The Myths of Evan Thomas (Part III)

Evan Thomas’ best case for debunking the Munich lesson, as mentioned, comes from U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Thomas rightly says “the fear of appeasement” was “the single most important factor in dragging America into Vietnam.” But then Thomas says Lyndon Johnson “mistook” a “civil war” for an “assault by monolithic communism,” ridicules the “domino theory” that Vietnam’s fall would turn “all” of Southeast Asia communist, and brands Vietnam a “fiasco” of defeat and lost lives. At least for “liberals who had marched against the war,” Vietnam taught us to avoid military intervention abroad.

Problems with Thomas’ take on Vietnam:

 Contrary to Thomas’ assertion, Johnson saw Vietnam as a civil war between the North and the South, the North backed by Communists, and we required to back the South (like Korea). Thomas’ friends on the left, by contrast, (correctly?) saw Vietnam as a war of national liberation, with the Communists fighting descendents of French colonialists.

 The “domino theory” became reality in Indochina—South Vietnam’s fall led to the fall of Laos and Cambodia.

 The Vietnam “fiasco,” which involved too much U.S. sacrifice, may have kept Indonesia and most of Southeast Asia non-communist in 1965, and by earning the Chinese and Soviet leaders’ respect, contributed to Nixon’s diplomatic triumphs with both.

Thomas further mischaracterizes the bitterness felt by U.S. military involved with Vietnam, including John McCain’s father, at “the failure of will of civilian leaders.” Of course, military resentment was reserved not for “civilian leaders” Nixon and Ford, but for Democrats in congress who refused to appropriate funds needed to keep South Vietnam viable following U.S. withdrawal in 1973. Thomas embarrassingly equates these U.S. military complaints to Nazis and others who blamed Germany’s World War I defeat on a Jewish “stab in the back” (he avoids the word “Jewish”, since openly likening the U.S. military to German anti-Semites would instantly discredit his overwrought analogy).

Reviewing the post-Vietnam era, Thomas continues his rewrite of history:

 Thomas says Reagan wasn’t really the nail-spitting enemy of the “evil empire” he set out to be, but actually a wall-to-wall negotiator in his second term, dealing from “a position of strength.” In fact, history honors Reagan for his “position of strength” not his negotiating; his military build-up bankrupted the Soviet Union, effectively winning the Cold War (a victory recorded with the USSR’s 1991 demise).

 Thomas says George H.W. Bush made a “flawed” comparison of Saddam to Hitler, when the Iraqi dictator rolled over an international border to invade Kuwait, because Saddam was only a “local” menace. In fact, Bush’s parallel was valid; Saddam had invaded Iran and had designs on other neighboring states including Saudi Arabia, and wanted to control the whole of Middle East oil.

 Thomas suggests Clinton similarly erred in the Balkans when his administration likened Milosevic to Hitler. In fact, Milosevic horrified Europe with his Hitler-like ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.

 Thomas suggests (he puts the words in others’ mouths) McCain is a “slightly unhinged former POW who has stubbornly determined to stay in Iraq in a war without end.” Thomas says McCain is a “believer in all or nothing” which has “a certain purity and nobility” that doesn’t reflect “the messy reality of limited wars against local insurgencies.” In fact, McCain’s belief that if you fight, you put in enough troops to win was the Iraq policy of General Shinseki, Colin Powell, and other Democratic Party heroes, though Democrats abandoned the strategy once Bush embraced McCain’s surge. In fact, McCain was hardly “all or nothing” about Vietnam; his advocacy of U.S. recognition of Vietnam as an ex-POW greatly influenced Republicans to do so in 1995. In fact, McCain’s policy to stay in Iraq until we’ve won is a “war without end” only to those like Thomas who see victory as impossible.

 Thomas suggests (apparently quoting Obama) Iran’s Ahmadinejad is “no Hitler,” isn’t “the real power in Iran,” and may be gone after elections next summer, so we shouldn’t too concerned about Obama’s promise last year to negotiate with Ahmadinejad “without preconditions” in his first year. In fact, Ahmadinejad is Hitler-like in his anti-Semitic ravings and threats and in his desire to extend Persia’s control over the entire Middle East, including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel. And Ahmadinejad, who enjoys the support of Iranian supreme leader Sayyid Ali Khamenei, armed with nuclear weapons will have power Hitler only dreamed of. Let’s hope that in spite of Thomas’ effort to rewrite history for his favorite next president, Obama is fully alert to the parallels the world will see if he goes umbrella-in-hand to Tehran.

The Myths of Evan Thomas (Part II)

Evan Thomas links his effort to disparage the Munich lesson to David Halberstam, who did more than any other journalist to redirect U.S. policy on Vietnam. Halberstam in The Best and the Brightest called Munich’s lesson a misapplied justification for “interventionism” and “use of force.” Thomas agrees, rejecting the Munich “myth” and saying he likes presidents who “realize that the choice between negotiation and force is rarely clear-cut or either-or.”

In practice, however, Thomas revises history to honor negotiation above force.

 Thomas says Roosevelt praised Chamberlain at Munich and declared war on Germany only after Hitler acted first. In fact, FDR was eager to join Churchill in taking on Hitler, and more eager than Churchill to invade the continent.

 Thomas says Stalin had no designs on Western Europe after World War II. In fact, only strong action by Truman headed off Communist triumphs in Greece, Turkey, France, Italy, and West Berlin.

 Thomas says Communism’s conquest of China was simply an internal Chinese matter. In fact, Truman’s explicit decision to defend South Korea, Taiwan, and Indochina from Communism responded to the shock Americans felt when China went Communist on Truman’s watch.

 Thomas says Eisenhower “ludicrously. . . went to the brink” to protect Taiwan’s Quemoy and Matsu from Communist attack. In fact, Eisenhower’s action stopped an invasion that threatened Taiwan.

 Thomas says World War II conscientious objector Ted Sorensen wisely wrote the words in Kennedy’s inaugural, “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” In fact, Sorensen’s speech carried the words that led directly to Vietnam—“we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” (Here, Thomas fools only people younger than himself—Obama maybe?—we all remember how Kennedy’s speech ratcheted up the Cold War).

 Thomas says Kennedy stood up to the Soviets in divided Berlin. In fact, Khrushchev threw up the Berlin Wall shortly after meeting Kennedy in Vienna, and sizing him up as a weakling (see Obama, summit, first year, no preconditions).

 Thomas says Kennedy “shrewdly balanced force and diplomacy” during the Cuban missile crisis. In fact, Kennedy carried the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust, forcing Khrushchev into a public humiliation that cost him his job within two years. (When Khrushchev rashly sent missiles to Cuba, he acted after the president’s ill-prepared Vienna summit led Khrushchev to underestimate Kennedy’s nerve; see Obama, summit, first year, no preconditions.)

 Thomas says Kennedy negotiated a secret Cuban missile compromise similar to the “appeasement” Kennedy later charged Adlai Stevenson had advocated. In fact, Stevenson truly worried about war. In fact, the U.S. agreement to pull obsolete Jupiter missiles out of Turkey meant little; the missiles had no strategic significance, and the secrecy of their withdrawal protected Turkish face. In fact, Khrushchev had to back down because of an 8:1 U.S. advantage in strategic missiles—a fact Thomas knows but ignores.

The truth is, as Thomas writes, "The Kennedy's favorite word--and highest praise--was 'tough.'" Roosevelt was tough in war, Truman was tough in dealing with Communists, Eisenhower valued peace but was tough with China, Kennedy was tough. None were Evan Thomas-type presidents squeamish about using force. All believed "the Munich lesson" and all viewed "appeasement" as a dirty word.

The Myths of Evan Thomas (Part I)

Evan Thomas, assistant managing editor of Newsweek, is the grandson of famed American socialist Norman Thomas and author of six books. He is also responsible for the embarrassingly inexcusable defense of the media’s pre-trial conviction of several Duke lacrosse players, saying, “The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong." And last month he co-wrote Newsweek’s partisan, pre-emptive attack on John McCain.

With Newsweek’s help, Thomas has now written another amazing article “The Mythology of Munich,” his revisionist history of the last 70 years. Thomas knows the left may soon be running U.S. foreign policy. So Thomas is seeking to justify an upcoming American foreign policy lurch to the left, should Obama move in that direction.

Let’s examine Thomas’ thinking. Thomas believes Churchill’s bulldog defense of England in the face of Hitler’s 1940 invasion threat needs a little rewrite. Churchill, you see, actually considered a secret Hitler peace offer, but helped by Neville Chamberlain’s opposition to the offer, decided instead to tell the world, “We will never surrender.” Thomas likes that Churchill wavered, saying he’s “all the more admirable for it.”

Thomas’ larger objective is to rewrite Munich history by elevating Chamberlain’s role as he diminishes Churchill’s. Thomas suggests critics wrongly view Chamberlain as “weak-kneed” and Churchill as “the beau ideal of indomitable leadership.” And he builds sympathy for Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler by quoting a Roosevelt telegram that praises Chamberlain’s action at the time—as if FDR and his entire administration didn’t see the folly of Munich within a few months. Thomas here and elsewhere acts as if readers themselves barely know history, or that people who know World War II are no longer with us (Thomas was born in 1951).

Thomas states Munich’s lesson was that “giving into aggression just invites more aggression.” In fact, Munich’s lesson is that we have to meet aggression head-on immediately and decisively, for it’s much harder after the aggressor strengthens. Hitler was bent on aggression, which should have been evident enough to Chamberlain in 1938 that he was willing to take him on. By characterizing Munich's lesson as “giving into aggression just invites more aggression,” Thomas implies that not stopping Hitler when he digested Czechoslovakia and doing little to Hitler after Poland’s fall (the Phony War) were no big deal—stop aggression sooner or later, the result is the same. But waiting until 1940 to fight in fact cost the allies millions of unnecessary lives. (See William Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.) Munich’s lesson was act swiftly to save lives.

Thomas is out to knock down the Munich “myth” because he sees (as we unenlightened do not) the “messy reality” of “statesmanship.” It “inevitably involves compromise, including. . . saying one thing while doing another.” Whatever Reagan said, he was in fact a negotiator. And in the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy “understood that choice between appeasement and force is a false one, the trick is to know when to deal and when to fight.”

Is Thomas really saying Chamberlain was right to “deal” and not “fight” with Hitler? Well, maybe not. For Thomas also tells us, “the only real Hitler was Hitler,” so even if his friend Chamberlain might have been a bit wrong at Munich, don’t apply the Munich lesson anywhere else. For Thomas, what made Hitler different from other megalomaniac dictators like Stalin, Milosevic, and Saddam is that he set out to conquer Europe "and he very nearly succeeded." This is an odd statement for Thomas, a man seeking to disparage the Munich "myth," to make. The reason Hitler nearly succeeded is that he wasn't stopped at Munich!

In sum, Thomas thinks we misunderstand the Munich lesson because Chamberlain actually had some backbone and Roosevelt supported him. But if you don’t like his first answer, Thomas’ second defense is that Hitler was sui generis. Does that sound like a lawyer talking? Surprise, Thomas is a lawyer.

Stock Market Sinks Below Betsy’s Level

It took over 11 weeks. But the market dropped below levels it was at before its April 1 jump, falling back as ABC’s Betsy Stark had predicted it would on April Fools Day (she anticipated days, not months). Oil prices are indeed behind what “gloom and doom“ Stark, rarely seen since March, called Wall Street’s deepening “mood of despair.”

Even pessimists get it right sometimes.

Haditha: One Bad Marine?

Was there a massacre at Haditha? Maybe. But Michelle Malkin reports “Yet another U.S. Marine, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, had charges dropped Tuesday in the so-called Haditha massacre -- bringing the total number of Marines who've been cleared or won case dismissals in the Iraq war incident to seven. 'Undue command influence' on the prosecution led to the outcome in Chessani's case. Bottom line: That's zero for seven for military prosecutors, with one trial [Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, pictured] left to go.”

She goes on to repeat the before-trial convictions offered by anti-Iraq war critics Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa (“Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."), MSNBC ‘s Keith Olbermann, The Nation magazine, The New York Times, especially reporter Paul von Zielbauer but also Maureen Dowd ("My Lai acid flashback"), The Guardian ("My Lai on the Euphrates?"), the Daily Telegraph ("Massacre in Iraq just like My Lai"), the Los Angeles Times ("What happened at the Iraqi My Lai?") and the Associated Press (story with old My Lai photos).

Cozy Bed: Trial Lawyers, Democrats, Media, Hollywood

The following summarizes an article by Steven Malanga of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank:

Trial lawyers. Melvyn Weiss, the dean of U.S. securities litigation, has been sentenced to 30 months in prison for his role in what a judge called a decades-old “nationwide conspiracy” of lawyers using illegal kickbacks to recruit plaintiffs for lawsuits against corporations.

Media. Given the magnitude of Weiss’ cases, his sentencing, which marked the end of his career, might have seemed like a slam dunk front-page newspaper story. It wasn’t at all.

Democrats. Obama rails against a “corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices and short-term greed.” Yet while Weiss’ former partner, William Lerach, is jailed for obstruction of justice and the biggest misdeeds are piling up in front of the trial bar, they don’t elicit outrage or calls for reform.

Hollywood. Richard “Dickie” Scruggs, the Mississippi plaintiffs’ attorney who wrestled with the tobacco industry in the 1990s, was portrayed heroically in the movie “The Insider.” He pled guilty in March to trying to bribe a local judge.

Meanwhile, trial bar offenses in the decades-long asbestos litigation frenzy, in which lawyers have ginned up phony diagnoses using compliant doctors, and paid kickbacks to union officials to recruit workers as plaintiffs, go unnoticed. Defendants have already paid out a staggering $70 billion in claims that wrecked dozens of businesses, cost thousands of workers their jobs, and enriched plaintiffs (many with no demonstrable health problems and no medical bills) and especially their lawyer, who’ve claimed more than half the awards in fees and expenses. As judge Denis Jacobs noted, many asbestos claims are based on “fraud, corrupt experts, perjury, and other things that would be deplored and persecuted by the legal profession if done within other commercial fields.”

A cadre of lawyers has relentlessly pursued and dealt devastating financial blows to a series of industries, from construction firms to vaccine makers, to manufacturers of scientifically-proven safe products like silicon breast implants, to publicly held firms whose only offense was a sharp drop in share price. Yet you have to look hard to find editorial outrage about the trial bar’s dubious methods.

Contrast that with the massive coverage and indignation over corporate misdeeds. Enron CEO Kenneth Lay in 2004 garnered more than 1,000 stories in just a few days. But whereas Enron quickly produced the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, all the trial bar’s shenanigans seem to have shaped in Washington is more friendly legislation on their behalf. In the hopper now is the Energy and Tax Extenders Act of 2008, which includes a provision to allow plaintiffs’ attorneys to deduct upfront from their tax bill the expenses of pursuing a case on a contingency-fee basis.

The direct victims of the trial bar are mostly deep-pocketed institutions like companies, governments and big nonprofits (hospitals, for instance) that elicit little sympathy from the press, while trial lawyers skillfully cultivate the press, providing them scoops in advance of lawsuits. It was a trial firm, for instance, that originally provided the New York Times transcripts of a meeting of Texaco managers which (falsely, it turns out) purported to show them using racial epithets.

The Third Falsehood

First came Iraq. A lost cause; the sooner we’re out, the better. Now with its cover saying, “Iraq starts to fix itself,” the Economist, which had proclaimed the U.S. effort in Iraq a “debacle,” sits itself down to a meal of crow. Of course the article is full of qualifiers, but the Economist is ahead of the American media in owning up to the current positive picture in Iraq. In the U.S., as the Economist notes, the media have dealt with Iraq’s turn for the better by ignoring it--airtime that in 2007 went 22% for Iraq news is now down to 4% and falling.

Iraq is the media’s #1 reason for voting Obama this fall. But reason #2 is the second falsehood, the poor state of our economy. Where is that recession, anyway? Though he overstates his point, Anatole Kaletsky, in The Times (London), says flatly: “If there were going to be a US recession in response to the credit crisis, it would have started by now. So let me stick my neck out and say without qualification - the US economy is out of the woods.”

Given their success with Iraq and the economy, the media are now working on their third falsehood designed to deliver the election to Obama: McCain is Bush, or McBush. Democrats want to tie McCain to Bush because of the president’s high negatives, and the media are gleefully going along. McCain is Bush because he favors victory in Iraq. Never mind that McCain called for Rumsfeld to be fired and blasted Rummy’s strategy, never mind McCain called for a troop surge three years ago, and never mind McCain’s strategy turned out to be right. McCain is Bush because he wants to keep taxes down, and supports free trade. Never mind that raising taxes and curbing free trade are disastrous policies McCain would be wrong to favor. And of course McCain opposes abortion and supports a strict constructionist Supreme Court.

But McCain isn’t Bush. He’s a maverick who denounces overpaid CEOs including oil men, favors campaign finance reform, strictly opposes enhanced interrogation techniques, supports cap-and-trade and other policies to curb global warming, won’t drill in ANWAR, opposes pork barrel spending Bush went along with, criticized Bush for Katrina screw-ups, and believes in getting along with the media by being open and honest with them. The media, having succeeded in falsely making Iraq and the economy issues that work against McCain, will now falsely paint McCain as Bush #3. They will do so because given their slipping power, they want to be seen as so biased in favor of Obama that they will be blamed for (actually credited with) Barack’s win.

Media, Democrats Exaggerate Bad Economy

“Democrats insist Republicans are ruining domestic policy, Republicans insist Democrats are ruining foreign policy. Neither claim is true.”

--Gregg Easterbrook, Brookings Institution

How bad is the economy, really? The cost of oil has gone through the roof, directly impacting gasoline prices and indirectly most everything else. When oil hit $139 a barrel, the Dow Jones dropped 400 points. We are also going through a deflating housing bubble and a related credit crisis. Yet the stock market is up again this week, unemployment remains historically low at 5.5%, and we still haven’t seen a recession, though Democrats and the media have used the “R” word repeatedly for nearly a year.

Easterbrook adds, “Inflation was up in 2007, but this stands out because the 16 previous years were close to inflation-free; living standards are the highest they have ever been, including living standards for the middle class and for the poor[; furthermore,] all forms of pollution other than greenhouse gases are in decline.”

I have looked at a contrasting set of statistics, and concluded Republicans will have a hard time justifying their stewardship of the economy to voters this Fall. Still, I share Easterbrook’s amazement that, as a recent CBS News/New York Times poll showed, "Americans' views on the economy and the general state of the country have hit an all-time low," with 81% saying the nation is on the "wrong track" – the worst-ever number for this barometer. It’s not that bad.

Easterbrook, a media person himself, believes

increasing pessimism from the news media is surely a factor – and the media grow ever-better at giving negative impressions. . . Whatever goes wrong in the country or around the world is telecast 24/7, making us think the world is falling to pieces – even when most things are getting better for most people, even in developing nations. . .

The relentlessly negative impressions of American life presented by the media, including the entertainment media, explain something otherwise puzzling that shows up in psychological data. When asked about . . . their own jobs, schools, doctors and communities, people tell pollsters the situation is good. Our impressions of ourselves and our neighbors come from personal experience. Our impressions of the nation as a whole come from the media and from political blather, which both exaggerate the negative.

Two Conservative Writers Worry about Obama

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, Reagan’s brilliant speechwriter, believes these points characterize Obama’s America:

 love of country is a decision. It's one you make after weighing the pros and cons. What you breathe in is skepticism and a heightened appreciation of the global view.

 Tradition is a challenge, a barrier, or a lovely antique.

 We have to have a government and I am desperate to love it.

 Religion is problematic.

Noonan also feels “Obama is the new world [of] doubt as to the excellence of the old[, one that] prizes ambivalence as proof of thoughtfulness, as evidence of a textured seriousness.”

More pointedly political in her rejection of Obama, The Weekly Standard’s Noemie Emery writes in seemingly obvious pursuit of those who voted Clinton in the Democratic primaries:

Obama carried white voters in only two places--state capitals and university towns, where he amassed huge followings among students, teachers, and employees of the government, most of whom (a) tend to lean left; (b) live in a world of words and abstractions; and (c) due to tenure, unions, and parental support, find themselves outside of the world of the marketplace. As such, they are pushovers for ego-massaging and vacuous maunderings. They tend not to notice that his frame of reference is always himself and his feelings, and that his appeals to racial healing, bipartisanship, government reform and sweet reason do not connect to his acts in real life.

In the real world, [Obama] has voted party line on almost all issues, has managed to befriend and hang out with an amazing collection of people whose lives contradict all these themes, including racists, demagogues, some of the most corrupt practitioners of machine urban politics, and people whose idea of political action once involved planting bombs. These sorts of things may not bother students or shoppers at Whole Foods, but they do bother people who cling to God and their guns out of sheer desperation. . .

McCain Muffs Town Hall Meeting

McCain’s New York City town hall meeting just concluded (covered on Fox News). McCain moved around, freed from the teleprompter that gripped his eyeballs in earlier, stiff TV appearances, yet he seemed to be worried he would miss key points. So he kept looking back at a card he had on a podium, something Obama wouldn’t have had to do. At one point—and he only answered a few questions after a long and less-than-smooth introduction—he completely lost his train of thought when an articulate Hispanic lawyer asked him a softball question about what kind of person he wanted on the Supreme Court. McCain so focused on the questionnaire’s appearance that he could only talk about the Hispanic vote, and had to fumble his way to having the simple question repeated. Embarrassing.

It’s early, and there’s still time. But Fox News’ Carl Cameron said McCain is only interested in doing town meetings—nothing else grabs his passion. If so, McCain’s people have to be really concerned that Obama and the national audience Obama would bring with him will show up for a future town hall meeting, because off tonight’s performance, it looks like Obama would wipe the floor with McCain.

Iraq: Best Month Yet

Here is our latest monthly highly abbreviated version of the Iraq Index, published and updated twice a week by Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution:



Americans Killed in Action, Iraq (monthly average)
2003: 32
2004: 59
2005: 56
2006: 58
2007: 63
2008: 30
May: 15

Americans Killed in Action, Vietnam (monthly average)
1965: 128*
1966: 420
1967: 767
1968: 1140
1969: 785
1970: 413
____
* = First U.S. combat troops arrived in Vietnam, 5.3.65
Vietnam table compiled by Galen Fox using Defense Department sources.

Crude Oil Production (m. bbls./day)

Prewar Peak: 2.50
Goal: 2.20 (Revised upward, 1/08)
actual: 2.50 (5/08)

Electricity (megawatts)

Prewar: 3,958
Goal: 6,000
actual: 4,130 (5/08)

Since our last monthly report, the monthly American KIA total fell dramatically from 49 in April to 15, the second lowest total for any month of the Iraq war. The KIA total was up in April in support of al Maliki's apparently successful effort to reduce the power of outlaw Shiite militias in Baghdad and Basra. Maliki's success has in turn brought the low level of violence seen in May. The low May KIA total for Americans has made 2008, thus far averaging only 30, the war's best year for average monthly KIA. [Please note: the number of KIA is almost always lower than the media-reported total of American deaths, which covers all causes, including non-hostile. Our Iraq and Vietnam figures are KIA only.]

In April, oil output jumped from 2.40 to 2.50 million barrels a day, the second highest monthly total ever. Revenue from oil exports continues to hit all-time highs, with May's total the highest on record, and $1 billion above April's. As with oil, output for electricity increased, growing from 4,030 megawatts in April to 4,130 megawatts in May. May's output was the highest for any May since the war began. Electricity output remains above the 4,000 megawatt threshold; significant because Iraq needs 8,500 megawatts to meet its demand, and gets from 2,000 to 4,500 megawatts from privately-owned generators.

The Truth about Iraq

"[Concerning Iraq,] what don't the critics like? Democracy? The defeat of al Qaeda? Muslims turning to the US military for help? Troop cuts? The dramatically improved human-rights situation? What's the problem here? The answer's simple: Admitting that they've been mistaken about Iraq guts the left's argument for political entitlement. If the otherwise deplorable Bush administration somehow got this one right, it means the left got another big one wrong. . . The bottom line? Al Qaeda let the war's opponents down."

--Ralph Peters, The New York Post

Well, not exactly.

While many on the left did (do) hope the Bush administration, the U.S. military, and the Iraqi government chosen by Iraqis in U.S.-facilitated elections would lose out to either al Qaeda, Muqtada al Sadr, or both, the congressional Democrats including Obama who have relentlessly pushed for withdrawal from Iraq in the face of the surge’s mounting U.S. success have a fallback position. If the U.S. somehow proves able to leave a functioning national Iraqi government behind, that’s fine with them. Just don’t have it happen before November 4, 2008.

Democrats know they will get some real cooperation from the military, who are too professional and measured to proclaim early victory, and who have a bias toward sticking with a fight they began. And the military have a natural skepticism about the Iraqis’ ability to operate Iraq’s political and security system on their own. The military are unlikely to proclaim victory between now and November, which leaves Democrats somewhat free to perpetuate their colored version of progress, one that emphasizes the messy part of war. “We should have never gone in. Not worth the cost. Bush’s war.”

After he’s safely in the White House, Obama will be able to heed the words of U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker [pictured], who recently said of this war: "In the end, how we leave and what we leave behind will be more important than how we came."

Two Americas

The key demographic – unaffiliated 40+ white voters in the swing states – . . . appear to have developed (if recent state and congressional results are anything to go by) an instinctive dislike of the Republican Party, because of its complete inability to govern successfully.

-- David Runciman, London Review of Books

What are the baby boomers' collective traits? Like all perpetual adolescents who suffer arrested development, we always want things both ways: Don't drill or explore for more energy, but nevertheless demand ever more fuel from other suppliers. . . Housing not only has to stay affordable for buyers, but also must appreciate in value to give instant equity to those who have just become owners. . . And why accept that the conduct of all wars is flawed and victory goes usually to those who persevere in making the needed adjustments when we can just keep pointing fingers at the official who disbanded the Iraqi army or sent too few troops after the invasion? . . . We "earned" our generous unsustainable Social Security benefits, so why should we have to suffer by cutting them? Sociologists have correctly diagnosed the perfect storm that created the "me" generation -- sudden postwar affluence, sacrificing parents who did not wish us to suffer as they had in the Great Depression and World War II, and the rise of therapeutic education that encouraged self-indulgence.

-- Victor Davis Hanson, May 29, 2008


So, should we blame Bush, or should we blame the “me, me” folks who can’t stand him? Answer: blame Bush. It’s easier (look how much shorter the anti-Bush message is, and how quickly it gets to its point), and it’s based on some truth. The some truth: Katrina. The gift that keeps on giving.

Democrats’ Concern for Veterans (II)

AP’s Pauline Jelinek covers a story about Iraq and Afghanistan combat-generated post traumatic stress disorder that gets facts in perspective. Some, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have suggested mental disorders affect 20% of those returning from combat areas. Army Surgeon General Eric Schoomaker notes that PTSD is widely misunderstood by the press and the public—and that what is often just normal post-traumatic anxiety and stress is mistaken for full-blown PTSD. Schoomaker does report that PTSD was up recently because 1) 2007 was the most violent year in both conflicts; 2) more troops were serving their second, third or fourth tours of duty, which dramatically increases stress, and; 3) officials extended tour lengths to 15 months from 12. Two of these factors are changing for the better in 2008.

Still, the Surgeon General’s latest statistics indicate PTSD affected 2.7% of those serving in combat areas, a figure in the neighborhood of the Veterans Administration’s nearly 4% estimate.

Democrats’ Concern for Veterans (I)

It seems strange to have Democrats, led by Vietnam veteran and Virginia Sen. James Webb, offering a bill with generous education benefits for military enlistees, and John McCain opposing the bill. What gives?

As one might guess, things aren’t what they seem. No reason to question Webb’s sincerity, or those of some supporters. Webb based his bill on the benefits offered World War II veterans, many of them draftees. The reason McCain and Bush oppose Webb’s bill is that it would encourage volunteer enlistees (from an all-volunteer, zero draftee military) to leave after one hitch, since Webb’s bill provides no increase in educational benefits for re-enlistees. McCain’s bill, supported by Bush, would scale up educational benefits the longer one serves, and McCain would also make educational benefits transferable to a family member, which would further encourage continued service. Democrats unsurprisingly denied senators the chance to vote on Republican McCain’s bill.

Dark minds like mine believe Webb’s bill appeals strongly to Democrats because its effect is to undermine military recruitment, thus hurting the military machine and thereby making future wars less likely.

Behind the Story: Taking Back the White House (II)

“For as it is written, the last shall be first and the geek shall inherit the earth.”

--David Brooks, New York Times, May 23, 2008

As a student of the media, I am transfixed by the question, “Why is the media so willing to bend truth to win the White House?” Why is winning the presidency “the only thing?” The U.S. went into Iraq after destroying al Qaeda’s base in Afghanistan to make sure that an oil-rich, dedicated American enemy didn’t become al Qaeda’s next base. Iraq nearly did, a fact the media covered in detail. Yet now that the U.S. has largely defeated al Qaeda in Iraq, the media ignore that truth while still treating Iraq as a major American failure. Unreal.

Unreal, unless one believes American warriors are the world’s greatest danger. Vietnam transformed America. It was moral to oppose America’s war in Vietnam, even though that opposition cost the Democrats power (Nixon’s victories in 1968 and 1972). The media gained control over the American elite in 1965-72 by educating the country on Vietnam, using Vietnam to capture the moral high ground. Then they consolidated victory in the wonderful three years of 1973-76 when they engineered Nixon’s removal as president and helped deliver overwhelming Democratic congressional majorities in 1974, then helped put Carter in the White House in 1976. Power returned to Democrats, but as a transformed, moral Democratic party that opposed war, sought a Cold War truce, and worked for human rights around the world.

For the media, those were the Golden Years. It’s so different now, with newspaper circulation rapidly declining along with major TV network viewership. As “Mad Money’s” Jim Cramer says, "The world got changed by two companies. Apple is taking away the profitability of TV, and Google is taking it away in print. And it's never going to reverse." So the media are in the fight of their lives. But a total victory in November for Democrats, restoring power to those who believe in a moral (anti-Iraq war) foreign policy and in a well-financed, moral government passing legislation that benefits the people, well, that’s worth fighting hard for, and in the process perhaps demonstrating media still count.

The media have totally digested the #1 political lesson of “It’s the economy, stupid.” A bad economy turns out the regime in power, so for seven-plus years, media have looked for every sign the Bush-led economy is in trouble. Since Bush’s economy mostly produced jobs, lowered unemployment, provided growth, avoided recession, and reduced the deficit growth rate, convincing Americans we are “on the wrong track” economically is a major media achievement. So Iraq, the economy, and Katrina, a mess Bush mishandled on national TV to the media’s delight, have soured the national mood. Media, take a bow.

“Nuclear scientist” Jimmy Carter represented a triumph of the intellectuals in 1976, but Carter was deeply religious, and won millions of votes on that basis. In the end, Carter deeply disappointed his media cheerleaders. Obama is different. Goes to church, but tunes out his pastor. Obama’s win will represent a true triumph of the American intelligentsia, secular but religiously believing government programs improve our lives.

Behind the Story: Taking Back the White House (I)

The big fault line in politics today is between believers and non-believers, or those who go to church and those who don’t. So what do non-believers believe in? What’s the oil in their crankcase?

Answer: better living through government. Non-believers reached where they are through thinking. Their brains control the secular world. In the absence of God, they are god. And their church, the priesthood who knows what’s best for the rest of us, makes good things happen through government.

Government brought about equality for women and ethnic minorities, for gays and lesbians. Government brought workers into the middle class by protecting unions. Government feeds, houses, and nurses the elderly through Social Security and Medicare. Government educates and nurses the children, and it provides for the poor and weak. Government protects non-human living things and the environment, and government pays for itself by taxing those who are more fortunate.

Government’s allies include the media and entertainment industry; they believe in better living through government, and they directly benefit from first amendment protection. It also includes lawyers who enjoy constitutional protection. And there are those benefiting from government money—civil service employees, teachers, contractors, academics, and the non-profit sector.

Government does better when Democrats run Washington, and worse when Republicans control the House, Senate, or especially, the White House. Republicans have had one or more of these pieces of power for all but 6 years since 1968 (85% of the time), and every year since 1994.

As Obama says, “Change we can believe in”.

Obama's Pre-emptive Strike on McCain

"McCain faces an expanding and energised Democratic Party that is desperate to retake the White House."

--The Economist, May 19, 2008


And what goes for the Democratic Party goes for their media friends as well--desperate to retake the White House. Example: Newsweek has written an exceptionally biased preventive attack on John McCain. It’s designed to help Democrats treat any McCain criticism of Obama as, in the words of McCain advisor Mark Salter, “a below the belt, Republican attack machine distortion that should discredit [its] authors.”

Here’s a statement from the Newsweek article, written by Richard Wolffe and Evan Thomas, that identifies the authors' degree of bias. Talking about how Obama may be different as president from the [highly effective] campaigner we now know, they say of Bush, “It was only after he became president that voters began to grasp Bush's failings as an executive—his disdain for expert opinion, his stubborn approach to policy or rivals, his fatal lack of follow-through.” O.K.

Some excerpts from Wolffe’s and Thomas’s pre-launch attack on the McCain campaign:

 The Republican Party has been successfully scaring voters since 1968, when Richard Nixon built a Silent Majority out of lower- and middle-class folks frightened or disturbed by hippies and student radicals and blacks rioting in the inner cities. . . It is a sure bet [emphasis added] that the GOP will try to paint Obama as "the other"—as a haughty black intellectual who has Muslim roots (Obama is a Christian) and hangs around with America-haters.

 Sen. John McCain . . . may not be able to resist casting doubt on Obama's patriotism. And the real question is . . . can—or [does he want] to—rein in the merchants of slime and sellers of hate who populate the Internet and fund the "independent expenditure" groups who . . . give a bad name to free speech.

 Team Obama has . . . a plan for the coming mud war. [They will] put McCain on the spot. . . Recently, when a reporter asked McCain, "Does it bother you at all that you might actually benefit from latent prejudice in the country?" he answered: "That would bother me a lot. That would bother me a great deal" . . .So if McCain. . . exploit[s] Obama's ties to the fiery Reverend Wright, the Obama-ites can question his sincerity—is he really the "Straight Talk" candidate?

 And if McCain can't stop others from the sort of innuendo and code that Republicans have learned to frighten voters, [emphasis added] Obama can cast doubt on McCain's credentials as a commander in chief. ("In other words . . .they can say that McCain is either a hypocrite or impotent.")

 The model is the notorious [emphasis added] Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who unfairly [emphasis added] but effectively questioned John Kerry's war record in 2004. Indeed, two of the most experienced attack artists are already gearing up[:] Floyd Brown, who produced the infamous "Willie Horton" commercial that used race and fear of crime to drive voters away from Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988, [and] David Bossie, already deep into a mudslinging campaign against Obama [with his] documentary that will portray Obama as a "limousine, out-of-control leftist liberal … more liberal than [Vermont Sen.] Bernie Sanders, who is a socialist."

GOP Depression Coming? (II)

Republicans will no longer be the American political force they were just four years ago. The best evidence comes from American National Election Studies data, summarized by Alan Abramowitz of Emory University. Abramowitz has found that:

 In American politics today, whether you are a married white Christian is a much stronger predictor of your political preferences than your gender or your class.

 Between the middle of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, the proportion of whites has fallen by about 15%, the proportion of married persons has fallen by about 25%, and the proportion of Christians by about 10%.


 Married white Christians have gone from close to 80% of the electorate in the 1950s to just over 40% of the electorate in the first decade of the 21st century [see chart]. The proportion of married white Christians among voters under 30 has plummeted from almost 80% in the 1950s to less than 20%.

 Between the 1950s and now, Republican identification among married white Christians increased by more than 20%, going from about 40% to over 60%. However, the ability of the GOP to continue to offset the diminishing size of its married white Christian base by making further gains is questionable.

 In the 2006 House elections, married white Christians under 30 were just as likely to vote for a Republican as married white Christians over 30. Similarly, voters over 30 not married white Christians were just as likely to vote Democratic as voters under 30 not married white Christians. So voters under 30 are now significantly more Democratic than older voters because they are much less likely to be married, white, and Christian.

 Republicans will need to find ways to reduce the Democratic advantage among voters who are not married white Christians in order to maintain the party's competitive position. However, given the [groups’] generally liberal views, this will not be easy.

GOP Depression Coming? (I)

Mississippi’s open seat went Democratic, a big, serious sign Republicans are headed for a massacre at the polls in November. The Wall Street Journal ran a recent poll that showed only 27% of the country is currently Republican, the lowest percentage for either party in the poll’s 20 year history. Still, the poll found John McCain remains competitive with Obama:

 McCain's current political viability contrasts with that of his party. It underscores the extent to which his personality and image, rather than issues such as the war and the economy, could shape this presidential election.

 [Yet] 43% say they have "major concerns" that Sen. McCain "will be too closely aligned with the Bush agenda." His vulnerability to the Bush link is one that Democrats already are exploiting, with near-daily attacks from the national party suggesting a McCain administration would amount to a third Bush term.

One reason Republicans are likely to crash in November: McCain will run away from the “Republican (meaning Bush)” label as fast and hard as he can, leaving the rest of the GOP high and dry. He has no other real hope for survival. McCain polls well because:

 By 54% to 35%, voters say they identify with Sen. McCain's "background and set of values," which the pollsters describe as traits such as honor, trustworthiness and patriotism. "It's not about the war. It's not about the economy. It is pure and simple about values," said [Democrat pollster Peter] Hart.

Potential Republican Disaster

The election everybody will be watching this evening is for an open congressional seat in Mississippi, not Clinton’s expected victory in West Virginia. As Congressional Quarterly notes:

"If Travis W. Childers, a Prentiss County Chancery Clerk, beats Republican Greg Davis [pictured], mayor of Southaven, in [today]'s election, Childers would become the third Democrat in recent months to take over a Republican-held seat. Democrat Bill Foster, a scientist and businessman, won Illinois' 14th District seat on March 8. The seat was formerly represented by Republican J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House. On May 3, Democratic state Rep. Don Cazayoux won a Republican-held seat in Lousiana's 6th District."

All three seats were “safe Republican”. Democrats winning yet another special election in the Spring signals a landslide victory for congressional Democrats this Fall.

Can Israel survive?

The Atlantic’s Jeffery Goldberg, has written a thoughtful piece to mark Israel’s 60th anniversary. One way to understand the profound difference between Israel and the U.S. is that 94% of Jewish Israelis said they are willing to fight for their country, while only 63% of Americans are willing to fight for ours. Yet at the same time, a remarkable 44% of Israelis said they would be ready to leave their country if they could find a better standard of living abroad. There are already roughly 40,000 Israelis in Silicon Valley and more than a half million in the U.S. Life is so dangerous in Israel, a country most of its Arab neighbors still won’t accept.

Goldberg lasers in on the key paradox Israel faces. To make headway with its Palestine neighbor, Israel must stop building settlements on the West Bank, and get ready to give most up. It must, but it can’t, even though we are talking about only 200,000 people. It’s the settlers who are most determined to stay, and sons of the settlements now account for more than 25% of the Israeli officer corps.

Sharon might have fixed the settlement problem. Tragic.

No Champagne for Sarkozy

This blog has raved about Nicholas Sarkozy’s efforts to reform France and improve its economy. But a year after coming to office, the International Harold Tribune’s Katrin Bennhold writes that the reforms he promised are mostly unrealized. According to Bennhold:

Most strikingly . . . Sarkozy never abolished the 35-hour week, a Socialist law that has become emblematic of the complex French rules on labor.

Rather than raising [the] limit, Sarkozy has created complex incentives to ignore it: a tax break on overtime, costing the state $9.3 billion, and a law forcing companies to pay workers who prefer cash to extra time off. . .

On factory floors and in boardrooms, the changes were welcomed, although not as the revolution that many had sought. "A bonus," said Laurence Parisot, president of the Medef, France's biggest employer federation. Clara Gaymard, managing director of General Electric in France, was less diplomatic: "This is not the real reform of the labor market we expect."

Bennhold concludes:

Ever since a clear defeat in local elections in March, Sarkozy's own center-right party has become less eager for unpopular measures. Slowing growth and rising inflation have [further] complicated Sarkozy's call for change.

Iraq: A Price for Maliki's War on Shiite Militias

Here is our latest monthly highly abbreviated version of the Iraq Index, published and updated twice a week by Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution:



Americans Killed in Action, Iraq (monthly average)
2003: 32
2004: 59
2005: 56
2006: 58
2007: 63
2008: 34
April: 49

Americans Killed in Action, Vietnam (monthly average)
1965: 128*
1966: 420
1967: 767
1968: 1140
1969: 785
1970: 413
____
* = First U.S. combat troops arrived in Vietnam, 5.3.65
Vietnam table compiled by Galen Fox using Defense Department sources.

Crude Oil Production (m. bbls./day)

Prewar Peak: 2.50
Goal: 2.20 (Revised upward, 1/08)
actual: 2.23 (4/08)

Electricity (megawatts)

Prewar: 3,958
Goal: 6,000
actual: 4,030 (4/08)

Since our last monthly report, the monthly American KIA total rose by 20 from 29 in March. Al Maliki's attack on the Shiite extra-legal militias in Basra and Sadr City--whatever its progress--has taken a toll on American as well as Iraqi government fighters. Nevertheless, the monthly American KIA average remains at half the rate of 2 a day sustained for most of the Iraq war, and to date only the monthly average for 2003 is lower than that for 2008. [Please note: the number of KIA is almost always lower than the media-reported total of American deaths, which covers all causes, including non-hostile. Our Iraq and Vietnam figures are KIA only.] Fatal helicopter crashes bring the biggest surge in combat deaths; none have occurred since August 2007.

In April, oil output decreased from 2.38 to 2.23 million barrels a day. Revenue from oil exports continues at all-time highs, with March's total the highest on record. When complete figures are in for April, its revenue should be at or near the top, partly due to oil's all-time high prices. There has been a sharp drop-off in attacks on oil and gas pipelines since August 2007. From June 2003 to August 2007, for over four years, Iraq had to deal with an average of 9 pipeline attacks a month. From September on, the number of attacks has dropped to just one a month. This sharp reduction in pipeline disruptions contributes to Iraq's rising oil revenues.

As with oil, output dropped for electricity, declining from 4,220 megawatts in March to 4,030 megawatts in April. Perhaps disruptions associated with Maliki's offensive against the Shia militias have affected both oil and electricity output. Still, electricity output remains above the 4,000 megawatt threshold. The 4,000 megawatt level may be significant; Iraq needs 8,500 megawatts to meet its demand, and gets from 2,000 to 4,500 megawatts from privately-owned generators.

Obama 0.5

“At stake is not simply the leadership of our party and even our country. It is our right to the moral leadership of this planet.”

--Robert Kennedy, announcing for president (1968)

I watched Obama on “Meet the Press”. He’s got a new approach. He emphasizes the struggles of his (white) single mom, the fighting patriotism of his (white) grandfather in World War II, the hard work of his (white) grandmother in the Midwest during the depression and war, and of his wife’s blue-collar, sole family breadwinner father, like “your (white) dad, Tim (Russert), [who] looked nothing like Michelle's dad, but they lived that same American dream.”

So how does Obama go after the white, working-class voters Clinton is winning because she’s white and he ain’t? He reminds people he’s ½ (0.5) white by discussing his white heritage. Obama's new approach might not be in time to win Indiana tomorrow, but with this “I’m white too” message plus sufficient money, he may cut into Clinton’s white support in Kentucky and West Virginia later.

Meanwhile, Obama is attempting to assert his moral leadership by blasting Clinton for her “pandering” (along with John McCain) call for no gasoline tax this summer. Obama rightly suggests Clinton will say anything to get elected. Obama is with nearly every thinking person in denouncing Clinton’s proposed (it won’t happen) cut in gas taxes when we actually need for gas taxes to go up.

But then there’s foreign policy, where Obama makes less sense. Noting one of the chief outcomes of our Iraq intervention is a stronger Iran, he then proposes that we put pressure on Iran—he doesn’t want to “take military options off the table”—by withdrawing our troops from neighboring Iraq without winning there first. Boy, Barry, that will show Iran! You bet.

Or maybe I just don’t get it. Maybe I should understand Iraq isn't about national security, it's a morality play. War is immoral, and since we started the Iraq war, we must lose. I should just accept that Iraq is, truly is, the Vietnam of our generation. Iraq defines us morally the way Vietnam defined Robert Kennedy’s America in 1968. Until we rid ourselves of our Iraq stain, we can’t lead the world to victory in Iran or anywhere else.

But Iraq isn’t Vietnam. Lesson 1.0.

Consensus Anyone?

Newsweek’s Robert Samuelson says the oil crisis demands that we start drilling for oil at home--in the Arctic wilderness, offshore in Florida, the Gulf, and the West Coast. Doing so could double our current proven reserves. We should drill with environmental sensitivity.

Tom Friedman of the New York Times is back after writing a book that has got to be about the energy crisis and how to fix it. Anyway, that’s the subject of his first column back at the paper. Friedman writes, “We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage — gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars — and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage — new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.” Like Samuelson, Friedman wants to lower demand for oil and increase energy supply. But his solution is to have government subsidize solar and wind power.

Don’t we need solar power, wind power, and oil, and nuclear energy, and taxes to limit consumption? Can’t we get together on this?

ABC’s Betsy Stark no prophet.

A month ago, after the stock market rocketed to its best 2nd quarter take-off in 70 years, ABC’s Betsy Stark told us it would likely go back down again in a few days like a “see saw”. I decided to watch for that swing. It didn’t come. Today, the stock market was up yet again. The Dow cleared 13,000 points for the first time since January 8, and the S&P 500 similarly topped its key 1,400 level, also for the first time since January. The market is responding positively to signs the Fed has stopped cutting interest rates, which could translate into a stronger dollar and declining oil prices.

ABC News led its broadcast tonight with a story about the high price of food, then much later, briefly mentioned the Dow’s clearing 13,000. Bad News Betsy, always on the alert for signs the economy is crumbling and paving the way for a Democratic victory in November, was nowhere in sight.

McCain Provides for the Common Defense (II)

In his World Affairs Council address a month ago, McCain emphasized the urgency of taking on Islamic extremism:

 [We must] confront the transcendent challenge of our time: . . . radical Islamic terrorism. . . They alone devote all their energies and indeed their very lives to murdering innocent men, women, and children. They alone seek nuclear weapons and other tools of mass destruction not to defend themselves . . . but to use against us wherever and whenever they can. Any president who does not regard this threat as transcending all others does not deserve to sit in the White House. . .

 passive defense alone cannot protect us. We must . . . have an aggressive strategy of confronting and rooting out the terrorists wherever they seek to operate, and deny them bases in failed or failing states. . . Prevailing in this struggle will require . . . the use of . . . public diplomacy; development assistance; law enforcement training; expansion of economic opportunity; and robust intelligence capabilities. . . Our goal must be to win the "hearts and minds" of the vast majority of moderate Muslims.

 If you look at the great arc that extends from the Middle East through Central Asia and the Asian subcontinent all the way to Southeast Asia, you can see those pillars of democracy stretching across the entire expanse, from Turkey and Israel to India and Indonesia. Iraq and Afghanistan lie at the heart of that region.

Comment: McCain is right. Islamic terrorism, because it is asymmetric, is a low-cost, therefore viable, threat to our civilization. We are at war with Islamic extremism right now, and the president must, must effectively lead this war. McCain opposed Rumsfeld’s leadership, favored the surge before the word existed, and fully backs Petraeus’ counter-terrorism strategy. McCain knows we must also be serious about al Qaeda in Pakistan, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and about extremism in Iran. On the biggest issue of our time, he’s the leader we need.

McCain Provides for the Common Defense (I)

A month ago, John McCain outlined his foreign policy in a speech before the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. In one key part of the speech, McCain stressed the need for leading democracies to pull together, and added the U.S. must do a better job of listening to our friends:

 President Harry Truman once said of America, "God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose." . . . There is the powerful collective voice of the European Union, and there are the great nations of India and Japan, Australia and Brazil, South Korea and South Africa, Turkey and Israel, to name just a few of the leading democracies. There are also the increasingly powerful nations of China and Russia . . .

 We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact -- a League of Democracies -- that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests. At the heart of this new compact must be mutual respect and trust. Recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence, that we pay "decent respect to the opinions of mankind."

 [We should ensure] that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia. . . Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization's doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom.

Comment: Democracy is the best form of government. It’s not something to force down someone’s throat; it’s something that evolves when a people embrace it. Democracies should offer a positive example to others, and democracies should support each other. McCain is right to favor drawing the democracies together in common purpose, and to call out by name some of the larger democracies. But why form an exclusive club that leaves out Russia or China? Since democracy is about people power, why not focus on the larger states—democratic or not—and work to draw them together in common purpose? I named those nations and called for such unity here.

Good Ol’ Days of Free Trade

"Obama graciously concedes that 'not every American job lost is due to trade'. Not every job? The true figure – according to the apolitical US Council of Economic Advisors – is that only 3% of US job losses can be attributed to 'outsourcing'."

--Dominic Lawson, The Independent (London)

Lawrence Summers, the former Clinton treasury secretary and un-PC Harvard president, is now preparing us for the end of free trade as we know it. Summers says America will find it “increasingly difficult to mobilize support for economic internationalism;” i.e., Democrats like Obama won’t have it.

Summers makes three points:

1. Developing countries increasingly export goods such as computers that the US produces on a significant scale, putting pressure on wages. At the same time, rising global prosperity increases the rewards accruing to the already [wealthy] such as [filmmakers], where the US has a comparative advantage.

2. The growth of countries such as China raises competition for energy and environmental resources, raising the price for [average] Americans.

3. Growth in the global economy encourages the development of stateless elites whose allegiance is to global economic success and their own prosperity rather than the interests of the nation where they are headquartered.

Summers says the “stateless elites,” operating in the pursuit of global economic improvements, oppose “progressive taxation, support for labor unions, strong regulation and substantial production of public goods that mitigate its adverse impacts.”

It’s pretty obviously bad for any Democrat to oppose high taxes on the rich, labor unions, strong regulation, and production of public goods. So the Obama forces indeed are going to separate themselves from free trade and its well-documented benefits.

Bad news for America. Oh, for the days of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, even Bill Clinton and his Treasury Secretary Summers.

Engineering a better world.

What is the core difference between the two parties? Here’s an attempt from Daniel Patrick Moynihan to break down the liberal-conservative difference:

“The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.”

The "cultural wars" fought since the 1960s mean America today has shreds of our Judeo-Christian culture existing uneasily with an American popular culture driven by sex, violence, rock and roll, drugs, junk food, and whatever else Madison Avenue finds will sell goods and services. Both liberals and conservatives like and hate parts of the all-American mix, meaning liberals too have stuff they fight to hang onto. Their power position within the political equation, for example.

Why has the media become such a fiercely partisan (Democratic) force, attempting to guide our political destiny when a generation ago reporters strived for objectivity? The answer may be they are losing power, and will play rough to hang on to what they have. Real insight into this condition comes from John Podhoretz, writing in Commentary.

Podhoretz calls the “Newseum” [picture] just opened opposite Washington’s National Gallery a “news mausoleum,” because the newspaper industry is in its death throws. While the downward spiral began with television, television only extinguished weaker papers, leaving behind large, successful, profit-making news organizations in each metropolitan area that benefited greatly from their monopoly domination of the local market. The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, Los Angeles Times, etc. These papers’ major profit center was classified advertising, each little line sold at full price. Now Craigslist performs the same service for free, and newspapers are going under. Says Podhoretz:

"When a monopoly begins to lose market share by as much as 10% per year, withering and fading on its own and not on account of specific competitive pressure, it is a sure sign that the structural integrity of an entire industry has been compromised. Implosion is sure to follow—and is indeed taking place in every city in every region of the country. For anyone who depends on newspapering for his livelihood, there is simply no mistaking the death rattle."

So newspapers are desperately fighting to remain relevant. According to Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein at the University of Chicago, we fight harder to hold what we have than we do to get something new:

"[Any] crisis is compounded by what psychologists call 'loss aversion.' Numerous studies have shown that humans hate losses much more than they like gains. This means that losing $1,000 hurts you about twice as much as winning $1,000 makes you feel good."

So how would Thaler and Sunstein improve matters for losers? Discussing the housing crisis, they proclaim:

"Government regulators can't change human psychology, and they shouldn't try. But they can . . . craft regulations to protect us from the people who can be our own worst enemy: ourselves."

Government helps us combat “our own worst enemy: ourselves”? Isn't this the essence of liberalism, government fixing “us” in ways we can’t fix “ourselves”? Save us from government. Save us from newspapers.

“Sen. Clinton, Does Truth Matter?”

One has to be impressed with Clinton’s staying power. For the fourth time, she won a contest that could have knocked her out of the race had she lost. She did this before in New Hampshire, California, and Texas. Now Pennsylvania. Not so impressive—the way she wins.

In the 2002 Pennsylvania gubernatorial primary between Ed Rendell, then mayor of Philadelphia, and Bob Casey, son of the former Pennsylvania governor, Rendell won by capturing Philadelphia and its four surrounding counties by wide margins. Casey lost while winning 57 of the state’s remaining 62 counties. If Rendell's path was Obama’s strategy against Clinton yesterday, it failed. Clinton carried both Bucks and Montgomery counties north of Philadelphia by a large enough margin to win the combined vote in Philadelphia’s four surrounding counties —seriously damaging Obama’s metro Philadelphia-based strategy.

Montgomery county has the 11th largest Jewish population of any county outside New York, and Bucks county’s is 22nd. So what did Clinton do just before the election? She announced she would “totally obliterate” Iran if she were president and Iran attacked Israel. Iran is a far bigger and more powerful nation than Iraq was in 2003. While her rhetoric flies in the face of Democratic calls for negotiation and diplomacy to replace Bush/Chaney warmongering, Clinton’s bombastic comment evidently helped her win over metro Philly’s Jewish voters.

In similarly intemperate comments, Clinton promised in last week’s debate to end the U.S. military role in Iraq and withdraw our troops even if her military advisors said to do so would be a mistake, and she promised not to raise taxes on people making less than $200,000 a year. Both promises are absurd, and without a doubt Clinton would break them were she elected.

Clinton is shameless. She’ll say anything to get elected. Clinton knows that if she becomes president, it will be in spite of widespread evidence that she lies freely. So what difference do a few more lies make?