Obsidian Wings

Why It Matters - One Last Point on Reagan and Race

by publius

In all the recent back and forth on Reagan and race, the million dollar question seems to be “so what?” Assuming Reagan skeptics like Krugman are correct, what are the implications? Indeed, I suspect many Reagan defenders (including Brooks and the always-thoughtful Douthat) are less receptive to these arguments in part because they fear the implications of acknowledging Krugman’s point. Because the “so what?” seems to be driving the debate, that’s the question I want to focus on (particularly in light of the GOP presidential candidates’ endless Reagan invocations).

Reagan defenders’ primary fear seems to be that attacking Reagan on race is simply a backdoor attempt to discredit legitimate policy differences. Douthat explains it well:

One reason conservatives are defensive about the race issue is that any concession on the subject is immediately seized on by liberals as proof that conservative policy on any issue related to race (which is more or less the whole run of domestic issues) is so irredeemably tainted that it need not even be argued against.

Obviously, there’s a kernel of truth here, but I think that’s not really what’s motivating most progressives. For me anyway, the goal of discussing Reagan’s record is not so much to taint conservative policy, or even to demonize Reagan. It’s to provide a more balanced and informed picture of Reagan – one more proportionate to his actual virtues and vices. I simply want to throw some cold water on the lionization.

And there’s a substantive, non-petty reason why I try to persuade people to see Reagan rather than Saint Reagan – namely, the lionization of Reagan has modern political and policy implications.

Whatever you think of him, it’s pretty undeniable that Reagan’s record has some rather repulsive elements (much like other Presidents). Race particularly stands out, given the systematic hostility that Reagan and his agencies had for civil rights efforts. But there’s also Iran-Contra, and Negroponte’s death squads in Central America, to name a few. That said, Reagan got some things right too. Marginal tax rates, for instance, were too high for some income brackets in 1979.

The point is not that Reagan is irredeemably evil, but that he doesn’t deserve the deification he receives not only from Republicans, but from the public as well. His race record doesn’t discredit his entire administration, but it does mean that we shouldn’t name airports after him.

More substantively, the lionization of Reagan distracts us from historical reality, and prevents us from coming to terms with his failures and misjudgments. If we had come to terms with them – if we had looked at Reagan’s record with clearer eyes – we could perhaps have prevented the same problems from re-occurring today.

Take executive authority for instance. Many of the “executive unbound” arguments we hear today in support of anything within 25 words of “terrorism” played a central role in Iran-Contra. Hell, even the same cast of characters was involved. Then Congressman Cheney (and his aide, the loathsome David Addington) argued that Reagan wasn’t bound by such trifling things as constitutionally-enacted laws. Ideally, Reagan’s record should have triggered a broader debate about the dangers of excessive executive power. In 2001 and beyond, we should have looked back at the Reagan record as a warning. But we didn’t. We named National Airport after him, along with every third building in DC, and just ignored the rest.

Same deal with race. Modern race policy arguably turns on whether federal interventions remain necessary in light of the state-sponsored interventions of the past (which had been around, oh, 350 years or so). To me, the fact that the President of the United States from 1980 to 1988 successfully exploited race – and so actively opposed civil rights initiatives – is itself evidence that we’re not there yet. Indeed, the problem is not solely Reagan, but that Reagan reflected public opinion. If the public thought “welfare queens” and Philadelphia campaigns were ok, then that’s further evidence that we’re not there yet.

The upshot is that a honest appraisal of Reagan’s racial record would inform modern policy debates. But if we lionize him – and whitewash his record by repressing the negative in favor of a “Morning in America” narrative – then we lose sight of that record.

And those that forget the past… continue to employ David Addington and John Negroponte.

We're All Tancretins Now

by publius

Tancredo (at tonight's debate):

Well, I tell you, this has been wonderful. Senator McCain may not be happy with the spirit of this debate. For a guy who usually stands on the bookend here, aside, and just listens all the time, that's kind of frustrating, you know, in other debates. I have to tell you, so far, it's been wonderful.

(Laughter)

Because all I've heard is people trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo.

It is great. I am so happy to hear it. It is a wonderful thing. It's a good message, yes. We want to secure the borders.

No More Clintons

by publius

I’ve been settled on Obama for some time now. But in case I had any lingering doubt, Clinton the Bill pretty much sealed the deal for me by claiming (outrageously) that he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning (via HuffPost). It’s not so much his Iraq position itself that bothers me. It’s not even that he’s lying. It’s the nature of this specific lie that bothers me. And despite my affection for the guy, I’m ready to slap a “No More Clintons” bumper sticker on my car.

I recognize that it’s unfair – and possibly sexist – to base opposition to Clinton the Hillary on her husband’s actions. But he has injected himself into the campaign in a big way, so I don't feel too terribly bad about it. Anyway, I am - frankly - still pissed at him for Monica. There's a lot of lingering hostility. People give Al Gore a lot of grief for his 2000 campaign – some deserved, some not. But the truth is that if Bill Clinton (you know, the sitting President) had kept his g.d. zipper zipped, Dubya would be running some company into the ground right now. More to the point, there never would have been a second Iraq War. And even beyond the war, the opportunity costs of the lost Gore administration are too depressing to think about.

All that said, it doesn’t excuse the grotesque behavior of Ken Starr and the Congressional GOP in seeking impeachment. But interestingly, Clinton has – somewhat ironically – benefitted from the Clinton Derangement Syndrome these guys patented. Liberals’ animosity toward Republican overreach has distracted them from just how royally Clinton’s zipper screwed up the country and the world. It was an indulgence whose irresponsibility approached infinity. It makes for a great Shakespearian tragedy and all (the mix between primal lust and world-historical consequences), but I’ve grown weary of the tale.

More substantively, there are two broad reasons why I oppose Hillary – and both relate directly to Bill. The first – and more petty – reason is that she deserves some retribution for Iraq. Perhaps it’s purely subjective, but I still resent that she – and he – abandoned progressives from August 2002 to roughly the spring of 2005 (the time we needed them most). For me, it’s less about August 2002 to March 2003 – it’s more about the post-war. Hillary remained silent for a very long time, even after the magnitude of our failure was quite clear.

It’s a little bit like the scene in Braveheart where the undermanned, under-resourced army charges the British in a key battle only to have the nobles scurry off like cowards in the hopes of getting in on the action at a later date. Maybe the nobles would have ultimately come around, but William Wallace didn’t wait around to find out.

That’s why Bill’s statement is so galling. He’s pretending that he didn’t scurry off at that critical time when we needed him most – but that’s exactly what he did. Maybe he can pull off the whole “supported the authority, opposed the war” bit better than John Kerry did. But I doubt it. Every sentient being knew that the October 2002 vote was a vote for war. And on that critical battle – the only one that ever really mattered – both Clintons lined up with Longshanks. Maybe Bill whimpered out a meek hedge a few days before the obvious invasion. But that ain't enough.

All of this relates to the second reason why I oppose Hillary – the Clintons are so scarred that they’re scared. Nothing bold will come from a second Clinton administration – and there’s a non-negligible chance that she’ll be pressured into doing something hawkishly stupid on the foreign policy front. Whether the flaw is action or inaction, the reason will be the same – they are intensely, neurotically afraid of appearing too liberal. The scars cut too deep.

As Sullivan and others have noted, the Clintons came of age in a different time. In their formative political years in Arkansas, they internalized the lesson of distancing themselves from the dirty hippies. And it worked for them – both in Arkansas and in 1992. And that’s all fine – politicians have to play the cards that historical context deals them. More power to them.

But 2008 is a new world. The modern conservative movement is both intellectually and practically exhausted. It’s still a powerful force, but the fires ain’t burnin’ like they were 20 years ago. There’s a window here to shift the course of the river – to enact not only a stable progressive majority, but to chart a lasting progressive course on the big issues of our day (health care, climate change, foreign policy).

Frankly, I have no idea whether Obama has the potential energy necessary to seize this moment. But I do know that Hillary – and her husband – do not. They too are spent forces. Sure, they know how to get things done, but when have they tried? The one time they tried – in 1994 – they got so badly burned that I can’t imagine they’ll stick their necks that far out again. The 1994 health care debacle, after all, merely reaffirmed the lessons they learned in Arkansas. Stick close to business. Triangulate. Don’t be a dirty hippy.

That’s why Hillary’s “old” Iraq positions are relevant to the future. The burning question on my mind is whether Hillary will be willing to at least try to take advantage of the necessarily-fleeting historical window that Bush’s collapse has made possible. Maybe she was timid in the past, but she’ll be totally different as President, right? Wrong. Iraq illustrates precisely how she’ll act. Whenever she fears her right flank is exposed, she’ll ride off with the nobles. Iraq is therefore relevant not because of what she did, but because it provides the best evidence of what she will do.

In other words, I’m tired of the Clintons. Let’s hope the geniuses in Iowa are too.

Happy Thanksgiving

by publius

I'm on the road for the holidays, but Happy Thanksgiving everyone. I'm hoping to add a net of two pounds today.

Arabic 101

by G'Kar

With Obama highlighting his living overseas as a child, NRO's Mark Steyn has once again taken the opportunity to tar the Senator with the 'madrassah' smear. I'd like to kill this once and for all, but that is probably too much to ask.

Every kid in the Arabic-speaking goes to a madrassah. Madrassah is Arabic for school. Running about screaming about the horrors of Senator Obama having attended a madrassah is on a par with worrying that Senator Clinton attended junior high. It's silly, it's childish, and it makes us look like idiots in the eyes of the Arabic-speaking world. So stop it.

Open thread.

Even More Friedman Bashing

by publius

One concept that first-year law students learn is the so-called “reasonable man” standard. The point is that negligence depends on objective -- not subjective -- criteria. For instance, if Eagles songs cause you to have painful seizures, you can’t -- sadly -- sue someone for singing Desperado. Singing that song is not -- sadly -- an unreasonable thing to do. Juggling chainsaws in crowded areas -- well, that’s a different story. The reasonable man doesn’t do that sort of thing, so you could be sued for it.

The reasonable man standard gets tricky though when you start trying to define baselines. For example, medical malpractice depends not on a what reasonable person would do, but on what a reasonable doctor would do. The implication is that doctors -- being medically trained -- should be held to a higher objective standard than, say, a random waiter who performs CPR at a restaurant. Same deal with lawyers. A state-certified “Esquire” (i.e., someone who passed the bar) is held to a higher standard than someone representing themselves. (Though I’m not sure if it’s metaphysically possible to sue yourself for malpractice).

The point of all this is to illustrate just how atrocious -- how wretchedly horrible -- Tom Friedman’s latest op-ed is. Yes, it’s already been sharply criticized (see also Hilzoy). But even Greenwald -- not one to pull punches -- fails to recognize the sheer level of wretchedness here. That’s because you can’t hold Friedman to a “reasonable man” standard. He must be held to a much higher standard. He’s a Middle East expert. Unlike the various people you see on Fox News, he’s actually lived there for many years. He even wrote a fantastic book once.

VADER

So, you have accepted the truth.

LUKE

I've accepted the truth that you were once
Anakin Friedman, author of From Beirut to Jerusalem.

VADER (turning to face him)

That name no longer has any meaning for me.

We must expect more from Friedman. Krauthammer -- well, he’s like Grandpa Simpson. Even assuming you understand what he says, who cares? But Friedman, well, there was good in him once.

Snark aside, there are two aspects of Friedman’s op-ed that are simply baffling given his experience and expertise. The first is the casual lumping together of diverse Muslim groups as “Iran’s chess pieces”:

There is a cold war in the Middle East today between America and Iran, and until and unless it gets resolved, I see Iran using its proxies, its chess pieces — Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and the Shiite militias in Iraq — to stymie America and its allies across the region.

Using the term “Shiite militias” in this context is idiotic in and of itself. Maybe Friedman can explain why the pawns are killing each other and don’t seem to realize they’re all on Team Iran. For what it’s worth, this is exactly the type of error that Anakin Friedman rightly criticized Israel for making circa 1982 in a really great book:

Not only did the Israelis enter Lebanon with a myth about their allies . . . but also with one about their enemies, the Palestinians. . . . They saw the Palestinians as part of an undifferentiated Arab mass stretching from Morocco to Iraq. . . . Myths are precisely what give people the faith to undertake projects which rational calculation or common sense would reject.

Tom Friedman Has Gone Insane

by hilzoy

Every so often, I wonder whether Tom Friedman isn't some sort of peculiar performance artist, trying to show up the utter vacuity of the pundit class by demonstrating that someone can be respected as a Very Serious Person whose views on foreign policy are Very Much Worth Listening To, while nonetheless being completely and utterly insane. Today is one of those days>

"I have no idea who is going to win the Democratic presidential nomination, but lately I’ve been wondering whether, if it is Barack Obama, he might want to consider keeping Dick Cheney on as his vice president."

Let's just stop for a moment and let that sink in, shall we? Dick Cheney is quite possibly the most disastrous Vice President in the history of the republic, and Tom Friedman thinks we should keep him on. Maybe next week we can expect him to recommend that the Democratic nominee make the disinterred corpse of Richard Nixon Attorney General, or Typhoid Mary the head of the Centers for Disease Control, or Pol Pot the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

So why, you ask, would Tom Friedman make such a bizarre suggestion? Is there some hitherto unappreciated corner of policy in which Cheney has actually managed to do some good? No:

"After Iraq and Pakistan, the most vexing foreign policy issue that will face the next president will be how to handle Iran. There is a cold war in the Middle East today between America and Iran, and until and unless it gets resolved, I see Iran using its proxies, its chess pieces — Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and the Shiite militias in Iraq — to stymie America and its allies across the region.

And that brings me back to the Obama-Cheney ticket: When it comes to how best to deal with Iran, each has half a policy — but if you actually put them together, they’d add up to an ideal U.S. strategy for Iran. Dare I say, they complete each other. (...)

Mr. Obama’s stress on engaging Iran, while a useful antidote to the Bush boycott policy, is not sufficient. Mr. Obama evinces little feel for generating the leverage you’d need to make such diplomacy work. When negotiating with murderous regimes like Iran’s or Syria’s, you want Tony Soprano by your side, not Big Bird. Mr. Obama’s gift for outreach would be so much more effective with a Dick Cheney standing over his right shoulder, quietly pounding a baseball bat into his palm."

Excuse me for a second: I have to reattach my jaw and put my eyeballs back in their sockets.

The Bush administration has had its foreign policy completely hamstrung, in a number of areas, by an ongoing feud between its hawks, Cheney chief among them, and its more moderate figures, like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. As far as I can tell, our MBA President, rather than acting to settle this feud and keep his subordinates in line, just let it fester, with disastrous results. (Think North Korea.) In the case of Iran, in particular, this has been a catastrophe. Iran cooperated with us after 9/11, but when we named them a member of the Axis of Evil, and even more when people like, oh, Dick Cheney started making noises about Iran being the next country on our list of targets, that cooperation, quite naturally, vanished. Then:

"Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.

But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran, former administration officials said.

Last month, the Bush administration abruptly shifted policy and agreed to join talks previously led by European countries over Iran's nuclear program. But several former administration officials say the United States missed an opportunity in 2003 at a time when American strength seemed at its height -- and Iran did not have a functioning nuclear program or a gusher of oil revenue from soaring energy demand."

And who was one of the main people responsible for torpedoing those negotiations? Dick "We don't negotiate with tyrants, we defeat them" Cheney, that's who. He has tried to block every diplomatic initiative we might have taken, just as he did with North Korea. He and the rest of the hawks in the White House are responsible for the fact that we now find ourselves confronted with an Iran seeking nuclear weapons, and virtually no leverage to use against them.

This is the guy Tom Friedman thinks Barack Obama needs on his team, to help him negotiate with Iran. And Tom Friedman is a person we're supposed to take seriously.

Amazing.

Noted Without Further Comment

by publius

Centrist libertarian Glenn Reynolds:

If, as seems likely, Iraq succeeds, Republicans will be able to say it was in spite of the Democrats' efforts. If, as remains possible, it fails, Republicans will be able to say it was because of the Democrats' efforts.

The Gods Must Be Petty

by publius

I’d like to say that I find Governor Perdue’s emphasis on prayer to address droughts baffling. But I don’t. I understand it completely. Growing up Southern Baptist, I regularly prayed until about midway through college when I turned into a freedom-hating Bolshevik surrender monkey. But even if I understand where he’s coming from, it’s still strange. Although it’s a seemingly harmless practice, it logically implies the existence of a sadistic, cruel and petty God. Indeed, as people like Hitchens point out with characteristic tact, much of Christian doctrine – I now realize – assumes precisely this sort of God.

There are a couple of aspects to this implied petty cruelty (with respect to prayer). The first is simply that God apparently causes these events (drought, coal mine collapse, sick child, etc.) in the first place. Looking specifically at Georgia, praying for rain obviously assumes that God has some sort of control over the weather. Thus, he either caused the drought, or allowed it to happen. And once caused, the act of prayer assumes that God could step in and end it.

It’s interesting that religious people – including me at one point – tend to ignore causation when praying for help. Bad stuff just sort of happens, but then the benevolent God might be persuaded to fix it if we ask him. It’s like a bit like asking Oswald if he would be so kind as to bring JFK some bandages.

And that leads to the second aspect of the pettiness – the vanity. The act of prayer assumes that, before acting, God has to be sufficiently flattered to step in and stop these harmful conditions. The implication, of course, is that those who don’t flatter him are out of luck. Thus, it’s almost more disturbing if prayer does work because, if it does, it means the universe is ruled by a petty vain deity.

I’m not saying this is necessarily irrational, I’m just saying that – if true – God doesn’t seem particularly worthy of our praise. (The same is true for anyone who requires worship to avoid an eternity of fiery torture.) I’m sure the Catholic literature (which is much more robust and intellectual than its Protestant counterpart) has a rich history of debate on this point. But at the end of the day, it’s hard to see how God comes off looking good, much less worship-worthy.

But amateur theology aside, there’s a more significant real-world problem with Perdue’s actions. Fighting droughts require practical water conservation policies. For instance, Brad Plumer – the most underrated blogger on the nets – writes about how our energy policy contributes to water shortages in the Southeast. And if we are currently living in the age of the Oil Wars, the Water Wars may be right around the corner as global warming sharply reduces supplies for billions of people.

These are serious, life-and-death policy concerns. That’s why relying on prayer is more than a harmless aside. It distracts from the reality that fixing problems requires human effort – human political effort to be precise. By relying on prayer, Perdue (and others) can avoid the political costs of conservation reform by (implicitly) blaming God for the problems. For this reason, maybe these prayers annoy God too. Calling for prayer shifts the blame from human actors to celestial ones. And last I checked, the Big Guy ain’t on the ballot next fall.

(One last aside, prayer can be therapeutic – much like meditation or reflection. This post doesn’t use prayer in that sense.)

Telecom Immunity: Update

by hilzoy

From the NYT:

"Reflecting the deep divisions within Congress over granting legal immunity to telephone companies for cooperating with the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a new domestic surveillance law on Thursday that sidestepped the issue.

By a 10 to 9 vote, the committee approved an overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that dropped a key provision for immunity for telecommunications companies that another committee had already approved. The Senate leadership will have to decide how to deal with the immunity question on the Senate floor.

On Thursday night, the House voted 227 to 189, generally along party lines, to approve its own version of the FISA bill, which also does not include immunity.

But the administration has made clear that President Bush will veto any bill that does not include what it considers necessary tools for government eavesdropping, including the retroactive immunity for phone carriers that took part in the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks. (...)

After lobbying by the telecommunications industry and the White House, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence agreed to the legal protection last month. Under a complicated legislative process, the Intelligence Committee’s bill had to be considered by the Judiciary Committee before it could go to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

Because the two committees could not agree, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, will determine which proposals will be considered by the full Senate, said a spokeswoman for the Judiciary Committee.

“The full Senate will yet need to resolve the immunity issue,” Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement after the committee vote."

As best I can tell, this means that a lot turns on what Harry Reid decides. If he brings a bill without telecom immunity to the Senate floor, then any amendment adding it can be filibustered, and would need 60 votes to pass. If he brings a bill with telecom immunity, the opposite would be true.

This, from Greg Sargent, is heartening, though hardly conclusive:

"As some people have been speculating today, aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have confirmed to me that the version of the FISA bill that was just reported out of the Judiciary Committee does not -- repeat, does not -- contain retroactive immunity for the telecom companies.

And a source close to Reid says that this is "most likely" the version that the Majority Leader will file a motion to proceed on."

As I wrote earlier, I can't see any reason why telecoms should be given retroactive immunity for breaking the law. This would set a horrible precedent: when the President asks powerful companies to violate the law, they can accede without having to pay any price for doing so. The fact that the House has voted a bill without immunity, and the Senate is closer to considering one, is a big step forward for the rule of law.