Republicans on the Fringe in Academe

Robert Maranto, an associate professor of political science at Villanova University, has an interesting article on Republicans in the academy at today's Washington Post. Here's the introduction:

Are university faculties biased toward the left? And is this diminishing universities' role in American public life? Conservatives have been saying so since William F. Buckley Jr. wrote "God and Man at Yale" -- in 1951. But lately criticism is coming from others -- making universities face some hard questions.

At a Harvard symposium in October, former Harvard president and Clinton Treasury secretary Larry Summers argued that among liberal arts and social science professors at elite graduate universities, Republicans are "the third group," far behind Democrats and even Ralph Nader supporters. Summers mused that in Washington he was "the right half of the left," while at Harvard he found himself "on the right half of the right."

I know how he feels. I spent four years in the 1990s working at the centrist Brookings Institution and for the Clinton administration and felt right at home ideologically. Yet during much of my two decades in academia, I've been on the "far right" as one who thinks that welfare reform helped the poor, that the United States was right to fight and win the Cold War, and that environmental regulations should be balanced against property rights.

All these views -- commonplace in American society and among the political class -- are practically verboten in much of academia. At many of the colleges I've taught at or consulted for, a perusal of the speakers list and the required readings in the campus bookstore convinced me that a student could probably go through four years without ever encountering a right-of-center view portrayed in a positive light.

A sociologist I know recalls that his decision to become a registered Republican caused "a sensation" at his university. "It was as if I had become a child molester," he said. He eventually quit academia to join a think tank because "you don't want to be in a department where everyone hates your guts."

Maranto believes that mention of his Republican leanings during a recruiting dinner with a hiring committee knocked him out of contention for the job. He also provides a nice set of statistics on the paucity of Republicans at research institutions, and he shows how ideological narrow-mindedness is stultifying:

All this is bad for society because academics' ideological blinders make it more difficult to solve domestic problems and to understand foreign challenges. Moreover, a leftist ideological monoculture is bad for universities, rendering them intellectually dull places imbued with careerism rather than the energy of contending ideas, a point made by academic critics across the ideological spectrum from Russell Jacoby on the left to Josiah Bunting III on the right.

It's odd that my university was one of only a handful in Pennsylvania to have held a debate on the Iraq War in 2003. That happened because left-leaning Villanova professors realized that to be fair they needed to expose students to views different from their own, so they invited three relatively conservative faculty members to take part in a discussion of the decision to invade. Though I was then a junior faculty member arguing the unpopular (pro-war) side, I knew that my senior colleagues would not hold it against me.

Yet a conservative friend at another university had an equal and opposite experience. When he told his department chair that he and a liberal colleague planned to publicly debate the decision to invade Iraq, his chair talked him out of it, saying that it could complicate his tenure decision two years down the road. On the one hand, the department chair was doing his job, protecting a junior faculty member from unfair treatment; on the other hand, he shouldn't have had to.

Unfortunately, critics are too often tone deaf about the solutions to academia's problems. Conservative activist David Horowitz and Students for Academic Freedom, a group he supports, advocate an Academic Bill of Rights guaranteeing equality for ideological minorities (typically conservatives) and ensuring that faculty are hired and promoted and students graded solely on the basis of their competence and knowledge, not their ideology or religion. That sounds great in theory, but it could have the unintended consequence of encouraging any student who gets a C to plead ideological bias.

Ultimately, universities will have to clean their own houses. Professors need to re-embrace a culture of reasoned inquiry and debate. And since debate requires disagreement, higher education needs to encourage intellectual diversity in its hiring and promotion decisions with something like the fervor it shows for ethnic and racial diversity. It's the only way universities will earn back society's respect and reclaim their role at the center of public life.

Maranto's discussion rings very true in my own circumstances. I became a 9/11 Republican after my own participation on an Iraq panel on March 19, 2003. Since then, I've had open ideological battles with a number of my faculty colleagues. One radical feminist philosopher on my floor turns up her nose and looks askance when passing me in the hallway. This is a woman who I had previously lunched with on faculty professional development days.

I strive for collegiality, but I've staunchly defended the war on campus. We have an International ANSWER cell within my social science division. Labeled the "Campus Progressives," the group sponsors talks by far-left speakers, hosts film screenings of all the hard-left cinematic fare ("An Inconvenient Truth," "Fahrenheit 9/11," "Why We Fight"), and recruits students for revolutionary activism.

Occasionally I find misplaced sociology syllabi in the classrooms on campus, and works like The Power Elite - or others arguing the institutional racism line - form the core readings. They're not balanced by more conservative voices.

I participated in a recent campus forum on the Iraq war. I debated two Marxist professors who argued that President Bush was a "pathological liar" and that the Iraq war was a disastrous failure. I provided point-by-point rebuttals to their every claim, especially noting the dramatic successes of U.S. forces under the new war strategy of General David Petraeus.

Some members in the audience were smiling and shaking their heads in agreement as I confidently deflected the leftist hokum (some of the students had jaws agape when they heard my alternative version of events).

The coverage in my school's campus newspaper wasn't so positive, however, quoting only those lines from the antiwar speakers and dismissing my remarks as uninformed (the paper's a hard-left mouthpiece, and the student reporters have little professional guidance on accuracy, fairnesss, and impartiality). I wrote a post on the experience, here.

I've been encouraged this semester to have the pleasure to teach a number of conservative students. It's heartening to know that some students on campus have more common sense and traditional values than the a few of the professors who are leading them in their classrooms.

I should note, as well, that some of my political science colleagues are conservative, and they serve as faculty leaders in student mentoring programs on campus, myself included.

Keep hope alive!

***********

UPDATE: Well, surprise, surprise, surprise! This entry has hit a nerve with some lefty academics! See Lawyers, Guns and Money: "So Many Anecdotes!"

Regarding my division's philosophy professor who no longer speaks to me, post-Iraq 2003, here's this:

Hard as it may be to believe, there are times when adults - even those who share lunch once in a while - stop hanging out together. And yes, sometimes those personal ruptures occur because one person has exposed himself or herself as an idiot by supporting an ill-conceived war. But unless this "radical feminist" happens to sit on the writer's tenure/review committee; serve as his dean or department chair; or functions in any other way that actually imperils his professional status or future, there's no foul.

I would argue the "idiots" are those who have no clue of the war's justification in international law: Saddam violated the Gulf War truce 1991 and all of its disarmament protocols, including UN resolutions 687 and 689, and the 15 subsequent UN resolutions to enforce them. The last of these, Security Council Resolution 1441, gave Saddam one last chance to disarm, which he botched. The U.S. toppled his regime three months later.

The foul? Backing the Bush/Cheney cabal in Washington!

I've earned the opprobrium of a couple of my campus's most vocifierous Bush-bashers. This feud is common knowlege on my floor and has been the subject administrative review (which I mention as some of the commenters, in their nutty, bashing little innuendo-fest of a thread, are conjuring fantasies of impropriety).

No matter: It looks like "d" at LGM is good at throwing out a few ad hominems in the place of logic. That's an example of the academic style that shortchanges students and narrows the marketplace of ideas on campus - exactly the problem Maranto discussed in his original article (and ignored by the lefty big boys a Lawyers, Guns, and Money).

(P.S. Some of those in the audience "smiling and shaking their heads in agreement " spoke with me after the panel, offering me their congratulations for administering a decisive smackdown. I thanked them, indicating it wasn't difficult.)

**********

UPDATE II: Michael Van Der Galien provides his perspective on the Conservatives in Education debate. Michael deploys his cool-headed reasoning, as usual.

BTW, the link's to Michael's new blog, The PoliGazette. Head on over there and wish Michael good luck!

High Confidence in Iran's Continuing Threat

This week's Economist offers a succinct analysis of the NIE and Iran's continuing nuclear threat:

This week's national intelligence assessment says with “high confidence” that although Iran was indeed working on a bomb until the autumn of 2003 it then stopped. By the middle of this year it had probably (“moderate confidence”) not started again. And unless it got fuel for a bomb from abroad it would take at least until late 2009 (“moderate confidence”) but more likely between 2010 and 2015 to make it at home.

What is the baffled layman to make of this? First that intelligence is neither art nor science but a system of best guesses based on incomplete evidence. If new evidence suggests that the previous guesses were wrong, it is a good thing that spies are willing to say so. Some of the outraged hawks who want America to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities accuse the spies of sexing down their latest Iran dossier in order to make amends for having sexed up the one that led America into a war in Iraq. But that would imply a truly impressive conspiracy between the 16 agencies that signed the report. Of course, the spies' new assessment may be wrong, as their previous ones proved to be. But it is most unlikely to be a tissue of lies.

For that very reason, however, relieved doves who think the spectre of a nuclear Iran or of an American attack has now disappeared had better read the report again. Its final sentence says (“high confidence”) that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it chooses. As to what “eventually” means, the assessment has not changed: it was always late 2009 at the earliest but more probably the middle of the next decade. As to whether Iran will do so, the spies say (“moderate-to-high confidence”) that “at a minimum” it is keeping the option open.

That is troubling, because Iran can continue to work towards a bomb without resuming the secret programme America now thinks it stopped in 2003. That programme was about “weaponisation”: the fiddly business of making a device that can set off a chain reaction in nuclear fuel. But creating such a warhead is the easier part of building a bomb. Harder by far is making the fuel. And, as the report notes, making the fuel is precisely what Iran continues to do in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions at its uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz. For now, it is true, Iran is enriching the uranium at below weapons grade. It says it is doing so only in order to power reactors to produce electricity. But it has no such reactors. And to get the uranium to weapons grade it has only to run the stuff often enough through Natanz's centrifuges.

In short, nothing in the new assessment makes the story Iran tells about Natanz any less fishy or the dangers posed by its dash to enrich uranium any less troubling. But it has utterly changed the politics of the issue. The case for American pre-emption now becomes almost impossible to sell either at home or abroad. That is probably a good thing, given that a military attack was always likelier to restore Iran's determination to build a bomb than destroy its ability to get one. Unfortunately, the report may also make it harder for America and Europe to maintain, let alone sharpen, the sanctions the world has imposed in order to make Iran stop work at Natanz.

See also my earlier entries on the NIE, here, here, here, and here.

NBC Won't Run Pro-Troop Ads Over Holidays

NBC television has rejected advertisements from the pro-victory public advocacy group, Freedom's Watch, available at You Tube:

FOX News has the story:

NBC has nixed holiday advertisements meant to thank troops for serving overseas in opposition to the inclusion of a non-profit's Web address.

The ads, paid for by the non-profit Freedom's Watch, are a simple thank you, the group says, with people shown paying gratitude to members of the military and the final frame showing the group's Web address, http://www.freedomswatch.org/.

Click here and here to view the ads that NBC won't air.

NBC is refusing to air the ads as long as the address is included, according to an e-mail exchange between NBC and the group, which Freedom's Watch provided to FOX News.

"Per my previous email, the www.freedomswatch.org website will have to be redacted from the commercials for approval. This comes from Alan Wurtzel and Rick Cotton," according to one of the notes.

Wurtzel is president of research at NBC. Rick Cotton is general counsel for NBC Universal.

Speaking with FOX on Friday, Wurtzel said NBC has no problem with the content of the ad, specificallythe well-wishes to troops.

However, he said, the link to the website violates their policy on controversial issue advertising because it encourages political action and other activities. He said the policy is applied consistently across the board and this group was not targeted in any way.

Not targeted in any way?

These are essentially public service advertisements. No wonder conservatives rail against left-wing media bias.

**********

UPDATE: Via Opinnionnation Times, it turns out NBC has reversed itself:

NBC reversed course Saturday and decided to air a conservative group's television ad thanking U.S. troops.

The ad, by the group Freedom's Watch, asks viewers to remember the troops during the holiday season. NBC had refused to air the ad because it guides viewers to the Freedom's Watch Web site, which NBC said was too political.

But in a statement issued Saturday evening, NBC said:

"We have reviewed and changed our ad standards guidelines and made the decision that our policy will apply to content only and not to a referenced Web site. Based on these amended standards the Freedom's Watch ad will begin to run as early as Sunday."

NBC' head of standards and practices, Alan Wurtzel, notified Freedom's Watch's media consultant Saturday by e-mail, writing: "This will confirm that the Freedom's Watch spot is approved for air."

Hoorah!!

Antiwar General Switches Sides to Back Surge

Via Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard, check out this Washingon Post story by John Batiste and Pete Hegseth, "Getting Beyond Stalemate to Win a War":

Congress has been entangled in a war-funding debate that pits war "supporters" against antiwar "defeatists." With all sides seemingly entrenched, a stalemate looms. The Pentagon, meanwhile, will soon begin stripping money from its training budget to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our military men and women deserve better than partisan politics; they deserve honest assessments of our nation's performance in fighting the Long War.

We are veterans of the Iraq war with vastly different experiences. Both of us commanded troops in Iraq. We, too, held seemingly entrenched, and incompatible, views upon our return. One of us spoke out against mismanagement of the war -- failed leadership, lack of strategy and misdirection. The other championed the cause of successfully completing our mission.

Our perspectives were different, yet not as stark as the "outspoken general" and "stay-the-course supporter" labels we received. Such labels are oversimplified and inaccurate, and we are united behind a greater purpose.

It's time to discuss the way forward rather than prosecute the past. Congress must do the same, for our nation and the troops.

Overall, this will require learning from our strategic blunders, acknowledging successes achieved by our courageous military and forging a bold path. We believe America can and must rally around five fundamental tenets:

First, the United States must be successful in the fight against worldwide Islamic extremism. We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option.

Second, whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that fight. We cannot walk away from our strategic interests in the region. Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria. A premature or precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, without the requisite stability and security, is likely to cause the violence there -- which has decreased substantially but is still present -- to cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis.

Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country. Ultimately, however, these military gains must be cemented with regional and global diplomacy, political reconciliation, and economic recovery -- tools yet sufficiently utilized. Today's tactical gains in Iraq -- while a necessary pre-condition for political reconciliation -- will crumble without a deliberate and comprehensive strategy.

Fourth, our strategy in fighting the Long War must address Iran. Much has been made this week of the intelligence judgments that Iran has stopped its weapons program. No matter what, Iran must not be permitted to become a nuclear power. All options should be exhausted before we use military force, but force, nonetheless, should never be off the table. Diplomatic efforts -- from a position of strength, both regionally and globally -- must be used to engage our friends and coerce our enemies to apply pressure on the Iranian regime.

Fifth, our military capabilities need to match our national strategy. Our military is stretched thin and will be hard-pressed to maintain its current cycle of deployments. At this critical juncture, we cannot afford to be weak. Numbers and capacity matter.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, America was not mobilized for the Long War. This was an opportunity lost, but it is not too late. Many Americans are frustrated by the war effort, the burden of which has been shouldered by less than one percent of our citizenry. Our country is accustomed to winning. We deserve a comprehensive strategy that is focused on victory and guided by decisive leadership. America must succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we also cannot focus too narrowly on those conflicts. We need a regional and global strategy to defeat worldwide Islamic extremism to ensure a safer world today and for future generations.

The day after his famous Pearl Harbor speech, President Franklin D. Roosevelt again addressed the nation. "I was about to add that ahead there lies sacrifice for all of us," he said. "But it is not correct to use that word. The United States does not consider it a sacrifice to do all one can, to give one's best to our nation, when the nation is fighting for its existence and its future life." His words inspired the "Greatest Generation," and they should inspire us again today.

Americans must mobilize for the Long War -- bolster our strained military, galvanize industry to supply troops with what they need right now and fund the strategy with long-term solutions. We have no doubt that Americans will rally behind a call to arms.

America's veterans -- young and old -- are resolved to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. This commitment, and nothing less, should compel us to stand together, in and out of uniform. Would that Congress finds the courage to bury its pride and do the same.

Here's the significance of the essay, according to Goldfarb:

Major General John Batiste.... you will remember, is the formerly "antiwar" general who

spoke out against

Donald Rumsfeld, and who, until recently, was a Board Member of VoteVets.org (the antiwar MoveOn.org vets front group)....

There are two stories here: 1) A formerly anti-war general flips on supporting the war, and now believes Petraeus has the right strategy; and 2) Batiste has left VoteVets.org, and the antiwar movement, and joined up with the pro-troop, pro-surge, pro-victory Vets for Freedom.

The antiwar movement has lost one of its most powerful voices today, and it will be interesting to see whether they turn on one of their own, or come around to the view, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that the surge is working.

I'd simply add that nothing suceeds in Iraq like success.

Antwar opponents will argue that it was really ethnic cleansing that reduced casualties of late (not the change in strategy), but when an esteemed military commander renounces his previous antiwar position - and the movement he backed - that's big news.

Hillary Clinton Strains to Build Sisterhood Solidarity

Today's Wall Street Journal provides an excellent analysis of Hillary Clinton's struggles in attracting professional women to her campaign:

She's the ultimate professional woman. So you'd think Hillary Clinton's biggest source of support would be other alpha females.

But as the New York senator's presidential campaign works to mobilize women executives, doctors and lawyers around America, it's getting a reality check: Many have resisted the call-up. So far, she's doing better among women of more modest means.

Professional women are "much harder sells" than men, says a Clinton campaign adviser. "They're tough." They are less inclined than men to see things in black and white, and seek more information before deciding, this adviser says. Events for businesswomen must be substantive, because they frequently ask more questions than businessmen, Sen. Clinton's advisers say. At one such Clinton event, former tennis star Billie Jean King and other supporters tried to pump up the crowd as if it were a political rally. The feedback from attendees, says senior campaign adviser Ann Lewis, was "less rah-rah, more substance."

Dr. Janice Werbinski, past president of American Medical Women's Association and an early Clinton supporter, says she didn't like the New York senator's answers in a recent conference call for female physicians. "Now I'm having second thoughts," she says.

"I saw the same thing when I ran for Senate the first time in 2000," Sen. Clinton said in an interview on Wednesday afternoon. "Professional women were the last to close for me." They were not about to support her just because of her gender, she said. "This is very much in line with what I've seen" in past campaigns.

Among all women - Democrats, Republicans and independents - feelings toward Sen. Clinton vary with professional status, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC national poll, taken in early November. Among nonprofessionals, 52% said they had positive impressions of her, while 38% were negative. But women who identify themselves as professionals or managers were markedly less enthusiastic, with 42% reporting positive impressions, and 44% negative.

What expains this? The article continues:

One theory about Sen. Clinton's weaker numbers among professional women is that more-affluent women aren't as worried about health care, child care, the minimum wage and other issues important to nonprofessionals. But in the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, professional women gave her lower ratings than did nonprofessional women in such categories as "being honest and straightforward," "being compassionate enough to understand average people," "having high personal standards that set the proper moral tone for the country," and "being easygoing and likable." Both groups gave her high marks for being "knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency."

"Women who work on their feet -- nurses, teachers -- strongly prefer Hillary," says Geraldine Laybourne, founder and former chief executive officer of Oxygen Media LLC, now a unit of NBC Universal, who's helping the Clinton campaign. The goal, she says, is to "make visible that women in business support Hillary" in order to build that base.

What's Clinton's response?

Critics of Sen. Clinton say she is trying to have it both ways -- to play down her gender with some audiences and to play it up with others.

"This is such a strange argument to make," Sen. Clinton said. "When I talk with women, I talk about what it's like to be a mom and daughter. If I talk to the armed services, I talk about how I would be as a commander-in-chief." Different circumstances, she said, require different approaches. "Moms who work in business don't act the same with their kids or at the office."

The Los Angeles Times covered this story yesterday, "The Clinton Resisters":

On paper, they look an awful lot like Hillary Rodham Clinton. They are professional women of a certain age -- politically active Democrats, liberals, unabashed feminists who remember what it was like to be told they could not become firefighters or university department heads, let alone president of the United States of America.

They are women of accomplishment who have bumped up against glass ceilings, sometimes breaking them, while managing marriages, raising children and trying to make the world their version of a better place.

They have waited a long, long time for a plausible female presidential candidate. You'd think they'd be rushing to support Clinton. But they can't stand her.

"She leaves me cold," said Sidonie Smith, who chairs the University of Michigan English department. "I hate to say that. It's a very strange feeling to have."

Like her husband, former President Clinton, Hillary Clinton has inspired highly mixed emotions over the years. For the political right, she has served as a protean symbol of everything wrong with Democrats and feminists.

For upscale women on the left -- historically her toughest crowd -- negative reaction has been more nuanced. Polls show that blue-collar women see her as a defender of their economic interests. But their well-educated upper-middle-class sisters, who aren't as worried about job security, feel free to judge her as they would a peer. She has recently gained substantial ground with this constituency, but polls continue to show that fully half of college-educated Democratic women do not support her.

The reasons vary. For many, it's visceral. While they struggled to break through institutional barriers in the workplace, Clinton hitched her star to her man and followed him to the top. When his philandering imperiled his political career, she not only pulled him out of the fire but helped orchestrate attacks against his accusers.

For others, the anger they feel is purely political. Some are disappointed by her support of the Iraq war, her reluctance to take stands on some hot-button issues or the fact that she has re-created herself as a centrist.

Read the whole thing.

Why aren't women going for Clinton? Ann Althouse has a clue:

The classic feminist diagnosis would be: sexism. Did you think feminism immunized you from sexism? You consciously favor the advancement of women, but then when you look at a particular woman who is at the point of advancement, you think: Yes, but not her.

But is this what we are feeling about Hillary? I think not. Hillary is not just another professional woman of my generation, who ought to inspire sisterly empathy. She is a throwback to an earlier era, when women found their place through their husbands. The resistance I feel toward Hillary has to do do with her advancement under the aegis of a powerful man — a powerful man who seems to have diminished quite a number of women.

So, Hillary hitched her wagon to her male protector, Bill Clinton (she's been known to "stand by her man"). I've covered this topic before, writing in a previous post:

...as women executives get closer to bumping into the glass ceiling, they're less likely to support Clinton than are women at lower levels of workplace advancement. Perhaps Clinton's nanny state agenda is less attractive to women who've proven themselves entreprenurial, independent, and upwardly mobile (and less likely to be receptive to Clinton's redistributive policies).

You've got to love Clinton's contortions!

She's pulling out all the stops in pandering on gender: She had her mom stump for her in Des Moines last night. Chelsea Clinton's making the rounds today.

**********

UPDATE: See also the Washington Post's story on Hillary's gender rollout, "Clinton Team Turns Iowa Focus to Women."

Was President Bush Behind the NEI Report? An Update

This entry is a follow-up to my previous post, "Was President Bush Behind the NIE Report?" I noted there that Robert Baer, the author of a Time piece arguing Bush greenlighted the NIE, "provides absolutely no evidence for his claims, so I lend no credence to this analysis."

Caroline Glick has followed this up with an excellent essay weighing the Baer assertion, "The abandonment of the Jews." Here's the introduction:

The US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear intentions is the political version of a tactical nuclear strike on efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear bombs.

The NIE begins with the sensationalist opening line: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Teheran halted its nuclear weapons program." But the rest of the report contradicts the lead sentence. For instance, the second line says, "We also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Teheran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons."

Indeed, contrary to that earth-shattering opening, the NIE acknowledges that the Iranians have an active nuclear program and that they are between two and five years away from nuclear capabilities.

The NIE's final sentence: "We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so," only emphasizes that US intelligence agencies view Iran's nuclear program as a continuous and increasing threat rather than a suspended and diminishing one.

But the content of the NIE is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the opening line - as the report's authors no doubt knew full well when they wrote it. With that opening line, the NIE effectively takes the option of American use of force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons off the table.

There are two possible explanations for why President George W. Bush permitted this strange report to be published. Either he doesn't wish to attack Iran, or he was compelled by the intelligence bureaucracy to accept that he can't attack Iran.

Arguing the former in Time magazine, former CIA agent Robert Baer explained, "While the 16 agencies that make up the 'intelligence community' contribute to each National Intelligence Estimate, you can bet that an explosive 180-degree turn on Iran like this one was greenlighted by the president."

The alternative view - that Bush was forced to accept the report against his will - is also possible. The report's primary authors, Thomas Fingar, Vann Van Diepen and Kenneth Brill are all State Department officials on loan to the office of the Director of National Intelligence. According to the Wall Street Journal, all three are reputed to be deeply partisan and hostile to Bush's foreign policy goals. Furthermore, for the past four years the three have reportedly worked studiously to downplay the danger of Iran's nuclear weapons program and to discredit their opponents within the administration.

Thursday The New York Times ran a story detailing the process in which the NIE was collated that lends credence to the view that Bush was compelled to accept it. According to the Times, in the months preceding the NIE's publication, Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, purposely prevented the White House from seeing any of the raw intelligence data on which the NIE's radical conclusion on Iran was drawn. This alone indicates that the intelligence community may well have presented Bush with a fait accompli.

But it really doesn't make a difference one way or another. Whether the president agrees or disagrees with the NIE, he is boxed in just the same. The NIE denies him the option of taking military action against Iran's nuclear program for the duration of his tenure in office. So for at least 14 months, Iran has nothing to worry about from Washington.

And the NIE's political repercussions extend well beyond the current administration. Today, no Democratic presidential candidate will dare to question the opening line of the report. The Democratic Congressional leaders are demanding that the administration immediately open bilateral talks with Iran. And Senator Hillary Clinton is being pilloried by her party rivals for her Senate vote in favor of classifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization.

That nails it. The NIE will be the retreatists' gift that keeps on giving in 2008. But read the rest of Glick's entry, where she argues that the ultimate result of the Iran report will be the abandonment of Israel to full strategic isolation vis-a-vis the Persian menace.

Today's Wall Street Journal has more on the "Iran Curveball":

President Bush has been scrambling to rescue his Iran policy after this week's intelligence switcheroo, but the fact that the White House has had to spin so furiously is a sign of how badly it has bungled this episode. In sum, Mr. Bush and his staff have allowed the intelligence bureaucracy to frame a new judgment in a way that has undermined four years of U.S. effort to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions.

This kind of national security mismanagement has bedeviled the Bush Presidency. Recall the internal disputes over post-invasion Iraq, the smearing of Ahmad Chalabi by the State Department and CIA, hanging Scooter Libby out to dry after bungling the response to Joseph Wilson's bogus accusations, and so on. Mr. Bush has too often failed to settle internal disputes and enforce the results.

What's amazing in this case is how the White House has allowed intelligence analysts to drive policy. The very first sentence of this week's national intelligence estimate (NIE) is written in a way that damages U.S. diplomacy: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." Only in a footnote below does the NIE say that this definition of "nuclear weapons program" does "not mean Iran's declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment."

In fact, the main reason to be concerned about Iran is that we can't trust this distinction between civilian and military. That distinction is real in a country like Japan. But we know Iran lied about its secret military efforts until it was discovered in 2003, and Iran continues to enrich uranium on an industrial scale, with 3,000 centrifuges, in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions. There is no civilian purpose for such enrichment. Iran has access to all the fuel it needs for civilian nuclear power from Russia at the plant in Bushehr. The NIE buries the potential danger from this enrichment, even though this enrichment has been the main focus of U.S. diplomacy against Iran.

In this regard, it's hilarious to see the left and some in the media accuse Mr. Bush once again of distorting intelligence. The truth is the opposite. The White House was presented with this new estimate only weeks ago, and no doubt concluded it had little choice but to accept and release it however much its policy makers disagreed. Had it done otherwise, the finding would have been leaked and the Administration would have been assailed for "politicizing" intelligence.
The result is that we now have NIE judgments substituting for policy in a dangerous way. For one thing, these judgments are never certain, and policy in a dangerous world has to account for those uncertainties. We know from our own sources that not everyone in American intelligence agrees with this NIE "consensus," and the Israelis have already made clear they don't either. The Jerusalem Post reported this week that Israeli defense officials are exercised enough that they will present their Iran evidence to Admiral Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, when he visits that country tomorrow.

For that matter, not even the diplomats at the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency agree with the NIE. "To be frank, we are more skeptical," a senior official close to the agency told the New York Times this week. "We don't buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran." Senator John Ensign, a Nevada Republican, is also skeptical enough that he wants Congress to establish a bipartisan panel to explore the NIE's evidence. We hope he keeps at it.

You can say that again!

The editors note that the NIE is weakening international consensus on Iran, with China and Russia seeking an easy alternative to a firm riposte. But like Glick, the Journal editorial board's not going easy on the administration:

We reported earlier this week that the authors of this Iran NIE include former State Department officials who have a history of hostility to Mr. Bush's foreign policy. But the ultimate responsibility for this fiasco lies with Mr. Bush. Too often he has appointed, or tolerated, officials who oppose his agenda, and failed to discipline them even when they have worked against his policies. Instead of being candid this week about the problems with the NIE, Mr. Bush and his National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, tried to spin it as a victory for their policy. They simply weren't believable.

It's a sign of the Bush Administration's flagging authority that even many of its natural allies wondered this week if the NIE was really an attempt to back down from its own Iran policy. We only wish it were that competent.

Finally, check out Charles Krauthammer's essay on the Iran report over at Time, where he concludes, "there is no reasonable argument for taking military action off the table."

Pearl Harbor Remembered

The Cincinnati Post has a nice remembrance of Pearl Harbor:

Joe Whitt kept his memories of the horrors and heroics of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to himself for 35 years.

But he has been educating children, civic groups and anyone else who asks since the nation's Bicentennial in 1976. At 84, he has no intention of letting up on this 66th anniversary of the devastating surprise air assault that launched America into World War II.

"I have plenty to talk about, and I hope my story answers some of the questions in young people's minds," he said.

Whitt, who lives in Bethel, is president of the Ohio chapter of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association. He is among just 90 survivors left in Ohio among about 25,000 nationally.

"In Cincinnati, we are down to the bare bones. We have seven members. Two of them are in nursing homes," he said.

Six decades after the attack, numbers have dwindled and infirmities have hobbled many who survive, which has translated into far fewer trips to schools and other education events. The Cincinnati chapter's secretary treasurer is now Jean Adams, the widow of George Adams, a Pearl Harbor veteran who died on Dec. 7, 2004 - exactly 63 years after he witnessed the attack.

There is no one to replace George Adams as an eyewitness to history, but Mrs. Adams intends to keep his stories alive through supporting Whitt and the survivors' organization.

"It was important to my husband and so it was important to me. It's difficult for me to express. Pearl Harbor was part of our country's history, and I just think it was important for people to know what happened," Mrs. Adams said.

"The majority of the men were in their teens. My husband had just turned 19. He was a petty officer. I'm not sure young people realize what's happened and why. Without George and other men like him, I'm not sure where we would be," she said.

Whitt spoke to a pilots group at Lunken Airport Thursday night and appeared at a memorial event in New Richmond on Sunday. He can talk for hours because every detail of the attack remains fresh in his mind.

He was a seaman first class station on the USS San Francisco when the Japanese planes came. He and his mates concurred that the country was headed for war with Japan, but they figured on meeting their enemy in battle in the Philippines, where the Americans, he thought, would "clobber them in a day or two."

Instead, he was on the deck of the San Francisco, a cruiser that was docked and getting an overhaul, when the Japanese fighter planes attacked. He and all but five crewmates killed by machine gun fire were among the lucky ones because a construction crane kept the Japanese bombers from getting close enough for good shots.

"We put World War I helmets on our heads. The planes were so low you could almost hit them with a potato," he said.

Armed with a rifle, he shot at the planes as they passed by. "I had a view of the whole operation in the harbor. Big billows of black smoke and sound of guns firing. I never did see a plane dive straight down but they would come in on a heavy slant. They would come in real fast and drop those bombs and then they would pull up and roll over on a loop. The ones that dropped the big shells came in higher up," he said.

"I saw the Arizona as she blew up. It was just a tremendous explosion," he said, referring to the battleship that sank in the harbor, taking 1,177 crew members to a watery grave.

He would spend another five years in the Navy, mostly as a machine gunner.

Whitt fought in the south and north Pacific, including battles in the Philippines, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

"I'm one of the few men who heard the first and last shots of the war," he said.

To adults and high school students, he tries to tell the whole story, including gruesome details of sailors eaten by sharks, the task of cleaning up body parts after an attack and other horrors.

"I try to tell them the heroics of the men, that these were young men, some of them not as old as they are. I was always on the guns fighting the Japanese, and I never saw one bit of cowardice in these young men," Whitt said.

According to Whitt's records, just one survivor remains in Northern Kentucky. That is Alvis Kinney of Highland Heights, who could not be reached for comment.

In Mount Sterling, Ky., Raymond Turley freely tells his story, though he has rarely done so in public.

He was a corporal in the Army Air Corps, a maintenance man on B-40s at Wheeler Field near Pearl Harbor.

He was having breakfast in the mess hall, preparing for a trip to Honolulu when he heard the first explosions, which he and others mistook initially for a U.S. Navy plane crash.

"We thought the Navy had cracked up one of their planes. We ran to the windows, and we saw the second bomb, and then we saw the rising sun on the wing of that plane.

He and two other soldiers began running for their barracks as Japanese planes systematically destroyed the B-40s, which were neatly lined up in two rows.

A man Turley didn't know told him to lay down near a curb to avoid machine gun fire, then instructed to run out of harm's way. He never got the stranger's name or saw him again, and Turley considers him a guardian angel.

Turley isn't confident that the drama of that day will be remembered when he's gone.

"I've got a Pearl Harbor survivor tag on my vehicle and very seldom does anyone say anything about it," he said. "I think most have pretty well forgotten about it, but I hope not because we laid our lives out many times."

Whitt knows the time of eyewitness accounts of Pearl Harbor and the ensuing war in the Pacific won't last forever, but he hopes their stories will.

"The only thing we can hope for is like the Civil war battles. I hope they keep it in the proper context where they tell it like it really was and not like Hollywood. The heroes were the men that we buried at sea. The thousands, and thousands killed in battle," he said.

The Los Angeles Times also has a story on Pearl Harbor survivors, "Pearl Harbor Lives in Hearts of Its Vets."

See more stories, here.

**********

UPDATE: Via Hammering Sparks From the Anvil, check out this Pearl Harbor YouTube:

The video draws on clips from Touchstone's 2001 motion picture, "Pearl Harbor."

Containing Iran?

The dust has yet to clear from this week's NIE bombshell, so one might think we'd avoid another abrupt change in foreign policy thinking on Iran.

Not so lucky, I guess, considering the publication of Vali Nasr and Ray Takeyh's new piece over at Foreign Affairs, "The Costs of Containing Iran." The authors argue that the Bush administration's Iranian containment policy is destined to failure: Stuck in a Cold War-era mindset, the perspective's woefully inadequate considering the current correlation of forces in the Middle East:

Taking a page out of its early Cold War playbook, Washington hopes to check and possibly reduce Tehran's growing influence much as it foiled the Soviet Union's expansionist designs: by projecting its own power while putting direct pressure on its enemy and building a broad-based alliance against it. Washington has been building up the U.S. Navy's presence in the Persian Gulf and using harsh rhetoric, raising the specter of war. At the same time, it funds a $75 million democracy-promotion program supporting regime change in Tehran. In recent months, Washington has rallied support for a series of United Nations resolutions against Iran's nuclear program and successfully pushed through tough informal financial sanctions that have all but cut Iran out of international financial markets. It has officially designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and the IRG's elite al Quds Army as a supporter of terrorism, allowing the Treasury Department to target the groups' assets and the U.S. military to harass and apprehend their personnel in Iraq. Washington is also working to garner support from what it now views as moderate governments in the Middle East -- mostly authoritarian Arab regimes it once blamed for the region's myriad problems.

Washington's goal is to eliminate Iran's influence in the Arab world by rolling back Tehran's gains to date and denying it the support of allies -- in effect drawing a line from Lebanon to Oman to separate Iran from its Arab neighbors. The Bush administration has rallied support among Arab governments to oppose Iranian policies in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. It is trying to buttress the military capability of Persian Gulf states by providing a $20 billion arms package to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. According to Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, one of the arms sales' primary objectives is "to enable these countries to strengthen their defenses and therefore to provide a deterrence against Iranian expansion and Iranian aggression in the future." And through a series of regional conclaves and conferences, the Bush administration hopes to rejuvenate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process partly in the hope of refocusing the energies of the region's governments on the threat posed by Iran.

Containing Iran is not a novel idea, of course, but the benefits Washington expects from it are new. Since the inception of the Islamic Republic, successive Republican and Democratic administrations have devised various policies, doctrines, and schemes to temper the rash theocracy. For the Bush administration, however, containing Iran is the solution to the Middle East's various problems. In its narrative, Sunni Arab states will rally to assist in the reconstruction of a viable government in Iraq for fear that state collapse in Baghdad would only consolidate Iran's influence there. The specter of Shiite primacy in the region will persuade Saudi Arabia and Egypt to actively help declaw Hezbollah. And, the theory goes, now that Israel and its longtime Arab nemeses suddenly have a common interest in deflating Tehran's power and stopping the ascendance of its protégé, Hamas, they will come to terms on an Israeli-Palestinian accord. This, in turn, will (rightly) shift the Middle East's focus away from the corrosive Palestinian issue to the more pressing Persian menace. Far from worrying that the Middle East is now in flames, Bush administration officials seem to feel that in the midst of disorder and chaos lies an unprecedented opportunity for reshaping the region so that it is finally at ease with U.S. dominance and Israeli prowess.

But there is a problem: Washington's containment strategy is unsound, it cannot be implemented effectively, and it will probably make matters worse. The ingredients needed for a successful containment effort simply do not exist. Under these circumstances, Washington's insistence that Arab states array against Iran could further destabilize an already volatile region.

What's so ineffective? Why will containment of Iran make things worse in the Middle East?

For one thing, Nasr and Takeyh argue that Iran in no way presents a threat on the same level as the old Soviet Union. Particularly, the authors suggest that Iran is not a revisionist power, and is not "seeking to create disorder in order to fulfill some scriptural promise, nor is it an expansionist power with unquenchable ambitions."

I find this a strange claim, particularly coming from Nasr, who has written that the administration's Iraq policy left a strategic power vacuum inside the Middle East, which Tehran - as the leader of a regional Shiite resurgence - was all too eager to fill.

Not to be outdone, Peter Galbraith, writing in the New York Review of Books, argued that America's difficulties in Iraq positioned Iran toward a situation of dominance previously unheard of:

Of all the unintended consequences of the Iraq war, Iran's strategic victory is the most far-reaching. In establishing the border between the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire in 1639, the Treaty of Qasr-i-Shirin demarcated the boundary between Sunni-ruled lands and Shiite-ruled lands. For eight years of brutal warfare in the 1980s, Iran tried to breach that line but could not. (At the time, the Reagan administration supported Saddam Hussein precisely because it feared the strategic consequences of an Iraq dominated by Iran's allies.) The 2003 US invasion of Iraq accomplished what Khomeini's army could not. Today, the Shiite-controlled lands extend to the borders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Bahrain, a Persian Gulf kingdom with a Shiite majority and a Sunni monarch, is most affected by these developments; but so is Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, which is home to most of the kingdom's Shiites. (They may even be a majority in the province but this is unknown as Saudi Arabia has not dared to conduct a census.) The US Navy has its most important Persian Gulf base in Bahrain while most of Saudi Arabia's oil is under the Eastern Province.

I imagine the administration's brinkmanship throughout the year has forced a shift among foreign policy liberals such as Nasr and Takeyh: We have, on the one hand, the claim that Iraq has destabilized the region, with Iran emerging as a new systemic power broker; while on the other hand we have a newer softening line that suggests Iran's not as dangerous as the administration asserts. Hmm?? Having our cake...?

A second major claim by the authors indicates that threat perception of Iran among Arab states varies widely: Some Arab regime worry about Iranian power, others not so much:

The Bush administration's strategy also fails to appreciate the diverse views of Arab states. Arab regimes are indeed worried about Iran, but they are not uniformly so. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain decry Iranian expansionism and fear Tehran's interference in their internal affairs. But Egypt and Jordan worry mostly that Iran's newfound importance is eroding their standing in the region. The stake for them is not territory or internal stability but influence over the Palestinian issue. Even within the Persian Gulf region, there is no anti-Iranian consensus. Unlike Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, for example, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates do not suffer a Shiite minority problem and have enjoyed extensive economic relations with Tehran since the mid-1990s. Far from seeking confrontation with Iran, they fear the consequences of escalating tensions between it and the United States. Even U.S. allies in the Middle East will assess their capabilities and vulnerabilities, shape their alliances, and pursue their interests with the understanding that they, too, are susceptible to Iran's influence. A U.S. containment strategy that assumes broad Arab solidarity is unsound in theory.

Perhaps, although the Los Angeles Times suggests that the NIE has signaled to some regional states a reduction of U.S. influence in the Middle East, as well as an increasingly free hand for Iran to fulfill its ambitions of regional dominance:

The dwindling possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran is changing the dynamics of Middle East politics and raising Arab concern that Tehran may now feel emboldened to strengthen its military, increase its support for Islamic radicals and exert more influence in the region's troubled countries.

Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations opposed military action against Iran's nuclear program. But, analysts said, those governments were privately relieved that U.S. threats helped to further preoccupy Tehran, which had irritated much of the Arab world with its deep involvement in the politics of Iraq and Lebanon and support for the radical Palestinian group Hamas.

The U.S. intelligence report released Monday, which says Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program, has eased international pressure for sanctions and invigorated the Islamic Republic's hard-liners. This comes as the Arab world has been trying to counter Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and his government's influence over the presidential turmoil in Lebanon, the politics in Syria and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

The report did not allay Arab fears over Iran's nuclear intentions and its program to enrich uranium.

The same day the intelligence assessment was made public, Ahmadinejad became the first Iranian president to attend a summit of the Gulf Cooperation Council. The meeting in Doha, Qatar, was hailed by many as a symbolic milestone to defuse decades of tensions between Shiite-dominated Iran and other oil-producing, mostly Sunni nations of the region. The Iranian leader, however, said little at the meeting to calm nerves about his country's regional ambitions.

Suspicion that Iran seeks to dominate the Persian Gulf region has prompted some Middle Eastern states -- including Saudi Arabia, which the U.S. regards as the leading Arab voice -- to increase military spending.

"There's no trust on the Arab side about Iran's intentions," said Christian Koch, research director for international studies at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. "There are concerns of Iran's nuclear program for military purposes. There are concerns about Iran's influence in Iraq, over the unsettled political situation in Lebanon and over the dispute regarding" three gulf islands in Iran's control that are claimed by the United Arab Emirates.

Most importantly, Nasr and Takeyh argue the American weakness over Iran counsels not power politics but diplomacy, and especially the creation of regional institutions of multilateral cooperation - something of a "new order" for the Middle East:

Instead of focusing on restoring a former balance of power, the United States would be wise to aim for regional integration and foster a new framework in which all the relevant powers would have a stake in a stable status quo. The Bush administration is correct to sense that a truculent Iran poses serious challenges to U.S. concerns, but containing Iran through military deployment and antagonistic alliances simply is not a tenable strategy. Iran is not, despite common depictions, a messianic power determined to overturn the regional order in the name of Islamic militancy; it is an unexceptionally opportunistic state seeking to assert predominance in its immediate neighborhood. Thus, the task at hand for Washington is to create a situation in which Iran will find benefit in limiting its ambitions and in abiding by international norms.

This call for greater attention to institutions and norms, I would argue, is Nasr and Takeyh's ultimate goal. But adopting such a shift - at least wholesale - holds disastrous implications.

The Western democracies have worked through international institutions for the last four years to rein-in Iran's nuclear ambitions. Even if Iran indeed curtailed its weapons program in 2003 (which would take some willing suspension of disbelief), the fact remains that continuance of Tehran's peaceful nuclear development program will generate the scientific expertise and programatic infrastructure needed for nuclear weapons capability.

In addition, no one can be completely certain exactly what's happening inside Iran - in terms of both its arms procurement and foreign policy intentions. We do know that Iran is one of the world's most dangerous sponsors of international terrorism, its terrorist proxies battled for Israel's destruction in the 2006 Mideast war, and the ultimate acquisition of nuclear capability would introduce an unacceptable level of instability to a region already in the grips of catastrophic danger.

The United States needs to continue with a combination of containment and sanctions, but we should never let down our guard by ceding influence and capability to some shady regional multilateral grouping of appeasement hawks.

Endorsing John McCain

The Lexington column at The Economist offers an endorsement of John McCain for the GOP presidential nomination:

THERE are all sorts of reasons to be puzzled by the state of today's Republican Party. How did the party of fiscal responsibility become the party of out-of-control spending? How did a party that prided itself on its foreign-policy skills become the author of the fiasco in Iraq? But from the narrow point of view of the election, an even more pressing question arises: how did the Republicans lose their ability to spot star power?

A month before the primaries the Republicans have no idea whom to nominate. Rudy Giuliani? He's ahead in the national polls, but he lags in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire; and many social conservatives hate him. Mitt Romney? He's ahead in New Hampshire, but he lags in national polls. And what about Mike Huckabee? The latest poll in Iowa shows the preacher from Hope, Arkansas, leading the pack there. No one can predict the outcome with any confidence, since no fewer than five candidates are getting between 10% and 25% of the Republican vote. This confusion is odd for two reasons. The first is that it is the Democrats who are supposed to be the disorganised party. The second is that the Republicans seem intent on ignoring the political star in their ranks. That man is John McCain.

Mr McCain is such a familiar figure that it is easy to forget how remarkable he is. He fought heroically in Vietnam, spending more than five years as a prisoner-of-war, when many other politicians of his generation discovered, like Dick Cheney, that they had “other priorities”. He has repeatedly risked his political career by backing unpopular causes.

Mr McCain's qualifications extend beyond character. Take experience. His range of interests as a senator has been remarkable, extending from immigration to business regulation. He knows as much about foreign affairs and military issues as anybody in public life. Or take judgment. True, he has a reputation as a hothead. But he's a hothead who cools down. He does not nurse grudges or agonise about vast conspiracies like some of his colleagues in the Senate. He has also been right about some big issues. He was the first senior Republican to criticise George Bush for invading Iraq with too few troops, and the first to call for Donald Rumsfeld's sacking. He is one of the few Republicans to propose sensible policies on immigration and global warming.

Mr McCain's qualities are particularly striking if you contrast him with his leading rivals. His willingness to stick to his guns on divisive subjects such as immigration stands in sharp contrast to Mr Romney's oily pandering. Mr Romney likes to claim that his views on topics such as gay rights and abortion have “evolved”. But they have evolved in a direction that is strikingly convenient—perhaps through intelligent design. Can a party that mocked John Kerry really march into battle behind their very own Massachusetts flip-flopper?

Mr Giuliani gets good marks for character. His record as mayor of New York bespeaks toughness. His performance on September 11th 2001 proves that he can take charge in a crisis. But what about judgment? He chose Bernard Kerik to run the NYPD, made him a partner in his consultancy, and persuaded the White House to nominate him as head of the Department of Homeland Security. Mr Kerik is now facing serious corruption charges. The Democrats will be happy to remind people of other lapses in Mr Giuliani's judgment if he wins the nomination.

The weakness of the two front-runners is persuading many Republicans to turn to Mr Huckabee. Mr Huckabee is indeed an attractive candidate—a good debater and a charming fellow. But he is woefully lacking in experience. He knows next to nothing about foreign and military affairs, and his tax plans are otherworldly. A presidential debate between Mr Huckabee and Hillary Clinton would be a rout.

So why have so many Republicans written off Mr McCain? There are two reasons—one bad, the other more reasonable. The bad reason is that they worry that he is not really one of them. Mr McCain has broken with Republican orthodoxy on everything from tax cuts to campaign finance to immigration. But look at his record more closely and you discover that he is a Republican in good standing. His fights with his fellow Republicans have been driven by his (usually justified) conviction that they were betraying Republican principles. He opposed Mr Bush's tax cuts because he thought they would create a deficit. He led the charge against pork-barrel spending and lobbyists such as Jack Abramoff because he thought they undermined the principle of small government. Immigration is a genuine problem: he is seriously at odds with the bulk of his party on the issue, though many independents would go with his plan.

The more persuasive reason for worrying about Mr McCain is his age. The senior senator for Arizona will be 72 if he takes office in January 2009—two years older than Ronald Reagan when he was inaugurated. But Mr McCain is an extraordinarily energetic 70-year-old, far more full of beans than many younger candidates. (“My philosophy is to just go, go like hell,” he says. “Full bore.”) The American constitution also provides an insurance mechanism against presidential death or illness. Provided Mr McCain chooses a sound vice-president, his many positive qualities outweigh worries about his age.

There are signs that Republicans are swallowing their doubts about Mr McCain. He is gaining some momentum in New Hampshire (he is barely campaigning in Iowa because he has long ridiculed the absurd ethanol subsidies with which many farmers there line their pockets). The New Hampshire Union Leader gave him a ringing endorsement this week. He is creeping back up the polls nationally, and is now coming second to Mr Giuliani. Republicans need to keep swallowing. Mr McCain is surely worth another look.

I probably wouldn't beat up on Romney and the others as much as Lexington, but I don't doubt McCain's the one for the GOP in 2008.

See also my earlier post on the New Hampshire Union-Leader's McCain endorsement.

**********

UPDATE: This morning's Wall Street Journal suggests McCain's sparkling in New Hampshire.

Mitt Romney and Religious Freedom

I just watched Mitt Romney's address on religious freedom on YouTube. It's not a speech of Mormonism. Romney's address was a statement on faith and morality in American history. As such, Romney places himself in the great stream of American leaders who have steeled themselves against the great challenges of the day through the power of belief and the pride of this nation's respect for religious difference. Romney stands strongly with this majestic tradition.

Here's the background of yesterday's speech, from USA Today:

Republican Mitt Romney's much-anticipated speech Thursday on the role of faith in the USA echoed the message made by another Massachusetts politician seeking the White House nearly 50 years ago: Religious tolerance, not church membership, is what should matter to voters.

The former Massachusetts governor vowed to serve "no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest" if he makes it to the White House. Romney also defended his Mormon faith, which some Christians view as heretical.

"I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind," Romney said. "My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. … These are not bases for criticism, but rather a test of our tolerance."

The speech, delivered at the George Bush Presidential Library, underscored the crucial role that religion now plays in politics, especially in the GOP. Conservative Christians who solidly backed George W. Bush in 2000 are now divided among several Republican contenders, and their support is up for grabs in early states.

It's not clear if Romney's talk was successful in swaying evangelicals, according to the Wall Street Journal:

Although it included statements such as "I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God," Mitt Romney's speech on religious freedom elicited mixed reviews among some of the evangelical Christians whose votes are key to the Republican presidential nomination.

It remains to be seen if the former Massachusetts governor's address yesterday, intended to allay concerns about his Mormon faith, will boost his standing amid religious conservatives in early primary states, where he is facing competition from Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister.

Using historical references to illustrate the connection between politics and religion, Mr. Romney gave sporadic insights into his personal beliefs. He reasserted his affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("I believe in my Mormon faith, and I endeavor to live by it") while saying he wouldn't allow church leaders to influence his decisions as president.

Mr. Romney said differences between his church and other religions should be a test of tolerance, not fodder for criticism, and he paid homage to other traditions, including "the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals" and "the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims."

Some Christians didn't want to hear such preaching about plurality. The speech didn't win the vote of Republican Steve Carlson, a Pentecostal Christian and a consultant for the nonprofit voter-education organization Iowa Christian Alliance. "If my choice is between Mike Huckabee, who I know is saved, and Gov. Romney, who as a Mormon...I'm going to pick Mike Huckabee," Mr. Carlson said.

In the days leading up to the speech, Mr. Romney said it wouldn't be about his faith. He used the word "Mormon" only once, about five minutes into his address. In contrast, he mentioned "God" 15 times.

A sizeable group of voters remain mystified by Mormonism. Bernie Hayes, a 52-year-old from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, said he finds the religion's tenets illogical and too different from mainstream Christianity. "I don't want a president who believes something so off-base," he said. The fact that Mr. Romney doesn't want to discuss his faith "makes it worse," said Mr. Hayes, who supports Mr. Huckabee.

"I don't think it answered any questions about the Mormon religion and how it plays into his candidacy," said Joe Mack, director of the office of public policy for the South Carolina office of the Southern Baptist Convention. "I'm not sure it changed the minds of South Carolina Baptists." Mr. Mack said he will choose a candidate based on where he stands on abortion issues.

Janis Groves, a Baptist from Bryan, Texas, who attended the address, was pleased that Mr. Romney didn't delve into specifics. "No," Ms. Groves, 59 years old, said curtly when asked if she wanted to learn more about the religion. "We are leery."

As I suggested above, it's helpful to look at Romney's speech in the context of America's religious tradition. The United States has no state-sponsored religion, but we are a people of God. Every president reaffirms this country's essential spirituality. I don't think Romney will fail that test, if elected president. He recognizes the power of faith as a driver of human goodness. I liked this section, from the text of his address:

"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter -- on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

Romney came off as tremendously caring and understanding of diversity. I think we need that in a president. Further, Romney has clinched the deal on the morality of leadership - i.e., this is a man who's got the integrity and decency to lead the country at a time when, as Romney notes, fundamental moral purpose takes a back seat to many of our more material pursuits.

Here's the challenge Jon Meacham posed for Romney earlier this week, in his essay at Newsweek:

Romney ought to call on Americans to recover and respect what Benjamin Franklin called our public religion: the belief that there is a divine force at work in the world, by whatever name, and that we render homage to it by doing good to others. Acts of charity and grace need not be religiously inspired, but many are. Religious people can be intolerant, cruel and exclusionary; they can also be broad-minded, kind and welcoming. And the same can be said of people who adhere to no religious faith. Yet it is the case that many Americans are religious—or say they are—and that the fundamental promise of the Founding, that all men are created equal, is grounded in the divine, as the gift of the "Creator."

I think Romney has made the call, and I think his speech powerfully restates the doctrine that we are a people blessed with "the gift of the 'Creator.'"

See also, "Romney Nails It: Faith in America," over at The Conservative Manifesto; check out the commentaries at Memeorandum as well.

**********

UPDATE: There's considerable buzz over Romney's speech, and naturally not all favorable.

Eleanor Clift remarks that Romney's address was a quintessential Republican speech:

If Romney gets the nomination, this is the moment that lifted him above the others and made him a plausible and pluralistic leader. He pledged that if elected president he would serve "no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest." For the first time in his richly endowed quest, he rose above the day-to-day jabs on the campaign trail to deliver a speech that inspires. It was billed as a message for white evangelical Christians, who have been reluctant to embrace Romney because they're wary of his religion. But it was really a vision speech for a broader Republican Party adrift in the wake left by George W. Bush and searching for its moorings.

See also a trio of Wall Street Journal commentaries, from the editors, Peggy Noonan, and Naomi Schaefer Riley.

The Washington Post, I imagine, captures the concerns of many when it argues that Romney dismissed non-believers:

Where Mr. Romney most fell short, though, was in his failure to recognize that America is composed of citizens not only of different faiths but of no faith at all and that the genius of America is to treat them all with equal dignity. "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom," Mr. Romney said. But societies can be both secular and free. The magnificent cathedrals of Europe may be empty, as Mr. Romney said, but the democracies of Europe are thriving.

TPM Central puts it more pointedly: "Romney Spokesman Won't Say If Atheists Have Place In America."

Voters Split on Illegal Immigration

Today's Los Angeles Times poll finds a majority of Americans favoring a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, although the public evinces a significant degree of restrictionist sentiment:

One-third of Americans want to deny social services, including public schooling and emergency room healthcare, to illegal immigrants, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

Still, in a sign of ambivalence among voters about the emotionally charged issue, a strong bipartisan majority -- 60% -- favors allowing illegal immigrants who have not committed crimes to become citizens if they pay fines, learn English and meet other requirements.

Those crosscurrents create treacherous political waters for the major presidential candidates, many of whom have tended to avoid spotlighting the issue. But all have been forced to address the issue under repeated questioning at campaign events and candidate forums.

During Tuesday's radio debate among Democrats, the candidates were asked if citizens should turn in someone they know to be an illegal immigrant. Most said no. In other settings, however, several have been talking a tough line on issues such as denying driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

Some poll respondents, in follow-up interviews, expressed frustration that the candidates had not been more forthright in addressing immigration-related issues.

"I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the candidates know what the answer is either," said Lodie Lambright, a retired state government worker in Rhode Island....

Asked to pick from a list of issues what was a top priority for presidential candidates, 15% said illegal immigration -- the fifth-most mentioned topic behind the Iraq war, the economy, protecting the country from terrorist attacks and healthcare. Asked how much of a problem illegal immigration is, 81% of respondents said they considered it important, including 27% who said it was one of the country's most pressing problems.

The poll also makes clear that respondents make a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. Asked if illegal immigrants had made a positive or negative contribution to their community, 36% said negative, whereas 21% said positive and 29% said the effect was not discernible.

When the same question was asked about legal immigrants, 12% said their contribution was negative, compared with 46% who said positive and 31% who saw no discernible effect.

"I don't mind immigration, but I do think they need to learn the English language and should become an American citizen," said Patricia Buckner, a Florida retiree....

The survey, which allowed respondents to name as many as five social services they would allow, showed a disparity: Far more people would allow access to emergency room care and schooling than other benefits, such as food stamps and driver's licenses.

About 46% of respondents said that immigrants should be able to get emergency medical treatment, and 40% said they should have access to public schools.

But 22% of those surveyed said that illegal immigrants should be able to get limited driver's licenses -- a question that has put the Democratic presidential candidates on the spot recently.

The finding underscores the political climate that caused many leading Democrats to oppose licenses for illegal immigrants when it was proposed in New York this year by Gov. Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat, who eventually backed down.

When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was asked about the proposal in a debate in late October, she praised Spitzer but stopped short of backing his plan. In a debate a few weeks later, she said she opposed driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

Some of those resisting the idea of providing a range of services to illegal immigrants say that it drains resources from U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who are in need.

"It seems like our money in this country is going out faster than it is coming in, and [the spending is] helping the people who are not U.S. citizens," said Buckner, who described herself as a liberal Democrat.

Read the whole thing. Voters oppose tuition discounts for illegals at state colleges (not good for Mike Huckabee). Yet a strong majority supports some kind of comprehensive reform of the nation's failed immigration system. Voters expressed favorable opinions on variations of the Bush administration's immigration reform proposal (64% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans).

Finally, Democrats have no political advantage on immigration heading into 2008. Indeed, the parties are statistically tied on the question of which party would do a better job handling the issue. As progress on Iraq continues, the GOP candidates would do well to flesh out tough but principled immigration positions which combine border security with policy resolution to the legal crisis of illegal alien limbo status.