Holy Crap

The Justice department just got caught trying to censor a supreme court decision.

Worse than that, it was in the context of the ACLU's battle with the Patriot act, which means that they just tried to censor (for reasons of "national security") information about censorship (for reasons of "national security"). Here's the redacted paragraph:

"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect 'domestic security.' Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent."

Mindblowing, huh?

Thanks to the Memory Hole for catching this.

Liberal Hawks and "GreyProp"

Ok, I have access for a little while, so here's a longer piece.

Atrios wrote a very insightful piece yesterday about the problem with many liberals that supported the invasion of Iraq- that despite the clear reality that there were no weapons of mass destruction or indication that it'd accomplish any of its goals, those who opposed it at the time are marginalized. Not were, are. Atrios (echoing Tim Noah) considers that insane. Atrios described it as a liberal "testosterone test". Some people got mad at him, largely liberal hawks like ogged who are pissed at Atrios "hounding liberals who supported the war", but he's more right than wrong. Another, Jack O'Toole, asks "does [Atrios] really believe that people like me -- people who've spent our lives fighting for the same progressive ideals that he holds dear -- could possibly think that way?"

Atrios drew the distinction. I don't. Sorry, ogged and O'Toole, but your attitudes weren't part of the problem, they WERE the problem.

The key issue, however, isn't Iraq and never was. The problem is unity and division. I've brought this up many times, but the key strength of the right and key weakness of the left is that the right gets to define all the issues, and thus remains publicly united when it comes to dealing with both domestic and foreign policy issues. People on the right disagree, but they agree to table their disagreements when dealing with the "other guy"... the liberals and the left. Part of this is due to the visceral loathing that most have for both the liberal left, but it goes further than that, and it gets back to liberal hawks.

Many (if not practically all) Liberal hawks (along with "centrist" liberals) are naturally focused on legitimacy. They want to be part of the discussion, but it's a discussion that the right has framed. They are, further, either unwilling to change that framing, or are ignorant that it is even taking place. Thus, in order to gain legitimacy, they need to accept the framing concepts that the right has built up. This means that they're essentially doomed, of course, because they're fighting on foreign terrain... but if you see this as a choice between relevance or irrelevance, then anybody sane would choose the former, right?

Unfortunately for them, the right has little interest in actually dialoguing with them. What they provide is legitimacy for the right's arguments... the classic "even the liberal [insert name here]" argument that we're all familiar with. It's the classic intelligence concept of "grey (or black) propaganda"... you know that your opponents aren't going to listen to you, so you get some that is presumably "neutral" or even "opposed" to make your arguments for you. It works spectacularly well, as we've all seen, especially when they're doing it of their own free will. They are quoted and used to the extent that this role is necessary, then are thrown away. Of course, they're all familiar with this too, but the argument remains... isn't it better to be relevant?

The weapon that they provide, however, is aimed squarely at those who could actually change the framework of the debate. There are, naturally, a lot of people on both the liberal and radical left who don't accept the framework, and attempt to break out of it. The radicals pretty much exist entirely for this purpose... it is their raison d'etre, and whatever disagreements that liberals have with them, it's an important role. (Yes, this includes the protest movement.) Even relatively "normal" liberals, however, often question a lot of the conventional wisdom and accepted assumptions that provide the framework of debates. Were the left in the United States akin to the right (or, for that matter, the left in, say, Canada... the situation is quite a bit different there), this would mean a tug of war between framers on the left and framers on the right, with the actual debate being held somewhere in between. This is where that legitimacy becomes critical for the American right, however, because they use those liberal hawks to ensure their framing assumptions are dominant. The same does not exist on the left, because the right simply doesn't have the same numbers or kinds of legitimacy-granting "opponents".

The practical upshot? The right (nominally the Republicans, but of course it's bigger than that) depended on their "Saddam was going to build WMDs and ruin the region" story to support the invasion, and by selectively choosing which liberals to praise by making the "proper" arguments for a "proper" dialogue, they ensured that those on the left who depend on access and acceptance by their rivals on the right will grant the legitimacy they need and force out those who are looking at the situation through a different set of assumptions. They knew that arguments by self-named "liberals" would carry much greater weight as classic grey (or, perhaps, black) propaganda. They put the machine into motion, the usual suspects came through for them, and everything seemed to be going swimmingly until they had the error of their assumption shoved brutally in their faces.

This creates a problem for the right, but they still control the frame. It creates a much BIGGER problem for liberal hawks, because the one source of power they have-- legitimacy-- is utterly threatened. Thus we get to where we are, where we end up with the bizarre situation where you can't be taken "seriously" unless you made a massive mistake. The fundamental problem of the left cannibalizing itself remains, and as long as it does, this sort of DoubleThink isn't going anywhere.

Fortunately, the solution is simple, and somewhat embodied in something O'Toole said. He said "When demagogues like Andrew Sullivan challenge the motives (i.e., the patriotism) of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, I stand shoulder to shoulder with my friends". It's a good start, but it doesn't go far enough. What liberals (not merely Democrats) need to do is accept that trying to leech acceptability from those who are opposed to everything you stand for is a mug's game. You're being used and thrown away. When somebody like Scott Ritter comes up and says "I was right, and you didn't believe me", the general liberal response should be and must be "you were right, we were wrong, we apologize to those whom we so thoroughly denigrated before the war and pledge to put away the right's convenient filters and listen to you in the future". Then, when the time comes, somebody other than Paul Krugman needs to speak up and say "these people have a point, they're not 'un-American', and we'll stand up for them and pay close attention to what they have to say, no matter what kind of flak we get."

Just stop being tools. It doesn't mean you have to agree with ANSWER or whatever, but stop being tools. It's demeaning, and it's why liberals continue to struggle.

Edit: One other thing. O'Toole said that cheap shots should be left to people like the RNC. No. Wrong. Utterly wrong. This "holier than thou" attitude is one of the best GreyProp weapons out there, because its melding with liberal equivocation lends even the most scurrilous attack credibility by being even dimly associated with those who "behave better". ("Sure, Rush said some horrible stuff, but this other liberal guy said something like it, and he's a LIBERAL and above this sort of thing. Maybe Rush is just 'overstating' an essential truth, and those who are attacking him are just covering their asses.")

If you're a centrist liberal who has been playing the legitimacy game, then you're hurting people you should be helping. Period. Take your medicine and start laying off the "own goals".

Muqata

Interesting piece in Haaretz today about the increasing isolation and irrelevance of both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, describing both of them as being inside "Muqatas".

The term "Muqata" has long ceased to designate that amputated structure in Ramallah where the ghostly Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat lives. "Muqata" is already a metaphor for an existential state. For example: Yesterday we were free men, young bachelors will say before their marriage, and now we are in the Muqata. Or, the Likud Party has put Prime Minister Ariel Sharon into a Muqata - that is, it has shackled him. It is even possible to illustrate the new use of the term: Sharon in Metzudat Ze'ev, Likud party headquarters in Tel Aviv, as all around him, is besieged like the original Muqata...

The clearest example is Arafat, who with being confined in the Muqata became irrelevant. The reason for this is that no one among the "relevant voices" wants to talk to him any more, neither Sharon nor United States President George W. Bush...[h]is long speech last Wednesday immediately elicited a scornful reaction. In Haaretz it appeared only on page 6 and not at the top of the page. That is, Arafat, too, has become a metaphor for irrelevance.

It is possible that last week Sharon also entered the Muqata of the Likud and he too is beginning to become a metaphor for irrelevance. After all, if a prime minister like him does not manage to convince his party to support him, neither with respect to the disengagement plan nor about bringing the Labor Party into the coalition, that is neither with respect to the new ideology nor to the tactic aimed a accomplishing it, then perhaps, as is said of someone in a different Muqata, "He no longer controls the street."

They also added that Bush is in a different sort of "Muqata", as he cannot interfere in either Sharon or Arafat's fate right now... the election and the Iraqi quagmire make that impossible.

Unfortunately that leaves, well, nobody to deal with the situation. Which is probably as the Likud voters wanted it, but it doesn't do much for regional or Israeli security and stability, does it?

Reshuffling

I don't have much time, so I'll make this quick. The big news yesterday was Bush's huge proposed reshuffling of American forces; from so-called "old Europe" and South Korea to (among others) the Central Asian "-stans" (like Uzbekistan and Khazakhstan). Some of the commentary I've been reading on this proposed reshuffling focuses on how it's supposed to "punish" countries like Germany that opposed the U.S. in Iraq and reward countries like Uzbekistan who gave their complete support.

There is some truth to that, but I think it runs a little deeper. The greatest strategic threat to these central Asian states (other than their own flawed-at-best systems of governance) is the growing numbers and militancy of the Islamic populations in the region. Many of them are looking north to the conflicts in Chechnya between broadly Islamic rebels and the Russian army and are seeing their own futures. Since the United States' interdiction-ahhpy attitude towards Communism has been transplanted to Islamic militants, it makes sense that the United States would be establishing bases there, especially considering that these states would be ground zero for any "clash of civilizations".

(Which is what is usually meant when people talk about the "War on Terrorism"... you don't establish bases when you're fighting a noun, but you do when you're building up for Huntington's war. Of course, according to his latest articles in Foreign Policy that enemy is actually hispanics... but I digress.)

The most disturbing part, though, is the already-revealed movement of troops out of South Korea. Don't get me wrong; I don't believe that North Korea is really all that interested, currently, in invading or destroying the South. They're not that crazy, and never have been, posturing aside. What gets me is the signals it sents to East Asia, saying that the United States' interests in the Middle East and Central Asia are to be prioritized, and East Asia is expected to fend for itself. Japan and Korea are both going to get the message that North Korea is their problem, and China must feel like a kid in a candy store.

The result? Well, as ol' Niccolo often said, there are two ways it can go. First, the region could start seeing serious strategic conflict and competition, with China moving to consolidate its power in the region and North Korea becoming more aggressive (They aren't crazy, but aren't going to ignore "low-hanging fruit" any more than the neo-cons did in Iraq). Second, if they see the threat as largely coming from the outside, the area could start coalescing together- first through economic regionalism, then perhaps regional security arrangement. Either way, it's increasingly likely that Japan will remilitarize. This is critically important for the U.S.-Japanese relationship, because the United States won't be able to hold their military support over Japan when they get into disputes over the highly capitalized, high value labour and products that both specialize in. Indeed, I can see tension forming over trade relationships with China, considering both benefit from access to the large Chinese labour pool and markets.

Remember, folks, the Middle East is NOT the only game in town. It's probably not even the most important one, current conflicts over oil and religion regardless. South Asia probably holds that distinction, but that's something I'll have to get into later.

(As you can tell, for those who were wondering, this is NOT an abandoned blog. Far from it.)

The Convention and the Revelation

Pretentious title, I know, but it seems appropriate... and coming up with the damned things is always kind of tricky.

First, the convention. (Democratic national convention, that is) I'm amazed that the speakers are sticking with the "keep it positive" theme that the Kerry campaign was so concerned about. Then again, considering the power of presumptive future senator Obama's roughly positive speech on Tuesday, it's no surprise.  There have been numerous comparisons made between Obama and Clinton over the last few days, but the ability to draw people in using positive (instead of negative) imagery and rhetoric is the similarity that strikes me the most.

The revelation in question? Atrios' identity, which he finally revealed a little while ago. (Head over to his blog for the info... it's actually on the frontpage, although it takes a little searching). I'm amazed he did it, personally... if I were him I'd be on alert for Freepers trying to find and harass him, as they have with others in the past. There were good reasons for liberals online to be pseudonymous, reasons that haven't changed much. Still, it was his choice, and I wouldn't be surprised if his regular gigs on "Majority Report" are leading the way to at least a few television appearances.  

The lack of updating is due to the final and complete death of my computer (after months of on-and-off functioning). Access to others has been a little light, although it should improve in the next month or so. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with the situation, but what's a guy to do? I somehow doubt I'm going to get a laptop from donation money, so I'll just have to take my opportunities where they come.

By the by, once I DO have access, I'm probably going to be switching templates. Things may be a little haywire when it happens. Just a heads-up.

Crap.

I had a long post on the Wilson issue that Blogger just ate. (Word to the wise: don't use the "back" button when you see a problem in the preview. You'd think that it'd go back to the posting, but then you'd be wrong. Just like I was.)

So, I'll be quick. Wilson's response to the Senate charges is Here. He questioned their sources, their conclusions, and highlighted the difference between the clearly-partisan "additional notes" sections and the main body of the report. It's pretty devastating, especially on the key source that apparently doesn't believe what the Senate intelligence committee thinks he believes, and whom Wilson insists should be "reinterviewed".

Drive-By Posting #2

One other thing I've seen and wanted to comment on was the ruling on the U.S. Pilot who killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. His punishment came down today; it was minor, although this wasn't due to the judging officer but due to the (inexplicable) choice of venues. An incident that leads to 4 dead soldiers should come before a court martial, case closed; that it didn't only reinforces the (disturbingly common) belief around the world that the United States' respect for rights and security stop at "the water's edge" far more reliably than its politics ever did. I'm coming to believe that it is this perception of "second-class humanity" that is at the core of the vast majority of anti-Americanism nowadays, not any nebulous "hatred of freedom". It also explains "Yankee go home and take me with you": if you had the choice, wouldn't you want to be one of the chosen, protected few?

In any case, if Canadians start coming to this conclusion, it would create serious problems between the two countries, more than we've seen in a long time. After this, however, whatever else are they supposed to think?

Drive-by Posting #1

Ok, another drive-by posting while I have the time and ability. I'm happy with the news of Kerry's pick of Edwards. Although it creates the possibility of Kerry having his own words from the primaries shoved back in his face, I somehow doubt that's the worst that the Republicans will aim at him. Absent that, Edwards complements Kerry quite well, and as Digby has pointed out in the past, his rhetorical judo against Republican talking points was amazing. I think that Kerry is the better candidate, but being able to bring Edwards' speechmaking to the table is a big benefit.

Plus, it finally ends the Hillary bullshit.

You'll notice that I have a sponsor again; I'm very happy to have Sen. Feingold's support, as I would anybody who (according to his official website) found the USA PATRIOT act "deeply troubling". Plus, I'm not one to say no to support; although the website is free, the ability and time to update isn't, and unfortunately I don't have the luxury of updating at work.

(Nor, at the moment, at home, as the on-again off-again computer situation is, sadly, "off", and will likely remain that way for a good while.)

In any case, thanks to Sen. Feingold, and to those who continue to read considering these long delays.

"Martin and Me"?

Ok, as promised, a quick assessment of the Moore film. I liked it, quite a bit; there were some points that were a little overstated and alarmist (like the Saudi oil connections), but even they were still immensely interesting and generally "on". Much ofthe film was actually quite haunting, the "blank" 9-11 scene and the scenes with the soldier's mother brilliantly so. There wasn't a dry eye in the house when the mother read her dead son's letter of outrage at the Bush administration, and the structure of the opening part of the film detailing Bush's weak early presidency was a cogent reminder that prior to 9/11, he was already an embarrassment.

What truly struck me was that Moore proved the vital importance of documentaries. Crimes and mistakes that I had read and intellectually understood were far more powerful when brought to the the big screen, and Moore did an excellent job of looking backwards and showing us what led us to this point. Considering that the biggest asset that the Bush administration has had is its ability to brazen its way through controversy with the confidence that all old scandals will be forgotten, this role of dredging up the past has become vital, and Moore has ably played that role. Even the opening invocation of the 2000 Supreme Court decision and disenfranchisement of black Floridians is vital to understanding just how bad the situation truly is, and I don't think the movie would have been so effective had Moore's opening of "was it all just a dream" not raised the question of whether Florida stuck us a living nightmare. (And when I say "us", I mean the planet, not just the American people.) It also sets the stage for Moore's most important achievement with this movie, which is framing and coloring the historical assessment of the Bush administration before it even ends. No future examination of Bush will be able to avoid Fahrenheit 9/11. Even disputing it acknowledges its importance.

Everybody who hasn't gone to see it should. Everybody who has gone to see it should think about what it means. Everybody who gets fixated on whether or not Moore was an "objective documentarian" doesn't know what a documentary is, and is missing the more important question of whether Moore's subjectivity is closer to the mark than you have let yourself believe.

As for the Canadian election, the most able analysis I heard was encapsulated in a simple sentence: "Ontario got to the polls, looked down, said 'Prime Minister Stephen Harper?' and said no". This was a massive win for the left, oddly enough, with center-left to far-left candidates receiving over 70% of the vote- left-wing parties now serve as the "balance of power" in Canada. Conservatives in Canada just had a very bad night; they're actually worse off than if they had been facing another Liberal majority. The last time there was a Liberal party leader that needed NDP support to pass bills, the (currently sacrosanct) public health insurance system was born. Who knows what will appear in the next few years or so.

The True North, Strong and Divided

Yes, I haven't been posting again, which is not usually how things go when one's humble home becomes a focus of attention for someone like the always-enlightening Digby. So it goes. To be honest, I've been distracted from American politics recently (although I do intend on seeing Moore's new film tonight), due to the fascinating events going on up in Canada. To make up for the lack of updating, a somewhat longer-than-typical entry follows.

As most of you know, Canada's going through an election. If you didn't know, then you should perhaps pay attention, because it's going to be interesting. See, up until very recently, the Canadian political system had been pretty much a one-party system, with the Liberals absolutely dominating by taking political positions roughly analoguous with the population and facing a weak, divided, and ideologically suspect opposition on its right and a "not ready for prime time" party to its left. It was poised to assume power unparalleled in the western democratic world, as everybody was expecting the new (and popular) former finance minister, Paul Martin, to crush all opponents. He was seen as all things to all people.

Then the so-called "sponsorship scandal" issue came up, the Liberal's soft underbelly of corruption was exposed and everything changed. The "scandal", such as it is, isn't really that bad; Canada's Auditor General, Sheila Frasier, has repeatedly stated that it's not that money was stolen, but that insufficient information has been given as to what it was actually USED for. Compared to what the Bush administration has been up to, it's mild, but this doesn't matter. Canadians are ticked, especially in Quebec, and Canadians are entirely unlike Americans in their political predelictions- they have a tendency towards massive lurches from one party to another.

So, who's the alternative? Well, The right has united under a bland-but-extremist economist on the far right named Stephen Harper, after the western-based "Reform" party finally achieved its goal of absorbing the old "Conservatives" (after having gone through numerous faux-"alliances" to do it) and are if anything more united than the squabbling Liberals. Thanks to the weakness of the Liberals, they're actually in a position to win it all, even though their platform is weak and their political positions very much out of step with most of mainstream Canada.

Thing is, thanks to the Canadian system, neither is likely to actually be running the show. In the American experience, a close election doesn't mean that much, because somebody is still going to win. Canada, however, has four major political parties (one, a Quebec seperatist party named the "Bloc Quebecois", is poised to be the third-largest thanks to the Liberal collapse in Quebec) and no single party is going to win a majority of the seats. In the past, that has usually meant coalitions between two of the parties, like the Liberals and the NDP, and that particular possibility is actually quite popular among most small "l" liberals in Canada, who have seen the supposed "Liberal" party drift rightward over the years. The problem is the Bloc Quebecois, who is going to be so large that even the Liberals and NDP together couldn't form a coalition that forms a majority of the seats in the House of Commons. The logical solution would be for the Liberals or Conservatives to create a coalition with the Bloc, but the Bloc's agenda of seperatism and social democracy makes them anathema to both the Liberals (who built their identity on Canadian unity and compete with them in Quebec) and the Conservatives (who love social democrats about as much as Grover Norquist does). Whoever creates a coalition with the Bloc would get punished in a coming election.

Making this even more divisive is the fact that Canada is a Westminster-style democracy, which means that there are no fixed elections and a single failed "confidence vote" (vote on confidence in the government) will bring down the government. This wouldn't necessarily be an issue, but in Canada almost every vote is a confidence vote, because every vote that involves the budget is a question of confidence as a matter of course. So the government must win almost every vote, but it can't create a coalition in order to do it, because the only party that will be big enough is political anathema.

To top it all off, the party that wins the most seats won't necessarily form the government. The Governor General (the representative of the Queen in Canada) customarily asks the leader of the last governing party to try to form a government first. This is usually a simple formality, but the Liberals could seize the opportunity and try to create a government in the face of a larger Conservative presence in Parliament. Paul Martin has said he wouldn't, but times change, and we're looking at the prospect of a difference of only a few seats.

(As a bonus, this is going to be the first time in a LONG time that an election in Canada will live and die by the local efforts. They say that the local candidate's actions affect about 10% of his vote totals, but that 10% will be critical. Every smart politician in Canada should be gearing up for the biggest "Get out the Vote" drive in Canadian history, because that razor-thin margin WILL be decided by the turnout. Also, there's a question of vote-splitting between the NDP and Liberals, although the polls that discuss the likely seat totals will have taken that into account and the NDP has been REALLY focused on key winnable ridings this time around).

Two things are sure to happen after Monday, however, in the both the short and long term. In the short term, Canada's government is going to be a very strange beast, operating like the coalitions found in Proportional Representation-based systems without the underlying electoral system that provokes them. (The aforementioned Governor General's poorly-understood powers to bring the government together will be exercised for the first time in generations). In the long run, however, it's now inevitable that Canada will move to some sort of mixed PR system. The left isn't going to unite-- the NDP and Bloc are simply too different from the Liberals-- and they're going to have realized that Canada can't stick with its current system. The Liberals won't like that, but I can guarantee that they'll like the alternative less. After all, when the leader of your chief rival calls the leader of YOUR party a pedophile, you'll do whatever it takes to keep them out of power.

Yes, this really did happen.

You can see, then, why I've been watching Canada's election with such keen interest. Compared to that drama, the United States' election seems almost... serene. Yet, there's an important American aspect to this. The United States appears to be moving to the left; the neo-cons are discredited, and this week's Economist revealed that there's a growing religious left aiming to counter the influence of the religious right. Without those two groups, there's little bedrock left for American conservatism to build on. If the extremely pro-American Conservatives win in Canada, however, it's likely that Canada will be dragged to the right. The upshot is that in a possible Kerry/Harper future, the "Fire and Ice" differences will calm; the fire will cool and the ice melt. Considering how American liberals point north and Canadian conservatives point south, it's possible that the ultra-long term result would be an increased likelihood of some sort of union between the two countries. This is the wildest speculation, of course; most Canadians are quite proud of not being Americans, and most Americans probably don't really want them that badly. (This is fine; the countries work better as complements, rather than twins.) Still, it's a possibility.

Blogging will remain light, unfortunately. I'll probably post a reaction to Moore's movie when I can. One thing I can say right now, though; it may well end up being the most important movie of the year, and quite possibly the most popular. We may end the year with Moore being one of the most powerful people in Hollywood. I can already see Ann Coulter's head exploding.

"L'etat, c'est moi"

Yeah, I haven't updated for a while. As is usually the case with me and other bloggers, it's simply that I've been busy with other things, and there are a number of other excellent bloggers doing great work. One of those, consistently, is Josh Marshall, who wrote an excellent commentary about a Wall Street Journal article that reveals a confidential memo detailing how the president should "issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is 'inherent in the president.'" Josh's response is pretty much identical to mine:

So the right to set aside law is "inherent in the president". That claim alone should stop everyone in their tracks and prompt a serious consideration of the safety of the American republic under this president. It is the very definition of a constitutional monarchy, let alone a constitutional republic, that the law is superior to the executive, not the other way around. This is the essence of what the rule of law means -- a government of laws, not men, and all that.

He allows that no less a figure than Thomas Jefferson argued that there are cases where the president must act out of necessity, but that these were extreme cases where the president must thereafter "throw himself on the mercy of the public". All this is true.

What he didn't seem to notice, however, is that the dangers of extra-constitutionalism that he is concerned about are as old as American-style republics.

As I've mentioned in the past, there is a fundamental danger in an American presidential republic, which is that the head of government and the head of state are the same person. This invests the head of government with a lot of power; the symbolic power of the head of state can be used by the president to influence (or even dominate) domestic politics. This power waxes and wanes, of course, but in situations of perceived crisis it can be overwhelming, thanks to the natural need of nations and societies to have some person to rally around. This is why the Royals in England were so important in keeping spirits up during the Blitz, and why American presidents tend to enjoy so much lattitude.

When crises arise, then, there is both the opportunity and, lets face it, a clear desire for the head of state to "take charge and lead the people". If the problems of politics get in the way, then the president has a nearly irresistable opportunity to sweep those "problems" away, which usually means "emergency powers" of some sort. Once gained, these powers are very rarely given up, as there are always new "crises" to exploit to retain them.

(This can be done with the best of intentions; democratic politics can be maddeningly slow. A president that seizes power isn't necessarily evil or power-mad; he could be a good man that honestly believes that this is necessary.)

A king or queen can't really do this, because their role as embodiment of the people doesn't stem from popular acclaim but their membership in a particular family. People's commitment to popular rule is too strong nowadays for family ties to be seen as justification for conferring absolute power. A king couldn't dissolve the legislature by claiming that it's the "will of the people"; he'd get quickly contradicted by his (elected) prime minister as head of government. Every president, however, can at least partially claim legitimacy as the embodiment of the popular will. It is that will from which his legitimacy stems, but it is also that will from which modern cults of personality are born.

These sorts of events are incredibly common. In fact, they're so common that the fact that the United States has never had this happen has baffled political scientists since the phenomenon was noticed. There are a number of theories as to why, but my own favorite stems from an American military tradition, which is that soldiers swear loyalty to the Constitution, not the president, despite being their "commander in chief". One of the most treasured aspects of the American system is its balance of power between judiciary, executive and legislature; while its effectiveness can sometimes be questioned, it's important in that it enshrines the idea that the United States is a country where the laws stand above the president; that the symbolic power of a head of state will never confer absolute power upon him. "L'etat c'est moi" does not apply. It is, perhaps, the only way in which one can have a powerful president without having the system fly apart in the face of crisis.

Josh and the WSJ, however, has shown that the United States may be moving in the direction of countries like Argentina and Chile. The line of argument made in the memo isn't new, but very, very old... it's the first stage in a possible process where the powers of the laws is eroded and the powers of the executive rise in their place. Arguing that the president has the right to "set aside the laws" is an argument for absolute executive power, because the supremacy of "the laws" is the only real power that the legislature and judiciary have. Without this legal supremacy, the United States becomes like every other fragile republic in the Americas.

We know what will happen. We've seen it dozens of times before, and we'll see it dozens of times in the future. Republics are always haunted by the spectre of their "commanders-in-chief" becoming simply "commanders". The Latin word for commander is "imperator", more popularly known as "emperor". America may yet have its Napoleon; its Octavian. That it hasn't happened yet does not mean it won't.

This memo and the ideas that underlie it does not make empire inevitable; it is, however, the first necessary step in journeying down that road.

Edit: Digby also provides some good commentary on this issue.

"He's mad, I tell you!"

Anybody else notice that John Podhoretz's reaction to Gore's speech is extraordinarily reminiscent of the stereotypical scene in most detective-style movies where the villian, upon accusation from the protagonist, starts yelling "he's mad!"

How else to explain this?

was wrong. There is no way of knowing how he would have responded, because it is now clear that Al Gore is insane.

I don't mean that his policy ideas are insane, though many of them are. I mean that based on his behavior, conduct, mien and tone over the past two days, there is every reason to believe that Albert Gore Jr., desperately needs help. I think he needs medication, and I think that if he is already on medication, his doctors need to adjust it or change it entirely.

There is no way, whatsoever, that that could be taken seriously. Saying Gore is wrong is one thing... that I could understand. To claim that former vice president Gore is "crazy" is so bizarrely wrong that it defies explanation.

It just seems like they aren't even really trying anymore.

Nice Name

In case you were wondering, however, Rising Hegemon isn't me.

Nice stuff, though.

Rummy in Iraq

So far, this hasn't been overly impressive. Other than the "hoooooah" bits, it's been the standard "support the troops" stuff and Rumsfeld obliquely blaming the media for everything.

Yes, it sounds like the troops back him, but keep in mind that they've likely been carefully screened. Anybody who would scream "you sold us out, you bastard" is no doubt elsewhere.

"Al-Blogeera"?

Anybody else notice the title and thrust of this english language Al-Jazeera story? "Bloggers doubt Berg execution video".

Huh. that connection was something I didn't expect. I don't think it's quite accurate- most of the doubting has been by discussion forum denizens and not blog writers- but the specific story isn't as important as the fact that someone writing for Al-Jazeera, of all sources, built a story on "bloggers" instead of either using them as unacknowledged background or within the context of "what's with these weird online guys". No doubt that this is because Al-Jazeera is pretty eager to shift the blame for this thing; they want to keep the thought alive that maybe the Americans killed their own.

(I personally think that's damned near impossible, by the by. The propaganda benefit by that would be dwarfed by the potential damage were it revealed.)

The Video

You know what I'm talking about.

Yes, I've seen it.

Yes, I really wish I hadn't.

No, it really doesn't change much, objectively speaking. There have been rather a lot of deaths of innocents (and combatants) in Iraq, and this one poor victim doesn't really change that. It doesn't change the challenges and problems of the situation, although I expect that the media is going to be all over it tomorrow. It will almost certainly harden American hearts towards the Iraqis, as people blame the whole country (and the prisoners, many of whom are innocent) for what happened, and begin to excuse the treatment of the prisoners by claiming that this was worse.

(They're right in that it is worse, unless there were even worse aspects to the torture that haven't come out yet, which is actually possible. They're wrong, however, in believing that this changes the morality of the treatment of the prisoners).

Rationally, I know that this is par for the course in warfare, and the biggest difference is that the internet allows things like this to be disseminated... and that we don't often get an unfiltered look at the reality of warfare. I know that this is the world that we must face, and that whether we face it or not, it will remain regardless.

That knowledge, however, isn't going to help me sleep tonight.

New Blogger Interface

Welp, once again they've rejiggered the thing. Seems roughly the same, except with more rounded tabs and a different color scheme.

On the plus side, though, I really like the preview trick.

Edit: Ok, some of the stuff that they've added is actually pretty compelling. I've been thinking about switching templates for a while, and the comments system may turn out to be of more use than the (admittedly aging) YACCS system I've been using for a while.

Plus, a template shift would be in keeping with the name change and tone change that I've been contemplating as well. The situation in blogdom is very different than when I started, and the condition of conservative intellectual hegemony that I originally started this blog to combat has given way to an online reflection of the brutal polarization that is taking over American political culture. (And, to a lesser extent, world political culture.)

(Note that the hegemony wasn't really taken away, but just sort of given up; conservative bloggers have been astoundingly uninteresting, formulaic, and trite over the last while.)

On the other hand, redoing all the links is going to be a hassle.

I'll figure it out soon enough.

The Abu Ghraib Issue

I'm not about to blog on this issue extensively; it's been well covered by other bloggers, especially Josh Marshall (latest entry here).

What I will mention is that this is going to throw the perceived hypocrisy of the democratic North (in the eyes of the rest of the world) into sharp relief. The core of the "we like Americans, but don't like their government" concept is that while the United States (among other states) considers democracy and human rights precious within its borders, it is perfectly willing to sacrifice them outside said borders to forward its interests. Hence the reason so many people loathe the United States' foreign policy at the same time as they're desperately trying to immigrate; they know that democratic ideals often lose out to raw realist "national interest" once you cross those lines.

This was always the dangerous part about using humanitarian arguments for justifying the intervention. They were always plausible, theoretically, as long as the United States could be seen as having its collective "heart in the right place", even while it was prone to mistakes caused by cultural ignorance. (Such as tromping around Mosques in army boots and the like). Even the horrible pictures and footage that show up on Al Jazeera could be explained away as "collateral damage" or tragic mistakes. These photos, obviously, are not tragic mistakes, and will be seen as systemic failures no matter how many cries of "isolated incident" rise up from those whose careers depend on people buying that argument.

Without that flimsy veneer, the humanitarian arguments are valueless, and at this point nothing else is left. Except maybe for the "removing a threat to Israel's security" bit, and having a huge unstable hole at the centre of the Middle East isn't in Israel's interest, any more than it is the United States'. Thus, the United States is left fighting a war without any real purpose, except trying to fend off the consequences of invading in the first place. Nobody is going to accept that, and the realities of trying to fight such a war is going to make the situation, if anything, worse than Vietnam.

Where's the Black Knight?

I hadn't thought that David Brooks was a Monty Python fan. You probably hadn't, either. Yet there is a distinctly python-esque argument being made by Brooks in his latest NYTimes article.

But don't take my word for it. See for yourself. Anybody who's seen "Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail" knows about the scene with John Cleese as Lancelot and Michael Palin as a king. Cleese just slaughtered half the wedding guests, completely randomly and for no good reason, and Palin (salivating over the prospect of making good with a Knight of the Round Table) says "this is a happy occasion! Let's not get into arguments about who killed who."

Take it away, Brooks:

And for the past 10 days, all of Washington has been kibitzing over the contents of Bob Woodward's latest opus, which largely concerns events that happened between 2001 and 2003. Did President Bush eye somebody else's dinner mint at a meeting? Was Colin Powell in the loop on Iraq? When did Bush ask the Pentagon to draw up war plans?

This is crazy. This is like pausing during the second day of Gettysburg to debate the wisdom of the Missouri Compromise. We're in the midst of the pivotal battle of the Iraq war and le tout Washington decides not to let itself get distracted by the ephemera of current events...

What's going on is obvious. The first duty of proper Washingtonians is to demonstrate that they are smarter than whomever they happen to be talking about. It's quite easy to fulfill this mission when you are talking about the past. It's child's play for a salad-course solon who spent the entire 1990's ignoring foreign affairs to condemn the administration piously for not focusing like a laser beam on Al Qaeda on Aug. 6, 2001.

It's harder to be a smart aleck about the future, especially in regards to Najaf and Falluja, where none of the choices are good ones. Do the Baathists win a victory every day they hold off our siege? Or if we take them out now, do we undermine Sistani? We Klieg Light Kierkegaards will give you the right answer — three years from now, after whatever option the president takes has been judged and found wanting.

"This is a war! We were attacked! Let's not get into an argument about who neglected what!". Just like Palin's, it's a transparent attempt to try to avoid blame (and explanation) for the actions of the past by using the distraction of the present. It's a nice game, because it means you can get away with whatever you want, as long as you wait long enough to claim "that's in the past, it doesn't matter". I'm sure Slobodon Milosovich would like to do the same thing, but that ain't going to fly, either.

(It's also a nice little distraction because there's really nothing official Washington can do about the situation in Iraq. It's a military issue, out of their hands. It's like bringing up the weather, except far safer for a Bush administration that play the old game of making things seem better in the short term, then trust that the long-term damage is forgotten..)

In this case, though, it's particularly perverse, because the books are really addressing the situation that we're in right now. Brooks is dodging around the "why" question, when the entire reason why the Woodward book and the 9/11 commission are important is because they get to the heart of the reason why Iraq has gone so terribly wrong- the tendentiousness and thoughtlessness of this administration and the President it serves. That Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and others neglected Al Qaeda in order to bring about their fever dream of an America-friendly Iraq is obvious enough, but you can't convict without evidence, and these things are evidence. Which David Brooks, and his political masters, desperately don't want people to realize.

Close Call

A Massive potential chemical attack by Al Qaeda was averted in Jordan today. "The plot would have been more deadly than anything al Qaeda has done before, including the September 11 attacks, according to the Jordanian government", says CNN.

Well, maybe. Or maybe it was intended to be a huge conventional attack; the main chemical agent in question, sulfuric acid, can apparently be used both as a blister agent or as an accelerant for a conventional explosion. Then again, according to a Jordanian scientist, the intent was to create a "chemical cloud".

Regardless, it looks like Al-Zarqawi was behind it.