David for Delegate

You'll see a little less of David on Ripple of Hope over the coming weeks and months, because he's going to be embroiled in a Democratic primary campaign for the VA 45th. I'm cutting and pasting below an announcement email we sent to friends and family yesterday (edited a bit to keep some strategy closer to the vest). The campaign website should be up and running by the end of the weekend. We're running an honest-to-goodness grassroots campaign over here - if you like what you've seen of him and agree that his is an important voice to send to Richmond, we need you! Send an email to davidfordelegate@mac.com and we'll talk about how you can help.

Dear Friends and Family,

I apologize for the mass mailing, and I've scheduled time to call just as many of you as I can, but things are moving very quickly and I wanted to get in touch as soon as possible.

Our state delegate, Marian Van Landingham, unexpectedly will not be running for reelection this year for health reasons. She's an amazing woman who has been a terrific representative for the VA 45th for 22 years. We will miss her leadership.

I've decided to run for the seat. My life in public service began when I was 17 years old and swore my first oath upon joining the Air Force. Since hanging up my uniform, I've looked forward to continuing to serve, fighting for social justice, equal rights, and a brighter future for our community and our country. Our nation was founded with a powerful vision of freedom and equality that was a world apart from the reality of America at the time. I believe that each generation has moved us a little closer to the nation we were founded to be. With your support, together we can continue pushing America forward in the direction of its ideals. I'm sad to come to this opportunity in this particular way, but I'm excited to throw my hat in the ring.

I live in a very politically active, heavily Democratic district, which means the field will be very crowded and the race will be won or lost in the Primary on June 14th. To distinguish myself quickly I need to raise a ton of money and a ton of volunteer commitments in a hurry. It's always hard to ask, but I'm going to have to get used to it: Can I count on your support? Checks can be made out to Friends of David Englin, and mailed to 1505 Wayne Street, Alexandria VA, 22301. Please let us know if we can count you in our volunteer ranks, as well.

I look forward to the next few months of campaigning! Shayna and Caleb are geared up to help, and I can't tell you how much it's meant to me as I've considered this move that I have a group of friends and family I know I can count on.

I hope to speak to each of you individually over the next few days and weeks. Please feel free to call if you've got questions or words of wisdom!

All the best,

David

Tsunami

I'm at a loss of words with regards to the massive devastation wreaked on South Asia. In the pages of the Washington Post over the past few days there have been dozens of accounts of personal loss beyond anything I can comprehend, and images of people suffering that I can't get out of my head. I tried this afternoon to get my head around it by thinking of those tragedies that have somehow touched me personally. The most catastrophic I could think of were the attacks on September 11th. David was in the Pentagon that day, and I remember vividly the hours I spent on the floor of our apartment, trying to keep it together in front of our son while I waited to hear that he was okay. As dramatic as that day was, we lost a tiny fraction of the number of souls taken in the Tsunami, and the vast majority of us lost essentially nothing - myself, thankfully, included. I tried to magnify that horrible day by the orders of magnitude of horror visited upon the people of South Asia, and really just couldn't grasp it.

Our friends at Oxblog have a big list of organizations helping out. Take a look, and give as generously as you can.

[For those of you waiting for it - I did get your emails - I'm waiting to post on the paltry $35m commitment by the Bushies to see if that really is the final number. I just can't imagine that's really it.]

Back to reporters and source confidentiality

I absolutely refuse to let this issue die. It's hugely, hugely important to a free and functioning democracy. Check out Chris Dodd's piece in today's Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30337-2004Dec27.html

When someone like Dodd starts to speak up, it makes me a little more hopeful that federal legislation might come along to give us a better guarantee regarding the protection of sources.

I don't know if this is a bi-partisan, non-partisan or completely partisan issue. My hope, of course, is that it is non-partisan. Sure feels like it should be a no-brainer to me. I'm a little worried, though, since it was the Valerie Plame leak perpetrated by the Bush Administration that seriously launched this whole thing, and because this Administration, although certainly not necessarily the Republican Party as a whole, that seems to favor such extreme secrecy. If Republicans in Congress don't see this as important or necessary, the damage will be done before we have a Congress that will take action on it. I hope and pray that isn't the case.

And More Republican Moral Bankruptcy: "Because I Said So" Doesn't Count as an Argument

I'm a regular reader and sometime correspondent with the writer of Soxblog (he's even got a link from Ripple of Hope, despite being a raving conservative), so it pains me to lump him in my trifecta of posts about values, and the GOP's lack of them. But he's put himself there squarely in a duo of posts on the left's response to the Mosul attacks.

In the first he takes Kos (of Daily Kos fame) to task for his postings on the subject, claiming that Kos' bile directed at Bush indicates a "moral blindness" with respect to the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks in the first place. In a follow-up post he cites the vast amount of (assumedly morally upstanding) support he's received via email, and calls out the six messages he got in disagreement. I'm one of the six, and this is what I wrote him:

Re: your post on Kos: While I don't ever agree with the tone on Kos, and think the knee-jerk anti-Bushism (to the exclusion of any real analysis) is counterproductive, your post on his take on the Mosul attack was equally unhelpful. If I see a car careening around the corner and I shove you into the road in front of it, I'm as responsible for your injuries as the driver of the car - even if said driver intended to hit you all along. The list of reasons is long that I see Bush, et. al., as having shoved our men and women in uniform in front of careening cars - Mosul just the latest of of those cars. . . . It's a line of thinking that doesn't lessen the intensity of my feelings about our enemies one whit. It also deepens the intensity of my feelings about how the men in charge have mismanaged the situation. It's not zero-sum - I can hate our enemies even as as I hate the way our President (and all of his men) has needlessly put me, my family, and my many friends in uniform at even greater risk.

Here's Soxblog's retort:

But I also received six letters taking me to task for the post. Interestingly, all six letter writers employed the exact same logic and all used a similar analogy to express this logic. To them, President Bush caused the problems in Iraq and the terrorists are unwitting or at least non-deliberate actors in the drama President Bush set into motion . . . In a delicious irony, all six letter writers unwittingly proved my post's point. My point was that where the murderous terrorists (or “insurgents”) are concerned, many folks are simply unable to grasp the profound evil that we’re dealing with here. By comparing the terrorists to insects, zoo beasts, an inanimate object and a drunk, they neatly displayed exactly the kind of moral blindness I was writing about. By failing to grapple with the evil INTENT that is at the heart of the Jihadi endeavor they have made themselves look foolish, and that's a charitable description.

I've struggled this afternoon to put my finger on exactly why this response made me question my earlier conviction about Soxblog's intellect - and moral rectitude. I just realized what it is: he makes no argument. He just states that if you don't explicitly blame the terrorists in a given observation on the topic, and you assign blame to the Bush administration, then you de facto just don't get what we're dealing with. Period. Because he said so. Either he doesn't make an argument because he doesn't recognize that he needs one, or he doesn't make an argument because he recognizes that any possible arguments are fatuous. I'll help him out, just in case it's the former.

The bad guys are bad. Really really bad. They do things that make them lower than low, and they pose a legitimate and real threat to the safety of the USA. (We may not agree about whether it's the only threat, or even the only one that matters.) They bear responsibility for their actions and our efforts to bring them to justice and prevent their further success must be serious and immediate. Some (which could mean a minority or a majority - a determination which should be based on analysis) of those efforts will no doubt be military. That's the background. We all agree. There is no disagreement there. We're on the same page.

Where we're not on the same page: no matter whether 2% or 100% of our strategy to deal with the threat posed by the bad guys is military, the Commander in Chief is responsible for making sure that when we decide to put our men and women in uniform in harm's way, it's only when necessary, and only fully prepared to confront the dangers we expect them to face. Bush failed in that responsibility, making it easier for the terrorists to successfully act on their intent to kill and maim our uniformed servicemembers. Therefore he is ALSO responsible for the casualties. Not SOLELY - see the preceding paragraph for the basics under which WE'RE ALL operating - but most assuredly to blame. As I said in my original message, it's not zero sum - there's infinite amount of blame to go around.

Now, Soxblog, if you've got an actual argument to make about why the guy who put those killed and maimed servicemembers in harm's way without adequate preparation or provisions is in no way responsible, then have at it. If you then have a follow up argument regarding why assigning that blame to Bush somehow reduces the amount of responsibility that can be assigned to the killers themselves...again, have at it. Finally, if you have some kind of argument regarding how the severity of the evil evinced by our enemies is related to the limits of Bush's incompetence (you seem to assume, without actually saying so, that because our enemies are evil, questioning Bush's competence is evidence of a lack of understanding of our enemies - a position that makes no intuitive sense), then please, by all means, make it. Know in advance, though, that just stating a string of non-sequitors and calling me names does not actually constitute an argument. It just makes you look, well, foolish. And more than a little morally bankrupt.

More Republican Values

Ah, values. Evidently my flu-induced haze awakened a new sense of outrage at the complete subversion of the idea of "values" - and the notion that Republicans have laudable ones. Running scared from same-sex marriage, and committing yourself to making sure every fetus conceived is carried to term, do not a moral party make.

Lest there be any doubt that the GOP is in fact as corrupt as it seems, and has been since those heady days of the 1994 "Republican Revolution", the building story of the wink and nudge acceptance of the wholesale screwing of Indian tribes by Republican Revolution Crusader Jack Abramoff should serve as a telling reminder.

Shame on them, and shame on us for not being on the ball enough to turn them out. Say it with me: we are the party of values. Say it loud, say it proud, and campaign on it, dammit.

Maybe I'm Missing Something...

I've been laid up with the flu for a few days (laid up as in asleep for about 48 hours), and for the few days before that I was more or less chained to my desk, so I'm catching up late to the blog-o-sphere's fixation on this poll and the imminent demise of Christmas. To address them in turn:

There isn't a whole lot of mystery to me about why the support for the Iraq War (going there in the first place, versus finishing the job now that we're there) has dropped precipitously since the election. For the months leading up to the election, coverage of the war was limited more or less to its political ramifications. What would Bush say and do about it? What would Kerry say about it today? Tomorrow? With the exception of the Alqaaqaa flap, specific coverage of how the war in Iraq was going, exactly, and the mighty cost of Bush's bungling of it, was diffuse. By and large, we got to see Bush's macho patriotic certainty - in what, it wasn't entirely clear, but it was certain that he was certain - and Kerry's flailing. Strong beats weak every time, regardless of which side is right - we went with Bush and his gung-ho version of the war.

Now the election's over, and Bush is still bully on the war, but the news is no longer about how he and his erstwhile opponent feels about it, but how it's actually going. We're hearing more about the massive casualties - in lives and grievous wounds - and it's a little harder to be gung-ho with him. I'm a believer in Occam's Razor; I must be missing the need for complicated answers (like the usually astute Josh Marshall's explanation of voter anomie, more or less).

On the imminent threat to Christmas, I'd just offer this: I wonder if any of those worried about its demise in America bothered to walk outside today. I wonder if maybe they tried to go shopping. Or the to doctor. Or accomplish anything at any state or federal entity. There is one national religious holiday, and it is Christmas. You may disapprove of the way America chooses to celebrate it (whether your criticisms come from the left - too much commercialism! - or the right - not enough public Jesus!), but America celebrates Christmas, and is in no danger of changing that anytime soon. Again, maybe I'm missing something.

No Inaugural Parties? Bull Moose Has It Right

The inestimable Bull Moose has it exactly right in this post in favor of cancelling the inaugural festivities in deference to the fact that we're a nation at war.

Regardless of who won, when our men and women in uniform are threatened by suicide bombers abroad and inadequate care for their injuries stateside it's no time for $40 million in official parties.

Again, the questions of the day are about values, right? What values do millions of dollars in parties during wartime belie?

The True Values of The Day

The RIPPLE OF HOPE love affair with E.J. Dionne is no secret to regular readers. He's so right on with this Christmas Eve column that I hope you'll forgive me for sharing it in its entirety:

The True Values of The Day
by E. J. Dionne Jr.
The Washington Post, Friday, December 24, 2004; Page A17

No one can celebrate a genuine Christmas without being truly poor. The self-sufficient, the proud, those who, because they have everything, look down on others, those who have no need even of God -- for them there will be no Christmas. Only the poor, the hungry, those who need someone to come on their behalf, will have that someone. That someone is God, Emmanuel, God-with-us. Without poverty of spirit there can be no abundance of God. -- the late Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador

This is supposed to be the year when moral values dominated politics. On the eve of Christmas, let's talk about values.

In any given city this Christmas, homeless people will not be looking forward to opening presents. They will be lucky to have a place to go at all. They will, by Archbishop Romero's radical and demanding definition, be the true participants in Christmas. But it's unlikely that the rest of us will think much about them. Isn't that a question of values?

Unemployed parents who love their children as much as the rest of us love ours won't have the same chance to show them materially the love they feel in their hearts. God willing, their kids will understand. But some kids, watching other kids in the television ads, might wonder: Why can those parents give their kids all that stuff that my parents can't give me? Isn't that a question of values?

In the fall, I got the chance to moderate a post-election panel at Fordham University's Center on Religion and Culture in New York. Former senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska noted that on Jan. 1, the quotas protecting what's left of the U.S. textile and apparel industry will end. "Over a 12-month period," he said, "three or four million jobs that are currently paying $8 to $10 an hour are going bye-bye unless those jobs are protected.

"Now, I hazard to guess that most of those individuals will move into the ranks of poverty," Kerrey went on. "They'll move to minimum-wage jobs, which is 20 or 30 percent under poverty today. . . . If it's a young woman who gets pregnant and says, 'I don't have health insurance anymore. I can't -- it's expensive to raise a baby right today' -- that they're more likely to choose an abortion even if Bush appoints anti-Roe v. Wade justices that overturn it, because they're going to make what I consider to be a tragic choice out of economic necessity."

Whatever you think of abortion or, for that matter, free trade, who can argue with Kerrey's central assertion: that the abortion rate is more likely to go up when economic opportunities for the poor are curtailed? (As Mark W. Roche of Notre Dame noted in the New York Times this fall, the abortion rate dropped by 11 percent during the prosperous years of the Clinton presidency.) Shouldn't all who care about abortion be passionately committed to changing the economic circumstances in which women make their choices? Isn't that a question of values?

In many parts of our country, parents who lack health insurance are wondering if they will be around for their children next Christmas. A mother has a lump on her breast and worries about the cost of having it checked out. A father has chronic chest pains but decides that seeing a cardiologist would be too expensive. They ought to get help. Isn't that a question of values?

In Iraq, young men and women serving their country complain of equipment shortages and wonder why their leaders didn't send enough troops in the first place. Could it be that acknowledging the true cost of the Iraqi invasion at the outset might have endangered all those tax cuts -- and might have reduced support for the war? Isn't that a question of values?

Archbishop Romero was murdered on March 24, 1980, because he chose to stand with El Salvador's poor against a repressive regime. "Brothers, you came from our own people," Romero told soldiers in El Salvador's army. "You are killing your own brothers. . . . In the name of God, in the name of this suffering people whose cry rises to heaven more loudly each day, I implore you, I beg you, I order you: Stop the repression."

How many among the cardinals and bishops and pastors and preachers and televangelists who now enjoy favor in high places would have the courage to do what Archbishop Romero did? In fairness, how many of the rest of us would? Isn't that a question of values?

A child was born in a manger because there was no room for his family anywhere else. Wasn't that a question of values?

Here's wishing all of my Christian friends a Merry Christmas.

Rumsfeld violated me

I second Tiziana's comments reacting to new revelations about the treatment of detainees in U.S. military custody. When I was a Public Affairs Officer at the Pentagon, we were assured that, despite their classification as "detainees" and "enemy combatants" and not "prisoners of war," Guantanimo Bay detainees were being treated as good as or better than the standards afforded prisoners of war by the Geneva Convention. We parroted talking points about humane treatment, culturally sensitive meals, etc., not because we were trying to deceive anybody, but because we believed them to be true. After all, we're supposed to be the good guys, right? Now it turns out that Rumsfeld, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, and others were making liars out of good, honest military professionals. I feel violated, not only because my Public Affairs colleagues and I apparently were used and lied to, but also because the conduct itself, perpetrated by military men and women no different from me, goes against everything I was taught by the military about how American military professionals are required to behave.

State Side

State Side

The New Republic has an intresting take on Chief Justice Rehnquist's recent fight against Thyroid cancer. The article contends liberals may actually need Rehnquist's federalist approach:

Indeed, two cases--one before the Supreme Court now, and one which may be soon--show why Rehnquist's conception of states' rights looks better and better to many liberals. On November 29, the Court heard arguments in Raich v. Ashcroft, a case concerning California's medical marijuana statute. The federal government, claiming broad power to fight the drug war, objects to marijuana legalization. California, claiming states' rights, is politely asking the feds to butt out. In an unusual twist, the case has put pot smokers in bed with federalists.

A similar situation could arise next year if the Supreme Court agrees to hear Oregon v. Ashcroft, a case that tests Oregon's assisted suicide law. The dynamics are the same as in the marijuana case: The Justice Department wants to strike down the state law, which allows Oregon doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medicine to terminally ill patients; Oregon wants the federal government to leave the state alone. Oregon won the first two rounds, in lower courts, but Ashcroft has asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Two federalism cases, two blue-state causes--suddenly, federalism is looking to many liberals like a worthwhile idea. What a shame William Rehnquist probably won't be around to help out.

Unfortunately, the article also makes it clear, Rehnquist's federalist approach is no longer in fad among judges and potential replacements. Nor is it in fad among others on the Supreme Court. Scalia clings to originalism and Thomas to textualism while the liberal judges say give it all to the Federal government.

I have long thought federalism isn't as scary as many liberals make it out to be. It is a sound jurisprudential theory. Maybe The New Republic is right, that Rehnquist might be a valuable voice for certain cases involving liberal/progressive issues. However, ever since Rehnquist turned his back on his own guiding principles in Bush v. Gore, I have viewed the Chief more as a partisan hack than thoughtful justice. Given his recent bending of federalist principles, there is no guarantee he would become a factor for good. In fact, he is prone to carry out significant evil because his quest to roll back the New Deal is not yet complete.

War Crimes (washingtonpost.com)

War Crimes (washingtonpost.com)

Wow. I don't even know where to start on this subject. This editorial in today's Washington Post is a must-read detailing of the current proof that abuse of prisoners has been systemmatic and authorized. There are all kinds of things about which we can get outraged in the world, and each person has to choose his/her own way. It seems to me, though, that, as citizens, being outraged and demanding accountability on this one is mandatory. Nothing speaks more clearly to our communal position on fundamental human dignity and regard than how we react to abuses like these.

I've been stunned and dismayed for a while now that Donald Rumsfeld has remained in his position. While it's not entirely clear the role he has in this situation, any decent leader--Bush and Rumsfeld included--should recognize a fundamental moral obligation for Rumsfeld to resign even if he is and should be considered completely innocent of involvement in or responsibility for this disgrace (which the evidence makes doubtful). The obligation comes from a duty to protest, a duty to mark something as so unacceptable that one can no longer even afford or accept an association with it, and a sense that responsibility must ultimately stop with the leader, whether or not, in actuality, it does.

This is basic stuff. We have to get this right. We have to demand accountability. And we have to receive it.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: When the Right Is Right

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: When the Right Is Right

Check out this piece by Nicholas Kristoff. I do not have a position on Sam Brownback because I just don't know that much about him. I think, however, that Kristoff makes some terrific points about how humanitarian causes can be a common ground between traditional Democrats and members of the religious right. Further, I think engaging wholeheartedly in this set of issues--in addition to being the right thing to do--is part of how Democrats will be able to begin articulating the inherent morality of the social justice position.

Peace on Earth?

As usual, E.J. says it best: Peace on Earth? (washingtonpost.com)

More on the "supressed majority"

Tom was right. Responding to Charles Krauthammer, he predicted Friday that we were "about to hear quite bit" of "the language of 'suppressed majority.'" Monday the Washington Post had this report about Evangelical Christian groups challenging decisions by public school officials, courts, and local governments regarding religious displays and expression during Christmas.

From reports like this one and from activity in the conservative blogosphere, there's a growing sense among Christian conservatives that the law and culture are aligning against them to suppress their right to religious expression. I'm somewhat loathe to give credence to this misplaced perception, but I think it behooves us to try to understand why the perception exists. Here are some thoughts and observations:

This year, at the Alexandria, Va., public school our son attends, his kindergarten class spent the week of Hanukah doing Hanukah-themed math and reading worksheets, and they've been using Christmas and Kwanzaa-themed worksheets the last couple of weeks. While Christmas trees and Santa have featured prominently in the art projects and decorations in the school's halls, official communications from the school have all used "Happy Holidays." About a quarter of the school's annual Winter Holiday Concert program were Hanukah songs, and the Christmas songs were of the "Jingle Bells" variety.

As the holiday season approached, our son's teacher, knowing that we're Jewish, engaged us about the planned curriculum and asked for our input. The school clearly makes an effort to ensure everyone is included and nobody feels put upon or disrespected, which alone makes a huge difference to us. However, I can understand why a religious Christian might still be dissatisfied. If it's okay for kindergartners to do math worksheets with menorahs on them, which are religious symbols, then why not also use worksheets with nativity scenes? If it's okay to sing about the miracle of the lamp in the school concert, then why not the miracle of Christ's birth?

As I wrote before, I believe the answer hinges on the fact that the religious aspects of Hanukah aren't offensive to Christians, where the religious aspects of Christmas specifically reject Judaism, and government-supported expression targeted at children must not appear to reject one faith over another. But I can appreciate how this might appear to some Christian conservatives.

Some situations feeding the misplaced "suppressed majority" perception are less subtle. The Post reports that a school district barred a Christian boy from giving classmates candy canes with religious tracts attached. This to me seems excessive and a clear violation of the boy's right to free expression. As long as he's not being disruptive or somehow intimidating other students, he ought to have as much right to give his classmates religious candy canes as my son has to brag about Hanukah lasting eight days, or as an atheist student has to argue against the existence of God. School-sponsored religious expression would be out of bounds, but this candy cane example is clearly private expression.

In this case, overzealous school officials went too far and stepped on this Christian child's right to religious expression. Conservative Christians were right to challenge the candy cane decision, and a court overruled the school's order. Does that mean there's pervasive, widespread hostility toward Christians in America's public schools? Not quite. While the right-wing echo chamber is busy transforming a few cases that have been rightfully challenged into an anti-Christian movement, religious minorities deal with similar and worse as a matter of course.

Last year, the D.C. public school our son then attended made no mention of Hanukah and hung a Merry Christmas banner in the main hall. Shayna and I pointed out to the principal that our son and several other children don't celebrate Christmas and asked if we could give the school a Happy Hanukah sign to hang next to the Christmas sign. The principal told us that they're "not allowed to hang anything religious" and therefore couldn't display a Hanukah sign.

In 2000, Mississippi school officials made a Jewish student remove his Star of David necklace because they considered it a gang symbol, and the all-Christian school board actually quizzed the boy's parents on their Jewishness when they challenged the ruling.

These examples aren't proof of pervasive, widespread hostility toward Jews. They just show that the majority is sometimes ignorant and clueless about the minority.

A Little More to the Left

A Little More to the Left

In roughly two months the DNC will be under the leadership of a new chairman. Maybe it will be President wannabe Howard Dean, but if Craig Aaron's instincts are correct, its more likely the next chairman will be someone who thinks the way out of the woods is to move a little closer to right and a little further from the left. Instead of coming up with a sustainable solution to Democratic woes, the party will once again try to reposition itself for the next election cycle:

If previous setbacks are any guide, the same consultants and pollsters who lost the election will again win the battle to interpret its results. Almost inevitably, they will conclude that the party needs to shift further to the right, ignoring the base (who else are they going to vote for?) and cozying up to the stockbrokers or gun owners or home-schoolers (or better yet—all three!) with new proposals for “budget reform” and hints of “flexibility” on abortion rights.

Aaron's assessment of the conservative movement is right on and he is right liberals and the progressive movement would do themselves well to begin thinking in terms of long-term goals aimed at winning the ideological war between the left and the right as opposed to short-term cycle to cycle objectives. As Aaron points out, conservatives have effectively and methodically stollen the tactics of the left and used them to build a sustainable conservative movement. He suggests liberals and progressives need to become movement focused.

While I agree whole heartedly with some Aaron's remedies for fixing the Democratic Party, I disagree with his interpretation that the way to right the policy course is to enthusiastically and blindly embrace familiar liberal solutions to the challenges facing the country:

Instead of middling centrism, the Democrats need bold ideas to counteract the right’s lies, especially the “cultural populism” they rely on to mask a massive upward redistribution of wealth. These ideas aren’t necessarily new ones: embracing economic populism, fighting inequality, challenging corporate corruption, providing universal healthcare, protecting the environment, rejecting imperialism.

I believe Democrats will become successful when we recognize the core principles the party is based, embrace these principles, and come up with legislative solutions that conform to these principles. Success shouldn't be based on whether our proposals are left, centrist, or right. They shouldn't hinge on whether they are populist enough. Policy success should be determined by how will the party's principles are implemented and how well we fix America's problems. When we lose an election our impulse shouldn't be "we need to become more moderate" (ie moving to meet the right) nor should it be "we need to move to the left." Democrats should develop bold solutions that change the policy paradigm. Democrats should develop solutions that solve problems and conform to the core principles of Democratic party.

Social Security reform is being billed as the first major domestic policy fight of 2005. Republicans and President Bush have offered a plan to partially privatize America's first safety net. Republicans and Democrats both recognize Social Security will be facing a financing crisis when the baby boomers retire. Yet, Democrats haven't (as of yet) come up with an alternative Social Security reform. Policymakers and the public are left with two choices 1) a Republican plan which is new, and may or may not work (all social programs and legislation are gambles at first) or 2) Social Security as it is.

Because of their lack of ideas, their fear of being labeled a liberal, Democratic party has become the "conservative" party, the party of the status quo. By comparison, the Republican party has offered solutions conforming to their basic world view and principles. Ronald Dworkin argues all law is derived from basic, core principles. The law judges and legislators make conforms to these principles. Likewise, I believe party politics is about principle and not policy. Policy is a means to enacting the principle end. Republicans have figured this out but when will Democrats.

Social Security Piratization

Richard Cohen making sense today on the Republican plan to begin phasing out Social Security through privatization:

Frankly, I am agnostic about private savings accounts. My own has worked pretty well, but that's not because I consciously made wise investments. It is rather because I was damned lucky, having foolishly invested disproportionately in my own company, which -- by holding down my own salary, among other things -- has become beloved by Wall Street. As for most Americans, the data suggest that they do not manage their own funds in a professional manner. When it comes to 401(k) plans, which have been around for more than 25 years, some companies now limit investment options because their employees have been so dumb about making investments. That's understandable. After all, most of us are far too busy making a living and living a life (raising kids, walking the dog, playing computer solitaire) to figure out what a derivative is.

The trouble with Bush's Social Security plan is that it is almost entirely driven by ideology. For instance, one obvious way to pump some cash into the Social Security trust fund is to raise taxes -- not on you and me, mate, but on the rich. But as with income taxes, the rich shall not be touched in this administration and so common sense is off the table.

Similarly, to ensure that Americans approaching retirement will get the benefits they were expecting and at the same time divert money into personal retirement accounts, about $2 trillion will be borrowed. For some reason, this additional debt will not become a burden to any one of us nor, for the same mysterious reason, will it affect interest rates or be noticed by the very people who have been driving down the value of the dollar. This is as certain as finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

RIPPLE OF HOPE slows down for the holidays

With Hanukah behind us and Christmas Eve, Boxing Day, Kwanzaa, New Year's Eve, and New Year's Day rapidly approaching, many of our contributors will be spending the next couple of weeks traveling, visiting family and friends, and enjoying a well-deserved break. Contributors who have the time and inclination will continue to post, but activity on RIPPLE OF HOPE will slow down for the next two weeks. We wish you a happy and peaceful holiday season, and we look forward to picking things up in full force when the world returns to work on Jan. 3.

The Pew Charitable Trusts: Informing the Public: Public opinion and polls

I have no desire to discount the concern often discussed right now about where conversations about morality and values are going, and how liberals and Democrats can and should participate in (or even own) those conversations. I do think that Pew's reiteration of the myth of the deciding conservative Christian vote is worth noting, however. Check out this link.

The Pew Charitable Trusts: Informing the Public: Public opinion and polls

A history of tolerance

by David L. Englin
The Denver Post, Dec. 19, 2004

As a Jewish graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, I was upset to learn recently that some Christian cadets have called their Jewish classmates "Christ killers" and that the new commandant has encouraged Christian cadets to proselytize to their non-Christian classmates.

Academy graduates from the 1960s prepared me to expect some abuse for being a Jew. But when I reported to "Beast" - basic cadet training - as a 17-year-old fresh out of high school, I found an institution that could teach the rest of America a thing or two about religious tolerance.

Lt. Gen. John W. Rosa Jr., AFA superintendent, told the academy's Board of Visitors recently that an August survey showed many non-Christian cadets feel they are "having Christianity shoved down their throats." According to academy officials, cadets have reported 55 incidents of religious bias since 2000.

The academy graduates who mentored me during high school told me to expect upperclassmen in my face with any number of anti-Jewish expletives as part of hardening me for war. These Vietnam combat veterans had graduated during the academy's early years, before anyone distinguished between training and hazing. Undeterred, I wanted to test my mettle and earn my Air Force commission the hard way.

By the time I arrived, the military apparently had evolved. Despite the hard-core training environment, religious attacks were strictly out of bounds. I counted among my squadron mates Christians of every stripe, a Buddhist, and even an atheist devotee of Ayn Rand who displayed a tinseled "Capitalist Tree" topped with a dollar sign.

We practiced the kind of tolerance that comes from really getting to know and respect people with different beliefs. From allowing Jews to skip training for Shabbat or the High Holy Days, to setting aside a special dining room during Passover, the academy and my fellow cadets did their level best to respect my faith.

The academy wasn't perfect. Cadets who went to the chapel during Beast were "God flight" and cadets who instead returned to their rooms for down time were "heathen flight." But that was more about twisted cadet senses of humor than genuine bias. One year, classmates erected a Christmas tree in our squadron common area without asking if that might bother me. It did, we talked about it, and we all understood one another better for the experience. As an upperclassman, I looked out for Jewish underclassmen, but there were few problems beyond occasional misunderstandings resolved among peers.

After graduation, the wider Air Force was just as accepting. One commander - an evangelical fundamentalist Christian from Arkansas - went out of his way to make sure I could observe Shabbat and Hanukkah.

One year, a Southern Baptist chaplain arranged Hanukkah services. Another time, a Methodist chaplain let me use her official pickup truck to get to the nearest city with a synagogue - Venice, Italy.

Now, many cadets complain about religious bias against non-Christians, and Jewish cadets report the use of anti-Semitic epithets by fellow cadets.

In response, academy superintendent Rosa has ordered all cadets to go through a religious tolerance program before they leave in a couple of weeks for winter break. That's a good sign, although the very person accused of trying to promote Christianity - the commandant of cadets - also is the general responsible for implementing Rosa's directives.

Some will dismiss all of this as political correctness gone awry. But it was George Washington himself who wrote to American Jews of a government "which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance." It's an American value as old as our nation, and this Jewish airman prays that our military leaders will jealously guard the progress that I experienced firsthand.

Double Dipping?

Kudos the writer of this letter to the editor in today's Washington Post:

"I was puzzled at the award of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks [Style, Dec. 15]. It is, after all, the nation's highest civilian award, and almost everything Gen. Franks has done in life was as a military officer. So far as I know, he has only two major accomplishments as a civilian: promoting his autobiography and endorsing President Bush for reelection. As the 'autobiography' was actually written by someone else, was the Medal of Freedom for endorsing Mr. Bush?"

Most of the commentary about Bush awarding the medals to Tenet, Franks, and Bremer has questioned whether their particular accomplishments merit the awards. However, in Franks' case, he may not even have been eligible for consideration for the award, since all of the accomplishments cited by Bush were when Franks was in uniform. According to MedalofFreedom.com:

The Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award, recognizes exceptional meritorious service. The medal was established by President Truman in 1945 to recognize notable service in the war. In 1963, President Kennedy reintroduced it as an honor for distinguished civilian service in peacetime.

When he retired from the Army in 2003, Franks was awarded the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the military's third highest award, and the highest award not involving specific acts of heroism, presumably for the very same accomplishments Bush cited. Kind of gives a new meaning to the term "double dipping."

George Washington's Chrismukkah Miracle

Like Tom, I believe strongly in the separation of church and state, especially in any context that pits the state institutions designed to indoctrinate our children, such as public schools, against my own right as a parent to indoctrinate my son. That said, Krauthammer is correct that too many American Jews have bequeathed "a fragile religious identity to their children," and America's Reform and Conservative Jewish movements deserve credit for the growing revival in Jewish education designed to correct this. Perhaps like Krauthammer, I feel little sympathy for Jewish parents who barely make the effort to teach Judaism to their children and then complain when they grow up, move to California and become Buddhists (or invent holidays like Chrismukkah.) But there are Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Humanist, atheist, and other parents who are working hard to pass on their beliefs, values, and traditions to their children who deserve not to be forced to compete with the combined resources of the state. That's precisely why Tom is so correct about the difference between malls and public schools.

However, I've struggled over the years with how I feel about state-sponsored Christmas celebrations well outside the context of indoctrinating children. Unlike a courthouse display of the Ten Commandments, for example, state-sponsored Christmas or Hanukah celebrations are temporary and relatively brief, and not permanent government assertions of religiosity. Assuming we agree that menorahs and Christmas trees both are religious symbols (we don't, but I'll get to that), in the interest of nondiscrimination, we either ban state displays of both or allow state displays of both. While there would probably be no ill effect to banning both, the effect of allowing both is a temporary state-sponsored acknowledgment of religious plurality, which is a net positive in a society that values the diversity of its citizens.

Krauthammer cites one of my favorite historical sources, George Washington's letter to the Jews of Newport, R.I., 1790 (which I also cite in an op-ed scheduled to be published Sunday.) If you've never read it, you should. We will only ever achieve Washington's vision of a "Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance," by honestly and respectfully engaging each other about our religious differences.

In that spirit, the particular manner of the state-sponsored display makes a difference because of the ways Christians and Jews see certain symbols differently. As Tom notes, most Jews see Christmas trees and Santa Clauses as symbols of a Christian holiday. But many Christians see them as secular symbols with little Christian meaning and look to nativity scenes as religious representations of the holiday. Krauthammer's incoherent mall manager notwithstanding, I think you'd be hard pressed to find even the most secular Jew who doesn't acknowledge that the eight-branched Hanukah menorah signifies the miracle of the Temple oil burning for eight days. But while both nativity scenes and menorahs represent religious miracles, where nativity scenes depict a central existential event in Christianity, menorahs represent a relatively minor miracle that didn't even find its way into the Jewish Bible. Moreover, as beautiful as nativity scenes are for Christians, accepting their meaning requires Jews to reject their faith, where nothing about Hanukah requires Christians to reject anything (although I suppose it might rankle Greek pagans a bit.) Therefore, while state-sponsored Christmas trees and menorahs probably strike the right balance in terms of religious plurality, my feeling is that state-sponsored nativity scenes tilt too far toward a state-sponsored challenge to my Jewishness.

As an aside, Krauthammer is right that American culture has inflated the importance of Hanukah. But practices in every religion have been influenced by their broader cultural contexts. Do you really think there were baubled fir trees growing in Bethlehem 2,000 years ago? More to the point, American Jews themselves have turned Hanukah into the major Jewish gift-giving holiday (traditionally it was Purim) to compete with Christmas for the affections of Jewish children. That seems very much in the spirit of the Maccabean defense of Judaism against Hellenist culture, which is what gave rise to Hanukah as a holiday.

Required Reading for Dems

If you're not reading Jon Chait's regular pieces in the Los Angeles Times, you really should. In this installment (LAT, reg. req'd), he skewers Martin Feldstein. Feldstein predicted an economic apocalypse would result from Clinton's 1993 tax plan (wrong) and that we would attain fiscal nirvana because of the Bush tax cuts (actually, no).

Just Leave Christmas Alone

Charles Krauthammer seems to be very confused about Christmas, and about Hanukah for that matter.

One the one hand, he urges that "the usual platoon of annoying pettifoggers" stop trying to strip Christmas of Christian content, by pretending that it is merely a secular or commercial holiday. On the other hand, he asserts that those who are "steeped in the richness of their own religious tradition, know who they are and are not threatened by Christians celebrating their religion in public." Which is it: Are we "pettifoggers" trying to make Christmas non-Christian, or are we trying to stop the majority government from tacitly endorsing Christianity by celebrating a Christian holiday?

On the one hand, he says that a mall manager is wrong to claim that Hanukah is a celebration of a military victory, insisting that it celebrates a religious miracle. On the other hand, he opines that "American culture has gone out of its way to inflate the importance of Hanukah, easily the least important of Judaism's seven holidays, into a giant event replete with cards, presents and public commemorations as a creative way to give Jews their Christmas equivalent." Which is it: Is Hanukah an important religious celebration of a miracle, or is it a minor military festival that's been put on religious steroids to compete with Christian Christmas?

On the one hand, Krauthammer tries to draw out a double-standard, writing that "Broward and Fashion malls in South Florida put up a Hanukah menorah but no nativity scene." On the other hand, he fails to mention whether the malls have other symbols of Christmas, such as Christmas trees and Santa Clauses. (Surely they do.) Again, which is it: Is Christmas a Christian holiday, or are Santa Claus and Christmas trees just commercial logos?

We non-Christians (a group that includes both Krauthammer and myself) are not at all trying to "de-Christianize" Christmas. You don't hear from many Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. who think that Christmas is a secular holiday. I am keenly aware of the religious basis of Christmas. It is precisely for that reason that I am concerned about certain sorts of government sanctioning of Christmas, namely in schools and courthouses. I have no qualms whatsoever about public displays of religion, and I enjoy the celebrations of my friends and family members of multiple faiths. Christmas is more than in the air, it is all around me and pervades our culture. It is, as Krauthammer notes, a national holiday;whereas we have no national holidays that celebrate holy days of any religion other than Christianity. But there is a difference between malls, parks and squares, and public schools and courthouses. I am not urging, or even asking, that the "overwhelming majority of this country stifle its religious impulses in public." But I am demanding that they not force their religion on children in schools.

By ignoring the differences between malls and schools, Krauthammer's column only fuels the right-wing conspiracy theory that liberals want to encroach upon religious freedom, when nothing could be further from the truth. Worse, he is inching toward their rhetoric of "suppressed majority." I don't care whether the religious right swung this past election, but you better believe they are flexing their muscles now. Where you hear the language of "suppressed majority"--which, I predict, we are about to hear quite a bit--then you know to look around and see whose rights are being trampled. By buying into this line of thinking, Krauthammer's attempt at holiday goodwill turns into a dangerous dropping of the protection of liberties.

Happy holidays. To all.

Of punch-out dolls and Christmas wonder

My mother sent my daugher an unusual Advent calendar this year. Instead of the usual 24 windows revealing various Dickensian scenes, it's a cardboard stable with 24 little punch-out paper dolls that gradually build a nativity scene. Each day, we punch out and add a Wise Man, or a cow, or a shepherd to the scene. And each day, we use the occasion to talk a bit more about the story of the Baby Jesus.

My daughter is nearly three, so this is the first year she can really begin to understand the rather complicated story of Christmas. While it's been a pleasure to teach it to her in this way, the real pleasure and surprise has been the childish wonder she has given back to me in return.
To understand what I'm talking about, you have to visualize how one of these daily storytelling sessions actually occurs. December 10th's character was a rooster. It was breakfast time, and with Banana Bread flavored oatmeal still smeared all over her chin, she asked if we could "do number 10." I pulled out the card of dolls, and as we carefuly punched out the rooster, I attempted to explain the importance of said rooster in the Nativity.

This was joy numer one.

It turns out, one can actually come up with quite a few significant Christian rooster explanations. It represents Christ's humble beginnings. It shows the infant's dependence on charity, just as a rooster depends on the farmer for its support. It helps you visualize the animal warmth that surrounded Jesus in his early hours. It helps you remember what it must have smelled, sounded and felt like to Mary to deliver her baby in a barn. It's a token of the incredible diversity of life God put on earth. It ultimately forces you to accept that the Christmas story is about a new kind of king and a new kind of kingdom.

All of this from a rooster (or the cow on day 8, or the chicken on day 11....)

Joy number two came from the way my daughter heard the story. Go back and read the paragraph of explanations again, mentally interrupting each sentence with a tiny, curly-headed, "Roosters say Cock-a-doodle-doo!!!!" And after each sentence, imagine having to answer, "Why?" in a devolution of explanations that goes at least three iterations deep.

The silliness and gutteral enthusiasm of the rooster sounds, combined with the urgent questioning of why, why, why the Christmas story? why my Catholic belief in this messiah and his meaning? why this desire to pass that belief on to my child, even at such a young age? returned me to my own enthusiasm. It forced me to step back from the complications of life, and education, fear and doubt, to embrace the wonder of the story, and the simple but beautiful meaning of a boy savior born in a barn with a rooster to help keep him warm.

Who would have thought a punch-out card could help you regain your innocence?

Oh. I forgot. He's got capital.

When Trent Lott says that the Republican Secretary of Defense should resign, and I agree with him, well, maybe it's time for us all to take a couple of weeks in the Bahamas to get our heads together.

Consider the alternative to American litigiousness

American litigiousness is on my mind today: In his excellent roundup and commentary on the recount in Washington State, Zach notes that, "As perverse as it is, litigating an election is rather American." President Bush has decided that Americans are too litigious, and he plans to make preventing "lawsuit abuse" a top priority. (What about insurance premium abuse, Mr. President?)

Zach's argument against litigating close elections is right on the mark. But it occurs to me that another ongoing Florida-like election debacle reveals the underlying wisdom of a system that still allows for the option of litigation. Ukraine's ongoing presidential election has included a close result, accusations of fraud and disenfranchisement, and intervention by the Ukrainian Supreme Court. It has also included the attempted assassination by dioxin poisoning of Ukrainian presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko, most likely by the corrupt alliance of totalitarian officials and business oligarchs who oppose his pro-democracy, pro-West, anti-corruption vision for Ukraine. The picture of the formerly dashing Yushchenko, pocked and ruddied by an opposing force's violent attempt to keep him from power, litigating the results of a corrupt election is a metaphor for the crossroads at which Ukraine finds itself, between a Hobbesian past and a future governed by legitimate institutions and the rule of law. In peaceful, stable, just societies, litigation allows for conflict without violence. So the next time you hear somebody lament American litigious, consider the alternative.

The kids we send to war

When I deployed to Operation Joint Forge / Joint Guardian in 2001, soldiers from various Army Airborne units would bunk in spare rooms in the Aviano AB contigency dorm enroute to the Middle East. We'd see them on the flightline getting geared up, and they'd look as professional and disciplined as you'd expect. But I was always struck by how young they seemed when they were off duty back in the dorm, watching movies, playing video games, chatting online, talking about girls, like care free high school students playing soldier. This article about troops in Iraq gives a sense of what I mean. Here's an excerpt"

Like the teenagers and college students across America who sit on couches late on weekend nights and into the next morning, these soldiers spend their free hours on the outskirts of the Iraqi capital killing one another in Xbox and PlayStation2 games such as Halo and Mortal Kombat. Between guard duty and patrols and shifts at the dining facility, they gather to crash fast cars, play volleyball with buxom women and mimic warfare.

(Also take a look at this interesting, tangentially-related commentary on high school students and video games.)

Gregoire v. Rossi: giving democracy a bloody nose

By now, nearly the entire country is aware of the election debacle occurring in Washington. Florida 2004: the Pacific Northwest. So far, the elements are in place for a great electoral story: 1) charismatic Republican, 2) boring Democrat, 3) multiple recounts, 4) a small margin of victory, 5) discovered ballots, and 6) lawyers who love litigating elections. Even though my impulse is to turn off NPR, avoid the local news, and avert my eyes to the latest Times and PI headlines, I can't help but think how Democrat Chris Gregoire's predicament, and the mentality of the WA state party resembles recent Democratic presidential candidates and the national Democratic Party.

Right now, Republican Dino Rossi leads Chris Gregoire by roughly 100 votes. After the votes were first canvassed he lead by 261 votes, to only see his lead dwindle to 42 votes after a machine recount. A couple weeks ago the WA Democratic Party was raising money for a partial hand recount of Democratic leaning counties. Gregoire said she didn't want a recount unless the entire state was recounted. After some last ditch fundraising, the Democrats raised enough money to have a state wide recount. All was going well until King County discovered 573 mistakenly rejected ballots. While great news for Gregoire, it should not be presumed she will win. As the counties have turned in their results, Rossi has consistently been expanding his lead. Just this evening, King County has decided to push ahead and count these new ballots. Republicans, are threatening a lawsuit if this new ballots tip the election in Gregoire's favor. Arguably, the GOP would use Tuesday's WA Supreme Court decision as authority for why the ballots shouldn't be counted. Tuesday, the WA Supreme Court said spoiled and provisional ballots that were rightly rejected should not be counted. In the opinion, the court avoided the question of King County's newly discovered 573 ballots.

Like Florida, Washington gives every civics teacher in America a nice teaching moment for the old adage "every vote counts." But, it is also a demonstration of a newly forming adage "litigate until you win." If the ballot box turns against you, take the result to court. Gore did it, Gregoire is doing it, and before them, Karl Rove did it. In Alabama, Rove engineered victory for a Supreme Court Justice through an aggressive litigation strategy. This new trend toward litigating elections is disturbing. It is suspended disbelief at its best. Through litigation, candidates can avoid grieving their election day loss by filing a lawsuit. Litigation can cast a close election into the gray haze of illegitimacy, soiling the incoming elected official, and giving the loser solace by letting them argue their candidate actually won.

As perverse as it is, litigating an election is rather American. Our founders created the system which allowed the emergence of two parties, elections decided by an electoral college, the division of powers, checks and balances, Marbury v. Madison, Federal questions, and an increasingly irrelevant electorate. Who needs voters when you have judges?

But any candidate attracted to the luster of public office and the noble calling of public service ought to consider the cumulative effect litigating an election has on the democratic process. Should campaigns always gird for an inevitable legal fight? Should campaigns reactively file lawsuits if the election day result isn't what was desired? No. What Gregoire, Bush, Gore, and Rove before them all have done is weaken America's system. The electoral college taught us it's not the popular vote that matters, and litigated elections have taught us it's not the electoral college or the popular vote that matters but the subjective, legal interpretation of judges appointed for life. Litigation takes the electoral decision making out of the hands of the republic and puts it in the hands of aged and allegedly learned judges. Elections should never be decided on the basis of a well argued and well worded petition.

Unless there are unequivocal, unassailable, and egregious voting irregularities, systematic deprivation of the franchise, or missing ballots, no election should be litigated. Even though 573 ballots have been discovered that could very well tip the balance in Gregoire's favor, she should have conceded after the canvas and at the latest after the machine recount. Before the discovery of the King County ballots a few days ago Rossi was in the lead and had been after two counts (the canvas and the recount). The objective counting of the ballots had Gregoire losing. Rossi's stooges didn't hide ballots, tamper with voting numbers or do anything nefarious. No one reported butterfly ballots or disenfranchisement. No one was diving hanging chads. Nope. Election officials were reporting scantron results.

Yet with as close as the election is, the only way to know who truly won the election is to have another election. As things stand right now, either Rossi or Gregoire could win and maybe did win. Recounting the ballots until you get the result you want is no way to objectively determine who won the election. Suing, because you don't like which ballots were counted isn't aimed at getting an objective election result. If a voter can't fill in a little bubble then I don't want a volunteer trying to figure out who the voter meant to vote for.

More troubling is Gregoire was considered unbeatable. This was her race to lose. She lead in the polls, won in a contentious Democratic Primary, and was seen as a female version of Governor Gary Locke. Rossi is a right winger from a solid blue state. King, Pierce, Snohommish, and Thurston Counties are reliably Democratic and home to most of the state's population. This was Gregoire's race to lose -- and she did.

Gregoire lost because her campaign was terrible and she was a terrible candidate. She was boring, took no chances, and offered sleep inducing policies. Her campaign was tepid. She won King County with roughly 60% of the vote even though I suspect King would have a party registration of 70% Democrats. She lost Pierce (Tacoma) and Snohommish County too. While her primary opponent was talking about a progressive income tax, Gregoire was blabbering about health care, education, and good jobs (and that was as specific as she got). Gregoire's campaign was focused on the populace Western chunk of the state. She abandoned counties, marking them as unwinnable. Unchallenged, Rossi ran the table in places like Spokane and at the same time campaigned hard in Gregoire strong holds. Rossi came off as both secular and sectarian. Gregoire, seemed like a cold European atheist Prime Minister. Gregoire's campaign matched Kerry's failed campaign in almost every way. Kerry focused narrowly on a few states, defending turf he should win easily while Bush took the fight to him. In place of inspiring people he offered mechanical policy generalities.

So what's the lesson of the 2004 race for Governor? Well there are a few. First, stop litigating. Even if you win you will look like a loser and have no credibility. Second, respect the system by having faith in the system. Only recount and litigate when it is absolutely necessary. Third, if you lose the count, lose gracefully. Fourth, run better campaigns and run better candidates. In a Democratic state like Washington and just like in America at large, Democrats don't lose unless they are uninspiring and run crappy campaigns. Hell, Deborah Senn the Democrat AG candidate was chewed up because she couldn't counter scandals she faced as Insurance Commissioner and couldn't beat back advertising by the Chamber of Commerce. Fifth,whatever happens in the next couple of weeks democracy and politics will be worse off.

Cohen on Democrats and Abortion

In Richard Cohen's apologetic column on the Democrat's uncompromising pro-choice policy, he admits to having become enlightened about abortion rights over the past few decades. In contrast:

"[T]he Democratic Party still marches... as if nothing has changed in almost 40 years. Abortion remains a core party principle -- up there with civil rights and, more recently, gay rights. Gay rights is one thing. It is nothing more than an extension of the party's traditional -- and politically costly -- embrace of civil rights. But abortion is a different matter entirely. It is no longer what it was -- simply about women's rights and sexual freedom. It is, as its opponents say, about life -- arguably about the taking of it."

Perhaps abortion rights are sometimes seen as a sign of sexual freedom--or as a sign of promiscuity, some folks might say. But that was not the legal basis of the right. For advocates it was always about women's rights, and for opponents it was always about the taking of life. So what, exactly, does Cohen think has changed?

"An abortion is not a mere exercise of a right like voting. It is more complicated than that," he writes. But what, exactly, is more complicated? Exercising all sorts of rights -- not least of which, we all know, the right to vote -- is often pragmatically complicated. But the right itself is not a matter of, as Cohen suggests, "it depends."

Cohen is, in fact, not sure that the right to choose (which he calls a "slogan") is a right at all. That is fine. What worries me, however, is his reasoning: Attitudes have changed (he concludes), contraceptives are widely available (he supposes), we are more informed about the messiness of some procedures (he is, anyhow.) The anti-choice media machine has worked its magic on Cohen.

The trouble -- with Cohen's logic and with the anti-choice rhetoric -- is that all these concerns are utterly irrelevant if the question is one of basic rights. The notion of a basic right is one specifically detached from majority rule. It is the idea of a right that we (the people, through our government) are not justified in blocking or taking away even if we all want to.

Now I have my own opinion about the question of choice. But my real target here, as usual, is not the conclusion but the faulty reasoning that leads to it. There may be a good argument against a right to choose, and if so we will have to think about it. But a distaste for abortion and the political costs of defending choice are not such reasons. Free speech is often unpopular and unpleasant. Freedom of and from religion is also increasing unpopular in the current "zeitgeist."

It is often legally and morally murky whether some activity (political funding, say) counts as an exercise of a right (to free speech, say). But the existence of the right itself does not "depend" on the conditions. And the diagnosis of the case does not depend on popular opinion or congressional majority -- hence it is decided by courts rather than by legislation. (For this reason the courts have frowned on attempts to legislate a question of justice by declaring that abortions are never medically acceptable.) Rights are not negotiable, even when it is politically expedient. Rights require our uncompromising respect and vigilance, even -- or especially -- when we ourselves find the defended activity unpopular or unpleasant

This is the trouble with the "times and attitudes have changed" line suggested by Cohen. Perhaps, if we knew that times and attitudes always make progress toward enlightment, we could think that they are bellwethers of justice. But, in fact, we know that is not the case. And if it is women's rights today, then it will be gay rights soon, and your rights next. This is not the time for backpedaling. Perhaps, as Cohen and Howard Dean suggest, we should welcome anti-choice voters into the Democratic party. If so, they must come because they agree with us on other matters and with the understanding that we will unflinchingly defend the basic rights of every American.

I've been a bit unfair to Cohen. Probably what he believes is that what he once saw as an uncompeting right (a woman's right to choose) he now sees as being in conflict with something else (some kind of right to be born.) This is awfully French existentialist for most anti-choicers, but so be it. I myself doubt that there is any such basic right. But if there is, Cohen is mounting the wrong argument. If there is such a right, it is not because many people think so or because abortion is unpleasant to think about.

"The Pentagon's New Map"

This piece on Thomas P.M. Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map" is worth a look. Here's an excerpt:

Barnett's central thesis is that today's world is divided into two categories: the "Functioning Core" of nations connected to the global economy and prospering as never before, and the "Non-Integrating Gap" of nations disconnected from the matrix of wealth and progress and therefore spinning toward chaos. Most of America's military interventions in recent years have been in the Gap, notes Barnett, but we have failed to understand that we face a common enemy there.

The enemy "is neither a religion (Islam) nor a place (the Middle East), but a condition -- disconnectedness," writes Barnett. "If disconnectedness is the real enemy, then the combatants we target in this war are those who promote it, enforce it and terrorize those who seek to overcome it by reaching out to the larger world."

Barnett's thinking is becoming increasingly popular inside the military, and it's poised to influence the strategic thinking of American national security and foreign policy experts. Perhaps somewhere in Barnett is the future of a robust progressive national security policy? Pick up a copy of the book here: "The Pentagon's New Map"

Asked and Answered, E.J.

In today's column, The Democrats' Rove Envy (washingtonpost.com) E.J. Dionne asks:

Thus, even before Democrats get to the question of ideology, they will have to decide what their party needs most. Is the new party chairman's primary job to be public spokesman? Or is it to move the Democrats up the organizational and technological curve, to rebuild atrophied party structures, to keep asking: What Would Karl Do?

Asked and answered, my man. Asked and answered. Here's hoping somebody heard it...

Richard Cohen, meet Harry Reid

How can Richard Cohen credibly argue that the Democratic Party "is downright inhospitable to abortion opponents" when the Sentate Minority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, is an anti-choice Democrat?

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

There's a lot to consider in this George Will column from Sunday, which plays off of the same Peter Beinart article Tiziana recommended. I'm kicking around a larger post reacting to Will, Beinart, and Kuttner, but for now I wanted to note this element of Will's piece:

Kuttner could not resist a spasm of moral vanity. He had to disparage "middle America," which means most of America, as so bigoted it denies the humanity of gays. If liberals like Kuttner keep thinking like that -- they have been doing it for so long they cannot easily stop -- in December 2008 they will be analyzing their eighth loss in 11 elections at the hands of voters weary of liberal disdain.

How many times have you been won over by somebody disparaging you and disrespecting you? Probably not many. I had an interesting conversation a couple of weeks ago with a senior press staffer on Virginia Governor Mark Warner's (D) winning campaign who believes that internalizing this point has been key to Warner's success.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Judges as Plumbers

Way to go William Safire! This is an elegantly written piece on the persecution of journalists who will not reveal sources. I have feared for a while that we are failing to understand the magnitude of this change, and that the media isn't fighting for itself enough by reporting this situation more. With an administration both as secretive and as unwilling to pursue accountability as this one, the last thing we need is to chill any ability for the public to obtain information via a free press. In my mind, this is a very, very big deal.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Judges as Plumbers

Say it ain't so, Joe!

As it becomes clear that there was more than a nanny problem behind Bernard Kerik's withdrawal, some lawmakers are floating Sen. Joe Lieberman's (D-CT) name to run the Department of Homeland Security. Since the Department of Homeland Security was Lieberman's idea in the first place and he has been a key player in all of the related legislative battles, he's probably as qualified as anyone for the position. This would be a brilliant political move on Bush's part, giving him both a concrete example of bipartisanship and an easy way to disarm Democratic criticism of his administration's management of the war of terrorism. I suspect that Lieberman would be tempted to take the offer, if it's made, but, short of changing teams, it would end his career in elected politics.

New Mexico: First in the Nation Presidential Primary?

Garance Franke-Ruta has an excellent post on Tapped about good alternatives to Iowa for the first-in-the-nation primary (okay, okay- caucuses), and reasons to make the change.

I'll leave it to our intrepid Iowans to defend their home state's monopoly on that status...Traci? Zach?