|
August 1, 2006 The Un-Principle. I should post in this space more than I do, I suppose. Part of why I don't is because, to justify posting here, given the format I've carved out here, I tend to post only thoughts that I can stretch out to a certain length. If I only have a paragraph worth of thoughts on a topic, however interesting those paragraphs might be (I suppose I take for granted that at least one person out there is going to find anything I say here at least mildly interesting, arrogance aside), it tends not to get here. I've most recently seen this in a lot of people's defenses of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who of course is facing a tough primary challenge based in part on his unpopular gung-ho support for the current unpopular war. Lieberman is always defended on the grounds that he takes the stand he does based on "principle." As if it doesn't make any difference whether we think he's wrong; his constituents are not allowed to turn on him for a stand he's taken if his reasons are principled ones. Results, apparently, mean nothing. What policies voters might actually want to see pursued, and their ramifications, take a backseat to the need to have leaders who are principled. I can't say where this notion has its origins, but I've seen it before. I see it in the way both Republicans and most of the media were mystified that, when Bill Clinton's personal behavior evinced, in their view, a lack of principle, the public continued to support him. To many, it was evidence that the voting public itself lacked principles. What it really showed was, while politicians and elite opinion makers may not view policy as important--they have money and security and are less likely to be significantly affected by as many policies as those with less of both--people lower down do notice when things are going well and when they're not. Under Clinton, the policies, by and large, seemed to be working, to most people, so they continued to support him. This baffled those for whom everything is about politicians' "principle" and "integrity" and nothing is about the actual real-life effects of what those politicians actually do. Of course, people lower down often fall for it, too; you can see it in the support commanded by John McCain, a man whose policy beliefs are significantly to the right of many of his supporters; those supporters will tell you they admire his principles and his honesty. I suspect that in McCain's case, his "principles" are overrated. Lieberman, too. And, I think that if Bill Clinton is unprincipled, and he probably is, it's in ways that have nothing to do with infidelity. But, let's put that aside, and ask one simple question: Say you have two candidates. Candidate A has taken a stand clearly based on principle, in favor of eating babies. Candidate B opposes eating babies, but it's obvious he's only opposing it because polls show a majority of Americans are against baby-eating. Are you going to vote for whoever's more "principled"? Or for the candidate who's going to enact the policy you actually want? (Can I presume near-unanimity on the not-eating-babies thing?) I'm not saying principles are meaningless. I'd rather vote for a principled liberal than one who's only telling me what polls say I want to hear, of course; I'd rather have some faith that said candidate is going to continue to push for the causes I, a liberal, support whether or not it's politically expedient. But I'd rather get those policies now, and precariously, than vote for someone who's never going to enact them under any circumstances. I'll take the poll-driven liberal over the principled right-winger, given that choice. April 8, 2006 Hollywood's not out of touch. You're out of touch. Nyeah. Sometimes I'll be watching "South Park" and it will offend me. And I have to remind myself that, well, that is precisely the reaction "South Park" is designed to provoke. Especially, these last few years, by pressing my buttons sociopolitically. And, okay, I won't impugn their right to animate talking poop or anything, but I am going to take issue with their characterization of George Clooney's speech at the Oscars as "smug." They seemed to regard it as self-evidently, and overweeningly, smug, so let's take a look at what Clooney actually said. One section in particular: "And finally, I would say that, you know, we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while. I think it's probably a good thing. We're the ones who talk about AIDS when it was just being whispered, and we talked about civil rights when it wasn't really popular. And we, you know, we bring up subjects. This Academy, this group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I'm proud to be a part of this Academy. Proud to be part of this community, and proud to be out of touch." That might be "smug" if he'd said it out of the blue, in a cultural vacuum. But he didn't. He said it as a direct response to a year in which, once again, Hollywood got accused, about a billion times, of being "out of touch" with "real Americans." This was Clooney firing back, and I don't understand why so many people think liberals should never ever be allowed to hit back (usually these are the same people who call us a bunch of pansies if we don't hit back, so we're damned if we do...). The moment he said it, I not only agreed with it; I knew for a fact I'd eventually end up quoting it here. I'm tired of this. I'm tired of how red state conservatives are allowed to declare, as much as they want, that they're the only "real Americans," that only they possess "values," that God favors them over us, etc., and it's never "smug" and it's never "elitist." It's...I don't know, simple homespun wisdom or heartland pride or some bullshit like that. But the moment a liberal opens his or her mouth to respond to all this chest-beating self-congratulation by saying "hey, wait, you know, before you declare us irretrievably immoral and out of touch, I insist you actually take a look at what we stand for and see if you think it's so bad," he or she is "smug" and "elitist" and "out of touch." I mean, why did Clooney get accused of being "out of touch" in the first place? Because he made a movie which took Edward R. Murrow's side over Joseph McCarthy's. Because his film, "Good Night and Good Luck," plainly sided with journalism, truth and courage, and against vicious red-baiting lies from one of the worst people we have ever allowed to dominate our national discourse. What was the right's other argument that Hollywood was "out of touch" with mainstream America? "Brokeback Mountain," of course. A movie that, gasp, depicted gay people. Non-stereotypical, emotionally complex gay people, at that. And, you know, if you ever acknowledge that homosexuality exists anywhere in the world, you're a tool of the radical gay agenda. Now get back under that rug. Someone had to say it. As it happened, it was George Clooney. This raises a larger issue, one I've never really heard addressed: why are we always the ones who are "out of touch" with them? Why are they never accused of being "out of touch" with us? If the major arguments that we're "out of touch" are that we don't see homosexuality as shameful and don't believe in ruining people's careers and trampling half the Constitution to advance some vague notion of "anticommunism" (or, more recently, "antiterrorism"), why is it just taken entirely for granted that we're supposed to stoop to their level? Wouldn't everybody be better off if they rose to ours? Why is that never the challenge that's issued? It reminds me of a classic "This Modern World" cartoon: Conservative guy: "You know what your problem is? You're completely out of touch with Americans who believe that abortions should be criminalized and that homosexuality is a sin against God!" (Long pause) Sparky: "You say that like it's a bad thing." I suppose you could argue that this is purely electoral: the red state neanderthals' favorite party currently runs everything, so clearly we need to show them some more respect if they're ever going to, I dunno, stop voting against their own obvious economic interests just to spite us. (It always seems like the argument that we need to show them "more respect" in order to win elections boils down to the assumption that that's what they're doing.) But I don't think that's quite it, because, when the Democrats inevitably take back at least part of the government, I just can't imagine we're going to start hearing that the red middle of the country, and the Republican party, need to get "back in touch with" the coastal liberals everyone currently assumes are hopelessly decadent "elites." I mean, logically, wouldn't that make just as much sense? They're self-evidently just as "out of touch" with us as we are with them, but have you ever, prior to reading this, heard anyone mention it? Look. If Hollywood stands for peace, equality, and everyone's civil rights and dignity, and the alternative is a group of people who basically stand for war, bigotry, and marginalizing people like me because they find expanding their worldview to include us too difficult, guess which side I'm going to come down on? George Clooney and I aren't smug, and we're not out of touch. You are, red state America. You always have been. And history already knows it. June 10, 2006 Bad people and bad policy. So, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead, and, really, good riddance. You have to say that twice as loudly and twice as often if you're a liberal, because if you don't (and, really, whether you do or not), people on the right are extremely eager to believe you're actually disappointed he's not still killing those troops we hate. It's true: sometimes people do deserve to die, awful as it is to say that (for the record, I continue to oppose the death penalty). Zarqawi was never the superterrorist the Bush administration found it convenient to make him out to be, but not because he didn't try hard to be. This is also an opportunity to remind people of some basic facts about Zarqawi. One, it cannot be repeated often enough: the military presented Bush with a number of opportunities, pre-invasion, to take Zarqawi out, and Bush refused to pull the trigger, because it undermined part of his case for invasion: that Saddam was harboring an al-Qaeda official inside Iraq. That's grossly irresponsible policy. (Remember it the next time some conservative subjects you to the entirely-discredited tale about how the government of Sudan offered to hand Osama bin Laden over to the Clinton administration, and Clinton declined. Unlike that story, the Bush one appears to be true.) Also, it's deeply dishonest, on all levels. Nir Rosen spells it all out here. This is stuff not enough people know. One, Zarqawi was north of the no-fly zone, in Kurdistan, in an area where Saddam had no control; he only went south into Baghdad when we "liberated" it for him. And two, Zarqawi was not a member of al-Qaeda. All right? Ever. Yes, he renamed his organization "Al-Qaeda In Iraq." He did this in December 2004, nearly a year after we invaded based in part on the premise that he was a member of the organization. He and bin Laden also appear to have hated each other. But, after the invasion, Zarqawi's renaming of his group made sense for them both. Bin Laden was, by that time, pinned down, cut off, more or less incapable of hurting us, because of the invasion of Afghanistan (ah how I pine for the days when our efforts to "fight terrorism" actually involved going after terrorists). But al-Qaeda was still the name in terrorism. So, bin Laden got to feel relevant, and Zarqawi got to feel like a big shot. This is important. I have a distinct feeling most Americans don't know it. But, what's more upsetting to me is, I have this sinking feeling most wouldn't care even if they did. It's not just that this is information most of them don't have. It's that it involves drawing a distinction I think most people aren't interested in making. It involves understanding that terrorists are not some monolithic entity. They're not interchangeable, and they're not a bunch of clones; one is not exactly the same as any other. I don't think the press has done a good enough job with this. Very few of the articles I've seen have bothered to point out that, when they call Zarqawi the leader of "Al-Qaeda In Iraq," that that's just the full title of his organization; it doesn't make him bin Laden's lieutenant in that particular geographical location. Which, in turn, reinforces Americans' view of "the terrorists" as one single entity, one we can "fight over there so we don't have to fight them over here." I suppose when one is afraid, there's a subconscious push to adopt a very simple view of things. That's why, from the beginning, the war's supporters have been those who are the most intensely, pants-wettingly afraid of terrorism. When you're that afraid, you don't respond rationally; you respond emotionally, and you're drawn to anything that gives you a sense of security. And it feels good to rally behind some steely-eyed leader doing a bad Clint Eastwood impression, who presents you with a simple version of both the problem and the solution. This is where Bush's support, post-9/11, has always come from. It's never been about a rational analysis of what the problem was and what policies might most improve the situation; it's always been about a gut response to a guy who said "hey, don't worry, the problem is simple, it's good versus evil, all evil is the same and so we can just attack some random bad guy, and that will keep you safe. Don't worry your pretty little head." But the thing is, it's when we're most afraid that it's most important to remain rational. You can't solve complex problems from the gut (or, more precisely, the primitive, fight-or-flight lower brain). And on this occasion when something has gone right, we should take the opportunity to remind ourselves of what's gone horribly, horribly wrong, and to do away with some of the misconceptions that have led us down that wrong path. Persisting in simpleminded, fear-based error won't lessen any of the legitimate reasons to be afraid. March 19, 2006 The Bush 9/11 myth. It's the great myth of the George W. Bush presidency: "Bush was brilliant right after 9/11." You hear it from all sorts of people. You even hear it a lot from liberals, or at least I do. The sorts of liberals who are trying to sound reasonable by saying something nice about Dubya: "But, to be fair, he was really great right after 9/11." And of course it's gospel truth in the media. Chris Matthews of MSNBC, for instance, recently referred to the peak of Bush's popularity as "when he was so heroic after 9-11." (Matthews, of course, frequently says cartoonishly fawning things about Bush, calling him a "hero," saying he "glimmers with sunny nobility," saying he quite possibly "belongs on Mount Rushmore," comparing him to To Kill A Mockingbird's Atticus Finch. That many people accept him as a hard-hitting objective journalist, frankly, says absolutely terrible things about our media culture.) Now, as far as I can tell now in hindsight, and in fact as far as I could tell at the time, the story of Bush's great performance after 9/11 is a complete myth, on all levels. There is absolutely no aspect of Bush's handling of that event and its aftermath that I find the least bit admirable. Let's start before 9/11, shall we? Clinton's outgoing national security team warned Bush's incoming National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that she was going to spend most of her time dealing with terrorism and Osama bin Laden. She did nothing to act on this advice, possibly because "do the opposite of what Clinton did" was the major ideological creed of the incoming administration. In March of that year, the bipartisan Hart-Rudman study was issued, which argued that America was likely to face a large-scale terrorist attack in the near future and recommended some steps to protect against it (many of which, had they been in place, stood at least a chance of doing something to thwart 9/11). Bush ignored the report, and instead had Vice President Cheney convene an antiterror "task force" to come up with its own set of recommendations. As of 9/11, Cheney's task force had never met. But it's not because Cheney didn't have the time for task forces; his energy task force met a bunch of times during the same period. The administration just didn't take the threat of terrorism seriously. Clearly, Gary Hart and Warren Rudman did. As had the previous administration. But the Bush Administration dropped the ball. Even that infamous August 6, 2001, national security briefing, titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike Inside the United States," failed to raise any alarm bells or rouse Bush from pretending to be a cowboy on his "ranch." Could 9/11 have been prevented? Impossible to say. Plausibly yes, but quite arguably no. Experts much wiser than myself don't know. But it seems impossible to argue, with a straight face, that Bush had done everything he could, or even everything others with expertise in the matter were pleading with him to do. And we got hit. Think back to the day of. Now, you can think what you want about Michael Moore, but he did not fake that footage of Bush entering that classroom knowing full well that the first plane had hit the first tower, and hung out there for seven minutes after the second plane hit, with a confused expression on his face. Maybe Chris Matthews and I have different definitions of "hero." Maybe everyone's definition of "bold, decisive action" differs radically from mine. I dunno. Then Bush spent the rest of the day scurrying around the country on Air Force One, like a frightened squirrel. (The White House made up some excuse that's almost certainly not true about believing there was a credible threat that the plane itself would be a terrorist target. Well, then get the president off the plane, Einstein.) As it often would throughout the crisis, the job of actually doing something that would help, both substantively and psychologically, fell to Rudolph Giuliani, a man I normally don't like at all but who really does deserve credit for handling the crisis well. So, okay. Then Bush landed, and went to work giving speeches. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum, author of The Right Man and coiner of the first two words of the phrase "axis of evil," lauds Bush in his book for standing at the wreckage of the world Trade Center and looking very serious and somber. To Frum, this is proof that Bush came of age as president in the wake of the crisis, rose from being "Dubya" to being a serious and historic commander-in-chief. But ask yourself--if the sole qualification for the presidency is seeing something tragic and not laughing inappropriately, what reasonably bright ten-year-old child couldn't serve as president? What's more, Bush always gets credit for restoring the nation's confidence during this shaky period. But to the extent that he did this, he did it in the cheapest possible way--by making threats against people who not only hadn't done anything, but had in fact pledged already to support us. And in doing so, he squandered the event's only real silver lining, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cultivate international goodwill, even more vital in an era where the major enemies are lawless terrorists. I mean, do you remember what it was like? As traumatized as we as a nation were, didn't it just make you cry when Chirac said "we are all Americans now," in a moving echo of "ich bin ein Berliner"? Not only did France pledge to support us--Iran did too. Everyone did. We had the whole world offering condolences and asking what help we needed. There was only one proper response to this, for a president truly interested in what was best for his country: "Thank you. We appreciate the offers of help. If we do need anything, we will let you know." But we had a president who was more interested in a short-term boost to his TV-based approval ratings, and damn the cost to international relations. So he thought he'd threaten everybody into doing what they'd already volunteered to do. "You're either with us or you're against us," he snarled, perhaps not realizing that Dirty Harry is not an international diplomacy guide. I think everyone was a bit taken aback by the truculence of Bush's tone. Instead of solidifying international alliances of goodwill, Bush set us firmly on the path to where we are now--isolation and hostility. What's more, in a time of unparalleled national unity--I myself wore an American flag pin on my jacket, something I would have considered unthinkably jingoistic before that, from right after 9/11 right up until our troops went into Iraq--Bush turned us against each other. As usual, Bush didn't go on TV himself and decry his opponents as treasonous, because that isn't how Rove and co. operate--they have the front man go on TV and look all resolute, while the folks lower down smear dissenters. But recall how anyone who said anything even slightly off-message was treated. Ari Fleischer sounded positively fascist when he warned "Americans need to watch what they say, watch what they do." So, okay, Bush did invade Afghanistan, and did it with an international coalition. But, honestly, absolutely anyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich would have done exactly the same thing. Everyone supported that invasion as a necessary thing. Al Gore was a full supporter of it, so any conservative who tells you Gore would have relied on diplomacy instead of invading doesn't know what he's talking about. You can't seriously call Bush a hero for taking an action absolutely anyone would have taken. Bush also squandered every other opportunity he had to ask us for sacrifice, make significant changes to domestic policy. Presidents in wartime have a long history of asking for shared sacrifice and getting it, from a citizenry proud to give it, proud to unite in the service of a common cause. A real "hero" of a leader would have called for energy conservation. He (or she) might have called for us to get off Middle East oil entirely, called for an Apollo-style project for total energy independence, using the tragedy of 9/11 to change the course of history for the better. The nation would, I believe, have risen to it. So what did Bush, who is not a hero, call for? "Go shopping," he said. "Let us suspend whatever liberties we want. Oh, and have another round of tax cuts." Subsequently, Bush and his military types let bin Laden escape at Tora Bora, then pulled key forces out of the region for an invasion of Iraq, for which they also abused the memory of 9/11 and further trashed international relations and national security. A real hero would have addressed the genuine causes of the tragedy, admitted that he could have done more, and gone on to do more. He would have reached out to the world for help instead of snarling that they'd better stay in line or else. He would have called for shared sacrifice in the service of shared benefit, instead of using the crisis as a convenient excuse for policies he already wanted to pursue. He would have done the exact opposite of what George W. Bush did at every turn. January 31, 2006 Tim Eyman, bigoted horse's ass. So after 29 years of trying, Washington's legislature finally passed a bill adding gay people to the state's antidiscrimination statute. Gov. Christine Gregoire has signed the law. Enter Tim F. Eyman. Eyman's middle name does not, as far as I know, actually begin with the letter F. I just can't mention him without inserting a certain expletive between his first and last names. He's one of those people. Eyman is rock solid living proof that the ballot initiative process is flawed, and allows a demagogue to temporarily inflame the passions of majorities into doing exactly the sort of things representative democracy was supposed to insulate us from. He's best known as an antitax crusader--his most popular piece of legislation was Initiative 695, passed with nearly 70% support in 1999, which slashed the cost of car tabs, required "a vote of the people" on any tax or fee increase of any kind, and I forget what else--it was basically Eyman's antitax wish list in one single bill. And oh, but that was an ugly spectacle. As far as I'm concerned it was, by itself, irrefutable proof that the ballot initiative process is a stupid idea because people, in the short term, are stupid. A demagogue like Eyman can come along, offer them goodies like tax cuts and the government having to lick their boots before it can raise their taxes, and then persuade them that anyone who says "look, the government is using that money for services you clearly support, so don't vote for this unless you want those services slashed" is guilty of practicing "scare tactics." Eyman successfully convinced large numbers of people that the government can, in fact, operate for free, and is just taxing them to be mean. He even--and this does not speak well of the intelligence of my fellow Washingtonians--convinced more than half the state that the "rainy day fund" they themselves had voted to establish five years earlier was money the government was "hoarding." 695 passed, and Eyman gave the smirkiest, smarmiest, gloatiest speech I have ever heard. There was no sober "this is a victory for democracy and good government," he just sprayed antigovernment invective, sarcasm, and completely unhidden self-satisfaction all over his audience. His supporters shared this oh-so-attractive personality quirk, coupled with an apparent total failure to understand that some consequences don't happen instantly. There were a lot of letters to the editor after the election--but before the law had even taken effect--gloating that, despite what "the liberals" had predicted, the state had not gone bankrupt. (Gee, you think?) There were also a lot of really snarky letters saying things like "if you liberals want to overpay for your car tabs, feel free to send the money to me!" I can only assume the stupidity was willful because, hey, being stupid is just more fun! You have, among other things, a lot more company. The initiative was thrown out as unconstitutional (which it transparently was) by the state supreme court, which led to the thoroughly disheartening spectacle of conservatives going around saying that it was terrible, just terrible, that the "will of the people" could be overturned by some smartypants judge on some piddling little "technicality" like the state constitution. The STATE CONSTITUTION. Remember this story the next time a right-winger claims to be a "strict constructionalist" or an "originalist." Still, it was so politically popular--Eyman really whipped people into an antitax frenzy--that the legislature didn't dare abandon the measure entirely, so it passed the car tab reduction on its own. And had to slash services. I'm sorry, what were you saying about how there are no consequences because services don't really cost money, and the government is just pretending they do? My friend Andrea put it best: "I voted for I-695 to get cheaper car tabs. Then the bus didn't stop near my house anymore." Eyman, of course, is probably fine with that. He seems to hate public transportation. He seems to think driving around in an SUV with no passengers any time you want is a fundamental human right, and has tried to get initiatives passed that would have forced the government to spend nearly its entire transportation budget on building and widening roads. All I can say is, I don't want Washington completely paved. Most people apparently agree with me that we don't want to be Los Angeles. Tim, if you disagree, there's the border. Get going. Please. But until now I just thought Mr. Eyman was a nutty antigovernment, anti-public-transportation fanatic. I had no idea he was a bigot, too. Evidently, though. Eyman is now going to be gathering signatures for a ballot initiative to remove gay people from the antidiscrimination laws. He apparently feels that, while low taxes and single-occupant SUVs are god-given rights, freedom from discrimination is not. (Or perhaps freedom to discriminate is.) From the Seattle Times: Tim Eyman filed an initiative and a referendum this morning aimed at getting rid of the gay rights bill passed by the Legislature on Friday. ... "Politicians are deciding based on special interest group pressure and their own reelection calculations," Eyman said in a statement emailed to reporters. "The voters have watched this disgusting display of arrogance and selfishness for weeks." So...apparently, according to Eyman, gay people who don't want to face employment and housing discrimination are a "special interest." Fun Eyman facts, just because I'm feeling malicious: he's a watch salesman by trade, which makes me imagine him accosting people in parks and opening up his cheap raincoat. In elementary school he was disciplined for selling jolly ranchers on the playground at a huge markup. He endured a scandal a few years ago when he illegally paid himself a salary from his initiative fund and then lied about it, which for some reason did not completely demolish his credibility. I have had the distinction of being criticized by Eyman in a radio interview, when he cited a cartoon of mine from the Tacoma News Tribune, in which I drew him as a candy store proprietor giving out free candy and denouncing claims that candy rots your teeth as "scare tactics," as proof of liberal media bias against him. Oh, and just look at him. Would you trust this man to make you a sandwich without spitting in it, let alone clean up your government? 
Peace out. 2005 Thoughts.2004 Thoughts.
|