A Thanksgiving Day Smackdown

I was surprisingly tickled yesterday!

I consider holidays like Thanksgiving to be political truce days among bloggers. So I was caught off guard by Michael Van Der Galien's decisively penetrating takedown of Libby Spencer's recent post pumping up Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

Ms. Libby's the publisher of an extremely hard-left Bush-bashing blog, The Impolitic. In my previous blogging persona I used to regularly visit there, attacking Ms. Libby for her outlandish diatribes against the administration, the war, and anything else under the conservative sun.

Ms. Libby's post yesterday, "Loving Chavez," was published at her co-blogging site, The Newshoggers (whose main publisher Cernig has delusions of foreign policy expertise, but that's another story).

After a rambling introduction about how she's been to Venezuela, and how well she knows the Venezuelan people (blah, blah), and how Chavez's consolidation of dictatorial power comes amid "significant support among the majority of that nation's poor," Ms. Libby got down to her main point:

Whatever you think of Chavez and his admittedly abrasive style, the majority of his people love him. It strikes me that all this talk about his tyranny is more than a little misplaced considering Venezuelans have more of a voice in their government than we do under Bush.

I didn't respond at the post, as I was temporarily banned from the comments by The Newshoggers for my relentless and unassailable attacks on the blog's anti-Americanism and irrationalism. That's where Van Der Galien comes in. He's provided a precise riposte to Ms. Libby's authoritarian sympathizing:

At The Newshoggers, Libby writes: “Now I don’t want to get into a debate over whether Chavez is crazy, or a communist or pursuing the right policies for Venezuela. I honestly don’t know the answer to that, but I do know that he is a democratically elected leader who still enjoys significant support among the majority of that nation’s poor.” And, more importantly to the left, of course: “These are the people who take to the streets to protest Chavez and his programs to help his country’s poor and in a way one can understand their hatred for him. Chavez, whom they consider to be an upstart meztito, has instituted socialist policies that have redistributed the wealth and power more equally and it came at their expense.”

To top it off, she also compares Chavez to Bush: “It strikes me that all this talk about his tyranny is more than a little misplaced considering Venezuelans have more of a voice in their government than we do under Bush.”

Now that is misplaced. Lord knows I respect Libby and consider her a friend, but she’s way out there on this one.

Firstly, it does matter whether Chavez is a wannabe dictator or not.

Secondly, he’s amassing so much power that it’s already difficult to say whether the majority truly supports his reforms or not.

Thirdly, whether oppression is supported by the majority or not, doesn’t make it any more acceptable. Many Germans supported the Nazis for instance.

Fourthly, comparing Bush to Chavez and then concluding that citizens have more influence under Chavez’s rule than under Bush’s presidency is utterly ridiculous and it says tons about your prejudice and lack of ability to understand nuances if you argue that it is worse under Bush than under Chavez. Bush has yet to close down newspapers or networks that are critical of him for instance.

Fifthly, it never ceases to amaze me that for all the talk about freedom, many progressives actually only care about one thing: distribution of wealth. It’s not truly about freedom (if it were, they would constantly celebrate America where people are still more free than anywhere else in the world, yes really) at all. They only use ‘freedom’ when it suits their agenda.

Sixthly, the reason many progressives continue to support Chavez is that he’s anti-capitalism, anti classical liberalism and anti-America. In other words, Chavez’s enemies are the enemies of many progressives. As we all know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It’s the same everywhere: in Europe and America, the driving forces of the progressive ideologies are the same.

Quite troubling.

Again, I respect Libby, but progressives shouldn’t make the mistake of defending Chavez. Ever.

Michael's too nice, I would argue. Ms. Libby needed the smackdown, so it's none too soon. But what followed the exchange was even more interesting. Rather than defend her position, Ms. Libby wrote the lamest retraction imaginable, where she states:

I am not saying that I personally love Chavez. I don't. But his people do and who knows why? I think the guy is kind of crazy and I don't think he should be president for life but my understanding is, the referendum will extend the term of the presidency from 6 to 7 years and eliminate term limits. The people will vote and decide. That's not really the same thing as declaring a dictatorship, is it?

Well, actually it is. Venezuelan elections are not free and fair. The Chavez regime intimidates the opposition, and the support he does have has been manufactured through social policy largesse and manipulation of the nation's media. His anti-American foreign policy follows a long line of opportunistic Latin American caudillos railing against the Yanqui hegemon to the north. On the eve of the December 2 referendum, the growing activity of the Venezuelan opposition has called into question the notion of overwhelming popular support.

Besides Ms. Libby's quick backtracking, she also visited another blog highlighting her stupidity to mount a lame disclaimer (Blue Crab Boulevard's "Defending The Indefensible"):

You misread the intent of my post Gaius, as did many others. I updated so I’m not going to repeat the explanation, but in no way should that post be taken as advocating for Chavez’ policies.

How utterly spineless and completely preposterous!

I already despise Ms. Libby (and I don't say that lightly, as I tend to avoid the type of political hatred common on the left). But let's get real: Nobody misread the post. Ms. Libby is an unreconstructed neo-Marixt who never tires of slandering the Bush administration. She calls the United States a police state. She backs the international policies of America's enemies and supports the collapse of U.S. sovereignty through an open-borders immigration policy.

Ms. Libby also refuses to recognized the danger from Iran's foreign policy of Middle East revanchism, and when challenged, she just throws up her hands, and throws out ad hominem attacks.

Recall how I mentioned Van Der Galien's too nice? Well, he's a right-of-center blogger who's got career aspirations in online media (as far as I can tell). He's not out to ruffle any feathers. His blog's popular too, getting a lot of prominent play at Memeorandum. A former co-editor at the disastrously non-moderate "Moderate Voice," he's got power over folks like the fawning Ms. Libby. One critical word and she'll be high-tailing back to her keyboard to disclaim her nihilist views, lest the hits on her Sitemeter drop to deeper lows of marginalization and ignominy.

That's not how I blog. Political blogging is hardball. I defend my positions and I don't curry favor. If I make a mistake I'll say so, not to maintain shameless networking ties in the political blogosphere, but to uphold my commitment to integrity. That commitment's clearly absent in the cowardly anti-Americanism of Ms. Libby Spencer.

A Vote of Confidence on Iraq

The Times of London has an editorial discussing the return of Iraqi refugees from Syria, via Dr. Sanity:

The figures are hard to estimate precisely but the process could involve hundreds of thousands of people. The numbers are certainly large enough, as we report today, for a mass convoy to be planned next week as Iraqis who had opted for exile in Syria return to their homeland. It is one of the most striking signs that not only has violence in Baghdad and adjacent provinces decreased dramatically in recent months, but confidence in the economic and political future of Iraq has risen sharply. Nor is this movement the action of men and women who could easily reverse course and turn back again. Tighter visa restrictions imposed by Damascus mean that those who are returning to Iraq cannot assume that they could quickly retreat again to Syria if that suited them. This is, for many, a one-way decision. It represents a vote of confidence in Iraq.

The homecoming is not an isolated development. The security situation in Baghdad, while far from totally peaceful, has improved substantially in the past few months, with civilian fatalities falling by three quarters since the early summer. This has been reflected on the streets with markets, clubs and restaurants that had been closed for months, especially at night, now reopening. This good news has not attracted the attention that it should because critics of the conflict in 2003 and its aftermath have been extremely reluctant to acknowledge progress in the country. Yet even observers from publications long hostile to US policy in Iraq, such as The New York Times, are finally conceding that “the violence has diminished significantly since the United States reinforced troop levels in Iraq and adopted a new counter-insurgency strategy”.

The “surge” associated with General David Petraeus is indeed paying extraordinary dividends. The positive effects were seen in Anbar province, which had become a hotbed of Sunni resistance to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and are increasingly seen in the Iraqi capital. It has enabled Sunnis to disassociate themselves decisively from al-Qaeda in Iraq, in effect switching sides, while some of the extreme Shias linked to the rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr have felt obliged to observe a ceasefire. All these fundamental shifts have allowed Iraqis the chance to rebuild an economy that, particularly with oil at its current price, should be among the strongest in their region. This opportunity has been recognised by exiles such as those who have been located in Syria. Iraq can only benefit from the return of some of its most talented citizens.

None of this means that Iraq is set on a certain path to imminent prosperity. While the numbers of car bombings and military fatalities have fallen dramatically there is always a risk that atrocities will take place. In fact, it is certain that there will be further tragedies. There remains a compelling need for the political parties and factions in Iraq to settle on an acceptable compromise on the Constitution, the internal distribution of oil revenues and the fate of those who were once members of the Baathist establishment.

The crucial point, however, is that American and British policy towards Iraq should reflect the optimism of the moment. Troops should not be withdrawn prematurely when tangible success is being recorded. It would be catastrophic for those soldiers to retreat just at the time when Iraqis themselves are returning home in droves.

I particularly like this line:

This good news has not attracted the attention that it should because critics of the conflict in 2003 and its aftermath have been extremely reluctant to acknowledge progress in the country.

As I've noted before, it's time for one and all, left and right, to pull together in securing victory in Iraq. We are too close, and the stakes are too high, for another round of partisan recrimations over the war.

See also, Charles Krauthammer, "On Iraq, a State of Denial."

The Demonization of Childbearing?

I've always thought postmaterial ideology to be somewhat odd, while nevertheless explicable. This essay on women who refuse to have babies for environmental reasons confirms my suspicions (via Memeorandum):

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.

Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."

This is a woman whose husband had a vasectomy at twenty-five (after she couldn't find an abortion) to satisfy a desire to "save the planet." The couple later divorced (no surprise there, with no babies to worry about).

The article goes on:

But Toni is far from alone.

When Sarah Irving, 31, was a teenager she sat down and wrote a wish-list for the future.

Most young girls dream of marriage and babies. But Sarah dreamed of helping the environment - and as she agonised over the perils of climate change, the loss of animal species and destruction of wilderness, she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child.

"I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do."

The growth of postmaterialist ideology is a well-studied phenomenon in the political science literature. According to Ronald Inglehart, following World War II, as the Western industrialized democracies recovered from material hardship and deprivation, many in the younger generations coming of age rejected the societal ethos of materialistic consumption in favor of more progressive views on environmentalism and the support for non-traditional values.

The decisions cited here, of the women to denounce childbearing as a threat to the survival of the world, is explicable according to this paradigm. Still, these views could be seen as representing the ideological demonization of childbearing. Without all those kids in tow, suburban moms won't need those big, carbon-busting SUVs!

Interestingly, Toni Vernelli, whose story begins the article, suggests that she and her circle of friends would rather adopt children than procreate. Certainly there are many children in need of loving homes, so that's an admirable sentiment. Maybe Third World countries will one day develop export markets in adoptable infants to meet the demographic crises of postmodern societies today facing baby shortages.

Thanking Our Troops

Capt. James Key, a chaplain in the U.S. Army at Fort Irwin, Calififornia, has a wonderful commentary at this morning's USA Today:

Last month, a generous couple reminded me that there are still a few people left in our society who haven't forgotten how to say "thank you."

I was sitting in a restaurant enjoying my lunch when the waitress returned to my table to inform me that a couple in another booth, who asked to remain anonymous, told her to put my bill on their credit card. She told me that they saw me in my uniform eating alone and wanted to show their appreciation by paying for my meal. She said, "It's no big deal. It's just their way of thanking you for serving our nation."

While this gesture of kindness might have been no big deal to the waitress, it was certainly a big deal to me. It restored my hope and assured me that no matter how people feel about the war — good, bad or indifferent — they appreciate the sacrifice and selfless service of our young men and women in uniform. And, based on the comments of other soldiers I know, such generosity is a quite common occurrence.

As we prepare to enjoy the days of the holiday season, let us remember that Thanksgiving is more than a four-day weekend off from work, but a time for families and friends to gather for a day of thanks. Unfortunately, sometimes we become overwhelmed by the daily events of life and forget to count our blessings or say "thank you" to those who have been a blessing to us. This is an age-old lesson.

More than 2,000 years ago, according to Luke 17:11-19, Jesus was on the border between Galilee and Samaria and was met by a group of 10 men who suffered from leprosy, a disease that disfigures the skin and at the time made the victim a social outcast.

When the 10 men saw Jesus they stood at a distance and called out in a loud voice, "Jesus, Master, have pity on us!" Jesus responded, "Go show yourselves to the priest." And as they went they were cleansed. But one of them, when he saw that he was healed, came back praising God. He threw himself at Jesus' feet and thanked him. Jesus asked, "Were not all 10 cleansed? Where are the other nine?"

Did the other nine not appreciate what Jesus did for them? Or were they so overwhelmed by joy that they simply forgot to say "thank you?"

The Thanksgiving season is a good time to stop to count the blessings, large and small, that fill our lives.

That couple who paid for my meal did more than simply provide my nourishment. They reaffirmed to me that we still live in a society that has not forgotten how to say "thank you" — including to our troops, many of whom will be working this holiday or celebrating it half a world away from their families so that the rest of us can have more reasons to be thankful.

I noted my reasons to be thankful in yesterday's post. We are blessed, and those blessings include the work of our fine military service personnel.

Hillary Clinton's Test of Responsibility

This morning's Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece laying out the challeges for Hillary Clinton in appealing to the hard left base of her party, while at the same time not straying too far from the center, in the hopes of not alienating centrist voters:

As Hillary Clinton huddled with advisers not long ago, she was pressed to stake a position popular with the party's left-leaning voters on one issue. But the presidential front-runner resisted. It wasn't her position.

"If I do what you all want me to do, I'll look great for the next couple months," she said, according to one insider's account. "But what if I'm the nominee? I'll be ripped apart by the Republicans. And what if I'm the president? My hands will be tied."

The New York senator's response captured the tension at the core of her 10-month-old presidential bid, and helps illuminate why she has hit a dangerously bumpy stretch as January's first nominating votes near. Sen. Clinton actually is running two campaigns at once -- courting left-leaning Democrats to get the nomination, but mindful even now of maintaining a sufficiently centrist course to withstand Republican attacks and win election next November.

Beyond that, Sen. Clinton views her campaign as a template for her possible presidency. Having witnessed Bill Clinton's early struggles reconciling campaign promises with governing - and guided by his private advice now - she knows first hand that what candidates say now for political points can haunt them as president. Close advisers call this caution her "responsibility gene."

The result: As the front-runner, Sen. Clinton has drawn attacks from Democratic rivals at a crucial moment on topics ranging from Iran to taxes, even while holding positions that could serve her well in a general-election campaign, or as president. She will be tested further with four more Democratic debates in December, before the ultimate test -- in the opening nominating contest Jan. 3 in Iowa.

Read the whole thing.

After the Philadelphia debate, where Clinton got herself into trouble with her response on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, I suggested to my students that Clinton's debate replies were too cerebral and clinical. She needs to give quick decisive answers, avoiding tying herself in knots. The Journal story notes this:

Despite her long exposure to the national limelight, she came late in life to a political career of her own, and has worked to develop her own voice. For example, she has never found it easy to give simple answers to questions. As First Lady, she once listened as White House press secretary Joe Lockhart briefly distilled for President Clinton what he, the aide, would tell reporters about some complex foreign-policy news.

She took him aside afterward, he says. "How do you do that?" she asked. "I need tolearn how to do that. I was trained as a lawyer -- I've always made an argument in paragraphs. I need to learn to speak in sound bites." That was his clue, he recalls, that she was contemplating a Senate run.

Even with her gaffes, I'd be surprised if Clinton did not win in Iowa. Even if she doesn't, her fundraising and national support in the polls should be substantial enough for her to recover going into the later contests, especially the "Giga" Tuesday round of national primary voting on February 5, 2008.

My problem with Hillary Clinton, as I've noted before, is her extreme malleability on the issues, especially on foreign policy. She's certainly been around the top levels of power, and she knows a thing or two about international policy. But her compulsive pandering to the antiwar base on Iraq - after having been a firm supporter of the Administration's policy - is a disaster. Clinton today justifies her 2002 vote to authorize regime change in Iraq by blaming President Bush for "misleading" the country with false intelligence. It's a puerile argument, and one not fit for a future commander-in-chief.

This is not just the dilemma of having to run "two campaigns at once." A true leader would have made a defense of her Iraq vote a crucial plank in the campaign. Clinton would have had to persuade the radicals she did the right thing in voting to topple Saddam. At the same time she could have reassured independent voters of her consistency and fitness to serve in the Oval Office.

Giving Thanks

I love Thanksgiving, sometimes more than Christmas (Joseph Epstein says it's the "adult holiday"). Here's a warm Thanksgiving greeting:

I hope all of you are celebrating the holiday with the people who mean most to you in the world. We truly have much to be thankful for. As Americans, we are living in the one of the most prosperous countries of the world at the most prosperous time in history. We must be thankful for the men and women who have left their homes to fight in our armed forces. We must be thankful for the researchers who have developed medicines and treatments that keep us alive so much longer than any other time in history. And we must be thankful for freedoms that we ordinary citizens share that are truly rare in the world's history. No matter what your gripe is, you can come to appreciate your luck at living here and now by just dipping into any history book about any other time. Then go enjoy your clean water, indoor plumbing, access to education and medicine and be thankful. There are many around the world today who don't enjoy those assets who would trade in their life situations in a flash to be in our places. So, let us indeed be thankful.

These wishes were written by Betsy Newmark.

I'm thankful to be blessed to live in such a rich and wonderful country. I'm thankful for the gift of God's bounty in America, in my freedom to succeed to the best of my ability, and to raise a family free from fear or want.

I'm especially thankful for all Americans who work to make the lives of other people better, for example our teachers and firefighters.

I'm extra, extra thankful for our military service personnel who have put themselves in harm's way to defend our interests and spread the cause of freedom to those nations less fortunate than ours.

Here's to wishing everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.

Planning Ahead is Cultural Racism?

A few bloggers have been posting on the story out of Washington State on the Seattle School District's notice to parents saying Thanksgiving should be a time of mourning for its Native American students. Fox News has the story:

Seattle public schools want a side of political correctness served on your Thanksgiving table.

Washington state's largest school district sent letters to teachers and other employees suggesting Thanksgiving should be "a time of mourning" for its Native American students.

The memo, from Caprice Hollins, the district's director of Equity, Race & Learning Support, included an attachment to a paper titled "Deconstructing the Myths of 'The First Thanksgiving.'"

It includes 11 "myths" disputing everything from what was served at the first Thanksgiving (no mashed potatoes or cranberries) and who provided the food to the nature of the Pilgrims themselves: Myth No. 3 calls the colonists "rigid fundamentalists" who came to the New World "fully intending to take the land away from its native inhabitants."

Click here to read the "myths."

But what got the Internet abuzz was Myth No. 11: "Thanksgiving is a happy time." It was followed by "Fact: For many Indian people, 'Thanksgiving' is a time of mourning ... a bitter reminder of 500 years of betrayal returned for friendship."

What's the kicker is the conclusion of the article:

Seattle Public Schools has been in the news before, not always for the performance of its students.

The U.S. Department of Education investigated in April after the district spent part of a federal Smaller Learning Communities grant to send 20 students to the "Eighth Annual White Privilege Conference."

After complaints last year, the district removed from its Web site a definition of racism that claimed planning ahead and individualism were examples of cultural racism.

On this holiday I'm thankful my children attend a good school, in a district that so far seems to represent traditional values and institutions in its curriculum.

My youngest son, who's in kindergarten, has been working on little picture stories, like "If I Were at the First Thanksgiving..." His teacher also had the kids create handprint Thanksgiving cards: A small child's handprint creates a turkey image: the thumbprint is the long neck (painted with eyes and turkey neck), and the fingers represent the plume of feathers (painted in different colors), and below the palm, the legs are added at the bottom. The card's inscription reads thus:

This isn't just a turkey as anyone can see. I made it with my hand which is part of me. It comes of love especially to say, "I hope you have a very Happy Thanksgiving Day!"

My son also came home with with one of those little Pilgrim hats, made from construction paper. These are the things I love about the school-age years. It's not so controversial, either.

Here's to planning ahead! Have a great day!

A Neoconservative Comeback?

Victor Davis Hanson has a new piece up at RealClearPolitics, "With Iraq Improving, Will Neocon Ideas Return?" Check it out:

More than seven months ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., claimed that Iraq was "lost."

But that was hardly the case. In fact, Sunni insurgents were just beginning to turn on al-Qaida and join us.

So now, despite their noisy anti-war base, most leading Democrats quietly are backing away from their talk about bringing American troops in Iraq home on rigid timetables.

Maybe they are learning that quitting Iraq now might be stupid politics since bad news - in fact, all news - from the front is making fewer and fewer headlines.

Democrats know that Republicans will use clips of more "General Betray Us" ads and defeatist assertions next summer when the election campaign heats up and there may be even more progress in Iraq.

Sober Democrats also suspect that their anti-war rhetoric is proving useful in other ways to the Bush administration. Their attacks on the elected al-Maliki government in Iraq often make them look like illiberal "bad cops" eager to pull the plug on the error-plagued but nevertheless constitutional government in Iraq just when it seems to be improving.

True, electric production still cannot provide Iraqis 24-hour service - but now the problem is partly because Iraqi consumption has soared above prewar levels. And oil production, while not quite yet at pre-invasion levels, is climbing - now nearly 2.5 million barrels a day, according to Iraq's oil minister. Plus, Iraq is benefiting from today's near-$100 per barrel oil prices.

More importantly, civilian casualties are down in Baghdad by 75 percent from June, according to the U.S. military. And Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki recently announced that terrorist attacks in Iraq have decreased by nearly 80 percent from last year.

In other words, for a variety of unforeseen reasons, the furor and partisan bad blood over Iraq are lessening here in the States. The debate over Iraq seems to be changing from "we can't win" to whether victory is worth the aggregate costs.

Expect this new battle to be more retrospective, as each side tries to inflate or deflate how much blood and treasure have been spent on the Iraq War - and whether the cost has led to greater American security both in and beyond Iraq.

As fear of defeat in Iraq recedes from the political landscape, look to a growing consensus elsewhere. "Neocon" - the term often used to describe "new" conservatives who today support fostering democracy in the Middle East - may still be a dirty word.

But if you take the anger about George Bush out of the equation, along with the Iraq war and the fear of any more invasions by the U.S., why not support democratic reform in the Middle East? We know the alternatives only play into the hands of terrorists.

Read the whole thing.

The neoconservative label's going to be a badge of honor for war supporters for a long time to come. As Bush's legacy improves, so will the prestige of the neconservative vision.

See my inaugural post at American Power for more on neoconservatism.

Hillary Clinton Plays Victim in New Campaign Ad

Just weeks after whining that she was up against an "all-boys club," Hillary Clinton is again playing the victim's card in a new advertisment castigating “The Republican Attack Machine”:

Here's the text:

Here they go again. The same old Republican attack machine is back. Why? Maybe it’s because they know there is one candidate with the strength and experience to get us out of Iraq. One candidate who will end tax giveaways for the big corporations. One candidate committed to cutting the huge Republican deficit. And one candidate who will put government back to work for the middle class.

The New York Times has an analysis of the ad, which questions its accuracy:

Mrs. Clinton promises to lead the country out of Iraq, but she does not mention that in 2002, she voted to grant President Bush the authority to take military action against Iraq. Both John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama have made similar promises to support middle-class voters and cut the federal deficit, though some budget analysts question the ability of Mrs. Clinton to balance the budget while increasing spending on health care and other programs. And on the experience front, Mrs. Clinton has frequently exchanged barbs with Mr. Obama over that issue — beyond their shared time in the Senate, Mr. Obama points to his time as a community organizer in Chicago, and she counts her tenure as first lady as time “in the White House.”

The Times also notes that the secondary object of the ad is to portray Clinton as the only Democrat with the leadership experience to stand up to the GOP. If that's the case, why play the victim's card?

The nihilist antiwar hordes eat up any and all attacks on the Republican "neocons," so Clinton may get some mileage out this message in any event.

The Power of the Federalist Society

Check out Jeff Jacoby's new column on the Federalist Society:

THE FEDERALIST Society is the nation's leading forum for conservative and libertarian thinking about the law and its impact on public policy. Its members include Supreme Court justices, law school professors, and more than 40,000 practicing attorneys and law students nationwide.

Yet in many precincts on the left, the organization has been regarded as a mysterious and somewhat sinister right-wing cabal. Democratic Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, for example, warns that "membership in the Federalist Society" and its "secret handshake" have become the keys to the judicial kingdom.The Federalist Society, thundered The Nation in 2001, "benefits big business, it's anti-egalitarian, it shuts plaintiffs like the poor and disabled out of the courts." Its members "lack compassion, working to support favorite sons like gun manufacturers and HMOs." (Actually, the Federalist Society does not bring lawsuits and never takes stands on political issues.)

After President Bush nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court two years ago, The Washington Post ran a Page 1 story on his ties to the group. "Roberts Listed in Federalist Society '97-98 Directory," the headline noted darkly. "Court Nominee Said He Has No Memory of Membership." Why a nominee's involvement with a legal debating society should be problematic wasn't clear, but as the story observed, "many Democrats regard the organization with suspicion."

That suspicion came in for some razzing here last week, when the Federalist Society marked its 25th anniversary with a black-tie gala in the capital's vast Union Station. Master of ceremonies Theodore Olson, the former solicitor general, congratulated the 1,800 guests on having made their way to an "intimate, clandestine gathering of the secretive Federalist Society."

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recalled the early 1980s, when members of the Washington, D.C., chapter would meet over lunch at a local Chinese restaurant.

At the first meeting he attended, Alito said, he was greeted by a colleague who remarked sheepishly: "This is like meeting someone at a bordello."

Those bordello days are a distant memory now....

The Federalist Society's remarkable growth and impact attests to the power of its ideas - above all, that the state exists to preserve freedom, that limited government and separated powers are essential to American constitutional democracy, and that judges have a duty to interpret the law, not invent it.

The organization flexes its muscle not through lobbying or endorsing judicial nominees, but through something even more potent: standing for principles and defending them in open and robust debate.

"There was a time when we thought that intellectual ferment was on the left and the right was brain-dead. The Federalist Society played a major role in reversing that assumption," says Walter Dellinger, a Duke University law professor who headed the Office of Legal Counsel and was acting solicitor general during the Clinton administration. It is one of a slew of testimonials that appear at the Federalist Society website, most of them from luminaries on the left.

At a time when so much of what passes for public discourse is poisonous and extreme, the Federalist Society's commitment to fostering dialogue and intellectual diversity is a priceless resource.

"The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas," Oliver Wendell Holmes observed. "The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." Perhaps the reason so many liberals persist in bad-mouthing the Federalist Society is that they fear Holmes was right.

I think Jacoby is right.

The Democrats on National Security

Joe Klein, in his column over at Time, starts out illustrating Democratic folly on national security, but then drops the ball:

Senator Christopher Dodd had a nice moment in the Democrats' Las Vegas presidential debate. Wolf Blitzer had crashed through Bill Richardson's blowsy, high-minded disquisition on the need to observe human rights in Pakistan, with the question, "What you're saying, Governor, is that human rights, at times, are more important than American national security?" Richardson seemed to gulp: Was I saying that? What do I do now? Uh, can't pull a Hillary. And so, very deer in headlights, he said, "Yes." This gave Blitzer license to ask each candidate the same question. Barack Obama wandered around in it. "The concepts are not contradictory ... they are complementary." True — but foolishly fuzzy. It was Dodd's turn next, and he said without hesitation, "Obviously, national security, keeping the country safe." He was quickly seconded by Clinton: "I agree with that completely."

But the damage had been done. The next day, I suffered through Rush Limbaugh lambasting the dopey Dems, who actually — can you believe this, friends? — put the rights of terrorists above the nation's security! That was ridiculous. All Richardson and Obama were saying was that support for human rights was an essential component of U.S. foreign policy. They are joined in this belief by George W. Bush, whose naive support for democracy in countries that aren't ready for it has destabilized the Middle East. Sadly, that sort of complicating detail isn't very useful in presidential campaigns. If Richardson or, more likely, Obama wins the nomination, the Republicans will have a ready-made "Human Rights for Terrorists" spot.

Dodd and Clinton were right on the merits and astute on the politics. If the Democrats want to win in 2008, they can't be mealymouthed on issues of national security. That doesn't mean they need to be witlessly hawkish. It doesn't mean they have to join the neoconservative frenzy for war with Iran. It means they have to make the arguments against folly with clarity, toughness and a heavy dose of Realpolitik. It means they will have to convince the public that they will be more effective and realistic overseas than the Republicans have been. No more "Freedom Agendas." No more quagmires. A renewed emphasis on cleaning out al-Qaeda, even if it means special operations against the terrorist camps in Pakistan (as Obama has suggested). It also means that in each and every debate, the Dems should acknowledge the progress being made in Iraq and ask the question, So why can't we start bringing home the troops now?

Get the troops out now? Klein needs to bone-up on post-conflict stability operations. Expert opinion suggests that the U.S. will need to keep 80 to 100 thousand troops in Iraq for the transition to local control (with the U.S. finally keeping residual troop contingents in-country for security and anti-terror operations).

No, what the Democrats need is another Harry Truman, a president who understands America's responsibility in the world and who's not afraid to deploy the nation's hard power to achieve its ends.

Iowa Voters Jittery on Trade Policy

Iowa voters are shifting toward protectionism on trade, as this Wall Street Journal article indicates, reporting from Waterloo, Iowa:

At a John Deere plant here, bright green tractors bound for Brazil, Russia and China roll off assembly lines. Global demand for tractors is good, and that's been good for Waterloo.

Yet over the last couple of years, workers and voters in this blue-collar manufacturing outpost -- and throughout Iowa -- have grown decidedly downbeat about globalization. Trade has become such a hot subject that Democratic presidential candidates seeking support in Iowa's influential Jan. 3 caucuses are turning into trade skeptics, and the issue is splitting traditionally free-trade Republicans.

Iowa's ambivalence is all the more remarkable because the state is on the whole a big winner from global trade. "Iowa, as much as any other state, is on the plus side of the ledger," says James Leach, a 30-year Republican congressman from Iowa who now runs Harvard University's Institute of Politics. "It would be highly ironic if pro-protectionist candidates prevailed in the Iowa caucuses." Trade wasn't always such a high priority: In the 2004 Iowa caucus, Richard Gephardt, the most outspoken Democrat on the issue, attracted so few votes he subsequently pulled out of the race.

As the 2008 presidential election approaches, anti-trade sentiment is percolating across America. It is particularly strong in places like Ohio, where foreign competition has decimated jobs. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted earlier this month found that 60% of voters nationwide agreed with the statement that "foreign trade has been bad for the U.S. economy."

Iowa's anxiety stems from a mix of factors, many of which are also at play in other Midwestern swing states. By many measures, the global economy has been good for the state. Boosted by the ethanol and biofuels craze and surging demand for crops and farm equipment world-wide, Iowa's exports are up 77% over the past four years versus 50% nationally. The state's unemployment rate hovers around 3.7%, below the national 4.6% average.

But the past couple of decades have seen a steady decline in once-prized factory jobs, from a high of 252,700 in 1999 to 231,000 today. Just this year, Iowa lost about 1,800 jobs when appliance-maker Maytag, now owned by Whirlpool Corp., shuttered its plant in its home town of Newton. (The jobs moved to Ohio, but foreign competition was a key reason Maytag was acquired by Whirlpool.) Wages haven't kept pace with inflation, and employers here, as elsewhere, have been paring health and retirement benefits.

Many Iowans blame their difficulties on global trade. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll of Iowa Democrats conducted in September found that by 42% to 33% they favored a candidate who believes trade pacts hurt the U.S. economy over one who believes they benefit the economy; Republicans were evenly split at 39%. (The balance said they didn't know or hadn't a preference.)

The article notes that the Democratic presidential hopefuls are pandering to these trade fears:

On a recent Tuesday, the crowd at Des Moines Area Community College bursts into loud and sustained applause when Mr. Obama vows to make sure "that globalization is not just working for multinational companies."

In Cedar Rapids, workers nod as former Sen. John Edwards tells them that "the negative effects from globalization are rippling through the economy." In perhaps the most telling development, Democratic front-runner Mrs. Clinton says the North American Free Trade Agreement -- which her husband pushed through Congress -- has "serious shortcomings."

It's hard to shake the sense that American worked have struggled amid increasing global economic interdependence. Unfortunately, while Democratic proposals for "fair trade" policies stressing labor and environmental standards might play well in Peoria (or Waterloo), such a shift would mark a dangerous turn away from the centrist pro-integration trade policies of the Bill Clinton adminstration in the 1990s.

A recent article in Foreign Affairs, "A New Deal for Globalization," made a troubling case for an interventionist approach to trade adjustment, focusing on establishing redistributive payroll tax policies in exchange for "saving" American support of trade openness.

The Democrats are also joined by many Republicans, who have grown increasingly skeptical of free trade policies. Together the concerns of voters all around may be creating a perfect storm for the dismantling of the post-World War II trade consensus in the U.S.

The implications of a protectionist, redistributive turn on trade policy are far reaching. As Carla A. Hills, a former U.S. Trade Representative during the G.H.W. Bush administration, noted in a 2005 Foreign Affairs article:

The U.S. experience since World War II proves that increased economic interdependence boosts economic growth and encourages political stability. For more than 50 years, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the United States has led the world in opening markets. To that end, the United States worked to establish a series of international organizations, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO)....

The results to date have been spectacular. World trade has exploded and standards of living have soared at home and abroad. Economist Gary Hufbauer, in a comprehensive study published this year by the Institute of International Economics, calculates that 50 years of globalization has made the United States richer by $1 trillion per year (measured in 2003 dollars), or about $9,000 added wealth per year for the average U.S. household. Developing countries have also gained from globalization. On average, poor countries that have opened their markets to trade and investment have grown five times faster than those that kept their markets closed. Studies conducted by World Bank economist David Dollar show that globalization has raised 375 million people out of extreme poverty over the past 20 years.

And the benefits have not been only economic. As governments liberalize their trade regimes, they often liberalize their political regimes. Adherence to a set of trade rules encourages transparency, the rule of law, and a respect for property that contribute to increased stability. Without U.S. leadership...the world would look very different today.

Candidates of both parties may find it hard to resist the protectionist persuasion, and the outcome of these trends may be one of the most important consequences of the 2008 presidential election.

Illegals to Get Identification Cards in San Francisco

The national gridlock on immigration has produced some far-left innovation in San Francisco, where city leaders are prepared to grant illegal aliens municipal ID cards. The San Francisco Chronicle supports the idea:

San Francisco, once again, is heading to the policy-making edge. It's on the verge of issuing municipal ID cards to illegal immigrants.

In a city where voters favor an immediate pullout from Iraq and impeachment of President Bush, it's no surprise. Depending on one's point of view, the cards are a humane step to offer outsiders a measure of security - or more defiance from a city that's already declared itself a sanctuary from federal border controls.

So how will it work and what will it really achieve? The plan is touted by its chief sponsor, Supervisor Tom Ammiano, as a benign effort to help marginalized residents open bank accounts and seek city help from, say, police or health clinics. Without any official plastic, these San Franciscans can be exploited or left helpless, he suggests.

Yet it's hardly that simple. No other big city has gone this far, so potent are anti-immigrant emotions and legal uncertainties. A state bill to allow driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants remains stalled in Sacramento. A rewrite of national immigration law aimed at giving legal status to millions of undocumented residents hit the political rocks in Congress last summer, and the issue remains a big issue on the presidential campaign trail.

But in this city, the choice is a no-brainer. After near-unanimous approval by the Board of Supervisors, Mayor Gavin Newsom is expected to sign the plan. No loud debate, no marches, no big deal.

The next steps are unclear. Issuing the cards - no one knows how many - could cost from $1 million to $3 million over three years, a city report states. Also, there's no guarantee that the city's ID card will be enough to open a bank account, one of the purported reasons for the idea. Bank of America and Wells Fargo are politely listening, but representatives for both institutions say the cards alone won't be enough to open an account. To do that, conventional identification on the order of a driver's license, passport or alien registration card are needed.

Zeroing in on practical shortcomings misses the point of the measure. San Francisco, fed up with a contrary national mood, is going its own way in easing the lot of immigrants. The ID cards won't instantly confer legal status or achieve all the advertised goals. But they are welcoming gesture to neglected segment of the city.

San Francisco's a city that loves to go its own way in defying national laws and standards (remember the city's gay marriage law?). The purpose here is simply to further consolidate its santuary city status and get the California debate rolling on a new effort to grant driver's licenses to illegals.

Ill-considered local movements to legalize aliens are all the more reason immigration reform needs to return to the front of the national policy agenda in 2008 and into the next administration. The country needs to slow the flow of aliens crossing the border and to assimilate those who are already here, and that process will require a discussion of how we will legalize the millions of lawbreaking migrants who are now in society's shadows.

No Point in Annapolis Peace Conference

Check out Bret Stephens' commentary on the forthcoming Annapolis conference, an American-sponsored diplomatic initiative designed to jumpstart peace in the Middle East:

Henry Kissinger once observed that "when enough prestige has been invested in a policy it is easier to see it fail than abandon it." At the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., next week, the current secretary of state will illustrate her predecessor's point.

"Annapolis," as it is spoken of in diplomatic circles, was conceived earlier this year by the Bush administration as a landmark conference that would revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and lead to a final settlement by January 2009. It was to be modeled on the Madrid conference of 1991, which brought Israeli leaders face-to-face with their Arab counterparts and, as it seemed at the time, created a new paradigm in the affairs of the Middle East. Back then, the idea was that the Iron Wall between the Jewish state and its neighbors could be brought down just as the Berlin Wall had. Today, the operative theory is that Israel's neighbors, fearful of Iran's growing regional clout, have a newfound interest in putting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to rest.

Nice theory--if only the locals would get with the concept. The Egyptians are openly skeptical about the conference, which they say lacks "an endgame." The Saudis, supposedly among the beleaguered and newly pliable Sunni powers, can hardly be bothered with Annapolis; even now it's unclear whether their foreign minister will attend. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has told the Saudis he would rather resign than attend a conference that achieves nothing. He fears Palestinians would "turn to Hamas after they see that Annapolis did not give them anything," according to an unnamed Palestinian official quoted in the Jerusalem Post.

Then there are the Israelis, who have even better reasons than the Sunnis to fear Iran. Yossi Beilin, architect of the 1993 Oslo Accords and a political dove, predicts not only that Annapolis will fail, but that its failure will "weaken the Palestinian camp, strengthen Hamas and cause violence." His political opposite, Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu, calls Annapolis "dangerous" and warns that Israel risks giving away everything for nothing in return. Few Israelis take seriously the view that the creation of a Palestinian state offers a solution to their concerns about Iran. On the contrary, they fear that such a state would become yet another finger of the Islamic Revolution, just as Hezbollahstan is to their north in Lebanon, and Hamastan is to their south in Gaza.

Read the whole thing. Stephens notes that expectations of progress have been dialed back dramatically, and the conference - now called a "meeting" - might not be held next week as planned. It's no wonder, given some of the archaic negotiating positions to which the Palestians still cling:

As for the agenda, there isn't one. Substantive discussions have been ruled out. There was some hope that Israelis and Palestinians would agree to a joint "declaration of principles," but they could not come up with a common text. Now there's talk of issuing separate declarations, or doing without declarations altogether.

Among the principles sharply in dispute is whether Israel is a Jewish state. "We will not agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state," says Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, adding that "there is no country in the world where religious and national identities are intertwined." Counters Mr. Olmert: "We won't have an argument with anyone in the world over the fact that Israel is a state of the Jewish people. Whoever does not accept this cannot hold any negotiations with me."

See also Great Satan's Girlfriend for more analysis. Here's her synopsis of the conference participants:

The Internat'l Palestinian Sympathy Fatigue Awareness Week at Annapolis seems like another futile jaw flapping event. Legitimate reps from a legitimate, democratically elected government of a sovereign nation parley with chaotic, illegitimate bi polar terrorist loving, civil war infected fiefdoms whose 'diplomats' are determined more by loyalty to a leader than to their own people.

The Jerusalem Post has more.

But don't miss Caroline Glick's post on the deteriorating anti-nuclear diplomacy of the Middle East.

Our Choice on Iran

Joshua Muravchik, at USA Today, makes the case for a final confrontation with Iran over its nuclear development program:

Our choice is stark. Accept Iran with an atom bomb or cripple its nuclear program by force. Nothing else will stop Tehran.

States rarely get talked out of instruments of power, especially not fanatic ones. China and Russia will veto sanctions that might really bite, but those would not work anyway. Neither India nor Pakistan abandoned their bombs in response to sanctions. The ouster of Iran's hard-liners might change things, but under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei, extremists seem more firmly entrenched than a decade ago.

The dangers an Iranian bomb would present are intolerable. Iran is the pre-eminent sponsor of terrorism. Iranian weapons are responsible for a large share of U.S. casualties in Iraq. Our forces in Afghanistan have intercepted Iranian arms shipments to the Taliban. Argentina has indicted Iranian officials for blowing up a Buenos Aires Jewish center. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said Tehran was behind Hamas' armed takeover of Gaza. Iran provides haven to fugitive leaders of al-Qaeda. The list goes on.

A nuclear attack by terrorists would be almost impossible to deter. Against whom would we threaten retaliation?

Iran also might launch a nuclear missile at Israel, which Ahmadinejad wants "wiped off the map." Israel could strike back, but so what? Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani boasted "the use of an atomic bomb against Israel would totally destroy Israel, while (the same) against the Islamic world would only cause damage." And he's the "moderate" alternative to Ahmadinejad.

Even without initiating an attack on us or an ally, Tehran would use its nuke as an umbrella over its drive to dominate the Middle East and beyond. Like Lenin and Hitler, Admadinejad has a grand vision. "Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution ... will soon reach the entire world," he crows. Bolstered by nukes, Iran's aggressive ambitions would not be stopped without a big war.

Only strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities can forestall these terrible scenarios. This would not require a "declaration of war," an antiquated concept that has not been employed since World War II and rarely before. We would send no troops, conquer no land. Rather, we would act in pre-emptive self-defense.

At stake are supreme issues of national safety. The president alone, as Alexander Hamilton said, is positioned to operate with "decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch." Of course, Congress can block presidential action, but in this case, most members will be satisfied to stand clear and let the president do what must be done.

For more on the Iranian threat, see John Bolton's recent argument, Targeted Force Only Option Left on Iran." See also Time's, "10 Questions For John Bolton."

Ron Paul's Fifteen Minutes Are Up

I wasn't planning on writing another Ron Paul post for some time, but I found a great piece on Paul's agenda over at Foreign Policy's Passport blog, "It's time for Ron Paul's 15 minutes to be up":

Ron Paul is a seductive mistress. His popularity on MySpace and YouTube is now legendary. It helped him raise more than $5 million in the third quarter of this year's fundraising cycle. Even some among the media elite — on both sides of the aisle — can't resist his charm. Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan gets downright giddy over Paul. And liberal Hardball host Chris Matthews (who cut his teeth under big government, East Coast Democrat Tip O'Neill) has declared of the libertarian from Texas: "He's my guy! I love Ron Paul!"

But do people understand what Paul really stands for? Like every siren song, his policies are fraught with danger. Let's take a look:

1. Foreign Policy and the Constitution. Paul is what you might call a Constitutional originalist. He divines his governing philosophy from the Constitution and America's Founders. But his understanding of their vision is profoundly flawed. Paul appears to believe the founders vested absolute authority for foreign-policy making in Congress, not the executive. "Policy is policy," Paul wrote in 2006, "and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive." But there's almost no evidence the founders saw it in such simplistic, absolute terms. Law professor Michael Ramsey, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, recently noted (pdf) this in very eloquent terms in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Reasonable people can agree that Congress has failed its oversight responsibilities with regard to Iraq and the Bush Doctrine. But Paul's thinking here is simply not supported by the weight of historical evidence.

2. "Noninterventionism." This is the word Paul uses to describe his foreign policy, and he insists the term also encapsulates the vision of the Founders. While Paul claims "noninterventionism" is not isolationism, it sure sounds like it is. For instance, he even seeks to dismantle the Bretton Woods system of international cooperation born from the ashes of the Second World War (more on that below). Isolationism by any name, friends, is still isolationism. Sure, such sentiments were rampant in 18th and 19th century America and before WWII. The same sentiments are resurfacing today as a backlash against Iraq. Intelligent people can disagree about the Bush Doctrine's place in history. But let's not make up facts. The post-9/11 period has been filled with literature by such historians as John Lewis Gaddis and Walter Russell Mead debunking the notion that the founders were only concerned with domestic security and never saw an ideological component to America's place in the world.

3. Iraq. Let's assume Paul is right that foreign-policymaking powers are vested in the Congress. Why, then, does he keep promising that as president he will "immediately" pull U.S. troops out of Iraq? Presumably he intends to govern as he says the Founders intended. But there's a deep contradiction here. If as president he will have no authority to execute foreign policy except as Congress dictates, how can he promise on the campaign trail to get American troops out of Iraq? I don't get it.

And let's focus for a second on the word "immediate." This is a cheap campaign trick. People in the know agree it will take between six and 14 months to get the troops and equipment out. Paul might seek to immediately begin getting the troops out. But don't be fooled. It's going to be a long and costly process. Or does Paul just intend to leave the equipment and bases behind for the Iraqis to use in the ensuing civil war?

4. "World governmental organizations." That's how Paul refers to the Bretton Woods institutions. He wants America out of the World Trade Organization, the North America Free Trade Agreement, and the United Nations, among others. Paul's official Web site warns visitors: "Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor's prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned." There is a fine line between Rudy's fear mongering over 9/11 and Ron's fear mongering over the United Nations, friends. Next comes talk of black helicopters. The U.N. has problems, sure, but does anyone serious really believe that the world would be better off without the United Nations? And, given that there's no indication other countries are about to close the doors on these institutions -- many of which the United States in fact founded -- isn't America better off having some influence within them? Paul says that, without clout inside the system of institutions which binds all other modern nations, America will be strong thanks to "open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy." Sure, and we can all sit around the camp fire and sing Kumbaya with Kim Jong Il.

5. Iran. As recently as April 2006, Paul said, "Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there's no evidence that she is working on one—only conjecture." I'm for unconditional, bilateral dialogue with Iran. I believe there's time to deal with Tehran in non-military terms. But you'd have to be a fool to believe Ahmadinejad when he says his nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. In fact, I can't think of a single person in the foreign-policy community who thinks Iran's nuclear intentions are pure. Earth to Ron, come in Ron.

This is a great entry. Note though that Mike Boyer, the post's author, is not some stereotypical "neocon crazy" whom the Paulites rail against. He's critical of the rush to war on Iran among neoconservative cadres.

See also my earlier posts on Ron Paul, which have brought out the Paulite hordes in droves, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The Decline of the Academic Tenure Track

Today's New York Times has an interesting article on the decline of tenure-track posts at America's colleges and universities:

Professors with tenure or who are on a tenure track are now a distinct minority on the country’s campuses, as the ranks of part-time instructors and professors hired on a contract have swelled, according to federal figures analyzed by the American Association of University Professors.

Elaine Zendlovitz, a former retail store manager who began teaching college courses six years ago, is representative of the change. Technically, Ms. Zendlovitz is a part-time Spanish professor, although, in fact, she teaches nearly all the time.

Her days begin at the University of Michigan, Dearborn, with introductory classes. Some days end at 10 p.m. at Oakland Community College, in the suburbs north of Detroit, as she teaches six courses at four institutions.

“I think we part-timers can be everything a full-timer can be,” Ms. Zendlovitz said during a break in a 10-hour teaching day. But she acknowledged: “It’s harder to spend time with students. I don’t have the prep time, and I know how to prepare a fabulous class.”

The shift from a tenured faculty results from financial pressures, administrators’ desire for more flexibility in hiring, firing and changing course offerings, and the growth of community colleges and regional public universities focused on teaching basics and preparing students for jobs.

It has become so extreme, however, that some universities are pulling back, concerned about the effect on educational quality. Rutgers University agreed in a labor settlement in August to add 100 tenure or tenure-track positions. Across the country, faculty unions are organizing part-timers. And the American Federation of Teachers is pushing legislation in 11 states to mandate that 75 percent of classes be taught by tenured or tenure-track teachers.

Three decades ago, adjuncts — both part-timers and full-timers not on a tenure track — represented only 43 percent of professors, according to the professors association, which has studied data reported to the federal Education Department. Currently, the association says, they account for nearly 70 percent of professors at colleges and universities, both public and private.

The decline of tenured positions may be having an effect on the quality of education:

Adjuncts are less likely to have doctoral degrees, educators say. They also have less time to meet with students, and research suggests that students who take many courses with them are somewhat less likely to graduate.

“Really, we are offering less educational quality to the students who need it most,” said Ronald G. Ehrenberg, director of the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute, noting that the soaring number of adjunct faculty is most pronounced in community colleges and the less select public universities. The elite universities, both public and private, have the fewest adjuncts.

“It’s not that some of these adjuncts aren’t great teachers,” Dr. Ehrenberg said. “Many don’t have the support that the tenure-track faculty have, in terms of offices, secretarial help and time. Their teaching loads are higher, and they have less time to focus on students.”

Dr. Ehrenberg and a colleague analyzed 15 years of national data and found that graduation rates declined when public universities hired large numbers of contingent faculty.

Several studies of individual universities have determined that freshmen taught by many part-timers were more likely to drop out.

“Having an adjunct in a course is not necessarily bad for you, but having too many adjuncts might be,” said Eric P. Bettinger, an economics professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

From my own experience, I've had outstanding professors who were adjuncts, and I taught part-time myself briefly, so I can understand the pressures facing academic "freeway flyers."

It's certainly the case that students would benefit more by developing deeper relations with their department's full-time tenured faculty. I also routinely hear of questions in my department regarding the quality of the part-time teaching contingent.

Electronically Fired Weapons: Astonishing Power!

Via Pat Dollard, check out this YouTube of the U.S. military's next generation firing platform:

Here's the text from Dollard's post:

After years of development, a new class of weapon that uses computer-controlled electronic ignition instead of primers to fire projectiles may be finally taking its much coveted place in the U.S. military inventory.

Brisbane, Australia-based Metal Storm has delivered a four-barrel weapon to the Naval Surface Warfare Center for testing that uses a small electrical current instead a conventional firing pin to deliver stacked rounds at an astounding rate.

How astounding? Try 1 million rounds per minute. That’s the rate, by the way, not the volume; still, there’s no way you want to be anywhere near the wrong end of one of these puppies.

One version, the Redback, features a remotely operated 40mm that can automatically track targets by slewing around at almost 2 complete revolutions per second, according to the company. “The employment of Metal Storm’s stacked round technology for a U.S. military weapon system is a huge step for us,” Metal Storm CEO Lee Finniear said in the company’s press release.

Electronically fired weapons and the general concept have been around for awhile–Austrian company Voere offers an electric, bolt-action hunting rifle–but nothing has approached Metal Storm (PDF). Metal Storm weapons use multiple, “lightweight, economical barrels” mounted in pods on a variety of platforms that can fire a wide selection of munitions.

The projectiles are stacked in-line in the barrel–nose to tail–so there are no magazines, no shell casings, and no mechanical components. This makes them ideal for unattended area denial or picket duty. They are also easily adapted to light vehicles and robot platforms. In fact, the company just signed an MOU with iRobot Government & Industrial Robots to combine its robot platforms with Metal Storm’s scalable systems.

“Together with Metal Storm, we aim to develop a superior next-generation weapons platform that ensures absolute safety and always places a human in the decision loop,” iRobot’s Joe Dyer promised in announcing the agreement. “When you are talking about weaponizing robots, there is no margin for error.”

Especially at a million rounds per minute.

Astonishing!

Norman Podhoretz: A Response to Andrew Sullivan

Norman Podhoretz has a penetrating essay on Iran's nuclear threat at Commentary Magazine:

In my article “The Case for Bombing Iran” (COMMENTARY, June 2007), in my book World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, and in various public appearances (including a televised debate with Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek), I quoted the Ayatollah Khomeini as having said the following:

We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

My source for this statement was Amir Taheri, the prolific Iranian-born journalist now living in London, who has also contributed a number of articles to COMMENTARY. Now, however, the Economist, relying on another Iranian-born writer, Shaul Bakhash of George Mason University, has alleged on its blog “Democracy in America” that Khomeini never said any such thing. “Someone,” says Mr. Bakhash, “should inform Mr. Podhoretz he is citing a non-existent statement.”

That “someone” has turned out to be Andrew Sullivan in his widely read blog, “The Daily Dish.” Linking to the Economist post, Sullivan accuses me of intellectual dishonesty for failing to admit that I have made an “error” in relying on a “bogus quotation” to bolster my argument that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it would not be deterred from using them by the fear of retaliation.

I do not usually bother responding to Sullivan’s frequent attacks on me, which are fueled by the same shrill hysteria that, as has often been pointed out, deforms most of what he “dishes” out on a daily basis. But in this case I have decided to respond because, by linking to a sober source like the Economist, he may for a change seem credible.

The Economist concludes its piece by challenging Amir Taheri to produce “the original source for this quote.” In response to a query from me, Mr. Taheri has now met that challenge. He writes:

The quote can be found in several editions of Khomeini’s speeches and messages. Here is one edition:

Paymaha va Sokhanraniyha-yi Imam Khomeini (“Messages and Speeches of Imam Khomeini”) published by Nur Research and Publication Institute (Tehran, 1981).

The quote, along with many other passages, disappeared from several subsequent editions as the Islamic Republic tried to mobilize nationalistic feelings against Iraq, which had invaded Iran in 1980.

The practice of editing and even censoring Khomeini to suit the circumstances is widely known by Iranian scholars. This is how Professor Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak, the Director of the Center for Persian Studies at the University of Maryland and a specialist in Islamic censorship, states the problem: “Khumayni’s [sic] speeches are regularly published in fresh editions wherein new selections are made, certain references deleted, and various adjustments introduced depending on the state’s current preoccupation” (Persian Studies in North America, 1994).

In any case, Mr. Taheri continues in his letter to me:

Your real argument is that Khomeini is not an Iranian nationalist but a pan-Islamist and thus would not have been affected by ordinary nationalistic considerations, including the safety of any “motherland.” This is known to Iranians as a matter of fact. Khomeini opposed the use of the words mellat (“nation”) and melli (“national”), replacing them with Ummat (“the Islamic community”) and ummati (“pertaining to the Islamic community”).

Thus, Majlis Shuray e Melli (“The National Consultative Assembly”) was renamed by Khomeini as Majlis Shuray Islami (“Islamic Consultative Assembly”). He also replaced the Iranian national insignia of Lion and Sun with a stylized calligraphy of the word Allah.

Thus, too, when he returned to Tehran after sixteen years of exile, Khomeini was asked by a French journalist, who had accompanied him on the Air France plane from Paris, what he felt. “Nothing,” the ayatollah replied. He then rejected the suggestion by his welcoming committee to kiss the soil of Iran. That would have been sherk, which means associating something with Allah, the gravest of sins in Islam.

Finally, Mr. Taheri rightly observes:

What is at issue here is the exact nature of the Khomeinist regime. Is it a nationalistic power pursuing the usual goals of nations? Or is it a messianic power with an eschatological ideology and the pretension to conquer the world on behalf of “The One and Only True Faith”?

Khomeini built a good part of his case against the Shah by claiming that the latter was trying to force Iranians to worship Iran rather than Allah. The theme remains a leitmotif of Khomeinists even today. . . . Those who try to portray this regime as just another opportunistic power with a quixotic tendency do a grave disservice to a proper understanding of the challenge that the world faces.

But this is not new. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot also had their apologists who saw them as “nationalists” with “legitimate grievances.”

So much for the allegation that the Khomeini quotation is “non-existent.” But there is another quotation I have cited repeatedly in the course of showing why Iran would not be deterred by the fear of retaliation. This one is a statement by the supposedly moderate former President Rafsanjani:

If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession . . . application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.

In chiding me for using this statement as well, all the Economist can come up with is the feeble objection that “some say Rafsanjani was misleadingly quoted.” Well, some also say that it is on the basis of a mistranslation that Ahmadinejad has been quoted as calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” It is true that Ahmadinejad’s declaration can be translated in other ways. Yet the official Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), in its own English edition, reported that “Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map.’”

Since the case I make both in my COMMENTARY article and in my book rests on much more than the two quotations from Khomeini and Rafsanjani, it would still stand even if those quotations were in fact “bogus” or “fabricated.” But the truth is that Khomeini and Rafsanjani did say what I said they said. Not that this will silence the growing number of foreign-policy establishmentarians who—having finally recognized that Iran’s nuclear program cannot be stopped by diplomacy and sanctions, but having ruled out military force even as a last resort—are now desperately trying to persuade us that “we can live” with an Iranian bomb. God help us all if the counsels of these apologists and appeasers disguised as “realists” should in the end prevail.

Podoretz's case for bombing Iran is here.