Tuesday, November 30, 2004

"The hate our policies, not our freedom"

I am going to post this whole thing from the Christian Science Monitor. You can get the links for the articles they cite by going directly to their story:
'They hate our policies, not our freedom'
Quietly released Pentagon report contains major criticisms of administration.
by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

Late on the Wednesday afternoon before the Thanksgiving holiday, the US Defense Department released a report by the Defense Science Board that is highly critical of the administration's efforts in the war on terror and in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.'
The Pentagon released the study after The New York Times ran a story about the report in its Wednesday editions.

The Defense Science Board, reports Disinfopedia, is "a Federal advisory committee established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of Defense."
'The current Board is authorized to consist of thirty-two members plus seven ex officio members': the chairmen of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Policy, Ballistic Missile Defense Advisory Committee, and Defense Intelligence Agency Science and Technology Advisory Committee. 'Members, whose appointed terms range from one to four years, are selected on the basis of their preeminence in the fields of science, technology and its application to military operations, research, engineering, manufacturing and acquisition process.'
China's Xinhuanet reported that the board's report criticized the US for failing in its efforts to communicate its military and diplomatic actions to the world, and the Muslim world in particular, "but no public relations campaign can save America from flawed policies." The report also takes the administration to task for talking about Islamic extremism in a way that offends many Muslims.
In stark contrast to the cold war, the United States today is not seeking to contain a threatening state empire, but rather seeking to convert a broad movement within Islamic civilization to accept the value structure of Western Modernity – an agenda hidden within the official rubric of a 'War on Terrorism,' [the report states].
MSNBC notes that the report, in a comment that directly goes against statements made by President Bush and senior cabinet members, says the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have united otherwise-divided Muslim extremists and given terrorists organizations like Al Qaeda a boost by "raising their stature."

In fact, Wired News reported the board as saying, the US has not only failed to separate "the vast majority of nonviolent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists," but American efforts may have "achieved the opposite of what they intended."

Al Jazeera reported Thursday that the board called for the creation of a strategic communication's "apparatus" within the executive branch and "an overhaul of public diplomacy, public affairs and information dissemination efforts by the Pentagon and State Department."
If we really want to see the Muslim world as a whole [the report states], and the Arabic-speaking world in particular, move more toward our understanding of moderation and tolerance, we must reassure Muslims that this does not mean that they must submit to the American way.
As columnist Thomas Freidman of The New York Times wrote Monday in an opinion piece, the lack of planning and a 'clear channel of communication to the Muslim world' means that the US is losing the PR war to people that "saw off the heads of other Muslims."
Wars are fought for political ends. Soldiers can only do so much. And the last mile in every war is about claiming the political fruits. The bad guys in Iraq can lose every mile on every road, but if they beat America on the last mile – because they are able to intimidate better than America is able to coordinate, protect, inform, invest and motivate – they will win and America will lose.
The New York Times reported last Wednesday that although the board's report does not constitute official government policy, it captures "the essential themes of a debate that is now roiling not just the Defense Department but the entire United States government."
The Red Cross? The Defense Policy Board? Ah, this wont be the first report the Bush Administration ignores. If only every home across the world had Fox News we wouldn't be in this sort of trouble.

You can get the full report at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf

PC, multi-culti mumbo jumbo

The latest from Michelle Chen:
I just can't seem to keep my mouth shut these days. Here are some musings on identity, gender, cultural difference and all that other hippie crap ...

The double agent

UN, NGOs Battle to Back Women in Conflict Areas
Why should these days be any different, Michelle? You have never been able to keep your mouth shut. Folks at home: read and learn.

Press coverage of the Iraq War

Tom Engelhardt at TomDispatch has had some of the best analysis of the issues I have been writing about over the past several months. This week he has the latest Michael Massing article from the upcoming New York Review of Books on the press coverage of the Iraq War and why it didn't sway the election. Well worth reading.

From the war fronts

A couple of NY Times articles today worth checking out:

Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantánamo
. An excerpt:
The International Committee of the Red Cross has charged in confidential reports to the United States government that the American military has intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion "tantamount to torture" on prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The finding that the handling of prisoners detained and interrogated at Guantánamo amounted to torture came after a visit by a Red Cross inspection team that spent most of last June in Guantánamo.

The team of humanitarian workers, which included experienced medical personnel, also asserted that some doctors and other medical workers at Guantánamo were participating in planning for interrogations, in what the report called "a flagrant violation of medical ethics."

Doctors and medical personnel conveyed information about prisoners' mental health and vulnerabilities to interrogators, the report said, sometimes directly, but usually through a group called the Behavioral Science Consultation Team, or B.S.C.T. The team, known informally as Biscuit, is composed of psychologists and psychological workers who advise the interrogators, the report said.

The United States government, which received the report in July, sharply rejected its charges, administration and military officials said.
NOte that the government received this report in July and this is the first we are hearing about it. And this stuff about the medical professionals helping prepare prisoners for torture is truly disturbing (though this is not the first time it has been reported).

U.S. Officials Say Iraq's Forces Founder Under Rebel Assaults. The article begins:
MOSUL, Iraq, Nov. 29 - Iraqi police and national guard forces, whose performance is crucial to securing January elections, are foundering in the face of coordinated efforts to kill and intimidate them and their families, say American officials in the provinces facing the most violent insurgency.
Then check out this tidbit:
Given the weak performance of Iraqi forces, any major withdrawal of American troops for at least a decade would invite chaos, a senior Interior Ministry official, whose name could not be used, said in an interview last week.
A decade???? A decade???!!?!?!?!%&^%*%*&

Stephen P. plants tongue firmly in cheek...

This comes from Historical Methods student Stephen P.:
The recent oil for food program has come under fire for allowing many in the United Nations to profit from unethical business relations while Iraq suffered under United Nation sanctions. While the extent of the corruption remains unseen, it’s clear that Kofi Annan has lied about his son’s involvement and has had to “clarify” his statements. The following articles show the hypocrisy and secretive nature of the United Nations. A supposed model of world government, tasked with promotion human rights and international law lacks the simplest assurance when it comes to freedom of information. Here by allowing its members to secretly prosecute their agendas without fear of public knowledge. Behind a mask of internationalism the United Nations continues to pick and choose what aspects of the world it chooses to ”help” but surely the United Nations’ calling of internationalism out weighs its minor errors?

http://www.nysun.com/article/5372

“(…) One of the next big chapters in the United Nations oil-for-food scandal will involve the family of the secretary-general, Kofi Annan, whose son turns out to have been receiving payments as recently as early this year from a key contractor in the oil-for-food program. (…)”

What the press fails to realize is those who answer the call of world unity and peace do not fall prey to such trivial notions of personal gain. The future must be forged from a homogeneous position of international law and human rights and the men and women of the United Nations wield the hammer of international law and have the anvil of human rights.

“(…) But investigators are now looking into new information suggesting that the younger Annan received far more money over a much longer period, even after his compensation from Cotecna had reportedly ended. (…)”

“(…) The Wall Street Journal reported that even after Kojo Annan's Cotecna consultancy ended in 1998,he continued to receive payments from Cotecna through the end of 1999, as well as having use over that same period of a company credit card. (…)”

Clearly continuing to pay officials in the United Nations would not affect any decisions they are bound to make during their tenure at this esteemed institution. Clearly the press does not understand the personal integrity of a high member of the United Nations.

“(…) The pattern in this scandal has been that Secretary-General Annan, until confronted by the press, has either failed to spot or failed to disclose timely information about Cotecna's paychecks for his son. (…)”

But why should he? Surely the United Nations is above the press and lesser sovereign governments? The very idea that one would question this higher institution of the civilized world is absurd. After all aren’t they the ones who stopped the genocide in Rwanda and Kosovo? A reputation and moral high ground above question, such petty inferences from the press and partisan governments only delay more important matters of internationalism.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2920140

“(…) The paper listed about 270 former government officials, activists, journalists and U.N. officials from more than 46 countries suspected of profiting from oil sales. (…)”

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=285035

“(…) Kojo Annan, the U.N. leader's son, was paid $2,500 monthly — a total of $125,000 — by Geneva-based Cotecna from the beginning of 2000 through last February, as part of an agreement not to compete with Cotecna in West Africa after he left the firm, U.N. chief spokesman Fred Eckhard said. (…)”

“(…)The United Nations had previously disclosed that Kojo Annan was given monthly $2,500 payments only through the end of 1999 after leaving Cotecna at the end of 1998. Cotecna approved the payments just days after the contract was awarded. Kofi Annan and the United Nations have previously denied any wrongdoing or ethical lapse in awarding the contract. (…)”

Paying Kojo Annan $2,500 a month is totally consistent with the skills he brings to the company. Just look, he was able to help the company win a very profitable contract with the United Nations oil for food program. What company would want someone like that working for the competition?

“(…) Congressional investigators say Saddam Hussein's regime reaped over $21 billion from kickbacks and oil smuggling before and during the time the now-defunct program was in operation. (…)”

If not solely for the moral obligation to allow a government to provide for its people, any money which found its way to Saddam Hussein’s regime surely increased the stability of the progressive secular government of Iraq.

One day the people of the world will realize the importance of a homogeneous international utopia and forget these petty flea bites. One day an international body and court will rule all peoples and such “liberal” ideas of liberty and freedoms will no longer interfere with the greater good of the human race. What archaic society would not forfeit its sovereignty for the creation of such a benevolent international body? These worthless claims of abuse in the United Nations only stress the need for such a body to exist and to police the actions of all those around, as to avoid such partisan divides amongst governments. It’s amazing that after the twentieth century, the bloodiest in the history of man what anyone could argue against the creation of larger more powerful government bodies.
How come so many of my best students are such reactionary wingnuts? :)

Where is Al Sharpton?

Historical Methods student Danny P. sends in this nugget:
this is a small example of the reason why the left lost the election. here is an absolutely insulting racist cartoon of condi rice. my question is, why is al sharpton and jesse jackson not defending this african-american women??
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/uclickcomics/20041116/cx_po_uc/po20041116 target="_blank"

Friday, November 19, 2004

Post-election thoughts

I don't have enough insight in to how to win a campaign to really criticize Kerry, so I have stayed away from bashing him -- though others haven't. But one thing really sticks out, and I can't get over how he mishandled it continually. You remember the famous line, "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."? This was used time and again by Bush against Kerry. But there is a really simple explanation.

When Kerry was going to vote for the $87 billion bill for additional appropriations for the military in Afghanistan and Iraq, the bill he supported was paid for by rescinding some of the tax cuts on the upper class. And Bush said he would VETO that bill. Only when the Republican version did away with actually paying for the $87 billion, instead of adding it to our debt (the ceiling for which, btw, the Republicans just yesterday raised for the 3rd time in the last four years), did Kerry vote against the bill.

Now how difficult is that to explain? Why didn't Kerry explain it simply? And I would have emphasized Bush's threat to veto. I don't know why.

Another post-election quote comes in from a reader, and I can't resist posting it:
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

First Americans

First Americans may have crossed Atlantic 50,000 years ago

The intrepid Jon Wiener fights on

I just found this from an email I got last month from NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 10, #40; 8 October 2004):
Historian Wins FOIA Access Suit: On 28 September 2004, U.S. District Judge Robert Takasugi gave University of California at Irvine historian Jonathan Wiener a significant win when he ordered the FBI to turn over the remaining 10 pages of the secret files on Beatle John Lennon to Wiener. Judge Takasugi rejected government arguments that releasing the last 10 pages of Weiners request would pose a national security risk because a foreign government secretly provided the information (the government that provided the information was not publicly identified though Great Britain is obviously the most likely source). The battle for the Lennon records started in 1983, when Wiener sued the Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act. Through a settlement in 1997, Wiener received 248 pages of the Lennon records. These files, which were gathered from 1971 to 1972,included memos detailing Lennon's donations to a group planning to demonstrate at the 1972 Republican National Convention. The Justice department is considering whether to appeal the District Court decision.

Thursday, November 18, 2004

EVENT on campus November 22nd

Second World War Symposium Series and Graduate Colloquium

Wilfried Wilms, Assistant Professor of German from Union College speaking on "The Bombing of Germany: Taboo, Repression, and the Politics of Memory."

Professor Wilms will help us understand how different nations have constructed their own particular histories and memories of the War. In this case, he looks at the devastating Allied bombings of German cities that have until very recently been excluded from German accounts of World War II and shaped by the politics of a an occupied and divided Germany after 1945.

We will be meeting in Atrium 126, or with overflow in Atrium Y144 on Monday, November 22 between 6-7 PM.

Monday, November 15, 2004

EVENT on campus Tuesday, November 16th

The Struggle for Democracy in Latin America: The View from Three Scholars

Claudia Baez-Camarago, Ph.D., adjunct professor William Paterson University
Jennifer Collins, ABD, adjunct professor William Paterson University
Martin Weinstein, Ph.D. Professor of Political Science

Tuesday, November 16, 2004
2:00 p.m.
Raubinger 1

Reception to be held after presentations
Sponsored by the Department of Political Science and Latin American Studies

Event on campus Wednesday, November 17th

ELECTION 2004: THE AFTERMATH
A Public Forum Discussing the
Outcome of the 2004 Presidential Election

With

Wartyna Davis - Chair Dept. Political Science, WPU
John Mason - Prof. Dept. Political Science, WPU
Christine Kelly - Prof. Political Science, WPU
Philippe Coste - US Correspondent, l’Express, France
Michael Thompson (Chair) - Dept. Political Science, WPU

Wednesday, November 17th 2004
ROOM: SCIENCE 200A

2pm - 3:30pm

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

My readers inspire me...

Two comments to my "Holy War" post have inspired me to continue the conversation, and I thank these students for their contributions:
Take a good look at this post and those articles, because they are the very reason the Democrats lost. Why did they lose the election? To many Democrats it’s simple; everyone was too stupid to know that Democrats know how to run their lives. I don't think the Democratic Party or most Democrats live in the same world anymore. They lost because they're detached from most Americans, to the point where they can’t even communicate. Most Americans are religious and I know if you're Democrats religion has become a horrible disease and I am sure one day we'll have a cure for it but until then you have to convince those people to vote for you. Calling them ignorant and insulting their beliefs translates into a lost presidential campaign, a Republican house, a Republican senate, and your own minority leader ousted. These articles just reinforce that, comparing religious Americans to Muslim fanatics, replacing keystone Democratic class warfare with religious warfare. If you really believe these articles look forward to many more years of Republican control because you don't have the slightest idea why you lost or why you'll never win like this.
Steve
# posted by Anonymous : 11/6/2004 12:48:35 PM

I don't agree with Cathy and Kerry that America needs to unite to face the next four effectivly. I think that would be BAD. If Bush bashers did unite with supporters it would be like saying Bush is tolerable. He's not. Bush has screwed up too offen and in capacities too great. Nothing he does or says can make me see otherwise or forgive him. If anything we should continue bashing him left and right and in an ideal world, convict him of war crimes. Let's interegate Bush like the Republicans did to Clinton and see how he likes it. At least the trial would be legitimate. Or even better, let's all invite Uncle Tecumseh to make a personal visit with Mr. Bush! That'll solve the problem of the administration's monsterous figure head. Hey, it's a start.
ABT
# posted by Anonymous : 11/8/2004 12:46:17 PM
Well, I am not sure what direction the Democratic Party should go in order to win the Presidency. Remember that if Kerry had taken Ohio we would all be talking about the election in completely different ways, drawing completely different lessons about the campaign and about the country as a whole. I don't know why Bush won and Kerry lost -- whether it was the women vote, the youth vote, the rural vote, the suburban vote, terrorism, religion, "moral values," stolen votes, better get out the vote efforts, the economy, the media, personal qualities.... All of these have been bandied about and this question is not really my interest or bailiwick. I was most interested in this election because I thought the Bush administration has so squandered American power and influence and the world is in much worse shape because of that. As for what Democrats should do, my instinct and political beliefs lead me to wish they would become more progressive (what Stephen might call "class warfare"); but whether that will help them win I don't know. Check out Richard Kearney's insights on his new blog Future's So Bright. He -- like ABT -- makes the case that the Democratic Party is not the only game in town.

Stephen makes a good point that at some level the liberal analysis simply says Bush voters were stupid. As the already famous London Daily Mirror cover asked the day after the election, How Can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB? The only comfort I draw is that 56+ million were "smart" enough to vote for the other guy. But I do not believe that stupidity is the reason people voted for Bush. Obviously, there are many reasons, some of them having to do with Kerry being unable to convince enough people that he would be a better leader. And I know that some of my smartest students supported Bush, and I respect their intelligence and have to grapple with that. But I do remain baffled. I have spent a few months on my blog demonstrating the mendacity, incompetance and ideological zealotry of this administration and I am frustrated that not everyone sees things my way. I remain frustrated that what I see as the overwhelming evidence against Bush did not persuade enough people to reject his second term.

I do believe people were duped -- and that does not make them stupid -- by a sophisticated public relations campaign, by an anemic (at best) media, and, above all, by appeals to fear and intolerance. Religion is not the issue. A specific way of using religion to appeal to voters and, ultimately, to reshape our nation is what is at stake. Evangelical Christians have a divorce rate of 35%, as high as any group in our country, yet apparently right-wing evangelicals believe that making sure homosexuals can't get married (and divorced) is a more important issue than security, jobs, etc. I agree with ABT that simply rolling over is not the solution right now for Democrats and others who oppose Bush. He did not receive an overwhelming mandate, and we need to continue to oppose the policies we disagree with. That, after all, is the essence of democracy.

A final note: you may have noticed a decrease in postings from me. This is not only because of my post-election blues. I have a number of other writing projects that I have been putting off (to spend time on this blog) and that I need to get cracking on. Don't despair! I am not quitting, and I am not leaving the reality-based community -- I have decided against that whole four-year-opium-haze solution despite the fact that this year's poppy harvest in Afghanistan is the largest ever. I will be posting, just less frequently. And please feel free to fill in the gaps with your own postings and comments.

The Media and the Election

James G., a student in Historical Methods, send these comments:
I have never been into politics before this election year. I never voted before this election either. When I did watch TV. or listen to the radio and hear the media talk about politics, I let them decide how I felt or what I thought without even knowing it. A couple weeks before this year's election, I heard on the news someone say "we depend on the media so much it has become our referee, telling us who and what is wrong or right in the world." This made me think how I have depended on the media when I rarely and briefly pay attention to them, what justifies my thinking and beliefs about certain countries, people, parties, or administrations and mainly if America is doing good or bad in world. Why can't politicians or the administration think the way average citizens think? I guess they have to think differently so that causes a lot of critics. in my opinion the criticism turns a lot of people away from getting involved or listening to politics. The media beats points to death, all the news channels talk about the same thing at the same time. The majority of the people in the United States have given a lot of power to the media, more than we know or want to admit. The media is to tell us what we should think and what to believe. I find it ironic when Dan Rather was in that mess with CBS, it was a time bomb. The media went crazy over it and for what I don't know. I don't care if President Bush flew a plane or whatever happened because I forgot what the fuss was about. This is my point, I got turned away so fast because the media beat the issue to death, I don't even want to know the story because I don't care. If the president was in the Air-force or not, his personal life doesn't matter to me. As long as he can stop an attack on this country or terrorist from killing anyone, that's what I care about. The way I see it, he's not the only president not have military service or the only president to cause drama or personal attention to himself. Remember Bill Clinton or Slick Willy, he didn't get this nick name just in politics. The media as our referee or the lazy way of saying let the talking heads think for me and what ever they say I agree.
Let me add a couple of links that address the issue of the media and the election:
Deford on Politics and Sports
from Morning Edition, Wednesday, November 10, 2004

A sports journalist covers each passing season like a close presidential race. They ask the tough questions to powerful people, challenge authority, and dissect post game interviews like Presidential stump speeches. Commentator Frank Deford thinks that political reporters could learn a thing or two from wide world of sports reporters.
From Freepress.com a series of articles on the media and the 2004 election.

And Robert McChesney, a brilliant historian of the media and journalism, has written an article entitled On Media and the Election.

Saturday, November 06, 2004

Holy War

So you guys really do care, eh? This comes from regular participant ABT:
A day and a half of no Blog?! That's got to be a record. Time to put away the tissue box and start addressing your felow Bloggers about what went wrong. Just a suggestion. We'll make it through together utilizing the power Blog. This hurts for me too.
ABT
Cathy writes in the day after the election:
As Americans we are part of a truly great society. I like to think of America as a work in progress always changing and evolving; some changes we agree with and some we don’t. What defines us most as Americans is our ability to band together in times of tragedy and the ability to put our differences aside for the good of our country. Whether we are democrat or republican we need to put the election in the past and work together to build a stronger country.
In his concession, Kerry showed grace and dignity and I for one was proud to say I voted for him. His speech today showed his integrity and character and I found myself wishing he showed this side of himself more often during the campaign. My 12 year old daughter is beside herself with grief. She came home from school, told me she was moving to Canada until her 16th birthday and preceded to dress in black and play sad tunes on her clarinet. In trying to console her, I pointed out that we have the duty to keep a close watch on President Bush and find a way to speak up when we don’t like his policies. Make calls to your Senators and Congressman, call the White house directly, but don’t sit back for the next 4 years complaining.
And Cathy follows up a couple of days later:
I noticed you haven't written nything on your blog since Tuesday and I was wondering why? Please don't tell me it's because Bush won the election; as you told me many weeks ago that would be a cop out! Your blog says its about foreign policy, the election and there was something else that escapes me at the moment.
Anyway, I have a few other thoughts for you(like it or not). This is from the Record on Wednesday in regards to the daily interruptions into the lives of New Yorkers since September 11th. Security didn't matter as much (in the election) to people in N.Y., Pa., and Washington, D.C. They didn't vote their fears, maybe because they get it, that the new reality means you never know and the White House doesn't either (when the next attack will occur). The experts get to work and do their jobs and the rest of us keep on going. This from Tom Freidman's column on Thursday- The Democrats have ceded to Republicans a monopoly on the moral and spiritual sources of American politics. They will never recover as a party until they again have candidates who can speak to those moral and spiritual yerning- but turn them to progressive purposes in domestic policy and foreign affairs. The Democrats must make a comeback because they have nominated a candidate who can win with a positive message that connects with the American heartland.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, I believe the Democrats had such a person in John Kerry, they however didn't allow him to run the campaign the way it should have been run. They tried to play the Republican game and that just doesn't work for the Democrats. In his concession speech on Wednesday, I saw something in John Kerry that I didn't see when he was campaigning; there was an honesty and a sincerity that somehow didn't come across.
We need to move past the election now, nothing is going to change the results. But we can keep a close watch on President Bush and his administration. I don't think one voice will make a difference but if many voices speak up perhaps we can. So, you can continue to be in mourning but I choose to move forward.

Be well,
Cathy
Well, yes, I confess, mourning is not too strong a word. But I have also been trying to collect my thoughts and see if I have something intelligent to add to the conversation that is going on across the country right now. I do have a few things to say, but let me first guide readers to some excellent articles I have come across. The Times has had several great op-eds over the past few days. See:

Two Nations Under God

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: November 4, 2004

No Surrender

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 5, 2004

The Red Zone
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: November 4, 2004
There will be a battle within the Democratic Party over how to respond. Richard Kearney in his welcome new blog, Future's So Bright has some thoughts written on election night (perhaps written in the heat of impending doom) where he essentially declares himself to be fed up with the party. Digby argues, in this typically insightful and acerbic style, much the opposite in a series of posts over the last few days -- he says that the Dems have to get better at showbiz while not giving up their core beliefs (which, he hastens to add, they DO have).

Another interesting front will be what happens to the Republican party. Fiscal conservatives and international realists have been chafing under the Bush/Rove leadership. Will they continue to be so smitten by the ability to win power that they further eviscerate their own principles? Will someone like William Safire return to his lifelong commitment to civil liberties? Will David Brooks ... ah, forget David Brooks, he has made his career out of thin and facile pop psychologizing; he chose conservatism because he correctly discerned that was where he could gain celebrity.

On election night I was watching ABC and their commentator Fareed Zakaria (a man whose analysis and opinion I always respect and value, though most often disagree with) mentioned that because we are so overstretched in Iraq, Bush and Co. will have to become more realistic about international diplomacy, etc. Peter Jennings replied that he was not so sure, but that is a conversation for another day. I am inclined to agree with Jennings here, and Bush's claim to have earned "political capital" from the election seems to confirm that view. But pay attention to the people who leave and those who come into the new administration. The new appointments will signal very clearly which direction the country will be going.

A couple of other articles I want to make special mention of -- Thomas Frank convincingly continues his argument from his book What's the Matter With Kansas in Why They Won.

And Garry Wills, an eminent historian and brilliant thinker spells out the larger view of what the election means. He describes a trend I have been noticing over the past several years that I find very frightening and that Neil Postman wrote an excellent book about a few years back called Building a Bridge to the Eighteenth century. Here is the full Wills article followed by my brief comments:
November 4, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Day the Enlightenment Went Out
By GARRY WILLS

Evanston, Ill.

This election confirms the brilliance of Karl Rove as a political strategist. He calculated that the religious conservatives, if they could be turned out, would be the deciding factor. The success of the plan was registered not only in the presidential results but also in all 11 of the state votes to ban same-sex marriage. Mr. Rove understands what surveys have shown, that many more Americans believe in the Virgin Birth than in Darwin's theory of evolution.

This might be called Bryan's revenge for the Scopes trial of 1925, in which William Jennings Bryan's fundamentalist assault on the concept of evolution was discredited. Disillusionment with that decision led many evangelicals to withdraw from direct engagement in politics. But they came roaring back into the arena out of anger at other court decisions - on prayer in school, abortion, protection of the flag and, now, gay marriage. Mr. Rove felt that the appeal to this large bloc was worth getting President Bush to endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (though he had opposed it earlier).

The results bring to mind a visit the Dalai Lama made to Chicago not long ago. I was one of the people deputized to ask him questions on the stage at the Field Museum. He met with the interrogators beforehand and asked us to give him challenging questions, since he is too often greeted with deference or flattery.

The only one I could think of was: "If you could return to your country, what would you do to change it?" He said that he would disestablish his religion, since "America is the proper model." I later asked him if a pluralist society were possible without the Enlightenment. "Ah," he said. "That's the problem." He seemed to envy America its Enlightenment heritage.

Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?

America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more, when a poll taken just before the elections showed that 75 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters believe Iraq either worked closely with Al Qaeda or was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.

The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.

Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.

It is often observed that enemies come to resemble each other. We torture the torturers, we call our God better than theirs - as one American general put it, in words that the president has not repudiated.

President Bush promised in 2000 that he would lead a humble country, be a uniter not a divider, that he would make conservatism compassionate. He did not need to make such false promises this time. He was re-elected precisely by being a divider, pitting the reddest aspects of the red states against the blue nearly half of the nation. In this, he is very far from Ronald Reagan, who was amiably and ecumenically pious. He could address more secular audiences, here and abroad, with real respect.

In his victory speech yesterday, President Bush indicated that he would "reach out to the whole nation," including those who voted for John Kerry. But even if he wanted to be more conciliatory now, the constituency to which he owes his victory is not a yielding one. He must give them what they want on things like judicial appointments. His helpers are also his keepers.

The moral zealots will, I predict, give some cause for dismay even to nonfundamentalist Republicans. Jihads are scary things. It is not too early to start yearning back toward the Enlightenment.

Garry Wills, an adjunct professor of history at Northwestern University, is the author of "St. Augustine's Conversion."
So are we in the midst of a Holy War, both within our nation and against the Muslim world? And what can we predict for the next four years? Goodbye Roe v. Wade. Hello Patriot Act II, III, and IV. Is it too early to raise the dreaded F-word, the one I have so far avoided because it is bandied about too easily. No not that F-word, the scary one -- fascism.

The State of Rock

The NY Times last Sunday had an interesting article on the state of rock today,

October 31, 2004
The Rap Against Rockism
By KELEFA SANNEH

I have been thinking about this question for some time, and will get some comments out when I collect my thoughts.

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

Cronkite on the Election of 1964

I just heard an extraordinary report by Walter Cronkite about the election of 1964 and the loss of the south from the Democratic Party (which he links back to FDR's challenge to Southern Dems in 1938. Go listen to Walter Cronkite on the Landslide Election of 1964

for those who can't wait

Just heard third-hand from Joe Lockhart (Kerry's campaign man) that these early polls are real. K way head in pa and 4 pts ahead in fl and ohio.

See how plugged in I am!

some thoughts on voting

From Cathy:
I just came from casting my vote and I have to tell you I am amazed at the amount of people I saw coming and going from the polls. Women with small children, elderly who need the use of a cane, and it occured to me that moe than anything this election I hope for a record voter turnout. You mentioned how angry you were with Bush for taking September 11th away from the American people, but what I am angriest about es the Republican attempts to scare people out of voting or the outright attempt to block valid votes. There was an article today in the Times about a judge in Ohio who denied the Republicans the right to challenge the validity of voters and I say THANK GOD!
Update: the Supreme court upheld the ability of challengers to be inside the polling places.

Monday, November 01, 2004

The Return of Cathy -- and My Election Endorsement

Cathy returns, with some important and incisive comments and questions, to which I reply below:
I wanted to ask you about a conversation we had back in May. You had mentioned that General Clark(is that his name) was the man you wanted to win the nomination and you weren't a strong Kerry supporter. Here's my question, are you going to vote for Kerry because you are so against Bush or because you believe in Kerry and what he has to say or because Kerry is the Democratic choice? Also, have you ever voted for any Republican, if not do you think you ever could?

I ask these questions because I believe too many people vote strictly for their party and not for who they feel will make the best choice. I believe that the biggest problem our country faces now is the politics that goes on behind the scenes, the deal making that occurs. I'm not sure anyone can make decisions or choices based on what they feel is the best course for our country.

I worry that Kerry won't be able to make any decision without taking a poll to find out how the public will react and I worry that Bush will make decisions without having any concern for the long term effects on our country. To put it bluntly, I worry that it doesn't matter who I vote for, each candidate scares me for different reasons. I also feel the election process has turned into a three ring circus, are we even taken seriously in the world community? Whatever the outcome, I hope we have a clear majority for the winner.

Look forward to your insight,
Cathy
First, my thoughts on Bush, most of which readers of this blog will already know. But I will try to be brief and to the point.

To me, the most shameful moment of Bush presidency occured when he gave his famous "Bring 'em on!" remark. Remember? He was talking about terrorists and opposition fighters in Iraq. The macho-ness aside, what filled me with shame and rage was this: Weren't we supposed to be liberating the poor, oppressed people of Iraq? And here Bush is inviting foreign terrorists into their land to wage war and further decimate their country.

The whole idea that we can defeat terrorism by luring the bad guys into one place is not only insensitive to the Iraqi people, but stupid. Do you really think that more terrorists are not simultaneously planning to attack the U.S. and U.S. interests elsewhere? As every report has shown, the war in Iraq has created more terrorists worldwide, it has been Osama Bin Laden's recruiting dream come true. In every way, the war has made us less safe.

I remember waking up at 4 oclock one morning in April 2003 and seeing liberated Iraqis dancing in the streets of Baghdad. I started dancing around the room myself, I was so elated. As I like to say, I am a sucker for freedom and democracy. But, apparently, sucker was the operative word here. The failure to commit enough troops to not only secure the weapons we knew were there, but to secure the country so that the Iraqis could begin to live better lives makes me wonder. It is too complex an issue to get into here -- the many reasons why the war was poorly planned from the beginning -- but there is no way around the conclusion that, whatever the reasons, the Commander-in-Chief failed miserably. And his flight-suit photo-op and premature announcement of "mission accomplished" sickens me as I read of young Americans and Iraqis killed every day.

My final indictment of Bush -- and I think this goes to the heart of so much of the rage against him, not only mine -- is that he has stolen September 11th from the American people. I was sitting in my office off Times Square on the morning of September 11th. I wondered briefly if Times Square could be next, but I was fortunate to have escaped any direct personal involvement. But after watching the attacks all morning on tv at my desk, I wandered the city, trying to figure out how I would get back to New Jersey, back home to my family. I took a ferry across the Hudson on the most beautiful September morning and watch the towers burn as we all sat silently in mourning. And I wandered the city over the next weeks, reading the posters covering every available fence space, especially in Union Square Park, as flyers appeared, desperately, and ultimately futilely, hoping for word of lost loved-ones. Those signs told the life stories of the people of New York and its suburbs, they told the stories of Americans who had been killed by a gang of murderous, fanatical thugs. And I ached for those people, and I raged at Bin Laden and his jihadist f*ckers.

And I believe Bush has stolen September 11th from me and from the American people who had not been so united in generations. He has used our unity and resolve to advance a radical agenda (and I haven't even mentioned the Patriot Act, energy policy, environmental policies, Halliburton and on and on) that rewards his cronies, restricts our rights, debases our democratic discourse, and weakens us in the world. I resent him for stealing American from us, and I fear what he and his people will do to us and the world with four more years. I fear for our democracy and I fear for our security. The Bush Administration has not made us safer, only more fearful.

So, on this level, I am an "anyone-but-Bush" supporter.

But, I am also impressed with John Kerry and believe he can be an excellent President. The man volunteered for the US military during the Vietnam War; he then volunteered to be sent overseas to Southeast Asia; he turned his boat around into enemy fire in order to rescue a fallen comrade. These actions demonstrate his courage and character. He returned home and spoke the truth about the war, again demonstrating his courage and character. I know many people are angry with him for "aiding the enemy" with his comments, but I don't accept that. First, a healthy democracy depends on courageous people speaking up. Second, he was right. Go read his testimony before the Senate. He does not indict individual soldiers; he condemns the political and military leaders who did not know what they were doing, who did not know how to win a war that could not be won, who were sending young American men to die because they couldn't figure out how to get out of the mess they had created. And, just like now, he is demanding that the men who sent our soldiers into battle be held accountable.

As for the credentials he brings to the office of the Presidency, I will quote Brad De Long's pithy summary:
Kerry's ability to work with open-minded Republicans like McCain, Lugar, and Hagel; Kerry's record as a deficit hawk working hard to strengthen the safety net; Kerry's issue advisors--Rubin, Altman, Tyson, and Blinder on Treasury issues, Bianchi and Thorpe on HHS issues, Beers and Holbrooke on security issues--are picked from those who have proved themselves highly competent and effective; Kerry's successes as a boss of prosecuting lawyers, as an investigator of BCCI and POWs, as a member of the Democratic senate caucus--these tell us who Kerry is: a Massachusetts liberal believing in fiscal prudence and an active government, understanding both soft and hard power, and personally brave--both in Vietnam and after, in his courage to say what he believed needed to be said about our war in Vietnam. He's one of the thousand or so people in America best-qualified to be president.
Kerry also has a far better understanding of the enemy we now face than Bush does. Look at the articles I posted a couple of days ago about Kerry's almost single-handed crusades against the links between international drug dealers, money launderers and terrorists. He has been aware of these links for nearly two decades now and has fought against entrenched interests (including Bushes and their financial associates). And he is right that the only way to defeat the jihadists is to kill the ones who are already committed, and to keep our policies from contributing to making new converts. And to do these things we must restore what Joseph Nye calls our "soft power" -- that is, our ability to lead the world through moral suasion backed up by moral policy. We have been called the "indispensable nation," and I think that is still true. And Kerry understands that, and nothing is more important to keeping that position than that we be respected in the world. People are fond of quoting Machiavelli to the effect that it is better to be feared than loved; but people leave out the next part of the quotation which says that to be hated is to court one's own downfall. While it may be comforting to see the world in black and white, the real world of international politics calls for a whole bunch of diplomacy, engagement, negotiation and all the ugly, sticky, and difficult work of leading an imperfect world. Kerry will bring in competant, experienced people in his administration, people who are prepared to engage with and change the real world, not enact an ideologically-based fantasy of the way the world should be.

I remember once, Cathy, I expressed my concern to you about President Bush's religious zealotry. You replied something to the effect that you, too, believed that God does His work in the world. But my problem with Bush is that he claims to KNOW what God wants, he seems to face no doubts about what God wants for him. That scares me. All the great religious leaders who left the world a better place than they found it have been wracked with doubt, with questioning -- about what God wants, about whether they are deserving, about their own faith, about whether they are living up to God's will. How can any man claim to know for certain God's will? Isn't that the same thing that motivates Osama Bin Laden's hateful nihilism?

Don't be fooled by the labels on Kerry -- liberal, flip-flopper, etc. And don't believe that Bush never goes by the polls or focus groups -- that is what all politicians do all the time. But look at how strong Kerry has seemed over the past months; he did not wilt under the barrage of lies from the Swifties; he did not stumble under the lights in the debates. He has been focused and resolute in his campaign strategy while every other Democrat was screaming "do this" or "do that". And because he has waged his campaign with such strength and resolve, because he has spoken to the American people with intelligence and, yes, maybe even "nuance," because he has shown himself to be eminently qualified to be Commander in Chief, the American people will resoundingly choose him tomorrow to be the 44th President of the United States.

And I can think of nothing better to happen to our country at this moment when we so desperately need a change of leadership.