Francis Fukuyama's 1992 book The End of History was arguably the most influential post-Cold War neoconservative tract. But for some time Fukuyama's been uneasy with his fellow neocons, mostly because of the Iraq war. In a big New York Times Magazine article this week, Fukuyama makes the break once and for all:
Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.
The neocons over-reliance on military power, egotistical brand of American exceptionalism and go-it-alone bravado are all contributing factors Fukuyama cites. His essay brings to mind Ronald Reagan's famous rejoinder:
I didn't leave the Democratic Party. It left me.
But as our colleague David Corn notes, Fukuyama should've known what he was getting into. He did, after all, sign a letter from the Project for a New American Century a week after 9/11 advocating for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein:
It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a "safe zone" in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.
A little history can be a dangerous thing.
Juan Cole's invaluable blog is of special interest today. Cole calls for the United Nations to set a clear timetable for US withdrawal from Iraq. He says it is an important opportunity for the peace movement, as the third anniversary of the war approaches.
In certain ways, Cole's plan accords with what The Nation has laid out in our many editorials, in these last few years, calling for US withdrawal and an end to the occupation. We've always believed that the Iraq situation should be internationalized, and that the United Nations could play a key role in helping Iraq, as Cole writes, "through the coming years of instability and help shepherd it to independence from the US and UK." In addition, as he notes, this "would help strengthen international, multilateral organizations generally and contribute to an institutionalization of international law."
As Cole puts it, and we would agree: "Bush invaded Iraq, in part, in order to destroy the United Nations. Forcing him to bring it into Iraq would be a blow against American unilateralism and rightwing American aggression for decades to come."
A recent study by the non-profit Media Matters for America won't surprise Nation readers. The report, If it's Sunday, it's Conservative, demonstrates that conservative guests dramatically outnumber liberals on the three major Sunday morning talk shows on ABC, CBS and NBC.
Enraged by a study that effectively highlights the larger representation of conservative views on Sunday talk shows, the rightwing attack dogs are attempting to offset any public outcry against this imbalance with letter-writing campaigns and smear tactics. But Media Matters smartly bent over backwards in its political tagging in such a way that makes it very difficult to sustain the usual charges of liberal bias.
As Nation columnist Eric Alterman wrote about the report this week, "liberal-hater Joe Klein, together with war-supporters Peter Beinart and George Packer, are coded 'progressive,' and Cokie Roberts and David Broder, who openly detest both Clinton and Gore while frequently apologizing for Bush--together with former GE chairman Jack Welch and Mrs. Alan Greenspan, Andrea Mitchell--were classified as 'neutral.'" (Media Matters realized that even if they rigged the report against the liberal side, the anti-liberal booking bias of the shows would still be clear.)
This past Sunday, the first one after the report was released, both NBC's Meet The Press and ABC's This Week featured journalist roundtables. As the Liberal Oasis blog noted, the two nets "probably thought they deftly inoculated themselves from crticism, as MTP booked NY Times' Maureen Dowd and This Week booked The Nation's Katrina vanden Huevel. But both unintentionally exposed the entire problem with the Beltway Establishment mindset towards liberals."
Even if you accept Dowd as an exemplar of the left, which at least for TV, I think is reasonably fair, she was outnumbered by two hard-line conservatives in Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot and Dick Cheney adviser Mary Matalin, while The Nation's editor and publisher was joined by the "deeply anti-government George Will and the right-leaning dispenser of Establishment wisdom Cokie Roberts." And this was a very good day for the Sunday shows!
So here's how you can help redress the political imbalance of the Sunday morning talk-fests:
Click here to circulate and tell your friends about the MM study.
Contact the Sunday shows and urge them to strive for greater balance. (And feel free to suggest some of the great progressive voices nationwide who they might do well to try out. Alterman offers a great list at the end of his column and I'm sure all of you have good names to suggest as well.)
Write to the editors of your local papers to ask them to report on MM's important findings.
And watch the Media Matters site for updates on this campaign.
Newsweek reported an interesting tidbit about Cheney's stay at the exclusive 50,000 acre preserve known as the Armstrong Ranch. It seems that the Vice-President's lodgings were in a guest quarters called "Uncle Tom's House."
A house named for a member of the Armstrong family?
I look forward to more reporting on the names of other guest houses on the vast property which Newsweek describes as "'Gosford Park' with a twang."
The yahoo crowd that runs U.S. foreign policy has been struggling to figure out how to get to the right of Israeli's Likud Party when it comes to countering the decision of the Palestinian people to give the political wing of Hamas an opportunity to form a government. But the new Bush doctrine of punishing people for casting their ballots for political parties that are not approved by the commissars in Washington does not sit well with the American president who actually forged significant progress toward peace in the Middle East -- and who understands the region better in his sleep than a wide-awake Dick Cheney before he's had that beer with lunch.
Jimmy Carter has been making the rounds of the television talk shows with an urgent message about what a mistake it would be to punish the Palestinian people for choosing a government that is not to the liking of Israeli or American politicians.
Carter, who led the team from the Carter Center and the National Democratic Institute that observed last month's Palestinian elections, made his case well in an opinion piece headlined "Don't Punish the Palestinians," which first appeared Monday in the Washington Post.
Noting that the outlines of the Palestinian government are still taking shape, Carter argued that, "During this time of fluidity in the formation of the new government, it is important that Israel and the United States play positive roles. Any tacit or formal collusion between the two powers to disrupt the process by punishing the Palestinian people could be counterproductive and have devastating consequences."
"Unfortunately," Carter added, "these steps are already underway and are well known throughout the Palestinian territories and the world. Israel moved yesterday to withhold funds (about $50 million per month) that the Palestinians earn from customs and tax revenue. Perhaps a greater aggravation by the Israelis is their decision to hinder movement of elected Hamas Palestinian Legislative Council members through any of more than a hundred Israeli checkpoints around and throughout the Palestinian territories. This will present significant obstacles to a government's functioning effectively."
And it is not just Israel that is taking the wrong course.
"Knowing that Hamas would inherit a bankrupt government, U.S. officials have announced that all funding for the new government will be withheld, including what is needed to pay salaries for schoolteachers, nurses, social workers, police and maintenance personnel," noted Carter "So far they have not agreed to bypass the Hamas-led government and let humanitarian funds be channeled to Palestinians through United Nations agencies responsible for refugees, health and other human services."
The former president offers a dose of realism when he concludes that: "This common commitment to eviscerate the government of elected Hamas officials by punishing private citizens may accomplish this narrow purpose (of limiting the ability of the new government to function), but the likely results will be to alienate the already oppressed and innocent Palestinians, to incite violence, and to increase the domestic influence and international esteem of Hamas. It will certainly not be an inducement to Hamas or other militants to moderate their policies."
Don't hold your breath waiting for the Bush-Cheney administration to do the right thing. But it would be encouraging if Carter's Democratic Party, the supposed opposition force in American politics, would embrace the wisdom of a former president whose commitment to easing tensions on the planet earned him the Nobel Peace Prize that will ever elude the current occupants of the White House. Unfortunately, most Democrats in Congress are, in all-too-predictable fashion, echoing an administration line that is as dangerous as it is foolhardy.
The problem with the Bush administration's support for a move by a United Arab Emirates-based firm to take over operation of six major American ports -- as well as the shipment of military equipment through two additional ports -- is not that the corporation in question is Arab owned.
The problem is that Dubai Ports World is a corporation. It happens to be a corporation that is owned by the government of the the United Arab Emirates, or UAE, a nation that served as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of 9-11 attacks, and that has stirred broad concern. But, even if the sale of operational control of the ports to this firm did not raise security alarm bells, it would be a bad idea.
Ports are essential pieces of the infrastructure of the United States, and they are best run by public authorities that are accountable to elected officials and the people those officials represent. While traditional port authorities still exist, they are increasing marginalized as privatization schemes have allowed corporations -- often with tough anti-union attitudes and even tougher bottom lines -- to take charge of more and more of the basic operations at the nation's ports.
In the era when the federal government sees "homeland security" as a slogan rather than a responsibility, allowing the nation's working waterfronts to be run by private firms just doesn't work. It is no secret that federal authorities have failed to mandate, let alone implement, basic port security measures. But this is not merely a federal failure; it is, as well, a private-sector failure. The private firms that control so many of the nation's ports have not begun to set up a solid system for waterfront security in the more than four years since the September 11, 2001 attacks. And shifting control of the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia -- along with control over the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through the ports at Beaumont and Corpus Christi -- from a British firm, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., to Dubai Ports World, is not going to improve the situation.
Unfortunately, the debate has been posed as a fight over whether Arab-owned firms should be allowed to manage ports and other strategic sites in the U.S. Media coverage of the debate sets up the increasingly ridiculous Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff -- who babbles bureaucratically about how, "We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint" -- against members of Congress -- who growl, as U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, did over the weekend about the need "to guard against things like infiltration by al-Qaida or someone else,"
There are two fundamental facts about corporations that put this controversy about who runs the ports in perspective.
First: Like most American firms, most Arab-owned firms are committed to making money, and the vast majority of them are not about to compromise their potential profits by throwing in with terrorists.
Second: Like most American firms, Arab-owned firms are more concerned about satisfying shareholders than anything else. As such, they are poor stewards of ports and other vital pieces of the national infrastructure that still require the constant investment of public funds, as well as responsible oversite by authorities that can see more than a bottom line, in order to maintain public safety -- not to mention the public good of modern, efficient transportation services.
Jane Mayer's got a whopping-good piece in the latest New Yorker detailing the frustrated crusade of one Alberto J. Mora to stop the institutionalization of torture by Bush administration officials.
No cappuccino-sippin' liberal, Mora – the son of Hungarian and Cuban refugees-- was the Navy's chief legal advisor. He's also an honest and humane patriot who was disgusted and alarmed – long before anyone heard of Abu Grhraib -- by the way the U.S. military was treating its prisoners.
Much to his credit, and elevating him far above the moral gnomes who generally populate the upper echelons of the administration, Mora drew no distinction between plain cruel and sadistic treatment of prisoners and outright torture. On this subject, he wasn't willing to split hairs (or for that matter to break shinbones, smash jaws or cause organ failure).
Unfortunately his prolonged effort to reel in his own Pentagon ran smack dab into – yes you guessed it--other legal advisors in the administration who were more loyal to Dick Cheney than to constitutional and international law.The long and short of it, is that Mora was straight-out lied to by the administration. While he was being told that policy was being re-shaped to accommodate his protests against abuse, the administration was secretly authorizing the use of torture.Make sure you read Mayer's entire story. It will leave you numb.
In these last couple days, I've been blogging about the shameful fact that America's minimum wage hasn't risen since 1997 and, adjusted for inflation, is at its lowest since 1956. That means millions of Americans cannot meet their bills even working 2-3 jobs.
If you want to read a gut-wrenching, heartbreaking article about the human face of growing poverty in this rich country, read Paul Harris's dispatch in The Guardian. Harris reports from the hills of Kentucky, Detroit's streets, the Deep South of Louisiana and the heartland of Oklahoma. What he finds is not the failure of the poor, but the failure of our system.
The next time some morally obtuse politician starts talking YOYO language--"You're On Your Own"--or preaches the need to take personal responsibility and pulls out that bootstrap stuff, make them read this article. It is a stark reminder that, as Harris reports, "even families with two working parents are often one slice of good luck--a medical bill or a factory closure--away from disaster."
These are times when the gap between the haves and have-nots in America has widened, when 37 million of our fellow citizens live in poverty (that's 12.7% of population--the highest percentage in the developed world), and each year more are added to the poverty rolls. (Under Bush, an additional 5.4 million have slipped below the poverty line.)
Yet, poverty is, for all essential purposes, off the radar of America's political landscape. Maybe it's because there are too many outrages to wake up to every morning? Maybe it's because the poor have no lobbyists and don't have the money to make campaign donations?
During the 2004 elections, as The Guardian article reminds, John Edwards raised poverty to a presidential-level conversation for the first time in forty years. And even then, he had to mute his passion and words once he became the vice-presidential candidate. So it's heartening that Edwards, in these last months, has retrieved his focus and passion and launched a campaign to "eradicate poverty in America." (For more, check out Bob Moser's fine Nation profile) He's created a think tank at the University of North Carolina, The Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity," designed to tackle the nation's deep and abiding economic and racial inequities, and taken his antipoverty crusade to more than thirty states.
Edwards isn't alone. There are movements which continue to work hard, with too little support or attention; there are also less prominent political figures. But what we need is a critical mass of elected representatives, at all levels. Make this issue a campaign. Don't just talk the talk, but really work to fulfill the oft-proclaimed promise of America as a land of opportunity for all. Begin by fighting tooth and nail to increase the minimum wage. Shame on those who refuse to pass it. And then let's support the successful living wage movement, and the anti-poverty movements and coalitions working in our communities and nation-wide.
These are just a few things that could be done. I am sure others have better ideas and a clearer understanding of political strategy. What is clear is that addressing the deep and growing poverty in this nation may be the greatest moral-values issue of our time.
In commemoration of President's Day, I dug up a December column by noted presidential biographer Richard Reeves entitled, "Is George Bush the Worst President--Ever?"
Turns out 415 historians were recently asked by George Mason University to answer that question. And 50 replied that yes, Bush was, while over 80 percent said that W was failing at his job.
Generally speaking, Reeves says James Buchanan, our 15th president, usually earns the worst ever distinction, as "a confused, indecisive president, who may have made the Civil War inevitable by trying to appease or negotiate with the South."
Taking a more modern view, The Nation wrote following Ronald Reagan's death:
Until the current occupant side-stepped into the White House, Reagan was the worst American leader since Herbert Hoover.
This debate, however, will likely not be settled for quite some time. As Reeves notes, there are other figures in the White House who deserve equal blame:
Many of the historians note that however bad Bush seems, they have indeed seen worse men around the White House. Some say Buchanan. Many say Vice President Dick Cheney.
And that was before he shot a man in the face.
In this era of ever-more-cautious electioneering, when consultants counsel contenders to stick to the safe, narrow and drab on the warped theory that the lowest common denominator is dull, the art of political sloganeering has hit something of a dry spell.
It may well be that the last really great -- or, at least memorable -- slogan was the one used by supporters of former Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards, a man who had faced more than his share of corruption charges, in a 1991 contest with nuevo-Klansman David Duke: "Vote for the Crook. It's Important!"
But 2006 will be different. Country singer and novelist Kinky Friedman's campaign for governor of Texas has already produced the best bumpersticker slogan that the American political landscape has seen in years: "He Ain't Kinky, He's My Governor."
Friedman's also got the best counter to the Bush administration's failed education initiatives. A campaign t-shirt declares: "No Teacher Left Behind."
Running as an independent who must petition his way onto the fall ballot (his campaign is gearing up to collect signatures from more than 45,540 registered voters beginning March 8), Friedman's pitching a serious set of progressive education, health care and energy policy reforms. Two separate polls released in recent days have Friedman garnering around 10 percent support, behind the ridiculous incumbent, Rick Perry, and his chief challenger, State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn -- a Democrat turned Republican who is now running as an independent with the support of her youngest son, embattled White House spokesman Scott McClellan -- but quite close to overtaking the two Democrats who are trying to mount campaigns. (Perry, who inherited his job when George W. Bush was handed the presidency by the U.S. Supreme Court, may yet prove to be vulnerable. A recent Dallas Morning News poll found that, when asked to name the governor's most important accomplishment during five years in office, 70 percent could not think of anything.)
Even as his campaign gains the sort of attention and support that often causes candidates to put their personalities on hold, the man who once fronted the band Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys can be counted on to keep the Texas race worth watching. His campaign manifesto -- which begins by announcing: "Why the hell not?Texas politics stinks" -- makes that clear. "Texans are the most independent people in America, and if we're going to be inspired, the inspiration will come from someone unafraid to deal in new ideas and honest answers, an independent leader who lets the people call the plays instead of dancing to the tune of the money men," it explains. "That kind of leader is never going to look or sound like a politician. He won't steer by image polls, speak in hollow phrases approved by focus groups, or show up in hand-tailored suits."
For the record, Kinky wears blue jeans (faded), a black shirt (untucked), black books (slightly muddied), a black cowboy hat (beaten up a bit) and a Montecristo No. 2. cigar (ever present).