Rob Salkowitz: Rants

Sun, 16 Feb 2003 21:43:49 GMT

The Liberal Media – Myth and Reality

Eric Alterman’s new book—What Liberal Media?—has apparently begun a long-needed discussion on the role of the media in shaping, rather than just reporting, our political culture. Alterman contends that the professional press, which was never that liberal in the first place, has been systematically intimidated by conservative whining over the years, and that the corporate right-wing media now has the field to itself as a result.

Clearly, any “fair and balanced” view of the media in present-day America would reveal a distinct tilt to the right. The airwaves are jammed with rabid screaming-head talk-show hosts pushing the RNC party line; Fox “News” is an organ of the White House press office; and even mainstream media outlets are quietly deferential to the Administration while presenting Democrats as marginal, disorganized and slightly ridiculous. Nevertheless, the canard of liberal press bias persists. How could this be?

The answer lies in the basic function of the press in a democracy, which is to pose questions to those in authority, root out hidden agendas and inconsistencies, and give the people an independent source of information on which to base their opinions. An independent press that functions as anything beyond a propaganda office or marketing and PR agency must, as a matter of course, subvert authority to some extent.

And herein lies the problem. Obedience to established authority is the fundamental philosophical underpinning of conservatism, explaining, among other things, the basic inter-relationship between right-wing political movements and the most authoritarian elements of all established religions. Conservative morality descends from above – literally in the case of revealed theology, but equally true as a practical matter in most conservative political movements (including those of self-styled “progressives” like Stalin, who was, objectively, a right-wing authoritarian). Too much inquiry leads believers into heresy, and, worse, lack of discipline. Without unquestioning belief, there can be no arbitrary division of power between a traditional ruling class and the rest of society – a division which is the bedrock of conservative political ideology.

So, in a sense, conservatives have properly identified their enemy in the very institution of a free press – even when the results of independent journalism occasionally support their political objectives. Historically, this has rarely been as much of a problem as it has been in the years since the Depression. Prior to that, the American press consisted mostly of organs of specific political parties, local interests groups, immigrant communities or other narrow constituencies. People read the papers that suited their prejudices, and the news was reported, edited and slanted in a very plainly partisan way by people who shared the perspective of their readers.

The years following World War I and during the Depression in particular saw the influx of a new class of journalist, much more likely to be an educated professional than the previous generation of, essentially, literate tradesmen. Likewise, new technologies like radio and cinema created a national (and later global) market for mass media which had not existed before. The press saw that it could increase readership by broadening its perspective, and the commercial interests of the owners in a larger circulation corresponded with the more cosmopolitan and broad-minded perspectives of the new class of professional journalists. It is important to recognize that the modern idea of press objectivity arose from this particular coincidence of interests within the media, and not from some huge grass-roots demand for better reporting.

Nevertheless, the new ethic of objectivity and independence soon proved basically hostile to all political orthodoxy, left and right. Since there was never much of a true organized Left in this country, especially when compared with Europe, it was natural that the persistent demand for justification of previously-unquestioned political views particularly discomfited those on the Right. This was especially the case during the Civil Rights era, when know-nothing Southern sheriffs were made to look ridiculous in the glare of the sophisticated national media, who forced them to answer questions that they had never given a second thought about, growing up in a traditional conservative culture. Likewise, during Vietnam and Watergate, the press denied both the Johnson and Nixon administrations the atmosphere of secrecy they seemed to require to operate effectively, and revealed not only embarrassing failures of policy, but also personal qualities of both leaders that proved increasingly hard to defend as the actions of reasonable people.

The real bias in independent journalism is toward technocracy – rule according to practicality and reason. Pragmatists of the center-right and center-left generally speaking have no gripe with the press, because they are willing and able to explain their policies in the same measured, systematic language employed by educated professionals, including reporters. Ideologues who depend on their audience sharing a body of unquestioned assumptions always come off looking impulsive at best (and utterly foolish at worst). But no one comes away worse than people who, for whatever reason, use ideological principles as cover for an unspoken agenda. Hypocrisy is the worst sin in modern politics because it combines the excesses of ideology with deception, selfishness and pursuit of unearned privilege.

Since this is the modus operandi and objective of modern authoritarian political movements of the (mostly) right, it is imperative that they challenge and, if possible, discredit the notion of an independent press. Whining about slanted coverage was somewhat successful, but could not undo the fundamental ideological problem. So they stumbled on the real winning formula, which is to cloud the air with products that superficially resemble modern news reporting, but which actually consist of the partisan propaganda of the pre-modern era.

This approach serves two purposes: if it is taken as actual news, it can persuade or reinforce desired opinions, thereby supporting the authoritarian political project. Secondarily, because it fails the standards of objectivity and informativeness audiences have come to expect of a product labeled as “news,” it contributes to a pervasive cynicism about the entire institution of the press. This is almost better than propaganda, because, if people become jaded enough about any information they receive through the media, it completely removes a critical challenge to orthodoxy.

The debate over press bias is about much more than where individual reporters or media outlets stand on a range of political issues. It goes to the roots of how we get the information we need to make decisions about our community and our country. An independent press is indeed inherently liberal, just as our constitutional democracy is inherently liberal. Conservative whining about bias needs to be recognized for what it is: a basic assault on the entire enterprise of inquiry, intellectual challenge to authority, and demand for accountability from those in power.

Thu, 13 Feb 2003 01:27:50 GMT

An Economy of Logic

One theme that our Prez loves when talking about the economy is how giving small businesses a tax break will help lift us out of recession. It’s the familiar supply-side rhetoric: businesses will use the tax savings for investment in new people or equipment, thereby creating jobs and demand. As a small-business owner myself, let me respond to a few of these points.

Although I am generally skeptical of supply-side as an economic theory, I must admit that it can work as intended if deployed during a phase of the business cycle when demand is high and credit is tight – that is, if businesses have pent-up demand for capital but can’t get it for one reason or another. In that case, business will indeed use tax cuts productively, pushing an economy on the brink of a downturn into healthier growth.

Right now, however, we have exactly the opposite problem. Credit is as easy as it can possibly be. Hardly a day goes by without a few offers of zero-interest credit cards, absurdly low home equity refinance rates, or lines of credit for my business. I just got my annual dose of grim news from my tax preparer, but the taxes I owe are a result of having had a good 2002 following a bad 2001, not of excessive rates.

The problem is demand. Business is slow, so even if I got a break on taxes, I would not necessarily invest in anything right now. Maybe I’m more risk-averse than most, but it doesn’t strike me as sound business strategy to spend money when return on investment is so uncertain. The only place I’d feel comfortable investing right now is in marketing – hardly a capital-intensive area for most small businesses. And again, if all my clients are broke, I’d just be tossing pebbles into a stagnant pond.

This economy needs several things from the government before it needs a tax cut. First, some stability. The market hates, Hates, HATES all this talk of war. It creates basic uncertainty about just about everything from public safety to energy costs. Likewise, the Administration’s reckless attitude toward budget deficits might escape critical notice among the public at large, but professionals understand what it will do to the long-term health of the economy and this is having a distinctly negative impact in capital markets.

Second, it needs honesty. Trust is at an all-time low, and the Bush team seems to lack the commitment to tackle corporate crime with even a fraction of the zeal with which they go after growers of medicinal marijuana.

Third, it needs regulation. Yes, Virginia, even free markets need an active, vigilant government to prevent the feeding frenzy of capitalist sharks from doing too much damage to the environment, labor and safety standards, and the ecosystem of open competition. Capitalism unchecked tends toward monopoly – that’s an economic fact. Without sufficient oversight, free markets can and do become conspiracies by large corporations and cartels against the public interest. It’s in no one’s interests – not even the monopolists’ – to let that happen. One of our very best Republican presidents – Teddy Roosevelt – understood this. I somehow doubt GWB shares his convictions.

Fourth, and deliberately last, it needs stimulus. This isn’t the 1930s, or the 1960s, or even the 1980s anymore. An activist government fiscal policy, whether through tax cuts or spending, is in my view a less effective tool to stimulate economic growth than a responsible government fiscal policy combined with an activist monetary policy. That’s the combination that gave us the 1990s boom, the longest sustained stretch of economic growth in American history. Give Greenspan the credit if you don’t like Clinton – it doesn’t really matter. Experience shows this is what works in today’s global economic environment, and stimulus of any sort should be used only as a last resort.

While Bush and the Republicans have redefined conservatism as this volatile mixture of foreign policy adventurism and economic irresponsibility, the business community remains conservative in the original sense of being skeptical of radical change. We are rapidly approaching the point when those whose interests are served by genuine conservatism will realize that they do not have a friend in this Administration. And then it will be very interesting to see where they turn.

Thu, 06 Feb 2003 23:35:35 GMT

Hitchens and the War

Polemicist Christopher Hitchens has lost many friends over his recent and increasingly vocal support for all things war and Bush, but he has not lost his mind. In fact, he is perhaps the only person on either side of the debate whose position is morally clear, internally consistent, and well-informed as to the facts. This does not, unfortunately, mean he is right.

The essence of Hitchens’ position is that militant Islamist fundamentalism is a grave threat to practically everyone, but particularly to the ideals that liberals are supposed to hold dear. As such, it is an idiotic mistake to romanticize the terrorists as in any way sympathetic to the objectives of the revolutionary or anti-globalist Left, because even though both offer a radical critique of the current world political and economic order, their critiques are coming from diametrically opposed positions. This sounds right to me.

He moves into somewhat shakier territory with his support for the Administration’s policy on Iraq. This too appears to be based primarily on Hitchens’ visceral hatred of the illiberalism of Saddam’s tyrannical regime and the way that his militant secular pan-Arabism has destabilized the region. Saddam through his own actions has provided ample pretext for his removal by force, even absent a casus beli. He further argues that the consequences of this action, accomplished either by coalition or unilaterally by the US (and Britain), would be insignificant compared to the upside of a free and potentially democratic Iraq. Hitchens argues, and I agree, that striking Iraq would not only get rid of Saddam, it would also provide needed security for world oil supplies, intimidate other potential opponents, and lay the groundwork for subsequent actions against the Islamist heartland of Saudi Arabia.

So, you might be asking, if Hitchens and I agree on so much, why don’t I support the war as he does? Because, to put it simply, Hitchens isn’t the President. He does not even seem to be a likely stalking-horse for the Administration. And yet, he leaps to the conclusion that Bush and company share not only his strategic outlook, but also his ideological one. Or, if he is not quite that self-deluded, he clearly does not think that the differences matter. And that’s where he’s wrong.

Hitchens is a militant defender of atheistic rationalism. It’s this philosophy – out of fashion on both the right and the left these days – that enables him to identify and articulate the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, or, in his colorful coinage, Islamofascism, with such conviction and clarity. He recognizes in al-Quaida the closed-minded, intolerant, backward-looking traditional enemy of the Enlightenment, and he recognizes the Enlightenment as the fundament of his entire political and philosophical worldview.

To put it kindly, George Bush is not fighting to make the world safe for secular humanism. This is a man who was pleased and proud to tell the world that his favorite political philosopher is Jesus Christ. If he had been raised in a Muslim country, he may not have had the fortitude to be a militant, but he definitely would have allied himself with the conservative elements. I understand that he’s the man in charge right now, so there’s not a whole lot of choice about who to support, but if Hitchens’ basic gripe is with faith, ignorance and the instinct to repress, how can he place not only his confidence but also apparently his trust in a man like George Bush?

Second, Hitchens’ case for war makes a whole lot more sense than anything we’ve heard from the Administration. It’s as though the public were being asked to invest in Bush’s scheme on the basis of a very skimpy business plan, and Hitchens, rather than taking what he’s given at face value, rewrites the prospectus using all the eminently reasonable, well-grounded arguments that he can come up with. Perhaps his assumptions are correct, but that’s a big “if.” Since Bush won’t cop to any of the arguments that Hitchens makes, there’s no way to hold him accountable for delivering the favorable outcomes that Hitchens expects. Right now, all we’re being told is that we’re about to go to war over a few empty chemical missile casings and a truculent dictator acting the way he’s always acted for the past 30 years. Oh yes, and since we’ve repeatedly made loud and blustering threats, our credibility and that of the UN is now at stake if we don’t follow through with them. Even Hitchens’ position begins to look thin when that’s all he can lean on.

Finally, Hitchens has taken enough punishment from people who used to consider him an ally that one can almost excuse him for a few ad hominem attacks. Almost. But recently, Hitchens appears to have lost sight of the large number of people (like me) who support the war against al-Qaida to the fullest, but oppose a unilateral incursion against a sovereign state, even one as bad as Iraq, without evidence of a clear and present threat. His opponents have coalesced in his mind into one vacuous, morally-inchoate “peace movement” whose every participant is as infected with defeatist self-hatred as the most self-righteous Noam Chomsky follower. The growing intellectual rigidity of his position and his refusal to acknowledge a separation between a well-justified war on Islamist terror and an ill-timed, ill-conceived attack against Iraq are troubling, to say the least.

For all the problems with his position, at least Hitchens is not afraid to speak out clearly and often, and to answer his critics to the best of his considerable abilities at every turn. If I could be sure, or even a little bit confident, that the person who really is formulating the strategy and making the decisions were this rigorous in his habits of mind, and felt this clear a responsibility to the demands of reason rather than blind faith, I would be much more comfortable embracing the policies that Hitchens has.

Wed, 05 Feb 2003 19:05:25 GMT

The Rats in the Floors

Our global village – more like a stately old Victorian, actually – has a problem. Underneath the floorboards lurks a mean, filthy rat, causing all manner of nuisance. He steals food, he leaves turds in the sink. One time he even attacked a baby in a crib. In fact, being a rat, he’s prone to attack anything smaller and weaker than himself, and run and hide from anything larger and more threatening. We’ve tried everything to get rid of the rat – traps, poison, the works – but he’s crafty and tenacious.

Everyone would prefer not to have the rat in the house, of course, but the residents have become divided on what to do next. One side says the only way to proceed is to tear up the floorboards to catch and kill it. The other side, knowing the disruption and expense this would cause, is more wary. They suggest keeping a close eye on the rat to make sure he can’t do any harm. They say this out of concern for the house, not concern for the rat.

The proponents of the tear-up-the-floor strategy make the following case. First, the rat has done foul, rattish things in the past and, left to its own, would do them again in a minute. That’s hard to dispute, since, after all, it’s a rat we’re talking about. Second, the rat is gnawing away at the foundations of the house, and if left unchecked, could do catastrophic harm to the entire structure. This leaves many skeptical about how much damage one rat could do, especially if it is vigilantly observed and denied access to the means of destruction. Finally, they argue that the rat has been consorting with the wolves in the yard who killed and ate the family pet. This theory, though supported by scant evidence of fact or nature, they argue must be so since both the wolves and the rat hate the other people living in the house.

Whenever anyone questions the wisdom of tearing up the floorboards, the response is “you must not be serious about getting rid of the rat.” When critics point out that the destruction caused by tearing up the floor is worse than anything the rat might do, they are chided for failing to show commitment to principles. “Are you with the rat or with us?” they demand to know.

This is crafty because it focuses the argument on what to do with the rat, not what to do about the floor. The foul nature and intentions of the rat are not in question. What’s at issue is how best to improve the quality of life of people in the house, especially since there are other pressing problems (like the wolves in the yard, for example). And it doesn’t help matters that the side that’s ready to destroy the floor is already tapping the crowbar gently against its palm…

Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:26:40 GMT

The Shadow War

Like a growing number of my fellow citizens, I take it as a given that if we go to war in Iraq, it will not be because of technical issues related to disarmament, sketchy links between Saddam and September 11^th, or for human rights reasons. The evidence the Administration uses to support these claims are so flimsy as to be laughable, which leaves people to wonder whether Bush is so stupid that he actually believes his own specious arguments, or is there something he’s not saying? Oil, revenge for Papa, covering up old dirty secrets, and generally forwarding American business interests are popular theories on the Left, who are not inclined to give Bush the benefit of the doubt in any case. But consider for a moment the possibility that Bush may have the genuine desire to act in America’s interest against Islamist terrorism. There is a very strong case to be made why attacking Iraq will directly aid in that effort, and some very good reasons why that case is not being made.

Anyone who’s paying attention understands that while Iraq may or may not be up to no good, Al Qaida clearly represents a direct threat to American security, and indeed the security of the entire Western world. Since Al-Qaida operatives are stateless, they have no cities to bomb, no land to seize. Finding and taking action against the leadership is a long, slow and uncertain job – one that negates most of the overwhelming advantages that the United States military enjoys in conventional conflicts.

To the extent that our real enemies have flags and borders, they are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Both of these countries have given material, ideological, financial and political support to radical Islamist movements, and both are ruled by jittery oligarchies whose authority rests on a very narrow basis of support. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, plus who knows what else. And does anyone doubt that Saudi Arabia, whose aggressive acquisition of conventional military technology is legendary, does not also have secret WMD programs ongoing? Should either of these unstable regimes collapse, the most likely replacements are militant fundamentalists deeply hostile to Western interests and intimately sympathetic with Al Qaida. This would create a scenario much more dangerous to American safety and interests than anything that Saddam could manage, even if he were unleashed and fully armed.

All of the things we say we want for Iraq – disarmament, stopping support of terrorists, democracy and human rights – would serve our purposes all the better if imposed instead (or in addition) on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Of course, unlike the obnoxious Saddam, the rulers of these countries have surpassed all standards of decorum in their obsequious compliance to US policy. Even the most fervent unilateralist in the Bush Administration would hesitate to target them outright because there is not the slightest shred of a diplomatic pretext. So we are faced with Iraq on the one hand, where there’s plenty of grounds for attack but no actual terrorist problem beyond guilt-by-association, and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on the other, where there is a critical problem but no way for the US to introduce a military solution short of complete naked and unprovoked aggression.

Iraq has, through the stupidity and arrogance of Saddam Hussein, provided a convenient means to introduce massive US military power into the Persian Gulf. From this vantage point, it would be much easier for America to exert geopolitical influence over Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, and the areas of the former Soviet Union that may be in some danger of succumbing to Islamist influence. Direct presence in the region would allow us to bring to bear all the military, technological, cultural and financial assets necessary to maximize our chances of success in diffusing the very real threat posed by Islamism and its terrorist proponents. Whether this is a legal or ethical course of action is highly debatable, but at least it has the merit of compelling logic, unlike most of the utterances made by the Administration on this topic.

If this is the eventual goal of US policy, then Bush’s insistence on war makes perfect sense. The problem is, the obvious sensitivities of the global situation make it impossible to conduct the debate on these terms. We cannot simply announce our intentions to become an imperial power and seek the overthrow of governments who are ostensibly our allies. So Bush is left having to justify his decisions based on the narrow pretext offered by the Iraq situation, leaving supporters and critics alike to shadow-box with arguments that, in fact, have nothing to do with our real aims and strategies. This is especially unfortunate in the effect it has on our democracy. If we are about to establish a military empire in the Middle East, we ought to discuss it. But we can’t as long as Bush and his minions continue to insist that the reasons for war lie elsewhere.

Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:15:12 GMT

Locked Up

I noted with surprise the other day that the person slated to give the Democratic rebuttal to the President's State of the Union address tonight is none other than the pleasant but utterly inessential governor of my own great state of Washington, Gary Locke. Locke has the distinction of being the only Asian-American governor in the continental US, and has successfully defended his office by beating two extreme right-wing Republicans by fairly decent margins, but as anyone living north of the Columbia River will tell you, the man is a total lightweight. He has trouble holding the interest of his own staff, much less the citizens of Washington, and it's hard to imagine he has anything riveting to share with that sliver of political junkies nationwide who tune in to the "opposition response."

Like many states, Washington - particularly the Seattle area - did great in the 90s and is now suffering a long, painful hangover. The budget is in a shambles, yahoos with pitchforks set fire to the tax code through our perverted initiative process every election cycle, and after 20 years of jawboning, we can't seem to get a transit system built. Homey little issues, perhaps, but not national agenda material. We have little contact with Iraq (although I suspect we are on the target list if North Korea decides to lob a nuke our way), so it's hard to imagine that Locke could bring anything in terms of credible criticism in an area where it is most desperately needed.

When even my friends who hate Bush are asking where's the Democratic voice to challenge him, I have to ask, is Gary Locke the best they've got? Where's Bill Bradley? Or Sam Nunn? Or (heh heh heh) Bill Clinton?

Wed, 22 Jan 2003 18:38:56 GMT

Expecting the Worst, Hoping for the Best

Today Salon has posted a series of dire predictions about “worst case scenarios” that may come about should President Bush run out of luck and have to get by on his wits alone. All of these, from the economic disruptions potentially caused by the Republicans’ bone-headed tax plan to the violence emerging from a botched (or even largely successful) action in Iraq, involve considerable suffering on the part of many people not responsible for their circumstances. I don’t support the decisions that have made these outcomes likely, I don’t trust the judgment of people who tell us this is the right path, and I would love the satisfaction of knowing I was right, but if there’s nothing I can do to change the outcome, I just can’t bring myself to hope for Bush’s failure. Unfortunate – maybe even criminal – circumstances have left this fool as the captain of all of our fates, but I for one would rather make it through the storm than have innocents martyred just to prove a point.

If history has taught us anything, it’s that it is impossible to predict every outcome, even given pretty good information. Human events don’t always run according to cause-and-effect, and even if they do, there are often unexpected or unforeseen factors – especially if ideology blinds us to some fairly basic points. The Right has been wrong about a lot – Clinton’s 1993 budget comes to mind – but so has the Left. In the 80s, when many of us saw Reagan as an irresponsible warmonger pushing us to the brink of nuclear confrontation, it may just have been the case that his unlikely strategy of escalation really did win the Cold War. Certainly the results speak for themselves: even if you don’t agree that the “good guys” won, a bunch of very bad guys definitely lost. Bush senior accomplished his objectives in Iraq and bought 10 years of relative calm and stable oil prices. Even his methods of building the coalition – widely criticized at the time – look pretty good today. Sure it didn’t last, but no solution is ever permanent. Every action eventually gives birth to a series of contradictions and new challenges that need to be addressed down the line.

When we look at the current Iraq situation in particular, there are a few outcomes that would be good for everyone, even if we have trouble accepting them as the basis of a legitimate foreign policy.

For one thing, there’s nothing to apologize for if the war is at least partly about oil. Yes, we burn far too much of it, and the resource belongs to someone else, but the impact of a supply shock on the US economy in the not-so-unlikely event of a political shakeup in Saudi Arabia would be catastrophic – not just for the fat-cats, but for everyone. If a war with Iraq fought on some other pretext happens to provide some security for the oil supply, this is not a bad thing. Down the line, we must reduce dependence on non-renewable resources, but we’re not there yet. Our troubled economy needs access to cheap energy, or, at the very least, guarantees that energy prices won’t spike, until other (better) solutions can be found and implemented. Most of the world will attribute this as the primary motive for US action anyway and our reputation will suffer accordingly, so we might as well get the benefits of it.

Second, the problem of Arab and Muslim rage is not as simple as critics are making it sound. US setbacks in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East will empower and encourage terrorists. In that event, the death-toll among innocents in the West could exceed the number of Iraqi civilian deaths brought about by a military action. A massive US victory over Saddam, on the other hand, is, based on ample historical evidence, likely to intimidate them into a very loud, blustery inaction. There will be much high-decibel talk about revenge and bloodshed, but even fanatics understand the language of violence (it might be said that they understand little else). The best case would be a scenario where no innocent lives were at risk, but that option is not on the board. Gunboat diplomacy is ugly and shameful for a civilized democracy, but it is not ineffective. Again, if we’re going to use force anyway, we might entertain the possibility that force can work.

Finally there is the widely-derided goal of establishing a humane, maybe even democratic regime in Iraq. There are plenty of good historical, cultural and geopolitical reasons why this is unlikely to succeed. But what if it does? Consider the Philippines – a fragile, multi-ethnic society with a long history of colonial oppression and religious fanaticism, whose well-educated (if poor) population eventually overthrew a tyrant and installed something resembling democracy. Or Japan, a proud nation which did the same at bayonet-point following defeat at the hands of the US. Establishing some kind of transparent, accountable government in any Arab country is a tall order, but if we’re going there anyway, we might as well try, since success would be in the interests of everyone across the political spectrum. In fact, it should be the imperative of a responsible progressive movement to hold the Administration’s feet to the fire on this subject, although the more predictable response is righteous finger-wagging and demands for isolationism.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t approve of or support the war. In no case do I think the Administration is taking the prudent, just or sensible course by insisting upon war with Iraq, but it is clear that the logic of cause-and-effect has little hold on the imagination of this President. Facts are facts: the compelling case against war has been forcefully made and rejected. International opinion has been expressed and ignored. Even the conservative estimates made by intelligence sources within the government are dismissed as nay-saying. Bush, for whatever reason, seems content to face the consequences of failure even if he doesn’t understand all the risks, and it seems there is little anyone can do to stop him. If disaster is in the cards, we’re all going to suffer – there’s not much point in further complaining. The only thing left to hope for is that the upside of a high-risk strategy is greater rewards – not, in all cases, the rewards we should seek, but ones we should take if they’re available.

Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:26:19 GMT

Affirmative Action - Reply to the Raven

This is a reply to the Raven's comments on my post yesterday.

Raven - I don’t think we’re as far apart on the subject of Affirmative Action as you think.

On your first point, I don’t think the salient factor is percentage of minorities in a certain job title, it’s percentage of successful minority job applicants vs. percentage of successful non-minority job applicants. In your example, if there were 198 white applicants for the air traffic job, of whom 96 were successful, and 8 minority applicants, of whom 4 were successful, then the outcome of 96% white is appropriate. If, however, white applicants of comparable qualification (important because of the specific skills necessary in this job) were hired at a significantly greater rate, then we may have a problem. Unfortunately, not many people take this nuanced a view because evaluating this kind of thing often requires more data than is generally available (except in the case of college admissions where very good records are kept regarding application statistics.) Consequently, the use of statistics in discussions of Affirmative Action cases is almost always misleading and propagandistic for one side or the other.

Your second point, about the aggregate economic success of a group vs. token “marquee” job titles is exactly what I’m talking about. The CEO-caliber people will always rise to the top, barring obscene injustice. Their success doesn’t represent anything. What propelled other non-WASP white ethnic groups forward in the 19^th and 20^th century was access by the average masses to decent paid work – either union jobs or mid-level professional in either the private sector or government. Having lots of regular folks in these kinds of positions is what raises the overall prosperity of a group. It is from these kinds of jobs that many non-whites are still routinely excluded – not because of anti-black bias, but because of pro-white bias. The dispatcher at the hiring hall isn’t a racist – he just naturally thinks of his (white) buddies first when the jobs come in; likewise the corporate recruiter values a BA degree from Franklin and Marshall higher than one from Grambling because his wife's nephew went to F&M but he never met anyone who attended a historically black school, etc.

As a result, white men with no special skills or qualifications enjoy a subtle advantage over run-of-the-mill minority applicants in jobs where no great level of proficiency is required – jobs where a little luck or a good connection is what’s required to get that first break. When this happens often enough, the middle levels of the minority community cannot gain a foothold on economic prosperity and the regrettable psychology of victimhood (the “culture of poverty”) sets in, creating a set of social problems that aggravate the problems of economic inequality.

The tendency of people to favor those of like ethnic background will always be with us to some extent in a pluralistic society. But just as we have laws (and customs) against nepotism to preserve fairness in hiring, so too do we need certain safeguards to prevent the normal, not-hateful race-consciousness of most people from perpetuating a historical social and economic injustice. Legal remedies are a sloppy way to fix this problem, but it’s a problem that needs fixing somehow in my opinion

In short, I think we agree that skilled jobs should always be hired on merit, regardless of race, where merit can be sufficiently quantified that hiring on that basis is fair. Quotas are, in most cases, a poor measure of success unless you have much more information about what the percentages represent. But there’s a great gray region of professional occupations that are decently paid but routinely staffed with people of no exceptional skills. The hiring process for these jobs is often skewed by subtle bias, and while it may be intrusive for government to get involved in discretionary decisions, in my view the long-term benefits in terms of both social justice and the realization of a true meritocracy are worth the costs. Of course, there also needs to be an end-date when we agree that the policies have served their purpose and everyone competes equally.

Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:53:42 GMT

Meritocracy and Mediocrity: Why We Need Affirmative Action

W.E.B. DuBois called them “the talented tenth” – the ten percent of the African-American population with the innate skills and ambition to succeed despite the prejudices of white society. His political demand was that these bright stars be given a chance to shine, such that their glow would eventually light the path for others and “uplift the race.” As one of the most gifted intellectuals of his era who never received the recognition he deserved by dint of his skin color, DuBois knew whereof he spoke. The denial of opportunities for those of clear merit was a matter of such manifest injustice that even hardened racists had difficulty debating it. The problem, of course, comes with what to do about the other 90%.

It’s not just a problem for minorities. The “talented tenth” descriptor cuts across all boundaries of race, gender and ethnicity. Outstanding people will almost always find a way to rise to the top, even in societies designed to perpetuate privilege regardless of merit. The true measure of an equal opportunity society is how well people of average abilities are able to procure for themselves and their families some measure of wealth, status and security. It’s for this vast middle region of the social spectrum that inherent assumption about race and other factors can be decisive in determining how big a slice of the pie they receive. And it’s where tribal politics gets bloody – whether in America or anywhere else in the world.

Throughout American history, those established in power have done their best to create opportunities for themselves and keep everyone else out. In every generation, the talented vanguard of each group – Irish, Italian, Jewish, Chicano, Asian – has used the promise of equality inherent in the American system to fight their way inside the power structure and then set to work building institutions designed to make the fight easier for future generations. With lower boundaries to success, a greater number of each group could gain access to social resources with less need to rely on superior competitive abilities. Once the new groups had gained access to the power structure, they adopted the exclusionary mentality of the insiders and attempted to erect new barriers against other tribes, trying to protect the mediocre among their own numbers against the predations of the outstanding competitors from the outside.

For well-documented historical reasons, African-Americans were extremely late participants in this dynamic. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s finally removed most of the legal barriers to participation in social, economic and political rights for African-Americans. This made it possible for blacks to compete in the same arena as everyone else, ostensibly under the same rules. As a result, the “talented tenth” – maybe even the talented 25% - quickly established themselves at the social and economic levels that their abilities entitled them to. With the most obvious injustices thereby remedied, the dominant society was eager to get back to business as usual before any more resources could be lost to the insurgent group.

While the first round of Civil Rights struggles was manifestly an issue of redressing political injustice based on race, the fight over Affirmative Action is much more a matter of economics. The Civil Rights era established that blacks with the clear abilities to compete and win in American society could not be denied their due by dint of legal edict. That’s basic fairness. But what about those of all races whose abilities are less clear? In a true meritocracy, the mediocre live in a constant state of unease. Evenly-matched competitors look for any kind of advantage to propel themselves, their families and those of similar affiliation into a situation of comfort and security. It is at this level of competition, moreso than at the strata of excellence, that society’s subtle assumptions about race –commonly called “institutional racism” – make themselves felt to the undue advantage of some, and thereby the detriment of others.

It is important to understand that the presence of institutional racism that benefits white men does not need to manifest itself as hatred of minorities in order to do its damage. American society has accorded unearned privileges to white men of mediocre talents for hundreds of years because it was assumed, due to prejudices of race and gender, that their prosperity was necessary to the strength and survival of the country, even at the expense of better- or equally-qualified women or minorities. Despite the Civil Rights movement, this attitude still persists in many areas of American life today.

As anyone with even a passing familiarity with corporate America will tell you, the ranks of middle management are filled with white men of extremely modest ability. The products of suburban homes, with passing grades from well-funded suburban schools, who partied their way through mid-level universities and were eventually recruited by like-minded people in the HR departments of big companies, these non-stellar folks are nonetheless paid well enough to afford their own home in the suburbs, with an SUV in the driveway and nice dinners out with the family at the Olive Garden on Friday nights. There’s nothing wrong with this – in fact, American society is well-served by its ability to provide so well for so many average folks.

Nevertheless, to suggest that race (and, more particularly, race plus class background) has nothing to do with this fellow’s good fortune is self-delusion. Mr. Middle Manager may not have benefited at the expense of any particular minority individual, but he clearly benefited from the institutional assumption that society exists to make sure his kind of person gets what he “deserves.” Teachers, recruiters and bosses all look at certain types of young white men as inherently destined for a career path designed to provide a good and growing income, and burden is on the candidate to demonstrate somehow that he is unworthy. Women and minorities, on the other hand, must prove why they are worthy before receiving the same consideration.

It is rarely assumed that a young black man of less than exceptional abilities is “management material” or indeed suited for any kind of white-collar occupation, especially when it is a white man making the decision. That hint of prejudice is often enough to make the difference, particularly when few of the individuals competing for resources at this level are exceptionally talented. On a case-by-case basis, each decision can perhaps be justified, but the aggregate outcome is a large income and opportunity gap between races in our ostensibly equal-opportunity society.

If we agree that meritocracy is the goal, then the distortions introduced by attitudes about race must be redressed. It’s unlikely that we can expect people to change deeply-engrained attitudes or allegiances to primal tribal affiliations, so the intervention of law is necessary. Affirmative Action is a blunt weapon to use against such a subtle problem, but it is nevertheless the best tool we have until non-white people are sufficiently well-represented among the powerful decision-makers of society that the institutional advantages of whites are no longer so decisive in determining outcomes.

Correcting the problems of racial bias in this way meets with intense opposition from “angry white men.” It should. It is their slice of pie that is going to be served up to the disenfranchised groups, and they are going to have to fight on equal terms for what they’ve been handed for free all these years. As such, they desperately want to paint the issue as one of talent and merit, and appeal to society to uphold those principles against “quotas” and “racial preferences.” That’s a smokescreen. Talent and merit are almost always served, while mediocrity has to fight for its life. True believers in the benefits of open competition should see Affirmative Action as a means of opening up the field to a broader conception of “qualification” – to the short-term detriment of a certain class who enjoy unearned privileges, but to the longer-term benefit of society as a whole.

Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:52:07 GMT

Weak Constitution

A few days ago, I declared in the course of some rant or other that "the Consitution is a dead letter if there is no political will to abide by it." Here's a case in point. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

If you read the rest of the Articles and Amendments, you will not see anything in there about, say, drug laws. In fact, it took another Amendment, the 18th, to make alcohol a prohibited substance during the "noble experiment" of the 1920s, because, apparently, it could not be done by simple act of Congress. So when a state decides - through referendum, no less - to relax its drug laws and allow its citizens to use marijuana for medical purposes, where does the federal government get off doing shit like this?

Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:17:49 GMT

Do-Re-Mi

"Believe it or not, you won't find it so hot, if you ain't got the do-re-mi." - Woody Guthrie

Economically as well as militarily, leaders are always fighting the last war. Those that succeed are the ones who manage to adjust their expectations and modes of operation to fit the new model. Those who doggedly stick to unsuitable strategies get overrun. Bill Clinton clearly came into office wanting to be FDR or LBJ, but ended up having to settle for being Calvin Coolidge, at least economically-speaking. George W. Bush had visions of being Ronald Reagan - not the real Reagan, but the Reagan that right-wingers see through the rosy fog of history. Turns out he's the one who needs to be FDR, but he's walking and talking a lot like Herbert Hoover.

The Bush economic strategy is pretty simple: "Tax cuts are the answer. What was the question again?" Tax cuts are not inherently a bad idea. They worked in 1962, when an investment tax credit tipped off nearly eight years of sustained economic growth, and it could be argued that they worked in the early 1980s, although there was so much government spending at the same time that it’s hard to determine exactly what stimulated the economy more.

But, this is important, tax cuts of the kind Bush is proposing are effective only at the beginning of an economic cycle, when they can trigger pent-up demand for new capital investment. Right now, we have the opposite problem. Our capital plant was enormously overbuilt in the late 1990s. There’s too much capacity and not enough demand, and no amount of tax cutting is likely to alter the fundamental business environment under these circumstances. Companies aren’t reluctant increase spending because their taxes are too high – they’re not investing in jobs or equipment because there is no demand for their products and services.

At this stage of the economic cycle, increased public sector spending – even at the cost of high deficits – is what’s required. In this, Bush is likely to get much more economic traction out of his war-oriented foreign policy than his tax plan. Unlike tax cuts, which return money to corporations and individuals to use at their discretion, government spending does not need to “trickle down” – it is immediately stimulative. The only tax cuts that can serve the same pump-priming purpose are reduced taxes on consumption (primarily sales taxes, which are controlled by the states) or returning money to the segment of the population most likely to spend it rather than save or invest, which would be the lower-income segment. Bush’s tax cut, because it is political rather than economic in focus, does not address this problem. It was never intended to: it was a tax cut geared to the economic circumstances of the boom-years of the late 90s and is spectacularly ill-suited to the needs of the borderline-recessive climate we’re in today.

The Bush economic team continues to add fuel to the fire with their ill-conceived jobs strategy. Job retraining and welfare-to-work programs were the right idea in the growing economy of 1996, when unemployment was at historic lows. Right now, there’s not much sense in giving tax credits for people to invest in retraining themselves for jobs that don’t exist, or forcing millions off the welfare roles into an economy that can’t currently support workers with greater job skills and experience.

The mantra of welfare reformers is that the poor want jobs, not relief. Fine, but if there are no jobs, then the jobless need relief. It’s not just compassionate – it’s good macroeconomic policy. People with no income don’t spend much, so demand stays in the tank. No demand – no business investment – no jobs – no demand. That’s the recessionary spiral. Taxes don’t have much to do with it. Add in a little bit of global deflation and an oil supply shock and we’re talking 1931 all over again: Depression with a capital D.

Herbert Hoover’s stiff-neckedness in the face of impending economic collapse can perhaps be explained by his steadfast belief in conservative economic principles and his compulsive need to balance the budget. Deficit spending was a new idea in those days, and a risk-averse man like Hoover could not be expected to embrace it with any kind of enthusiasm. Bush, while no less stubborn, does not, to be charitable, have the intellectual commitment or actual policy experience of someone like Hoover. The strength of his views appears to be motivated less by economic principles than by political ones. In fact, his economic positions are nearly unintelligible without reference to the political subtext.

To the Bushies, restoring general prosperity is a secondary consideration behind restoring the prosperity of the right people. Bush and his supporters recognize that government spending may help the economy, but it will also empower Democratic constituencies, which is unacceptable. Republicans hated and still hate the Clinton boom because it improved the relative wealth, status and security of traditionally-Democratic minorities, urbanites and educated professionals – whose new clout threatened permanent harm to the interests of old-economy Republicans. Reversing that trend, even at the expense of jobs, market capital and general social well-being, is clearly seen as necessary to the continued survival of the conservative establishment. And given the choice between doing the right thing for the country and doing the right thing for the people who put him in office, Bush cannot help but choose the latter.

Mon, 13 Jan 2003 18:56:47 GMT

Matters of Life and Death

On Saturday, outgoing Illinois governor George Ryan, faced with a mountain of doubt about the validity of numerous death penalty cases, issued a blanket commutation of the death sentences of over 160 criminals convicted of violent and often atrocious crimes. In his extraordinary speech announcing his decision, he raised a number of important questions about the death penalty and the criminal justice system that few if any politicians have ever dared to intone in public. These questions were distinctly uncomfortable, not only because they cast doubts on a flawed system of law enforcement, but because they dared to impeach the righteousness of the families of victims, a constituency whose prerogatives in the administration of the death penalty are rarely if ever challenged.

Ryan’s objections about administration of justice in capital cases are nearly beyond debate. Impartial DNA evidence exonerated nearly half the death row inmates in Illinois, and significant procedural questions haunt many others. Governor Ryan issued his order to prevent the wrong people from being put to death, a decision that should require no further defense. Even if the state were prepared to ignore the manifest outrage of executing the innocent (a process known in times past by the impolite term “judicial murder”), there is one very practical problem with false convictions: it means the real perpetrators may still be at large. As a matter of public safety, the zeal to produce convictions in capital cases at the expense of fairness, due process and the truth is not only immoral, it is counterproductive.

On that basis, the problems with the death penalty are simply systemic errors that could possibly be corrected with more attention to detail and better oversight of police and prosecutors. The related issue of inconsistency of sentencing, which Ryan also raised, could also conceivably be addressed under the law. This suggests that the death penalty may not be inherently unjust if it is applied fairly and consistently, in cases where guilt is proven by appropriate means. That’s a big if, but it creates an objective condition for the administration of the death sentence that many, if not most, Americans would agree to.

Those who object to the death penalty often do so on moral grounds, citing the metaphysical sanctity of human life. That’s a position of admirable clarity, especially if it’s held consistently, but it’s not one that can be the basis of public policy in a pluralistic society. Earnest (and not-so-earnest) people of moral character violently disagree on this subject, and convincing religious and philosophical arguments are available to both sides. The authority to rule definitively on the moral question must be regarded as beyond human competence. Therefore, the decision of whether to use the death penalty as a tool of criminal justice is left to be resolved strictly in terms of social utility.

Proponents of the fair and consistent administration of capital punishment usually make several arguments. Some are rebuttable by empirical data, such as whether or not the death penalty serves as a deterrent, or whether it is less costly to execute a convict than to imprison him or her indefinitely at state expense. One thing is for sure, however – putting a convicted felon to death guarantees that person will never claim another victim. When we look at certain people who are indubitably guilty of horrible crimes, we may rightly ask why we need that person around anymore, or what benefit society gains by refusing on principle to administer the most stringent brand of justice available to punish them. The criminal, through his or her actions, has certainly forfeit the right to continue to live among society. Doesn’t this also mean that if the crime was heinous enough, they have also forfeit their right to live, period?

Perhaps. But when a society takes it upon itself to make that decision, it is, in my opinion, cheapening itself in a fundamental way. The Raven wrote in a comment to my original post:

There is the "community catharsis" aspect of executions that restores a sense of well-being to the body politic - that is, when a particular killer commits a truly horrendous crime, he or she doesn't just terminate the life of an individual, but threatens our ability to live in a rational world. Capital punishment restores our sense of balance in the karmic calculus of existence. I tend to think of it this way: If someone raped and murdered the person closest to me, I'd like to know that they were killed in return, and not allowed to play chess, watch TV, read books, get a college diploma, work out with weights, chat with pals, read magazines, surf the Net, write letters, etc., for the next 50 to 70 years.

While I sympathize with the sentiment, I find the idea of a “community catharsis” through the act of public execution utterly repellent. The more emotionally gratifying the spectacle, the more it is precisely to be feared as subversive of “our ability to live in a rational world.” The desire for revenge expressed in the Raven’s comments – which I completely share, by the way – is completely natural. In fact, it’s probably one of the strongest and most fundamental urges in human nature. But it was the inability of the perpetrator to control his or her fundamental urges (in this case, the urge to random violence and/or gratification of sexual desire) that caused the problem in the first place.

Elevating the revenge instinct to the level of formal social policy by the systematic application of the death penalty undermines the rational basis of society in a far more insidious way than the act of a single perpetrator. Simply stated, it puts the public stamp of approval on a primitive and bloodthirsty ritual and makes the entire community complicit in the most essential act of violence. It is no accident that the most irrational regimes – dictatorships, theocracies, and hereditary oligarchies – rely heavily on the death penalty as an instrument of public policy. The continuous spectacle of bloodshed keeps emotions at the forefront of political debate and precludes the dispassionate consideration of important questions, not only of criminal justice but of all kinds of social issues.

Which brings us back to Governor Ryan’s most radical assault on the “machinery of death” – his refusal to concede the therapeutic effects of the death penalty on the families of the victims. It’s a truism that punishing the guilty does not bring the victim back. But Ryan went further than this. He suggested in the most indelicate terms that the idea that killing the criminal may not provide the “closure” that families seek (and, of course, all the more if the person executed turned out to be the wrong man), and that the state might be better off seeking more concrete forms of compensation for victims of crimes, such as defrayment of burial expenses, tax relief, pension extensions or other benefits. In so doing, he tacitly acknowledged that it was unseemly for the state to be in the business of executions simply to gratify the victims’ desires for revenge, and that those desires should assume the form of reasonable demands on the resources of the community rather than asking it to be complicit in an act of retribution. It is, unfortunately, almost unthinkable that any other political leader would follow his example in this day and age.

Wed, 08 Jan 2003 17:13:21 GMT

Taxing Credibility

Last week I incorporated my business, so I am taking a keener-than-usual interest in the President’s new tax plans. Elimination of taxes on corporate dividends could have an enormous impact on my tax bill, to the tune of several thousand dollars, because instead of paying myself a high salary and the commensurate FICA payroll tax, I could take money out of the business tax free as dividend payments.

While that’s an interesting side-effect, the fact is that I incorporated for the liability protection and for other procedural reasons. I have no problem paying taxes, particularly when I’m making enough money to live comfortably. You couldn’t buy the benefits of clean air, safe streets, good roads, the courts, national defense, and some kind of social insurance system to keep people from abject desperation without a well-funded government, no matter how rich you happen to be. When I’m doing all right financially, I tend to view obscenely large tax cuts the way some conservatives view government handouts (even when they sometimes benefit from them) – bad policy essentially corrosive to public good and public morals. What really helps me out, in both personal and business finance, is strong demand, a decent market to protect and grow my savings, and a tax system that provides targeted incentives that support sound business strategies rather than a blanket giveaway of public money.

I’ve been bandying this point around with my right-wing pal Brian Duffy. A more enthusiastic supporter of the President’s plan you would not find outside the editorial offices of the Wall Street Journal. Duff writes:

The whole supply side term is truly a misnomer. What Bush wants to do is free up capital, via tax cuts, to stimulate demand. I have been thinking about working out some numbers on how this works in reality. Perhaps I'll use a hypothetical individual who is freelance writer/communications specialist. [That would be yours truly – Rob] What would have happened to that individual if he had been living in a world guided by Bush's tax proposal? For someone in the highest tax bracket that would have meant significantly more net income, allowing that person to expand his business, prospect more, hire help if needed, take more time off, donate more money to causes political or charitable, save more, etc., etc. Perhaps the person would have been able to better weather the loss of a key client? I'll be interested to see your thoughts on this. I'll try to come up with something on your site this week before jetting of on Friday.

Brian – please feel free to use the comment area following this post to present your views. While you’re off basking the Caribbean sun, I’ll whip up a nice toasty reply.

Mon, 06 Jan 2003 17:17:42 GMT

Competence and Ideology

When Michael Dukakis launched his presidential campaign against George Bush senior in 1988, he declared that “the election is not about ideology, it is about competence.” Good line, but, it turns out, wrong on both fronts. Bush the elder was, if nothing else, certainly qualified to be president – challenging his skills may have seemed like a winner for dweeby technocrat Dukakis, but the election really was about ideology, as we found out when the moderate-talking Bush proceeded to govern like a right-winger.

These days, the Democrats seem to have the opposite problem. They’re challenging Bush junior on ideology when they should be challenging his competence. Again, it’s easy to understand. Bush’s approach to every issue, from foreign policy to the environment to the economy, is diametrically opposed to those preferred by most of the Democrats who might run against him, so it’s tempting to pick a fight.

But it’s a fool’s game. Ideology is Bush’s meat and drink. Like it or not, the man has strong beliefs and means what he says (unlike his father, for example). When he talks about whatever cockamamie policy or program he’s advocating, he comes across with genuine sincerity and purpose. He sticks to his guns – even when they’re a pair of cap shooters – and the public gives him credit for that. That’s leadership, y’see.

Debating ideology with Bush is like debating his religion. It will get nowhere and turn a lot of people off. The chink in his armor is that all of these policies are yielding no positive results. You can argue forever whether his approach is misguided, but there’s no denying the increasingly apparent inability of the administration to execute.

Look past the rhetoric to the facts on the ground. Ask Bush the tough questions. In the much-vaunted war on terror, where exactly is the man whose forces attacked America? Where’s Osama “wanted dead or alive” Bin Laden? How safe and stable is “liberated” Afghanistan? How long will Karzai’s government last once US troops are committed in Iraq? After all of this homeland security nonsense, how much safer are we from attack? What did we buy with all those freedoms we sacrificed?

On the economy, how exactly are those tax cuts helping? Where are the jobs? Where’s the stock market growth? What economist in his or her right mind has faith in the fiscal policies of the US government, now that we’re back to long-term deficits again? How long before the housing and refinancing bubble bursts? Republicans are trying to make the 90s boom sound like some kind of dark Clinton plot now, but the fact is that people had real jobs and real incomes in the 90s. Their money grew. They bought homes and sent their kids to decent schools and colleges. Where did that go, Mr. President? It’s your watch now.

Most Americans don’t care much what the rest of the world thinks of us, so Bush has been able to conduct his bully-boy foreign policy with relative impunity. Only now, when we need international cooperation to diffuse a genuine crisis in North Korea, we’re left to the tender mercies of China, Russia and the European Union to conduct diplomacy. Do you think they’re that eager to help us out after nearly two years of high-handed arrogance from this Administration?

And then of course there’s Iraq. At this point, even the supporters of the war are basically admitting that it’s about the oil. OK, oil is important. But when the body bags start coming back, and the sons and daughters of American families are being returned gruesomely killed or crippled by chemical weapons or suffering from some unidentified “syndrome” caused by biological agents, will it be worth those few cents we’ll be saving at the pump? And when the bills start coming in for the weapons, the occupation force, and the reconstruction of Iraq, will Americans start to wonder why they can afford to build schools and roads halfway around the world when they can’t afford them in their own neighborhoods anymore?

Sure, Bush is faced with uncommonly tough challenges, but the lack of results increasingly indicates that he and his administration are not up to the task. His steadfast commitment to his ideology is keeping the nose of the plane up. Unfortunately, it’s becoming clearer that despite his personal steadfastness, the country is in a tailspin.

Maybe it’s ideology that put us there, or maybe it was circumstances. Doesn’t matter at this point. Competence is required to get us out, and if Democrats can successfully point out that competence is in short supply in the current administration, they may be able to prevail.

Sat, 28 Dec 2002 18:11:50 GMT

Faith and Foolishness

Like everyone else in the known universe, I’ve been reading and enjoying the writing of the Real Live Preacher. While he sees things very differently from me philosophically, he’s clearly an honest, intelligent man with a great gift for storytelling. It’s quite impressive that he’s managed to win the respect of so many thoughtful and, frankly, skeptical people in this forum. One thing Preacher man isn’t doing is preaching to the choir, and for that he deserves plenty of credit.

The Preacher obviously draws on his faith to give him strength and hope, and to fortify his deep commitment to good works and social service. That’s a vision of religion that even non-believers can get behind, and if that’s all there were to it, I don’t think skeptics and secular-minded folks would have any problem with it. Unfortunately, the Preacher’s strong, affirmative brand of faith does not represent the majority view of self-professed religious people, at least in my experience. Consider one of the comments that the Preacher received, from another clergyman, Joey Kelly:

…Faith is believing in God and the things of God, no matter what the circumstances appear to be. The fundamentals (the virgin birth, miracles, sinless life, death, burial and resurrection of Christ, sanctification, justification, redemption, etc., etc.) are non-negotiable. Without this bedrock, any ministry is founded upon shifting sand. You’re headed for burnout.

According to Kelly, it is impossible to derive ethical and spiritual strength from Christianity without accepting the most intellectually offensive and preposterous supernatural claims that the dogma demands. It’s apparently not enough that Jesus lead an exemplary life and professed doctrines of peace and wisdom. In order to use those teachings as motivation in one’s own life projects, one must accept all the superstitious bag and baggage of a 2000 year-old cult (as modified over the years, for transparently self-serving reasons, by a clerical elite working hand-in-glove with various hierarchical political institutions) – otherwise, “burnout” is the inevitable result.

Such a simple-minded view of religion encourages people to move from the affirmative qualities of faith toward the vices of credulity, rejecting the manifest benefits of human reason as a tool for separating truth from fantasy. When we come across outlandish claims in old folk tales, we can confidently dismiss them as myth, literary embellishment, ignorance or allegory. For some reason, believers seem to feel that religious doctrines must remain exempt from this common-sense approach in order to remain a meaningful philosophy. Why is the deliberate refusal to question fantastic assertions about the supernatural – e.g., “faith” in Kelly’s formulation – considered the hallmark of true religious spirit, rather than the ability to absorb the genuine truths and insights of the text and put them to use in your real life?

Believers may genuinely feel the objects of their faith to be as real as things in the physical world. But unlike nature, which yields itself up to study and examination, matters of faith are entirely internal, and often notoriously difficult to articulate. There is only the dubious morass of scriptural authority – itself a matter of faith – to anchor the discourse in any kind of agreed-upon basis. Perhaps there are truths that are valid without any means of testing them against sensory experience, but there is simply no way to reliably separate them from the political, psychological and personal agendas of the people or institutions who are espousing them. By taking these assertions “on faith,” believers put themselves in a situation where their credulity can easily be exploited, usually for purposes at odds with their sincere convictions.

As a result, many wars have been fought over competing non-provable claims about the nature of the supernatural. If you believe scripture is true, and enforcement of a particular interpretation is important, then those wars are worth fighting. But the historical record shows an enormous volume of misery produced by this worldview. By the time the US Constitution was framed in 1787, it was clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that when faith becomes the basis of public policy rather than private belief, irreconcilable conflict is the inevitable result.

Everyone is entitled to follow their conscience. For some, the doctrines of religion resonate with their internal needs and imprint themselves as truths, such that the presence of God is as real as to them the chair I’m sitting on. The secular state should never strive to banish that belief from their hearts – though it should not fail to punish those whom belief leads into evil behaviors. At the same time, there must be some recognition of the limits of faith as a system of thought for explaining a complex world. When we base our public actions on subjective beliefs and do not seek to justify policies through logic and reason, we deprive ourselves of the manifest benefits of a powerful tool for predicting future outcomes. In these cases, faith is not a strength – it’s just wishful thinking.

Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:46:50 GMT

The Delicate Balance

The ongoing discussion between Jan, Rayne, The Raven, Kriselda and I on the subject of cross-burning has forced us all to closely examine our views on racism and censorship. However, by emphasizing the differences between what are all fundamentally similar outlooks, it has also created a false dichotomy between the values of social justice and free expression, when in fact I think we all agree that civil society functions best with both of these present to the largest possible extent. These ideals occasionally conflict, and it is important to have principles that guide us in the resolution of such disputes. But principles must be tempered by understanding and experience. Otherwise, a sincere and absolute faith in either social justice or free expression to the exclusion of the other can blind us to the very real dangers facing open societies from enemies that don’t care much about either one.

Just as my good pal The Raven rises only very reluctantly in defense of the Klan as a necessary corollary to his categorical support for free expression, so too am I quite uncomfortable advocating anything that remotely smacks of censorship. I have, in this space, defended all manner of offensive speech and generated quite a bit myself. Democracy requires that we all grow thick skins about the utterances of others, even as the insipid doctrine of “political correctness” urges us all to identify ways we are “victimized” by insensitive language. To that extent, PC has done a huge disservice to civil society by bringing free expression and social justice into unnecessary conflict, and trivializing those few real instances where certain kinds of expression, unchecked, can lead to horrifying consequences for society.

The “slippery slope” argument used by extreme libertarians to argue, essentially, that any restrictions on free speech whatsoever will inevitably lead to all manner of restrictions, implies a (well-justified) fear of a society where the state controls the thoughts and beliefs of its subjects. For sure, nobody wants that. But public complicity in the face of encroaching censorship is not the only way totalitarian government comes to power. In fact, historically, the most common way that fascism has taken root is through the spread of racist doctrines and public spectacles (such as cross-burnings or torchlight parades) designed to empower supporters and intimidate opponents. Often, these rituals actuate instances of violence, either by inciting the faithful into an emotional frenzy or provoking a response by outraged opponents. In either case, the resulting conflict polarizes the environment and unleashes the kind of hostility that always works to the fascists’ advantage. Should social cohesion erode to the point that the fascists can take power over the state, their ideology provides no constraints on the ruthless use of force to suppress all dissenting views and enforce their vision of order on everyone.

In the last 150 years, we’ve seen the post-Civil War American South, Weimar Germany, Rwanda, Serbia and the West Bank all tumble down this slippery slope into oppression, one-party rule and, in the worst cases, genocide. In almost every case, the fascists were a minority who used racial ideology to form and maintain cohesion among their fanatic followers and foment conflict that enabled them to gain momentum for their movement. Regarded as a tiny rabble of fools and bumpkins by sophisticated opinion, they exploited the inability and unwillingness of an open society to stop the spread of their ideas and thus built a critical mass of support that enabled them to gain power, when it was clear in retrospect that a concerted show of force at an early moment would have broken their drive to supremacy.

The clear lesson of history is that, in these cases, it is not enough for the State to remain neutral while partisans of both sides battle in the “marketplace of ideas.” Racism appeals to the ugliest nature of all people, and its categorically-irrational siren call has proven to be seductive in times where more reasonable policies have failed. Experience unfortunately shows that good government, education, rational counter-arguments and prosperity offer no sure remedies for what must be considered a fundamental human instinct. The State can’t (and shouldn’t) try to control what’s in people’s hearts and minds, and it can’t prevent citizens from hating and fearing each other, but it can put the force of law behind the idea that it is unacceptable for racism and incipient fascism to gain a foothold by public demonstrations that are intended to create an atmosphere conducive to racial violence.

As a practical matter, this requires society to perform the uncomfortable task of making qualitative judgments about types of expression, so as to remain vigilant against the very real threat that racist ideology poses to everyone’s freedom. From a civil liberties perspective, it is much easier to take the absolutist position and pretend that all modes of expression are equally valid, so that we do not succumb to the temptation to censor views that are merely offensive rather than harmful, and thereby foreclose on legitimate public debate. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Sometimes we must look at a particular case and recognize that the danger posed in that instance is greater than the danger of being inconsistent to an absolute principle.

Racist speech doesn’t just give offense. It can and has been used to undermine the very basis of civil society and give rise to barbaric political systems in which censorship is only one of many evils. There is always the danger that once we begin to exercise judgment over the content of some speech, we won’t know where to stop. So yes, we need to be careful. It’s a gray area, full of messy compromises and demanding of constant vigilance, sometimes requiring people of good faith and intelligence to argue contrary to their own principles when it is justified by experience and evidence. But it can be done and it must be done. If we really believe in maintaining a civil society that is both just and open, we must be prepared to defend it, even if that means sometimes compromising on absolute freedom.

Sun, 15 Dec 2002 00:12:49 GMT

Burning Questions

This is a reply to comments from Jan Haugland (Secular Blasphemy) and the Raven on a post by Rayne (Today), started by Jan’s original post on whether cross-burning should be made illegal.

Gentlemen, I am sorry to see so much formidable intellectual energy wasted in service of the indefensible. You defend cross-burning as merely objectionable symbolic speech, protected as all expression should be in a free society. I sympathize with your impulse to tolerance, and indeed I will gladly defend the right of any racist, bigot, and idiot to publish their hateful propaganda between covers, illustrate it in pictures, or broadcast it over the media, so long as their ideology takes the form of a debatable proposition. After all, the whole public interest in free expression is to allow the widest range of ideas to compete in the “marketplace” so that the best can rise to the top.

The problem is, cross-burning isn’t speech, it isn’t art, and it is not intended as a contribution to any kind of a dialogue. It is the well-known calling-card of groups and people who, in recent history, have conducted a systematic campaign of murder and intimidation against United States citizens. It is an incitement, a call-to-action for savage bigots to go out at night, in disguise, to drag innocent people from their homes and hang them from trees or worse. In most contexts, it has no intellectual component and is intended to speak only to the most violent, primal emotions. Let's be clear: the purpose of cross-burning is not simply to intimidate a victim or propagate racist ideology: it is to create an atmosphere conducive to racial violence. No civilized society can or should be obliged to acknowledge this as legitimate expression, and we should not be tempted to refrain from making a judgment against an activity that has been amply demonstrated to have no social, intellectual or moral value.

As to the Raven’s narrower point about whether cross-burning should be allowed on private property, I again agree with the admirable impulse to keep the government at arms’ length from activities that occur among consenting people and away from public view. But there are laws against keeping noxious chemicals or raw sewage on private property because their presence, whether known or not, is likely to harm the neighbors. The rationale for these laws is the protection of public health – and the rationale for banning cross-burning in private can and should be public social health. If society can decide cross-burning is harmful in public (and I argue it can), then it is harmful in the same ways when done on private property.

I’m sure it is possible to construct theoretical scenarios where cross-burning is an innocent activity, or has artistic value, or represents ideas wholly different from those of white supremacy. But to do so is to deny the overwhelming historical record that associates this symbol with violence, intimidation and bigotry. Prosecution of laws against cross-burning should account for mitigating circumstances, but not so much so that they create a pretext that defeats the purpose of keeping this offensive ritual out of the public view.

It’s worth going to such lengths to ban the symbol because it is part of a larger public commitment to ban racist violence. I strongly believe that society is better served by this policy, as I’m sure you all do too. But if you’re going to be serious about it, you have to confront racist activity with the force of law and acknowledge that some symbols – such as cross-burning, or brandishing a swastika – have the effect of actuating powerful emotional responses, often with tragic consequences. Banning the symbols is part and parcel of banning the activity. If you fail to do so out of a general fear of using state power against any form of expression under any circumstances, you leave the open society defenseless against predators who care little for anyone’s liberties. Everyone has their own limit where they draw that line. Defending the rights of people to create a spectacle whose historical purpose has been emotional incitement to violence is where I draw mine.

Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:24:04 GMT

Borrowing from St. Peter to Pay Paul

Commenter Brian Duffy raises an important point (for once) in his reply to my post (“Crisis of Faith”) about the problems facing the Catholic Church. Given that ugly crimes and cover-ups were perpetrated, is it right to punish the Church itself (and thereby its innocent supporters and beneficiaries) for the deviant activities of the clergy and the hierarchy? The litigious nature of contemporary American society leads us to believe that a nice fat lawsuit will solve everything, but is that really in the best interests of all concerned, or just opportunistic on the part of the victims and their lawyers?

If this were, say, a case of Bristol Meyers pushing pills with nasty side-effects, the remedy would be clear: sue the pants of the buggers and wring them dry. Victims made to suffer because of the cupidity of a company that puts profits before safety should be compensated, and the corporation – an economic entity – is rightly punished with economic sanctions. Stiff civil judgments are, arguably, the only effective counterweight to the profit motive in terms of enforcing corporate good behavior. Should this same thinking apply to the situation facing the Catholic Church?

On a gut level, the obscenity of the crimes makes us want to see the guilty suffer and the victims get whatever they can. The pedophile priests should go to jail, and those who participated in the conspiracy to protect them should also face criminal charges – right on up to Cardinal Law if the evidence warrants it. Civil actions can and should be taken against them individually if that’s what the victims want, although it is unlikely that any of the priests have much personal wealth to speak of. And, to the extent that the Church continues to be contumacious (to borrow its own term for “unrepentant”) in denying and covering up its institutional complicity, it should be handed over to the secular arm and treated as a criminal organization under American racketeering laws.

This brings us to the question of financial claims against the Church itself. Brian asks, rightly, does this also constitute justice in this case? If it was the clergy’s own money, or even profits derived from Church activity for the benefit of the leadership, it would be an easy call: soak the bastards down to the last button in the collection plate. But it’s not like going after Enron. Although the Catholic Church is probably the wealthiest institution in the world in terms of real assets – real estate, art, precious metals, collectable books and manuscripts, stuff like that – those are not part of the operating budget of the American diocese against whom the claims are being made. Most of that money comes from contributions of ordinary Catholics and is used, after overhead, for various social works that the Church is engaged in. And let’s give credit where it’s due – the Catholic Church is one of the most important and effective agencies of social welfare in the world, both in depressed areas of the United States and in developing countries.

When you punish the Church financially, you can’t avoid punishing both the innocent beneficiaries and the innocent contributors. Unlike the shareholders of a corporation, the contributors to the Catholic Church have no way of holding the “management” responsible, and in any case, the Church stands accused not of mismanagement of funds, but of aiding and abetting predatory pedophiles – certainly an activity that falls outside their normal scope of business. The priests, bishops and officials who participated in these activities have already done enough harm, and by punishing the Church financially, it can be argued that you are visiting their crimes on those who need the help of the Church the most.

The problem is aggravated by the complicity of the Church hierarchy in both the crimes and the cover-up. There is something deeply and institutionally rotten at the center, and public safety as well as common morality demands that the organization itself be held accountable for the harm it has done. Even those who believe that the Church is fundamentally good must agree that it has been ill-served by the actions of the leadership, and reform is necessary if it is to continue to perform both social and spiritual good works. What makes the potential bankruptcy filing by the Boston archdiocese so heinous is not the fact that it protects Church assets from claims by the victims, because it is not clear that the victims are entitled to them. But if the filing were to shield the Church from further investigation, that would be unjust and unacceptable.

Tue, 10 Dec 2002 21:22:54 GMT

Lotts of Trouble

How attrocious was Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's post-facto endorsement of Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential bid? Much worse than he's being given credit for. Lott wasn't simply harking back to the good old days of segregation. None of the major parties in 1948 dared stand against the Apartheid system that ruled the South in those days. No, the issue that caused Strom's Dixiecrats to bolt from the Democratic Party was President Truman's support for a federal anti-lynching bill. That's right - the people who voted for Strom were bravely standing up for the rights of angry mobs to terrorize and murder black citizens without interference from the bad ol' federal gov'ment. And the reason that Mississippi gave its electoral votes to the Dixiecrats is because the majority of the theoretical electorate - e.g., the 60-odd% of Mississippi's population that wasn't pure as the driven snow - were systemtatically excluded from the polls by means so crude and brutal that few bothered to even attempt to exercise their rights.

Having nostalgia for the good old days of sweet magnolia is one thing, but by dragging up the ghosts of '48, Lott knowingly and deliberately advocated for a return of racial fascism and terror. Shame on anyone who doesn't turn their back on this evil troll.

Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:39:44 GMT

Crisis of Faith

I'm not Catholic myself and don't feel entirely comfortable writing about the mounting problems facing the Church here in America, but I can't help being sickened by the attitude of the Boston archdiosece towards the victims of predatory priests. Not only is the Church doing everything in its considerable power to protect the alleged perpetrators, it is now considering the extraordinary step of declaring bankruptcy to avoid financial liability and to prevent further investigation into the charges. For any institution to so blatatnly seek to deny justice and evade responsibility is obscene, but it is especially grotesque considering that the whole business of the Church is to tell other people how to live their lives.

The institutional problems of the Catholic Church have been with Western civilization for so long that they've become part of the historical wallpaper. It's hard to believe that, at this late date, the Church could furnish such potent new fuel for outrage, or be so inept in its handling of what must be a familiar situation. Catholicism practically invented the concept of shame and distributes it generously to the faithful. It's amazing that they can't seem to find any to spare on themselves in a situation where it's so richly needed.

Check out the Boston Globe for outstanding coverage of the situation.

Sun, 08 Dec 2002 23:55:51 GMT

Double Trouble

I’ve been hearing the term “double taxation” a lot lately as the business punditocracy is trying to figure out how to solve the current economic crisis without imposing any additional burden on the wealthy. Many are pushing for a repeal of the tax on corporate dividends because this is a “double tax” – e.g., the money was taxed once as corporate profits, then again when it is distributed to shareholders. The estate tax is a “double tax” because the money in the estate was already taxed when it was earned, then is taxed again when it is distributed to the heirs. This argument is supposed to suggest that it is illegitimate to tax dollars more than once, even when the so-called double taxes in question happen to hit only the very top of the income brackets.

I don’t understand why this makes any difference. Everyone pays double taxes all the time. My income is taxed once when I’m paid, then again by a sales tax when I spend it. The money I used to buy my condo would have been tax-free (except for the interest) if I’d left it in the bank, but because I spent it on real estate, I have to pay property taxes on the full value of my place, including the considerable part that I still owe the mortgage company. I’m sure you could think of dozens of other examples. This seems to me to be just another part of the tax system, no more or less onerous than any of the rest of it.

The only way to avoid double taxation altogether is for the government to tax money at the source: e.g., every time the Fed issues three dollars into the money supply, the government prints a dollar for its own use. Presto! The government ends up with buying power equal to 25% of the money in circulation, every dollar is "taxed" equally by inflation, and we can do away with the entire formal tax system, lock, stock and barrel. Any amateur economists out there want to shoot that one full of holes for me?

Sun, 08 Dec 2002 20:03:11 GMT

Rush to Judgment

Last week in response to a particularly Limbaugh-like blast from one of my commenters, I bemoaned the pathetic signal-to-noise ratio in our current political debate and suggested that high-pitched rhetoric from both sides makes it impossible to reach the kind of consensus necessary to solve our increasingly-complex policy problems. Amy Sullivan offers a similar piece in this week's American Prospect, concluding that "Even Rush Limbaugh should be able to do better than equating political opponents with Satan -- and even his listeners should be able to do better than passing off name-calling as political discourse."

The problem is, I'm not so sure anymore that these people can do better, or would want to if they could. Let's accept for a moment that there may be an attractive element to conservative principles on a theoretical level, and that this theory is worth arguing over. Fine, but the most self-serving and broadly objectionable elements of the conservative program (and those most important to the backers) are in the details. It is no accident that right-wing propaganda so desperately tries to keep the focus on the broadest possible view of the issue: “good vs. evil,” “homeland defense,” “economic freedom,” “tax relief” - while avoiding at all costs a discussion of the practicality of their specific proposals. These details are precisely what would come under scrutiny in a reasoned policy debate using effective, systematic analysis, and would likely meet with little support from the vast majority who do not benefit from them.

Extremists understand that an emotionally-charged atmosphere is more favorable for the outcomes that suit their narrow interests. Consequently, they cloud the air with personal attacks and slurs that distort the positions of their opponents, disparage the very idea of compromise and consensus, and subvert the fundamental elements of rational analysis while perversely suggesting that theirs is the reasoned, logical position. Liberal-minded people (including principled conservatives) who are conditioned to respect the process of deliberation are fooled into taking these kind of pseudo-arguments seriously as contributions to the public dialogue, when in fact they are put forward to deliberately confuse the public about the issues and the proper means of analyzing policy proposals. Arguing with Rush and his ilk is therefore worse than futile – it is playing right into the hands of the enemy.

That’s because the hard-core right-wingers behind this coordinated effort don't want to win the argument - they want to win the war. The result is a kind of two-tiered system where most of society is earnestly engaged in an irrelevant debate over theory while ruthless operatives are busy hacking their way through the underbrush to secure power, privilege and wealth for themselves through the most narrow, self-serving and short-sighted public policies imaginable.

Fri, 06 Dec 2002 20:06:43 GMT

Rats Off First

With the midterm election safely in the bag, Bush seems to be admitting by his actions what Democratic critics failed to make stick last month: that the Administration's economic policy so far has been a total disaster. The abrupt "resignations" of clueless Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil and supply-side stooge Larry Lindsey demonstrate that even this White House knows incompetence when it sees it (other than in the mirror, of course). Count on Bush to squelch any celebrations by the opposition by promptly appointing people even worse (like former House Budget Committee Chairman Bill Archer, R-TX, perhaps... you heard it here first).

Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:35:22 GMT

The Economic Argument for War

You never know what axe politicians are really grinding when they talk about going to war with Iraq, but with economic analysts (such as this one from Marketviews), you can always be sure that at the end of the day, it's going to be about money. Economists don't worry about the niceties of morality or diplomacy, so the argument for immediate war becomes elegantly simple:

The West needs oil, whether anyone likes it or not.
Oil comes primarily from three places: Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq. There may be ways to replace this supply eventually, but in the short term, those are the main players.
Saudi Arabia is, for a variety of reasons, increasingly unstable. A hostile regime in Riyadh, combined with the current problems of Iran and Iraq, would be entirely unacceptable to the US and the rest of the world that depends on Middle Eastern oil.
Invading and occupying Iraq would solve a host of economic and geopolitical problems and complete the encirclement of Iran, the next likely target.
Saddam’s regime in Baghdad has given the West ample pretext for an attack.
It is easier to fight a desert war in the winter than the summer, so it makes sense to force events to a head now rather than wait too long.

To an economist, going to war to obtain control of resources is a perfectly rational action, especially when the risks and costs of war are relatively low compared to the economic impact of doing nothing. Long-term consequences, such as the damage to international law and the reputation of the United States by embarking on a war of plunder, are harder to quantify and thus discounted.

To some, this makes the economic argument inherently illegitimate and outside the bounds of political discourse. “No blood for oil” has a compelling moral clarity that transcends the cold logic of numbers. But it doesn’t answer the hard question of what realistic options our oil-dependent economy has in the event of the supply shock that would result from an Islamist overthrow of the Saudi monarchy. Sure, the fat-cats and oil company cronies of the Bush administration would suffer, but ordinary people, as always, would bear the brunt. It’s hard to imagine any Western government allowing that to happen when there is the recourse to fast, easy and effective military action against a regime that has done itself few favors in the international arena over the last ten years.

I don’t have the answers on this one. Fortunately, the administration must feel that explaining its actions in these terms doesn’t poll very well, so both sides will continue to shadow-box with proxy arguments about inspection compliance and phantom connections between Iraq and Al-Qaida. But if the argument is ever reduced to the basic issues – “we need it, they got it, let’s go take it” – will arguments based on abstract ideas of international law and morality trump the time-tested logic of need and greed?

Sun, 01 Dec 2002 23:48:49 GMT

Bush Urged to Slam Islam Harder

One of the few unqualified praises I can accord to President Bush in his handling of the current crisis is how he has consistently and sincerely resisted the tempation to characterize the struggle against Islamist terror as a struggle against Islam per se or against Muslims, either at home or abroad. This appears to be motivated by a pragmatic desire not to alientate potential allies in the Islamic world, as well as by Bush's reluctance as a man of nearly fanatical faith himself to criticize the sincere faith of anyone else. While both of these motives may seem a little bit sketchy, their effect has been to discourage outbursts of racist, nationalist ugliness that have characterized America's responses to previous wars against foreign foes. However much the Administration has failed in the practice of tolerance toward Muslims - in terms of arrests and profiling - it has at least tried to maintain a tone of restraint and not created an atmosphere of hatred and hysteria. For that, let's give Bush his props.

Needless to say, any hint of softness in any regard is bound to go down ill with the hard right. In one of the few places where you can see daylight between rightist ideologues and the Administration, it appears that Bush is coming under increasing criticism for his unwillingness to characterize Islam itself as an aggressive ideology and to position the struggle as a "clash of civilizations" between the Judeo-Christian West and the Islamic East.

A piece in today's Seattle Times (originally from the Washington Post) quotes right-wing activist Paul Weyrich as saying: "Islam is at war against us. I have had much good to say about President Bush in recent months. But one thing that concerned me before September 11th and concerns me even more now is his administration's constant promotion of Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance just like Judaism or Christianity. It is neither."

This view is apparently typical of many on the right: fundamentalist Christians who are spoiling for an armageden-like showdown with the Anti-Christ in the Middle East, ideologues looking for a new meta-conflict to replace the Cold War, and sympathizers with Ariel Sharon's brand of Israeli expansionism. One wonders how long Bush's apparently natural tendencies toward interfaith tolerance can hold up against the rising clamor of his most ardent supporters.