|
From what Instapundit calls a fascinating column by Donald Sensing:
"If society has abandoned regulating heterosexual conduct of men and women, what right does it have to regulate homosexual conduct, including the regulation of their legal and property relationship with one another to mirror exactly that of hetero, married couples?
"I believe that this state of affairs is contrary to the will of God. But traditionalists, especially Christian traditionalists (in whose ranks I include myself) need to get a clue about what has really been going on and face the fact that same-sex marriage, if it comes about, will not cause the degeneration of the institution of marriage; it is the result of it."
As Sensing says, liberal divorce is widely accepted in the U.S., even or especially in those fundamentalist churches that are likely to refer to marriage as sacred.
The widespread use of the pill was the last straw:
"Sex, childbearing and marriage now have no necessary connection to one another, because the biological connection between sex and childbearing is controllable. The fundamental basis for marriage has thus been technologically obviated. Pair that development with rampant, easy divorce without social stigma, and talk in 2004 of "saving marriage" is pretty specious. There's little there left to save. Men and women today who have successful, enduring marriages till death do them part do so in spite of society, not because of it."
Sensing could have gone back to John Locke, who is often identified as a founder of "conservative" thought within a liberal democratic--especially American--context. He outline the classic defence of the right to property, as determined by labour and a marketplace. He pretty much stated that land in North America was not owned by anyone until European settlers arrived and worked on it, "mixed their labour" with it. This of course could be and was read as an invitation to take it all.
In his First Treatise of government, which is largely presented as a rather interpretation of scripture, Locke argues that Adam did not gain any authority over anyone simply by virtue of being a father. This undermines the traditional Biblical view of authority, and prepares for the modern view that true authority derives solely from the consent of the governed.
#54: "What Father of a Thousand, when he begets a Child, thinks farther then the satisfying his present Appetite? God in his infinite wisdom has put strong desires of Copulation into the Constitution of Men, thereby to continue the race of Mankind, which he doth most commonly without the intention, and often against the Consent and will of the Begetter....those who desire and design Children...do little more toward their making, than Ducalion and his Wife in the Fable did towards the making of Mankind, by throwing Pebbles over their Heads."
Sex is a matter of human appetite. Locke says this is part of God's plan, but human beings may not realize that, and certainly may not intend to have children, or even "consent" to do so. The Bible has God say "Be fruitful and multiply," which provides at least some support for a ban on any use of birth control. Locke says God's plan is "to continue the race of mankind." So perhaps as long as children are being born somewhere, a specific couple might plan to have none. At the very least Locke makes a good start here to giving adults permission to use birth control--three hundred years ago.
(In Second Treatise, #65, Locke argues that any authority over a (helpless) child belongs to anyone who feeds the child--and this may be a total stranger. There seems to be nothing sacred in the biological and conventional relationship between parent and child).
As for divorce, in I. 47 Locke makes it clear that marriage is a contract, and whether a woman must obey her husband depends on the terms of that contract.
There are more details in the Second Treatise, #80 to 83. In #81, Locke suggests the "Compact" between a man and a woman "may...be made determinable, either by consent, or at a certain time, or upon certain Conditions, as well as any other voluntary Compacts...." In #82, he says specifically that the wife should have "a Liberty to separate" from her husband. One of the biggest issues in the history of divorce was that unless women could take substantial property out of a marriage, divorce was hardly an option for them. Iin #83 Locke says "Community of Goods, and the Power over them" are among the issues that "might be varied and regulated by that Contract, which unites Man and Wife...."
This is the modern liberal view of divorce, not the Biblical or traditional one.As Kant said, marriage becomes a contract between two consenting adults to share a bed.
What's fascinating about Americans is that they actually live this doctrine, probably more than anyone. Scandinavians, to take a different example, apparently just live together, and let all the legalities slide. (After all, the welfare state will provide for one's needs, including education). Americans insist on serial monogamy. It is really divorce that is forever, not marriage.
Yet it is also in the U.S. that one actually hears public debate about the sacredness of marriage, more or less in Biblical terms. This is certainly more than, different from, ordinary hypocrisy.
So far, as I understand it, Iraq has an Interim Constitution, to be followed by a Transitional Constitution, then a more-or-less permanent constitution.
There is a tremendous focus on keeping any one institution or part of government from being too strong, and on an elaborate bill of rights, to be defended by an impartial judiciary. This is all very "American-style"--although one wonders if the presidency is going to be as strong as in the U.S.
Kurdistan has been promised some degree of autonomy; this will surely be followed by similar demands from the Sunnis. My proposal, to repeat myself, would be an upper house treating distinct regions as equals, regardless of population, like the U.S. Senate. This gives them a kind of conditional veto over legislation.
The great fear is the requirement that the Sharia or Islamic law be considered "one source" of all law--and that this may be taken to mean all law must be consistent with Islamic law. This would establish religion, contrary to the U.S. example, and open the possibility of a new Islamic fundamentalist regime in the Middle East. Certainly the Grand Ayatollah Sistani is being treated as though he can veto any constitutional arrangement he chooses.
Jack Balkin has brought out a surprising aspect of the new constitution: it goes further to the left than the existing U.S. Constitution, and incorporates features that only liberals, in today's politics, would favour. Will Bush preside over a victory by liberal Democrats like Kerry and Kennedy in 2004--in Iraq?
(Link via Atrios--sneering and sarcastic, as always).
(The Iraqi constitution provides the right to education, health care, and social security--none of which appear in the U.S. constitution, and none of which have been recognized as fundamental rights by the U.S. Supreme Court. There is also a right to access to the courts that seems to go beyond what Jose Padilla was granted. There is a provision to prepare for gun control, with no right to bear arms; and a reference to ensuring consistency with international treaties. The latter provision would almost certainly have an effect, for example, on capital punishment).
This reminds me of the constitution General MacArthur had drafted for Japan immediately after World War II. In many ways it would have been considered too liberal for the U.S. at the time--yet MacArthur was a hero to conservative Republicans. They saw him as standing resolutely up to the Communists in Asia, an arena that those partly-treasonous Democrats had supposedly neglected. MacArthur, who had barely lived in the continental U.S. as an adult, and certainly knew nothing of the new cities and suburbs, was looking for a party--any party--that would treat him like the god he obviously was. They were made for each other.
By his tough resoluteness in Korea, his refusal to emulate Chamberlain, his display of manliness that made all the wimps and traitors look bad, MacArthur provoked China into invading Korea. This was almost a unique example of the Chinese adventurism that was constantly predicted in the Cold War. The consequences live on to this day.
Some detail on MacArthur's constitution for Japan--which remains largely in effect (surely a great work of statesmanship):
"Their work resulted in a thoroughly progressive document. Although the emperor was acknowledged as the head of state, he was stripped of any real power and essentially became a constitutional monarch. A bi-cameral legislature with a weak upper chamber was established, and with the exception of the Imperial family, all rights of peerage were abolished. Thirty-nine articles dealt with what MacArthur called 'basic human liberties,' including not only most of the American bill of rights, but such things as universal adult sufferage, labor's right to organize, and a host of marriage and property rights for women. But the most unique and one of the most important provisions came in Article 9, which outlawed the creation of armed forces and the right to make war. It's not clear whether or not the 'No-war clause' originated with MacArthur, but it certainly would not have been included without him, and its presence in the constitution has had an enormous impact on Japan's postwar history."
Update: MacArthur also apparently approved of Japan's 1948 Eugenics Law, which provided abortion on demand for a small fee.
I was present on Tuesday evening when Belinda Stronach won the nomination in our local riding for the new Conservative Party. She beat her opponent, Lois Brown, by about 100 votes out of about 900 votes cast.
Needless to say, this was a big riding meeting. The local executive members ran the meeting, and they announced that at the founding meeting a few months ago, there were about 450 members. By the time of the nomination meeting, supposedly 1900 or more memberships had been sold, and an estimated 1200 would-be members may have attended. Some were disqualified, or found not to be on a list, so that's why fewer than 1000 votes were counted.
Still, a big deal. Lots of TV and media, obviously mainly because of the Belinda factor. Mike Harris was there with a bit of an entourage, and some people who worked for him when he was Premier. Two I recognized were Stew Braddick (sp?) and Jaime (pronounced Jamie) Watt. Belinda recognized Harris during her speech, and he told the media he was there to support her. Two MPs were there, also supporting Belinda. Frank Klees, MPP and former Minister, was there. I left after the voting, before Frank spoke, but he is apparently a Lois (and for the leadership, Tony Clement) supporter.
Both candidates spoke about making Canada more competitive, keeping taxes low if not cutting them, and improving health care. Belinda suggested more military spending. Lois had clearly read more detailed stuff on what the federal government does--she mentioned points in the Romanow Report on health care, and recommended, based on what's in there, a tax break for anyone with a health club membership. Instead of just talking about "the wasteful gun registry system," Lois mentioned the number of the government bill.
Probably the clearest difference between them is that Belinda is in favour of same-sex marriage, and Lois is not. A lot of Lois's supporters were "church" people--a famous local pastor who associates himself with Elvis as a way of getting the word out was there--and they were vociferous on this issue. One of the four questions "drawn" to be asked of both candidates was: are you in favour of same-sex marriage, yes or no? Belinda, sensing trouble, tried to start with a diplomatic opening, and people started to yell "Yes or No?" The only real heckling that happened.
Lois said the law should support traditional marriage, but then she added: something has to be done to protect the rights of people in same-sex relationships. Sometimes (Lois knows from her constituency work for Mr. Klees) when they break up, one of a pair is financially dependent, and ends up resorting to government programs. If only for this reason, there should be some legal protection "even if we call it a social union." I suspect she meant "civil union," the term that is used in the States.
So gays can have 90% or more of the benefits of marriage, just not the name?
I keep wondering where conservatism is. Canadian conservatives used to know who they were, by and large--English-speaking (with a Quebec wing that was a world unto itself), either going back in Canada a few generations, or not wanting to be known as ethnic, vaguely "old-fashioned" on certain matters of "morality" (before the term "social issues" came into use).
In a way Reform/Alliance got the folks with the clearest principles: a kind of libertarian tax-cutting agenda, indifferent to social issues and sometimes to the military; combined with some die-hards on social issues. They had a reputation for harbouring "anti-immigrant" Archie Bunker-type bigots, but they actually did a good job of attracting New Canadians as candidates. (Many New Canadians, of course, would almost die rather than live on welfare, want to get ahead for themselves and their children, and favour a tax-cutting agenda).
The old Progressive Conservatives got the "red Tories," and sometimes just Tories who kept saying: let's not go to extremes, let's not rush to identify the ship we'll go down with, we have to be prepared to out-Liberal the Liberals in order to win. Win? What have you been winning?
The old "ethnic" identity thing means practically nothing, although it may overlay the "church" folk a bit. (I think that as in the States, evangelical Christians--the enthusiastic ones, who attract young people--tend to be heavily from old Anglo stock. Evidence? I don't know). Catholics in Canada still tend to vote Liberal; except maybe in Mulroney's majorities, we don't really have something similar to the "Reagan Democrats." (Update: See the interesting article on whether Kerry is "Catholic enough" from Slate. Canada is (at least nominally) more Catholic than the U.S. Many recent immigrants--Filipino, Portuguese, Vietnamese are "real" Catholics, not just "cultural Catholics"--yet one is less likely to hear a moral argument about abortion or same sex marriage in the media in Canada than in the U.S.).
I think there is a feeling in both Canada and the U.S. that legal recognition of same sex marriage is coming, and a significant minority is going to be pretty unhappy. No party really wants to be "pro-life." (The Republicans kind of are in the U.S., but Republican women, among others, once they make money, tend to be pro-choice, and Republican presidents benefit from the fact that Roe v. Wade has kept the issue in the hands of the courts; if it became political, it might split the party in two).
Update: Lois was definitely a smoother and more accomplished speaker than Belinda. I overheard someone say Belinda is a lot better than she used to be, but she still sounds a bit stilted. Sometimes it seems to be a matter of putting the emphasis on the wrong syllable, which makes me wonder if she speaks German to her parents.
To the surprise of many people, the federal Liberals are starting to seem beatable. Chretien's long-time suspicion that Martin couldn't cut it may have been correct. But is any other party able to defeat them? Do the Conservatives have a magic formula with: tax cuts, cut many areas of spending, spend more on health, the military, and certain aspects of law and order? Lois at least seemed to recognize that we need areas where money can be saved at little cost if we are going to launch either tax cuts or cuts in spending on programs that people are counting on.
Update: Belinda's father, Frank Stronach, ran as a Liberal in 1988--the election in which Mulroney won a second majority--in opposition to free trade, and in the recent PC Party leadership, he supported David Orchard, who opposed free trade. Stronach pere remains the real head of a multinational corporation. Hmmm....
Lots of discussion on the web about Seymour Hersh's new article in The New Yorker: "The Deal: Why is Washington going easy on Pakistan's nuclear black marketers?" (Link from Tapped--Matthew Yglesias answers Rich Lowry on "proliferation" issues).
Hersh's answer, briefly, is that the U.S. will pretend to believe A.Q. Khan was a rogue scientist, selling nuclear technology on his own, in return for Musharraf allowing U.S. forces into the mountains to clear out the Taliban and find Bin Laden.
The main point of the article, however, is that nuclear proliferation has been going on among rogue states and non-state actors. There is a black market that is increasingly not under the control of any government. Pakistan and Iran are both extremely unpredictable. Robert Gallucci, "a consultant to the C.I.A. on proliferation isues, told me, 'Bad as it is with Iran, North Korea and Libya having nuclear-weapons material, the worst part is that they could transfer it to a non-state group....The most dangerous country for the United States now is Pakistan, and second is Iran.'"
Another amazing line: a "diplomat in Vienna" said: "Iraq is laughable in comparison with this [proliferation] issue. The Bush Administration was hunting the shadows instead of the prey."
Finally, there seems to be confirmation here that Libya's Ghaddafi acquired nuclear technology only very recently, and does not seem to have actually built anything. He may have wanted an impressive bargaining chip he could play at the appropriate time, by giving up nukes, to please the Americans. He certainly got a positive reaction.
As Kevin Drum has asked: will the U.S. realy go into the mountains straddling Pakistan and Afghanistan, threatening to de-stabilize Musharraf and put a worse regime in charge of Pakistan's nukes? On the other hand: will the U.S. just keep allowing things to get steadily worse in that region, whether or not Bin Laden is rounded up?
As someone said on the web a while ago: the Pakistan-India confrontation is much more of a threat to the world than Israel vs. the Palestinians. Or to put it another way: there are Moslem populations in the world that are an actual or potential threat to the West for reasons that Churchill would have recognized 100 years ago--reasons that have nothing to do with the Jews, Zionism, or the state of Israel.
I won't say much about the latest violence. I simply don't know much about what's going on. There was a line some time ago to the effect that suicide bombers are not likely to be Sunni or Baathist Iraqis; they are more likely to be foreigners or international terrorists. The "Al Qaeda" letter, if that's what it is, does seem to indicate there is an intention to prove democracy cannot work.
Politically, the big issues continue to be the extent to which the country will be guided by Islamic law; and the status of Kurdistan.
On Feb. 27, just after noon, Katherine Lopez posted as follows on The Corner:
"A source in Iraq reports:
The Iraqi Governing Council repealed decree 137 today (the controversial decree bringing in Sharia law passed in December. A group of women came in to lobby against decree 137. They presented their case to the Governing Council as to why Sharia discriminates against women.
The council vote to repeal decree 137 was passed by 15 in favor and 10 against (the full council of 25 was there). The women who had lobbied against decree 137 ululated and shouted for joy at the end of the vote.
In protest at their behavior, the following 8 IGC members walked out:
Ibrahim al-Ja'fari (Dawa Party, Shia Islamist)
'Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim (Scriri, Shia Islamist funded by Iran)
Muhammad Bahr al-'Ulum (Shia Islamist)
'Abd al-Karim Mahmud al-Muhammadawi (Shia, Hizbullah, aka Abu Hatem the Lord of the Marshes)
Ahmed Chalabi (INC)
'Izz al-Din Salim (Shia, Islamic Dawa of Basra
Ahmad Shya'a al-Barak al-Bu Sultan (Shia, Iraqi Lawyers union)
Salam al-Khafaji (Shia woman, ex-Baathist, replaced the late Aqila al-Hashemi)
Bremer then called off the meeting as there was no longer a quorum. To ease the tensions he invited the IGC to his residence for this evening's meal.
The 17 IGC members who had stayed in the room after the vote was taken went to Bremer's.
At present, the 8 named above who walked out in protest at the repeal of decree 137 are at Ahmed Chalabi's residence and are boycotting dinner with Bremer."
Later she corrected this (with a sigh of relief) to the extent of saying Chalabi was not at the meeting. (This would make 8 people who left).
Update March 8: Fred Kaplan in Slate says:
"A few days earlier, Chalabi's nephew, at his behest, had been one of seven Shiites who walked out of a session, in protest, after several women persuaded the council to drop a provision of the constitution that would have imposed religious rulings on family life."
More recently we have official news of a new constitution, to get the country through at least until there is a major convention in about a year.
"The council [IGC] agreed...to a bill of rights that protects freedom of speech, freedom of religious expression, freedom of assembly and due process.
"The constitution names Islam as 'a source' of legislation rather than the primary source - a compromise that is unlikely to end the struggle between the Shia and Sunni, who want to introduce sharia law, and secularists.
"Kurdish demands for federalism, to enshrine the autonomy they have in the north, were agreed in principle but the council did not specify the borders of a Kurdish region.
"The constitution also failed to resolve a dispute over sharing the presidency, saying only that there will be a president with two deputies. The Shia want the presidency to reflect their larger numbers, while the Sunnis and Kurds want it to rotate between the groups.
"The council also agreed to a 'goal' of filling 25 per cent of seats in a new parliament with women."
Power is somehow to be divided between a president and a prime minister--with the latter accountable to the elected assembly.
See also the Washington Post: there is still no agreement on an interim government to take over July 1.
The document is supposed to be signed tomorrow, and many details have not been released.
Kevin Drum says a lot could still go wrong but: "Still, once something gets written down it tends to become the baseline for further negotiation, so the interim constitution probably represents some real progress anyway. And getting the oil pumping and cutting down on coalition casualties is definitely progress."
Matthew Yglesias, commenting on the same Juan Cole post that Drum mentions, is more pessimistic. He suggests the draft constitution is a rush job intended simply to persuade the Americans it is OK for them to withdraw.
"Unfortunately, we're seeing a confluence of interests between the Bush administration and various internal groups that would like to undermine either the integrity or the democratic character of a future Iraqi state. Both just need to keep a lid on the situation for a few months yet so America can claim victory and go home before the real fights begin."
I don't know. I'm beginning to think there are signs here of Ahmed Chalabi working hard to bring Western-style democracy to his homeland. (Salim Chalabi, Ahmed's nephew, is mentioned by Cole, and in one news story he says "no one will have absolute power; we wanted to be sure of that.") Of course Chalabi the uncle may be in over his head, and he may be pursuing several agendas at once, but there is some hope here.
Update March 3: the signing is now scheduled for Friday--the delay caused by the terrible bombings on the weekend.
The much-discussed "Al Qaeda" letter is from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Kevin Drum notes, no doubt with a certain satisfaction, that the W. Bush administration has had several chances to take him out, and has chosen not to do so. (Link to NBC).
More surprising, the National Debate has put up a pretend page of NY Times corrections of mis-statements by their columnists. The spoof is serious in that they are apparently trying to state the correct facts in each case. This surprised me:
"A William Safire column entitled 'Found: A Smoking Gun' from February 11, 2004 cited an article, 'U.S. Says Files Seek Qaeda Aid In Iraq Conflict', which ran in The New York Times the previous day to assert a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The article cited by Mr. Safire stated that the letter was not evidence of a link between al Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam. The same column also asserted that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as an 'Al Qaeda leader.' CIA chief George Tenet testified before the Senate intelligence committee in February 2003 that Zarqawi considered himself and his network 'quite independent' of Al Qaeda."
Daniel Pipes is worried that the draft constitution for Iraq establishes Muslim law. (Link via Hit and Run). Pipes welcomes the shift from saying the Sharia must be "the source" of law in Iraq to saying it is "a source." He is still worried, however, that no law will be allowed to conflict with the Sharia; and that this agreement is a mere "way station" until a more lasting agreement is struck, in any case.
Update March 5: Josh Marshall addresses the question why the Bush administration would deliberately leave al-Zarqawi alive in the months leading up to March 2003. There were two "official" rationales for the invasion of Iraq: WMDs, and links to Al Qaeda and hence 9/11. If they eliminated the individual who provided the most plausible (although still questionable) link to Al Qaeda, this would leave less of a rationale for invading.
To repeat, it is still far from clear what has been going on with al-Zarqawi. It seems unlikely rather than likely that Ansar al Islam was working closely with Al Qaeda before March 2003. It is not clear who is responsible for recent bombings in Iraq. Marshall points to the possibility that al-Zarqawi is not even alive.
And of course, the signing of a new (interim) constitution has been delayed indefinitely. (Link from The Corner). The 5 Shiite members of the IGC (including Ahmed Chalabi) have refused to sign because of the continuing issue of whether the Kurds will have a veto over the final constitution, and something about the powers of the president and two vice-presidents.
I'll repeat my suggestion: rather than let a regionally concentrated minority hold up proceedings now, promise them a kind of permanent veto, at least on some matters, once a permanent constitution is established. An upper house could treat regional minorities as equals, while a lower house is based on rep by pop.
Update March 6: The Globe and Mail has an AP story saying Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani specifically does not want the Kurds to be able to veto a permanent constitution; he or someone sympathetic to him has raised the question "how can a non-elected body set up a new elected body?"; and he wants a five-person rotating presidency, with three Shiites, one Sunni and one Kurd.
Update: March 8: The Interim Constitution has been signed, although Ayatollah Sistani still has concerns. This has to be regarded as another success for Bush.
Somebody on the web (I forget who) said Bremer and the Bush Administration are not really in the driver's seat--they are just taking any deal they can get to stick to the July 1 deadline. The Globe and Mail reports that in Basra, and the Shiite south generally, militias are growing in power.
Fred Kaplan notes that Ahmed Chalabi is much friendlier to Sistani than he used to be--probably because Chalabi is widely unpopular, and Sustani has demonstrated his ability to turn big demonstrations on--or off.
I attended a talk the other night by my teacher Clifford Orwin hosted by the Churchill Society in Toronto: Churchill's Islam problem--and ours.
The original edition of Churchill's "The River War" has long been out of print--although many abridged editions are in circulation. A new complete edition is about to be published. Churchill was probably persuaded to shorten his book simply to make it more readable, and sell more copies, but he also chose to cut some criticisms he had made of Lord Kitchener, and some comments on Islam in the modern world. Orwin's paper is based largely or entirely on passages that have long been out of print.
More tomorrow.
Update: In one long passage, which is not really repeated or elaborated anywhere, Churchill says something like: Islam itself is a dangerous force; it subjects its believers to dangerous indolence, and even slavery in the case of women; the only real break between periods of indolence is likely to be an episode of fanatical violence; and the West will have a hard struggle to save itself as Islam spreads. Churchill suggests that Christianity used to be at least roughly comparable to Islam, but it has been made a truly progressive force by the victory of science, which Christianity used to oppose as Islam does in 1900 (as Churchill wrote).
What is striking here is that it is not simply one dangerous version of Islam, or radical extremes limited to the margins of Islam, that are the problem. Islam itself is a big problem. The West is in a war for survival, like it or not. Churchill spoke from experience in that the River War in Sudan was fought against Dervish fanatics, who had been brutalized by Egyptian rule; he also gained experience in the North-West Frontier--now Afghanistan.
There are other passages, however, where Churchill suggests that Islam is a "normal" phenomenon. Churchill clearly believed that the West had become a great example of progress--moral, political and spiritual, as well as material. Different societies or cultures will achieve modernity in different ways. Often there will be an early or intermediate stage which is characterized by fanaticism and oppression, but if the population in question is managed correctly, real progress is still very likely if not inevitable. Churchill gives the example of the Brits "managing" Muslims as well as Hindus and others in India. This suggests that not even Islam requires an all-out war to the death of one civilization or another. Only firm and consistent handling is required--of a kind that a true world-wide empire might administer with a combination of force and diplomacy.
The first, more troubling interpretation of Islam would tend to support the Perle/Frum view of the present war on terror. The U.S. must lead the West in attacking many governments, and many examples of Islamic society, in order to weaken the forces that led to 9/11. Radical Islam, which has deep roots in much of the Muslim world, must be changed quickly and drastically from without, or the terrorists will win.
The second interpretation--progress is desirable and even necessary, but it can be achieved by diplomacy as much as by force--might support the conservative realists such as Kissinger and James Baker. (Of course many will ask: is this the whole political spectrum?) Instead of all of Islam being seen as a threat, there may be a need to "cut off the heads" of the worst offending groups, while offering material progress and democracy to sizable parts of the Muslim population.
Of course, Churchill assumed that the Brits would continue to have a real Empire--something that was virtually destroyed by World War I, and the remnants of which were eliminated by World War II. Whatever one thinks of the U.S. today, they don't have that kind of empire. Their plan in Iraq is to stay a fairly short time, and set up a democracy as quickly as possible. Orwin I think came close to saying this is an awkward combination of approaches. The problem is supposedly imbedded in Iraqi society deeply enough that massive force is required to eliminate it; yet it can be solved within 6 months or a year, and a democracy can be established where there has never been one.
I don't think Orwin is a neo-con. I seem to recall him saying in the 80s that he wasn't a neo-con, but he would be excluded from the same parties the neo-cons would be. He described himself during the talk as a "Thucydidean" who believes all human beings strive to be free, and then to expand. This always works against believing that any one group is evil, or has some kind of intention or tendency of soul that is worse than that of others.
On the other hand, it is clear that 9/1l has made Orwin think seriously about the neo-con agenda. Even the points that Michael Lind probably believes are often taken out of context--Churchill was "the greatest statesman of the 20th century," and he "saved democracy"--are present. The thought that it is always 1939--at least as long as Islam is growing in the world--was not far from the surface. The idea that the late British Empire that Churchill grew up in was more or less progressive and glorious seems very powerful, and it leads to the thought that the U.S. may have a "duty," like it or not, to set up something which in some ways resembles that empire, and then defend it with great determination.
Do the attacks on 9/11, and the deaths of thousands of U.S. civilians on U.S. soil, lead to the thought that Islam is a growing and intractable problem, as Churchill, at least at some times, believed?
Sudan, in the hundred years after the events Churchill describes, became a safe haven for Al Qaeda. Afghanistan continues to be Afghanistan. The Muslims in India became Pakistanis, and are still a source of terrorism, and the distribution of nuclear weapons to rogue states. The Saudis and others have oil money so that their (undeniable) indolence and fanaticism can acquire weapons from the West.
On the other hand, even the Dervishes may have fought as much because of their previous oppression as anything else. Peter Russell spoke about Sudan the other evening, and he said that while things are terrible there, it is not really Muslims against everybody else; it is an autocratic government fighting all its enemies by brutal means.
At my son's request, I rented the complete Fawlty Towers on DVD last weekend. I think I have to return it tomorrow, so I won't have a chance to see it all.
My son and I now have a tradition of watching a few episodes every Christmas. Our favourite is probably "The Germans," but both "Communication Problems" and "A Touch of Class" are very good. For those who don't know, this is a Brit Com set in a small hotel in Torquay. Basil Fawlty vacillates between fawning over his guests, and being as rude as possible to them. Every episode focusses increasing frustration on him personally, until he finally has some kind of breakdown with saner people watching. He and his wife hate each other.
We got to see an old interview featuring John Cleese a few weeks ago. The interview took place shortly after Fawlty Towers finished production. (There are only 12 episodes; I think half were first aired in 1975, the rest in 1979, or something like that. Cleese had left Monty Python.) Cleese said surveys had been done to find out which characters viewers liked or identified with. Number 1 was probably Manuel, the much oppressed porter or whatever he is who speaks little English. But Number 2 was Fawlty, as Cleese said, "this monster." His conclusion was something like: people identify with someone who has inadequate control over his life, yet shows a certain spirit in bearing up under it. I would add that the hospitality industry makes this perfect: you're supposed to be polite to people you don't like; it's your job; and someday you might be tempted to blow.
I'm seeing episodes I've never seen, or don't remember. "The Psychiatrist" is not the best episode, but it has some amazing writing. (Cleese stressed in the interview that he and his then wife, who played the sane waitress, Polly, spent weeks on each script). This episode probably has the best insults of Basil and Cybill for each other. She says to him, quite rightly, that he never gets it right with the guests. He's either all over them, licking their boots, or attacking them "like a Benzedrine puff adder." She keeps catching him (apparently) spying on a beautiful female guest--he's actually trying to spy on a male guest--and at one point she gets to say (something like): "surely in your wildest dreams you don't think a woman like this could be attracted to an aging, brilliantined stick insect like you."
He becomes more and more desperate to prove that the attractive young male guest, whom Cybil has fawned over, has an unauthorized female guest. He keeps trying to explain to her. She says: "Do you think I've got time to listen to any more of your hopeless, lily-livered, jellyfish lies?" He still feels he can win the day (of course he never does), so he shuts her up and says: "I'm fed up with you, you rancorous, coiffured old sow. Why don't you [syringe?] the doughnuts out of your ear and get some sense into that dormant organ you keep hidden in that rat's maze of yours?" Somewhere, I'm not sure in what episode, he calls her a "cloth-headed bint."
This is a couple that has arrived at a cold hatred of each other; yet it is funny. In "Communication Problems," there is a somewhat elderly lady with a hearing aid. She admits that sometimes she deliberately turns the hearing aid down, and all the staff have the experience of shouting to make her understand something. She is constantly rude and demanding, literally from the first seconds of the episode. The frustration builds. Basil retaliates against her in a nastier way than anyone else, but the whole staff, and I venture to say, viewers, are more than half-way on his side. Torturing a deaf old lady--and we can sympathize with the torturers, because she has been such a pain? I think that's amazing writing.
Some critics say "The Anniversary" is a classic example of comedy depending on people who are not stupid doing something stupid. Why doesn't Basil simply explain what is going on, instead of forcing Polly to impersonate Cybill, bed-ridden in the dark of her room? I like that episode, but it seems right to me to say the plot is a strain. A big part of The Germans makes no sense at all--there is hardly a glance at plausibility--yet it is wildly funny. We want to go where the writers want to take us.
I think it is earlier episodes where Basil, while leering at young women, is somehow "Edwardian" or puritanical about sex. "The Wedding Party" is largely about this, and it strikes me as not terribly funny. On the other hand, when Basil and the Major agree on bigoted remarks about women and visible minorities and Germans, this somehow is reminiscent of the mature/already rotting British Empire of the late Victorian and Edwardian era: smug complacency and bigotry in dismissing 90% or so of the human race. Now that's funny.
Update: "The Psychiatrist" also includes the joke: "Pretentious? Moi?" I think someone on Slate referred to this as the perfect two-word joke. It sounds like Miss Piggy, and I believe it may have been attributed to her. (I don't know the Muppets material). Come to think of it, is Miss Piggy's whole shtick derived from this one joke in Fawlty Towers?
And while I'm at it: is the funny "stick insect" business in The Diary of Adrian Mole derived from one line in Fawlty Towers?
Worth noting: the clockwork ending of "Communication Problems," where all the strands come together. Fawlty, who has been hiding his winnings on a horse from Cybill, foolishly flashes the money. The crabby female guest, who claims a similar amount has been stolen from her room, spots Fawlty's money. To prove his money is his, Fawlty turns to Manuel. In addition to the language problem, Manuel has been couched by Fawlty to say "I know nothing," in case Cybill asks. So that's what he says.
The guest gets Fawlty's money, he tears his shirt off and has a fit with Polly watching. Then a vase is delivered. The crabby guest bought it in town, and somehow wedged her (supposedly missing) money inside. Fawlty laughs hysterically--for the first time in his life, he's ahead. He enjoys teasing the crabby guest. Cybill spots the money. Fawlty stammers to explain it belongs to Polly. The Major speaks up. His memory has been spotty as to whether he knows about Fawlty's money or not. Suddenly it comes to him. "I remember now, Fawlty. You won the money on a horse!" Fawlty hands the money to Cybill, the vase drops on the floor, Cybill hands the money to the crabby guest.
Perfect.
There is an American movie, "Oscar" starring Sylvester Stallone, which has this clockwork farcical quality to it. Of course it is often present in Frasier.
Update: OK, I've about OD'd on this stuff.
I saw most of "Gourmet Night." That's where Basil calls Polly (not Cybill) a "cloth-headed bint." Same episode: Cybill says "maybe we're dreaming." Basil bangs his head on the counter and says "No, it's real. We're stuck with it."
You can buy all the scripts, by John Cleese and Connie Booth (his wife during the first series, who played Polly), from Amazon.
The only complete script I've been able to find on the web is for "A Touch of Class."
There are a number of fan or survery type sites. This one lists the cast, gives a few points of trivia, and lists all episodes with original broadcast dates.
By my ranking, the best episodes are:
The Germans, A Touch of Class, The Hotel Inspectors, all from the first season, and Communication Problems from the second season; many people like Basil the Rat, from the second season. I think that's it for the "first echelon."
In the second tier I would put The Kipper and the Corpse, Waldorf Salad, and The Anniversary, all from the second season.
Last: Gourmet Night and The Builders from the first season; the Psychiatrist from the second. I think The Wedding Party would be last.
If I'm right, the first season had the most episodes in the first echelon, but the second season did better if the first two echelons are combined.
No one can accuse Ariel Sharon of not showing leadership.
Of course he faces criticism for unilaterally building a barrier which hurts the interests of many law-abiding Palestinians, and arguably looks like annexation insofar as it goes beyond the "Green Line"--the 1967 borders.
But he seems to be making an honest effort to achieve some of what meaningful negotiations--if they ever occur--might achieve: a retreat of Israelis from settlements that are hardest to defend (in more senses than one), combined with a new confidence in borders that are defensible. It remains to be seen how many settlements will actually be abandoned; there seems to be strong popular support in Israel for abandoning the Gaza Strip.
It does seem the bigger problem is on the Palestinian side. Let us say for the sake of argument that Arafat feels compelled to keep one foot in the radical camp so that he is not out-flanked by those who are more radical than he is. Does he have any actual strategy? It seems that he will not negotiate seriously, and no other Palestinian will negotiate without him involved.
Colin Powell quote from Instapundit, who clearly would go farther:
"Last year the President took a large political step, with political risk, when he put enough pressure on the Palestinian side for them to come forward with somebody who could be seen as a peacemaker, the new Prime Minister Abu Mazen. And we went to Aqaba. The President stood there with the new Prime Minister, King Abdullah of Jordan and with Prime Minister Sharon, and everybody committed to the roadmap and the President's vision.
"Unfortunately, it didn't work because the Palestinians were unable -- and I put the blame squarely on Mr. Arafat -- Arafat was not willing to provide authority to Abu Mazen to take control of the security organizations and to go after terrorism and speak out against terrorism -- not to start a civil war of the Palestinian communities and the Palestinian Authority, but to start moving against terrorism."
UPDATE Feb. 27: Jonathan Rauch (link via Hit and Run) argues that the most likely explanation of Sharon's actions is that he has concluded there will not be meaningful negotiations soon, and like a good general he is hunkering down in a more defensible position.
A more sobering piece by Bernard Avishai
on Slate: what about the Arabs/Palestinians in Jerusalem, and others who will be under Israeli control in isolated pockets (perhaps "ghettos"?).
"About 100,000 of greater Jerusalem's 250,000 Arab residents will be caught directly between Israeli Defense Forces checkpoints and other fences; at least 30,000 do not qualify for Israeli health insurance or travel documents, becoming stateless, and those who do qualify receive virtually no government services--it is common for them to fight their way through choked queues in front of government offices." This brings up the question: why cannot at least some Palestinian Arabs become full-fledged citizens of Israel?
I've just started reading the latest book by one of my teachers, Thomas Pangle: Political Philosophy and the God of Abraham.
Reading this great argument takes me back to grad school. I'm especially struck about the introductory argument in favour of truly returning to Scripture--learning what we can from it, taking it utterly seriously, trying to understand how serious people could believe it to be literally true. The great problem for Pangle, as for his teacher before him, Allan Bloom, is that despite our talk about being open to diversity and controversy, intellectuals today typically have a complacent faith that they need not take seriously many books and ideas from the past. The more ideological will have a doctrine to explain their rejection of old views--the patriarchy, cultural imperialism, or whatever--but the truth is they don't think they need an explanation. They are riding the train they want to be on, and they are confident it is going where they want to go.
UPDATE:
Pangle explains the need to get past the treatment of Scripture in the early moderns:
"...they consciously prepare a world mesmerized by the rewards of secular progress, in which fewer and fewer, even or especially among the thoughtful, will recognize that it is worthwhile to make the effort to confront in a sustained way the challenge posed to reason, and its secular progress, by Scripture. The ultimate cultural aim of the modern theologico-political treatises is to reduce religious reflection and argument (along with...virtue...) to the status of a birdlike cacophony of merely private and personal, shallow and shifting, opinions.
"...the discussion not only of theology but of humanity's spiritual fulfillment and destiny has become radically 'relativized' and thus increasingly rendered unserious....there is practically no access to genuine encounter with the texts that make possible a passionate and intense quest for final answers to the fundamental and abiding questions of the eternal truth about divinity and human excellence. [Without reversing the achievements of liberalism, on the level of thought and self-understanding] we must break out of this cultural amusement park that more or less benevolently confines us like etiolated adolescents."
The people being attacked here would probably be proud to be known as "liberals," but is this really a conservative argument, in the sense that it proceeds from conservative dogma or doctrine? Pangle seems confident that there are fundamental questions, and that the pursuit of them is always worthwhile. We need to appreciate, and carefully study, "old books," simply because they are tools in this endeavour. He doesn't say he has any final answers, nor that he is confident that any of them are "conservative" answers.
I believe he is really trying to follow the Socratic approach. Once one is convinced that there are no answers, or that they are not to be found from discredited (out of date, "right wing") sources, one can dismiss the Bible, Plato, or whatever. But then what raw material does actually have to exercise one's mind, challenge one's assumptions, and approach a truly new understanding? Socrates would apparently consider the views of a wide range of people, and take these views (perhaps) even more seriously than their proponents did. Without necessarily agreeing with any propositions, he would keep turning them over. What do they mean? How do apparently related propositions truly bear on each other? Are they consistent, coherent, helpful?
There is a tendency to believe rationalism is basically opposed to revelation or faith. Once again, if one believes that dogmatically, one will cease to take Scripture or particular statements of faith seriously. In his very opening pages Pangle speaks of how Socrates would say his entire philosophic activity had a divine, erotic source. "...but if love is to conduct the soul to the truly divine, to the truth about the divine, then love must be purified in the fire of severely self-critical rational investigation of both love itself and its primary or apparent objects."
Bright young people today more or less take for granted that they are more open and diverse and global and multicultural and wise than anyone has ever been. In fact, they have achieved the wisdom of Socrates (without much effort), or even more. This is a truly stunning combination of a somewhat sophisticated, jargon-laden complacency about wisdom, combined with a rationale for not following Socrates' example and pursuing true, troubling and disturbing, difficult-to-attain wisdom at all.
I will be dealing with this in different ways in American Con Law. The Casey decision on abortion contains a famous passage that pro-lifers love to ridicule. (Co-authors are O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter) "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Not only is autonomous, radically isolated decision-making the path to wisdom or depth, it is somehow itself the same as the greatest possible wisdom. To paraphrase a bit unfairly: any choice that you seem to have made totally on your own, no matter how thoughtless, gives you direct access to the mystery of human life.
The 2003 Lawrence case (Kennedy for the Court) quotes that passage from Casey, and adds references to liberty including "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions." Kennedy I believe came to the Court as a Roman Catholic, married with several children, from Sacramento. The majority of the Rehnquist Court are more or less conservatives, depending on the issue. They are elderly, and sit in solemn ceremony in black robes. Yet they publish, with obvious pride and satisfaction, remarks that are reminiscent of hippies at a love-in in the 60s.
The point is not that this is the worst possible outcome, or that all the practical consequences are bad. It is simply that the thoughtlessness is amazing.
I'd like to develop an argument that the United States remains the most modern of societies--with a whole-hearted dedication to technology including biotechnology and in-vitro fertilization. All "conservative" social bonds are expected to give way to "progress," as the high rates of divorce and abortion indicate. Even when families stay in touch, they are amazingly mobile, moving to the distant corners of the country and even the world for education or jobs. Yet the U.S. also displays more "conservative" debates--about capital punishment, cloning, abortion and to some extent even the family--than almost any other liberal democracy. The debate is seldom allowed to slow down "progress." Sometimes there is a conservative decision, such as the restrictions on cloning research, or the pitched battles on so-called "partial birth abortion." Yet the U.S. surely stores more fertilized human embryos, for use in IVF, than any country, and pro-lifers and religious people, as far as I know, say very little about it.
Somehow the conservatives provide one kind of hope that at least there will be a debate. Of course, if they were truly in charge, they would not welcome Socrates any more than liberals do today. But as outsiders, they want minority views to be heard.
Minority? Sometimes it seems conservatives are winning the elections, while liberals are winning (only) in the courts; but that's not quite right either.
Now: does the debate about the Iraq war prove that Americans are prepared to defend Western civilization, while Europeans and Canadians rot in their nihilism? I kind of doubt it.
Ahmed Chalabi has a lot of 'splainin' to do:
"'What the INC told us formed one part of the intelligence picture,' a senior official in Baghdad said. 'But what Chalabi told us we accepted in good faith. Now there is going to be a lot of question marks over his motives.'"
In a more recent development, it turns out that contracts worth $400 million have been steered to associates of Chalabi. Already in this story there is a suggestion that Chalabi is creating a private army, which might be a threat to Chalabi's fellow members of the IGC.
A more sinister take on the possibility of a Chalabi private army here.
The U.S. has made it official that their "caucus" plan for establishing a new constitution in Iraq is dead.
Shiite leaders are pushing for elections in the Shiite south, and the Kurdish north, but not (alas) the Sunni centre of the country.
As Bush-hating Garry Trudeau points out, there is a possibility of civil war; even if the outcome is better than that, it is likely that the major groups will remain in charge of different parts of the country by way of militias.
One bright spot: democratic elections of mayors, ably assisted by a U.S. officer. I can't find it right now; later.
|
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting
|