A weekly spin through the Fray.

Kausfiles Fray: Though it was a light publishing week at Slate, KF loyalists continue their crackling dialogue and political needling. NeoCon tosses an Andrew Sullivan morsel into the Fray that poses whether President Bush is truly a conservative, given W's apparent comfort with governmental power. This launches several active discussion about a workable delineation between neoconservatives and traditional libertarian conservatives, answered by BigGovernmentKills here and here. James and laocoon weave a tremendous thread that tries to identify empirical truths in the morass of political claims we hear daily from pols and pundits: "What becomes frustrating is when you approach a discussion with the assumption that you are debating a question of demonstrable truth, when beneath the surface of your opponent's position is a refusal to process data because they are arguing from the perspective of values." Laocoon's beautiful first reply can be found here, a sample from his oeuvre that earns him a star. For good measure, Birkbeiner provides a rebuttal in the thread here, and zinya's always dependable contribution can be found here.  

Jurisprudence Fray: It's not surprising that the return of Dahlia Lithwick to Jurisprudence -- this week writing on the missteps of the Department of Justice in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial (" Ashcroft's Folly") – elicits a collection of pensive posts, highlighted by BeverlyMann. Here, Beverly maintains that the origin of Ashcroft's gaffe was his lack of anticipation "that the case would be assigned by the federal district court (i.e. trial court) clerk's office's computerized random judicial-assignment system to a Clinton appointee." Beverly goes on to write that Lithwick "misreads the signal of the Court of Appeals in refusing to intervene in order to assist the prosecutors now." The signal? According to Beverly, it's one of timing not judicial philosophy. Beverly suspects that the ruling of said appointee, Judge Leonie Brinkema, will be overturned by the 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals. GMG speaks up with some legal prescriptions, and mikkyld is troubled by the notion "that somehow there should be different brands of judges sitting on the bench." To destor23, the " central issue" resides in the DoJ's flouting of the sixth amendment, "that Moussaoui is being prevented from mounting a plausible defense because the government is denying access to what everyone agrees will be an exculpatory witness." Questioning Ramzi Binalshibh's credibility as a witness, baltimore-aureole plays the contrarian by asking, "don't you think it's just a little bit possible that the government is COUNTING ON Judge Brinkema dismissing the charges against Moussaoui?"

Friday, July 25, 2003

On message: While culling InstaPundit over the weekend, Joe_JP found a conservative blogger on the site who proclaimed of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, "I'd vote for him," irrespective of the fact that "Blair, at heart, is a socialist."

It interests me that someone who clearly opposes much of what the Prime Minister stands for is still willing to vote for him. Why? Inspiration, eloquence, and a message the listener wants to here.

Joe continues with a perspicacious post on the alchemy of leadership and message. Referring to a busy top thread from laocoon that begins, "I sure wish I had a Tony Blair to vote for next year," JP draws a delineation between reactive—albeit legitimate—criticism of the administration ("what we do in the fray mostly ... ") and a more transcendent exploration of "certain issues that concern us," whatever the political ramifications may happen to be.

Question time: Michael Kinsley's "Humor, Humility, and Rhetorical Courage" expands on what, besides the British accent, draws Americans of all feathers—from Icarus Hawks to Lonesome Doves—to Blair. 

AngryPatriot here and artointc here attribute Blair's erudition to British political rearing, whereby "Blair is practiced in being succinct and to the point, because the British political process *demands* it" with brief campaigns and, as laocoon points out, "that pesky House of Commons row when the PM must actually face and answer questions from hostile opposition MPs."

Neddy notes that

Like many British politicians before, their popularity in the US (Churchill, Thatcher) had long expired in their homeland whilst still being regarded as heroes in America.

Kinsley takes a lot for his statement that, while he admired it for the most part, Blair's "speech was built around a very tired cliché—the importance of freedom." SlipperyPete takes umbrage here. Splendid_IREny retorts with the best defense of Kinsley, with an honorable mention to DBR_Storyteller here and Retief here: