The Republican attack machine is running out of steam. After successfully depicting a real war hero as effeminate and "French" while turning a wimpy war-dodger into a tough guy in 2004, McCain's spokespeople are trying to do the same now. McCain's campaign manager just described Obama as "the biggest celebrity in the world" and compared him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. He then added: "I think there's an expectation that the American people, not the French president, will decide who the next president is going to be."
This is such a convincing argument against a candidate who has consistently appealed to people's intelligence! When faced with someone who gave one of the most eloquent and thoughtful electoral speeches on the influence of race in America, it is only natural that you then depict that person as similar to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. November will be a landslide. (Unless electronic votes or voting machines will mysteriously and unverifiably go missing in Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia.)
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Tolerance across the Atlantic: how Europe and the US can learn from each other
Last week, Barack Obama made a triumphant tour through Europe. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown each did their best to give a warm welcome to the Democratic presidential candidate. In addition, 200,000 people showed up in Berlin to hear Obama speak.
Towards the end of the week, Julie Sell and Margaret Talev at the McClatchy newspaper asked the following intriguing question: "Would Europe elect a black leader?" One reason I am excited about Obama's candidacy is that it belies European cynicism towards the American dream. As the democratic primaries have shown, the American answer to the question whether the country would possibly elect a black leader is, at a minimum, no longer an automatic no.
Sell and Talev imply that the same is not true for Europe. Although the article contains a few basic mistakes (for example referring to French Minister of Justice Rachida Dati as a "junior minister"), its overall premise that cultural hurdles make the prospects for non-white potential candidates very difficult are sound. As Sell and Talev explain:
But the McClatchy question has an obvious corollary: "Would the U.S. elect a gay leader?" Unlike the U.S., attitudes in Europe towards the LGBT community have undergone a rapid evolution. A July 2008 "Special Barometer" of the European Commission found, for example, that "most Europeans would feel comfortable with having a leader who is homosexual in their country" (p. 59). Indeed, on a "comfort scale" from 1 to 10, with 10 indicating complete comfort, 36% of all Europeans would feel totally comfortable with this situation (giving a rating of 10 out of 10) while the EU average is 7.0 out of 10. This includes people from very religious countries in Eastern Europe like Bulgaria, Cyprus and Romania (whose populations' comfort rating is each less than 4). Conversely, the comfort level is very high in Western European countries like Sweden (9.1 out of 10), Denmark (9.0) and the Netherlands (8.8).
Sadly, asking the question "Would the U.S. elect a gay leader?" is to provide the answer: no it would not in the foreseeable future. Indeed, mainstream Democratic presidential candidates like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have stated that they do not even support the basic right of members of the LGBT community to get married (instead, emphasizing their support for supposedly separate but equal measures like civil unions).
Obama's candidacy is built on hope and change. Applied across the Atlantic, one can always hope that as much as an Obama candidacy changes attitudes in Europe, an LGBT candidate for office in Europe might change things here. The current mayors of Paris and Berlin, Bertrand Delanoe and Klaus Wowereit, could very well be those candidates.
Towards the end of the week, Julie Sell and Margaret Talev at the McClatchy newspaper asked the following intriguing question: "Would Europe elect a black leader?" One reason I am excited about Obama's candidacy is that it belies European cynicism towards the American dream. As the democratic primaries have shown, the American answer to the question whether the country would possibly elect a black leader is, at a minimum, no longer an automatic no.
Sell and Talev imply that the same is not true for Europe. Although the article contains a few basic mistakes (for example referring to French Minister of Justice Rachida Dati as a "junior minister"), its overall premise that cultural hurdles make the prospects for non-white potential candidates very difficult are sound. As Sell and Talev explain:
European political systems also function differently than the American-style primaries. In Europe, tight circles of party insiders, who often attend the same elite schools, choose the national candidates. Critics say that makes it harder for outsiders, and minorities, to break in.I am one of those critics. The current system not only prevents outsiders from breaking in, it stifles many new ideas as well, and there's ample reason for changing the current European model of electing leaders.
But the McClatchy question has an obvious corollary: "Would the U.S. elect a gay leader?" Unlike the U.S., attitudes in Europe towards the LGBT community have undergone a rapid evolution. A July 2008 "Special Barometer" of the European Commission found, for example, that "most Europeans would feel comfortable with having a leader who is homosexual in their country" (p. 59). Indeed, on a "comfort scale" from 1 to 10, with 10 indicating complete comfort, 36% of all Europeans would feel totally comfortable with this situation (giving a rating of 10 out of 10) while the EU average is 7.0 out of 10. This includes people from very religious countries in Eastern Europe like Bulgaria, Cyprus and Romania (whose populations' comfort rating is each less than 4). Conversely, the comfort level is very high in Western European countries like Sweden (9.1 out of 10), Denmark (9.0) and the Netherlands (8.8).
Sadly, asking the question "Would the U.S. elect a gay leader?" is to provide the answer: no it would not in the foreseeable future. Indeed, mainstream Democratic presidential candidates like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have stated that they do not even support the basic right of members of the LGBT community to get married (instead, emphasizing their support for supposedly separate but equal measures like civil unions).
Obama's candidacy is built on hope and change. Applied across the Atlantic, one can always hope that as much as an Obama candidacy changes attitudes in Europe, an LGBT candidate for office in Europe might change things here. The current mayors of Paris and Berlin, Bertrand Delanoe and Klaus Wowereit, could very well be those candidates.
Updates in the struggle for American values
In the latest issue of the New York Review, Jane Mayer takes stock of the Bush administration's policies over the last seven years in an article entitled "the Battle for a Country's Soul." Before explaining how the Bush administration has subverted American values in its "global war on terror", Ms. Mayer appropriately starts her article with a quote from the convention where the U.S. constitution was drafted:
One of the most significant and poignant "battles" for the rule of law focuses on the detention of captives in the global war on terror in a military facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Bush Administration moved captives there in part because it believed that constitutional rights (including the right to a fair trial) do not apply to foreigners who are held outside the U.S. In "Why It Was A Great Victory"(again in the New York Review), Ronald Dworkin explains why the recent decision in Boumediene v. Bush is one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in recent years. In short, for the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the executive branch of the government cannot circumvent judicial review and the constitutional right to habeas corpus (a right to challenge detention) simply by moving captives to a military facility outside the country. Quoting the majority opinion of Justice Kennedy, Dworkin explains: "The test for determining the scope of this [constitutional] provision must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain."
The Supreme Court's decision moves American case law much closer to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg which has long held in cases like Loizidou v Turkey, 20 EHRR 99 (1995), that the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms also applies in geographical areas that are under the "effective control" of a signatory.
The Bush administration has not yet given up, however, and Attorney General Mukasey quickly responded to the Supreme Court's decision by calling for legislative action. As Marty Lederman explains over at Balkinization, Mukasey's request should be rejected for what it is -- an apparent and improper attempt to further delay judicial review. It's high time that we allow the courts to do what they do best: evaluate evidence and apply the law to determine whether the detention of captives is lawful. By doing so, the judiciary may -- as a side benefit -- also help recapture some of the ideals that made the U.S. a shining example to many around the world before the current administration. If so, it would not come a minute too soon.
A lady asked Dr. [Benjamin] Franklin, "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic," replied the Doctor, "if you can keep it."One of the core American values is, of course, that the U.S. government is "a government of laws, and not of men." (as expressed by John Adams in the Constitution for the commonwealth of Massachusetts of 1780). Nowhere has the U.S.'s soul suffered more from Bush's war on terror than here. In its zeal to expand the powers of the executive (at the expense of the legislature and the courts), the Bush administration has broken numerous laws and there is no sizable movement to hold its members to account. Indeed, there's no reason to believe that the Bush administration has stopped breaking the law.
One of the most significant and poignant "battles" for the rule of law focuses on the detention of captives in the global war on terror in a military facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Bush Administration moved captives there in part because it believed that constitutional rights (including the right to a fair trial) do not apply to foreigners who are held outside the U.S. In "Why It Was A Great Victory"(again in the New York Review), Ronald Dworkin explains why the recent decision in Boumediene v. Bush is one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in recent years. In short, for the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the executive branch of the government cannot circumvent judicial review and the constitutional right to habeas corpus (a right to challenge detention) simply by moving captives to a military facility outside the country. Quoting the majority opinion of Justice Kennedy, Dworkin explains: "The test for determining the scope of this [constitutional] provision must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain."
The Supreme Court's decision moves American case law much closer to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg which has long held in cases like Loizidou v Turkey, 20 EHRR 99 (1995), that the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms also applies in geographical areas that are under the "effective control" of a signatory.
The Bush administration has not yet given up, however, and Attorney General Mukasey quickly responded to the Supreme Court's decision by calling for legislative action. As Marty Lederman explains over at Balkinization, Mukasey's request should be rejected for what it is -- an apparent and improper attempt to further delay judicial review. It's high time that we allow the courts to do what they do best: evaluate evidence and apply the law to determine whether the detention of captives is lawful. By doing so, the judiciary may -- as a side benefit -- also help recapture some of the ideals that made the U.S. a shining example to many around the world before the current administration. If so, it would not come a minute too soon.
Monday, July 21, 2008
In a welcome victory for Sarkozy, France radically improves constitution
French President Nicolas Sarkozy enjoyed a big victory today when a special session of both houses of the French parliament voted in favor of a radical and very positive overhaul of the French Constitution. Described as the most sweeping change in half a century, the new constitutional provisions:
- limit the president to serving two terms;
- limit the ability of the president to govern by decree;
- introduce greater parliamentary oversight over presidential appointments;
- introduce greater parliamentary control over presidential emergency powers;
- require parliament to be informed about any overseas deployment of troops, and allows parliament to veto any such deployment if it lasts more than 4 months;
- introduce an ombudsman to deal with complaints about citizen interactions with the French administration; and
- allow the president in the future to directly address parliament.
In the Dutch press, it was further reported that French citizens living abroad will enjoy better representation and that, in the future, criminal defendants can directly challenge the constitutionality of a law that they allegedly violated.
The provision allowing the president to directly address parliament was the most controversial revision, and the constitutional reforms ultimately passed by a single vote (538 votes were needed, and 539 members of parliament voted in favor). With the exception of former minister Jack Lang, the Socialist Party voted against the proposed reforms because they did not go far enough. Apparently not realizing that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, the Socialist Party's spokesman explained his party's opposition as follows: "[t]his text does not contain the counterweights, the guarantees which would allow us to avoid the risk of a concentration of powers, what we call a monocracy."
- limit the president to serving two terms;
- limit the ability of the president to govern by decree;
- introduce greater parliamentary oversight over presidential appointments;
- introduce greater parliamentary control over presidential emergency powers;
- require parliament to be informed about any overseas deployment of troops, and allows parliament to veto any such deployment if it lasts more than 4 months;
- introduce an ombudsman to deal with complaints about citizen interactions with the French administration; and
- allow the president in the future to directly address parliament.
In the Dutch press, it was further reported that French citizens living abroad will enjoy better representation and that, in the future, criminal defendants can directly challenge the constitutionality of a law that they allegedly violated.
The provision allowing the president to directly address parliament was the most controversial revision, and the constitutional reforms ultimately passed by a single vote (538 votes were needed, and 539 members of parliament voted in favor). With the exception of former minister Jack Lang, the Socialist Party voted against the proposed reforms because they did not go far enough. Apparently not realizing that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, the Socialist Party's spokesman explained his party's opposition as follows: "[t]his text does not contain the counterweights, the guarantees which would allow us to avoid the risk of a concentration of powers, what we call a monocracy."
Sunday, July 20, 2008
An Independent Diplomat?
Can that be – an independent diplomat? It seems a paradox, a contradiction in terms. But Carne Ross, author of a book called ‘Independent Diplomat’ and director of a non-profit organization of the same name, at least tries to live it.
In the book, Ross, a former British fast-track diplomat, describes his ‘slow descent from illusion to disillusionment’. His last posting as a diplomat is at the UK Mission to the United Nations in New York, where he is responsible for Iraq in the Security Council. Ross gets more and more frustrated, for example on the Iraq sanction regime, also known as ‘the Oil-for-Food’ program, for which he is the UK ‘expert’ and lead negotiator. He concludes that there is ‘something very wrong about sitting around a table in New York arguing about how many children are dying in Iraq and whose fault is was’ without any of the debaters having ever been in Iraq.
The last straw for Ross is the invasion in Iraq and especially the misinformation used to justify it. He testifies for the Butler commission of inquiry into the use of intelligence on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, at first anonymously, but later he sends his testimony to the highest official of the Foreign Office, and resigns.
Carne Ross raises many important issues about foreign affairs and diplomacy. He questions for example the inequity in resources between large and small countries and the lack of accountability for diplomats. The last chapter of the book is called ‘The End of Diplomacy?’ and Ross gives ten reasons to do away with ‘the separate cadre of diplomats altogether’.
Unfortunately the analyses and the alternatives Ross offers are not always completely convincing or practical, as is also pointed out in some reviews of the book, especially the one from Brian Urquhart which appeared in The New York Review of Books. See also Ross’s letter there and Urquhart’s reaction.
But Ross has at least drawn conclusions from his observations and thoughts by resigning from the Foreign Service and starting his own business – Independent Diplomat, a diplomatic service for those who need is most. On the website this is explained by:
For me, being a diplomat myself, this book was wonderful, though sometimes discomforting, read. Many of the descriptions and observations are right on target and the shortcomings of the diplomatic process are real. But diplomacy and internationals affairs are inherently linked to the existence of nation states and their (perceived) interests. For the time being there is no credible alternative. But that should not prevent us from trying to work on it – just like Carne Ross!
In the book, Ross, a former British fast-track diplomat, describes his ‘slow descent from illusion to disillusionment’. His last posting as a diplomat is at the UK Mission to the United Nations in New York, where he is responsible for Iraq in the Security Council. Ross gets more and more frustrated, for example on the Iraq sanction regime, also known as ‘the Oil-for-Food’ program, for which he is the UK ‘expert’ and lead negotiator. He concludes that there is ‘something very wrong about sitting around a table in New York arguing about how many children are dying in Iraq and whose fault is was’ without any of the debaters having ever been in Iraq.
The last straw for Ross is the invasion in Iraq and especially the misinformation used to justify it. He testifies for the Butler commission of inquiry into the use of intelligence on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, at first anonymously, but later he sends his testimony to the highest official of the Foreign Office, and resigns.
Carne Ross raises many important issues about foreign affairs and diplomacy. He questions for example the inequity in resources between large and small countries and the lack of accountability for diplomats. The last chapter of the book is called ‘The End of Diplomacy?’ and Ross gives ten reasons to do away with ‘the separate cadre of diplomats altogether’.
Unfortunately the analyses and the alternatives Ross offers are not always completely convincing or practical, as is also pointed out in some reviews of the book, especially the one from Brian Urquhart which appeared in The New York Review of Books. See also Ross’s letter there and Urquhart’s reaction.
But Ross has at least drawn conclusions from his observations and thoughts by resigning from the Foreign Service and starting his own business – Independent Diplomat, a diplomatic service for those who need is most. On the website this is explained by:
ID’s aim is to resolve or prevent conflict by enabling disadvantaged and marginalised actors to engage effectively in diplomatic processes.
ID offers an independent and confidential source of advice and assistance on diplomatic technique and strategy to governments, international institutions, non-governmental organizations and political groups in areas of conflict or potential conflict. We provide clear, practical and effective counsel to those facing unfamiliar and complex international and political challenges to help them achieve their international objective.
For me, being a diplomat myself, this book was wonderful, though sometimes discomforting, read. Many of the descriptions and observations are right on target and the shortcomings of the diplomatic process are real. But diplomacy and internationals affairs are inherently linked to the existence of nation states and their (perceived) interests. For the time being there is no credible alternative. But that should not prevent us from trying to work on it – just like Carne Ross!
Immunity: bought and paid for
A picture says more than a thousand words (h/t Greenwald). Less than two weeks after a Democratic controlled Congress and Senator Barack Obama approved a bill granting immunity to AT&T for years of breaking the law, we learn that AT&T is a financial supporter for the 2008 Democratic National Convention where Obama will be formally elected as the Democratic presidential candidate. Coincidence?
Sarkozy love-fest
It's official. Roger Cohen is in love with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Describing the French president's critics as if they're universally viewing Sarkozy as a "Bonapartist Caligula, consumed with himself, brooking no dissent, [and] petulant to the point of puerility", Cohen argues that Sarkozy is instead "a tonic to his country and the most important European leader of his time." In a similarly fawning New York Times column last August, Cohen described Sarkozy as "a French president who seems determined to make his office more accountable, more accessible, more open, and invoking American-style checks and balances to achieve that."
I am not surprised by these public declarations of love for the French President. Cohen, an IHT columnist based in Paris, is a "liberal hawk." As Michael Tomasky outlined in the Guardian last year, others are Newyorker editor David Remnick, Newyorker writer George Packer, Atlantic correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg, and Vanity Fair contributor Christopher Hitchens. Each of these public intellectuals has in common that they wholeheartedly supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Most of them later argued that although the decision to remove Saddam Hussein without broad international support remained correct -- and that they were not responsible for the resulting carnage because of their "good intentions" -- they had been wrong to support regime change in Iraq because no one could have foreseen that the Bush Administration would be so inept in the execution of this war of aggression.
After having been proven wrong by the critics of the Iraq invasion who expressed caution and demanded careful scrutiny of claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before going to war -- notably including the previous French administration -- it must be nice for Cohen to turn the page and focus on a President who cannot deal with criticism, and who is impatiently trying to implement grand ideas without being able to deliver. You know, the kind we have in the White House now.
I am not surprised by these public declarations of love for the French President. Cohen, an IHT columnist based in Paris, is a "liberal hawk." As Michael Tomasky outlined in the Guardian last year, others are Newyorker editor David Remnick, Newyorker writer George Packer, Atlantic correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg, and Vanity Fair contributor Christopher Hitchens. Each of these public intellectuals has in common that they wholeheartedly supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Most of them later argued that although the decision to remove Saddam Hussein without broad international support remained correct -- and that they were not responsible for the resulting carnage because of their "good intentions" -- they had been wrong to support regime change in Iraq because no one could have foreseen that the Bush Administration would be so inept in the execution of this war of aggression.
After having been proven wrong by the critics of the Iraq invasion who expressed caution and demanded careful scrutiny of claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before going to war -- notably including the previous French administration -- it must be nice for Cohen to turn the page and focus on a President who cannot deal with criticism, and who is impatiently trying to implement grand ideas without being able to deliver. You know, the kind we have in the White House now.
Friday, July 18, 2008
"Appeasement"
May 15, 2008: President Bush wants to score points during a speech before the Israeli parliament and attacks Obama's intent to engage in talks with Iran:
Danny Ayalon (Israel's ambassador to the U.S. from 2002-2006), makes the same point in Haaretz, writing in an online forum hosted by that newspaper:
Hmm... Will we now hear Kevin James and Danny Ayalon refer to "George W. Chamberlain?" Will they concede that the administration has flip-flopped and stop demonizing Obama for his (pragmatic and sensible) approach to deescalate the political problems in the Middle East? Of course not. Gotta love these so-called "conservatives" -- consistent only in their branding of opponents. There's only one word to describe it: chutzpah!
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.Same day, Republican pundit Kevin James insists on MSNBC that Obama's plan to open a dialogue with the "axis of evil" and to use force as a last resort, not a first option, is no different than Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement towards the Nazis when he ceded part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in 1938 (James is massacred by "liberal" Chris Matthews for not knowing the difference between diplomacy and appeasement) --
Danny Ayalon (Israel's ambassador to the U.S. from 2002-2006), makes the same point in Haaretz, writing in an online forum hosted by that newspaper:
My specific concern is [Obama's] policy towards Iran. On one hand he describes the Ayatollah's regime in Tehran as Hitler-like and on the other he calls for negotiations with them. What needs to be clarified is:July 18, 2006: President Bush sends a high ranking diplomat to Switzerland to meet with Iranian envoys and plans to open a diplomatic presence in Tehran.
1. What does he expect to achieve in negotiations with "evil"?
2. Why does he think talking to "Hitler" can succeed?
3. What would be on the agenda?
4. How would such negotiations be conducted in terms of timeline and consequence of failure.
Hmm... Will we now hear Kevin James and Danny Ayalon refer to "George W. Chamberlain?" Will they concede that the administration has flip-flopped and stop demonizing Obama for his (pragmatic and sensible) approach to deescalate the political problems in the Middle East? Of course not. Gotta love these so-called "conservatives" -- consistent only in their branding of opponents. There's only one word to describe it: chutzpah!
It's what we call the news
My dear friend Tai asked the other day if there was room for less serious posts as well. He's right, of course, and I immediately added the Sartorialist feed on the right. In similar vain (and apropos Alanna's thoughtful post regarding the Obama cover "controversy" below) check this out -- it's what we call the news.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Mercenaries in Zimbabwe
Looks like Mugabe got his own little Blackwater to help out with terrorizing the population -- see here.
The exclusive reliance by the U.S. and its "coalition of the willing" on force without legal legitimacy or redress, and their increasing use of unaccountable mercenaries (now referred to as "private military contractors") rather than regular armed forces to project this force, make it very difficult for the West to condemn the actions of lawless and morally corrupt regimes like Mugabe's, al-Bashir's, etc.
The insistence by U.S. and British mercenaries like Blackwater, KBR and Aegis (and by extension the governments that use them) that there's a difference because they employ former U.S. and British military personnel and are therefore the good guys is in this regard (a) factually false because they also employ former military personnel from other countries, including Chile and South Africa; and (b) a prime example of circular reasoning: we believe we're the good guys and therefore we are the good guys who deserve the benefit of the doubt. And this belief is shared by the people who employ them. As U.S. Brigadier General Karl Horst put it in a recent interview with Salon.com about mercenaries that are employed by the U.S. in Iraq:
The exclusive reliance by the U.S. and its "coalition of the willing" on force without legal legitimacy or redress, and their increasing use of unaccountable mercenaries (now referred to as "private military contractors") rather than regular armed forces to project this force, make it very difficult for the West to condemn the actions of lawless and morally corrupt regimes like Mugabe's, al-Bashir's, etc.
The insistence by U.S. and British mercenaries like Blackwater, KBR and Aegis (and by extension the governments that use them) that there's a difference because they employ former U.S. and British military personnel and are therefore the good guys is in this regard (a) factually false because they also employ former military personnel from other countries, including Chile and South Africa; and (b) a prime example of circular reasoning: we believe we're the good guys and therefore we are the good guys who deserve the benefit of the doubt. And this belief is shared by the people who employ them. As U.S. Brigadier General Karl Horst put it in a recent interview with Salon.com about mercenaries that are employed by the U.S. in Iraq:
"These guys run loose in this country and do stupid stuff. There's no authority over them, so you can't come down on them hard when they escalate force."It's high time that we put the use of mercenaries back on the list of morally repugnant acts that includes piracy, using cluster bombs, and scattering land mines.
Monday, July 14, 2008
New Yorker Cover
I just found out that there is apparently a huge flap about the July 21, 2008 New Yorker cover which is a cartoon depicting Michelle Obama as an afro-wearing revolutionary and Barack Obama as muslim. While the couple is fist-bumping, the American flag burns in the background and Osama Bin Laden peers down at the couple from the revered place in the picture frame over the mantle. You can see the image here. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/toc/2008/07/21/toc_20080714
Although the cover does not say it, the image is for the cover story entitled "The Politics of Fear". It is about what the last seven years have been in this country. If Americans begin losing faith in their leaders, raise the terrorism alert to reverse that slide in the polls. If people question policy, announce that you have just captured a key member of the axis of evil and that saying anything against the government at this time would be unpatriotic.
Of course, we all know that we live in a country where image is everything and that more can be said (true or not) and perceived as fact in a five second televised image repeated every hour in the 24-hour news cycle, than can ever be said by presenting a rational, well thought out explanation. I understand that images can hurt, wound, present unintentional messages, and change moods, trends, and feelings. Nonetheless, I have to wonder why is this image so disturbing to everyone?
The Obama campaign has called it "tasteless and offensive". McCain's campaign was quick to distance themselves from it. David Remnick, of the New Yorker (see the interview here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/david-remnick-on-emnew-yo_n_112456.html), calls it satire. He says it is meant to play up all the stereotypes that play on peoples' fears and show how irrational, and often silly, they are. I think it does that. Anyone, on the right or left, already knows (or at least Jon Stewart and Michelle Obama in an appearance on "The View" tried to tell them) that the fabricated controversy over the "terrorist" fist bump between the putative democratic nominees for first couple was ridiculous and plainly wrong. Those who read the New Yorker have seen controversy in the cover art (not to mention the content contained within the confines of the cover) before. Those with long memories will remember the cover cartoon of a black woman and an orthodox jewish man kissing just days after the Crown Heights riots in Brooklyn broke out between the two groups. Without mentioning the religious infractions visited upon the orthodox man who would commit what some view as blasphemous and heinous actions, it was clearly a time of heightened sensitivity being mined for a greater point.
One would also hope that those who read the New Yorker, which in my view clearly requires some attention span given the lengthy articles with tiny type and occasional laborious prose would take the time (at least over five seconds) to understand what it is the magazine was about. After all, it is the magazine of the few, not the many in this country. Its subscription pool generally runs to the well-educated, left-leaning, affluent and frankly mostly consists of New Yorkers and those who used to or wanted to live in New York. Hardly the type to buy into right-wing stereotypes or be affected solely by a cover image. Yet, this cover has provoked a slew of letters calling for cancellations of subscriptions, the head of the editor, and has replaced use of Obama's middle name and fist-bumping critiques as what plays for news on the 24-hour news cycle.
Have we as a society become the egg-shell victim -- So sensitive to criticism that even attempts at satire provoke mortal wounds to our psyche? Is this simply a tempest in a teapot? After all, there is only so much one can say when news reports go on for 24 hours continuously and we all know the biggest love affair the press have is with itself. So perhaps it is simply another incident of an industry discussing its internal issues with us the public as the witnesses and the bystanders to the venting. More importantly, what does this controversy say about us as a society? There are those that argue that this is just giving those on the right, those who are ignorant, McCain and his supporters, and those who simply do not like Obama more fodder for their attacks. I have to say that I doubt it really helped or hurt with any of those segments. There are those that are such Obama fanatics that any potentially negative image or critique is cause for concern, while such reinforcing images as the halo-encircled Jesus down from the mountaintop images of Obama that appear on magazines such as a recent cover of Rolling Stone fail to provoke ire.
For me, the concern looms larger. I have been worried for some time that we have become a country of individuals so deeply entrenched in our own views of the world that we only talk to people who share them, watch "news" (I use this label loosely) that reinforces our world view, and remain closed to new ideas, changes, or considerations. Perhaps I commit the same sin as all do as they age of romancing the past, but I thought I remembered an age where our disputes were not about what the facts were (which today remain hotly contested on everything) or our deeply entrenched beliefs but the focus was on a problem that needed to be solved and we just simply had different ways and thoughts about how to get there. The former is intractable. There is nothing to do but wonder whether we are a deeply divided country, so entrenched in our beliefs that they paralyze us to action. The latter position lends itself to discussion. We seem to be in the age of the former and this controversy is simply more evidence. So, where do we go from here?
Although the cover does not say it, the image is for the cover story entitled "The Politics of Fear". It is about what the last seven years have been in this country. If Americans begin losing faith in their leaders, raise the terrorism alert to reverse that slide in the polls. If people question policy, announce that you have just captured a key member of the axis of evil and that saying anything against the government at this time would be unpatriotic.
Of course, we all know that we live in a country where image is everything and that more can be said (true or not) and perceived as fact in a five second televised image repeated every hour in the 24-hour news cycle, than can ever be said by presenting a rational, well thought out explanation. I understand that images can hurt, wound, present unintentional messages, and change moods, trends, and feelings. Nonetheless, I have to wonder why is this image so disturbing to everyone?
The Obama campaign has called it "tasteless and offensive". McCain's campaign was quick to distance themselves from it. David Remnick, of the New Yorker (see the interview here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/david-remnick-on-emnew-yo_n_112456.html), calls it satire. He says it is meant to play up all the stereotypes that play on peoples' fears and show how irrational, and often silly, they are. I think it does that. Anyone, on the right or left, already knows (or at least Jon Stewart and Michelle Obama in an appearance on "The View" tried to tell them) that the fabricated controversy over the "terrorist" fist bump between the putative democratic nominees for first couple was ridiculous and plainly wrong. Those who read the New Yorker have seen controversy in the cover art (not to mention the content contained within the confines of the cover) before. Those with long memories will remember the cover cartoon of a black woman and an orthodox jewish man kissing just days after the Crown Heights riots in Brooklyn broke out between the two groups. Without mentioning the religious infractions visited upon the orthodox man who would commit what some view as blasphemous and heinous actions, it was clearly a time of heightened sensitivity being mined for a greater point.
One would also hope that those who read the New Yorker, which in my view clearly requires some attention span given the lengthy articles with tiny type and occasional laborious prose would take the time (at least over five seconds) to understand what it is the magazine was about. After all, it is the magazine of the few, not the many in this country. Its subscription pool generally runs to the well-educated, left-leaning, affluent and frankly mostly consists of New Yorkers and those who used to or wanted to live in New York. Hardly the type to buy into right-wing stereotypes or be affected solely by a cover image. Yet, this cover has provoked a slew of letters calling for cancellations of subscriptions, the head of the editor, and has replaced use of Obama's middle name and fist-bumping critiques as what plays for news on the 24-hour news cycle.
Have we as a society become the egg-shell victim -- So sensitive to criticism that even attempts at satire provoke mortal wounds to our psyche? Is this simply a tempest in a teapot? After all, there is only so much one can say when news reports go on for 24 hours continuously and we all know the biggest love affair the press have is with itself. So perhaps it is simply another incident of an industry discussing its internal issues with us the public as the witnesses and the bystanders to the venting. More importantly, what does this controversy say about us as a society? There are those that argue that this is just giving those on the right, those who are ignorant, McCain and his supporters, and those who simply do not like Obama more fodder for their attacks. I have to say that I doubt it really helped or hurt with any of those segments. There are those that are such Obama fanatics that any potentially negative image or critique is cause for concern, while such reinforcing images as the halo-encircled Jesus down from the mountaintop images of Obama that appear on magazines such as a recent cover of Rolling Stone fail to provoke ire.
For me, the concern looms larger. I have been worried for some time that we have become a country of individuals so deeply entrenched in our own views of the world that we only talk to people who share them, watch "news" (I use this label loosely) that reinforces our world view, and remain closed to new ideas, changes, or considerations. Perhaps I commit the same sin as all do as they age of romancing the past, but I thought I remembered an age where our disputes were not about what the facts were (which today remain hotly contested on everything) or our deeply entrenched beliefs but the focus was on a problem that needed to be solved and we just simply had different ways and thoughts about how to get there. The former is intractable. There is nothing to do but wonder whether we are a deeply divided country, so entrenched in our beliefs that they paralyze us to action. The latter position lends itself to discussion. We seem to be in the age of the former and this controversy is simply more evidence. So, where do we go from here?
Friday, July 11, 2008
Habermas on the European institutional crisis
A very interesting analysis from Jurgen Habermas about the state of Europe after the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty can be found here.
Habermas offers two possible solutions to the current situation. First Habermas proposes to allow countries like Ireland to partially or wholly withdraw from the European Union. As he explains:
Habermas's ideas have much appeal. They squarely address the democratic deficit of the European Union as well as the elitism/disdain that many Europeans equate with the "European project." However, there are quite a few impediments to making this happen. For example, many governments oppose the idea of a two-speed Europe, even if their country is given the option not to participate, because their influence would be reduced.
More importantly, the referendum is meant to address a democratic deficit that was partly created by the national governments' lack of trust in their voters to do the "right" thing. Pointing to the Irish outcome, those same governments will oppose any efforts to give voters more rather than less power in determining the course of the European project.
Habermas offers two possible solutions to the current situation. First Habermas proposes to allow countries like Ireland to partially or wholly withdraw from the European Union. As he explains:
This, at least, takes the decision of Irish voters seriously -- even though that was likely not the Irish intent. The mere mention of such an option sends the right message, however. A cooperative treaty with member states that wish to be temporarily relieved of the obligation to take part in certain institutions could help Europe move beyond the malaise.Second, Habermas proposes to hold a European wide referendum on the future and direction of Europe. Habermas believes that, with luck and commitment, this could lead to a "two-speed Europe" in which different countries integrate at a different speed.
Habermas's ideas have much appeal. They squarely address the democratic deficit of the European Union as well as the elitism/disdain that many Europeans equate with the "European project." However, there are quite a few impediments to making this happen. For example, many governments oppose the idea of a two-speed Europe, even if their country is given the option not to participate, because their influence would be reduced.
More importantly, the referendum is meant to address a democratic deficit that was partly created by the national governments' lack of trust in their voters to do the "right" thing. Pointing to the Irish outcome, those same governments will oppose any efforts to give voters more rather than less power in determining the course of the European project.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Jim Baker and Warren Christopher go to bat for the rule of law
Never thought I would say it, but two illustrious and respected eminences grises of the foreign policy establishment -- Bush-pere's Republican Secretary of State Jim Baker III and Clinton's Democratic Secretary of State Warren Christopher -- just made a proposal that is so.... well... pre-9/11.
Baker and Christopher believe there's a need to pass the "War Powers Consultation Act of 2009" which "would, except for emergencies, require the president and Congressional leaders to discuss the matter before going to war." Let me repeat: this law would introduce the novelty of requiring the President to consult Congress before going to war. Oh wait, never mind, we already have the 1973 War Powers Resolution (passed by Congress in response to the Vietnam War, requiring -- you guessed it -- the President to consult with Congress before going to war). Baker and Christopher acknowledge this but add that the real problem is that the President does not recognize the validity of this resolution and that we are therefore in "a situation that undermines the rule of law, the centerpiece of American democracy."
It is beyond me why Baker and Christopher believe that future Presidents would adhere to this new War Powers Consultation Act of 2009 when they previously decided to ignore the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Indeed, it is beyond me why they believe that any President after this administration would take the trouble of complying with any inconvenient law. At a minimum, the President can attach a secret signing statement gutting the law (see here, explaining that in his signing statements "George W. Bush has routinely asserted that he will not act contrary to the constitutional provisions that direct the president to 'supervise the unitary executive branch.'") (emphasis added.) Moreover, the President can simply break the inconvenient law because there are unlikely to be any serious consequences to doing so anyway.
Put differently, who will make the President adhere to that "centerpiece of American democracy" called the rule of law if he or she does not do so voluntarily? Not the Courts. And apparently not Congress either.
Baker and Christopher believe there's a need to pass the "War Powers Consultation Act of 2009" which "would, except for emergencies, require the president and Congressional leaders to discuss the matter before going to war." Let me repeat: this law would introduce the novelty of requiring the President to consult Congress before going to war. Oh wait, never mind, we already have the 1973 War Powers Resolution (passed by Congress in response to the Vietnam War, requiring -- you guessed it -- the President to consult with Congress before going to war). Baker and Christopher acknowledge this but add that the real problem is that the President does not recognize the validity of this resolution and that we are therefore in "a situation that undermines the rule of law, the centerpiece of American democracy."
It is beyond me why Baker and Christopher believe that future Presidents would adhere to this new War Powers Consultation Act of 2009 when they previously decided to ignore the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Indeed, it is beyond me why they believe that any President after this administration would take the trouble of complying with any inconvenient law. At a minimum, the President can attach a secret signing statement gutting the law (see here, explaining that in his signing statements "George W. Bush has routinely asserted that he will not act contrary to the constitutional provisions that direct the president to 'supervise the unitary executive branch.'") (emphasis added.) Moreover, the President can simply break the inconvenient law because there are unlikely to be any serious consequences to doing so anyway.
Put differently, who will make the President adhere to that "centerpiece of American democracy" called the rule of law if he or she does not do so voluntarily? Not the Courts. And apparently not Congress either.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Greenwald on why the FISA vote matters
The must read article in advance of the FISA "debate" this week can be found here.
I continue to be deeply disappointed by Obama's support for this bill. What's more, his rationale for supporting it -- "[t]he exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court" -- is insulting our intelligence. Until the Bush administration began espousing its views of the unitary executive theory (the President is the decider and his power cannot be constrained by Congress or Court), no one believed that the President could break the law with impunity or that the President's power superseded the authority of the FISA court. If so, why was Clinton almost impeached based on allegations that he broke the law by lying under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky?
Moreover, the bill that Obama supports does nothing to contradict the unitary executive theory, and does nothing to prevent the President from knowingly breaking the law in the future. Rather, it shields everyone involved in the illegal spying program -- Bush administration officials, leading Democrats in the House and Senate, and the telecommunications companies -- from accountability, thereby reaffirming that the President can break the law with impunity.
Because the alternative is much worse, Obama can probably still rely on getting sufficient votes to become the 44th President. But where will the excitement be? Where will the "change we can believe in" be? Not with me.
And who will stand up and defend Obama as a man of principle when the same folks who now support the unitary executive theory because there's a Republican President will suddenly reassert the "proper" role of the federalist-society-infused judiciary as soon as there's a Democratic President? Not I.
I continue to be deeply disappointed by Obama's support for this bill. What's more, his rationale for supporting it -- "[t]he exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court" -- is insulting our intelligence. Until the Bush administration began espousing its views of the unitary executive theory (the President is the decider and his power cannot be constrained by Congress or Court), no one believed that the President could break the law with impunity or that the President's power superseded the authority of the FISA court. If so, why was Clinton almost impeached based on allegations that he broke the law by lying under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky?
Moreover, the bill that Obama supports does nothing to contradict the unitary executive theory, and does nothing to prevent the President from knowingly breaking the law in the future. Rather, it shields everyone involved in the illegal spying program -- Bush administration officials, leading Democrats in the House and Senate, and the telecommunications companies -- from accountability, thereby reaffirming that the President can break the law with impunity.
Because the alternative is much worse, Obama can probably still rely on getting sufficient votes to become the 44th President. But where will the excitement be? Where will the "change we can believe in" be? Not with me.
And who will stand up and defend Obama as a man of principle when the same folks who now support the unitary executive theory because there's a Republican President will suddenly reassert the "proper" role of the federalist-society-infused judiciary as soon as there's a Democratic President? Not I.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Happy Fourth of July
A Fourth of July speech by Joseph Galloway for McClatchy newspapers that is well worth reading. (h/t to Greenwald.) Galloway poignantly explains the betrayal in Obama's new position and in McCain's continued support for the gutting of judicial oversight and the extension of retroactive immunity with respect to the illegal Bush-spying program --
Indeed, before casting their vote in support of the new FISA legislation next week, Obama and McCain may want to consider the following thoughts by A.C. Grayling from across the pond --The fact that British troops, operating on flimsy general warrants handed out by local magistrates, were kicking in the doors of ordinary Americans and rifling through their pantries and papers in search of smuggled, untaxed goods was a prime reason why our ancestors rebelled against their king and went to war.
This is WHY we celebrate the Fourth of July. This is why the vote on renewing the expanded version of FISA and whitewashing the egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment for seven long years by our government is important.
If neither John McCain, the Republican, or Barrack Obama, the Democrat, can find the courage to oppose such a violation of so basic a right, then what are we to do for a president, a successor to George W. Bush, The Decider, who has since 9/11 decided what rights you are entitled to keep, what laws he will or will not obey, and whether you will be protected by these words of the Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The creation or adoption of instruments of control, surveillance, and eavesdropping, along with laws and powers to detain, proscribe, silence and punish in areas of thought and activity which were once not subject to such interference, is like loading a gun: we put the loaded gun in the hands of a benign and concerned government wishing to protect us from terrorism, illegal immigration and organised crime, then they pass the gun to the next generation of government, and they in turn to the next ... and so unpredictably into the future, in the hope that things will always be such, and times such, and people such, that benignity can and will reign all the way, with the ordinary citizen still functionally free and secure throughout.I supported Obama over HRC, and vigorously defended this support, precisely because of my concern that HRC would suffer from the self-delusion that, because her motives were "benign", she could be trusted with the powers that the Bush administration has usurped over the past 7 years. Sadly, Obama appears to suffer from exactly that delusion.History teaches a painfully different lesson about such naive hopes. If one would try to protect oneself against things going wrong, do not create instruments that could all too easily go wrong in the wrong hands - and very, very wrong at that.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
