Stimulus: The New Patriot Act

In politics, all that’s bad is good again. History repeats itself not because we’re stuck on an unbreakable cycle, but because we fail to recognize (or misdiagnose) patterns. If, for example, we are wronged, we will likely see that wrong quite clearly. But when we wrong others, we may not see it simply because it is by our own hand and targets not our own body. In this way, we risk authorship of our own demise.

For the most recent example of this phenomena, look no further than the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (and similar post-9/11 legislation). On the surface, the similarities are few – one addresses national security, the other economic stimulus. And I suspect some will take umbrage on equating the curtailment of civil liberties with increases in spending. But for those who can look pass partisan framing, the commonalities are abundant.

Both the PATRIOT Act and the stimulus package predicate their success, to some extent, on fear-mongering. The terrorist attacks of 9/11, while both horrible and horrifying, did not put us on the brink of Armageddon. The lives lost totaled less than two percent of the U.S. population and that is the worst our enemies have been able to muster. Likewise, while our economic picture is bleak, it is not an unprecedented disaster. The Great Depression and the oil crises of the 1970s were more malignant by several measures.

Amid this heightened sense of doom, supporters of both the PATRIOT Act and the stimulus package demanded that immediate action be taken. As Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, noted in Michael Moore’s controversial “Fahrenheit 9/11,” many members of Congress did not have the time to give the PATRIOT Act legislation a thorough reading. Similarly, it would be safe to say that sufficient time has not been allotted for members of Congress to thoroughly digest the 600-plus page stimulus legislation.

Another similarity can be found in the willingness of both PATRIOT backers and stimulus backers to vilify their opponents. Those who questioned or opposed the PATRIOT Act were demagogically denounced as radical or anti-American. In a similar fashion, stimulus backers such as Paul Krugman (who should know better) have referred to stimulus critics and foes as partisan hacks who can be safely ignored. The view that PATRIOT foes recklessly ignored America’s safety has evolved into the view that stimulus foes are recklessly ignoring America’s economic well-being. In both instances, it has proven simpler to smear the critics rather than address or rebut their criticisms.

Interestingly enough for both PATRIOT and stimulus foes, neither piece of legislation is as bad as it could have been. The PATRIOT Act included provisions which sunset, or expire after a certain period of time unless legislation is enacted to extend them. Author James Bovard also states that Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, who introduced the bill, worked to eliminate even more intrusive provisions. Similarly, the stimulus package includes tax cuts (which have been known to actually stimulate the economy from time to time) and not nearly enough spending for the likes of Krugman and fellow economist Joseph Stiglitz.

In the years since the PATRIOT Act’s passage, its overreach and invitation for abuse is apparent. In a 2007 audit, the Justice Department found that the FBI used the tools provided by the PATRIOT Act to illegally spy on American citizens. The ostensibly national security-minded PATRIOT Act was also used for purposes decidedly unrelated to national security, such as enforcing copyright infringement and investigating drug traffickers.

Since the stimulus package has yet to be passed by the Senate as of this writing, there can be no ill effects to measure. The legislation does, however, contain a number of components unrelated to stimulating the economy, such as funds for family planning. Given the sheer scope of the money involved (over $800 billion) and the size of the bureaucracies it will be filtered through, misuse and malfeasance seems more a question of “when" and "how" rather than "if."

Of course, there is a learning opportunity here and an easy one at that. The chance to avoid repeating a mistake requires only that we not develop amnesia. But when spend-happy big-government Republicans are suddenly unified in their stimulus opposition on the grounds of fiscal discipline (suppressed titter) and once-skeptical Democrats take up the mantle of heavy-handed toadying yes-men, that may be too much to ask.

The Merits of McCain and Obama and Why I'm Not Voting For Either of Them

Whether intended or not, presidential elections are, increasingly, exercises in aggrandizement. Every challenge we face is supposedly unique, every set of circumstances supposedly unprecedented and America’s future is always on the line. Or, barring that, we’re perpetually reenacting the definitive moments of our past: Sept. 11 becomes the new Pearl Harbor, the recent economic downturn is suddenly Great Depression 2.0 and so on.
Amid all this (often groundless) puffery, it’s all too easy to lose sight of the fact that our job as voters is to express our preference for the next president of the United States; nothing more and nothing less. We are not electing a king or a savior or a surrogate father or a drinking buddy. It is highly unlikely any choice we make will spell our ruin or bring about a golden age. The ebullient rhetoric of a bright new tomorrow will fade far more quickly than the gloss on many of the campaign signs.
Within those parameters, however, the choice we make can make a difference. The status quo can still be tilted and nudged if not truly shaken. And just as sickness exists between death and health, there is a whole spectrum of national well-being for our next president to intrepidly traverse. The objective for any voter, be it largely guesswork, is not to go with which candidate you “like” the most, but which candidate will screw things up the least.
This is a question I find myself continually straining to answer. After all, Candidate A might screw us up one way and Candidate B might screw us up another. How do you rate, for instance, paying more in taxes against paying more for health care? Is an expensive and unpopular war we’re now fighting “better” than an expensive and unpopular war we may fight somewhere else in the future? Do one party’s sex scandals merit more scorn than another party’s funding scandals?
The dilemma reached a rather maddening crescendo in 2004. Running on a record of abject failure, George W. Bush benefitted greatly from the Lincolnian adage about changing horses at midstream (the stream, in this case, being filled with casualties and tape recorded threats by bearded men). John Kerry, on the other hand, benefitted greatly by not being George W. Bush, but didn’t really bring anything else to the table save for uncertainty, a lack of charisma and a fondness for windsurfing. Not having the slightest shred of confidence in either of them, I gave my vote in protest to a third-party candidate who, in retrospect, was a few bricks short of a wall.
But – and in direct contradiction of my earlier point – this election is different. I can trust John McCain to do certain things and I can trust Barack Obama to do certain things. There are, for once, good reasons to vote for either the Republican or Democratic candidate, as opposed to voting against them.
Some of these reasons, it should be noted, really have nothing to do with the candidates themselves, but simply the positions they occupy. History has shown us, for instance, that federal spending is often held in check by divided government. Thus, a vote for a Republican presidential candidate facing a Democratic Congress is usually a vote for fiscal restraint because the veto pen is more likely to be put to use than if president and congress shared the same party. It has little to do with how fiscally conservative or profligate the individual candidate is or is not.
Further, as both Obama and McCain are sitting Senators, a win for either of them creates a vacancy. In McCain’s case, winning the election frees up his seat for Jeff Flake; aside from Ron Paul, the most libertarian member of the House (and, I can only hope, a future presidential candidate). In Obama’s case, you’re looking at possibly Jesse Jackson Jr. or another Chicago politician. If you’ve been keeping score, you’ll see that McCain is gaining some points by default. Whatever hits he takes running as the successor to an unpopular Republican president is more than offset by Obama running as a member of an even more unpopular Democratic Congress.
Another factor to be considered is each candidate’s choice of a running mate. For better or for worse, we’ve come a long way from the days of John Nance “not worth a bucket of warm piss” Garner. Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald Ford have shown us that a vice president must be ready to occupy the top slot and Dick Cheney has shown us that vice presidential power isn’t limited to occasions when the president is incapacitated.
By the simplest measure possible, Obama succeeded in picking someone who is up to the job while McCain did not. Make no mistake about it: Joe Biden is a traditional Washington politician who undercuts Obama’s message of change. He also has an odious judicial philosophy and is ordinarily a walking gaffe machine (though, it must be said, he has done a better than expected job of keeping himself in check). However, Biden has the requisite experience and temperament, particularly in foreign affairs. It’s unlikely he would be a good president, but he could be president just the same.
GILF-itude aside, Sarah Palin picks up points for charisma and running the crooked Frank Murkowski out of office. That alone, however, is not nearly enough to offset her negatives. Not only does her inexperience render Obama’s inexperience moot, but she’s proven herself to be mendacious (see “Bridge to Nowhere stance”), condescendingly elitist (see “real Americans”) and abusive of the power vested in her (see “Troopergate”). Whining about media treatment – a curious stance given her open hostility to the very same media – negates none of this. Quite simply, she does not have what it takes to be president at this point in time.
Associations beyond the choice of veep tend to be a more tenuous matter. “Knowing” people and putting the people you know in power are two different things and only the latter possibility is really worth our consideration. Contrary to all the mudslinging, Obama probably has closer ties to Chicago School economists than he does to William Ayers and you aren’t any more likely to see the ex-terrorist in a cabinet post than you are McCain buddy/convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy occupying a spot in a Republican administration. Likewise, while the lobbyist/shady fundraiser connections native to both candidates undermine their images as agents of change, there’s little reason to worry unless those same connections are likely candidates for positions of power.
Another consideration often given too much weight is that of character. As stated, you are electing a president, not a best friend. Decent people don’t always make for decent presidents (see Carter, Jimmy and Bush, George W.), while untrustworthy or morally suspect people (see Clinton, Bill and Kennedy, John F.) sometimes make for decent presidents. The only time “character” should be a prime consideration is when it casts suspicion on a candidate’s ability to do the job (see Nixon, Richard).
Temperament, on the other hand, does matter. How a candidate responds to the demands of being president has big implications for his effectiveness. A president must be able to work with Congress, with subordinates, with world leaders, with the media, etc. The real “change” that Obama brings to this campaign is not in his politics (more on that below), but how he approaches being a politician. As he showed during the debates, he is able to make himself appear conciliatory even when he is on the offensive, a quality that appeals to those who may not share his views. McCain’s hard-charging style, on the other hand, makes him seem angry; a turn-off to voters who aren’t already in his corner.
Take the same characteristics to the foreign policy arena, however, and the dynamic changes. Even after eight years of “The Decider,” it’s worth betting that Americans want their president to appear strong and decisive when dealing with other nations (particularly the “bad” ones). McCain oozes leadership, while Obama’s more laid-back approach comes across as a liability (worse yet would be the ill-fated aggressiveness you can expect him to display to overcompensate for this).
Both candidates, it should be noted, have shown they are capable of working with the other side. Bipartisanship is not always a positive. It gave us campaign finance reform (McCain-Feingold), the PATRIOT Act and No Child Left Behind. However, it also gave us increased transparency in federal funding (Obama-Coburn-McCain) among other things. In general, it’s desirable to have a president who will sign or veto legislation based on something more substantive than party control of Congress.
The final pratfall to avoid is that of narrative. Come election time, candidates look to define both themselves and their opponents in terms they hope will resonate with the electorate. Obama wants us to believe he’s an agent of change and McCain is a Bush clone with the wrong economic priorities; McCain wants us to accept him as a maverick and Obama as an inexperienced liberal with terrorist connections. And while there may be a kernel of truth to all of these characterizations, you can count on more than a kernel of self-interested exaggeration. Fortunately, however, politics is not an art which rewards creativity. The farther you stray from that which is so, the easier it becomes to hammer you with it.
All that really remains at this point are the issues: where do candidates stand, what ideas do they propose, what will they do as president. In a perfect world, issues would dominate both the discourse and each voter’s decision-making process. As it now stands, however, issues play second fiddle to narrative, to perceptions of character, to countless other less impactful factors when we talk about elections. How much they actually weigh on each individual voter as the lever is pulled is anyone’s guess.
It is through this lens of issues that Obama loses much of his gloss. For all the rhetoric of change, his positions are indistinguishable from those of many other Democratic politicians. He is pro-choice, committed to multilateral interventionism, in favor of universal health-care and a “green.” While he does offer a few points of departure – he’s voiced support for merit pay for teachers and talked up personal and parental responsibility – he is, for the most part, a breath of stale air.
Obama’s Democratic orthodoxy is most troubling in the economic sphere. It should be said beforehand that Obama is not a socialist: not while he is running on tax cuts, not while he has so many associates in the business world. He is, however, a neo-Keynsian interventionist, which can spell disaster in its own right. By falsely framing the economic downturn as a product of unfettered capitalism, he seems intent on drumming up support for increased economic regulation. Considering that the regulatory excesses of the New Deal helped prolong the Great Depression, this is reason for concern.
McCain, on the other hand, is a bit more difficult to pin down. To quote one characterization, he is, “conservative, but not a Conservative.” Ideology, in other words, takes a back seat to ambition and McCain’s stances on taxes, on the role of religion and politics, on repealing Roe v. Wade, have varied over the years.
Despite his capacity for periodically reinventing himself, McCain has shown a few constants. He has proven to be a consistent unilateral hawk; a firm believer in American military might to solve global problems. He has also been a consistent foe of pork barrel spending and government waste and a proponent of free trade.
McCain’s social policy has generally been conservative, tempered by varying degrees of federalism. His economic views are generally market-oriented, though he did support the recent bank bailout.
Given everything, each candidate brings enough to the table for me to at least give him the time of day. I like Obama’s temperament, for instance, and find myself in agreement with him on certain social issues. But his economic stance and the fact that he is a Democrat facing a Democratic Congress render him unpalatable.
McCain, on the other hand, botched the Palin pick, is running a generally inept campaign, and has disagreeable stances on some foreign policy and social issues. He is, however, closer to being right on the economic side of things than Obama, is a Republican facing a Democratic Congress and would be getting my vote…if there weren’t better choices available.
I am, much to my surprise, supporting Bob Barr this go-around. The same Bob Barr who made waves as a gun-toting, impeachment-craving right-wing partisan during the Clinton years. The same Bob Barr who tried to ban the practice of Wicca in the military. The same Bob Barr who has the affability of a Brillo pad.
And yet, unlike the 2004 vote for Badnarik, this is not a protest vote. I honestly believe Barr has what it takes to be president. He spent parts of his childhood in various parts of the world and has a ton of experience in international affairs. He’s been a congressman, a CIA analyst, a prosecutor and a member of the NRA board of directors and an ACLU consultant. With a résumé like that and all the right notes he’s hitting issue-wise (anti-bailout, strongly federalist, etc.) who cares if he isn’t Mr. Warmth?
Of course, being a former Republican congressman, Barr has some history to answer for. The once-proud drug warrior authored the Defense of Marriage Act and voted for the PATRIOT Act (albeit after adding sunset provisions). That, coupled with my skepticism toward political apostasy, should be enough for me to remove him from consideration. However, I am convinced that Barr’s move toward libertarianism is sincere. He has been a de facto libertarian since leaving office in 2003, several years before he emerged as a presidential candidate. Contrast this to Alan Keyes and Ralph Nader leaching onto third parties at the 11th hour for vanity campaigns.
Barr also benefits from having probably the best running mate of the bunch in Wayne Allyn Root. Root, who graduated Columbia in the same class as Barack Obama, has had success as a businessman/author/media type and brings a ton of charisma. Also, as a Las Vegas sports handicapper, he’s about as far removed from Washington politics as you can get.
Naturally, I don’t expect Barr to win. But if he can make enough of a difference in the final tally, he’ll force Democrats and Republicans to take more notice of libertarian ideas. That kind of nudge will ultimately do more good for the country than either a McCain or an Obama presidency ever could.

White America, We Hardly Knew Ye

An article in The New York Times points to Census Bureau projections which have Hispanics, blacks, Asians, American Indians, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders outnumbering non-Hispanic whites by 2042.

It’s pretty easy to imagine the rednecks and xenophobes sounding the alarm bell over this and it seems almost a matter of time before someone starts whining about “endangered” white Americans. Maybe John Gibson will even renew his call for us to make more babies.

Personally, I can’t help but see this as a big fat “so what?” Look around the world and you’ll find many places where the demographics have changed over time. Further, while there was an Anglo majority during colonial times, America was not founded on explicitly racial/cultural grounds. Lastly, if preserving the whiteness of America was ever a priority, then why have our policymakers repeatedly added areas which would inevitably bring “foreigners” into the fold?

What’s more interesting to ponder is what this demographic shift says about the evolution of whiteness and non-whiteness. There was a time when “white” was synonymous with Anglo and Jews, Italians, et al. were not considered “white” in a cultural sense. Nowadays, “white” has evolved into a blanket term for Americans of European descent and hyphenated subcategories are used to fill the void. Bill O’Reilly, George W. Bush and myself may all be a couple of white guys, but Bill and I (should we choose to) get to affix the appropriate modifier (Irish, Jewish/Russian) to our –American while George does not.

But as Jacob Sullum notes at Hit & Run, this categorization is often arbitrary:

Is there a single objective criterion that unites these particular ethnic and racial minorities while distinguishing them from all the excluded groups? Is there any rational reason why a descendant of Spaniards, say, should count as a real minority, whether or not his ancestors spent time in Latin America, while a descendant of Italians does not?

I say no, not really, but it makes us feel better to be part of a smaller, more exclusive club.

Making a Mockery of the End Times: Foibles of the Apocalypsy

Making a Mockery of the End Times: Foibles of the Apocalypsy

I often proudly refer to myself as a cynic, which connotes a lack of faith in humanity and its collective abilities. I should note that this lack of faith extends to humanity’s ability to destroy itself. Thus, while some people may foresee a great unraveling or the beginning of the end looming on the horizon, I’ll merely think, “nah…we’ll find some way to screw it up.”

As a matter of perception, this perspective has come in handy as of late. The post-9/11, post-nuclear world of the 21^st century is inundated with fear. We are literally drowning in deep-felt concern that our natural resources are about to expire, that we will blow each other off the face of the Earth, that our souls are in danger of damnation. The litany of worries never seems to end. Fortunately, there’s a very simple solution: doubt and ye shall be set free.

The ‘new apocalypsy,’ as I like to call it, spans several branches and disciplines, from foreign relations to ecology to theology, but is marked by a set of common characteristics. First and foremost is the identification of a recent phenomena and its subsequent presentation (accurately or not) as part of a trend. Next is the argument that the trend is escalating and the problem is in fact direr than it had been before. Then, once a general pattern has been established, the dots are connected: this can only lead to one thing – the End. Lastly, a ray of hope is offered in the form of an ‘unless,’ as in ‘unless this course of action is pursued…’

Apocalypsy as a propaganda technique is neither new nor subtle, but I’ll be damned if it isn’t effective. By hyperinflating the urgency of an issue, it draws the public’s focus onto it and away from other issues that may be of concern. Further, playing upon fear of mass extinction greatly increases the chance your proposed solution (your ‘unless…’) will be taken seriously where it might not have been otherwise. All anyone has to risk in the process is their credibility. But, as we shall see, this is less of a hindrance than one may think.

Debunking the apocalypsy can be done one of two ways. The lazy way would be to simply shrug off any catastrophic claim as baseless and inaccurate. In my view, this is not the way to go. Improbable does not translate to impossible and those who walk around with their head perpetually nestled in the clouds are likely to miss whatever is right in front of them. Doubt, not dismissal will set you free.

The second method is as simple as bothering to ask a few questions. Fallacious claims tend not to hold up well when exposed to rigorous inquiry and doomsayers are easily peeved by even the most innocuous of interrogatories. These questions can roughly be divided into several categories: credibility, historicity, probability and accuracy.

Credibility pertains not only to the person offering the theory, but to the theory itself. The extent to which defeated ideas are repackaged can be surprising. To give one example, unfounded concerns about overpopulation and mortality keep popping up every now and then. When Thomas Malthus raised them in the 19^th century, he was shouted down by a coterie of economists, socialists and Catholic intellectuals (!). When Paul Ehrlich made a slew of erroneous predictions in “The Population Bomb” (life expectancy of 42 by 1980, anyone?), Julian Simon famously and rightfully took him to task. Just recently, University of Texas biologist Eric Pianka has forecast a 90% mortality rate is imminent. You’d figure after awhile, disproved theories would simply stay disproved, but that appears to be too much to ask.

Historical accuracy is another thorn in the side of the doomsayers. They are mindful of the fact that we tend to have short attention spans and forget things quickly. Energy activists, for instance, have been hammering home the idea that we have to break our dependence on foreign oil ASAP or we’re screwed (underlying implication: go green). They point to climbing gas prices and the “all-time high” price of crude, but there’s plenty that they don’t tell you. Namely, oil prices now are well below their all-time high in inflation adjusted dollars. Factor in the big I and the price of crude peaked during the Carter administration. And that was before we entered an era of sports cars and SUVs which, gasp, didn’t drive us to extinction.

Statistical accuracy can also be used to puncture phony claims of pending demise. One recurring theme among commentators and critics is America’s “culture of violence.” In the media-blaming frenzy that erupted after the Columbine shootings, much was said about the level of savagery in American society. But if anyone bothered to examine statistical trends in national crime data over the past 10-20 years – particularly homicide rates – they might find something surprising. Turns out we are getting LESS violent.

The final criteria, probability, is often the most difficult to work with. After all, nobody can predict the future. But with common sense and a little look at the numbers, anyone can avoid being suckered by a failed prophet. One point that’s been hammered countless times by politicians of all stripes is America’s vulnerability to terrorism and the urgent need to do something about it. And while it may be callous and shortsighted to dismiss that concern, neither do we need to be buying rolls of duct tape in bulk. Consider that, at their worst, terrorists were able to kill 3,000 Americans in a single day of carnage. That may seem like a lot until you realize our population at the time was more than 281 BILLION. Look at those numbers then ask yourself what the odds are of you or someone you know being destroyed by an act of terrorism, much less America as a whole.

Despite the ease with which it is debunked, apocalysm is very much in vogue. It transcends partisanship, crosses party lined and gives any nut with an agenda a platform on which to stand. Of course, that platform is held up only by the collective fear of the audience (that means you guys). Thus, in order to nullify the rhetoric, all one need do is not give into its lures and approach all claims with a skeptical mind.

Apocalysm needn’t be as onerous and blatant as a Bible-thumping preacher shouting about the end of days. Respected environmentalists, policy experts and commentators have all been known to go off the deep end, whether the topic is sustainable growth, the ‘New World Order’ or “moral decay.” If you’re like me, you’ve learned to laugh it off. But if you haven’t reached that point, take your time. It’s not like the end of the world is coming…is it?

Marx's Last Laugh and the Limits of Nationalism

Marx’s Last Laugh and the Limits of Nationalism

Let it not be said that history doesn’t have a sense of humor. Years after his demise, some of Karl Marx’s deepest held desires have been fulfilled – thanks largely to those who regard themselves as stalwart anti-Marxists. I refer to Marx’s contempt for civil society: the cultural, religious and social institutions that exist apart of the state. In Marx’s view of utopia (and, to a lesser extent, the ‘totalitarian democracy’ of Jean-Jacques Rosseau and the French Revolution), civil society is transformed into political society. There is little-to-no room for institutions to exist apart from the state. Likewise, the same is true of people: the state and the masses are identified as one.

Not surprisingly, this contemptuous attitude toward civil society has had more than its share of detractors. And yet, it continues to find its takers. The fascist and hardline nationalist movements that have arisen over the years seem to be quite taken with it, despite their ostensibly anti-Marxist, pro-tradition orientations. In Hitler’s Third Reich, to use an extreme example, civil society as it existed was essentially abolished and reconstructed to suit the Nazi regime. You could not simply be a person living and working in Germany, you were (often via coercion) linked with the state. If you weren’t pro-Nazi you weren’t, for intents and purposes of the ruling elite, German…even if you could trace your lineage to Otto the Great.

Softer forms of this kind of mentality have persisted to the present day. It is not without its advantages, either as a political maneuver or an earnest societal goal. In the former, linking the identity of the people with the government that rules over them places critics of that government in a precarious “us versus them” predicament. In the latter, attempting to link people via a common denominator (race, religion, cultural heritage, etc.) seems the perfect pathway to peace. In theory at least, a homogeneous society will be subject to less civil strife, the enormous cost of making that society homogenous notwithstanding.

Whatever the motivations of these ‘transformationists,’ they have proven miraculously inept in keeping civil society down. Civil society, after all, is more a force of human nature than a simple switch that can be flipped. It grows, changes, adapts and evolves. Thus, attempts to exercise excessive control over it will almost always backfire. You can use force to compel human action, but no government can expect to permanently change the thoughts and attitudes of its subjects en masse.

As evident as this lesson seems, it has yet to be taken to heart by the leaders of this nation, both past and present. Consider the current warping of the term ‘anti-Americanism.’ In the truest sense, this should refer to unfettered hatred of the American people and their institutions. Instead, it’s been cheapened to equate to criticism of the government and its policies. Playing directly into Marx’s hands, administration apologists have steadfastly decimated the once-important distinction between political and civil society.

Why is this distinction important, you ask? Well, in the run up to the War in Iraq and at numerous times thereafter, a great amount of hostility was shown by Americans to Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime. Does this make us guilty of flagrant ‘anti-Iraqism’? Not hardly. After all, our mission over there was undertaken, at least in part, to benefit the Iraqi people by ridding them of a genocidal tyrant. Our contempt was for the political, rather than the civil, infrastructure that existed at the time.

Similarly, while we may denounce the stifling, belligerent theocracy in Iran, we are quick to come to the aid of the Persian people when a massive earthquake strikes. Being that we are capable of drawing the distinction between civil and political society abroad, we should be equally capable of drawing it at home.

That capability begins with admitting that even the most caustic critics of the current administration are NOT, prima facie, America-haters. Bush critics, war critics, political dissidents et al tend to be aware of the fact they are living in a country that affords them the ability to express and advance their views and are often grateful for it. Rejecting Bushism doesn’t equate to rejecting America as a whole, just as spewing venom at Bill Clinton a decade earlier did not make one the embodiment of all things un-American.

So then the question remains: who DOES hate America? The true culprits come in several flavors. There are those, such as Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who legitimately hate American civil society, deeming it hedonistic, sinful and overindulgent, if not downright Satanic. Ironically, these types tend to enjoy a certain degree of coziness with political society as it exists today.

There are also those, exemplified by Ward Churchill and ignorant foreign critics, who not only conflate civil and political society, but insist on castigating the former for the latter’s transgressions. To attempt to hold individual Americans responsible for action undertaken by the CIA 30 years ago is to cruelly deny those Americans their right to an identity apart from that of their government.

Reclaiming civil society also realizes accepting that there are, will be, and should be things that are beyond the state and its control. You have the right to find your neighbor’s purple house tacky. You don’t have the right to make the city repaint it for him. The day that the tolerances, preferences and prejudices of civil and political society are made to be one and the same is the day Marx’s cold dead hand can raise its fist in victory.

Diversixploitation: Manipulating Multiculturalism Ruins Movies

Diversixploitation

Manipulating Multiculturalism Ruins Movies

The world recently mourned the loss of Gordon Parks, a multitalented artist/musician/author who rose to prominence composing powerful photo essays for Life magazine. Among Parks’ other achievements was the original film version of Shaft, an adaptation of Ernest Tidyman’s novel about a heterodox black detective. Parks’ film was, at the time, somewhat groundbreaking in that its protagonist managed to be awash in a sea of clichés both black (Panthers-style radicals and old-school Harlem gangsters) and white (Mafiosos and police bureaucrats) without being defined by either of them. John Shaft, as portrayed by Richard Roundtree, was a three-dimensional character: a wisecracking, tough-talking solo operator in the mold of Philip Marlowe, only hip and socially conscious as well. Ironically, despite the perception of increased tolerance over the past 30 years, there is little room for a character such as Shaft (complex black male lead) in today’s Hollywood.

With some notable exceptions, the status quo of today’s film industry is one of subtle racism fueled by the desire to conform to politically correct archetypes. Consider, for instance, the recent trend of racial diversification/racial inversion in film remakes. On the surface, this seems like an unmitigated positive. After all, the film industry in the first half of the 20^th century was notoriously whitewashed and full of one-dimensional stereotypes. Why, therefore, would remaking a film with a more diverse cast be a bad thing?

To answer this, I direct your attention to a pair of pitiful examples from last year: the Cedric the Entertainer/Mike Epps version of The Honeymooners and the Bernie Mac/Ashton Kutcher version of Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (shortened to Guess Who).

The original Honeymooners was a popular television series in the mid-1950s that eventually became the basis for The Flintstones. The show featured scheming bus driver Ralph Kramden, his wife, Alice, and their neighbors/friends, Ed and Trixie Norton.

On the surface, little changed in the remake save for the skin color of the principals. Cedric plays scheming Ralph to Epps’ Ed Norton. The characters names and occupations are roughly the same, as is the setting (New York City). Despite this, the movie was a colossal failure.

This really should come as no surprise, if for no other reason than Cedric and Epps are not Jackie Gleason and Art Carney. They aren’t even close. This isn’t a knock on Cedric’s talent – his “Eddie” character in Barbershop was hysterical, but there he was paired with a competent director and allowed to improvise. In The Honeymooners, he was limited to reinterpreting a character more or less perfected by Gleason over the course of a television run. Given those expectations, it was almost inevitable that he (and the surrounding production) fall significantly short.

Why, therefore, was this monstrosity made? The answer, in my opinion, lies in diversixploitation: the phenomenon of making/remaking lousy films with racially/ethnically/sexually diverse casts for the purpose of drawing in diverse or diversity-receptive viewers. In other words, if a slick producer makes the lead a black guy, maybe some blacks and white urban teens will be more likely to see movie (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Beneath the politically correct veneer of multiculturalism lays a very bigoted profit motive which, ironically, often fails to turn a profit.

Diversixploitation is both an updated version of and antidote to blaxploitation, a controversial 70s film trend. Blaxploitation films, though often made by white filmmakers, were often specifically designed to lure black audiences into theaters. They were also crude, poorly made and laden with offensive race and gender stereotypes. Eventually they generated so much backlash that the NAACP came a’gunning and the genre died off by the end of the decade. But what those critics failed to realize at the time was that the genre, though rooted in clichés, gave black actors both a chance to work and a chance to show off their abilities. Richard Roundtree made Shaft an icon, Ron O’Neal turned Superfly into more than a common drug dealer and Pam Grier’s Foxy Brown was actually, in some ways, a positive female role model. Thus, these actors and characters managed to survive the blaxploitation moment and live on in the cultural imagination.

Diversixploitation, like its 70s counterpart, aims for targeted audiences, revels in clichés and is notably cheap on the quality end. However, whereas blaxploitation actually provided opportunities for black actors and filmmakers, diversixploitation seems content to confine them for petty amusement.

That brings us to the second example, Guess Who. The original film had what was at the time an edgy theme: white college girl brings home somewhat older black fiancée to wealthy, supposedly open-minded parents expecting their approval. It had a top-flight cast (Sydney Poitier, Kate Hepburn and the final appearance of Spencer Tracy) and, despite the social issues raised, didn’t drown in preachy self-seriousness.

The remake, on the other hand, eschewed social significance in favor of cheap laughs. Bernie Mac and Ashton Kutcher, stepping in for Tracy and Potier, bring nothing to the roles save for the ability and willingness to make jackasses out of themselves. Sadly, this is one of the few cases where a remake would have had something to offer. Guess Who could have given us a look at how older blacks, having lived through anti-miscegenation laws, view interracial romances among their children. Instead, the film doesn’t seem to want to say anything more than “OMFG! He’s a white boy! Let’s crack some jokes, y’all.” If that isn’t exploitation, I don’t know what is.

None of this is to say, of course, that including more diverse casts in remakes is a bad thing. Indeed, quite the opposite can be true – provided the actors involved are allowed to actually do some acting and aren’t merely token representations of a society hung up on the need for diversity.

A good example is the 1997 version of 12 Angry Men. Directed by William Friedkin, it hewed closely to the stellar original of 40 years prior, albeit in a way that seems notably less dated. The jury, for instance, isn’t all white. However, instead of simply changing races arbitrarily for the sake of diversity appeal, the afro-American actors involved are given an opportunity to do something with their characters. Case in point: Mykelti Williamson stepped into the racist juror role initially inhabited by Ed Begley Sr. But since casual overt racism is thankfully out of fashion these days (covert is another matter), Williamson had to improvise. He ended up playing the bigoted juror as a quasi-Nation of Islam type and did so effectively. In the wrong hands, a more diversified remake could have been ’12 Angry Black Men and the Token White Defendant.’ But because the film included a stronger selling point than ‘look, there’s black people!,’ what we are left with is a quality film that rivals the original.

Likewise, Four Brothers – John Singleton’s loose reworking of The Sons of Katie Elder – succeeded because it played to the strengths of its participants rather than exploiting their racial differences to fill seats. Singleton didn’t try to turn Mark Wahlberg into John Wayne (he was instead allowed to stay loose and crack jokes), nor did he attempt to have Andre Benjamin try become “Dean Martin, only black” Instead, he left the characters free to do their own thing while focusing on the themes of a classic western: brotherhood and frontier justice (or, in this case, street justice).

Diversixploitation and its associated maladies – tokenism and stereotyping (including, and, perhaps especially, the ‘positive’ variety) have, fortunately, met with significant backlash. The Wayans Brothers and the South Park guys (Trey Parker and Matt Stone) regularly make a mockery of the politically correct need for token characters. Minority filmmakers have refused to play into the expectations that they make minority-centric films for targeted, minority-centric audiences. Taiwanese-born Ang Lee, in case you missed it, has been knee-deep in superheroes (Hulk) and gay cowboys (Brokeback Mountain) these past few years. Even Crash, with its heavy-handedness and somewhat confused message, managed to throw a monkey wrench into the diversixploitation cookie-cutter.

Suffice it to say, some will deny that diversixploitation exists or insist that it is a necessary remedy to years of minority under/misrepresentation in film. But if that’s the case and there is nothing wrong with arbitrary and shallow diversification efforts, then why not make the next Shaft a Jewish white guy?

The Ongoing Crucifixion of Kobe Bryant

Sometimes, a star burns so bright that there is an instinct among the masses to grab and tear at it in hopes that they too will become illuminated. Such is the fate of L.A. Lakers guard Kobe Bryant, who has been vilified by former teammates, the sports media and unruly fans in every way imaginable.

For example, when Bryant scored a whopping 62 points against the Dallas Mavericks, he was criticized for resting the fourth quarter. When he poured in a jaw-dropping 81 against the Toronto Raptors– good for the second-most in any game in NBA history – the pundits pointed to his high shot count and paltry assist total as proof of his selfishness.

At the time of the Shaquille O’Neal’s trade to Miami, Bryant’s detractors were quick to tell us that he was nothing without Shaq. And when he continued to play at a high level after the big man’s exodus, they blasted him for being unable to lead his team to victory (never mind the coaching changes, the mediocre supporting cast or the fact that O’Neal, playing with the ubertalented Dwayne Wade in Miami, couldn’t secure a title either). It seems that there is nothing that Bryant can do right, which should say more about his critics than it should about him.

First, a caveat: Bryant probably is, as Phil Jackson claimed in his book, a difficult player to coach. Jackson would know, having coached the likes of Dennis Rodman in the past. But when offered the chance to coach Bryant a second time, Jackson took the cash and came out of retirement. So let’s not mistake ‘difficult’ with ‘Terrell Owens-level cancer’ just yet.

Bryant is also a selfish player on the court, which would make him no different than many others in the league. Allen Iverson had the same reputation, even while putting up 30+ points a game. Now that A.I. has learned to pass, he no longer gets bashed by the critics. But the 76ers aren’t contenders anymore than the Lakers (and possibly even less so). The moral here: if you can put up points and you’re stuck with mediocre teammates who won’t help you win, then forget trying to make them better and start shooting the lights out.

So why are people so down on Bryant? Some blame him for putting pressure on Lakers management to ship Shaq out of L.A. This, they claim, exacerbated the Lakers’ fall from contention. The facts, however, point to other culprits. At the time of the trade, Jerry West, the architect of those Lakers championship teams, was long gone and Phil Jackson had recently thrown in the towel. Gary Payton was unhappy, Karl Malone was contemplating retirement and the draft prospects were bleak. In other words, the team was already falling apart.

Shaq also played as big a role in the trade as Bryant did, if not a bigger one. After all, it takes two to have a war of words and the animosity Bryant had toward him was more than reciprocated. Shaq was also seeking an extension at the time and willing to raise hell if he didn’t get one. Given his inability to stay healthy, the Lakers didn’t want to give him anything long-term (they did, however, throw a generous short-term offer his way, which he rejected). Plus – and this is far too often dismissed as idle chatter on his part – the big man actually demanded a trade. With or without Bryant, he would have been gone. Trading him when they did at least enabled the Lakers to get something of value (Lamar Odom) in return.

Of course, when they aren’t blaming him for the Shaq trade, Bryant-bashers will point to his off-court behavior: namely, sexual assault allegations. And while these allegations are to be taken seriously, it would appear that a double standard is at play. Bryant is not Ruben Patterson, the Portland Trailblazers forward who attempted to rape his child’s babysitter and has a reputation as a violent thug on and off the court. Nor is Bryant NFL players Ray Lewis and Leonard Little, both of whom have been implicated in various forms of homicide and both of whom, inexplicably, have better reputations than Kobe.

Perhaps the number one reason why Bryant is vilified is that he no longer fits today’s “new” NBA. Bryant came into the league in the mid-to-late 1990s, a time when individual prowess reigned supreme. A whole generation of brash young players wanting to be the next Michael Jordan stormed the NBA, and the league, the fans, and the media were there to stroke their egos. This was the era of the marijuana-toking Portland Jailblazers, led by technical foul king Rasheed Wallace. This was the era when high-flying Vince Carter and Big Dog Glenn Robinson could make All-Star teams despite having no defensive commitment and no sense of team chemistry, respectively. This was an era when outright headcases like J.R. Rider could still find employment on the basis of sheer scoring ability alone.

And in this NBA, Bryant fit perfectly. Coming directly from high school, he was young, inexperienced, a touch immature, but God was he talented. Most who revile him now were perfectly happy to buy into him then. Everyone was too busy anointing him the next prodigy to point out his shortcomings. If you take a snapshot of Bryant in 2000, you would see a player destined to be among the greatest who ever played the game.

But then a funny thing happened. The Lakers dynasty collapsed. Injuries and diminished production made talented-but-troublesome players more of a pain than they were worth. Teams like the Spurs and the Pistons began winning championships. The NBA, in other words, had changed.

It is debatable what lead to this transformation, but what has become abundantly clear is that it does not favor players like Kobe Bryant. The stars of the new NBA are Tim Duncan, a fundamentally skilled big man with a bland personality, Ben Wallace, a hard-working defender with little offensive game and Steve Nash, a team-oriented, pass-first point guard. All three are a far cry from the electrifying dunkmasters of just a few short years ago.

This change, coupled with Commissioner David Stern’s new get-tough stance (which has included, to date, a controversial dress code and very stiff penalties for players who venture into the stands), have resulted in making Bryant a pariah. The message to him is clear: either change your game and your attitude or you will continue to be vilified. Never mind what your scoring average is (nearly 36 points as of this posting, best in the league and a career high as well), how many rings you have (3) or how suspect your teammates are (Kwame Brown, anyone?), if you are not with the program, you’re a goner.

Need more proof? Ask yourself: five years ago, would the Pacers have benched then traded Ron Artest – an absolute demon on the court despite his attitude – or would they have tried to placate him and smooth things over?

I can’t really say I miss the attitude of the old NBA. Watching a bunch of near-30 millionaires gallivanting about like mischievous adolescents is enough to make your eyes roll and your stomach turn. But as much as it’s fallen out of favor now, that NBA was supported by Stern, by fans, by the sports media. For them to turn around now and attempt to disown it is an exercise in hypocrisy. So go ahead, boo Bryant. Call him selfish. Try to drag him down. But just remember: his celebrity is a child of your making.

A Libertarian Defense of the New Deal

From the day he replaced Al Smith as governor of New York, Franklin Delano Roosevelt has enjoyed an unparalleled cachet among progressives. Up until recently, that alone was enough to make him an object of scorn in conservative circles, but the current crop of neoconservatives has fallen in love with FDR’s foreign policy approach and “national greatness” rhetoric. That leaves libertarians and a dwindling number of paleoconservatives to sully his legacy but I, for one, find myself not entirely up to the task. FDR might have been America’s most statist president, but the New Deal legislation for which he is best remembered has some components that even a libertarian can like.

Let it be said from the start that I don’t intend this to be a defense of the New Deal in its entirety. What transpired during FDR’s reign – literally thousands of pages of regulations added to the federal register and the creation of a behemoth bureaucracy that, by and large, still stands today — is indefensible by almost any measure of classical liberalism, as is the postwar expansion of New Deal programs that followed (damn you, LBJ). I’ll further qualify this defense by pegging it to the harsh realities of the era: namely, the Great Depression. That said, while it certainly brought about an unprecedented change in governance, I don’t buy the notion that the New Deal is somehow to blame for all the socioeconomic woes that beset America in the years that followed.

First and foremost, there can be little doubt that the New Deal was preferable to a socialist insurrection. If the idea of an American-style Bolshevik uprising seems far-fetched, I invite doubters to revisit the political and economic conditions of the great depression. Faith in the free market was shot. Herbert Hoover’s ham-handed government response was derided as ineffective. A number of prominent leaders, from Huey Long to CIO boss John Lewis, were calling for reforms that were far more radical than what ultimately came to pass. FDR might not have “saved capitalism from itself,” but he certainly did co-opt these malcontents and head off the problem before it got out of control.

And yet, some still find it prudent to blast him for having given in. Conveniently, they neglect to mention what they would have done in his place. Given the public attitudes at the time, staying the course and waiting for the market to correct itself was not a politically viable option. Inaction would have only bred further unrest and utilizing heavy-handed tactics and police-state conditions to put down the unrest would have only exacerbated the problem.

Libertarians have been able to point to what should have been done before the Depression to soften the impact (namely, monetary reform and repealing restrictive tariffs), but I’ve yet to hear a satisfactory explanation as to what should have been done during the Depression itself. “Wait it out” may be the correct prescription in the long haul, but it does precious little good while people are starving.

That said, the New Deal can also be defended on the grounds that it produced better consumers. While libertarians (and Austrian School economists in particular) have attacked the notion that the New Deal ended the Depression. Fair enough (albeit inconclusive due to the outbreak of WWII). But what of the New Deal’s role in creating the middle class?

The postwar years saw the dual marvel of prodigious economic growth and expansion coupled with a system of support services that had previously been nonexistent. And, while it is likely that those who were able to make money before the Depression would have been able to do so after as well, there were a considerable number of individuals who would have had a hard time making ends meet, let alone prospering like they did.

The Depression, lest anyone forget, wiped out savings and left plenty of people without any capital whatsoever. Individuals without capital cannot buy, spend or save. In other words, they don’t contribute to the economy.

What the New Deal did was provide individuals whose savings had been eliminated with capital, in the form of the WPA and other job creation programs. Granted, this came at a high cost to the taxpayer, but in absence of it a.) there would be no one to fuel the economy on the lower levels and top-down investment would have led to a slow turnaround and b.) a good portion of those costs would exist anyway in policing/locking up all the shiftless bums patrolling the streets because they can’t find work.

Those who automatically dismiss the New Deal as government overkill usually neglect to consider these secondary effects, and, in doing so perpetrate a sort of reverse Broken Windows theory (ignoring hidden benefits rather than ignoring hidden costs). If the New Deal had the result of helping the economy, then I can’t write it off anymore than I could write off N.Y. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s “overreaching” when it has the effect of restoring investor confidence in the wake of stock scandals.

Third, I draw a distinction between New Deal programs as they existed at that time and the expansion of these programs that occurred afterwards. Social Security is a prime example of why such a distinction is necessary. The program was designed explicitly for poor old folks at a time in which poverty among seniors exceeded 50%. The Supreme Court decision made note of these circumstances, referring to them as “a crisis so extreme.”

Clearly, the program at the time was not Social Security as it exists today. If anyone at the time had promoted the idea that the government would attempt to fund the retirement of most Americans, the idea probably would have been ridiculed as untenable and the Court probably would have voted the other way. You can blame the New Deal for creating what led to our current retirement quagmire, but you shouldn’t confuse the two.

Of course, one could also exalt the New Deal for giving breaks to stellar talents such as Arthur Miller via the WPA, but doing that would require looking at how many mediocre and forgettable talents taxpayer dollars were spent on. No, the bottom line here is that, for all the ire it raises (even 60 years after the fact) among free market folks, the New Deal was a desperation move, not a Faustian bargain. Yes, there is a lot there to be disdainful of, but if you look hard enough, you’ll also find a few things to like. And lest anyone forget, things could have turned out much, much worse. We could all be calling each other “comrade.”

Saving Christmas By Killing Common Sense

<> The year might be winding down for most of us, but those who are in the business of producing jeremiads are just entering the peak of their season. As if high heating costs and depressed folks offing themselves weren’t reasons enough to make us dread December, the ever-ready punditry tells us we have a war to look forward to; a war on Christmas. Given the importance December 25 holds, both as a religious holiday and a cultural and commercial phenomenon, its demise would spell trouble for many of us. Fortunately, there is one small thing that stands in the way of this impending doom – the fact that the so-called “war” on Christmas doesn’t exist.
Before we can delve into this illusory war’s many fictions, we would do well to learn who authored them. Not surprisingly (for those of us who have been paying attention), the evidence points to the FOX 'News' (and I use that term loosely) crowd. Fox anchor John Gibson is peddling a book entitled “The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought.” His general sentiment is echoed by fellow Fox personality, Bill O’Reilly, who laid blame with “far left. It's the loony left, the Kool-Aid secular progressive ACLU America-haters. That's who's doing this.”
Outside the FOX realm, Jerry Falwell’s ironically-named Liberty Counsel has devised a Christmas Campaign, whose sole purpose, as far as I can tell, is meddling in the affairs of local governments and making sure they celebrate the holidays the “right” way. Lastly, fulfilling the role of the whiner….er…..aggrieved victim is none other than Patrick J. Buchanan, who claimed the use of “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas” constituted a “hate crime against Christianity.”
Given the strength of these reactions, you would think that Christmas was on the verge of being outlawed under the penalty of death. Instead, something a tad less dramatic is taking place: a few cities (Boston and New York among them) are referring to their Christmas trees as holiday trees and a few department stores are sticking with “Happy Holidays.” Gasp! The horror of it all.
It should be abundantly clear to all that these actions don’t constitute a war. First, there is no evidence that the governments of Boston and New York City acted in league with one another. Second, it is the prerogative of city governments to determine city policy. It isn’t Jerry Falwell’s business what Boston chooses to call its tree any more than it’s my business to say that a mayor somewhere in rural Texas can’t issue a proclamation naming a day as “Jesus Day” (actually George W. Bush did this when he was governor). And third, did anyone explain to O’Reilly and Gibson that NYC and Boston represent the exception rather than the rule?
It also bears mentioning that the blame is being placed on the wrong people here. As Michelle Goldberg noted in a recent Slate piece, the ACLU stepped in in 2003 to defend the right of teenagers in Massachusetts to pass out candy canes with religious messages. Pretty suspicious behavior for a group that’s “out to get” Christmas. Also, the idea that “Christian” and “liberal” are mutually exclusive is absurd, if not downright insulting. As John Gibson conceded in a National Review interview, even the Kennedys “celebrate Christmas with vigor.” Add to that Jimmy Carter, Martin Sheen, and the God-invoking Barack Obama and I begin to wonder who, exactly, these Christmas-hating liberals Gibson alludes to, can possibly be.
So, when all is said and done, do these folks have any real grievances? That depends entirely on the answer to one very simple question: are individuals prevented from freely celebrating Christmas in public? If that is the case, then yes, there are complaints to be had, and I will join in among the complainers for the sake of the First Amendment.
But before we jump to that conclusion, let’s first establish what ‘freely celebrating’ really means. In order for anyone to freely celebrate anything, they must do it with their own means and of their own volition. Any kind of taxpayer-funded holiday celebration does not meet these criteria. You have no right to take my money and use it for a religious display. Christmas trees, however, are not religious; the Supreme Court ruled that they are secular symbols. As such (and especially in light of their possible pagan origins), throwing a hissy fit when they are called ‘holiday trees’ is ludicrous (nativity scenes, on the other hand, are another matter entirely).
‘Freely celebrating’ Christmas also does not extend itself to telling others how they should or should not celebrate the holidays. This is especially true of private enterprise, such as Macy’s. From a business perspective, using “Happy Holidays” in lieu of “Merry Christmas” makes sense: you draw in those who celebrate Kwanzaa, Hanukah, Festivus and all other occasions while sacrificing only the tiny amount that would be offended by such a switch. But even if it was a poor business strategy, it would still be Macy’s prerogative – you can’t tell them what to say in their stores any more than I can tell you what to say in your home.
That brings me to my final point: the distinction between private and public. Suppose, for a minute, that every city decides to go the way of New York or Boston and every department store went the way of Macy’s. Christmas would surely be dead, right? Think again. Every Christian would still have the unfettered right to celebrate Christmas in his or her own fashion in the comfort of his or her own home, at his or her own church and with his or her own family. In fact, even if you were to take down every public Christmas display in the United States (a measure which I would find distasteful, to say the least), the only ones not celebrating Christmas would be the homeless and those who wouldn’t celebrate it anyway.
When all is said and done, the “war on Christmas” really boils down to a war on secularism by an increasingly insecure group of gadflies and zealots. December offers us many possible perils, including snow, ice and about half a dozen actors uttering “bah, humbug” in lousy made-for-TV movies. But a “war on Christmas” isn’t on anyone’s wish list and those who are dreaming it up have been naughty rather than nice.

The French Connection and America’s Cultural Amnesia

The French Connection and America’s Cultural Amnesia

I’m the first to admit it: its fun to mock the French. Whether you are taking shots at France’s perceived arrogance or its pitiful record in recent wars, Le Republique is an easy target. Even the French language, with its abundance of silent syllables, is open to ridicule. But while I am eager to tease the French, I am also the first to admit I do it largely in jest. After all, I don’t know any French people. I’ve never been to the country, let alone lived there. Who am I to pronounce judgment with any degree of accuracy?

While my France-bashing is confined largely to crude jokes and occasional digs at policy blunders, the attitude toward France harbored by many in the American punditry borders on irrational, pathological hatred. Talking heads constantly vilify French leaders and call for boycotts of all goods produced by “the cheese-eating surrender monkeys” and then have the audacity to complain of rising anti-American sentiment in France (as if they should somehow be expected to take everything we dish out with a smile).

This inane petulance reached a boiling point with the recent civil unrest across France’s urban centers. As cars burned and chaos ensued, America’s opinion-mongers reveled in glee. Suzanne Fields, true to form, found a way to blame the riots on “multiculturalism,” claiming that France’s tolerance of radical Islam was to blame.

As per usual, Fields is grossly misinformed. France has long been a predominantly secular nation, with a legal tradition that excludes religion from state affairs. It is this secular posture that drew the country criticism from Pope Benedict and culminated in the controversial head scarf ban. That France would embrace “radical Islam” is an inherent contradiction.

Ironically, Fields also had the nerve to complain of French anti-Americanism in the same column in which she touted a book called “Vile France: Fear, Duplicity, Cowardice and Cheese." I suppose the moral here is that bigotry is A-OK for everyone except for America.

Appearing right beside Fields on the op-ed section of my newspaper that day was Cal Thomas, who took Fields’ erroneous “tolerance” argument one step further and basically implied that France coddled terrorists. But if the underlying message is that this was what France deserved for not participating in the invasion of Iraq, then how does he explain the vicious terrorist attacks in the UK and Spain (which, at the time, was a coalition partner)?

Furthermore, Thomas warns that “France will be America’s future” unless we start converting Muslims to Christianity, ASAP. If and when we reach that point, there would be no need to fight the terrorists. They, in causing us to destroy our fundamental religious freedoms, would have already won.

Even the paper’s own editorial had a hand in the blame game, placing fault for the riots on France’s pitiful public housing and failed welfare programs.

In all three instances, the rioting was used as an excuse to justify whatever solutions were already desired. There was no attempt made on the part of the authors to show causation. Instead, they merely offered a few shallow criticisms and hoped people would see things their way. To draw a parallel, I can blame the destruction on French cars being too easily combustible, point to the fact that many French cars did in fact explode and have as much of a substantive argument as some of these folks.

Or, I can be honest and definitively say that I do not know what caused the rioting. My guess would be that it stemmed from a variety of factors, some of them social, many of them economic. As per the solution, I can only offer this: let the French figure it out. The last thing they need is an obtrusive American “diagnosis” of all that ills them. After all, it unnerves us in the states to no end when people suggest we emulate Europe. Why, therefore, should we reciprocate?

The final point I’d like to make pertains not to the quality of the negative assessments of the French situation, but to why these assessments were made to begin with. Schadenfreude (laughing at others’ pain) was out in full effect on our side of the Atlantic recently, but it was notably absent in France when we were in crisis mode.

Just a few short months ago, Hurricane Katrina hit and unleashed a torrent of destruction. Did the French mock our response efforts and lack of preparedness? If they did, I didn’t notice. I was too busy paying attention to their relief effort, which included 600 tents, 1000 beds, three pumps, three water purification stations, rescue personnel, misc. supplies and a letter of condolence from Jacques Chirac. It is also worth noting that this generous offer was initially declined by the U.S. government.

But why stop there. Let’s go back to 9/11/2001. Did France tell us – as some on the American religious right did – that we got what we deserved? Or was the leading French newspaper, Le Monde, too busy issuing sympathetic front-page headlines that proclaimed “Today, We Are All Americans”? It would appear that the hot-headed, Francophobic American punditry experienced a case of highly selective cultural amnesia when it came time to write about the rioting.

Even given this lengthy diatribe, it’s unlikely that I’ll stop making French jokes. Nor will I suddenly pretend to understand or like those folks across the pond. But I will leave them be. And that is all I ask of anyone reading this.

2004 Revisited

It’s been just over a year since America returned George W. Bush to the White House. During that time, there have been many developments in both the nation and the world beyond that have been less than fortuitous. Yet to look at the president’s low approval ratings and assume – as some of Bush’s opponents have – that Americans chose wrongly in 2004 is to ignore the burdensome task that is governance. The challenge, therefore, is not to look at how Bush handled/mishandled the decisions put before him, but rather if his opponent, John Kerry, would have achieved a better end. The results of this hypothetical may surprise you.

The War in Iraq

The good news here is that there would be far fewer American casualties under a Kerry presidency. Unfortunately, that’s where the good news ends. After initially advocating more troops, Kerry is now pushing for gradual withdrawal. Assuming this is the course he would take if president (a likelihood given the increasing unpopularity of the war), we can expect a withdrawal from Iraq, and, subsequently, a collapse of the frail governing coalition and a further descent into sectarian and terror-fueled violence. Remember: the al-Qaeda types aren’t just fighting to get us out of the country; they are actively working to destroy the government we help build. Thus, the notion that the violence would experience a downturn upon our departure is ludicrous.

Even if Kerry pegs withdrawal to tangible achievements (i.e.: elections), the Iraqi forces are incapable of defending on their own for the foreseeable future, well beyond the point where political goals are achieved. Echoing Richard Nixon’s botched Vietnamization plan, we would experience a failure that would linger for years to come.

Edge: Bush

The Economy

Unlike his veto-shy predecessor, Kerry would probably go after the deficit with vigor. Unfortunately, his remedy for Congress’ big-spending ways is likely to be no more than a band-aid, and one that is destined to fall off a few years down the lines.

Assume here that Kerry sticks to his plan, which calls for keeping the Bush cuts for the middle class and imposing a tax increase on those earning more than $200,000. This will raise revenue, certainly, but it will also push the wealthy into looking for more tax shelters, some of which are bound to be extra-legal.

Furthermore, Kerry’s record in Congress is one of spending. Thus, instead of attacking the root of deficits, he would probably enable them to continue to grow. Then again, he would probably veto the pork-laden energy bill, if for no other reason than to stick it to ‘big oil.’

In switching from Bush to Kerry, America would basically exchange immediate economic woes for bigger problems further down the line.

Edge: Neither.

Hurricane Katrina Response

This may be the one area where Kerry has an absolute advantage. As could be expected with an incoming Democratic administration, Kerry would have cleaned house, which meant getting rid of the incompetent Michael Brown before he had the opportunity to do any damage. Also, given that he is a more conciliatory figure than the man he replaces, he probably would have achieved better cooperation and communication with the pols in Louisiana. Lastly, if for no other reason than he’s a glory hog, you would not expect to find Kerry on vacation when the worst of it went down.

Edge: Kerry

CAFTA and Summit of the Americas

Kerry likes to compare himself to Bill Clinton on many economic issues, but whereas Clinton actually understood and believed in free trade, Kerry is wishy-washy at best. Add to this the fact that his running mate, John Edwards, is a rabid protectionist and there is no way that CAFTA would have seen the light of day.

It is also likely that Kerry would have fared very poorly at the Summit of the Americas in Argentina. Bush, characteristically stubborn (or resolute, depending on how you choose to spin it), was able to drown out the attempts at intimidation posed by Hugo Chavez and other rabble-rousers and find willing trading partners. Kerry, given his conciliatory temperament, probably would have alienated potential allies in order to appease those who would never be considered friends regardless.

Edge: Bush

The Plame Affair

Given that the wheels were in motion in 2003 and Patrick Fitzgerald is as independent as they get, it really wouldn’t have made a difference who is in office.

Edge: Neither.

Waning Confidence in Government

Kerry gets the edge here, for reasons that have very little to do with him. Most reelected presidents encounter friction during their second terms (see Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, etc.). With an incoming president, however, it’s highly unlikely the turning point/downfall would occur within the first year. At any rate, given that Scooter Libby wouldn’t be affiliated with the White House under Kerry, his indictment wouldn’t stain Washington nearly as badly.

Edge: Kerry, but again, by reason of process rather than person

Supreme Court Nominations

As a legislator, Kerry didn’t sponsor a lot of huge, sweeping bills, which leads me to indicate he’s not interested in pushing for huge, sweeping changes, especially when they aren’t politically expedient. Thus, it’s hard to see him appointing a fire-breathing 9^th Circuit radical to the Supreme Court. I have no insight into who he would nominate, but it’s safe to assume that they would be well-qualified and reliable defenders of the status quo (which, given the court’s recent run of controversial decisions, isn’t particularly a good thing).

While it’s a pretty safe bet Kerry would never pick anyone as intelligent and challenging as John Roberts or Samuel Alito, he would also avoid making the catastrophic political blunder that was the Harriet Miers nomination.

Edge: Even for now, but it goes to Bush if Alito gets confirmed without a circus

Oil prices

Given that even ‘conservatives’ were scolding the oil companies for post-Katrina inflation (aka ‘price gouging), it’s difficult to imagine a Democratic president not going one step further and trying for price controls. And we all know how that turned out in the 70s.

Edge: Bush

A year ago, I made a point of criticizing the ‘anyone but Bush’ philosophy. Though it got virtually no media attention, a number of ardent conservatives – including former New Hampshire Sen. Robert Smith and the late supply side economics guru/Wall Street Journal pundit Jude Wanniski – threw their support behind Kerry to get Bush out of office. Given what Kerry might have done in the above situations, it’s difficult to imagine them being happy now.

My conclusion? America made the right choice between the two, by a narrow margin. This speaks more about the woes of our political system than it does of either candidate, as there are a number of non-candidates from both parties (John McCain and Bill Richardson come to mind) that probably would have done better than either. But hindsight is always clearer and we have to deal with what is in front of us. I can only hope that in future elections, we will have better choices and make better use of them.

Yes, Logo: The Upside of Globalization

Yes Logo: The Upside of Globalization
Globalization is the odd duck of American politics. Over the years, opposition to it has drawn the likes of Pat Buchanan and Noam Chomsky into an improbable consensus, while support for it has fallen to George Bush (both of them) and Bill Clinton alike. All this has happened, despite many people being unable to pin down what, exactly, globalization is. Is it corporations taking over the planet? Is it freeing people from the tyranny of rampant nationalism? Is it being able to watch a French movie on a Japanese DVD player in America? Perhaps it’s all of the above, in divided quantities. However, the one thing globalization is not is a force that can, and should, be stopped.
There are various economic arguments in favor and in opposition to the practices associated with globalization. Trade, immigration and labor flow are weighty issues that are given their due and proper by financial gurus with lengthy résumés. But globalization also entails a cultural aspect that, for many, is probably easier to grasp.
Opponents to cultural globalization – that is, the unimpeded flow of media, language, entertainment and other commercial goods – tend to come in two flavors. Social conservatives tend to object to this practice on the grounds that it will erode the American cultural identity and produce a sort of destruction from within. Multicultural naysayers, such as Suzanne Fields, have long forecasted the demolition of cherished values and a freefall into relativism.
This view, however, neglects the historical truth that ours is, by its very nature, an assimilationist culture. We are not drawn wholecloth from the remnants of any one group of people, but instead we absorb the best of what many groups have to offer. For all the endless carping about “Western values,” it’s worth noting that we use Arabic numerals and that Chinese restaurants have become mainstays even in small towns in the reddest of states.
Rather than keep up the pretense of innate superiority and try to protect ourselves from some unlikely hostile takeover, we should recognize that other cultures have things of value to offer us. Besides, cultural protectionism will only result in sharper national divides and increased animosity along national lines. If every nation is concerned with preserving its own national identity, than little constructive cooperation can be achieved.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, social progressives tend to concern themselves with the export end of things. They see globalization as a form of global imperialism, with Western cultural uprooting, destroying and replacing homespun institutions. In the estimation of people like Benjamin Barber, the result of successful globalization will be a homogenous, flavorless McWorld.
Personally, I find this view to be subtly racist, inasmuch as it does not acknowledge the Third World’s capacity for ingenuity. Often, the result is not the Western product replacing the native culture, but the two being blended together to form a new product entirely.
The economist Tyler Cowen once gave a lecture in which he demonstrated this principle by tracing the history of Jamaican music. Starting in the 1950s or so, Jamaicans began receiving radio signals that introduced them to American doo-wop. They then took this newfound curiosity and married it to their native music (itself derived from Africa), thus creating ska in the process. Ska eventually evolved into reggae, the success of which allowed Jamaica to have its own music industry. Reggae was then imported to the U.S., where it became an influence for early rap….and so the cycle goes.
Under this scenario, the implementation of American culture was the motivation for positive cultural change. Had Jamaicans found American music not to their liking, they wouldn’t have listened to it. And had the leftist “cultural imperialism” argument been applied here, nobody today would be listening to Bob Marley.
Ironically, the opposition to globalization has achieved a sort of unintended cultural exchange of its own. Not only have Buchanan, Chomsky and Ralph Nader reached agreement on this issue, but economic nationalists of many backgrounds and denominations have, under the auspices of anti-globalization, formed a quasi-socialist globalized movement of their own. Plus, the 1999 anti-WTO protests in Seattle were enough to draw ex-Nirvana bassist Krist Novoselic out of retirement, where he teamed with Jello Biafra and Soundgarden’s Kim Thayil to form the one-off No WTO Combo.
So, in the name of Novoselic, subtitled Jet Li films and being able to eat Big Macs in Kazakhstan, I say to Naomi Klein and other cultural pessimists: yes, logo.

Know Your Job and Do It Right

This was from last month. I'm just a little late in posting it:

The Washington Nationals recently suspended John Moeller, their chapel leader. The suspension came not because prayer was ineffective at lifting the Nationals out of their second-half rut or because Moeller called for the assassination of a South American leader. It came because Moeller did his job.

According to the Washington Post, outfielder Ryan Church approached Moeller and asked if Jews were doomed because they did not accept Jesus. Moeller nodded in reply and thus the fracas began. Jewish groups jumped on the Nationals front office, accusing them of “bringing hate into the locker room.” The Nationals, in turn, did everything they could to distance themselves from Moeller’s nod, claiming it did not in any manner, reflect the views or opinions of the Washington Nationals franchise." All the while, no one bothered to ask if what Moeller did was really wrong.

I consider myself Jewish and I don’t believe the ousted chaplain to be in error. He was approached as a representative of the Christian faith and answered the question honestly in that capacity. Christians believe acceptance of Jesus is necessary to avoid damnation, cut and dried. Why this bothers Jews is beyond me. Aren’t we just as free to dismiss this condemnation as nonsense as they are to condemn us for our nonbelief (I should sure hope so, inasmuch as I wish to remain free to believe Trinitarian Christianity to be polytheistic blasphemy)?

While the answer is a simple “yes,” religious propriety was probably not the key consideration among those doing the complaining. Instead of accepting that Moeller said the right thing religiously, they chose to focus on the fact that Moeller said the wrong thing politically. As a representative of the Nationals, he showed poor judgment. As someone whose views were fit to print, he failed. But John Moeller is not, nor is he expected to be, any of those things. He is just a chaplain and he did his job.

If the above does not illustrate why the separation of church and state is a sound idea, let’s examine the flip side. Asking religious leaders to frame the tenets of their faith in a politically appropriate context is odious, but asking those charged to make laws to do their jobs only in a religiously palatable context is no less so.

When we look at politics, we often make the error of equating political decisions with moral ones. Politics, however, is as inherently amoral as religion is inherently apolitical. A political — or, to use a less maligned term, procedural — question does not ask “is this right or wrong?” Instead, it asks “is this the right thing to do according to the rules of conduct we have laid out for ourselves?” The moral question that is left out of politics is then given to us to decide as individuals, guided by our conscience, our family, our faith, etc. When an attempt is made to merge the two questions into one, the results are often disastrous.

To illustrate the point, I’ll offer the example of sodomy. More so than many other activities, has been maligned by politicians who have been unable to distinguish the jobs they hold from the jobs they do not. As lawmakers, the kinds of questions they should be asking themselves are, “does the government have a legitimate public interest in doing something (severely restrict or ban outright) about this behavior? And, if so, does it have the authority to do so?” The answer, in both cases, would be no.

Acknowledging this ‘no’ does not remove the moral question, it just leaves it to be answered by more appropriate agents. Fundamentalist values groups can still condemn sodomy and be justified in doing so according to their beliefs. And the politicians who opt not to criminalize it for procedurally correct reasons can remain personally opposed to it if they feel it is personally inappropriate.

Alas, what happens far too often is that lawmakers stop making the procedural judgments they are counted on to make and start making moral judgments instead. Thus, we go from “should the government be doing something about this?” to “is this right or wrong?” Once the latter is determined, the authority to act accordingly is often presumed whether it actually exists or not (translation: if something is wrong, acting against it can only be right….right?).

To draw a parallel here, let’s replace a moral issue with a health issue: smoking. The procedural question a lawmaker should ask is whether there is a public interest in banning smoking and whether the government has the authority to do so. In saying “no,” the politician is not saying that smoking is healthy. Rather, he is leaving it to doctors and health advocates to say that it is unhealthy.

Bottom line: inasmuch as politicians continue to usurp the functions of religious leaders, the role religion plays in deciding moral issues will gradually become obsolete. Why would anyone seek out religious guidance when Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum are there to tell them right from wrong (because we all know they are paradigms of virtue, right ;p).