Gray Lady sings the blues

The New Neo Posted on by

It occurred to me today that the folks at the NY Times may in fact be suffering from depression, and I mean that in the clinical sense.

Why the sudden diagnosis? Well, Captain’s Quarters alerted me to this editorial about the Iraqi constitutional compromise in today’s NY Times (for contrast, compare the Times’s take on the matter with the elation of Iraqi blogger Mohammed at Iraq the Model).

As Captain Ed points out, with only a little hyperbole:

Each paragraph [of the editorial] starts out with some gloomy statement on what the Times sees as reality. Each statement relates back to American efforts to create this democratic environment, either directly or indirectly…

The torturous process of actually saying something meaningful about the Iraqi agreement on a new constitution in the days ahead of the vote grinds on through eight paragraphs written in this stultifying prose, as like a bad pop song with an unrelenting, unchanging bass line. It takes that long for the Times to admit that the developments this week give greater hope for unity after the plebescite and for greater Sunni participation in democracy thereafter. The editorial approaches masterpiece status for sour grapes and for burying the lede. Even its title, “A Flicker Of Hope In Iraq”, makes this major step forward seem little more than a mere footnote in an encyclopedia of misery.

“A footnote in an encyclopedia of misery.” Reading this, I had one of those sudden insights that seem to make what was formerly murky as clear as day: the entire editorial staff of the Times is clinically depressed. For here is exactly the sort of behavior one would expect from a depressed person: the inability to take pleasure in even good news, the constant “yes-butting” that negates anything positive before it can sink in or be savored. One can almost see the sad, heavy eyes of the writer, and hear the droning voice with its flat affect.

And now I also see the Times’s constant ignoring of the good news from Iraq in a different light. It’s another symptom of depression.

Oh, I know what those of you who still like the Gray Lady will say: they’re just being judicious and cautious, and rightly so. And indeed caution is in order. But I think the Times has a track record of going way beyond caution, into a gloom that can hardly be dispelled by facts.

It seems that lately I’ve been prescribing meds without a license. But I have yet another suggestion along those lines for those at the Times: perhaps a trial of SSRIs might be in order.

It could make that hope become a tad more than a flicker. Just a thought.

And now for some real news

The New Neo Posted on by

I am extremely heartened by the recently-announced compromise on Iraq’s constitution.

But rather than comment further myself, I’ll leave that honor to one of the many valiant citizens of Iraq, a man who was among the first to give us a window on that troubled and long-suffering country and its courageous people–Mohammed, of Iraq the Model:

At this moment, the National Assembly is holding a ceremony celebrating the new breakthrough agreement on the constitution which President Talbani described as the “Day of National Accord”.

What happened today is a historic event that will isolate the enemies of Iraq and freedom and will pave the way for a clear future for Iraq after important Sunni groups decided to actively join the political process in Iraq.

There’s a visible feeling of relief on the streets and I think the constitution is on the way to be ratified”¦the process has come out of the emergency room and recovery will follow.

Fire-breathing bloggers

The New Neo Posted on by

In my last post I suggested the blogosphere take a chill pill. Too much heat, not enough light right now. Does this mean I’m disillusioned with the blogosphere? Not a bit.

Blogs are a naturally “hot” medium, although each blog has its own signature temperature. Mine tends to be a bit cooler than most, by design; I try to reflect before I write, and not shoot from the hip. But for some bloggers and pundits, shooting from the hip is their stock in trade, their raison d-etre, and a good part of their considerable appeal.

One thing I never realized before I became a blogger was the extent to which the medium itself encourages outrageousness. How does one get attention in all the blooming buzzing confusion? One way is by being louder and tougher and more clever and hard-hitting than the rest. As one blogs more and more, there’s also a tendency to become more confident about what one says–and a lot of bloggers don’t start out too timid about their opinions to begin with, else why would they blog? So there’s a sort of ever-escalating feedback loop that encourages more and more hyperventilation in the blogosphere.

When I think about it, the absence of editors–formal or informal–is a large part of the phenomenon. Please don’t think that, by pointing this out, I’m calling for blog editors; I’m not. But the blogger is ordinarily alone with his/her thoughts–sometimes even in the wee hours of the morning, and usually in a hurry to get something finished and get on with “real life”–but almost always alone. Nothing between the blogger, the computer screen, and that “publish” button. And once the moving finger writes, it can’t be undone–not without someone noticing and raising a stink, anyway.

For the other writing I do in my life, I ordinarily will take far longer to compose something, edit it, mull it over, edit it again, and finally decide it’s more or less finished. Somewhere along the way I usually show it to at least one friend or family member. For years I’ve belonged to a wonderful writing group, at which I meet regularly with fellow-writers to offer and receive comments, criticisms, and suggestions on works-in-progress. Needless to say, I never bring my blog writing to those meetings–and not only because they are heartily sick of anything political, and mostly disagree with me on that score rather intensely–but because there’s simply no time. The medium doesn’t allow it.

“Taking a chill pill” requires standing back, reflecting, taking time. And taking time is something the blogosphere definitely does not encourage. But the blogosphere’s strength lies in the aggregate: even without much time, corrections tend to happen, because some other blogger will object. In a way, other bloggers–and commenters–act as ex-post-facto editors.

You might say we’re all members of a very large writing group.

It depends on what the meaning of “possible” is

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, now there’s a firestorm around Laura Bush, heretofore the most inoffensive woman on the face of the planet.

And just what is Ms. Bush alleged to have said? I’m not going to go into every detail. I’ll just link to this post at Big Lizards (via Instapundit), for your perusal.

So, did Laura Bush in fact declare that critics of the Miers nomination were motivated by sexism? Read the transcript; you be the judge (unlike the unfortunate Ms. Miers). Did Ms. Bush indeed, as Reuters alleges, make the nefarious claim that, “it was possible some critics were being sexist in their opposition to Harriet Miers”?

Well, if so, I would just like to point out that, last time I checked, the word “possible” meant “within the realm of possibility.” It does not mean “certain,” nor even “likely;” in fact, it doesn’t even mean “probable.” It simply means “not able to be absolutely excluded as impossible.”

If Laura Bush had answered the question Lauer posed as to whether “[s]ome are suggesting there’s a little possible sexism in the criticism of Judge [sic] Miers,” with the words, “No, absolutely not; it is categorically impossible,” she would have been criticized for being stark raving mad.

Of course it’s “possible” that somewhere, somehow, there are “some” critics who are indeed a little sexist in their criticism.

I think the entire blogosphere needs to take a chill pill.

Originalism: be careful what you wish for

The New Neo Posted on by

I have some questions for those who are clamoring for a strict originalist to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

A little background: in 1973, the Supreme Court famously ruled in Roe v. Wade that states could not outlaw abortion because the Constitution contains a right to privacy that would be violated by such laws. But repealing Roe v. Wade would not automatically outlaw abortion again. It would simply leave that option open to the states.

So here’s my first hypothetical for everyone who is a strict originalist: let’s say that Roe v. Wade is repealed, and although every state is now free to outlaw abortion, all states defeat proposed laws against it, and actually end up continuing to allow abortion. Would you be satisfied with such a result, since a strict originalist ruling was followed, even though abortion would remain every bit as legal as it is today?

Griswold v Connecticut, the 1965 case that established the right to privacy on which the Roe decision relied, concerned the right of married couples to have access to contraception in the state of Connecticut, which had banned contraceptives even for the married. So my next question is this: If an originalist court overruled the right to privacy which had been established in Griswold, and as a result some states passed laws prohibiting access to contraceptives for married couples and actually enforced those laws, what you be satisfied with the result, because a strict originalist ruling had been followed?

These hypotheticals may indeed be exaggerations, but they are certainly not impossibilities. I think they illustrate two things: (a) whether a person really is a champion of originalism or whether that person actually just wants a certain result from application of the doctrine, and (b) some of the possible problems inherent in strict originalism (at least, as I read it).

Personally, I agree with those who think judicial activism and “legislation from the bench” can sometimes represent an overreaching, and that less is often more. But, as with many things, it’s a balancing act; sometimes a bit of judicial stretching can be a way to protect our rights from legislative and/or executive overreaching. Would you feel comfortable if states were free to make laws such as the banning of contraceptive devices for married couples? And, if there were no constitutional right to privacy, what would be the legal principle on which such laws might be overruled, if passed? I wonder in particular what the stance of libertarians might be on this?

One further question: do you know that one of the bases for Roe was what could arguably be called an “originalist” interpretation of the word “person” in the US Constitution? The Court found in Roe that fetuses should not be considered “persons” protected with the full rights as such under the Constitution, because at the time of that document’s writing, abortion was legal and fetuses were not considered to be persons.

Be careful what you wish for.

[NOTE: I know I said yesterday I was planning to declare a Miers moratorium. Well, this post is close to being about Miers–but it’s not. Look, I didn’t even mention her name!–until now, anyway.]

The turning point

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s always a tough moment, and it’s getting tougher all the time as fuel prices skyrocket. But there comes a point when the bone-chilling wet cold gets to me, and shuffling around the house in multiple sweats and sweaters, or huddling in the bathroom near the space heater, just doesn’t cut it any more. That’s when I break down and perform the act I’ve been putting off for weeks: the turning on of the furnace.

I hate it. Hate it. Like most New Englanders, I delay it as long as possible. It’s a point of honor, a sort of competition for who’s managed to hold off the longest. Hint: it’s not me. I know people who stonewall well into November.

But it can be in the thirties here at night, even in September, and during the day there’s just not enough warmth to dispel the feeling of being in a meat locker when I’m in my home. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak, and so down I go to the basement, flip that little switch, hear the satisfying “pop” of the gas being lit, and return upstairs to that wonderful sensation of slowly spreading warmth.

Looking at the big picture: a question for conservatives

The New Neo Posted on by

The fallout from the radioactive Miers nomination has revealed a rift on the right that was always there but was never quite so clear before (at least to me): a gap between those whose overriding focus is the war on terror/Islamofascism, and those who would throw it all over in a heartbeat for a chance to fight for a strict constructionist majority on the Supreme Court and other aspects of the conservative domestic agenda. And all this before the latter group even knows for sure whether Miers wouldn’t in fact be pretty closely aligned with them in fighting for that conservative domestic agenda.

Weigh the two against each other and see which is more important. Remember, we’re not talking about a gaggle of Chomskyite far-leftists who think the war on terror is a crock anyway, and who see Al Qaeda members as persecuted victims of the West. No, we’re talking about people who, just a few short days ago, thought the war was of paramount importance and that Democrats could not be trusted to run it.

But, surprise, surprise; it turns out that, at least to a certain segment of conservatives, having the Supreme Court populated by an originalist is far more important, important enough to concede the next four years to the Democrats.

I don’t know what percentage of conservatives feel this way. But here’s one of them, a commenter at the Anchoress:

I admit that this nomination may well fracture the right for an election cycle. I’m perfectly happy to do that if it means that the right returns stronger and more resolved to integrity and the core principles the right has championed for decades. I’m more than willing to cede the Presidency to the Democrats for four years if it means that we spend that time remembering what it is we really stand for on the right.

“What it is we really stand for on the right.” So okay folks, what is that? Is it the domestic conservative agenda above all? I understand that you feel that Bush’s nomination of Miers has betrayed this aim, and that in his presidency he’s betrayed other basic conservative principles, such as limitations on government spending.

But is all that really more important to you than the war against Islamofascism? That’s a real question, not just a rhetorical one, by the way. And yes, of course Bush has made mistakes in the conduct of the war. The important issue is whether you think the Democrats would do better.

So, do you prefer to stick it to Bush and allow the Democrats to handle that, and let the chips fall where they may?

[Note: after this post I just may declare a Miers moratorium for a while.]

[ADDENDUM: Dr. Sanity, whose conservative bona fides are strong whereas mine are nonexistent, asks the same question. And the good doctor doesn’t pull her punches.]

The trend continues: so long, Schroder

The New Neo Posted on by

Lost in the cacaphonous din of the Miers nomination is the following news: Angela Merkel of the Christian Democrats (now, there’s a party title unlikely to fly in this country) appears to be on her way to becoming Germany’s next Chancellor.

Although the government under her will be rather evenly mixed, the result of a compromise between her party and Schroder’s Social Democrats, her replacement of Schroder as Chancellor continues a worldwide trend noted here.

The trend? In general (with the noted exception of Spain), in countries which have had post-Iraq war elections, those who backed the coalition have been electorally victorious, while those who bucked it are gone.

Forget the Law of Thirds at your peril

The New Neo Posted on by

Some time ago–long before I became a blogger, or even a neocon–I noticed a certain phenomenon and gave it what I thought was a unique name: the “Law of Thirds.”

Well, it turns out the phrase also refers to a recommendation for photography composition, as well as a math principle involving random numbers. I guess it’s harder than I thought to be original.

But no matter. Basically, my law refers to the fact that the populace of the US seems to be divided roughly into thirds, at least in the political sense: one-third on the entrenched left, one-third on the entrenched right, and one-third in between. It was something I’d noticed over and over in public opinion polls, and it seemed to be stable over time.

You all know where I stand–in that middle third. I think it’s actually where I’ve always stood, although I used to be positioned towards the leftish end of that middle, and now I stand pretty much in the very middle of that middle. It’s from this moderate middle third that elections are generally decided.

For the past few years we’ve been hearing a great deal of noise from the third on the left, the ones who suffer from the ailment known as Bush Derangement Syndrome. And now, with the Miers nomination, we’re hearing the din emanating from the right third. To me, it’s not a whole lot more attractive a sound, although it’s a very different one in a very different cause.

Yesterday I wrote about what I think motivates those on the right who are rushing to judgment on Miers. Since then, I’ve done some more reading on conservative blogs about Miers, and some of the comments of those who are dead set against her have reminded me–as if I needed reminding–of just why I’m happy to call myself an independent, and of just how much the extremists on both sides resemble each other in their rage, their rigidity, and their sense of entitlement and grandiosity.

Here, for example, is a reader’s dissenting comment to what I consider a very practical and evenhanded post at Polipundit. I offer an excerpt from the comment to illustrate the sort of thing I’m talking about:

What is so disappointing about the Miers nomination is the missed opportunity. No, not the missed opportunity to get a high-powered known-quantity conservative. That certainly could have failed, probably would have failed, as many have noted, given the likely apostasy of several GOP senators. So what? The battle itself would have been the prize:

(1) It would have forced the issue onto public consciousness in a way that the Miers nomination never will. Nobody, NOBODY, outside the respective bases and political junkies will give a whit about or pay a shred of attention to the Miers nomination. A teaching opportunity simply thrown away.
(2) It would have put on record the names, ranks and serial numbers of the apostates to blame for the failure to confirm. Not that we really don’t know who they are, but they should be forced on record with their apostasy, with all the consequences that might follow thereunto. It’s simply too easy to let them, in effect, kill the nomination of some Really Qualified conservative nominee without ever lifting a finger, and without taking explicit responsibility for the assasination. In the long-run, the best way to instill (enforce) conservative loyalty is to force the wishy-washy “moderates”; (and, truth be told, outright liberal Republicans)to own up to, act upon, and live with the consequences of their betrayals…

The final conclusion from all this: Bush is not a President of, for, or by the conservative movement. He is “conservative”in many (but certainly not all) of his instincts and policy preferences. But he is not a conservative warrior. He really believes in all that “get along together as Americans”, “set a new tone and rise above partisanship”; bullshit. He wants to be a good President for America, pure and simple, not a crusader for the conservative movement. Thus all the reasons I’ve advanced for his pressing the fight for a conservative nominee he very likely would eventually lose have no appeal for him.

Now I, for one, become very nervous when accusations of “apostasy” get thrown around and don’t seem to be meant as some sort of joke. The comment tells us quite a bit, I think, about the far right reaches of conservatism, which is rather like the far left reaches of “progressivism,” to wit: “tow the most extreme version of the party line or we ostracize and/or destroy you.”

The most telling sentences to me are the ones I’ve highlighted in boldface. If I understand the writer correctly, they’re meant to be a condemnation of Bush. In my opinion, they ought to be a recommendation.

Those who are considerably to the right or left often seem to have another thing in common: when their party happens to get into power, they believe it means that the Law of Thirds has been repealed, just for them. It hasn’t. As far as I know it’s still in operation, and has been for quite some time. Anyone from either radical third who thinks the American people will be happy to give his/her third a permanent ascendance in American political life is quite wrong, IMHO, and that person will be soundly rejected by said American people if he/she arrogantly and openly displays the hubris of thinking so–whether that person’s name be Howard Dean or Newt Gingrich or whomever else would be an even better example of the genre.

Right now I’m not sure whether the vocal conservatives whom Ed Morrissey of Captain’s Quarters refers to as the “Rebel Alliance” actually think they can win more elections behaving this way, or whether they just don’t care if they do or don’t as long as they get what they want now. Either way, the electorate is watching, and my guess is that the rest of the middle third isn’t liking what it’s seeing any more than I am.

By the way, if anyone wants to read an exceptionally reasonable conservative voice on the matter of Harriet Miers, please visit BeldarBlog. Beldar been hard at work ever since the Miers flap began, and he’s somehow managed to stay informative, circumspect, and fair to all concerned. It can’t be easy.

The left is alive and well and living in the royal family of Holland

The New Neo Posted on by

A recent comment here (from my old buddy “anonymous,” natch) questioned the influence of the left on current American politics. Scroll down at the link for the discussion which followed, if interested.

Whatever the influence of the current left in the US, here’s a piece by Peaktalk‘s Pieter Dorsman, indicating that the influence of the very furthest reaches of the left are quite strong on at least one segment of the Dutch royal family, the queen’s sister Princess Irene.

Princess Irene has said recently, in a statement indicative of a fairly extreme version of one wing of pacifism (more about that soon: Part IIB of my pacifism series is in the works):

“Western leaders of government have to take some steps. Talking to al-Qaeda and demonstrating that by doing that you can put an end to the classic enemy-view with real and open discussions”, according to Irene.

And here’s Irene on the genesis of Al Qaeda:

The root causes of Islamist violence can, according to Irene, be found in poverty, trade barriers, and wrong relations. “The differences between the haves and have-nots is totally out of balance.”

Ah, but of course. A classic case of simplistic and incomplete explanations/excuses (although I’m not entirely sure what she means by “wrong relations;” that could cover a lot, including something akin to truth).

And lest you think Irene is just a blithering idiot to whom no one listens, here is more, from Pieter:

Don’t laugh. There are a lot of people who actually believe this nonsense, especially when it has a royal imprint. And the Dutch royal family is known for its willingness and ability to influence decision making in The Netherlands, not being hindered by any astute sense of what’s going on in the real world. Or by the constitutional tradition for royals to not interfere with or comment on politics.

So, what’s the conservative rage about Miers all about?

The New Neo Posted on by

Not being a conservative myself (I just play one on TV every now and then), I’d initially been surprised by the degree to which conservatives are angry at Bush for the Miers nomination.

But I guess I shouldn’t be. When I really think about it, it seems that conservatives are so exceptionally angry because they wanted (and fully expected) him to give them exactly what they’ve been waiting for all these years, and haven’t gotten from him yet in the Supreme Court Justice department–a fire-breathing ultra-conservative with a track record a mile long to make it all crystal clear.

If Bush had done so, it would have started a bitter battle. But I think a certain number of conservatives actually wanted a divisive and vicious battle–they were positively aching for it. I don’t know why–to rub it into liberal faces, perhaps. So Bush deprived them of the candidate–and for some of them, of the battle–they had every reason to believe was coming their way. Now the full force of the anger that was building for that fight, fueled by their frustrated hope, is turned on him.

I think conservatives are also especially embarrassed at the cronyism aspect, because, after all, that argument against the appointment holds some water. It really does give at least the appearance of a problem, and it taps into some of the harshest criticisms that have long been leveled against Bush.

So, many conservatives (such as commenter “strcpy” here) are angry and stunned that Bush pulled the rug out from under them, as it were, and he did it in a way that has allowed liberals to say to conservatives, “See, I told you so!”.

Here’s strcpy to explain in his/her own words:

Basically I’ve spent a lot of time defending (and rightfully so IMO) Bush against a lot of charges from the left. Quite a bit of the cronyism, and then….this. It may not really be cronyism – maybe he knows her well enough to *know* she will do a good job, but surely there are others that he does also. Then he asks for blind trust. While I do not “not trust” him, I don’t particularly trust him either (part of him being a politician – I trust him has far as I do any politician and think he is better than nearly all at a national level). It basically kills years of arguing – I can’t point at someone and say “stupid” because cronyism is more likely than not in this case and your thought basically boil down to how much you trust him (along with the “I’ve been telling you for years, your an idiot”). Ultimately he lost years of political arguing with this giving his opponents something to bash him on that can’t be refuted – after all if I’m “wrong” on that then it goes that I am on the rest.

What was Bush thinking? My belief is that Bush chose Miers because he thought she would be acceptable enough to the Democrats to be confirmed without a bitter fight (which he, at least, wanted to avoid) but conservative enough to actually perform as all conservatives want. By saying “trust me” he actually means “Look folks, I know her; she’ll be every bit as conservative as you could wish, but she’ll appear blank enough to the opposition to get through the confirmation process without a total war.” But the words “trust me” sound condescending and arrogant–particularly when his base has just received what they think of as a betrayal–with the added drawback that arrogance is a charge to which Bush is especially susceptible.

To answer a question posed here by commenter “holmes,” I do think the confirmation process can answer some questions about what sort of justice Miers will make. It can tell us a lot about her in terms of intelligence, verbal agility, quickness, integrity, courage, forthrightness–all of which are things that are relevant to being a justice. The clerks do a lot of the research, after all; a justice has to be able to think.

But my guess is that holmes’ question taps into what so many conservatives are fearing–which is that hearings can’t tell us how she will actually vote on the hot issues of the day if she ends up a member of the Court. Will she be firmly in the conservative camp? Or will she–like the woman she is replacing, Sandra Day O’Connor–be a conservative hope dashed, a swing voter whose only predictability is that her vote tends to balance the court and keep it from veering too strongly to one side or another? I don’t know the answer–and, as a centrist, of course it doesn’t bother me as it would a true conservative.

How blank a slate is Miers? The answer appears–at least so far–to be: pretty blank indeed. It turns out that not even most of her friends and colleagues know her actual opinions, although they speak highly of her. To me, this means either that she really is opinionless (which would be odd and rather offputting, a sort of Chauncy Gardner of the legal profession)–or that she is circumspect and private, which I don’t mind at all.

Perhaps, in fact, Miers will turn out to be what all the conservatives say they want: a strict constructionist, who merely interprets the Constitution and keeps her own opinions out of it as much as humanly possible. Wouldn’t that be novel?

[For my previous post on the Miers nomination, see here.]