Dylan Matthews

Patriotism

I realize I didn't put anything up for the 4th; I was too busy watching the fireworks on the mall, a hundred feet or so from the Washington Monument. It was surreal and awesome, and, being an idiot, I forgot a camera. But I've spent today looking back at the literature on patriotism I've found most persuasive, and settled on two passage. First, the words of Frank Church, a serious contender for best Senator of the latter half of the 20th century, and the leader in both the fight to stop Nixon and in picking up the mess of his presidency afterwards. From David Schmitz's The United States and Right-wing Dictatorships, 1965-1989, via Church's Wikipedia entry:

That fall [1970], Church announced on television and in speeches across the country that "The Doves Have Won" He based his assertion on the fact that the two key propositions of the dove position, "a negotiated peace and the withdrawal of American troops," were now official policy. The remaining debate would be over when to withdraw, not whether to do so, and over the meaning of the war. "So the last service the doves can perform for their country," Church concluded, "is to insist that President Nixon's withdrawal program truly leads to a 'Vietnamization' of the war. It must not become a device for lowering - and then perpetuating - an American military presence in South Vietnam for the indefinite future. Our long ordeal in this mistaken war must end." Church continued, "The gathering crisis in our own land, the deepening divisions among our people, the festering, unattended problems here at home, bear far more importantly on the future of our Republic than anything we ever had at stake in Indochina." The opponents of the war needed to prevent the corruption of the nation and its institutions. Their opposition was, for Church, the "highest concept of patriotism - which is not the patriotism of conformity - but the patriotism of Senator Carl Shurz, a dissenter from an earlier period, who proclaimed: 'Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."

I would compare the success Church and other Congressional liberals had achieved by 1970 to that of the Democratic congress today, but it's all too depressing. Next up, Richard Rorty, whose the opening paragraphs of Achieving Our Country made more of an impact on me than the beginning of just about any other book:

National pride is to countries what self-respect is to individuals: a necessary condition for self-improvement. Too much national pride can produce bellicosity and imperialism, just as excessive self-respect can produce arrogance. But just as too little self-respect makes it difficult for a person to display moral courage, so insufficient national pride makes energetic and effective debate about national policy unlikely. Emotional involvement with one's country - feelings of intense shame or of glowing pride aroused by various parts of its history, and by various present-day national policies - is necessary if political deliberation is to be imaginative and productive. Such deliberation will probably not occur unless pride outweighs shame.

The need for this sort of improvement remains even for those who, like myself, hope that the United States of America will someday yield up sovereignty to what Tennyson called "the Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World." For such a federation will never come into existence unless the governments of the individual nation-states cooperate in setting in up, and unless the citizens of those nation-states take a certain amount of pride (even rueful and hesistant pride) in their governments' efforts to do so.

As I was finishing that first paragraph when I started reading Achieving Our Country about a year ago, my immediate thought was "but what of we world federalists?" That Rorty anticipated that objection, and elegantly wove it into his narrative, says something about what a powerful force for liberalism, and for good, he was. And, for the record, I was totally thinking of Rorty before Matt posted this. Honest.

Indie Rock & Party Politics

The Atlantic crew has been posting a series of videos from a discussion panel with Yglesias, Douthat, Ambinder, and David Brooks on the future of the American party system. That's all well and good, but let me just note how awesome it is that all of the episodes begin and end with Okkervil River's "Unless It's Kicks". Well, after the annoyingly nasal All-State plug, that is.

Beutler Fund

You can send money for Brian Beutler's hospital fees, family travel, etc. fund through Ezra Klein - address here. Obviously, there are a lot of good causes out there (no need to remind me, Greg), but if you like Brian's work, this is the best way to keep it going.

Jesse Helms

Former North Carolina senator and bigot extraordinaire Jesse Helms has died. Normally, I'd be inclined to heed the kindergarten-vintage "if you don't have anything nice to say" advice, given as this is the guy who whistled Dixie to Carol Moseley-Braun and aired the hands ad, among other things. But it turns out I do have something nice to say, just not about Helms. The announcement of Helms' retirement led to the last halfway decent David Broder column, which is to say the last Broder column to be based on anything resembling principle or conviction. Allow me to quote:

Those who believe that the "liberal press" always has its knives sharpened for Republicans and conservatives must have been flummoxed by the coverage of Sen. Jesse Helms's announcement last week that he will not run for reelection next year in North Carolina. The reporting on his retirement was circumspect to the point of pussyfooting.

On the day his decision became known, the New York Times described him as "a conservative stalwart for nearly 30 years," the Boston Globe as "an unyielding icon of conservatives and an archenemy of liberals." The Washington Post identified Helms as "one of the most powerful conservatives on Capitol Hill for three decades."

Those were accurate descriptions. But they skirted the point. There are plenty of powerful conservatives in government. A few, such as Don Rumsfeld and Henry Hyde, have been around as long as Helms and have their own significant roles in 20th century political history. What really sets Jesse Helms apart is that he is the last prominent unabashed white racist politician in this country -- a title that one hopes will now be permanently retired. A few editorials and columns came close to saying that. But the squeamishness of much of the press in characterizing Helms for what he is suggests an unwillingness to confront the reality of race in our national life.

Read the whole thing. It's a beautiful thing to see the pinnacle of Washington nicety eschew politeness for once in favor of what's right.

I Had Such @#$%ing Hopes for Us

I really want to believe in the Obama of "The Obama Doctrine", Spencer Ackerman's brilliant profile of his advisor corps. But when Tony Lake is telling the Financial Times that he "genuinely believe[s] that the most dangerous crisis we are going to face…in the next three to 10 years is if the Iranians get on the edge of developing a nuclear weapon," it's hard to keep the faith.

After all, this would be the same Iran that, according to the CIA, suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and hadn't rekindled it as of last year. This would be the same Iran which, according to Ha'aretz, will suspend uranium enrichment and centrifuge installation for the next six weeks as an olive branch to Western governments, the same Iran whose foreign minister has announced a "new trend" in diplomacy with the West, the same Iran whose Supreme Leader's staff has admonished Ahmadinejad for his rhetoric (via).

Are the Iranian leadership entirely good-faith actors? Of course not, no country capable of survival is. But to classify a country which maybe kinda sorta might have nukes sometime as more dangerous than countries which actually have nukes is absurd. The hypothetical worst-case scenario with Iran - Iran gets a nuke, funnels it to a terrorist group, terrorist group explodes it in an American city - is hysterically unlikely, but there are merchants in the former USSR peddling bomb-grade uranium right now. Obama's kept his eye on the ball on this issue in the past, and so it's very disappointing to see him drop it here. He has a golden opportunity to educate the public about the real threats America faces and stare down right-wing fearmongering, and here, at least, he blew it.

Keep It Like a Secret

Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres have taken Obama's rejection of public financing as an opportunity to plug their own, better "Voting with Dollars" proposal for TAP. Go read.

Beutler

In case you haven't heard, some assholes shot Brian Beutler, awesome blogger and FISA and torture muckracker extraordinaire, three times last night. He's going to be fine, thank God, and seeing the folks down here at the Prospect respond has been heartening. They care deeply and it shows. Get well, Brian.
Update: Okay, Beutler flash-back. In February, as part of a meme Matt and Ned started, I bestowed Brian with an "excellent blog award", writing, "Beutler has a unique way of writing a post of two or three sentences that makes a point that a) I've never heard made before b) I hadn't thought of before and c) is utterly brilliant. His mixture of concision and originality is pretty refreshing." Brian left a comment on the post, saying, "I also think Beutler is brilliant. Simply. Brilliant." That's how awesome and self-deprecating a guy he is. Attackerman is setting up a benefit concert and PayPal fund to pay for Brian's health care, so if you're in the DC area, go to the concert, and if not, try to find some funds to scrounge up for him.

Actual Headline

"Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?" That is, verbatim, the cover story in Newsweek this week. Next up: who was more important, Ike or Crick? Washington or Cavendish? Wegener or Teddy Roosevelt? Yay, journalism!

Obama's Successor

According to Chris Bowers, the four main possibilities for succeeding Obama in 2009, should he win the presidency, are Jan Schakowsky, Jesse Jackson Jr., Rahm Emanuel, and losing 2006 Congressional candidate Tammy Duckworth. Duckworth appears to have the inside track with Rod Blajojevich, who'll be doing the picking. Any of them would be good choices, though I doubt Emanuel would be interested; the fourth-ranking post in the Democratic caucus isn't something you give up lightly, and he appears to have the inside track to the Speakership.

Schakowsky and Jackson have impeccable voting records on everything except trade, where both are restrictionist but Jackson's worse (he even voted to withdraw from the WTO). It's a little rich that Jackson describes it as "too soon" for Schakowsky to join the Senate; he only has four more years in the body, and was elected without any previous government experience, whereas Schakowsky spent eight years in the Illinois House before her election to Congress. But Jackson's twenty-one years younger than Schakowsky, and Duckworth's twenty-four, meaning they could hold the seat a lot longer than Schakowsky. Duckworth is less overtly liberal than Schakowsky or Jackson, and though she's outstanding at articulating the case against the war, that obviously won't be worth much once Obama initiates a withdrawal. As it stands, I'm leaning toward Jackson, but there aren't any obviously bad choices here.

Stonewall

39 years ago today, the American gay rights movement began in earnest. Ari Kelman links to a fascinating Charlie Rose discussion from the riots' twenty-fifth anniversary:

The middle debate puts in stark relief the progress made in the past fourteen years, not just in legal reform but in unifying the movement. While the arguments Tony Kushner and Donna Minkowitz make here - particularly those about intersectionality and the need to work for gay dignity in concert with other social justice movements - are not gone, the organized gay movement is more focused on the political goals Andy Sullivan and Bruce Bawer mention. There's broad agreement that the focus has to be on fighting for full legal equality, through marriage equality, repealing DADT, passing ENDA, etc., rather than the cultural efforts Minkowitz and Kushner emphasize. And it's worked; 12 states have at least civil unions today, 12 more than when this discussion took place, and the legal precedents are in place for complete national marriage equality. Sullivan and Bawer have won the argument, in practice at least, and millions of couples are better off for it.