BLOGGERY: a few pieces on various aspects of the Am I a Democrat question:
The Weekly Standard implies that there might be such a thing as a decent leftist.
Why Am I a Democrat?-- sounds like the second coming of Al From*, but the point is well taken.
Michael J. Totten with an interesting answer (under "Interesting Times"):
"A few years ago I would have been horrified if someone told me I would soon see eye-to-eye with Republicans, especially in regard to foreign policy. It seems like only yesterday that I stuck up for Bill Clinton's military intervention in the Balkans while most conservatives wallowed in anti-war, isolationist, objectively pro-fascist jackassery. The Democrats were emerging as the new War Party while the Republicans were turning into a bunch of Pat Buchanans. "
And some other trenchant observations
"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
26.5.03
17.5.03
QUOTE: V.S. Naipaul, from an address to the Manhattan Institute in 1990:
"A later realization—I suppose I have sensed it most of my life, but I have understood it philosophically only during the preparation of this talk—has been the beauty of the idea of the pursuit of happiness. Familiar words, easy to take for granted; easy to misconstrue. This idea of the pursuit of happiness is at the heart of the attractiveness of the civilization to so many outside it or on its periphery. I find it marvelous to contemplate to what an extent, after two centuries, and after the terrible history of the earlier part of this century, the idea has come to a kind of fruition. It is an elastic idea; it fits all men. It implies a certain kind of society, a certain kind of awakened spirit. I don't imagine my father's parents would have been able to understand the idea. So much is contained in it: the idea of the individual, responsibility, choice, the life of the intellect, the idea of vocation and perfectibility and achievement. It is an immense human idea. It cannot be reduced to a fixed system. It cannot generate fanaticism. But it is known to exist; and because of that, other more rigid systems in the end blow away."
"A later realization—I suppose I have sensed it most of my life, but I have understood it philosophically only during the preparation of this talk—has been the beauty of the idea of the pursuit of happiness. Familiar words, easy to take for granted; easy to misconstrue. This idea of the pursuit of happiness is at the heart of the attractiveness of the civilization to so many outside it or on its periphery. I find it marvelous to contemplate to what an extent, after two centuries, and after the terrible history of the earlier part of this century, the idea has come to a kind of fruition. It is an elastic idea; it fits all men. It implies a certain kind of society, a certain kind of awakened spirit. I don't imagine my father's parents would have been able to understand the idea. So much is contained in it: the idea of the individual, responsibility, choice, the life of the intellect, the idea of vocation and perfectibility and achievement. It is an immense human idea. It cannot be reduced to a fixed system. It cannot generate fanaticism. But it is known to exist; and because of that, other more rigid systems in the end blow away."
8.5.03
QUOTE: Peter Beinart, with, to my mind, the definitive take on Bill Bennett and his critics:
"Take Joshua Micah Marshall, the author of the deservedly respected talkingpointsmemo.com, a sometime TNR contributor, and a friend. He writes, "For my part, I'd say leave everyone's [private] issues to them and theirs. ... But those aren't the Bill Bennett rules, are they? Now he wants them to be. Too bad." But isn't the point that they are Marshall's rules? And isn't the definition of a rule something that applies universally, whether the person you're applying it to believes in it or not? We don't justify racial discrimination against bigots. To allow Bennett to determine the standards by which he is judged affords him an authority he doesn't deserve.
In Slate, Michael Kinsley, the dean of smart liberalism, makes basically the same argument. He posits a Bennett defender who argues that "his gambling never hurt anyone else." Kinsley responds, "This is, of course, the classic libertarian standard of permissible behavior, and I think it's a good one. ... [But] Bennett can't plead liberty now because opposing libertarianism is what his sundry crusades are all about." Like Marshall, Kinsley is arguing that, because Bennett is a hypocrite, we can destroy him for gambling, even if in general gambling is nobody else's business."
"Take Joshua Micah Marshall, the author of the deservedly respected talkingpointsmemo.com, a sometime TNR contributor, and a friend. He writes, "For my part, I'd say leave everyone's [private] issues to them and theirs. ... But those aren't the Bill Bennett rules, are they? Now he wants them to be. Too bad." But isn't the point that they are Marshall's rules? And isn't the definition of a rule something that applies universally, whether the person you're applying it to believes in it or not? We don't justify racial discrimination against bigots. To allow Bennett to determine the standards by which he is judged affords him an authority he doesn't deserve.
In Slate, Michael Kinsley, the dean of smart liberalism, makes basically the same argument. He posits a Bennett defender who argues that "his gambling never hurt anyone else." Kinsley responds, "This is, of course, the classic libertarian standard of permissible behavior, and I think it's a good one. ... [But] Bennett can't plead liberty now because opposing libertarianism is what his sundry crusades are all about." Like Marshall, Kinsley is arguing that, because Bennett is a hypocrite, we can destroy him for gambling, even if in general gambling is nobody else's business."
6.5.03
MUST-READ: This piece is notable for three different reasons:
1. It's from McSweeny's, and yet it doesn't suck, or perpetuate the same sort of radical-lefty biases you might expect.
2. It makes fun of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.
3. It's about Lord of the Rings.
1. It's from McSweeny's, and yet it doesn't suck, or perpetuate the same sort of radical-lefty biases you might expect.
2. It makes fun of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.
3. It's about Lord of the Rings.
QUOTE: Todd Gitlin, on pro-war sentiments:
"If the juxtaposition of these two elements -- snarling resentment coupled with giddy expectations -- sounds familiar, that's because it fits snugly into the millenarian tradition. Even when the far right is not specifically Christian, much of its thinking is colored by the style of Christian millenarianism. Christian rightists ask the same question -- what is holding back the kingdom of God on Earth? -- and deliver the equivalent answer: the Antichrist, that cunning deceiver."
Unfortunately, he neglects the roots of socialism in Jewish eschatology. His point is well taken (to an extent-- he doesn't necessarily show that this sort of Manichean thought is bad, just tells us that it is), but he'd do much better with a little equal time.
"If the juxtaposition of these two elements -- snarling resentment coupled with giddy expectations -- sounds familiar, that's because it fits snugly into the millenarian tradition. Even when the far right is not specifically Christian, much of its thinking is colored by the style of Christian millenarianism. Christian rightists ask the same question -- what is holding back the kingdom of God on Earth? -- and deliver the equivalent answer: the Antichrist, that cunning deceiver."
Unfortunately, he neglects the roots of socialism in Jewish eschatology. His point is well taken (to an extent-- he doesn't necessarily show that this sort of Manichean thought is bad, just tells us that it is), but he'd do much better with a little equal time.
QUOTE: An e-mail to Andrew Sullivan (ignore the Bill Bennett parts) explains why Churchill is my kind of man:
"There is a nasty strain of therapeutic liberalism which tries to impose its righteousness by dismissing opponents as 'sick' or in the hands of some compulsion. The e-mail you quote is a good example. Consider the lifestyle of Winston Churchill. He began the day in bed with a scotch and soda, then consumed a bottle of champagne for lunch followed by several double brandies. He drank beer in the afternoon, then repeated the lunch intake at dinner, before moving on to the port. He sipped Johnny Walker Red during the evening while he wrote his 'prayers' ('pray explain...'). He was willing to take this policy to extremes. At a lunch with Ibn Saud, where alcohol and tobacco were barred for religious reasons, Churchill refused to comply, advising the King 'my rule of life prescribed as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after, and if need be during all meals and in the intervals between them.' I've never seen an accounting of Churchill's alcohol intake, but if you add up what is admitted in various biographies, he had to be drinking the equivalent of a bottle of scotch or more a day. He also chain-smoked and gambled beyond his means. Like Bill Bennett, he defended his behaviour...'I've taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me.' Hitler would have agreed."
"There is a nasty strain of therapeutic liberalism which tries to impose its righteousness by dismissing opponents as 'sick' or in the hands of some compulsion. The e-mail you quote is a good example. Consider the lifestyle of Winston Churchill. He began the day in bed with a scotch and soda, then consumed a bottle of champagne for lunch followed by several double brandies. He drank beer in the afternoon, then repeated the lunch intake at dinner, before moving on to the port. He sipped Johnny Walker Red during the evening while he wrote his 'prayers' ('pray explain...'). He was willing to take this policy to extremes. At a lunch with Ibn Saud, where alcohol and tobacco were barred for religious reasons, Churchill refused to comply, advising the King 'my rule of life prescribed as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after, and if need be during all meals and in the intervals between them.' I've never seen an accounting of Churchill's alcohol intake, but if you add up what is admitted in various biographies, he had to be drinking the equivalent of a bottle of scotch or more a day. He also chain-smoked and gambled beyond his means. Like Bill Bennett, he defended his behaviour...'I've taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me.' Hitler would have agreed."
LINK: A take on the end of 1984 I hadn't previously considered, from the Guardian:
"The answer may lie in simple grammar. From its first sentence, "The Principles of Newspeak" is written consistently in the past tense, as if to suggest some later piece of history, post-1984, in which Newspeak has become literally a thing of the past - as if in some way the anonymous author of this piece is by now free to discuss, critically and objectively, the political system of which Newspeak was, in its time, the essence. Moreover, it is our own pre-Newspeak English language that is being used to write the essay. Newspeak was supposed to have become general by 2050, and yet it appears that it did not last that long, let alone triumph, that the ancient humanistic ways of thinking inherent in standard English have persisted, survived, and ultimately prevailed, and that perhaps the social and moral order it speaks for has even, somehow, been restored.
In a 1946 article on The Managerial Revolution , an analysis of the world crisis by the American ex-Trotskyist James Burnham, Orwell wrote, "The huge, invincible, everlasting slave empire of which Burnham appears to dream will not be established, or if established, will not endure, because slavery is no longer a stable basis for human society." In its hints of restoration and redemption, perhaps "The Principles of Newspeak" serves as a way to brighten an otherwise bleakly pessimistic ending - sending us back out into the streets of our own dystopia whistling a slightly happier tune than the end of the story by itself would have warranted."
"The answer may lie in simple grammar. From its first sentence, "The Principles of Newspeak" is written consistently in the past tense, as if to suggest some later piece of history, post-1984, in which Newspeak has become literally a thing of the past - as if in some way the anonymous author of this piece is by now free to discuss, critically and objectively, the political system of which Newspeak was, in its time, the essence. Moreover, it is our own pre-Newspeak English language that is being used to write the essay. Newspeak was supposed to have become general by 2050, and yet it appears that it did not last that long, let alone triumph, that the ancient humanistic ways of thinking inherent in standard English have persisted, survived, and ultimately prevailed, and that perhaps the social and moral order it speaks for has even, somehow, been restored.
In a 1946 article on The Managerial Revolution , an analysis of the world crisis by the American ex-Trotskyist James Burnham, Orwell wrote, "The huge, invincible, everlasting slave empire of which Burnham appears to dream will not be established, or if established, will not endure, because slavery is no longer a stable basis for human society." In its hints of restoration and redemption, perhaps "The Principles of Newspeak" serves as a way to brighten an otherwise bleakly pessimistic ending - sending us back out into the streets of our own dystopia whistling a slightly happier tune than the end of the story by itself would have warranted."
LINK: Chronicle of Higher Education on multicultural globalization:
"Is that such a bad thing? It is odd, to put it mildly, that many on the left support multiculturalism in the West but advocate cultural purity in the developing world -- an attitude they would be quick to tar as fascist if proposed for the United States or Britain. Hertz and the anthropologist in Cambodia appear to want people outside the industrialized West preserved in unchanging but supposedly pure poverty. Yet the Westerners who want this supposed paradise preserved in aspic rarely feel like settling there. Nor do most people in developing countries want to lead an "authentic" unspoiled life of isolated poverty."
"Is that such a bad thing? It is odd, to put it mildly, that many on the left support multiculturalism in the West but advocate cultural purity in the developing world -- an attitude they would be quick to tar as fascist if proposed for the United States or Britain. Hertz and the anthropologist in Cambodia appear to want people outside the industrialized West preserved in unchanging but supposedly pure poverty. Yet the Westerners who want this supposed paradise preserved in aspic rarely feel like settling there. Nor do most people in developing countries want to lead an "authentic" unspoiled life of isolated poverty."
LINK: Nice article from the New Yorker on 50s-60s comedy:
"...what is really striking about all the “rebel” comedians of the time, hard and soft, is that their main target was almost never the excesses of the right wing in power. From Tom Lehrer’s “Love, love love me, I’m a liberal” and Shelley Berman’s nervous flier to Woody Allen’s mockery of cuny ethics and Nichols and May’s sublime catalogue of the sounds of tolerance (“Well, Al Schweitzer is just a great guy. Al is a lot of laughs. I personally have never dated him”), their subject was liberalism and its pieties. As Nachman sees quite clearly, though he seems not always to see the centrality of his own observation, the bulk of Mort Sahl’s material, beyond a couple of anti-McCarthy jokes long after McCarthy was out of power, wasn’t political—and, to the degree that it was, it mostly mocked liberal saints like the Kennedys. Rather, it was social and sexual: “There are no women in the Beat Generation, just girls who have broken with their parents for the evening.” Lenny Bruce may have been victimized by the police and the judiciary, but he seldom made fun of them—partly because he had a twisted, junkie’s respect for anyone who had contempt for him, but mostly because there wasn’t enough life in what they did to be very funny. “What can a man Eisenhower’s age say to me?” he shrugged memorably and then joked about liberal hypocrisies and liberal conventions (“I used to go to civil-rights marches, but Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles keep bumping into people”). Nichols and May are funny because they have perfect pitch for the holy words of progressive culture (“I can never believe that Bartók died on Central Park West”). Well past the high-water mark of McCarthyism, the comedians were mocking liberalism, implicitly recognizing that this was the ideology in cultural ascent."
"...what is really striking about all the “rebel” comedians of the time, hard and soft, is that their main target was almost never the excesses of the right wing in power. From Tom Lehrer’s “Love, love love me, I’m a liberal” and Shelley Berman’s nervous flier to Woody Allen’s mockery of cuny ethics and Nichols and May’s sublime catalogue of the sounds of tolerance (“Well, Al Schweitzer is just a great guy. Al is a lot of laughs. I personally have never dated him”), their subject was liberalism and its pieties. As Nachman sees quite clearly, though he seems not always to see the centrality of his own observation, the bulk of Mort Sahl’s material, beyond a couple of anti-McCarthy jokes long after McCarthy was out of power, wasn’t political—and, to the degree that it was, it mostly mocked liberal saints like the Kennedys. Rather, it was social and sexual: “There are no women in the Beat Generation, just girls who have broken with their parents for the evening.” Lenny Bruce may have been victimized by the police and the judiciary, but he seldom made fun of them—partly because he had a twisted, junkie’s respect for anyone who had contempt for him, but mostly because there wasn’t enough life in what they did to be very funny. “What can a man Eisenhower’s age say to me?” he shrugged memorably and then joked about liberal hypocrisies and liberal conventions (“I used to go to civil-rights marches, but Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles keep bumping into people”). Nichols and May are funny because they have perfect pitch for the holy words of progressive culture (“I can never believe that Bartók died on Central Park West”). Well past the high-water mark of McCarthyism, the comedians were mocking liberalism, implicitly recognizing that this was the ideology in cultural ascent."
QUOTE: Interesting piece on TNR about the "European" defense force:
"The four countries have said that they will present their memorandum to the other members of the EU for approval. But here's the rub: These four countries didn't meet alone because they got voicemail when they called the other 11 EU members. There are serious differences of opinion within the EU. Take Tony Blair's statement last week that Britain fully opposes any EU defense that would threaten or even duplicate NATO's capacity. Spain's foreign minister Ana Palacios has insisted that a small group of EU members had no right to call their plan "European." The Italian and Dutch foreign ministers were similarly critical. The Eastern European countries joining the EU will likely have none of it."
--By the way, ever notice how practically everything the French do nowadays is supposedly leading to the possibly destruction of the EU? This feels like one of those things that's hyped so much that it will never actually materialize.
"The four countries have said that they will present their memorandum to the other members of the EU for approval. But here's the rub: These four countries didn't meet alone because they got voicemail when they called the other 11 EU members. There are serious differences of opinion within the EU. Take Tony Blair's statement last week that Britain fully opposes any EU defense that would threaten or even duplicate NATO's capacity. Spain's foreign minister Ana Palacios has insisted that a small group of EU members had no right to call their plan "European." The Italian and Dutch foreign ministers were similarly critical. The Eastern European countries joining the EU will likely have none of it."
--By the way, ever notice how practically everything the French do nowadays is supposedly leading to the possibly destruction of the EU? This feels like one of those things that's hyped so much that it will never actually materialize.
4.5.03
2.5.03
LINK: I agree with Andrew Sullivan that it's unrealistic to expect politicians to be consistent, but this is really egregious
LINK: You could've argued, as I did, that if the administration bungled diplomacy in the run-up to Iraq, it was because they saw the pressing moral need to act, and other people (to put it nicely) chose not to see that need. A little hardball is in order now, but this could get ugly fast
MY TAKE: For a man who's delivered more than a few spectacularly good speeches (National Cathedral, the impromptu on The Pile, the Address to the Joint Session of Congress, "freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to mankind...", the announcement of war with Iraq...) this one was just pathetic. Watching with David, we came up with two very trenchant observations, I thought: 1. It went on far too long-- the speech seemed designed to fit into a prime-time schedule. 2. The applause lines ruined the speech... especially since they seemed designed to fit into every 3rd line. and, while we're at it, 3. The fact that there was nothing in the speech that demanded it be televised. Someone smells Karl Rove taking the reins back from Paul Wolfowitz.
QUOTE: Andrew Sullivan on Bush's Speech:
"THE SPEECH: I'm pretty sure it was an effective campaign speech. The president is exactly right to remind people of the war that began on September 11; he's right to connect the liberation of Iraq to that event; he's right to remain vigilant; and to embrace the new concept of a war that can break a regime while freeing a people with a minimum of civilian casualties. i deeply admire his determination and clarity, and felt goosebumps at certain moments. But I agree with Glenn Reynolds that the whole backdrop, including the fighter-pilot entrance, was - how do I put this politely? - hubristic. It's one thing to arrange a beautiful and moving photo-op to commemmorate an historic event, as Reagan did so masterfully at Normandy. It's another thing to mark the end of a liberation by addressing the military and the nation at the same time. Boisterous cheers from American troops are great; those amazing people deserve our thanks. But I'm not sure this was the occasion for that. It was an address to the nation at the conclusion of a conflict, one that shouldn't be interrupted by foot-stomping and cheering. It made it look as if the president was using the military for partisan purposes - and that's not right. It is probably effective politics; and great visuals. But less is often more. This president used to exemplify that kind of restraint. I hope this war hasn't gone to his head and we see more of the old Bush self-effacement soon."
"THE SPEECH: I'm pretty sure it was an effective campaign speech. The president is exactly right to remind people of the war that began on September 11; he's right to connect the liberation of Iraq to that event; he's right to remain vigilant; and to embrace the new concept of a war that can break a regime while freeing a people with a minimum of civilian casualties. i deeply admire his determination and clarity, and felt goosebumps at certain moments. But I agree with Glenn Reynolds that the whole backdrop, including the fighter-pilot entrance, was - how do I put this politely? - hubristic. It's one thing to arrange a beautiful and moving photo-op to commemmorate an historic event, as Reagan did so masterfully at Normandy. It's another thing to mark the end of a liberation by addressing the military and the nation at the same time. Boisterous cheers from American troops are great; those amazing people deserve our thanks. But I'm not sure this was the occasion for that. It was an address to the nation at the conclusion of a conflict, one that shouldn't be interrupted by foot-stomping and cheering. It made it look as if the president was using the military for partisan purposes - and that's not right. It is probably effective politics; and great visuals. But less is often more. This president used to exemplify that kind of restraint. I hope this war hasn't gone to his head and we see more of the old Bush self-effacement soon."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)