Anniversary of the Bombing of Hiroshima

DBKP has the reminder that today's the 63rd anniversary of the dawn of the nuclear age. The United States launched history first's nuclear attack on August 6, 1945, at Hiroshima, Japan:

The attack on Japan has become the basis for one of the leading claims by antiwar activists that the U.S. is the imperial-racist abomination of the world.

DBKP rebuts this meme:

To all those who sit in comfort in [2008] and render judgment on those who lived and made decisions sixty-three years ago, a few reminders.

1 - Those in [2008] do not have husbands, brothers and sons who would have faced certain death in an invasion of Japan in 1945.

2 - Did not have to live through the preceding four years of nearly total war.

3 - The U.S. was finishing a war which began on December 7, 1941, when it was attacked, without warning, by Japan.

Unfortunatly, the further that memory of World War II fades into history, the more likely is the second-guessing of the antiwar crowd to become the dominant narrative.

In 2005, on the 60th anniversay of Hiroshima, Richard Frank addressed the historical record:

What if the United States had chosen not to use atomic weapons against Japan in 1945? ...

An impressive list of American naval and air officers said after the war that the conflict could have been ended without the use of atomic bombs. They believed bombardment and blockade would have forced Japan to surrender. We know now they probably were correct.

Had the war continued for two weeks or perhaps only a few days, the destruction of the rail system would have brought about the mass famine that probably would have prompted the Japanese to capitulate. But this also means that Japanese would have died by the millions.

What history without Hiroshima illustrates is that there was no alternative happy ending to the Pacific War. When realistic consideration is given to the alternatives, atomic bombs stand as the worst way to have ended the war - except all the others.

That won't go over too well with the left's antiwar establishment, who throughout the Iraq war called on movement activists to "support the resistance."

That's an interesting concept in the context of America and World War II. Were human shields on the scene in 1945?

Photo Credit: Seattle Times

**********

UPDATE: I just finished reading Hideko Tamura's, "The Challenge of Hiroshima," at the Japan Times.

Tamura's a Hiroshima survivor and her essay is a moving testament to the quest for humanitarian peace.

I'm deeply sorry for the loss of her mother in the bombing, yet, observe: She describes the United States as the "country that took away my mother," but not once in her essay does she mention the Imperial Japanese Government that took her country to war as part of it's plan for establishing a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. She does not discuss the atrocites committed by Her Majesty's Government nearly fifteen years prior to 1945 at Nanking (the "Forgotten Holocaust of World War II"), nor does she discuss her government's refusal to surrender, despite the knowledge of an impending total, unconditional defeat that awaited it after four years of Kamikaze warfare.

Most of all, Tamura does not explain why she moved to the U.S.

We might surmise that she embodies an existential personal paradox, in that for her to achieve her mission of achieving international disarmament and world peace, she would find the ultimate freedom to do so in the very country that occassioned her quest.

Salim Ahmed Hamdan Convicted at Military Tribunal

In a victory for the Bush administration, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the driver and bodyguard to terrorist-mastermind Osama bin Laden, has been convicted in a military commission trial at Guantanamo Bay. The New York Times has the story:

A panel of six military officers convicted a former driver for Osama bin Laden of a war crime Tuesday, completing the first military commission trial here and the first conducted by the United States since the end of World War II.

But the commission acquitted the former driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, of a conspiracy charge, arguably the more serious of two charges he faced. His conviction came on a separate but lesser charge of providing material support for terrorism.

The conviction of Mr. Hamdan, a Yemeni who was part of a select group of drivers and bodyguards for Mr. bin Laden until 2001, was a long-sought, if some what qualified, victory for the Bush administration, which has been working to begin military commission trials at the isolated naval base here for nearly seven years.

Mr. Hamdan was convicted by a panel of six senior military officers who, according to an order of the military judge, could not be publicly identified. As permitted under the law Congress passed for trials here in 2006, the trial included secret evidence and testimony in a closed courtroom.

Mr. Hamdan, who has said he is about 40, faces a possible life term. The sentence is to be set in a separate proceeding before the same panel that is to begin this afternoon.

The article goes on to discuss the controversy surrounding the questions of constitutional due process at off-shore military tribunals.

I'll have more later (when some of the blogging controversy kicks up), but for now see, "Folly and Injustice: Salim Hamdan's Guantanamo Trial."

See also the Los Angeles Times, "Bin Laden Driver Convicted at Guantanamo of Aiding Terror."

Defining Racism Down

I can't remember another time in my life when there's been as many allegations of racism in American politics.

In the case of Barack Obama, it's now the case that any criticism of the black Illinois Sentator is considered racist.

It's true. On Monday, in response to Amy Chozick's Wall Street Journal article on the potential electoral drawbacks of Obama's skinniness, Slate's Timothy Noah attacked the piece as appealing to racial biases with a subliminally oppressive racial subtext:

In the Aug. 1 Wall Street Journal, Amy Chozick asked, "[C]ould Sen. Obama's skinniness be a liability?" Most Americans, Chozick points out, aren't skinny. Fully 66 percent of all citizens who've reached voting age are overweight, and 32 percent are obese. To be thin is to be different physically. Not that there's anything wrong, mind you, with being a skinny person. But would you want your sister to marry one? Would you want a whole family of skinny people to move in next-door? "I won't vote for any beanpole guy," an "unnamed Clinton supporter" wrote on a Yahoo politics message board. My point is that any discussion of Obama's "skinniness" and its impact on the typical American voter can't avoid being interpreted as a coded discussion of race.

Now, we've had a lot of misunderstood satire this season, so perhaps Noah was poking around for fun.

Except he wasn't:

It might be argued that body weight differs from certain other physical characteristics (apart from skin color) in that it has never been associated with racial caricature. Chozick wasn't asking (and, I feel sure, would never ask) whether Americans might think Obama's hair was too kinky or his nose too broad. But it doesn't matter. The sad fact is that any discussion of Obama's physical appearance is going to remind white people of the physical characteristic that's most on their minds ... In the future, the press would be wise to avoid discussing how ordinary Americans will respond to the size of Obama's ears, the thickness of Obama's eyebrows, and so on.

That's pretty unreal, no?

Peter Kirsanow, at the National Review, rightly criticizes this hyper-sensitivity as absurd:

The tendency of Obama supporters to see racist impulses behind every criticism of their candidate has evolved into absurdity.

Kirsanow enumerates "twenty-five reasons why you may be racist," which includes:

If you wonder why Obama was hanging around William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn you ... may be a racist.

But see the whole list.

The real racist attacks we've seen so far have been among Obama's Democratic primary opponents (like Bill Clinton who suggested Obama's was a candidate of exclusive appeal to blacks) and Obama supporters, like Jesse Jackson (who used lynching terminology to criticize Obama's talk of personal responsibility in the black community).

And believe me, I know a racist attack when I see one. If critics of Obama were attacking him with Jim Crow-era racial slurs, for example, by threatening him and ordering him to "go sit in the corner and lick your nuts boy" or by slurring him as a "mongrel, mixed-breed mutt," well, that would be correctly identified as retrograde bigotry of the worst sort, Klan-style extremist intimidation and white supremacy.

But the left's beyond that. Any single criticsm of Obama will trigger allegations of racism. It's like Juan Williams said in his recent essay: "The race issue is clearly not going away."

Obama's Energy Plan

This week's energy debate has shifted into Hollywood high-gear with Paris Hilton's profferring of a "hybrid" energy plan the McCain campaign says is "more substantive" than Barack Obama's.

One major advantage in Hilton's plan is that she doesn't propose tax increases on big oil, unlike Obama, who released a campaign ad this week calling for a "windfall profits tax"on corporate oil giants.

Best of all, there's no way Obama can smear Hilton as one of "those guys" who takes pride in being ignorant."

Cartoon Credit: Michael Ramirez

The Charge of Ethnic Cleansing in Iraq

This entry updates my morning post on Stephen Biddle, Michael O'Hanlon, and Kenneth Pollack's new article at Foreign Affairs, "Standing Down as Iraq Stands Up."

As noted, the piece isn't all that impressive. Most of the analysis seems somewhat behind the curve of events, and the conclusion's basically the authors' attempt to curry favor within the Democratic foreign policy establishment by re-floating the "Bush lied" meme on the origins of the deployment.

Well, the antiwar bloggers aren't too happy no matter what the motives. Indeed, this liberal warhawk-neocon triumvirate is being attacked just like the old days, although not just as war cheerleaders for the GOP's "imperialist project," but as enablers of American war crimes in Iraq to boot!

The meme's getting a lot of play, but Spencer Ackerman's attack is the most vociferous:

Matt Yglesias is on vacation until his new ThinkProgress blog launches August 11. But he IMs to ensure I don't miss this argument in the new Steve Biddle/Mike O'Hanlon/Ken Pollack Iraq piece in Foreign Affairs:

It is worth noting that separation resulting from sectarian cleansing was not the chief cause of the reduction in violence, as some have claimed. Much of Iraq remains intermingled but increasingly peaceful. And whereas a cleansing argument implies that casualties should have gone down in Baghdad, for example, as mixed neighborhoods were cleansed, casualties actually went up consistently during the sectarian warfare of 2006. Cleansing may have reduced the violence somewhat in some places, but it was not the main cause.

I had to reread this to make sure I didn't misunderstand. Ethnic cleansing is a violent process of extirpating members of a rival ethnicity or sect. If the ethnic cleansing occurred in 2006, of course casualties went up consistently. This argument makes no sense.

But there's actually a broader point to make. Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. The U.S. quite rightly intervened in the Balkans in the 1990s to stop it. The horrors of ethnic cleansing are unfathomable to those who haven't experienced them. What you really, really shouldn't do is treat other people's ethnic cleansing as a debaters' point. It's perverse, isn't it, the way that ethnic cleansing that occurred during a U.S. occupation can be treated so nonchalantly by Washington polemicists.

I'd be remiss not to send a quick message to Yglesias: Dude, take some time off. You're going to be swamped with that new, nasty gig at Think Progress. (a move which may "raise the IQ at the Atlantic").

But back to the debate at hand!

Actually, it's not illogical for deaths from sectarian violence to have dropped if the term "cleansing" is recognized in its very common usage as a broad shorthand for the consolidation of ethnic neighborhoods and the internal displacement of populations from their homes. Iraq's ethnic cleansing has not generally been seen as genocidal. Indeed, surge proponents using this shorthand terminology have been savagely attacked for allegedly seeking to minimize the refugee tragedy of "millions of Iraqis" being "robbed" of their homes.

The fact is that the antiwar hordes have never accepted the COIN strategy of President George Bush and General David Petraeus. The victory of the beefed-up troop contingents along with the tactical adjustments on the ground have long been slandered as an alleged "false narrative" of success. Just over a week ago some of the most implacable Bush-bashers on the left smeared success under the surge as a myth, while others have said that it's "worked tactically, but hasn't succeeded strategically, at least not yet."

Yet now, with all the mainstream political actors accepting the new realities of Iraq - including both John McCain and Barack Obama - most of the antiwar contingents are seeking to push the war debate past the question of victory to that of culpability in alleged American atrocities.

This all ties into the big push on the left for "accountability" of the Bush administration foreign policy decisions, such as the treatment of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, as well as the domestic surveillance operations and the question of telecom immunity.

Ideally, for war opponents, Bush administration "criminals" would be prosecuted for war crimes under a Barack Obama administration come January 2009. What's most likely to happen, in the advent of an Obama regimes, is that Congress would establish a "commission on torture" to investigate alleged wrong-doing under the Bush-Cheney years. Yet, the recent hard-left uproar over Obama-advisor Cass Sunstein's recent dismissal of war crimes prosecutions indicates that the antiwar forces want a bit more than "truth and reconcilliation."

Thus, today's uproar over the Biddle, O'Hanlon, and Pollack essay can be seen as building more war crimes charges against the administration.

The whole thing may well end up being a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nothing, especially as Barack Obama's been dropping in the polls like an anchor.

On the other hand, the war crimes push is an international movement, and U.S. bloggers like Ackerman, Ezra Klein, and the crew at Newshoggers - with no substantive loyalty to the principle of American sovereignty - would like nothing more than the establishment of a universal jurisdiction of vengeance and star chamber prosecutions of Bush's neo-imperialist cabal next year.

Spears and Hilton Boost McCain Media Attention

John McCain's recent ad buy highlighting Barack Obama's celebrity has helped shift some media attention back to the GOP side. The Pew Research Organization has the report, "Spears and Hilton Raise McCain Coverage Even With Obama":

For the first time since this general election campaign began in early June, Republican John McCain attracted virtually as much media attention as his Democratic rival last week.

Barack Obama was a significant or dominant factor in 81% of the campaign stories compared with 78% for McCain, according to PEJ's Campaign Coverage Index for July 28-Aug. 3. That was a high water mark for McCain in the general election season (his previous best was 62% from June 30-July 6) . And the virtual dead heat in the race for exposure between the two candidates also marked the first time his weekly coverage had even been within 10 percentage points of Obama's total. Indeed, in the eight weeks since early June when the general election contest began, 79% of the stories have significantly featured Obama, compared with 55% for his Republican rival.

The spike in press attention to the McCain campaign came a week after Obama's tour of the Middle East and Europe commandeered the headlines, accounting for half the election coverage for July 21-27. It also came a week after the media engaged in a spasm of introspection, amid a wave of accusations that the media was being unfair to the GOP standard bearer. The third biggest campaign storyline for July 21-27 was the issue of whether the press was biased toward and lavishing too much attention on Obama.

Last week, the McCain campaign also drove the narrative by directly tackling that perception in a controversial ad. It described Obama as "the biggest celebrity in the world" and featured images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton - two tabloid favorites known more for hard-partying lifestyles than any other achievements. (It was a relatively big week for Spears, too. First, she was featured in the ad. Then an Obama spokesman responded to that spot by accusing McCain of another negative attack, saying "Oops! He did it again" -- which is a play on the title of her hit single.)

The "celebrity" spot also helped push campaign advertising to a more prominent place in the coverage. Advertising was the second-biggest campaign story line last week, filling 10% of the campaign newshole. The ripple effects were felt throughout the week as the ad itself generated another narrative - whether the McCain campaign was too negative - that filled 6% of the newshole. The tone of the campaign, and the new McCain ad, then triggered a third major story line. When Obama accused Republicans of trying to frighten Americans because he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills," the McCain team responded by accusing Obama of playing the "race card." And that controversy, at 15%, became the biggest campaign narrative of all.

There's more at the link:

Note a couple of points: This reseach presents a solid content analysis of the distribution of news coverage. As such, it should help put to rest some of the debate over media bias toward Barack Obama.

Moreover, the report should validate the McCain campaign's shift to a more in-your-face style of political combat. As I've noted, Obama has lost ground in recent polling trends.

And as Pew indicates:

McCain's attack advertising strategy, which played off the notion that the press was infatuated with Obama, blended with the McCain theme that Obama offered less than meets the eye, drove the media narrative last week.

Still, the GOP should hammer Obama and the Democrats on their policy weaknesses, while McCain build his own message into a compelling theme. See also, Allahpundit, "McCain Finally Getting Almost as Much Media Coverage as Obama."

Message to Maverick: Forget Reformism, Build Contrasts

John McCain's launching a limited ad buy, "The Original Maverick":

I think this is a good ad - for the GOP primaries.

Jonathan Martin suggests McCain's basically running a two-track media message (pushing the fighting reformist message on the one hand, and attacking the opponent on the other), but ultimately this ad's a glossy blurb in search of a theme.

Message to the McCain folks: Forget the squishy reform mantra, build-up contrasts on Democratic Party weaknesses (think drilling), and redouble the focus on Obama's experience as a postmodernist who has disingenously played to the middle for years.

See also, "John McCain: 'The original maverick'."

Iraq Experts Jockeying for Post-Election Influence

The new Iraq piece at Foreign Affairs, by Stephen Biddle, Michael E. O'Hanlon, and Kenneth M. Pollack, isn't particularly earth-shattering in its analysis and overview of the future of Iraq (see the New York Times as well)

The surge has worked, al Qaeda's been decimated, and Iraqi domestic politics is the hottest game in town.

What caught my attention, though, after all of the article's considerable surprise at the Bush administration's temerity to see the deployment through to victory, is this nugget from the conclusion:

The American people - to say nothing of the servicemen and servicewomen who are fighting - have every right to be tired of this war and to question whether it should have ever been fought. But understandable frustration with past mistakes, sorrow over lives lost, anger at resources wasted, and fatigue with a war that has at times seemed endless must not blind Americans to the major change of the last 18 months. The developments of 2007 and 2008 have created new possibilities. If the United States is willing to seize them, it could yet emerge from Mesopotamia with something that may still fall well short of Eden on the Euphrates but that prevents the horrors of all-out civil war, avoids the danger of a wider war, and yields a stability that endures as Americans come home.

This kind of triangulation is to be expected from O'Hanlon and Pollock.

These two were a couple of the greatest "liberal hawks" during the run-up to the war. Yet, they've been scourged as the most demonic enablers of the vile BushCo imperialist project. Perhaps with this Foreign Affairs piece, and a few other well-placed articles in the antiwar press, these guys might see enough of a rehabilitation to be considered for defense posts in a potential Barack Obama administration.

Biddle's the riddle, however.

Biddle's an expert in strategic studies and an Iraq advisor to the General David Petraeus. He's been hammered as a hated neocon by the antiwar left, and he's not one to rehearse "Bush lied, people died" antiwar propaganda.

Now that Iraq's turning out to be a spectacular success - after years of doom-and-gloom defeatism - perhaps Biddle's hoping to establish some good graces with the Democratic Party's foreign policy community: He too may be getting better positioned for an advisory role in a possible Obama administration.

These guys should be careful. Obama's not doing so great in public opinion, and at some point-flip-flopping policy advocacy gets one labelled a mountebank in policy circles.

Indeed, we might see unreconstructed neoconservatives landing all the hot gigs in a John McCain administration's national security directorate.

Losing Ground? Obama's Polling Collapse

One of the most astounding facts of this election season is that for all of the presumed demands for change in American politics, the candidate of "hope" and "transcendence" has failed to gain a lead in public opinion polls.

Commenting on new data showing John McCain pulling ahead of Barack Obama in Rasmussen, USA Today, and Zogby surveys, the Hedgehog Report notes:

Now I rarely post national polls at this point since they really don’t mean anything when it comes to the Electoral College. But John McCain went nearly three months without leading in any national poll and now within a week, he has been ahead now in three national polls (USAT/Gallup. Rasmussen, and Zogby).

As the old cliche goes - Once is an anomaly, twice is a coincidence, three times is a trend...

The focus this morning is not just that Obama's stagnating, but that he's losing ground with key constituencies:

Barack Obama has lost ground among some of his strongest bases of support, including young people, women, Democrats and independents, according to a new ATV/Zogby poll.

The Illinois Democrat has also lost some support among African-Americans and Hispanics, where his lead over Republican John McCain has shrunk, and among Catholics, where he's lost his lead.

While I agree with Hedgehog that today's polls are just a snapshot, it is nevertheless significant that in over a month of campaigning Obama's never really broken out into as sustained double-digit lead.

Some on the left are perplexed, retreating into standard denials of the statistical significance of polling, media fairness, or even outright rage at the alleged GOP slime machine:

Rasmussen's poll today sends one message to John McCain. His disgusting, sleazy, personal attacks on Obama are working. We can now expect a lot more, and there's little reason to think that they won't be just as effective next time.

You see, with John McCain's new agressiveness, the lefties are shocked - shocked! - that this year's electoral politics would go negative.

Captain Ed adds a nice summary:

This, of course, is August, and the general election is a long way off. However, these trends look very troubling not just for Obama but for the entire Democratic Party.

I'm loving it!

Obama's Postmodern World

Jonah Goldberg argues that Barack Obama resides in a world where words have no fixed meaning:

Asked to define sin, Barack Obama replied that sin is "being out of alignment with my values." Statements such as this have caused many people to wonder whether Obama has a God complex or is hopelessly arrogant. For the record, sin isn't being out of alignment with your own values (if it were, Hannibal Lecter wouldn't be a sinner because his values hold that it's OK to eat people) nor is it being out of alignment with Obama's — unless he really is our Savior.

There is, however, a third possibility. Obama is a postmodernist.

An explosive fad in the 1980s, postmodernism was and is an enormous intellectual hustle in which left-wing intellectuals take crowbars and pick axes to anything having to do with the civilizational Mount Rushmore of Dead White European Males.

"PoMos" hold that there is no such thing as capital-T "Truth." There are only lower-case "truths." Our traditional understandings of right and wrong, true and false, are really just ways for those Pernicious Pale Patriarchs to keep the Coalition of the Oppressed in their place. In the PoMo's telling, reality is "socially constructed." And so the PoMos seek to tear down everything that "privileges" the powerful over the powerless and to replace it with new truths more to their liking.

Hence the deep dishonesty of postmodernism. It claims to liberate society from fixed meanings and rigid categories, but it is invariably used to impose new ones, usually in the form of political correctness. We've all seen how adept the PC brigades are celebrating free speech, when it's for speech they like.

Obama gives every indication of having evolved from this intellectual soup. As a student and, later, a law school instructor, Obama was sympathetic to Critical Race Theory, a wholly owned franchise of postmodernism. At Harvard, Obama revered Derrick Bell, a controversial black law professor who preferred personally defined literary truths over old-fashioned literal truth. Words are power, Bell and Co. argued, and your so-called facts are merely myths of the white power structure....

The Obama campaign has a postmodern feel to it because more than anything else, it seems to be about itself. Its relationship to reality is almost theoretical. Sure, the campaign has policy proposals, but they are props to advance the narrative of a grand movement existing in order to be a movement galvanized around the singular ideal of movement-ness. Obama's followers are, to borrow from David Hasselhoff — another American hugely popular in Germany — hooked on a feeling. "We are the ones we have been waiting for!" Well, of course you are.

In Berlin two weeks ago, Obama's speech was justified solely by the fact that he was giving it. He offered no policy and — not being a president — really had no reason to be there other than to tell people, essentially, "now is the moment." He informed the throbbing masses, bathing in his charisma the way hippies wallowed in the mud at Woodstock, that the greatest threat facing the world is the possibility we might allow "new walls to divide us from one another." Nuclear war? Feh. No, walls, walls are the danger. Of course, these new walls aren't real. Some might even say they're just words.

But not Barack Obama.

That reminds me of Alice in Wonderland:

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - that's all.'

See also, Victor Davis Hanson, "An Elegant Farce: Obama’s ‘Conversation’ About Moral Equivalence."

Image Credit: The People's Cube

Surrendering Reason to Hate?

Rick Moran's morning essay made me think about what I do as an online commentator.

The piece is a lengthy discourse on the craft of blogging. Moran explains his motives and development as an online writer, discussing some of the ups and downs of the trade. Of particular note is his discussion of partisan flame wars and the demonization of the other. Moran is introspective:

If my blog attracted only those who usually agreed with me and thought I was the bee’s knees when it came to commentary, blogging would be a marvelous daily exercise. But there is another side to blogging that most of us never talk about; the relentless, daily pounding of negativism, hurtful epithets, and outright spewing hatred that arrives in the form of comments and emails from the other side as well as other blogs linking and posting on something I’ve written.

We all like to think of ourselves as having thick skins and that such criticism rolls off our backs and never affects us. This is the macho element in blogging, one of its more unattractive and dishonest aspects. In this, some of us feel obligated to give back in kind, something I have done on too many occasions to count. Yes, I regret it. And believe me, I have often been the initiator of such ugliness.

Still, there are many bloggers on both the right and left who shame me with their equanimity in the face of the most virulent and nasty personal attacks. Ed Morrissey comes to mind on the right. The folks at Crooked Timber and Obsidian Wings on the left are generally cool in the face of such criticism as well.

But this is not a confessional post where I recognize my sins and ask forgiveness. I am what I am and doubt I will change. Rather, it is my intent to highlight the fact that despite my predilection for using violent language in my defense or to ridicule my political opponents, I have always granted them a certain rough integrity in their beliefs – that they are wrongheaded not evil; that they are arrogant and stupid, not unpatriotic or that they hate America.

Read the whole thing at the link (as well as the great additional resources, here and here). There's some conjecture as to whether longitudinally politics is nastier today than, say, 100 years ago. But one of the essay's payoffs is the (sort-of) suggestion of what-goes-around-comes-around for partisan attack-masters:

Those who accuse all liberals of being unpatriotic or un-American perhaps have no cause to grumble when an equally malicious lie like “racist” is directed at them. But having such an epithet tossed in my direction – especially as it has been done recently – I find to be reflective of a mindset that is terrified of open debate and thus resorts to twisting semantics in order to obscure a flawed critique. They can’t argue the issues so the magic word is applied and debate instantly ceases.

I think the conclusion here - that weaknesses in rational argumentation are remedied by resort to argumentum ad hominem - is basically right, although I'd suggest that the point about arguing that "all liberals" are unpatriotic (or pacifist, or irreligious, etc.), needs a bit of elaboration.

I started blogging precisely to combat the anti-Americanism and postmodern nihilism that had infected debates on America's post-9/11 foreign policy. At first I was a bit surprised when attacked as "racist" (or fascist, or Nazi, or neocon warmonger, etc.). But I soon realized, seriously, that these were people who would do me physical harm if they had the chance, or at least some have said.

But I differ in debate from my antagonists in that I seek to maintain a morality of reason in argumentation. Sometimes I'm sloppy by attacking the "left" in general, but when I deploy terms like "nihilist" it's in the descriptive, analytical sense, rather than as an effort to inflict emotional or psychological pain. In other words, there's a ontological basis to my partisan repudiations. I seek to understand and explain what's underlying the postmodern hatred of the anti-everything sensibilities of the American left.

For example, I'm coming around to fuller understanding of the notion of secular demonology.

While certainly both sides engage in extremist attacks on the other, there appears to be a difference in the attack culture of central players in the partisan debates. Folks like those at Daily Kos and Firedoglake, for example, are the netroots base of the Democratic Party, people who are embraced and recruited in the partisan battles of left-wing establishment politics. This is not true on the right, for the most part. While I'm sure some comment threads at major conservative blogs get out of hand on occasion, it is not the explicit policy of conservatives to demonize their foes (while Daily Kos openly advocates it).

The most recent outburst of left-wing demonization involved last week's shootings at Unitarian Universalist Church in Tennessee. The leftists became positively unglued, seeing in Jim David Adkisson a footsoldier of conservative hatred. The actions of a lone, unstable killer became the basis for smearing the entire GOP universe.

Elizabeth Scalia discusses how Adkisson's case illuminates our frequent descents into partisan recrimination:

Initial reports were that Adkisson had “problems with Christians.” Later reports suggested he also had “problems” with “the liberal movement” and with gays. Predictably, people on both the right and left immediately staked out claims of victimhood and identified each other as the true culprits upon whom both blame and condemnation must rain down. “They” inspired Adkisson to kill those worshipers, no, to kill those progressives, no, to kill those … those …

Those human beings.

If you’re wondering who “they” is, “they” is us, losing a little more of our shared humanity every day, as we increasingly insulate ourselves away from the “others” who do not hold the same worldview as we do. We label ourselves as belonging to some respectable group of believers, or agnostics, or liberals, or conservatives, and we live, work, socialize, and blog — as much as life will allow — amongst our “respectable” peers, in our “respectable” echo chambers. We label the “others” as disrespectable and then commence disrespecting.

It begins with name-calling, which seems so innocuous, so sandbox. Well, name-calling is infantile behavior, but it is hardly innocuous. As marijuana is to heroin, name-calling is to diminished humanity — the gateway. It begins the whole process of dehumanization. Call someone a name and they immediately become “less human” to you, and the less human they seem, the easier they are to hate and to destroy. A “fetus,” after all, is easier to destroy than a “baby.”

Thus, George W. Bush is “Chimpy McHitler.” Hillary Clinton is “a pig in a pantsuit.” Barack Obama is “O-Bambi.” Cindy McCain, who has exhibited some courage and laudable compassion in her life, is reduced to a “pill-popping beer-frau,” and so forth. From there it is smooth sailing down an ever-descending river of hatred, until we are incapable of seeing anything good in the “other,” both because we have willfully hardened our hearts, and because our hate — especially when it is supported by a group of like minds — feels safe and inviolable.

Recently I asked rabid Bush-haters if they could manage to say “one good thing” about the president. Predictably, they could not.

They are capable of sarcasm: “One good thing is he will die someday.” “One good thing is that he can’t serve three terms.” Once, when pressed, someone sneered: “He managed to marry a librarian who could read and explain books to him.”

Scalia notes that both sides do it - both sides are unwilling to find that "one good thing" to say about their political enemies. They're ready to "surrender reason to hate."

While I don't disagree altogether, it seems that most of the recent examples of surrendering to hate can be found on the left, for example following the deaths of Tim Russert, Jesse Helms, and Tony Snow. Robert Novak's announcement last week of illness offered another opportunity for left-wing demonization.

In contrast, when Senator Edward Kennedy was rushed to the hospital in May, to be diagnosed with a brain tumor, I found nothing but well-wishing across the conservative blogosphere.

Ben Johnson offered an explanation for all of this in "Kennedy's Illness, and the Left's." At base, for Johnson, there appears to be a deficit of the soul on the left, an absence of divine grace. This gap removes a prohibitive moral restraint in left-wing partisans and preconditions them to cheer the pain, suffering, and demise of conservatives.

I've gone even further in suggesting that Marxist ideology - which guides the class conscious, anti-imperialist project of contemporary "progressives" - provides leftists with a doctrine of hatred, a political demonology to drive the dehumanization campaigns against their opponents:

As a kind of universal secular Church, Marxism succeeded, in a historically unprecedented way, in satisfying the ideological, political, and psychological needs of marginalized and alienated intellectuals scattered all over the world. It became the first secular Umma of intellectuals....

Marxism has always been little more than pseudo-universalism, a false promise of intellectual and moral universalism, for an exclusive ideology, by definition, cannot be universalistic. Far from a symbolic design for human fellowship and peaceful coexistence of societies, cultures, and civilizations, Marxism rests on the assumption of radical evil and also on the quest for enemies.

This quest for enemies consumes far left-wing partisans. It is an endless search seeking to delegitimize and dehumanize those who would threaten the safety of a secular, redistributionist world of exclusive false brotherhood and psychological security.

This is why I think there are variations in the propensity to surrender to hate. The left's psychopolitical agenda is "clothed in darkness." It is this very difficult for them to find that "one good thing" about those with whom they differ.

The Anti-Patriot Culture of the American Left

I put up a couple of essays on patriotism and politics this last Fourth of July, for example, "Barack Obama and the Patriotism of Dissent."

The topic's endlessly fascinating as a primer on the rise of postmodern culture in contemporary left-wing politics.

Another excellent addition to the debate is found in Larrey Anderson's photo-essay from the Oregon Country Fair, "Why the Left is Unpatriotic and Why the Right Should Say So":

The Oregon Country Fair is an excellent example of the culture of the left in today's America. This is not a culture that favors middle-class capitalism or the traditional form of American patriotism. It is a culture seeking a one-world government, a primitive socialist economic system, a low-tech manufacturing infrastructure, and a religion that worships nature instead of God.

I've got more commentary on left-wing anti-patriotism here.

But for another example, see Perverted Truth, "The Problem of Patriotism."

Photo Credit: American Thinker

Obama Sees Traction in Continuing Racial Grievance

Election 2008 may be remembered for an odd counter-intuition on racial progress: For the first time in history, a black American has secured a major-party nomination for the presidency. This milestone should demonstrate America's equal political opportunity for people of color. Yet, simultaneously, the very ascendence of a black presidential nominee is forcing people to confront latent racial prejudices that seemed slowly fading as the pattern of post-civil rights integration normalized cross-racial comity and interaction.

Is Barack Obama to blame for the fraying of the integrationist consensus?

A man who advertised himself as America's postracial healer now appears to be complicit in the resegregation of American attitudes on skin color and the politics of racial recrimination.

Gallup polling, for example, finds a majority of Americans agreeing racism is widespread:

A recent USA Today/Gallup poll finds most Americans saying racism is widespread against blacks in the United States. This includes a slim majority of whites (51%), a slightly higher 59% of Hispanics, and the vast majority of blacks (78%)....

As on most issues involving race in the United States, blacks are much more likely to see racism as a problem than are whites. However, other questions in the poll showed that Americans remain optimistic that race relations could improve, if Americans could hold an open national dialogue on race and if Barack Obama were elected as the first black president.

Notice how black Americans are much more likely to view politics through a racial prism.

Indeed, today's Washington Post poll finds Barack Obama running strong overwhelmingly among narrow interest group constituencies sensitive to race-baiting appeals:

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama holds a 2 to 1 edge over Republican Sen. John McCain among the nation's low-wage workers, but many are unconvinced that either presidential candidate would be better than the other at fixing the ailing economy or improving the health-care system, according to a new national poll.

Obama's advantage is attributable largely to overwhelming support from two traditional Democratic constituencies: African Americans and Hispanics...

Yet:

Obama's standing with the white workers runs counter to an impression, dating from the primary season, that he struggles to attract support from that group. McCain advisers have said for months that they think the Republican can win a significant share of those voters because of Obama's performance in the spring.

The survey suggests it will be difficult, but not impossible, for McCain to increase his appeal.

Think about this: The Post's survey contacted people making at or below $27,000 annually - that is, the working classes. So, we are seeing lower-income whites who are favorable to the Obama campaign, but also, in Gallup's findings, only a slight majority of white Americans see society as racist.

In other words, the Obama campaign has an incentive to push racial politics as a wedge issue.

Black voters already cling to outdating notions of hegemomic racist domination of the political landscape. If Obama can sharpen racist thinking among white voters, by alleging that John McCain is exploiting racist stereotypical images of sexual predation among blacks, perhaps more white voters - who are more inclined toward electoral color-blindness, but may have debilitating white guilt - can be sucked into the frame of a racial recriminatory coalition: McCain's racist! Vote Obama!

Thus, strangely, Barack Obama has in fact no incentive to campaign on a post-civil rights platform of equality of opportunity. Indeed, Juan Williams notes that last week's outbursts might just be the beginning of racial general election campaign:

With polls showing the presidential contest between John McCain and Barack Obama getting closer, a question is now looming larger and larger. Is skin color going to be the deciding factor?

Just last week, Sen. Obama warned voters that Sen. McCain's campaign will exploit the race issue by telling voters that "he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." A few weeks earlier, he said they will attack his lack of experience but also added, "And did I mention he's black?"

The McCain campaign did not counter the first punch, but after last week's jab -- fearing that Mr. Obama was getting away with calling his candidate a racist -- campaign manager Rick Davis responded to the dollar-bill attack by saying, "Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."

Mr. Obama's campaign concedes it has no clear example of a Republican attack that expressly cites Mr. Obama's name or race. Yet in the last few days some Obama supporters were at it again, suggesting that a McCain ad attacking Mr. Obama as little more than a "celebrity," by featuring young white women such as Britney Spears, is an appeal to white anxiety about black men and white women.

The race issue is clearly not going away.

Williams suggest that the Bradley effect may be at work, with many white voters not revealing their genuine racial sensitivties to pollsters. Therefore, Williams notes that instead of continuing crass racial appeals to further divide the electorate, Obama needs to return to his original promise of racial transcendence:

To win this campaign, Mr. Obama needs to assure undecided white voters that he shares their values and is worthy of their trust. To do that he has to minimize attention to different racial attitudes toward his candidacy as well as racially polarizing issues, and appeal to the common experiences that bind Americans regardless of color.

Obama conceded last Friday that his "dollar bill" remark sought to play the race card. Hopefully, Obama will go further and fully repudiate the politics of racial demonization.

Polls show that Americans see race discrimination as continuing, and the odd implication for the Democrats is that they can score political points by further exacerbating those racial tensions that do exist.

Maybe America will one day have a campaign judging presidential candidates by the content of their character, but it won't be Barack Obama's presidential bid that helps us get there.

See also, Betsy Newmark, "It Always Seems to Come Down to Racism."

Graphic Credit: Gallup Poll

Bush War Crimes and the Fog of History

There's an intriguing set of articles and responses online today regarding the Bush administration and civil liberties in the war on terror.

For me, one of the things that pops out is that the outrage over America's response to terror, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and especially the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, is driven mostly by anger at President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Routinely, I see suggestions that the impairments of civil liberties under Bush are the worst in American history. Much of this, even with the often super-sophisticated scholarly presentations, ends up being Bush derangement leavened with a foggy grasp of U.S. history.

We see this in Jonathan Mahler's, "The Fog of War-Crimes Trials," at the New York Times. Mahler compares the Bush administration's military tribunals to the Nazi's Nuremburg war crimes trials. He suggests that at that time the U.S. practiced a moderation of law, which stayed the hand of vengeance. It was the legal process of a civilized victory, which is meant as a contrast to the Bush administration's apparently uncivilized approach:

As civilized people, we have a natural desire to see criminals held responsible for their actions. The desire is that much stronger in the case of large-scale crimes like genocides or terrorist attacks, which seem to demand not just accountability but a reaffirmation of the moral order — a public enumeration of what is right and what is wrong — that can be delivered only in a courtroom.

The hope once was that military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay would meet this need — if not provide closure on the Sept. 11 attacks, then at least enable a collective participation in the trials of their perpetrators. There were practical reasons to opt for tribunals over the federal courts, which were not designed to try combatants captured on the battlefield: a soldier couldn’t very well be expected to read a prisoner his rights. But there was something else, too. Trying terrorists as war criminals would send a powerful message to the world.

And yet the tribunals that just opened hardly have the feel of history in the making. They haven’t merited much discussion in the presidential campaign; nor are we a nation riveted by the trial of the first defendant, a former driver for Osama bin Laden named Salim Hamdan. Instead of a landmark case, one that serves as a resonant reminder of the gulf separating us from our enemies, we have detachment and ambiguity — not just about the extent of Hamdan’s guilt but also about the wisdom of the entire tribunal process as well as many other aspects of the prosecution of the war on terror.

It has certainly not helped matters that we are now almost seven years removed from 9/11 and the trials are just getting under way, having been tied up in procedural issues for the better part of the Bush presidency. Of course, this is how adversarial systems are supposed to work. Hamdan’s lawyers were simply carrying out their obligation to provide their client with a vigorous defense by questioning the lawfulness of the system by which he would be tried. There was precedent for this. When Franklin Roosevelt convened a military tribunal to prosecute a group of Nazi saboteurs captured on American soil during World War II, their government-appointed lawyer, Col. Kenneth Royall, challenged its lawfulness before the Supreme Court, which met in an emergency summer session and ruled unanimously that the tribunal was legal.

But because the Bush administration’s detention policies were so extreme and uncompromising, they have invited numerous challenges that have yielded an expanding thicket of rulings in favor of the detainees — Hamdi, Rasul, Hamdan, Boumediene — which have obscured the larger question of guilt or innocence.

Note that oddity: The Bush administration's policies have been struck down in favor of the detainees? Sounds like constitutional checks and balances to me. The system's working, and the length of the process, if anything, means that we are granting more protection to suspected terrorists than anywhere else in the world. Yet, BushCo's still vilified as nearly as bad as those Nazis in the dock at Nuremberg.

The second piece of interest today is Alan Brinkley's review of Jane Meyer's The Dark Side at the New York Times.

Brinkley's essay is itself dark and melodramatic, painting President Bush as a puppet in the hand of an all-powerful vice-president. But the conclusion brings me back to this fog of history theme:

There is no happy ending to this sordid and shameful story. Despite growing political pressure, despite Supreme Court decisions challenging the detainment policy, despite increasing revelations of the once-hidden program that have shocked the conscience of the world, there is little evidence that the secret camps and the torture programs have been abandoned or even much diminished. New heads of the Defense and Justice Departments have resisted addressing the torture issue, aware that dozens of their colleagues would face legal jeopardy should they do so. And the presidential candidates of both parties have so far shown little interest in confronting the use of torture or recommitting the country to the Geneva Conventions and to America’s own laws and traditions.

The Bush administration is not, of course, the first or only regime to violate civil liberties. John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt all authorized or tolerated terrible violations of civil and human rights, all of them in response to great national and global crises. In some respects, the Bush administration is simply following a familiar path by responding to real dangers with illegal and deplorable methods. But Jane Mayer’s extraordinary and invaluable book suggests that it would be difficult to find any precedent in American history for the scale, brutality and illegality of the torture and degradation inflicted on detainees over the last six years; and that it would be even harder to imagine a set of policies more likely to increase the dangers facing the United States and the world.

Again, note here with some incredulity: George W. Bush is not the first president to mount a robust response to national crises, centralizing energy and power in the executive to meet the exigencies of the day.

Indeed, Abraham Lincoln today is widely regarded as America's greatest president, and further there's a new historical consensus (among scholars not obsessed with alleged BushCo war crimes) that the internment of Japanese Americans under the Democratic Franklin D. Roosevelt administration constitutes the low point in the civil liberties history in American constitutional law - "one of the darkest chapters in American history."

This is not by any means to minimize any potential human rights violations Americans have committed these last few years. It is to suggest that the history of the Bush years is still young, and questions of state power in the age of sacred, transnational terrorism are evolving.

Finally, Rick Moran has read portions of Mayer's book, and Brinkley's review here as well, and says:

I reject the view of Cheney (or any of the others involved in the torture regime) as being dark lords of the underworld. They were, in their minds, patriots out to protect the country from a very real threat (something with which both Brinkley in his review and Mayer in her book agree). But good intentions don’t excuse immoral and criminal actions. Nor do they obviate the need to air out the truth of what has gone on in the dark places where just because no one hears the screaming it doesn’t mean the law breaking didn’t take place.

Brinkley’s review – overly and unnecessarily dramatic at times...

Moran nevertheless calls out conservative partisans to think critically about the horrendous practices carried out in our name.

He's right to remind us to think critically, and to hold members of our own party to account.

At the same time, I can't help but remember Debra Burlingame's penetrating essay on Abdullah Saleh Al-Ajmi, the former Guantanamo detainee who upon his release returned to Iraq and killed over a dozen at Mosul in a suicide bombing attack last March.

Yes, all of this is complicated. The United States has a moral responsiblity to protect human dignity while prosecuting the legal war on terror. We also have a responsiblity to wage the fight to which we're engaged with vigor and dispatch.

Somehow I think folks like Mahler, Brinkley, as well as Jane Mayer, in their historical fog, overlook this last detail.

Obama Comments Racist, Poll Finds

As I've noted a couple of times (here and here), Barack Obama's likely to face a backlash should he continue to make allegations of racism against John McCain throughout the campaign.

This morning's release of new polling data support this conclusion.

For example, Gallup finds the race essentially tied, with Obama up 45-to-44 percent over McCain; and Rasmussen's daily tracking poll finds Obama up 44-to-43 percent.

Even more significant is Rasmussen's survey on last week's race controversy. It turns out that less than one-in-four respondents thought the McCain campaign's "Celeb" ad buy was racist, whereas a clear majority sees Obama's "dollar-bill" comment that way:

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the nation’s voters say they’ve seen news coverage of the McCain campaign commercial that includes images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and suggests that Barack Obama is a celebrity just like them. Of those, just 22% say the ad was racist while 63% say it was not.

However, Obama’s comment that his Republican opponent will try to scare people because Obama does not look like all the other presidents on dollar bills was seen as racist by 53%. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree.

Not only has Obama been discredited by this data, but the findings point to a much larger challenge for his campaign through November: His Democratic supporters have had a field day portraying the GOP as "neck drooling, knuckledragging, moron[s]" who are engaged in a "nefarious" plot to plant "subconscious (or conscious) biases and evoke a particular visceral reaction," and they're just warming up.

If Barack Obama's skills as a transcendental post-partisan candidate are real, you'd think he might demonstrate a little more sway over his radical backers (who see hooded night-riders galloping around every move the GOP makes).

The Hatred of the Online Crowd

Popular culture has been transformed by new modes of online communications and social networking platforms. From Blogger to MySpace to YouTube, technology provides endless opportunities for people to make friends, share hopes and joys, and perhaps live dangerously.

One of the most disturbing manifestions of the today's online reality is the phenomenon of "trolling," which is discussed in today's New York Times:

In the late 1980s, Internet users adopted the word “troll” to denote someone who intentionally disrupts online communities. Early trolling was relatively innocuous, taking place inside of small, single-topic Usenet groups. The trolls employed what the M.I.T. professor Judith Donath calls a “pseudo-naïve” tactic, asking stupid questions and seeing who would rise to the bait....

Today the Internet is much more than esoteric discussion forums. It is a mass medium for defining who we are to ourselves and to others. Teenagers groom their MySpace profiles as intensely as their hair; escapists clock 50-hour weeks in virtual worlds, accumulating gold for their online avatars. Anyone seeking work or love can expect to be Googled. As our emotional investment in the Internet has grown, the stakes for trolling — for provoking strangers online — have risen. Trolling has evolved from ironic solo skit to vicious group hunt.

What caught my attention about this story is not the notion of "trolling" but the larger issue of the "hatred of the online crowd," referred as to "malwebolence."

Much of online communication is pseudonymous, and thus in the absence of fear of consequences we see the proliferation of the most horrendously depraved behavior from what is, essentially, a tech-savvy, un-lumpen web-prowl-etariat.

We know the dangers: tragedies like Megan Meier's MySpace suicide, the mysogynistic death threats to tech-writer Kathy Sierra, or the demonization of conservatives bloggers like Jeff Goldstein.

The intensity of the hatred itself is not new. What's novel is the unprecedented volume and retrievability, which is accelerated by the liberation of unaccountability.

I haven't been the subject of a social networking demonization campaign, although last week I was introduced to the term "cobag" by those friendly nihilists at Sadly No! (and I get "fair and balanced" malwebolence from extreme right-wing hate bloggers as well, who allege I'm RINO for speaking out against racist blog rings (as seen, for example, here, here, here, and here).

My wife sometimes worries about my safety, as I don't blog pseudonymously.

Much of this hatred is defended in terms of the First Amendment, and the legal protections against online demonization aren't so robust, as the Times indicates:

Does free speech tend to move toward the truth or away from it? When does it evolve into a better collective understanding? When does it collapse into the Babel of trolling, the pointless and eristic game of talking the other guy into crying “uncle”? Is the effort to control what’s said always a form of censorship, or might certain rules be compatible with our notions of free speech...?

Why inflict anguish on a helpless stranger? It’s tempting to blame technology, which increases the range of our communications while dehumanizing the recipients ... like ... Megan Meier presumably wouldn’t happen if the perpetrators had to deliver their messages in person. But while technology reduces the social barriers that keep us from bedeviling strangers, it does not explain the initial trolling impulse. This seems to spring from something ugly — a destructive human urge that many feel but few act upon, the ambient misanthropy that’s a frequent ingredient of art, politics and, most of all, jokes. There’s a lot of hate out there, and a lot to hate as well....

Many trolling practices ... violate existing laws against harassment and threats. The difficulty is tracking down the perpetrators. In order to prosecute, investigators must subpoena sites and Internet service providers to learn the original author’s IP address, and from there, his legal identity. Local police departments generally don’t have the means to follow this digital trail, and federal investigators have their hands full with spam, terrorism, fraud and child pornography. But even if we had the resources to aggressively prosecute trolls, would we want to? Are we ready for an Internet where law enforcement keeps watch over every vituperative blog and backbiting comments section, ready to spring at the first hint of violence? Probably not. All vigorous debates shade into trolling at the perimeter; it is next to impossible to excise the trolling without snuffing out the debate.

That's probably as good a description of the issues as we're going to get (although I'd be interested to read some legal and scholarly articles on this).

Read the entire New York Times article here: "The Trolls Among Us."