Centerfield

Open thread

I will take the liberty of starting the Friday open thread a bit earlier than usual. I expect that by mid-afternoon many of us will be checking out for the weekend.

Happy New Year everyone!

Who Maxes Their 401k?

What percent of eligible Americans maxes their investment in their company's 401k program? Yahoo Finance knows. I can't get the link to work, the url is this:
http://polls.yahoo.com/public/archives/57019568/p-quote-388

Did the answer surprise you? Not me. The part of this story that I find most interesting is the "path of least resistance" theme.

A recent paper by David Laibson and James Choi of Harvard and Brigitte Madrian and Andrew Metrick of the University of Pennsylvania found that 401(k) participation rates can vary significantly depending on how the enrollment process works. The researchers, who examined four companies who changed their 401(k) enrollment process, found subscription rates between 25% and 43% when new employees were allowed to opt-in to a 401(k) plan. When the same company switched to a default enrollment or opt-out 401(k) process the subscription rate jumped to 86%-90%.

Participation is much higher when you have to opt out than when you have to opt in. That says something to me about relying on the savvy and prudence of individuals as an alternative to a national forced contribution plan like SS.

Of course, this is not to imply that one must necessarily maximize one's 401k contribution. A strong argument can be made that you should contribute whatever it takes to maximize the company match. But thereafter, it's arguable that you should minimize your retirement tax burden by investing additional funds in a Roth IRA. With a Roth, you invest post-tax dollars and the growth isn't taxable. With a standard 401k, the taxes are only deferred.

Stupid Prediction Time!

As the end of the year draws nigh, I invite one and all to make their predictions for 2005.

You too can be a Cassandra, or a Nostradamus! All it takes is prescience, staggering intellect, plain dumb luck, or a good sense of humor. And if you're funny, we won't even hold all those wild misses against you!

Have at. Have fun.

Deals Before Principles

She's slaughtered a centrist cow and is serving beef

My biggest personal beef with "Centrism" is that it tries to push people to give up their passionate and strongly held beliefs in the name of compromise. And as Sirota notes...compromise can sometimes conveniently be a money maker for guys like Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh. Either you have strongly held principles or you don't. Some centrists certainly do have them...and I'm not attempting to disparage that. But you don't see those on the Left asking the centrists to give those principles up in the name of compromise.

I guess I'm one of the beefeaters here, because I do think that liberals need to compromise. But that does NOT mean they have to give up their beliefs. It means that in politics, one has to make deals.

I believe that democracy is about compromise. Politics and making deals have an unsavory aspect to them, especially compared to "standing up for one's principles." Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but there can only be one set of laws, and they can't possibly accomodate all beliefs. I also believe in the law of large numbers. The average belief of all people is probably closer to the truth than the specific belief of any single person chosen at random.

The successful liberals of the past--people like FDR, JFK, and LBJ were wheeler-dealers. They didn't go down to defeat because of principles. Arguably, LBJ went down because of a lack of principles, and that gets us to our next centrist principle--balance. Yes, it is possible to compromise so much that you no longer remember what your goals are. But I don't see that as a problem for the contemporary Democratic Party.

It's certainly more confortable to be in the center because you think that's where the truth lies. But if you're not, and you are in the minority, you have to offer deals to uncomitted voters to get them on your side. Given the increased turnout in 2004, it's hard to see how Democrats can turn even more people out from their base. The largest pool of new votes are in the center, and to get those votes, Democrats need to make deals.

Ramsey Clarke to Defend Saddam

Ramsey Clarke to defend Saddam

What more is there to say?

Less Sex

Teens are having less sex today, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (pdf).

The CDC report, Teenagers in the United States: Sexual Activity, Contraceptive Use, and Childbearing, 2002, shows that teenagers overall are having safer sex — and less of it — and that teen-pregnancy rates are continuing a 30-year decline.

What's responsible? Teaching kids about contraception? Abstinence? A better economy keeping kids out of trouble?

While abstinence education has been ridiculed by some, I do think there is a role for it, so long as it's accompanied by education about birth control. It's good that schools take a stance that children should defer sex. That wasn't the case when I went to school. The sex ed I had was clinical and neutral. Sex was neither discouraged nor encouraged. I think taking a stand against premature sex can be effective, but I also think that giving children basic information about birth control does not have to undermine that message.

My favorite memory of Health Class was when the teacher ran a film showing how to do a breast self-exam--and the boys got to stay for it.

Tsunami Aftermath: Relief donation links

UPDATE JANUARY 1, 2005, noon CT: Amazon donor link hits $11 million. Reported US private aid donations currently at $170 million.

The known death toll is now pushing 60,000 and is certain to go considerably higher. Many of the dead will simply never be found. To prevent epidemics from driving the death toll even higher in the days and weeks to come, medical relief is required in addition to food aid and materials.

Contributions for direct relief and assistance may be made to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The Bengal Bay-specific IFRC donations link is here.

Those trying to contact friends and family members in the affected areas can try the IFRC FamilyLinks website here.

Direct Relief International is also a very worthy org, one of only five US charities rated at 99% efficient in all categories. They specialize in direct medical aid to disaster areas and 3rd world nations. They are equipped to handle corporate donations of medicines and medical materials to the affected areas. FEDEX has agreed to move DRI medical shipments to the Bengal Bay area without charge. The DRI cash donations link is here. Cash donations combined with coporate material donations and assistance allow DRI to leverage their applied assistance at levels of 25-1 and greater ($2500 of delivered aid for every $100 cash donated).

UPDATE: If the Red Cross and Crescent or DRI aren't to your taste, Command Post Blog has a much longer list of additional ways to help.

MORE UPDATE: A very good set of relief links can be found at the US Agency for International Development page here.

STILL MORE UPDATE: Amazon.com has a donation link collecting donations for the Red Cross Indian Ocean relief effort as the top of their front page, complete to a donation meter. You can use the link to make a donation of any amount through their secure payment server. Surely you can spare at least $5 or $10, eh? (Yes, in some things I am shameless. Get off your butt, if you haven't done so already.)

When I went to bed in the wee hours, it was at about $800K. As of now it's at $1.42 mil and rising. Go there, wait a minute or two, and then refresh to see how "stingy" we Americans are. And remember--this is just the amount of aid donations through this one single Web page.

UPDATE 12/30: After three days, the Amazon link alone has collected $6 million. That's not "pledges," that's money actually collected.

Social Security: What If?

Seems there's some disagreement on the need for social security reform. The democrats' party line right now seems to be that it's not necessary, and there are some here who are unconvinced of the need for reform. I disagree with those people, but they seem to be sticking to their guns, by and large.

But what if? What if the demographic driver of more and more Americans living longer at greatly increased costs means that we end up trying to integrate a private investment component into social security? If we did so, it would be in the hope of helping Americans better finance a retirement that may be longer and much more costly than was anticipated generations ago when social security was born. Let's leave aside the argument over whether broad reform is urgent or necessary, and bat about some ideas regarding the nature of integrating investment into SS should it come to be...

I for one feel that my support for any such plan depends on the nature of the plan. In other words, whether or not it turns out to be a good idea depends on how we do it. My primary concern is that any reformed system preserve the "insurance" nature of the current system. In other words, I don't want to be left trying to figure out how much I need to save to support my wife and I if we happen to live to be 85, 95, 105 years old. I want risk-pooling on that count. I also want some sort of risk pooling that protects one group of people getting whacked should they happen to need to retire at the end of a bear-market cycle while others hit the jackpot by retiring at the top of a bull market. And I don't want to end up footing the bill for someone else's choice to bet on the Wall Street equivalent of 19 red or 30 black.

So I hope that several of the broad strokes of any reformed SS include a preserved minimum guarantee, one which could maybe include means-testing on a sliding scale. And I also want any personal investment accounts to be secondary to the needs of the minimum guarantee safety net. And I want the nature of the available investments to be PROSCRIBED, in some form similar to the TIAA-CREF accounts others have mentioned.

Now go ahead and chime in, playing "what if... " In the interests of focusing the discussion, I'm taking pains to make explicit the request that we refrain from a foodfight over whether or not broad reform is necessary. If it's not, let's hope it doesn't happen, and if it is, let's hope it does happen. But IF it DOES happen, what might it look like? That's the question.

Arnold On The Center

The Radical Centrist reports that Arnold Schwarzeneggar has made the shocking suggestion that Republicans embrace the center, while Arthur Chrenkoff warns Republicans that that it might cause the hard right to sit the next election out.

In an interview with Germany's Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily, Schwarzenegger said that "the Republican Party currently covers only the spectrum from the right wing to the middle, and the Democratic Party covers the spectrum from the left to the middle."

"I would like the Republican Party to cross this line, move a little further left and place more weight on the center," he was quoted as saying. "This would immediately give the party 5 percent more votes without it losing anything elsewhere."

Kudos to Arnold, one of the few politicos who has even noticed that the center exists!

Ukrainian election

Jeff Goldblum has a line in Jurassic Park that has always stuck with me.

B. D. Wong (Henry Wu): You are saying that a group of animals, entirely composed of females, will breed?

Jeff Goldblum (Dr. Ian Malcolm): No, I am merely stating that uhh... life finds a way.

I don't believe that democracy is inevitable in the same way that evolution is inevitable, but I do believe that, whenever possible, democracy will eventually find a way. The reality is that since 1974 the number of democracies in the world has tripled, from 40 to about 120.

Culminating in today's events, democracy is finding a way in Ukraine. Yushchenko appears to be headed to a landslide victory in the "do-over" election. Congratulations to the people of Ukraine; you are an inspiration for democratic forces everywhere.

Tsunami

An earthquake underneath the Indian Ocean produces a tidal wave. The Washington Post's Michael Dobbs was caught in it, and is lucky to be alive.

Which Blogs Hate More?

The Moderate Voice has a terrific post building on a thread started by Poliblog. Are lefty blogs nicer than righty blogs, as suggested by Mahablog?

In general, I think the answer is no, though because there are more conservative blogs, there may be more quantitative attacks on liberals.

But what really bugs me is, they're ignoring the center again. Say something about us. Bash us! We exist.

Reggie White, RIP

Football great Reggie White has died of a heart attack at age 43.

Gulp. I'm 45, and watching my cholesterol.

A few years ago, White, who was also a Christian minister, became controversial for some remarks which I do not endorse.

LA Gangs Abroad

Horrible story of a massacre of 28 people on a bus in Honduras by a criminal gang which had its origin in criminal aliens deported from Los Angeles, who brought the LA gang style back with them. Well, at least I'm glad the perpetrators are not free to walk the streets in the United States.

Christmas Open Thread

Merry Christmas to all! I pray the day passes peacefully here and wherever American forces are stationed.

Feel free to leave a comment on any topic.

Faintheart Faction?

Josh Marshall rips Centerfield favorite Harold Ford as a member of the faintheart faction for contemplating the addition of private accounts to Social Security.

We're adding Rep. Ford to the list because of an exchange a reader sent us between Rep. Ford and Mort Kondracke at a panel meeting on capitol hill last March sponsored by Centrists.Org, The Concord Coalition, The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget at the New America Foundation, and The Alliance for Worker Retirement Security.

When Kondracke asked Ford whether he could support Sen. Lindsey Graham's private accounts bill (Graham was the other member of Congress on the panel), Ford responded ...

Yes, I would, provided we could pay for the transition costs without running up bigger deficits. I’m not an expert on all the details, but I think his bill has good anti-poverty protections, and matching funds for lower-income workers. The personal accounts are progressive, which is good. And in the long run, it keeps Social Security costs down to about where they are now, which we can afford. In this budget environment, however, it will be very hard to pay for the transition costs of the accounts.

What's wrong with that? Now, I'm not entirely convinced of the utility of private accounts. They're no panecea. What's important is that Americans start saving for the future retirement of the baby boomers. Having the Treasury borrow money to invest in the stock market, which is apparently the President's intention, is financial speculation, not investment. Ford has rightly declared his opposition to that. It's important that we not "solve the Social Security crisis" by a combination of an accounting trick and investing on margin. On the other hand, if we can actually cut back on consumption today and invest for the future, whether in one big fund or in private accounts, baby boomers are bound to have a smoother retirement.

While skeptical of private accounts (the stock market does go down as well as up, and past performance is no guarantee of future returns) I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with having a portion--certainly not the majority--of the funds be in variable-return instruments. The rejectionist fundamentalism which Josh is pushing, calling it a plan to "phase out Social Security" may be Lakoffian framing, but it's too broad and is likely to fall flat. A better line for Democrats to take is, like Ford, to express openness to a reform that is funded, but oppose any shell game offered by the Administration.

Update: Check out related posts at the Glittering Eye and the Moderate Voice

China and Oil

Sorry, I guess I am obsessed with politics. I promise, no more reading the paper until Sunday.

These two articles, in the New York Times and the Washington Post, respectively, paint an interesting and disturbing picture of China's increasing need for oil and its willingness to pretty much do anything it needs to get it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/23/business/worldbusiness/23canada.html?hp&ex=1103864400&en=428b0d964982d1eb&ei=5094&partner=homepage

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21143-2004Dec22.html

The Times article discusses China's interest in developing Canadian reserves that have become economically viable due to rising oil prices. This isn't really bothersome except that it shows how the global economy is beginning to put increasing pressure on what used to be our favored position in world trade. In addition, as China's demand for oil increases, pressure on oil prices will increase further. We were used to being pretty much the big fish in the pond in terms of importing oil. That's changing and we are not going to be able to take even the Canadians for granted (although they are hardly likely to turn off the spigot to the US). The days of cheap gasoline to which Americans seem to think they have a divine right are over. The bright spot is that higher oil prices are likely to make alternative fuel technologies more viable.

The Post article is more disturbing. China has been working closely with the Sudanese government, exchanging arms for oil rights essentially. The effect has been, according to the article, to give China a huge stake in Sudanese production while at the same time giving the government the direct military aid and capital that it needs to build a military machine capable of quashing the rebels. This is the same Arab-dominated government, remember, that permitted the Arab tribes to attack the black African tribes. The Chinese funding has essentially permitted the government to push native peoples off the land in order to make way for oil drilling. Of course, the Chinese, who have a natural aversion to interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, especially when it comes to human rights. have helped the Sudanese government by threatening to veto UN resolutions against the government's actions.

However, the Africans may have the last laugh. Under the proposed settlement to the Sudanese civil war, the rebels will control the south where much of the oil is. China may be about to find that its chickens are about to come home to roost:

Ultimately, it may be peace that presents the Chinese firm with its greatest challenge. Under the terms of an agreement still being negotiated, oil contracts are supposed to remain secure. But three commanders of the southern Sudan rebel group said in interviews that the SPLA will seek to punish China once the rebels gain a formal decision-making role in the government.

The stakes could be considerable: Peace would allow the world's major energy companies to enter Sudan's oil patch. Moreover, roughly two-fifths of all known reserves -- oil worth more than $16 billion -- are now in rebel-controlled territory, according to the study by PFC, the strategic analysis group.

"The suffering of the people is on the hands of the Chinese," said commander Deng Awou. "The agreements for the Chinese company may be terminated."

All in all, not a pretty picture unless you are one that believes the outside world should mind its own business and not interfere in civil wars. That's a defensible position, perhaps, but, in fact, the Chinese have effectively intervened here on the side of the government even though they try to deny they are doing anything but normal business.

The US certainly does not have clean hands in terms of supporting repressive governments that are strategically or economically important. Still, the fact that the Chinese are so driven by economic necessity that they feel no compunction to consider the consequences of their actions is disturbing.

These stories illustrate, IMO, that we are going to be increasingly faced with struggles over strategic resources, with oil being the most obvious examples. As the global economy expands, it is at these intersections of economics and politics where the US is going to face a lot of sticky issues, including how to balance our economic and resource needs with moral and political considerations. Not to mention how are we going to deal with countries like China and Russia that have their own strategic and political interests.

On the Lighter Side--Some Food for Thought

No politics herein whatsoever, unless you're just plain totally obsessed.

This December 2000 column by Craig Wilson of USA Today on holiday eating is a must read every Xmas season, unless your cardiologist has banned you from everything but carrot sticks.

THOU SHALT NOT SKIM FLAVOR FROM THE HOLIDAYS

Merry, er, Holidays II

The Christmas music banning at my high school, blogged previously, has now become a national story. Here's an op-ed in USA Today. My hometown is branded an anti-Christmas district in the conservative WorldNet Daily.

It's also having a local political impact. Here's a page with a video of a protest outside the high school where a Republican who will be running for governor in the 2005 election in New Jersey made an appearance. It's given a popular issue to the New Jersey branch of the Family Policy Council, which is described by the liberal People For The American Way as an arm of the religious right.

According to the Washington Times, 96% of Americans celebrate Christmas, though only 78% consider themselves Christians. For 18% of Americans, it has become a secular holiday.

When liberals ask themselves why they are not popular, despite liberals being responsible for great things like Social Security, Civil Rights, and Medicare, they should remember incidents like these. While it's important to be sensitive to minorities, one should also be sensitive to majorities. A little religious music, including pieces from all religions present in the community, is something we all should tolerate.

Market Research

Following up on our open thread on Party ID, I've looked around for data on party ID versus ideology. While cruising through ModeratePolitics.org, I came across a link to this entry in about.com. I had to do a few calculations, and I'm not sure which year this data is for, but it seems reasonable--other than the party ID for Democrats exceeding Republicans. They were equal in the 2004 election.

Composition of the Electorate by Party and Ideology

	Liberal	Moderate	Cons	Total
GOP	2%	9%	18%	29%
Ind	9%	18%	9%	37%
Dem	11%	15%	8%	34%
Total	22%	43%	35%	100%

Moderate independents form 18% of the electorate, and that is clearly the core group that the Centrist Coalition is focused on. We welcome moderate Democrats, but the Democratic Leadership Council already serves their needs (except for allowing comments on their blogs). While the number of moderate Republicans is smaller than the number of moderate Democrats, they may find the Centrist Coalition an attractive organization to belong to, as their is no high-profile organization of moderate Republicans equivalent to the DLC.

Moderate independents, however, have no organization that serves their needs. They are politically homeless, and are only catered to by the two parties every two years, when they want their votes. The Centrist Coalition could provide an institutional basis for grassroots political activism by moderate independents, who have no where else to go, except for single issue organizations like the Concord Coalition.

What do you think?

Should We Be Making this Public?

This article in today's New York Times discusses the reallocation of antiterrorism funds from smaller cities to larger cities, especially NY, DC, and Los Angeles.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/22/politics/22grants.html

I think this is a good idea, but is anyone else concerned that we are telling the terrorists what areas will be less protected? Am I cracy or does this information seem like something that shouldn't be publicly disclosed, at least in such detail?

Holiday Salutations Open Thread

Merry Christmas to all my Christian friends who celebrate, and happy holidays and best wishes for this holiday season to all. It's a time for all to open their hearts and share good wishes in the spirit in which they are exchanged.

Here's hoping that the good will of the season runs well into the new year. And that the growth of a body of pragmatic common sense people in the middle continues. And that these people hold the hopes and needs of both the red states and the blue states in their hearts and their minds, so that America meets its many challenges better than ever.

Those so inclined, please feel free to join me in quietly praying that God will keep our brave soldiers safe, and also keep the spirits of these soldiers and their loved ones strong. And that in the future the blessings of peace, freedom, and sufficient means are spread to every home and to every face.

Kristof

The more I read from Nicholas Kristof, the more I like him. Today's column addresses the possibilities for cooperation between conservatives and liberals on human rights issues. Sounds like Tully's Senator has been doing some good work.

McCain Back In GOP Good Graces

Scrambling starts for 2008.

"The bus is not yet out of the garage, but it is likely being tuned up," said Marshall Wittmann, who served as McCain's spokesman until last month, when he joined the Democratic Leadership Council.

and

But McCain, despite his recent criticism of Rumsfeld and of Bush's environmental policy, has impressed the Bush White House. Shortly after McCain very publicly made clear that he would not accept a vice presidential overture from Kerry, Bush's top strategist, Karl Rove, had coffee with longtime nemesis John Weaver, McCain's political strategist. Since then, Weaver has stopped advising Democrats (he left the GOP after the 2000 campaign), and Rove now calls McCain for consultations.

I like McCain a lot, but after 8 years of Republican rule, I will be reluctant to support anyone who represents continuity rather than change. I'd rather see McCain run as an independent.

Should We Care What Osama Wants?

In Sunday's New York Times, there was an article, "Sizing Up the New Toned Down bin Laden", http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/19/weekinreview/19vann.html, that suggests the possibility that OBL has changed either his goals or at least his methods. Essentially, the article postuates that OBL has become frustrated by his inability to reach the American people and that the most recent tape evidences a different strategy; i.e., instead of portraying himself as a menacing figure, he is trying to reason with Americans and help them understand his aims. In this view, Osama has relatively limited goals,i.e., he is not seeking to destroy America or "take away our freedom", but is seeking changes in American Middle Eastern Policy.

The vexing question emerged again last week with the release of an audiotape on which the Qaeda leader seems to be speaking. On it, he applauds the Dec. 6 attack against the United States Consulate in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, and urges the toppling of the Saudi royal family.

The tape indicated that Mr. bin Laden has apparently moved the fomenting of a revolution in his Saudi homeland toward the top of his lengthy and ambitious wish list, which also includes the reversal of American foreign policy in the Middle East, the retreat of the American military from the Arabian Peninsula and the creation of a Palestinian homeland.

Mr. bin Laden has advocated these sea changes before. What intelligence officials and terrorism experts find particularly remarkable in his recent pronouncements is a shift in style from the raw anger and dark imagery of the post-9/11 days. They say he has subtly tempered his message, tone and even persona, presenting himself almost as an ambassador, as if he sees himself as an elder statesman for a borderless Muslim nation.

Perhaps most striking is Mr. bin Laden's expression of frustration. Like any politician on the stump, Mr. bin Laden craves the ability to deliver an unfiltered message to his audience. Speaking directly to Americans in the pre-election address, he complained that his rationale for waging a holy war against the United States was repeatedly mischaracterized by President Bush and consequently misunderstood by most Americans.

To change this, Mr. bin Laden is testing what he apparently believes are more mainstream themes, while trying to dislodge the entrenched American view of him as a terrorist hell-bent on destroying America and all it stands for. In the pre-election address, Mr. bin Laden said Mr. Bush was wrong to "claim that we hate freedom." He added: "If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike, for example, Sweden."

What they cannot say is whether the less strident approach means that he has changed his goals and is less of a danger or that he is just laying the groundwork to justify a new attack against the United States. But they are listening closely and debating an important question: Is Mr. bin Laden committed to destroying America, or has he become more pragmatic, trying to begin a rational foreign policy debate about its presence in the Middle East and even appealing to Americans' pocketbooks?

Mr. bin Laden's attempt to engage Americans is occurring while his message to drive the United States out of the Muslim world is resonating with those among the 1.2 billion Muslims who believe the Qaeda leader eloquently expresses their anger over the foreign policies of the United States and Israel. In recent years, he has emphasized the Palestinians' struggle. "His genius lies in identifying things that are easily visible and easily felt by most Muslims," Mr. Scheuer said. "He has found issues that are simple, and that Muslims see playing out on their televisions every day."

But Mr. bin Laden also wants Americans and Europeans to heed his messages and urge their leaders to change their Middle East policies. This has not happened and probably will not happen. "He is tuned out by most Americans and Europeans, and it's begun to really annoy him," said a senior counterterrorism official based in Europe.

In his pre-election address, Mr. bin Laden seemed irritated that interviews he gave to Western journalists in the 1990's went largely unheard by most Americans. He appeared to suggest that if American leaders had listened to his warnings that the United States must change its foreign policy in the Middle East or face the consequences, the Sept. 11 attacks could have been avoided.

Analysts say Mr. bin Laden's repeated refrain is that Al Qaeda's strikes are retribution for American and Israeli killings of Muslim women and children. "Reciprocity is a very important principle in the Islamic way of the world," Mr. Scheuer said. "They judge how far they can go by how far their enemy has gone."

What stood out in the pre-election message was Mr. bin Laden's bid to reinvent himself. He traded his battle fatigues, his AK-47 and a rough-terrain backdrop for a sensible sheik's garb, an anchor desk and a script without a single phrase portending a clash of civilizations. No longer was he reflecting on his own possible martyred death in the "eagle's belly" - the United States - as he did in 2002, nor did he threaten another spectacular attack against America.

Jessica Stern, a Harvard professor who lectures on terrorism, said she was most surprised by Mr. bin Laden's detailed comments about the American economy. "It seemed as if he was trying to appeal to more moderate Muslims, who might have found his 1998 fatwa to kill all Americans morally repulsive," said Ms. Stern, the author of "Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill." "His message on this tape is not nearly as offensive. He talks about Americans having a choice - it is up to us to decide whether we will support a foreign policy that he says is bad for our economy and bad for the Islamic world."

Does Mr. bin Laden's more moderate style mean there is less risk of a terrorist strike on American soil? Intelligence analysts are unsure. More than one analyst discerned an ominous warning embedded in his milder pre-election address.

"In Islamic jurisprudence, the warning is important," Mr. Bergen said. "And if we don't respond, it's our problem and our fault. He's putting the ball back in our court. Maybe this is all rhetorical and they don't have the ability to launch another big attack. But he intended to tell us that if we choose to completely ignore him, which is a very viable option for us, then we are going to get hit again."

I have several reactions to this article. First, I believe it is true that OBL's attacks are motivated by specific goals, not by a desire to establish a caliphate in the United States or to undermine our democratic institutions. But that doesn't mean that other elements of Al Qaida or other Muslim militants don't have broader goals. I think it's a mistake to look at OBL as the sole face of Islamic militancy. In fact, you could look at his most recent tapes as ways of reaching out to the other stands of the movement that have moved beyond his control. But it seems unlikely that he is really seeking to undo the Muslim loss of the western world in the 13th century. He has relatively specific goals, in my view, that largely involve the Middle East.

Second, even if his aims are limited, I think it makes no difference in terms of our policy toward OBL or Al Qaida. While OBL' s goals might not be as chiliastic as Bush and others suggest, that doesn't mean they are reasonable or things that we can simply accede to and have everyone live happily ever after. To the extent that he wants the US and the West in general to essentially withdraw from the Middle East, this is simply not a viable option. We have too many interests (yes, including oil) to return to a policy of isolationism (which, of course, never really existed). Moreover, even if all he wants is a caliphate over the Middle East, I don't see how it is in our interests to have a violent, misogynistic, racist theocracy presiding over a large part of the globe. Having limited goals is not the same thing as having reasonable goals. Plus, I am not inclined to accomodate someone whose political ideology includes having his acolytes commit mass murder and who is apparently willing to use nuclear weapons to accomplish his "goals." The only way to deal with Osama bin Laden is to kill him dead.

Third, we need to stop the apocalyptic talk about how OBL wants to destroy us and "take away our freedom." We need a rational debate about whether and how our policies, including the occupation of Iraq, contribute to support for OBL in the Muslim world. I believe, as I have said before, that militant Islam is a danger both to the United States and, especially, to the spread of liberal ideas throughout the world. But overwrought rhetoric does not help to defeat it. By ignoring the fact that OBL is focused on the Middle East, not America, it retards our ability to see the world as it is. Bush's "axis of evil" phrase appeals to the quasi-religious sense of our righteousness. But it did nothing to help us understand the problems we face in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. All I'm saying is let's recognize the threat for what it is, but don't inflate it into something it is not.

A Series of Unfortunate Events

Sometimes David Brooks really startles me.

It was a series of unfortunate events.

How did we get to this sudden moment of cautious optimism in the Middle East? How did we get to this moment when Egypt is signing free trade agreements with Israel, when Hosni Mubarak is touring Arab nations and urging them to open relations with the Jewish state? How did we get to this moment of democratic opportunity in the Palestinian territories, with three major elections taking place in the next several months, and with the leading candidate in the presidential election declaring that violence is counterproductive?

Should Democrats Write Off The South?

The GOP's lock is getting tighter.. Personally, I don't understand the South, and I find the cultural distance between it and most Democratic activists daunting. On the presidential level, I see more hope for Democrats in the Midwest and Mountain states. In the Senate, most southern seats have gone Republican, and are likely to stay that way. But in the House, there are still a number of Southern Democrats. I suspect that number is likely to decline further. Should the Democrats try to fight it, or just give up and focus elsewhere?

British National ID

Having survived the juicy Blunkett scandal, Great Britain looks likely to proceed with a national ID card scheme

Charles Clarke last night survived his baptism of fire as home secretary when the controversial identity cards bill he inherited from David Blunkett won a Commons vote 385 to 93 - despite scorn, rebellion and mass abstention on both Labour and Tory benches.

It will still take a few years before Britons have them

If plans proceed smoothly, the first cards are scheduled to be issued in 2008 along with biometric passports. The biometric passport scheme is expected to cost £415m a year, and the ID cards £85m.

I have blogged in favor of a national ID, but it continues to be unmentionable in everyday politics. If the British go ahead with it, and Great Britain doesn't degenerate into an Orwellian state, I suspect that Americans may warm to the idea.

Open Thread On Party ID

We're doing a little market research for the Centrist Coalition. We'd really appreciate it if our readers (including you lurkers out there) simply tell us whether they consider themselves to be Democrats, Republicans, independents, Libertarians, Greens, or other political party.

Just type in your affiliation in the comment box. You can use a pseudonym and a fake email address if you want to (i.e. nobody@nowhere.com). If you want to explain why you identify with a party, that would be great. But there is no need to. Also, if you're registered in one party, but now identify with another, it would be very interesting if you explained why.

Thanks!

The Good News From Iraq

Arthur Chrenkoff once again brings us the flip side.

The Silent Majority: A roundup of the past two weeks' good news from Iraq

Democrats eye softer image on abortion

This article is the first instance where I've seen Democrats really discussing moving closer to the center. It seems to be led by elected officials, rather than the grassroots. I suppose that's because elected officials are more concerned about winning, while grassroots activists are inclined toward purism.

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, said the congresswoman would continue to be a vocal supporter of abortion rights in Congress, but would not oppose an antiabortion leader of the party. Pelosi approached Roemer about running for the DNC chairmanship but has not endorsed him for the post, Daly said.

Democrats could accept a leader who opposes abortion rights, but would not tolerate a weakening of the party's position on abortion, Slaughter said. The failing, she said, is that the party has not articulated its position well: "I don't think we ever said we're for abortion. We're for choice."

I think Pelosi is on the ball. No one can question her liberal bona fides, but she can see where the votes are.

Regarding the final comment by Slaughter, it represents the denial which prevents change. The abortion issue is not something where liberals have not articulated their message. Everyone knows they are for "choice." The problem is not with the message, but with the substance.

You can't really be for choice unless you can conceive of some circumstances when abortion is appropriate. Obviously, no one favors abortion in the case of all pregnancies--that would end the human species. But if you are against abortion in all cases, how could you possibly be for choice?

According to the polls, most people do favor women being able to choose to have an abortion in some cases. But pro-choice activists delude themselves if they think most Americans agree with their maximal position. And it's not just a question of the percentages. There is a segment of anti-abortion Catholics who are intense in their views, and would vote Democrats except for this one issue. It's a small segment, but it includes many Hispanics, so it's important for the future of the Democratic Party to allow these voters to vote for it.

Update: Here's a link to Democrats For Life, and an affiliated blog, which only seems to have one entry.

To be bipartisan, here is Republicans For Choice.

Dave Barry's plan to end the red-blue rift

This is funny.

A couple of teases.

I thought that in today's column I would heal the nation. The nation suffered a wound during the recent presidential election as a result of the rift between the red states - defined as "states where 'foreign cuisine' pretty much means Pizza Hut" - and the blue states, defined as "states that believe they are smarter than the red states, despite the fact it takes the average blue-state resident 15 minutes to order a single cup of coffee."

* * *

Must we stereotype those who disagree with us? Do we truly believe that ALL red-state residents are ignorant racist fascist knuckle-dragging NASCAR-obsessed cousin-marrying road-kill-eating tobacco-juice-dribbling gun-fondling religious fanatic rednecks; or that ALL blue-state residents are godless unpatriotic pierced-nose Volvo-driving France-loving left-wing Communist latte-sucking tofu-chomping holistic-wacko neurotic vegan weenie perverts?

Credit Card Nation

I've studied economics, but I still find it confusing. Does the deficit really matter? I've seen it argued that it does not. As long as the national debt is held by Americans, it's simply an internal accounting issue.

What really matters is what Americans owe to foreigners. It's a little easier to understand this. A nation can live on credit for some time, but eventually, it has to pay its debts.

The world's finances today are balanced rather precariously between a big spender - the United States - and several countries around the world that are big savers. In broad schematic terms, the United States imports and the rest of the world exports; the United States borrows and the rest of the world lends. Financial flows are so lopsided that last year America soaked up nearly three-fourths of the surplus savings in the entire world.

Not surprisingly, this state of affairs is adding to the country's foreign debt. At the end of last year, the nation's financial deficit - what the United States owes the rest of the world, minus what the rest of the world owes the United States - amounted to more than $3 trillion, about 30 percent of the country's annual economic output. And it is growing. In the 12 months through October, foreigners acquired nearly $885 billion of new United States government and corporate debt.

This does not sound very good to me. Perhaps someone more expert than myself in economics can explain a few things.

1. What does corporate debt mean in an era of multinational companies?

2. Clearly, the last year has been a bad one in terms of getting into debt. But what is the accumulated balance of total debt that we owe vs. what is owed to us?

3. I've heard it said that we're getting into Brazil and Argentina territory when it comes to indebtedness. I suspect this is an exaggeration. Is there a website that has financial comparisons between the United States and other debtor nations, with both current and historic data?

Look Who's Watching You!

A.C.L.U.'s Search for Data on Donors Stirs Privacy Fears

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

You just can't trust anyone nowadays.

It's Her Party Too

Christie Whitman is about to release a new book focused squarely on the fight for control of the Republican party. It's called It's My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America.

Here's a quote:

It is time for Republican moderates to assert forcefully and plainly that this is our party, too, that we not only have a place but a voice, and not just a voice but a vision that is true to the historic principles of our party and our nation, not one tied to an extremist agenda.

There are, of course, a lot of high-profile moderate Republicans who may run for the White House in 2008, most prominently Giuliani and McCain. I tend to think there are significant issues with both of those candidacies, and I wonder if Whitman might be a better choice. She doesn't have the conservative voting record on cultural issues that McCain does, but she has McCain's spunk and maverick qualities -- things I do not see in a loyalist like Giuliani.

She also has that certain intangible -- the sense, when you listen to her, that she's comfortable and in charge. She has a calm, thoughtful confidence that comes accross as presidential.

I've sometimes wondered if Whitman isn't our Maggie Thatcher.

Dead Parrot To Deploy

The Pentagon denied that the launch failure of the anti-missle system is much of a problem. Al Kamen takes issue.

Not a fiasco but actually a great opportunity. More like Monty Python's dead parrot, the famed Norwegian Blue, which we all know wasn't really dead, as the shopkeeper explained to the irate customer, but merely "kippin' [napping] on its back," and "pining for the fjords." Why, if the parrot hadn't been nailed to the perch it would have broken out and "Voom!" Or maybe gotten off the launch pad and hit that target.

I don't doubt that the missle defense system will be deployed, whether or not it is functional. The Bush Administration has shown a talent for bulldozing ahead on its pet projects, and redefining what constitutes success as necessary.

Open Thread

What's on your mind? Nothing is off-topic. And if your mind is empty, fill it up by visiting a few more blogs of a centrist orientation.

The New Democrat (by 17 year-old Max Burns)

Republicans & Democrats For Positive & Issue Oriented Politics

Amitai Etzioni's Notes

A Momentous Election

There's an election next month in the Middle East, and the outcome will tell us much about the future of the region.

But it may not be the election you think......

On January 9th, the Palestinians go to the polls to choose a successor for Palestinian Authority president Yasser Arafat (who remains in stable condition after dying in a Paris hospital).

Abbas calls for end to armed uprising: Palestinian leader lays groundwork for peace efforts if he wins election

Donors Consider Large Increase in Aid to Palestinians

Canada sends technical aid, election observers to Palestinian polls

U.S. election observers to monitor upcoming Palestinian poll
(It just wouldn't be an election without Jimmy Carter, of course!)

One of the most hopeful signs in the process came this week when jailed Intifadah leader Marwan Barghouti withdrew his name from the ballot, throwing his support behind former Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, who has been nominated by the ruling Fatah movement. Abbas has been an outspoken propenent of peace within Fatah, and the ending of the uprising.

Sixty Years Ago....

The Battle of the Bulge began.

Nuts.

Debunking Centrism, He Said

In The Nation, David Sirota makes the claim that the DLC and moderates like Sen. Bayh are fake centrists

"The answer to the ideological extremes of the right has to be more than rigid dogma from the left," said Senator Bayh, a leader of the new group and one of Washington's most highly trumpeted "centrists." But really, who is pushing a rigid dogma: these bankrolled politicians who have hijacked "centrism" to sell out America's middle class, or the progressive populists who most often have the backing of the American people?

Ed Kilgore at NewDonkey rebutted a previous version of Sirota's essay which appeared in The American Prospect. Sirota has a pretty peculiar way of defining centrism, based on cherry-picking a few poll questions which produced a majority result for the liberal view, and anointing that as true centrism.

Sirota claims that economic populism is the magic bullet for the Democrats. I think it has potential, but it also has potential to misfire.

First, I don't believe that economic populism can trump cultural populism. There is a serious culture war going on in the United States, but there is no comparable class war. Economic populism can only work for Democrats if its joined with cultural populism. Without it, Democrats will present a mixed message which alienates the affluent without winning back downscale voters.

Second, Americans are not anti-business. They are anti-white collar crime. It's possible to get mileage out of business scandals. But legitimate business activity, even companies that choose to pay their CEO large bonuses, will not win any votes.

Ultimately, I don't think that Democrats will be willing to make the shift to cultural populism that would allow the message of economic populism to get traction. Not on the national level, at least.

You can listen to an NPR program where Sirota and Peter Beinart of The New Republic debate the future of the Democratic Party.

Update: Todd noticed that Matt Yglesias has taken on Sirota.

A Reporter's Death

Gary Webb, a former reporter for the San Jose Mercury News, who wrote a series of articles in the 1990's alleging that the Nicagaruan Contra guerilla's had financed their movement through cocaine smuggling to the United States, with the CIA's knowledge, has apparently killed himself.

After his series appeared, it was attacked and discredited by other newspapers. However, the notion that "the CIA was behind the crack epidemic" has lived ever since. Webb lost his job and his marriage. Was he really wrong? One of Webb's former associates defends his legacy. Interestingly, one of the few politicians who pursued this issue was Sen. John Kerry.

Advice and Consent for Senate Democrats

A moderate Democrat just won (recount pending) a state legislative special election in Virginia in a district that trends Republican. Her opponent was affiliated with Pat Robertson through Liberty University and was ardently anti-tax. She had amazing name recognition, having been a local television news personality for over a decade, and she won by 92 votes out of about 3700, so it's important not to read too much into her win. But the key feature of her campaign was, "You can't say no, no, no to everything."

The rhetoric the U.S. Senate Democrats are spouting on the expectedly imminent nomination of a Supreme Court justice has sounded a lot like, "no, no, no," so I hope someone tells them about Delegate-elect Miller. Even incoming Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has made some intemperate remarks about a possible new chief justice by saying Justice Scalia may be worthy of elevation, but Justice Thomas would not. It's time for Democrats to stop saying no.

This doesn't mean that Democrats should just roll over for any presidential nominee. But I think they make both tactical and strategic errors by failing to take a preemptive approach. They have to know that they're not going to get a liberal nominee. They have to doubt that they're going to get a substantive centrist nominee. Both the president and the Republican base crave a conservative nominee and, rightly or wrongly, both believe they've earned the privilege of naming one with the president's popular vote majority last month. The best, I think, the Senate Democrats can hope for is a procedural centrist with conservative views. The good news is, there are a few on the lower courts.

But just as much as Senate Democrats should line up behind a conservative procedural centrist (however begrudgingly), they need the credibility to oppose ultraconservatives who would do lasting harm to the country and the judicial branch. They cannot be credible if everything they say sounds like "no, no, no." They need some yes. Here's where I think they can afford to say yes.

1) Do not threaten to filibuster the elevation of any sitting associate justice. Neither Scalia nor Thomas, JJ., would shift the balance of power between conservatives and liberals if made chief justice. The chief only gets the same one vote as any associate justice. Indeed, the chief is different from his associates in only three ways: 1) presiding over presidential impeachment trials--even if judicial philosophy played a role here, the risk is very low that there'd be an opportunity; 2) assigning the author of the Court opinion in conference--after the nine decide the outcome of the case, the chief picks the justice on the winning side who writes the Court's opinion, and there are subtle ways this can affect the precedent created, but in reality the Court has had so many concurring and dissenting opinions (at least the recent Rehnquist Court) that this may be of little importance; 3) administering the lower courts--the chief justice is essentially the CEO of the judicial branch. In this last respect, an incumbent jurist is probably preferable to an outsider, and an incumbent jurist from a lower court may be most preferable of all because (s)he will have personal knowledge of the challenges of district and circuit courts. Nevertheless, I doubt many who have the support of a majority of the Senate would be so incompetent or so controversial in this role to make it a factor--and if it were a factor, I don't think it would be a partisan one.

Therefore, of the sitting eight associate justices, it makes no difference who is elevated, if any. Don't waste political capital filibustering Scalia or Thomas--but that doesn't mean the failure of the former to recuse in Cheney v. United States District Court, 124 S. Ct. 2576, and the refusal of the latter to accept constitutional stare decisis can't be raised both in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor. Vote against them, by all means, but don't threaten to filibuster them.

There's precedent to prove the point: Democrats wasted a lot of capital opposing the elevation of then Associate Justice Rehnquist, which opened the door for the appointment of then Judge Scalia to fill the associate justice vacancy left behind. If Democrats had saved that capital by letting Rehnquist slide, they'd have had more in the bank to oppose Scalia--and more was lost in the center of the Court by replacing Chief Justice Burger's vote with Scalia's than was lost by replacing Burger as titular head of the judiciary with Rehnquist.

2) Although Senate Democrats have repeatedly asked the president to consult with them before his next nomination, he apparently won't. Therefore, I recommend consulting publicly rather than privately. Go on the offensive in the press by identifying a few, maybe 5, conservative procedural centrists whom the president should nominate. Yes, these names will anger the liberal special interest groups. Yes, endorsing these potential nominees may in fact be a kiss of death for them. But doing so would demonstrate that the Senate Democrats are prepared to accept a conservative appointee--just a conservative appointee with the right temperament: deliberate and genteel. By coming out with their own "short list," Senate Democrats not only steal the president's spotlight, but they can include in their criticism of any other nominee statements like, "We suggested these excellent, qualified, eminent, scholarly conservatives with whom we may disagree on some issues but who we think would contribute positively to American jurisprudence, but the president chose to press ahead with his ultraconservative agenda to spite the American people; so, you see, we don't oppose any conservative nominee, we just oppose this one."

There is a risk in this strategy. Besides offending the liberal interest groups by conceding perhaps too much on one of their key issues, if the next vacancy is created not on the right by Rehnquist, C.J., but by the center (O'Connor or Kennedy, JJ.) or left (Stevens or Ginsburg, JJ.), the list of acceptable conservatives gives the White House the tool to shift the balance of the Court. But the president would likely prevail in nominating a conservative anyway, so a bit of damage control in limiting the kind of conservative appointed would still be a good thing.

We don't know who will be the next nominee, or even that President Bush will be given an opportunity to offer one. But Senate Democrats would be more credible in opposing an ultraconservative if nominated than they will be if they seem prepared to oppose any nominee, simply for the sake of being President Bush's nominee, as they seem to be now. It's a losing strategy, and decades of constitutional jurisprudence may weigh in the balance.

Democrats Opposing Democracy Abroad?

I think Beinart is right that us Democrats must be supportive of action against the threat of terrorism, but I think there's another vital area of foreign policy that we must return to to win.

That is supporting democracy abroad.

It's one thing to oppose the Iraq War. I supported the war personally, but recognize that the President made serious mistakes with his pitch. Them shooting at us regularly was at best a level-2 point in his pitch, and current WMD was a level-1 point, alas. And I see that it's a less clear matter than Afghanistan.

It's entirely another to oppose the democratization of Afghanistan and Iraq, and hope they fail. That's simply evil. It is not more important that Bush falls than that tens of millions of people continue moving towards liberty. End of story. As long as many Democrats and much of the Democratic media hold those values (we're important, Iraqis aren't), we deserve to lose.

Aren't we about helping helpless and hopeless people like the Afghans under the Taliban and the Iraqis under Hussein?

Of course, Karl Rove likes Democrats to be like that, which is another good reason not to be like that.

Democracy promotion abroad has been a keystone of Democratic foreign policy ever since Jefferson persuaded the US to help Bolivar's South American revolution. But mostly, it's stayed in Democratic hands. This may be the first time reaction to GOP presidents has alienated us Democrats from that aspect of our roots.

Bush II is definitely for Motherhood as well. I've heard him say that. Must we Democrats then give up on Mom while he's in office?

UPDATE: For balance, here's a spot where the NYT is right and Bush is on shaky ground. Putin vs. Democracy.

Voter identification

Unfortunately, I think that the conservatives at Powerline may be right about this.

A poll released by Gallup today suggests that maybe it's starting to happen: by a stunning 37% to 32% margin, more respondents describe themselves as Republicans than Democrats. This represents a significant shift even compared to pre-election numbers. Do you suppose the Democrats' non-stop insults toward the electorate since Nov. 2, threats to secede, etc., might have been counterproductive?

Although I have not heard or read "non-stop insults," I have heard enough. I have also complained about suggestions that anyone who voted for Bush must be a homophobic, war-mongering idiot (see here and here). I have suspected that this rhetoric would have a cumulative (and negative) effect, and this poll reinforces my suspicion.

2 Americas

Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg's DemocracyCorps 501(c)4 is an informative site about politics. While personally quite liberal, Greenberg (who is married to Rep. Rosa DeLauro) has the numbers, and wants the Democrats to speak to both sides of red and blue America. Here's a PDF of a very interesting post-mortem on the election which discusses "Why America Wanted Change but Voted for Continuity."

What Kind of Humanity

In general, I am a pessimist about human nature and humanity in general. Our history is pretty much a litany of horror and mayhem, with a few localized periods of progress. So, nothing in the news really surprises me, but I get increasingly depressed when I read stuff like I read in this article from the Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59917-2004Dec12.html

The topic of the article is Germany's inability to get convictions of accused terrorists, specifically with respect to people suspected of complicity in 9/11. That's bad enough, but that's not what really has me disturbed. Here is what does:

Dominic J. Puopolo Jr., a Miami Beach computer consultant whose mother was killed in the attacks, said it has been an uphill battle for the prosecution ever since.

"Everybody was saying this case was lost from day one," said Puopolo, who moved to Hamburg in August to keep tabs on the proceedings. "There was a heavy sense of that in the courtroom."

Puopolo attends the Motassadeq retrial each day and is allowed to question witnesses under a German law that gives the relatives of victims the right to assist in the prosecution. He said he planned to come to Hamburg only for the opening of the case, but decided to remain for the duration out of respect for his mother, Sonia Morales Puopolo, a passenger on the doomed American Airlines Flight 11 that took off from Boston.

Puopolo said U.S. investigators have played cockpit recordings for family members of the victims that make clear his mother was tortured by the hijackers before the jet crashed into the World Trade Center. Such knowledge, he said, makes it especially difficult for him to watch Motassadeq move freely through the courthouse and realize that there is a possibility no one in Hamburg will be held accountable.

This just astounds me; these terrorists were about to die and take everyone with them and, presumably, they expected that this mass murder would propel them to heaven with the virgins, yet they still had time and apparently no compunction about torturing an old lady. I can ask, what can drive people to have so little compassion for fellow human beings? Yet, they are not really unique. This kind of almost gratuitous cruelty is certainly not peculiar to Islamic terrorists. This kind of horror, in different permutations, has been reprised for millenia. When I read stuff like this, I frankly feel there is no hope for humanity; that we are doomed to live like this until the sun flames out.

It also makes me infuriated about the so-called liberals like Kevin Drum that seem to dismiss Islamofascism as a mere creation of American policy. Even if you accept that American policy has been wrong-headed in many areas, what can justify things like 9/11, the killing of Daniel Pearl, beheadings on TV? What can justify attacking schools as Palestineans have done? I believe a certain amount of detachment is necessary in analyzing and discussing policy. I think decisions made in the heat of emotion often are bad ones. And I believe that American policy has contributed to the hatred toward America in the Middle East. Yet, even if you oppose the Iraq invasion, as I do, how can you ignore the vileness and obscenty of what Osama bin Laden and his ilk represent? I fail to understand how many on the left, such as Michael Moore, seem largely unaffected by this kind of barbarism. How can these people look at events like this and not understand the threat that these people represent?

Peter Beinart responded to Kevin Drum's criticism of his article in this week's New Republic, http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041220&s=trb122004 Here is part of what he had to say.

The fight for national security is the fight for liberal values, not merely in the Muslim world, where fanaticism has already blighted countless lives, but also at home, where threats to American safety almost inevitably spawn threats to American freedom. Totalitarian Islam has already damaged both, and unless defeated, the damage could be exponentially worse. What more do liberals need to know before they make this fight their own?

I'm depressed.

Scott Peterson Sentenced To Death

We normally avoid the junk journalism stories, like the case of Scot and Laci Peterson and Amber Frey. But the levying of the death penalty on Scott Peterson raises this story to a level of serious policy discussion.

This is exactly the wrong sentence. If any convicted murderer should not be sentenced to death, it is Scott Peterson. If Scott Peterson should be sentenced to death, then line 'em up and let the blood flow.

Should anyone be executed? Yes. I think so. Michael Ross, for instance. He's a serial killer responsible for killing eight women.

Among the reasons Scott Peterson should not be executed are:

1. He's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but not beyond a shadow of a doubt. Personally, I think he did it. But I could be wrong.

2. Evidence of premeditation is weak. We don't know the circumstances under which he killed her.

3. First offense. He's never been convicted of another serious crime, as far as I'm aware. It's conceivable he could be a truly innocent man.

4. No evidence of extreme heinous or barbaric methods in commission of the crime. Frankly, I think this case has gotten mixed up with the abortion issue. The fetus has been named (Conner). The barbarity that people see is that he killed a pregnant woman. In fact, the only reason he could be sentenced to death was because of the special circumstance of committing a double homicide, with the fetus counting as a separate life.

5. And most of all, in my opinion, it gets down to the purpose of the death penalty. Is it retribution? Is it deterrence? I believe that the death penalty is justified when its use might save life in the future, though deterrence. I do not believe it using it simply for retribution. In a case like this, clearly a crime of passion, there is no reasonable argument that the death penalty deters. This type is the most emotional of murders.

I believe execution in a case such as this satisfies the most primitive of passions. So if Scott Peterson is executed, it should be broadcast live on Court TV. If the public demands death. let them see it!

Update: Defense expert and blogger Talkleft takes the anti-death penalty point of view. A Volokh Conspirator is more satisfied.

Conservative Blogger Compliments Clinton

Really. Powerline and the Washington Times see Sen. Clinton as more conservative than the President on immigration. I too agree that immigration issues have not gotten the kind of reasoned debate that they deserve. It the race for the loyalty of new voters, even the Republicans have gotten PC on immigration.

"How Daschle Got Blogged"

This is the title of interesting article by John Fund today. It suggests that Thune would not have won but for the impact certain South Dakota blogs had on news coverage.

Good News from Afghanistan.

Chrenkoff brings us more of the back story.

Freedom Blooms: A roundup of the past month's good news from Afghanistan.

Kevin Drum, Noncentrist

I don't know where anyone got the idea that Kevin Drum is a centrist, though I hear it frequently. He's very much a liberal, distinguishable from Atrios or Kos not by politics so much as his gentlemanly style. Most of the commenters over at his blog, however, seem indistinguishable from Atriots and Kossacks.

Jonah Goldberg has a piece on the disagreement between Kevin Drum and Peter Beinart over terrorism which shows this quite clearly.

And keep in mind Drum is a respected and decent centrist among Democrats. More popular bloggers on the hard left are peeved at Beinart for assuming that all serious liberals supported the war in Afghanistan.

Drum may be a centrist among Democrats, but that's like saying that George Will is a centrist among Republicans. Both are gentlemen, but neither are located near the center of the political spectrum.

Quality Leaders

There's a certain kind of perspective, or approach, or attitude towards political leadership that those of us in the center tend to admire and advocate.

You see it in public officials who are able to set aside the usual laundry list of specific interests or talking points when they get in the way of an important broader public interest.

You see it in leaders who are candid, even when the truth doesn't benefit them.

You see it in leaders who are unusually bold, dynamic, and determined to find and implement solutions.

We claim ownership of this type of leader, and we think of them as defining our movement, to a large extent.

I was reminded this morning that leaders with these qualities -- the ones most Americans are inclined to look at as "the good ones" -- are not all centrists.

Click below for the first part of an article from this morning's Columbus Dispatch about Sen. Mike DeWine.

Sen. DeWine gets a 100% rating from the Christian Coalition in 2003, indicating a culturally conservative voting record, and 96% from the Chamber of Commerce, indicating an economically conservative record.

He is, by any objective measure, a conservative on the issues. But he somehow gets spoken about as "one of those moderates" quite a bit. He exudes an unusual sense of candor and integrity that leads him to chart his own path, at times, and to play a maverick role in his party. He's one of the few leading Republicans who supported John McCain in the 2000 primaries. He was also one of the first to sign the discharge petition that brough campaign finance reform to the floor over the objections of the Republican leadership.

The central problem of national politics in America today is not so much that we lack centrists, but that we fail to elevate the best kinds of leaders from all segments of the ideological spectrum, including the really good conservatives and liberals.

"DeWine lays it on the line: Ohio is in sorry shape; listening, legislators?"
Joe Hallett, The Columbus Dispatch, Dec. 12, 2004

In a private room at the Union Club in downtown Cleveland on Monday, Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine gave an off-the-record speech to 50 big shots, most of them leaders of the city’s mightiest corporations and businesses.

The intimacy of the venue was unfortunate, because the Republican senator’s words need to be heard by every Ohioan who cares about making a living and raising kids in this state.

More than anyone, DeWine’s speech needs to be heard by those who govern us, particularly the 133 members of the state legislature, who have taken their eyes off the big picture and become paralyzed by the divisiveness of hidden handguns, anti-abortion license plates and same-sex marriages.

"Every Ohio leader needs to talk about the crisis our state faces," DeWine said in a text of the speech made available late last week.

"Though we are a great state, with great people, we are also an undereducated, underemployed and an underpaid state, with a tax structure that is reflective of the past, not the future."

DeWine went on to outline some solutions. But before they can be attempted, state leaders must agree to a political ceasefire, to deliberate Ohio’s future in an atmosphere devoid of partisan finger pointing and 30-second attack ads blaming one party or the other for the state’s dire socioeconomic condition. Ohio didn’t get into trouble overnight, and it will take statesmanship — a subjugation of partisan agendas, personal ambition and special interest greed — to get us out of it.

The 50 scions listened to DeWine recite what he called "the cold, hard facts about where our state is, because it underscores exactly why it is so important — so vital, really — that we accept reality and start making profound changes."

Ohio’s reality: Since 2000, more jobs lost than any other state, 250,000, or 37 percent of all jobs lost nationwide. Personal income has shrunk from sixth highest in the nation in 1960 to 24 th today. Each Ohioan earns almost $1,500 less than the average American, costing the state $1.5 billion a year in tax revenues.

Ohio is ranked 39 th in the percentage of residents with four-year college degrees; 40 years ago, it ranked 30 th. Only one-third of the students in Cleveland City Schools graduate from high school; in Dayton, Canton and Columbus, barely half of them graduate. In Cleveland and Cincinnati, only 19 percent of black male students graduate from high school.

Over the past three years, Ohio led the nation in the exodus of young people — 79,000 between ages 20 and 40, "representing a loss of thousands of the most productive people in our state," DeWine said.

Gone are the days when kids could take over the family farm or follow their fathers into the good-paying factories.

"We need to accept the fact that our economic base has eroded and that we need to pivot to a new economy and educate our work force for new jobs, different kinds of jobs," DeWine said. "Of course, we are going to fight for manufacturing jobs here in Ohio, but face it — manufacturing will never again be the employment engine it once was."

In an economy now driven by knowledge and innovation, Ohio lags behind in the "new-economy jobs" of computer and data processing, research and development and engineering services. Less than one-quarter of Ohio highschool students take the kind of math and science courses that prepare them for college.

Among DeWine’s solutions: Invest more money in higher education and primary and secondary schools, and resurrect and pass Gov. Bob Taft’s $1 billion bond issue for high-tech research and development.

"The growing income gap and education gap across our state, and especially in our inner cities and in Appalachia, are creating our very own permanent underclass in Ohio," DeWine said.

"The fact is that if you raise the education level of society, you will end up with a better work force, higher salaries, and a stronger tax base. It’s that simple."

For Ohio to halt its catastrophic descent and catch up with more progressive states, it first must reform its Depression-era tax structure to reflect the realities of the modern economy, DeWine said. To date, state lawmakers have subordinated the greater cause of tax system fairness to the narrowminded agendas of their special interest benefactors.

"We must invest in the state’s future and embrace the changes necessary to move forward or risk falling victim to our own inaction," DeWine warned.

In a frank assessment of the state of the state, DeWine has thrown down the gauntlet. We’ll see if Ohio has any statesmen brave enough to pick it up.

Blogroll Changes

I've made some changes to the blogroll, adding

Our own Todd Pearson's Perspective

The Kentucky Democrat

Stygius

I Was Thinking

What Kind Of Sick Weirdo Are You?

Please visit these blogs, and comments on their posts.

For A National ID Card

I've quietly supported this for some time, but I'm surprised and impressed to see a true liberal, Bob Kuttner, come out in favor of a national ID card.

In most countries, the national ID card certifies your identity, age, and citizenship. That's it. You present the card, and you vote.

In America, millions of volunteer hours and hundreds of millions of dollars go into the needless process of registering voters -- time and money that could go toward political activism and education. So a national ID card, with proper safeguards, would make America more democratic, not less.

The second big reason involves immigration and labor rights. We try to control our borders, but millions of foreigners overstay tourist or student visas or slip in illegally, in order to work. They are able to take jobs because business wants them here to work for low wages and be conveniently frightened of exercising their labor rights.

Our immigration laws require workers to have proof of lawful status, but employers are not punished if the papers turn out to be forgeries, which are easy to obtain. It's much harder to forge a passport-quality national ID card.

The voting angle is a new one, and I approve of it. The immigration angle is one of the reasons it's never been seriously considered. The interest groups that tolerate illegal immigration are more powerful than the interest groups which oppose it. Considering Karl Rove's focus on the Hispanic vote, I don't expect Republicans to take this on, and Democrats are no better. Given the neglect by the two parties, I think this could be a "radical centrist" idea.

I recognize the civil liberties and "big brother" issues. The answer to this is to "watch the watchers." Many secure databases have a feature whereby the ID of anyone inspecting a record is itself recorded. This audit trail could, and I think should, be shared with every citizen. That it, just like a credit report, every holder of the national ID could receive an annual statement listing the date, time, and reason for every access to their record. In my proposal, secret accesses could only be permitted by court order under rules similar to those covering wiretapping. To save paper and postage, the report might be made available only by email, or by secure user login to a government website.

I believe such a system could give the benefits of a national ID--security from terror, prevention of illegal employment, and instant voter registration, while limiting the big brother abuses.

Of course, I wouldn't trust the current gang in Washington to implement it. Some House staffer would probably insert language deleting all the protections from abuse in conference committee. This is something to think about for the future.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you

Lyle Denniston had this great post over at Slate yesterday about the Bush Administration's reluctance to conform with the clear expectations of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the treatment and detention of alleged enemy combatants. My feelings on the issue are not new to Centerfield's readers: I posted them here. (I was reminded by this article that U.S. Chief Judge James Spencer of the Eastern District of Va. once asked of the Va. state attorney general, "Are there still some lawyers present over in the attorney general's office?" That sums up my view of the Administration's current arguments on enemy combatants.)

The enemy combatant umbrella covers a number of issues, including: 1a) how and by whom a person is initially designated an enemy combatant, 1b) how he challenges that designation, to whom, and with what evidence, 2) how he is treated while detained, and 3) the length of his detention. The Administration's position is that the executive has the ability to designate anyone an enemy combatant, that the designation is not subject to judicial review, that enemy combatants may be detained indefinitely, and that they may be--may be not are being--tortured to extract information. (Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle made that argument about torture to Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of D.C. on Dec. 2, as reported here.) This morning's Washington Post has an excellent anthology of federal court pleadings filed by alleged enemy combatants here.

If you take comfort in the belief that the enemy combatant designation is only used by those captured in Afghanistan and Iraq, you're misguided. Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was captured in Chicago, transferred to New York, designated an enemy combatant, and is now detained in a naval brig in Charleston, S.C. Among the current detainees at Guantanamo Bay is a Bosnian Muslim who was captured by American forces "on the steps of a Sarajevo court that had found him not guilty of terrorism charges." The Administration has boldly claimed "that enemy combatant status could be given to 'a little old lady in Switzerland' who wrote checks to a group she thought provided charity to Afghanistan orphans but that actually operated as an al-Qaida support group."

This indiscriminate use of the enemy combatant designation--of dubious legal provenance to begin with, as Justice Scalia noted in his opinion rebuking the Administration in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S. Ct. 2633 (2004)--is possibly the greatest potential threat to Americans' civil liberties in our lifetimes. If the executive has the power to a) define the term enemy combatant, b) apply it to whomever it wishes, c) detain indefinitely and deprive access to counsel, d) deny any meaningful ability to challenge the designation and e) torture if necessary, we create--create not necessarily implement--the tools required to build Orwell's 1984.

And for those who disagree with me that the Administration is willing to use the judicial branch's reluctance to buy into their line of thinking on this topic, I'm not the only one making the correlation between the social conservative agenda and the enemy combatant issue, as this article in yesterday's National Journal indicates.

With all due respect Mr. President, go to hell!

When asked yesterday about his plans for Social Security, President Bush stated: "We will not raise payroll taxes to solve this problem..."

We know what the probelm is. It is pretty difficult to reform a system as massive as Social Security and pay for the billions in projected transition costs, when you have run up the biggest deficit in history. Some moderates, most noteably Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, have suggested that one way to pay for transition costs is to raise the pay roll tax on high end wage earners.

My problem is not the fact that Bush has an opinion. What bothers me here is his tone. Maybe I am splitting hairs, but I can't help but not feel I have that right. I am one of millions of moderate Republicans who are not exactly passionate about the Bush presidency, but none the less thought he was the better candidate and voted for him despite his horrible record on the deficit.

Maybe the President doesn't remember that if John McCain had said yes, we would be talking about John Kerry's first term, or maybe he doesn't understand that the way it works is that Congress creates legislation and then he signs it... I don't care. This country is still divided. George W. Bush by no definition, accept that of Karl Rove, has a popular mandate. If centrists in the Senate don't support him he will fail to pass his domestic agenda through Congress. Some of us would appreciate it if he started acting like it.

The problem just isn't as dramatic as the White House would like us to think, which is why they have started using the "if we don't go further into debt now, we will pay later" message. Yes, Social Security should be reformed. On its merits it is at best a mediocre government program. Retired Americans would be way better off if they where allowed to invest a portion of their payroll tax into private accounts, much like the highly successful Federal employee Thrift Savings Plan (I will explain later).

However, if left alone over the next eighty years the cost of Social Security would increase anywhere from 3 to 5% of the national GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office... That is no doubt expensive, but in a way John Kerry is right, there is nothing stopping Congress from doing what they did in the eighties to fix it; tinkering with payroll taxes would probably do it. In comparison, Medicare and Medicaid in their current form are set to grow anywhere from 15 to 20% of the GDP, which is a much bigger issue. Will Social Security ever be solvent in it's current form? No, but Congress doesn't need to rush into anything to ensure George W. Bush's legacy by passing a half-assed piece of legislation like they did with the Medicare Bill.

Furthermore, it is not as if we have not seen this before. I mean if George W. Bush had the capability of using his veto power, we might not be in the fiscal mess that we currently are in. He came around on the Department of Homeland Security, he came around on intelligence reform, and he will come around again for Social Security because politically he doesn’t really have a choice. Congress should dare him to veto sound Social Security reform legislation that does not increase the size of the deficit. Most importantly, it is the right thing to do.

Nannies and Taxes End Kerik's Reign Before it Starts

In the wee media hours of Friday evening, probably to avoid as much embarrassment as possible, the President's nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security has withdrawn his name.

Read here.

I was really looking forward to seeing Kerik's perspective as a former Big Apple police commissioner play out.

Open Thread

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

Shouldn't Someone Be Worried About Civil Liberties

Accroding to the Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53452-2004Dec9.html Congress slipped into the intelligence bill some additional provisons allowing the FBI more leeway in investigating potential terrorists. Without even talking about it. Russ Feingold said he voted for the bill because of the intelligence restructuring but opposed the law enforcement provisons which were not part of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I find it troubling that Congress doesn't even apparently feel the need to debate these issues.

One key change is a provision in the new intelligence package that targets "lone wolf" terrorists not linked with established terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. In language similar to earlier Senate legislation, the bill would allow the FBI to obtain secret surveillance and search warrants of individuals without having to show a connection between the target of the warrant and a foreign government or terrorist group.

The provision is aimed squarely at avoiding the quandary FBI investigators faced in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, when government lawyers haggled over whether they could link Zacarias Moussaoui to a terrorist group and legally search his belongings. Moussaoui has since been charged in connection with the attacks.

Other provisions in the bill include:

• Suspects in major terrorism crimes automatically would be denied bail unless they show they are not a danger or a flight risk. Advocates say the provision is modeled on similar rules for certain drug crimes, but Mitchell said it would increase the possibility of indefinite detention in alleged terrorism cases.

• Penalties would be increased for such crimes as harboring illegal immigrants, perpetrating a terrorist hoax, and possessing smallpox, anti-aircraft missile systems and radiological "dirty" bombs. The measure also is more explicit than current statutes in making it illegal to attend military-style training camps run by terrorist groups.

• Federal prosecutors would be allowed to share secret information obtained by grand juries wit