Emphasis Added

Friday, August 27, 2004

Happy Blogversary to Me

Tomorrow will mark two years of Emphasis Added. Despite occasional evidence to the contrary, having the opportunity to share thoughts and views with an engaged and highly-indulgent group of readers has helped me stay relatively sane. So thanks to everyone who takes the time to stop by and especially those who participate in the debates and discussions. Also, a big shout-out to the other members of my Salon Blog "class" also celebrating two-year marks in this time frame: Rayne, Jan, Pesky, Dave and the rest.

So we've made it this far - now get ready for the Terrible Twos!

10:34:46 AM

Emphasize This! []

Thursday, August 26, 2004

Roshomon Nation

Yesterday, I was in an email discussion with our old pal Duffy regarding the SwiftVet dustup. In the course of the debate, Duffy made an interesting observation: �Perhaps this is lesson in the slippery slope that is moral relativism.� While I�m not sure about the moral component, this is definitely an object lesson in ontological relativism � that is to say, the idea that reality itself is subject to constructed interpretation � which in my view is much more dangerous.

People can honestly disagree over right and wrong, or whether God exists or not, because those are ideas beyond the physical plane and it�s hard to find concrete evidence one way or the other. It�s another matter entirely to dispute the objective truth of science, mathematics or history. At a certain point, you don�t have conflicting �versions� of a fact or event � you have the fact which is true upon observation, and any alternate telling of it, which is false to a greater or lesser degree, depending entirely on the evidence. Our perceptions may vary, but, unless you are a hardcore mystic or talking about sub-atomic particles, the properties of the physical world and the events that transpire in it are not a matter of opinion.

In certain cases, there is doubt or ambiguity about historical fact. There are plenty of events in the misty past where dispute over motivation, agency or simple matters of fact are impossible to resolve conclusively because the evidence doesn�t exist. In our own time, we seem to have the opposite problem: too much evidence. This, combined with postmodern philosophical modes of analysis that impute subjectivity to every intellectual process, can give the disorienting impression that reality itself is up for grabs. But really, it isn�t.

One can always construct curious cases where subjectivity is appropriate. �Roshomon,� the 1952 film by Japanese director Akira Kurosawa, famously depicts an incident from four different points of view, without coming to any conclusions about which interpretation is correct. But such cases should be the exception, not the rule. Traditionally, we have applied certain common-sense guides to conflicting accounts of events in order to render a clear verdict on historical truth. Among the basic rules:

Assertions which are demonstrably false (contrary to established facts) must be discounted.
Actions which appear to be illogical or unmotivated require further explanation before being accepted at face value.
Accounts corroborated by documentary evidence are better than claims made with no supporting documents.
The more credible witnesses who provide direct testimony to an event, the more likely it is true
Eyewitness accounts trump accounts of witnesses farther from the action.
Witnesses who have stuck to a consistent account and interpretation are more trustworthy than those who change their stories.
Witnesses who have no conflicts of interest are more trustworthy than those who have demonstrable ulterior motives.
Witnesses with a record of lying and distorting on other matters must be suspected of lying about the matter in question.
Unaided or unsolicited testimony is more credible than stories that are coaxed, coerced or lead out of a witness.
Simple, plausible explanations are more likely to be true than complicated conspiracy theories

If we applied those tests to the latest set of conflicting accounts over John Kerry�s military service, for example, we would find conflicts of interest on both sides (the Swifties might lie because they hate Kerry, Kerry might lie to make himself look better in the election), and certain small inconsistencies that can be attributed to honest gaps in recollection. But on every other count, Kerry�s account is consistent with the standards for historical truth, while that of his accusers is riddled with shortcomings that tend to discredit it. To believe the accusers, you have to explain away an enormous number of discrepancies and contradictions, ignore mounds of unimpeachably credible testimony on Kerry�s behalf, and utterly neglect the well-established pattern of deceptive behavior of the sponsors of the SwiftVet group, namely Rove and Bush.

And yet, millions of Americans including some highly-educated people in the media refuse to make the simplest of judgments. Some of the true-believers � probably most at this point � are blinded by partisanship. The SwiftVet story is consistent with their internal narrative of �Bush=heroic, Kerry=soft, liberal wimp,� and defuses the cognitive dissonance engendered by the possibility that Kerry might have, at core, more character and moral courage than the Leader in whose archetypal masculinity they have such an enormous emotional investment. It�s simply easier to believe the Swifties, despite all the blatant problems with their story, than accept the idea of Kerry as someone who did the right thing without some kind of larger sinister agenda.

But others seem uneasy with the very act of making a choice. Maybe they agree with Bob Dole, who speculated that, when there�s that much talk, some of it must be true. Or, perhaps, like the OJ jury, they mistake the possibility of an alternative interpretation of obvious facts, posed by people with a vested interest in influencing them toward a particular outcome, as a story with an equal claim to the truth. By this weird inversion of logic, since there might be an alternative explanation, then the alternative explanation must be true.

Yes, it�s good to keep an open mind. But once the evidence is in, there�s nothing wrong with applying the powers of observation, the wisdom of experience, and plain common sense to make a determination. Kerry and the SwiftVets can�t both be right about the facts in dispute; Bush and his critics can�t both be right about the circumstances under which he left the National Guard in 1972 (and there, as with Kerry, the burden is on those who would challenge the documentary record, the parts of which we�ve seen support Bush). Both Bush and Kerry are entitled to their reputations, without a vague cloud of �questions� surrounding events whose accuracy can be established by preponderance of evidence.

Making determinations about truth and falsehood is one of the great powers of the human mind, and over the years, we�ve established some very good rules of evidence to guide us in our judgments. If we as a society become reluctant, or, worse, unable, to separate one from the other, we not only lose our moral compass but also our intellectual one.

8:54:27 AM

Emphasize This! []

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

Where Have All the Flowers Gone

Now that the SwiftVet�s lies are starting to stink like roadkill left out in the sun, the defenders of this pack of sleazy hatchet men are left with one final shred of an excuse to explain their campaign of slander. �Whether or not it�s true, Kerry had it coming because of what he said in �71.� This, of course, refers to Kerry�s Senate Testimony and his activities as spokesman for Veterans Against the War, which, it is claimed, dragged the good name of American soldiers through the mud.

Maybe it�s hard to imagine in the light of today�s unified cultural field of flag-waving, yellow ribbon-tying, support-the-troops frenzy, but in 1971, Vietnam was wildly unpopular. Something like 65% of Americans opposed our continued involvement there. Even Nixon was talking about �peace with honor,� not victory.

1971 was not 1967. Opposition to the war was not limited to a bunch of hippies. It was abundantly clear by this time that America had made a ghastly mistake getting involved in the first place, that there was no hope for the corrupt and autocratic SVN government (by then an outright military dictatorship without a shred of domestic legitimacy), and that there was no scenario that could be construed as a military victory for US troops. By this time, a steady stream of veterans had been returning with harrowing, nightmarish stories and ugly scars, both physical and emotional. Atrocities like My Lai had been reported in the press; there was growing suspicion that America was widening the war into Cambodia and Laos; military and political leadership was almost entirely discredited.

In short, anyone who continued to support US efforts in Vietnam in 1971 was a in a deep, deep state of denial. Sure, there was a lot of anger. Most of it was sensibly directed at the leadership: Johnson, Nixon, McNamara, Westmorland and the other architects of the failed policy, whose pride and ego had caused and then perpetuated a national catastrophe. But it wasn�t all that simple.

America wasn�t used to losing wars. A huge number of men in their 40s and 50s had fought struggles every bit as brutal as Vietnam and had returned home triumphant (or, in the case of Korea, at least not in defeat). What was wrong with kids today? Then there was the alarming matter that the protesters had been right all along. What seemed at first to be a motley rabble motivated in equal parts by hard-core Left wing ideology and physical cowardice (middle class white suburban kids afraid to serve their country) had indeed been the first to understand that Vietnam was not just bad policy, but a fundamentally unwinnable situation for America. To this day, many still refuse to admit this, and have, through psychological alchemy, transferred responsibility for America�s defeat in Vietnam from the policymakers to the protesters. However, this phenomenon is more pronounced in the current day than it was back then, when American lives were still on the line.

In 1971, America still had hundreds of thousands of troops in Southeast Asia, fighting and dying to support a spectacularly failed policy. The sane course of action was to bring them home as quickly as possible.

Enter John Kerry, an articulate and charismatic young man who had volunteered for dangerous duty in Vietnam and served with enormous distinction. No one could call him a coward back then � not even John O�Neill. He had been a good American and done his duty; now he was being a good American by speaking out. Unlike other critics of the war, Kerry was singularly hard to discredit, and he scared the hell out of Nixon, who put him on the famous �enemies list.�

Kerry knew first-hand what happened in Vietnam, and, with the credibility of his own experience, earned the trust of other vets who were eager to unburden themselves of the terrible events they had witnessed or, in some cases, participated in. Here�s what he said:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. [emphasis added]

By this time, the cruelties of combat situations in Vietnam were well-known to the public, and many people already blamed the soldiers for the way they conducted themselves. By airing all this in testimony before Congress, Kerry and the other vets hoped to place the blame where it belonged: on the political and military leadership who put brave American forces into a situation where atrocities were a logical extension of the tactical and strategic conflict.

This sense of betrayal is the main theme of Kerry�s testimony:

We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The Marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us� [emphasis added]

Today, with the so-called �lessons� of the Vietnam era behind us, we claim some greater sophistication in making the separation between the policies of war and the actions of our troops, who are just doing their job. Back then, America didn�t have the benefit of that example. Instead, the image was of the Nazis in the dock at Nuremburg, explaining the indefensible with the claim �I was just following orders.� Soldiers returning from Vietnam felt the weight of that moral responsibility, or had it imposed on them by an unholy coalition of self-righteous war critics and unscrupulous politicians eager to evade their own complicity in failure.

Vietnam was a stain, a splatter on the starched and pristine colors of Old Glory. By 1971, no one wanted anything to do with it, and only the men who were there, who couldn�t escape being implicated, were left holding the bag. John Kerry bravely stood up for these men, brandishing the stained colors for all to see, describing the ugliness of failure and betrayal in unseemly detail, and saying to the leaders and the country, �This is your failure, not just ours.�

It was the dirtiest of dirty jobs, but someone had to do it. People hated him for it then; some may hate it for him today. Confronting failure is not a task for the weak or the cowardly, or least of all for the thin-skinned patriots too insecure in their faith to accept a degree of ambiguity and complexity in their relationship with their country or their leaders.

Those who can�t get over their hatred for what Kerry did in 1971 are welcome to their bile and rage. They just need to know that hated for Kerry is not all they are expressing.

9:41:02 AM

Emphasize This! []

Monday, August 23, 2004

The Pros and Cons of Ratf*cking

Two of my favorite blogs, Corrente and Hullabaloo, engaged in an interesting if depressing dialogue on the current state of the Presidential campaign and what Democrats should do about it. Lambert at Corrente characterizes the current tactics of Bush/Cheney 04 as �ratfucking,� a charming term of Nixonian vintage, and recommends fighting fire with fire:

So I think voters have the right to look to Kerry to be strong on this, play tough, and call Republican tactics for what they are. (That's how to deal with bullies, yes?) Because if Kerry botches this, it's another self-inflicted wound. "More in sorrow than in anger" will be fine (I think Edwards would be just fine at that), a second Checkers speech would be fine, whatever: We can't let this go.

Kerry is a war hero, and if Kerry can't defend the facts of his own biography against the Republicans, why should voters trust him to defend the country against external enemies? Josh Marshall is right: (here) Don't whine; just win.

But we have to win this one, and we won't win it by changing the subject. We didn't start this one, but we will have to finish it. I'd love to talk about public policy and the issues�all the things that Bush won't talk about because he can't run on them�but, alas, the first real encounter battle of the campaign isn't being fought on that ground.

If Kerry wins, and lives, and is allowed to take office, the smears will continue, to make Democratic policies impossible to implement. (Oh, you thought the Republicans would meekly accept the election results? Silly.) The Republicans will try to do to Kerry exactly what they did to Clinton, using their by now very well-worn playbook. It's time to say "It stops here."

Digby, the hullaballist, concurs in Lambert�s general assessment of the situation but disagrees that Democrats are complicit in their predicament:

It's not because of self-inflicted wounds --- it's because we are dealing with a particular brand of thuggish assassin that is difficult to reconcile with democracy.

Clinton was being hounded about all kinds of trumped up garbage long before Monica came into the picture. He would have been tarred as the corrupt whitewater, Chinese espionage, Lincoln bedroom hippie whether he gave himself that "self-inflicted" blowjob or not. And he fought back like a champ but it doesn't matter when you are dealing with people who have no use for truth or reality. You don't have to actually do anything with these people. They'll just make shit up. Smear tactics, which are by definition untrue, are the most lethal tool in the character assassins' arsenal and the Republicans are worse than the Borgias when it comes to using them. [emphasis added]

He then goes on to speculate about a subject that has many of us concerned: to wit, what motivates these bastards? It�s not as simple as straight-up greed, sincere belief that they have the right answers, or a desire to do the right thing for the country. Rational goals, even ones tied to self-interest, tend toward rational debate. If you�re really fighting for something worth winning, it�s important to win in a fair fight so everyone knows you�ve won on the merits. It�s what legitimates your victory and gives you a mandate. Only the pursuit of pure power for its own sake justifies the kind of routine disregard for all institutional and ethical boundaries on debate and process that we�ve seen from Republicans since 1994.

This isn�t to say that the right wing doesn�t have an agenda. Quite the opposite � its objectives are clear (though not necessarily in this order, depending on who you ask):

Run the US government broke so it won�t bother corporations from doing business as they see fit.
Show foreigners who�s boss.
Establish the United States as an explicitly Christian country, run according to the lights of the most fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.
Silence anyone with political views to the left of Rudy Giuliani.

There are plenty of Americans who would agree to all of these points, exactly as formulated. Plenty, but not a majority. And in a democracy, you need to get near enough to a majority to put your guy in office, so running on the real agenda therefore isn�t an option for those who sincerely believe these four points constitute a good basis for running the country. Thus begins the ratfucking.

Dave Neiwert at Orcinus, writing on a different but related subject, characterizes the common tactics thusly:

McCarthyite railing against "communist" influences. Patriot-oriented conspiracy theories about a "New World Order" global government (with the Swift Boats Veterans material -- replete with its theories about Kerry's "long-term" plans to become president -- playing a starring role). Bizarre and divisive claims about the "homosexual agenda" and gun-control plots and "Green Nazis." Most of all, incessant attacks, both on Kerry's character along with otherworldly distortions of his actual political agenda, combined with larger attacks on "liberalism" as a disease in need of eradication.

All of this creates a poisonous environment where the visceral intensity of personal attacks and slanders makes it sound pedantic to discuss anything so tedious as the actual issues. Both observers and participants in the debate disengage from reasoned advocacy and go into a kind of beserker battle trance. Restraint goes out the window. It�s all about swinging the heaviest axe and splitting the skull of the opponent.

Digby argues, chillingly, that, on the Right, the pure lust for battle has supplanted even the lust for victory:

If Bush has proven anything, it's that we are in an era in which actual ideology and policy, even power --- even winning --- isn't the point to the Republicans. They are about the fight. It's the game, the argument, the battle. They get off on the political combat. For them, the action is the juice, win or lose. (And one of the reasons they've been so successful at co-opting the media is because the media thrives on the same juice.)

�I don't dispute that appeals to reason have been exhausted. And I don't say that Kerry shouldn't fight by any means necessary in this election. It's vitally important that we get institutional power out of their hands. (Indeed, many may secretly want us to. The fight is not as satisfying when you hold all the power and we have become quite adept at cleaning up their messes.)

But, blaming ourselves for the state of play or deluding ourselves into thinking it's just a matter of "being tough" is to misunderstand what we are facing. It's a primitive force with post-modern tools in its hands and we'd better start looking at this thing for what it is instead of seeing ourselves as simply inept. Winning won't change anything. As long as the fight continues, they are getting exactly what they want.

This is tough medicine for many of us who are fighting out of a desire to restore responsible governance to the country we love. We don�t want to ratfuck anyone � we want our ideas vindicated, and our candidates allowed to govern when they win. We�ve come reluctantly to the conclusion that winning ugly is better than losing, especially since losing to this bunch again puts us at existential risk. So it means picking up the axe, getting our hands dirty, and hoping in the face of the odds that, in the end, the spirit of decency is stronger than the negative pull of slander and violence.

8:35:41 AM

Emphasize This! []

Sunday, August 22, 2004

Give �em Enough Rope

�Combat Rock� was playing

And it had to be a folk song

Cause everyone knew the words.

-- Roger Manning

Although you�d think I�d know better, last night I went down to a local club to see a tribute show to the greatest rock band of all time, the Clash. It was sponsored by a group called No Vote Left Behind, dedicated, they say, to regime change in 2004. It was also the birthday party for a local DJ and there were lots of bands on the bill. Surely some of them might be worth a listen.

As it turns out, the evening was a testament to the songwriting power of the late and greatly lamented Joe Strummer and his bandmates. If the Clash catalog could survive interpretation by the lineup that turned up last night, it could survive anything. Of the eight bands we saw, one was worth hearing � a mostly-white rap group that did spirited hip-hop versions of �Train in Vain� and �Guns of Brixton.� As the Clash were one of the first white bands to embrace hip-hop in the very early 1980s (check out �Magnificent Seven� and �This is Radio Clash�), I�m sure they would have approved.

The remaining acts clearly spent too long in their parents� basements, or maybe not long enough. Apparently the bands didn�t coordinate their set lists, so there was a great deal of repetition. Does anyone need to hear four versions of �Brand New Cadillac,� a song the Clash didn�t even write? Also, get the memo: the Clash were a four-piece for a reason. Don�t try performing �White Man in Hammersmith Palais� as a trio unless your guitarist is named Bob Mould. I don�t care how good your bass player is.

Painful as it was to see the classics lined up and murdered, there was something interesting about the whole event. The Clash got started in 1976, nearly 30 years ago. That moment in rock history � the punk outbreak � is the clear line separating the antedeluvian world of Elvis, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones from the era we still live in. No matter how many years go by, the Clash, along with their immediate contemporaries (Elvis Costello, Talking Heads, Joe Jackson, etc.), remain irreducibly modern in ways that musicians from just a year or two before don�t. Even within that epoch, the Clash were uniquely accomplished, producing the definitive punk rock record (The Clash, their first), the monumental double-album set London Calling, and their misunderstood magnum opus, Sandinista, which laid out a precise blueprint for the next 20 years of musical history. Almost incidentally, they were the greatest white reggae band ever. Even the much-derided Combat Rock, from their decadent later period, is worth another listen. Every significant musical figure that followed, from REM to Bill Laswell, Nirvana to Radiohead, owes something to their influence.

Angry, smart and relentlessly cosmopolitan, the Clash set the standard for the modern rock-band persona. They were political, but usually in an oblique way that prevented their work from descending into the dated clichés of the �protest song� of the 60s. �White Riot� and �White Man in Hammersmith Palais� � two of their early rabble-rousing classics � were based on real incidents now long forgotten, but their relevance lives on because of the craft and passion Strummer and Jones put into their creation and performance. �If Adolph Hitler were here today/ they�d send along the limos anyway� is an observation that defies time and place. If anything, the celebrity-obsessed culture it is commenting on has become even more pathological than when the words were first penned.

As such, they are, for better or worse, uniquely well-suited to events like last night, where the agenda is specifically political. Everyone between 25 and 45 years old with a political consciousness knows when and where they were when they first heard �London Calling,� and can sing along to the often-incomprehensible lyrics of �Safe European Home� or �Spanish Bombs.� Unlike, say, Bruce Springsteen, the Clash are cool enough to give image-cover to hipsters, punks, skaters, Seattle scenesters, graying Gen-Xers, hippies, gangstas and dreadlocked stoners. Unlike Bob Dylan, whose hoary current-day incarnation still walks the earth to compete with his eternally-young and transcendently-relevant 1960s persona, the Clash have gone over the great water into the mists of fondly-remembered history (especially if you end that history in 1982, forgetting the final ugly album and tour). Joe Strummer, taken from us too soon just before Christmas in 2002, provides the essential martyr element.

So, in a dynamic that seems as improbable as inevitable, the Clash have become folkloric. Like Woody Guthrie, the Depression-era troubadour whose work was rediscovered by the 1960s protest kids (most prominently the aforementioned Mr. Dylan), the Clash have found an afterlife as totems for progressive politics, 25 years after the fact. Think about that: in 1980, at the Clash�s creative peak, 25 years ago was 1955. Nothing from that era, with the possible exception of the Beat Generation writers like William S. Burroughs, could conceivably have relevance to the present day.

And yet now, the world the Clash described so brilliantly in their work seems to still be with us. A lesbian punk band in 2004 could rip through the 28 year-old anthem �I�m So Bored with the USA� and make it sound like it was written about the November election. �All the Young Punks (New Boots and Contracts)� was trotted out in service of a get-out-the-vote message. �Straight to Hell� sounded like commentary on the current obsession with the Vietnam era. Interestingly, no one performed the Clash�s most enduringly-relevant political song, �Washington Bullets,� which remains one of the most trenchant observations on the complex dynamic between colonialism, terrorism and political oppression. If you can find an Afghan rebel who the Moscow bullets missed/ ask him what he thinks of voting Communist.

Just as well. Even the Clash had trouble performing that one live, and given the caliber of the performances last night, it probably would have sucked beyond the telling of it. But hey, the spirit would have been right.

12:33:15 PM

Emphasize This! []

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

The Big Question

Reaganite Dick Wirthlin raises an interesting point on today�s New York Times Op-Ed page, suggesting that Kerry may be planning to use Ronald Reagan�s famous question from 1980 � �Are you better off today than you were four years ago?� � to devastating effect against George W. Bush. Wirthlin argues, rather unconvincingly in my estimation, that Bush should (and, more problematically, can) �inoculate himself in a venue widely viewed by voters, at a time of his own choosing.�

Easier said than done. The problem with the Big Question is that is has so many nasty dimensions. �Better off� is vague, but consider this:

Do you feel safer than you were four years ago?
Is your financial position as good as it was four years ago?
Do you feel as good about your job and your prospects as you did four years ago?
Are your kids getting a better education than they were four years ago?
Is your health care coverage better than it was four years ago?
Is the environment cleaner? Big corporations more responsible?

By practically any measure, the quality of life for average Americans has declined. Needless to say, not all of this is Bush�s fault. Of course, many of the problems of the late 70s weren�t Jimmy Carter�s fault either, but he, like Bush, could plausibly be accused of not doing all he could to fix them, or simply not having the right approach and mindset to do what was necessary. For better or worse, when our elections turn on �issues� rather than sideshow personal attacks, this is how people judge.

I have been waiting all spring and summer for Kerry to start asking these questions in precisely this way. It�s the classic challenger strategy when things are bad, and it forces Bush to explain and make excuses (as he has been doing on the economy since 2002), stripping him of some of the advantages of incumbency. And frankly, some of the questions have no good answers for Bush. Wirthlin can pontificate about rhetorical tactics, but that doesn�t solve the substantive problem.

So far, the stock Republican answer to all attempts to make unfavorable comparisons of the present with the go-go 90s is that �9/11 changed everything.� There are three main problems with this.

It�s only partially true. The attack was probably beyond anyone�s control, but our response to it has been driven by political imperatives far more than by prudent policy. There is plenty of room to disagree about the effectiveness of our response and the success (or lack thereof) Bush has had in mitigating the economic repercussions three years after the event.
It�s getting old. Republicans have been using this line since 9/12, and it has lost meaning in repetition, especially when it is used in such absurd contexts as trying to justify the ban on importing cheaper drugs from Canada.
Most damagingly, like most hard realities, it�s pessimistic. 9/11 was terrifying. It�s human nature to want to put that behind us, go on with life as usual, even if that�s not a sensible option. Republicans often win by making appeals to irrational aspirations, suggesting utopian benefits to crackpot ideas like doing away with the IRS, mandating prayer in public schools, or privatizing social security. The tactic is to make opponents look like dreary defenders of the status quo, lacking vision and imagination. A great many people want to buy into the fantasy and reject the harder reality, despite the inevitable consequences. By harping on 9/11 as the justification for everything from police-state legislation to irrelevant wars to abortion (as Alan Keyes recently suggested), the GOP is taking the role of the dour realist, nagging and scolding the public not to forget difficult lessons, leaving Kerry and the Democrats an opening to implicitly promise to heal the pain of 9/11 rather than continuing to wallow in it.

Wirthlin is right. Bush has a problem. America is less prosperous, less safe, less clean, less free and diminished in the eyes of the world, and these things happened on Bush�s watch. If Kerry doesn�t start asking the question, someone damn well should.

10:24:48 AM

Emphasize This! []

Tuesday, August 17, 2004

The Ownership Myth

Lately, one of the themes of the Bush campaign has been the �ownership society� � the idea that it�s good policy to get Americans to own a piece of the rock so that they have a greater stake in, well, something. It�s a good theme. After all, who could object to the idea that it�s better to own than rent, better to draw interest than pay interest, better to clip coupons than cash a paycheck? I�m here to tell you, when you have your own business, work your own hours, make plenty of money, and have your name on the deed of a nice cozy pad in a cool urban neighborhood, life is good. So long as the phone keeps ringing, of course.

You know what else are good? Bicycles. They�re cheap, they�re clean, they run on power you provide with your own legs (no Saudis in sight), they�re easy to park, portable, easy to fix, great for traffic and lots of fun. If everyone rode bicycles, there�d be hardly any traffic problems, cleaner air, a fitter and healthier population, no oil crisis, etc. etc. Hell, it would solve everything: that�s why I�m running on the platform of the �Bicycle Society.�

But wait, what�s that? You�re too old or out of shape to ride a bike? You think it�s dangerous? It�s inconvenient to carry groceries, or go too far, or ride in bad weather, or up hills? What kind of wimpy whiner are you? I�m sorry, in the Bicycle Society, it�s the tough who survive. If you�re too timid or weak to take advantage of the manifest benefits of bike riding� well, you can always go into bicycle repair, or sell lemonade at the side of the road, or do any of the various menial and low-paid support services bike riders need.

Let�s face it: the ownership society is great, but it�s not for everyone. I�m an extreme case. I�ve been working for myself since I was 24 years old, pay my own health insurance, save for my own retirement in a SEP-IRA. I file tax returns in four-volume bound sets. I�ve had bad years and good. Two years ago, I lost my two largest clients, accounting for over 85% of my income, at the same time. If I had kids or a more expensive mortgage, I would have given serious thought to a different line of work a long time ago.

I�m lucky. Because I�m temperamentally unsuited to work in large organizations for any length of time, I really had no choice but to take the road less traveled. Fortunately, I found something I�m good at and got some traction before practicalities and commitments dragged me under. I survive because I am utterly paranoid and take nothing for granted about my future prospects. I have known more than a few men in my life who were flying high at my age (really high, like sub-orbital), only to face complete and total reversals later in life, when they were too old and dug-in to do anything about it. It�s sad, and it scares the shit out of me.

Rugged individualism is great when you�re healthy, you�re hot and your luck holds. People ask me, given my lifestyle and background, why I�m not more of an economic conservative or libertarian. It�s precisely because I ride so close to the edge of the cliff that I�m so keen to make sure there�s something soft at the bottom. Do I accept responsibility for my health care, my retirement, my financial stability? Of course. But even when you�re responsible and hands-on, you don�t control everything. I�m good at the stuff I�m good at, but on everything else, I need help and I don�t see the big deal about asking for it.

The Ownership Society looks really good to the people who aren�t in it, or who never worry about bad luck because they�re so well provided-for that it doesn�t matter. But ownership comes with risk, and lots of it. What do you say to the worker who invested their privately-managed retirement plan unwisely and ends up with little savings in old age? Tough luck?

I�m sorry, I don�t see the value in forcing responsibility on people who are not competent to handle it, or who don�t want it. Our goal as a community shouldn�t be to make life harder than it already is. That�s tough-guy bullshit, the product of frustration and impotence. A civilized society accepts certain burdens collectively, looks for ways to reduce the stress and uncertainty on families and individuals, trades off a little efficiency for comfort and convenience.

Ownership is a great and good thing, healthy for many people and for society. Everyone who wants to participate in it should be encouraged and supported, just as drivers make room for bicycles on the roads. But by itself, it�s not an answer. It�s just a different set of questions.

9:50:00 AM

Emphasize This! []

Monday, August 16, 2004

Soak the Poor

At the end of last week, we received the simply shocking news, via a report from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, that Bush�s tax cuts benefit the wealthy far more than the middle class. According to this story from the Seattle PI, �Fully one-third of President Bush's tax cuts in the last three years have gone to people with the top 1 percent of income, who have earned an average of $1.2 million annually.� Furthermore, financial problems and budget cuts at the State level have resulted in higher taxes � mostly sales and other regressive taxes � that fall disproportionately on people at the lower end of the income bracket. Imagine that!

Needless to say, this was no secret to people on either side of the policy debate. The more-or-less official goal of Republican tax policy is to transfer the tax burden from unearned to earned income � that is, from the people who pay things like the capital gains tax and the inheritance tax, which affect only the very highest income individuals, to people who derive most of their income from salary and wages, primarily the middle- and working-class. This program is driven by a mixture of ideological enthusiasm for the most unforgiving free-market economic theory and pure greed of the �I got mine, sod you Jack� variety, and is embraced in its fullest dimensions only by a handful of very vocal extremists in places like the Club for Growth and the editorial page of the Wall Street Urinal.

Seen in its very best light, the goal of this policy is to unshackle the free market to drive innovation, economic growth and resource allocation with the highest degree of efficiency, and to align economic incentives (e.g. wealth) with the willingness to take risks, meet demand and adapt quickly to changing conditions. According to the theory, any time government intervenes in this process by imposing taxes (including tax incentives) or regulations, the efficiency of the market suffers and resources are misallocated, with all kinds of terrible consequences.

In the 19^th century, the United States and Great Britain embraced these policies (known then as �liberal�) to a great extent, and indeed enjoyed a huge surge in industrial development, economic productivity, technological progress and other measures of national strength, including military. However, it became clear by the beginning of the 20^th century that free market capitalism, whatever its considerable advantages, also brought with it some unfortunate consequences, including environmental degradation, huge disparities in wealth and social inequality, miserable working conditions, and a treacherous climate for consumers. And while the benefits of capitalism began to accrue more and more conspicuously to a smaller and smaller segment of the population, the consequences generated misery for enormous numbers of people, who despite their hard work and drive to get ahead, found it nearly impossible to advance faster than conditions could hold them down.

Inevitably, people began looking for solutions to the problems caused by capitalism. Some, like the Progressive reforms of the early 20^th century, tried to fix the problems of the system without changing the basic workings of the system itself, through things like workplace standards, child labor laws, collective bargaining, minimum wage, overtime, product health and safety standards, fair advertising laws, and other reforms. These not only mitigated many of the worst problems of the market system, but also blunted the appeal of far more radical solutions such as Marxism and socialism.

It is the accepted historical view that the Progressives of the 1900s-10s and their successors in the 1930s and 40s wanted to reform capitalism out of a belief in the overall benefits of a market system (albeit a regulated one), in order to save it from the more destructive radicalism of the Marxists. This is an important point, as many conservatives knowingly or unknowingly confuse Progressives and Socialists, as if both were enemies of the free market in equal measure. While it is good propaganda for the Right to associate reformers with the manifest abuses of 20^th century Communism, that view is both historically inaccurate and offensive to the legitimate aspirations of the American Progressive movement, both in the past and the present. Amazingly, this error persists to the present day.

In any case, the Progressive reforms were undeniably successful and popular, humane and productive. By ameliorating the worst conditions at the bottom of the economic system, regulated capitalism helped legitimate the greater rewards enjoyed by those at the top. Business, innovation, trade and commerce boomed, because Progressive reforms helped shore up the confidence and buying power of workers and consumers. Progressive taxation via the income tax (adopted during the 1910s) and the growth of government-funded social services tied the interests of the capitalist class to the well-being of the rest of the community, and enforced the idea that economic rewards entail responsibilities as well as luxury and power. Free market capitalism, for all its considerable virtues, lacks this ingredient of social responsibility, which is as important to human culture as economic prosperity. Societies that have one without the other diminish human potential. Only by keeping the two in balance can we achieve material progress with justice and dignity.

Unfortunately, some at the top of the economic ladder see their greater obligations as unfair, and constantly agitate to reduce their participation in the public institutions that make possible their continued prosperity and security. This short-sightedness, driven by greed or a misplaced sense of victimhood, draws such people into support of preposterous extreme ideologies such as economic libertarianism, which seems to seek a return to the pre-Progressive era of robber barons and sweat shops.

One would think that in a democracy, the appeal of a system that benefits everyone to a greater or lesser extent would outpoll the naked self-interest of a fortunate few. However, the far Right has hit on a successful formula known in the advertising business as �aspirational marketing� � that is, sell to people based on who they want to be, rather than who they are. In this case, right-wing fatcats have encountered far greater success by getting people to support a tax structure for rich people that you would want if you were rich, as opposed to one that you would want if you were middle-class or working-class, despite the fact that most people are, in fact, middle-class or working-class.

One has to admire the sheer political craft of this approach, which has smoked the �New Deal/Great Society� brand for the past 25 years. Unfortunately, economy policy that is based on encouraging mass delusion on the part of millions of hope-to-be-but-never-will-be millionaires is not the recipe for social stability or sustainable quality of life.

It�s no surprise that the Bush tax cuts benefit the wealthy, are exacerbating economic inequality, and have led to a sluggish jobless recovery while corporate profits are booming. That�s no mistake: they�re working as intended, and their supporters have to live with the occasionally embarrassing consequences. What remains to be seen is whether the majority of Americans can stop identifying unrealistically with the goals and aspirations of a prohibitively-wealthy and shamefully cynical economic elite long enough to reject policies that drive up their own taxes while draining away their quality of life.

12:33:37 PM

Emphasize This! []

Friday, August 13, 2004

Victory for Iraq

The best news for Iraq in several years came not on the battlefield, but on the soccer field, as the ragtag Iraqi national team stunned powerhouse Portugal 4-2 in the opening game of the Olympics tournament. It may not be peace and security, or electricity, or any real progress toward stability and freedom, but it's hard to imagine a bigger lift to the spirits of the country than unexpected heroics at the international games. Go Iraq!

Thanks to Jan for the link.

9:51:37 AM

Emphasize This! []

Thursday, August 12, 2004

Because It's There

No EA today. I'm off to climb Mt. Pilchuck, in a rare concession to the fact that I live in one of the most scenic and beautiful places on Earth, even (or perhaps especially) when you get past the city limits. Wish me luck. At my current rate of use, my hiking boots will wear out by about 2025.

In the meantime, Real Art has posted a response to my education post from last week, as well as some thoughts of his own. Corrente also has a nice object lesson in why I'm not keen on the idea of charter schools.

8:23:57 AM

Emphasize This! []