Durned Liberals

I, for one, welcome the return of the word “liberal” to something more closely approximating its political theory meaning. I’ve spent far, far too much time explaining to undergraduates that when political theorists and international relations theorists use the word liberal they mean something much different than what Rush Limbaugh means. Like Ezra, I’ve also been using the word “progressive” to describe leftish political tendencies in the United States.

…and Billmon points out some other reasons that “liberal” and “left” are not the same thing.

Elections

Since at least 1980 — with the infamous Reagan campaign ad claiming that that Ayatollah Khomeini wanted Carter to win a second term — it’s become an article of faith to some that Islamic fanatics want nothing less than Democratic hegemony over all branches of government. The Bushies resorted to this narrative in the weeks leading up to the 2004 elections, reviving the broad “vote for us or you’ll die” rhetorical strategy first introduced (no kidding) by John Quincy Adams in 1824, refined by Johnson’s “Daisy” ad in 1964, and deployed to mixed renown by defense hawks throughout the remainder of the cold war. As someone who doesn’t study voting behavior, I can’t say how persuasive this move actually is, but the evidence suggests that plenty of folks believe it’s effective enough to keep rolling out; like the “War on Christmas,” however, the “terrorists want Democrats” argument will probably grow stale enough even for ordinary people inclined to believe it.

Speaking of the War on Christmas, defender of the faith John Gibson recently rolled out the “insurgents want Democrats” argument again by quoting a Pentagon source who — praise be — argued that the insurgency in Iraq is being accelerated to arouse domestic opposition to President Bush and influence the mid-term elections:

Now why would Al Qaeda want to affect American elections?

Because Al Qaeda needs an American exit date in Iraq, and if the Democrats win, all indications are they will see to it that there is an exit date in Iraq.

Gibson doesn’t bother to explain how a Congress that has ceded virtually all of its oversight responsibilities to the executive branch is going to be capable — even in the event of a Democratic victory — of reversing the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq. More substantively, as Marc Lynch explores, American commentators like Gibson evidently feel no need to ask serious questions about what exactly al-Qaeda “wants” in the context of US politics. Examining a long post that appeared recently on the al-Tajdeed forum (run by a Saudi dissident with well-documented ties to al-Qaeda), Lynch oberves:

The author’s premise is that al-Qaeda has consistently intervened in American domestic politics where necessary in order to ensure that America stays in Iraq. Whenever America seems like it might withdraw, he writes, Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri pops up to remind Americans that if they do then al-Qaeda will triumph in their wake – thus goading them to remain. This predictably silences those reasonable voices calling for withdrawal, who are even accused of national treason, and strengthens the voices of stupidity. The author offers several detailed examples, including the 2004 election in which bin Laden ensured that Bush would win and continue his policies in Iraq, and a Zawahiri video last year calling on Bush to flee Iraq and admit defeat which Bush used to silence his critics. Each time al-Qaeda’s leaders speak, he argues, Bush and his party are strengthened, and commit even more firmly to remaining in Iraq… while the mujahideen laugh from the depth of their souls.

The whole post is worth reading, if for no other reason than for its suggestion that al-Qaeda’s ability to effect US elections is as limited as its broader understanding of the American political process.

And Then What?

I have a lot of problems with Amy Sullivan’s recent piece about the opportunities allegedly presented by David Kuo’s new book. First of all, I reject her entire premise that Democratic politicians don’t reach out to religious believers, and since she never mentions the names of prominent Democrats who treat believers with contempt it’s impossible to evaluate her claims. Second, Sullivan’s claim that liberal bloggers have “spent so much time fear-mongering about American theocracy that a book illustrating the opposite simply makes no sense to them” is belied by the fact that what is surely the most-discussed liberal book of the second Bush era makes the well-known case that evangelicals are being played for suckers by the business elite that really holds the power in the GOP. Kuo’s revelations aren’t so shocking as to be incomprehensible to knowledgeable liberals, but are rather banal.

But my biggest problem with Sullivan’s argument continues to be that she’s frustratingly vague about how, exactly, Democrats should “reach out to disaffected evangelicals.” My understanding is that she’s not saying that Democrats should sacrifice core principles such as reproductive freedom. But if that’s the case, I don’t know what more Democrats can do. Sullivan seems to think that there are large numbers of voters who 1)like Democratic economic policy more, 2)vote Republican because of social issues, but 3)would stop voting Republican on social issues, not because of substantive shifts in Democratic policy but because of shifts in rhetoric. I suspect that these voters could fit in a good-sized walk-in closet. I think most voters who vote on cultural principle care about substantive positions, and with the Roberts and Alito homeruns they’re being rational to vote Republican no matter how much Karl Rove disdains them.

Another point to keep in mind is that a concern for social justice doesn’t necessarily translate into support for Democratic economic policy. Consider this from the recent New Yorker profile of Michael Gerson, the Bush speechwriter often cited as a true “compassionate conservative”:

Gerson defends Bush’s tax cuts, which the President’s critics believe not only favor those with the highest incomes but have also left less money for important domestic programs; Gerson believes that free markets and free trade are the best means of lifting people out of poverty, and that lower taxes stimulate both. “The part of Mike I have the most trouble understanding, perhaps because we simply disagree, is how he can square his support for pretty substantial spending for the very poorest among us with a defense of Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people,” Dionne said. “Maybe Mike just buys supply-side economics in a way that I don’t, but most supply-siders don’t think like Mike.”

The fact is that most Republican evangelicals are strongly committed to Republican policy positions, and it’s condescending to think that they can be persuaded by subtle rhetorical shifts (and Sullivan concedes at one point that depressing turnout is more likely than actually convincing the religious right to vote Democratic.) What Democrats can do to broaden their base–run more socially conservative candidates in more conservative states, and claim that religious values support progressive goals and solutions–they’re already doing. So I just don’t see what talking more about David Kuo is supposed to accomplish.

Horses are Big in Kentucky

Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum is an odd entry into the pantheon of Kentucky heroes:

Most of them, however, know him as Sheik Mo, a horseman who for nearly 25 years has arrived each year at Blue Grass Airport by private jumbo jet and has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on horses.

Although the sheik and the company his family controls encountered security concerns and had to abandon an attempt to run six United States port operations in March, he is treated like a fellow horseman here in Lexington, home of his thriving racing and breeding business.

In a relatively short time, Sheik Mohammed and members of his royal family have joined the ranks of the blue-blooded Phipps family and the more commercially driven Overbrook Farm as fabled names in horse racing in the United States.

You wouldn’t think that a plane that big could land at Bluegrass Airport until you see it sitting there.

Democracy, anarchy — whatever, dude

I understand that the presidential taint-tasters at Powerline are beyond rescue, but is it so unreasonable to expect a trio of hacks at least to agree on some sort of basic narrative about what the United States is supposed to be pursuing in Iraq?

Here’s Assrocket, just making shit up on October 15, 2006:

In fact, as we have often noted, if you listened to any of the speeches President Bush gave on Iraq in 2003 or read the Congressional authorization on the war, every rationale that has ever been discussed is there. And, as I have often said, bringing reform and democracy to the Arab world was perceived by me, and by many if not most of the war’s early supporters, as the most important goal.

And here’s Paul Mirengoff, exactly two weeks later, perhaps researsing his own apology for a US withdrawal, just in case it ever happens:

At the same time, our interest in preventing anarchy seems less powerful than our interest in combatting an insurgency. The latter phenomenon could lead directly to a state within a state which anti-American terrorists then could use as a base of operations against our interests. Anarchy in Baghdad poses no direct threat to our security. To be sure, a resolution of the anarchy that brings anti-American terrorists to power would threaten our security. But that resolution seems unlikely — to the extent that an al Qaeda type element is part of the free-for-all in Baghdad, its prospects aren’t good.

Tomorrow: Scott Johnson explains why constitutional monarchy was really the goal all along.

Erick Erickson: A New Low

John Cole notes a profoundly embarrassing installment in the conservative war on aesthetics by Erick Erickson, who mocks the “‘it’s just fiction’ defense” of Jim Webb.” (Next, those crazy liberals might claim that Vladimir Nabokov isn’t a pedophile, and Thomas Pynchon isn’t an 18th century surveyor!) Radley Balko says that “I met Erickson at a CPAC a couple of years ago. He is every bit as impressive in person as you might guess from the post linked above.” That’s pretty impressive, if only on the grounds that I wouldn’t think that anybody capable of turning on a computer could be as dimwitted and mendacious as Erickson, but evidently I’m too optimistic.

This reminds me of my favorite Erickson moment. In the midst of a truly pathetic defense of wingnut plagiarist Ben Domenech, Erickson claimed that poor Ben’s actions “appear suspicious, but only because permissions obtained and judgments made offline were not reflected online by an out dated and out of business campus newspaper.” Needless to say, a two-second Google inquiry could falsify Erickson’s claim, but the contempt that hacks of this stripe have for their audience is boundless (and, frankly, given that Erickson can still show up on the front page of Red State, may be partially justified.)

Defeatists

Via Juan Cole, we read of a minister from Houston who is running around the country insisting that Republicans need to be defeated because George W. Bush is delaying the Second Coming; this runs upstream against the usual premillennialist insistence that the End Times are nigh and that the American war in Iraq is greasing the rails for the Rapture train. K.A. Paul, who runs something called “Gospel to the Unreached Millions,” insists that God is “angry” with the United States and specifically enraged with Bush himself, who is inexplicably (according to Paul) denying Christian missionaries the opportunity to work in Iraq, Iran and Syria.

I doubt this is much of a trend, but it’s interesting at least in an anecdotal way. Most Christian prophecy writers are still, as near as I can tell, fully on-board with George W. Bush and his Middle East policies, which they interpret primarily through the lens of Biblical clues about the coming of the Last Days. My subscription to the Left Behind Prophecy Club expired — and I’m not kidding about this — at least a year ago, when my research had to be put on hold for various personal and professional reasons. Up to that point, however, the Left Behind circle — especially Tim LaHaye, one of the Original Gangstas of the Moral Majority and co-author of that wretched series of “novels” — were still utterly persuaded that Saddam Hussein, while not specifically the Antichrist, was at least a good indication of the kind of demon with whom a man like George W. Bush would have to contend as human history swirled in ever tighter circles toward the drain. I’m not sure where these folks stand at the moment on the war, but I imagine they, like Jack Van Impe and John Hagee, have not been deterred in their conviction that the Bush administration is doing all it can to fulfill Biblical prophecy.

It goes almost without saying that these people are unhinged, particularly when one recalls that the completion of these prophecies can only take place with (a) the rise of a dreaded One World Government (conventionally understood to be the United Nations or the European Union); (b) a multinational invasion of Israel led by the armies of the AntiChrist; and, depending on whom you talk to, (c) the destruction or marginalization of the United States, whose God-fearing millions will be spirited away by the Rapture, leaving the rest of us to flail away helplessly as the globe descends into war. Since instability and violence are absolutely essential to the premillennialist vision of the End Times, I suppose it makes complete sense for these lunatics to press forward on behalf of their President.

Yet More On Gender-Segregated Education

The more I read, the more I’m dubious about the apparent coming increase in gender segregation in K-12 schools. Neil reminds us of The Happy Feminist’s terrific post this summer on the subject, in which she points us to some of the underlying theoretical claims of the Louisiana program being challenged:

54. In Why Gender Matters, Dr. Sax states that because of biological differences in the brain, boys need to practice pursuing and killing prey, while girls need to practice taking care of babies. As a result, boys should be permitted to roughhouse during recess and play contact sports, to learn the rules of aggression. Such play is more dangerous for girls, because girls are less biologically able to manage aggression.

57. In Why Gender Matters, Dr. Sax urges that boys be taught in competitive, high-energy teams. In contrast, teachers should assure that girls are relaxed in class. For instance, girls should be encouraged to take their shoes off. Also, girls should never be given strict time limits to complete tasks. Stress makes boys perform better and girls perform worse, according to Dr. Sax.

59. In Why Gender Matters, Dr. Sax explains that literature teachers should not ask boys about emotions in literature, but should simply focus on what actually happened in the story. In contrast, teachers should focus on emotions rather than action in teaching literature to girls.

62. In Why Gender Matters, Dr. Sax explains that “anomalous males” — boys who like to read, who don’t enjoy competitive sports or rough-and-tumble play, and who don’t have a lot of close male friends — should be firmly disciplined, should spend as much time as possible with “normal males,” and should be made to play competitive sports.

Yeah, if there’s any problem that we currently face, it’s that men are reading too damned much!

None of this is to say this is an inherent characteristic of single-sex education; it doesn’t seem to describe the school that Becks attended, for example. It’s all in the details. But given the competence and commitment to women’s rights of the current administration…

No Brainer

Waterboarding–now officially endorsed by the Vice President of the United States (whether his lackeys lie about it or not)–is, in fact, torture. Lederman and Balkin explain in detail.

I also like Sully going all rhetorically McArdle on Hugh Hewitt:

I do not make an argument in the book about Planned Parenthood. I just use it because I think that’s a beautiful statement of the freedom of individual conscience, and the freedom of the individual liberty, of the individual person, which you, of course, disagree with profoundly, and want the executive to be able to pluck people off the streets and jail them without charges. That’s your position, right?

HH: You see no inconsistency in quoting from an opinion…

AS: I see inconsistency in someone who calls himself an Evangelical Catholic supporting torture, like you do.

To be clear, supporting the Republicans, 2006 edition, means supporting the arbitrary power of the executive to pick up people and torture them without charges or recourse to the courts. Full stop.

What Would We Be Without Wishful Thinking?

K-Lo’s attempts to convince herself that Rick Santorum can win are pretty sad. Still–particularly since she seems to realize its futility on some level–I don’t think that she can hold a candle to Time-Approved Real Clear Politics’ prediction of the 2000 elections on November 6, 2000:

We continue to see a landslide of over 400 electoral votes and a Bush win by 7-10 points. We will have to wait until tomorrow to see whether the “tightening polls” may have worked to save Illinois, California, Minnesota and a few others for the Vice President.

Yep–California and Illinois in the “leaning Bush” pile. Now that’s hackery.