Monday, November 26, 2007
Giuliani-Huckabee '08?
If you asked me today what the Republican ticket for 2008 would be, I would probably guess Rudy Giuliani running for president, and Mike Huckabee as his running mate.
Politically, Rudy & Huckabee are the odd couple. Rudy has fairly liberal (by Republican standards) views on abortion, gun rights, and gay rights. Mike Huckabee is a social conservative in the mold of President Bush's "compassionate conservatism" (which apparently justifies the use of Big Government to enforce traditional values.) But that pairing could be exactly what the Republicans need to keep the White House. Rudy appeals to moderates, centrists and undecided voters--people who are the main targets during the post-primary campaign. Huckabee will hold the Republican base in check and motivate them to vote in numbers come November.
In a larger sense, Huckabee would be part of a "southern strategy" that successful presidential candidates have embraced for years. A northerner like Rudy likely needs a southerner on his ticket in order to get the southern states on his side. It's the same mentality that drove Lyndon Johnson and his Texas ten-gallon hat to run alongside Massachusetts-bred Jack Kennedy.
But beyond the issues on which Rudy & Huckabee disagree, it's the bigger and more pressing issues on which they can join their positions and speak with one voice. Rudy & Mike will stand to finish the job in Iraq and continue the tireless crusade against Islamist terrorism. They will have to head off a seemingly-imminent recession. And they will choose free-market solutions over Monster Government in reforming the health care system.
Most importantly, Rudolph Giuliani and Mike Huckabee both have something that neither Hillary or Barack can boast about--executive experience. The mayor of the largest city in America and a state governor know what it's like to sit in the hot seat and to serve as "The Decider." They know too well where the proverbial buck stops. Hillary and Barack have served in the Senate and have plenty of experience casting votes for the way they think things should be. But being president requires decisive leadership in making a vision a reality. When the chips are down and the nation faces crisis, who will remain level-headed and guide the American people from tragedy to triumph? I'd rather take the mayor and the governor over somebody who's spent an entire political career casting votes and prognosticating from the sidelines.
Politically, Rudy & Huckabee are the odd couple. Rudy has fairly liberal (by Republican standards) views on abortion, gun rights, and gay rights. Mike Huckabee is a social conservative in the mold of President Bush's "compassionate conservatism" (which apparently justifies the use of Big Government to enforce traditional values.) But that pairing could be exactly what the Republicans need to keep the White House. Rudy appeals to moderates, centrists and undecided voters--people who are the main targets during the post-primary campaign. Huckabee will hold the Republican base in check and motivate them to vote in numbers come November.
In a larger sense, Huckabee would be part of a "southern strategy" that successful presidential candidates have embraced for years. A northerner like Rudy likely needs a southerner on his ticket in order to get the southern states on his side. It's the same mentality that drove Lyndon Johnson and his Texas ten-gallon hat to run alongside Massachusetts-bred Jack Kennedy.
But beyond the issues on which Rudy & Huckabee disagree, it's the bigger and more pressing issues on which they can join their positions and speak with one voice. Rudy & Mike will stand to finish the job in Iraq and continue the tireless crusade against Islamist terrorism. They will have to head off a seemingly-imminent recession. And they will choose free-market solutions over Monster Government in reforming the health care system.
Most importantly, Rudolph Giuliani and Mike Huckabee both have something that neither Hillary or Barack can boast about--executive experience. The mayor of the largest city in America and a state governor know what it's like to sit in the hot seat and to serve as "The Decider." They know too well where the proverbial buck stops. Hillary and Barack have served in the Senate and have plenty of experience casting votes for the way they think things should be. But being president requires decisive leadership in making a vision a reality. When the chips are down and the nation faces crisis, who will remain level-headed and guide the American people from tragedy to triumph? I'd rather take the mayor and the governor over somebody who's spent an entire political career casting votes and prognosticating from the sidelines.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Needed: A Political and Diplomatic Surge
The troop "surge" plan in Iraq has largely exceeded expectations, bringing a modicum of peace to large areas of a country that has experienced little peace over the past few years. But every silver lining does have a dark cloud, and all glory is fleeting. Our military success in creating security begs the question of how long it will last. Without political success to cement the military gains we've made, the sacrifices we've made during the surge could be all for naught.
While our leaders have told us that the surge was supposed to create conditions favorable to diplomacy, the truth is that the Iraqi government has nothing to show for the breating room our armed forces have given them. The oil profit-sharing bill, over a year in the making, is still hung up on Kurdish demands. The forgiveness for Baath party members is delayed by vengeful Shiites who are not ready to forgive (after all, there is no Arabic word for "reconciliation.") The issue of regional autonomy hasn't been settled, nor has the membership of Kirkuk in the Kurdish region been settled.
Apparently, one effect of the surge has been to undermine the Iraqi government and make the US military into the guarantor of security. It has also empowered the tribal leaders, a group that the US painfully paid too-little attention to from the early stages of the occupation until the beginning of the surge.
It begs the question of whether the US can achieve success in Iraq without the support of Iraq's current political leaders. While the conventional wisdom would say that they are needed, I don't think it's a show-stopper. The truth is that the Maliki government is corrupt and ineffectual (just like the kleptocracies that govern most middle eastern countries.) If the US holds local elections in Iraq sooner rather than later, it will give an official voice to tribal leaders who should be engaged by the Iraqi government. It also gives Iraqis a chance to come up with a new government based on the work that has been done with the "Awakening Councils" when the next round of national elections comes around.
While the State Department should be working behind the scenes to ensure political progress in Iraq, it looks unlikely that anything is happening. The department is facing so much internal resistance from its own diplomats who don't want to depart for Iraq, and it's hard to see State playing any kind of effective, intermediary role.
The US has achieved a degree of military victory in Iraq. But true victory will come once Iraqis can ensure peace through binding political agreement. Otherwise, the US will face the uncertain and frightening prospect of what the empowered tribal leaders and Awakening Councils will do after they are tired of fighting al Qaeda. Will they turn against the US again? Wage sectarian warfare against Shiites? It's a murky and frightening future if there's no movement on the political front before the end of this year.
While our leaders have told us that the surge was supposed to create conditions favorable to diplomacy, the truth is that the Iraqi government has nothing to show for the breating room our armed forces have given them. The oil profit-sharing bill, over a year in the making, is still hung up on Kurdish demands. The forgiveness for Baath party members is delayed by vengeful Shiites who are not ready to forgive (after all, there is no Arabic word for "reconciliation.") The issue of regional autonomy hasn't been settled, nor has the membership of Kirkuk in the Kurdish region been settled.
Apparently, one effect of the surge has been to undermine the Iraqi government and make the US military into the guarantor of security. It has also empowered the tribal leaders, a group that the US painfully paid too-little attention to from the early stages of the occupation until the beginning of the surge.
It begs the question of whether the US can achieve success in Iraq without the support of Iraq's current political leaders. While the conventional wisdom would say that they are needed, I don't think it's a show-stopper. The truth is that the Maliki government is corrupt and ineffectual (just like the kleptocracies that govern most middle eastern countries.) If the US holds local elections in Iraq sooner rather than later, it will give an official voice to tribal leaders who should be engaged by the Iraqi government. It also gives Iraqis a chance to come up with a new government based on the work that has been done with the "Awakening Councils" when the next round of national elections comes around.
While the State Department should be working behind the scenes to ensure political progress in Iraq, it looks unlikely that anything is happening. The department is facing so much internal resistance from its own diplomats who don't want to depart for Iraq, and it's hard to see State playing any kind of effective, intermediary role.
The US has achieved a degree of military victory in Iraq. But true victory will come once Iraqis can ensure peace through binding political agreement. Otherwise, the US will face the uncertain and frightening prospect of what the empowered tribal leaders and Awakening Councils will do after they are tired of fighting al Qaeda. Will they turn against the US again? Wage sectarian warfare against Shiites? It's a murky and frightening future if there's no movement on the political front before the end of this year.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Hollywood's Quagmire
The Hollywood bean-counters are scratching their heads and asking why the current crop of Iraq-themed and Afghanistan-themed movies are taking at the box office. Paul Haggis's In the Valley of Elah, Rendition, and Robert Redford's Lions for Lambs have met with mixed reviews and poor attendance. Similar fates are expected to befall upcoming films like Brian DePalma's Redacted, Stop Loss, and Grace is Gone.
I'm certain that some within Hollywood and among like-minded pundits have already found a way to blame President Bush and "the corporations" for the commercial failures of anti-war movies. Beyond that, the movie industry pundits are claiming that audiences want "escapist" movies, and that it's too soon for movies of this nature to come out.
In some ways, the movie pundits are right about these movies coming out too soon. During World War II, most of the war movies that were released took the form of idealized flicks that glorified our fighting men and vilified our enemies. During Vietnam, Hollywood didn't want to touch the subject at all, aside from John Wayne's The Green Berets (which was quite similar to the sappy and unrealistic movies that played during the World War II years.)
It wasn't until long after WWII and Vietnam that more realistic and nuanced films came out. Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers succeeded by glorifying the characters of the men who fought, while still capturing the inherent brutality of war. Even movies like Platoon, which carried an anti-war message, were largely stories about the conflicts between the fighting men and studies of their characters.
In the current crop of anti-war films, the directors seem to have lost the sense of what makes for a good war movie: the American fighting man. At the core of every good war movie (especially Black Hawk Down and We Were Soldiers) is a group of strong-willed individuals who try to overcome the horrors and rigors of combat. Audiences need to cheer for the American fighting man. Movies like In the Valley of Elah and Redacted fail miserably at this. They focus on a group of American soldiers who commit some particular atrocity, and really have no redeeming qualities.
The point these directors try to make is that war has corrupted these men, and tries to portray them as tragic characters. While nobody comes back from war unscarred (even if only on an emotional level,) it's also true that some individuals are plenty capable of committing atrocities without war as a backdrop for their misdeeds. Unfortunately, some of these deranged individuals slip through the cracks and make it into our armed forces. Frankly, nobody wants to see a movie about the misdeeds and dishonorable conduct of soldiers. They would much rather choose to focus on the men who strive against adversity to uphold the ideals of America and the code of honor that all members of the military are supposed to follow.
Beyond the problems with the vilification of our fighting men, many of the new anti-war movies suffer from the problem that they're just not very good movies. Lions for Lambs has been derided for being too long, too dull, and too preachy. Then again, Hollywood tends to embrace films for their message rather than their execution. This can be seen in Hollywood's praise for The Searchers, the 1956 John Wayne/John Ford flick. It was one of the first movies to deal with the theme of racism, and for that reason it makes the "top ten" lists of many critics. But most people who watch it will come to the conclusion that, regardless of a noble theme, it's just a really, really bad movie. The dialog is awful, attempts at comic relief come at the most inopportune times, and the message is so heavy-handed that it's insulting to the audience. Only John Wayne's performance is worthy of note.
The reasons for the failure of anti-war movies are multi-faceted, but Hollywood shouldn't be looking for scapegoats or blaming audiences. The problem is that Hollywood wants to make its message the central character in these movies, while most audiences want to see American heroes at the core of the story. I'll take a movie about heroes over a message-movie anyday.
I'm certain that some within Hollywood and among like-minded pundits have already found a way to blame President Bush and "the corporations" for the commercial failures of anti-war movies. Beyond that, the movie industry pundits are claiming that audiences want "escapist" movies, and that it's too soon for movies of this nature to come out.
In some ways, the movie pundits are right about these movies coming out too soon. During World War II, most of the war movies that were released took the form of idealized flicks that glorified our fighting men and vilified our enemies. During Vietnam, Hollywood didn't want to touch the subject at all, aside from John Wayne's The Green Berets (which was quite similar to the sappy and unrealistic movies that played during the World War II years.)
It wasn't until long after WWII and Vietnam that more realistic and nuanced films came out. Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers succeeded by glorifying the characters of the men who fought, while still capturing the inherent brutality of war. Even movies like Platoon, which carried an anti-war message, were largely stories about the conflicts between the fighting men and studies of their characters.
In the current crop of anti-war films, the directors seem to have lost the sense of what makes for a good war movie: the American fighting man. At the core of every good war movie (especially Black Hawk Down and We Were Soldiers) is a group of strong-willed individuals who try to overcome the horrors and rigors of combat. Audiences need to cheer for the American fighting man. Movies like In the Valley of Elah and Redacted fail miserably at this. They focus on a group of American soldiers who commit some particular atrocity, and really have no redeeming qualities.
The point these directors try to make is that war has corrupted these men, and tries to portray them as tragic characters. While nobody comes back from war unscarred (even if only on an emotional level,) it's also true that some individuals are plenty capable of committing atrocities without war as a backdrop for their misdeeds. Unfortunately, some of these deranged individuals slip through the cracks and make it into our armed forces. Frankly, nobody wants to see a movie about the misdeeds and dishonorable conduct of soldiers. They would much rather choose to focus on the men who strive against adversity to uphold the ideals of America and the code of honor that all members of the military are supposed to follow.
Beyond the problems with the vilification of our fighting men, many of the new anti-war movies suffer from the problem that they're just not very good movies. Lions for Lambs has been derided for being too long, too dull, and too preachy. Then again, Hollywood tends to embrace films for their message rather than their execution. This can be seen in Hollywood's praise for The Searchers, the 1956 John Wayne/John Ford flick. It was one of the first movies to deal with the theme of racism, and for that reason it makes the "top ten" lists of many critics. But most people who watch it will come to the conclusion that, regardless of a noble theme, it's just a really, really bad movie. The dialog is awful, attempts at comic relief come at the most inopportune times, and the message is so heavy-handed that it's insulting to the audience. Only John Wayne's performance is worthy of note.
The reasons for the failure of anti-war movies are multi-faceted, but Hollywood shouldn't be looking for scapegoats or blaming audiences. The problem is that Hollywood wants to make its message the central character in these movies, while most audiences want to see American heroes at the core of the story. I'll take a movie about heroes over a message-movie anyday.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Pakistan is going Whackistan
The unfolding situation in Pakistan should be troubling to all Americans. Since the 9/11 attacks, the US government has tolerated the authoritarian rule of General Pervez Musharraf in the belief that he could reign in the extreme Islamists who supported the horrific attacks against our nation. But over the past few years, Musharraf has become ineffective against the Islamist insurgency. Further, he's become more of an authoritarian, rather than softening up as many in the White House have been hoping for.
With the General's declaration of a "state of emergency," he is using the Islamist insurgency as justification for curtailing democracy. While we are being told that the state of emergency will end within a month, it's not clear that the Islamic militants will be any worse off by the time the crisis ends. It may be possible that even more Pakistanis, having grown disillusioned with Musharraf's charade of a democracy, will come to support the Islamist fanatics.
It would be very tempting for the US to pull the rug out from under Musharraf and support his rival, Benazhir Bhutto. Such a move would be a small step towards dissolving the belief among Muslims that America will only support democracy when it serves America's interests. However, the US has no guarantee that a Bhutto government will be a strong ally against al Qaeda and the Taliban. It should be remembered that Ms. Bhutto used to support the Taliban (but so did Musharraf and a number of other Pakistani leaders, because the Taliban represented stability in lawless Afghanistan.) America should also remember that Ms. Bhutto was forced into exile in a cloud of corruption charges. Supporting her would reinforce the stereotype, held by millions of Muslims, that America props up crooked secularists to run Muslim nations.
In the end, America has no good options in dealing with Pakistan. The Pakistani secularists are divided in the camps of two crooks: one of whom is a General who overthrew the old government, and the other of whom is a thief who was forced into exile. At the same time, there's a real risk that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal could fall into the clutches of Islamist sympathizers who have infiltrated the government. America's enemies have already used Pakistan's lawless frontier to rebuild their forces and further destabilize Afghanistan.
For Pakistan, the underlying problem is that too many people are remaining silent or secretly supporting violent religious fanatics. It's a culture that's supported by the madrassas and clerics who advocate violent revolution. Until the culture of hate can be changed, America will continually be stuck between despots and murderous madmen when dealing with Pakistan.
With the General's declaration of a "state of emergency," he is using the Islamist insurgency as justification for curtailing democracy. While we are being told that the state of emergency will end within a month, it's not clear that the Islamic militants will be any worse off by the time the crisis ends. It may be possible that even more Pakistanis, having grown disillusioned with Musharraf's charade of a democracy, will come to support the Islamist fanatics.
It would be very tempting for the US to pull the rug out from under Musharraf and support his rival, Benazhir Bhutto. Such a move would be a small step towards dissolving the belief among Muslims that America will only support democracy when it serves America's interests. However, the US has no guarantee that a Bhutto government will be a strong ally against al Qaeda and the Taliban. It should be remembered that Ms. Bhutto used to support the Taliban (but so did Musharraf and a number of other Pakistani leaders, because the Taliban represented stability in lawless Afghanistan.) America should also remember that Ms. Bhutto was forced into exile in a cloud of corruption charges. Supporting her would reinforce the stereotype, held by millions of Muslims, that America props up crooked secularists to run Muslim nations.
In the end, America has no good options in dealing with Pakistan. The Pakistani secularists are divided in the camps of two crooks: one of whom is a General who overthrew the old government, and the other of whom is a thief who was forced into exile. At the same time, there's a real risk that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal could fall into the clutches of Islamist sympathizers who have infiltrated the government. America's enemies have already used Pakistan's lawless frontier to rebuild their forces and further destabilize Afghanistan.
For Pakistan, the underlying problem is that too many people are remaining silent or secretly supporting violent religious fanatics. It's a culture that's supported by the madrassas and clerics who advocate violent revolution. Until the culture of hate can be changed, America will continually be stuck between despots and murderous madmen when dealing with Pakistan.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Pat Robertson: I'm Gay for Rudy Giuliani
Please forgive the tongue-in-cheek title of this post, but I think it's apropos for today's unexpected development. For months, the self-appointed pundits have been telling us that Rudy could never win the Republican nomination for president, because he doesn't appeal to the "religious right." Rudy has fairly liberal views on abortion and gay rights, and his personal life is hardly the example of Christian faithfulness. There was much talk of a conservative Christian third-party if Rudy was nominated.
Today, I think all of that changed. Why would Pat Robertson throw his lot in with Rudy? I think it is because of a growing realization that the Republicans face an uphill battle in 2008. Pat thinks he's helping the cause by rallying his supporters around Rudy as the best hope of defeating Hillary (or whomever the Democrats nominate should Hillary collapse.)
As I've said before, Republicans can only keep the White House if they present a united front. With the "religious right" falling in line behind Rudy, I think they can do that. However, the support of Pat Robertson also alienates centrist and independent voters who are more sympathetic to Rudy's social views.
In spite of predictions about the Religious Right peeling away from the Republican Party, I knew they would fall into lockstep if they perceived the credible threat of a Hillary presidency. The only question is whether an obnoxious figure like Pat Robertson will scare away the moderates. I believe it will, but the Democrats have the same problem with figures like Michael Moore and George Soros. Politics is a difficult balancing act: you have to win the ideologues in the party primaries by shifting to the extremes, then you have to redefine yourself as a centrist to win the general election. It's a harsh game that lends itself to the likes of Stretch Armstrong and John Kerry.
Today, I think all of that changed. Why would Pat Robertson throw his lot in with Rudy? I think it is because of a growing realization that the Republicans face an uphill battle in 2008. Pat thinks he's helping the cause by rallying his supporters around Rudy as the best hope of defeating Hillary (or whomever the Democrats nominate should Hillary collapse.)
As I've said before, Republicans can only keep the White House if they present a united front. With the "religious right" falling in line behind Rudy, I think they can do that. However, the support of Pat Robertson also alienates centrist and independent voters who are more sympathetic to Rudy's social views.
In spite of predictions about the Religious Right peeling away from the Republican Party, I knew they would fall into lockstep if they perceived the credible threat of a Hillary presidency. The only question is whether an obnoxious figure like Pat Robertson will scare away the moderates. I believe it will, but the Democrats have the same problem with figures like Michael Moore and George Soros. Politics is a difficult balancing act: you have to win the ideologues in the party primaries by shifting to the extremes, then you have to redefine yourself as a centrist to win the general election. It's a harsh game that lends itself to the likes of Stretch Armstrong and John Kerry.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
And this is why I stopped going to church
I went to mass yesterday and got a ten-minute lecture at the end by a visiting priest, complaining about the shortages of young men entering the priesthood. In all the times I've been to mass over the past few years, it seems like it's more often than not that a priest starts bitching and moaning about the lack of priests within the church.
Usually when a priest starts pissing and whining about needing more priests, I treat it like a mild irritation. In yesterday's instance, I was greatly offended. The priest put a young boy on the spot and asked him if he wanted to be a priest. The poor kid probably said "yes" out of fear, more than anything else. The priest then turned to the congregation and claimed that the problem was not with the pope, it was with us for not encouraging our youth to pursue lives of serving the church.
If the priest put me on the spot and asked me to affirm what he said, I don't know how I would have reacted. I believe that the shortage of priests IS the pope's fault. I don't understand why priests aren't allowed to marry and have children (as long as they follow church teachings on love, marriage, sexuality, and parenthood.) For a lot of people, this is a major deterrent to a life as a member of the Catholic clergy. So the church's unnatural policies deter good men from the priesthood, while attracting men with deviant tendencies who dish out "the bad touch" on the young boys who might have otherwise grown up and become servants of the church.
After many years of soul-searching, I've adopted an ecumenical philosophy that no denomination possesses all the answers in life. The spiritual truth can only be found in our own hearts, after intensely studying the lessons that Jesus laid out for us in the Gospels. I don't attach a high importance to attending organized worship services, unless doing so helps you to become a better person. I think we're better served by having deep theological conversations with our brothers & sisters in faith than by attending ritualized services. The ultimate test of faith is if we try to live as Jesus lived, and if doing so brings peace to us and those we live with.
As for the priest shortage, I don't want to hear one more person complain to me about it. I've already proposed one solution, but the Vatican wants none of it. The ranks of the priesthood will continue to dwindle until some future pope pulls his head out of the sand and decides to do something that will fix the problem.
Usually when a priest starts pissing and whining about needing more priests, I treat it like a mild irritation. In yesterday's instance, I was greatly offended. The priest put a young boy on the spot and asked him if he wanted to be a priest. The poor kid probably said "yes" out of fear, more than anything else. The priest then turned to the congregation and claimed that the problem was not with the pope, it was with us for not encouraging our youth to pursue lives of serving the church.
If the priest put me on the spot and asked me to affirm what he said, I don't know how I would have reacted. I believe that the shortage of priests IS the pope's fault. I don't understand why priests aren't allowed to marry and have children (as long as they follow church teachings on love, marriage, sexuality, and parenthood.) For a lot of people, this is a major deterrent to a life as a member of the Catholic clergy. So the church's unnatural policies deter good men from the priesthood, while attracting men with deviant tendencies who dish out "the bad touch" on the young boys who might have otherwise grown up and become servants of the church.
After many years of soul-searching, I've adopted an ecumenical philosophy that no denomination possesses all the answers in life. The spiritual truth can only be found in our own hearts, after intensely studying the lessons that Jesus laid out for us in the Gospels. I don't attach a high importance to attending organized worship services, unless doing so helps you to become a better person. I think we're better served by having deep theological conversations with our brothers & sisters in faith than by attending ritualized services. The ultimate test of faith is if we try to live as Jesus lived, and if doing so brings peace to us and those we live with.
As for the priest shortage, I don't want to hear one more person complain to me about it. I've already proposed one solution, but the Vatican wants none of it. The ranks of the priesthood will continue to dwindle until some future pope pulls his head out of the sand and decides to do something that will fix the problem.
