Catholic Democrats in the House

Totally spot on article from EJ Dionne in the Post this morning about an upcoming letter from Catholic Democratic Reps, both pro-choice and pro-life, on their Catholic faith, their public service, and the difficulty of grappling with the abortion issue. To this Catholic Democrat, it's exciting to see such documents in the works. Will write more later.

This Makes Me SOOOOO Mad!

Joking! George Will has a fairly entertaining article in this morning's Washington Post on why conservatives are consistently happier than liberals in polls. I don't dispute the poll, although he doesn't say whether the results are controlled for level of wealth. That obviously could make a huge difference.

Assuming that such controls did take place in the research, he has a point on a number of scores, although as a liberal I'd reframe his argument. Liberals are less happy because we're more outward-looking, more concerned about others, and more determined that the world can in fact be made a better place. Therefore, the darkness of the world upsets us.

Conservatives have more realistic (and mentally healthier) views of evil; they expect it, and deep down don't really think government can do much about it. So they can drink Coors and drive their SUVs in bliss while Iraq burns.

As a Christian, this part of conservatism is one of its great appeals to me. Evil will always exist, and if any of us think we're going to get rid of it with the perfect government program, we're living in a dreamland. Still, I hope I never entirely lose the sense of connectedness and hope that makes me convinced that we can improve the condition of this world through government action, and causes me to be in a bit of funk today because Iraq is as close as ever to civil war.

But Will He Get Tea in Jail...

A fascinating juxtaposition of jurisprudence in the past weeks. In Austria, an English historian is locked up for 3 years for denying the Holocaust. Meanwhile, in America, the Supreme Court upholds the right of a religious group to drink hallucinogenic tea in its rituals. And around the world tensions continue to simmer around the cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed.

The situation in Austria is particularly interesting given the recent hubbub about the freedom of the press in Denmark. They have a thing for cartoons, in case you haven't heard. To hear the Dutch tell it, Muslims should swallow their pride, because freedom of the press is absolute, and democracy demands we know how to be offended.

But not so fast my friend! Austria's laws criminalize "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media." A relic of the post-war period? Not at all. The law was passed in 1992.

As the Grillmaster argued in an earlier post, this freedom ought to be protected except in the most abnormal circumstances. The case in Austria is a sad example of fear of the past violating this principle. Austria's democracy ought to be robust enough to withstand the propostrous historical claims made by this British anti-Semite. He should be publicly condemned as a bigot, and allowed to wander into relative obscurity. Unfortunately, the specter of the Nazi past still looms so large, and neo-fascism remains so visible, that Austria lacks the democratic self-confidence to allow fools to speak their foolish minds. An added misfortune is that this surely reminds Europe's Muslims that while their governments will curb speech to protect Jewish minorities, similar restraints do not exist to insulate their beliefs from doubt and ridicule.

On the heels of these decisions, the Supreme Court today affirmed the right of a small religious sect to drink hallucenogenic tea in their rituals. It's not directly related to either free speech case in Europe, but points again to America's remarkable ability to accomodate difference and free expression. The justices decided that the ritual was a sincere religious expression, and thus accomodated difference rather than impose restraint. If the Roberts Court shows similar consideration for freedom from warrentless search and from inhumane treatment while in detention, it will truly do this country proud.

Unfortunately, the Grillmaster wouldn't bet the smoker on it. Governments tend to err on the side of security, especially in time of threat. It's why Austria has the laws it does, and why the Roberts Court is unlikely to live up to my hopes.

A Humbled Neocon

In yesterday's NYT Magazine, Francis 'It's the End of History, and I Feel Fine' Fukuyama presents an interesting argument he titles, 'After Neoconservatism.' He sees in the Bush Administration's 2005 actions clear signs that neoconservatism is in retreat, crippled by its combination of idealism and militarism.

Rather than cede the stage to cynical Kissengerian realism, Fukuyama attempts to construct a foreign policy strategy informed by neoconservatism's foundations, but divorced from its disastrous implementation by the Bush White House. As he puts it, 'What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world — ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about.'

The whole article is well-worth reading. Fukuyama brings a lifetime of scholarship and intellectual engagement with neoconservatism's founders to the table. At the same time he comes across as very fair minded and willing to engage in self-criticism, which immediately disqualifies him from affiliation with the Bush Bunch.

He's so fair minded, in fact, that the Grillmaster could have sworn his article could just as easily have been called After Liberalism. He affirms the need for promoting universal human rights and democracy. He calls policy-makers out for concentrating on military power while ignoring the cultural, economic, and moral 'soft power' that hegemons can bring to bear on the world. He wants to promote robust international organizations and alliances that can grant legitimacy to international action. In this his model is the NATO bombing of Kosovo, hardly what one would traditionally think of as a neo-con triumph.

You'll buy his argument depending on how you view neo-cons to begin with. If you think neoconservatism is primarily characterized by a dedication to human freedom, you're more likely to jump on board, and hope that your ideology hasn't been hopelessly discredited by King George. If you're like the Grillmaster, you'll remain highly suspicious; there's a willingness to arrogantly and wrecklessly use force that seems to be in the water the neocons drink. I don't call into question the genuineness of Dr. Fukuyama, just of those across the river from me in the White House who might have read his article yesterday.

Robert Wright on Cartoons and Riots

Robert Wright in this morning's NYT has a very well-balanced piece on the Islamist riots around the Danish cartoons. Must have read my post last week...

A Question Worth Asking

Is abortion bad? That is the title of an exchange between William Saletan and Katha Pollitt today in Slate. It builds on a column Saletan wrote in the New York Times last weekend, in which he goes so far as to say that "It's time for the abortion-rights movement to declare war on abortion." In the wake of these exchanges, E.J. Dionne gives a gem of a column entitled 'Bridging the Divide on Abortion,' in this morning's Washington Post.

These are debates that have to happen, questions that must be asked. Strict pro-choicers like Pollitt will object that the debates yield too much ground to the opposition and weaken the liberal position, but the truth of the matter is that refusing to engage in such debates would signal the true weakness: that of a shrill and rigid orthodoxy that feels too threatened to engage public opinion or even the mildest dissent.

Because no matter how much strict pro-choicers might want to insist that an abortion is not a moral decision, this is profoundly out of touch with the emotional reality of the situation as experienced by the majority of the American public. Most Americans want abortion to remain legal, but most also want it acknowledged for the tragic moral situation that it is.

Saletan and Dionne both realize that unless liberal politicians take active steps to curtail abortions, primarily through education, poverty relief and contraception, all the Hillary-esque rhetoric of abortions being a terrible tragedy will ring hollow. 'Just those slick Democrats responding to poll numbers,' a lot of people will say.

That's because moral language requires follow through. What's interesting is that there are entirely liberal, progressive methods for reducing abortion. Stressing sex education (not that nonsense of abstinence only), contraceptive use and development, poverty alleviation, and tax credits for adoption are all progressive plans for reducing abortion without attacking women or endangering their health.

Saletan and Dionne certainly don't speak for all Democrats, but they courageously speak a truth that must be heard: those who spout on about 'safe, legal, and rare' must offer concrete proposals that embody that third part of the pro-choice trinity.

EJ Dionne on Abortion

One should pretty much always take the time to read EJ Dionne in The Post, but today is particularly on point. Will write about this at length later on...

E.J. Dionne on Abortion

Flying Tomatoes, Fast Sausages, and Curling

I love the Winter Olympics! The insanity of the luge, the sleekness of the bobsleds, the edge of disaster downhill, the skill of hockey the way it was meant to be played, the grace of figure skating, the powerful fluidity of speedskating, the inexplicable oddity of curling, and even the drug-test-defying snowboarders.

The summer games are probably the most classic tests of athletic prowess, but the little kid in me is always absolutely sucked in by the Winter Olympiad. Maybe it has something to do with the snow and ice, lending a layer of purity to sport. After all, snowboarders might toke, but they don't tend to dope like their summer compatriots. Or maybe the little kid in me just likes to see people playing around in the snow like we all did on the roof in DC this weekend.

Well It's Not Exactly Calvin & Hobbes

Gary Trudeau, eat your heart out. Political cartoonists may spend much of their lives in relative obscurity, but this week has vaulted them squarely into the middle of Mr. Huntington’s sometimes elusive, sometimes imminent clash of civilizations. Now a cartoonist lives under the kind of threat that Islamists once reserved for Nobel Laureate Authors.

The last time the Grillmaster commented on riotous Islamists, the issue was alleged police repression in the suburban ghettos of Paris. This time, it is a series of seriously offensive political cartoons that appeared in Danish papers. Doesn’t take much to see that some of the same issues may be involved.

As with the riots in France, these have been sparked by a relatively minor incident. Altogether now class, can we say, ‘redirected anger?’ The same general resentment, lack of opportunity and isolation that fuels Al Quaeda membership and Islamist electoral victories is at play in these riots. Yet another European country has failed to integrate its Islamic population, and in the process has helped to create the hostile environment that has now left its embassies in ashes.

A few preliminary matters that are seemingly self-evident. First, the paper had every right to publish the cartoons. Second, given Denmark’s internal tensions with its Islamic community, such publishing was less than prudential. In fact, it was stupid and intentionally provocative. Third, this doesn’t make it OK to burn down embassies. As appealing as it is to imagine roasting duck over a diplomatic fire, it’s just poor form. Fourth, it is ludicrous for Muslim countries that regularly allow virulently anti-Semitic cartoons to appear in their pages to condemn the European press for this.

I can't help but think of this situation through my year in Belfast. It's not a perfect analogy, but Marching Season has something to teach us. The Orangemen in Northern Ireland have the abstract right to march wherever they please, even right down the Falls if they'd like. It's free expression, free assembly, free speech, and just about every right we hold dear.

Except that in certain situations responsible citizens limit the exercise of their rights in the interest of the common good. And if they don't do so voluntarily, they ought to be strongly encouraged to do so by their government. In Northern Ireland, the situation has been so dire that it took tanks to make that encouragement strong enough in early July. This must be a last resort in free societies, but given the current state of Islamic-European relations a milder form of such restraint is essential. There's no need to shut down papers, but governments should make it clear to national journalists that now is not the time for provocation. Incidentally, yeah, I know this puts me more or less in line with Bush Administration policy. Strage times around the Grill.

So there is a duel challenge. Western elites, be they politicians or comic stippers, ought to use prudential good judgment to avoid provoking unnecessary tension with our Islamic communities. We have enough necessary tension on our hands, thank you very much. And many Muslims need to learn how to be pissed off without burning down diplomatic residences.

The Speech that Mattered

Do you know that Tim Kaine was a missionary? It’s true, and if you stayed awake through the ritual in over-hyped self-importance that is the State of the Union address, you heard Gov. Kaine say so himself. In the first fifteen seconds of his speech. Our illustrious President made his usual overtures to the conservative religious community, but for the first time in a while, a major Democratic address beat a Republican one on values.

What do I mean by ‘beat?’ Well first off, Bush’s faith language was much more muted in this speech than in previous years. The speech was heavy on foreign affairs, which did drip with ideological value-based language, but didn’t speak directly to faith issues. Arguably the most bizarre moment of the night came in the realm of faith and politics, with Bush vowing to outlaw ‘human-animal hybrids.’ Confused, anyone? Well Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council thinks it’s an important stand, but somehow I doubt that the fear of giraffe-men walking down the street is what speaks most directly to American values these days.

This stood in contrast to Kaine’s address. He’s not the most thrilling speaker ever, but he IS any number of things that came off very well: genuine, results oriented, and comfortable linking his faith with his public service. He might not be high wattage enough to ever win a national election, but his approach in the rebuttal might point the way to those bright stars who are (ahem, Sen. Obama, this is where you start reading again).

Tell your personal story, with faith if it’s genuine, with values no matter what. Tell how that story has shaped your decision to enter public service. Give brief examples of how that story has concrete policy implications (notably around healthcare, civil rights, and building strong communities). Be firm, but not frantic, oppositional, but not shrill, hopeful, but not naïve. I don’t have the research to back this up (yet), but I don’t think the American people like it when faith is used as a tool of political violence. Avoid this trap, and when the other side falls into it, which they have a strong tendency to do, call them out hard, loud, and without hesitation.

The minority party rebuttal is in some ways always doomed to futility. We're tired of speechifying by the time it comes on, there's no audience, and the speaker is never as high profile as the President. Kaine's speech Tuesday didn't win the Dem's any elections. But if other candidates can learn from his method, it may well be the only speech from January 31, 2006 that anybody cares about in a few years.