The Crossed Pond

This is pretty central to my worldview (and my #1 complaint against hardcore liberals), so obviously it’s Conor Friedersdorf expressing the thought here.

In the course of American history, if either liberals or conservatives disappeared entirely from the American scene, leaving the right or left to pursue their best ideas and most flawed excesses alike, this country would be in far worse shape than it is today.

And anyone who thinks that completely vanquishing “the other side” in American politics would produce good results for very long is naive at best.

A lot could be said of the recent 9th Circuit ruling that found that police sneaking onto a dude’s property and sticking a GPS tracking device on his jeep, without a warrant, was, in fact, legal. But as an interesting sidebar, absent the issue of whether a GPS device on a car requires a warrant, there is the question of whether sneaking onto a dude’s yard to plant on constitutes entering a person’s property. The 9th Circuit argued that no, in this case it did not, because dude didn’t have a fence. Therefore,

The dissenting judge, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, makes a good point as it relates to judicial “diversity”:

The very rich will still be able to protect their privacy with the aid of electric gates, tall fences, security booths, remote cameras, motion sensors and roving patrols, but the vast majority of the 60 million people living in the Ninth Circuit will see their privacy materially diminished by the panel’s ruling…

There’s been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there’s one kind of diversity that doesn’t exist: No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter. Judges, regardless of race, ethnicity or sex, are selected from the class of people who don’t live in trailers or urban ghettos. The everyday problems of people who live in poverty are not close to our hearts and minds because that’s not how we and our friends live. Yet poor people are entitled to privacy, even if they can’t afford all the gadgets of the wealthy for ensuring it.

Screw it, I’m going to stop apologizing for post a lot about Park51.

Ross Douthat had a column in the NYT in which he argued that we shouldn’t automatically dismiss mosque critics as bigots or, even if they are, we should respect the wisdom of the commons, or some damn thing (like his posts on same sex marriage, I’m not entirely clear what his point is). The column has engendered a lot of thoughtful discussion.

But, perhaps there is a time when it entirely appropriate to just say “screw them, screw you, and screw anybody who is accepting this premise even for argument’s sake.” Enter Tom Scocca.

Not all opponents of the Lower Manhattan community center are bigots. Some are shameless opportunists. Many are simply ignorant people who have heard from the bigots and the shameless opportunists that something awful is being done, and who would prefer that awful things not be done.

In the real world, the world where nudie bars and an Off Track Betting parlor already occupy the sacred ground around the site of our national tragedy, none of these people are worth listening to. Not the bigots, not the demagogues, and not the ignorant ones. Their opinions are worthless.

A very nice approximation of how I’m feeling on the matter.

Off for a vacation!

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie.

“Given my last position, that I was the first U.S attorney post 9/11 in New Jersey, I understand acutely the pain and sorrow and upset of the family members who lost loved ones that day at the hands of radical Muslim extremists. And their sensitivities and concerns have to be taken into account. Just because it’s nearly nine years later, those sensitivities cannot and should not be ignored. On the other hand, we cannot paint all of Islam with that brush. …We have to bring people together. And what offends me the most about all this, is that it’s being used as a political football by both parties. And what disturbs me about the president’s remarks is that he is now using it as a political football as well. I think the president of the United State should rise above that. And should not be using this as a political football, and I don’t believe that it would be responsible of me to get involved and comment on this any further because it just put me in the same political arena as all of them.

“My principles on this are two-fold. One, that we have to acknowledge, respect and give some measure of deference to the feelings of the family members who lost their loved ones there that day. But it would be wrong to so overreact to that, that we paint Islam with a brush of radical Muslim extremists that just want to kill Americans because we are Americans. But beyond that … I am not going to get into it, because I would be guilty of candidly what I think some Republicans are guilty of.”

Parseable? Sure. Not taking a definite position? Absolutely. Pretty similar in content to a lot of other statements? Yes. Later on in the quote acting as if it’s Obama that’s making a political football out of this issue? Yes. Falling prey to my pet peeve of false equivalency (as if, on this matter, “both sides” are somehow “equally” cynically playing politics)? Indeed.

But, given that Chris Christie is a rising star in the GOP, popular with precisely the grassroots that Gingrich et al are pandering to, and would be well situated, as the only Republican governor with a stake in the matter, to make ample hay of this issue, choosing to not do so, in itself, takes balls and some measure of principle. Choosing to explicitly and for no real political benefit add the point about overgeneralizing and de facto defending muslims at large, and adding to that a read-between-the-lines condemnation of the GOP’s handling of the matter? That’s amore.

I don’t like many Republicans these days. In fact, I can’t stand about 90% of them. But I may as well stay registered R, because between Johnson in ‘12 and Christie in ‘16, there are still a few I could really get excited about, and who I really hope start exerting a gravitational pull in the party. And frankly, because so many Republicans have been eagerly getting themselves on my “Dead To Me” list as a result of their posturing on this issue, it’s fair to note the proud few getting an official place in my Cool Book because of it.

I nominate this one, because I’ve been sitting here staring at, trying to parse it, to no avail. From an NRO post about a few “observations” from Daniel Pipes (who concludes flat-out that the Cordoba House “should be barred from opening”*).

● Cordoba House (or Park51) was announced in early April; that it remains an item of debate over four months later, and not just locally but nationally, points to Islam in the United States becoming a populist issue.

Nothing spectacular about the quote, save I have no idea what it means. “Islam…is a populist issue”. What’s the issue? I’m honestly trying to figure out what, precisely, the issue with the issue of Islam is. It seems to me that what he’s saying is that we all have to take a stand on the religion itself. The issue is not, in this conceptualization, the practice of Islam per se. It is not terrorism, precisely. It is not really foreign policy (adding “in the United States”). The issue is, simply, Islam. So, take a stand. On Islam.

What does that even mean?

William Salaten, for his part, provides an answer that I think is probably right.

*For the record, that is not the position of National Review institutionally, which very clearly concedes their right to open it.

“When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that’s made brothers and sisters out of every race — out of every race.

America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.

Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That’s not the America I know. That’s not the America I value.

I’ve been told that some fear to leave; some don’t want to go shopping for their families; some don’t want to go about their ordinary daily routines because, by wearing cover, they’re afraid they’ll be intimidated. That should not and that will not stand in America.”

—George W. Bush, at the Washington Islamic Center (a mere 6 miles from the Pentagon), September 17th, 2001.

Jeffrey Goldberg would like Bush to step out of retirement and re-trumpet that call. I concur. That would leave a strong mark of leadership on his legacy.

Joe Klein writes a lucid and clarifying column about Iraq, on the occasion of the second “Mission Accomplished” milestone in as many presidencies. The entire column is worth a read, and reads like a breath of fresh air for its simplicity, lack of partisan trappings, and clear statement of principle. It really isn’t any simpler (or more complex) than this:

“In retrospect, the issue then was as clear cut as it is now. It demanded a clarity that I failed to summon. The essential principle is immutable: We should never go to war unless we have been attacked or are under direct, immediate threat of attack. Never. And never again.”

Alvine Greene, Democratic candidate for Senate, discussing his jobs creation strategy:

“Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays. Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an army uniform, air force uniform, and me in my suit. They can make toys of me and my vehicle, especially for the holidays and Christmas for the kids. That’s something that would create jobs. So you see I think out of the box like that. It’s not something a typical person would bring up. That’s something that could happen, that makes sense. It’s not a joke.”

An Andrew Sullivan aside, on the preponderance of “Virulent homophobes increasingly being exposed for engaging in homosexuality” (as Charles Blow put it the other day):

“Sometimes I wonder whether the fight over gay rights isn’t partly a war between gay people. Of course, plenty of folks with fundamentalism in their bones oppose gay dignity and equality. But the virulence and passion often come from those who may have some personal stake in this. I’m thinking particularly of repressed gay men seeking to reinforce the ideologies or doctrines that can make their repressed misery more bearable. If you’ve lived your life on the assumption that homosexuality is shameful, if you’ve even constructed an entire career on this (such as cover in a celibate priesthood), and if you’ve lived a double life as a result – emotionally starved, sexually compulsive or shut down – your resentment of the next generation letting go and leading happy, contented ‘virtually normal’ lives must be personally either threatening or enraging.”

Clive Crook perfectly sums up the growing backlash against Obama for, in reaction to the BP oil spill, failing to…I don’t know what. Push the worlds’ leading geologists, engineers, and drilling experts aside in favor of the EPA? Take BP into receivership? Use Rahm Emmanual to bend the laws of physics and make a slit in the space time continuum to make drilling relief wells go faster? Lead a ragtag team of scientists into the earth’s core to stop the pressure from the inside? Well, something, goddammit.

“Apparently it is a great idea to elect a president who is calm in a crisis, except when there’s a crisis. Then what you need is somebody to lead the nation in panic.”

Lots more quotes of the day to choose from Crook’s blog post.

Poor Mitt Romney. He has to be considered the nominal frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2012 (Who else? I’m not even convinced Palin runs). But if he can’t best Newsweek on the Romneycare = Obamacare issue, I don’t see how he can do anything but limp into the race and be put out of his misery unceremoniously and early.

Newsweek: Back in February 2007, you said you hoped the Massachusetts plan would “become a model for the nation.” Would you agree that it has?

Mitt: I don’t … You’re going to have to get that quote. That’s not exactly accurate, I don’t believe.

By the by, if you want to read the whole thing, which is a two pager JUST on this subject, the difference is that Romneycare was a state plan and Obamacare is a federal plan. So Romney’s objection rests entirely on the federalization, not on any of the specifics, and when he touted his plan as a “model for the nation”, he meant “model for other states, all the states collectively being a nation, but at no point aught that model to be federalized because only then does it become objectionable”.

Which sort of makes sense, I guess, but good luck threading that needle for 18 months in a heated primary.

President Obama, being interviewed this week by Indonesian television, was asked the question “Is your administration satisfied with the resolution of the past human rights abuses in Indonesia?” in reference to a national commission trying to investigate human rights abuses committed by its own government under the U.S.-backed Suharto regime.

“We have to acknowledge that those past human rights abuses existed. We can’t go forward without looking backwards.”

President Obama, being interviewed last year by American television, was asked “Is your administration satisfied with the resolution of past human rights abuses in America” in reference to the possibility of a national commission trying to investigate human rights abuses committed during the Bush administration.

“I’m a strong believer that it’s important to look forward and not backwards, and to remind ourselves that we do have very real security threats out there.”

I think this is what they mean by “American exceptionalism“.

H/T: Greenwald, natch.

This sums up much of my view.

“What if 15 Republicans had agreed to support this bill, if tort reforms and reforms of medical incentives were included? Could a better package have been created??

The blame for a weak bill rests not on the Democrats for confronting this issue, but on the Republican caucus, which forfeited a golden opportunity to guide this policy to a more effective conclusion, choosing instead to gamble on Obama’s total failure. I support health reforms that Republicans favor, and am disgusted that they wasted such a real opportunity to get something out of this, which would have made the whole reform package better. When one party has to carry the other around like dead weight, don’t expect legislative miracles. Step up and compromise Republicans.

Small government doesn’t mean absence of governing,” – commenter Nathan Brown at the NYT.

The current Republican strategy? Three fold:

1. Proposing a bunch of idiotic amendments that Democrats have to procedurally vote against because if a single one of them is approved it requires a re-vote in both chambers on the health care bill. So the GOP is proposing amendments like “The federal government will refuse to give Viagra to child molesters,” “the federal government recognizes capitalism as the basis of our economy,” “the federal government wishes to not give tax money to ACORN,” “the federal government recognizes the value of the Christian faith,” etc. That way, they can then run ads saying “Congressman Murphy voted to give Viagra to child molesters. Congressman Murphy thinks there’s no value in the Christina faith,” etc.

2. Voting against the reconciliation package en masse, despite the fact that the great bulk of the reconciliation package are attempts to remedy Republican objections to the bill (striking down the cornhusker kickback, approving a tax to pay for some of it, etc.).

3. Shutting down all hearings that occur after 2 PM. Why? Because fuck you, that’s why.

I said at the very beginning of the health care debate that I was a winnable vote for conservatives on this issue, but where I wasn’t winnable was with an entrenchment strategy. It seemed to me, and still seems to me, that the Democratic party bent over backwards to try to win Republican votes, and if there was a winnable single one to be had (Snowe or whoever), I can’t imagine what a disproportionate impact she would have had on the package. Imagine, rolling back the clock to 2008, that 25 Senate Republicans and a caucus from the house approached President Obama and Ted Kennedy and said “let’s hammer something out.” Think they would have thrown them out of the room?

Instead, Republicans made the explicit calculation before any idea hit that table that they were going to opt out of the entire process and just hope for something that failed miserably. If that’s the choice, I’m with Josh Marshall: so be it.

From the the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), the U.N. agency tasked with fighting the Global War on Drugs (GWOD):

The Board notes with concern that in countries in South America, such as Argentina, Brazil and Colombia (and in countries in North America, such as Mexico and the United States), there is a growing movement to decriminalize the possession of controlled drugs, in particular cannabis, for personal use. Regrettably, influential personalities, including former high-level politicians in countries in South America, have publicly expressed their support for that movement. The Board is concerned that the movement, if not resolutely countered by the respective Governments, will undermine national and international efforts to combat the abuse of and illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs. In any case, the movement poses a threat to the coherence and effectiveness of the international drug control system.

I’m not sure if the additional Reason commentary on this one is even necessary.

“I don’t think there’s a scintilla of racism in what Harry Reid said. At long last, Harry Reid has said something that no one can disagree with, and he gets in trouble for it.”

– George Will, arguing with Liz Cheney

As apt as anything.

“Joe Lieberman is a divorced Dad refusing to pay for private school, in part, because it might please his ex-wife. ”

—Ta-Nehisi Coates

“We should have abandoned the idea of removing the U. S. attorneys once the Democrats took the Senate. Because at that point we could really not count on Republicans to cut off investigations or help us at all with investigations. We didn’t see that at the Department of Justice. Nor did the White House see that. Karl didn’t see it. If we could do something over again, that would be it.”

—Alberto Gonzales

Radley Balko is profiled in The Economist, and this made me think of my constant “come over to the Dark Side!” argument I have with Thimbles, to the effect of “why do you keep arranging a system entirely around the hope that the right people and only the right people will be running it?” Or, as I call it, the “Everything would be great if it weren’t for all the f*$king liberals/conservatives in office!” syndrome.

That said, I think there’s reason for some optimism for libertarians. The generations raised on the internet will be more educated, aware, and informed than any before them, and I think that has instilled in them some naturally libertarian instincts, particularly when it comes to issues like government transparency, accountability, censorship, and police power. Perhaps I’m a bit pollyanna-ish, but it’s at least possible that once the Obama administration proves just as inept, corrupt, and hopeless as the Bush administration, the younger people who flocked to Obama will start to understand that the problem isn’t who’s running government, it’s that government power itself corrupts–and that we’re better off keeping as much of our lives as possible off limits to the whims of politicians instead of this repeating cycle of putting all of our hope into the idea that someday, the right politicians will finally get elected.

“It’s hard to be more conservative than I am on issues — though there are different ways stylistically to communicate that — I’m pro-life, I’m pro-gun, I’m pro-family, and I’m anti tax. … I don’t know what else you’re supposed to be, except maybe angry too.”

—Charlie Crist

Well hell, now that I posted that last one, I keep thinking of this one.

“The Institute for the Study of Sarah Palin might conclude that she represents the exact moment important Republicans gave up on democracy. She was clearly seen as an empty vessel who could be controlled by her intellectual betters. These include the editorial boards of the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal, neither of which would hire Palin to make an editorial judgment but both of which would be thrilled to see her as president of the United States. It does not bother these people in the least that the woman is a demagogue — remember “death panels”? — and not, on the face of it, very responsible.

Finally, the Institute for the Study of Sarah Palin will mull what she represents. She has a phenomenal favorability rating among Republicans — 76 percent — who have a quite irrational belief that she would not make such a bad president. What they mean is that she will act out their resentments — take an ax to the people and institutions they hate. The Palin Movement is fueled by high-octane bile, and it is worth watching and studying for these reasons alone.

Via John Cole:

“Like a lot of people, as soon as I got my copy of Sarah Palin’s ‘Going Rogue,’ I immediately thought of the German literary critic Hans Robert Jauss.”

—Matt Continetti, the Weekly Standard

Someone asked Jon Hunstman what he thinks about the current ideological battles within the GOP.

“It’s a good time to be in Beijing.”

– Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R)

“Haha, what?” edition.

What happened to John Shadegg? I used to think he was one of the more sane voices in the conservative caucus. But since deciding he’s not going to run for reelection, he’s taken a decidedly nutty turn.

Here he is today reacting to Michael Bloomberg saying he was fine with holding the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York.

“I saw the Mayor of New York said today, ‘We’re tough. We can do it.’ Well, Mayor, how are you going to feel when it’s your daughter that’s kidnapped at school by a terrorist? “

Man. Seriously, these guys have watched way too much 24.

“The largest empirical problem we have in health care today is too many people are too overinsured.”

—Dick Armey

Daniel Larison, on yesterday’s elections:

What is more encouraging to me is that the wins by Christie and McDonnell show that competent center-right candidates interested in governance and all those “parochial” local issues can tap into voter discontent and win electoral victories. Hoffman’s possible defeat suggests that campaigns dominated by the presence of national activists, empty sloganeering and indifference to local interests may not gain traction even in those districts that are traditionally inclined to favor the politics of someone like Hoffman. Those of us who would like to see Democratic domestic agendas thwarted without empowering the Palins of the world may have managed to get exactly the results we would wish to have.

From a State Department spokesperson:

“Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum — when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes.”

From Patton Oswalt of all people.

AVC: You’ve stuck with MySpace as sort of your social-networking site of choice. You’ve also taken some distance from Facebook and sworn off Twitter. Why is that?

PO: I haven’t sworn off Facebook. I’m on Facebook. There’s a fan page on Facebook that I will update, but I’m on there myself under a pseudonym, because there were a lot of people able to private-message me on Facebook, and it was getting really weird. And then with MySpace, I just don’t read messages. I delete everything, and I just post updates every now and then. I don’t know, there’s something about MySpace for someone as OCD as me. MySpace is somehow more welcoming than Facebook. And Twittering, I just… Ugh. I like having radio silence. I think radio silence is an important part of any public figure’s day. We haven’t seen it yet, but there’s going to be a generation that comes up where the new trend will be complete anonymity. It’ll be cool to have never posted anything online, never commented, never opened a webpage or a MySpace, never Twittered. I think everyone in the future is going to be allowed to be obscure for 15 minutes. You’ll have 15 minutes where no one is watching you, and then you’ll be shoved back onto your reality show. I think Andy Warhol got it wrong.

“It’s despotism when we lose, freedom when we win. We should have more confidence in Tcs2 the people and the country than this. We should also have more charity to our political opponents – who after all are contending with hideous problems bequeathed to them by … by … well suddenly we Republicans cannot seem to remember who preceded Barack Obama in office. To listen to us, you’d think that the bailouts and takeovers started on January 20, 2009, not the previous March. You’d never know that TARP was supported by almost every Republican commentator, including the editors of National Review. Or that Vice President Cheney argued urgently in favor of the rescue of the Detroit automakers. Or that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enjoyed the backing of Republican as well as Democratic lawmakers.

One bad election converts us from ardent admirers of the American people to glum declinists who can see only a miserable moldering of a once great nation. I should have thought that conservative patriotism was made of stronger stuff.”

—David Frum

I don’t think saying “it was Bush’s fault” is a very effective way in dealing with the inadequacies or oversights of the current President. But that does not stop it from being, in many cases, true. Nor is it pedantic and irrelevant, particularly when many leaders of the conservative movement are actively throwing around phrases like tyranny and socialism and what have you and acting as if the sky has fallen on free America because voters got sick of a purportedly conservative president creating conservative problems and trying to append half-ass liberal solutions to them, and instead elected a purportedly liberal president in the hopes that he can append at least three-quarters-ass liberal solutions to the explicit conservative problems created by his predecessor.

But it does strike me, often, when otherwise intelligent conservative commentators (and then the rest, who are at the very least reportedly sentient) disregard this point. One would think that Barack Obama just appeared in a poof of smoke and brimstone to take over the country in the name of INSERT SCAREMONGERING ABSTRACTION HERE. And not, in fact, because those riding under the banner of conservatism screwed the nation in almost every conceivable way, to the point where the people they spent 80% of their governing time defining in opposition to them might start looking pretty good.

To put that another way, even if one were to think that voters chose Obama, offering socialism and tyranny, if the Bush years were conservatism and freedom, who can blame them?

One is a “serious” voice of conservatism. The other purportedly an air-headed floozie. You be the judge.

The blurb on the book jacket of Joe the Plumber’s new book:

“Joe’s story is the iconic American tale. He’s a patriot who became instantly famous for simply asking a question that millions of us wanted asked. As my friend Sean Hannity would say, Joe is a great American!” — Mike Gallagher, Syndicated Talk Radio

Shortly before [Meghan] McCain sat for this interview, Samuel Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber, gave an interview to Christianity Today in which he complained about “queers” and declared, “I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children.” Unprompted, McCain rails against the man her father’s presidential campaign touted as an American everyman and made a showpiece in the weeks before the election.

“Joe the Plumber — you can quote me — is a dumbass. He should stick to plumbing.”

I think we’ll look back at President Barack Obama as being hugely influential on the question of race in America, indeed a critical turning point on part with the 60s, but not just or even primarily because he’s a black guy who became President. He is also one of the strongest voices in the African American community (but existing kind of outside or even above it) for personal responsibility and an end to the victim mentality that permeated (and understandably and even necessarily so) African American leadership from the civil rights era until this decade. The pushback against that has been a long time coming from within those communities—and has always existed, I should add, in pockets. But since say the mid-90s, the role of the people regularly labeled “hucksters” (your Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons) trading on injury have declined precipitously, and the idea of a self-directed destiny and a sharp denunciation of excuse-making has been ascendant (at the time, I criticized people for lauding Bill Cosby’s rants on this subject not because they were wrong, but because so many of them were ignoring that his critiques were enormously well-received by the black community, and indeed at that time had almost become mainstream. People were acting like he had gone rouge and defied the black community, ignoring that for his comments, he got a standing ovation, and many black leaders and community members had been saying the same thing for years).

Point being, I think we’ve reached critical mass in the black community for this kind of thinking. Listening to President Obama give the speech to the NAACP he does below for some reason makes me think of the last step of the Ghandian ladder (the part after they laugh at you and after they fight you, the part where you win). The social evolution of minority groups from de-humanized pariahs to average joe mainstream fascinates me, and with the black community, I think we’re on the full cusp of something profound, an end, if you like, of the “us vs. them” mentality that has been at times prevalent (and I say again, understandably and probably necessarily).

The quote from President Obama is this (at around the 24 minute mark).

“We’ve got to say to our children, yes, if you’re African American, the odds of growing up amid crime and gangs are higher. Yes, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you will face challenges that someone in a wealthy suburb does not have to face. That’s not a reason to get bad grades. That’s not a reason to cut class. That’s not a reason to give up on your education and drop out of school. No one has written your destiny for you. Your destiny is in your hands. You can not forget that. That’s what we need to teach all our children: no excuses.”

Note too that it’s the biggest applause line in the entire speech.

This is not the future of the conversation in the black community. It is the present.