The 1960s Are Hard to Escape

I was born in the early-1960s, but with the exception of some of my earliest rock-and-roll recollections, I feel more a child of the 1970s and 1980s. Or, at least that's what I figured after reading this week's cover story at Newsweek:

Barack Obama was born in the 1960s but is not of them. Such is the constant promise of his presidential campaign. Announcing his candidacy last January, he vowed to lead a "new generation" unencumbered by the divisive struggles of the past. By last week, when a Fox News reporter asked him to define the difference between him and the Democratic front runner, Hillary Clinton, he had grown more pointed. "Senator Clinton and others have been fighting some of the same fights since the '60s," Obama replied. "It makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done."

Obama's promise—I am not the'60s—is heartfelt, but ultimately hard to believe. Just look at the gray-haired '60s idealists inside the senator's own brain trust who see him as the fulfillment of 40 years' worth of hard work. Or look at the throbbing crowds that mob the young senator, reminiscent in so many ways of the crowds that mobbed Bobby Kennedy 40 years ago. Or look at the Secret Service detail that trails Obama, a reminder of the old '60s lesson that assassination is a real threat. Obama is the '60s, whether he likes it or not.

John McCain is also the '60s. A former naval aviator who spent the latter part of the decade in a North Vietnamese POW camp, McCain uttered the best line of the 2008 presidential campaign last month in a Republican primary debate. "A few days ago, Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock Concert Museum," McCain announced. "Now, my friends, I wasn't there … I was tied up at the time." The Republican room erupted, not in laughter, but in applause. His campaign quickly took the debate clip and cut a television ad.

McCain knows what Obama should have learned by now: the '60s are impossible to escape. They will define the 2008 presidential election, just as they have defined American politics, and American culture, for the past 40 years. It is fashionable to see the boomers' '60s obsession as a reflection of their own narcissism, their inability to get over themselves. But this does not do justice to a truly traumatic decade. In the midst of adolescence, an entire generation was presented with repeated reminders of its own mortality: the Cuban missile crisis; the assassinations of Jack Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.; the violence in the cities; the 58,193 Vietnam War dead. So much death and killing, too much to simply put aside.

But what about the rest of us? Nearly 162 million Americans were born after Dec. 31, 1969. More than half the country, then, knows the decade only through mythology (peace, love and liberation) or through marketing (tie-dyed T shirts at tourist shops, the Rolling Stones on oldies radio, Dennis Hopper in Ameriprise Financial ads). They rightly question what makes the '60s so special: What, after all, did the baby boomers really achieve 40 years ago? Why does NEWSWEEK commemorate 1968 instead of 1918 or 1941?

The answer: because all of us, young and old, are stuck in the '60s, hostages to a decade we define ourselves as for or against. As the pages that follow demonstrate, the '60s were not necessarily, as some baby boomers would have it, America's defining moment. But they were an era when a generation held sustained argument over the things that have always mattered most: How should America show its power in the world? What rights were owed to African-Americans, to women, to gays? What is America and what does it want to be?

Read the whole thing.

I understand why the 1960s get so much attention. Yet I dont' think it's necessary to hold the 1960s as a decade of revolutionary morality with which to hold hostage the nation's conscience. We needed the change, in civil rights, desegration, the advancement of women, and so forth - but a lot of the tumult we could have done without.

Ultimately, I think the 1960s will remain the decade of influence as long as our top political leaders hail from that era. In the years ahead, kids who came of age in the 1970s and 1980s will come to power, and we'll remember bands like the B-52s and Devo, phenomena like MTV and skateparks, and political movements like the Reagan Revolution.

Each political era has its triumphs and tragedies. In remembering earlier times we take seriously the formative periods of our history.

Student Press Bias at Long Beach City College

I don't normally comment on campus politics, but my college's student newspaper's published a wildly innacurate article on an Iraq war panel discussion in which I participated.

The article, "Panelists discuss Iraq in town hall meeting," badly misrepresents my statements at the college forum. Indeed, the piece is a poorly veiled, miserable attempt to impugn my debate performance and my reputation as an informed commentator on the war.

Here's the piece, in full:

About 15 students gathered and listened as a panel of four men sat behind a folding table in LAC's dimly lit Nordic Lounge and discussed the widely debated issue of Democracy in Iraq Monday, Nov. 7.

The panel, chosen by the Political Science Club, included two liberals, LBCC history professor Dr. Julian DelGaudio and political analyst Peter Mathews, and two conservatives, LBCC political science professor Dr. Donald Douglas and republican activist Ed Williams.

Panel members spent an hour answering 9 questions, conceived by political science students, that focused on the United States' decision to invade Iraq, issues present in Iraq, and the future of Iraq.

"The invasion of Iraq is illegitimate," said Dr. DelGaudio. The history professor was quick to respond to Dr. Douglas' support of the U.S. invasion. Douglas said that the invasion was justified because Saddam Hussein was violating a United Nations truce from the Gulf War. DelGaudio continued calmly, "This was actually done in opposition to the U.N. which never voted for an actual invasion of Iraq. In fact, I recall the Secretary General of the U.N. at the time saying that this was an illegal war."

The panelists then discussed Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, or the lack thereof, and the effect that this issue had on inspiring pro-invasion sentiment amongst Americans.

"We in this country talk about our soldiers that we've lost in this war, but they don't amount to one week of the death squads of Saddam Hussein," Williams said as he hunched over the table to get closer to the microphone, his volume and tone indicating angry excitement.

"No weapons of mass destruction? You ask a Kurd and they'll tell you yes, there were weapons of mass destruction used against us," Williams continued, pounding his index finger on the table. "Why aren't we talking about that, do the Kurds not matter because they are desert people?"

As the debate moved on, three of the four men openly agreed that President Bush is, in the words of DelGaudio, "a pathological liar". Douglas was the only one who didn't comment on the statement, though he said nothing to argue it.

Congressional hopeful Mathews criticized President Bush's policy on Iraq by saying, "You cannot go into Iraq with guns blazing and impose or build democracy from the outside."

Mathews, a progressive Democrat, will make his eighth bid for congressional representative of the 37th district in June, 2008. The first seven have been unsuccessful. He concluded, "Mr. Bush had this idea in his mind that he could help build democracy in his own way, but a lot of the approaches he has used have been vacant."

Dr. Douglas, who, according to his website enjoys reading works of international intrigue, had a differing perspective, "Democracy in Iraq is beginning to take hold, they've got elections, they're making political progress, they're establishing their oil resources and rebuilding industries, peace is returning to the cities," he said. "In fact they're trying to open restaurants and bars, which will be terrific."

However, when the audience asked him about the Iraqi constitution being contradictory to the premise of establishing democracy he said, "It's not going to take months or years, it's going to take decades to really establish democracy."

He also said that he is not yet familiar enough with the Iraqi constitution to give a hard and fast answer on the subject.

Article 2A in the Iraqi constitution states, "No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established."

The panel did unanimously conclude that even if congress votes to withdraw America from Iraq, our soldiers will be there for years to come.

"The United States is going to be staying in Iraq for some time," said Douglas. "Freedom is not free."

Sadly, this is essentially a commentary piece purportedly offered as "objective" student journalism. One wouldn't know this from the story, but with all due respect, Professor Del Gaudio, a colleague in my department, is a hardline Marxist historian who's an advisor to my college's "campus progressive" club, a front-group for the local International ANSWER chapter. I vehemently disagree with his antiwar positions, and I robustly defended the Bush administration and the war at the forum.

During the panel, Professor Del Gaudio denounced the war in Iraq as a disaster, conducted in violation of international law, and launched on the basis of lies put forward by the administration. I rebutted his arguments - succinctly and point-by-point - noting that the war was in fact waged to force Saddam Hussein's compliance with the 1991 U.N.-imposed Gulf War truce and subsequent resolutions for complete Iraqi disarment. Indeed, the U.S. and British invasion was launched to uphold the very resolutions the U.N. Security Council itself refused to enforce.

I noted, further, that the U.S. was now winning in Iraq, but that no measure of success on the ground would satisfy antiwar forces who've worked diligently to weaken public support for the deployment.

The audience member's question about the "Iraqi constitution being contradictory to the premise of establishing democracy" came after about 40 minutes of debate in which I laid down a barrage in indicators countering decisively every point of the left wing panelists. Naturally I don't claim to be an expert on the Iraqi constitution, though I noted that Iraq's governing regime contains parliamentary safeguards for proportional representation and poltical equality. The student reporter's game here is to whitewash the disastrous performance by Professor Del Gaudio and Peter Mathews. My statements were taken completely out of context, and the whole article demonstrates a clear leftwing, antiwar bias.

Especially pathetic is the author's completely irrelevent reference to my campus webpage, where I mention my personal interests, such as taking "walks on the beach" and "reading works of historical fiction and international intrigue." No other background information of this sort was provided for the other panelists, so perhaps the reporter thought my interest in spy novels might discredit my command of counterinsurgency in Iraq.

In any case, I've had my run-ins with the student paper before. Indeed, my participation on an Iraq panel on March 19, 2003, at the start of the war, began my process of being "radicalized by the radicals." Back then as well, my school's newspaper botched its coverage of my participation at the earlier campus forum, and in subsequent years the LBCC Viking's demonstrated its brand of far-left student journalism, lackadaisical reporting, and absence of journalistic integrity.

I understand these are students learning a craft, but my repeated critical responses to the editors and the faculty advisor have been treated with hostility, and indeed with violations of campus free speech policies.

The current reporting is just another chapter in this sorry history, and what's sad about it, ultimately, is that it's the student journalists who are being poorly served by a lack of professional direction in the standards of responsible press reporting.

Media is AWOL on Victory in Iraq

Ralph Peters has an excellent commentary today on the media's convenient avoidance of American military success in Iraq:

LAST weekend's news coverage of our veterans was welcome, but deceptive. The "mainstream media" honored aging heroes and noted the debt we owe to today's wounded warriors - but deftly avoided in-depth coverage from Iraq. Why? Because things are going annoyingly well.

All those reporters, editors and producers who predicted - longed for - an American defeat have moved on to more pressing strategic issues, such as O.J.'s latest shenanigans.

Oh, if you turned to the inner pages of the "leading" newspapers, you found grudging mention of the fact that roadside-bomb attacks are down by half and indirect-fire attacks by three-quarters while the number of suicide bombings has plummeted.

Far fewer Iraqi civilians are dying at the hands of extremists. U.S. and Coalition casualty rates have fallen dramatically. The situation has changed so unmistakably and so swiftly that we should be reading proud headlines daily.

Where are they? Is it really so painful for all those war-porno journos to accept that our military - and the Iraqis - may have turned the situation around? Shouldn't we read and see and hear a bit of praise for today's soldiers and the progress they're making?

The media's new trick is to concentrate coverage on our wounded, mouthing platitudes while using military amputees as props to suggest that, no matter what happens in Iraq, everything's still a disaster.

God knows, I sympathize with - and respect - those who've sacrificed life or limb in our country's service. I just hate to see them used as political tools.

How many of you really believe that those perfectly coiffed reporters care about our soldiers and their families? Does anyone think those news anchors will invite any Marines in wheelchairs home for Thanksgiving?

Still, for the 100-proof nastiness of the intelligentsia, you have to move to the "entertainment" world. Hollywood declines to make a single movie about any of our Medal of Honor winners in Iraq - but has deluged us with left-wing diatribes, as activist actors and directors parade by with their limp bayonets fixed.

"Stars" who enjoy incredible privileges that our troops will never experience treat us to vicious propaganda - such flicks as "In The Valley Of Elah," "Rendition" and the released-on-Veterans'-Day-weekend (gee, thanks) "Lions For Lambs."

And then there's the forthcoming "Redacted," which wants us to grasp that our psychopathic military's basic skills are the rape and murder of innocent civilians.

Immeasurably self-important, Hollywood tells itself these movies are acts of courage.

In some of the films, the victims - of their own leaders - are our troops. In others, the victims are innocent Muslims falsely linked to terrorism. But the unifying thread is that the only heroes are stay-at-homes who bravely fight for the truth.

A number of critics have noted that the American people refuse to pay an hour's wages to see these films. Last weekend's release, "Lions For Lambs," earned less than $7 million, despite starring Tom Cruise, Robert Redford and Meryl "America's in Peril" Streep. And that was the big-bucks earner so far.

Scriptwriters, directors and vanity-project actors (how many have been to Iraq?) scratch their heads and deplore our apathy. They fail to grasp what's truly happening: We, the citizens and moviegoers, simply reject these films' underlying message.

Because the real message of all of these in-the-toilet flicks isn't just that the war in Iraq or the struggle against Islamist terrorists is bad - it's that America is evil. At best, we're the moral equivalent of our enemies.

Read the whole thing.

Peters' point reminds me of a post by Angevin13 over at The Oxford Medievalist on Brian De Palma's moviemaking (and anti-Americanism).

But back to the war: AJStrata over at The Strata-Sphere reports on the new media argument that it's too late to report the good news out of Iraq:

In the continuing joke of denial by the liberal left that things are turning around in Iraq we now have a new spin: it is too late for success to be recognized, even if it is happening. This comes from one of those liberals who cannot emotionally face the fact that (a) Iraq was tough fight (like Bush and others said it would be) and (2) we are succeeding.

I'm sure we'll be seeing more left-wing press denials of military success. Or we'll see additional partisan attacks on the war's management (the New York Times) or calls for a precipitous withdrawal after conceding progress (the Los Angeles Times).

Check out Jules Crittenden for more media insanity.

Time for Withdrawal From Iraq?

Is the current success in Iraq reason to quit the deployment? Should we declare victory and withdraw the troops? The editors at the Los Angeles Times think so:

The latest statistics are in and, by every reasonable measure, the U.S. military is making commendable progress in lessening the violence in Iraq.

Iraqi civilian and military deaths have plummeted in recent months, as has the number of American soldiers killed or wounded. Bombings are down, attacks on U.S. troops have plunged and the ghastly daily count of corpses bearing the signs of sectarian torture is markedly lower. While the U.S. military's data are rosier than some other tallies, all the indicators of violence are now, mercifully, pointing down. As a result, some of the 2 million Iraqi refugees who have fled their homes have begun to come back - 46,030 of them reentered the country in October, according to the Iraqi government.

Analysts will continue to debate how much of the progress is because of the "surge" of 30,000 U.S. troops last spring, how much is the result of Iraqi Sunnis in Anbar province and elsewhere making common cause with the United States against Al Qaeda terrorists, and how much is because ethnic cleansing of some neighborhoods is complete and the "enemies" within have fled or been killed. All of these factors undoubtedly played a role. And the daily carnage, though lessened, remains horrific. The high casualty rate earlier this year made 2007 the deadliest for U.S. troops in this tragic misadventure.

Still, now is the moment to praise the U.S. military for doing what it said it would do when it embarked on the surge: reducing the violence so as to allow Iraqis breathing space to work out the modus vivendi that has so far eluded them. We salute them and hope that their blood and tears are not squandered by whatever comes next.

The question, however, is what should come next. The surge has succeeded militarily; it has so far been an utter failure politically because there has been no progress toward reconciliation. Anbar is more peaceful, but Basra is more racked than ever by fighting among Shiite warlords. There is no oil law, no plan for reversing de-Baathification, no progress toward an integrated police force, no plan for federalism that would accommodate Iraq's ethnic and regional aspirations while keeping the country from fracturing.

Without actually saying so, the Bush administration is now trying to move the goal posts, yet again, by arguing that stopping the violence in and of itself constitutes success. The president and the secretary of Defense have both mentioned South Korea as a model of where the United States might be heading in Iraq: leaving perhaps 35,000 U.S. troops there, perhaps for a decade or more, to keep a modicum of peace, prevent the country from splitting up and keep the neighbors out. But U.S. troops in South Korea were helping to keep an external enemy, North Korea, from crossing an armistice line. U.S. troops in Iraq are trying to suppress a sectarian civil war, not to protect a fragile peace. Neither the American nor the Iraqi publics will tolerate a prolonged U.S. occupation of Iraq. The surge has created an opportunity to leave - and leave we must.

This is a classic left-wing analysis of the war on our future in Iraq. The editors want to have it both ways: Praise the troops on the one hand, and denounce their mission on the other. From the outset, however, the surge was designed as an interim step to regain the momentum in securing the country, in pulling Iraq back from the precipice of internecine slaughter and political decay. This is happening now. But it's not time to bring the forces home.

Note the faulty comparison to South Korea, which is an attempt to discredit a long-term presence in Iraq: Why should a civil war in a U.S.-backed democracy be less of a reason to maintain troops than would be a cross-border enemy of a client? The goal of our foes would be the same: To destroy the U.S.-backed state and bring to power a regime hostile to American interests. Besides, Iraqis face an implacable interstate threat in neighboring Iran. One of the biggest arguments of the left in recent times is how Iran's emerged as the big strategic victor amid U.S. difficulties in Mesopotamia? Yet if so, why pull out now? Iran's a sworn enemy of American interests in the region, and the mullahs would like nothing more than their own Shiite puppet state in Baghdad.

No, the Times editors have let ideology of surrender get the better part of reason. The U.S. needs to maintain a robust troop commitment in Iraq. A reasonable estimate suggests remaining troops levels in the 80,000-100,000 range for a number of years. That in itself would be a significant drawdown, but not enough for the cut-and-run types inclined to support the editorial position of the Los Angeles Times.

Favorite Movies and Movie Stars

A couple of years ago, while out shopping, my oldest boy asked me, "Dad, what's your favorite movie?" Without hesitation, I replied, "Saving Private Ryan."

I got to thinking about this last night, after I caught the last hour of "Saving Private Ryan" on TNT. Not only is the Spielberg WWII epic my favorite movie, Tom Hanks is my favorite actor as well. Hanks' "Captain John Miller" genuinely captures the essence of the middle-American fighting man, the guy who has a job to do, and who completes it without a bunch of complaint. Miller's even too moral for his own good, for the German POW he releases ultimately fires the fateful shot at the movie's conclusion (right before the P51 Tankbusters zoom in to destroy the German armored assualt).

But I like Hanks in a lot of other roles too. Forrest Gump is corny, but Hank's portrayal of Gump's idiot savant again captures some essential human dignity and goodness, and the film pulls it all together with some powerful Baby Boom nostalgia.

While some of the reviews were poor, I also really liked Hanks in "Cast Away." The film was criticized for its long segments without dialog (when Hanks' character, "Chuck Noland," is stranded on the tropical island). But I like Noland's survival instincts, his escape from the island, and his heartbreaking return to his previous life and fiancee, Helen Hunt's "Kelly Frears". For me, Noland's near-death on the plane crash, his survival and return, presented metaphorical recollections of my own early difficult life experiences (my one time physical and romantic isolation and recovery).

In any case, I could go on about Hanks. He's certainly not my only movie hero. The truth is, I need to get out to the movie theaters more often. I'm getting behind the times, at least as far as my familiarity with younger stars, like Vince Vaughn (the favorite actor of Angevin13, over at The Oxford Medievalist).

I would note that Jodie Foster's one of my favorite actresses. She's both attractive and tough, and (obviously) she's starred in some of America's greatest films (Taxi Driver, Silence of the Lambs). I missed Foster in "The Brave One" when it was in theaters, although I don't mind, as the film will be a nice addition to my modest DVD collection.

What's your favorite movie, and who's your favorite actor?

**********

UPDATE: I found this cool "Saving Private Ryan Online Encyclopedia" while responding to comments and surfing around for information about the film. Beware of plot spoilers, however, if you haven't seen the movie.

Many Women Executives Lukewarm on Hillary Clinton

This morning's Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece on Hillary Clinton's support among women professionals:

When Valerie Frederickson, a Silicon Valley human-resources consultant, heard Hillary Clinton assert that she could "take the heat" after getting pummeled by opponents in a recent debate, she recalled the times in her own career when a roomful of men disrespected her.

Once, at a national sales meeting for a large construction-products company, a male colleague passed around photographs of her in a bikini that he'd secretly taken on a prior business trip. "Instead of quitting, I focused on being better, on outselling the guys three-to-one," says Ms. Frederickson, who later founded her own firm, Valerie Frederickson & Co.

Ms. Frederickson has donated money to John Edwards's campaign, because she thinks he has a better chance of winning, but she'll vote for Mrs. Clinton if she's the Democratic candidate. She identifies with Mrs. Clinton's determination "to pick herself up when she's shot down and figure out how to be effective." And, she notes, "As professional women we've been through so much -- I feel like she's my big sister."

A year away from the election, Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, has a lead with women voters over male candidates of both parties. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that when matched against Republican Rudolph Giuliani, she wins by 53% to 38% among female voters (and loses among men by 52% to 38%.) Against Democrat Sen. Barack Obama, she wins among women by 53% to 21%, while winning among men by just 37% to 31%.

Not all women are certain that Mrs. Clinton is going to be the one to shatter what's been called "the last glass ceiling." Executive and professional women with incomes over $75,000 -- who might be perceived as having most in common with her -- support Mrs. Clinton in much lower numbers than do lower-income women, and they are slightly more likely to vote for Mr. Giuliani than for her: 46% to 45%.

But regardless of their political views and preferences, Mrs. Clinton's campaign is stirring strong feelings among female executives about what it means to be a woman -- often the only woman -- seeking a position of power. Whether she is battling male opponents in debates, having her hair and clothing scrutinized or trying to convince voters she is strong enough to do tough tasks, the senator is publicly facing challenges that most female executives have grappled with privately throughout their careers. Her determination to win the White House is also prompting many women in business to reflect on their career goals and what price they're willing to pay to achieve them.

Read the whole thing. The article notes that many women agree that when Clinton plays the gender card it reflects poorly on the status of women as equals in the economy and politics.

I'm particularly intrigued by the finding, as indicated by the polling data above, that 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).

A Veteran's Courage

The Los Angeles Times has a compelling story on Sgt. Maj. Jesse Acosta, an Iraq war veteran who lost both eyes to shrapnel in a mortar attack at Camp Anaconda in 2006:

He was a soldier in Iraq and he's a soldier now, shoulders squared and head held high on a street corner in Santa Fe Springs at 6:30 a.m., waiting for a bus with his guide dog, Charley.

Sgt. Maj. Jesse Acosta's hat says "Army." His green jacket says "Military Order Purple Heart. Combat Wounded." Dark shades conceal his prosthetic eyes.

Better to fight the enemy on distant shores, the argument goes, than fight the enemy here. But that doesn't mean the war doesn't eventually come home. For Acosta, a 50-year-old gas company employee with a wife, four children and three grandchildren, what happened in Iraq will permanently complicate his life.

"OK, we're going to take the 62 to the 108," says Felicia Echeverria, an orientation and mobility trainer with Junior Blind of America who is teaching Acosta how to travel by bus.

Echeverria has been working with Acosta since February, helping him adapt to 24-hour darkness.

"He's amazing," she says, telling me she hasn't had many students with his courage and determination. He has already graduated from white cane to German shepherd, and now he's making his first attempt to ride a bus with his new dog and report for computer and GPS training at Junior Blind headquarters in the Southwest Los Angeles area.

"Forward," Acosta commands when the bus door opens.

Charley sets a paw on the first step of the bus. Acosta, with a firm grip on the dog's harness, dangles a foot off the curb and searches the empty space between sidewalk and bus.

The move is daunting. It's a short step, but it's also a leap of faith, with invisible geometry to negotiate. Acosta is balanced on one foot, dog tugging, passengers waiting and watching.

With Charley's help, Acosta finds his way. He's up the stairs and telling the bus driver to please announce his transfer stop when they get to it. He asks her if there's an open seat on the left or the right, and looking in her rear-view mirror, she gets it wrong. Acosta is about to sit in someone's lap when the passenger tells him the open seat is on his right, not his left.

He sits down, relieved, pulls Charley back out of the aisle and takes a breath. Everyone on the bus is watching. When you're blind, Echeverria says, you lose your privacy.

The driver forgets to tell Acosta his stop is next, so Echeverria fills the gap.

"I guess I better get used to this," he says without a trace of self-pity. This is a man who lifts weights every morning in the backyard and still has a military bearing and sense of purpose.

The transfer is clean. Acosta doesn't trip or bump into any poles, as he's done more than once. He has to get this down cold, he says, because early next year he'll go back to work with the Southern California Gas Co., traveling by bus to Downey. His days of house calls as a customer service rep are done, but the company has told him it will find something else for him.

Bumping along on Slauson, I ask Acosta why he did it. Why, in 2002, did he re-enlist in the Army Reserve, as he had done previously after seven years of active duty following high school? Was it Sept. 11?

"No, not really. I'm a warrior, and I still had a lot left in me."

The call to duty came in the spring of 2005, with deployment to Iraq in late October. His wife, Connie, had trouble with it, proud of her husband but tired of sharing him with the Army. He told her it was a safe assignment -- a logistics and supply operation at Camp Anaconda along the Euphrates River near Balad, Iraq.

"Little did I know they called Anaconda 'Mortaritaville,' " Acosta says.

The mortars flew into the base every day. Then a first sergeant, he commanded 43 soldiers and routinely ordered them to dive for cover. He was doing just that Jan. 16, 2006, when he was hit. A shard of shrapnel ripped through his left eye, destroyed the nerve that controls taste and smell, nicked his brain, then took out his right eye.

"They say I was crawling around on the ground, shouting orders," says Acosta, who remembers nothing. Only later did he learn that surgeons spent more than seven hours trying to save him. Then he was flown to Germany for more treatment.

"I got a call from the doctor in Germany," Connie says. "He said, 'You know, I tried to get him to where he would ever see light again.' He cried with me -- the doctor. He said, 'I'm sorry, but he'll never be able to see again.' "

Several surgeries followed, with more to come. Acosta's palate and several teeth were blown out of his head, and doctors have taken bone from his hip to rebuild the palate. When he eats a hamburger, he puts familiar textures together with memories of what cheese and mustard tasted like. "I try to savor it," he says.

"I hope it was worth it, Mr. Bush," says Echeverria, who has a tear in her eye.

But Acosta doesn't engage. He says he believed in the cause when he re-enlisted, and even now, traveling across the city in eternal darkness - and weighted, perhaps, with a touch of guilt for the sacrifice his wife and family must make - he doesn't question his service.

Acosta represents the best of the American fighting man. I salute him and his service to country on this Veterans Day.

Power or Partnership? The Collapse of Liberal Internationalism

Over at the new International Security, Charles Kupchan and Peter Trubowitz have a really interesting article on the decline of liberal internationalism in American politics (pdf).

The liberal international paradigm characterized much of American postwar foreign policy. Successive U.S. administrations sought to marry American economic and military preponderance to policies of international cooperation and institutionalization. According to Kupchan and Trubowitz, the collapse of the bipartisan consensus on foreign policy in the American political system has decimated the liberal international project. These trends have received a push with the power-oriented foreign policies of the George W. Bush administration. Here's a key segment:

The conditions that sustained liberal internationalism have of late been rapidly disappearing, dramatically weakening its grip on the nation’s politics. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, U.S. primacy has reduced the incentives for Republicans and Democrats alike to adhere to the liberal internationalist compact. Unipolarity has heightened the geopolitical appeal of unilateralism, a trend that even the threat of transnational terrorism has not reversed. Unipolarity has also loosened the political discipline engendered by the Cold War threat, leaving U.S. foreign policy more vulnerable to growing partisanship at home. “Red” and “Blue” America disagree about the nature of U.S. engagement in the world; growing disparities in wealth have reawakened class tensions; and political pragmatism has been losing ground to ideological extremism.

The polarization of the United States has dealt a severe blow to the bipartisan compact between power and cooperation. Instead of adhering to the vital center, the country’s elected officials, along with the public, are backing away from the liberal internationalist compact, supporting either U.S. power or international cooperation, but rarely both. President Bush and many Republicans have abandoned one side of the liberal internationalist compact: multilateralism has received little but contempt on their watch. Meanwhile, the Democrats have neglected the other side: many party stalwarts are uneasy with the assertive use of U.S. power. As the partisan gyre in Washington widens, the political center is dying out, and support for liberal internationalism is dying with it. According to Jim Leach, one of the Republican moderates to lose his House seat in the 2006 midterm elections, “[The United States’] middle has virtually collapsed. And how to reconstruct a principled center, a center of gravity in American politics, may be the hardest single thing at this particular time.”

Prominent voices from across the political spectrum have called for the restoration of a robust bipartisan center that can put U.S. grand strategy back on track. According to Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton, “For more than a half a century, we know that we prospered because of a bipartisan consensus on defense and foreign policy. We must do more than return to that sensible, cooperative approach.” Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney echoes this sentiment: “It seems that concern aboutWashington’s divisiveness and capability to meet today’s challenges is the one thing that unites us all. We need new thinking on foreign policy and an overarching strategy that can unite the United States and its allies.”

These exhortations are in vain. The halcyon era of liberal internationalism is over; the bipartisan compact between power and partnership has been effectively dismantled. If left unattended, the political foundations of U.S. statecraft will continue to disintegrate, exposing the country to the dangers of an erratic and incoherent foreign policy. To avoid this fate, U.S. leaders will have to fashion a new brand of internationalism—one that will necessarily entail less power and less partnership if it is to have a chance of securing broad domestic support. To find a new equilibrium between the nation’s commitments abroad and its polarized politics at home, the United States will need a grand strategy that is as selective and judicious as it is purposeful.

I enjoyed reading this piece. Especially valuable is Kupchan and Trubowitz's discussion of the collapse of American bipartisanship in domestic politics.

The problem with the discussion, it seems to me, is how the authors find so much fault with the tightening of left-right political positions between the parties and their constituencies. The assumption is that bipartisanship is always good for the direction of foreign policy, that politics must stop at the water's edge for good foreign relations. That's a value judgement, I would argue, that's not empirically validated by the analysis. Politics - domestic and foreign - requires the mobilization of political bias, a clarity in elucidating the stakes of political alternatives. Laments over the collapse of bipartisan cooperation often reflect a naivity on the realities of political hard ball.

What is more, I would suggest that the foundations of the postwar bipartisan consensus - which are found in the shared memories and sacrifices of the World War II experience - are not something that can be easily replicated. The Soviet threat of the early Cold War generated political clarity among political actors, and the bipartisan consensus held before the United States sustained a burst of democratization with the rights revolution of the 1960s. While the authors broach these issues, the article reflects some utopianism on the prospects of the political system returning to the status quo ante pre-1960s.

What's noteworthy as well is how Kupchan and Trubowitz - as academic as they are - essentially indict the Bush administration for providing the final nail in liberal internationalism's coffin. This is a partisan analysis parading as scholarly objectivity.

Intriguing too is the authors' urgency: We are at the precipice in our international relations, it is announced, necessitating a return to a political centrism supportive of international institutionalism. Note, though, that while Kupchan and Trubowitz call for a "new equilibrium" abroad which will require "a grand strategy that is as selective and judicious as it is purposeful," their policy proposals amount to little more than stale Democratic talking points on the need to renew global alliances, cooperation, and strategic restraint. Such a movement in U.S. foreign policy would do little to restore the domestic bipartisan consensus on America's international role. Indeed, such a shift would likely restore America to a foreign policy of impotence, insecurity, and incivility, a foreign policy reminiscent of the international relations of the Carter and Clinton years.

From Abu Ghraib to Georgetown: A Veteran's Reflections

William Quinn, an Iraq war veteran, describes the experience of returning to civilian life in today's Washington Post:

The only feeling I've ever had that was more surreal than arriving in a war zone was returning from one.

I came home on R&R in 2005 after eight months in Iraq. Heading for the baggage claim in Detroit, I watched travelers walking and talking on their cellphones, chatting with friends and acting just the way people had before I'd left for Baghdad. The war didn't just seem to be taking place in another country; it seemed to be taking place in another universe. There I was, in desert camouflage, wondering how all the intensity, the violence, the tears and the killing of Iraq could really be happening at the same time that all these people were hurrying to catch their flights to Las Vegas or Los Angeles or wherever.

Riding home that day with my parents, I felt nervous, too exposed in their Ford Taurus. There was no armor on the car, and it felt light. We stopped at every red light and stop sign, and I saw potential dangers everywhere, even though I-94 heading into the city was nothing like Baghdad's Airport Road. There were no torched trucks or craters left by bomb blasts. I think it was the neatness of it all that made me uncomfortable. It seemed that staying alive shouldn't be so easy.

I've been out of Iraq for more than two years now. I have a different life, as a college student. But some of those feelings are still with me. After dedicating a year to a conflict of such enormous complexity, I find that college feels a bit mundane, and it's inexplicable to me that people here seem to be entirely untouched by the war....

People on campus don't think about the war very much. It rarely comes up in conversation, either inside or outside the classroom. Some professors have encouraged me to share my experiences, and some students have expressed interest in my past. Last semester, one wrote an article about another Iraq veteran and me for the campus newspaper. And this semester I dedicated about 250 words of a 900-word paper to the problem of sectarian violence in Iraq for a class on international relations. But that was the first time in my three semesters here that I was asked to formally consider the war for a class.

Beyond that, my theology professor gave a lecture last year that challenged students to find God in Iraq. My philosophy professor used Baghdad to describe what the philosopher Thomas Hobbes may have meant when he said that life in the state of nature would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." But that's about it. One student actually told me to stop thinking about Iraq. "You need to get rid of all that baggage and let yourself live," she said. "We need to be shallow sometimes."

I find it frustrating that Facebook is a bigger part of most students' lives than the war. After my first semester, I decided to rejoin the Army by signing up with the ROTC. I felt a bit guilty for having done only one tour in Iraq while friends of mine have done two or three. And I didn't want to forget the war. I may be prejudiced, but many of my college peers seem self-absorbed. I didn't want to end up like that.

You could rightly say a lot of negative things about soldiers. Many are crude. Some visit prostitutes; some commit adultery. I've known some who are bigots. It would be a lie to say that every soldier behaves honorably at all times. When I was stationed in South Korea from 2003 to 2005, I was often embarrassed by soldiers who were loud, obnoxious and insulting to Koreans. Men in their early 20s act like men in their early 20s, whether they wear a uniform or not.

Nonetheless, the Army's values are important to soldiers. They may not always live up to them, but they do when it matters most. Soldiers are selfless; they are courageous; they are loyal. The most interesting intellectual conversations I've had have been with others in the military. They discuss things not to impress you but because they're trying to figure them out. They're faced with difficult situations, and they want to make sense of them. Though many privately question our government's policies, they do their duty, which lies beyond the political debate.

This culture of duty is at odds with the culture of individualism and self-promotion that seems paramount here in college. And yet, the divide between my soldier friends and my fellow students isn't the result of any fundamental differences between the people themselves. Many of my peers at school know much more about the world around them than my fellow soldiers do -- international relations is a popular subject at Georgetown. My Army friends used to laugh when they saw me reading the Economist; my friends here think everyone should read it. Students talk about refugees from Iraq, North Korea, Burma and Darfur with sincere compassion. One of my friends told me: "I want to dedicate my life to educating people about the sufferings of others."

That's a wonderful goal, but I often feel that the words ring hollow. Students' true priorities are demonstrated by their daily activities: They have friends to meet, parties to attend, internships to work at, extracurricular activities to participate in, papers to write and classes to attend. They're under a lot of pressure to build a strong resume for whatever company or graduate school they apply to after college. They're under no pressure to be concerned about those who are less fortunate -- or those who fight wars on their behalf.

I'm proud to be a student at Georgetown. Though I find some aspects of campus culture discouraging, I have a lot of respect for my professors and peers. But there are still days when I think about what it must be like back in Baghdad -- and wonder whether that's where I should be.

Read the whole thing. Quinn's matter-of-fact demeanor is impressive. Sometimes I wish I'd had as much existential clarity when I was younger.

An American Coup d'Etat?

Frank Rich goes off the deep end in his column today, arguing that the United States has suffered a "quiet coup" during the Bush years. Rich precedes his declaration of an American coup d'etat with some incoherent rambling on the disaster of Pakistan:

AS Gen. Pervez Musharraf arrested judges, lawyers and human-rights activists in Pakistan last week, our Senate was busy demonstrating its own civic mettle. Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, liberal Democrats from America’s two most highly populated blue states, gave the thumbs up to Michael B. Mukasey, ensuring his confirmation as attorney general.

So what if America’s chief law enforcement official won’t say that waterboarding is illegal? A state of emergency is a state of emergency. You’re either willing to sacrifice principles to head off the next ticking bomb, or you’re with the terrorists. Constitutional corners were cut in Washington in impressive synchronicity with General Musharraf’s crackdown in Islamabad.

In the days since, the coup in Pakistan has been almost universally condemned as the climactic death knell for Bush foreign policy, the epitome of White House hypocrisy and incompetence. But that’s not exactly news. It’s been apparent for years that America was suicidal to go to war in Iraq, a country with no tie to 9/11 and no weapons of mass destruction, while showering billions of dollars on Pakistan, where terrorists and nuclear weapons proliferate under the protection of a con man who serves as a host to Osama bin Laden.

General Musharraf has always played our president for a fool and still does, with the vague promise of an election that he tossed the White House on Thursday. As if for sport, he has repeatedly mocked both Mr. Bush’s “freedom agenda” and his post-9/11 doctrine that any country harboring terrorists will be “regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

But here's the kicker, a "quiet coup" in America:

But there’s another moral to draw from the Musharraf story, and it has to do with domestic policy, not foreign. The Pakistan mess, as The New York Times editorial page aptly named it, is not just another blot on our image abroad and another instance of our mismanagement of the war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It also casts a harsh light on the mess we have at home in America, a stain that will not be so easily eradicated.

In the six years of compromising our principles since 9/11, our democracy has so steadily been defined down that it now can resemble the supposedly aspiring democracies we’ve propped up in places like Islamabad. Time has taken its toll. We’ve become inured to democracy-lite. That’s why a Mukasey can be elevated to power with bipartisan support and we barely shrug.

This is a signal difference from the Vietnam era, and not necessarily for the better. During that unpopular war, disaffected Americans took to the streets and sometimes broke laws in an angry assault on American governmental institutions. The Bush years have brought an even more effective assault on those institutions from within. While the public has not erupted in riots, the executive branch has subverted the rule of law in often secretive increments. The results amount to a quiet coup, ultimately more insidious than a blatant putsch like General Musharraf’s.

Sometimes I have to just shake my head at what's disguised as serious analysis on the commentary pages of the New York Times.

Rich can't be serious, can he? This essay's satire, right? It has to be. Where's the barbed wire ringing the homes of the administration's opposition? If Nancy Pelosi's feeling the heat, it's not from an authoritarian state, but from the antiwar contigents circling her home, calling for a quicker surrender in Iraq.

Lawyers in the street? Haven't seen 'em. Maybe they're still waiting for Bush/Cheney's announcement of a state of emergency?

The Bush administration's "subverted the law"? Wow, tell that to the federal courts, which have routinely reined-in the more aggressive administration anti-terror efforts.

But don't miss this ominous warning from Rich:

To believe that this corruption will simply evaporate when the Bush presidency is done is to underestimate the permanent erosion inflicted over the past six years. What was once shocking and unacceptable in America has now been internalized as the new normal.

What corruption? John Murtha as king of the congressional pork? Yup, both parties are implicated. Mukasey's confirmation proves it:

What makes the Democrats’ Mukasey cave-in so depressing is that it shows how far even exemplary sticklers for the law like Senators Feinstein and Schumer have lowered democracy’s bar. When they argued that Mr. Mukasey should be confirmed because he’s not as horrifying as Mr. Gonzales or as the acting attorney general who might get the job otherwise, they sounded whipped. After all these years of Bush-Cheney torture, they’ll say things they know are false just to move on.

Actually, Feinstein and Schumer may be a couple of the last remaining Democrats who haven't completely flipped their lids.

I can't say that for Frank Rich.

Check Memeorandum for additional commentary.

Realists Discover the Bush Doctrine

This weekend's "Hot Topic" commentary over at the Wall Street Journal argues that realists have caught the neoconservative spirit on Pakistani democracy:

Whatever Pervez Musharraf's failings in Islamabad, his impact in Washington has been nothing short of miraculous. With his declaration of emergency rule, the Pakistan President has single-handedly revived the Bush Doctrine. The same people who only days ago were deriding President Bush for naively promoting democracy are now denouncing him for not promoting it enough in Pakistan.

"We have to move from a Musharraf to a Pakistan policy," declared Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden on Thursday. "Pakistan has strong democratic traditions and a large, moderate majority. But that moderate majority must have a voice in the system and an outlet with elections. If not, moderates may find that they have no choice but to make common cause with extremists, just as the Shah's opponents did in Iran three decades ago."

Joe Biden, neocon.

The Senator's epiphany underscores that Pakistan has long been the playground not of democracy promoters but of the foreign-policy "realists." General Musharraf may have taken power in a coup, but when Colin Powell famously gave him the for-us-or-against-us choice after 9/11, the general chose "for." He is a U.S. ally in a rough neighborhood, his government captured such al Qaeda bigs as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and as an authoritarian he was of the moderate kind. The Bush Administration did push Mr. Musharraf to restore democratic legitimacy, but quietly and without great urgency. Brent Scowcroft would have approved.

Read the whole thing. See also my earlier posts on neoconservatism and Pakistan (here and here).

Barack Obama and the Dream of a Color-Blind America

Be sure to read today's lead story at the Wall Street Journal on Barack Obama and the politics of race in America. Obama's captured the hopes of many whites, who see in the Illinois senator's campaign the emancipation from racial guilt:

As he campaigns across the country, Sen. Obama, the son of a black father and a white mother, is both revealing and tapping into a changed racial landscape, especially among younger whites. After decades of often bitter polarization and racial tension on issues ranging from the spread of civil rights to affirmative action, many whites say they are drawn to Sen. Obama precisely because they think his mixed-race background reflects America's increasingly diverse population and projects a more optimistic vision of the country's racial future.

Sen. Obama's candidacy, whether it succeeds or not, appears to mark a turning point in race and politics in America: It is prompting significant numbers of white Americans to consider voting for him not despite his racial background, but because of it.

"Obama is running an emancipating campaign," says Bob Tuke, who is white and is the former chairman of the Tennessee Democratic party. "He is emancipating white voters to vote for a black candidate."

The aticle goes on:

Two decades ago, Jesse Jackson broke new ground by challenging whites to consider a black mounting a serious run for the presidency. Now Sen. Obama and a new generation of black candidates are running campaigns that make whites feel good about themselves. These younger black politicians, including Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Tennessee Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr., are, like Sen. Obama, seen by many whites as proof of the country's racial progress - and their own....

Race remains a wild card in American politics. Candidates such as Mr. Ford, who narrowly lost the Senate race in Tennessee last year, have often come close to election only to find race flaring at the last minute to blunt their momentum.

"Obama knows that just because people are saying one thing doesn't mean they will vote that way," says Tim King, the African-American head of a charter school in Chicago who has known Sen. Obama for a decade. "No one ever really knows what people do once they close the curtain in the voting booth."

Sen. Obama's popularity among whites also stirs uneasiness among many blacks. In the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, Sen. Obama trails Sen. Clinton among black voters 46% to 37%.

"There is a lot of debate [among blacks] over how appealing Obama is to white folks," says Mr. King. "People are saying, 'Is he too likeable to white people?"'

This last passage says a lot about the Obama campaign. Whites like Obama because he's non-threatening, with cross-over appeal. Blacks, on the other hand, don't see Obama as down with the 'hood.

I have to admit that I like Obama's multi-racial appeal. I'd like him even more if he'd switch parties and return to the language of personal responsibility and family values that he outlined in his speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston:

Obama's early message of hard work and individual effort has the potential to become the rallying theme of a new black movement toward greater upward mobility.

Unfortunately, his campaign's domestic policy platform has not lived up to that early vision of tradition and responsibility. His foreign policy, moreover, is much too idealisitic for America's current priorities in international affairs.

One-Sided Conversation? The Politics of Planting Questions

Via Ann Althouse, check out this YouTube of Hillary Clinton announcing a "consversation with America":

Clinton's national conversation has taken a decidedly scripted turn, with the revelations of a planted question at a campaign stop on Tuesday.

Here's what Michelle Malkin had to say about it:

Remember when Hillary launched her presidential campaign by touting her folksy bid to start a “conversation–with you, with America?” We knew it was phony baloney...

Captain Ed raises some interesting possibilities as well:

One might understand the reasons the campaign would "throw" a supposedly impromptu Q&A session after Hillary's disastrous debate appearance a fortnight ago. She clearly had not prepared to speak about Eliot Spitzer's plan to issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. Nor had she formulated any kind of coherent response to the demands to open her White House records while she insisted on running on her experience as First Lady as a reason to win the nomination. She could hardly afford any more hardballs.

However, this incident certainly calls into question whether Hillary has fixed previous sessions. So far, no one has come forward to allege any other question-planting in earlier appearances, but Grinnell [Iowa] seems a strange place to start. Just the fact that we know it happened once makes it reasonable to question whether it has happened before, and Hillary's credibility has been damaged enough to start investigating it. Once someone throws away their integrity, it is difficult to get it back.

It might be difficult for Clinton to get the big momentum back after another round of campaign goofs. Keep your eyes peeled for a tightening in the polls. Will Hillary Clinton be next year's Howard Dean?

Executing the Winning Strategy in Iraq

Kimberly Kagan's cover story at this week's Weekly Standard details the operational changes that have brought military victory in Iraq. Here's the introduction:

The surge of operations that American and Iraqi forces began on June 15 has dramatically improved security in Baghdad and throughout Iraq. U.S. commanders and soldiers have reversed the negative trends of 2006, some of which date back to 2005. The total number of enemy attacks has fallen for four consecutive months, and has now reached levels last seen before the February 2006 Samarra mosque bombing. IED explosions have plummeted to late 2004 levels. Iraqi civilian casualties, which peaked at 3,000 in the month of December 2006, are now below 1,000 for the second straight month. The number of coalition soldiers killed in action has fallen for five straight months and is now at the lowest level since February 2004. These trends persisted through Ramadan, when violence had typically spiked. "I believe we have achieved some momentum," General Raymond T. Odierno, commander of coalition combat forces in Iraq, said modestly in his November 1 press briefing. Since security was deteriorating dramatically in Iraq a year ago, how U.S. commanders and soldiers and their Iraqi partners achieved this positive momentum deserves explanation, even though hard fighting continues and the war is not yet won.

"As we assess the security gains made over the past four months, I attribute the progress to three prominent dynamics," General Odierno explained. "First, the surge allowed us to eliminate extremist safe havens and sanctuaries, [and] just as importantly to maintain our gains. Second, the ongoing quantitative and qualitative improvement of the Iraqi security forces are translating to ever-increasing
tactical successes. Lastly, there's a clear rejection of al Qaeda and other extremists by large segments of the population, this coupled with the bottom-up awakening movement by both Sunni and Shia who want a chance to reconcile with the government of Iraq." These dynamics worked together to improve security.

After President Bush decided to change strategy and increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, the goal became to secure Iraq's population from violence in order to allow civic and political progress. Generals David Petraeus and Odierno implemented the new strategy and determined how to use the additional troops.

Generals Petraeus and Odierno conducted three successive, large-scale military operations in 2007. The first was Fardh al-Qanoon, or the Baghdad Security Plan, which dispersed U.S. and Iraqi troops throughout the capital in order to secure its inhabitants. The second was Phantom Thunder, an Iraq-wide offensive to clear al Qaeda sanctuaries. The third was Phantom Strike, an Iraq-wide offensive to pursue al Qaeda operatives and other enemies as they fled those sanctuaries and attempted to regroup in smaller areas throughout Iraq. These military operations have improved security throughout central Iraq.

The additional forces, General Odierno explained, permitted "a surge in simultaneous and sustained offensive operations, in partnership with the Iraqi security forces. Furthermore, it allowed us to operate in areas that had not yet seen a sustained coalition presence and to retain our hard-fought gains. Our ability to put pressure on al Qaeda and other extremists and deny them safe havens and sanctuaries increased significantly. This was done with the goal of protecting the population and in concert with political and economic initiatives to buy time and space for the government of Iraq."

Read the whole thing.

Kagan also outlines the military's success in rooting out and destroying Iranian-backed terrorist cells and in neutralizing extremist elements of Moktada al-Sadr's militia.

With the consolidation of success in Iraq, many analysts are raising their sights to victory in the larger, worldwide anti-terror struggle.

Carolyn Glick, in her essay over at Real Clear Politics, notes that as in Iraq, defeating our enemies elsewhere entails actually fighting them, rather than pursuing policies of deterrence and appeasement.

See also Robert Satloff's piece over at the Washington Post. Satloff argues that with the departure of Karen Hughes from the White House (Hughes is undersecretary of state for public diplomacy), the Bush administration has an historic opportunity in its last year to prioritize ideological warfare over public relations in combating the scourge of nihilist Islamist radicalism.

Economic Anxiety May Be Trouble for GOP

I was thinking about the relationship between politics and the economy upon reading this Wall Street Journal report on recent jitters in financial markets:

The credit crisis sparked by mortgage problems reared its head anew, as stocks tumbled on fears about shaky financial institutions. This time, the dollar's fall to record lows and oil's flirtation with $100 a barrel added to the worrisome brew.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 360.92 points, or 2.64%, to 13300.02. The index has now wiped out all of its gains since the Federal Reserve on Sept. 18 made the first of its two recent interest-rate cuts, sparking a short-lived rally that sent the Dow to a record high Oct. 9.

Wall Street is once again nervous about how much damage remains from subprime mortgages and other bad credit, even after tens of billions of dollars in write-downs. The wave of credit-rating downgrades on mortgage securities continued yesterday, and bank shares were especially hard-hit. Shares of Washington Mutual Inc., a major lender, lost 17%, and after the market closed American International Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley reported new write-downs connected to housing problems. (See related article.)

Something else is beginning to nag at investors. The dollar and oil are pushing to opposite extremes, one to record lows and the other near record highs. Gold, an age-old refuge in times of financial turmoil, is once again above $800 an ounce. The combination of economic worries and market movements is reminiscent of the chaotic 1970s, when the U.S. was beset by inflation, recession and a stock market going nowhere.

The global economy is much different today than it was then. Inflation is generally under control, and most investors trust central banks to keep it that way. The U.S. economy, though slowing, has kept growing even as higher energy prices hit consumers.

Still, the parallel points to some challenges that policy makers are trying hard to manage. One is the threat of inflation. Another is the risk of a broad international loss of confidence in America and its currency, which has long been the place where countries with big foreign reserves put the bulk of their assets.

In testimony yesterday, Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve Chairman, noted that housing instability may pose deep dangers to the economy, but overall prospects remain for price stability and growth in employment.

That said, the Los Angeles Times has an interesting story today on the political economy of the 2008 elections. Here's the introduction:

Republican strategists are beginning to fear that a deteriorating economy will pose serious obstacles for their party's presidential candidates, who may ultimately have to answer for rising gas prices and a slumping housing market.

For most of the year, the campaign has been dominated by dueling positions on the war in Iraq, national security, immigration and healthcare. But with gas prices topping $3 a gallon and home foreclosures a deepening concern, the struggling economy could trump other issues in next year's general election campaign.

President Bush is in his second term and can't face reprisal at the polls. So to the extent there is a voter backlash, it would be aimed at the president's party -- chiefly the Republican candidates vying to succeed him, GOP consultants said.

Economic forecasts are worsening: On Thursday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said he expected a "sluggish" economy in the coming months. With millions of sub-prime mortgages due to be reset over the next 14 months, he said, more homeowners are at risk of default. The stock market has been volatile, dropping more than 393 points over the last two days.

"Any economic pain comes out of the hide of the Republican Party," said Don Sipple, a Republican strategist based in California.

"It's one more advantage for the Democrats."

Said Bill Whalen, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and an aide in the unsuccessful 1992 reelection campaign of President George H.W. Bush: "What a weak economy does is, it lets the Democratic nominee go out and ask the Ronald Reagan question: Are you better off today than you were eight years ago?"

When the economy is not doing well, a political truism goes, the economy becomes the issue. Hyperinflation during Jimmy Carter's administration paved the way for Reagan in 1980. In the 1992 race, "The economy, stupid" became the catchphrase of Democrat Bill Clinton's successful campaign, reminding staffers to focus on the recession that emerged in 1990-91.

Now, said Scott Reed, campaign manager for Republican Bob Dole's failed presidential bid in 1996, "the economy has shot up to the No. 1 issue over the last 30 days, eclipsing Iraq. You have to remember that people vote their pocketbook."

A dip in the economy that squeezes voters would fit the narrative laid out by the leading Democratic candidates. All have said that middle-class Americans have lost ground under the Republican administration, and they have rolled out plans aimed at making healthcare and education less expensive.

Robert Samuelson made the case this week that a recession next year is possible, although economic slumps aren't all bad.

Yeah, tell that to the GOPers running against the gloom-and-doom Democratic candidates in next year's elections.

Ron Paul Basks in Fundraising Glow

The Los Angeles Times reports that Ron Paul is basking in the glow of his recent one-day take of $4.2 million in campaign contributions:

He may be pushed to the edge of the stage, literally and figuratively, when the candidates debate. He languishes in the low single digits in polls.

But Rep. Ron Paul is getting his moment in the sun in his long-shot bid for the Republican presidential nomination after this week's formidable online fundraising - a reported $4.2 million in a single day.

The Texas congressman with the sharp libertarian bent thanked his supporters Wednesday for what is one of the best single-day fundraising totals in presidential campaign history. He insisted the event is not an anomaly but a sign of real progress, a claim supported by several Web commentators.

"Amazing! I have to admit being floored by the $4.2 million you raised yesterday for this campaign," Paul wrote to his supporters, adding: "What momentum we have! Please help me keep it up. As you and I know, and our opponents are only suspecting, we have success on our minds and in our hearts."

Assuming the fundraising pledges are fulfilled, the total would nearly match Paul's receipts for the entire previous quarter and put him well on the way to his goal of $12 million for the final three months of 2007. About half of the 36,672 donors (average contribution $103) were giving for the first time.

Mainstream political commentators continued to give Paul -- who advocates an immediate U.S. pullout from Iraq and the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service and Department of Education -- little or no chance of winning the Republican nomination.

But several commentators said the ability to raise so much money so quickly had enhanced his credibility and would force other candidates and the media to take Paul seriously.

"This is the single biggest example of people-power this [election] cycle," wrote Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of the liberal-leaning website the Daily Kos. "And as annoying as it is that we're seeing it from a Republican -- and a crazy one at that -- it's nevertheless a beautiful thing to behold."

Salon.com commentator Glenn Greenwald wrote that the Paul campaign had become "a bona fide phenomenon of real significance."

Greenwald argued that Paul was catching on with people "hungry for a political movement which operates outside of our rotted political establishment and which fearlessly rejects its pieties, even if they disagree with some or even many of its particulars."

Well, as I've noted before, Paul is attracting all sort of fringe elements from across the political spectrum. But Paul's endorsement by Daily Kos and Glenn Greenwald - more than anything else I've seen - puts the lie to whatever core ideology those two hard-left bloggers presumably espouse. Indeed, as Kos and Greenwald demonstrate, any political figure who denounces the administration and the war - no matter how whacked out - will gain the backing of the country's most heinous America-bashers.

Reagan Library Can't Account for Thousands of Items

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, has suffered from a security breakdown that has resulted in the loss of an untold number of valuable artifacts. The Los Angeles Times has the story:

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library is unable to find or account for tens of thousands of valuable mementos of Reagan's White House years because a "near universal" security breakdown left the artifacts vulnerable to pilfering by insiders, an audit by the National Archives inspector general has concluded.

Inspector General Paul Brachfeld said that his office was investigating allegations that a former employee stole Reagan memorabilia but that the probe had been hampered by the facility's sloppy record-keeping.

"We have been told by sources that a person who had access capability removed holdings," Brachfeld said in an interview. "But we can't lock in as to what those may be."

The hilltop complex near Simi Valley that houses Reagan's papers -- as well as the Air Force One that served as the "Flying White House" for seven presidents -- is the most visited of the nation's 12 presidential libraries. Many of those facilities are understaffed. And many are struggling to keep track of hundreds of thousands of presidential gifts, including valuable objects bestowed by foreign leaders, American folk crafts, and T-shirts and political buttons.

But, investigators said, they encountered the most serious problems at the Reagan library, a finding that may mortify fans of the late president, who often inveighed against government inefficiency.

About six months ago, an archivist was accused of stealing from the collections and was fired, said a longtime volunteer at the library who asked not to be named for fear of reprisal. "It's just awful," she said. "He was someone in a position of trust."

Of particular interest is whether the artifacts that are unaccounted for include pieces from a large collection of ornamented Western belt buckles given to Reagan over the years by admirers who knew of his attachment to his ranch.

A National Archives spokeswoman said the agency had accepted the audit's criticisms and was working to fix the problems. Some library volunteers say they were called in this summer to start a massive inventory project that could take years to complete.

The theft of historical objects from library collections has become a serious problem across the country in recent years. Against that background, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) pushed for the audit of presidential libraries. He feared that artifacts associated with former presidents might attract thieves seeking to supply a burgeoning market for memorabilia.

"This report is a wake-up," Grassley said. "These papers, records and other items have historical value and should be safeguarded for the education and benefit of future generations of Americans."

Most gifts to presidents become property of the American people, and presidential libraries use them to tell a story in ways that documents alone cannot. The gifts are considered part of the libraries' museum collections. The Reagan library, for example, has displayed some of the belt buckles given to the former president, and an exhibit of First Lady Nancy Reagan's dresses and suits will be staged this week.

The audit found that the Reagan library was unable to properly account for more than 80,000 artifacts out of its collection of some 100,000 such items, and "may have experienced loss or pilferage the scope of which will likely never be known."

This story makes me sad. I keep telling myself to go and visit the Reagan Library. Now I'm thinking I better get over there before all the valuable memorabilia is gone.

It's unthinkable that people would steal from what is essentially a national monument. Of course, I'm never one to underestimate the essential venality of human nature.

The Next Step in Pakistan

Charles Krauthammer provides a nice recap of America's Cold War policy of balancing democracy and dictatorships. Looking out for national interests involves a careful weighing of the two regime alternatives, but at some point democratization become the best bet. It's that time in Pakistan:

Pakistan is not the first time we've faced hard choices about democratization. At the height of the Cold War, particularly in the immediate post-Vietnam era of American weakness, we supported dictators Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. The logic was simple: The available and likely alternative -- i.e., communists -- would be worse.

Critics of America considered this proof of our hypocrisy about defending freedom. Vindication of these deals with the devil had to wait until the 1980s, by which time two conditions had changed.

First, external conditions: The exigencies of the existential struggle of the Cold War were receding as the Soviet empire was rapidly weakening. Second, internal changes in Chile and the Philippines produced genuinely democratic opposition movements with broad popular support and legitimacy.

With a viable democratic alternative at hand, the Reagan administration turned about and decisively helped push the two dictators out of power. Under the assistant secretary of state for East Asia, Paul Wolfowitz, we supported Corazon Aquino's "people power" revolution in the Philippines and arranged a Hawaii exile for Marcos. Under the assistant secretary of state for Latin America, Elliott Abrams, we pushed Pinochet into a referendum that he lost, ushering in the transition to today's flourishing Chilean democracy.

The only thing we know for sure about Pakistan is that there will be no such happy ending. President Pervez Musharraf was a good bet in 2001 when, under extreme pressure from the Bush administration, he flipped and joined our war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. But like Marcos and Pinochet, he has now become near-terminally unpopular, illegitimate and destructive to his own country. Is it time to revisit the 1980s and help push him over the edge?

That depends on whether we think Benazir Bhutto is Corazon Aquino and whether Bhutto and her allies can successfully take power, which means keeping both the army and the country intact. Heightening the risk of dumping Musharraf is that external conditions today are not like the relatively benign conditions of the 1980s. The Taliban and its allies are gaining in strength and waiting to pick up the pieces from the civil war developing between the two most westernized, most modernizing elements of Pakistani society -- the army, one of the few functioning institutions of the state, and the elite of civil society, including lawyers, jurists, journalists and students.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice attempted to engineer a marriage of these two factions by trying to orchestrate Bhutto's return to Pakistan under a power-sharing agreement that Musharraf has just blown to pieces.

Our influence should not be overestimated. But we need to make clear our choices. The best among the awful ones Musharraf has presented to us is to try to broker a truce between the two forces before the blood starts to flow, keep Musharraf to his promise of holding early parliamentary elections -- which Bhutto will win -- and then guarantee him a dignified and gradual exit that ensures his protection while Bhutto and her allies claim legitimate authority and try to reach an accommodation with Musharraf's successor as military chief.

That sounds like a plan. See also my earlier post on neoconservatism and Pakistan.

Rudy Giuliani is GOP's Tough Guy

Yesterday's big political news was Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani for the GOP presidential nomination. Why would a top leader of the Christian right back the socially liberal former New York Mayor?

Today's Los Angeles Times argues that Giuliani's cultivated a tough guy image with a combative style on the hustings. This tough love approach may be paying off, even with hardline conservatives:

With his intense demeanor and aggressive policy stances - such as pledging to "prevent" Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon or to "set them back five or 10 years" - Giuliani has methodically built an image as the toughest guy on the block, unafraid of looking belligerent in the cause of keeping America safe.

Though it isn't always pretty up close, Giuliani's demeanor seems to be working. He leads the national polls for a Republican nomination that many believed he could never win because of his relatively liberal views on abortion and other social issues.

As a counterweight to his positions on social policy, Giuliani has broadened his image, once narrowly rooted in his leadership after Sept. 11, to one that projects strength on many fronts.

The man who led New York City through the trauma of terrorist attacks has promised to keep Al Qaeda on the defensive, possibly even sending troops into Pakistan uninvited. The man who chased prostitutes from Times Square now casts himself as a defender of free speech for religious groups and a protector of families from crime, drugs and high taxes.

And the man who governed a Democratic city as a Republican mayor, staring down the "toughest labor unions that anybody ever met," is promoting himself as the strongest opponent to the Democrats' presidential front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

On the campaign trail, some of Giuliani's rough City Hall edges are smoothed -- a familiar scowl has been replaced by frequent smiles and even a chuckle. But Giuliani has honed his own style of combativeness. As some in New Hampshire saw recently, he is unafraid to dole out tough love.

The article goes on:

Giuliani's success has exposed an unusual dynamic in the GOP primary race: National security and electability are trumping cultural issues. It is a dynamic that few anticipated last year, when former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain of Arizona began their aggressive courtships of evangelical leaders, such as the late Rev. Jerry Falwell.

The primacy of national security was on display Wednesday, when Christian Broadcasting Network founder Pat Robertson endorsed Giuliani, citing Islamic terrorists' "blood lust" as the top issue facing the country and calling Giuliani the best equipped to handle it.

Though the former mayor's national poll numbers have not risen above the low 30s, he maintains double-digit leads over his closest GOP rivals. And at least some social conservatives appear to be increasingly willing to support Giuliani, despite disagreeing with him on abortion, gay rights, immigration and gun control, and in spite of his three marriages and his strained relations with his children.

Viewed as the strongest GOP contender and the most able to defeat Clinton in the general election, the former mayor is winning support from nearly a third of Republican voters who believe abortion should be outlawed, according to a recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey. Many rank-and-file social conservatives appear willing to shirk calls from some leading Christian conservatives, such as Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson, to respond to a Giuliani victory in the primary race by leaving the GOP and backing a third-party contender.

He leads in national polls, and surveys show Giuliani running relatively strong in several key early-voting states, including conservative South Carolina. While Giuliani is running second in New Hampshire behind Romney, a recent Rasmussen Reports survey showed that 77% of likely GOP primary voters in that state viewed Giuliani favorably - more than any other candidate.

This is all very interesting, but it's nothing to write home to mom about. Giuliani's still in the thick of a competitive race. Iowa and New Hampshire could be make or break, especially if Mitt Romney, or one of the other GOPers, builds insurmountable momentum with a set of early victories in those two key first-in-the-nation contests.

I like Giuliani, though. He's not my first pick, but his national standings are competitive and he'd give Hillary Clinton a good thrashing in the general election.