Obsidian Wings

The Strip Search Two-Step

by publius

To echo Scott, consider me pleasantly surprised by the Court’s ruling today on school strip searches.  Below are a few scattered thoughts:

The Virtues of the Two-Step

This is mostly for non-lawyers, but note that the Court actually made two different holdings today.  First, the Court held that the search in question (requiring a student to open her bra to search for Demon Advil) violated the Fourth Amendment.  Second, the Court held that the school official was nonetheless immune from suit because the law wasn’t clear at the time.  In short, the ruling applies prospectively to future illegal searches, but Assistant Principal Advil won’t be liable.

This latter holding may seem ridiculous, but it’s probably a necessary evil that ultimately protects constitutional rights.

To back up, these cases are known as “constitutional torts” – and they help give teeth to our constitutional rights.  Basically, when a government official violates a person’s constitutional rights, that person can sue to obtain damages.  These types of cases are commonly brought against school and law enforcement officials.  A typical case goes something like this – A guy gets indicted for drug possession.  The court ultimately dismisses the indictment on Fourth Amendment grounds.  The guy then turns around and sues the police department for money damages.

So here’s the problem with constitutional torts – the people committing the constitutional violations are often sympathetic actors (e.g., police, teachers).  And the plaintiffs whose rights were violated are often un-sympathetic actors (e.g., accused drug dealers).  The fear, then, is that courts may be unwilling to find constitutional violations if it means punishing police officers who were often acting in good faith.

The Court has, however, developed a way to get around this problem – a doctrinal “two-step.”  Essentially, the Court divides the analysis into two parts.*  First, it decides whether a constitutional violation has taken place.  If so, it then decides whether the law was “clearly established” at the time.  This allows the Court to say (as it did today), “Yes, that search was unconstitutional, but this particular defendant didn’t know that for sure.”

The upshot is that the Court prevents future constitutional violations, but doesn’t punish prior ones.  And while that’s not ideal, it’s probably a net benefit.  Without this “two-step,” many courts would simply find no constitutional violation.  If, however, courts aren’t required to punish sympathetic government officials, then they are more likely to give constitutional rights more teeth. 

And that’s exactly what happened today.  The right was established, but the individual defendant didn’t have to pay.

Does The Ruling Matter?

It’s easy to argue that today’s decision won’t matter that much.  After all, the facts were pretty specific – Assistant Principal Advil wasn’t looking for “hard” drugs, and there was no evidence of danger.  In theory, schools could get around today’s ruling by claiming to look for more dangerous drugs.

But that said, today’s ruling still has some strong “signaling” benefits.  The idea is that the Court has signaled that lower courts should be less tolerant of intrusive body searches of students.  Risk-averse school boards will therefore tighten up standards for such searches – and, in general, will hesitate to get close to the “line.”  In this way, students’ constitutional rights will (one hopes) be more secure.

A Question for Justice Thomas

David Bernstein has a good question for Justice Thomas, who by my reading thinks the Constitution does indeed stop at the schoolhouse door:

If school officials had conducted a body cavity search, instead of just a strip search, would Justice Thomas have still dissented? I'm not confident that there is anything in his reasoning that suggests otherwise.

Me neither.

[*The Court recently held that the courts don't have to do this analysis in any particular order, but that level of complexity isn't necessary for this post.]

Obligatory Sanford Post

by hilzoy

Well, someone has to write one.

I watched his news conference, and I thought he looked at or near the end of his rope. I admire him for taking responsibility for what he did, though I don't at all admire what he did, either the 'betraying your wife and four kids' part or the 'leaving your state in the lurch and putting your staff in a completely untenable position' part. 

I wonder who leaked the emails? And why? And why did the paper hold them for months?

I think about his sons. The youngest is ten. This has to be excruciating for them. I hope they don't have the kinds of horrible classmates who might make the next weeks and months a misery. 

Strangest Sanford-related fact I've seen: he digs holes "to unwind".

Quote I wish he wishes he'd either borne in mind or not said in the first place:

"But I think the Bible says, "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father that's in heaven." Hopefully, by the way in which you act. The way in which you make decisions. They’re going to see that something’s there. (...) If you have a religious view, it's incumbent upon you and it’s real to have that. The Bible talks about the fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control. There ought to be certain things that are clearly observable by your actions."

The two silliest defensive responses from before he fessed up:

"It is refreshing that Mark Sanford is secure enough in himself and the people of South Carolina that he does not view himself as an indispensable man." (Erick Erickson)

And:

"Are [Cassie] and I married to the only real men left in the entire freakin' country? Do we only want Momma's boys or Daddy's girls in the White House from here on out? Teddy Roosevelt is doing backflips in his grave right now: apparently no one is allowed to go on a writing retreat, take a road trip, or hike, hunt, or fish if they have any political ambitions at all. Unbelievable." (Little Miss Attila)

Mark Sanford: secure enough in himself to to leave his state without a governor, his wife without a husband, and his sons without a father; enough of a real man to willfully torpedo his closest relationships. Family values in action.

Discuss.

The Reason for the Season (of Reform)

by publius

And while I'm on health care, just go read this Ezra Klein post on the business models of health insurance companies.  It provides some important perspective on a policy debate that can often become tedious for novices like me.

It's easy to get lost in the weeds on all this stuff.  And it's easy for health wonks to lose sight of the fact that even the most informed segments of the American public don't always have the time or energy to understand the ins-and-outs of the legislative debate.

That's why it's important to step back from time to time and remember what this fight is really about.

The bottom line is that reform is needed because the private market isn't working -- and can't work.  As Klein's post reminds us, the goal of private insurance companies is to make a profit.  They want to take in more money, and pay out less.  That means that insurance companies have every incentive to reject unhealthy (high cost) people, and to rescind or limit benefits to consumers who suddenly become high-cost. 

That's the nature of a profit-driven health care system.  We should expect nothing less.  Lions eat zebras, insurance companies seek profit -- that's their essence.  It doesn't make them bad.  It just makes them poor candidates for guardians of the public's health.

But our current system relies on these very guardians.  And it's led to a state of affairs that is unacceptable.  Lots of people can't get insurance, and lots of others have unacceptably low levels of coverage for expensive health conditions.  And this reality has heartbreaking consequences for millions of families.

It's important to keep this big picture in mind in all the abstract discussions about efficiency, etc.  We must remember that there are real human lives at stake here.  Above all else, we must remember that health care reform is a moral issue -- a moral imperative. 

The idea that anyone, anywhere, would go bankrupt from medical expenses is morally unacceptable.  The fact that any parent would lose sleep because of an inability to afford sufficient coverage for her family should make everyone sick to their stomachs.  It is this ongoing daily outrage that makes reform necessary. 

And one last point -- the Republican Party does not care, has not cared, and will not care about ending this sorry state of affairs.  They've never tried, and they have no serious plans to try today.  So there's no reason to accommodate them now, or to meet them halfway.  Or even quarter-way.  They'll oppose the plan anyway, and they'll begin attacking it before the ink of Obama's signature is dry. 

When they get serious about addressing the real problem -- when they show that they care about something other than protecting the insurance industry -- then maybe Dems should listen.  But that day isn't coming anytime soon.

About That "Unfairness"

by publius

One of the most common critiques against the public option is that government subsidies will give it an unfair market advantage.  Frankly, "fairness" isn't high on my list of priorities.  But regardless, the cry for a "level playing field" is admittedly a politically powerful counterargument that needs to be addressed.

So here's the best response -- even assuming we should care about fairness, the public option (as proposed) is "fair" under the critics' definition.  That's because it will NOT be publicly subsidized by general revenues.  As Jacob Hacker explains, some of the initial startup costs will be subsidized.  After that, however, the public option would have to stand or fall on its own merits.  Hacker writes:

Moreover, this new public health insurance plan should be—and is, in the draft legislation—self-supporting after initial setup costs are financed (that is, it should be financed by the same sources as any other plan within the exchange, notably, individual premiums, employer contributions, and income-related subsidies).

On this same point, Robert Reich explains:

Under every plan that's being discussed on Capitol Hill, subsidies go to individuals and families who need them in order to afford health care, not to a public plan.  . . .  Legislation should also make crystal clear that the public plan, for its part, may not dip into general revenues to cover its costs. It must pay for itself.

 

That doesn't end the debate by any means.  And there are of course many other fights beyond the public plan that are equally important.  But I think the so-called "unfairness" argument isn't very persuasive.  And if private plans can't compete against a self-sustaining public option . . . tough.

Just as the Drinks Arrive, Just as they Play Your Favorite Song

by Eric Martin

When I predicted last week that the Iranian election imbroglio would be used as a pretense by neoconservatives (and other factions that prefer conflict with Iran) to declare potential negotiations/engagement with Iran a dead letter, I didn't expect to see the argument made by two foreign policy writers whose work I admire greatly and with whom I tend to agree as a rule (three if you include Kevin Drum). First, Rob Farley:

I also suspect that it is going to be extremely difficult to carry out any engagement strategy with Iran going forward. If the regime survives, it will be because of the loyalty and brutality of its security forces. With that brutality on display on US televisions (if only rarely) it will be much more difficult for Obama to build any domestic support for talks. Moreover, it's not clear that he should; knowing that the Iranian regime was repressive before these latest incidents, and acknowledging that many US allies in the region don't even bother with the fiction of elections doesn't change the fact that it's an ugly bit of business. I'd rather, other things being equal, not have my President engage with Iran while the current group of thugs is in power. Finally, I do think that the repression has opened greater opportunity for what might be termed a non-interventionist coercive strategy; this is to say that more and tougher sanctions against the regime are on the table now than was the case two weeks ago.

There are more than a few issues I have with Farley's piece.  On the one hand, he acknowledges the fact that the US not only engages with - but has good relations such that it bestows enormous amounts of aid on - other less democratic regimes in the region.  But whereas Farley is not calling for a clean break with Saudi Arabia, Egypt or any of the other less-than-democratic regimes, he would prefer that Obama not engage Iran.  Under what principle this distinction is made is unclear and, yet, there are the two standards standing in stark contrast.

I feel compelled to repeat the words of Vice President Biden:

“Talks with Iran are not a reward for good behaviour,” [Biden] told NBC...“Our interests are the same before the election as after..."

Indeed, they are, and so are Iran's.  Our interests still include convincing Iran to put safeguards in place to ensure that it does not weaponize uranium, and to try to gain more cooperation from Iran in the region generally speaking.  If those were laudable goals worthy of pursuing via direct engagement before the election, they remain so today. 

And what, may I ask, is the alternative?  The Bush administration refused to engage Iran, and this did not advance our interests in the region in any measurable way (actually, it is plausible to argue - as Farley and I have in the past - that the Bush administration approach was counterproductive).   

What Farley recommends is another round of (or simply tougher) international sanctions - assuming that we can get China and Russia, and our European allies, as applicable, on board [update: sanctions outside the negotiation process are problematic, though when part of that process, they serve a more fruitful purpose].  This policy, too, seems ill-advised.  As Robert Wright argues, engagement itself (giving the state in question a stake in the international order) is more likely an engine of liberalization and means to de-escalate tensions.  Sanctions, on the other hand, tend to entrench resistance and foster a bunker mentality:

America's security will best be served if all nations are by then free-market democracies, because ... the entanglement of such nations in the global economy strengthens their incentive to preserve world order and their inclination toward international cooperation — including, crucially, highly intrusive arms control.

...Making free-market democracy pervasive is only crucial to America's interest in the long run, over decades. Hence: no need to rush into, say, the Iraq war.

...Progressive realists (unlike neocons) believe that economic liberty strongly encourages political liberty. So (a) America should economically engage, rather than isolate, countries like Iran and North Korea, and (b) more generally, economic engagement offers a path to peacefully fostering the free-market democracy that neocons are inclined to implant via invasion.

There is another potential course of action for dealing with Iran's nuclear program, one that is preferred by many that seek to preemptively cut short Obama's outreach (though, to be clear, not Farley himself): a military attack that would, most likely, provoke retaliation that would escalate to something even nastier. At a time when our military has little flexibility to deal with a third front. 

Given those stakes, and the success rates of the various approaches, it would be better if we got over our squeamishness the same way we do every day with some of our "allies" in the region, and the way we have with other regimes throughout our history.  As Larison is right to point out:

As I said before, Nixon went to China after the nightmare of the Cultural Revolution. For that matter, detente advanced under Brezhnev, who had just smashed the 1968 uprisings in central and eastern Europe; Sadat made peace with Israel after the Arabs had almost overrun the country in 1973. There was a time when we understood that these sorts of governments needed to believe that they were secure before they could take the risk of negotiating with old foes on major national security questions. What is so strange is that the psychology of strength and weakness that hawks apply to U.S. foreign policy (usually wrongly) all the time would be quite appropriate to apply to the internal politics of an authoritarian state, but they don’t do this because they are too busy citing the authoritarians’ abuses to justify confrontational policies against them. If they stopped for a moment and applied their constant fear of “showing weakness” to an analysis of the internal politics of the authoritarian regimes in question, they would see that the presence of a viable, vibrant opposition is probably the surest guarantee that the regime will make no deals with Washington. Authoritarians are most likely to make deals on security and foreign policy issues once they feel secure and in place. The ones who cannot afford to make a deal are those who are vulnerable and fear appearing weak, which invites internal challenges.

The latter point Larison makes regarding the regime in question's tendency to negotiate in earnest from a position of security speaks directly to an argument put forward by Matt Yglesias reacting to Farley's post:

I would add to that the observation that a regime win would simply make me much less confident that engagement will work. The hope behind an engagement strategy was that the Supreme Leader might be inclined to side with the more pragmatic actors inside the system—guys like former president Rafsanjani and former prime minister Mousavi. With those people, and most of the Iranian elites of their ilk, now in open opposition to the regime, any crackdown would almost by definition entail the sidelining of the people who might be interested in a deal. Iran would essentially be in the hands of the most hardline figures, people who just don’t seem interested in improving relations with other countries.

Under the circumstances, the whole subject of American engagement may well wind up being moot.

Here, Yglesias forces a complex, but almost entirely inward-facing, Iranian struggle for power between the current regime and a heterodox amalgamation of clerical factions (longtime adversaries with the current regime), reformers and liberals, into an American-centric frame.  The election in Iran was not decided around issues of engagement with America vs. not, or pursuit of a nuclear program vs. abandonment (most Iranians, even the protesters, favor the continuation of a nuclear program).  Rather, it was a contest between factions of elites concerned primarily with domestic and economic matters - not to mention Khamenei's insecurity at the surprising size and scope of the burgeoning reform movement that he wanted to stop in its tracks, which speaks to Larison's argument.  

That is not to say that there are not differences in the general orientation of the two camps toward the United States.  Thus, it is possible that the outcome of the election and its aftermath, which will likely result in Ahmadinejad's retention of power, is a harbinger of an Iran that is unwilling to negotiate in good faith.  But it is equally plausible that Khamenei was intent on securing his position (and ensuring his control over the process) ahead of negotiations that appear inevitable given Obama's lead.  Or, perhaps, that the force of pushback Khamenei received this election cycle will lead him to pursue engagement in order to attempt to have something to show the population in terms of achievements. 

Of course, we won't know what the Iranian regime's disposition is until we ask.  So let's not cancel the party before we even send out the invites.

One Good Move (But We Need More)

by hilzoy

I'm no happier about most of Barack Obama's record on LGBT issues than anyone else. That makes me pretty unhappy. But this, at least, is very good news:

"Lawyers for President Obama are quietly drafting first-of-their kind guidelines barring workplace discrimination against transgender federal employees, officials said Tuesday.

The guidelines will be in an updated federal handbook for managers and supervisors to be distributed and posted online in the next couple of months, and they could also be included in other materials for managers. They will list transgender people -- those who identify their gender differently from the information on their birth certificates -- as among several groups protected by antidiscrimination laws.

Though transgender men and women are not believed to make up more than a fraction of a percent of the federal work force, their inclusion in the discrimination guidelines is seen as a breakthrough by transgender and gay rights advocates.

"The president is making a very clear statement that transgender people won't be discriminated against," said Mara Keisling, the executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, a group that has been talking with the White House about the new provisions."

Discrimination against transmen and transwomen is just wrong, and it's pervasive. Transitioning to a different gender is a tough enough process without worrying about whether you're going to lose your job as a result. And people can be pretty antediluvian about these things: they freak out about who gets to use what bathroom, etc., etc., ad nauseam. 

So this means a lot.

Autumn Sandeen notes:

"A fully inclusive Employement Non-Discrimination Act is going to be submitted to Congress this week by Rep. Barney Frank. Every LGBT American deserves these same nondiscrimination protections related to their sexual orientation and gender identity and expression that all federal employees are soon going to have."

I hope it passes. It's long past time.

The Past Is Past, And Thank God For That

by hilzoy

I just wanted to take a moment to give thanks for the fact that we truly don't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore:

"On Jan. 23, 1973, when the Supreme Court struck down state criminal abortion laws in Roe v. Wade, President Richard M. Nixon made no public statement. But privately, newly released tapes reveal, he expressed ambivalence.

Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster "permissiveness," and said that "it breaks the family." But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases, such as interracial pregnancies.

"There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white," he told an aide, before adding: "Or a rape.""

I see. The bad thing about abortion is that it lets people have sex without having to have kids if they don't want them or aren't ready for them. The good thing is that you get to be both a racist and a hypocrite without having to confront your own contradictions.

Glad we got that straightened out.

The Presser and the Public Option

by publius

All in all, a pretty solid performance.  There were lots of things I liked:  (1) the gentle smackdown of Preening John McCain on Iran; (2) the recognition of Nico Pitney's outstanding work; and (3) the strong words in support of the public option. 

On #3, I've been wondering lately why exactly so many otherwise decent Democratic Senators have been so wankerous on this.  I mean, I assume that people like Blanche Lincoln didn't go into public office to make the nation safe for health insurance companies.  And it's also hard to believe that the good people of Arkansas (wealthy as they are) are ready to throw Lincoln out of office unless she protects one of America's most hated industries.

Paul Krugman (via Kevin Drum) has the best theory I've heard -- basically, these Senators are simply protecting dominant home-state insurance companies who throw around more money than, say, Arkansas's uninsured.  But even if that's a bit off, it's hard to believe that the Democratic opposition is based on anything other than kissing up to industry.

But that's where public pressure -- and particularly pressure from Obama -- can help.  Again, I'm assuming there isn't much actual ideological opposition to the public option among Dems.  What they presumably need is a face-saving way to support it in their meetings with the health insurance companies.  In short, they need an excuse to support the public option.  And Obama helped provide it today.

It would obviously be too much to expect that Blanche Lincoln might stand on principle.  But she could say, "Hey, you know I'm with you but I can't risk the wrath of the White House on this."  Or maybe even, "Hey, you know I'm with you, but they're killing me on TV on this." 

Thankfully, electoral self-interest still trumps even industry donations.  I'm not saying that sustained pressure will make people like Lincoln fear getting thrown out of office.  But people don't like to be criticized -- and a sufficient amount of pressure can make things uncomfortable enough to give her a pretext to change her mind.  This pressure has at least sort of worked for Nelson... for the time being.

Why Less Is More

by Eric Martin

Like Joe Klein (and publius), I can't figure out what possible good could come of President Obama speaking out more forcefully, and identifying with the Iranian protesters more directly.  

I ask in earnest, what would that achieve? 

The best answer that I've come across thus far (and it's not very compelling) is George Packer's claim that if Obama doesn't speak out more forcefully to the protesters that are increasingly shut off from the outside world (and, by that virtue, the words Obama would be directing toward them), Packer can "imagine" that some of those protesters would feel the world wasn't watching if and when the regime cracks down. 

Why those protesters would conclude that the world is ignoring them if Obama onlyspeaks out against the violence, but doesn't more directly take the side of the protesters, is unclear.  Why they need the attention of the US President to assure them of the world's interest is also not apparent.  In reality, given the nature of the dispute in Iran, and the relevant issues, Obama (and his choice of words) is of little consequence to the protesters - but don't tell the Washington pundit class.

Speaking of which, the Washington Post seemed incapable (until the last day or two) of publishing anything on its editorial pages other than impassioned entreaties for Obama to do "more" (in all its vague and nebulous utility).  Robert Kagan, and his ideological fellow travelers, have actually stooped as low as to suggest that Obama's measured response is evidence that he is objectively "siding with the regime" in Iran.  What they don't tell you (or at least with any evidence beyond assertion), however, is what gain there is to be had in adopting the bluster of John McCain.   

Much as we might like to imagine ourselves as impartial arbiter and inspirational leader to the world, Presidential rhetoric just isn't that potent in determining the resolution of crises in far off lands.  Just as President Bush's lack of rhetorical focus on Robert Mugabe's electoral fraud, and subsequent violent crackdown, in Zimbabwe was not the missing ingredient in the effort to overturn the results of that sham process, so too will Obama's lack of a certain kind of blustery speechifying have little impact on the prospects of the protesters' mission in Iran.

However, while a shift in Obama's tone - from condemnation of violence/defense of democratic principles, to more confrontational language/direct association with the opposition movement - would be of little value to the protesters, it could hurt their cause by making allegations of American interference seem more valid (yes, those charges would be made either way, but the question is to what extent they are seen as credible by wavering security forces, as well as the wider Iranian population).  Large segments of the Iranian population (relative to other nations in the region) may have favorable views of the American people, but their attitudes toward the US government is another story.  As Joe Klein points out, you don't even have to go back to Mossadegh in 1953 to find bitter memories:

Again, the crucial fact about the protesters is this: they may hate the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime--who wouldn't?--but that doesn't make them particular fans of the United States. I have yet to meet an Iranian who does not believe that the United States gave poison gas to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, gas which injured thousands upon thousands of Iranian men, who still live, incapacitated, in the shadows of that society. (Indeed, the attention Ahmadinejad has paid to the Iran-Iraq war veterans and their families is a major source of his extensive support among the Iranian working class.)

The protesters admire our freedom, but they are appalled--and insulted--by our neocolonialist condescension over the past 50 years. The reformers, and even some conservatives, consider Ahmadinejad the George W. Bush of Iran--a crude, unsophisticated demagogue, who puts a strong Potemkin face to the world without very much knowledge of what the rest of the world is about. This was an analogy that came up in interview after interview, with reformers and conservatives alike.

Certainly, Bush the Younger, McCain and the rest of that crowd have absolutely no idea who the Iranian people are. The are not Hungarians in 1956. They do not believe they live in an Evil Empire. They still support their revolution. They shout "Allahu Akbar" in the streets, which was the rallying cry of 1979. They are proud of their nuclear program, even if many have doubts about the efficacy of weaponizing the enriched uranium that is being produced. They want greater freedom, to be sure. And they believe that the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad forces--and the militarized regime they have empowered, the millions of basiji and revolutionary guards--is a profound perversion of that revolution. They are right. They deserve our prayers and support. But they don't need grandstanding from an American President, and they certainly don't need histrionics from blustery old John McCain.

Not to mention more recent examples (as in "ongoing" as of Obama's inauguration at least) of US intelligence operations to destabilize the regime.  Given the fact that the US government is actually undertaking efforts to undermine the regime, why would the President of the United States want to make it any easier to portray the protesters as a manifestation of those plans?

In another example of criticism leveled at Obama, Daniel Harper chides Obama for evoking Martin Luther King's words on the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice, claiming that Obama had no right to quote King because King was an active participant in the struggle in question, whereas Obama, by his reluctance to ratchet up the rhetoric, is choosing to be a passive witness.  Daniel Luban responds masterfully (via), first by pointing out that Obama can't really get involved as a participant in the struggle because Obama...is not an Iranian (at least unless the Birthers have a new theory).  Further, given this outsider role, and the ongoing record of US involvement in Iran and Iranian attitudes associated therewith, Luban continues:

But to illustrate this obvious fact more sharply, consider the following thought experiment. In 1963, as King delivers his famous speech to the March on Washington, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev delivers a public message of his own to the protesters. “We would like to tell these brave voices of freedom,” Khrushchev says, “that they have the full support and solidarity of the USSR. The Soviet Union and the United States Communist Party are ready and willing to perform any measures within our power to help our American brothers and sisters obtain their rights from this oppressive regime. And although Dr. King pretends that he holds no hostility toward the American capitalist system of government itself, and wishes only to secure the ideals of the American founding for all of its citizens, we all know that he and his supporters really yearn for complete regime change in Washington. We in Moscow will do whatever it takes to help you achieve this goal.”

Let us ignore the question of Khrushchev’s intentions here: whether he is motivated by genuine sympathy and desire to aid the civil rights marchers, or a more cynical hope of destabilizing a rival government, or a narcissistic and self-righteous wish to take credit for the marchers’ achievement in order to feel better about himself and appease his domestic critics. (And before anyone gets up in arms about “moral equivalence,” let me note than I am not equating Obama’s America and Khrushchev’s Russia, merely noting that Obama and Khrushchev occupy structurally similar positions as leaders of distrusted rival powers.)

Let us focus only on a simple tactical question: would Khrushchev’s statement aid the civil rights movement? Would it be welcomed by King and his associates? Why or why not?

I would say good questions, but they really answer themselves.

The Narcissism of John McCain

by publius

I don't have anything much to add, but Joe Klein gets this exactly right.  I'm glad we have a President whose main priority in foreign policy is something other than making sure he feels really good about himself.  Anyway, here's Klein:

I have yet to hear what possible good it would do for the President of the United States to encourage the protesters, except to give the Iranian regime a better excuse for killing more of them. McCain's bleatings are either for domestic political consumption or self-satisfaction, a form of hip-shooting onanism that demonstrates why he would have been a foreign policy disaster had he been elected.

To put it as simply as possible, McCain--and his cohorts--are trying to score political points against the President in the midst of an international crisis. It is the sort of behavior that Republicans routinely call "unpatriotic" when Democrats are doing it. I would never question John McCain's patriotism, no matter how misguided his sense of the country's best interests sometimes seems. His behavior has nothing to do with love of country; it has everything to do with love of self.

I also think we should amend the Constitution so that the networks are no longer legally required to schedule McCain on the Sunday morning talk show circuit every single week.