It’s your Party and you’ll cry if you want to

The New Neo Posted on by

Via The Anchoress, I read Peggy Noonan’s column from today’s Wall Street Journal. Noonan thinks Bush’s State of the Union speech was okay, but mainly a rehash of past positions. If you agree with Bush, you agreed with the speech; if not, you didn’t. That’s probably about right.

Noonan went on to observe:

It was the first State of the Union Mr. Bush has given in which Congress seemed utterly pre-9/11 in terms of battle lines drawn. Exactly half the chamber repeatedly leapt to its feet to applaud this banality or that. The other half remained resolutely glued to its widely cushioned seats. It seemed a metaphor for the Democratic Party: We don’t know where to stand or what to stand for, and in fact we’re not good at standing for anything anyway, but at least we know we can’t stand Republicans…

The venom is bubbling on websites like Kos, where Tuesday afternoon, after the Alito vote, various leftists wrote in such comments as “F— our democratic leaders,” “Vichy Democrats” and “F— Mary Landrieu, I hope she drowns.” The old union lunch-pail Democrats are dead, the intellects of the Kennedy and Johnson era retired or gone, and this–I hope she drowns–seems, increasingly, to be the authentic voice of the Democratic base.

I, too, have noticed an increase in anger lately on the Democratic/liberal and/or leftist side, at least on the blogs. It includes an influx of commenters here. My once-proud party seems to be sinking ever faster into a sort of quicksand of peevishness and rage, like Rumpelstiltskin stomping himself into the ground.

My perception of so many Democrats in Congress as inane, negative, and immature crystallized when I saw their reaction to Bush’s mention of the failure to pass his Social Security proposals: they stood and cheered. Whether or not Bush’s call for bipartisan action was sincere, the Democrats certainly made themselves look bad in contrast.

The Anchoress received a letter on the subject from one of her readers who is a teacher:

My kids thought it was hysterical when the Demos stood up and applauded themselves for preventing any change to Social Security. They said they were like Wyle E. Coyote, blowing themselves up. Also, when they chose to sit rather than stand when Bush defended the NSA program by saying we won’t sit around waiting to be hit again. The Demos made a bad impression on kids who will be voting in ”˜08 and even, some of them, in ”˜06.

Teacher-blogger Betsy Newmark also pointed out that young people in her high school AP class didn’t see this as the Democrats’ shining hour. She adds:

Many of my students have no intention of voting Republican, but they’re not seeing anything from the Democrats to make them enthusiastic. And these are kids who want to vote and are excited about turning old enough to do so. In that, they’re probably anomalous among young people today. If there is no longer the hatred of Bush to drive young people to the polls, the Democrats might want to think about creating a positive reason for people to want to vote for them, rather than simply voting against Republicans.

It’s not just kids. I, too, would be willing to vote for the right Democratic candidate. But at this point the party itself has reached the lowest and most extreme point that I can remember in my lifetime. The Republicans aren’t looking so hot at the moment either (i.e. Abramoff), so this could be the moment for a Democratic renaissance. I wish the Democrats could find their center again (literally), for the sake of the two-party system in which I believe, if for nothing else. But on Tuesday night I saw absolutely no sign of it.

All Democrats who care about their party should please take note: it may feel good to “vent,” but it doesn’t bode well for the future of the party. The whole world may or may not be watching, but the kids–the future voters–are.

State of the State of the Union

The New Neo Posted on by

I thought the State of the Union speech last night was pretty well done, especially the first–the non-domestic–half. Bush is no Churchill (who is?), but he can speak clearly and forcefully, and he seemed relaxed and confident.

My favorite line: There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat.

The first half of the sentence seemed to speak to Bush’s opponents on the left, the “peace at almost any price, hang the consequences” folks. The second seemed addressed to his isolationist opponents on the right who think it’s not our business to intervene in far-off places; they are the ones who might be moved by the appeal to “honor.” He mentioned isolationists explicitly several times in the speech, America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. And he also very explicitly mentioned “radical Islam” as the opponent.

I saw another theme, that of the need for rising above politics, for bipartisan cooperation. Good luck on that one, Mr. Bush.

My favorite line addressed to my former party, the Democrats: Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy. But it can certainly feel like one, can’t it? Especially when you can’t quite come up with another.

But, as often is the case, I saw one speech. The MSM, for the most part, saw another.

In his article on the speech, David Sanger of the Times describes an anxious, weakened Bush on Iraq (note the beginning of the sentence, emphasizing the length of the war):

Three years into the war in Iraq, Mr. Bush tried anew to strike a tone of optimism, saying that “we are in this fight, and we are winning.” But he also bowed to the country’s anxiety about finding a path out of a mission that seems to become harder each day, and he warned anew of the dangers of premature retreat.

Hmmm. Bush tries anew to strike that tone of optimism, despite a “mission that seems to become harder every day.” No evidence is offered of this ever-increasing difficulty; the reader is just supposed to understand it as a tautology. And perhaps to many Times readers, it is–after all, it has been repeated often enough.

Sanger’s piece reads like a column, but it’s on the front page right under the lead article on the speech. And speaking of the lead article, there’s quite a bit of editorializing going on there, too. (This, of course, should come as no surprise.) A few examples:

…Mr. Bush was more tempered and less partisan than a year ago, evidence of his diminished political standing…In foreign policy, Mr. Bush broke no new ground, and used language drawn from previous speeches…The president built on the theme of his second inaugural address, and even in the face of the Hamas victory issued a strong call for democracy and elections in the Middle East…

I especially noticed that first sentence, the idea that, if Bush were more tempered and less partisan in this speech, it must be prima facie evidence of weakness and not of–well, of temperance and non-partisanship. Of course, that could be correct. But notice that authors Bumiller and Nagourney state their speculations about Bush’s motives for the call for nonpartisanship as a foregone conclusion, not a hypothesis.

The coverage is not only critical of Bush (no surprise there), but profoundly cynical about his motives. Now, cynicism about the motives of politicians on either side is certainly not ill-founded. My guess (and this is not really a tentative hypothesis; I’m just stating it that way to be careful) is that such cynicism in the Times is displayed mainly in one direction, towards the Republicans.

But the greater question, for me, is this: is this sort of editorializing, which one can find in virtually every paragraph of the piece, appropriate for a straight news article? My answer is no; it rightly belongs on the editorial page.

Perhaps my brain is getting addled with age and those pernicious neocon vibes, but it seems to me that, in my youth, most newspapers aspiring to journalistic distinction used to respect that difference.

Drafting behind Sam

The New Neo Posted on by

No, not “drafting” as in “the draft;” drafting as in bike racing. In other words: here’s a lazy post of mine.

In case you missed it, here‘s commenter Sam’s handy numerical summary of the basic antiwar positions, presented for your convenience:

I guess we need to be more nuanced when sorting out the anti-war constituency. I know that, as Iraq war supporters, we get tired of being lumped in with the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge all the time. So let’s be fair.

List of Anti-War Categories:
1. People who oppose the Iraq war specifically, on moral grounds.
2. People who oppose the Iraq war specifically, on legal grounds.
3. People who oppose the Iraq war specifically, on religious grounds.
4. People who oppose the Iraq war specifically, on political grounds.
5. People who oppose the Iraq war specifically, on military grounds.
6. People who oppose the Iraq war specifically, because it was Bush’s idea.
7. People who oppose the Iraq war specifically, because it distracts us from the real War on Terror.
8. People who oppose the Iraq war specifically, because it distracts us from saving the environment, feeding the poor, rescuing hurrican victims, fixing Social Security, etc.
9. People who oppose the Iraq war specifically, on a combination of the previous grounds.
10. People who oppose any war that the Republicans are involved in because of something or other to do with Big Oil or the Military Industrial Complex.
11. People who oppose any war the United States is involved in on any of the previous grounds.
12. People who oppose any war the United States is involved in because the United States is Bad.
13. People who oppose any war the United States is involve in because the United States is Good.
14. People who oppose any war white people are involved in because Western Civilization is Bad.
15. People who oppose any war anyone is involved in because War Doesn’t Solve Anything.
16. People who oppose any sort of definite move anyone’s part because actions have unpredictable consequences and it’s safer to have endless discussions about the nature of problems rather than taking actual steps to solve them.
17. Wussies.

Did I miss any?

OK, now any anti-war people who show up can simply refer to themselves by these handy numbers and we’ll immediately know pretty much where they’re coming from.

Next step: A similarly organized list of pro-war counter-arguments. That will really save some disk space.

It will also keep all of us from having to listen to the same freaking discussions over and over and over that we’ve been enduring since 2003 – evidently without anyone becoming any better or wiser for it.

Imagine a typical comment exchange using this system:

dove01 said…
Hi, I’m a 2, 7, and a bit 13-ish.
2:45 AM, January 32, 2006

sgtslaughter said…
dove01, get real: #14, #7, and #8.
2:46 AM, January 32, 2006

dove01 said…
#8? I just said I was #14.
2:47 AM, January 32, 2006

sgtslaughter said…
Well, #14 is doo-doo.
2:48 AM, January 32, 2006

dove01 said…
Everyone on this blog is stupid.
2:49 AM, January 32, 2006

neo-neo said…
Be nice!
2:50 AM, January 32, 2006

There – my stab at healing the festering wound in America’s body politic. Gonna grab some supper, then sort out that global warming thing.

That could save us all a lot of time and energy.

The silence of the lambs

The New Neo Posted on by

On this recent thread, about Jonathan Steele’s Guardian article concerning the Hamas victory, commenter Shan made the following interesting observation:

I must take exception to your calling the killing of civilians in an Israeli air-strike “accidental.” For someone who claims to care about what words mean, you must realize there is nothing “accidental” about it. The commanders who give the go ahead for a strike know perfectly well that some civilians will also die. They make the calculation that the cost of these deaths is less than the cost of allowing a terrorist to live.

They are probably right, and Israel, alone amongst civilized nations, takes the greatest pains to minimize civilain casualties in what is a war.

But to call it “accidental,” as though it were like a fender bender on the highway, is disingenuous.

I used the word “accidental” in the sense that includes the idea of “unintentional.” The definition of “accidental” is as follows:

Occurring unexpectedly, unintentionally, or by chance.

Shan is correct in pointing out that the innocent deaths from Israel’s targeted bombing of terrorists are not unexpected. But they are most definitely unintentional, unwanted, and undesired.

But Shan introduces a topic that could use further discussion. Rather than to nitpick about the meaning of the word, I think his/her larger intention was to point out that the Israelis who decide to bomb a Palestinian terrorist do know that, although they try incredibly hard to reduce what is known as “collateral damage,” chances are that their bombs will hit more than the intended target. That must be factored into the equation of every strike.

Ah, to have perfectly clean hands! To obtain a magic bullet that targets only the guilty is a wonderful goal indeed. But it is, unfortunately, an unrealistic dream at the moment–although the smarter and smarter the bombs (and intelligence) get, the closer it is to being realized.

The United States, Israel, and most Western states who engage in combat all aim mightily towards that goal. And that goal is getting closer and closer; compared to the messy horror of WWII or even an event as recent as the Gulf War, collateral damage has taken far fewer lives.

But this progress has had has the unintended effect of lowering the bar and raising expectations. Now there are many people who want (and expect!) that civilian (or “innocent”) casualties in war, or in targeted terrorist assassinations, become zero. And that seems impossible.

It’s impossible because bombs are still bombs, and they are not all that smart. Until and unless we develop a bomb that successfully seeks out only a single set of DNA, I think it will always be the case.

But Shan is correct in another way: these collateral deaths are not completely accidental, although they are completely unintentional on the part of the Israelis. There is an intent on the part of the terrorists themselves, a purposeful, cold, and calculated PR move. Let me explain.

One thing terrorists in the Middle East count on is the reaction of Europeans and Americans who hate and deplore the killing of innocents. That’s most of us, of course. But there are those who deplore such deaths equally no matter what the circumstances, and those people are, in a sense, the “targets” of the terrorists, as much as the children they blow up with their bombs, although in a totally different way.

In other words, terrorists rely on people such as Jonathan Steele to ignore the fact that they (unlike soldiers, for example) purposely live among families, women, and children. This is a win/win situation for the terrorists: it either affords them protection because it plays on the opposition’s reluctance to kill innocents (an opposition of which they are fully aware, by the way, although they may mouth words to the contrary); or, in the event of an attack, they count on the fact that deaths of such innocents will lead many in the West (such as our hero Jonathan Steele) to draw a moral equivalence between Israel and terrorists. Win/win, as I said.

The best thing, of course, as far as the Israelis are concerned, would be if the Palestinian government were to crack down on said terrorists so that the Israelis wouldn’t have to. But this has never happened, despite intermittent Palestinian leadership lip service to that effect. Therefore the Israelis are faced with a dilemma.

Israel (or any other nation in the same position, such as the US in hunting down people such as Bin Laden and his henchmen) is faced with Hobson’s choice: do nothing, and get hit over and over again by terrorists who, I repeat, purposely target innocents. Or kill those terrorists, and understand that some innocents will probably die also, despite the fact that you are doing the very best you can to minimize the killing of innocents in the process.

Kindheartedness is a wonderful thing, as is empathy. No one with any sense of either can fail to feel sorrow and even revulsion when innocent people are slaughtered. But what is the proper response? To recoil from the entire situation with such horror that one fails to draw any moral distinctions whatsoever? That way leads to other horrors, I’m afraid.

There is a paradox here. One finds it, for example, in pacifism (see my pacifism series for a rather lengthy discussion of the matter). That paradox can be stated many different ways–for example, Orwell’s “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf” (go here, and scroll down to the heading “rough men” for a discussion of whether Orwell in fact ever said exactly those words).

In this respect, note also the Talmudic “he who is kind to the cruel ends up being cruel to the kind.”

The truth is, there is no way to be totally and unequivocally kind. One is always implicated in some sort of cruelty no matter what stance one takes, passive or active. The Israelis try to avoid the infliction of death on innocents, knowing that by fighting back at all, they will inevitably inflict some. But if they desisted from the assassinations, and were “kind to the cruel,” they believe (and rightly so, in my opinion) that it would lead to the loss of far more innocent lives, particularly those of Israelis.

Israelis try to make their bombs smarter and smarter, and in this case “smart” means “killing only the target.” Palestinians try to make their bombs dirtier and dirtier, and in this case “dirty” means “killing as many people as possible, and the more innocents, the better.”

Why do some observers persist in seeing no difference? Why do some insist on holding Israel and the US to a standard that is both impossible and dangerous, a standard by which no self-defense would be possible, and by which “the cruel” would end up triumphing?

There are many answers. Some people hate America and Israel so much that they would rejoice at their destruction. Those people are not the subject of this particular discussion.

I am more interested in the others, those unrealistic Utopians who have abdicated the responsibility to make moral distinctions about killing–types, purposes, contexts, goals. What is their motivation? I believe that many of them are driven by the need to keep their own hands clean (please see this post of mine, particularly the second half, for a more thorough discussion of this phenomenon and what lies behind it). It serves their cause to believe, against all evidence throughout the long march of history, that all violence can be avoided if we wish it to be, that it can eradicated by pleasant talk and understanding.

To distinguish those situations in which talk has a chance of working from those in which it does not is a difficult task. But it is one that must be faced realistically, and not covered over with dreamy imaginings.

To deplore the killing of innocents is easy, especially when there are no immediate consequences for doing so. Safe in Western countries, protected by freedom of speech and all the wonders it entails, it is easy to forget the truth of what Orwell said (or perhaps didn’t exactly say): People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. It is easy to forget that such violence can never be perfectly targeted solely at the guilty. Nevertheless, we must do our best to see that as few lambs as possible are led to the slaughter.

Acquainted with the White

The New Neo Posted on by


The inspiration for this poem of mine: the snow, Robert Frost’s timeless “Acquainted with the Night,”and Gerard van Der Leun’s timely “Acquainted with the Blight.”

Just to make sure I receive full appreciation for the arduous work involved in writing it, I refer you to this. It explains terza rima, the convoluted rhyme scheme involved:

Terza rima is a three-line stanza using chain rhyme in the pattern a-b-a, b-c-b, c-d-c, d-e-d. There is no limit to the number of lines, but poems or sections of poems written in terza rima end with either a single line or couplet repeating the rhyme of the middle line of the final tercet…There is no set rhythm for terza rima, but in English, iambic pentameters are generally preferred.

So, without further ado, I bring you:

ACQUAINTED WITH THE WHITE

I have been one acquainted with the white.
I have walked out in snow–and back in snow.
I have watched drifts climb to impressive height.

I have felt blizzard winds that rage and blow.
I have shuffled my muklukked, booted feet
And sniffled wanly, crying, “Woe, oh woe!”

I’ve slipped on ice and skidded down the street
And heard those dying voices with my fall*
Then gone inside to fix myself a treat.

“Snow is design of whiteness to appall,”**
My favorite poet would say, with keen insight.
(Just note his name; he’s called “Frost,” after all.)

I’ve heard friends call me wrong, and far, far Right.
I have been one acquainted with the white.

*go here and scroll down to line 52

**go here and scroll down to the next to last line

Why is this man the senior foreign correspondent at a major newspaper?

The New Neo Posted on by

Dymphna at Gates of Vienna is astounded at this article by the Guardian’s senior foreign correspondent, Jonathan Steele, in which he sees the recent Hamas victory as a chance for Europe to try its more nuanced approach to the Middle East conflict.

Steele is so nuanced he is practically insane. That’s not a word I ordinarily use (“insane,” that is, not “nuanced”), and of course it’s hyperbole.

But I can think of no better one to describe how out of touch this man is with reality. Either that, or he doesn’t actually believe a word he says, and merely trusts that his readership is totally out of touch with reality.

Either way, I have a question: why is this man senior foreign correspondent at a major newspaper? Surely even a leftist/liberal rag such as the Guardian could find a journalist who advances their arguments and positions with more finesse and believability than this:

If Europe, weak though its power may currently be, wants to have an independent role in the Middle East, clearly different from the manipulative US approach, it is vital to go on funding the PA regardless of the Hamas presence in government. Nor should the EU fall back on the cynical hope that Hamas will be as corrupt as Fatah, and so lose support. You cannot use European taxpayers’ money to strengthen Palestinian institutions while privately wanting reforms to fail. Hamas should be encouraged in aiming to be more honest than its predecessors.

Above all, Europe should not get hung up on the wrong issues, like armed resistance and the “war on terror”. Murdering a Palestinian politician by a long-range attack that is bound also to kill innocent civilians is morally and legally no better than a suicide bomb on a bus. Hamas’s refusal to give formal recognition of Israel’s right to exist should also not be seen by Europe as an urgent problem. History and international politics do not march in tidy simultaneous steps.

Almost every sentence in these two short paragraphs shows a naivete (at best) and a wrongheaded illogic (at worst), plus a subtext of such profound hostility to Israel and joy at the Hamas victory that it is, quite simply, stunning.

“Hamas should be encouraged in aiming to be more honest than its predecessors.” I wonder how Steele proposes to reinforce that honesty; strangely enough, he’s mum on the subject. I think the construction of the sentence is also interesting; note he writes “encouraged in aiming” to be more honest, not in actually becoming more honest. Perhaps Steele would be satisfied with the mouthing of good intentions by Hamas.

It’s clear that Steele’s main interest is in sticking it to those dreadful Americans, and in showing that Europe knows so much better how to handle these matters. Along the way, he seems to have a great respect for (and trust of) the Hamas leaders he’s interviewed.

But I was most aghast at the following sentence of Steele’s, “Murdering a Palestinian politician by a long-range attack that is bound also to kill innocent civilians is morally and legally no better than a suicide bomb on a bus.” I’ve heard such sentiments before, it’s true. But usually from commenters on a blog rather than a senior foreign correspondent of a major newspaper. If this is an example of his reasoning power, his editors should be canning him, pronto.

Interesting that Steele says “murdering a Palestinian politician,” as though the Israelis are in the habit of killing the Abbas’s or the Arafat’s of the Palestinian world. The word “terrorist” seems to stick in Steele’s craw, even when there is no doubt in the world that is what is meant. This sort of subtle use of inexact language is as pervasive as it is pernicious.

But even beyond that is the idea itself, treating all civilian deaths in a way that is devoid of context, intent, history, goal–anything but the sheer fact of a death. By that type of reasoning (and I use the word “reasoning” advisedly), an accidental traffic death is as bad as gunning someone down in cold blood, police killing a bystander with a stray bullet while pursuing a murderer would be the same as the killer him/herself, and on and on and on. Yes, the collateral damage resulting from the killing of a terrorist who purposely hides among civilians is a terrible thing, as is the purposeful blowing up of Israelis by a suicide bomber. But to say they are morally and legally equivalent is abhorrent.

I looked up Steele’s biographical details online, but could find very little. I did find a list of his articles, and perused quite a few. No surprises there; they are pretty much of a piece. Here are some representative ones, in case you’re interested: this, this, this, and this.

What goes into the making of a Jonathan Steele? The only clue I could find was this article. Take a look at it.

It turns out that Steele, although British, was a graduate student at Yale during the tumultuous 60s, and played a small part in the civil rights movement in the South. In the article, he describes his experiences as a civil rights worker at the time of the Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner murders. He clearly feared for his own life, and found the entire experience to be a formative one.

In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if Steele sees the Palestinians as the equivalent of the blacks of Mississippi whose civil rights were so long denied, and the Israelis as the southerners who despised them, although its a bit of a stretch, “The image of Price and Rainey, leering and chewing tobacco through the trial, was branded on many Americans’ minds as a symbol of ignorant racism.”

The image may have also been branded on the mind of one rather young Englishman at the time, and may have been generalized to Americans as a whole. My guess is that this is when Steele’s politics became set in stone. In fact, he hints as much:

But in the end the Freedom Summer of 1964 may have done more for the volunteers who took part in it than for the people they tried to help. Some went back into the mainstream, but with a new commitment to justice. A few became lifelong radicals. None remained untouched.

And here Steele states it even more clearly:

As a British graduate student I took part in the mock election to elect Aaron Henry as governor of Mississippi in November 1963 and again during the Summer Project of 1964 as a volunteer in Vicksburg, Mississippi.

It was an inspiring and radicalising experience.

Steele was part of an important movement for freedom in this country, and his idealism, hard work–and yes, bravery–were rewarded. The danger is when such experiences are overgeneralized and become the lens through which all later life is viewed–a lens that, with age, can become cloudy with cataracts.

The voting game

The New Neo Posted on by

I came across this article from the Telegraph via Clive Davis:

Like many others, a young Fatah activist wished yesterday he could go back in time and replay the Palestinian elections all over again.

“I voted Hamas so that my own Fatah Party would be shocked and change its ways,” he said, giving his name only as Mohamed, in the Palmeira cafe in Gaza City. “I thought Hamas would come second.

“But this is a game that went too far. Nobody thought Hamas would win – even them. I know lots of people who voted Hamas, who regret it now. If I could vote again, I would vote for Fatah.”

I wonder how large a group he represents.

It’s always a bad idea to treat a vote as a game or a protest. Or, rather, it’s not so terrible if only a few individuals do it. But each person has no idea whether he/she represents an isolated case or is part of a vast trend. If a large bloc of voters happens to decide to play the same game at the same time, the results could well be catastrophic.

I’ve always been amazed at people in this country who fail to vote through apathy, or who vote for third-party candidates without a chance of winning because “there’s really no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.”

There may not have seemed to have been all that much difference between Fatah and Hamas, either, except a matter of emphasis: corruption and violence vs. violence and corruption. But voting for one when you would prefer the other is a stupid and dangerous game.

“Political thought”–an oxymoron?

The New Neo Posted on by

A thoughtful reader sent me a link to a NY Times article that may explain a lot.

It’s entitled “A shocker: partisan thought is unconscious.”

A shocker? Hardly; not to this crowd. But interesting nonetheless.

Here’s an excerpt:

Liberals and conservatives can become equally bug-eyed and irrational when talking politics, especially when they are on the defensive.

Using M.R.I. scanners, neuroscientists have now tracked what happens in the politically partisan brain when it tries to digest damning facts about favored candidates or criticisms of them. The process is almost entirely emotional and unconscious, the researchers report, and there are flares of activity in the brain’s pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected.

“Everything we know about cognition suggests that, when faced with a contradiction, we use the rational regions of our brain to think about it, but that was not the case here,” said Dr. Drew Westen, a psychologist at Emory and lead author of the study, to be presented Saturday at meetings of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in Palm Springs, Calif…

In 2004, the researchers recruited 30 adult men who described themselves as committed Republicans or Democrats. The men, half of them supporters of President Bush and the other half backers of Senator John Kerry, earned $50 to sit in an M.R.I. machine and consider several [contradictory] statements [by the candidates] in quick succession…

Researchers have long known that political decisions are strongly influenced by unconscious emotional reactions, a fact routinely exploited by campaign consultants and advertisers. But the new research suggests that for partisans, political thinking is often predominantly emotional.

It is possible to override these biases, Dr. Westen said, “but you have to engage in ruthless self reflection, to say, ‘All right, I know what I want to believe, but I have to be honest.’ “

I don’t want to blow my own horn (okay, maybe I do), but I happen to think I fall into Dr. Westen’s “ruthless self-reflection” category. Of course, I bet that everyone puts him/herself into that category–no one’s a mindless partisan, right? Right? (Except the other side, course).

But that last sentence of his: “All right, I know what I want to believe, but I have to be honest,” is a good summation of the attitude I’ve tried to hold. And I believe it’s what allowed me to change.

One final note: Dr. Westen’s research was done only on men. My guess is that the results would have been the same with partisan women (at least, the ones I know!) But wouldn’t it be fascinating if it were discovered that, on this point at least, women are more rational than men? Not likely, but one can hope.

More thoughts on the Hamas victory: liberal and illiberal democracy

The New Neo Posted on by

Via Austin Bay, I came across this article from the Telegraph, on the Hamas victory:

It was not supposed to be like this. For the past two years, America has pursued the idea that democracy is the answer to Islamist terrorism. Now the Palestinian people have spoken clearly – and they have voted for the terrorists.

It’s true that the US has encouraged the spread of democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere. But it’s a major oversimplification to imagine that America–or, for that matter, those dread neocons–think democracy by itself is any sort of answer to anything at all, except a way to give Jimmy Carter some more business in his old age.

To anyone who may have misunderstood, I declare here and now that democracy, by itself, is not “the answer.” It is, however, part of the answer.

A more complete “answer” would go something like this: it’s democracy, coupled with protection of human and civil rights (including those of minorities and woman), and widespread education that avoids indoctrination in mindless hatred. The goal is liberal democracy. The spread of what might be called “illiberal democracy” (see this lengthy article by Fareed Zakaria) is not the same as the spread of liberal democracy.

We all know that illiberal democracy is possible in the Middle East. The question is how to implement liberal democracy, whether it is realistic to think it can happen, and which elements have to be in place before a democracy can be considered to be liberal.

This is a complex subject for a longer post, to be sure. I don’t have time to tackle it properly today. Suffice to say that democracy cannot mean only “one person, one vote, one time.” That is why we have spent so much effort working with the Iraqis on a constitution that protects human rights and the democratic process itself, even before the popular elections of representatives to a legislative body. Because without these guarantees, it all is close to meaningless.

The PLO has worked hard ever since Oslo to prevent anything that might be considered civil or human rights, or liberty, from taking root in the territory under its sway. In addition to corruption and terror (both internal and external), the PLO dedicated the Palestinian educational system to the preaching of a hatred so deep that it has tainted and warped an entire generation, perhaps beyond repair. Now, Hamas has reaped the benefits of the PLO’s hard work.

So, what has democracy wrought for the Palestinians? Time will tell.

But it is difficult to be the least bit optimistic. The terrible reality is that, for quite a while, there have been no good alternatives in the region. A tyrant such as Arafat put in place a system in which people of good will tended to be murdered or silenced, and corruption was rampant and fanned the fires of rage–which were also carefully stoked by the educational system and the media. A benevolent despot was not going to take power; and the alternative, democracy, was destined to be of the very illiberal sort.

Democracy by itself is not the solution. But it is a beginning, even for the Palestinians, because they now have the responsibility for their own fate. If there are ever to be solutions in the Middle East (and for a long time now I have despaired that there will be any that are not destructive), the path must start with an end to the idea that the Palestinians are passive victims of others. As the Telegraph article states:

If Islamists want to take part in democratic life, then they must learn to live by its rules. The question is not whether Muslim radicals should be elected to power, but what they do in office and whether they can be voted out.

Political Islam has thrived as a protest movement of the disgruntled and dispossessed, attracted by the simple message that “Islam is the answer”. In power, however, Islamists have to find real answers to real problems of jobs, poverty, health and illiteracy….

With Arafat, or even his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, there has always been a debate over whether the Palestinian Authority was unable, or merely unwilling, to stop the violence. Palestinian leaders have turned weakness into a diplomatic art-form, telling Israel and the West they needed more concessions in order to have the authority to take on Hamas. With the terrorists in office, there should be no such ambiguity. When the suicide bombs go off, the address for protests will be obvious: the office of the Palestinian prime minister.

In theory, an agreement with Hamas should be more durable. But can Hamas, like Fatah before it, give up the idea of destroying Israel?

I make a prediction here, and I hope I am wrong: the answer is “no.”

We do live in “interesting” times indeed, and this election has been more “interesting” than most.

Hamas wins–and now we get to see if they can make anything run on time

The New Neo Posted on by

I need a rest, so I’m not planning to write today on the Hamas victory. But fortunately, there’s no need at all for me to do so; the newspapers and the blogosphere have covered the territory.

If you’re looking for places to go for information and discussion, here are a few suggestions for posts and roundups:

Atlas Shrugs

Vital Perspective (many posts)

Kesher Talk

All Things Beautiful

Below the Beltway

Captain’s Quarters

Michelle Malkin

Pajamas Media

National Review

Belmont Club (including comments)

Patrick Belton of Oxblog is on the scene, and has some especially pertinent things to say:

It’s not clear anyone wanted this, least of all Hamas, who in assuming the administration of the Palestinian national authority’s creaking and often corrupt bureaucracy single-handed in a moment when its sole lifeline of European and other international support appears threatened, may just have stumbled into the biggest molasses patch the Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah has ever faced. Unlike the Lib Dems of 1985, Hamas did not go to its constituencies to prepare for government. It had prepared for a coalition, or possibly pristine opposition, but not this….

The mood here, so recently jubilant, suddenly is somber. In Ramallah we are promised a press conference at 7, with final results, and Hamas has said it will declare its intentions after. Does Hamas continue to moderate in its now desperate need to keep foreign aid flowing? It may still yet form a coalition, to provide internationally palatable, unbearded, faces for Europeans and Americans to talk to.

I was wondering what Europe’s reaction will be. It’s difficult for me to imagine that they will be able to continue to believe that Palestine is a partner for peace if Hamas is in charge. And yet, stranger mental gymnastics have occurred. Because Europe has so much invested (literally) in that notion, my guess is that European acknowledgement that the Palestinians have now taken the masks–and the gloves–off will be exceedingly difficult.

Several bloggers have pointed out a parallel with the rise of the Nazis in pre-WWII Germany, saying “Hitler was democratically elected.” I beg to differ, at least slightly.

Yes, Hitler was selected by a Democratic process. But he did not come to power by winning the popular vote. He won neither a majority (difficult to do in a Parliamentary election, anyway), nor a plurality. In fact, he lost, and the Nazi Party’s fortunes were sinking.

That story is told here. An excerpt:

Between 1931 and 1933, vicious power struggles would break out between rival political parties. The power brokers in these struggles were Hindenburg and Schleicher. The problem during this period was that no party even came close to achieving the majority required to elect its leader Chancellor. Coalitions were either impossible to build, or were so transient that they dissolved as quickly as they formed. Ambitious leaders from every party began maneuvering for power, striking deals, double-crossing each other, and trying to find the most advantageous alliances. Hitler himself would ally the Nazis to the Nationalist Party. “The chess game for power begins,” Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary. “The chief thing is that we remain strong and make no compromises.”

In 1932, hoping to establish a clear government by majority rule, Hindenburg held two presidential elections. Hitler, among others, ran against him. A vote for Hindenburg was a vote to continue the German Republic, while a vote for Hitler was a vote against it. The Nazi party made the most clever use of propaganda, as well as the most extensive use of violence. Bloody street battles erupted between Communists and Nazis thugs, and many political figures were murdered.

In the first election, held on March 13, 1932, Hitler received 30 percent of the vote, losing badly to Hindenburg’s 49.6 percent. But because Hindenburg had just missed an absolute majority, a run-off election was scheduled a month later. On April 10, 1932, Hitler increased his share of the vote to 37 percent, but Hindenburg again won, this time with a decisive 53 percent. A clear majority of the voters had thus declared their preference for a democratic republic.

However, the balance of power in the Reichstag was still unstable, lacking a majority party or coalition to rule the government. All too frequently, Hindenburg had to evoke the dictatorial powers available to him under Article 48 of the constitution to break up the political stalemate. In an attempt to resolve this crisis, he called for more elections. On July 31, 1932, the Nazis won 230 out of 608 seats in the Reichstag, making them its largest party. Still, they did not command the majority needed to elect Hitler Chancellor.

In another election on November 6, 1932, the Nazis lost 34 seats in the Reichstag, reducing their total to 196. And for the first time it looked as if the Nazi threat would fade. This was for several reasons. First, the Nazis’ violence and rhetoric had hardened opposition against Hitler, and it was becoming obvious that he would never achieve power democratically. Even worse, the Nazi party was running very low on money, and it could no longer afford to operate its expensive propaganda machine. Furthermore, the party was beginning to splinter and rebel under the stress of so many elections. Hitler discovered that Gregor Strasser, one of the Nazis’ highest officials, had been disloyal, attempting to negotiate power for himself behind Hitler’s back. The shock was so great that Hitler threatened to shoot himself.

But at the lowest ebb of the Nazis’ fortunes, the backroom deal presented itself as the solution to all their problems. Deal-making, intrigues and double-crosses had been going on for years now. Schleicher, who had managed to make himself the last German Chancellor before Hitler, would eventually say: “I stayed in power only 57 days, and on each of those days I was betrayed 57 times.” It’s not worth tracking the ins and outs of all these schemes, but the one that got Hitler into power is worth noting.

Hitler’s unexpected savior was Franz von Papen, one of the former Chancellors, a remarkably incompetent man who owed his political career to a personal friendship with Hindenburg. He had been thrown out of power by the much more capable Schleicher, who personally replaced him. To get even, Papen approached Hitler and offered to become “co-chancellors,” if only Hitler would join him in a coalition to overthrow Schleicher. Hitler responded that only he could be the head of government, while Papen’s supporters could be given important cabinet positions. The two reached a tentative agreement to pursue such an alliance, even though secretly they were planning to double-cross each other.

Meanwhile Schleicher was failing spectacularly in his attempts to form a coalition government, so Hindenburg forced his resignation. But by now, Hindenburg was exhausted by all the intrigue and crisis, and the prospect of civil war had moved the steely field marshal to tears. As much as he hated to do so, he seemed resigned to offering Hitler a high government position. Many people were urging him to do so: the industrialists who were financing Hitler, the military whose connections Hitler had cultivated, even Hindenburg’s son, whom some historians believe the Nazis had blackmailed. The last straw came when an unfounded rumor swept through Berlin that Schleicher was about to attempt a military coup, arrest Hindenburg, and establish a military dictatorship. Alarmed, Hindenburg wasted no time offering Hitler the Chancellorship, thinking it was a last resort to save the Republic.

On January 30, 1933, Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor.