Dylan Matthews

Even Kevin Drum is starting

Even Kevin Drum is starting to fall a bit off the deep-end:

Bernard Lewis is one of America's most influential scholars of the Middle East. To the public, he became famous with the fortuitous publication a few weeks after 9/11 of What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response, but among Washington policymakers he became more than just famous — he became influential. Deeply influential. Michael Hirsh explains:

Lewis's basic premise, put forward in a series of articles, talks, and bestselling books, is that the West — what used to be known as Christendom — is now in the last stages of a centuries-old struggle for dominance and prestige with Islamic civilization.

....This way of thinking had the remarkable virtue of appealing powerfully to both the hard-power enthusiasts in the administration, principally Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, who came into office thinking that the soft Clinton years had made America an easy target and who yearned to send a post-9/11 message of strength; and to neoconservatives from the first Bush administration such as Paul Wolfowitz, who were looking for excuses to complete their unfinished business with Saddam from 1991 and saw 9/11 as the ultimate refutation of the “realist” response to the first Gulf War.

....Bernard Lewis was persona grata, delivering spine-stiffening lectures to Cheney over dinner in undisclosed locations. Abandoning his former scholarly caution, Lewis was among the earliest prominent voices after September 11 to press for a confrontation with Saddam, doing so in a series of op-ed pieces in The Wall Street Journal with titles like “A War of Resolve” and “Time for Toppling.” An official who sat in on some of the Lewis-Cheney discussions recalled, “His view was: 'Get on with it. Don't dither.'”

But what was behind Lewis' vision of "a secularized, Westernized Arab democracy that casts off the medieval shackles of Islam and enters modernity at last"? And is it right?

Hirsh explains that too. Click here when you have a few spare minutes to read about it.

Let me just start by issuing the following disclaimer: I admire Lewis greatly, and consider him the greatest academic of the 20th century, and quite possibly of the 21st. Consider yourself warned.

I've read Hirsh's piece, and it basically accepts without questioning the beliefs of Richard Bulliet, an anti-Lewis historian at Columbia University. Bulliet considers Islam to be the key to achieving democracy in the Middle East. Lewis considers it an impediment. Lewis is right. Bulliet is wrong. There has never been an Arab democracy; more on topic, there has never been a nonsecular Muslim democracy. Turkey and Indonesia are the only Muslim democracies on the planet; both are fiercely secular, in Turkey to the point of oppression. This is no coincidence. As Lewis pointed out in his groundbreaking essay, "The Roots of Muslim Rage", there is a history of separating religion from government in Western society. The Bible says, "render ... unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's." Muhammed, on the other hand, was more than a prophet. He was the founder of an empire. Islam has a history of religious, undemocratic rule. There is no history of the separation of mosque and state. Thus, once this foreign concept is accepted, as Atatürk made it be in Turkey, the other foreign concept of democracy will likely be accepted more easily. This was bad news for Atatürk's dictatorship; it's good news for U.S.'s efforts in the Middle East. Secularization is the only proven method of bringing democracy to the Middle East; thus, it is the only method that should be employed in doing so.

Should the choice of Harry

Should the choice of Harry Reid - a anti-choice Mormon - as Senate Minority Leader signal a change in Democratic social positions? If you had any doubts, don't now:

Then there's Sen. Ben Nelson, who didn't make the list of preferred Democratic contenders among 465 Democrats in the Gallup Poll. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, the former first lady, took top honors.

That didn't stop Nelson from issuing a neutral comment about a 2008 presidential bid Tuesday on his regular conference call with Nebraska reporters.

Nelson was discussing the advantages that former governors - and he is one - have in running for president compared with lawmakers. A reporter asked: Should we expect a Nelson bid in 2008?

"I wouldn't take it off the table, but I'm certainly not making that announcement today," Nelson said. "And I'll tell you what, if I make that announcement, I'll do it in Nebraska."

Who is Ben Nelson? Well...

Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)

Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)

Rated 7% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

And then there's the fact that he was one of three Democrats in the Senate to vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment (the other two were mad-man Zell Miller and über-bigot Robert Byrd). Just look at this statement:

I support the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I fully support the concept of marriage as a sacred and solemn social institution. I support the Nebraska constitutional amendment on marriage and I support the Federal law defending marriage.

This is a disgusting man. This is a despicable excuse for a human being. The fact that he is a Democrat, let alone the fact that he is considering running for president as a Democrat, is frightening, and disturbing. It reminds me of the days when the Democratic party was the party of Bull Connor and George Wallace. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the culture war is here. The battle plans are being drawn by the Republicans. But we refuse to recognize that there even is a war. And unless we realize this fact, and soon, we are in grave danger of losing the right to choose, the right to sexual privacy, the separation of church and state, and countless other rights and protections. Action must be taken. And it must be taken now.

You know, I was thinking

You know, I was thinking exactly this when I heard of Powell's resignation:

Republicans yesterday touted outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell as a possible challenger against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2006.

"I think he would be an exciting choice . . . and I think he would have star quality," said Stephen Minarik, who was tapped Monday to head the troubled state Republican Party.

Minarik said he would seek to talk to Powell, a native New Yorker, about making the race once he leaves the State Department.

Powell was first suggested as a potential Clinton challenger by Rep. Vito Fossella of Staten Island, who, like many in the New York GOP, is known to fear his party won't have a strong candidate to field against her in 2006.

"His roots and heart have always been in New York," Fossella said of Powell, who was born in New York City and attended City College.

"I think he'd make a great representative and I urge him strongly to consider running," Fossella continued.

The frightening thing is that he'd win. Seriously. He's more pro-choice than Pataki, and if someone as right-wing on national security as Giuliani could get elected in NYC, a centrist like Powell certainly could as well. However, if he were to be nominated, I would fight tooth and bone for Hillary. His bigotry and homophobia are too great to be ignored (on the other hand, I would likely support Pataki or Giuliani against Hillary because of trade and Hillarycare).

Least surprising news story of

Least surprising news story of the day: Eugene Volokh misses the point entirely:

I keep hearing evangelical Christian leaders criticized for "trying to impose their religious dogma on the legal system," for instance by trying to change the law to ban abortion, or by trying to keep the law from allowing gay marriage. I've blogged about this before, but I think it's worth mentioning again.

I like to ask these critics: What do you think about the abolitionist movement of the 1800s? As I understand it, many -- perhaps most or nearly all -- of its members were deeply religious people, who were trying to impose their religious dogma of liberty on the legal system that at the time legally protected slavery.

Or what do you think about the civil rights movement? The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., after all, was one of its main leaders, and he supported and defended civil rights legislation as a matter of God's will, often in overtly religious terms. He too tried to impose his religious dogma on the legal system, which at the time allowed private discrimination, and in practice allowed governmental discrimination as well.

Or how about religious opponents of the draft, opponents of the death penalty, supporters of labor unions, supporters of welfare programs, who were motivated by their religious beliefs -- because deeply religious people's moral beliefs are generally motivated by their religious beliefs -- in trying to repeal the draft, abolish the death penalty, protect labor, or better the lot of the poor? Perhaps their actions were wrong on the merits; for instance, maybe some anti-poverty problems caused more problems than they solved, or wrongly took money from some to give to others. But would you condemn these people on the grounds that it was simply wrong for them to try to impose their religious beliefs on the legal system?

My sense is that the critics of the Religious Right would very rarely levy the same charges at the Religious Left. Rather, they'd acknowledge that religious people are entitled to try to enact their moral views (which stem from their religious views) into law, just as secular people are entitled to try to enact their moral views (which stem from their secular, but generally equally unprovable, moral axioms) into law.

You see, the difference is that slavery and segregation were stupid for reasons other than their violation of religious principles. The same simply can't be said of abortion or gay rights. Abolishing a woman's right to choose is defended by the absurd conjecture that fetuses have "souls". Writing discrimination into the constitution is defended by digging up obscure Leviticus passages. There aren't any other arguments that haven't already been proved wrong by science (i.e. that fetuses feel pain, or that being gay is a choice). Our objection isn't with their views per se; it's that they have no justification other than that found in Christianity. And religion should never factor into public policy in any way, shape, or form.

It was only a matter

It was only a matter of time:

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell announced Monday he was resigning, and two senior administration officials told CNN that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice is President Bush's choice to replace him.

In a letter dated Friday, Powell told Bush that, "now that the election is over the time has come for me to step down as secretary of state and return to private life. I, therefore, resign as the 65th secretary of state, effective at your pleasure."

"I will always treasure the four years that I have spent with President Bush and with the wonderful men and women of the Department of State," Powell told reporters. "I think we've accomplished a great deal."

Should Rice's nomination be approved, her top deputy, Stephen Hadley, will be promoted to national security adviser, the senior administration officials said. The nomination could be announced as early as Tuesday.

Powell said Bush accepted the resignation Friday, adding, "It has always been my intention that I would serve one term."

But a senior State Department official characterized Powell's departure this way: "He was not asked to stay."

Well, color me wrong. Rice and Hadley seem to be in line for new posts. Let's just hope that we filibuster Rice till we can't filibuster anymore; she's been so incompetent over the past four years that she would simply shatter the State Department, not to mention subject it to CIA-type purges.

P.S. I'm no fan of Colin Powell. Here's why. Oh, and here. Colin Powell led the fight for discrimination in the military. He is a disgusting person, who never should have served as National Security Advisor, let alone Secretary of State or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I'm no fan of the

I'm no fan of the Bush administration. It's safe to say that I wouldn't like any Bush Attorney General nominee the the right of Mark Racicot or Rudy Giuliani. But I have to disagree with Phil Carter; Alberto Gonzales deserves to be confirmed as Attorney General.

Why? For the simple reason that he's better than Ashcroft was. That's a low standard to set, I know. But as long as that standard's met, at the very least things won't deteriorate. But why is Gonzales better? One word: abortion. Like it or not, that's what defines people politically nowadays. If you're a pro-choice Republican, you're a moderate; if you're a pro-life Democrat, you're a conservative Dem. In the end, it's what defines a figure. And Gonzales is pro-choice. So, I trust him much more than Ashcroft. Sure, that may not spread to other positions. But it probably will, and even if it doesn't, it's at the very least a step up from Ashcroft.

I'd expect better from Andrew

I'd expect better from Andrew Sullivan:

it [a flat tax] upholds an important liberal principle: that the government should be neutral among its citizens. I don't believe in affirmative action, because it means the government discriminates on the basis of race. I oppose heterosexual-exclusive civil marriage, because it means the government discriminates on the basis of emotional/sexual orientation. And I oppose punitive or "progressive" taxation, because it means the government discriminates on the basis of personal success. If we're all taxed at the same proportionate rate, the successful still pay far more into the public coffers than the unsuccessful. They're just not penalized even further by a higher rate. If you want to help the disadvantaged, and I do, then focus government spending on programs that help the under-privileged. But don't penalize work. And don't defend unequal treatment.

I have a bit of sympathy for this argument. It does seem a little unfair to have people taxed more because of success. But Sullivan surely realizes that high incomes, all too often, are not the products of hard work, or success. They're the products of connections, wealthy background, friends in high places, and other such things. Too often, merit has very little to do with one's income. And comparing this "discrimination" to that against gays and lesbians is crass. The rich aren't treated with hostility; they're not deprived of basic human rights. On the contrary, they run the show. There's simply no comparison in the amount of suffering caused.

John Ashcroft and Secretary of

John Ashcroft and Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans have resigned. Let the shake-up begin!

Adlai's comin': While Sen. John

Adlai's comin':

While Sen. John Kerry is "profoundly disappointed" with losing the presidential race last week, it is "conceivable" he will run again in four years, according to his brother and political confidant, Cameron Kerry, the Boston Globe reports.

"Such a run could pose a dilemma for Kerry: His Senate seat is up for reelection in 2008, and talk of a presidential campaign could spur challengers from both parties and force him to decide whether to seek reelection or run for the White House. He also would undoubtedly face Democratic challengers for the presidential nomination.

The Los Angeles Times says Kerry "is calling key Democratic donors to lay the groundwork for a political organization that would give him a voice in national politics and position him for another White House run in 2008."

Wow. When you lose the popular vote for the first time in 16 years, the natural thing you want to do is renominate the candidate who lost the race, right? He must be more egotistical than Nader.

It appears that my predictions

It appears that my predictions for a Kerry cabinet are now mere fantasies, so here's my second-term Bush predictions (national security posts only):

Secretary of State: John Danforth.
Why I chose him: Powell is certain to leave. He hates Bush with a fiery passion, and I don't think he'd survive a second term even if he wanted to stay. Danforth seems to be the one realist that Bush will listen to (other than Bob Blackwill, who seems to be just as disgusted as Powell), and his experience at the U.N. gave him the diplomatic skills needed. Plus, he'd be more likely to survive Senate confirmation than John Bolton; after all, he served in the Senate for 18 years.

Secretary of Defense: Donald Rumsfeld.
Why I chose him: Rummy's got plenty of life left in him; he's 72 years young. Plus, he doesn't want to look like he's bowing to the calls for his resignation following Abu Ghraib.

National Security Advisor: Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Why I chose him: Condi's leaving. The Republicans want to win Diane Feinstein's seat in 2006, and Condi's their best hope. As for Libby, this post doesn't require Senate confirmation, and thus Bush'll want as hard-core a neocon as he can find. Libby fits this criterion.

U.N. Ambassador: Robert Kagan.
Why I Chose Him: Partly because Dan Drezner told me to. Mostly because he's the closest thing the foreign policy establishment has to a rock star. I mean, he's a neoconservative, and Of Paradise and Power is still the best book I've ever read (and I agree with it!). Bob may not be the best diplomat on Earth (that's got to be the understatement of the century), but neither was Jeanne Kirkpatrick. And while Kirkpatrick had her enemies, everyone likes Bob. Well, everyone should like Bob.

Secretary of Homeland Security: Tom Ridge.
Why I Chose HIm: When he take the governorship of a huge state away from someone and force them to start yelling out semi-random colors on national television, the least you can do is let him keep his job.

That's probably going to be incredibly wrong, but who cares! Any way he picks 'em, we're doomed.