Prayers and Policy

Mark Sanford offers a prayer instead of a solution:

This sort of thing makes me crazy. You were not elected, Governor, to pray for your constituents. You were elected to serve them. Why is that so hard for conservative Christian politicians to understand?

Obviously this caller is hurting, and if you're a believer, of course you should say a prayer for him - and for everyone who is suffering because of the economic crisis. But that's not what politicians are for. We don't elect them to pray for us. We elect them to, you know, govern.

But I Did My Best!

Michelle Cottle also read this piece in yesterday's NYT about college students' attitude that they should receive A's for working hard and showing up to class. Cottle picked out the money quote from the piece, a real gem from James Greenwood, a senior at the University of Maryland:

"I think putting in a lot of effort should merit a high grade," Mr. Greenwood said. "What else is there really than the effort that you put in?"

"If you put in all the effort you have and get a C, what is the point?" he added. "If someone goes to every class and reads every chapter in the book and does everything the teacher asks of them and more, then they should be getting an A like their effort deserves. If your maximum effort can only be average in a teacher's mind, then something is wrong."

Cottle's response:

No, Jason. What would be wrong is if a university trained its students to believe that they were excellent simply for getting up off their futons and doing what was expected of them. Did the reading? Attended class? Stayed up late working on a paper? Good for you, puppy! Sure, you did a craptastic job on that paper--not to mention the final--suggesting that you have no more than a fourth-grader's grasp of the material. But what the hell!? You worked hard. You showed up--even when you had that reallllly bad hangover. You may not have learned much, but you sure did try. Have a nice fat A. And here's hoping it comes in handy when your first employer fires you for not being able to tell your ass from your elbow when it comes to doing your job.

Well said. I discovered in my first semester of college that I was much better at Spanish, theology, international relations, and history than I was at economics. I worked harder in my microeconomics class than in any of my other classes. I went to every lecture, every discussion section (even the optional sessions!), studied hard for every exam, went to office hours, etc. I ended up with a lower grade in economics than in any of my other classes because it's a difficult subject for me. If grades were based on effort, my economics grade would have been my highest that semester. 

Now, of course, there is a slight difference between economics and, say, theology - after all, when you miscalculate the change in a demand curve on an exam, you're simply incorrect. However, if you read all the texts and attend every theology lecture, and your paper shows that you still don't understand Bonhoeffer, it's less a matter of being objectively incorrect, and perhaps there's a little more wiggle room for professors to grade your effort. But why should the two cases be treated differently? If your paper reflects a misunderstanding of Bonhoeffer, why should that be any different from getting an economics problem wrong - even if you tried hard? 

Lies, Damn Lies...

Drudge is pretty excited about this poll from Rasmussen. Headline: "Rasmussen: 62 percent of voters want more tax cuts, less spending in stimulus..."

Is that supposed to be a surprise? Here's the question:

3* As Congress debates the economic stimulus plan initially proposed by President Obama, would you like to see the plan include more tax cuts and less government spending, more government spending and less tax cuts, or would you rather see the plan pass pretty much as it is today?

62% More tax cuts and less government spending
14% More government spending and less tax cuts

20% Pass pretty much as it is today

5% Not sure

This is a pretty meaningless result - which is why Drudge is the only person bothering to cover it. 62% of respondents want more tax cuts. Ok: what kind? Corporate tax cuts? Payroll tax cuts? Capital gains tax cuts? The poll doesn't ask, and I'd wager that responses would vary pretty significantly if the question specified. Instead, the question introduces the vague of idea of "tax cuts" (which, in the voter's head, immediately translates into "more money in my pocket!") and contrasts it with the even vaguer idea of "more government spending," something with no immediately apparent benefit to the taxpayer. I wonder what the results would be if Rasmussen polled people and asked them if they prefer more corporate tax cuts or more spending to repair dilapidated roads and bridges. 

(All this, of course, is just Drudge's way of taking everyone's eye off the ball: Gallup reported today that 67% of Americans approve of the way President Obama is handling the effort to pass the stimulus bill, while only 31% approve of the way Congressional Republicans are handling it - and 58% disapprove.) Those are numbers that'll send whoever designed the Republicans' political strategy for this fight looking for a new job. And if we are to assume that Rasmussen's poll has any validity (which it doesn't), how can its results be squared with those of Gallup's poll? How could 62% of Americans want more tax cuts in the bill - which has been the Republicans' main goal - but only half of that number approves of how the Republicans have handled their efforts, and nearly as many disapprove? The two can't be reconciled, which is all the more evidence that Rasmussen's poll and Drudge's political fantasy are just that - fantasies. 

The Nightmare Continues

I really thought one of the nicest things about Dick Cheney no longer being Vice President would be not hearing from him anymore. I was, unfortunately, wrong:

But if he treated Obama gingerly, Cheney was eager to engage in the broader philosophical debate he was with Democrats and even many in his own party about the right way to navigate a dangerous planet. He said he fears the people populating Obama’s ranks put too much faith in negotiation, persuasion, and good intentions.  

“I think there are some who probably actually believe that if we just go talk nice to these folks, everything’s going to be okay,” he said. 

Really? Name one. Name one high-ranking government official who thinks that. 

The Limits of Free Speech

There's an interesting op-ed in the NYT today by Ian Buruma. It's about Geert Wilders, the extremist Dutch parliamentarian who will soon be tried for hate speech (he's compared the Koran to Mein Kampf, advocated banning it, and produced a short film arguing that Islam is an inherently violent religion). 

Wilders is definitely a vile person; there's no doubt about that - but there's something curiously ambivalent about the piece. Buruma doesn't take a really firm stand on the prosecution (though, from my reading, he seems to be leaning in favor of it), but he does have a few criticisms of Wilders' liberal defenders:

Whether Mr. Wilders has deliberately insulted Muslim people is for the judges to decide. But for a man who calls for a ban on the Koran to act as the champion of free speech is a bit rich. When the British Parliament refused to screen Mr. Wilders’s film at Westminster this week, he cited this as “yet more proof that Europe is losing its freedom.” His defenders, by no means all right-wingers, also claim to be standing up for freedom. A Dutch law professor said he found it “strange” that a man should be prosecuted for “criticizing a book.”

This seems a trifle obtuse. Comparing a book that billions hold sacred to Hitler’s murderous tract is more than an exercise in literary criticism; it suggests that those who believe in the Koran are like Nazis, and an all-out war against them would be justified. This kind of thinking, presumably, is what the Dutch law court is seeking to check.

One of the misconceptions that muddle the West’s debate over Islam and free speech is the idea that people should be totally free to insult. Free speech is never that absolute. Even — or perhaps especially — in America, where citizens are protected by the First Amendment, there are certain words and opinions that no civilized person would utter, and others that open the speaker to civil charges.

There is some very muddled thinking going on here. First, no country declared war against Germany because Hitler was a racist, and World War II wasn't a result of Nazi party members reading Mein Kampf. War World II happened because Germany was trying to conquer Europe. If there were groups advocating a war against Germany on the basis of its fascism, they were unsuccessful: the concerns about Nazi ideology definitely took a backseat to concerns about Germany's territorial ambitions, and the suggestion that the war was waged because of the former plays some tricky games with history. Suggesting that those who believe in the Koran are like Nazis is hateful and horrible - but despite what Buruma says, it does not follow that "an all-out war against them would be justified." After all, there are organized neo-fascist and neo-Nazi parties in much of Western Europe, and there has been no military action taken against them. Wilders probably understands this distinction, which is why he has tried to hard to show that Islam necessarily entails violence. He is obviously wrong about that, which is why his opinion will stay on the fringe - but the argument that his likening of the Koran to Mein Kampf is an advocacy of "all-out war" is simply incorrect. 

Secondly, I'm not sure Buruma's interpretation of free-speech laws in the U.S. holds water. He says, "Even — or perhaps especially — in America, where citizens are protected by the First Amendment, there are certain words and opinions that no civilized person would utter, and others that open the speaker to civil charges." Again, this is a terribly muddled sentence. To simplify: in America, citizens have the right to free speech. However, (and this is what I interpret Buruma to mean), there are limits to this:

1. "Certain words and opinions that no civilized person would utter," and

2. "Others that open the speaker to civil charges."

It seems to me that the first type of speech is utterly irrelevant to Buruma's argument. Of course there are limits to what is socially acceptable, but that has nothing to do with what is legal. There are plenty of things that no "civilized" person would say that are said every day, often in mass media outlets. (Michael Savage, anyone?) So it's not clear if Buruma is suggesting that American free speech doesn't include insulting, uncivilized speech, but if he is, he's wrong, and if he isn't, the argument is irrelevant anyway.

When we're discussing the topic of prosecution, the second type of speech is the only type that matters: speech that opens the speaker to civil charges. Buruma says that criticism of religion should be allowed, but that Wilders' "likening the Koran to “Mein Kampf” would not seem to fall into that category." I think it would in the United States. Laws regarding political speech (as opposed to commerical speech) in the United States are very protective of speakers' rights. Attempts to incite "imminent lawless action" are not protected by US free-speech rights, but I don't think Wilders' words, however vile, fit that description. Nor do they amount to "fighting words," words that attempt to incite immediate breaches of the peace. Again, the key idea here is "immediacy," and I don't think Wilders' actions would have caused any legal problems in the United States - though he would certainly (and rightly) be condemned by the American public. 

The relevant case here is Brandenburg v. Ohio, in which the Supreme Court upheld the free speech rights of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had advocated "revengeance" against blacks and Jews and used racial slurs at a KKK rally. The leader had been fined and sentenced to prison for advocating violence, but the Court reversed that conviction and ruled that free speech could not be limited by advocacy of violence or lawlessness in the abstract. 

So, while "even in America" there are certain words that are not protected by freedom of speech, it is very doubtful that Wilders' bile meets that standard. Mr. Wilders is a hateful, sick-minded man who would destroy modern society if he ever got the chance. But it is a sign of modern society's strength that it allows him to spew such hateful things. It shows that we can reject his views without suppressing them - a distinction that would probably escape Wilders, who has advocated banning the Koran. Nonetheless, it is one that free societies should uphold, even when it's tough.

Bigotry and Bad Theology, Courtesy of NRO

But why should I be surprised? It's the Corner!

This really is worth a read: Michael Novak's big thoughts on repealing DOMA and closing Gitmo!

The gem of the piece might be his bile about repealing the "Defense" of Marriage Act:

From these announcements we learn that President Obama recognizes no difference between the Jewish-Christian covenant between a woman and a man (a covenant that they will have and nurture children, if they are so blessed), and a civil contract between two persons of any sex, in order to set up a household of affection and sexual favors.

"A household of affection and sexual favors." Notice that word choice: affection instead of love. The implicit message: Gay people can't feel love - after all, they're lesser than you and I. Anybody who thinks you can separate opposition to marriage inequality from homophobia is deluding themselves. 

Just when you thought Novak's hateful, homophobic, bitter and bigoted dismissal of committed, loving relationships was enough B.S. for one Corner post, he offers us his enlightened views on closing Guantanamo Bay:

We learn, second, that this president’s guiding light in matters of national security is not a realistic assessment of the national interest but personal concern for what kind of figure he is cutting in the international eye. Good headlines first, practical thinking later. 

Naturally! After all, wanting to keep the U.S. in line with international law and international norms, removing a stain on our reputation, depleting a major terrorism recruitment tool of its power - none of those silly things are in our national interest. No one could ever disagree with Michael Novak and still have the best interests of the country at heart. In fact, I would go so far to say that if you don't agree with Michael Novak's far-right take on the world, you don't really love America.

How's that political strategy working out for you, you clueless bigot?

Quote of the Day

"My administration will not deny facts. It will be guided by them." - President Obama, in his statement today before signing more executive orders.

He gets it.

Did You Catch That?

At the bottom of Bill Kristol's column today: This is William Kristol’s last column.

Friends, rejoice! The era of consistently terrible Kristol op-eds and wasted column inches is over! Maybe the NYT can find a conservative who's worth printing now. 

"Most Economic Bang"

Recall E.J. Dionne making this argument 10 days ago and Ramesh Ponnuru responding?

Paul Krugman in today's NYT:

The point is that nobody really believes that a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of public spending. Meanwhile, it’s clear that when it comes to economic stimulus, public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts — and therefore costs less per job created [...] because a large fraction of any tax cut will simply be saved.

Terrorism and Politics

JDR ponders the links between terrorism recruitment, national security, and the Bush administration's illegal policies:

Anyway, the Dearly Departed screech that torture and illegal detentions kept America safe from another 9/11. As the same policies help terrorist organizations recruit and gain support. Also, a couple of huge terrorism magnets called military invasions.

But it would be terribly naive to suggest that reversing these policies necessitates further terrorist attacks... oh, thank you Marc A. Thiessen, former chief speechwriter for Bush, in your WaPo op-ed from today:

"If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation."

It would be even more terrible, however, if the American people hold Obama responsible for any terrorist attacks in the near future. They would surely be the responsibility of the Bush administration; if not even motivated by the Administration's disastrous policies, than for the simple fact that terrorist plots take time, and would have been hatched and developed on their watch.

Politically, the problem is clear: if there were a successful terrorist attack here in the next 4 or 8 years, it could have nothing to do with the reversals of Bush-era policies on Guantanamo, torture, extraordinary renditions, etc. - but it could retard our progress on those matters indefinitely. 

The correlation between illegal torture and detention policies and the absence of another 9/11 could be entirely coincidental - certainly there have been attempts at attacks (and thank God they weren't successful!), but there's no reason to think that those attempts couldn't have been stopped if the USA had been acting lawfully. 

This is what's going to make the re-establishment of the rule of law so difficult: Bush convinced the right (and more than a few people in the middle) that breaking the law is ok if it keeps us safe. In fact, according to their logic, if the administration breaks the law in order to keep America safe, it hasn't broken the law at all. If you're scratching your head, you're not alone. But if you were paying attention over the last eight years, you shouldn't be surprised: this notion is the work of John Yoo, who infamously asserted that if the president needs to crush the testicles of a detainee's child, there is no law that can stop him. (No, I'm not kidding.) This is why Retired Major General Antonio Taguba concluded in 2008 that there was "no doubt" the Bush administration committed war crimes; the only question remaining is why so few people seem to care. 

So - if the next attack comes, which will prove stronger? Our laws or our illusory goal of complete safety? 

This, by the way, seems like a good time to quote the wonderful Sarah Vowell, who, back in 2006, captured perfectly what was so maddening about Bush's approach to this issue:

Whenever I hear the president mention, oh, every 12 minutes, that his greatest responsibility is "to protect the American people," the insufferable civics robot inside my head mutters: "Actually, sir, your oath, the one with the Bible and the chief justice and the Jumbotron, is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. For the American people are not mere flesh whose greatest hope is to keep our personal greasy molecules intact; we, sir, are a body politic — with ideals."