Which Philosophy Generates More Generosity—Liberalism or Conservatism?

Dr. Arthur Brooks, a political independent and esteemed economist specializing in public affairs, set out several years ago to figure out who are the more generous Americans—liberals, or conservatives.

His book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, published in November of 2006, has been thrust back into the limelight by a recent column in which George Will, the nation’s preeminent intellectual conservative, exposes the hypocrisy of the outspoken left in Austin, Texas, and by extension, of the left in general. Austin is the South’s version of Berkeley, California and Madison, Wisconsin—a hotbed of liberalism, and, it seems, sanctimony.

The presumption is that liberals, the champions of the poor and downtrodden, are more generous while cold-hearted, individualistic conservatives are less so. Brooks’ thoroughly reseached book proves just the opposite: conservatives give a greater percentage of their incomes to charity, are more likely to volunteer in their communities, and even donate more of their blood than liberals.

The least charitable Americans? Welfare recipients. The working poor, who are little better off than their fellow citizens who live on the public dole, are among the most generous Americans, giving more as a percentage of their incomes than those in the middle class.

At the time of its release, the results of Brooks’ research were popularized by libertarian ABC investigative reporter John Stossel and detailed in the The Chronicle of Philanthropy and at beliefnet.com.

Why is Will bringing Brooks’ work up sixteen months after its release? For one thing, its findings have stood the test of time despite a strong desire by liberal academics to discredit it. For another, we’re in the middle of a presidential race highlighting the differences between the two philosophies that dominate American politics.

The fact of the matter is that liberals as a group are more generous with other people’s money than with their own. Their rhetoric isn’t always backed with action, with sacrifice. Their philosophy is sometimes, in practice at least, shallow and hollow. They too often pander to the welfare class that helps put and keep them in power, taking from others through taxation what they are less inclined to give of their own accord.

Conservatives, on the other hand, submit to high taxation that goes against their philosophy, and yet they tend to give more of what remains of their income and wealth than those responsible for that taxation.

On the whole, Americans, both left and right, are exceptionally generous people. The differences Brooks demonstrates don’t run that deep, but they do reveal a stubborn misconception.

Liberals in the media have succeeded in unfairly characterizing conservatives as cold and uncaring. That’s a stereotype that should be put to rest once and for all.

Newsprism

Hillary’s Not Merely Dead, She’s Really Most Sincerely Dead

To turn Mark Twain’s line on its head, reports of the life of the Hillary Clinton campaign have been greatly exaggerated.

Slate.com has created a Hillary Deathwatch page that calls her campaign “as good as dead” while gauging her chances of winning the Democratic nomination at 12%. Politico.com pegs Clinton’s odds at “virtually no chance of winning” while quoting a Clinton official as saying her chances are 1 in 10.

David Brooks offers the more realistic figure of 5% and asks the salient question: ”Why does she go on like this?” His answer:

Clinton’s long rear-guard action is the logical extension of her relentlessly political life. For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity… No wonder the Clinton campaign feels impersonal. It’s like a machine for the production of politics. It plows ahead from event to event following its own iron logic. The only question is whether Clinton herself can step outside the apparatus long enough to turn it off and withdraw voluntarily or whether she will force the rest of her party to intervene and jam the gears. If she does the former, she would surprise everybody with a display of self-sacrifice. Her campaign would cruise along at a lower register until North Carolina, then use that as an occasion to withdraw. If she does not, she would soldier on doggedly, taking down as many allies as necessary.

A look at the most recent Democratic primary Gallup polls shows Obama pulling away from Clinton nationally with a lead of eight percent. Meanwhile, in Gallup’s general election polling, Clinton’s two point lead over McCain has been reversed since the Jeremiah Wright tapes surfaced just over two weeks ago. McCain now leads Clinton by two. More to the point, Obama’s two point lead over McCain has also been reversed, due at least in part to Clinton. McCain now leads Obama by one.

Pressure on Clinton to withdraw from the race is growing and is coming from higher and higher up in the Democratic Party hierarchy.

Newsprism first predicted an Obama victory on February 13 and has been assuming a Clinton defeat since February 25.

With apologies to the Coroner of Munchkinland for stealing his lines, and to the Wicked Witch of the West for the comparison, Mrs. Clinton “isn’t only merely dead, she’s really most sincerely dead.”

Newsprism

Those Arkansaw Bumkins or, A Gremlin In His Goober

100 Years Is a) The Length of the Campaign, b) McCain’s Age, or c) A Moral Obligation

It sure feels like this presidential campaign has been going on for a century, and according to the late night comedians, John McCain was 100 when he gave his first speech in front of the Tower of Babel. 

But the answer, despite what Democrats want to make of a single sound bite, is c., a moral obligation. We have a moral obligation to insure that Iraq returns to its pre-invasion stability and stays there. If that means maintaining an American military presence there for 100 years, as McCain insists (video,) so be it.

When we invaded, we threw Iraq into chaos. If we leave prematurely, as both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have promised to do, Iraq could descend into a Cambodian-style bloodbath, and some of that blood would be on our hands.

A bill sponsored by Obama early last year would have had all US combat brigades out of Iraq by this coming Monday, March 31. In a speech this week, Hillary Clinton mischaracterized McCain’s “100 year” quip four times and said, “my plan is … to remove one to two brigades a month (text.)”

Neither Obama nor Clinton seems to understand the realities on the ground in Iraq; neither seems willing to defy the anti-war sentiments that predominate in the Democratic Party.

To leave Iraq in its current condition, or in any condition we can realistically expect to see in the foreseeable future, would not only be profoundly immoral, but would put us a greater risk of terrorist attack. And at greater risk of skyrocketing oil prices. And at greater risk of a Middle East meltdown. And at greater risk of metastasizing global jihad.

You can oppose the launching and execution of a war and still acknowledge the moral obligations that that war entials.

Newsprism

Saddam Paid the Pipers—Did He Call the Tune?

When Congressmen Jim McDermott and David Bonior spoke from Baghdad on ABC’s “This Week” (transcript)  in October of 2002, their intent was to undermine President Bush’s run-up to an invasion of Iraq. That was their right and, perhaps, their responsibility.

In retrospect, their criticisms of the rush to war and the propaganda that fueled that rush were probably right on target.

But both Congressmen, and McDermott in particular, didn’t simply oppose the impending invasion. They were “useful idiots” parroting the propaganda of Saddam Hussein, one of the worst dictators of this or any century. Moreover, their traitorous performance may have actually aided the Bush administration’s arguments for invading.

McDermott had this to say of Saddam’s totalitarian government:

I think you have to take the Iraqis on their face value … they should be given a chance … We have had complete access to anything we want here, and they have not kept us from anything we asked to do.

And this to say of the administration of George Bush:

I believe that sometimes they give out misinformation … I think the President would mislead the American people.

In other words, McDermott was more than willing to give a little Hitler the benefit of the doubt, but not his own president. That should put “Baghdad Jim” McDermott right up there with “Hanoi Jane” Fonda in the parade of traitors to this country.

There are significant differences between the two, however. Miss Fonda was a naive, impressionable young actress when she went to Vietnam to act as a prop for the Viet Cong. Only the coldest heart would refuse her forgiveness more than thirty-five years later, especially after she’s admitted her mistake and apologized to the nation’s veterans.

McDermott was a grown man representing the nation as well as his Congressional district when he went to Baghdad.

In addition, yesterday it was revealed that McDermott and Bonior travelled to Iraq on Saddam’s nickel. Though they apparently didn’t know that at the time, ignorance is no excuse for allowing oneself to aid and comfort the enemy.

The question has to be asked: Saddam paid the pipers. Did he call the tune?

It looks to me like he did. The pipers just didn’t know it.

Newsprism

Dueling Victims—Identity Politics Taken to Its (Il)logical Conclusion

In America today, is it worse to be black, or female? That’s the absurd question many in the Democratic Party and in the mainstream media are pondering.

The victim mentality that has sustained so much of liberal ideology over the last four decades has been starkly displayed of late after pack journalists swarmed around two ill-conceived and incendiary statements by Geraldine Ferraro and George McGovern, both of whom are Hillary Clinton supporters.

According to Ferraro,

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.

And according to McGovern,

I have a feeling that in this country where we’re at today in our thinking, it’s going to be harder to elect a woman than to elect a black man.

To (white) Clinton supporters, it’s better to be black than female. This is a question without an answer, of course, though we know two things for sure: 1.) discrimination of any kind is damaging to the health of both individual bodies and the body politic, and 2.) the roots of racism and sexism, while both run deep, are comparable at only the most shallow levels.

If only the media weren’t, like the academy and liberalism in general, still dominated by people with a stake in keeping racism and sexism alive in the national psyche, maybe more healing could be taking place. For Hillary Clinton and her operatives to be trotting out the ugly side of identity politics is shameful and damaging to their party and our nation. The only beneficiaries of this infighting are John McCain and the Republicans.

No matter how hard he tries, Barack Obama can’t rise above the issue of his blackness, which his blue-state Democratic rival has turned into red meat for yellow journalists.

Newsprism

$43,000,000,000,000.00—The Biggest Scam in Human History

According to the Heritage Foundation and their own trustees, the Medicare and Social Security programs are $43,000,000,000,000.00 short of the funds required to pay future recipients in full. Why? Because the federal government has been “borrowing” from those funds to cover a portion of its runaway spending.

What? You didn’t hear about that on the evening news or read it in the local paper?

Whatever. It’s just $43,000,000,000,000.00 future generations of Americans will have to come up with to cover our excesses. I’m sure they’ll think of something.

Newsprism

More on fiscal irresponsibility from The Heritage Foundation

Conservative Icon Pat Buchanan Gives Little George Bush a History Lesson

Imagine, if you will, a grizzled grandfather of intellectual conservatism sitting in front of a handsome colonial hearth with a child on his knee. The grandfather is Pat Buchanan, and he’s giving little George Bush a history lesson … if little George is “teachable.”

Now, read this column by Pat “Pops” Buchanan, or at least the excerpts below, and keep that image in mind.

Buchanan’s column begins,

On reading George Bush’s discourse to the New York Economic Club last week, Cicero’s insight came to mind: “To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child.”

With Iraq entering its sixth year, the dollar sinking to peso levels, the economy careening into recession, and 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens roosting here, Bush alerted us to what really worries him:

“I’m troubled by isolationism and protectionism … (and) another ‘ism,’ and that’s nativism…”

Buchanan proceeds to lay out the real history of what Bush calls isolationism, protectionism, and nativism and the dynamic global power that history produced. This is followed by a litany of Bush’s failures and this incisive summation of Bush’s philosophy:

In smearing as nativists, protectionists and isolationists those who wish to stop the invasion, halt the export of factories and jobs to Asia, and stop the unnecessary wars, Bush is attacking the last true conservatives in his party.

Which is understandable. For after the judges and tax cuts, what is there about Bush that is conservative? His foreign policy is Wilsonian. His trade policy is pure FDR. His spending is LBJ all the way. His amnesty for illegals is Teddy Kennedy’s policy.

Somewhere along the way, George Bush’s education was miserably neglected. Maybe an MBA characterized by a lackluster academic performance, backed up by two decades watching popular entertainers distort and pervert conservatism, doesn’t make for a qualified chief executive. The proof is in the pudding, as the American people seem to understand well. 

Now Pops Buchanan lifts little George off his lap, and the boy scurries off to play with his toys: a Monopoly board, six trillion dollars’ worth of Monopoly money, GI Joe, and models of a fighter jet and the USS Lincoln.

Newsprism

Judas, Jesus, the Devil and a Blue Dress

Clinton operative James Carville reacted to former Clinton cabinet member Bill Richardson’s endorsement of Barack Obama with this Easter-season attack: on Good Friday, Carville called Richardson a “Judas.”

The comparison strikes many as both impolitic and sacriligious … but Carville not only refuses to back down, he’s reiterating the attack to every journalist he can find.

If Richardson is Judas, that would make the Clintons Jesus Christ. It would also mean that no Democrat can endorse Barack Obama without being profoundly disloyal and immoral. It would also mean that the race for the Democratic nomination—a race that Obama had locked up weeks ago—has descended well past the gutter and into a much lower, more fiery realm.

Is it coincidence that Carville looks so demonic? Or that the Clintons make up their morals to fit their ambitions?

And wasn’t there a song (here’s the Springsteen version) about the devil and a blue dress?

Newsprism

Hillary Clinton Ducks (the Truth)

Hillary Clinton has been hyping her foreign policy experience lately, for instance, by claiming to have landed Bosnia in March, 1996, under sniper fire from the enemy.

Mrs. Clinton has recently said that her flight into Bosnia came “under sniper fire” that required her and her party to “run to our cars,” and that due to the danger, there was “no greeting ceremony.”

The Washington Post checked the facts of the 1996 Bosnia visit and had this to say:

Clinton’s tale of landing at the Tuzla airport “under sniper fire” and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios.

“Four Pinnochios” is the Post’s way of judging the truthfulness of a statement, which ranges from “The Gepetto Check Mark,” which means a statement is entirely valid, to a scale from one (”some shading of the facts”) to four (”a whopper”) Pinnochios.

In two telling video clips, CBS News contrasts a recent speech in which Mrs. Clinton mentions her harrowing trip with a March 1996 video clip in which Clinton and daughter Chelsea are seen smiling as they leave a military aircraft, where they’re greeted by Bosnia’s acting president and an eight-year-old Muslim girl.

Sharyl Atkisson, a reporter who accompanied Hillary and Chelsea Clinton on the Bosnia trip, writes,

… the mood upon first landing at the Tuzla airport was light. Children were there on the tarmac to greet the first lady, Chelsea was by her side, Bosnian dignitaries had gathered: It felt safe.

Even the comedian Sinbad, who also accompanied the Clintons, has weighed in on the matter. The prescient Sinbad notes, “I think the only ‘red-phone’ moment was: ‘Do we eat here or at the next place?’”

Mrs. Clinton has been quoted as saying, “We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small, or too poor, send the First Lady.” What could Bill have been thinking? (Oh, yeah.)

Senator Clinton may not have been ducking incoming fire in Bosnia in March of 1996; she sure is ducking the truth, and the flak that comes from lying, in March of 2008.

Newsprism

Pop Culture Conservatism—The Shallow Going Off the Deep End

American conservatism has been dealing for decades with a rift between the social conservatism of evangelical Christians and culture warriors on the one hand, and the libertarian conservatism of free-market individualists on the other. Part of the genius of Ronald Reagan was his ability to energize both factions while smoothing over their differences. Too many conservatives today are altogether ignorant of this rift and therefore risk widening it. 

Over the last couple of decades, another rift has been opened, one that has benefitted conservatism significantly but may at the same time have begun an erosion of its core principles in favor of the superficial and the marketable. This rift separates intellectual conservatism—that practiced by Bill Buckley, Newt Gingrich, George Will, and Pat Buchanan, for example—and a more populist strain that dominates talk radio, the popular book market, and cable news. Instead of “populist conservatism,” however, I think it would be more accurate to label it pop culture conservatism, since its primary home is in the popular media.

Pop culture conservatism emerged out of a long era of American journalism in which liberalism dominated public discourse. The Media Elite, an influential 1986 study of political bias, found that nearly 90% of leading journalists had voted for Democratic candidates in prior presidential elections. When Rush Limbaugh demonstrated in 1988 that a huge audience of disaffected conservatives was ripe for the picking, pop culture conservatism burst onto the scene, and it’s been flexing its muscles ever since. Now, slickly-marketed popular figures like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and Laura Ingraham exert far more influence over the conservative movement with their confrontationalism and intemperance than more substantive and measured voices do with reasoning and balance.

Intellectual and pop culture conservatism worked together brilliantly in 1994, when Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” consolidated the Republican base and swept Republican candidates into majority positions in both Houses of Congress. The result: the Clinton administration was forced to control the growth of government, so that by the time George Bush took office in 2000, the federal budget was in surplus.

A conservative Republican president inheriting a budget surplus should have set the foundation for a serious, measured restructuring and contraction of our imperial federal government. Instead, Bush has grown the government from a $2 trillion “enterprise” to one that will spend well over $3 trillion in 2008, with disastrous economic and monetary results. The numbers speak for themselves:

The federal government’s budget has grown from under $2,000,000,000,000.00 to over $3,000,000,000,000.00 per year!

The very core principles of conservatism—limited government, individual responsibility, individual liberty, market dynamics, free enterprise—have been buried under an avalanche of big government programs and out-of-control spending. It was Republican Senator Ted Stevens and Republican Representative Don Young who tried to push through billions in funding for Alaska’s infamous Bridges to Nowhere.

Intellectual conservatives have strongly condemned this liberal spending spree, but their voices aren’t being heard over the loudmouthed shouting of the pop culture talking heads.

Pop culture conservatism has created a class of citizens and politicians who don’t seem to value or understand the historical and intellectual foundations of classical American conservatism. These surfacy conservatives just spent seven years in power in the White House, most of that time with like-minded Republicans controlling Congress, yet they have done more damage to the institutions of free enterprise and individual liberty than any liberal in memory.

Shallow creatures of the media going off the deep end have helped put conservatism at risk of drowning in the warm, therapeutic waters of liberalism: naive idealism, spiraling debt, and dependence on government.

Newsprism

A Simple Question

In endorsing Barack Obama today, Bill Richardson offered this assessment of the Illinois Senator: “Your candidacy is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our country, and you are a once-in-a-lifetime leader.”

The question isn’t whether Obama is ready for the presidency; the question is, is the presidency—is the nation—ready for Barack Obama?

In temperament, intelligence, judgment, and integrity, Obama stands head and shoulders above his competition. It’s  McCain’s experience, resolve, and independence, along with a certain aspect or cast of his, that make this a race.

Newsprism

The Best and Worst of Fox News

It’s rare that the shallow political posturing of Fox News’ morning personalities warrants a mention; morning happy-talk just isn’t taken that seriously. But this morning, Fox and Friends hosts Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson, and Brian Kilmeade were bluntly shamed and scolded on air after repeatedly criticizing Barack Obama for saying this:

The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know (pause) there’s a reaction in her that doesn’t go away and it comes out in the wrong way.

The upshot of the Friends’ commentary was an oft-repeated canard that calling his own grandmother “a typical white person” was racist. Obama made the admittedly impolitic statement while defending himself against prior charges that another statement concerning his grandmother was racist:

I can no more disown (Reverand Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

Even Jesse Jackson once acknowledged that he felt fearful enough of being followed down the street by young black males that realizing he was being followed by whites instead was a relief. And who among us has never let slip a racial slur?

The sad fact is that many conservatives, including Pat Buchanan and some at National Review Online, are trying to dirty Obama through the mud of their own racism. No one should be deluded into thinking that America has transcended her racial divide, nor that that racial divide can be laid at the feet of a unifying figure like Obama.

The problem with Fox News isn’t its conservative bias. Diverse perspectives in American media should be welcomed, especially after many decades during which the liberal bias of the vast majority of news organizations put conservatism at a distinct disadvantage.

The problem with Fox News is its predominating superficiality, its reliance on beautiful women wearing heavy make-up and revealing clothing, or its reliance on contrived infotainment personas like Bill O’Reilly’s and Sean Hannity’s. No other network exploits the sex appeal of its female personalities quite like Fox News; it’s telling, for example, that Gretchen Carlson is a former Miss America. (To be fair, Carlson is a classical musician and scholar who attended Oxford and Stanford Universities. Fox and Friends is beneath her.)

But the most important angle on this story has nothing to do with sexploitation or disingenuous charges of racism. What was astounding about the comeuppance dealt out so forcefully to Doocy, Carlson and Kilmeade was that it came not from some liberal academic or condescending media critic, but from Fox News’ Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace.

This was a brave gesture by one of the best broadcast journalists working today to curb the adolescent vapidity of 24-hour news.

Kudos to Chris Wallace and to Fox News Sunday, two class acts.

Newsprism

Operation Chaos vs. “Shoot Those Leftist Bastards Dead”

Not all political machinations of and by the media deserve the same censure. 

Rush Limbaugh has been touting the success of his “Operation Chaos” campaign designed to sow dissent and chaos within the Democratic Party. Statistical data support the possibility that significant numbers of Limbaugh-led Republicans have been voting for Hillary Clinton in Democratic primaries, the goal being to extend the Democratic nomination process as long as possible.

The beneficiary: John McCain (and, of course, Rush Limbaugh.)

Democrats have criticized Limbaugh for inserting himself into the Democratic race, claiming that he’s undermining the democratic process. That’s an odd accusation coming from a party that uses elitist superdelegates and can’t find a way to make the votes cast in Florida and Michigan count.

If states want to restrict party primaries to voters registered in that party and registered independents, that’s their right. Until then, Limbaugh’s tactics are no more or less unethical than those routinely practiced by his critics.

Limbaugh is participating in the democratic process, even if it’s in a pretty sarcastic and mischievous way. The only thing he’s undermining is his opposition.

Meanwhile, last Friday, during the noon hour of the Neal Boortz Show, Boortz spoke about the Pittsburgh Organizing Group, or POG, a radical leftist anti-war group that pickets military recruitment offices.

Boortz’s admonition to any military personnel present for a protest scheduled that evening: “Shoot those leftist bastards dead.” That could easily be interpreted as an incitement to violence at a particular place and time against a specific group of citizens … a reasonable and widely accepted exception to free speech that might interest the FCC.

Limbaugh’s strategery has generated ample press coverage and the deeply satisfying scorn of the left; Boortz’s stunt just confirms that he’s an amoral, artless self-promoter.

Newsprism

A wise man cannot be harmed by criticism; for if the criticism is false, it means nothing to him, and if it is true, he’s grateful for the opportunity to improve himself

F.U.B.A.R.

Exactly five years ago, the US invasion of Iraq began with an overwhelming air assault, “Shock and Awe,” intended to minimize civilian casualties and Iraqi military resistance. The strategy was both humane and effective, unlike nearly all that has followed. (Previous posts here at Newsprism have addressed the lessons we can learn from the war and its astronomical economic, political, and humanitarian costs.)

The War has predictably become a central focus of the presidential campaign, with both Democratic contenders promising to draw our troops down substantially and in short order, and the Republican nominee calling for an open-ended committment that could last decades. Neither approach is tenable, the one risking a bloodbath on the order of the Cambodian “killing fields,” the other risking a slow bleed of American lives, treasure, and stature. Meanwhile, the media obsess on trivial gaffes that suggest Barack Obama doesn’t know about al Qaeda in Iraq, or John McCain doesn’t know that Iran is predominantly Shiite.

In the midst of these political calculations and media molehills, more sober and non-partisan voices should be heard.

In an interview with the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations, Daniel Serwer, the Executive Director of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, believes that a drawdown is inevitable—we simply can’t sustain the current force. Serwer believes that our next president will inherit a force of around 130,000, an improved but still unstable security situation, and a slowly improving, fragile political situation. His hope is that nascent glimmers of political compromise will take hold in time for provincial elections, and that a sense of Iraqi nationalism will ease the tensions between Shiites and Sunnis. Serwer, a career diplomat specializing in the resolution of ethnic and religious tension, is at best guardedly optimistic, though he sees a long slog towards an uncertain outcome ahead.

Dr. Frederick Kagan, a military historian working with the non-partisan American Enterprise Institute, argued forcefully for, and accurately predicted the success of, the Bush surge to secure Baghdad. He’s recommended that in order to consolidate that success, we must accept longer tours for our troops, more reconstruction funding to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, a concerted national effort to recruit new soldiers, an expanded fighting force, and an aggressive push for unity between the warring Shiites and Sunnis. The bottom line for Kagan is American resolve; he calls for “a national commitment to victory in Iraq” and predicts that “failure in Iraq today will require far greater sacrifices tomorrow in far more desperate circumstances.”

Neither Serwer nor Kagan can or would predict the outcome of attemps to reconcile the Shiite and Sunni factions that have in effect divvied up Baghdad and the nation through sectarian violence. Our efforts to this point have sought to facilitate reconciliation, which may or may not be possible. Even if these longstanding and bitter enemies could forge a governing coalition, establishing a democracy wouldn’t be a given. In fact, the best case scenario might be a divided Iraq along the lines of post-WWII Berlin, with neither side practicing anything approaching democracy.

The latest attempt at reconciliation is off to a bad start this week as both Shiite and Sunni factions are boycotting or walking out amid escalating sectarian violence.

In his speech at the Pentagon today, President Bush, seeemingly undaunted, continued to preach his gospel of freedom, democracy, and peace:

…we’re helping the people of Iraq establish a democracy in the heart of the Middle East. A free Iraq will fight terrorists instead of harboring them. A free Iraq will be an example for others of the power of liberty to change the societies and to displace despair with hope. By spreading the hope of liberty in the Middle East, we will help free societies take root — and when they do, freedom will yield the peace that we all desire.

Bush’s idealism flies in the face of the most prescient voice speaking on this war, Colin Powell’s. After removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1992, Powell, then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote “US Forces: Challenges Ahead,” which is currently published online in its entirety by the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations. In the piece, Powell explained why the first Bush administration chose not to invade and occupy Iraq, choosing instead a strategy of containment:

The Gulf War was a limited objective war. If it had not been, we would be ruling Baghdad today—at unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost and ruined regional relationships … Would it have been worth the inevitable follow up: major occupation forces in Iraq for years to come and a very expensive and complex American proconsulship in Baghdad? Fortunately for America, reasonable people at the time thought not.

The best minds in America only offer vague hopes that we can succeed in Iraq. The whole debacle could have and should have been avoided. Neither party has a credible plan to retreat with honor or to win.

That’s the true tragedy of this war: we can’t leave without losing our honor and committing a cowardly and immoral act, we can’t stay in sufficient numbers to achieve our stated objectives, and there’s no such thing as a reasonable compromise between the two courses.

The next president will inherit the worst strategic blunder in American history.

Newsprism

Obama Emerges from Briar Patch Wearing Crown of Thorns

When the inflammatory sermons of Reverend Jeremiah Wright first exploded onto the political landscape, probably due to machinations by the Clinton campaign, Barack Obama was leading Hillary Clinton in the national polls. Within 24 hours, however, Clinton had regained the lead in some polls and had temporarily gained ground in others.

After yesterday’s speech on race in America (video, text,) Obama is now being compared to Martin Luther King, Jr., and his speech to King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. That’s high praise indeed; experts in the field of rhetoric consistently judge “I Have a Dream” as the greatest speech in American history.

While Obama has clearly been damaged among many Republicans and conservatives—both Pat Buchanan and Thomas Sowell consider his association with Reverend Wright to disqualify him for the presidency—the real question is, has this controversy hurt him among independents and Reagan Democrats?

It’s too early to tell, of course, but the media seem to have reached a consensus: Obama just raised his profile considerably and may now go down in history as an icon of racial reconciliation (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.) If he wins the Democratic nomination, his acceptance speech will be made on August 28, 2009—the 45th anniversary of King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Whoever is responsible for the Jeremiah Wright tapes bubbling to the surface intended to cut him to the quick with the dagger of race. Instead, they seem to have handed him the mantle of Martin Luther King.

His enemies just threw Brer Rabbit into the briar patch, and he emerged wearing a crown of thorns.

Newsprism

Remembering Lauren Burk and Eve Carson—Life, Death, and Journalistic Ethics

Two weeks ago, north Georgia lost a pair of talented, caring, involved and beautiful—both inwardly and outwardly beautiful—young women, Lauren Burk of Marietta and Eve Carson of Athens.

Lauren Burk was shot and killed near her home in Auburn, Alabama, where she attended Auburn University, on March 4. Eve Carson was shot and killed near her home  in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, where she attended the University of North Carolina, on March 5.

It appears that both girls were murdered for no other reason than the greed and depravity of three young men who chose to take life in exchange for two vehicles and some credit cards. Arrests have been made in both Lauren and Eve’s cases, which share more than superficial similarities.

The media have done a superb job of disseminating the facts in both cases. From what I’ve seen, heard, and read, the more salacious and sensationalistic elements of the murders have been made public, but not dwelt upon in any way. Hopefully, neither victim will be re-victimized by the kind of calculated exploitation that has surrounded the Nathalee Holloway case. (Greta van Susteren of Fox News, for example, has played the Holloway case for every ratings point possible; shame on her, and shame on Fox News.)

Journalists have been sensitive and dutiful in reporting on the character and accomplishments of both Lauren and Eve, the human angle that should always take priority over the prurient. Likewise, the backgrounds of the alleged killers should absolutely be investigated and made public. Previous brushes with the law, for example, should be widely known so that citizens can make informed decisions regarding sentencing and parole policies and the election of judges and legislators.

The media have also been generous in publicizing the efforts of loved ones to remember and memorialize Lauren and Eve. Scholarships have been established at Auburn and Oglethorpe Universities in Lauren’s name.  Plans for a Lauren Burk Memorial are underway, and charitable funds have been set up in her name to benefit Invisible Children in Africa and the National Kidney Foundation. A scholarship fund has also been established at the University of North Carolina in Eve’s name; she was the Student Body President and was very close to graduating.

A very difficult question involves whether the media should cover the funerals of people like Lauren and Eve, who were made into public figures only by coincidence. Public Editor Angela Tuck of the Atlanta Journal/Constitution wrestled thoughtfully with this issue over the weekend. Perhaps the best that can be said is that it should be left up to family members, some of whom actually welcome the coverage.

What should never be done, and never given undue publicity, is to use a private funeral to publicize any political agenda. Fred Phelps is an infamous publicity whore who has protested loudly at the funerals of American soldiers in order to publicize his anti-gay agenda. The man is shameless and doesn’t deserve one iota of coverage. A jury recently awarded the family of a slain soldier $10.9 million dollars in damages after Phelps and his thugs ruined the funeral of their son.

For reasons I can’t start to fathom, Phelps also protested at the funerals of Lauren Burk and Eve Carson. Consider this utterly hateful and brazenly libelous passage from the Reverend Phelps’s web site:

Before the earth was formed, before the heavens was hung, before the animal life were formed … the projectiles that dispatched Lauren Burk and Eve Carson into eternal hell fire were launched … These two rotten Georgia peaches were snuffed out because they were perfect examples of the product Doomed america saturates college and university campuses with every year.  From their birth, both were taught to serve strange gods; both were taught to serve their own lusts and desires; both were taught the big lie that God loves everybody … and both were taught the lie that it’s okay to be gay … Now God has shown his mighty hand, has picked that rotten fruit from off the tree, and has shown his cursing of the land of Georgia, the campus of Auburn University, and the campus of University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill!

Phelps knows nothing substantive about these two young women, yet he’s willing to use them for no reason other than his own self-aggrandizement. The only reason such ignorant hatred warrants media coverage is to criticize it in the strongest terms.

God bless the friends and families of Lauren Burk and Eve Carson.

And God damn Fred Phelps and his supporters.

Newsprism

Government Give and Take

When the Bush administration took office, the federal government was spending less than two trillion dollars a year. When the Bush administration leaves office, the federal government will be spending well over three trillion dollars a year.

When the Bush administration took office, the federal budget was in surplus. When the Bush administration leaves office, the federal budget deficit is projected to have reached $400,000,000,000. (The budget deficit for February 2008 alone was $175,000,000,000.)

With that kind of expansion, you’d think the government would be improving its regulation of the private sector significantly. After all, what should we taxpayers expect for an additional trillion dollars a year?

Here’s what we’ve received for that astronomical sum:

1. A devalued and declining dollar, which makes every dollar in our bank accounts and in our retirement accounts worth less and less every day and portends rising inflation and a falling stock market.

2. An imploding housing market with no end in sight, which leaves many homeowners with mortgages in a negative equity situation and leaves virtually every homeowner with a net worth that falls every day.

3. A total national debt approaching $10 trillion dollars, which must be paid back by each of us and/or our children and/or our children’s children’s children…who are poorer before they’ve even been born.

4. A crumbling national infrastructure that will require more and more tax dollars just to maintain our roads, bridges, ports and the like in their current condition.

5. A severe tightening of credit that leaves each of us with fewer opportunities to educate our children, invest in our businesses, or improve or upgrade our homes.

Republicans are supposed to be for a smaller government that regulates less, and Democrats for a larger government that regulates more.

Under Bush, we have the worst of both: a much, much larger government that regulates less, and regulates less effectively.

The upside: thank goodness, Mr. Bush gave most of us a $300 tax rebate when he took office, and he’s giving us another $600 tax rebate as he leaves office. Forgive me if I don’t seem grateful.

The government giveth, the government taketh and taketh and taketh away.

Newsprism

Iraq—Five Years and Some Accounting

Five years into the costly Iraq War, the most compelling question is still the initial one: why? Why invade a nation that hadn’t attacked us and didn’t pose a credible threat to us? Why set the reckless and arrogant precedent of pre-emptive war?

The Bush administration has trundled out a series of reasons.

The initial reasoning went like this: Saddam Hussein is working on weapons of mass destruction that could threaten American interests. This reasoning was backed by Condi Rice’s statement that we don’t want the proof of Hussein’s WMD to be a “mushroom cloud” and Dick Cheney’s theory that even a 1% chance of a WMD attack justified invading and occupying Iraq.  Five years on, it’s become clear that the threat was significantly and intentionally exaggerated. As for Cheney’s “1% Rule,” such absolutism and arrogance cannot be taken seriously; can you imagine a world where every nation followed that doctrine?

A second reason involved the suggestion, made repeatedly by administration officials, that Iraq had some connection to al Qaeda and/or the 9/11 attacks. This suggestion has also been repudiated. Saddam’s secular Baathist Party was hostile to the sectarian fundamentalism of al Qaeda and vice-versa. No credible connection between Iraq and either 9/11 or al Qaeda has ever been uncovered.

A third reason is Bush’s alleged crusade to spread freedom and democracy to the Arab world. This is either the height of naivete, or the height of cynicism. Only a naive misunderstanding of how democracy takes hold and develops would lead one to honestly believe it could be imposed militarily on a fractious nation like Hussein’s Iraq. Only the most brazen cynicism would lead one to use freedom and democracy as rhetorical flourishes masking a cold economic and geopolitical calculation.

Considering the political costs of this invasion and occcupation—the elevation of Iran to regional supremacy, the sundering of the fragile truce between Iraq’s Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, the destabilization of the region and its oil exporting capacity, the loss of America’s moral authority, the erosion of American civil liberties—shouldn’t we be revisiting the real reasons behind what many consider the greatest strategic American foreign policy mistake ever?

And why do we as a nation continue to ignore the costs of this war for the Iraqi people? The tally of documented civilian deaths is approaching 90,000. The number of casualties is probably five to ten times that number. Between two and four million Iraqis have been displaced. Countless millions have been psychologically traumatized in Iraq, and an entire generation has been denied the progress and prosperity the war has delayed or destroyed.

Consider those human costs, and the real reason for the invasion takes on a truly questionable character.

The real reason for the invasion was to establish a front on which to fight al Qaeda and jihadism far from our own shores. President Bush has said as much, with hardly a ripple of reaction: “We will fight the terrorists overseas so we do not have to face them here at home.” We lost 3000 people on 9/11 when a conspiracy planned and executed by mostly Saudis operating in Afghanistan pierced our homeland. Now Iraq has lost 90,000+ and has been set back decades in its development while Bush literally kisses the cheeks and holds the hands of the Saudis, who, along with Exxon and friends, enjoy unprecedented profitability.

Wouldn’t it have made more sense to put even a fraction of the resources we’ve expended in Iraq into Afghanistan, where the Taliban is making a comeback, instead? Deposing Saddam was a noble and desirable goal; wiping out the entire Baath Party infrastructure was neither justified nor desirable, however, unless the real goal was to create anarchy for an extended period during which al Qaeda and its allied jihadists could be fought in a place of our choosing.

We chose Iraq as our battlefield, not as our enemy.

Meanwhile, we’ve suffered 4000 deaths and 40,000 serious injuries, and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz has estimated the eventual monetary cost of the war at three trillion dollars.

Can any reasonable person justify that kind of disproportionate and wrongly-targeted response?

One man who continues to call Iraq a just war is George Bush, whose ill-conceived and reckless use of force had at least one silver lining: the president, absent from combat when he had the chance, got to land a real live fighter jet onboard a real live aircraft carrier.

Mission accomplished, sir. That was one expensive photo op.

Newsprism

Related news satire at Timeless News

Note: This is not advocating withdrawal from Iraq. I’ve written about the conundrum that makes this war such a profound tragedy: it was immoral to invade in the first place, but it would be at least as immoral to withdraw before a stable Iraq emerges, which might be never.

An Open Letter to WSB 750 AM re: Neal Boortz

Over the last eight days, I’ve been following the repeated belittling of a disabled nine-year-old boy by Neal Boortz of WSB 750 AM in Atlanta. It defies logic and decency that one of the most storied broadcast stations in the South would follow such a course; surely financial gain doesn’t justify causing harm to any child, much less a disabled one.

Jordan W never asked to become the target of a bully like Neal Boortz. But last week, several large pieces of ice, probably from a passing airliner, crashed through the roof of his family’s tire ship. Reporters converged on the scene, and one, from WSB TV (both WSB 750 and WSB TV are owned by Cox Communication) recorded Jordan’s smart and plausible reaction to the incident:

Satellite things up in the sky, I thought one of them done fell down in the roof.

Jordan’s father, Gordon W, was also recorded.

On Friday, March 7, at approximately 10:30 am, Mr. Boortz replayed the audio of Gordon W and began mocking the tire shop owner’s speech patterns. In northeast Georgia, exurban Atlanta butts up abruptly with Appalachia; Mr. W speaks in the distinctive dialect of the region. This kind of mockery is the stock in trade of Mr. Boortz, who promotes his show as “America’s Rude Awakening” and ”Insensitivity Training.”

Then Mr. Boortz played the audio of Jordan W. The learning diabled boy shares his father’s distinct Appalachian dialect, and he also spoke very rapidly in his excitement and so was difficult to understand.

Boortz proceeded to mock and ridicule the boy’s speech, to demean his intelligence, and to question his future economic prospects. Jordan may or may not achieve the kind of succes Boortz has achieved—four million listeners, successful books, television appearances, speaking engagements—but there’s no reason to belittle his shot at the American Dream.

Boortz demeaned the child for over an hour, replaying the tape again and again and laughing that he couldn’t “translate” Jordan’s words. Boortz also said Jordan “sounds as dumb as a stump” and would probably wind up “changing tires” or “farming worms.” Boortz even accused Gordon W of child abuse based solely on his son’s speech patterns, an accusation echoed numerous times in his listener’s comments on this blog.

The line between good and bad taste was being pushed for a ratings bump, only this time, the schtick involved a young child. On his website, an unrepentant Boortz asked his listeners this question:

“Is Neal being too hard on that 10-year-old boy from North Georgia with the thick accent?” One of the statements respondents could choose from: “mah diddy sez neil’s bein ignert.”

On Tuesday, March 11, I heard Boortz again ridiculing Jordan, whom he had now dubbed “Little Buford” the “future worm farmer.” No child deserves such treatment, not on a playground or in a home, much less on national radio. I contacted Gordon W and asked him if Jordan was aware of what was being done to him. Mr. W said he was, and that

“…it’s really disturbing him…he’s really, really sad about it.” Mr. W also had a message for Boortz: “We just want him to leave us alone.”

With Boortz’s huge local following—Lula is less than an hour north of Atlanta—it was inevitable that Boortz’s abuse would come to the attention of Jordan and his family. In fact, according to Mr. W, people have been coming into the family business and talking about it, leaving Jordan traumatized and depressed. I posted both of the statements above on this blog and also emailed the Boortz show to inform them that Jordan has, among other problems, ADHD. Their response that evening:

Horseshit. There is no such thing as ADD or ADHD.

I replied, “And that justifies harming a nine-year-old child (not ten) named Jordan (not Buford)?” Based on subsequent comments made on air, and on search engine results, I believe that by this time, Boortz and/or his staff had been reading my posts. Their response to me that same evening:

Oh yeah! We’re sitting here just shaking in our boots! Bid bad Preston is going to really show us who’s boss here! Are we in trouble now! I guess we had better all get our affairs in order because soon we aren’t going to have jobs! Oh, the humanity!

The irony of these people invoking “humanity” appears to be lost on them.

On Thursday morning, March 13, I heard Boortz mention me on his program. He noted that I had been “blogging” about him and mocked the idea that he might be held accountable for his actions because of that. It’s hard to believe that by this time he was unaware of the fact that Jordan W suffers from something more than ADHD. (Out of respect for the boy and his family, I’ve agreed not to specify the boy’s disabilities, but to use general terms instead.)

Boortz repeated his attacks that Thursday and posted this on his web site beginning at around 8:30 am:

…looks like we’ve really twisted a few knickers out there with our panning of Lil’ Buford’s communications skills. You remember Lil’ Buford, don’t you? The 10-year-old kid who can’t speak the English language? Yeah .. that one, the future worm farmer.

According to Boortz, a substantial number of emails, some of which mentioned the boy’s disabilities, had been sent to WSB over the week ending Friday, March 14. I sent numerous emails to both Boortz and WSB General Manager Dan Kearney myself. WSB management had to be aware of the situation.

As of the writing of this post (Friday, March 14, 9:00 pm,) the Boortz quote above is no longer available on Boortz’s web site, www.boortz.com. This may be on orders from above at Cox; I certainly hope so.

I hope the W family will file a civil lawsuit against this hateful coward, Neal Boortz, and that WSB will demand at the least an on-air apology and at most a suspension. WSB should also seriously consider making a good-faith offer of compensation to the family to avoid the added trauma of a very public and ugly lawsuit.

I know that James Cox, the founder of WSB’s parent company, Cox Communications, would be scandalized by what’s been done to Jordan and Gordon W. People with disabilities should never be subjected to the kind of abuse heaped on Jordon W, nor should their parents be made to suffer needlessly like Gordon W was.

Sincerely,

Dr. Preston Coleman

Newsprism

Attack Ad Depicts Obama Singing “Zippity Doo Dah”

No, no one has stooped that low. Yet.

But “someone” is heading in that direction. Bill Clinton’s invoking of Jesse Jackson after Obama won the South Carolina primary was a brazen and blatant attempt to drag race into the Democratic nomination process. The release of a photo of Senator Obama wearing African garb, which Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams failed to deny involvement in, was transparent. Unsubstantiated allegations that photos of Obama have been “darkened” in order to “highlight” his race mirror the infamous Time cover in which the same was done with a photo of OJ Simpson.

Now, video clips of Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor at Obama’s place of worship, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, have surfaced on YouTube. Reverand Wright married Barack and Michelle Obama, baptized their children, and is a confidante to the Senator and an advisor to the Obama campaign.

Before Wright retired from the Church in February, he gave a lifetime achievement award to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, blamed the US government for the AIDS virus, and said the US “deserved” the 9/11 attacks based on a history of racism, colonialism, and oppression.

The Obama campaign has distanced itself somewhat from Wright and his statements. In an interview this morning, the Senator said, “This is a pastor who is on the brink of retirement who in the past has made some controversial statements. I profoundly disagree with some of these statements.“

Demands are increasing for an explanation of the close ties between the Senator and the Reverand; many are also demanding an outright denunciation, putting Obama in the untenable situation of choosing between political expediency and loyalty to a long-time friend.

Setting such demands aside—and it seems clear that the demands are justified by the extreme nature of Wright’s statements—the question remains, exactly who is responsible for the sudden ”surfacing” of these tapes? The fact that every news organization in the country is discussing them now isn’t coincidence.

The two primary suspects, of course, are Obama rivals Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Muddying the waters considerably is the possibility that either Democratic or Republican operatives may have released the tapes with or without the knowledge or permission of the Clinton and McCain campaigns.

A simple calculation might settle the issue. Bringing the tapes into the spotlight at this time favors Senator Clinton; to help Senator McCain, the tapes would have been held for many months. In addition, the Clintons are well known for such tactics, have no compunction about using them, and are increasingly desperate. McCain, on the other hand, isn’t closely associated with dirty politics; in fact, he suffered from similar tactics in 2000, when Bush operatives started a smear campaign claiming that the Arizona Senator had a mixed-race child, and he refused to respond in kind.

Whoever is responsible for these tapes, the news industry is awash in a tacit understanding: don’t allow journalistic standards to interfere with the exploitation of any story. That’s the mentality that gave us Jon Benet and Nathalee, and Paris and Anna; Swaggart and Spitzer, and Haggard and Craig; Power and Ferraro, Bill and Michelle; Reverend Hagee and Reverend Wright.

It’s certainly possible, and I think quite likely, that two things are in play here: first, the Clinton campaign is circulating stories intended to undermine Obama’s candidacy, and second, the media is acting as a willing accomplice, not out of loyalty to Clinton but rather out of the desire to maximize ratings and circulation.

This election should be about policies and the philosophies they reflect, about character and judgment, not about the minutae and innuendo that transfix our easily manipulated media.

Each time a race-baiting photo or tape or rumor or leak surfaces, somebody is operating under cover of darkness to exploit Barack Obama’s skin color, and somebody else is cynically exploiting the subterfuge. I’ll leave it to you to decide who those somebodies are.

Newsprism

Update: Here’s Obama’s response to this controversy at Huffington Post. And now, Rev. Wright is no longer associated with the Obama campaign, though it hasn’t been made clear whether he resigned or was forced out. It should also be noted that while Disney’s “Song of the South” (which featured Uncle Remus singing “Zippity Doo Dah”) has been roundly criticized as racist, many see it as a valuable piece of Southern folklore.

Obama Wins Mississippi, Texas (That’s Right—Texas)

The mainstream media’s “horse race” angle on the Democratic race has gotten a bit ridiculous. For example, Hillary Clinton’s widely touted comeback on March 4 turns out to have been more or less a draw.

Why? After Texas tallied up the results if its caucuses—Texas uses a combination of a primary and caucuses to allocate its delegates—Barack Obama actually won that not-so-small state. Outside a few web sites, his victory has barely been covered. (How many of you political junkies who read my drivel were aware of it?)

It’s more than a little disingenuous to continue playing up a comeback that never was. And now that Obama’s also won Wyoming and Mississippi, Clinton’s victories in Ohio and Rhode Island seem pretty insignificant.

Take, for example, this headline at ABCNews.com—“Time on Her Side: Obama Maintains Lead, but Clinton Might Have the Edge.” Never let it be said that the mainstream media let facts get in their way.

The delegate math makes it nearly impossible for Clinton to win. Regardless of whose data you use (CBS News and CNN are reporting slightly different figures,) Obama needs to win about 45% of the remaining delegates to prevail, and Clinton, about 60%.

The superdelegates are breaking Obama’s way already, and the math favors a continuation, and probably a deepening, of that trend.

I wrote four weeks ago today that the media were pretending the race was neck and neck, when in fact, Obama was pulling away in the home turn. Now, Obama’s still pulling away, and the race is well into the home stretch—yet the mainstream media continue their charade.

The reason is simple: a tight race attracts viewers and readers.

It’s a matter of maximizing ratings and circulation, nothing more, nothing less. They want a photo finish, and if reality doesn’t give them one, they’ll make one up.

As always, follow the money.

Newsprism