Category: World at Large

Red Letter Day.

“In short, [the letter] provides a perfect opportunity for Bush to do what he should have been doing for the last few years — to lay out what America stands for, what we have in common with Muslim nations, and how our differences can be tolerated or settled without conflict.” Also in Slate, Fred Kaplan offers some sage advice on how to respond to Admadinejad’s recent letter. “Bush and Ahmadinejad — two of the world’s most stubborn, self-righteous leaders. It’s at once hopeful and pathetic that the next step in their confrontation — whether it intensifies or slackens — could be determined by whether Bush answers or brushes off a goofy letter.“

The Dems Ascendant?

“‘This administration may be over,’ Lance Tarrance, a chief architect of the Republicans’ 1960s and ’70s Southern strategy, told a gathering of journalists and political wonks last week. ‘By and large, if you want to be tough about it, the relevancy of this administration on policy may be over.‘” Are we at the turn of the tide? As even committed conservatives and right-leaning observers start sticking a fork in the Dubya administration, newly confident Dems begin to prepare for a return of the House. Foremost in their plans is “a legislative blitz during their first week in power that would raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls…a Democratic House would [also] launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration, beginning with the White House’s first-term energy task force and probably including the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.”

Suck-Ups to Power.

“Battered by accusations of a liberal bias and determined to prove their conservative critics wrong, the press during the run-up to the war — timid, deferential, unsure, cautious, and often intentionally unthinking — came as close as possible to abdicating its reason for existing in the first place, which is to accurately inform citizens, particularly during times of great national interest.” In very related news (as Dan Froomkin pointed out), Salon publishes an extended excerpt from Eric Boehlert’s Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over For Bush.

Powell: Told You So.

“‘The president’s military advisers felt that the size of the force was adequate; they may still feel that years later. Some of us don’t. I don’t,’ Powell said. ‘In my perspective, I would have preferred more troops, but you know, this conflict is not over.‘” In a slap at Rumsfeld, Cheney, and his other one-time nemeses in the Dubya White House, former Secretary of State Colin Powell airs some of his grievances with the build-up to war in Iraq. “‘At the time, the president was listening to those who were supposed to be providing him with military advice,’ Powell said. ‘They were anticipating a different kind of immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad; it turned out to be not exactly as they had anticipated.’”

Coming In from the Cold (War).

“[F]or all their practical failures, conservatives have at least told a coherent political story, with deep historical roots, about what keeps America safe and what makes it great. Liberals, by contrast, have offered adjectives drawn from focus groups and policy proposals linked by no larger theme.” In keeping with the intellectual territory he staked out after the 2004 election, former TNR editor Peter Beinart makes the case for a return to Cold War liberalism in a NYT excerpt of his new book, The Good Fight (also discussed in the recent Atlantic Monthly.)

I couldn’t agree more with Beinart’s paragraph above, but I don’t think the lack of a sufficiently robust national security emphasis is really the defining element missing among today’s Dems. Are there really Democrats out there who don’t agree with Beinart’s three main assessments here, that (a) America faces a real enemy in Al Qaeda and other fundamentalist terror networks, (b) our foreign policy should be less hubristic and more attuned to both local contingency and international institutions, and (c) our national sense of self should emphasize our own fallibility at times? Beinart would probably target the MoveOn crowd, but as Eric Alterman noted in the last round of this back-and-forth, that’s just a DLC straw man, roughly akin to Joe Klein’s cadre of phantom lefty consultants in the last update.

Plus, I think there are two significant historical problems with the Cold War liberalism Beinart unreservedly espouses, which he fails to discuss here. For one, Cold War liberals could very easily be seen as best inattentive to and — at worst complicit in — the excesses of McCarthyism. If the enemy abroad becomes the central defining focus of your national narrative, then the enemy within is undoubtedly going to start eating at you as well. For another, (and as John Gaddis, among others, has pointed out) — for all its early sense of diplomatic complexity and limited, realistic goals — the Cold War liberalism Beinart promotes all too readily (d)evolved into the guiding rationale for wildly wrongheaded foreign policy interventions, most notably in Vietnam. (You’d think Beinart would pay more lip service to this issue, particularly as he himself made much the same mistake in shilling for the Iraq war in The New Republic.)

In short, I agree with Beinart’s assessment that the Dems lack a sense of usable past, but the problems with his argument can be encapsulated by his ideal of a what a good, hawkish, Cold War liberal Democrat should look like these days: That, if Beinart’s tenure at TNR is any indication, would be Joe Lieberman, a politician who’s not only been flagrantly cheerleading for the administration during the current war, but has exhibited little interest in today’s wartime civil liberties issues. Simply put, Joe Lieberman would hardly be my choice of template for the Democratic party. (Who would? That’s easy: Russ Feingold, who’s displayed a strong commitment to preserving both national security and civil liberties at home, while arguing for a more level-headed, less-in-your-face American foreign policy.)

Paging William Fulbright.

“‘The current debate over our national security by a series of retired generals — some critical, some supportive of the present leadership in the Department of Defense — is an important exercise of the right to freedom of speech,’ he said. ‘Another valued tenet is the right of the president to select the members of his own Cabinet.'” Senate Armed Service Committee chairman John Warner (R-VA) makes noise about holding Senate hearings on Rumsfeld. I’ll believe it when I see it.

The Death and Life of Great American Urban Activists.

“In the weeks to come, much will be written about her central role in shaping our ideas — and our ideals — of urbanism. The praise will be deserved. During the 1960s, a time when the reigning orthodoxy was urban renewal, which generally took the form of urban demolition, she championed a more evolutionary, humanist, and small-scale approach to city planning.” Slate‘s Witold Rybczynski ruminates on the legacy of Jane Jacobs, who passed away yesterday (1916-2006.)

Ground Zero Hour.

“With today’s agreement, we can now move forward with rebuilding the World Trade Center.” After months of wrangling, developer Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority strike a deal on the planned “Freedom Tower” at the WTC site. Said Pataki: ““This is the last stumbling block to putting shovels in the ground.” Construction on the 1776-foot Freedom Tower is set to be completed by 2012.

The KBR Relocation Authority.

I’m a bit late on this one: In an ugly confluence of several of this administration’s shady dealings, CheneyCo.’s KBR/Halliburton — its attempts at continued war profiteering faltering — recently won a $385 million contract to build immigrant detention centers for the Dept. of Homeland Security. “The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.” Um, new programs? (By way of Supercres.)