Eminent Domain Ambivalence

The Washington Post has an interesting ediorial about the eminent domain case being heard by the Supreme Court. I've been watching this case not just on principle, but also because there is a sister case involving the city of Norwood, Ohio--the next neighborhood over from where I live but an independent city surrounded by Cincinnati. I've been of two minds about these cases from the start. And I've been hoping my ambivalence isn't just because it would be nice to be able to shop at Crate and Barrel without driving to Chicago.

The Post editorial argues that the courts cannot become the arbiters of what is public use. If we have abusive applications of eminent domain then we should oust the leglistors or executives who let it happen, but we should not expect the courts to block any but the most egregious cases. I guess somethig about this seems right to me. But I can't say that it has resolved my self-conflicts about the principle.

On the one hand, in general the government should not force people off their property in order to turn it into a shopping mall. I think about the four property owners in Norwood who were essentially forced to sell against their will. Some were owner-occupied, some rental properties, and some businesses. (Does that matter? Does it matter that the buy-out values the houses at far higher than what they could possibly sell for residential use?) And of course I think, "damn, I would not like to be forced to sell my home to a developer."

On the other hand, I think of the sixty-some others who were, from their point of view, "held hostage" by the hold-outs. I ask myself whether I believe in an absolute right to ownership of private property, and I find that I don't. We liberals, er, progressives, think that sometimes we have to give up our property involuntarily for the public good. Sometimes we call this taxation, but we know it has other forms. (And we know that sometimes people have to sell some of their real property in order to pay their taxes, or because they cannot afford to continue paying taxes on it. We, in contrast to W, think this is a worthwhile cost of our system of governance.) Might the public good sometimes include the economic good of our cities? Why not? Houses are of great sentimental value, but they are fundamentally just a big piece of stuff that someone took from someone, who took it from someone... who took it from the animals, and etc.

Recently a city waterworks crew foreman told me that I should check my deed because the city's right of way may extend much further than just over the sidewalk but perhaps halfway up my yard--meaning that the city would not even have to pay to repair any damage to landscaping they cause if they need to go that far into the property. I was indignant, but I still like having running water. I got lucky this time; but they tore up several yards on my street. Last summer a similar thing happened when they replaced the gas mains and ripped into everyone's yard. My lawn is still a mess but the privately held Fortune 500 gas company raised their rates anyhow. And every month I have to let them into my house to read the meters in my basement because they have decided that is cheaper (for them) than installing remotely readable meters. The lesson is that our houses are only mostly ours to begin with.

If one thing seems obvious to me, it is that once initiated eminent domain battles are lose-lose situations for both the "sell-outs" and the "hold-outs." If the city, the developer, and the sell-outs win, someone gets forced off their property. But if the hold-outs win, they kill the residential value of the neighborgood and the property values of their neighbors for good. Once the attempt at eminent domain begins, it will either succeed or the neighborhood will decay... and before long the city will declare it blighted by the standards that the missed the first time. (Why should we have to wait for it to decay, New Haven argues.) There has to be a better system.

Does anyone know of a case where the city/developer lost and the disputed area subsequently rebounded as a residential neighborhood? I have my doubts.

Back to the Sudan

When David Englin started this blog, he put his first stake in the ground on the issue of genocide in the Sudan. Over the months, our attention has wandered to many other subjects--worthy, all (SpongeBob aside)--but surely one of the most important 'ripples of hope' we can send out is to stand up against the supreme injustice of genocide. Nicholas Kristof reminds us (as he so consistently has for some time now) that just because our government looked at the situation, declared it genocide, and then called it a day, the horror there isn't over.

So, here's what you do: first, read Kristof's column. Then, if you haven't yet written to your Congressional representatives to ask for action in the Sudan, do it. If you have, do it again. Then go to the Save Darfur website, find a way to do something, and...do something.

More Rove-ian Jujitsu

Am I the only one who thinks that the recent drop of these (NYT -- reg. req'd) "secret" tape recordings was orchestrated by the Bush Admin.? Apparently not.

Dean = Growing A Spine, At Long Last

I can't tell you how tired I am already of the protestations of Republicans and Democrats alike that the nomination of Dean for DNC chair signals a leap to the left. Puh-leeze.

Dean was the definition of moderate when he was Vermont’s governor. He balanced budgets while investing in education and health care. As a candidate, the issue with Dean wasn’t so much that he was a lefty, it was that a wide swath of his supporters were (guilty as charged, incidentally). He had the most moderate of all possible positions on gun control (that it should be a locally decided issue), and advocated a policy for paying for health insurance for more people -- spreading the costs of risk inherent in health insurance policies across a larger pool – that not too long ago would have been considered conservative. On Iraq, Dean was just among the first to profess what has now become common wisdom.

No, the real trouble with Dean has been that he’s unDemocratic in his willingness stand up strongly, consistently, and without apology for his principles. For what used to be and what ought to be again Democratic principles. He goes one further and argues that if we’re going to bother to have principles, we should organize so that we can win elections on them. Moreover, he’s been ballsy enough to tell the truth: it will take a long time because we’ve got to start form the ground up. 2006 won’t be the year we realize the fruits of a year-and-a-half of labor and retake the Senate.

Thirty years ago Republicans looked around and saw that America was to the left of them. They decided to move America. Now, Democrats are looking around and noticing that America is to the right of us. But rather than develop a strategy for moving America, we’re trying to figure out how to run over to meet it. If we learned anything from John Kerry it should be that pandering, or fence sitting, to try to meet everyone where they are is not a winning strategy. (Well, we should have learned two things: pandering is ineffective, and so is running a campaign based entirely on distant biographical history). If we want to win again, and move the governance of this country back in the direction of our nation’s best ideals, we must move America.

At the national level, we are a rudderless, principle-free party without a coherent or consistent message or state-by-state organizational capacity to deliver a message even if we could settle on one. Which is not to say we’re doomed. We’re only doomed if we decide that we don’t need to organize around a solid set of principles, learn to talk about them, and organize from the very lowest levels on up to communicate with, persuade, and ultimately convince Americans to support us. This is the process by which we will move America. Lucky for us, it’s not a novel process – we’ve got thirty years of Republican history to guide us.

Dean has clearly articulated a very moderate set of principles. They only seem liberal because the Republicans have been so successful at moving the country rightward. He has also not only articulated but put into motion a strategy for rebuilding the party from the lowest levels on up.

Will Dean’s leadership result in retaking the House or Senate in 2006? Probably not. Will it send us to victory in 2008? Maybe – we’ll have to see whether we develop the spine along with him to nominate someone we believe in, rather than someone we hope our neighbors will believe in. Ultimately, only Dean’s style of strong, principled, unapologetic leadership coupled with genuine commitment to building the party will take us back to a position of political power. It will happen faster if we support him.

I can’t sum it up better than Paul Krugman did:

For a while, Mr. Dean will be the public face of the Democrats, and the Republicans will try to portray him as the leftist he isn't. But Deanism isn't about turning to the left: it's about making a stand.

Truth and Hubble

In one of its most glaring affronts to science, experts, congress, and the search for truth, Bush's NASA toady refuses to allocate money for a simple repair on one of the most spectacularly successful scientific instruments in the history of the world. It's time to tell your senators and representatives directly that you expect the refurbished shuttles' second mission (after restocking the wasteful and useless space station) to be the repair of the Hubble Space Telescope.

On the departure of Senator Dayton

Not very many people will miss Senator Dayton when he steps down next year. His announcement that he's not running for re-election in 2006 was surprising, but frankly, a relief to many Minnesota DFLers, myself included. Most of you probably know him as the kook who closed his office late last year over concerns about terrorism.

Mark Dayton is a bit of a kook, and he's a terrible politician. He's awkward in social situations (as some of my fellow ROH posters can attest), he's a horrible public speaker, and he seems to have no political sense (best demonstrated by the time he showed up at an event with Rev. Moon). He was right when he said in his announcement that he is "not the best candidate to lead the DFL party to victory next year."

But not many people got to hear what he said right before that in his announcement: "Everything I've worked for, and everything I believe in, depends upon this Senate seat remaining in the Democratic caucus in 2007." Part of what makes Dayton seem wacky to many of us is that he is the real deal. Because he's so politically inept, he didn't get what the ramifications would be of closing his office, for example. But he did that for the exact reason he said he did--because he didn't think it was fair to put his staff in (what he considered to be) harm's way when he wasn't going to be there himself. A kook, perhaps, but a genuine one at that.

Senator Dayton personally sponsors busloads of poor, elderly Minnesotans going to Canada each year to buy cheap prescription drugs. Unlike the aforementioned Norm Coleman, he was willing to stand up against this Administration and call them to task for their immoral conduct of this war and the treatment of prisoners. He doesn't take a salary from the government for his work. When I've mentioned this to some people, they say, "Sure, but he's loaded. Big deal. If I were as rich as him, I wouldn't need a salary, either." True, he's rich--does that mean he's obligated to work for free? Dick Cheney is rich, too. I'm pretty sure he's still on the payroll. What we're talking about here is a genuinely good man.

Don't get me wrong--I think Dayton is right, that he is giving the Dems a better chance to win his seat by stepping down. The guy is no Paul Wellstone, and you gotta know how hard it must be to live in the shadow of someone that amazing. (People in Minnesota still have Wellstone yard signs up two years later, for God's sake.) But I'm always sad when we lose good people from public service because they don't give a good speech, and can't make rich people want to yank out their checkbooks. Next time you make a joke about him (which you should, because he's at least a little ridiculous, and it will be funny), at least remember that he fights the good fight.

Iraq from the View of a Budding Neo-Liberal

My, how the tables have turned. Not long ago, the conservatives routinely accused the liberals of letting their pie-in-the-sky ideals get in the way of sound U.S. foreign policy. Today, I can’t help wondering what “realpolitikers” like Henry Kissinger think of the President’s second inaugural address.

But what should liberals think when the President claims the United States is at its best when it leads with its ideals and that the pursuit of freedom and democracy around the world is a worthwhile endeavor?

It is all too easy for liberals to dismiss wholesale whatever the President says today. As Shayna notes, it is difficult to judge from a clean slate the President’s idealistic vision of a world free from tyranny. That’s not why we invaded Iraq. Or, if it is, the President and his advisors misled us about the true reason.

But liberals are coming dangerously close to sounding like they oppose idealistic foreign policies, or that they don’t believe in spreading freedom and democracy overseas. Instead of knee-jerk nay-saying, liberals should recognize that there is some good in the President’s “vision”. Indeed, we can take a great deal of credit for this vision. For decades, liberals have argued the United States shouldn’t be afraid to have its principles and ideals influence its foreign policy. And, more specifically, liberals have argued that “intervention” (in places like Bosnia) will ultimately make the United States a safer place because chaos there often leads to insecurity here. That’s what makes the neo-conservatives “neo”: they have finally embraced many of the things we have been telling them for years.

But the President’s program – more so than his stated principles – deserves to be criticized. Now that the conservatives appear to be guided by unbounded idealism, it’s time for the liberals to serve as the realistic counterweight in U.S. foreign policy. What follows are a few dashes of realism from a budding Neo-Liberal.

First, is intervention in the name of liberty a principle we are really willing to follow? Roughly seven score and four years ago, the government openly permitted slavery. I, of course, don’t think much of that practice, but I also don’t like the idea of a foreign country, say Canada or France, invading the United States to liberate African-Americans. Slavery was our problem, and I’m glad we solved it ourselves, even though the solution took too long in coming and involved the loss of many American lives in a civil war. What would our country be like today if we had never addressed slavery ourselves, because France beat us to it?

And, even today, what if the rest of the industrialized world – which views capital punishment as barbaric and pig-headed – decided to invade the United States to end this “un-Christian” practice? Even if you (like me) are fundamentally opposed to capital punishment, I doubt you favor a foreign invasion.

All of this suggests, to me at least, that the principle of sovereignty is still a good one and needs to be balanced against the desire to rid the world of “evil” in a crusade in the name of freedom and democracy.

Second, what do we mean by freedom anyway? I happen to believe, fundamentally, that people should be free to end their lives when they choose, with the assistance of a physician if necessary (at least where there is absolutely no doubt that that is the longstanding wish of the patient). But many in this country – including, I suspect, the President and plenty in his party – don’t believe in the principle of freedom there. The same can be said of laws against consensual sodomy. Conservatives often argue that laws against such freedoms are necessary to protect the “social fabric” of our nation. Okay, but doesn’t that sound an awful lot like the argument of an Islamic fundamentalist who opposes the spread of freedom and wants to keep his wife covered in a burka?

Third, how effective can a country, even one as powerful as the United States, be in transplanting its ideals to a foreign culture? We cannot assume that the world will understand and respond to democracy and freedom the way we do.

Fourth, the neo-conservatives (and many liberals) favor the pursuit of freedom abroad largely because they believe it is in our own national interest. Democratic nations are generally much less belligerent than tyrannical ones, it is true. But is this true in countries where the most popular name for baby boys is “Osama”? In the very, very long run, it may be. But over the next two or three generations?

This gets to a point that The Economist made recently: “democracy is unlikely to promote peace if it is coupled with a burning sense of unresolved justice.” The Muslim “street” – those who we want to empower in a democratic world – are, at best, deeply suspicious of the United States, for a variety of reasons. One extremely important reason is our policy toward Israel and Palestine. Would it be wrong for a Muslim to think the United States sometimes seems indifferent to the plight of the Palestinians? (Obviously, a full discussion of the Israel-Palestine issue is beyond the scope of this post, and I will be the first to admit that I have a lot to learn about the issue. But I also know that almost every American fails to understand the importance of this issue in the minds of the Muslim street.) The President and his advisors often cite Natan Sharansky’s book for vindication of their foreign policy. Natan Sharansky is a right-leaning member in Ariel Sharon’s right-leaning cabinet. Can we blame the Muslim street for being a bit skeptical of our intentions in these circumstances?

Finally, there is the mundane but extremely important issue of cost – in terms of American lives, dollars, diplomatic capital, and goodwill. Even if it is true that the United States will be safer if we can spread freedom and democracy to the Muslim world, is the present program the most cost-effective way of doing so and, ultimately, of making the United States safer? Are there less costly ways of achieving the same purpose?

Even if Iraq were to become a bastion of freedom, democracy, and pacifism tomorrow, the United States has lost well over a thousand lives and $300 billion in the adventure. (The cost in dollars roughly translates into $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States, and doesn’t include the cost of higher oil and gasoline prices.) The invasion has also unnecessarily cost us a great deal of diplomatic capital, not to mention goodwill with the people of countries as far flung as Turkey, Russia, and even Australia. As Shayna has pointed out, other nations too often try to work around the United States, instead of treating it as an indispensable participant in international institutions and affairs.

That’s on the cost side, but what about the benefits? According to the CIA, the invasion of Iraq may very well breed more terrorists than it eliminates. (Let’s not forget how Al-Qaeda got its start: with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.) In the minds of many Muslims, the invasion of Iraq only proves that Osama bin Laden is right about “imperial” America; that means his group and others like it may receive more in funding and in suicidal bodies in the coming years. So, the benefits of spreading “freedom” in Iraq are, at best, speculative and will only be realized, if at all, at some point in the distant future.

In short, now that the conservatives have embraced many “liberal” principles of foreign policy, it’s time for the liberals to develop some of the healthy skepticism and realism of the old conservatives. But let’s not go blindly overboard with blanket opposition – opposition to some of the principles that originated in the liberal camp.

Friedman's advice to Dems on Iraq

I promise I really do have thoughts of my own, and am capable of posting things other than what someone else has written. When someone else just plain has better thoughts and writes them down better, though...you get the point.

Tom Friedman's message to the Democratic party about how to be thinking about Iraq now is truly compelling. Check it out in today's Times.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Calling All Democrats

Virginia Family Values PAC - Guess the Party

This is awesome. That's right - the Virginia Family Values PAC is a left of center PAC. Just as it should be!

If you ask my five-year-old why Democrats are the Good Guys, and Republicans are not, he'll tell you, among other things, that it's because Democrats care about taking care of poor people. Because Democrats care about clean air and water so that we can play outside without getting sick. Because Democrats care about taking care of kids and the elderly. Because Democrats want people to be able to celebrate whatever holidays they believe in. Because Democrats believe that people should be allowed to fall in love with and marry whomever they choose, and because Democrats believe that all people are "not better than each other" - Calebese for equality, an extremely tough concept to explain to a child.

Caleb has been around political discussion quite literally since the day he was born, and he understands (even if he doesn't have the vocabulary) that we are a family of Democrats because Democratic values are our family values. In our house we're clear that morality isn't encompassed by keeping people of the same sex from making a home together and preventing women from making reproductive choices. Rather, in our house it's very clear that morality and values are much bigger than that. In our house it's crystal clear that budgets are moral documents, that anyone who claims a stranglehold on morality then votes to prevent kids from finding loving homes (for example) is not to be believed, and that we live in a community of people that we have responsibilities to.

Which is why I'm so glad to see that the Virginia Family Values PAC has taken a first step toward reclaiming the language. Hallelujah.

Hate, divisiveness, and selfishness are not family values - Democratic values are.

Too good to passup

Don't know what of this is real, fake, or what ... but it's a great story. Republicans and gay porn - two great tastes that taste great together.

http://www.slaughter.house.gov/HoR/Louise/News/Press+Releases+By+Date/2005+Press+Releases/WH+Briefing+Room+Scandal.htm

Some thoughts on recent commentary and events

Many thanks to our loyal readers and our insightful contributors for their thoughts and perspectives over the past month. Campaigning full time for the Virginia House of Delegates has taken its toll on my own contributions to RIPPLE OF HOPE, but I wanted to offer a couple of comments:

I think Shayna is exactly right with her analysis of the current situation in Iraq. We should be proud whenever we have some small role in increasing the ability of people to have a voice in their own governance, but we must not forget that we were sold a bill of goods when it comes to the reasons we invaded Iraq, and thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed or injured because of it.

On Alberto Gonzales, his role in the torture memos is deeply troubling, but at least he doesn't appear to be a right-wing religious zealot like John Ashcroft. The question is (and maybe somebody knows the answer), Will he remove that curtain from the statue of Justice?

I also wanted to mention how proud I am of the people of Ukraine. Thousands of them took to the streets to stand up for democracy, and they won. I'm very much reminded of watching the Berlin Wall fall live on the BBC when I was stationed with my family in Europe at the time. Orange is the new Red, White, and Blue.

I'm sure I write on behalf of all of our loyal readers when I express how much I appreciate the terrific ongoing commentary from our contributors. On a personal note, I want to publicly thank you for keeping up the find work while my energies are largely focused elsewhere.

Iraq's First Step

I've been holding off on posting on the Iraq vote because I couldn't quite wrap my head around what I wanted to say. After the SOTU speech, I think I've nailed it down.

First, of course, is the astounding and truly inspiring fact that thousands of people were willing to risk death to realize a drive to be agents in determining their future. It puts the low rate of voter participation in the United States to shame. Remember the purple fingers in November 2008, when we're hearing that people are staying home because of some rain.

That so few of the insurgents' threats were successfully carried out was an enormous relief and an encouraging sign, though I think it says much less about the security situation than many have made out. Martial law, including a complete ban on car travel, is hardly a sustainable approach. That said, that the process was not significantly marred by violence is a victory.

While recognizing the importance of the Iraqi vote, and being thrilled for the Iraqis who've had a long overdue first step toward democracy, and even in the wake of the President's truly moving SOTU photo-op, it's important to remember that we didn't invade Iraq so that Iraqis could vote. From the President's 2003 SOTU:

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

President Bush went on:

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had WMD that were presently or nearly deliverable. In other words, we invaded Iraq for reasons that turned out to be utterly false. That the Iraqi people have a chance at democracy is a good outcome, but we would not have gone to war for that goal alone. A cursory look around the world proves it: there are, sadly, massive numbers of people living under violently oppressive totalitarian regimes that have no hope whatsoever of being freed from their conditions by American intervention.

But back to the vote: That so many Iraqis risked so much on the 30th makes the fact that they did so for very, very little in the way of true democracy somewhat disappointing. The Iraqi people who voted on January 30th chose representatives to bodies that will in turn decide on the basics of the Iraqi government and elect the first president. They voted for people whose names did not appear on the ballot, who were members of parties that did not present even a cursory explanation of what they stood for. (The BBC's got a pretty good list of the major players). January 30th was a massive, dangerous practice run at true democracy.

It very much remains to be seen whether the practice run will lead to a functioning, legitimate government that eventually can be truly democratic. The extremely low levels of Sunni participation do not bode well. The glacial pace at which reconstruction has taken place has been a major source of dissatisfaction with the U.S. occupation - I can't imagine it will be less problematic for any new Iraqi government. The complicated consequences of an elected Iraqi government that is hostile to the U.S. are still very much a possibility.

We didn't make our world safer by invading Iraq. Did we at least make a small part of it more democratic, more free, and ultimately more just? January 30th was only the very beginning of the answer to that question.

Senator Norm Coleman can answer Tiziana's question

I'll say one thing for Senator Coleman--he responds to his constituents quickly. So when I wrote him asking for him to vote 'no' regarding Gonzales' confirmation, it didn't take long for me to hear back from him. (Those of you who follow Minnesota politics will not be surprised by what follows.)

Senator Coleman informed me that he felt that President Bush had the right to choose his own advisors and that, absent evidence of "moral turpitude", he would support the President's choice of nominees. He did not address the issue I was most concerned about, Gonzales' advice regarding torture.

This from Thursday's Minneapolis Star Tribune:

"Sen. Norm Coleman said Wednesday he was not willing to support Homeland Security nominee Michael Chertoff because of security funding cuts to the Twin Cities, signaling a rare public breach with the Bush administration."

Note that Chertoff, not yet working for the DHS, of course had nothing to do with this funding decision. Nonetheless, the good Senator felt this was "so personal" that he had to threaten (because in all honestly, the likelihood is he won't go through with it) a "protest vote".

Chertoff, too, has been questioned about his role in the torture cases; not by Coleman. Approving the use of torture is irrelevant; but cutting off a nice hunk of pork just might rise to the level of "moral turpitude". So...did this Republican do "the wrong thing for the wrong reasons", as Tiziana asked? You be the judge.

And back to Alberto Gonzales

The Senate confirmed his appointment yesterday. It was inevitable, but I'm proud that part of our country stood up against it. Don't get me wrong. I'm not naive enough to think that, of all 36 Democrats who voted against his nomination, there was no one who was really playing politics, and not so much protesting the appointment on principled grounds. If there were such Democrats, they did the right thing, but for very wrong reasons.

But I'm also stunned that not one single Republican Senator had a crisis of conscience over this appointment sufficiently large enough to overrule their own need to play politics. Not a single Republican Senator. The concerns over Gonzales, his positions on torture, and what his appointment says about our country--both to ourselvs and to the world--are not partizan, and not about politics. I just don't believe that the only reason one might have those concerns is because one is blinded by Democratic ideology.

So what happened on the Republican side? If one accepts my premise, than one can only assume that there were Republicans who did think it was wrong, but voted for Gonzales anyway, based on political calculation. Those Senators did the wrong thing, and for very wrong reasons.

Cancel tax cuts for the really rich and Social Security is saved

This from a column in the Washington Post today:

"Rolling back Bush's tax cuts just for those Americans who earn more than $350,000 a year would come close to covering the shortfall, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. It noted that the CBO's more modest estimates of the shortfall suggest that rolling back the tax cut for those high earners would more than cover the entire problem. "

This is an essential part of the Social Security debate (a debate that is overly-manufactured, and not really where our entitlement discussion should be focused right now). I don't think it would be too hard to convince people that the alternative to any drastic change in Social Security, something that's been working, is simply to roll back tax cuts on people who make more than $350,000. In my mind, this should be the buzzphrase on the lips of anyone who is worried about the direction of the discussion right now.

Tom Friedman's must-read

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: A Day to Remember

As far as I'm concerned, today's op-ed by Tom Friedman is a must-read piece. He has done an outstanding job, I think, of providing a balanced view of the war in Iraq and the coming election for more than a year. (In essence, he supported the war, turned on the Administration over its execution, and supported holding the vote at the end of January in hopes that it would set in relief the true agenda of the insurgents--to stave off freedom.)

His reflections on what happened Sunday, why we all can and should feel good about it, and how it rightly changes the focus from the Bush Administration to the Iraqi people themselves are articulate and forceful.

Dowd on Bush, Evolution, Truth and Happy Days

Today Maureen Dowd connects a few more of the scary dots on fact, faith, and W's reckless disregard for anyone and everyone.

But some of you asked, what are we supposed to do about this gathering cloud of ignorance that is increasingly encroaching on sensible policy? I wish I knew, and I am sure there is no quick fix. But here are a few suggestions:

(1) We must never give up the business of demanding rational debate—that is, debate that involves giving and asking for reasons. (Reasons are the kinds of considerations that could be recognized as reasons by someone else who doesn't already agree with you. "Because my mother told me so" is not a reason for you to believe what I say.)

(2) We must be vigilant at all levels, and not dismiss even minor transgressions of liberties. As Michael Lynch notes, in his book True to Life, abridgement of truth and of liberties go together, and they begin with minor incursions into the truth. This is because tyrants don't care which "facts" you believe, so long as they are in control of the "facts." The issue is not whether 2+2=5, but that the "truth" is what Big Brother tells you it is. So it is correspondingly important to stand up for every tiny bit of the truth and let nothing slide.

(3) We must give money to the ACLU, ADL, and similar groups.

(4) We must make sure the courts are not politicized, so that laws like OHSB.24 are struck down as violating the 4th Amendment.

(5) Reagan conservatives and religious folks of all denominations--especially progressive Christians, I must say--have to speak up and let it be known that Dobson, Jones, Reed, Bush and their cronies do not speak for us/you. This has to be grass roots, and the conservatives have a big head start. But Howard Dean can't go to church and tell the story. And as a non-Christian, my own influence is limited. My wife's pastor repeatedly criticizes the ACLU, claiming (remarkably!) that they are against free speech because they are against prayer in schools. I've told him many times that I disagree. But I need to invite him to coffee and explain in detail why, as a non-Christian, I find this so troubling. His church is tiny, but every bit counts. I also need to talk more to my friends who attend the giant mega church down the street. For the most part, they like it because is does lots of charitable work or because it is youthful, light on theology, and serves coffee. But, though it is wrapped in pop music and fellowship, the message of this church is quite conservative and surely their money is going to the Christian Coalition. We need to take away their money. It will be hard for many folks to stop giving to and through their churches because they want to continue to support the good charitable activities of the church. Religious folks of all sorts face this problem, but it is especially acute among American Christians at the moment because of (a) the way Christianity and "Christian morality" are being used as cover for certain social policies by the right, and (b) the way charity is institutionalized in churches. Now it is time for many families--including my own--to take a good hard look at what our money is supporting. We need to speak with our wallets, making the difficult choice to change churches or to take our money out of the churches.

Seeing Shadows Over Universities

It's Groundhog Day, and regardless of whether Punxsutawney Phil sees his shadow, I see the signs of dark days—not to say Dark Ages—ahead.

I warned you to look out for talk of the "supressed majority." Forget the Inheritence Tax and Social Security, those are small beans when you can simply sieze control of "truth" and "facts."

Exhibit A. Last night, ABC World News Tonight reported, Conservatives Censored on College Campuses? And while the title of the story ends with a question mark, the overall tone was that college professors are liberal evangelizers. They even found a "non-partisan" "expert" who said, "The universities have been so captured by the left point of view, that you're going to get more political and intellectual diversity at your average suburban mega-church than you are at an elite university." And they presented a sympathetic and patriotically appalled image of an American student with a Arab-sounding name who "was told by his American government professor to get psychotherapy after refusing to write an essay criticizing the Constitution." [See Note 1 below.]

If you saw this story, your first reaction, like mine, was that some dimwitted administrators at community colleges had made some bad decisions. So what? What's the big deal?

The big deal is that this is another skirmish in the battle to control the truth and blur the boundaries between education, relgion, and politics. Don't get me wrong—these things, and money, are always intermingled. But there is intermingling and then there is confusion. The conservative right is siezing the language of "supression," "balance" (thank you Rupert Murdoch) and "freedom" to assert that political and religious ideology must be taught to students as competing sources of knowledge with those of the Arts and Sciences. [See Note 2 below.] So far there has been no strong move toward right-wing engineering, but give it time. Certainly the stem-cell debacle gives us something like right-wing medicine.

Exhibit B. Think I'm being alarmist, just worried about Bill O'Reilly storming my precious Ivory Tower? Consider Ohio Senate Bill 24, artfully titled the "Revised Code to establish the academic bill of rights for higher education." Sounds good, right? Isn't this just the protection I want? Who could argue with an academic bill of rights?

Don't be so silly. This is a bill to assure that (Clause A) "the fostering of a plurality of serious scholarly methodologies and perspectives shall be a significant institutional purpose… and reading lists in the humanities and social studies shall respect all human knowledge in these areas and provide students with dissenting sources and viewpoints." (I think this means that I have to stop teaching students that Descartes' arguments were bad, and that there are other—relgiously based—arguments for a substantial dualism about the mind.)

Also, no more political examples in class: (Clause B) "faculty and instructors shall not use their courses or their positions for the purpose of political, ideological, religious, or antireligious indoctrination" and (Clause C) "Faculty and instructors shall not infringe the academic freedom and quality of education of their students by persistently introducing controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relation to their subject of study and that serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose." (I guess there can be no more Sponge Bob examples in logic class, either. Too controversial.)

And, of course, (Clause I) "The institution and its professional societies shall maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry recognizing that." So I think the legislature is trying to say that we can't, as a group, publicly say that intelligent design is tripe, that stem cell research is important, and that (see Clause A) religious ideology is not a competing "source of knowledge" about human origins.


Probably many of you are thinking about saving money for your child's college education. You might also start saving college textbooks, before they get rewritten.


----------


Note 1. The ABC story doesn't say, but I can only assume that he wasn't told to believe that the Constitution is wrong, just to criticize it. Of course there is much to criticize, e.g., its stance on slavery. But leaving that aside, I often expect my students to criticize their own views. Only by seeing the weaknesses in your view can you learn how to defend it. This is obvious. So this "case" presented by ABC seems desperate and poorly reported. How did ABC find this kid? Not by good reporting. Surely, someone fed them this lure and they bit.

Note 2. This despite the fact that for most of the last several thousands of years, the overwhelming majority of theologically minded people have thought that their beliefs complemente—not competed with—scientific and philosophical views. The Dark Ages are a notable exception.

The Uncommitted: Michael Ignatieff on the Elections in Iraq

The Uncommitted: Michael Ignatieff on the Elections in Iraq

A wonderful piece by Michael Ignatieff in Sunday's New York Times. He gets at all that is complicated in thinking about the Iraqi elections, and chastises appropriately those who have the wrong focus. When I finished reading it, I felt both chastised and educated, and also as if someone had finally put proper voice to the complexity.