Cut Egypt Off. By Joseph Raskas. National Review Online, February 7, 2013.
Why Is Obama Arming Enemies? By Michael Rubin. Commentary, February 5, 2013.
Raskas:
Since
1979, when Egypt struck a peace treaty with Israel following the Camp David
accords, the U.S. has provided Egypt with approximately $2 billion of foreign
assistance each year. This aid was purposed to promote short-term U.S.
interests, such as regional stability, and long-term goals, such as promoting
human rights and democracy in Egypt.
During
the Mubarak era, this aid included up to $1.3 billion in military assistance
each year, and copious amounts of economic aid. In the wake of Mubarak’s ouster
and the subsequent rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the country, Congress
passed legislation that prevents the Obama administration from distributing
military aid to Egypt unless the State Department can independently verify that
Egypt is taking concrete steps toward democracy. Their definition of such
steps: Egypt must abide by its 1979 peace treaty with Israel, support “the
transition to civilian government including holding free and fair elections,”
and enact policies that protect “freedom of speech, association and religion
and due process of law.” However, according to a senior Obama-administration
official, there is no way to certify that all conditions are being met, so
they’ve been ignored.
Egypt’s
new president, Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, has turned Egypt into a
bastion of authoritarian rule. Since his rise to power last June, Morsi has
orchestrated a constitution based on sharia law, usurped the supreme court’s
constitutional power of judicial review, silenced media critics, and allegedly
ordered both the killing and jailing of political dissidents. Moreover, Morsi
has incited hatred toward Egypt’s Coptic minority, expressed doubt about
maintaining the peace treaty with Israel, supported terrorist organizations
such as Hamas, and pledged to work for the release of the Blind Sheikh, Omar
Abdel-Rahman, a militant Islamist preacher imprisoned by the U.S. for planning
the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. When Morsi was exposed by the Middle East
Media Research Institute for calling Jewish people “descendants of apes and
pigs,” Morsi’s response was farcical: My words, he said, were distorted by the
Jews who control the American media.
Meanwhile,
Egypt is teetering on the brink of financial collapse. In the fall of 2012,
President Obama informed Congress that the U.S. would provide Egypt with $450
million in immediate aid to stave off a fiscal disaster. Senator John McCain
noted that a delay in foreign aid was liable to “contribute to the chaos that
may ensue because of their collapsing economy.” But financial woes make Morsi
susceptible to American demands, so President Obama should use Egypt’s
desperate situation as leverage to insist on true democratic reforms.
Congress
should implement legislation that makes economic aid to Egypt’s new government
contingent upon the precise conditions it previously applied to military aid —
abiding by the peace treaty with Israel and supporting policies that promote
democracy and human rights. Absent these changes and independent confirmation
of them by the State Department, economic aid should be withdrawn.
Military
aid should also be rescinded until the conditions already set out by Congress
have been met. President Obama recently promised to send 16 F-16 fighter jets
and 200 M1A1 Abrams tanks to Egypt before the end of the year. This harms U.S.
interests rather than advancing them — Morsi is likely to point the F-16s
toward Israel and the Abrams tanks toward Tahrir Square.
The
American people certainly support rethinking our relationship with Egypt.
According to a poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes,
42 percent of Americans think aid to Egypt should be reduced and 29 percent
think it should be cut off entirely. A super-majority of Americans — 71 percent
— believe that U.S. foreign aid to Egypt is a flawed policy prescription.
The
Egyptian people, too, reject the notion of being dependent upon American aid.
Indeed, according to a Gallup poll, more than eight out of ten Egyptians oppose
receiving foreign aid from the United States.
On
Tuesday, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Egypt, marking the
first visit by an Iranian leader in more than three decades. A red-carpet
welcome would have been unthinkable under Mubarak.
The
U.S. seeks a democratic Egypt, a country that is a bulwark of peace and
stability in the region. Until Cairo supports these vital American interests,
it is morally irresponsible to use U.S. taxpayer money to fund or arm the
Egyptian government.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
The Demonization of the Iraq War Ensures No Syria Intervention. By Jim Geraghty.
The Demonization of the Iraq War Ensures No Syria Intervention. By Jim Geraghty. National Review Online, February 7, 2013.
Intervene in Syria. By Roger Cohen. New York Times, February 4, 2013.
Syria Is Not Iraq. By Shadi Hamid. The Atlantic, February 4, 2013.
Hamid:
Lastly, it is worth thinking about what this means for future instances of mass slaughter. With the Libya intervention, there was hope that a post-Arab Spring precedent would be set – that whenever pro-democracy protesters were threatened with massacre, the U.S. and its allies would take the “responsibility to protect” seriously and consider intervention as a legitimate option. But, nearly two years later, what we didn’t do in Syria is more relevant than what we did do in Libya.
If I sound defeatist, then it is likely because I am. It is worth speaking frankly, and, unfortunately, this probably requires speaking in the past tense. For Syria, it is likely too late. Notwithstanding something sudden and entirely unexpected, the international community will not intervene. That does not mean that the Syrian people are doomed. They will likely “win” in the end, but their victory, if we can even call it that, will have come at a much greater cost – in the sheer number killed – than was necessary. It will have come at the cost of a country destroyed, of sects polarized beyond any hope of reconciliation, of Salafis and Jihadists ascendant, of a state too torn and divided for real governance. As has been reported elsewhere, the Syrian opposition feels that it has been not just forgotten, but, worse, betrayed. They are unlikely to forget this anytime soon. Anti-Americanism, a given among regime supporters, has slowly taken root among the opposition as well. The Syrian protest movement’s Friday theme for October 19, 2012 was “America, has your spite not been sated by our blood?” In due time, the Obama administration's inability or unwillingness to act may be remembered as one of the great strategic and moral blunders of recent decades. Hoping to atone for our sins in Iraq, we have overlearned the lessons of the last war. I only wish it wasn’t too late.
Intervene in Syria. By Roger Cohen. New York Times, February 4, 2013.
Syria Is Not Iraq. By Shadi Hamid. The Atlantic, February 4, 2013.
Hamid:
Lastly, it is worth thinking about what this means for future instances of mass slaughter. With the Libya intervention, there was hope that a post-Arab Spring precedent would be set – that whenever pro-democracy protesters were threatened with massacre, the U.S. and its allies would take the “responsibility to protect” seriously and consider intervention as a legitimate option. But, nearly two years later, what we didn’t do in Syria is more relevant than what we did do in Libya.
If I sound defeatist, then it is likely because I am. It is worth speaking frankly, and, unfortunately, this probably requires speaking in the past tense. For Syria, it is likely too late. Notwithstanding something sudden and entirely unexpected, the international community will not intervene. That does not mean that the Syrian people are doomed. They will likely “win” in the end, but their victory, if we can even call it that, will have come at a much greater cost – in the sheer number killed – than was necessary. It will have come at the cost of a country destroyed, of sects polarized beyond any hope of reconciliation, of Salafis and Jihadists ascendant, of a state too torn and divided for real governance. As has been reported elsewhere, the Syrian opposition feels that it has been not just forgotten, but, worse, betrayed. They are unlikely to forget this anytime soon. Anti-Americanism, a given among regime supporters, has slowly taken root among the opposition as well. The Syrian protest movement’s Friday theme for October 19, 2012 was “America, has your spite not been sated by our blood?” In due time, the Obama administration's inability or unwillingness to act may be remembered as one of the great strategic and moral blunders of recent decades. Hoping to atone for our sins in Iraq, we have overlearned the lessons of the last war. I only wish it wasn’t too late.
Movement Conservatives and Tea Partiers Rise Up Against Rove. By Garance Franke-Ruta.
Movement Conservatives and Tea Partiers Rise Up Against Rove. By Garance Franke-Ruta. The Atlantic, February 7, 2013.
Suspected L.A. Cop Killer Christopher Dorner Posted Pro-Obama, Pro-Gun Control, Leftist Rant on the Web.
Suspected L.A. Cop Killer Christopher Dorner Posted Pro-Obama, Pro-Gun Control, Leftist Rant on the Web. By Bryan Preston. PJ Media, February 7, 2013.
Suspected Mass-Murderer’s Manifesto Endorses Hillary, Obama, Gun Control, Elite Media. By John Nolte. Breitbart, February 7, 2013.
News Media Scrub Cop Murderer’s Manifesto of Pro-Obama, Hillary, MSNBC, CNN, Gay, and Anti-Gun Comments. SooperMexican, February 7, 2013.
Christopher Dorner’s Manifesto. Crime, Guns and Videotape, February 6, 2013.
Suspected Mass-Murderer’s Manifesto Endorses Hillary, Obama, Gun Control, Elite Media. By John Nolte. Breitbart, February 7, 2013.
News Media Scrub Cop Murderer’s Manifesto of Pro-Obama, Hillary, MSNBC, CNN, Gay, and Anti-Gun Comments. SooperMexican, February 7, 2013.
Christopher Dorner’s Manifesto. Crime, Guns and Videotape, February 6, 2013.
A New GOP? Not Yet. By Michael Tomasky.
A New GOP? Not Yet. By Michael Tomasky. The Daily Beast, February 7, 2013.
Tomasky:
The Rove–Tea Party feud is a joyous thing to watch. Rove, after an utterly disastrous run around the track in 2012, is now suckering people into writing him checks for a new outfit that will allegedly hold the zanies at bay, filter out the Sharron Angles and Richard Mourdocks of the world, and promote electable conservatives.
First of all, I hardly have the words to describe how happy this makes me, after decades of watching conservatives chortle about unelectable Democrats. And second and more to the point, rather than freezing out challengers from the far, far right as intended, this seems almost certain to invite them. There’s nothing those people love more than the idea that everyone, even their own party’s establishment, is against them. And conservative voters will vote for that.
This is the Republican problem. The basic organizing principle of Republican campaigns for 40 years now has been: they are coming. They’ve mixed in a little positive stuff. Ronald Reagan did that well, Bush Sr. had his thousand points of light, Bush Jr. his ownership society. But fundamentally Republicans have won elections by telling the white majority that “they” are coming after your money and status and privilege. I was surprised to read in Tom Edsall’s latest column, although I should not have been, that the GOP has won the white vote in every election except one going back not to 1980 or 1968, but 1952 (the exception was LBJ’s ’64 landslide).
Now, Cantor, Rove, and Rubio—sweet reason itself on immigration, or so he tries to be—are signaling in their different ways that it’s time to stop playing resentment politics. But they have a base that’s seething with resentments, resentments they themselves, Rove in particular, built and nursed going back to Goldwater’s time. You can’t just undo something like that in one election cycle.
What’s coming, therefore, seems pretty obvious. A grand civil war between the rebranders and the dead-enders. The latter will run candidates against the former for Senate and House races in 2014. Those outcomes will be pivotal in setting a tone for 2016. If the rebranders win a majority of races, including the two or three the media eventually identify as somehow symbolic, then maybe they will have the momentum heading into the presidential election and will be able to get the party to coalesce around an electable candidate. (By the way: If this is supposed to be Rubio, let us pause briefly and note that Rubio is on most issues a far-right-wing politician and is almost surely unelectable, provided the Democratic campaign isn’t completely idiotic. If it’s supposed to be Chris Christie, that’s perhaps—perhaps—another matter.)
But if the dead-enders prevail, or pull a draw?
I think the Republican Party right now is like an alcoholic who hasn’t yet hit rock bottom. He’s not fooling anyone anymore. Everyone’s on to him. But he’s still holding on to his job by a thread, his wife hasn’t yet taken the kids and walked out on him, the cops don’t happen yet to have been there as he swerved his way home from his usual bar. He can still, in other words, kid himself. Disaster hasn’t struck yet.
In this case, disaster would be losing to Hillary Clinton three years from now. I believe that’s what it will probably take to sober the Republicans up; most especially to sober up the base—to make rank-and-file conservatives realize that the age of victory via resentment is gone. That middle Americans who once identified with their grudges are now over them and sick to death of hearing about them. Cosmetic rebranding can’t fix this.
The Persistence of Racial Resentment. By Thomas B. Edsall. New York Times, February 6, 2013.
Edsall:
What are we to make of these developments? Is the country more or less racist? How can the percentage of people holding anti-black attitudes have increased from 2006 to 2008 at a time when Obama performed better among white voters than the two previous white Democratic nominees, and then again from 2008 to 2012 when Obama won a second term?
In fact, the shifts described by Tesler and Pasek are an integral aspect of the intensifying conservatism within the right wing of the Republican Party. Many voters voicing stronger anti-black affect were already Republican. Thus, in 2012, shifts in their attitudes, while they contributed to a 4 percentage point reduction in Obama’s white support, did not result in a Romney victory.
Some Republican strategists believe the party’s deepening conservatism is scaring away voters.
“We have a choice: we can become a shrinking regional party of middle-aged and older white men, or we can fight to become a national governing party,” John Weaver, a consultant to the 2008 McCain campaign, said after Obama’s re-election. Mark McKinnon, an adviser to former President George W. Bush, made a similar point: “The party needs more tolerance, more diversity and a deeper appreciation for the concerns of the middle class.”
Not only is the right risking marginalization as its views on race have become more extreme, it is veering out of the mainstream on contraception and abortion, positions that fueled an 11 point gender gap in 2012 and a 13 point gap in 2008.
Given that a majority of the electorate will remain white for a number of years, the hurdle that the Republican Party faces is building the party’s white margins by 2 to 3 points. For Romney to have won, he needed 62 percent of the white vote, not the 59 percent he got.
Working directly against this goal is what Time Magazine recently described as the Republican “brand identity that has emerged from the stars of the conservative media ecosystem: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and others.”
It is not so much Latino and black voters that the Republican Party needs. To win the White House again, it must assuage the social conscience of mainstream, moderate white voters among whom an ethos of tolerance has become normal. These voters are concerned with fairness and diversity, even as they stand to the right of center. It is there that the upcoming political battles - on the gamut of issues from race to rights - will be fought.
Does the GOP Really Want to Woo Blacks and Latinos? By Touré. Time, January 31, 2013.
Touré:
A large part of the problem the GOP has with voters of color is the brand identity that has emerged from the stars of the conservative media ecosystem: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, and others. When those people are some of the loudest voices in your party, then most black and brown people are going to be repelled and feel unwelcome. The GOP needs louder voices — leadership voices — speaking back and saying, “No, that’s not who we are (anymore).” Donald Trump is a prominent Republican who pushed the birther cause years into Obama’s presidency. There must be prominent Republicans who loudly push back and say, “We disagree with the president, but are certain that he’s legitimately American.” Otherwise potential voters don’t know whether the party condones racist behavior.
The party also needs to change the rhetoric of their elected officials and surrogates to not be racially toxic, baiting and dog whistle-ish. This week the GOP was told by the Hispanic outreach arm of a GOP SuperPAC to avoid pejoratives like illegal, alien, anchor baby and electric fence. To that I’d add: food stamp president, lazy, un-American, handout, takers, democratic plantation and other obviously loaded terms that show a blatant lack of respect for black and brown people. It’s hard to consider the policies of a party whose members use inflammatory language about you. Also: avoid at all cost having panels about how to successfully communicate with black and brown people in rooms named “Burwell Plantation,” which is named for a slave-owning family. That actually happened at a recent House GOP retreat. How is it possible that no one thought that might leave a bad taste in the mouths of the people you’re talking about reaching?
The GOP could also refresh some of its messaging for black and brown people. For example, their gun rights position could be tailored to black and brown people — many of whom live in neighborhoods where crime is not unexpected. Something like “you need to protect yourself, the cops can’t always be there for you, and we’re the party fighting to continue your right to protect yourself” could work. An ad saying, “What if Trayvon had a gun?” could be persuasive. I personally think more guns leads to more bloodshed, and if Trayvon had had a gun, he’d either be dead or on trial for murder. I believe guns provide the illusion of security, not true security, but the GOP disagrees and some black and brown Americans could be persuaded to see it their way.
But there will have to be some policy changes, too. Voter ID laws seem very much designed to functionally disenfranchise black and brown voters (as well as other traditional democratic voters). Harsh anti-immigration laws like Arizona’s S.B. 1070, a.k.a. “Papers Please,” stigmatizes the Latino community, leaves them targeted as enemies and makes it hard for them to seriously consider the GOP. Stand Your Ground is also a problematic law that many black and brown people see as set in place to aid whites in protecting themselves from blacks. You can argue the specific merits of these laws if you like, but you’ll struggle to get black and brown people to not see them as an assault.
It also may be time to take a hard look at entitlement reform. It’s in vogue in D.C., but Medicare and Medicaid are popular with all Americans, including black and brown people who hear themselves demonized in the debate. They hear that the Democratic Party will be there in a time of need, while the Republicans will demand you pull yourself up by your bootstraps in a world marked by white privilege, where for many people race is a difficult hurdle to get over. They hear that if the world is divided into makers and takers then a dollar given in welfare is given to a lazy person of color and taken from a hard-working white person. This thinking is corrosive to the Republican Party.
These ideas may not be easy to adopt because the policies I suggest they leave behind speak to white anxiety and give whites, especially in the working class, a sense that the Republican Party is there to protect them, while the Dems are going to protect the racial other. Stoking fear of that other is baked into their appeal to a key part of their constituency, and has become part of the soul of the party. They’re going to need to extract that before they can begin an honest conversation about wooing voters of color. All that’s at stake is getting back in the White House.
Tomasky:
The Rove–Tea Party feud is a joyous thing to watch. Rove, after an utterly disastrous run around the track in 2012, is now suckering people into writing him checks for a new outfit that will allegedly hold the zanies at bay, filter out the Sharron Angles and Richard Mourdocks of the world, and promote electable conservatives.
First of all, I hardly have the words to describe how happy this makes me, after decades of watching conservatives chortle about unelectable Democrats. And second and more to the point, rather than freezing out challengers from the far, far right as intended, this seems almost certain to invite them. There’s nothing those people love more than the idea that everyone, even their own party’s establishment, is against them. And conservative voters will vote for that.
This is the Republican problem. The basic organizing principle of Republican campaigns for 40 years now has been: they are coming. They’ve mixed in a little positive stuff. Ronald Reagan did that well, Bush Sr. had his thousand points of light, Bush Jr. his ownership society. But fundamentally Republicans have won elections by telling the white majority that “they” are coming after your money and status and privilege. I was surprised to read in Tom Edsall’s latest column, although I should not have been, that the GOP has won the white vote in every election except one going back not to 1980 or 1968, but 1952 (the exception was LBJ’s ’64 landslide).
Now, Cantor, Rove, and Rubio—sweet reason itself on immigration, or so he tries to be—are signaling in their different ways that it’s time to stop playing resentment politics. But they have a base that’s seething with resentments, resentments they themselves, Rove in particular, built and nursed going back to Goldwater’s time. You can’t just undo something like that in one election cycle.
What’s coming, therefore, seems pretty obvious. A grand civil war between the rebranders and the dead-enders. The latter will run candidates against the former for Senate and House races in 2014. Those outcomes will be pivotal in setting a tone for 2016. If the rebranders win a majority of races, including the two or three the media eventually identify as somehow symbolic, then maybe they will have the momentum heading into the presidential election and will be able to get the party to coalesce around an electable candidate. (By the way: If this is supposed to be Rubio, let us pause briefly and note that Rubio is on most issues a far-right-wing politician and is almost surely unelectable, provided the Democratic campaign isn’t completely idiotic. If it’s supposed to be Chris Christie, that’s perhaps—perhaps—another matter.)
But if the dead-enders prevail, or pull a draw?
I think the Republican Party right now is like an alcoholic who hasn’t yet hit rock bottom. He’s not fooling anyone anymore. Everyone’s on to him. But he’s still holding on to his job by a thread, his wife hasn’t yet taken the kids and walked out on him, the cops don’t happen yet to have been there as he swerved his way home from his usual bar. He can still, in other words, kid himself. Disaster hasn’t struck yet.
In this case, disaster would be losing to Hillary Clinton three years from now. I believe that’s what it will probably take to sober the Republicans up; most especially to sober up the base—to make rank-and-file conservatives realize that the age of victory via resentment is gone. That middle Americans who once identified with their grudges are now over them and sick to death of hearing about them. Cosmetic rebranding can’t fix this.
The Persistence of Racial Resentment. By Thomas B. Edsall. New York Times, February 6, 2013.
Edsall:
What are we to make of these developments? Is the country more or less racist? How can the percentage of people holding anti-black attitudes have increased from 2006 to 2008 at a time when Obama performed better among white voters than the two previous white Democratic nominees, and then again from 2008 to 2012 when Obama won a second term?
In fact, the shifts described by Tesler and Pasek are an integral aspect of the intensifying conservatism within the right wing of the Republican Party. Many voters voicing stronger anti-black affect were already Republican. Thus, in 2012, shifts in their attitudes, while they contributed to a 4 percentage point reduction in Obama’s white support, did not result in a Romney victory.
Some Republican strategists believe the party’s deepening conservatism is scaring away voters.
“We have a choice: we can become a shrinking regional party of middle-aged and older white men, or we can fight to become a national governing party,” John Weaver, a consultant to the 2008 McCain campaign, said after Obama’s re-election. Mark McKinnon, an adviser to former President George W. Bush, made a similar point: “The party needs more tolerance, more diversity and a deeper appreciation for the concerns of the middle class.”
Not only is the right risking marginalization as its views on race have become more extreme, it is veering out of the mainstream on contraception and abortion, positions that fueled an 11 point gender gap in 2012 and a 13 point gap in 2008.
Given that a majority of the electorate will remain white for a number of years, the hurdle that the Republican Party faces is building the party’s white margins by 2 to 3 points. For Romney to have won, he needed 62 percent of the white vote, not the 59 percent he got.
Working directly against this goal is what Time Magazine recently described as the Republican “brand identity that has emerged from the stars of the conservative media ecosystem: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and others.”
It is not so much Latino and black voters that the Republican Party needs. To win the White House again, it must assuage the social conscience of mainstream, moderate white voters among whom an ethos of tolerance has become normal. These voters are concerned with fairness and diversity, even as they stand to the right of center. It is there that the upcoming political battles - on the gamut of issues from race to rights - will be fought.
Does the GOP Really Want to Woo Blacks and Latinos? By Touré. Time, January 31, 2013.
Touré:
A large part of the problem the GOP has with voters of color is the brand identity that has emerged from the stars of the conservative media ecosystem: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, and others. When those people are some of the loudest voices in your party, then most black and brown people are going to be repelled and feel unwelcome. The GOP needs louder voices — leadership voices — speaking back and saying, “No, that’s not who we are (anymore).” Donald Trump is a prominent Republican who pushed the birther cause years into Obama’s presidency. There must be prominent Republicans who loudly push back and say, “We disagree with the president, but are certain that he’s legitimately American.” Otherwise potential voters don’t know whether the party condones racist behavior.
The party also needs to change the rhetoric of their elected officials and surrogates to not be racially toxic, baiting and dog whistle-ish. This week the GOP was told by the Hispanic outreach arm of a GOP SuperPAC to avoid pejoratives like illegal, alien, anchor baby and electric fence. To that I’d add: food stamp president, lazy, un-American, handout, takers, democratic plantation and other obviously loaded terms that show a blatant lack of respect for black and brown people. It’s hard to consider the policies of a party whose members use inflammatory language about you. Also: avoid at all cost having panels about how to successfully communicate with black and brown people in rooms named “Burwell Plantation,” which is named for a slave-owning family. That actually happened at a recent House GOP retreat. How is it possible that no one thought that might leave a bad taste in the mouths of the people you’re talking about reaching?
The GOP could also refresh some of its messaging for black and brown people. For example, their gun rights position could be tailored to black and brown people — many of whom live in neighborhoods where crime is not unexpected. Something like “you need to protect yourself, the cops can’t always be there for you, and we’re the party fighting to continue your right to protect yourself” could work. An ad saying, “What if Trayvon had a gun?” could be persuasive. I personally think more guns leads to more bloodshed, and if Trayvon had had a gun, he’d either be dead or on trial for murder. I believe guns provide the illusion of security, not true security, but the GOP disagrees and some black and brown Americans could be persuaded to see it their way.
But there will have to be some policy changes, too. Voter ID laws seem very much designed to functionally disenfranchise black and brown voters (as well as other traditional democratic voters). Harsh anti-immigration laws like Arizona’s S.B. 1070, a.k.a. “Papers Please,” stigmatizes the Latino community, leaves them targeted as enemies and makes it hard for them to seriously consider the GOP. Stand Your Ground is also a problematic law that many black and brown people see as set in place to aid whites in protecting themselves from blacks. You can argue the specific merits of these laws if you like, but you’ll struggle to get black and brown people to not see them as an assault.
It also may be time to take a hard look at entitlement reform. It’s in vogue in D.C., but Medicare and Medicaid are popular with all Americans, including black and brown people who hear themselves demonized in the debate. They hear that the Democratic Party will be there in a time of need, while the Republicans will demand you pull yourself up by your bootstraps in a world marked by white privilege, where for many people race is a difficult hurdle to get over. They hear that if the world is divided into makers and takers then a dollar given in welfare is given to a lazy person of color and taken from a hard-working white person. This thinking is corrosive to the Republican Party.
These ideas may not be easy to adopt because the policies I suggest they leave behind speak to white anxiety and give whites, especially in the working class, a sense that the Republican Party is there to protect them, while the Dems are going to protect the racial other. Stoking fear of that other is baked into their appeal to a key part of their constituency, and has become part of the soul of the party. They’re going to need to extract that before they can begin an honest conversation about wooing voters of color. All that’s at stake is getting back in the White House.
India vs. China vs. Egypt. By Thomas L. Friedman.
India vs. China vs. Egypt. By Thomas L. Friedman. New York Times, February 5, 2013.
Nixon in China: An Opera From 1987.
 |
Nixon shakes hands with Zhou Enlai, February 21, 1972. During the Geneva Conference in 1954, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles refused to shake Zhou Enlai’s hand. Knowing of this rebuff, President Nixon made a point of shaking Zhou Enlai’s hand upon landing in China. White House photo by Byron Schumaker. Wikipedia.
|
Nixon in China. Houston Grand Opera, October 22, 1987. Music by John Adams. Libretto by Alice Goodman. Directed by Peter Sellars. Complete Opera. Video in 17 parts, January 26, 2010. YouTube. Libretto.
Act 1, Scene 2: Meeting with Mao. Video with historical footage, September 3, 2012. YouTube.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
The Evolution of Irregular War. By Max Boot.
The Evolution of Irregular War: Insurgents and Guerillas From Akkadia to Afghanistan. By Max Boot. Foreign Affairs, January 5, 2013.
When MOOCs Go Bad. By Walter Russell Mead.
When MOOCs Go Bad. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, February 6, 2013.
How the Online Revolution in Higher Education Will Eliminate Factory Jobs. By C. A. Bowers. Tikkun, February 4, 2013.
See also: Revolution Hits the Universities. By Thomas L. Friedman. New York Times, January 26, 2013.
See also: The End of the University as We Know It. By Nathan Harden. The American Interest, January/February 2013.
How the Online Revolution in Higher Education Will Eliminate Factory Jobs. By C. A. Bowers. Tikkun, February 4, 2013.
See also: Revolution Hits the Universities. By Thomas L. Friedman. New York Times, January 26, 2013.
See also: The End of the University as We Know It. By Nathan Harden. The American Interest, January/February 2013.
Obama’s Gutsy Gun Control Push. By Joan Walsh.
Obama’s gutsy gun control push. By Joan Walsh. Salon, February 5, 2013
Letter from Cairo: Back Street’s Back. By Elijah Zarwan.
Letter from Cario: Back Street’s Back. By Elijah Zarwan. Foreign Affairs, February 4, 2013.
Zarwan:
In Cairo last week, on a crowded public bus near Tahrir Square, passengers were trapped, pressed tightly together and choking on tear gas, as the vehicle struggled to maneuver around a standoff between hapless police conscripts and a crowd of young men making a stand along the bank of the Nile. The commuters were furious. “Who are these people?” some spat as the bus inched past stunted teenagers throwing rocks and making obscene gestures.
That question has been asked again and again over the last two years as nearly identical scenes have played out with numbing regularity. Most Cairenes, President Mohamed Morsi, his cohorts in the Muslim Brotherhood, and the generals who ruled the country before them have agreed on a quick verdict: that “these people” are hired thugs, pawns either of shadowy remnants of the old regime or of unnamed foreign governments. As Morsi charged last week, they are “the counterrevolution incarnate.”
Some among the rock-wielding crowd might indeed be paid agents. Sometimes groups of them arrive in the city center in the back of mini pickup trucks. Some young protestors appear to take direction from older men with mustaches and bad leather jackets. Sometimes their faces bear knife scars, broken noses, and other telltale signs of lives spent in Cairo’s underworld. Often their eyes are glazed, and their speech is erratic from the use of cheap pills. That – and the fact that the Mubarak regime cultivated an auxiliary militia of drug addicts and criminals in poor neighborhoods for use when it was more convenient for civilian forces to carry out oppression – suggests that some of the chaos might, in fact, be organized.
But it would be a mistake to dismiss the protesters as paid thugs, or to blame the unrest on revolutionary anniversary pangs, Muslim Brotherhood misrule, or a court's verdict – although those are all elements of it. True, it is difficult to systematically track the demographics of a stampede, but what most of those rushing to escape birdshot and tear gas canisters have in common is that they are male, urban, young, and unemployed; they have very little to lose, and even less confidence in a political class that does not represent them. For them, the mantra of the uprising that began two Januarys ago – “Bread, freedom, social justice” – remains an urgent and unanswered demand.
If anyone doubted that Egypt’s unrest would continue until the urban poor saw a concrete improvement in their daily lives, the events of the last few weeks should have convinced them otherwise. For the majority of the Egyptian population that grew up poor and has known no president other than Mubarak, life has been hard and has only gotten harder. The narrow streets of the urban slums admit little air. Decent work, already scarce, has become scarcer. Prices have continued to rise. Prospects for a dignified life – a steady job, marriage, and escape from the family home – have grown steadily more remote.
Before the 2011 revolution, some of the poor had turned to the streets, to pills, to hashish, to brawling, to fun. With the army hesitant to appear involved and the opposition in disarray, that street culture is now likely the biggest check on the Islamist project. The dispirited urban population is perhaps more heavily armed now than at any time in modern history. Families – “honorable people,” as onlookers describe them – still join protests by day, but they melt away by night, and a leaner, angrier group takes their place.
The violent protests are still sporadic, yet to merge into a coherent movement. In the meantime, though, the young, urban poor are already changing the streets. Since 2011, that population has rushed to fill whatever space the state’s contraction and the police's retreat have left open. Soon after Mubarak's departure, minibus stations popped up on snarled street corners where police once stood. Stoned and rowdy street venders have gradually taken over Cairo's Talaat Harb Street (formerly Suleiman Pasha Street), an avenue that Egyptians of a certain age remember as the most elegant in the Middle East, as more beautiful than Paris. Unemployed young men have repeatedly blocked major traffic arteries in the capital and have destroyed the lobby of a five-star hotel. City streets and alleyways are rougher and more lawless, as more people compete for fewer resources. Tempers fray and manners are forgotten. The level of street crime, which was always miraculously low for a city of more than 20 million, has risen.
For years before the 2011 uprising, many anticipated a “revolution of the hungry.” Some of Egypt's poor took Mubarak's fall to be that very revolution, expecting Mubarak's fabled billions to return to the country and fund apartments for everyone. At the time, a rich Cairene, a woman accustomed to speaking sharply to those she considered beneath her, was shocked when a worker she had hired refused to obey her instructions. “You must understand that you had your time,” he told her. “This is ours.”
But when Mubarak’s imagined billions did not return, and when his ouster did not immediately usher in a new age of prosperity and freedom, disillusionment set in. The middle class might be able to give electoral politics and stability a chance to work their magic; the unemployed youth probably cannot. For them, the flux of the current revolutionary moment represents their last chance to salvage a better future for themselves and the country. The long-anticipated and feared revolution of the hungry may have already begun, albeit in slow motion.
Egyptians have shown a talent for retreating from the brink at the last minute. Despite regular bouts of unrest and civil strife, the country has struggled onward. But given the dire economic outlook, the toxic political atmosphere, and the increasing impatience and desperation on the street, it might not always. Those who gave their lives in the uprising did not do so for Egypt to enter a limping race to the bottom. Those who continue to fill the streets will not rest until that course is reversed, or until the government can restore at least some hope that their demands for bread, freedom, and social justice will be met.
Zarwan:
In Cairo last week, on a crowded public bus near Tahrir Square, passengers were trapped, pressed tightly together and choking on tear gas, as the vehicle struggled to maneuver around a standoff between hapless police conscripts and a crowd of young men making a stand along the bank of the Nile. The commuters were furious. “Who are these people?” some spat as the bus inched past stunted teenagers throwing rocks and making obscene gestures.
That question has been asked again and again over the last two years as nearly identical scenes have played out with numbing regularity. Most Cairenes, President Mohamed Morsi, his cohorts in the Muslim Brotherhood, and the generals who ruled the country before them have agreed on a quick verdict: that “these people” are hired thugs, pawns either of shadowy remnants of the old regime or of unnamed foreign governments. As Morsi charged last week, they are “the counterrevolution incarnate.”
Some among the rock-wielding crowd might indeed be paid agents. Sometimes groups of them arrive in the city center in the back of mini pickup trucks. Some young protestors appear to take direction from older men with mustaches and bad leather jackets. Sometimes their faces bear knife scars, broken noses, and other telltale signs of lives spent in Cairo’s underworld. Often their eyes are glazed, and their speech is erratic from the use of cheap pills. That – and the fact that the Mubarak regime cultivated an auxiliary militia of drug addicts and criminals in poor neighborhoods for use when it was more convenient for civilian forces to carry out oppression – suggests that some of the chaos might, in fact, be organized.
But it would be a mistake to dismiss the protesters as paid thugs, or to blame the unrest on revolutionary anniversary pangs, Muslim Brotherhood misrule, or a court's verdict – although those are all elements of it. True, it is difficult to systematically track the demographics of a stampede, but what most of those rushing to escape birdshot and tear gas canisters have in common is that they are male, urban, young, and unemployed; they have very little to lose, and even less confidence in a political class that does not represent them. For them, the mantra of the uprising that began two Januarys ago – “Bread, freedom, social justice” – remains an urgent and unanswered demand.
If anyone doubted that Egypt’s unrest would continue until the urban poor saw a concrete improvement in their daily lives, the events of the last few weeks should have convinced them otherwise. For the majority of the Egyptian population that grew up poor and has known no president other than Mubarak, life has been hard and has only gotten harder. The narrow streets of the urban slums admit little air. Decent work, already scarce, has become scarcer. Prices have continued to rise. Prospects for a dignified life – a steady job, marriage, and escape from the family home – have grown steadily more remote.
Before the 2011 revolution, some of the poor had turned to the streets, to pills, to hashish, to brawling, to fun. With the army hesitant to appear involved and the opposition in disarray, that street culture is now likely the biggest check on the Islamist project. The dispirited urban population is perhaps more heavily armed now than at any time in modern history. Families – “honorable people,” as onlookers describe them – still join protests by day, but they melt away by night, and a leaner, angrier group takes their place.
The violent protests are still sporadic, yet to merge into a coherent movement. In the meantime, though, the young, urban poor are already changing the streets. Since 2011, that population has rushed to fill whatever space the state’s contraction and the police's retreat have left open. Soon after Mubarak's departure, minibus stations popped up on snarled street corners where police once stood. Stoned and rowdy street venders have gradually taken over Cairo's Talaat Harb Street (formerly Suleiman Pasha Street), an avenue that Egyptians of a certain age remember as the most elegant in the Middle East, as more beautiful than Paris. Unemployed young men have repeatedly blocked major traffic arteries in the capital and have destroyed the lobby of a five-star hotel. City streets and alleyways are rougher and more lawless, as more people compete for fewer resources. Tempers fray and manners are forgotten. The level of street crime, which was always miraculously low for a city of more than 20 million, has risen.
For years before the 2011 uprising, many anticipated a “revolution of the hungry.” Some of Egypt's poor took Mubarak's fall to be that very revolution, expecting Mubarak's fabled billions to return to the country and fund apartments for everyone. At the time, a rich Cairene, a woman accustomed to speaking sharply to those she considered beneath her, was shocked when a worker she had hired refused to obey her instructions. “You must understand that you had your time,” he told her. “This is ours.”
But when Mubarak’s imagined billions did not return, and when his ouster did not immediately usher in a new age of prosperity and freedom, disillusionment set in. The middle class might be able to give electoral politics and stability a chance to work their magic; the unemployed youth probably cannot. For them, the flux of the current revolutionary moment represents their last chance to salvage a better future for themselves and the country. The long-anticipated and feared revolution of the hungry may have already begun, albeit in slow motion.
Egyptians have shown a talent for retreating from the brink at the last minute. Despite regular bouts of unrest and civil strife, the country has struggled onward. But given the dire economic outlook, the toxic political atmosphere, and the increasing impatience and desperation on the street, it might not always. Those who gave their lives in the uprising did not do so for Egypt to enter a limping race to the bottom. Those who continue to fill the streets will not rest until that course is reversed, or until the government can restore at least some hope that their demands for bread, freedom, and social justice will be met.
Decoding Neanderthals Documentary.
Decoding Neanderthals. Video. NOVA. PBS, January 9, 2013. Also on YouTube.
Decoding and Rethinking Neanderthals. By Roberta Jestes. DNAeXplained, January 10, 2013. Also find it here.
Decoding and Rethinking Neanderthals. By Roberta Jestes. DNAeXplained, January 10, 2013. Also find it here.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Bones of King Richard III Discovered Under a Parking Lot.
Bones Under Parking Lot Belonged to Richard III. By John F. Burns. New York Times, February 4, 2013.
Richard III’s Face Reconstructed From English King’s Skull (VIDEO). By Travis Korte. The Huffington Post, February 5, 2013. Also find video here.
Richard III’s Bones: Should One of History’s Losers Be Redeemed? By Ishaan Tharoor. Time, Feb 4, 2013.
The Real Richard III. By Amanda Fiegl. National Geographic News, February 5, 2013.
It’s him: Richard III rises from grave. By Nick Britten and Andrew Hough. The Telegraph, February 5, 2013.
We Told You So: Richard III Society Celebrates Their Hero’s Rediscovery. By Dan Jones. The Daily Beast, February 5, 2013.
The Humiliation of Richard III. By Amy Davidson. The New Yorker, February 4, 2013.
The Lovely Bones: Why Richard III’s Body Should Be on Display. By Christopher Bonaros. New York Magazine, February 5, 2013.
What Richard III Can Teach Us Today. By John Watkins. Foreign Policy, February 6, 2013.
 |
| A facial reconstruction of King Richard III. Dan Kirtwood/Getty Images. |
 |
The skeleton found last fall near the buried ruins of the Greyfriars Priory in Leicester was confirmed on Monday by a team of experts to be that of King Richard III
|
 |
| King Richard III, by unknown artist, late 16th century. National Portrait Gallery, London. |
Neanderthals Went Extinct Much Earlier Than Previously Thought A New Study Suggests.
Neanderthals Went Extinct Much Earlier Than Previously Thought Fossil Study Suggests. By Frank Jordans. AP. The Huffington Post, February 4, 2013.
Last Neanderthals of Southern Iberia May Not Have Coexisted With Modern Humans, New Data Suggest. Science Daily, February 4, 2013. Also find it here.
Radiocarbon dating casts doubt on the late chronology of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in southern Iberia. By Rachel E. Wood et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Published online before print, February 4, 2013. Abstract. [check for full text pdf in 6 months]
European Neanderthals Were On the Verge of Extinction Even Before the Arrival of Modern Humans. By Anneli Waara. Science Daily, February 25, 2012. Also find it here.
European Neanderthals Were on the Verge of Extinction Long Before Humans Showed Up. Science Daily, March 26, 2012. Also find it here.
Partial Genetic Turnover in Neandertals: Continuity in the East and Population Replacement in the West. By Love Dalén et al. Molecular Biology and Evolution, August 2012.
Last Neanderthals of Southern Iberia May Not Have Coexisted With Modern Humans, New Data Suggest. Science Daily, February 4, 2013. Also find it here.
Radiocarbon dating casts doubt on the late chronology of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in southern Iberia. By Rachel E. Wood et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Published online before print, February 4, 2013. Abstract. [check for full text pdf in 6 months]
European Neanderthals Were On the Verge of Extinction Even Before the Arrival of Modern Humans. By Anneli Waara. Science Daily, February 25, 2012. Also find it here.
European Neanderthals Were on the Verge of Extinction Long Before Humans Showed Up. Science Daily, March 26, 2012. Also find it here.
Partial Genetic Turnover in Neandertals: Continuity in the East and Population Replacement in the West. By Love Dalén et al. Molecular Biology and Evolution, August 2012.
 |
| Neanderthal reconstruction |
Neanderthals More Advanced Than Previously Thought.
Neanderthals More Advanced Than Previously Thought: They Innovated, Adapted Like Modern Humans, Research Shows. Science Daily, September 22, 2010. Also find it here.
A Niche Construction Perspective on the Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition in Italy. By Julien Reil-Salvatore. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, December 2010.
A Niche Construction Perspective on the Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition in Italy. By Julien Reil-Salvatore. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, December 2010.
 |
| Reconstruction of a Neanderthal |
When Tyrants and Hatemongers Embrace. By Jonathan S. Tobin.
When Tyrants and Hatemongers Embrace. By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, February 5, 2013.
Tobin:
The Egyptians may stop just short of full recognition of Ahmadinejad’s government in order to keep U.S. taxpayer dollars flowing to Cairo. But the notion that it is in any conceivable sense an ally is out the window. This incident calls into question the decision to keep that aid flowing without condition as well as the continued sale of sophisticated weapons to Egypt that their forces don’t need for self-defense. The closer Egypt draws to Iran, the more it seems as if the peace treaty with Egypt, into which both Israelis and Americans are so heavily, is heading for the scrapheap.
Just as important in many respects is the symbolism of the embrace of two men who have done much to help keep the flames of Jew hatred burning hot recently. Morsi and Ahmadinejad are both on record insulting Jews and Israelis and pledging their destruction as well as for trying to suppress domestic dissent. Far from an innocuous event that shouldn’t worry us, when tyrants embrace, decent people everywhere should tremble.
Tobin:
The Egyptians may stop just short of full recognition of Ahmadinejad’s government in order to keep U.S. taxpayer dollars flowing to Cairo. But the notion that it is in any conceivable sense an ally is out the window. This incident calls into question the decision to keep that aid flowing without condition as well as the continued sale of sophisticated weapons to Egypt that their forces don’t need for self-defense. The closer Egypt draws to Iran, the more it seems as if the peace treaty with Egypt, into which both Israelis and Americans are so heavily, is heading for the scrapheap.
Just as important in many respects is the symbolism of the embrace of two men who have done much to help keep the flames of Jew hatred burning hot recently. Morsi and Ahmadinejad are both on record insulting Jews and Israelis and pledging their destruction as well as for trying to suppress domestic dissent. Far from an innocuous event that shouldn’t worry us, when tyrants embrace, decent people everywhere should tremble.
“Groundhog Day” in Cairo. By Ashraf Khalil.
Groundhog Day in Cairo: A Brutal Video Raises the Political Stakes in Egypt. By Ashraf Khalil. Time, February 2, 2013.
Egypt Conflict Alert. International Crisis Group, February 4, 2013.
Egypt Conflict Alert. International Crisis Group, February 4, 2013.
“The Americans” Premiere: Keri Russell and Matthew Rhys Talk Sex, Spy Games and America vs. Russia. By Laura Prudom.
 |
| Keri Russell as Elizabeth Jennings (originally Nadezhda) and Matthew Rhys as Philip Jennings in The Americans. |
“The Americans” Premiere: Keri Russell and Matthew Rhys Talk Sex, Spy Games and America vs. Russia. By Laura Prudom. The Huffington Post, January 30, 2013.
“The Americans” premiere review: Are you rooting for these Russians? By Ken Tucker. Entertainment Weekly, January 30, 2013.
“The Americans”: What critics are saying about new FX spy series. By Craig Blankenhorn. CBS News, January 30, 2013.
The Americans: TV Review. By Tim Goodman. The Hollywood Reporter, January 23, 2013.
Spies Like U.S.: “The Americans” and the Americans. By Eliot Borenstein. Jordan Center for the Advanced Study of Russia at New York University, February 1, 2013.
The Americans official website. FX. Full video episodes and extras here.
The Americans on FX. YouTube channel.
Go Undercover: “The Americans” First Look. Video. TheAmericansFX, January 23, 2013. YouTube.
Keri Russell on The Americans, Star Wars VII, J. J. Abrams, and Felicity. Video. ENTV, January 31, 2013. YouTube.
The Americans Three Minute Replay: Week 1. Video. TheAmericansFX, February 4, 2013. YouTube.
Go Undercover: Series Premiere Recap. Video. TheAmericansFX, February 4, 2013. YouTube.
A Second G.O.P. By David Brooks.
A Second G.O.P. By David Brooks. New York Times, January 28, 2013.
Brooks:
On the surface, Republicans are already doing a good job of beginning to change their party. Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana gave a speech to the Republican National Committee calling on Republicans to stop being the stupid party, to stop insulting the intelligence of the American people.
Representative Paul Ryan gave a fine speech to the National Review Institute calling for prudence instead of spasmodic protest. The new senator for Texas, Ted Cruz, gave a speech to the same gathering saying the Republicans should be focusing on the least fortunate 47 percent of Americans.
But, so far, there have been more calls for change than actual evidence of change. In his speech, for example, Jindal spanked his party for its stale clichés but then repeated the same Republican themes that have earned his party its 33 percent approval ratings: Government bad. Entrepreneurs good.
In this reinvention process, Republicans seem to have spent no time talking to people who didn’t already vote for them.
Change is hard because people don’t only think on the surface level. Deep down people have mental maps of reality — embedded sets of assumptions, narratives and terms that organize thinking. Since Barry Goldwater, the central Republican narrative has been what you might call the Encroachment Story: the core problem of American life is that voracious government has been steadily encroaching upon individuals and local communities. The core American conflict, in this view, is between Big Government and Personal Freedom.
While losing the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, the flaws of this mentality have become apparent. First, if opposing government is your primary objective, it’s hard to have a positive governing program.
As Bill Kristol pointed out at the National Review event, the G.O.P. fiercely opposed the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law but never offered an alternative. The party opposed Obamacare but never offered a replacement. John Podhoretz of Commentary added that as soon as Republicans start talking about what kind of regulations and programs government should promote, they get accused by colleagues of being Big Government conservatives.
The next problem with this mentality is that it makes it hard for Republicans to analyze social and economic problems that don’t flow directly from big government. For example, we are now at the end of the era in which a rising tide lifts all boats. Republicans like Mitt Romney can talk about improving the overall business climate with lower taxes and lighter regulation, but regular voters sense that that won’t necessarily help them because wages no longer keep pace with productivity gains.
Americans are still skeptical of Washington. If you shove a big government program down their throats they will recoil. But many of their immediate problems flow from globalization, the turmoil of technological change and social decay, and they’re looking for a bit of help. Moreover, given all the antigovernment rhetoric, they will never trust these Republicans to reform cherished programs like Social Security and Medicare. You can’t be for entitlement reform and today’s G.O.P., because politically the two will never go together.
Can current Republicans change their underlying mentality to adapt to these realities? Intellectual history says no. People almost never change their underlying narratives or unconscious frameworks. Moreover, in the South and rural West, where most Republicans are from, the Encroachment Story has deep historic and psychological roots. Anti-Washington, anti-urban sentiment has characterized those cultures for decades.
It’s probably futile to try to change current Republicans. It’s smarter to build a new wing of the Republican Party, one that can compete in the Northeast, the mid-Atlantic states, in the upper Midwest and along the West Coast. It’s smarter to build a new division that is different the way the Westin is different than the Sheraton.
The second G.O.P. wouldn’t be based on the Encroachment Story. It would be based on the idea that America is being hit simultaneously by two crises, which you might call the Mancur Olson crisis and the Charles Murray crisis.
Olson argued that nations decline because their aging institutions get bloated and sclerotic and retard national dynamism. Murray argues that America is coming apart, dividing into two nations — one with high education levels, stable families and good opportunities and the other with low education levels, unstable families and bad opportunities.
The second G.O.P. would tackle both problems at once. It would be filled with people who recoiled at President Obama’s second Inaugural Address because of its excessive faith in centralized power, but who don’t share the absolute antigovernment story of the current G.O.P.
Would a coastal and Midwestern G.O.P. sit easily with the Southern and Western one? No, but majority parties are usually coalitions of the incompatible. This is really the only chance Republicans have. The question is: Who’s going to build a second G.O.P.?
David Brooks Fighting GOP “Freedomism” to the Death. By Matt Welch. Reason, January 29, 2013.
The Simpletons: David Brooks, Thomas L. Friedman, and the banal authoritarianism of do-something punditry. By Matt Welch. Reason, December 2011. Also find it here.
David Brooks on Freedomism vs. Rhinoism. Essay in symposium “What Is the Future of Conservatism in the Wake of the Wake of the 2012 Election.” Commentary January 2013. Full symposium here.
The Republican Glasnost. By David Brooks. New York Times, December 6, 2012.
The Conservative Future. By David Brooks. New York Times, November 19, 2012.
The Party of Work. By David Brooks. New York Times, November 8, 2012.
The Conservative Mind. By David Brooks. New York Times, September 24, 2012.
Party of Strivers. By David Brooks. New York Times, August 30, 2012.
What Republicans Think. By David Brooks. New York Times, June 14, 2012.
Our Age of Anxiety. By Yuval Levin. The Weekly Standard, May 28, 2012. Also find it here.
The Possum Republicans. By David Brooks. New York Times, February 27, 2012.
Brooks:
On the surface, Republicans are already doing a good job of beginning to change their party. Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana gave a speech to the Republican National Committee calling on Republicans to stop being the stupid party, to stop insulting the intelligence of the American people.
Representative Paul Ryan gave a fine speech to the National Review Institute calling for prudence instead of spasmodic protest. The new senator for Texas, Ted Cruz, gave a speech to the same gathering saying the Republicans should be focusing on the least fortunate 47 percent of Americans.
But, so far, there have been more calls for change than actual evidence of change. In his speech, for example, Jindal spanked his party for its stale clichés but then repeated the same Republican themes that have earned his party its 33 percent approval ratings: Government bad. Entrepreneurs good.
In this reinvention process, Republicans seem to have spent no time talking to people who didn’t already vote for them.
Change is hard because people don’t only think on the surface level. Deep down people have mental maps of reality — embedded sets of assumptions, narratives and terms that organize thinking. Since Barry Goldwater, the central Republican narrative has been what you might call the Encroachment Story: the core problem of American life is that voracious government has been steadily encroaching upon individuals and local communities. The core American conflict, in this view, is between Big Government and Personal Freedom.
While losing the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, the flaws of this mentality have become apparent. First, if opposing government is your primary objective, it’s hard to have a positive governing program.
As Bill Kristol pointed out at the National Review event, the G.O.P. fiercely opposed the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law but never offered an alternative. The party opposed Obamacare but never offered a replacement. John Podhoretz of Commentary added that as soon as Republicans start talking about what kind of regulations and programs government should promote, they get accused by colleagues of being Big Government conservatives.
The next problem with this mentality is that it makes it hard for Republicans to analyze social and economic problems that don’t flow directly from big government. For example, we are now at the end of the era in which a rising tide lifts all boats. Republicans like Mitt Romney can talk about improving the overall business climate with lower taxes and lighter regulation, but regular voters sense that that won’t necessarily help them because wages no longer keep pace with productivity gains.
Americans are still skeptical of Washington. If you shove a big government program down their throats they will recoil. But many of their immediate problems flow from globalization, the turmoil of technological change and social decay, and they’re looking for a bit of help. Moreover, given all the antigovernment rhetoric, they will never trust these Republicans to reform cherished programs like Social Security and Medicare. You can’t be for entitlement reform and today’s G.O.P., because politically the two will never go together.
Can current Republicans change their underlying mentality to adapt to these realities? Intellectual history says no. People almost never change their underlying narratives or unconscious frameworks. Moreover, in the South and rural West, where most Republicans are from, the Encroachment Story has deep historic and psychological roots. Anti-Washington, anti-urban sentiment has characterized those cultures for decades.
It’s probably futile to try to change current Republicans. It’s smarter to build a new wing of the Republican Party, one that can compete in the Northeast, the mid-Atlantic states, in the upper Midwest and along the West Coast. It’s smarter to build a new division that is different the way the Westin is different than the Sheraton.
The second G.O.P. wouldn’t be based on the Encroachment Story. It would be based on the idea that America is being hit simultaneously by two crises, which you might call the Mancur Olson crisis and the Charles Murray crisis.
Olson argued that nations decline because their aging institutions get bloated and sclerotic and retard national dynamism. Murray argues that America is coming apart, dividing into two nations — one with high education levels, stable families and good opportunities and the other with low education levels, unstable families and bad opportunities.
The second G.O.P. would tackle both problems at once. It would be filled with people who recoiled at President Obama’s second Inaugural Address because of its excessive faith in centralized power, but who don’t share the absolute antigovernment story of the current G.O.P.
Would a coastal and Midwestern G.O.P. sit easily with the Southern and Western one? No, but majority parties are usually coalitions of the incompatible. This is really the only chance Republicans have. The question is: Who’s going to build a second G.O.P.?
David Brooks Fighting GOP “Freedomism” to the Death. By Matt Welch. Reason, January 29, 2013.
The Simpletons: David Brooks, Thomas L. Friedman, and the banal authoritarianism of do-something punditry. By Matt Welch. Reason, December 2011. Also find it here.
David Brooks on Freedomism vs. Rhinoism. Essay in symposium “What Is the Future of Conservatism in the Wake of the Wake of the 2012 Election.” Commentary January 2013. Full symposium here.
The Republican Glasnost. By David Brooks. New York Times, December 6, 2012.
The Conservative Future. By David Brooks. New York Times, November 19, 2012.
The Party of Work. By David Brooks. New York Times, November 8, 2012.
The Conservative Mind. By David Brooks. New York Times, September 24, 2012.
Party of Strivers. By David Brooks. New York Times, August 30, 2012.
What Republicans Think. By David Brooks. New York Times, June 14, 2012.
Our Age of Anxiety. By Yuval Levin. The Weekly Standard, May 28, 2012. Also find it here.
The Possum Republicans. By David Brooks. New York Times, February 27, 2012.
The Great Migration. By David Brooks.
The Great Migration. By David Brooks. New York Times, January 24, 2013.
The Age of Possiblility. By David Brooks. New York Times, November 15, 2012.
The Talent Society. By David Brooks. New York Times, February 20, 2012.
The Age of Possiblility. By David Brooks. New York Times, November 15, 2012.
The Talent Society. By David Brooks. New York Times, February 20, 2012.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Jackson Falls From Progressives’ Favor. By Salena Zito.
Jackson falls from progressives’ favor. By Salena Zito. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, February 2, 2013.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Happy Candlemas (or Brighid’s Day). By Adam Garfinkle.
Happy Candlemas (or Brighid’s Day). By Adam Garfinkle. The American Interest, February 1, 2013.
Groundhog Day: A Movie For All Time. By Jonah Goldberg. National Review, February 14, 2005.
Garfinkle:
Well, February 2 is a significant date in the Christian calendar. It’s Candlemas Day, which is also known, with slight variations according to religious tradition, as the Feast of the Presentation of Jesus at the Temple. But the Church calendar appears to be coincidental with or, more likely, an overlay on much, much older Celtic agricultural observances. It has to do with a very ancient, astronomically linked celebration called Imbolc, which later became Brighid’s Day and even later, after Christianization, Saint Brighid’s Day. There is a great deal of lore and legend associated with Imbolc, much of it involving Cailleach, the hag of Gaelic tradition. And yes, that lore and legend very much includes weather prognostication and careful observation of the emergence from hibernation of badgers and snakes. Imbolc is about halfway between the winter solstice and the spring equinox, and markings on ancient megaliths testify to its origins in astronomical observation. It was a time thought to be a harbinger of spring on account of the onset of ewe’s lactating in expectation of spring lambs, and the blossom-setting of certain plants, principally the blackthorn (itself associated with much lore).
Groundhog Day: A Movie For All Time. By Jonah Goldberg. National Review, February 14, 2005.
Garfinkle:
Well, February 2 is a significant date in the Christian calendar. It’s Candlemas Day, which is also known, with slight variations according to religious tradition, as the Feast of the Presentation of Jesus at the Temple. But the Church calendar appears to be coincidental with or, more likely, an overlay on much, much older Celtic agricultural observances. It has to do with a very ancient, astronomically linked celebration called Imbolc, which later became Brighid’s Day and even later, after Christianization, Saint Brighid’s Day. There is a great deal of lore and legend associated with Imbolc, much of it involving Cailleach, the hag of Gaelic tradition. And yes, that lore and legend very much includes weather prognostication and careful observation of the emergence from hibernation of badgers and snakes. Imbolc is about halfway between the winter solstice and the spring equinox, and markings on ancient megaliths testify to its origins in astronomical observation. It was a time thought to be a harbinger of spring on account of the onset of ewe’s lactating in expectation of spring lambs, and the blossom-setting of certain plants, principally the blackthorn (itself associated with much lore).
In Hard Economy for All Ages, Older Isn’t Better . . . It’s Brutal. By Catherine Rampell.
In Hard Economy for All Ages, Older Isn’t Better . . . It’s Brutal. By Catherine Rampell. New York Times, February 2, 2013.
Deadly Deserts. By Ralph Peters.
Deadly Deserts. By Ralph Peters. New York Post, February 2, 2013.
Peters:
Violence in Allah’s name in northern Africa won’t end in my lifetime — and probably not in yours. The core question is: To what extent can the savagery be contained?
From the Atlantic coastline to the Suez Canal, struggling governments, impoverished populations and frankly backward societies struggle to find paths to modernization and to compete in a ruthless global economy. Religious fanatics for whom progress is a betrayal of faith hope to block development.
Still, if the only conflict was between Islamist terrorists and those who want civilized lives, the situation could be managed over time. But that struggle forms only one level in a layer cake of clashing visions and outright civil wars bedeviling a vast region. Much larger than Europe, the zone of contention encompasses the Maghreb, the countries touching the Mediterranean, and the Sahel, the bitterly poor states stretching down across desert wastes to the African savannah.
The Sahel is the front line not only between the world of Islam and Christian-animist cultures in Africa’s heart, but between Arabs and light-skinned tribes in the north, and blacks to the south. No area in the world so explicitly illustrates the late, great Samuel Huntington’s concept of “the clash of civilizations.”
If racial and religious differences were not challenge enough, in the Maghreb the factions and interest groups are still more complicated. We view Egypt as locked in a contest between Islamists and “our guys,” Egyptians seeking new freedoms. But Egypt’s identity struggle is far more complex, involving social liberals, moderate Muslims, stern conservative Muslims (such as the Muslim Brotherhood) and outright fanatics. The military forms another constituency, while the business community defends its selfish interests. Then there are the supporters of the old Mubarak regime, the masses of educated-but-unemployed youth and the bitterly poor peasants.
Atop all that there’s the question of whether the values cherished by Arab societies can adapt to a globalized world.
The path to Egypt’s future will not be smooth — yet Egypt’s chances are better than those of many of its neighbors.
. . . . . . . . . .
Two years after the revolution, angry masses crowd the streets again, this time to protest against the latest man-who-would-be-pharaoh, democratically elected President Mohammed Morsi. Morsi rushed to pack as many senior government positions as possible with fellow members of the Muslim Brotherhood without worrying about competence. Now he heads an inept government and resorts to heavy-handed means to quell unrest.
The Muslim Brotherhood made a strategic error in grasping power too quickly, instead of aping the creeping Islamization underway in Turkey. While the Brotherhood had the Chicago-style organization to turn out the illiterate masses, it utterly lacked the wherewithal to halt the economy’s downward spiral. And, in the end, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Even fundamentalists have to eat.
By overplaying their hand so eagerly, the Muslim Brothers have lost credibility. Will they be able to hang onto the power they’ve sought for almost a century? They won’t give it up easily, but Morsi has gone from confidence to fear in record time. The action (or inaction) of the military may be the crucial factor in determining Egypt’s future — which remains very much in question.
. . . . . . . . . .
The bottom line? Unified international action, as in Mali (or Somalia), can push back Islamist terrorists. But the fractured nature of local societies, low levels of development, corruption and, not least, traditional hatreds guarantee unrest for decades to come. We’ll be engaged, whether we like it or not. Instead of defaulting to idiotic slogans like “Lead from behind!” we need to think ahead.
Peters:
Violence in Allah’s name in northern Africa won’t end in my lifetime — and probably not in yours. The core question is: To what extent can the savagery be contained?
From the Atlantic coastline to the Suez Canal, struggling governments, impoverished populations and frankly backward societies struggle to find paths to modernization and to compete in a ruthless global economy. Religious fanatics for whom progress is a betrayal of faith hope to block development.
Still, if the only conflict was between Islamist terrorists and those who want civilized lives, the situation could be managed over time. But that struggle forms only one level in a layer cake of clashing visions and outright civil wars bedeviling a vast region. Much larger than Europe, the zone of contention encompasses the Maghreb, the countries touching the Mediterranean, and the Sahel, the bitterly poor states stretching down across desert wastes to the African savannah.
The Sahel is the front line not only between the world of Islam and Christian-animist cultures in Africa’s heart, but between Arabs and light-skinned tribes in the north, and blacks to the south. No area in the world so explicitly illustrates the late, great Samuel Huntington’s concept of “the clash of civilizations.”
If racial and religious differences were not challenge enough, in the Maghreb the factions and interest groups are still more complicated. We view Egypt as locked in a contest between Islamists and “our guys,” Egyptians seeking new freedoms. But Egypt’s identity struggle is far more complex, involving social liberals, moderate Muslims, stern conservative Muslims (such as the Muslim Brotherhood) and outright fanatics. The military forms another constituency, while the business community defends its selfish interests. Then there are the supporters of the old Mubarak regime, the masses of educated-but-unemployed youth and the bitterly poor peasants.
Atop all that there’s the question of whether the values cherished by Arab societies can adapt to a globalized world.
The path to Egypt’s future will not be smooth — yet Egypt’s chances are better than those of many of its neighbors.
. . . . . . . . . .
Two years after the revolution, angry masses crowd the streets again, this time to protest against the latest man-who-would-be-pharaoh, democratically elected President Mohammed Morsi. Morsi rushed to pack as many senior government positions as possible with fellow members of the Muslim Brotherhood without worrying about competence. Now he heads an inept government and resorts to heavy-handed means to quell unrest.
The Muslim Brotherhood made a strategic error in grasping power too quickly, instead of aping the creeping Islamization underway in Turkey. While the Brotherhood had the Chicago-style organization to turn out the illiterate masses, it utterly lacked the wherewithal to halt the economy’s downward spiral. And, in the end, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Even fundamentalists have to eat.
By overplaying their hand so eagerly, the Muslim Brothers have lost credibility. Will they be able to hang onto the power they’ve sought for almost a century? They won’t give it up easily, but Morsi has gone from confidence to fear in record time. The action (or inaction) of the military may be the crucial factor in determining Egypt’s future — which remains very much in question.
. . . . . . . . . .
The bottom line? Unified international action, as in Mali (or Somalia), can push back Islamist terrorists. But the fractured nature of local societies, low levels of development, corruption and, not least, traditional hatreds guarantee unrest for decades to come. We’ll be engaged, whether we like it or not. Instead of defaulting to idiotic slogans like “Lead from behind!” we need to think ahead.
The Real ‘60 Minutes’ Revelation. By Michael Tomasky.
The Real ‘60 Minutes’ Revelation. By Michael Tomasky. The Daily Beast, January 29, 2013.
Tomasky:
I can actually see, to some extent, the point of conservatives’ complaints about the Obama-Hillary 60 Minutes interview. It was softbally, and Steve Kroft’s one real question—to Clinton, about whether she felt any guilt or remorse over Benghazi—she totally didn’t answer. But here, conservatives, is what you are missing and what you need to reckon with. Americans—except you—like these two people. Most Americans look at the pair of them—this black man who is still remote in some ways and this so-familiar woman who is now aging before us and allowing herself to look just a little frumpy—and feel reassured. Most Americans are cheering for them, and hence, most Americans probably wanted a softball interview. We have thus passed an important portal in American politics: Democrats are now the regular guys. Conservatives are the weirdos.
. . . . . . . . . .
Obama and Clinton talked, in other words, like mature adults, and they sold it as genuine because it was genuine. And I’d contend that it made most people watching feel something like: Well, these are very smart and self-assured people, and they’re mostly pretty likable, too, and agree or disagree with this or that decision they make or action they take, I feel like my country is in pretty good hands with them. And yes, to invoke the hackneyed litmus-test question—I’d drink a beer, or a pinot, or in HRC’s case a shot of Crown Royal, with them. To everyone but right-wingers, that was the vibe Sunday night—a victory lap, and a victory lap that no one begrudged them.
They’re the real Americans now. It’s not that they have changed, but that America has. The measures for real Americanism are no longer clearing brush, hunting elk, hopping on top of various animals, dropping one’s g’s (in speech, I mean), and speaking in intentionally ungrammatical apothegmatic frontier “wisdom.” The new measures? Not completely sure yet. But we do have now the collective realization that those were fake measures—some Harvey Mansfield–inspired Potemkin Village of “real America.” Also, the collective realization that it’s probably on balance not at all a bad idea for the president not to be “just like us,” which was the folk wisdom of a decade ago, but in fact a little smarter than most of us.
The Republicans? It’s not just the extreme ideology. Of course it’s that, but it’s more. The whole shtick is old. Where once the Middle American ear may have been soothed by that low Cheney rumble belching out its grave assessments of the world situation, today it is accosted by all those caliginous Southern accents warning of socialism and collapse, and thinks: will these people ever shut up? Georgia Congressman Paul Broun told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution last week that Obama “upholds … the Soviet Constitution.” On any given week, I could fill a whole column, or two, with such nuggets. Enough already.
While Obama and Clinton were speaking, so was Paul Ryan, to a conservative gathering, where he said: “There are two ways to respond to defeat: Either you can deny it, or you can learn from it. I choose to learn from it. The way I see it, our defeat is all the more reason to lay out our vision with even more specifics—and with a broader appeal.”
What he’s saying there, and throughout the speech, is that the GOP isn’t going to change its stripes a bit. “Broader appeal” means I suppose better (read: more dishonest) packaging for a bunch of reactionary policies that Americans don’t want.
Conservatives, you can call me and others like me all the names you want, and you can whine about the evil CBS all you want. But Kroft and his network were actually in touch here with the pulse of the country, which wants Obama to succeed and Hillary to go have a nice long rest (and, maybe, get ready for 2016). Meanwhile, even Roger Ailes has gotten sick of Sarah Palin. Get the picture?
Obama and Clinton: The 60 Minutes Interview. 60 Minutes. CBS News, January 29, 2013. Also find video here, here, and here.
Tomasky:
I can actually see, to some extent, the point of conservatives’ complaints about the Obama-Hillary 60 Minutes interview. It was softbally, and Steve Kroft’s one real question—to Clinton, about whether she felt any guilt or remorse over Benghazi—she totally didn’t answer. But here, conservatives, is what you are missing and what you need to reckon with. Americans—except you—like these two people. Most Americans look at the pair of them—this black man who is still remote in some ways and this so-familiar woman who is now aging before us and allowing herself to look just a little frumpy—and feel reassured. Most Americans are cheering for them, and hence, most Americans probably wanted a softball interview. We have thus passed an important portal in American politics: Democrats are now the regular guys. Conservatives are the weirdos.
. . . . . . . . . .
Obama and Clinton talked, in other words, like mature adults, and they sold it as genuine because it was genuine. And I’d contend that it made most people watching feel something like: Well, these are very smart and self-assured people, and they’re mostly pretty likable, too, and agree or disagree with this or that decision they make or action they take, I feel like my country is in pretty good hands with them. And yes, to invoke the hackneyed litmus-test question—I’d drink a beer, or a pinot, or in HRC’s case a shot of Crown Royal, with them. To everyone but right-wingers, that was the vibe Sunday night—a victory lap, and a victory lap that no one begrudged them.
They’re the real Americans now. It’s not that they have changed, but that America has. The measures for real Americanism are no longer clearing brush, hunting elk, hopping on top of various animals, dropping one’s g’s (in speech, I mean), and speaking in intentionally ungrammatical apothegmatic frontier “wisdom.” The new measures? Not completely sure yet. But we do have now the collective realization that those were fake measures—some Harvey Mansfield–inspired Potemkin Village of “real America.” Also, the collective realization that it’s probably on balance not at all a bad idea for the president not to be “just like us,” which was the folk wisdom of a decade ago, but in fact a little smarter than most of us.
The Republicans? It’s not just the extreme ideology. Of course it’s that, but it’s more. The whole shtick is old. Where once the Middle American ear may have been soothed by that low Cheney rumble belching out its grave assessments of the world situation, today it is accosted by all those caliginous Southern accents warning of socialism and collapse, and thinks: will these people ever shut up? Georgia Congressman Paul Broun told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution last week that Obama “upholds … the Soviet Constitution.” On any given week, I could fill a whole column, or two, with such nuggets. Enough already.
While Obama and Clinton were speaking, so was Paul Ryan, to a conservative gathering, where he said: “There are two ways to respond to defeat: Either you can deny it, or you can learn from it. I choose to learn from it. The way I see it, our defeat is all the more reason to lay out our vision with even more specifics—and with a broader appeal.”
What he’s saying there, and throughout the speech, is that the GOP isn’t going to change its stripes a bit. “Broader appeal” means I suppose better (read: more dishonest) packaging for a bunch of reactionary policies that Americans don’t want.
Conservatives, you can call me and others like me all the names you want, and you can whine about the evil CBS all you want. But Kroft and his network were actually in touch here with the pulse of the country, which wants Obama to succeed and Hillary to go have a nice long rest (and, maybe, get ready for 2016). Meanwhile, even Roger Ailes has gotten sick of Sarah Palin. Get the picture?
Obama and Clinton: The 60 Minutes Interview. 60 Minutes. CBS News, January 29, 2013. Also find video here, here, and here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)