Barack Obama and Howard Dean should be very, very concerned. It looks like Hillary Clinton means to play the primary game all the way to the bitter end, even if it means blowing up the entire party.

(more…)

Michael adressed the latest opus from Matt Stoller yesterday.  Today, I respond to some of the claims made by Stoller, and also raise my own concerns over what appears to be a growing authoritarian wing of the Democratic Party:

I don’t mind Stoller’s mischaracterization of me as a conservative, because frankly, the tiny microcosm of thought that he represents is not the audience relevant to discussion of things involving a big tent party. Also, since we know Stoller is prone to this kind of hyperbole and sloppy exaggeration, it comes as no surprise that space is at a premium in his “Open Left.” Furthermore, please forgive me if I have my suspicions about Stoller’s feigned victimhood. Again, the voters disregarded by activists like Stoller are my primary concern here, and their grievances much more paramount. It’s their views he has made an affront upon, and their opinions that only matter when counted towards his permanent majority.

What a puerile and crass way to look at political discourse. Stoller no doubt suffers from a case of majoritarianism, as I’m sure others of his ilk do. Showing an utter disdain for those who disagree with him, Stoller once again proves that dissent is a trifling process, one which he simply cannot afford time for. He chooses to triage his targets, as if all issues of party and ideology were between those who agree and those who just don’t matter. Stoller appears to believe that the 2006 mandate is his own, a product solely achieved by the efforts of blogger activists such as him.

This logic is of course asinine. It’s those being profiled who enable him to declare policy victories along with the electoral triumphs. It’s Heath Shuler and Ben Chandler who allow him to declare 2006 as a vote against the Iraq War, and a blanket dismissal of Bush policies.

So here’s the inherent contradiction: You can buck the “progressive” line in order to be counted among the many, but once you begin to legislate, you had better not reflect the values and opinions of your district.  

You can read the rest at RCP.  This is an issue that’s of course more important than simply Matt Stoller, as he is not alone in feeling a sense of entitlement to the Democratic Party.  My concern is that they will continue to make headway, not because they are willing to engage in a war of ideas, but because they have proven successful in the war for dollars. 

Can there ever be an ActBlue for moderates and other Liberals in the party?   

What Should it look like? I raised the issue at Real Clear Politics:

So the thought process seems to be as follows: War with Iran is an unacceptable negative, whereas immediate capitulation should be viewed as nuanced and positive. After all, people who talk to their enemies are serious, and those who consider military action are simply jingoistic and “hawkish.”

This seems to be the preferred logic by critics on the far Left, despite any lack in clarity and specifics. For starters, this method limits your leverage immediately if negotiations were to ever occur. As Jason points out, it’s pretty routine to play out attack scenarios and wave the big stick. You do this because you can. Iran is also playing this game to the best of their ability by declaring to the world that they have missiles pointed towards Israel.

There is a place here for coercive diplomacy, as Iran certainly doesn’t want to be attacked or harmed all for the sake of a nuclear program that’s in its infancy. It’s a Power Strategy Mix, one that has yielded some positive results in dealing with North Korea. So why would we begin the process with immediate limitations and fewer options?

You can read the rest at RCP. How would a Democratic administration approach Iran? How should they?

Nothing is truly quite as frustrating as watching war critics rush to smear those who may still believe that the United States holds a moral obligation to remain in Iraq.  Kevin Drum has served up something of the sort this week, excoriating anyone who has concerns about leaving a failed state to the tribal warlords, militias and terrorists.  Allow me to introduce you to the theory of the Chaos Hawks:

 Having admitted, however, that the odds of a military success in Iraq are almost impossibly long, Chaos Hawks nonetheless insist that the U.S. military needs to stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Why? Because if we leave the entire Middle East will become a bloodbath. Sunni and Shiite will engage in mutual genocide, oil fields will go up in flames, fundamentalist parties will take over, and al-Qaeda will have a safe haven bigger than the entire continent of Europe.

I’m not entirely sure who it is that Drum is speaking of, but as a Liberal who ascribes to this derided theory of his, I certainly don’t believe success in Iraq is an unattainable prospect.  Drum also attacks those who followed Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn theory, apparently arguing that we have no responsibility to maintain a presence in the shattered region.  In his view, history has proven that when occupiers leave the occupied, puppy dogs and sunshine certainly must ensue.  May the historical parallels commence:

Needless to say, this is nonsense. Israel has fought war after war in the Middle East. Result: no regional conflagration. Iran and Iraq fought one of the bloodiest wars of the second half the 20th century. Result: no regional conflagration. The Soviets fought in Afghanistan and then withdrew. No regional conflagration. The U.S. fought the Gulf War and then left. No regional conflagration. Algeria fought an internal civil war for a decade. No regional conflagration.    

Huh?  For pithy’s sake, I won’t even address the ridiculous Algerian example, nor will I even begin to broach the very obvious conflagration that is the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  The example of Afghanistan is perhaps the most relevant, and should in fact be our working model if we’re to ever understand what’s potentially at stake in Iraq.  In Drum’s mind (and words), the following never happened in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal.  Let’s read it again:

Because if we leave the entire Middle East will become a bloodbath. Sunni and Shiite will engage in mutual genocide, oil fields will go up in flames, fundamentalist parties will take over, and al-Qaeda will have a safe haven bigger than the entire continent of Europe.

Geography and oil fields aside, can anyone dispute that the abandonment of Afghanistan in fact led to precisely these things?  The disorder and fractured state of the pummelled nation led to the growth of the Taliban, who returned order and stability to places such as Kandahar, while also applying arguably the strictest form of Sharia law ever witnessed in the Muslim world.  Oh, there was also that whole Al Qaeda training camps thing. 

Now, a likely retort will be that Al Qaeda, much like the Taliban, is Sunni.  Since Iraq is predominantly Shi’a, well of course Al Qaeda could never truly flourish there.  This assumption is flawed however, since it relies on the unlikely notion that the Shi’a majority could pacify and stabilize the entire war torn country.  A more likely scenario is the one predicted by that bastion of Chaos Hawkery, the editorial board of The New York Times:

Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

The Iranian power grab theory is not unfounded, nor is the belief that Turkey might feel it necessary to invade in order to quell PKK activity in Kurdistan.  Fear that the Kurds might take advantage of the turmoil and move their borders southward could lead to even more sectarian conflict, only lessening the likelihood of a national consensus upon American departure.

Point being, Iraq is far too fractured to do anything about AQI.  Their presence is undoubtedly smaller than what is often proclaimed by the administration, but it’s mostly thanks to the presence of American forces that has guaranteed that reality to this point.  When AQI extortionists and thugs are free to once again roam the Anbar Province, who will stop them?  The PSF?  The Tribes?  We’ve already seen that their ability to do this is unlikely without a little help.  With the American military withdrawn, that help will no longer be available.

I’m sure these possible scenarios fall upon deaf ears with the Neo-Progressives.  So intent are they on leaving “Bush’s war” behind, they have completely lost the ability to objectively look at the dire possibilities for the people of Iraq were we to leave too soon.  If you follow their logic, our presence only accelerates the likelihood of genocide, however our departure, if you believe Drum, would of course lessen it.  Make sense? 

I didn’t think so.  Welcome to Isolationism 101.

(Cross posted at my blog)

Andrew Sullivan raises an interesting topic this evening on the concept of “Peace Studies.”  Sullivan (along with his citations) questions whether or not it’s truly an academic pursuit, or merely ideology masked in sophism. 

 He links to Bruce Bawer, who shares the following thoughts on this “field”:

it’s opposed to every value that the West stands for — liberty, free markets, individualism — and it despises America, the supreme symbol and defender of those values. 

Yikes.  Well I don’t know about all of that.  I’m sure most of these Peace junkies are well intentioned, albeit misguided at times.  There’s nothing inherently wrong with wanting to prevent violence, death and pain.  However, a question I’ve often returned to myself are the terms on which we reach these presumably “peaceful” scenarios.  What is peace?  Bawer digs deeper:

George Orwell would have understood the attraction of privileged young people to the Peace Racket. “Turn-the-other-cheek pacifism,” he observed in 1941, “only flourishes among the more prosperous classes, or among workers who have in some way escaped from their own class. The real working class . . . are never really pacifist, because their life teaches them something different. To abjure violence it is necessary to have no experience of it.” If so many young Americans have grown up insulated from the realities that Vegetius and Sun Tzu elucidated centuries ago, and are therefore easy marks for the Peace Racket, it’s thanks to the success of the very things the Peace Racket despises above all—American capitalism and American military preparedness.

I think there is a strong strain of this present in the current neo-progressive movement.  There’s a big difference between armistice and genuine peace, a reality I believe the ambitious peace wonks tend to neglect.  The former is merely a documented agreement to stop fighting, whereas the latter is an actual state of being. 

This is a reality the Israelis have had to live with since 1949.  A cessation of violence doesn’t necessarily mean that there is peace.  Peace requires a common understanding, and a consensus on shared values.  These same students of “peace” would no doubt prefer we have no presence in the Middle East, at least not in the military sense.  If guns don’t fire, and bombs don’t drop, well then surely we have a peace, right?

Wrong.  We know that the enemy we face now doesn’t forget, and knows how to bide their time very well.  The absence of violence does not a peace make, but rather, often serves as the incubator of worse things to come.     

(Cross posted at my blog)

I won’t attempt to expound much upon Michael’s excellent post on the neo-progressive purge being cooked up over at Open Left. It’s a must read, and I think an important discussion to be had. What I find rather interesting however are the kinds of responses this post has garnered. Some have asked why it’s only the Democrats who get criticized for this, since party discipline has in fact always been enforced through primaries and other such tactics. FDR demanded strict party discipline from Congress, and would threaten to run a New Dealer in the primary of any Democrat (particularly southern Democrats) who refused to fall in line. We have clearly seen this happen over and over again, so why is it such a shock now?

Cernig raises this question in a post today, and argues that those of us who are concerned about Stoller, Kos, et al. should pay more attention to the Republicans and their coercive party compulsion:

The ludicrous nature of the basic thesis is that a few people who are famous within their own small pool but utterly unknown to the world at large and who have no established political power base among the movers and shakers are going to mount an ideological purge of the Democratic Party. Never mind that people like Kos and Stoller, who I have to say I think often suffer from an over-inflated “wannabe” attitude about their own importance, are viewed as little more than a new source of money and free activist labor by the real movers and shakers (as just another “union”, if you like).

The argument is Kos Derangement Syndrome at its very worst - and also includes an element of hypocrisy by decrying totalitarianism in a small and relatively powerless element of Democratic Party internal politics while at the same time ignoring Republican totalitarian message discipline and attacks on heretics which stem from the very top of the power pyramid. Which is the most serious attack on democracy, exactly?

I can’t speak for Michael, or anyone else here at the Gazette for that matter. But as a Democratic voter, and a proud Liberal, I can say with relative certainty that I welcome a cannibilized Republican Party. If they wish to eat their own and implode, well I am all for it. What they do to ruin their party isn’t really my business, and quite frankly, should be encouraged. All the easier to defeat them.

However, when I choose between Coke or Pepsi, I don’t enjoy being told that I can only drink diet (pardon the Carvillian analogy). This is ultimately a debate over ideas, and whether or not the Democratic Party will remain a place for those who reside from the center to the Left. The problem with Cernig’s argument is that it is always a small group of people who do these things, if I may paraphrase and tweak Margaret Mead. If their ideas were truly respected and embraced by the majority, than little “Bush Dog” antics such as this wouldn’t be necessary. The dissenting opinions would be marginalized, and wonderful “progress” would ensue. Ironically, it has been the self-proclaimed progressives who have suffer under these party purges in the past. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and they seem to want their pound of proverbial flesh.

Cernig calls it “Kos Derangement Syndrome”. Was it “KDS” when Mark Warner lavished the Netroots with a party and chocolate fountain at last year’s YearlyKos? Was it “KDS” when all of the major Democratic presidential nominees decided to attend YearlyKos ‘07, while not a single one attended the annual DLC conference? “Just another union”? Unions have had a direct policy sway over the Democratic Party for decades. Referring to Kos & Co. in this fashion may be a unintentional compliment on Cernig’s part. Money and manpower is all elected officials ever really want (aside from your vote), so how does that dismiss the political efficacy of the Netroots in any way? They have learned that your ideas don’t necessarily need to be popular, or even sensible, as long as you can mobilize money and manpower. This is why they are relevant, and this is why a debate over Liberalism is probably a pretty darn good idea.

But I think the Kos’ and the Stollers of the world have long given up on a debate over ideas. They are primarily focused on electoral strategy and discipline, foregoing any discussion about what constitutes as actual progress. G.K. Chesterton once remarked that “progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision.” The Cult of Progress forbids any such talk, and demands only discipline and groupthink.

In the grand scheme, is it a small bunch that is attempting this party takeover? Sure. But it’s the small bunches that often scare me the most.

(Cross posted at my blog)

I’ve written rather prolifically in the past on neo-progressivism. I’ve often wondered what makes it tick, and what in fact differentiates it from genuine Liberalism. While there are certainly many things, I think one rather obvious aspect is the frequent reliance on “gotcha” politics. An interesting debate took place in the commentary section of my first post here at the Gazette regarding the reliability of an author I had quoted. Point being–he had messed up in the past, had been too eager to prove an erroneous point, and thus all arguments from said author were now null and void.

We see the same reaction today in response to this Op-Ed penned by ex-interim Iraqi PM Ayad Allawi. BooMan is quick to point out Allawi’s dubious record, and even insinuates that the piece lays out the groundwork for an Iraqi coup. Cernig of The Newshoggers jumps on this daffy train all the way, quoting (and highlighting) the following “money quote”:

I am working with my colleagues in parliament to build a nonsectarian majority coalition that will support [a] plan for a “new era” in Iraq and replace through democratic means the current Iraqi government.

Oh, the horror! Will the U.S. stand idly by while this Parliamentarian wonk moves to use all of the proper channels allowed him by the Iraqi government!? What next, a non-binding resolution!!? You know who else liked to build coalitions through “democratic means”? Hitler.

PLEASE NOTE: Absolutely NOTHING in this WaPo Op-Ed even remotely indicates that Allawi is seeking to supplant PM Maliki, aside from the political avenues he could rightfully choose to take. He does take a swipe at Maliki, but why can’t he? Our elected officials attack each other all of the time. Senator Russ Feingold attempted to build a coalition earlier this summer that would have censured President Bush. Remind me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall anyone expressing concerns over a Feingold junta being formed in Oshkosh, WI.

Now, Allawi doesn’t say anything here that’s especially new or groundbreaking. Federalism, stop the sectarian violence, we stand up, they stand down, etc. We’ve pretty much heard all of this before. But I find the knee jerk reaction from the far-Left much more fascinating, and even a little bit troubling.

Once America has withdrawn from Iraq (merely a question of “when” these days), it will be left to the Iraqis who care enough to actually build a sustainable society there. The so-called Netroots have no real investment in the well being of Iraq, hence their frequent and predictable dismissal of Op-Eds and commentaries such as these. A healthy cynicism regarding Iraq, and especially our bumbling president’s mismanagement of it, is certainly fair. American soldiers and Iraqi civilians have died, and will continue to die under his weak leadership. But when will those critics begin to consider some measure of actual success in Iraq, as opposed to dismissing any and all good news? We witnessed one progressive’s struggle with this earlier in the week. Can we maybe call it “progressives for progress”?

EDIT: Forgive me, as one of the readers kindly observed, it was in fact BooMan who made the following comment:

So, it should concern us that he has taken to the Washington Post this morning to detail a new plan for Iraq. His main conclusion is that we need a coup.

My apologies to Cernig. Hopefully this error won’t forbid any further commentary!

Yesterday, I published this post about American Liberalism. I linked to the post at TMV, writing:

For an interesting discussion about American Liberalism, I suggest going here. The post is based on this article at the New York Times, by Patricia Cohen. She writes that there is a discussion going on in American Liberal circles, about the essence of Liberalism, what policies Liberals favor. Should Liberals talk about morality in society? What about foreign policy? Should the US adopt an interventionist foreign policy, or more of an isolationist one?

A little while later, three great bloggers, Pamela Leavey, Libby Spencer and Ron Chusid answered (some of) the questions raised in my post. I strongly recommend all those interested in this issue to read both posts in their entirety.

Some points.

Pamela writes:

I would on a whole disagree with Michael on his assertion that “liberals too pick and choose moral values they believe the government should defend, and criticize those who want the government to defend moral values they’re not happy with.” That choosing of which moral values to defend is clearly in my opinion something that both conservatives and liberals do. Particular values are relevant to each of us and to claim that one side of political ideology has a higher standard or one side of political ideology is better than the other is exactly what divides this nation today.

And so again, I will assert as I did above, that the notion that “family values” rest solely in the conservative party is hogwash. As an only parent and a liberal, I have raised a daughter on my own, who graduates from high school this month with a 3.9 grade average and high aspirations to make a difference in the world. I’ve taught her the very values that I live by and there is no standard that says children raised by two conservative parents have done a better job raising their children than I.

The standards by which we live our lives are what define us and our children, political ideology and “values” are an aside to that. No one holds a lock hold on values. When we stop debating whose values are better, like whose God is the “only” God, this country and the world will be a better place.

Imagine all the people… living for today… I am sorry I could not resist.

Pamela’s approach - lets stop fighting about whose morals are best, lets focus on whose policies are best / most effective - is one most people could, principly, embrace. That is, if only it were that simple. Sadly, it is not so.

This is not a debate about whose moral values are best in one’s private life. I know very moral progressives, I know very moral conservatives. I also know very immoral progressives and very immoral conservatives.

The question is, does one believe that society as a whole benefits from certain moral values? If so, doesn’t it make sense for the government to promote these values? And if so, what moral values exactly benefit society and how to promote them?

Also, it seems to me that a lot of political questions revolve around the question of ‘what’s right.’ More about that in my response to Libby’s post below.

Libby takes a radically different approach than Pamela:

Michael says it’s not that simple but I have to disagree. It really isn’t that complicated. I think he is confusing morals with religious values. The two are not necessarily inclusive and shouldn’t be conflated to make the point. Lying, cheating and stealing for instance are moral issues and not only do most of us forgo such behavior as a matter of conscience, it’s also a rule of law that no liberal or conservative would think of opposing. The morality is secondary to the public safety issues. These are behaviors that harm others…

Even an issue as emotionally fraught as abortion is not really fought on moral grounds. Although the religious right would have you believe they are battling to prevent the murder of unborn children, it’s not really about that fetus. Terminating a pregnancy does them no harm, but again, the choice to do so offends their religious values. They’re fighting to prevent a woman from making a private decision about a medical procedure and label the “wrong” choice immoral, because it is — according to their religious rules. We could look to Teri Schiavo and see the same dynamic at work.

Libby, however, forgets one thing. Firstly: most moral values ruling in Western society today are ‘Christian values.’ By that I mean that they are, in their esssence, rooted in Christianity. Secondly: for many people morality and religion are intertwined. Libby believes that they are not, but others believe that they are. Libby looks at certain moral values, and tries to determine whether values are accepted by secularists and Christians alike; if they are, no problem, if they are not, they are labeled ‘religious values’ and thus irrelevant to political discourse. This might make sense to Libby, but many religious persons would strongly disagree with it.

Thirdly, despite Libby’s characterization of those who oppose abortion, my experience is that abortion is a moral issue for most pro-life’ers. Libby believes that pro-life’ers do not really care about the unborn child. Again, in my experience she is completely wrong about that. She then goes on to contradict herself by explaining that, according to these people’s beliefs abortion is murder, and therefore wrong and should, therefore, be illegal. To these people it is about morality, it is about right and wrong.

She goes on to write the following:

But perhaps I belabor the point. The short answer to Michael’s question is every choice we make as human beings is a moral choice and all our laws are to some extent based on moral correctness and are necessary because individual moral values differ and some people do lie, cheat and steal. The government should regulate behavior that harms others. It shouldn’t regulate behaviors that don’t, no matter how offensive they may be to another’s moral values. That is the very definition of freedom.

I completely agree, and I bet most people, yes, most conservatives as well, would agree with that. However, in the case of abortion, Libby believes that no other person is harmed because she does not consider the fetus to be a human being. But if you do believe that the fetus is a human being, what then? Doesn’t that drastically alter the situation? In that case one does hurt another human being, in this case even an innocent child who has no say whatsoever in whether he (or she) should live or die.

In other words, Libby believes that it is very easy to separate morality from religion, but I do not agree with that. It is not that easy at all, especially not in the case of something as complicated as abortion.

Libby uses the same methology to decide whether something is acceptable or not as John Stuart Mill did. However, one question to Libby: does she think that Mill would have supported abortion?

I highly doubt it.

And as far as taxes go, providing for the common good is a moral responsibility that the government should shoulder and that includes helping those less fortunate. Liberals support the social safety net and are willing to pay for it. If we’re going to be assigning hypocrisy, it belongs to those social conservatives who fight tooth and nail for the “right to life” and then begrudge sharing a bit more of their own wealth to improve the quality of life for those who are then born into households of lesser priviledge.

What we see happening here (as in her entire post), Libby says that she disagrees with my thesis when she, in fact, agrees. My thesis was exactly what she wrote, that, in essence, all, or at least most, decisions are moral choices. American liberalis too, I argued, adhere to certain moral values, but pretend they do not. Therefore, I wrote:

It seems to me that liberals who say that the state does not have anything to do with morality, are a bunch of hypocrites: they do talk about morality when they talk about taxes, helping the poor, etc. Then, suddenly, it is about ‘helping’ the other and not being overly selfish. That is, of course, a moral value. In other words, liberals too pick and choose moral values they believe the goverment should defend, and criticize those who want the government to defend moral values they’re not happy with.

So, the question is, I guess, what kind of morals do liberals believe in and what kind of morals should the government defend?

And this is exactly what Libby did in her post. She labeled helping the poor a “moral responsibility” of the government and then attacked conservatives for not being willing to support the social safety net necessary to do so.

Lastly, I would like to respond to this post by Ron. Ron first explains why it is very difficult to come up with a clear definition of ‘liberalism’ in America, he then writes:

Liberalism stems from liberty, and above all else liberalism stands for individual liberty. Therefore liberals are united in opposing the violations of civil liberties seen under the Republicans who believe that the Bill of Rights is limited to the Second Amendment and see the American Civil Liberties Union as their enemy. Liberals defend both the basic liberties defended by the founding fathers, and seek to restore the checks and balances on government power were eroded under Republican one party rule.

This sounds like European liberalism, not American liberalism. Last time I checked, American liberals strongly opposed the views of Barry Goldwater, who actually wanted to do what Ron describes: limited government, more power to the states, constitutionalism.

More:

Liberals support a free market economy, but this leaves room for a variety of interpretations ranging from classical liberals supporting laissez-fair capitalism to those supporting increased government action. Liberals oppose both socialism and the system of government/corporate collusion promoted by conservatives, and I see neither as capitalist system. If not for the many other negative connotations of the word, fascism would be a far more accurate description of the economic policies being promoted by many Republicans, but using this label would denote an extremism which even the Bush administration has not reached.

Wait. Liberals support a free market economy, but oppose conservatives who support a free market economy?

Isn’t this what traditional American conservatism is all about? When I read Ron’s post, I feel like I am reading Goldwater, Burke or Hayek, not Al Gore et al. That post could have been written by me, replacing the word liberalism with conservatism. It seems to me that Ron forgets that the word ‘liberalism’ has radically (d)evolved in America.

In reality there is considerable pragmatism as opposed to ideology on economic issues among liberals. Liberals do not necessarily desire higher taxes as conservatives would argue, but neither would liberals accept a Grover Norquist pledge against raising taxes regardless of the situation. While Cohen considers a support for proactive government to be a fundamental belief of liberals, this is more a matter of pragmatism. Liberals will utilize government where necessary, while also maintaining a healthy skepticism about government. Liberals neither must advocate bigger government in all cases as conservative propagandists would claim, or oppose government in virtually all situations as many conservatives do. Liberals can support the necessary social safety net for those who need it without supporting a net so big that it strangles us all.

Again, most conservatives (and European liberals) would agree with that. The question is, when is it necessary and what role does the Constitution play in this? Also: what does Ron exactly mean with ‘the government’? Is he talking about local government, state government or the federal government? How is one weighed to another? If both the state and the federal government can solve an issue, which one should do it? The state? The federal government? Again, how about the Constitution?

Oppose socialism? What about moderate socialism? It seems to me that most Democrats would be member of the Labor parties in Europe. They almost always favor a bigger government (as in more programs to ‘help’ the poor, ‘improve’ education, ‘distribute’ wealth, etc.).

The New York Times has an interesting article up, written by Kirk Johnson:

Both sides of the abortion debate expect a new push for restrictions as state lawmakers around the country digest the implications of the Supreme Court decision Wednesday upholding a federal ban on a type of abortion…

The reasoning of both the court’s majority opinion upholding the restrictions and the dissent gave encouragement to opponents of abortion. The ruling, they said, will bolster their argument that the issues raised by abortion — among them defining fully informed consent by women who want to end pregnancies and the question of when a fetus feels pain — are legitimate topics for state legislation.

“The case does not give us a new issue, it reinforces the issue and gives us an opportunity to use it,” said Mary S. Balch, the director of for state legislation at the National Right to Life Committee.

Ms. Balch and other legislative experts said that North Dakota, Missouri, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas and Alabama, where legislators are still meeting and anti-abortion legislation is on the table, were probably the places to watch for now.

Only hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling, a lawmaker in Alabama introduced a measure that would ban almost all abortions in the state. Most states have adjourned their legislatures for the year or passed the deadline for introducing new bills.

An interesting question is what role the decision will play in the 08 elections, and in the coming months and years. The pro-life movement has achieved an important victory: will pro-choice activists and voters counter aggressively? Most likely, yes. Before we know, the people / candidates talking about abortion aren’t just those who want to appeal to the social conservative base anymore. From now on, winning the abortion debate / keeping it as much available / legal as possible, is a top priority of liberal activists and voters (again).

Matt Stoller wrote a post about paying taxes. He writes: “I just paid my taxes, and I have to say, I always take pride when I do so. I don’t like having less money to spend, of course, and the complexity of the process is really upsetting. But I am proud to pay for democracy, and I feel when I do send money to the DC Treasurer and the US Treasury that that is what I am doing. The right-wing likes to pretend as if taxes are a burden instead of the price of democracy. And I suppose, if you hate democracy, as the right-wing does, then taxes are the price for paying for something you really don’t want. Personally, I find banking fees, high cable and internet charges, health care costs, and credit card hidden charges much more abrasive than taxes, because with those I’m just being ripped off to pay for someone’s summer home.”

Great, I am happy that you are so willing to help other people: that is what charities are for Matt.

And, umh, I’d rather choose what to spend my money on, instead of the government and people like you deciding for me what I should do with my own money.

Ezra Klein wrote an OP-Ed for the Los Angeles Times called “This time, we want healthcare reform.”

What a difference a decade makes. It wasn’t so long ago that President Clinton’s proposed reforms suffered a catastrophic defeat at the hands of moneyed interests and Republican opportunists, setting the stage for the Democratic Party’s historic losses in the 1994 midterm elections. It was an enormous blow to not only the Democratic Party but the thousands of policy wonks, political operatives and congressional staffers involved in the policy’s creation and present for its collapse…

But the ghosts of 1994 have been largely exorcised from the Democratic psyche, and today, even the most hardened cynics are allowing themselves moments of hope. In the dispiriting years since the Clinton plan’s collapse, Washington’s would-be reformers have comforted themselves with the whispered refrain that healthcare reform was not a matter of if, but when — and now, for the first time in a long time, many are saying that the moment has arrived.

Hillary’s health care proposal was the biggest defeat the Clinton’s - and the Democratic Party as a whole - suffered during Bill Clinton’s presidency. It seems to me that the Democrats have to be very careful when they try to address this issue again.

My question to you - Americans - is: how big of a chance do you think the Democrats have of succeeding this time around?

More at the Economist’s View.

H/t Memeorandum.

Marc Schulman wrote a fascinating essay about George Orwell’s view on ‘the left’ during World War II and right after it. The first paragraph:

George Orwell was a rare individual for his time and place. Few if any of his contemporaries shared both his heartfelt commitment to socialism and his intense antipathy towards the British intellectual left. Throughout World War II and during the early years of the Cold War, Orwell forcefully and repeatedly castigated the Left for a variety of sins, including, among others, (1) a detachment from and disdain for ordinary people, (2) a lack of patriotic feeling that was manifest in its anti-British (and, relatedly, anti-American) sentiments, (3) a denial of the magnitude of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and subsequently by Soviet Russia, (4) an exaggeration of the impact of wartime measures on civil liberties, (5) a defeatist mentality, (6) a pacifism that placed fascism and communism on the same moral plane as democracy, (7) a failure to recognize the equivalence of totalitarianism and theocracy, and (8) an attachment to what would two decades later come to be known as Third-Worldism.

It’s a reasonably long read for a blogpost, but a very interesting one. I am sure that quite some progressives will object to Marc’s post, and to act as if every single progressive thinks as Orwell describes is of course inaccurate, but the attitude as described by Orwell, and Marc, is one I recognize quite well, and I am sure many of you do as well. For instance:

England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution . . . the negative, fainéant outlook which has been fashionable among English left-wingers, the sniggering of the intellectuals at patriotism and physical courage, the persistent effort to chip away English morale and spread a hedonistic, what-do-I-get-out-of-it attitude to life, has done nothing but harm . .

Funny enough, on the same that Marc published his post, Chris Bowers published a post about progressives and patriotism as well.

Pete Abel asks: “Why do benevolent conservatives (and yes, they do exist) tolerate the prominent, malicious voices that have become the spokespeople and hence caricature of the movement?”

His answer: “So back to the question of why hateful voices are tolerated in the conservative movement. In part, they’re tolerated because they speak for a significant, election-making swath of hateful conservative voters.

Then again, that’s only half the answer. The other half is rarely acknowledged or confronted, even in private.”

He published ‘part 2′, in which he gives the other half of the answer at his own blog: ”
The Other Made’s are the inheritors of the Self Made’s fortunes, large, medium, and modest. They grew up listening to the Self Made’s muttering around the dinner table about bums and moochers, and even if they eventually became bums and moochers themselves, they did it off their parents’ money, damn it, not the “guhvment’s.”

And thus collectively, many Self Made and Other Made conservatives tolerate hateful voices because they suspect there might just be a grain of truth in the haters’ words.”

Good reasoning but I think that he forgets to mention one thing, one reason why some, less aggressive, conservatives tolerate cruel conservatives: because being hateful works.

Attacking one’s ideological opponents works. Negative ads work and in the end… less aggressive conservatives want to win.

O, and, this is also applicable on progressives.

H/t reader and commenter ‘Interested’.

When debating about the ’soul’ or ‘essence’ of Islam, one can often hear someone say that ‘it’s all about interpretation’: the Koran is not inherently ‘violent’, it’s what people who read it and want to live by it do with it what’s important.

A Muslima took that message to (her) heart and interpretes the Koran in a more ‘feminist’ way, according to Reuters that is.

A new English-language interpretation of the Muslim Holy book the Koran challenges the use of words that feminists say have been used to justify the abuse of Islamic women.

The new version, translated by an Iranian-American, will be published in April and comes after Muslim feminists from around the world gathered in New York last November and vowed to create the first women’s council to interpret the Koran and make the religion more friendly toward women.

In the new book, Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar, a former lecturer on Islam at the University of Chicago, challenges the translation of the Arab word “idrib,” traditionally translated as “beat,” which feminists say has been used to justify abuse of women.

“Why choose to interpret the word as ‘to beat’ when it can also mean ‘to go away’,” she writes in the introduction to the new book.

Less progressive Muslims (noteworthy is that they’re all, of course, men) don’t necessarily agree with her interpretation of this verse.

Some Muslims said the new interpretation strayed from the original. Omar Abu-Namous, imam at the New York Islamic Cultural Center Mosque, questioned Bakhtiar’s interpretation…

The New York imam also said the passage she is challenging speaks of when a woman wants a divorce, and only allows a man to “hit his wife, according to the Prophet, with a ‘miswak,’” or a twig of a pencil’s length, on her hand.

To which Bakhtiar replies:

“How can you hurt someone by hitting her with a very small, short and weak thing? But sometimes the interpretation of the Koran is according to men, and sometimes they try to humiliate the woman.”

A known phenomenon in most religions of course.

I cannot but find it a bit cynical that interpreting the Koran in a way that one is not (any longer) allowed to beat up one’s wife is called a ‘feminist interpretation, but one has to start somewhere I suppose.

The Washington Post reports that “federal and state lawmakers have launched a new drive to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, reviving a feminist goal that faltered a quarter-century ago when the measure did not gain the approval of three-quarters of the state legislatures.”

The amendment, which came three states short of enactment in 1982, has been introduced in five state legislatures since January. Yesterday, House and Senate Democrats reintroduced the measure under a new name — the Women’s Equality Amendment — and vowed to bring it to a vote in both chambers by the end of the session.

Progressive women are celebrating:

“Elections have consequences, and isn’t it true those consequences are good right now?” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) asked a mostly female crowd yesterday at a news conference, as the audience cheered. “We are turning this country around, bit by bit, to put it in a more progressive direction.”

As the WaPo’s Juliet Eilperin points out, “consists of 52 words and has one key line: ‘Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.’ That sentence would subject legal claims of gender discrimination to the same strict scrutiny given by courts to allegations of racial discrimination.”

There is currently a debate going on between legal scholars about whether or not the “35 state votes to ratify the amendment are still valid.”

Even backers of the amendment such as Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) expect a legal battle on that question. They are reintroducing the amendment in Congress and hope to start the ratification process again from scratch.

Opponents fear that the amendment is too broadly worded and fear that states will rule that “equal-rights amendments in state constitutions justify state funding for abortion” as has happened in two states already.

A historic moment for the feminist movement in the making? It just might.

It is forbidden in the Netherlands to discriminate against someone based on race, gender, religion, etc.

Many progressives, I have found consider conservatism to be a negative ideology: an ideology rooted in Social Darwinism and one that opposes (all) change almost automatically. Progressivism, on the other hand, is an ideology they consider to be overwhelmingly positive.

Conservatism means, in its essense, striving to keep things like they are. As such, one could also turn the argument around and call conservatism a positive ideology: progressives look at society, at the world, and see many problems: inequality, poverty, etc. and want to change it, while conservatives look at the world and see what’s good.

Conservatives strongly believe, and emphasize, personal responsibility. They believe that man can change his own destiny by, essentially, working hard. Progressives, however, emphasize, and believe, the opposite: that one’s life, wealth and future is more dependent on one’s place of birth, the wealth of one’s family, the color of one’s skin and… luck.
(more…)