Note: The first entry was sent last night.
Morning, David—
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponAll right. He's found his voice. It was a good, compact speech. The same editorialists who used to criticize Clinton for rambling on now lash Bush for not providing enough details. It's always something. But, transformational? I don't think so. The domestic policy side was a complete disappointment. The action was on the war front, and rightly so. But I have a real problem with the Evil Axis, which seemed a rhetorically awkward attempt to summon some of Reagan's Evil Empire juju. It's probably not very good policy, either. I assume this is a diplomatic game of three-card monte, with Iraq sheltering the pea. But it's an extremely dangerous game, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction argument is a bit of a phony: Iran and Iraq are working on chem and germ and nuclear mostly to deter each other—and secondarily to deter Israel. (Saddam used chemical weapons extensively in the war with Iran; the Iranians believe that we helped Saddam develop them.) Iran supports anti-Israeli terrorist groups, which is a disgrace, but our great pals, the Saudis, have bankrolled those guys for years. Why aren't they part of the Evil Axis? Here's an insidious idea: You want to really destabilize these countries? Recognize them. Open the borders, flood them with J. Lo CDs and Star Wars DVDs. This would completely bollix the mullahs who use the existence of a Great Satan as an excuse for oppression. (This would work in Cuba as well—without the Yanqui devil, Fidel would have no excuses for his disgraceful stewardship of a lovely country.) And here's a more serious bright line: If we find that any of these Evil Axions are supplying terrorists with WOMD, nuke them forthwith. My understanding is that Saddam knows that this is the unstated rule and has been very careful to abide by it.
Now a real disagreement between us: Bush, a "much better" president than Clinton? Oh, come on. First, it's way too soon to tell. Second, Clinton was a much better president than the Beltway ever acknowledged (the public knew his worth, which is why his approval ratings were so high for so many years—we'll see if Bush can maintain his). You asked me to name a leadership quality crucial to a successful presidency. Here's one: the willingness to tell people things they don't want to hear, the willingness to go against your party stalwarts. Clinton did this constantly, with very positive effects—raising taxes and using the money for deficit reduction (as opposed to social programs), favoring free trade, welfare reform, the Mexican bailout. There was a lot about Clinton that wasn't so hot, but you can't gainsay his courageous domestic policy. Bush was pretty bold during the 2000 campaign—lecturing GOP audiences on compassion for the poor and for immigrants—but I haven't seen much of it since. Aside from increasing funds for Head Start, what exactly did he propose last night that would cause anguish in the country clubs of the land?
Finally, the IQ question. Let me playfully offer an axiom: High IQ is a leading indicator of failure in a president, but an "interesting" personal life is a leading indicator of success. This doesn't always apply: Teddy Roosevelt and Truman didn't have very wild personal lives. But think of the high IQs: Hoover, Nixon, Carter. And think of the screw-ups: FDR, Eisenhower (Kay Summersby), Reagan (in Hollywood), Bush 43. Clinton was the first president since Woodrow Wilson to have both a high IQ and a powerhouse id, which, I guess, is why the results for both were so mixed.
All Best,
Joe
Twitter and Google Couldn't Stop Facebook. Can Anyone?
Nine Theories for Why It's So Hard To Find Chocolate in China
Why Is Buttoning Up Your Shirt All the Way Hollywood's Shorthand for Retarded?
George Clooney Almost Convinced Me To Like Up in the Air. Almost.
Why Is More Than Half of Congress Still Not on Twitter?
The Best Thing About Alice: Kathy Bates as the Queen of Hearts
Wednesday Notes From the Fray Editor:
The main topic in the Fray is the State of the Union speech. REW-OEM explains here why he was tempted to join the 84% but ended up in the 16%, and asks "Why is it not possible to respect and applaud President Bush's positively spun and well transformed public demeanor, acknowledge his strength and steadfastness in difficult times, and yet still question the will and wisdom of his plans for our future?" More questions: Anita tries to answer Joe Klein's "how do you convince people that a certain selflessness is good for the soul…?" John-Paul Spiro read "bourgeois democratic nations…don't breed poisonous ideological groups" and wants to ask "What do you call Timothy McVeigh?" Why does Peter Lahey feel like a character from Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Click here to find out.
Reader Comments From The Fray:
What Brooks calls idealism could itself be called, and often has been, imperialism or the spread of global capitalism or an arrogant disrespect for the sovereignty of other nations. To define the "spreading" of any cultural force or view (democracy, capitalism, or hmmm say Christianity) by force as "idealistic" seems on the face of it absurdly ethnocentric and arrogant. One must, like Hegel, be willing to assert that one's culture represents the historical pinnacle and telos of human endeavor--in which case, every other country, including Great Britain (with their nasty socialist ways!) would have to be invaded and made to conform to the US Constitution in the name of American idealism. To suggest, as Brooks does, that bourgeois democracy represents the best that can be aspired to--well, that's a dim thought, made no brighter by being pasted with the shiny label of "idealism."
--J
(To find or answer this post, click here .)
Monday Notes From The Fray Editor:
Always check your quotations or the Fray will get you. All together now: "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness." (We'll miss out the "starving hysterical naked" bit.) Other phrases that caught readers attention were "by any means necessary" (in regard to questioning suspects) and "congenital DNA" (What other kind is there, asked one poster.) Urquhart says Klein "gets points for use of the word 'dudgeon,' which I've never seen outside of a Wodehouse novel." And there are plenty of discussions on Enron and the economy.
Reader Comments From The Fray:
Klein thinks we should be "interrogating the hell out of them by any means necessary." Does this include torture? I'd like to hear his opinion. And his reference to the nine families who lost loved ones is weak. Yes, we should remember the damage done by the terrorists. But that doesn't mean that every policy argument needs to have the approval of the relatives of the victims.
--Leonard
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It seems to me the public's indifference about the extent of Enron's dealings with the Bush administration says more about the public than it does about our need to know. I doubt Cheney would risk the potential political damage of a court dispute if he didn't think the contents of his meeting notes were potentially more explosive. If Cheney's right, and this is just Dem hype, then prove us wrong and release the documents. Enron shareholders got screwed, in part, by a lack of corporate transparency. Cheney's claim that disclosing these documents could impair future leaders' ability to consult with corporation without fear of public scrutiny is, at best, disingenuous, at worst, more of the same opaqueness that got us in this mess.
--John Rogers
(To find or answer this post, click here.)