lloydtown 

Moving Out

Ann Althouse has a number of posts about Americans who have threatened to leave the U.S. because of the election. Some say they will go...er...come, to Canada.

(Pierre Salinger moved to France, where Richard Perle summers).

I e-mailed Ann to say I was reminded of a professor at the University of Alberta in the 70s who said he had left the U.S. over the failure of the Eugene McCarthy campaign. Somehow he was less impressive than the draft dodgers, who were more or less our heroes.

The draft dodgers, in fact, remain a significant part of the intellectual life of Canada. That's one reason it often seems that instead of the whole spectrum of U.S. opinion, we have mainly the secular liberal Democratic strand. Of course, there has always been anti-Americanism in Canada, but it used to have a pro-British tone that I think is pretty much gone.

How many draft dodgers and deserters came to Canada? 30,000 or more, and many of them stayed after the amnesty--in contrast, say, to Sweden. What is less well known is that somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 Canadians served in the U.S. forces in the Vietnam era--quite a few in Vietnam itself.

(This anti-war piece, written for an encyclopedia, claims 10,000 Canadians served in the U.S. forces, vs. 20,000 draft dodgers and 12,000 deserters.)

There is a complicated relationship between our two countries--a relationship that we Canadians tend to obsess about, but to which Americans generally don't give any thought. Once in my grad school days in Toronto a group of us were having a beer, and discussing one of the U.S. invasions--I think Grenada. One aging Canadian, getting a bit in his cups, listened for a while and then yelled out: "Long live President Reagan [pronouncing it Reegan]."

We all drank to that.

When I was going to Political Science conventions in the U.S., looking for jobs, I bumped into one guy several times who had married a Canadian woman. The last time I met him he and his wife had actually moved to Canada. "I've learned," he said, "that Canadians are anti-American in direct proportion to their degree of higher education."

I think that's about right. If so, there's a "red state" Canada below the surface, less visible than "blue state" Canada. But the reds also have fewer votes, proportionally, than in the U.S.

Christianity and the Red States

As funny as the "Jesus Land" vs. Canada map is, I question whether Christianity is the key to the red states or to the recent election. (Map via Sandhill Trek; comments suggest it came from the Toronto Star; I'm pretty sure I saw a link to it in an article on Slate).

Partly I have in mind a line from J.F. Powers' novel, Morte d'Urbain. An old priest who has worked in the U.S. for many years says something like: "I don't care what anyone says, the U.S. will always be missionary country." I take it this means: American Catholics may be enthusiastic, but there is always a question about the depth and breadth of the enthusiasm. It often seems to be one of many enthusiasms, or one of a series, so it is the enthusiasm that is consistent, not any particular religious belief or practice, or even piety in general.

Italians, to go to another extreme, may stop going to church, may tolerate many things the Church teaches are sins, and may come to regard Communism as a respectable alternative. But they are always somehow Catholic--not just cultural Catholics. Today many countries, even Catholic ones, are moving to accept gay marriage--but not, it seems, Italy.

Americans seem to search until they find or invent a religion that is exactly suited to themselves as individuals--so it seems it is the individual choice that is really sacred. It almost seems there are as many U.S. religions as there are individuals. I gather the President and his wife, as far as anyone knows, don't actually go to church; this was also pretty much true of the Reagans. Everyone seems able to give their own interpretation to almost everything.

If this is true, it's hard to believe American Christians, even evangelicals, can be counted on to come down on one side of a range of issues. Evangelicals care a great deal about the abortion issue, and now gay marriage, so they are inclined to support Republicans over those issues. But as I recall they had to be persuaded to start thinking that way, by Jerry Falwell and others, about 1980. C.S. Lewis said something like: he favoured socialism in economics, but also a great deal of liberty for individuals and families. It surely wouldn't be surprising if evangelicals moved to the left on at least some issues.

Another part of this is that evangelical Christians are not, or should not be, "conservative." They are radicals of some kind--and maybe, from a political perspective, deeply idiosyncratic or unpredictable.

So I agree with Kevin Drum: there are a lot of Christians in the U.S., particularly in the red states, and they tend to be ignored, if not systematically defamed, by the mainstream media. But I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn from that fact for elections.

Arafat's Finances

Now maybe we'll learn more about Arafat's personal finances, along with those of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority.

There are rumours that billions of dollars flowed in, or were generated in revenues from the investment of contributions, while only a paltry few hundred million were ever seen flowing out. See the Toronto Star here, and the BBC here.

Salam Fayyad, a Palestinian with graduate degrees in economics from Texas after an undergraduate degree from American University in Beirut, first negotiated a new deal with Arafat on behalf of the IMF in 2000, then became Finance Minister for the Palestinian Authority. Officially, at least, the IMF is saying that Palestinian finances are much more transparent and accountable than they used to be.

"Quite exceptional" by the standards of the region--if that is high praise. Perhaps it will turn out that there are no billions of dollars--either because they were always a legend, or because they have been spent during the various intafadas.

I can't help thinking that a lot depends on these Western-educated people from the countries we are concerned about who return home to help--as in the case of the ex-Communist countries.

Another example is U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad. For all I can tell now, Khalilzad and Fayyad may even have been at American University at the same time. Remember how Beirut used to be the pearl of the Mid East?

Red and Blue Map continued

A bit more research:

The complete list of Bush states and Kerry states (right hand column).

Executions by state since 1976.

Briefly, of 12 states that don't have the death penalty on the books, 8 are Kerry states, 4 Bush.

More surprisingly, the states that have carried out fewer than 10 executions since 1976, including the 12 already mentioned, are evenly divided: 16K, 16B. Similarly those that have carried out fewer than 15: 19K, 19B.

At the other extreme, Texas has carried out 323--more than a third. All the states that have carried out more than 20 executions since 1976 (12 states) are Bush states.

What about taxes?

Of the top 10 highest-taxed states, 7 are K, 3 are B. (Red and blue states have similar tax burdens in the middle of the pack: 15 highest-taxed, 10K, 5B; 20 highest, 11K, 9B). Of the opposite top 10--lowest taxed states, 8 are B, 2 are K.

UPDATE Nov. 20: What about gun laws and gun ownership (if illegal gun ownership can somehow be estimated).

Four big states with the most restrictive gun control laws are New York, California, Illinois and Massachusetts. Washington, DC makes it almost impossible to possess a gun legally. All these jurisdictions went for Kerry. Over 30 states now have "shall issue" laws, or laws allowing the concealed carrying of a gun. (Up from only 10 such states in the mid-80s). I don't have a list of them, and I'm certain they're not all Bush states, but I'm also certain almost all are.

The NRA says: "Today, 54% of the U.S. population, including 64% of handgun owners, live in Right-to-Carry states." Hmmm... 54%. That's enough to win a general election.

Unintended Consequences

Two neat examples.

In the Globe and Mail, a discussion of the new "Green Belt" policy of the Ontario government. Eric Reguly says the government's announcement that big swatches of land close to Toronto are "frozen" will have two immediate effects: increasing the price of land already approved for development, which just became more scarce; and decreasing the price of farmland that is now frozen, but was previously subject to lively bidding by developers. The twist is: developers will still be confident of winning a lot of battles for subdivisions, so far unapproved, some day, so they will buy that cheap farmland, and later reap huge profits from it. The government isn't so much preserving anything as it is enriching developers.

Kaus says the talk about simplifying the tax code in the U.S. will generate huge campaign donations to Congressmen running in 2006, from business people worried about losing their deductions.

Er, maybe this one isn't unintentional: it is another reason why the Republican Congress will be extremely compliant for Bush.

The Red and Blue Map

Kevin Drum points out that the U.S. map showing Bush states and Kerry states matches up well with the old 1860 map showing slave states and free states. Drum is kind of joking and kind of venting, but this is still pretty nasty. I believe the slavery issue in the U.S. was taken care of some time ago--in fact, shortly after that 1860 election. If you want to trace the lingering influence of racism, and wonder, for example, where the worst public schools are for African-American children, I believe many of those schools would be in Kerry states.

But let's look at some other issues--especially the "social" ones.

In 2002, 38 states as well as the federal government had "capital statutes"; I think that means the death penalty. But in that year, only 13 states actually carried out executions. Do I have your attention?

In 2002, 71 persons in 13 States were executed -- 33 in Texas; 7 in Oklahoma, 6 in Missouri; 4 each in Georgia and Virginia, 3 each in Florida, South Carolina, and Ohio; 2 each in Alabama, Mississippi, and North Carolina; and 1 each in Louisiana and California.

The process of granting increased legal approval to the practice of abortion began in 1967 when the states of California, Colorado and North Carolina enacted laws modeled on the American Law Institute (ALI) proposal (abortion is allowable if it is believed that there would be grave impairment to the physical or mental health of the mother, or that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defect, or that the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest).3 In 1968 and 1969 seven more states enacted ALI type laws: Georgia, Maryland, Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, New Mexico, and Oregon.4

Before the U.S. Supreme Court radically altered legal abortion policy for the states through its abortion decisions of January 22, 1973, an additional three states were to choose to enact laws based on the ALI model -- South Carolina and Virginia in 1970 and Florida in 1972. A total of thirteen states opted for this moderately restrictive policy.

In 1970, a new legal phenomenon appeared in the United States: abortion on request. The thrust of this new legal policy was to remove the practice of abortion from the specific contexts that are normally associated with law and medicine. Four states adopted laws of this type: Alaska, Hawaii, New York and Washington. In some jurisdictions the courts interpreted the traditional laws designed to safeguard the welfare of the mother in a permissive fashion7 or they declared such laws unconstitutional.8 Elsewhere a permissive climate engendered by the new policy of non-regulation led to the de facto interpretation of moderate ALI type laws as allowing abortion on requests

With the onset of abortion on request a full national debate was begun on the merits of such a policy. The general reaction of the American people was negative. After 1970 no further states enacted abortion on request laws, and only one state enacted a comparatively restrictive ALI type law. In 1972 the New York legislature repealed the abortion on request law that it had passed in 1970.10 The potential import of this action is highlighted by the fact that in 1971 and 1972 the state of New York accounted, respectively, for 55% and 51% of all abortions performed in the United States.11

On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinions holding the laws of Texas and Georgia unconstitutional, thereby effectively negating the laws of nearly all the other states. In general terms the Court determined the constitutionally permissible elements of any state abortion law. The legislative policy envisioned by the Court was more permissive than any then in effect in any of the various states, and probably more permissive than any in the world.14

By the end of 1972, 13 states had a law similar to that of Colorado, while Mississippi allowed abortion in cases of rape or incest only and Alabama allowed abortions in cases of the mother's physical health. Thirty-one states still allowed abortion to protect the mother's life only.

Raptors Improving?

My hopes got up last year when Donyell Marshall and Jalen Rose were acquired, trading away size and skill under the net in return.

Center was still a weak point in today's victory over the Blazers. Carter led (of course) with 25 points and 3 offensive rebounds. Three players had 16, including Marshall coming off the bench (and playing 34 minutes, as much as anyone). Marshall led in rebounds with 9, roughly half and half offensive and defensive. Rose also scored 16 points, with 8 rebounds; Rafer Alston was the other Raptor with 16.

Chris Bosh, alas, scored 4 points on 1 for 9 shooting from the field, but got 5 rebounds. In the few minutes I watched, the commentators were saying Bosh is giving and taking more punishment under the net than he used to. They probably need more of this; the team got 42 rebounds in all, against 50 for the Blazers.

The U.S. Election

By about noon today I was inclined to emphasize two themes: social conservatism, represented by the fact that even states that went for Kerry also went against gay marriage; and the war, represented by the fact that Edwards did not help Kerry in any way. John Ellis is good on both--he also addresses other possible reasons why Kerry lost; and Kaus picks up on the running mate issue. If not Zinni for Kerry, Sam Nunn (Bill Kristol's suggestion when he was in Toronto)? Joe Lieberman, yet again?

Glenn Reynolds says it is much more the war than social issues--an e-mailer to Andrew Sullivan's site provides evidence that the gay marriage issue didn't actually help Bush--but his links suggest there is a difference on some kind of basic patriotism and decency. If I can attempt to paraphrase, it is not so much that Republicans have loads of these qualities, but that Democrats lack them, mock them, or act as if they don't matter. Ellis speaks of the pimp and ho culture of Hollywood, and the sexualization of children. I think that goes too far, if only because there is so little sign that Bush will do anything about it, either; but I think there is a sense that educated boomers want to keep celebrating the 60s and aspects of the so-called counterculture as if they constitute a lasting and valuable way of life which couldn't possibly threaten the decent raising of children or a country's ability to defend itself. A moment's reflection suggests this is not true.

It is no doubt true that many Bush voters live in a kind of bubble where they hardly have to consider views very different from their own; but this is also true, and in a way more paradoxical if not alarming, of many educated Kerry voters.

UPDATE: For an argument that gay marriage didn't help Bush more than in 2000, see Paul Freedman here.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum has a pretty remarkable argument that it was really the economy (stupid). Colby Cosh dwells on the 22nd Amendment and Bill Clinton, as I have in the past. Colby doesn't think Clinton would have won in 2000; er, who would have beaten him?

Progress in the Arab and Islamic Worlds

From Hit and Run:
Osama's latest utterances may reflect the fact that things have not been going well from his perspective--and that means they are going well from a U.S. and Western perspective.

Charles Paul Freund points out that both Islamism and Arabism--meaning a radical violent ideology in each case, not merely Islam and Arab nationalism--have been in retreat since the U.S. began to take strong actions immediately after 9/11.

In some important respects, the people who predicted quagmire, and the whole Arab and Islamic world rising up against the U.S., were wrong.

Things may be getting worse in Iraq; and the U.S. presence may be a major factor making things worse. But the wider picture is not that bad. The U.S. may have blundered into, and exacerbated, a local civil war. On the other hand, if it is so local, it may be manageable.

Deaths in Iraq

Finally, some fairly serious attention to the question: how many Iraqis have died as a direct result of the U.S. invasion?

Unfortunately, the big, high-profile study showing 100,000 deaths is probably bogus; the authors are unable to say what the best estimate is, other than to say it is between 8,000 and 194,000. 98,000 is simply the half-way point. Say what?

So, Fred Kaplan says on Slate, the best estimate is probably more like 15,000--based on media reports. This number may be low, but it is unlikely that a huge number of people would go missing with no report at all.

Combine this with the complete lack of a "refugee" problem with people fleeing Iraq--as was predicted by the same people predicting a quagmire--and things don't look so bad.

The question that is missing from all recent accounts I've seen--but which has attracted curious minds before--is: how does this compare to life under Saddam? How many were slaughtered, imprisoned, tortured, especially after 1993? How many (especially children) died as a direct result of the sanctions?

This is all relevant. Some people have no doubt been killed as a direct result of U.S. actions who would not otherwise be killed. But if a significant number were starved or sent to an early death by Saddam, this makes a meaningful comparison, as well as bearing on the morality of the war. All indications are that food was generally in short supply, except for the elite, under Saddam. Now, even in some bizarre ways like bananas from South America, there is food--and cash--everywhere, at least in Baghdad.