The Radical Centrist

The tragedy of "racialization"

Reihan Salam has a two-in-one post over at AndrewSullivan.com on the "tragedy" of identity politics. In this case it's the Hispanic community that is being discussed, but his point covers all efforts to "racialize" an issue. All attempts to use racial distinctions as a political tool represent a step backward. I'm willing to believe that there may be times when this "step backward" can be useful, but these are very rare occasions, limited in scope, with a very definite end point. Racial politics, indeed any race-based policies, are, at their very best, like chemotherapy treatment. You have to use it very carefully and you don't really start healing until it stops. From Reihan's post:

The notion that the Census Bureau merely describes “sociological reality” by codifying race is flatly absurd. The “ethnoracial pentagon” drives and then reinforces a process initiated by political entrepreneurs like López. It manufactures “sociological reality.” It sharpens divisions, and only a handful of interpreters and middlemen-in the social-services industry, among the marketing gurus, and, of course, among the professors-stand to benefit. Don’t let it happen.

When your politics and your policies are based upon racial distinctions, it is very much in your interest to maintain and develop those racial distinctions. People who are pursuing these sorts of identity politics are eager to keep race and cultural divisions top of mind in America.

Carnival of the Vanities #119

The 119th Carnival of the Vanities is here! This week we have another great selection of prime posts from around the blog world. I'm a bit slow posting it but I will blame the lousy weather in Southern California and the late surge in submissions, and beg your understanding. I count 33 35 submissions for this week's Carnival and they are a typically diverse group. A few took up the idea of a New Years theme and I have given them top billing. There is the usual crowd of conservative blogs, but a few liberals are here as well. There are newcomers and some of the old pro's. Take advantage of the long holiday weekend and spend some time with these authors.

I noticed as I read through the submissions that bloggers, who have a reputation for being contrary and argumentative, are getting soft it seems. There is a definite trend towards the "easy sell" in this week's Carnival, of taking positions that everyone agrees with. Perhaps its the holiday spirit at work, we all want to be so nice this time of year. Pete resolves to gain weight, LaShawn wishes for fewer idiot commenters, Dee wants us to have more sex, Joe wants us to give ourselves more presents...these are not daring, radical positions! I guess, like Martin of the Ego blog, we all like to be liked.

Let's get the Carnival started:

The World According to Pete has embraced New Year's theme and the idea of "going with the flow" by announcing some New Year's resolutions he's bound to keep. I think he's onto something. Why start the year disappointed with yourself? Make these sorts of resolutions and impress yourself with your resolve! I should resolve to spend too much time blogging and to make a lot of typo's. There! I feel more confident already!

LaShawn Barber has some New Year's wishes of her own over at LaShawn Barber's Corner. She hopes to see some improvements in the blogging world like intelligent comments from liberal readers, which seems like asking for a miracle, but as LaShawn is also a Christian blogger, she's entitled. She also hopes that "Moderate bloggers will open the closet door and let the liberal or conservative come out", which made me smile. Sometimes being a centrist means that you are offensive to all of your neighbors (and blog readers) so jumping on either the conservative or liberal wagon can seem very enticing. Still, being a centrist does have it rewards, including being able to read and enjoy good blogs from both ends of the spectrum. LaShawn's is one of my favorites. I hope she gets her New Year's wishes.

Jill at The Business of Life starts her New Years reflection by observing that "more gadgets don't necessarily increase our well-being", something you'll agree with when you're struggling to get that new Christmas laptop or PDA working. As a resident of Silicon Valley I ought to argue with Jill about this, but I can't. She follows with excellent thoughts on finding happiness and meaning in life.

I'm putting this post near the top because its from a centrist blogger and, well, I'm biased that way. Annie (aka "Amba", great nickname!) at Ambivablog is no longer ambivalent on the Iraq war (LaShawn is smiling) and has noticed that the media seems a bit negative. She reports that "I'm learning something new (to me, that is): that denial can be a necessary part of resolve." I'm not sure that the conservative bloggers would put it that way but it's an astute observation nonetheless.

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway has a "rough time taking Katie Couric seriously as a journalist." I'm sure he's not the only one. Selecting Couric to replace Dan Rather would, "signal the end of the nightly network news as a serious player in the news game." I wonder if it isn't time to drop the myth of network news anchors as "master journalists." Perhaps the best indication that the reign of the network news shows is over is when the selection of a new anchor is no longer news.

James isn't the only one Couric-blogging this week. Jeff at Beautiful Atrocities has done some very extensive research to trace the evolutionary pathways that lead to Katie. Whether this is evidence of "Intelligent Design" he does not address. You'll have to reach your own opinion on that.

Outside the Beltway also takes the Washington Post to task for inadequate statistical support for its claim that pregnant women are increasingly targeted in murders. Terrific stories like these have long been known to sell more papers, however, so I would not expect the post to hold back waiting for better statistical support.

Speaking of disturbing stories, Dr. Tom Boyle at CodeBlueBlog has a story of Botox Gone Bad, with a litigation angle as well. Its a sad tale that is even more sadly is not a surprise.

DeeMarie at Taken in Hand was kind enough to provide a "suggested description" for her submission: "On Taken In Hand DeeMarie has a delightfully scathing answer to the question Is chastity overrated?"

I did, however, read the post, so I can let you know that Dee suggests that chastity is not the best idea for young lovers. She says of herself, "I came of age in the 1970s", which says a lot. I'm sure Dee could get an argument from people who have different opinions on the wisdom of "sowing your oats", but I really doubt that young lovers need much encouragement to decide to try "erotic liberation and sexual exploration" rather than chastity.

Adam Crouch at The Raw Prawn, is a surprisingly rare animal, a "burger blogger." Adam is enthusiastic about the potential for success of Hardee's new Monster Thickburger. Adam feels that McDonald's and other major fast food restaurants are under serving an important market segment, old-fashioned guys who feel that "counting calories is "girly". "Real men" want a thick, juicy slab of meat." The Post is illustrated with a photograph of the new menu item that will set your mouth watering (that is, if you're one of those fellows Adam is talking about.) If you're interested in business strategy within the fast food industry, or just like to look at really big burgers, check it out. Now why can't I stop staring at that picture?

Young Dr. Charles had an unexpected visitor before Christmas. Anyone who carries a belly like a "bowl full of jelly" ought to be getting a checkup from the doctor (before running over to Hardee's for a Monster Thickburger.) The doctor reveals that yet another cultural hero is relying on hormones to enhance performance. Ah well...

The Spear Shaker has some ideas about the "Greatest Tragedy of the last Century". Although I'd love to argue his conclusion, I won't give away his surprise, you'll just have to go read it yourself. He makes good points about unintended consequences. If you look carefully at history you'll see that unintended consequences are not only likely, they're inevitable, and unpredictable (within realistic expectations.)

Vic Rubenfeld at The Big Picture notes that population continues to flow from the "Blue States" to the "Red States". He wonders if "the Liberal policies of the blue states are driving their own populations away."

Joe at Attaboy has an idea sure to be almost as popular as Dee's call for sexual experimentation. He calls it "Self Gifting", and has already claimed copyright. Nowadays he could probably receive a patent on it as well. At the very least he ought to be able to get a nice grant to fund a research study. Maybe earn himself an endowed chair in "Christmas Studies."

While Joe is developing new gifting strategies, Graham Lester at Point to Point has an offer to get you in on the new "hot mineral." It's a sure-fire way to build wealth (Graham's wealth, that is.) The Web being the kind of place it is, I don't doubt that someone somewhere is eager to take Graham up on his offer. This is certainly not the most outrageous offer I've received in my email in-box recently.

Superhawk at Right WingNutHouse remembers that Christmas is not only a Christian holiday, secular gift orgy and pagan solstice celebration, it's also the anniversary of an important moment in American History, George Washington's daring crossing of the Delaware River and successful attack on Trenton. All kidding aside, this is a great and under appreciated story from the Revolutionary War that Superhawk recounts well. It's good to remember that we weren't always the superpower in the world, and that Americans built their reputation as scrappy fighters with actions like these.

If you're wondering what Jews do during Christmas, besides saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", Josh Cohen has spilled the beans, in verse no less! Apparently there is a secret little Christmas tradition that we Christians never knew about! I have heard from Hindu friends that they celebrate the same way.

Bob Gronlund at "We The Free" notes that not all is discord and conflict in the world today. He finds that there is growing world unanimity that the French need rehabilitation. There are some who would argue that "rehabilitation" is too restrained, and that something stronger is called for. Bashing the French has to be one of the oldest surviving sports, even Julius Ceasar pursued it!

Almost as fun (and easy) as bashing the French is bashing the New York Times. Ed Mick at Revealed Truth has collected some NYT gems from the past year. He hits upon what may be the most damaging way to attack the Times, "just ignore them." Perhaps they too can be "rehabilitated" like the French. Let's just link to the good reporters and columnists over there and let the bad stories fade away.

Something about this time of the year has people speaking in rhyme. Andrew Ian Dodge at Dodgeblogium (try getting that one through the spell checker!) has penned a little poem (now set to music!) expressing his year-end best wishes and advice. It concludes, "Let yourself go, have some fun. Life’s too short, when all’s said and done", which is just about right for New Year's Eve.

Small Business blogger Warren Meyer, at Coyote Blog, offers one of his favorite posts from the year now ending, a "60 Second Refutation of Socialism, While Sitting at the Beach." Personally, I can't think of a better place to refute socialism, although a cozy pub will do in a pinch. Warren rescues a young family member from academic socialism with an illustration that there is more than labor driving the world. Warren needs to take this lecture to Florida during Spring Break.

The Watcher, as in Watcher of Weasels has some thoughts on the Mosul attack.

John Ray of Dissecting Leftism maintains so many blogs that he needs his own Carnival to cover them. He's collected his best in this summary post, that covers everything from Leftists to Nazi's.

Bussorah at Wicked Thoughts lightens the mood with a page full of jokes. You'll need a few new ones for those New Year's parties, so check it out.

Ian Hamet at Banana Oil knows that there is more to Hong Kong film than marshal arts. He reviews a romantic comedy called "Turn Left, Turn Right, 2003". The problem with reviews like this is that the film is almost impossible to find in the US, so you're only being teased (unless, of course, you're not in the US.) Still, if more people read Ian's reviews and start asking, perhaps these films will get distributed here as well.

Eric Scheie at Classical Values tackles a challenging moral conundrum, is it morally acceptable to pretend to be a liberal or even a socialist in order to get better grades at college? Well, I never had any trouble with it. I figure that lying to fools to make them happy is a kindness, of sorts, and college kids have enough to handle without the social isolation that conservative views will get you. Just remember that many professors are more interested in political posturing than honest beliefs and tell them whatever you need to. But don't take my word for it, read Eric's typically excellent post. (Another example of unintended consequences!)

Michael, who claims to be Slowly Going Sane, has an idea for the "perfect marketplace". The link connects to only the first of five short pages in the post, so don't miss any!

Nick manages to combine political punditry with dialysis discussion over at Conservative Dialysis. One of the things he is wishing for in the coming year is a new kidney and pancreas, but the effects and consequences of the procedure are much on his mind. I can't say I blame him. People in Nick's situation find themselves in a difficult moral and emotional spot, wishing for someone to die so that they may live. Nick seems to be keeping a good attitude about it, and I for one will extend him prayers and best wishes for a new kidney in 2005, and prayers for the poor soul who's organs he receives.

Mike at Interested Participant finds that there is only a trickle of deserters going to Canada, rather than the flood implied in media reports, which only serves to make them easier to track.

Over at Darleen's Place, Darleen has a heartwarming but sad story about losing a beloved family pet after 19 years. Lot's of stories in the news these days that are sad without being the least bit heartwarming, so savor this one.

We've been needing some Leftist blogging to add balance to this carnival. Fortunately, Rob, The Unrepentant Liberal, has submitted his take on the situation in Iraq. Needless to say, it doesn't look rosy to Rob.

Madeleine Begun Kane serves up some liberal thinking in rhyme at her humor blog, Mad Kane. Poetry about Social Security reform you don't see every day, so don't let this pass you by. She calls it "Dupe-Meister Dub", which is not only a novel new nickname for the Pres, but has the added benefit of rhyming with "Shrub".

Martin Lindeskog, an "American in Spirit" from Gothenburg, Sweden, likes to get his ego stroked. He likes it so much that he named his blog "Ego" and has chosen to end the year by reiterating the thanks he offered his ego gratifying readers last Thanksgiving. Some would say that being an unrepentant egoist definitely makes Martin an "American in Spirit", but I disagree. We Americans are much more likely to be egoists in denial. He's not really a true egoist, however. Martin blows his cover by admitting that he has been disturbed by some negative comments on his blog. A truly egotistic blogger is gratified with any attention at all, no matter how negative. They mix well with the egotistic commenters.

UPDATE: I got so involved reading the submissions that I forgot to include my own year-end thoughts on the "Year of the Blog". I see some hopeful trends in the development of the "Blog World" and I hope we can keep this going.

I also post on non-political subjects, including Earth Sciences, at Bird's Eye View. I figured it was time to say something about the Asian tsunami. It's hard to be reminded that the earth has such dangers and horrors in it, but Earth Scientists know this and think about these events a lot. It's strange to witness what we discussed and modeled years ago.

Bill Adams at Idler Yet is reviewing the reviewers, He's found a movie/book/music review site that collects many reviews onto one site, and finds that there are some really good and readable reviewers out there.

That's a hopeful note on which to end the last Carnival of 2004. There really are people out there who have something interesting to say and the skill to say it well. I'll add one New Year's wish of my own. I hope you all keep writing and reading blogs, and reward the good ones with your readership, links and even meaningful and polite comments. I also hope you keep reading and submitting to the Carnival of the Vanities and the many other Carnivals it has inspired.

Next week's Carnival is at Vessel of Honor. Start writing and get those submissions in early!

Happy a happy and safe New Years!

2004, the Year of the Blog (?)

2004 is supposed to be "the year of the blog" and who am I to argue? Blogging is not only big news and the latest style, it's also something of a miraculous event. It represents (potentially) the resurrection of reading and writing, which were considered "dead arts" among the general population. With more and more folks walking around with cell phones glued to their ears, I'm thrilled to find people communicating at all in a written medium. The best weblogs represent a return to an earlier age, when thinking people communicated through letters. These letters were both circulated and further commented on by other writers. We would be very fortunate if the blogging world, or at least a significant portion of the blogging world, retains as its model the world of literary correspondence.

Obviously, blogging has its unique features. The low barriers to entry, and the low cost of maintenance has clearly opened up the dialogue to include a vastly larger body of participants, and a corresponding increase in the diversity of voices and variety of life experiences being heard. What comes easily can also go easily, and many, if not most, of the blogs being published today will fade away sometime in the near future. This may well turn out to be a good thing. There are times when even the best writers and most insightful observers need to be quiet and listen and watch. Stale thinking from over-extended writers infects our politics, polical commentary and academia. The blog world allows some writers t fade into the background and new voices to come forward.

Some of the special features of the blog world are critical to its development as an important new media:

¶1. Partiality: For the most part, blog writers make no claim to a superhuman ability to remain impartial observers. They are generally very upfront about their context, initial positions, and agendas. This changes the whole context for the writing, from a "pronouncement" or "newscast" style of communication, to which there can be no response, to a dialogue or, more accurately, group conversation, to which a response is encouraged and expected. There was a time when most cities hosted a multitude of daily newspapers representing a range of political and social positions and views. They wore their biases openly, often right there in the masthead. They're editors wrote scathingly about their political opponents and competing newspapers. This may not have been an era of high journalism, but it was very entertaining reading, people read and discussed newspapers as a matter of course, and people recognized that facts must be interpreted through minds, and that there are at least two (and often a lot more) ways of looking at any situation.

¶2. Humility: with a few exceptions, bloggers do not take themselves nearly as seriously as the modern "journalist". Bloggers explain who they are, state their positions and ideas, and reference, through links, those other writers on whose work they are building. This habit also gives their writing a conversational sense, that encourages readers to form their own opinions, and contribute their own ideas and observations. Some writers in the traditional media have responded to the rise of blogs with their usual claims of authority. They point to their journalism degrees, their years of experience, or their high position with respected publications. The blog world, to its credit, scoffs at these. It's not healthy in private conversation for one participant to be frequently asserting his or her superiority over the others. Dialogues can quickly changed to monologues, in a phenomena I'm sure we're all familiar with. It's equally unhealthy in our public conversation (if indeed we want to maintain a "conversation".) Even some of the most popular and widely read bloggers are remarkably (and refreshingly) open to new participants with new voices.

¶3. Linking: perhaps the most distinctive and important feature of the weblog is the inclusion of persistent hyperlinks. Again this allows this written communication form to more closely model personal conversation. The links and connections between speakers, which are obvious in a face-to-face conversation, are now obvious in the written conversation, and even better, are persistent and traceable.

A more subtle effect of linking is to place the primary focus on the idea being discussed rather than the speaker. In the blog world a new idea/story/meme will circulate and spread very rapidly across a wide number of weblogs, some agreeing, some adding and reshaping, some disagreeing and counter-arguing. This idea will quickly lose its association with the original poster and take on a life of its own. Note how most (perhaps I should say, "the best") year-end reviews of blogging in 2004 focus on the important stories that emerged out of a world of blog writers rather than on a few high impact personalities.

This important part of the "bloggers ethic", insisting on links back to source material, more detailed discussion or even disagreeing viewpoints, must be maintained. At the moment the blog world most closely resembles a conversation, or an exchange of correspondence. If we lose the linking, blogging will devolve into Internet pamphleteering.

¶4. Reading: Blog writers are also enthusiastic readers. They read newspapers and magazines, the latest books and the classics, and importantly, they read other blogs. Once again, it's an aspect of this media that forms its conversational feeling. We write to one another rather than past one another. This is why ideas can develop so quickly in the blog world. The great Dan Rather/Counterfeit Memo incident, certainly one of, if not the highlight of the blog world for 2004, is a perfect example of how blog writers can build on one another's work at high speed. Like people around a conference table, blog writers think and write in serial, and an idea can grow and develop through the participation of many minds. This is why I think that writers in the traditional media should embrace and perhaps even join in the blog conversation. Writers need readers, and there are few better and more enthusiastic readers than the bloggers.

While some portion of the blog world will always remain a crowd of public diaries, and another set will become Internet based versions of the traditional news reports and essays, I hope that we can use the remaining blogs to create an ongoing public conversation. A conversation that crosses time zones political boundaries, and ideologies. A conversation that has the persistence and accessibility of written media, along with the flow and dynamics of a verbal discussion. This is not just an old thing moved to the new electronic media, but a sufficiently new thing and a new way of conversing that we can hope for, and even expect, new results.

Carnival of the Vanities - Get your submissions in!

The 119th Carnival of the Vanities is headed for Radical Centrist! I'll have the latest sampling of the blogworld's best up for your enjoyment on the 29th. That gives you a few days to get your submissions written and submitted. As this is the last Carnival of 2004 and will be "current" over the New Year weekend, I thought we should give special attention to posts that either recap this eventful year or make predictions about the next one. What do you have to say about the "Year of the Blog"? What do you see in your crystal ball for 2005?

Send a link to your big end-of-year recap to radcen@theradicalcentrist.com and be a part of the New Year Carnival!

Of course, if your prize post is not on a New Year theme that's OK too! The Carnival is all about variety. Just get a link in to me today or tomorrow!

Embracing the Center, Without Losing the Wings

A week ago California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger suggested in that the Republican Party ought to of "move a little to the left" in order to grab some more voters. Arthur Chrenkoff disagreed with Arnold's reasoning, arguing that any votes gained would be offset by losses from the far right. I'm a big fan of Arthur's and a regular reader of his blog, but I have to disagree with him here. There's consistent evidence that a strong candidate running from a centrist position, like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Rudi Giuliani can capture new voters from the center/left without losing much of the party's right wing.

Some of this is just a matter of statistical distribution. If the distribution of voters along the traditional political spectrum approximates a standard bell curve, a big assumption but a reasonable one, a shift towards the center will gain far more votes from the fat part of the bell curve that it can ever lose from the right hand tail of the distribution. But this is not the critical point, however, as the goal should be, as Schwarzenegger stated, to expand the appeal of the party and hold on to conservative voters. The key is to move away from candidacies based upon specific issues and positions.

In truth, no candidate wins political office without winning votes from people who disagree with at least some of his or her stated positions. Every candidate must win the trust of people who hold differing views. These voters trust the candidate to respect their democratic rights, to assure that their views are heard and seriously considered, and to be supportive of the winning position whatever it may be. An election victory is not a free pass to do whatever you wish with the country; leadership is not dictatorship. Executives must deal with legislatures, legislators have to deal with the executive branch, and with each other. Everyone is accountable to the voters. Centrist candidates generally don't run on ideologies, but rather as skilled managers of this boisterous system, who can lead people of varying viewpoints to an agreement, and as open-minded protectors of the people's interest.

There is nothing here to threaten conservative voters. If their positions can muster support a centrist candidate ought to get behind them. This isn't "softness" on the issues, this is democracy at work. Here in California we have experience with legislators and governors who refused to accept the peoples' wishes, and we've developed an overactive initiative system as a result. We also tossed out a governor recently. Arnold really didn't run and win on a specific slate of issues and positions. He got votes because he seems to be listening, and he's willing to drive the democratic process in CA, without demanding upfront a specific result.

His comment from last weeks interview seems a bit off-the-cuff and I would have preferred that he didn't say "to the left", because that's not really what is needed. If we think instead about broadening the appeal, focusing on leadership toward common objectives, we can have the 5% gain Arnold looks for and more.

Chrenkoff interviews Aurthur Vincent

I'm back from some travel to the northeast and able to catch up on the blog universe. Arthur Chrenkoff is adding interviews to his already feature-rich site. The inaugural interview is with Stephen Vincent, author of a new book based on his recent travels through Iraq. Unlike most journalists in the country, Vincent was not there to cover the military activity. He spent his time with the Iraqi people and is trying to tell their story, a story that is until now largely untold.

He has a particularly vivid way of describing the current emotional state of the Iraqi people.

Imagine children whose father physically and emotionally abused them for years. Now imagine that the authorities jail the father and tell the children they're free to live their own lives. Theoretically, they are free, but the traumas of their past will still haunt them, limiting and afflicting their freedom. That's the condition of most Iraqis. As if that weren't bad enough, add in the regressive pull of tribalism and reactionary Islam, and you have a very bleak psychic picture indeed.

How will Iraqis overcome this legacy? It will begin with time and a slow restoration of their sense of nationhood, citizenship and even personal self-esteem. Victories will help: curbing terrorism, managing a successful election, writing a Constitution, building a strong economy. In this way, the Iraqis can work through the humiliation and trauma of being raped by Saddam.

Refreshingly, Vincent is able to discuss the failures of our Iraq policy in an unusually calm and evenhanded manner. Reports that are clear and open-eyed without becoming anti-administration polemics are going to be very important if we are to see Iraq through to successful democratization and peace. Like many other observers, Vincent feels that American planners underestimated the need for military police and other trained law-enforcement personnel after the country was taken. What's refreshing is that he does not focus on assigning blame, which is irrelevant at this stage, but keeps his sights on the much more important and relevant effect that the widespread looting and lawlessness has had on the ordinary Iraqi citizens.

I can't stress how disastrous and demoralizing the pillaging of Baghdad was to Iraq. Not only did it damage the country's infrastructure and destroy many buildings, it weakened Iraqi faith in the U.S. Imagine if your police department suddenly stopped pursuing criminals - how much respect would you have for them? I remember an Iraqi man clutching my arm and pleading, "If you're going to occupy our country, occupy it!"

Do read Arthur's interview and, as he suggests, check out Vincent's new new blog. There is much additional fine material at both locations. I'll just provide you with one additional "prize" quote.

I will say this: what we can do as free people is support the Iraqi resistance. By that I mean the people fighting the paramilitary death squads: the Iraqi police, National Guard troops, politicians, judges, bureaucrats, businesspeople and every last person who votes on January 30. They are the true "resistance." ...Grasp a sobering thought: the fate of the Iraqi people is in our hands - and, for better or worse, ours is in theirs.

This is a wonderfully astute insight. By far the "easiest" thing for the Iraqis to do is to fall back into old habits. Tribalism, violent religious conflict, disregard for the rule of law, and brutality towards opponents have been standard operating procedure in Iraq for decades. Some of these "old habits" go back and for millennia. Efforts to create a democratic society out of totalitarianism, a lawful society out of lawlessness, and a multicultural and multifaith society out of tribalism, is far more difficult and dangerous than any comfortable American can fully appreciate. One way we can rebuild Iraqi pride and counter the "humiliation and trauma" Vincent has described, and also counter European claims of American arrogance, is to recognize the extraordinary heroics of these people who were fighting for freedom against very real and personal dangers. Americans are not the only heroes of democracy in the world nor should we want to be. The noble fight that earlier generations of Americans took up has moved to other battlefields, but it is still the same fight. As Vincent points out, the future of freedom worldwide, including here in America, is very much in the hands of some brave "resistance fighters" in Iraq.

Rudi in the news (for the wrong reasons)

No sooner do I post on the popularity of Rudi Guliani as a potential candidate, when this happens. I'm sad to see Bernie Kerik withdraw, but at least he had the class to get out before the firestorm hit. If this is the worst problem to hit Rudi he will be fortunate. One of the things that can strengthen the early favorites is that all these potentially damaging incidents and revelations can be handled early. George Bush's youthful indiscretions were old news by the time the campaign swung into full action. In any case, if the country is going to embrace Guliani as a leader it will have to deal with his rough ' tough New York political history and style.

Some early enthusiasm for Rudi

Hugh Hewitt did a little unscientific polling in a recent meeting of the conservative Republican women, and found, somewhat to his surprise, that Rudi Giuliani is their early favorite for the 2008 nomination. Other reports and rumors confirmed that despite some of Rudi's "suspect" positions on the issues (that is to say his "moderate" positions) the conservative elements of the party are taking him seriously.

Among the many praises that gushed forth: decisive, experienced, loyal to "W"--an interesting positive, that--funny and, crucially, tough enough to take on the Clintons. There were many praises for Senator Frist, and some for John McCain, but Giuliani has their hearts--already.

I'm a big fan of Giuliani and am glad that he's in such a strong position. It is awfully early, of course, and there's a lot of time yet for him to make a misstep or for other candidates to surge to the front. Then again, I distinctly remember just days after Bob Dole lost the 1996 election to Bill Clinton, hearing that the then governor of Texas was an early favorite for the nomination in 2000. Sometimes the "early word" is the best word. The important next step for Rudi is to find something to do in the next couple years that will keep him not only in the public spotlight but looking like an "achiever". His fine performance after the terrorist attacks on New York will be fondly remembered but it will be seven years in the past come 2008. He'll need something more me tea then inspirational speeches and television punditry to remind the public of his better qualities.

He can also use this time to strengthen his ties with the conservative wing of the party. First of all, as an experienced mayor, he certainly has earned the label "pragmatist" and has plenty of experience working with varying viewpoints. Secondly, while I obviously cannot speak for Giuliani, my concept of "centrism" includes the idea that all viewpoints need to be heard (at least all those with a meaningful level of support). He should have no trouble reassuring conservatives that he will do nothing to "cut them out" or otherwise prevent them from bringing their issues to the table.

Homespun Symposium IV

The latest installment of the Homespun Symposium deals with the apparent realignment of forces in the international community.

The war on terror and the war in Iraq have caused deep fissures through the international political landscape, but arguably not simply and predictably "left" versus "right"; after all, President Bush is allied with a social democrat Tony Blair and ex-communists of Eastern Europe, while the anti-war coalition is also a motley crew of American and British paleo-conservatives, European right (France) and left (Germany) and many others.

So what does it all mean? What is the new divide in international politics? And will it last?

I believe that the "new divide" in an international politics is difficult to perceive because it has become a three-way split. Also, as these alignment changes are relatively recent they have not yet become deeply fixed. International players are still "trying out" positions, and are being purposefully ambiguous as a safety measure. The only really clearly defined global conflict at work in the world today, the American "War on Terror", is between a country (with allies at various levels of commitment) and a vague, largely hidden group of individuals. This allows most countries (excepting of course the United States) a lot of "wiggle room" in how they position themselves. Ambiguity is much prized and international politics, and they are making full use of what's available.

The end of the Cold War pulled the support out from under the old East versus West alignments leading to a more fluid situation where countries have experimented with new positions and alliances. Certainly there can be no argument that much if not most of the post-Cold War international positioning revolves around the United States. The US becomes the one fixed reference point about which a constellation of dependable allies and occasional supporters orbit. It's not surprising that some of the most committed allies of the US are countries that only recently regained their freedom. Being new players in international politics, they are eager to gain stature quickly and stand close to the US hoping to earn its attention and gain stature through political proximity.

The rise of a single great power like the US will naturally trigger a balancing response. A number of the older world powers have nominated themselves as a counterbalancing force against American global supremacy. They're not in any way a well-defined and cohesive alliance, acting together only when they move to restrain the American activity. As a group that they are not overtly hostile to the US, perhaps better characterized as "competitors" rather than enemies. I would include France, Germany, Russia, China, India, and perhaps even Japan, in this group. A large number of the smaller nations, eager to see the US brought down a rung, will side with this loose "coalition" when it suits them.

The third performer in this global "dance" is the radical Muslim "jihad" movement. In prior decades this conflict was primarily a regional struggle directed against Israel. Over the years the struggle has become increasingly global. The Russians have fought a Muslim war in Afghanistan and an ongoing military struggle in Chechnya, but the dominant target these days is the United States. The decision to focus on America has more to do with international politics than with any specific complaint against the US. Posturing and maneuvering around the United States is the "big leagues" of international politics. A conflict with any other country, even a country as large and powerful as Russia or India, is still very much a sidelight, but a conflict with the United States brings one right to center stage and full spotlight. The jihad movement has made in itself a defining element in the new global alignment simply by doing what no other nation or faction was willing to do, directly attack the single superpower.

It may well turn out to have been a suicidal maneuver, and this period of Muslim extremism and international aggression may turn out to be little more than a chapter in history books. But it will get its chapter, which is much more than many similar groups will attain. In the meantime, the United States is preoccupied with defending itself, and the large, cloud-like, mass of "other powers" are circling about, like scavengers watching a lion kill, maximizing ambiguity while they wait to see what develops. Something approximating a coalition has "coalesced", trying to be anti-terror and antiwar, in favor of Iraqi democracy but suspicious of an election safeguarded by the American military force, against murderous insurgents but also against American efforts to put down the insurgency. In other words, they want to maximize ambiguity. That elements of the Islamic world have taken to open conflict with the US frees the "other powers" from the need to resist the US more directly. Their role shifts from "opposing" to "disapproving", which is much safer. As mentioned in the question above, this brings them into temporary overlap with the habitual disapprovers in the US and Britain. As the jihad wanes, however, these balancing global powers will shift towards more active opposition and the current "motley crew" of the antiwar coalition will break up.

Moral ambivalence and equivalence - Academia strikes again!

Whilst browsing through the latest from fellow Homespun Bloggers, I came a cross a remarkable find on It's a Matter of Opinion. These Aussie bloggers were catching up on the latest news and views in the progressive community and found a real gem from a professor emeritus of political science at Adrian College. This fellow wants to point out the Saddam Hussein is really not all that bad.

Niccolo Machiavelli, writing 500 years ago, puts it to us bluntly: A leader, he says, "should care nothing for the accusation of cruelty so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal; by making a very few examples he can be more truly merciful than those who through too much tender-heartedness allow disorders to arise whence come killings and rapine."

Did I mention that this is appearing on Common Dreams, the progressive news and opinion site?

There is no danger that Saddam Hussein will be convicted of tender-heartedness. But if he had not been overthrown, today's average Iraqi would be better off financially and enjoy more personal security.

and a bit later:

It would be a horrifying commentary on Iraqi circumstances if a government like Saddam Hussein's is the best one possible there. But that may well be the case, and in that event it would be unjust to convict Hussein.

I wonder how some of the Iraqi bloggers would respond to this "insightful" analysis. Actually, that's not true; I don't wonder at all. I know exactly how they would respond. I can see now that it's a very good thing that we turned Saddam over to the Iraqis for trial.

Besides the breathtaking foolishness and moral ambivalence of this article, does it not strike one odd that a "progressive" writer would opine that a third world country is unable to govern itself? I thought this sort of thinking went out with the European empires.