal constituency, and he ought to have promised them God-bestowed prosperity in return for their donations, just to be sure of results. He might have had a chance then.
I'm not done with Sheldon yet, however. Tomorrow I intend to go through the survey itself, with suggestions on how to answer should you happen to find one of these things. But I leave you for now with Rev. Sheldon's own advice on that subject: "Please don't spend too much time thinking about each answer. Your answers are more valuable if you give your first instinctive response to each question."
Soft Red Objects in Geneva
President Ahmadinejad of Iran was heckled, walked out on, and targeted with what this report describes as "soft red objects" hurled by rainbow-wigged protesters during his speech to the international anti-racism conference in Geneva. The walkouts were by delegates from nations offended by the Iranian's claim that Israel was the world's most racist regime, but I have a feeling that the soft red objects had less to do with his attitude toward Israel and the Holocaust than with his attitude toward homosexuals -- but perhaps I'm just stereotyping.
Now that I mention it, I wonder whether this conference intends to show as much concern for homosexual people as it does for religious believers who dislike defamation or "incitement" to hatred. Given the extent to which Muslim countries seem to be setting the agenda (hate Israel, don't insult us), I suspect not. That might be a reason to boycott the conference, or at least to throw soft pink objects at it. Better yet, it would be a reason to send delegates to tell all the other people who want to whine about how they're defamed that they're hypocrites if they don't give up their "religious" right to defame others. But I suppose it would be undiplomatic and not a government's business to do this. Three cheers for the hecklers, then, if I read their motives right.
Now that I mention it, I wonder whether this conference intends to show as much concern for homosexual people as it does for religious believers who dislike defamation or "incitement" to hatred. Given the extent to which Muslim countries seem to be setting the agenda (hate Israel, don't insult us), I suspect not. That might be a reason to boycott the conference, or at least to throw soft pink objects at it. Better yet, it would be a reason to send delegates to tell all the other people who want to whine about how they're defamed that they're hypocrites if they don't give up their "religious" right to defame others. But I suppose it would be undiplomatic and not a government's business to do this. Three cheers for the hecklers, then, if I read their motives right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
