Link
Howard Fineman on what happened to the President's mandate for change (hint: it didn't exist), and what the fall's elections portend for the future of his presidency.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Bloggingheads.tv - Values Added: American Muslim
Link
Views of Islam that are in sharp contrast with those represented in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan...or among Islamists. Excellent.
Views of Islam that are in sharp contrast with those represented in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan...or among Islamists. Excellent.
The Problem with Islam
If we choose to measure Islam by the relatively evolved standards of Western Civilization, we find Islam very much lacking in basic respect for individual freedom and political autonomy. And even if we choose not to look at Islam from our own, admittedly biased perspective, we still objectively find that people who live in the West have more freedom, more wealth, and more opportunities to do what we want when we want to do it. Also, if one happens to be female, living under the Western democratic tradition means that a woman may own property, may not be considered the property of either her family or her husband, and may follow her dreams of education, work, or personal advancement wherever they take her.
But we are not supposed to look at these things objectively, lest we be thought xenophobic or ethnocentric. Personally, however, I find nothing wrong, at all, with the idea of looking objectively at systems of government or societal organization and considering where I would choose to live, given the choice. And, given the choice, it would not be in a country dominated by Islam.
In the West, we have a long history of government dominated by religion. The Protestant Reformation was merely the first hammerblow to that domination by the Catholic Church throughout Western Europe, and echoes of that struggle remain. The Spanish Inquisition, the repression of the Huguenots, the burning of apostates and rival claimants to the religious mainstream all grew from a simple, brutal fact: The Church had more power over the lives of its adherents than did the governments of the countries in which they lived. Princes and potentates knew that and had to take it into account.
But through long centuries of the Enlightenment and reformation, we managed to grow out of our medieval period. We have adopted, in ways large and small, bulwarks against religion in our secular laws and democratic governments. In the United States, we have a separation between church and state, and we take it with deadly and resolute seriousness. We guard against the hand of religion in our laws, and we fight back at the first sign of religious influence in our government or laws.
Islam, by contrast, has had nothing on the order of a reformation, and its adherents insist that laws and government be in accordance with Sharia law, i.e., the word of Allah and His Prophet Mohammed. To greater and lesser degrees, countries with large Muslim populations have instituted Sharia, though there continues to be questions of interpretation, depending on one's sect; Sunnis view Sharia somewhat differently than Shia, who have a different view than the Sufis, and doctrinaire differences proliferate. But it is also true that among Islamist Muslims, generally followers of Wahhabist beliefs, Sharia comes down to subjection of individuals and states to the will of Allah, as interpreted by them. Given all of this, what we see in countries dominated by Islam is a willingness on the part of the general population and, most particularly, the fanatics, to subsume both individuals and the state to religion.
It is also true that the governments affected by this mindset have a somewhat different opinion, one quite probably shared by kings and princes of our own Western past. What they desire and try to accomplish is the channeling of Islam to support their own ambitions and governments, and some have been quite repressive in the pursuit of power over religion. Hosni Mubarek in Egypt outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, seeing it as a threat to his rule. King Hussein of Jordan periodically had skirmishes with zealots, and Saddam Hussein subsumed religion to his own cult of personality. But for every example of state subsuming religion, there are other, more current, examples of Islamist fanatics manipulating governments for the sake of religion. We see it in Indonesia, Afghanistan, and Iran; we see attempts being made in Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia; and we see rather more long term plans moving forward throughout Western Europe.
It is important to be religiously tolerant. It is a Western virtue I am loath to abandon, but does that mean we must continue to be tolerant of those who are, in return, intolerant? Why is it that we in the West refuse to hold others to the same standards we hold ourselves to? If religious freedom and freedom FROM religion are ideals we hold and aspire to, I see nothing wrong with holding our friends, allies, and potential friends or allies to equally high standards.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
A few notes on freedom and government
When we looked at the ruins of the World Trade Center in New York City, still not rebuilt, we got angry and wanted government to find and punish the people who destroyed it, then hunt down the people who helped them do it. When we went to the doctor and the price was exorbitant or we tried to buy health insurance and were told that our history of illness made us uninsurable, we wanted government to help us get the care we needed at a price we could afford to pay. When our financial system imploded and we lost our houses or our savings or the value of our stocks, we wanted Uncle Sam to step up and fix the problem. When we were mugged on the street or robbed in our homes, we wanted government to find the bad guys, lock them up, and get our possessions back to us. And we wanted all of these things all at once, which meant that government had to be large enough to do the job. And since we added these things to the things which government had already been doing on our behalf every day, this functionally means that government at every level has grown in power, size, and scope significantly beyond where it was in the 1980s when President Reagan talked about government as being the problem, not the solution to our problems.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. - The Declaration of Independence.
It is incredibly important to remember these words when we are tempted to believe that government is something that we should trust unreservedly. Government is a tool that we use to maintain our freedoms, a carefully constrained assortment of organized principles and laws that we use to protect us from foreign interlopers, assure our public safety, and adjudicate disputes amongst ourselves. It is not a benevolent monarch who dispenses freedoms and goodies to us at his discretion and in accordance with our need or our connections.
"Government," as Washington pointed out at our Founding, "is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
In times such as these when using our great and dangerous tool appears to be the easiest way to resolve our problems; when the force of government is most attractive in resolving the inequities of health care or the vagaries of our market economy; when we want most to simply MAKE our fellow citizens do the right thing instead of taking the time to convince them or outvote them; we must remember Washington's injunction, and use government with care that our servant does not become our master.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. - The Declaration of Independence.
It is incredibly important to remember these words when we are tempted to believe that government is something that we should trust unreservedly. Government is a tool that we use to maintain our freedoms, a carefully constrained assortment of organized principles and laws that we use to protect us from foreign interlopers, assure our public safety, and adjudicate disputes amongst ourselves. It is not a benevolent monarch who dispenses freedoms and goodies to us at his discretion and in accordance with our need or our connections.
"Government," as Washington pointed out at our Founding, "is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
In times such as these when using our great and dangerous tool appears to be the easiest way to resolve our problems; when the force of government is most attractive in resolving the inequities of health care or the vagaries of our market economy; when we want most to simply MAKE our fellow citizens do the right thing instead of taking the time to convince them or outvote them; we must remember Washington's injunction, and use government with care that our servant does not become our master.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Farewell, Senator
I have noted previously that I have little in common with Senator Edward Kennedy, either politically or personally. He was an unrepentant liberal and the scion of a dynastic American family, neither of which remotely describe me or my experience in life. The Senator was a man larger than life, a Rabelaisian raconteur with undeniable personal charm who, nonetheless, had an eye out for those whom society had left behind. It is also true that he was a man with undeniable personal flaws, whose mistakes were played out on a public stage for all to see and comment upon.
It is easy to took at his life and see the man who panicked at Chappaquiddick, whose reckless behavior and appalling judgment resulted in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. It it is also simple, indeed, to focus upon his carousing and womanizing, and make the case that he was nothing but a spoiled rich man's son whose career was handed to him on a silver platter. Many people see these things and leave the story there. But Kennedy's story is also one of tragic losses and, ultimately, of redemption.
He was a gifted politician, a man who understood that to get things done you must, always, get along. Over the years he served in the United States Senate, you would be hard-pressed to discover legislation of any significance that did not have his fingerprints on it somewhere. He counted as friends and allies not only the members of his own Democratic party, but also numerous conservative Republicans with whom he crafted compromise legislation. He, like Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson, understood that getting part of what you want in a bill is greatly preferable to standing on unbending principle and ending up with nothing at all. Besides, having achieved some measure of your goal, you can always go back for more. And he did, time and time again.
He was a devoted father to his own children and a doting father figure to the children of his brothers John and Robert. He was a good and fair boss from all accounts, a devoted Catholic, and easily the most popular and best loved member of the Senate. And he fought the good fight against the disease that ultimately took his life.
Take Edward Moore Kennedy all and all, match the good and the bad against each other, and, on balance, you end up with a good and decent man who will be missed, and who God, in His mercy, will welcome to his rest.
It is easy to took at his life and see the man who panicked at Chappaquiddick, whose reckless behavior and appalling judgment resulted in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. It it is also simple, indeed, to focus upon his carousing and womanizing, and make the case that he was nothing but a spoiled rich man's son whose career was handed to him on a silver platter. Many people see these things and leave the story there. But Kennedy's story is also one of tragic losses and, ultimately, of redemption.
He was a gifted politician, a man who understood that to get things done you must, always, get along. Over the years he served in the United States Senate, you would be hard-pressed to discover legislation of any significance that did not have his fingerprints on it somewhere. He counted as friends and allies not only the members of his own Democratic party, but also numerous conservative Republicans with whom he crafted compromise legislation. He, like Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson, understood that getting part of what you want in a bill is greatly preferable to standing on unbending principle and ending up with nothing at all. Besides, having achieved some measure of your goal, you can always go back for more. And he did, time and time again.
He was a devoted father to his own children and a doting father figure to the children of his brothers John and Robert. He was a good and fair boss from all accounts, a devoted Catholic, and easily the most popular and best loved member of the Senate. And he fought the good fight against the disease that ultimately took his life.
Take Edward Moore Kennedy all and all, match the good and the bad against each other, and, on balance, you end up with a good and decent man who will be missed, and who God, in His mercy, will welcome to his rest.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
No sale for Obama...yet.
After watching the presidential “debate” on Tuesday last, three things became glaringly apparent. First is that Senator Obama is a better speaker than Senator McCain. But we already knew that. Second, Senator McCain knows little about how one makes an effective attack against a political opponent. He left opportunity after opportunity on the board, and on those occasions when he went after Sen. Obama, the attacks were clearly scripted and had no follow up prepared. And, third, the national media is in the tank for Sen. Obama. Period.
And yet? Given all of that, as well as an election year that has been trending Democratic since 2006, presidential approval ratings that rival Nixon’s at the depths of Watergate, the worst financial meltdown since the mid 1930s, and virtually unlimited ability to raise and spend tens of millions of dollars, Senator Obama is: 1) still under 50% in ANY poll; 2) only two to nine percentage points ahead, depending on the poll; 3) still a month from the election against a candidate with a criminally dreadful political organization; and 4) clearly not finalizing the sale.
Why? On CNN that same night, David Gergen posited that the polls might be anywhere in the neighborhood of six percent inaccurate due to Senator Obama’s race. He speculated that while many people are attracted to the candidate and his manifest abilities and say so openly to pollsters and the like, when push comes to shove in the voting booth, they will decide against him for no other reason than pigmentation. Of course, this does not take into account the numbers of people who are planning to vote for him in large part because of his race…and what it says about the wonderfulness of those voters. No less than his running mate, Senator Joseph Biden, commented early on in the campaign to the New York Observer about Sen. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” But not a word…until he was chosen as a running mate…that there might be some substance to the story.
People compare Senator Obama with JFK, noting the shared youth, the theme of generational change, and the manifest ability to give speeches rife with eloquent and elegant language. But that analogy can be taken entirely too far. At a similar age, Jack Kennedy had commanded a PT boat in the Pacific Theatre in WWII with manifest heroism; had won a Pulitzer Prize for his book Profiles in Courage; had served six years in the US House of Representatives and seven years in the United States Senate; and had been under serious consideration by Adlai Stevenson and the 1956 Democratic National Convention as a vice-presidential candidate. In the immortal words of Senator Lloyd Bentsen to the hapless Dan Quayle in their vice-presidential debate in 1988, “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.”
Then, too, Kennedy’s opponent in the 1960 election, Vice-President Richard M. Nixon, was a far more focused, resolute, and able politician than Senator McCain has any dreams of being. Nixon was equally knowledgeable on either domestic issues or foreign policy, and was a capable debater. He was no pushover, and fundamentally was out to WIN…and very nearly pulled it off.
So there has been no sale yet. Both of these gentlemen are flawed candidates with flawed records and spotty accomplishments over the years. Senator McCain obviously has a more heroic biography, but what that says about his ability to lead as president is debatable. Similarly, Senator Obama has shown that he is a gifted politician, but whether he is sufficiently pragmatic to set aside his liberal predilections and look for reasonable solutions and compromises in the future is debatable as well.
The truly interesting thing about this election is that the only individual on either ticket with actual executive experience is Governor Palin (who the press has been working overtime to marginalize), while the person best qualified in terms of experience and breadth of knowledge is Senator Biden. As conservative as I am, I would be far more comfortable with Joe Biden in the Oval Office than either Barack Obama or the man whom John McCain has become. Is Biden liberal? Absolutely. Unabashedly. But he is also funny, smart, engaging, and definitely not a programmed candidate. He is always interesting to listen to on questions of policy, because even when I find myself disagreeing with his conclusions, I can always trace the thought trail that led to them. His personal story is extraordinary, and there is something to be said for a man who has not gotten rich in the service of his country.
But he ain’t running for the top job; the other two are. And I suspect that a fair amount of the country is going to wait this one out and decide very, very late. Possibly, they will make up their minds in the voting booth. And maybe they will go “Eenie, meeney, miney…” and vote for “Moe.”
And yet? Given all of that, as well as an election year that has been trending Democratic since 2006, presidential approval ratings that rival Nixon’s at the depths of Watergate, the worst financial meltdown since the mid 1930s, and virtually unlimited ability to raise and spend tens of millions of dollars, Senator Obama is: 1) still under 50% in ANY poll; 2) only two to nine percentage points ahead, depending on the poll; 3) still a month from the election against a candidate with a criminally dreadful political organization; and 4) clearly not finalizing the sale.
Why? On CNN that same night, David Gergen posited that the polls might be anywhere in the neighborhood of six percent inaccurate due to Senator Obama’s race. He speculated that while many people are attracted to the candidate and his manifest abilities and say so openly to pollsters and the like, when push comes to shove in the voting booth, they will decide against him for no other reason than pigmentation. Of course, this does not take into account the numbers of people who are planning to vote for him in large part because of his race…and what it says about the wonderfulness of those voters. No less than his running mate, Senator Joseph Biden, commented early on in the campaign to the New York Observer about Sen. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” But not a word…until he was chosen as a running mate…that there might be some substance to the story.
People compare Senator Obama with JFK, noting the shared youth, the theme of generational change, and the manifest ability to give speeches rife with eloquent and elegant language. But that analogy can be taken entirely too far. At a similar age, Jack Kennedy had commanded a PT boat in the Pacific Theatre in WWII with manifest heroism; had won a Pulitzer Prize for his book Profiles in Courage; had served six years in the US House of Representatives and seven years in the United States Senate; and had been under serious consideration by Adlai Stevenson and the 1956 Democratic National Convention as a vice-presidential candidate. In the immortal words of Senator Lloyd Bentsen to the hapless Dan Quayle in their vice-presidential debate in 1988, “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.”
Then, too, Kennedy’s opponent in the 1960 election, Vice-President Richard M. Nixon, was a far more focused, resolute, and able politician than Senator McCain has any dreams of being. Nixon was equally knowledgeable on either domestic issues or foreign policy, and was a capable debater. He was no pushover, and fundamentally was out to WIN…and very nearly pulled it off.
So there has been no sale yet. Both of these gentlemen are flawed candidates with flawed records and spotty accomplishments over the years. Senator McCain obviously has a more heroic biography, but what that says about his ability to lead as president is debatable. Similarly, Senator Obama has shown that he is a gifted politician, but whether he is sufficiently pragmatic to set aside his liberal predilections and look for reasonable solutions and compromises in the future is debatable as well.
The truly interesting thing about this election is that the only individual on either ticket with actual executive experience is Governor Palin (who the press has been working overtime to marginalize), while the person best qualified in terms of experience and breadth of knowledge is Senator Biden. As conservative as I am, I would be far more comfortable with Joe Biden in the Oval Office than either Barack Obama or the man whom John McCain has become. Is Biden liberal? Absolutely. Unabashedly. But he is also funny, smart, engaging, and definitely not a programmed candidate. He is always interesting to listen to on questions of policy, because even when I find myself disagreeing with his conclusions, I can always trace the thought trail that led to them. His personal story is extraordinary, and there is something to be said for a man who has not gotten rich in the service of his country.
But he ain’t running for the top job; the other two are. And I suspect that a fair amount of the country is going to wait this one out and decide very, very late. Possibly, they will make up their minds in the voting booth. And maybe they will go “Eenie, meeney, miney…” and vote for “Moe.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)