Kind of Defeats the Purpose

I guess I'll just have to argue with myself for the next few days.

It's Constitutional, Isn't It?

This serves Justice Souter right. Granted, I'm opposed to it for the same reason I disagreed with the Kelo decision, but it is fitting to see Justice Souter hoist by his own petard. Now it just needs to happen to Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer, and Ginsburg.

(Via Drudge)

Who'll Step Down

Rumors are flying concerning who, if anyone, will resign from the Supreme Court between now and the start of the next term. The most common belief is that Rehnquist and possibly O'Connor will step down over the summer. I've also heard that it will only be O'Connor. One rumor that's come out of left field (in more ways than one) is that Ruth Basder Ginsburg will step down around Labor Day due to health problems.

Whoever steps down, the upcoming confirmation battles should be fascinating to watch. Personally, I'd love to see the president nominate Miguel Estrada to fill the vacancy, but I don't think it'll happen. It's a shame, really. After having his name dragged through the mud for over two years, he'd decided he had better things to do and withdrew himself from consideration. If he hadn't, I suspect he would have gone through in the great cop-out of '05 by a certain group of 14 senators who claim to value collegiality over all else, even if they really did it for the good publicity. Of course, that's not entirely fair to Mike DeWine and Lindsey Graham, who reportedly pushed the deal through on orders from Bill Frist because they weren't sure how Specter was going to vote.

Re: Dem Unity

At times it does seem that all that seems to be holding the Democrats together is an opposition to Republicans in general and George W. Bush in particular. Furthermore, how firmly they've been able to latch onto this this and stick to it has been impressive. Still, it won't win them many elections and may lead them to irrelevance. In order for the Democrats to have a chance of rebounding, proponents of liberalism need to take a hard look at their philosophy and attempt to answer some very hard questions about what it is exactly that liberals believe, what principles they hold dear and what policy prescriptions follow from them. They need to answer questions about the proper scope of the authority of the state, particularly regulatory authority over the market; the nature of the rights of man and what make something a right; the role of the military in preserving national security and the circumstances under which military force is justified; the legitimate role of religion in society; the role of race and ehtnicity in society; the relevance of differences between men and women; the ends for which society exists and the best means to obtain those ends. Furthermore, they need to look at their policy prescriptions now and examine whether or not they are consistent with any sort of coherent liberal philosophy as opposed to a group of interests thrown together into a pot because of a belief that they could conceivably work together to obtain their desired political objectives. In short, what is the Liberal answer to The Conservative Mind, Russel Kirk's magnum opus that, along with the work of the likes of William F. Buckley Jr., laid the intellectual foundations for the modern conservative movement that is so ascendant today.

Who will liberals look to as their intellectual forbears and why? Where is their answer to the likes of National Review, The New Criterion, The Public Interest, etc.? These are questions that cannot be answered by the leaders of the Democrat party; they have to be taken up by prominent intellectual figures within the liberal movement and debated in view of those who form the base of the liberal movement. Focusing on electoral success and policy intitiatives over underlying principles and philosophy is putting the cart before the horse. The two major problems facing Democrats and the liberal movement in general are the suddenness with which they've lost most of their political power and the fact that much of liberal academia is mired in post-modernism. Who will rise up to save liberalism from itself before it's too late? As an outsider, I really can't say. I know Peter Beinart of The New Republic is trying, but it remains to be seen whether anyone will take him seriously.

Brian, Brian, Brian

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on Rove's comments in the long run, but that doesn't mean we can't have ann intelligent debate about them.

Of course, I think our actual positions on Rove's comments may be closer than our posts so far have made them out to be. Personally, I hope Rove's comments were wrong, but I don't know that I can say that they are. Ultimately, they need to be proven wrong, not simply shouted down with claims of "He's questioning my patriotism!" This shouldn't be difficult to do. All it would take would be for a few prominent Democrats/liberals to come out and say "Michael Moore/Moveon.org/Jimmy Carter/whoever does not speak for me or for my party. Their views do not represent the views of Democrats/liberals, and we refuse to be lumped together with them. Furthermore, we find Karl Rove's comments repugnant and demand their retraction." However, the Democrats are so interested in presenting a united front that they are unwilling to show any sort of disunity for any reason whatsoever. As a result, the views of the lunatic fringe of the Democratic party are seen to be held throughout the party, making them seem week when it comes to national security issues, irrespective of whether or not you take Rove's comments to be a substantive policy criticism or an uncalled-for ad hominem attack on the patriotism of Democrats.

One thing that should be obvious, and I think you'll agree, is that the fact we're having this debate shows that the portion of Rove's statement you quoted is inaccurate. It is legitimate, I think, to read that statement as calling the patriotism of liberals/Democrats into question, but I don't see that it necessarily has to be read that way. It could very well be that Seantor Durbin and the like honestly feel that American involvement in Iraq is is a mistake and that anything that will bring that involvement to an end sooner rather than later is a good thing. It is also possible that certain leaders within the Democratic party equate the country's good with the success of their own party, and thus anything that advances their own political ends is good for the country. It could also be that they're motivated simply by a hatred of Bush and an overwhelming desire to undermine him, no matter what the cost. There are all sorts of motives that could be imputed to those who oppose what's going on in Iraq, Gitmo, etc., but it's foolish to go into them because when it's all said and done, results matter more than motives. Republicans forgot this when Clinton was president, and the Democrats seem to have forgotten this under Bush.

Why Foreign Aid Doesn't Work

It only goes to those who don't need it.

(via Drudge)

And Another Thing

One of the issues underlying the controversy over Rove's comments is the role of intentions and feelings in politics. For many liberals/Democrats it seems that how you feel about something and the desire to do the enlightened thing trump actual policy arguments over means and ends. For example, to be opposed to affirmative action is to be a racist, and to be opposed to homosexual marriage is to be a "homophobe". Being devoted to "diversity" and "tolerance" seems to trump concern for the consequences or potential consequences of the implementation of these policies. So, it follows that to assert that liberals/Democrats are weak on defense is to question their patriotism. This is absurd. Politics is ultimately a practical endeavor concerned primarily with ends and means. Rove's assertion in his recent speech that liberals/Democrats are weak on defense is not an accusation of being unpatriotic. Rather, it is an assertion that the defense policies to which they subscribe are less sufficient than conservative/Republican defense policies. This is a substantive criticism that needs to be answered, not shouted down with breathless charges of "He's questioning MY PATRIOTISM!!!!!!!!!!!" Of course, that would mean taking an honest look at the liberal/Democratic view of how best to ensure national security (something Peter Beinart of The New Republic has tried to do), but that requires a willingness to step back from the fray and sacrifice the short term benefits of a united front for the uncertain long-term benefit of a revived intellectual foundation.

Ultimately, the Democrats need to get away from concentrating on good intentions and right gestures as a policy guide and focus on good results. If they don't, they will continue to marginalize themselves even if they regain power at somepoint in the future. For an example of why this is so, see Mark Steyn's piece in this week's Spectator.

A Clever Idea

Over in The Corner, Jonah Goldberg posted this idea on how to get Kelo overturned:

Jonah,
The quickest way to reverse Kelo is to find some
conservative town in Utah somewhere to shut down an abortion clinic in order to
make room for a Wal-Mart. Also, that would be the most fun way to get Kelo
reversed.

A Point of Semantics

In your last post, you wrote "Rove exploited the greatest tragedy of our lifetime to take a cheap shot at liberals." The 9/11 attacks were not a tragedy: an outrage, an act of terrorism, and an act of war, certainly, but not a tragedy. The only tragedy of that day was our failure to stop them.

Karl Rove Is a Genius

Instapundit and RedState.org have some interesting analysis of Rove's remarks the other day. It seems to me that Rove provided enough context in his remarks that there is room for debate as to whether his assessment was justified or not. What's more, the Republicans come out ahead whether or not they were justified because if they were justified, it's because liberals are weak on national security, while proving them unjustified would require Democrats to publicly repudiate the likes of Michael Moore; moveon.org, a major source of funding for them; Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate; and Howard Dean, their own party chairman. If Rove's comments turn out to have been wrong, he should back down from them and apologize, but liberals/Democrats-Based on the reaction of Democrats, I assume there's not much difference between the two now that the election season is over.-have to prove him wrong.

Frankly, I don't think he should have back-tracked simply because people were angered by his comments. He provided sufficient context for them to be defensible, and he should have only backed down if proven wrong. This is the difference between what Rove said and the comments of Dean and Durbin. Where Dean's and Durbin's comments were absurd on their face, Rove's require a substantive rebuttal, and as long as Democrats simply continue to complain about them and demand their retraction, Republicans and conservatives can throw back all of the comments made by their number that have gone unrepudiated. NPR's Mara Liasson was smart enough to realize this when she made the comment on "Special Report with Brit Hume" that if we're going to hold Howard Dean to account for making insulting and ridiculous statements, we should do the same for Rove.

This May Stoke Some Argument

One of the big political stories recently has been the opposition of Democrats to the nomination of Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton to the position of UN Ambassador. This opposition has been based on two accusations: one frivolous, one substantive. The frivolous objection is that he's a meanie who like to put his hands on his hips, puff out his chest, point his finger, and chase people through hotels with staplers. The substantive point of opposition rests on the charge that he tried to manipulate intelligence to advance his own policy views. These charges are based in the fact that while preparing testimony before the House of Representatives and a speech before the Heritage Foundation, if I remember correctly, on potential WMD development in cuba and later Syria, he questioned the interpretations of intelligence analysts, wondering if the threat may have been more grave than they made it out to be. Ultimately, the testimony he delivered was in line with the intelligence provided and the views he represented were more in line with the initial analysis than the more concerned-for lack of a better word-view he advanced while the testimony was being prepared.

Here's what I want to know. In the aftermath of 9/11, the CIA and FBI came under significant criticism for ignoring information that could have fleshed out the 9/11 plot. When no WMD were found to be in Iraq, the CIA took heat for not considering alternatives and for being guilty of group-think. Both of these criticisms were entirely justified. However, John Bolton is now being opposed on the grounds that he is looking for a threat where the CIA believes it doesn't exist. In other words, he is being opposed because he is on the lookout for potential threats and is willing to question the conventional wisdom to make sure something isn't missed. Where's the problem?

Is It Just Me

Or have we been agreeing an awful lot? I guess I shouldn't be too surprised because despite our differing political views, we tend to look at things in a remarkably similar way.

This Is Disappointing

You'd hope the CIA would be able to pull this off without getting caught.

So Much For That

It was a great run for the Pistons, but they just couldn't pull it out in the end. That's too bad. How awesome would it have been to see them win the NBA title going through Allen Iverson's 76ers, the same Pacer team that brawled with their fans, a Shaq-led Miami Heat, and a great San Antonio Spurs team? They were one good run away from doing it, too.

Oh well. Congratualtions to the Spurs. They earned the title.

And good luck to the Pistons next season. Two out of three ain't bad.

I've Seen It

As John Podhoretz has pointed out, it's fitting that its acronym can be read as Swill ROTS. I do have to say, though, it was one of the most unitentionally hilarious movies I've ever seen. I was very amused by the whole "Jesus was a Sith lord" bit.

My post on the insurgency wasn't intended to imply some sort of joint US-Zarqawi conspiracy. Rather, it rested on the law of unintended consequences and the potential ability of the Iraqi government to use the situation to their advantage.

Something That's Been Kicking Around in My Head

I've supported Operation Iraqi Freedom since well before it was launched for a myriad of reasons, and I continue to support it. However, I've had doubts about the long-term goal of making Iraq a viable, stable democracy. This is not to say that I don't think Iraq will be able to establish a democratic constitutional order-I do. Rather, I'm concerned about what happens five or ten years down the road when some crisis erupts and the government is seen to be ineffective in dealing with it. This was a major reason the French Revolution led to the Reign of Terror and the rise of Napoleon. In a democracy, the government is expected to respond to the demands of the people, and if the government can't give the people what they want, they will turn to someone claims he can if granted the necessary powers. Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler all exploited this to gain power and become totalitarian rulers.

The only defenses against this are a strong societal belief in limited government and a belief that, given enough time, the government will fulfill its duties. I don't know whether the first has been adequately absorbed into Iraqi society, but it seems to me that the second may well be because of a certain obstacle known as the Al Qaeda-Ba'athist insurgency. The insurgency has no tangible objective beyond killing people and causing chaos. Therefore, they offer no serious alternative to the political order being established in Baghdad. However, they are still a serious problem, and if the new Iraqi government can put it down, it may gain the legitimacy it needs to survive the crises that will inevitably arise in the future.

I Would Play Devil's Advocate

But the eminent domain ruling is indefensible. The notion that economic growth, job creation and increased tax revenue constitute a public good is absurd. The notion that these "public" "goods" override the right to property is even more absurd.

The implication of this ruling is that property rights are rights only as long as the government for them to be so. This runs counter to the idea that rights preceed government and that government exists to secure a just order and safeguard the rights of the people under its authority. It would seem now that instead of deriving from the traditions of society ultimately from God, our rights flow from the government, and what the government giveth, the government can taketh away in the name of some arbitrary "public good".

What is particualrly galling is that any public good that would be derived from New London's exercise of eminent domain in this case is incidental to what is actually being done. The city of New London is taking the property of one group of people and giving it to another, plain and simple. If they were going to build, say a police or fire station, something that serves a direct public service, New London may have a case, but there is no inherent public use here. Instead, the rights of the people have gone out the window so New London can make a quick buck. Disgraceful.

Re: Time for a rant

I'd vote for Langevin over Chafee.

Martha Burk isn't exactly known for intelligent political judgment. Remember Augusta?

Bill Frist and Harry Reid do share another improtant trait: They're both weenies.

A Sense of Proportion

Over in his Impromptus cloumn, Jay Norlinger publishes a letter from a long-time reader of his whose husband was a POW in Vietnam.

Jay,
My husband was a POW in Vietnam for five-and-a-half years. He is beside
himself over this Gitmo stuff. “Honey glazed chicken!” he says. “What about
moldy bread with rat turds in it?” And “what about nothing but pumpkin for 45
days?” And “what about getting beri-beri from eating nothing but white rice for
months?”

“They complain that the air conditioning was turned up?” he says. They made him live in a box outdoors for months, under the summer sun.

“They are put in uncomfortable positions?” he says. He had to sit on a stool for
months, in one position.

And so forth.

He is writing a column on this, but he is recovering from surgery so he is slow writing it. The surgery is his second hip replacement; his hip was eaten up by the beri-beri.

Yet nobody’s asked any of the POWs what they think of the Gitmo thing.

Frankly, the whole Gitmo controversy strikes me as being a textbook case of making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Certainly a lot of what goes on there is unpleasant, but unpleasant doesn't equal abuse, and abuse doesn't equal torture. The prisoners there eat better than our own soldiers in the field. They have ample opportunity for exercise, and they are granted a degree of religious deference that goes far beyond common courtesy. I think it speaks well of us that we take a concern for how we treat our enemies once they are in our custody, but at some point, the underlying reality that these are people bound and determined to wage war against the United States has to override our sentimentalities.

It also has to override our concern for our image around the world. The global stage is still very much an Hobbesian jungle, and as much as we might like it to be governed by the rule of law, power, shrewdness, and the willingness to use them still trump all. For better or for worse, in such an environment, the important thing is not being liked, the important thing is being feared and respected. As the War on Terror progresses, strategic, tactical and moral mistakes will be made; there's no way around it. Instead of obsessing over these mistakes and declaring the cause lost, as some are wont to do for a myriad of reasons, we need to acknowledge them, deal with them, and plow ahead. When it's all said and done, we won't be judged by whether we dotted every "i" and crossed every "t"; we'll be judged by whether or not we win. If we win, our image will be bolstered and our security enhanced. On the other hand, if we lose, we will be disgraced no matter how great our concern over thermostats at Gitmo.

I Like the Mony, Mo-mo-mony

Brian, I think I take a somewhat broader view of the issue than you do in that I see an inherently causal link between the amount of money involved in political campaigns and politics in general and the range and scope of the powers claimed by the government in general and the federal government in particular. Corporations, like labor unions and speical interest groups, have their own legitimate interests, and as with labor unions and special interest groups, the nature and content of the laws and regualtions governing their activities effects their ability to act in accordance with their interests. Therefore, the more power and authority the federal government claims, the greater an interest corporations will have in seeing that the people responsible for making the laws and regualtions that govern their conduct have views that will lead to a regulatory environment that is favorable to them. It follows from this that the greater a stake a corporation has in political developments, the larger an investment it will be willing to make in the political process. So, given current levels of government power, authority and regualtion, I have no problem with corporate money in politics as long as the money is not used for bribery, as may have happened in the case of Duke Cunningham.

On the other hand, I have a significant problem with the amount of corporate, labor, and special interest money in politics because it is a necessary consequence of a government that wields too much power. Furthermore, I suspect that the problem tends to exacerbate itself because politicians of all stripes tend to like the thought of being able to command the loyalties (i.e. money) of powerful entities such as corporations and labor unions, and the more power they command, the more loyalty they can demand.

Pistons/Spurs

I would've jumped in on that Pistons thread during the game, but I was at work. As things stand now, I think it better for the Pistons going into Game 7 to have lost Game 5 and won Game 6 than the other way around. This way, the Pistons have the momentum going into the game, and the fact that they won Game 6 on San Antonio's floor serves to negate most of the home-court advantage San Antonio may have otherwise had. Detroit wins 94-88 to repeat as NBA Champions.

Since We're Both Online

We might as well see if we can have a civilized conversation about something serious. Over at National Review Online, Byron York has a piece on Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle's investigation into associates of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and corporations that have given contributions to his Political Action Committes, possibly illegally. There have been some interesting developments of late, and it seems things might not be entirely on the level as far as the investigation itself is concerned. Based on the information in the piece, I think it safe to say that things certainly look fishy, though I'm not prepared to go farther than that at this point.

The topic I'd like to address is one of the underlying issues in the case: the role of corporate money in politics. Is corporate involvement in politics acceptable? If not why? If so, why and to what degree? Do the same principles apply to other groups, such as labor unions and the various lobbying firms and special interest groups?

Fair Enough

Seeing as we're making fun of Joe Biden (hard task, that), here's a joke from the 1988 presidential campaign I read about over at TKS during last year's election season:

Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Joe Biden, and Michael Dukakis are on a cruise together when the ship hits an iceberg and starts to sink.

Jimmy Carter calls out "Women and children first!"

Nixon says "Screw 'em!"

Gary Hart says "Do you think we have time?"

Joe Biden says "Do you think we have time?"

Dukakis says "Did you hear what Biden just said?"

Not Only Do You Not Take Yourself Too Seriously

You steal my jokes to boot.

That's One Small Step for Me

And that's about it, really.

Testing

Test 1, 2. Test 1, 2.