Political update for December, 2010

First, I will engage in audacious self praise and say, now with the election results final, I didn’t do so bad on my predictions. I thought the Republicans would end up with 48 Senate seats. They won 47 (Bear called that precisely). It’s obvious where I went wrong. I did not think that Harry Reid would pull out Nevada, despite his off the wall opponent (and yeah, any candidate who hints at violent revolution is off the wall to me). The polls were probably more off there than anywhere else. Admittedly, the Senate was fairly easy to pick relative to the House, and although some believed the Republicans might take the other house, it did not seem likely to me. As to the House of Representatives, I predicted a 62 seat pick up. The final tally was 63. Now, I didn’t pretend I went through each race individually. I just analyzed professional political scientists and poll numbers and decided what I thought reasonably likely given my appreciation of the public sentiment. It’s the same way that I pick stocks and horses, but usually with less success than I had here. Out of the 435 seats available, getting within one was pretty good. Dick Morris, who gets to write a column despite what a bad predictor he is (he thought the 2008 Republican nominee would be Condaleeza Rice,) guessed about a 100 seat pick up. Bear faired much worse on the House, predicting a 42 seat pick up. This will teach the political world to take me lightly.

2012

Four years ago, that is two years before the 2008 election, I was able to go through a list of candidates for the Republican and Democrat nominations here, and give my opinion as to how it would work out for each of them with a fair degree of accuracy (although, I did not think Barack Obama would win. I did think Ms. Clinton would edge him out and Senator McCain her).

It is not the same this time around. For one thing, the Democrats have an incumbent who will run again (will cover a possible primary challenge later) and the Republican field is just smaller at this time. I’ll take them first.

Here’s my two year out call for the nominee in descending order.

1. Mitt Romney

2. Sarah Palin

3. Mike Huckabee

4. Tim Pawlenty

5. Chris Christie

6. Mitch Daniels

7. Newt Gingrich

First – I know this is not exactly genius. There are no outliers like Mike Huckabee (when I wrote about them in 2006 Mike Huckabee and even Barack Obama were virtually unknown to the general public).

I don’t see Mike Huckabee giving a serious try this time. We may see him testing the waters – who in his position would not. He reminds me a bit this time of Fred Thompson last time around – too comfortable in the entertainment world and just not enough fire in the belly.

Newt Gingrich will always tease, but I don’t see him even declaring. As bright and interesting a speaker as he is, I think many feel the same way as I do about him – too divisive. Plus, remember, he lost his last race for the House of Representatives.

Let me lump 4-6, Pawlenty, Christie and Daniels, governors of Minnesota, New Jersey and Indiana, respectively, together. They are in my mind the best choices of those whose names are among the usual suspects – executives who show a dislike for the culture wars and who have an eye towards fixing their own state’s budget problems. They are grown ups. Given a choice between them and Barack Obama, I would likely vote for any one of them. It comes down to this – spender versus reducer. But, they don’t stand a chance, except possibly as VP choices for Sarah Palin, were she the nominee, to give her ticket some appearance of that all important gravitas (she might not, though, as she seems dedicated to the Rush Limbaugh approach oriented on values and beliefs, not competency). Here’s why they couldn’t win themselves. They are kind of boring and they are fiscal guys, not value guys. No offense, but they aren’t going to get anyone excited. If Romney is the nominee, it is less likely they would have a chance as he might feel that he should pick a southerner or westerner. Anyway, I am ruling them out for a nomination and Christie and Daniels have already indicated that they are not running. But, there names are still bounced around. Pawlenty is still thinking about it, but he just doesn’t have the juice. He could not win one caucus or primary, possibly not even in his own state. I could have listed Bobby Jindal, Louisiana’s governor with these three, but he’s said he’s not running at all, and interest in him has long died down (one boring speech and boom).

Which leaves us with two. I’ve given my opinion of Sarah Palin before, and I have it down to a science. She was badly mauled by the media in 2008. Most of it was untrue and some of it vicious. Liberal women in particular seemed willing to believe the worst about her, regardless of proof, and she made them see red. One accusation was that she remained silent while someone screamed out “Death to Obama”. Some claimed they heard she led a chant. Of course, as that was a threat against a presidential candidate, the Secret Service investigated, starting with the reporter who claimed he heard it. They interviewed those who were around him in the audience. None of them heard anything like it. Other claims – she wanted women to who were raped to have to pay for the rape kits (she did have a police chief who tried it when she was mayor but he was stopped). Accused of ethics violations while governor, she was cleared shortly before the election. She had a shorter campaign than Barack Obama, Joe Biden or John McCain, but, during the time she was running she spoke more clearly than any of the other three more experienced men. And despite her recent North/South Korea goof, she made less gaffes than they did too.

However, no matter how it is spun, her interview with Katie Couric showed her glaring weakness. She doesn’t know much about the substance of national or foreign affairs, and she doesn’t seem to care to learn. Her decision to be interviewed since the election only by friendly journalists (mostly Fox) may help her with her base, but it can’t help her with independents (no liberal is going to vote for her, anyway). Until she can do an interview with the mainstream press, particularly on television, she is not going to win a general election. She might have to also give a more plausible reason for quitting as governor. I can think of a few, but she has to say them, be sincere, and persuade others she is sincere.

But, that doesn’t mean she couldn’t win the nomination. Rush Limbaugh, certainly the most respected voice among the right has been beating the tom tom that Sarah Palin can win without independents and moderates and that the right should be relentlessly attacking the left because they are going to win. While I think it is probably suicidal for the right to nominate her (unless Barack Obama has some kind of ethical or other meltdown and couldn’t win against a Kardashian sister) she could certainly win Iowa and South Carolina (two of the three earliest contests) and elsewhere in the South. I doubt she could win in New Hampshire, where Mitt Romney is well known, but this still puts her in the driver’s seat and he must take it from her uphill against the ridiculous expectations game our weird system of primaries and caucuses plays when someone wins Iowa.

No doubt, if she runs, she will excite her base more than anyone since Ronald Reagan. It has been known for years that Republicans care far less about academic success or the trappings of intellect than Democrats in their presidential candidates. Barack Obama and Bill Clinton were known for their intellectual prowess whereas the President Bushes and Ronald Reagan were not - whether or not it was true. She fits in that mold. Republicans/conservatives trust that she will do what they want her to do without a lot of messy over thinking about it. Keep taxes low, support Israel, talk about God, cut the budget, and so on. This might seem facetious but I don’t think many conservatives would be upset if she would just listen to Rush Limbaugh every day and go along with his ideas.

But, in the end, I don’t think the result would be much different than the polls tell us now. She would lose to President Obama by a large margin. It would take a miracle for her to sell herself to independents, particularly as she doesn’t seem to care much about doing it.

So, Mitt Romney. His two biggest problems, other than Ms. Palin, are Rush Limbaugh and his push for a rock solid conservative, and . . . John McCain. The senator from Arizona got the nomination last time for two reasons – Mike Huckabee seemed to be running interference for him, splitting the religious votes that might have gone towards Governor Romney and at some point, enough Republicans thought that going more moderate would be a good idea. And, other than the collapse of the economy under a Republican’s watch, Bush fatigue and his own miserable campaign, there might be a President McCain now. But, he lost, which gives impetus to the Limbaugh/Palin school of thought - run a real conservative and damn the torpedos. Despite the governor’s desire to be seen as a conservative, many Republicans don’t believe him, particularly given his association with the Massachusetts’ health care plan, which is similar to the federal one in some aspects and has proved a disaster economically there, and his prior pro-gay, pro-choice positions when he was running for office in Massachusetts. Personally, I have a visceral reaction to him as a stereotypical used car salesperson – I don’t trust him. His attempt to pretend to be a hunter a few years back fell as flat as when John Kerry tried.

Still, if he can find a way to win the primary, he has the best chance to beat the president. Polls show he does the best against him of all the potential nominees, while Sarah Palin gets blown away by him. You’d think that would be obvious to conservatives, but just let someone say it to them and watch them accuse even other Republicans of being RINOs. How many times do I have to say it – partisanship makes everyone a little crazy.

Okay, now for the Democrats, which will be a lot shorter. Recently, with the president showing he is willing to work with Republicans, liberals are outraged. This is not only foolish on their part economically, as their plans for greater entitlements and stimulus strike me as similar to pouring water on a drowning man, but also unfair. President Obama has pursued the liberal agenda with great success, even at the cost of the House of Representatives and the loss of his own popularity. The public might not have liked it so much, but his base should be overjoyed.

So, already we hear the drumbeat for a primary opponent, which at least will bring glee to the right. Nothing could be worse for the Democrats than a primary fight, which would undoubtedly weaken their party. Even the thought of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama going into an undecided convention pulled their party apart for a while. But, partisan liberals see no clearer than partisan conservatives.

Besides, who would it be? I know my conservative friends have had a wet dream that Hillary Clinton, filled with ambition and thoughts of revenge, would challenge him. That seems to remain a dream. Besides, she stands in everyone’s perception to the right of President Obama. The people who are unhappy on the left are standing to his left. What would the point of having her challenge him be?

Who’s left? John Kerry? Howard Dean? Pardon me while I laugh hysterically. Did I say yet that partisanship makes everyone a little crazy?

Wikileaks

I presume you know what Wikileaks is and who Julian Assange is. If not, Google or Wikipedia it.

I can’t speak for other countries, but I am not sure exactly how the United States would successfully prosecute Julian Assange. For one thing, to prosecute someone, you need a crime. There are no common law federal crimes, so it has to be a statutory crime. There are two choices I see right now (please keep in mind he is not a U.S. citizen, so treason is not available).

First, though, let me say that even if Mr. Assange is very much against the United States interest, even if he hopes bin Laden blows us to kingdom come, we should not prosecute him unless he has broken a valid law. Sure, there can be a kangaroo court, but there shouldn’t be. If we do that, then maybe we are slowly becoming the totalitarians we so criticize.

One possibility is the 1917 Espionage Act, which was last amended in 1970. Although it was used to imprison and convict men and women during WWI, it was a gross abuse of power by the government, and, in many people’s opinions, a violation of the first amendment of the constitution. It has been twice amended and I am not going into an analysis here of whether it is constitutional. Probably in a later post if he is indicted here. The other possibility I know of – and there may be others – is a statute (18 U.S.C. 793) which forbids even someone who gets specific defense information in their hands to dispose of it contrary to the law.

As for his arrest in Britain without bail  just so that it can be determined if he should go back to Sweden to face sex crime charges, those sex crime charges seem more than a little flimsy. Apparently, and these are the facts I heard – correct me if you think they are wrong - he had sex with a woman who had recently gone out of her way to meet him and bring him home. They had sex. The next day she had a party for him and his friends and she referred electronically to him and them as the “coolest people in the world”. Then, shortly afterwards, he had sex with a friend whose apartment he was staying at. They had sex. Later, the two women learned about each other. Now both claim he molested them, one by having sex with her in her sleep (after they had sex wide awake, mind you) and the other for supposedly pinning her down with his weight (and, of course, that was before she referred to him as one of the coolest people in the world, which makes you wonder - is she just referring to the missionary position?)

Now, even though he has surrendered himself in Britain, he is held without bail. I don’t know British law, but I believe the right to bail is basically the same as here where we generally have a constitutional right. Could be wrong though.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like the guy and think he is misguided. But, I’m not sure at all he’s committed any crime, and he shouldn’t be convicted of pissing off governments without a real crime. That’s too fascist for me.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Reviewing an earlier post I see that I had previously misunderstood DADT, which I thought had been brought about by presidential order. I think President Obama used to believe that too, based on what he said (why I believed it). But, now that I am paying attention I see it comes from a federal act.

I am a little dismayed that my favorite politician (though he dims in my appreciation over time), John McCain is at the forefront of prolonging DADT, which I believe is wrong in several dimensions.

It should be remembered that a federal trial court has already declared the law unconstitutional on 1st amendment and equal protection grounds (which, at the federal level, would have to be found implied in the due process clause) and that it is now before the Supreme Court in an appeal to be heard this year.

Why am I against DADT? I did give consideration for a while that the military is a very different creature from other federal departments, and that has been recognized since the founding. But, given that many other nations have managed to do this without big problems (there are always problems), that even our cousins in England and Australia have managed to do it (Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has testified that his counterparts in those two countries told him that after all the fuss, when it happened, it went down smoothly), I can’t imagine why our troops should be thought less disciplined or less tolerant.

And, of course, we know that gays are serving in the military. The poll the Pentagon took of service men and women showed that while many of them had a problem with open homosexuality, those who knew they were serving with a gay man overwhelmingly had no problem with it. One special forces member reported on a gay man he was serving with – paraphrasing – he was big, mean and killed a lot of bad guys. No problem. I have no doubt Senator McCain and other Senators and Congressmen who want to prolong DADT have no answer for this, as they continue to ignore that part of the poll whenever they speak.

One of the myths about this proposed change is that the military will be distracted by bizarre gay behavior. But, there are already gays in the military – where is this behavior? Where is it in other countries? Everyone in the military is going to have to follow the military code regardless of whether DADT exists, straight or gay.

Many conservatives who oppose this claim feel that it has to be this way because of the special mission of the military – and they are offended that they are called homophobes. I have looked to see if there was a poll correlating those for DADT with those against gay marriage and can't find one. So, sure, I’m speculating, but want to bet it is a really, really strong correlation? I say that with confidence because everyone I personally know who has a position, they are either pro or con on both issues - no split decisions.

Time to end this nonsense. It’s the 21st century. Homosexuality is no longer a crime. Many have come out of the closet and the ones I know well are decent hardworking people who don’t deserve to be discriminated against. And, it is discrimination. And it is homophobia.

I frequently read on an online site I frequent, TownHall.com, that God disapproves of homosexuality, often followed by a Bible citation. Yet, despite all the arguments I have been in on that site, no one, not one single person, has ever responded to my question as to whether they also approve of stoning adulterers, which is also mentioned in the Bible.

Today the Senate said no to a vote, so the debate will likely be over at least for a few years as it would never pass with the House in Republican control. And, of course, it may stay that way a while.

Israel/Palestine

Just a brief comment here on this thorniest of issues. Once again, another president who hoped to solve this problem bites the dust. The administration acknowledges that it will no longer try to get Israel to stop building in disputed territories. And, as the Palestinians won’t negotiate until that happens . . . at least for now, that means more violence, more poverty, more deaths down the road.

While some Israel supporters might smile at that and say, What us worry? – We are on top - I suggest that someday, the smile will be wiped from their face, and that unless a political solution will be had, the little country that has survived so much will cease to be one day.

Political update for July, 2010

Two from the wacky world of Israel.

Israel claims it is democratic and that it is a republic. I’ll agree it is a representative democracy, and that it is not a monarchy or a tyranny. But, it is also a theocracy, whether it calls itself one or not. Domestic relations are controlled by religious courts. Jews have different rights than non-Jews, including the right to citizenship no matter where they are from (the Law of Return). This right has been liberally interpreted and even some groups from disparate countries not exactly thought of as Jewish have been permitted to become citizens. Like, from India.

Israel’s legislative body is the Knesset, which has one house. Last week, a committee in the Knesset passed a law which, if it became law, would give a small group of rabbis, usually referred to as orthodox, to determine who is a Jew. Considering that Israel gets much of its worldwide support from America and American Jews, some see it as somewhat amazing that they would risk alienating so many Jews around the world. The group which would have this power does not recognize conservative or reform Jews as Jews.

The PM, Bibi Netanyahu, isn’t an idiot and has come out dead set against it.

No one should be surprised that Israel is in part a theocracy, although I think it is, can’t think of a better world, stupid. After all, it bills itself as the Jewish homeland and it is surrounded by theocracies and dictatorships (that’s the understandable part). Even some European countries like England and France reserve some vestiges of religious rule, however much they have decentralized power. But, Israel is much more of a theocracy than those, which are more a formality.

There has long been a debate in Israel about whether it should be secular or religious. It has, since its creation, been schizophrenic about it. Whatever the percentage of those in Israel who think a theocracy is better than a secular country, but, it can’t be completely secular and maintain its Jewish nature and right of return (while denying same to Palestinians) without it. It can’t become fully theocratic and maintain support from America or even its own people.

This is not the first time that some have tried to consolidate their religious power, mullah like, but it is always sad to see it getting this far through the Knesset. I do not see it going further.

From what I understand, this wildfire has been put in suspended animation by mutual consent for six months. Hopefully, to die.

But, consider this really stupid move, this one by Israel’s secular judiciary. An Arab man, already married, lied to a Jewish girl, telling her he was Jewish and single. It worked and he scored.

Yes, it was lie. Not nice. We all agree. Even inveterate liars usually agree that lying is generally wrong. But, here’s the stupid part. He was prosecuted for and convicted of RAPE because of it. Rape by deception.

The ruling was upheld by Israel’s high court. That means, unless the Knesset passes a new law saying lying can’t be a basis for rape (sure, politicians being known for their courage when it comes to sexual politics), it is the law.

I don’t have to tell you why this ruling must put the fear of Jehovah into every Israeli man who intends to have sex with a woman. Men lie all the time to get girls. They pretend they are rich, they have jobs, they where a uniform, have a nice car, even that they are nice guys. They even say “I love you” and “I’ll marry you.”

Obviously not all guys all the times. But a lot of guys a lot of the time. This is not a secret. Not in Israel, not here, or pretty much anywhere else.  And, girls lie to, although often in different ways.

Hey, I was once told by two women on different occasions that I lied to them by telling the truth because no woman would think I was doing so. On another occasion, however, one told me that men should lie to women to get them in bed because the women know it and it helps them justify it.

I doubt my experiences were unique. The game of sex is one with difficult rules. Arguably, lying is almost required in our and every other society to some degree. Because sexual politics are so difficult, we’ve pretty much de facto decriminalized adultery in this country. You have to be a politician in the wrong place, wrong time, in order to get arrested for it.

The only way I could see a rape by deception being fair is if someone convinced a blind person they were their husband, or something like that. That's more likely in a movie than in real life.

In Israel, the defendant has complained that this was just racial prejudice, given the social disapproval among Jews of intermingling with Arabs. Some suggest this will be an aberration in the law. Maybe so. Whatever it is, it’s stupid.

Which is dumber, the Who’s a Jew proposal that passed the Knesset committee or this ruling by the high court? I’m going to go with the Who’s a Jew proposal, even though it’s not law yet, because it will affect more people if it is ever passed. Tear the country apart as the PM says.

But, they were both stupid.

Don’t they get tired of it?

Now, I’m not picking on Harry Reid right now. He’s an accomplished politician, but he is paying the penalty for activities in getting the health care reforms into law. A long time incumbent, he should be having less of a problem with the newbie, Sharron Angle. Right now, he’s closing the gap, only 3% behind her in the latest Rasmussen poll. However, he also has about a 10% higher favorable but also unfavorable rating. That might just mean a lot of people don’t know her. But, according to Rasmussen, at this point, you look at the unfavorable rating.

What caught my attention a few weeks ago was a statement he made, which cable tv cut down to a few seconds. It went like this, if I have the quote right – “They're betting on failure. They think that the worse the economy is come November, the better they are going to do election-wise."

At risk of being insolent, may I say – “d’uh!”

Naturally Republicans are betting on failure. I’m sure they remember that around the middle of September, ’08 Sen. McCain was running almost even with Sen. Obama when the economy collapsed and so did his campaign. Republican politicians’ jobs, like their Democratic counterparts, is to get elected, obtain power and doll out favors to friends and supporters.

In order to do so they have to get people to identify with them, excuse their incompetence and corruption and like them. How are they going to do that if the economy is going well. Of course they hope the economy doesn’t work.

To be fair, I’m sure a good Republican would tell you – “If the economy does well right now it will be a fluke or cyclical and it means the liberals will be encouraged to continue their tax and spend policies and drive us to ruin.”

Naturally, Democrats were delighted when the economy collapsed last year just before the election. It meant they were going to win and take power.

Also to be fair, I’m sure a good Democrat would tell you – “If the economy did well in 2008 it would have only been because Bush was having the fed prop it up, and it would have meant the conservatives would have been encouraged to continue their tax cuts for the rich and support for the big guy over the little.”

My point is, of course, neither side really cares about the economy when they aren’t in power. If it fails they will have a better chance of controlling things and “saving the day.” It’s like when the citizens of one city get excited because a ballplayer on another city’s team gets hurt, so their team will win. How many people think, too bad, it will be a less competitive game?

Reid, of course, couldn’t wait to get on the floor of the Senate and announce that we had lost the Iraq War. I have never heard him say “Oops” about that. I’m sure he had convinced himself that it was true and he was not only grateful, he wanted voters to know it.

Neither side ever seems to get tired of pretending it’s only the other side that does this. It isn’t going to do Harry Reid any good to say it, just as it didn’t do any good for conservatives to say the Democrats want us to fail in Iraq (also, in my opinion, true at that time).

The real question is, why don’t we ever get tired of it?

The whole black, black, black, etc., thing.

Years ago I was at Thanksgiving dinner with my family at a restaurant. Excepting my daughter, they are extremely racially sensitive.  The mention of an ethnic group, even innocuously, makes them embarrassed and uncomfortable. The mention of the color black at all makes them squirm.

At one point during dinner, I referred to someone who was a black guy as a “black guy”. I forget the reason I felt the color tag was helpful, because I can’t remember the actual story I was telling. I can’t really remember their exact reaction either, but it was generally one of heightened embarrassment, looking around, and I believe genuine fear. What if a black person heard me refer to a black person as black? 

Now, we have a sort tit for tat in my family. They like to greatly exaggerate stories to make me sound  horribly racist (they’ve actually started to admit this lately, which is gratifying and surprising) and I like to torture them about their racial squemishness. So, I looked around at them, gathered their attention, and said loud enough for other tables to hear - “BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK”.

I know you are thinking "So?," but they nearly died. Great moment for me in the family annals.

If you are wondering if there is a point to this, we are going through somewhat of the same thing in our country now. The mere mention of race or someone’s ethnic identity in public is enough to make people crazy.

Few politically active people will deny that race is still a problem in America. The liberals tend to believe we must be very conscious of race, that slavery and racism is America’s great shame, that we should not mention or show a minority in any bad light, always give their opinions credence, never forget slavery, never forget Jim Crow, never forget lynchings, and give minorities advantages now so as to make compensation for the past. Even though we are a country filled with post-Civil War immigrants, we can't apologize enough and we must tip the legal scales in favor of minorities.

The conservatives feel that we are past our most racist past, that we should celebrate the strides we have made, that Western civilization ended slavery, that the best way to get rid of racial vestiges is to ignore it and judge people on their merit, and not give anyone advantages in law as a way to make up for the bad acts of our ancestors or governments.

I see both sides as having some truth or right on their side (does that surprise anyone – I’m a fence sitter). Race is both our greatest shame and the source of our greatest triumphs. It is still a difficult problem and no one can see the end of it. I don’t want to act as if there is no racism, but I don’t want someone to have an advantage in law because of their skin color either. Race means something, but it doesn’t mean everything.

But, I have no secrets to success which I can offer. One day a few years ago, when I was teaching a constitutional law class, we were discussing the fighting words doctrine, that because the government has an interest in preventing violence they may violate free speech rights in order to prevent fighting words.

During the class, one young black woman (I obviously don’t prefer the term African-American, as I believe it is illogical, divisive and dishonest) used the dreaded N-word, unabbreviated and un-hyphenated, but I thought in an appropriate way. Then, a young white man used it, also, I thought, in an appropriate way. Unfortunately, he happened to be the class wise guy and that might have made the difference. Maybe not though.

Another black woman looked at me and said loudly, pointing at him, that someone has to tell him to “Shut up.” Let me tell you, I wasn’t prepared for this. All I could think to say was something like “Well, I can’t solve this problem, but, it does show us how painful some words can be and why we have the fighting words doctrine.”

Later, the white kid came up to me when I was talking to some other students after class and asked what he had done wrong. He was clearly embarrassed and saddened. I said that I didn’t think he had done anything wrong, but he had to understand that in our culture, if he, a white man, was going to use that word, many blacks and some others would get angry at him. It was his decision.

I was teaching a class, not running for office and I wanted peaceful, motivated discussion; not a race war. A few white students later told me they thought I handled it really well. But, I noticed that an unusual number of the black students decided not to come to the next class. Naturally, I can’t say for sure if it was related. But, maybe I handled it well from a white viewpoint, but not a black one. No black student came up to discuss it with me. Although I wish I had handled it better, had something wise to say so all the students would sigh and say, "Oh, okay," I still don’t know how else I could have managed it. I’ll never have the moment back anyway. I doubt there was a solution.

I look at my own experience as a metaphor for the whole racial situation in America. We don’t know how to handle it and are slowly feeling our way forward. Some people are satisfied and others not. I can say for sure that I know it is a lot better than when I was a kid. Then again, when I once ventured that opinion in another class, one student at least couldn’t hear it and seemed to think I was saying there is no racism. That’s a problem when anyone discusses racism. People hear it through a very cloudy filter. Perceived code words often overwhelm actual words.

In the last couple of months we’ve had an outbreak of media events surrounding race. I am not sure of the order, and it’s not really important, but I believe the Arizona immigration issue was first. During the Civil War, supposedly fought over economic or political reasons, everyone knew it was fought over slavery. And, even though the federal lawsuit against Arizona (in my opinion a borderline frivolous one) is not about race at all, but about federal pre-emption, we all know it is both about ethnicity and/or votes.

Then there was the NCAAP flap, where their convention passed a resolution accusing the tea parties of racism, wanting to smear the movement with for the statements of a handful. There was also the letter from tea party leader Mark Williams which satirized the NCAAP and its leader in such a way that every media figure and progressive/liberal could easily call him a racist and his own party, not trusting that people could recognize obvious satire when they saw it, and he was trying to suggest that it was the NCAAP that saw blacks this way, through him under the bus. There is no honor among partisans.

The New Black Panthers were a scandal that shouldn’t go away, but probably will while we have a Democratic controlled congress. If the Republicans take over a house, and there aren’t more pressing issues, there might be one.* There, a long time white Justice Department lawyer retired after he learned that his bosses had dropped the easiest case he ever prosecuted, one against a couple of New Black Panthers who stood in front of a polling place intimidating whites. The administration claims that the voluntary injunction they obtained not to intimidate voters until after the 2012 election was satisfactory. Personally, it is an insult to all of our intelligence. Somehow, I don’t think I would have gotten off so easy had I tried to intimidate anyone.

Andrew Breitbart’s website, biggoverment.com, recently posted an excerpted speech by a black USDA official, Shirley Sherrod, in which it seemed as if she was bragging about not helping a white farmer. It went viral and she was fired. Sure enough, it turned out when you listened to the whole speech, she was talking about how she learned to get past her own racism. It takes a certain amount of courage to do that if you have a job where you must be politically correct.

Of course, let’s not give anyone too much credit. The administration fired her without a thought, not bothering to listen to the speech because they could care less about what happens to her. They were out for themselves. When they offered her a job back after apologizing, they were doing the same. And, Mr. Breitbart, a conservative blogger, either deliberately edited the speech or was grossly negligent. Either way, he didn’t care that he might be slandering someone as long as he could score a political point. The right wing is busy protecting him right now – he was “set up,” according to Ann Coulter, but, it's only because he’s on their team. The really interesting thing is watching how both parties and ideologues are using the episode to insist that the other side is racist. Yet we vote for these people.

Perhaps last is Tucker Carlson’s revelation of emails from a progressive group called Journolists (the “o” was for Obama) who formed their own invitation only social network where they could rant about conservatives and help each other target anyone who disagreed with Obama. One of these ways was to accuse conservatives or people on Fox (Fred Barnes and Karl Rove come to mind) as being racist. Sad, but that is the state of journalism today. It's why I hardly bother anymore.

After each sentence above I could have written - this is what partisans do. It’s rarely about us. Unfortunately, most Americans have from birth been indoctrinated into one side or the other and we give these partisan leaders credibility, as if there really are only two sides to each issue and the ideologues own all of them.

You can read about these mini-scandals anywhere and that’s why I just touched upon them. The larger point is this: the idea that we are a “post racial nation” is certainly untrue. It is better here now than at any time in our history, and as we can see, a black man can even become president. Despite the fact that liberals are sure conservatives are racist and visa versa, I feel assured that if Republicans ran Clarence Thomas, an extremely high majority of conservatives would vote gleefully vote for him and an extremely high percentage of liberals adamantly against him, regardless of his color. Ideology is the new colored.

Amazing as it sounds, the partisans on both sides have managed to warp and reinvigorate racism as it slowly dies out. They’ve pretty much eclipsed it with "race shenanigans". It is now a weapon each side wields against the other. I’m not suggesting that there is no real racism, just that false or exaggerated accusations of it have become more of a focus for the partisans and the media than the actuality of it. No one cares if any of the people mentioned above are really racist – they care if they can make a claim that someone on the other side is racist and whether it will have legs.

Ah, once again I show my ability to turn almost any topic into a rant against partisanship. It never gets old for me (maybe you, but that’s your problem).
My suggested definition for partisans: “A group of people so profligate, so mired in their priorities, and so amoral in believing the success of their country is synonymous with the success of their political party or ideology, that they could turn a tradition as old and discredited as racism into a spear point for their own ends; they are neither fit to mind the government, never mind disseminate knowledge and opinions to us. Alas, they have a lock on all of it.”

*Post note - I don’t have the best record predicting what scandals will stick, but I’m not sure anyone does. It depends on who controls congress and what else is happening at the time. If the Republicans end up controlling the House, they might decide to look into it as well as the Sestak affair. However, the Democrats will still likely control the Senate and they might decide, in response, to re-investigate Bush era issues like torture and wire-tapping. It might just suggest to everyone that they calm down.

Lessons of the Hezbollah-Israeli War II

The last posting on this subject discussed the evolution of techniques by Hezbollah which are indicative of what I call the Western Alliances have to look forward to from that and other groups opposed to America and its allies. Some of those techniques are - using missile technology to attack their enemies - using civilian shields to arouse international anger against the West and taking advantage of our own aversion to killing civilians as a method to prevent us from fighting their hardest - using non-governmental organizations like Hezbollah to prevent military action against allied States. - using the internet to portray alleged Western war crimes or atrocities, and to declare real or imagined victories.

Some recent articles in the media have shown the increased use of these tactics in the Middle East, including in the Palestinian territories and Iraq. Although we might continue to try to prevent the dispersal of military technology, good luck to us, as explained in the last posting. But we can do something about the rest of these techniques because the solution is attitudinal on our part. The most important of these problems is the one which may be the hardest to conquer and may even seem cruel and unlawful at first blush -- that is, the anathema attached to the killing of civilians. 

To be absolutely clear, I am not advocating abating our efforts to avoid killing civilians, and we can slap ourselves on the back for trying. It is not only required by any Nation that has subscribed to the Geneva Conventions in many cases (although the Bush administration was right; Common Article Three's proscriptions against harming civilians expressly does not apply when fighting groups like Al Quaeda or Hezbollah), but it is also, in my book moral and wise. 

Instead, what I am suggesting -- not to our governments, but TO THE PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA is that we stop beating our breasts when our military forces cannot avoid killing innocent civilians or it happens accidentally. It saps the morale of the public and the military, which are mutually dependent on each other for support. Let's use the most recent example. On November 8, 2006 Israeli missiles seeking to kill Palestinians militants who fired rockets into Israel, slammed into buildings killing 18 Palestinians, mostly women and children. Similar events occurred in the Hezbollah-Israel War. The reaction from the territories and the Arab world was outrage, and the same came from much of the world. But it also came from many Israelis, including the prime minister, who seemed to buckle at the knees. He apologized and practically begged the Palestinian president to meet with him and added that if he did, he would be very surprised at what Israel was willing to do for him. 

The meeting did not occur, at least publicly. On November 11 Israeli peace activists joined by three Nobel Prize winners called for the Israeli Supreme Court to ban Israel from targeting missile attacks. I am not sure what they expect Israel to do -- fire indiscriminately on civilians like Hezbollah? Probably not. Stop fighting? Probably more like it. They were probably addressing the right entity. A few years ago the Israeli Supreme Court banned the use of Palestinian human shields to the military. Not surprisingly, using Muslims as human shields has increased among Muslim militias, because they see the great effect it has upon the Western Alliances. President Bush expressed his sorrow of the loss of life, but stated clearly that Israel had done nothing wrong. This attitude seeks to place blame on the entity at fault for the reaction and the possibility of mistake. Although with less at stake, his reaction was superior to the Israel prime minister's reaction. Much of the rest of the world seemed to disagree.

On November 11, 2006 a resolution came before the U.N. security council condemning Israel, although restatements called upon the Palestinian Authority to find a way to make a sustained effort to end the rocket attacks on Israel. If only. It was vetoed by the U.S. Among other changes, France proposed other language calling for "an international mechanism for the protection of civilians." Leaving aside the "mechanics" of doing so, or why it is needed in addition to Common Article Three, who would obey these new restrictions? Not Al Qaeda, not Hamas or Hezbollah. Not the Tamil Tigers, or FARC or the Taliban or Chetyan Black Widows, that's for sure. Israel did much better when it opened fire on women sent to protect terrorists that were surrounded in a mosque. If Israel buckled under the use of women to defend men they are trying to kill, then it would have been repeated again and again. I doubt unprotected women in Palestine will try that real soon again, and I believe that ultimately it saves women's lives if they are discouraged from participating in this fashion. 

Another tactic the West Alliances should adopt is to identify countries supporting hostile groups and make them pay a price for it. The prime example of this was our attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan as a result of 9/11. But in the Hezbollah-Israeli War it was seen as wrong to identify Hizbollah with Lebanon, although the government and people overwhelmingly supported the militant group. Because of this manner of thinking, additional pressure was put on Israel to stop its bombing before the job was done. Lebanon itself is now paying the price for this. They are faced with a still powerful organization, the only one armed in the country, which is now seeking by threats to take control of the government. This would almost certainly doom Lebanon to a far more punishing war with Israel in the future. Had Israel's bombing, which despite the number of dead, was designed not to kill civilians, been allowed to continue even another week, it is difficult to believe that the Lebanese people would not have undermined the group's popular support. 

Even as it was, Hezbollah's leader acknowledged after the war that he would not have captured the Israeli soldiers had he known the severity of the reaction. Exactly. EXACTLY. The world media reacted with surprise and interest, but no one was interested in the lesson. The premature end to fighting as a result of modern Western values and natural sympathy for the Lebanese non-combatants (which ironically includes the Lebanese military) allowed Hezbollah to make a senseless claim of victory, weakened Israel's morale and kept it from trying to win, another peculiar effect of the enlightenment beliefs the Western Alliances so highly value. Yet this reluctance to let any powerful country win a conflict (I am not talking about genocide) simply prolongs conflicts. It has prolonged the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (despite world-wide condemnation, Israel's self-restraint is unusual in the history of conflicts -- the number of Palestinians who have actually died from military attack by Israel is actually quite low). 

The same failure to fight more forcefully has left the United States in a difficult, if not impossible position in Iraq. In fact, one only need to consider the effect on the world if the Allies in WWII had been forced to fight under 21st century notions that total victory is not permitted if civilians are suffering or dying. No rebirth in Germany, no rebirth in Japan, both which became essential to the world economy and world peace. 

Without going on forever in this vein, consider all the ways that terrorist groups are able to fight, as opposed to the ways we are permitted to fight them. 

They can (and we cannot) deliberately 

-kill enemy civilians 

-kill their own civilians 

-torture their captives and enemies 

-summarily execute captives and enemies 

 

-use propaganda without self-doubt and criticism 

-openly use our schools, businesses, technology, and media to train and propagandize 

-indiscriminately use nuclear, biological and chemical weapons when they acquire them fight to win no matter the consequences 

It is one thing to try and maintain your values in time of war. We must always make that effort. It is another thing to so hamstring yourself with values that you will lose everything. This is something the generation that won WWII understood and we do not. It is not that we should adopt all of the tactics that our enemies do, which are squarely against our values. Far from it. But we should not cripple our ability to fight in trying to remain moral such that we cannot win or win efficiently. 

To those who believe that this is hyperbole and an exaggeration of our risks, they should return to part one where it is explained that peoples we may foolishly condescend to because they do not yet possess our technology, will some day, sooner than later, possess our most dangerous weapons. They can already shoot down our planes with our shoulder held heat-seeking missiles and shoot more powerful missiles into neighboring countries. But the Western Alliances must consider a near future when non-governmental entities hiding among civilians over a broad geographical area swimming with innocent human life can target and fire thousands of missiles at once into our countries. It might happen to Israel first, but then it will be Europe and then the United States. 

The thought is almost to frightening to contemplate. It is more frightening to consider that some or all of those missiles might contain nuclear explosives, or chemical/biological weapons. It is one reason we need political solutions, which are only possible with a showing of superior strength. A fair analogy to this situation is found in the often-quoted warning of Justice Robert Jackson, an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court: "This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact". Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) 

Frankly, at least with 20/20 hindsight, Jackson was dead wrong in Terminiello, where he stood against the right of a truly despicable person to speak freely in public, as he was in a number of his opinions where he suggested the court was going too far in protecting individuals from the state. Anarchy does not increase with greater expression of antagonistic beliefs. But that doesn't mean the general principal is wrong in civil rights or warfare when rightly applied. It is better suited to the doomsday situation described above for which I will restate Jackson's language in my own way below: 

"This country and our allies has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that protecting civilians from casualties in war means the end of fighting to win. The choice is not between protecting civilians and winning. It is between protecting human life as much as possible while winning as quickly as possible. There is a danger that, if this country does not temper its most decent values with a little practical wisdom, it will convert its military rules of engagement into a suicide pact." 

Have a good sleep.

Lessons of the Israeli-Hezbollah War

NOTE: BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THIS POSTING AND MY DESIRE TO PUBLISH SOMETHING TODAY, I HAVE BROKEN IT UP INTO TWO POSTINGS, THE SECOND OF WHICH WILL BE POSTED AROUND NOVEMBER 8TH. 

Now that the smoke is cleared, the blockade ended by Israel and the peace-keepers are supposedly taking their places, it seems foolish to waste much time arguing about who was right or wrong in this brief war, or who started it. No one is going to convince supporters of either side that they are wrong, and it will not help stop another one. For one thing, it is unlikely anyone with a strong opinion will be swayed by any contrary one. What matters most is what the war tells us about what is in store for the Western Alliances in upcoming wars. What I mean by Western Alliances are those countries who have treaties or understanding among one another in which the United States is a central figure, and which, however imperfectly executed, have a determined preference for certain enlightenment values such as free expression, democratic government, religious tolerance, etc. This includes, in varying degrees, not only countries actually in the Western Hemisphere, such as the USA, some of the EU and British Commonwealth, but also Eastern Hemisphere countries which seem to have adopted these same set of values, like Japan and Israel. 

The plural “alliances” is used because not all of the countries are allied with each other, although the United States seems a center for most, if not all of them. Were there ever a third World War in the near future, these countries will be allies. Some important tactics developed during this war that have been somewhat overlooked in importance. The significance of this war is obvious for Israel, but also for these other loosely allied countries. This post considers the impact of the war upon the Western Alliances. 

Who won the war? It is not so foolish to argue about who won, although that might appear petty or competitive to some. If one side wins, it has an impact on whether the other side would want to fight again, or how soon, and affects how other countries treat the combatants. Both sides in this war claimed victory. The victory” claimed by Hezbollah now seems diminished in the aftermath of the burials and awesome reconstruction tasks, not to mention Nasrallah’s admission that given the consequences he would not have taken the prisoners. 

The “victory” claimed by Israel also seems somewhat hollow in considering the perceived loss of martial prowess and the even loss of good will in the world community, deserved or not. However, it would seem by conventional standards of what “winning” means, that Israel won a decision, to use the boxing term, and by an undeniably substantial margin. It caused far more missile damage, killed and injured far more people, caused far greater economic and social havoc, plus invaded, blockaded and occupied Lebanon, not vice versa. It left on its own terms, when it was ready. In fact, although it stayed months later than many believed it should have, Hezbollah has not dared to continue to fight the occupiers. 

If Hezbollah won, as even many in the Western media claim, then it was a quintessential pyrrhic victory, as “one other such would utterly undo" them to paraphrase Plutarch. That this is true is evident from Nasrallah’s belated admission that he incorrectly predicted Israel's response. Many American pundits were of the opinion that Israel lost, because it did not accomplish its stated goal of freeing their two captive soldiers. This clearly was a mistake on their part, and not just in retrospect. At any time Hezbollah could have easily killed the captives and claimed it was from Israeli fire. The soldiers were more valuable as hostages and survived. However, they were possibly spirited out of the country beyond Israel’s reach. Had they been killed, Israel would have to come up with another rationale other than deterrence. 

Why was this war different? The message that the Western Alliances should be hearing is that conventional warfare may not be dead, but is so fundamentally altered that the advantages they have had in power is already greatly diminished, and will permanently be so unless we alter some of our strategies, tactics, and more importantly, our approach to maintaining our values while actually winning something. One of the main reasons for this is purely in the hands of the Western Alliances. The main reason for needing this change in tactics is that there will be no more battlefields in the manner there used to be. Even when the “coalition of the willing” invaded Iraq, the blistering pace set by the troops in racing through the country and taking Baghdad was due to the lack of real resistance on a battlefield. The West's enemies understand the balance of power and all of the tactics must change when we stop moving. After Gulf Wars I and II, the Serbian War in the '90s and even the almost forgotten Falkland Islands War, less technologically able countries are simply not going to wage face to face battle with one of the powers unless they have no other choice. Guerilla warfare has gone from being an occasional resistance tactic to now a couple along with aggressive terrorism (attack on civilians) as a main strategy in warfare. This has first appeared in great force in this short and limited war. It has great growth potential. This is because guerilla or irregular warfare has fundamentally changed. There are two main reasons. 

The loser can now more easily kill the winner. This war is a landmark in that never before has guerrilla warfare been combined with weaponry that can reach the much more powerful invading country and wreak havoc. This was not true of the Revolutionary War, Somalia, Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan or even the first Israel-Lebanon War, all engagements where irregular tactics were used. The battle was on the invaded country's turf and it stayed there, even if the attack failed, as with Vietnam. 

This latest war demonstrated the change in that important factor as the use of only a fraction of Hizbollah’s reported missile arsenal so ably demonstrated. This does not mean that countries or groups haven’t committed sabotage in other countries before. The IRA for example, did so in Britain. That’s not news. The difference now is that man and machine can fly and are virtually unstoppable. And its not just for the big boy countries anymore. Now smaller countries and irregular armies like Hizbollah or Hamas (whether or not they control the Palestinian Authority legislature) have more and more access to missiles with greater range and more powerful explosives. 

Although the effect of this transference in dangerous weaponry to less advanced countries or groups is dramatic, it was to be expected and should be factored into our understanding as a given in the future. In every generation the more advanced civilization or country attacked a less sophisticated people with more powerful weapons. Eventually, those same weapons would inevitably end up in the hands of the less advanced people, sometimes when the more powerful group had moved on in in technologically, or sometimes even because the weapons were given to the weaker group by the more powerful one through trade or a brief alliance. 

One older example of this is the American Indians obtaining guns from the European-Americans who they were fighting. Other more ancient examples are the dispersal of iron weaponry at the end of the Bronze Age, the use of chariots as weapons, and even the stirrup and the saddle. This transference of technology is already being accomplished in our own times not just with missiles, but with high powered nitramine explosives, unmanned aerial vehicles and nuclear weapons, sometimes wielded by nations that would have been thought to have been incapable of creating or obtaining them only a few years ago, like Pakistan and North Korea. 

Like everything else in this last half century, the pace of weaponry transference has quickened. Thanks to the internet, modern digital and satellite communications, and the acceptance of foreign students in Western schools, these technologies, no matter how secret, will be shared or discovered faster than ever. Anyone who disagrees with this should be put to the proof of demonstrating any valuable technology that that did not eventually proliferate throughout the world. Nor does it matter one lick if is achieved by hook or crook. When they got it, they got it. 

You might think then that it is simply a matter of staying one step or more ahead in weapon development. Not so. At some point the destructive power of these weapons becomes so great that it matters little whether one side is more advanced or not than the other. The weaker group, using the last generation of weapons, can kill enough of the stronger group to make any thought of war too painful to bear. We know that this is true since the advent of nuclear weaponry, but it is now becoming true with conventional weapons, and exponentially so. The Korean border is a perfect example of this development. No longer will mutually assured destruction be applicable only to nuclear weapons. None of this is to suggest that every effort at non-proliferation should not be taken. In fact, it should be heightened. 

Winning and liking it? The second advantage modern guerilla warriors now utilize is to couple traditional hit and run tactics with a great weakness of the Western Alliances. This weakness has grown by leaps and bounds in a few generations and is now a major weapon in the hands of guerilla fighters. Perhaps first seen in the Vietnam War as self-restraint by the West and not particularly understood at the time, it is now fully comprehended as a weapon by the West’s enemies. I am talking about the value we put on human life and our seeming reluctance to actually win. As we saw Hezbollah do, and we will likely see more of in Iraq, irregular fighters mesh with the civilian population, giving Western forces the choice of killing civilians or not fighting that hard. The tactic works even when actually admitted by the enemy. 

When Israel attacked Hezbollah, it inevitably killed civilians. The Lebanese, even those who did not favor Hezbollah, and much of the rest of the world, roared in anger at Israel. Only the United States did not condemn it. It did not matter at all that Hezbollah deliberately used this tactic by hiding among the Lebanese, intentionally tried to kill Israeli citizens, or that Israel tried not to kill Lebanese civilians, even using its own small resources to warn them, even at the risk of giving up the element of surprise. The West's aversion to killing civilians was greater than their revulsion of Hezbollah's tactics. Hezbollah’s actions, though condemned, were not as vociferously criticized -- at least not after Israel struck back hard. Hizbollah wasn't a country and does not appear at the U.N. to take their diplomatic lumps. Using non-governmental organizations to fight wars, much like the Hessians of old, is coming back. 

It is hard to see why, in an objective world, that Israel should have been criticized at all. Consider the Lebanese government and people in this war. It is not a surprise that any people, including the Lebanese, will take the deepest offence as being attacked, regardless of fault, and side with anyone who will defend them. The difference here is that the people of Lebanon and the government decidedly supported Hezbollah even though Hezbollah openly used civilians as shields and a propaganda tool. There is little doubt that many Lebanese would prefer if Hezbollah disarmed and nothing resembling this war occurs again. But they made a choice, by not taking the terrible sacrifice to disarm Hezbollah themselves (which they would have likely failed at) of letting Israel face the consequences, and then supporting the terrorist group. It can be argued that the U.N. made this same choice. 

Many Israeli citizens and even its government and military forces, with enlightenment values, obviously felt for the Lebanese who were being killed by Israeli missiles and airplanes despite Hezbollah’s tactics and the Lebanese people's support of them. According to a former Israeli Prime Minister, Israel even allowed overflights of its territory for humanitarian purposes for Lebanon during the heat of the conflict. Israel's own self doubt as to how hard to fight and hesitation in execution, worked greatly to Hezbollah’s advantage in delaying Israel’s victory and allowing the U.N. to stop the war before a more decisive victory. The opposite of the approach taken by Israel, the United States and other powers in the Western Alliances, is that taken by groups like Al Qaeda, in adopting religious and legal theories legitimizing the killing of non-Muslim civilians and even the killing of Muslim civilians as long as it is in support of Jihad. These theories should not be analyzed on their jurisprudential merits, and it does not matter whether they represent a “legitimate” or “illegitimate” form of Islam. The fact is that it scares the hell out of people. 

Enemies of Western culture are well versed in our feelings, frailties and fears. Announcing a culture of “death,” however untrue it might be, frightens a lot of people. Western civilization does not now feature a lot of people who even want to have an “enemy” or kill people. We want to go shopping or watch football and bad tv. Make no mistake about it, the culture of death is a tactic the same as is hiding soldiers among civilians. You notice that these groups actually get very angry when they are killed, and swear revenge. They know they can not fight us with the traditional tactics we insist on because it is to our advantage, so they fight us with what they have. 

Terrorism is an essentially psychological tactic, and we need to learn to deal with it better. This psychological warfare may explain some of the seemingly senseless violence over things we see as trivial, like cartoons and speeches. But, again, these tactics work, especially in Europe, where some countries like France have a fast growing Muslim minority in the millions, many of them angry. The Europeans seem terrified of them and at the same time believe they can appease the most violent of them. You would have thought Europe, of all places, would understand the fault in this. But if there is another successful attack in this country, these tactics will work just as well here. To summarize, the acquisition of modern technology and a tactic that utilizes Western values is paralyzing us and our allies. We need to take cognizance of these tactics to do something about it. We need to change our attitudes and fast. That takes introspection, courage and honesty. In a couple of weeks we will talk about how to counter these effective tactics.