Morally Correct

by Peter Beinart excerpt:

Sometimes, conservative evangelicals grasp this and find nonreligious justifications for their views. (Christian conservatives sometimes argue that embryonic stem cells hold little scientific promise, or that gay marriage leads to fewer straight ones. On abortion, they sometimes cite medical advances to show that fetuses are more like infants than pro-choicers recognize. Such arguments are accessible to all, and thus permit fruitful debate.) But, since the election, the airwaves have been full of a different kind of argument. What many conservatives are now saying is that, since certain views are part of evangelicals' identity, harshly criticizing those views represents discrimination. It's no different than when some feminists say that, since the right to abortion is a critical part of their identity, opposing abortion disrespects them as women. When George Stephanopoulos asked Dobson to justify his charge that Senator Leahy is an anti-Christian bigot, he replied that the Vermont senator "has been in opposition to most of the things that I believe." In other words, disagree with me and you're a racist. Al Sharpton couldn't have said it better....

Identity politics is a powerful thing--a way of short-circuiting debate by claiming that your views aren't merely views; they are an integral part of who you are. And who you are must be respected. But harsh criticism is not disrespect--and to claim it is undermines democratic debate by denying opponents the right to aggressively, even impolitely, disagree. That is what conservatives are doing when they accuse liberals of religious bigotry merely for demanding that the Christian Right defend their viewpoints with facts, not faith. Once upon a time, conservatives knew better. I hope some still do.

Empirically speaking, Barack Obama possesses a special kind of charisma that inspires and uplifts people, as evidenced by the talk of an Obama baby boom due to the euphoria surrounding his election. What I don't get is the diametrically opposite reaction that the Clintons, both separately and together, seem to evoke in The Villagers. Chris Matthews' obsession is long documented, and there's no one better to get your unhinged, irrational Clinton hatred on with than the drink-soaked popinjay Christopher Hitchens.

Let's keep score, shall we? Hitch is the guy that has been cheerleading the Iraq invasion and occupation (still does, as you can see from the video). Cheering arguably the biggest blunder of foreign policy we've ever committed and one that most people understand to be an epic fail. And he's on to criticize Bill Clinton--who will NOT be a member of Obama's cabinet--and while highly imperfect, did manage to lead the country to a prosperity and global status that we can only distantly and fondly remember. Why? Doesn't his continued support of our actions in Iraq speak for his judgment and grasp on reality?

And can I just object right here and now to the misogynistic and patronizing framing? Apparently the meme is that Hillary is too ambitious and self-serving to actually serve Obama's agenda. Based on what? Running a bare knuckle campaign? I don't think that if his primary rival had been a man that this would come up at all. The media was falling all over itself to talk about how cordial the meeting between Obama and McCain was yesterday. And what does it imply about Obama's strength that the assumption is that Hillary would railroad him (presumably with Bill, because to hear the media talk, you'd assume they were some sort of Machiavellian conjoined twins)? It's completely insulting on many levels.

The back-stabbing Bill and Hillary meme (one entirely conceived by GOP strategists, dutifully regurgitated in the media and swallowed sadly all-too-often by otherwise smart liberals) has gotten so out of hand that as Eric Boehlert reports for Media Matters, Fox News is already openly contemplating how Obama needs to fire her. For a job that (as of this writing) she has not been announced for and that does not take effect for another two months. Strike anyone else as premature?

I'm working on some video from Bill Moyers. Here's a piece that Duncan made on the liberal hawk---"we're on the side of angels," Peter Beinart from TNR...

I've written many times about the PNAC group. To think a single Democrat would sign on to one of their letters is reprehensible. I'm not including Joe Lieberman of course--even when he was a Democrat.

When PNAC Democrats like Peter Beinart, Ivo Daalder, Michele Flournoy, Will Marshall, Michael O'Hanlon, and James Steinberg do something like sign PNAC's letter on the need for more American ground forces they serve to further cement the notion that people like Frank Gaffney, Bill Kristol, Cliff May, Daniel McKivegan, Danielle Pletka, and Gary Schmitt should be taken seriously as authorities on national security policy. Well, they shouldn't be taken seriously. And nobody serious about improving America's national security should be publicly collaborating with them....read on

Where I differ slightly with Matt is that when you sign on with PNAC, you SIGN ON. I've read much of the PNAC delusional theory on foreign policy and it's a frightening screed of US world domination. "Hey, we have the power so let's kick some ass." As Team America says: "F--k Yea!"

Duncan:

I won't presume to speak for his list of PNAC Democrats individually, but I think we must acknowledge that many of such people have in fact for years considered the neoconservatives to be credible people "who should be taken seriously as authorities on national security policy." Certainly more seriously than, say, dirty hippies like myself who had the temerity to oppose the stupidest f--king foreign policy decision in the history of the universe....read on

Thank you Michael Lind.

Mike's Blog Round Up

A Liberal Dose: U.S. asks Turkey to host Iran attack...

Harpers.org: A firm allegedly used by defense contractor Brent Wilkes to provide prostitutes to ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham, is headed by a man who has a long criminal rap sheet and is also a contractor for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Additionally, well-known government-watchdog group, Common Cause, has asked the Justice Department to investigate U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris' how fake, how inane is our modern celebrity press of corps?

Bob Somerby gags over WaPo scribe Peter Beinart's fawning review of Joe Klein’s peculiar new book.

Russ stepped into the belly of the beast Sunday and joined Chris Wallace to discuss his censure proposal.

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT

MyDD links to Peter Beinart's column

"The Republican strategy on Feingold's censure effort is to keep calling it absurd without engaging it on the merits. But, on the merits, Feingold's case is much stronger. As former Reagan-era Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein has put it, Bush's actions are "more dangerous than Clinton's lying under oath, because it [Bush's claim of nearly unlimited executive authority] jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages." If Republicans want to keep suggesting that censure (let alone impeachment) is a singularly extreme act to be taken only when our constitutional system is in peril, then they need to apologize for what happened in 1999. I'm not holding my breath.

So there's a value for Democrats in having Russ Feingold inject censure into the political debate. (In fact, a Newsweek poll found that 42 percent of Americans support the idea--more than backed the president's Social Security plan.) With censure as the extreme position, a full, tough investigation of the surveillance program now looks sober and reasonable, whereas, not long ago, that too might have seemed beyond the pale.

The challenge for Democrats, as The Washington Post's E. J. Dionne has pointed out, is to let some people push the bounds of acceptable opinion while others use the specter of radicalism to make modest, incremental progress. The press fetishizes party unity, but, in a way, what the Democrats need is creative disunity: different kinds of politicians who pursue different tactics but agree on a broader goal. Washington Democrats may not like Russ Feingold very much these days, but they--and the country--need him all the same."

so says Instapundit: via Oliver Willis

Nope. And, as I keep repeating, this is no strategy for building a Democratic majority. Similarly, stuff like this is comforting to the true-believers, but it's not likely to win votes. (Via Peg Kaplan.) And read this, too.

This is where I have to agree and disagree simultaneously with Hugh Hewitt, who writes about Peter Beinart:

Peter is without question the very best face of the Democratic Party. Folks love him because he is earnest and very committed to Harry Truman's Democratic Party, which is a lot like being committed to the Edsel.

But the Edsel was a bomb from day one. No, more like the Nash Rambler -- a good car, popular in its time, that's no longer made. The Truman / FDR style of muscular Democratic thought has been supplanted by the '68-ers in the Democratic party, and their ideological descendants at MoveOn, MediaMatters, etc. They lack the essential faith in America possessed by their predecessors, and by the voters they'd like to win over. Beinart's views are marginal in the Democratic Party -- heck, the kind of patriotism that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd demonstrated in Davos is indiscernible in the MoveOn / MediaMatters end of the Democratic Party -- while the Seymour Hersh Vietnam-nostalgia strain runs strong. That's bad for the Democrats, and bad for America, but it's nonetheless the case.