Centerfield

Teachin' Evolution

The school board in the town of Dover, Pennsylvania has voted to require the teaching of Intelligent Design in place of the standard scientific curriculum on evolution.

Bicoastal city slickers are likely to take this as evidence of the low intelligence of middle America (though this town near Gettysburg, is in a blue state). As a matter of fact, however, I am somewhat sympathetic to their views.

The truth is that evolution is a FACT, not a theory. It is confirmed by many independent fields of science, with the addition of evidence from molecular biology in the last half-century being the capstone. My pappy, way back, was an ape.

However, the means by which nature produced evolution are not well-understood, and are often overtaught in science curriculula. In the 1970's, I was taught that the accumulation of slow changes over eons of time was sufficient to explain evolution. Nowadays, this is no longer considered sufficient. An inportant new theory is punctuated equilibrium, whereby long periods of stability are punctuated by rapid changes which occur in response to catastrophic changes in the environment, such as the collision of the Earth with a comet which some believe brought about the end of the dinosaurs. The proposed mechanisms by which the fact of evolution occurred are indeed theories.

I'm not yet persuaded that Intelligent Design will contribute anything positive to science. I doubt scientists will ever get to the point of being stumped, and say, "Yep, God needed to come in with some supernatural magic to give us those trilobites." Whatever did happen will, by definition, have been natural. But ID is right when it tries to make scientists more humble, pointing out problems in current explanations of evolution.

The literal Biblical account has no factual basis and belief in it is purely a matter of faith. It cannot be taught in schools without violating the prohibition on the establishment of religion. For the Biblical account to have occurred, God would have to have created dinosaur fossils in the ground 6000 years ago, and carefullly designed the DNA of various species to that it looked like they had diverged over time. Such a God would have the heart of a forger.

But the intelligence and beauty displayed by nature as it has evolved is such that it remains an open question whether some element of design may be behind it.

Busting The Filibuster

Joe Gandleman has an in-depth post on the prospect of dispending with the filibuster over at The Moderate Voice. The issue can be argued either way. In terms of what may be motivating the GOP to dispense with a rule so formerly beloved by conservatives, it may be that the desire to get anti-Roe judges onto the Supreme Court is seen as a moral imperative.

Pandora's Box: A Teaching Tale

Regarding nuclear proliferation, my simple thesis is that nuclear technology, whether for energy generation or for weapons, is revealingly (although not exclusively)understood through the Pandora's box analogy. The threat of terrorism has led our country to pursue a policy towards nuclear proliferation that relies on controlling some sort of exclusive nuclear club. While this may be wise and necessary over the short term, it strikes me as unrealistic to expect this to be successful over the long term.

If one acknowledges this (that other nations are likely to be able to develop nukes eventually despite our efforts to stop them), it follows that our foreign policy going forward has to begin making the transition from "all stick," and start working in more carrot.

A good friend sent me this story about some kid in Michigan who got pretty close to irradiating his neighborhood, even without malevolent intent.

David learned that a tiny amount of the radioactive isotope americium-241 could be found in smoke detectors. he contacted smoke-detector companies and claimed that he needed a large number for a school project. One company sold him about a hundred broken detectors for a dollar apiece.

Not sure where the americium was located, he wrote to an electronics firm in Illinois. A customer-service representative wrote back to say she'd be happy to help out with "your report." Thanks to her help, David extracted the material. He put the americium inside a hollow block of lead with a tiny hole pricked in one side so that alpha rays would stream out. In front of the block he placed a sheet of aluminum, its atoms absorb alpha rays and kick out neutrons. His neutron gun was ready.

The mantle in gas lanterns, the small cloth pouch over the flame, is coated with a compound containing thorium-232. When bombarded with neutrons it produces uranium-233, which is fissionable. David bought thousands of lantern mantles from surplus stores and blowtorched them into a pile of ash.

I know it's not a new story, but when you look at the details of it, it sure screams Pandora's Box.

Electoral College Stupidity

Digby rebuts Polipundit's mockery of Democratic Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren's proposal to abolish the Electoral College.

I say they're both right. The electoral college is totally stupid, and any intelligent, unbiased person would want to abolish it. However, the Electoral College also gives an approximately 20 electoral vote bonus to the Republican Party, so any biased intelligent person would want to keep it or abolish it depending on their partisan loyalty.

Here's how I get the 20 EV estimate, and correct me if I'm wrong. Kerry won 19 states and DC. Gore won 20 states and DC. So roughly, 20 blue states and 30 red states produce an electoral balance. There are two problematic aspects of the electoral college.

1. The winner take all aspect at the state level can produce results in which the loser in the total votes gains more electoral votes. This is a random effect, but as far as I can tell, it does not favor Republicans or Democrats.

2. There is a bias where states get two electoral votes based on their Senate seats, which are not population related. If the electoral votes based on Senate seats were removed, Democrats would lose 40 EV from the 20 blue states, while Republicans would lose 60EV from the red states. This is the basis of my calculation of a 20 vote bias in favor of the GOP in the electoral college.

Apologists for the electoral college present arguments such as the supposition that rural states would be ignored if it were abolished. In fact, in the 2004 election, we found that the Republicans won because of the close attention they paid to non-urban voters. Swing voters would not be ignored if the electoral college were abolished. Only those areas where the vote was entirely predictable would be ignored--cities like Boston, for instance.

Nonetheless, the Electoral College will not be abolished as long as it provides a 20 point boost to the governing party. The Democrats need to learn how to win within the limits of the Electoral College. If they can reliably win 25 states, the GOP-bias will be neutralized, and both parties might be able to agree to eliminate it.

Mass. Supreme Judicial Court is Republican

By way of updating this post, the Supreme Court of the United States today denied certiorari in--declined to review--the Goodridge decision (establishing a right to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts based on the state constitution) on Guarantee Clause grounds. The order for Largess v. Supreme Judicial Court, No. 04-420, can be found here under Certiorari Denied, in case number order.

Merry, er, Holidays

The New York Post had an opinion piece on a controversy that has arisen in my old high school, which has banned Christmas and Hanukah music from the annual Holiday Concert.

The school district's fine-arts chairman, Nicholas Santoro — claiming to have received complaints over religious music in the schools — has banned true holiday music. Out are Handel, the Jewish hymn "Ma'oz Tzur" and "Joy to the World." In are generic seasonal tunes like "Winter Wonderland" and "Frosty the Snowman." From the sublime to the mediocre.

This is going too far. Unlike the writer of one of the letters to the editor in response to this column, I'm pleased that the seasonal celebrations are increasingly being referred to as Holiday rather than Christmas parties. Not everyone in America in Christian.

But presuming that the choir in the Holiday Concert referred to above will sing more than one song (based on my former membership in the Glee Club, I think it's likely) there is an opportunity to celebrate diversity by recognizing everyone. If the atheists feel unrepresented, let them write a catchy tune, or perhaps request the inclusion of Joe Hill's Pie In The Sky When You Die

The attempt to scrub the public square clean of any religious sentiment is precisely what has inspired the conservative backlash and increased political involvement of the religious right. It is also one of the factors in public hostility to government and the push for privatization. I don't believe the school district's action is required under the First Amendment prohibition of the establishment of religion. If it's not, the district should be sensitive to the entire community, including religious people, and balance community interests instead of coming down on one side.

The Hastert Maxim: 'a majority of the majority'

From the Washington Post:

In scuttling major intelligence legislation that he, the president and most lawmakers supported, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them.

Hastert's position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats' influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution.
...

In a little-noticed speech in the Capitol a year ago, Hastert said one of his principles as speaker is "to please the majority of the majority."

"On occasion, a particular issue might excite a majority made up mostly of the minority," he continued. "Campaign finance is a particularly good example of this phenomenon. The job of speaker is not to expedite legislation that runs counter to the wishes of the majority of his majority."
...
Hastert spokesman John Feehery defended the decision in a recent interview. "He wants to pass bills with his majority," Feehery said. "That's the hallmark of this [Republican] majority. . . . If you pass major bills without the majority of the majority, then you tend not to be a long-term speaker. . . . I think he was prudent to listen to his members."

Some congressional scholars say Hastert is emphasizing one element of his job to the detriment of another. As speaker, said Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, "you are the party leader, but you are ratified by the whole House. You are a constitutional officer," in line for the presidency after the vice president. At crucial times, he said, a speaker must put the House ahead of his party.
...
Hastert's "majority of the majority" maxim, Ornstein said, "is a disastrous recipe for tackling domestic issues such as entitlement programs, the deficit and things like that."

Thus more consideration is given to those casting the votes than to the vote count -- hardly majoritarian, is it?

The framers of the Constitution did not anticipate the rise of political parties on the national scene, but even if they did, does anyone think they would approve this practice?

(also posted to CivcDialogues.org)

Bringing Home the Bacon

This might be the season for “gobble gobble,” but the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste are crying “Oink Oink!” According to the CCAGW, “While lawmakers and President Bush lauded the omnibus for holding domestic spending, excluding defense and foreign aid, members of Congress showed no restraint in their hunger for pork-barrel projects.” Funded projects cited include:

$3.5 million for bus acquisition in Atlanta, Ga.; $2 million for kitchen relocation in Fairbanks North Star Borough in Fairbanks, Alaska; $1.5 million for a demonstration project to transport naturally chilled water from Lake Ontario to Lake Onondaga; $500,000 for the Kincaid Park Soccer and Nordic Ski Center in Anchorage, Alaska; $250,000 for the Country Music Hall of Fame in Nashville, Tenn.; $200,000 for Fenton Street Village pedestrian linkages in Montgomery Co., Md.; $100,000 for a municipal swimming pool in Ottawa, Kan.; $80,000 for the San Diego Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center; $75,000 for the Paper Industry International Hall of Fame in Appleton, Wis.; $35,000 for the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame; and $25,000 for fitness equipment for the YMCA in Bradford County, Pa.

It's certainly true that our Congress Critters prefer that “other white meat,” but a quick look at this list begs the question: Why aren't these projects funded at the state and/or local level?

One good reason could be that pork is usually considered by voters to be any federal spending on local projects for a locality that isn't your own. If it's in your locality, it isn't pork, it's necessary funding. YourCongress.com lists as the number one reason why pork persists “Far more people love it than hate it.”

Members of Congress will support projects that are popular because they want to get re-elected. After securing a project, members are usually showered with thanks from local people, increasing their desire to secure another project. Giving people what they want is usually a good thing, and Members of Congress intrinsically know when something has produced votes.

Bottom line: There are far more votes in securing projects than there are people who oppose it. The same guy who says he hates pork barrel spending will be happy as a clam when the bridge that he drives on everyday is fixed. To him, it's not pork - it's about time.

This begs the next question: Why is it so difficult to get these projects funded locally? YourCongress.com gives these two possible reasons:

Many communities, particularly in rural areas, have to depend on their governor to help get projects funded. Many governors relish playing hardball politics - often moreso than federal politicians. Why should a small community go without just because the governor doesn't like their mayor?
…
In many cases, the state department of transportation is a tougher nut to crack than any politician. Many communities have to depend on their state transportation bureaucrats to get projects completed. Any unelected bureaucracy is much more likely to be less responsive than one that has to answer to an election.

President Bush, when asked about the pork embedded in the omnibus appropriations bill he is scheduled to sign, responded with

…obviously, there's going to be things in these big bills that I don't particularly care for, and that's why I've asked Congress to give me a line-item veto. And the only way a President can affect that which is inside the bill, other than vetoing the entire bill, is to be able to pick out parts of a bill and express displeasure about it through a line-item veto. I hope the Congress will give me a line-item veto.

I've been in favor of Presidential line-item veto for some time now, but I just don't see Congress giving up its love of pork all that easily. For now, the only hope I see for pork barrel spending is to make sure the public hears about it. Especially pork that's mostly fat. It's one thing to provide federal funds for local projects that are needed and necessary, but hung up on the local level. Look at that list again. Just how necessary are those projects? Why should they receive any public funding, either local or federal? If our Congress Critters feel that their electibility hinges on getting funds for these types of projects, are they really worth reelecting?

Bush To Paisley

For the first time since the election, President Bush has done something which earns my praise, and that is intervening personally to keep the Northern Ireland peace process on track.

Centrist Searches Added

If you look at the second box in the left column, you'll see some one-click searches. I've added a new one to search Feedster for blogs which mention the word "centrist." I just clicked it, and found this sick weirdo who writes:

It’s no secret I’m a big fan of Senator Liberman’s. I sometimes wish all the Centrists would get together and form their own damn party. I know I’d sign up. Glad to see Senator Snowe is in there as well. She’s pretty awesome, too.

Open Thread

What's on your mind? Nothing is off-topic.

Knowing the Enemy

James Dao has this article in this morning's New York Times, detailing the organizational brilliance of Mr. Phil Burress of Cincinatti, Ohio. Some excerpts:

Mr. Burress's organization gathered 575,000 signatures to put the Ohio measure [banning same-sex marriage] on the ballot in fewer than 90 days, then helped turn out thousands of conservative voters on Election Day. Their support is widely viewed as having been crucial to President Bush's narrow victory in that swing state.

Just days after their thundering victories in the fall elections, Mr. Burress and other Christian conservative leaders met in Washington to discuss next year's constitutional amendment battles, which will focus on about 10 states, including Arizona, Florida and Kansas. They hope those fights will be the prelude to their real goal: amending the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, which could take years.

Beyond that, Mr. Burress plans to take his grass-roots movement in Ohio to a new level, using a computer database of 1.5 million voters to build a network of Christian conservative officials, candidates and political advocates.

He envisions holding town-hall-style meetings early next year in Ohio's 88 counties to identify issues, recruit organizers and train volunteers. With a cadre of 15 to 20 leaders in each county, he says he believes religious conservatives can be running school boards, town councils and county prosecutors' offices across the state within a few years.

"I'm building an army," Mr. Burress said. "We can't just let people go back to the pews and go to sleep."

That's our competition. We're already behind.

Poverty Distribution Across The USA

There are some interesting maps at Hear The Issues. One that catches my eye is the map showing the percent of a couty's population living in poverty. From the map, it appears that the higher poverty areas are almost all in the red states. Is this an artifact of varying levels of purchasing power in different parts of the country? Or it is a real phenomenon? If the latter, why is it that the candidates from the wealthier states talk more about alleviating poverty, while there is less interest in such programs where actual poverty exists? Perhaps it's also a matter of urban poverty being more visible than rural poverty.

Once again, though, I'm questioning the way the Democratic Party puts together its political platform. There seems to be a disconnect between its self-image as the party of the poor and working class and the actual sources of where it gets its support. The Republican Party has been transformed in the last 30 years, and knows it. The Democrats have been transformed too, but they have yet to figure out who they are.

Multinationalism: Something Else the Civil War Did

It recently occurred to me that one effect of the Civil War was the creation of a new thing here in the US, the multinational republic (there was a source of inspiration involving a civ-style game with a novel government type, the Multinational Republic, and I realized that that's what we have now).

Most historians agree that the U.S. self-view changed after the Civil War. Before, people regarded themselves primarly as Virginians, Marylanders, New Yorkers, Texans, etc., people living in states making up a Union. Sympathies rested with residents of one's own state before residents of the rest of the United States. Afterwards, as now, people started to regard themselves as being "Americans."

So what new mental magic does this represent? Well, it allows people to act as though they lived both in different nationalities and in the same nation. One of several reasons for the Civil War was the tension between Northern and Southern cultures, rather reminiscent of tension between other nations, as it included differences between morals (slavery!) and ways of life, mutual distrust of the other guys' leaders, recriminations on editorial pages, violence, even different dialects. The Civil War decided the answer to how differences between nationalities would be played out. The South's answer was, by calling it splits. Lincoln's winning answer was, along the federalized lines of political and legal conflict laid down by the Constitution and the Federal Government.

Today, anybody who has spent much time in both New York and Texas will see that the U.S. remains a country of vastly different cultures. Surely the differences are about as profound as those between, say France and Belgium. Nobody argues that France and Belgium are really the same nationality. But NY and TX are both part of the same nation. Some magic is present here to reconcile this contradiction (and increasingly similarly present in the EU with respect to France and Belgium).

So what is this magic? Well, we have mentally separated usual nationality and cultural identity ideas from actual nationhood. It was implicit in the Constitution that differences between states and sections will usually be settled through the ballot-box, the courts, and lots of hollering. Custom has long ratified this. But the writers of the Constitution knew rebellions happened, and took that into account in their plans. What has happened since the Civil War is that armed rebellion is out of the plan. A large majority of American citizens have accepted that cultural and ideological conflicts shall not be settled by violence, but by governmental mechanisms and the institutionalized revolution of the ballot box.

Each U.S. culture - what might be a nationality elsewhere - has, by and large, accepted this idea. BBQ vs. a sub sammich ain't worth fightin' over. Unless it's damned fine BBQ, of course.

In fact, with the accession of Puerto Rico to self-government and the huge Latino immigration wave that started in the 50s, the United States is now no longer linguistically united even in the cross-dialect sense that obtains between New York and Texas. This has been only a minor challenge to U.S. self-identity or operation, since the mental structure needed to integrate Latino cultures (or Chinese or Thai or Japanese or...) was laid down back in the Late Southern Nastiness.

Of course, the multinational republic wasn't a complete innovation. The Roman Empire and Ottoman Empires both incorporated subject nationalities with full citizenship (but in empires lacking the vote, so their power was limited to being in the Imperial elites) (in an odd sense, the Greeks won over the Romans in the end). The big novelty was that it was spinning out in a democracy, where citizens of multiple cultures can vote and eventually outvote the original power (like the Southern part of President Bush' coalition).

The Austria-Hungarian Empire is another famous example of an explicitly multinational government. Austria and Hungary were, in the nineteenth century, formally coequals governing over several nationalities, although Austria was more equal than Hungary.

It's probably no coincidence that slavery acquired such burning dimensions just when the telegraph and railroad brought much tighter connectivity. The telegraph brought nationwide next-day distribution of news stories stories by the 1840s, probably making feasible dueling editorials and pamphlets between North and South (See Gotham, by Burrows and Wallace, Ch 39, "Manhattan, Ink."). When the country was founded, getting out of your home state and especially region was difficult and probably relatively rare. News went no faster than people. Northerners heard and saw much less about goings-on down South, and vice versa.

As U.S. Grant said:

The civilized nations of Europe have been stimulated into unusual activity, so that commerce, trade, travel, and thorough acquaintance among people of different nationalities, have become common; whereas, before, it was but the few who had ever had the privilege of going beyond the limits of their own country or who knew anything about other people.

Many nations part of empires acquired their first newspapers around this time as well, allowing a 'native' voice for the first time. This was the seed of multiethnic trouble, explicit multiethnicism in the underlying theories of imperial rule, and eventual widespread rebellion.

So maybe it really is a red nation and a blue nation.... Well, just temporarily - soon it'll settle back down into the more usual quasi-regionalisms. Although, with modern mobility rates and the spread of culture through the Internet, just who belongs to which culture is less and less decided by geography, and more and more by personal experience.

Thanksgiving Thoughts

On this day before Thanksgiving, I want to express my unconditional gratitude to the military men and women serving this country. Afghanistan, Iraq, and everywhere else.

This is not intended as a "you either support the troops or you don't" thread. Everyone supports the troops, and we each attempt to do so in our own imperfect ways.

I offer this as a "Thanksgiving Thoughts" open thread.

Where Voters Grow

According to an article by Ronald Brownstein and Richard Rainey in the LA Times,

President Bush carried 97 of the nation's 100 fastest-growing counties, most of them "exurban" communities that are rapidly transforming farmland into subdivisions and shopping malls on the periphery of major metropolitan areas.

The unanswered question is whether this just represents displacement of Republican voters, or if moving away from the city changes people, and makes them more Republican. Many of these growing counties are bedroom communities for road warriors who commute long distances in order to be able to afford homes for their growing families. This does bode well for the Republicans in the future.

Personally, I love to live near the coffeehouses and bookstores of major academic centers. I would not want to live in the exurbs. I also like my car, which is why I live in an inner-ring suburb. Where do you live--in the city, suburbs, exurbs, or the country? What do you like about it?

Balancing Principles With Winning

If the article cited by MWS below will warm Carla's heart, this one might cool it off (Carla, I like you. We just disagree on strategy).

Paul Starr in the liberal The American Prospect argues that Democrats have stood on principle for too long, and need to focus on winning.

Most liberals don’t want to hear the message that these voters and others in the red states are sending. But in a democracy, you can only make so many enemies until you can no longer do any good for the people who depend on you. Liberals need to decide what is central to the great moral achievements of the past half-century—and what isn’t. Going down to perpetual defeat isn’t a moral choice.

Ah, but are things that bad? Yes, writes Starr

During the fall campaign, many people said that this election was “the most important of our lives.” It was, and when the Democrats lost it, an era came to a close. George W. Bush’s 51 percent of the vote may seem too slim a margin to produce conservative hegemony, and ordinarily it wouldn’t have that effect -- except that Republicans have now consolidated control of the government. The Democrats’ prospects for regaining a congressional majority are dismal. The party has lost not just the Deep South but also such border states as Tennessee and West Virginia, not to mention the Mountain States and the Plains. And, as the Texas redistricting showed, domination is self-reinforcing.

Is it so bad to listen to the voters and give them what they want? That sounds to me like representative democracy.

Kerry Should Have Won?

This article in the New York Times is likely to warm Carla's heart.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/national/23poll.html?oref=login

The gist is that, according to the NYT poll (yes, I know, can't be trusted) Americans have doubts about Bush's agenda and continue to be unhappy with his handling of Iraq and the economy.

Yet people are still optimistic about the next four years under Bush.

What is interesting in light of the stories I posted last night is the part about moral values:

The poll also found pervasive concern about what Americans view as the corrosive effect Hollywood and popular culture have on the nation's values and moral standards. Seventy percent said they were very or somewhat concerned that television, movies and popular music were lowering moral standards in this country.

So at the same time that people say they don't like what is on TV or in the movies, the studios continue to pour out sex and violence because this is what sells. Is there some cognitive dissonance here?

The poll was also interesting in what it said about polarization in the country:

While this sentiment was voiced by supporters of Mr. Bush and of Mr. Kerry, it appears that the concern about a decline in values is becoming another point of polarization in American politics. Mr. Bush's supporters were more likely to cite it than were Mr. Kerry's voters, and it was an issue that had particular resonance in the South and among weekly churchgoers, rural voters and women.

The poll found that 55 percent of Mr. Kerry's supporters said that Mr. Bush's supporters did not share their views and morals; 54 percent of Mr. Bush's voters said the same thing of those who voted for Mr. Kerry.

In addition, 70 percent of Mr. Kerry's supporters said they were more worried about candidates who "are too close to religion and religious leaders" than about political leaders who "don't pay enough attention" to religion, after a campaign in which Mr. Bush repeatedly spoke of God and his faith. By contrast, 52 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters said they were more worried about public officials who "don't pay enough attention to religion and religious leaders."

I suspect a lot of this divergence is more about perception than reality. People assume that those supporting the other candidate don't share their values. Even though this is probably not true, I find it disturbing that people hold such sterotypical views about their fellow countrymen.

The poll suggests that people are not particularly supportive of tax cuts and social security privatization, are against amending the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage and are largely in favor of the graduated income tax.

Here is the key:

"Across the board, the poll suggested that the outcome of the election reflected a determination by Americans that they trusted Mr. Bush more to protect them against future terrorist attacks - and that they liked him more than Mr. Kerry - rather than any kind of broad affirmation of his policies. As such, the result was reminiscent of the state of play Ronald Reagan found in 1980, when he defeated President Jimmy Carter."

So it seems that people simply did not trust Kerry on foreign policy. And that is always going to be a problem for the Democrats as long as foreign policy is an important issue.

It appears that the campaign actually helped the Democrats in the long run even though they lost the election:

Finally, in one bit of presumably good news for a party that is looking for it, Americans now have a better opinion of the Democratic Party than of the Republican Party: 54 percent said they had a favorable view of Democrats, compared with 39 percent with an unfavorable view. By contrast, 49 percent have a favorable view of Republicans, compared with 46 percent holding an unfavorable one.

It's not that unusual that Bush is more popular than his policies. This has been true of a number of presidents, including FDR, who were able to connect personally with the electorate even though their policies weren't that popular.

Conservatives like courtrooms too

Although Rick pointed out in his post here the damage done to Democrats by constitutional litigation attributed to them (rightly or not), liberal-side litigation isn't the only litigation out there.

By way of example, James J. Kilpatrick mentions here that conservatives are challenging the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Goodridge v. Dep't of Public Health (a/k/a "the gay marriage case") before the Supreme Court of the United States. "But wait!" you cry. "Goodridge was decided on state law! Surely there's no federal question!" Well, that would be a well-grounded assumption, but the conservatives are re-opening the Guarantee Clause door.

For those fortunate enough to have escaped law school and Constitutional Law, the Guarantee Clause is housed in Article IV, Sec. 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government. . . ." Now, long, long ago, in a place far, far away, the Supreme Court of the United States determined in Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (1849) that the Guarantee Clause is largely non-justiciable--that the political branches of government are obliged to enforce it, not the courts. Nevertheless, conservatives would like the Court to find that the Supreme Judicial Court usurped the role of the Mass. General Assembly, thereby unconstitutionally undermining republican government.

This is not an isolated incident--well, at least it may not be soon. Adam Liptak at the NY Times suggests in this article about the new law school at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University that newly minted socially conservative lawyers may be coached into challenging Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). Without turning this into an inside joke for lawyers, Erie, another bedrock case, generally established that federal courts have to use state law in diversity jurisdiction cases. I bring this up only to point out the conflict between federalist conservatives and social conservatives--the former would prefer reliance on state law.

For those of us who take great comfort in the legal principle of stare decisis and the reliability and stability of law in our country, this emerging trend would not be overly troubling if not for the disregard some of the president's potential SCOTUS picks have for stare decisis. For more, check Jeffrey Rosen's piece in The New Republic on strict constructionism here

The Italians Look for the Exit

Italy's Berlusconi says euro strangling economy

Berlusconi said the [tax] cuts were needed to revive a lethargic economy, but stressed the strength of the euro currency was also weighing heavily and called on his EU partners to revise the Maastricht Treaty on which the stability pact is based.

"The blessed introduction of the single European currency has thus far produced the exact opposite result of what the euro was created for -- an asphyxiated economy and hobbled growth under the burden of 'stupid' ties," Berlusconi wrote.

"In Europe there is an extremely strong drive to review aspects of the rigid ties of the Maastricht Treaty, those perverse factors that have increased the value of our currency above what is necessary and artificially penalised the competitiveness of our industries and our services," he added.

Berlusconi has broken ranks with Chirac and Schroeder and is saying in public what the French and the Germans are loathe to admit--that the tight money policies of the EU combined with the social welfare state of some member nations are strangling the European economies, and that reform is desperately needed. The Euro has brought intra-European economic "stability," but at the cost of zero economic growth and high unemployment. The result is that some nations are effectively subsidizing the socialist welfare structures of wealthier nations, all are paying with endemic borderline recession, and Italy wants out.

MoveOn's Next Move

You got to hand it to MoveOn.org. Despite a record of electoral losses, they run an efficient ship. They've already held a round of post-election house parties to identify new priorities.

In the preliminary results of the instant polling, some 200 house parties voted for election reform, with the war in Iraq coming in a close second at 170 votes. This pleased the organizers, since they're already circulating a petition calling on Congress to "investigate the integrity of the voting process in the 2004 election." I can't help wondering if "election reform" qualifies as one of those "few issues we can easily sell to voters in the Midwest" that one participant called for earlier. The house parties voted, with an overwhelming 428 votes, for "crafting a clear progressive message," as the best strategy for achieving MoveOn's goal. (Apparently, almost no one thinks a "move to the center" would be a good idea.)

Electoral reform sounds like a good idea to me, but even if it does succeed, it's not clear to me it would result in Democrats getting elected. It also smacks of denial--we can't really be in the minority, it must be electoral fraud.

Are Religious Conservatives Overreaching?

Here are a couple of stories that, taken together, I think reflect, first, how difficult it is to get a handle on this country politically and, second, how easy it is for partisans to overestimate their power. The first article, in the New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/22/business/media/22tube.html notes that, despite the supposed "values voting" in the election, the shows that draw the highest ratings are the steamiest, most violent (e.g. "Desperate Housewives"). And it's not even really related to geography:

In interviews, representatives of the four big broadcast networks as well as Hollywood production studios said the nightly television ratings bore little relation to the message apparently sent by a significant percentage of voters.

The choices of viewers, whether in Los Angeles or Salt Lake City, New York or Birmingham, Ala., are remarkably similar. And that means the election will have little impact on which shows they decide to put on television, these executives say.

However, the article does note that some shows do better in different areas and that seems to be related to how conservative or liberal the areas are. Still, the difference is not as great as one my expect.

The other article is a Washington Post piece, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2472-2004Nov21.html that discusses the reaction of conservative Christian groups to the recent movie "Kinsey" about the life of the sex researcher. These groups are up in arms, all but calling Kinsey a pedophile.

Here is what I find amusing in a way and yet disturbing at the same time:

Robert Knight, director of the conservative Culture and Family Institute in Washington, said evangelical Christian and Roman Catholic groups also want to bring to bear the political clout they demonstrated in the presidential election.

"Just as Reagan was not content to contain communism but announced a rollback, pro-family organizations are not content to protest the latest outrage anymore, but will seek legislation and will punish sponsors of lewd entertainment," he said.

It's disturbing, first that conservatives decrying the intrusion of government into our lives are quite willing, apparently, to have government decide what adults can pay to watch. Of course, Christian conservatives are not libertarians and I suspect (and hope) that a lot of conservatives would not agree with what seems to be a call for censorship.

But it's also amusing in a way in light of the recent setbacks that conservative Christians have suffered in recent days (Specter receiving Judiciary chair--albeit after he made proper obeisance to the right), Alberto Gonzales (not a favorite of conservatives) as AG, and Margaret Spelling (also not a favorite of conservatives) to Education. Yet, these conservative Christians seem to thing they can call the shots. I suspect that (or at least hope) that, like a lot of groups that like to claim credit for winning an election, they are going to find that, at least for things like this, the message will be "thanks for your help, don't let the door hit you on the way out." Maybe that's wishful thinking, but I suspect that there is some overreaching going on. The country is much too diverse and complicated to reduce it to slogans, such as "it voted for values." In reality, who really knows what the election meant? Obviously, a significant number of people are concerned about some social issues, but does this extend to taking away their right to watch steamy TV shows or, especially, movies?

My guess is that if the religious conservatives think they have things in the bag, they are in for a rude awakening.

Good News From Iraq

Once again, Chrenkoff fills in the blanks.

Beyond Fallujah: A roundup of the past two weeks' good news from Iraq.

Court-Driven Activism Backfires

I found wisdom in this op-ed by David von Drehle

Half a century after the triumph of Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark desegregation case, reliance on constitutional lawsuits to achieve policy goals has become a wasting addiction among American progressives. The recent battle over gay marriage, in courts and at the ballot box, demonstrates that liberals today are more adept at persuading like-minded judges than they are at persuading undecided voters. Over the past 40 years, while progressives were winning dozens of controversial court cases on issues ranging from abortion to school prayer, the Democratic Party failed nine times out of 10 to win a majority of the votes for president. Over time, though, voters matter -- just as they mattered on Nov. 2, when liberalism took another beating -- and gay marriage was rejected in 11 out of 11 state elections.

Here's one suggestion: Drop the court challenges to the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. It didn't help that Kerry's religion advisor was one of the ministers who supported the challenge. In the event that secularists were to win, it would only add to the backlash.

House Republicans Snub Bush

Coming less than three weeks after Bush's reelection, I find this particularly remarkable.

House Republican leaders blocked and appeared to kill a bill Saturday that would have enacted the major recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, refusing to allow a vote on the legislation despite last-minute pleas from both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to Republican lawmakers for a compromise before Congress adjourned for the year.

Kerry in 2008

It appears to me that Kerry has all but declared himself a candidate for president in 2008. Within a week of the election, he sent his brother out to raise the possibility. Just two days ago Kerry himself said "I’m not shutting any doors” and “If there’s a next time, we’ll do a better job".

Now this. One of the major attacks on Kerry during the campaign was that, in 20 years, he did not put his personal stamp on the Senate or any legislation. It appears that he may look to address that issue immediately. Here is an excerpt from a leaked draft of a statement from Kerry.

And we must fight not only against George Bush's extreme policies -- we must also uphold our own values. This is why on the first day Congress is in session next year, I will introduce a bill to provide every child in America with health insurance. And, with your help, that legislation will be accompanied by the support of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Personally, I like all of this. Kerry is not pouting. He is picking himself up, dusting himself off, and saying "I'm back in the game."

The Decline Of The Left

A British Guardian writer traces the decline of the left to the withering of working class movements.

The collapse of the labour movement is not just a British phenomenon, but one shared with much of Europe. There are two underlying reasons for its demise. The first is the loss of agency, the decline of the industrial working class and its consequent erosion as a meaningful and effective political force. It was the working class - in terms of workplace, community, unions and party - that invented and gave expression to the labour movement. The second reason is the collapse of communism. Of course, the mainstream labour movement in this country never subscribed to its tenets, but both the social democratic and communist traditions shared, in different ways, the vision of a better society based on collectivist principles. It is that vision that was buried with the interment of communism. For over a century, European politics was defined by the struggle between capitalism and socialism: suddenly, capitalism became the only show in town, both in Europe and globally. The result was the rapid deconstruction of the left such that it now exists as but a rump of its former self - not just in Britain, or Europe, but everywhere.

Certainly, the decline of the Democrats in the US has something to do with the loss of working class voters. If they can't get them back, they need to tap another reservoir of votes.

Purple America

This is a pretty cool little map that Professor Robert Vanderbei at Princeton University created. It depicts county by county results of the 2004 presidential election. Each county's color is an RBG mix in porportion to the election results for that county. This map is much less red than the one on the TV on election night.

Naming names

I'm working on updating Centrist Coalition's "Candidate Profiles" list. I've got a list of several senators and several governors that I need to draft profiles for, but this list is pretty thin on U.S. representatives and state political figures.

So, how about it? Do you all have any U.S. representatives that you think are marvelous centrists that you think we should profile? What about politicians at your individual state levels? Can I get some names out of you? And if you're a Plains Stater, a Mountain Stater, a Texan, an Alaskan, or a Hawaiian, I'd doubly love to hear from you!

Open Thread

What's on your mind? Nothing is off-topic

Tigua Casino Scandal

If you admire creative ways to be evil, this is admirable

The Washington Post previously reported that Abramoff and Scanlon quietly worked with conservative religious activist Ralph Reed to help persuade the state of Texas to shut down the Tigua casino in 2002, then persuaded the tribe to pay the $4.2 million to try to get Congress to reopen it.

As they had in September, committee members struggled to express their disdain for the way the pair treated the tribes, with Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) branding their efforts "incredibly, deeply cynical." Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is leading the investigation, vowed to pursue it wherever it leads -- a path that increasingly is heading into the halls of Congress.

Et tu, Arlen?

Buried halfway through this press release from the office of Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., today is the statement:

I have already registered my opposition to the Democrats’ filibusters with 17 floor statements and will use my best efforts to stop any future filibusters. It is my hope and expectation that we can avoid future filibusters and judicial gridlock with a 55-45 Republican majority and election results demonstrating voter dissatisfaction with Democratic filibusters. If a rule change is necessary to avoid filibusters, there are relevant recent precedents to secure rule changes with 51 votes.

If his Judiciary Committee chairmanship bought his support for the "nuclear option," it was a cheap thirteen pieces of silver indeed.

I hope the McCain-Snowe-Collins-Chaffee-Smith(?)-Gregg(?) block can hold together and defeat the rule challenge. They'll need all six now, with Specter surrendering his opposition to avoid a 50-50 tie, which Vice President Cheney could break. With McCain, Collins, and Gregg each holding A-list committee chairmanships themselves (Commerce, Govermental Affairs, and Health, Education, and Labor, respectively), one wonders if they dare to buck the conference.

While it may be immoderate to preserve the possibility of filibustering nominees, I have little doubt that a qualified, centrist nominee would not be threatened with a filibuster at all. The Democrats, trading with significantly diminished political capital, can only afford to filibuster the worst of the worst anyway; but, that's a necessary check on right-wing ideology.

President Mark Warner?

Steve thinks so. He has created this blog to rally support for the millionaire/business leader turned Virginia Governor.

I will say this... The Democrats could do a lot worse than Warner. He is a pro-gun, social moderate, pro-business Democrat who recently has boasted about a gain of 11,000 new jobs in his state with an average income of $76,000 per year. The Governor's biggest accomplishment to date is his backing, and eventual signing, of a tax reform package supported by Democrats, many Republicans, and Virginia business leaders. The legislation was hailed nationally as an act of common sense moderation that reformed an archaic and regressive tax system responsible for hurting Virginia's ability to invest in infrastructure and grow the economy.

Can Warner do for Democrats nationally what he did in Virginia... win back Southern, Conservative rural votes? Governor Warner is not only a candidate Democrats can get behind, but centrists also... This is one moderate Republican Virginian, who is at least intrigued by the idea.

With Spellings Nomination, Bush Angers Conservatives

From Redstate:

"Margaret Spellings = Worst Bush Nominee Yet

For sometime, Spellings has been one of the least public yet most powerful White House officials behind the scenes. She's been with Bush as a domestic policy wonk since his years as Governor - before that, she was the chief lobbyist for the Texas Association of School Boards. In Washington, she's expanded her portfolio to be an advisor on everything from the President's stem cell decision to the No Child Left Behind bill to immigration policy - and on every count, she's known to have worked to water down conservative views. She's literally laughed at the idea that we ought to focus on enforcement of our immigration laws, and she holds much of the blame for the Administration's horrid stance on Title IX.

Throughout her career, Spellings has established her credentials as a pro-abortion liberal Republican who accepts all of the notions of leftist feminist values when it comes to the traditional family and the parental role in education...

Needless to say, I wish Rod Paige had hung around."

From the Washington Post:

"Some conservatives, such as Reagan education secretary William J. Bennett, have expressed disappointment at her appointment, on the grounds that she is too pragmatic and insufficiently committed to such ideas as school choice. 'The emphasis will be on standards and accountability rather than choice-based reform,' said Frederick M. Hess, an education expert at the American Enterprise Institute.

Spellings became the subject of conservative sniping soon after moving to Washington after she was asked on C-SPAN to react to census data showing a decline in the traditional family. 'So what?' she replied, noting that there were 'lots of different types of family' and that she herself was 'a single mom.'

During her early weeks at the White House, Spellings commuted to Austin on weekends so she could see her children, Mary and Grace, then ages 13 and 8, who remained at school in Texas, living with their father. She later enrolled them at public schools in Fairfax County but moved her older daughter to a Catholic parochial school.

In a 2001 interview with the Dallas Morning News, Spellings described herself as 'an earth-mother type of Republican.'"

I think the Spellings nomination ought to debunk the theory that Bush is a puppet for the right wing, a little bit at least.

Beyond the ideological debate Bush's pick for Education is interesting because it is the development of a pattern. This President is appointing people that are close and loyal to him even more so than in the first term. All three so far (Rice, Gonzalez, and Spellings) have come from within the White House and have been close to Bush since before his time as Texas Governor.

I think it could be said that this President may have more control over the Federal government this time around than any other throughout history. Some would argue that it isn't a good thing that there is nobody left in the inside to question the policies of the administration, but their ability to get things done, at least within the bureaucracy, will be remarkable.

A Backbone in the Moderate Republican Caucus

According to this article in the Chicago Tribune, Rep. Mark Kirk is the new co-chair of the House Republican Mainstream Tuesday Group, a group of 35 moderate Republicans in the House.

To get a sense for their level of determination, consider what they did in the voice vote yesterday over the rules change that helped Delay. Kirk and Shays seem to have organized quite a little rebellion.

Kirk is among the boldest of the centrists. He's quite conservative on economic and fiscal issues, from taxes to trade to Social Security reform. He also favored the Iraq war and the reconstruction funds.

On the other hand, he's strongly pro-choice and co-sponsored the effort to outlaw employment discrimination against gays. And he supported campaign finance reform.

He is the very model of a bold centrist, with distinct policy preferences and a determination to see them enacted. Now he's helping corral the troops in the House. Awesome.

An Excellent Take on the Cultural Split

Dean Esmay has an excellent piece this morning on the cultural split between liberals and conservatives that's well worth reading. Growing up spending equal time between rural Texas and urban Chicago gives him a rather unique perspective on the differences. It might also explain why it is that his political viewpoint is now fairly moderate.

I can relate to that. I was raised by fundamentally religious, conservative parents in a culturally liberal state. Those two conflicting factors influenced me in different ways, but also allowed me to appreciate the value of different points of view.

Senate GOP Changes Rules Too

Although not quite as alarming as the House GOP Conference rule change to protect Tom DeLay, R-Tex., as discussed on this thread, the Senate GOP Conference also changed its rules. As the Hill reports, the Senate has changed its rules to allow the party leader to fill half the vacancies on the A-list committees. Under current rules, the vacancies are filled by seniority (as the other half of the vacancies would continue to be under the new rule). This amendment was adopted in lieu of a more modest proposal to allow the leader to appoint two vacancies.

The new rule will allow the leader to enforce greater party discipline.

Coulter Speaks For America

In the past, I've been loathe to take seriously the journalism of Ann Coulter. However, were I a Europe-based analyst trying to understand the intentions of the government of the United States, I would conclude that Coulter is a more reliable, semi-official voice of the government than the so-called paper of record, the New York Times. Here, therefore, is Coulter's analysis of the election.

Using classical Marxist thinking, liberals can't fathom how issues like abortion and gay marriage could trump ordinary people's economic interests -– which liberals axiomatically assume are furthered by the Democrats' offers of government assistance. Democrats are saying to voters: How can you be so stupid to subordinate your own selfish economic interests to "moral values," the betterment of the country and the general welfare of people you don't even know?

Setting aside the implied red-baiting, Coutler is actually right. The United States is an affluent country, and most Americans, including its working class, are well-enough off that economic issues are not the primary determinant of their political choices. That's certainly true of the affluent professionals in the Democratic Party who support social welfare programs. It's also true of less affluent voters who support the Republican party. Neither are stupid. They've just voting their values.

Voter turnout

Here is the final tally from Minnesota.

This year's turnout represented 77.72 percent of the estimated population of eligible voters, tops in the nation -- and well ahead of second-place Wisconsin's 73.7 percent -- but short of the Minnesota high of 83.15 percent achieved in 1956, when 1.6 million people voted. The only other higher showing since records were first kept in 1950 was 79.39 percent in 1960. . .

Same-day registrations at the polls totaled 581,904, 20.57 percent of all voters and more than 117,000 greater than the previous high in 2000. On a percentage basis, that was exceeded only in 1980 and 1976. Same-day registration began in Minnesota in 1974.

If there is a good argument why there should not be same-day registration, I have not heard it. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, only six states allow it.

This was our second election at our current address. This year, when we went to the polls, I was on the voter roll, but my wife was inexplicably absent. She had been looking forward to casting her vote this year for a long time, and same day registration saved the election judges at that polling place from having a very bad day.

No Better Luck Next Time

Despite the tradition that the party that is out of power does well in the mid-term elections, the prospect of Democrats gaining control of the Senate in 2006 is a longshot.

Of the 17 Dem incumbents up for reelection in two years, eight are first-term senators, who lack some of the advantages that accrue to entrenched incumbency. Of those eight, the ones that should face real Republican challenges are Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota (Representative Mark Kennedy is itching to take him on); Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington (the challenger will likely be current gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi, if he loses the protracted vote count still underway in that race); and, as Duffy likes to call them, “the Nelsons -- Ben and Bill,” of Nebraska and Florida, respectively. Senator Ben Nelson will likely face a challenge from Nebraska’s popular governor, Mike Johanns. Senator Bill Nelson has slightly less reason to worry, particularly if the Republicans nominate Representative Katherine Harris to take him on. But the Florida GOP has become a force to be reckoned with, and they don’t lack for viable potential challengers.

Among the 15 GOP incumbents, it’s tough to name a single particularly vulnerable candidate residing in a red state; Virginia’s George Allen might be one if, and only if, Governor Mark Warner decides to challenge him.

Sounds like Democrats need to drive through flyover country in order to rebuild. Here's a question: Will the trend toward nationalizing congressional elections continue? I think so. It's a consequence of polarization. If so, what should the Democrats promise as a "contract with the USA?"

Update: Historian Robert "KC" Johnson argues that Democrats won't win back Congress for a long time. Orrin Judd points out

That George Bush won 30 states even in his losing effort in 2000 suggests that the GOP's natural base level is 60 Senate seats.

The Senate is a case where the Republican's strong advantage in willing "real estate" makes a difference. The electoral college is also weighted slightly toward real estate, because each state starts with two electoral votes corresponding to its senators. It's a bias in our political system, but a party representing urban America can't just keep up with a party representing non-urban America; it has to win more votes in order to have an equal chance to govern.

Hyper-X!

NASA Test Flight Nears 7,000 Mph, Breaks Record

Wow! New York to LA in under 30 minutes. That's their second world speed record this year...and their last, as that was the last test vehicle. (If anyone is wondering why they don't recover and re-use the test vehicles, consider what's left to recover after a supersonic "splashdown" in deep ocean.)

The mother ship, a modified B-52, was making its last working flight. It's been the launch vehicle for the X program for almost half a century, and is the oldest B-52 still flying, but the parts and fuel required are no longer available other than by special order and manufacture. It will be parked on display at Dryden next to the last SR-71.

Teflon Tom DeLay

Does anyone else find this disturbing? This Washington Post article talks about how House Republicans will likely change the rules of the House so that Tom DeLay can retain his leadership position even if he is indicted for illegal fundraising efforts in Texas.

Granted, an indictment is an accusation, not a conviction. Still, there is something unseemly about the party who claims to have just been given a mandate based on "values" suddenly lowering the bar when it suits their interests. Of course, the GOP is claiming this whole thing is partisan, and I might normally be able to see something in that....except for the fact that DeLay has been censured on multiple occasions by the BIPARTISAN House Ethics committee.

I'm not surprised by this, just saddened.

Specter Appears to Win; Religious Right Rends Garments, Gnashes Teeth

From the Associate Press, by way of How Appealing, on the apparent success of Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., in securing his Judiciary Committee chairmanship:

Conservative and religious leaders who led the pray-in protest said elevating Specter could jeopardize their support of GOP senators, including Frist, who are eyeing a White House run in 2008.

"It is a betrayal and a slap in the face to millions of pro-life Americans who helped re-elect this president," said Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition. "Don't turn to us in four years when you want to run for president ... and expect us to contribute millions of dollars."

I think it must be quite a risky business to make a political bed with the religious right, knowing that you have to go their way 100% of the time on 100% of the issues or else they'll feel betrayed. The fury of the religious right scorned beats scorned women's fury 3:1 in a nationwide taste test, with Hell's fury a distant third.

One would think that Republicans would eventually learn that they'll never completely satisfy the conservative faction anyway.

PS - No chauvanism. Just reformulating "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

PPS - For all the futility of appeasement Republicans fear vis-a-vis the war on terror, some of them sure do try a lot to futilely appease the right wing.

Shooting The Wounded?

Did a Marine execute a wounded prisoner contrary to the Geneva Conventions. MSNBC has a link to the video.

I don't know if this is uncharacteristic, or if it's always gone on, and there were never video cameras on the battlefield before. I do feel that the longer our armed forces are at war, the more likely they are to depart from civilized standards and create their own code. This happened in Vietnam. I hope our armed forces can complete their mission in Iraq before their spirit is ground down.

Red States At The Trough

Taxprof has a follow-up with neat maps on his post showing how the red states are in general the beneficiaries of federal spending, while the blue states pay up. The maps show a decent correspondence. Among the explanations that come to mind are the concentration of military facilities and retirees in the Sunbelt.

It seems like it would be in the self-interest of blue state voters to seek to restrain federal spending and for the Democrats to become the party of fiscal responsiblity. This would be quite a reversal from historic norms. But as cultural issues play an increasing role in determining who is a Democrat and who is a Republican, it may be that the Republicans will become the defenders of big government which enriches their voters.

Deterring Terrorism

During the 40 years preceeding the fall of the Berlin Wall, the fear of nuclear annihilation was omnipresent. Between the wonderful evening of November 9, 1989, when Germans from both sides of the divide climbed to the top of the Wall, and the terrible morning of September 11, 2001, when Al Queda terrorists attacked America, the threat of nuclear extinction was no longer a serious concern. With the toppling of the World Trade Center and the burning of the Pentagon, the fear that had been put to rest was revived. The fear will be with us for the indefinite future.

In one respect, the threat we now face is less serious than the former one. Had they chosen to launch their huge arsenal of multi-megaton ICBMs, the Soviet Union could have destroyed the United States many times over. A nuclear attack by terrorists would pale in comparison: their weapons would be fewer in number and smaller in destructive capability. They would be exploded in one or possibly a very small number of American cities. Still, millions could die. The aftermath of a Soviet first strike would have been total devastation. Rebuilding would not have been an issue, as there would be no one left. The aftermath of a terrorist attack would be very different and, in some respects, worse. In addition to mourning the dead, we would be faced with a mammoth rebuilding effort at a time when our economy would be in shambles.

In other respects, however, today's threat is more serious. Unlike the later-day Soviet leaders, the terrorists are fanatics. Worse still, they are theocratic fanatics who are not only unafraid to die but welcome death as the entry into a blissful heaven. While we and the Soviets were enemies, we both preferred life to death. It was this common denominator that made deterrence, in the form of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), efficacious. Because the terrorists do not partake of this common denominator, there is a widely-held body of opinion that terrorists cannot be deterred.

Two other consideration cast doubt on the viability of nuclear deterrence as a strategy to persuade terrorists to not attack us with nuclear weapons (or other weapons of mass destruction). Unlike the Soviets, the terrorists are stateless actors who are not responsible for the preservation of a physical infrastructure. The poses the question of what assets should be targeted in our response to a nuclear attack.

The second consideration is similar to the first one. If a large number of missiles were to have appeared on our radar screens during the Cold War, there would have been no doubt that it was the Soviets who had launched them. If a terrorist organization explodes a bomb and does not take public responsibility for the act, we will not immediately know which terrorist group perpetrated the act. The group could be domestic extremists that hate Muslims acting on the belief that our government would assume that Islamists pulled the trigger and would respond accordingly. A nuclear detonation would be proof that our intelligence community had less-than-perfect information: if the information were perfect, the detonation would have been prevented.

Not withstanding these considerations, I believe that terrorists can and should be deterred. Terrorists do not exist in a stateless vacuum. In each state in which they have refuse, there are two other actors: the people, some of whom are sympathetic to the terrorists and some who are not; and the government, which may (1) actively support, (2) condone, (3) actively oppose, or (4) be unable to oppose the terrorists. While the terrorists may welcome death and have little or no physical assets, at least some of the general population prefers life to death and the government does have an infrastructure that it is responsible for protecting.

The objective of a deterrence policy -- more precisely, a warning that the U.S. will respond with a nuclear attack on targets of our choosing, including Islam's holy sites -- should be to cause ordinary people and governments to fear the consequences if terrorists explode one or more nuclear weapons on our soil. By making the nuclear second strike doctrine public, it would hopefully have enough credibility to alter the behavior of people and governments. The specter of devastation should be an incentive for both people and governments to stop supporting terrorists and for governments to root them out. The less fanatical of the terrorists, recognizing these changes, may decide to pursue other, less deadly, activities.

During the Cold War, a second strike would have had to be launched as soon as it was recognized that we were under attack. There would have been precious few minutes between recognition and devastation. Because the countries in which terrorists make their home lack the ability (for now) to attack our homeland, our response need not be immediate. Thus, our intelligence agencies would have time to establish which terrorist group was responsible and which country was unwilling or unable to reign them in.

The most prominent objections to a publicly-announced nuclear second strike doctrine are that it would inflame the Muslim world, where the U.S. is already despised, and make it impossible for those Muslim governments that are cooperating with us in the war on terror to continue to do so. In other words, the effects of the policy I am advocating would be precisely the opposite of those that I anticipate.

If I am wrong, would we be any worse off than we are now? For the past 25 years, starting with the Iranian hostage crisis, we have pursued a policy of weakness toward Islamic fundamentalists. The disastrous attempt to rescue the hostages, the withdrawal from Lebanon after the truck-bombing of the Marine barracks, the withdrawal from Somalia, the pin-prick response with cruise missiles to the African embassy bombings, and the absence of any response to the Khobar Towers and USS Cole bombings all contributed to the perception, shared and exploited by Bin Laden, that America was a paper tiger. With the 9/11 attacks, Bin Laden finally discovered the threshold for concerted U.S. military action. Even after 9/11, our military has operated with one hand tied behind its back: our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been conducted with an eye on minimizing civilian casualties against enemies intent on maximizing civilian casualties.

Our restraint during the past quarter century did not prevent the rise of anti-Americanism in Islamic lands, especially in the Middle East. By having power without the will to power, we lost the respect of those for whom the former without the latter is a sign of weakness and decay. Should the doctrine that I have proposed have effects that are the opposite of those that are intended, the result will be a continuation of a long-established trend set in motion by policies of weakness.

Another objection is that there are alternatives -- such as encouraging the growth of moderate Islam -- to a big-stick policy. There are two problems with this "soft-power" approach to dealing with the Islamists. First, as with the big-stick policy, there is no guarantee that it would be successful. Second, it would, at best, take several years to produce the attitudinal changes that are its objective. The threat of nuclear terrorism in America is here and now. It must be met by a policy that would have an immediate impact, not by a policy that promises dividends in the indefinite future.

Federalism

Liberals are discovering state's rights. Conservatives are less enamored with it than before.

As Hamilton points out, many conservatives stop advocating for states' rights as soon as they get their hands on the levers of federal power. The Bush administration is currently challenging California's medical marijuana law, which will go before the Supreme Court next year, and Oregon's assisted suicide law. The Federal Marriage Amendment, which in its current form would also ban civil unions, strips states of the power to regulate marriage, which previously was their exclusive domain.

"Once conservatives got in power they forgot federalism," Hamilton says. "They left that principle in the dust and rushed to control the states that were now engaging in social experiments."

"What's happening is that the liberals are getting the issue," she continues. "The issue is how do you get power in a circumstance where you don't control the federal government. If the answer is federalism, which I think is obviously the only answer, what's going to happen is that all those liberal law professors who were extremely critical of the Supreme Court decision in Boerne, those law professors will have to eat their words."

After Reagan's 1984 re-election, I recall a focus among liberals on state government. It's happening again, only more intensely.

Harry Reid

I'm surprised to find that the new Democratic minority leader in the Senate is pro-life, according to the Center Ring over at A Bigger Tent. How did that happen?

By the way, the current issue of Harper's has a long and surprisingly moderate article about the politics of abortion.

Iran Pulls Another Fast One

The European appeasement of Iran continues, as the Big Three of the European Union have offered the mullahs a package of economic incentives in return for a temporary, non-legally binding promise to suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities. By so doing, they have all but eliminated the possibility that the UN Security Council will vote to censure or sanction Iran, as desired by the U.S. Like Saddam's Iraq, Iran has learned that it can stall for time by causing a split among the veto-carrying Security Council members. This time, the Brits aren't on our side.

Recently, I posted an article by Henry Kissinger in which he harshly criticizes using incentives to prevent proliferation. Here's what he said:

"Invariably, proliferating countries claim that they are seeking merely to participate in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy or to enhance electricity production or both. Countries determined to prevent proliferation are therefore tempted to provide incentives in the form of guaranteed alternative sources of energy or of nuclear fuel for power plants. Yet this approach generally fails, because the ultimate objectives of the proliferating country are political and strategic, not economic.

A policy of offering material incentives in return for denuclearization is likely to fail, however appealing it may be in the abstract. For the incentives in one way or another increase the dependence of the proliferating country on the states against which the proliferation is really directed."

As reported in the New York Times, the Washington Post and elsewhere, France, Great Britain and Germany have reached an agreement with Iran under which Iran agreed to cease all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities for as long as it is negotiating possible benefits with the three countries and the EU. When suspension of the specified activities has been verified, the EU will restart negotiations on a trade and cooperation agreement with Iran. It will also "actively support" negotiations for Iran to enter the WTO, a move that the Bush administration has blocked and can continue to block.

In a related development, the IAEA released a report that didn't totally reject the view of the U.S. and the European countries that Iran was trying to develop nuclear weapons, saying it could not rule out covert activities.

"All the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities," the agency said in a report, referring to possible weapons activity. "The agency is, however, not in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran."

European diplomats said Bush's reelection helped the negotiations by limiting Iran's options. Had Kerry won, Iran might have tried to play for more time or probe what policy shifts were in the cards.

The agreement will be implemented in two phases. The first was the notification of IAEA head El Baradei that Iran had agreed to a full suspension and invited inspectors to verify its commitment. The parties will then set up three working groups: one to tackle nuclear issues, another for non-nuclear cooperation between Iran and Europe, and a third for regional security issues.

The deal was a compromise that disappointed both the Europeans and the Bush administration, both of which wanted Iran to permanently end its enrichment activities.

By signing the accord, Iran is likely to defuse a U.S. threat to take the Iranians to the UN Security Council for possible censure or sanctions. The Bush administration has been steadfast in its opposition to negotiating with Iran and has criticized its European allies for offering economic inducements in return for denuclearization.

The temporary nature of the suspension represents a concession to Iran''s leadership, which has maintained that Iran isn't engaged in a nuclear weapons program but has the sovereign right to enrich uranium. At a news conference, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator called uranium enrichment "Iran's right, and Iran will never give up its right to enrich uranium, " and that the suspension during the negotiations "will be a matter of months, not years."

His deputy made clear that Iran's decision wasn't legally binding, saying that "We have accepted the suspension as a voluntary step, and it does not create any obligations for us."

Putting a positive face on the agreement, a spokeman for the French foreign ministry said "This accord constitutes an important stage in the diplomatic efforts that lead the international community to find a satisfactory response to the preoccupations created by the Iranian nuclear program."

The Bush administration has thus far avoided taking a position on the agreement. The White House press secretary said "We will be talking to our friends and allies about this agreement. We will have more to say after we've had the opportunity to learn more about the specific details."

Previous attempts to get the Europeans to agree to use the IAEA to bring the Iranians before the Security Council have been unsuccessful. More of the same is likely, as only two of the 35 countries (Canada and Australia) on the IAEA board have been willing to take this step.

Voter Inflow And Outflow

DonkeyRising has an online presentation of an analysis of election data by Alan Abramowitz of Emory University. The slide that interests me most is slide 37. I can't link to it directly, so I present it in a table here. It compares voters 2000 choices with their 2004 choices, based on exit polls.

2000 Vote	2000 %	2004 Bush	2004 Kerry	2004 Nader
Did Not Vote	(17%)	45	54	1
Gore	(37%)	10	90	0
Bush	(43%)	91	9	0
Other	(3%)	21	71	3

Am I reading this right? Even though Gore got more votes in 2000, there were 6% more voters who stated they voted for Bush in 2000 than Gore. Where did the Gore voters go? Did they die of old age? Or is this the bandwagon phenomenon, where voters in hindsight recall having picked the winner.

Moderates Jockey

Today's Boston Globe has a story projecting the role of GOP moderates in the coming term:

"I think the view that moderates as a group should be jettisoned from the party wouldn't bode well for the future," said Senator Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine and cochair of the Senate Centrist Coalition. "We should be striving to embrace anyone who wants to be a Republican and who shares some beliefs with the Republican Party."

Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University, notes that with 55 members next year, Republicans "are not as dependent on New England. But the most ambitious parts of the Bush agenda are going to require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. In those terms, New England still has clout."

Cultural conservatives, especially antiabortion activists, are not so inclusive. Claiming a critical role in reelecting President Bush and expanding the Republican majorities on Capitol Hill, conservatives are pressuring senators to deprive Senator Arlen Specter -- a moderate Republican who won reelection to his Pennsylvania seat despite the state going for John F. Kerry -- of the Senate Judiciary Committee chairmanship.

That fight will be an early test of Republican leaders, who must weigh the demands of Christian conservatives against moderates like Snowe, who are supporting Specter's ascension.

Since things are quieting down a little after the election, I think it's worthwhile if we spend some time familiarizing ourselves with the people in power who respond to positively to the merits of centrism. Snowe, Specter, and Chaffee are a few. I'm offering the above article in that spirit.

Another Kick at the Dead Horse

I know people have expressed exhaustion at the theme of liberals blaming stupid heartland conservatives for re-electing Bush. Those people can stop reading here. Roundabout the time you repeat something for the 20th time, the GP audience starts to notice. I'm going to keep on linking to takes that encourage understanding between the sides and moderation. Here's Cathy Young's take,Debunking Political Stereotypes:

The idea that Bush voters are reality-challenged is based partly on surveys showing that a large percentage of Bush supporters believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or a program to develop them. Many also persist in the belief that Iraq had substantial ties to the Al Qaeda. Other Republicans who support tougher environmental and labor standards incorrectly assume that Bush favors these positions as well.

Is this a damning indictment of Bush voters and conservatives? George Mason University law professor David Bernstein, a libertarian who was highly critical of both candidates in the past election, points out on the Volokh Conspiracy blog that in other surveys, Republicans have on average scored higher than Democrats on knowledge of political issues than Democrats -- though voters across the board tend to be woefully ill-informed. Bernstein speculates that in the more recent polls, ignorant Bush supporters were likely to pick answers flattering to Bush, while ignorant Kerry voters did the opposite.

Furthermore, on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, the evidence leaves room for some ambiguity. I know intelligent and well-informed people who believe it is quite likely that Hussein managed to get his stockpiles out of the country before the invasion. As for collaboration between Hussein's regime and terrorist groups, it clearly did exist; the only question is how substantial it was.

Is it possible that Republican voters are likely to fall for the administration's spin on these issues? Of course. But is there any evidence that Democratic voters are less likely to fall for their own side's spin or to buy into their own side's myths? Not really. I'm willing to bet that if you asked people whether it's true or false that President Bush wanted to allow higher levels of arsenic in drinking water after he took office (a charge made in a MoveOn.org ad), a lot more Kerry supporters than Bush supporters would have said it was true. Yet this claim has been conclusively debunked as a lie by New Republic writer Greg Easterbrook, who is no conservative and no Bush supporter.

Cathy Young continues to be one of the finest libertarian-leaning centrist columnists out there. Check her out at Reason. She so often does an unparelled job of understanding and quickly summarizing both sides views, and closing with a nice and realistic synthesis point. Rick, do we have a blogroll for centrist national columnist pundits?

Some Relevant Thoughts on Media

William Raspberry's column today has some good insights on how the media can approach contentious issues in a more reasonable, informative, and thoughtful manner.

Accepting Our Shades of Purple

But neither is it all that rare. Scores of public controversies are reported as to-the-mat battles between unyielding opposites -- in part because our journalistic habits send us looking for these irreconcilables. What, we ask ourselves, is the point of seeking out a minister who believes that gay and lesbian couples should be treated fairly, even sympathetically, but who draws the line at church-ordained marriage? And it's a cinch such ambivalent people won't seek us out.

We ridicule people who insist that, on one issue or another, they are just a little bit purple. And yet I dare say most Americans are just a little bit purple on most issues.

Acknowledgment of this fact -- in our politics and in our journalism -- might go a long way toward the healing our country clearly needs.

(P.S.: The dam in question was never built, because the courts decided it might impact a scarce sub-species of fish--the "Snail Darter Principle.")

Good News From Afghanistan

The peripetatic Aussie-tranplanted Polish blogster Arthur Chrenkoff weighs in again!

The Spark of Democracy: A roundup of the past month's good news from Afghanistan

In which Chrenkoff reports on Karzai's run-away election victory, the women's movement in Afghanistan, the rise of a free Afghani radio industry, the coming of the Internet, a bodybuilding craze, reconstruction and a booming economy, wind and solar energy efforts, water and agriculture, humanitarian efforts, the annoyance felt by NGO's that coalition troops are a major part of the humanitarian efforts, security issues and the fading insurgency, and anti-drug efforts.

Carville is hilarious

James Carville is as partisan as they get until an election but, once the election is over, he is brutally honest and, in the process, often hilarious. In 2002, he put a garbage can on his head on election night as it became clear that the Republicans were going to make gains in Congress. Today, he cracked an egg on his head on Meet the Press to acknowledge that he has egg on his face for predicting that John Kerry would be elected with 52% of the vote.

Since the election, Carville has also said this about the situation for Democrats nationally.

"We can deny this crap, but I'm out of the denial. I'm about reality here," Mr. Carville told reporters at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. "We are an opposition party, and as of right now, not a particularly effective one. You can't deny reality here."

I think that Carville's "reality" will sink in more broadly within the Democratic party in the next few months. The real issue is how the Democrats, as a party, will respond. It seems to me that making Howard Dean the new party chairman would not be a good start.

Final Election Post-Mortem -- Part 2

Today's election post-mortem articles are from the Washington Post:

Richard Cohen, "The Once and Future Hope?"
David S. Broder, "An Old-Fashioned Win"
George Will, "America's Shifting Reality"
E. J. Dionne Jr., ". . . He Didn't Get"
Ellen Goodman, "Winning Back Value Voters"
Michael Kinsley, "Am I Blue"
Mark J. Penn, "It's the Moderates, Stupid"
Kate O'Beirne, "A Coaltion of Conviction"
Bruce Reed, "Ending Our Losing Ways"
E. J. Dionne Jr., "Moderates, Not Moralists"
Charles Krauthammer, "'Moral Values' Myth"

Richard Cohen, "The Once and Future Hope?," 11/4/04

Cohen thinks that Al Gore should be the Democratic candidate in 2008. Here's his reasoning:

If you set out to create the perfect Democratic presidential candidate, you would probably choose someone from the South or the border states, since John Kerry lost virtually the entire region on Tuesday, and someone who is comfortable talking the language of religion and values, since John Kerry was not, and someone whose wife is identified with conventional values, and, last, someone who took a very early position against the war in Iraq, which John Kerry did not. Such a person already exists and, as luck would have it, has a name: Al Gore.

He's not surprised that the power of culture has become so prominent in American political life. Cohen cites the voting pattern of Jews as evidence:

It is paradoxical that the Democratic Party, which is so beholden to Jews for energy, funds and ideas, has not looked into a mirror and noticed something odd. No matter how rich the Jewish community got, no matter how powerful, too, it continued to vote overwhelmingly Democratic. In other words, it voted against its economic self-interest, which would be lower taxes or, in the fantasies of Republicans, almost no taxes at all. This is the power of culture.

He's not keen on Hillary Clinton:

Back in July, delegates to the Democratic National Convention were asked whom they would choose in 2008 if Kerry lost. Twenty-six percent of them said Hillary Clinton, with Edwards the runner-up at 17 percent. It is always a mistake to discount Clinton -- or to ignore her spirituality. But she is blue where she needs to be red and North where she needs to be South and still and maybe forever more associated with scandal.

David S. Broder, "An Old-Fashioned Win," 11/4/04

Broder believes that the Massachusetts court decision legalizing same-sex marriage helped Bush:

It may well turn out . . . that the supreme court of Kerry's own Massachusetts helped the mobilization of these traditionalist and fundamentalist religious voters by its decision last year approving gay marriage.

That decision spurred the submission of initiatives against gay marriage that were passed on Tuesday in all 11 states where they made the ballot -- including Ohio. Phil Burress, who ran the Ohio initiative campaign, told me last week that the volunteers who collected the signatures to qualify it for the ballot also registered 54,000 new voters. The Massachusetts court decision was "a lightning bolt that hit right in the pulpit and ignited the whole congregation," he said.

George Will, "America's Shifting Reality," 11/4/04

Will is highly critical of Kerry's campaign strategy:

Kerry ran a high-risk "biography candidacy" based on a four-month period 35 years ago. His contrasting silence about his nearly 20 Senate years echoed. He was an anomalous kind of challenger. The most important changes he promised would be either restorations or resistances. That is, he campaigned as the candidate of complacency, albeit a curdled, backward-looking complacency. Regarding foreign policy, he promised to turn the clock back, to the alliance-centered foreign policy before the intrusion of the "nuisance" of terrorism. Regarding domestic policy, he promised to stop the clock, preventing any forward movement on entitlement reform to cope with the baby boomers' retirements.

Never in this marathon did Kerry himself do anything to change the campaign's dynamics. He counted on events in Iraq and on the power of his party's unconcealed belief that George Bush is an imbecile. But Democrats cannot disguise from the people their bewilderment about how to appeal to a country that is so backward, they think, that it finds Bush appealing.

He recommends purging the Michael Moore faction of the party:

Moore, the vulgarian who made the movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," is unhinged by his loathing of Bush -- and of the country that has now reelected him. Moore and the hordes of his enthusiasts are a stain on the party -- as are those Democratic senators and representatives who in June made a merry festival of the movie's Washington premiere. Moore illustrates the fact that the Republican Party benefits -- it is energized by resentment -- when the entertainment industry and major journalistic institutions (e.g., the New York Times, CBS News) enlist as appendages of the Democratic Party's advocacy apparatus.

I, for o