Why I Can't Vote for Romney, part II

In the early 1990's, as Mitt Romney was launching his political career, he used to make the rounds of local Boston businesses to take the temperature of the people working there. He seemed an intelligent and thoughtful guy, pro-business but progressive on cultural issues. He impressed us with his balanced and hands-off attitude toward personal values--he was pro-choice, fine with gay rights, supportive of all our progress on civil rights. He believed in the social safety net and an enlightened foreign policy. He foreshadowed some of what he would do as Governor, especially on healthcare reform.

It is hard to capture the sense of disgust and disappointment at seeing and hearing this guy sell out every ounce of reasonableness to cater to the lunatic right. He is trying to out-tea-party the tea-party. Even Rick Santorum expresses concern for the poor. Even Newt Gingrich gets the importance of science and technology--heck, he gets laughed at for his visions of moon colonies, which are actually kind of interesting. Ron Paul offers an alternative to the Rambo foreign policy advocated by most of the party. Huntsman acknowledged climate change. Even W advocated a humane immigration policy. Romney has taken the most extreme position on every one of these issues. If you believe him, his conversion is complete.

Many on the hard right distrust him because they don't believe it. If only we could be sure! If his new-found ideological purity is even half real, his election would be a tragedy for this country. Newt Gingrich is correct that Mitt was once a Massachusetts moderate. And that is a a terrible irony, because we could use a Massachusetts moderate in the Republican party.

Why I Can't vote for Romney, part I

You see, the hardest working people in the country are actually not the middle class, to whom all the politicians pander. The hardest working people are the ones at the top and the bottom. The 1% and the bottom 20%. The ones at the top work hard because they have set themselves up for huge payoffs if they succeed. (Don't believe all the rhetoric about lazy fat cat bankers. The typical investment banker works 90 hour weeks and only goes home to pick up his dry cleaning.) The bottom 20% work hard because their lives depend on it. They get no breaks, and the common slander that they just sit around and sponge up government benefits is just that, slander.

The Democrats, Obama and the rest, have made a fetish of pandering to the "middle class", despite the very obvious fact that it hasn't won them any more votes from whoever makes up that amorphous group. Now Mitt has joined in the chorus, if only to try to rationalize his dismissal of the poor. Wow! These are the people who waste their lives tracking the Kardashians, support five ESPN channels, and have made a fetish out of "Thank God It's Friday"--they even named a restaurant after it. There are exceptions, of course, but if they are hurting it is because most of then never met a credit card they didn't like, and they worship fake luxury brands because it makes them feel like, well, the 1%. They do not deserve pandering, from either the Democrats or the Republicans, and the funny thing is, they know it. Otherwise they wouldn't hold their noses when they hear the politicians sucking up to them.

Do cultural issues matter?

When this correspondent was in college, he was asked to join the campus Republican Club. The person inviting me, call him Robert, was one of my best friends. He knew we didn't share many, if any, political views. This was the late 1970s: the Vietnam War was still a bleeding wound, the Civil Rights movement was on fragile footing, the establishment media still largely condemned popular culture, and Robert and I disagreed on the meaning of all of it. But Robert thought he had a trump card.

"Why are you going to college here? It's a top school. It's your ticket to the upper class! I know you grew up poor, but that's why your parents sent you here--so you can make it to the top. Why look back? Why vote against your interests?"

I was against big government, and so did not fit the then-emerging definition of "liberal" (I was actually surprised when I heard the term "big government liberal" because sounded oxymoronic, but that's another story!) We all knew the American story was strongly rooted in resistance to central authority. So, without knowing it, because the term wasn't widely used, many of us who opposed the Vietnam War were perhaps more Libertarian than anything. But that's the point: we had to choose to vote based on cultural and moral issues, or to vote based on narrow economic self interest. Neither major party offered both, so many of us chose the former.

Which brings us to today. It has become routine among liberals to ask of working-class conservatives: "Why do you vote against your self interest?" The question is asked earnestly by some, sneeringly by others, and rhetorically by those who think they know the answer: systematic brainwashing by conservative propagandists. It is true that those who listen to right-wing mouthpieces like Limbaugh are drinking a fire-hose of dishonest rhetoric that might fool some of them into voting self destructively.

But for liberals to assume that this is all that is going on is wrong. It is insulting to cultural conservatives who sincerely care about things like abortion, perhaps more than they do about tomorrow's paycheck; it is condescending to those who sincerely believe in conservative economic theory; and it is counterproductive, because the conservatives know they are being insulted, which only hardens their positions. Admitting that cultural and social issues matter to people is the first step in being able to talk with them, and perhaps even to win some of them over to more moderate politics, starting with those issues where there IS shared ground (Wall Street, anyone?)

Think this is impossible? Consider that the Republican Party has long cynically used cultural conservatives for votes, without even trying to deliver on their promises to those voters (see this interview with David Kuo), and more and more of them realize it. There have been two responses among conservatives: one is to try to take over the Republican Party, and on that front, they have come dangerously close to succeeding, especially for the old guard. The other, however, is to return to a view of government that says it should not be mandating personal behavior, but should be focused on the limited mission of ensuring a level economic playing field for all (see for example, this from a prominent evangelical Christian progressive).

It is the latter that offers some hope. If you have read the prior posts here, you know that this column finds nothing attractive about the social conservative world-view. As a prescription for policy, it is frightening and disheartening for anyone who thought the Enlightenment was winning. This does not mean, however, that it is wise to dismiss the views of the social conservatives as somehow insincere, superficial, or diversionary. They should be taken very seriously. And for that reason, it is essential to engage and encourage the evangelical progressives. The ideal would be to strike a bargain in which all sides agree to take fundamental belief out of the political dialogue, not because belief is silly, but precisely because it is too serious to be the basis for politics, and focus our government on those things that rightly fall within its purview.

One of the great lies that the conservatives have been fed, and which many believe, is that there is a big conspiracy to suppress their beliefs. It is important to show them that this is a lie, because it is that fear which has fueled much of their zeal to impose THEIR beliefs on the rest of US. We must replace a win-lose scenario with a mutual survival scenario. Make tolerance based on mutual respect a core part of the bargain, and, as the above examples show, there ARE progressive ideals lurking in the hearts of some evangelicals, ideals which, if tapped, could change the discussion in this country.

The liberal elite (yes, there is such a thing, just as there is a conservative elite) tend to be people who would actually benefit from conservative economic policies, but who see the cultural and social fabric of the country as even more important determinants of their own children's, and the country's, future well-being. In other words, the liberal movement, and the Democratic party by proxy, is led by people who vote against their short-term economic self-interest because they see a bigger picture. So why do they so monotonously insist that conservatives can't do the same? To do so is to shut off one of the few openings for dialogue left to us.

Voting Against Your Interests

When I was in college, I did not fit any doctrinaire labels of "liberal" or "conservative"--I was against big government, but also against our wars; I believed in personal responsibility, and also believed that included responsibility to those around us. I rejected identity politics and multiculturalism, but believed in civil rights and a social safety net.

On that last point, my views were clear. I believed in equal opportunity, and equal protection under the law, and believed that some safety net was simply part of a basic social contract. For this, my more conservative friends berated me endlessly for "voting against my interests." Attending an elite school, they said, was "your ticket to the top." "There will always be winners and losers, no matter how fair you try to make things," I was lectured. "Don't be naive! Don't you want to be one of the winners?" they asked. One of them went so far as to say that "The only way you know you're rich is if there are a lot of people who aren't! Why would I want to level the playing field?"

In once sense, they were right. Looked at from a narrow, winner-and-losers perspective, my social views were not self-serving. Looked at broadly, the "liberal elites" who constantly campaign for equal opportunity ARE voting against their narrow self interests. The idealistic among them feel it is simply a moral issue. Others, myself included, who are not "bleeding heart liberals" but still support some kind of social equity, simply believe that a flatter society is more stable and ultimately better for all of us. But we are still accused of being naive, of supporting charity for people who don't deserve it, and of voting against our own interests.

I recount this because it has become fashionable among liberals to ask why the social conservatives in the heartland constantly "vote against their own interests." Those people are being duped by big corporations into blaming their ills on the less fortunate, so that they will vote for politicians who will in turn coddle the same corporations, or so the story goes. Is there some truth to this? Of course there is. The alliance between the social conservatives and the anti-regulators was invented for the purpose of putting the anti-regulators in power. It worked because they shared a common enemy, one they hate more than they hated Osama bin Laden: Liberals. Of course, the strategy may be unraveling, because the social conservatives have taken over much of the Republican party. And THAT is why it is really important to take a new look at what they are.

My conclusion: The real danger lies in NOT taking them seriously. We make a mistake if we condescend to them by saying that their social issues are a sideline. First of all, what right does anyone have to dismiss someone elses convictions so casually? It's also important because the more you condescend to someone, the more you make them mad. Most important, what will happen if we fail to take them seriously, and find them running the country?

For make no mistake: The social issues ARE important. It is our social and cultural orientations, not our bank accounts, which determine who we are and what we will be remembered for. And on the non-economic front, the social conservative movement is frightening. Economic policies will come and go, and we will go through cycles of more or less regulation, more or less of an economic safety net, more or less equity. These will ultimately self correct, whichever "side" you favor. But a culture's core assumptions can last a long time.

I would argue that it IS the social and cultural issues which are important, far more than our banking laws. If we allow our country to wallow in tribalism, bigotry and the oppression of women; if we allow science to be removed from our schools; if we make one religion the source of our laws and values, at the expense of other belief systems; if we go back to a world of fear and censorship; if we recriminalize normal human behavior and decriminalize police brutality; if we end the free exchange of ideas; if we throw out the immigrants that drive our economy; in short, if we reject the Enlightenment and the freedoms that made this country great, we will sign the death warrant for the American Era. The social conservatives love to wave the flag, but it is plain as day that if they were in charge, this country greatness would become nothing more than a memory.

THAT is why it is folly to dismiss the conservatives' cultural and social viewpoint as a mere distraction. For them, it is the real thing, and we had better pay attention.

Desperate Times

Of course the media are full of stories of desperate times. Middle-class families losing jobs, homes, and self-respect. Huge backlogs in social assistance queues. Intractable unemployment. Millions of people are in desperate straits, and the word "despair" is increasingly apt for what is happening in this country.

These are also desperate times for another reason. Our country is torn between two political agendas which have no basis in reality, either one of which will result in our destruction. As we try to figure out how to meet the challenges and opportunities of a resurgent Asia and an emerging Latin America, here at home we seem bent on suicide. Perhaps it is to be expected: People under unbearable stress sometimes go insane. Maybe countries do the same. That's arguably what happened to Germany in the 1930s.

Our two political parties are not equally to blame for how we got here, but they increasingly share the blame for making things worse. The Democrats have shown their intransigence in how they responded to the initial proposals from the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction commission. By rejecting the proposals out of hand, they have thrown away an enormous opportunity to make progress in saving our country's finances, while still preserving some of the things they say they care about. This is irresponsible at best, if not pathological. They have matched the stupidity of the Tea Party (cut all taxes! keep all the programs!) with stupidity of their own (if we pretend there is no deficit, maybe it will go away!) They have doubled down on their intransigence by defending earmarks, one of the few issues on which the Republicans are right, plain and simple.

The American voters have shown that, no matter how often they are treated as stupid by the Right or the Left, they do understand the danger of unlimited deficits and institutional corruption. Their own shocking come-down since 2008 has taught them a lesson. For the Democrats to ignore that lesson is to invite an even worse shellacking in 2012. And that would be a disaster for the nation and the world, because on a lot of other issues, they are the voice of reason. The tragedy of the Democrats' impending immolation is what will be sacrificed along the way.

That is because, for all their stupidity on this issue, they are right about so many other things, and the Republicans (since being taken over by their insane) are wrong. Climate Change tops the list. The Republicans flatly deny the evidence that we are destroying our planet. They call the consensus of tens of thousands of scientists, working in disciplines as far apart as insect biology, paleontology, and atmospheric science, an ad-hoc assumption, akin to superstition. Or worse, they label it an anti-American conspiracy. Put them in charge and we greatly damage the future of our children and all the life that we depend on for our own existence.

The Republicans, having produced Lincoln, have "refudiated" everything he symbolizes: equal protection, equal rights, equal opportunity. They stand with the racists, the abusers, the bullies and the haters, and cloak it under "free speech"--the only time they are fond of invoking the First Amendment. They actively fund organizations which stir up hate and resentment. They have out-unioned the unions in demonizing immigrants, most of whom work their butts off for a chance to live as we do.

The Republicans want to teach religious doctrine in our schools in place of science. Do they not see how unpatriotic that is? The Chinese, investing ferociously in trying to educate their masses, must be laughing at us. Where did American supremacy in so many industries come from? Who led us to global leadership in modern technologies? Certainly not people who think Evolution and the Laws of Thermodynamics are hoaxes.

The Republicans sent us yukking and gloating ("Shock and Awe, baby!) into two wars in the Middle East, with only partial justification for one, and no plan. They took out Saddam, yes, but he was the only thing keeping Iran running in place. Take him out and Iran runs wild. There are actually people who predicted this would happen, and they were threatened with arrest or shouted down as traitors. Worst of all, the Republicans betrayed their utter hypocrisy regarding fiscal probity by refusing to count the money spent on these wars.

And, speaking of the budget, the Republicans have now adopted a scorched-earth ideology that will leave millions of their own family members unable to fend for themselves. Dickens wrote about an England in which most people starved while a few feasted. The miracle of America is that we created a society that played by different rules, without sacrificing the self-starting, entrepreneurial drive that made us the envy of the world. The Republicans see a table with four legs, and want to throw three of them away. It is the height of insanity, and will hasten our fall. The smart ones, the ones who are profiting from this insanity, know that, and don't care. If that is not treason, what is?

The Democrats have a value system that most polls show reflect the majority view in this country, with the singular exception of fiscal responsibility. But fiscal responsibility is also a life-or-death issue for this country, and people have finally had enough. The Democrats, in standing against any kind of fiscal reform, risk being flushed, and with them, all those other values that are so important. It would be easy to say they deserve what's coming, except that the rest of us, the whole country, will pay the price. And if America goes down, who is left to rule the roost? China?

Lessons Learned?

The immediate post-election analysis is predictably filled with conservative commentators trying to paint the Democrats into the "too liberal" corner, and liberal commentators fighting over whether the Democrats need to move left or right. All of this betrays a basic flaw in our entire approach to defining "liberalism" or "conservatism": we leave no room for anyone to pick and choose their issues. If you are "liberal", you have to buy the entire package, even if you don't agree with all of the components. Same with being "conservative". Both parties have taken a zero-tolerance approach to deviation from the party line, with the result that few rational people really have a place to go. No wonder polls suggest people are disgusted with both parties. Not everyone can articulate the reason for their disgust, but no doubt a big part of is is having to hold your nose no matter which way you vote.

To set the record straight, the Democrats (led by Obama) have hardly been liberal in their approach. They have made no progress on most of the social/cultural issues that define liberalism. Healthcare reform? A huge windfall for insurance companies. Even their failed initiatives hardly merit the label of "socialist" that is thrown at them. If anything, they have tried at every turn to bend over to compromise with the Republicans, to the point of appearing craven. The reason the Healthcare Bill is an atrocity is not that it is too liberal, but that it has no coherence. The authors dropped in various provisions at random, that they thought would secure some Republican votes (mandatory insurance was originally a Republican idea!), and it got them nothing.

That is one reason there is an enthusiasm gap between the parties. True progressives have nothing to show for their support of this party or this president. The sad thing is that no amount of accomodation would have sufficed to appease the far-right wing. To expect any compromise from them was naive, and perhaps the singular failure of this president. It resembles nothing so much as Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler just before the blitzkreig. Hillary Clinton was right to campaign on the worry that Obama would not have the steel to stand up to America's enemies. What she omitted to say was that the worst enemies would be here at home, in the form of a rabid mob that have seemingly taken over the GOP.

Let's make no mistake: that takeover is a tragedy for the country. The old-guard Republicans were advocates of fiscal probity, but they were also advocates of color-blindness. After all, their icon, Lincoln, led the way. The few that are left are subject to venomous attacks by the new right, for not being pure enough. The Tea Party crowd have announced their intention to get rid of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, for daring to work with Democrats. They already did it to Lincoln Chaffee, who has re-emerged in Rhode Island as an independent.

All of that notwithstanding, the Tea Party are right on one thing: Spending. Of course, the Republicans have always been budget hawks, or so they say. In practice, it turned out differently. We gave them the power to decide what to spend, and they broke the bank. The Tea Party may turn out to be equally hypocritical, but for now, at least, they are saying the right thing. The bailouts were wrong, at least in execution. The same crooks who robbed the country of much of its 200 years of accumulated wealth, took the bailout money and walked away with that too. It is unforgivable that this was allowed to happen. Unfortunately, the Tea Party vote has put in power a bunch of people who are owned by the same crooks. Boehner? Coates? Who are we kidding? These are not small-government folks at all, no matter what they say. They are crony-government types. Obama largely failed to guard the hen-house, but we have now handed the keys directly to the wolves.

Leaving aside the issue of corruption, however, there is still the fundamental issue of fiscal sanity. A big part of the electorate's anger stems from the feeling that neither major party has the integrity to address this issue. It is not a mere platitude to say "I have to balance my budget, why can't the government do the same?" Our children WILL have to pay the bill. Both parties have had an enormous opportunity, and wasted it.

Ironically, it is the Democrats who had the better opportunity to do it, not the Republicans. Just as Nixon went to China, the Democrats could have negotiated with their own constituency, where the Republicans seem bent on wholesale destruction. Safety nets are essential, but why do public employees now make more than private sector workers, get to retire earlier, and keep pensions up to 90% of their working wages? They won't compromise, so they may find themselves being eviscerated by the Republicans. Medicare is an enormous success, but Part D was an atrocity. The Democrats had a golden opportunity to make sure there were cost controls, and failed. Social Security should be updated and the payroll tax made progressive. As it is, it is regressive, and will soon be broke.

The reason the Democrats can't even comprehend these opportunities is that they have accepted someone else's label for them. They have willingly let themselves be defined as the party of Big Government. There was a time when tax revolts came from the Left. Now the Left campaigns for ever-increasing spirals of taxation and spending. Just as the Republicans are irresponsible in wanting to cut taxes without figuring out how to pay for things, the Democrats are irresponsible in voting for every spending measure without having the money to pay for it. Even that canny campaigner, Bill Clinton, gives speeches defending the role of government in our lives. When are they going to learn that this resonates like a lead balloon?

I have written before about this, of course to no avail, but here it is again: Liberals are right on 90% of the issues. Environment? Check. Women's rights? Check. Minority rights? Check. Wars of aggression? Check. Banking regulation? Check. Urban planning? Legalizing Pot? Funding schools? Domestic spying? Check, check, check. But we live in a fiscally conservative country. Note: I do not say we live in a conservative country, as the Wall Street Journal likes to claim. A FISCALLY conservative country. And rightly so.

If the Democrats were to embrace fiscal conservatism--if they had pinned the bailouts on the real perpetrators (Bush and Paulson) and refused to continue in that vein; if they had taken the lead on belt-tightening and, FDR-like, inspired people to accept some sacrifice for the long-term good; if they had spent a trillion dollars employing people to rebuild this country, rather than on the automobile companies and banks...it is they who would be looking at a generation-long majority.

As it is, the Republican victory is not just part of the political cycle. It is a tragedy for the world, for it means setbacks on global climate change, financial reform, and international relations. The Democrats are as much at fault, for accepting their label as big spenders, and forgetting all the other things they once stood for.

What to do about Detroit

As is so often the tragic truth, the debate over saving the Big Three seems to have come down to a choice between "Do it" and "Do nothing". There is a third way, which would have the effect of letting these companies die their richly deserved death, while saving most of the jobs. We should save the money that would go into bailing them out (they are doomed anyway), and instead divide that money into two pools: One pool would go to providing unemployment benefits to the affected workers; the second pool would go into tax incentives and other benefits to attract the Toyotas and Nissans of the world to rebuild the industry here in the U.S., with requirements that they hire and retrain most of the displaced workers. No one from the Big Three who held a title of Vice President or above would be eligible. They have proven they are ineducable.

This plan is about as close to win-win as is possible in this situation. Make no mistake about it: the culture of the Big Three is such that if we simply throw them a life line, we will be facing this question again, and again, and again, after each bail-out. They are beyond hope and should be put to sleep.

Biting the Hand (link)

Several observers have noted that in the recent election, the drift of wealthy/high-income/rich people away from the Republicans picked up steam. David Brooks, among others, bemoans the GOP's practiced ability to alienate the professional classes, noting that even bankers contributed to Obama vs. McCain by over 2:1. It took genius, as Brooks points out, to achieve that.

As the country debates whether this election was a cry for change from a center-right country, or a mandate for a more leftward course, there has been a rise in volume from the traditional populists, who, even with the election won, are stepping up the rhetoric of vengeance against everyone making $250,000 or more, the number which Obama has arbitrarily defined as the boundary between "wealth" and non-wealth.

I am not against hard measures against individuals who committed malfeasance. There are many Wall Streeters who deserve to be put out on the street. These are people who harvested in a few years much of what this country took 200 years to build, mainly through clever tricks of financial manipulation and the purchase of a number of congressmen. They deserve punishment they are unlikely to receive. As we contemplate the bailout of the auto companies, we ignore the very real betrayals by a generation of executives, who willfully refused to adopt modern management methods to run their companies. All the blame being placed on the unions would be moot if those companies had kept making cars that people want. Many of those executives deserve time at hard labor for sheer negligence.

But to demonize everyone making $250,000 or more, most of whom actually contributed to Obama, is an early step toward destroying the still new and fragile coalition that has reversed the past decade's slide into the Rove-ian abyss. We have voted against our immediate financial self-interest, in part out of revulsion at the kind of conservatism that has taken over the Republican party, and in part in the conviction that our long-term interests ARE best served by a fairer, more tolerant and more stable society.

There is, however, a limit. Very few of the so-called "rich" are actually so rich as not to have to care about their tax bill. Most people in the educated/professional classes have a number at which they feel their own livelihoods threatened. Reach that number, and they will move back into the GOP column.

Leaving aside the need for short-term government spending to dig us out of the current crisis, there are many progressive goals that do not require still further increases in government spending, but simply require a change of policy. Environmental responsibility, equality under the law, respect for privacy and habeas corpus, reproductive rights, teaching science instead of religion in schools, and not launching wars of choice--all of these are things that would not require more money, or would in fact be LESS costly than current procedure. The new administration would do well to focus on some of these goals and be careful about too much "spreading the wealth". A safety net is one thing, and is essential, but it should not depend on pulling the net out from others.

Washing Their hands

The images were, and continue to be moving, even days after the election. A black mom sitting on the floor of her church, overcome with emotion as her little daughter touches her face. Jesse Jackson, standing alone in the crowd at Grant Park, tears streaming down his face. Mobs of young people, white, black and everything in between, dancing with joy.

A significant portion of white America voted for the other guy, but it is undeniable that millions of white people have stood shoulder to shoulder with blacks in the struggle for "a more perfect Union", millions of people of all colours worked for this day, and millions celebrated together in victory. This election was about far more than electing a black man to be President. It was also a referendum on a certain way of governing, and on the direction of this country. But the colour of the candidates had every potential to override the substance of the debate, and we showed, at last, that we could work together to get past colour.
Only, something went wrong in California. A group even more hated and despised than blacks were handed a bitter repudiation, as California amended its constitution to enshrine the idea that they are less than human. And blacks, even as they voted overwhelmingly for Obama, also voted overwhelmingly to kick that other group in the teeth. Over 70% of the Black vote went in favor of Proposition 8. In the midst of the celebration of their triumph, one has to wonder if it occurred to these people that they have simply handed off the role of nigger to another group of human beings.

I have spoken with a number of black people about this: colleagues, fellow school parents, friends. I have listened to their rationalizations on the radio. It is clear that the directive to vote for Prop. 8 came from the pulpit, from the very churches where blacks have gone for generations to exorcise their torment. What is remarkable is the lack of questioning with which they marched to the polls to vote for this piece of hate, and the utter blindness to the similarities between their own story and the story of this even more hated group.

The airwaves are full of retrospectives on this election. The debates over what to do about Prop. 8 are all about raising more money, organizing better, reaching out to conservatives to show them that gay people pose no threat, etc. Yet there is no voice with the courage to tell us the truth that stares us in the face: if the black vote had just been 50:50, that would have been enough to block Prop. 8.

It is time for the progressive and enlightened conservative community to turn to their brothers and sisters in the black community and say "We worked with you to get to this day, and it is time you close ranks with other oppressed people. Gays are the only group left that society thinks it is OK to oppress. You can't abandon them now."

It is time for us to go to Washington to revoke the tax exempt status of every black church that incited its parishioners to vote for Prop. 8. If Progressives don't apply the same rules to these churches as they are trying to apply to white churches that have been promoting Republican causes, then they, and we, are all hypocrites. It is time to get ALL of the preachers out of the business of making law, regardless of their colour or creed.

The Economist

BARACK OBAMA
Oct 30th 2008


America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of
the free world

IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back
in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with
a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with
the federal government's huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the
seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls
next week the mood will be very different. The United States is
unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its
self-belief and values are under attack.

For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack
Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose
between them. THE ECONOMIST does not have a vote, but if it did, it
would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic
candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of
restoring America's self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble.
Given Mr Obama's inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his
beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting
for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep
road ahead.

THINKING ABOUT 2009 AND 2017
The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting
enough: repairing America's economy and its international reputation.
The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the
start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is
needed, though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral
above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care
cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the
cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror
has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its
friends than it once was.

Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only
because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to
2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A
combination of demography and the rising costs of America's huge
entitlement programmes--Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid--will be
starting to bankrupt the country. Abroad a greater task is already
evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just
a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into
global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling
economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates
American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with
Guantanamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and
strategy.

At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments
against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in
opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and
extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to
recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan's party of western individualism
and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the
state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.

The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans' candidate was a powerful
reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive
politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has
long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring
in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular
positions--for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq,
tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western
Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with
both Democrats and America's allies.

IF ONLY THE REAL JOHN MCCAIN HAD BEEN RUNNING
That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six
months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good
features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal
conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts
now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who
denounced the religious right as "agents of intolerance" now embraces
theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies
(who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came
out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his
support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading
towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the
right.

Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found
wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut
reaction over Georgia--to warn Russia off immediately--was the right
one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he
has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has
never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama,
he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers
(Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).

The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just
that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have
been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably
abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her
just twice.

Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by
speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of
artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a
word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs
this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his
unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic
Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing
case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000
instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this
time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he
knows how to deal with them.

Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about
what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as
irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel
many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for
the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan
if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far
harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy
is a sham. America's allies would rally to him: the global electoral
college[1] on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he
would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America's
history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their
problems on racism.

So Mr Obama's star quality will be useful to him as president. But that
alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare
nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves:
his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far
to the left.

There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama's resume is thin for
the world's biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he
has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he
has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who
started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised
and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics--the
Clintons and the conservative right.

Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best
in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one
of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial
crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain's has been
febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team
of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin
and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is
a man who listens, learns and manages well.

It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing
with America's enemies. Part of Mr Obama's original appeal to the
Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq;
but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically
saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His
determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and
proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr
McCain is-- but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.

Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a
muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy.
Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his
speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what
happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor
record of defying his party's baronies, especially the unions. His
advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of
over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of
Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre
in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre
that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the
country as a whole.

HE HAS EARNED IT
So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr
McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of
President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice
is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for
America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and
detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and
discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense
potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

-----
[1] http://www.economist.com/vote2008/

Off the radar screen

We are not a very scientifically literate society. Apparently, our leaders don't think that matters. If our leaders WERE scientifically literate, and could be trusted to make good decisions about the funding and the use of science, it might be okay that the rest of us are not all that informed (although putting anything entirely in the hands of experts is dangerous--look at our banking system).

Unfortunately, some of our leaders are worse than ill-informed. They are knowledge-hostile knuckleheads. The new knucklehead-in-chief appears to be one of our candidates for VP. Click on the header of this post to see it for yourself.

Beyond the Pale?

From today's blogs:

"...there is an emerging debate—one with the potential to last for a long time about the role of vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

One school—including syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker and Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal—called her a drag on the ticket and implicitly rebuked McCain’s judgment in picking her. Another school believes she is the future of the party, a view backed by Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard: “Whether they know it or not, Republicans have a huge stake in Palin. If, after the election, they let her slip into political obscurity, they’ll be making a huge mistake.”"

Why is any of this even surprising? Of Course she's the future of the Republican party. The last eight years, whether you like the policies of the Bush adminstration or not, left the Republican party hollowed out. Who was going to lead them in the post Bush-Cheney era? Every credible moderate was excommunicated from the party. Who is left? Rick Santorum? Gone. Tom Delay? Too toxic, and gone as well. Huckabee? perhaps, but events have proven him to be Palin Lite. He doesn't come close to her in terms of pull. No one expected Caribou Barbie, but she is here, and let's face it, she inspires the faithful like no one since Reagan. Win or lose, Palin IS the face of the GOP for the next several years, at least.

For any liberals out there recoiling at the thought, take some solace in this: If Sarah Palin indeed becomes the face of the GOP, the GOP will in turn become a minority party for many years. Saying that she is by far their most likely future presidential candidate, does not mean she is likely to win. The Republicans began transformation thirty or more years ago, when they adopted the "Southern Strategy", appealing to the worst instincts of beleaguered working-class whites in the heartland. That process initially looked like a winner, because it secured the votes to keep them in power most of the past three decades. But the Joe Sixpacks they invited into the tent took over the party. The old elites that ran the party are gone.

It has long been an axiom that you have to tack right to win the GOP nomination, then tack to the center to win the election. The Republicans probably have any number of potential candidates who could win the presidency any given election. Unfortunately, those candidates will never win the primaries, and the GOP will become a purely reactionary, theocratic party. It makes for great rallies but is not much of a strategy. So take heart: we will have to put up with Palin for a long time, and she will probably be the next GOP nominee for President, but as long as people don't lose their minds, she will never BE president. A third party is more likely to form before that happens.

Underestimating Sarah Palin

Just as they did with Ronald Reagan, those of Democratic/Liberal/Progressive leanings are underestimating Sarah Palin. No, I am not predicting a McCain/Palin victory, though that is not out of the question by any means. But if you think an Obama victory will rid the world of Palin, you are mistaken. Educated people have had a field day making fun of her tortured syntax, her fem-bot-like delivery of sound-bites, her obvious cluelessness about almost anything requiring actual thought. Just as many dismissed Reagan as an amiable dunce, too many dismiss Palin as nothing more than Caribou Barbie.

Here is a prediction: Sarah Palin, win or lose in November, will become face and the standard-bearer of the GOP. She is the closest thing to a transformative figure the Republicans have had since Reagan. She is nowhere near being in Reagan's class as a thinker or politician, but the times are different. Reagan was part of a very deep generation of conservative politicians, especially in the day when the Republicans actually had a diversity of viewpoints and philosophies. Palin stands almost alone, after eight years in which the party has been systematically purged of diversity and stripped of any philosophical trappings. Who else is left? Huckabee? He has been exposed as Palin-lite. Romney? Even Republicans see through him. The younger generation, epitomized by Rick Santorum, have fallen by the wayside, at least for now, in part because they were one-note wonders. And none of them represented a divergence from the social conservatism that is far more ably represented by Palin. In other words, had they survived they would still be eclipsed by her.

The question is, what will this mean, and should we be afraid? If you are a moderate or libertarian-leaning Republican, you should be afraid. The Palin era will bring with it the culmination of the purge which began at least as early as 1992: all vestiges of considered and rational deliberation, all receptiveness to diversity or to internationalism, will be excised from the Party. It will devolve into a purely and openly fundamentalist lobby. The Faustian bargain that the old Republican elite made, to bargain for the votes of Joe Sixpack, will come home to roost, with the Wall Street crowd completely losing any voice they once had.

The moderates and libertarians will have to consider forming a new party, perhaps inviting centrist Democrats to join them (although, in the afterglow of a winning election cycle, few are likely to jump ship). There might after all be a chance for a viable third party, though it remains unlikely.

There has been talk of Karl Rove's notion of a permanent majority being turned on its head. Democrats are talking about a long-term reversal of fortunes. It is almost too bad that they will not have had to suffer through a few more years in the wilderness. I say "almost", because that would also have meant more years of Republican rule, which would be unaccepable and even suicidal. But the Democrats have returned to their worst instincts, demonizing rich people (by their definition of "rich", most rich people are contributing to them, not to the Republicans), openly defending Big Government, and so on. The Democrats could ensure a "permanent" mandate if they would make fiscal conservatism part of their DNA, even while standing up for the environment, equal rights, equal opportunity, healthcare reform, education and an enlightened foreign policy. But they won't do it.

Still, as long as the Republicans have to deal with the Palinization of the Party and all of its consequences, the Democrats will have a window of opportunity to get some things right. We can only hope that Obama is in fact as thoughtful and balanced as he has appeared on the campaign trail.

Letter from Calcutta

I am sitting in a room here in Calcutta, without an internet connection, hoping to get a connection sometime soon so I can send out a letter. In a couple of hours I will be heading out on the Ganga in a small boat, to scatter my Mom’s ashes. The Ganga is of course India’s holiest river, but this is also the place where she was born, so it all seems appropriate. She was not a religious person, but she tried to live her life according to the principles claimed by many religions: generosity toward those less fortunate, stewardship of the world we live in, respect for all living things. She did a better job of it than most who claim to be religious.

While I wait, I reflect on what I have seen of the country she loved, and over which she despaired. From the brief snapshot I have had in Delhi and Calcutta, India remains a place of incredible life and energy, but also a place mired in suffering. The filth and chaos in the streets are noticeably worse than when I was here two years ago. The truth is that India’s remarkable economic growth is benefitting too few people, and the birth rate remains sky high—India is about to surpass China as the world’s most populous place, and there are simply no resources to keep up.

Ironically, modernization is making the problem worse in many ways. When the streets were filled with camels and cows, and the garbage was more organic, the animals did a decent job of recycling the detritus. Now, a dense mesh of discarded plastic bags forms an indestructible trap for filth that lines the sides of the streets, and the soot of millions of recently added cars mixes with the dust to form a suffocating brown haze that leaves everything with a gritty coat. In the midst of it all, the poorest women still manage to wear their brightly coloured saris with something like aplomb, as they navigate the chaos.

One irony is that Calcutta, long the icon in the West of monumental Asian misery, looks to be a cleaner and more functional place than Delhi. It is certainly a warmer place, built on a more human scale and inhabited by less isolated people. It seems no worse than it was two years ago.

The same cannot be said of Delhi. Already designed to be people-unfriendly, it has become noticeably more miserable. The traffic is ludicrously bad, the streets more crowded, the dust inescapable. There is no sign India's economic boom, reported so breathlessly in Western papers, has touched this place, the capital of India. There are a handful of stores, often in compounds under armed guard, that sell luxury designer goods at prices that would make Neiman Marcus blush. Just steps outside, emaciated men offer shoe shines for 50 cents and maimed children beg, risking their lives in the traffic to knock on the windows of cars.

The stunning thing about it is the lack of anger. Indians of all classes seem resigned to the conditions around them. The papers, which even the poor read voraciously, cover petty political scandals (the level of personal attacks makes Washington look genteel, indeed), the dalliances of Bollywood stars, and cricket. The media are admirably free in India, and if there were a groundswell of discontent, one can be sure the press would cover, if not fan the flames. There is a lesson for us spoiled Westerners, in the easy smiles and quick generosity of people who have so little. Yet one almost wishes more of them would get angry, for the sake of their children.

No crystal ball

Making predictions is dangerous--you can look dumb when you get it wrong. So these aren't predictions, but I'm willing to call them bets, and will back them up with real money if there are any takers. I reserve the right to cancel any bets in the event of another major war.

1. The market shares of NASDAQ, NYSE etc. are going to continue to slide in real and relative terms for at least a decade. Foreign stock markets have recently grabbed a big share of listings and IPOs from the American markets. This is not a temporary thing.

2. The U.S. dollar will continue to plummet, reflecting a real and relative slide in the value of the U.S. economy. If China unpegs the RMB, it will settle at about 4 per dollar, vs. 7.5 today. The dollar's slide is due in part to the extraction of billions of dollars from the economy by financial engineers such as buyout funds, which have harvested much of the value built up over two centuries by real entrepreneurs and their workers. With no reform in sight, we can expect this wealth transfer to continue indefinitely.

3. The brain drain from other countries will continue to slow, and will even reverse (this has already happened with China). With no political base in the U.S. in favor of more immigration, and with anti-immigrant hysteria dominating presidential primary politics, there is no sign that the U.S. is going to snap out of its suicidal impulse to close the borders.

4. The U.S. will lose its lead in new patents by 2020.

5. The U.S. will fall out of first place in worker productivity by 2015. We are already subjected to a steady stream of whiny articles about how overworked and stressed Americans are. Truth: in most emerging countries, people work longer, study harder, and take less vacations. Between our sense of entitlement and the loss of immigrants to pick up the slack, we are headed for the bottom in terms of productivity.

6. If the Bush Administration does not start a war in Iran (give that 50% probability), the political time bomb they have created will blow up on the next president, regardless of party, and the U.S. will find itself confronting lethal violence, alone and friendless. There will be major terrorist attacks on the U.S., within the next 2 years, which will lead to further suspension of civil rights and liberties here at home, and a choice between isolationism or further militarization of our foreign policy. It won't matter if a Democrat is president by then.

7. The U.S., already ranked at the bottom of industrialised countries in quality of health-care, life expectancy and literacy, will continue to slide in the rankings, regardless of which party is on power. It will happen faster with the Republicans in charge, but it will happen.

If you want to take me up on any of these, you know where to find me. If any of these are not specific enough for you, feel free to propose sharper definitions.

Benedict the Lame

Sorry folks. The guy is just a moron.

Getting Osama

There will no doubt be lots of analysis of the new Osama video over the next several days. If the reports are accurate, concerning what is said in that video, there is really only one message that matters: According to Osama, we must convert to Islam or die.

This writer knows of no one, liberal or conservative (except for the late Jerry Falwell) who thinks there has ever been any justification for Islamist terrorism. Yet conservatives have succeeded in portraying liberals, and the Democrats in particular, as sympathizers, enablers, or appeasers. And they have been able to do so because, when it comes to calling a spade a spade, the Democrats are cowards. By contrast, the conservatives are not afraid to shout from the rooftops that the Islamo-fascists want us dead. The problem with hearing it from our conservatives is that the policies they advocate in response are idiotic, and would lead to World War III faster than you can say "rapture".

Meanwhile, the Democrats, who by and large have better ideas about how to deal with extremism, seem pathologically unable to use the word "terrorist" in public speech. They've got their undies in a knot, trying to be politically correct and not offend mainstream Muslims. They defend airport screening protocols that treat grandmothers from North Dakota the same as young males with beards and Arabic names. In the process, they look and sound, well, weak and stupid.

Let's have a history lesson: Islam arose latest of the world's major religions; driven by a creed that called for forcible conversion, it became the most populous of those religions in very short order. It stormed out of the desert and, in a few hundred years, completely took over North Africa and even part of Europe. Contrary to the attempts by most Democrats and even George "Islam is a religion of peace" Bush to whitewash it, the fact is that the Koran repeatedly calls for the conversion of infidels, by sword if necessary, and its adherents have been very efficient at it. "But," you say, "today those kinds of extremists are just a lunatic fringe!" Really?

An estimated 200 million "mainstream" Muslims live in communities that practice female genital mutilation. A dozen Muslim countries operate Sharia courts, where they condemn children to death by stoning for "moral" offenses such as dating across clan lines. Religious minorities are no longer safe in Muslim countries, as they once were. Madrassas across Asia, the Middle East and North Africa are teaching undiluted hate and instilling in children a thirst for martyrdom. Sudan lurches from genocide to genocide, with Christians and Muslims alike butchered or starved to death by the Muslim government. At some point, one has to wake up and acknowledge that the values system that permits these realities is intolerable to human society.

If pointing this out is cultural imperialism, then so be it. Conservatives, usually quick to defend oppression under the guise of "letting people be" (think apartheid, south American death squads) have, to their credit, been crystal clear about the threat of radical Islam, even if they have to hold their noses while defending womens' rights. Meanwhile, progressives, so willing to protest China's crimes in Tibet, can't bring themselves to look the Muslim world in the eye and demand an accounting for its vastly greater and deeply endemic barbarism.

The only way the world's Islamic "mainstream" can earn the trust of the rest of us is to reject the use of force, and to repudiate Bin Laden and his ilk. Refusing to shelter and aid terrorists would be a great start. The conservatives in this country are not bothering to ask for that, because they are too busy with their own calls for blood and vengeance--they frankly love the idea of Holy War, and if you don't believe that, listen to Sean Hannity and Matt Drudge on the radio, if you can stand it. No, only the liberals and the Democrats any longer have the intellectual or moral standing to call for the Muslim world to stand down and embrace moderation. But to issue that call, they are going to have to get over their own reticence about Islam's brutal history. As long as they cower in the margins, they will deservedly be painted as appeasers. And, with the conservatives defining the debate, we slide closer to the abyss.

All the wrong reasons

Yes, we are all sick of hearing about Larry Craig. But there is one thing which keeps going unsaid, and should be said. Despite the claims of the Republican leadership that this is not about Craig being gay, in fact that is exactly what it is all about. The only one who seems to get that is Craig himself, whose major public statements have consisted of repeated, desperate denials that he is gay.

It is a wonderful illustration of the problem the Republicans have bought themselves by relying on hate to build their coalition. They cannot come out and say they are throwing one of their own under the bus for being gay. That would cement their position as the party of intolerance. But they have to satisfy their base, which, to be honest, doesn't give a damn about some minor infraction in an airport mens' room. All you have to do is listen to the conservative radio folks to know that, for them, Craig's homosexuality IS what it's all about, and they want Craig out. So the Senate leaders pretend it is about the infraction, while tacitly reassuring their "base" that they can be counted on to root out any sign of queerness from the ranks.

This writer is no fan of Larry Craig. He has been wrong on a lot of stuff, most of all in his hypocritical campaign against human rights in America. But he should not be losing his office over this. As in the Ted Haggard case, the Republicans, handed a golden opportunity to re-examine their doctrine of intolerance, have instead dug themselves deeper into the hole. And Craig, handed a golden opportunity to come out and become a free man, has thrown away the key to his own prison.

The Terror Index and Rope-a-Dope

Another study, surveying 100 top experts on foreign policy, concludes we are less safe than before and are losing ground in the war on terrorism. Blah Blah. If we think the Administration cares, we are seriously deluded.

But then, what is there we can do? Even this writer, convinced from the start that we were short on constructive approaches and long on the wrong kinds of power, has to concede that we have been put in a box. We can't just lay down our arms. Too many people hate us at this point. The metaphor of the "tiger by the tail" has never been more apt. The fact that the Bushies will go down in history as the ones who locked us in this box is no consolation.

On the radio today, a discussion of this problem produced a long series of single-issue advocates. One guy wants us to distance ourselves from Israel. Another proposes pouring money into good works. Another suggests the problem is Arab overpopulation. Lots think it was all about oil, and we are seen as pillagers. Some fault inflammatory rhetoric. Others fault appeasement. All of this proof that the problem is probably too complex to solve.

This column will not suggest yet another single-issue approach. In what follows, keep in mind that this writer agrees with all of the above, and is convinced, like 86% of the experts surveyed by the Foreign Policy Institute, that we are headed for more 9/11's down the road. But there is one theme that gets too little attention, and it probably fuels the passions over all the other issues. We have a long and dishonorable history of stomping on the political aspirations of people in that part of the world. From the Pahlavis, to the Sauds, to Algeria and Egypt, and of course Saddam (when it was convenient) we have supported despots who thwarted their own people. No wonder the people hate us. Maybe it is time to see what happens if we actually let them govern themselves. In other words, let the lunatics try running the asylum.

Now of course, it seems clear that if we let them do that, much of that region will wake up tomorrow under Islamic dictatorships. Anyone who has read this column knows that there is no love for religious zealots here. To the contrary, they are really REALLY scary, plus they don't seem to have any sense of humor. But it may be time for us to take a gamble, and let them have their way, at least in their corner of the world. Let Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, among others, go Islamist. With the exception of Pakistan, which has nukes, none of the predominantly Islamic countries can harm us (which is why we can't adopt this approach with Pakistan). Having gotten what they want, and faced with the prospect of having to govern, it is quite possible, even likely, that their bloodlust will abate and they will be forced to moderate their behaviour, if not their rhetoric.

We will still have to deal with the threat of terrorism, (and must not relax our vigilance, such as it is) but as the Islamists find themselves, not outcasts, but part of the world order, they will have to decide whether they can afford to keep trying to destroy that order. They will have to feed their people, employ them, and all that good stuff. That will keep them quite busy, and they will begin to realize the world order is not such a bad thing to belong to, if you want to eat more than dates and camel jerky.

One nice corollary for us is that fundamentalists do not do very well at things like science and technology and progress. If they fail to feed people, there is a very real risk some of the people will get even more resentful, but their ability to do anything about it will diminish over time as those societies retreat to the dark ages. They will get less and less able to build really nasty weapons, let alone launch them, and they will become even more dependent on us to buy their oil (assuming they haven't dynamited their own wells, as some of the loonier ones have threatened to do). If we couple this with a strategy to become oil independent, we will end up with a far stronger hand than we could ever achieve by building military bases in their deserts and Green Zones in their cities.

The downside? There will be a few more 9/11's, most likely, but that is probably true no matter what we do. The upside is that as we engage these societies on many levels, other than bombing them, they will eventually hate us less and the 9/11's will stop. If, on the other hand, we stick with our current policy, we are guaranteed endless 9/11's for as far as we can foresee.

Think of it as rope-a-dope. The big strong guy keeps throwing haymakers at the clever nimble guy, until he exhausts himself and the nimble guy punches him out. In the current situation, we are the big strong guy, and we are losing. It is time to pull a little rope-a-dope ourselves. Back off. In fact, get out of the ring, let them have it to themselves for a couple of rounds. And then approach them, cautiously, with a hand out in friendship.

Losing the battle for truth

Tonight I watched James Carville debate Ralph Reed on the topic of teaching creationism in schools. Despite the fact that Carville had all the facts on his side, he ended up looking stupid. And this, from a man who is considered a master of the political mudfight.

It is time for this to stop, and the only way for it to stop is for pro-science people to stop being so bloody earnest, and to admit there is an element of verbal gamesmanship to the process. The creationists figured this out long ago, and they had to, because they don't have anything else on their side, such as facts. Defenders of science have let the creationists frame the debate, and on those terms, truth usually gets whomped.

The ironic thing is that we don't have to abandon truth to win the contest of verbal gymnastics. We just need to be more clever, and more aggressive, in re-framing the debate. For example: Reed repeatedly looked into the camera with his earnest expression and said "Jim, it's only about academic freedom! Why can't we hear people with other views and then make up our minds?" Carville responded, predicably, by ranting about how we "have to teach hard, cold science", and how "all scientists agree about evolution". In doing so, he appeared to validate Reed's view that scientists are dogmatic, and that science is a closed club with no room for dissent. This is exactly how the religious zealots want people to see us!

What if, instead, Carville had replied thus: "Ralph, we believe in academic freedom. Academic freedom only works when it is linked to intellectual honesty. The day a creationist comes to us with an argument that is intellectually honest, we will welcome them into the classroom. Until then, what you are advocating is faith, not science."

Or thus: "Ralph, I am glad you raise the topic of academic freedom. Because that is what Christians like Charles Darwin did not have when they first began looking for evidence of God's grand design. When Darwin was forced by the facts to admit that God might be working through something like evolution, he risked his life in the process. And people like you have never stopped trying to drown out the message. So don't lecture us about academic freedom."

If our spokesmen were to stop being so defensive, and take the zealots on with their own hatchets, the zealots would not be winning. Unfortunately, this is not a matter of taste. It is a matter of our national future. Countries like India and China are poised to run us over in the most brutal fashion, and they are using education to do it. How are we going to compete if we can't convince our own kids that investigation, questioning and thought are legitimate ways to get answers about the world?

Instead, in America, science has been painted as religious dogma. How ironic, since it was once the deconstructionists on the Left who claimed that the scientific method was all an artifact of peoples' prejudices and social conditioning, and that there are no facts. The Right used to hate that kind of thinking. Yet, here they are today, using clever turns of phrase to portray scientific consensus as a totally arbitrary choice, subject to social prejudice and up for a vote. The difference is that the deconstructionists never influenced anyone outside their own weird little echo chamber, while the religious zealots are undermining a key foundation of our nation's strength. We owe it to our children to do a better job of defending their future.

When a bumper sticker can say it all...

• 1/20/09: End of an Error
• That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway
• Let's Fix Democracy in This Country First
• If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
• Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.
• If You Can Read This, You're Not Our President
• Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by an Elephant.
• Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?
• George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight
• Impeachment: It's Not Just for Blowjobs Anymore
• America: One Nation, Under Surveillance
• They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It
• Who's [sic] God Do You Kill For? The person who wrote this was probably in George's spelling group.
• Cheney/Satan '08
• Jail to the Chief
• No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?
• Bush: God's Way of Proving Intelligent Design is Full Of Crap
• Bad President! No Banana.
• We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language
• We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them
• Is It Vietnam Yet?
• Bush Doesn't Care About White People, Either
• Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?
• You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.
• Impeach Cheney First
• When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46
• Pray For Impeachment
• The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
• What Part of "Bush Lied" Don't You Understand?
• One Nation Under Clod
• 2004: Embarrassed
• 2005: Horrified
• 2006: Terrified
• Bush Never Exhaled
• At Least Nixon Resigned

Republicans face a choice

Note: This piece was written in the weeks before the recent midterm election. The author stands by the prediction that the Republican Party is going to move further to the "right".

Ex-House majority leader Dick Armey, a 1994 "Contract on America" author, said earlier this year that his former colleagues "need to do some serious substantive legislation" to improve their electoral chances. Armey, a conservative Republican, said his GOP colleagues are wasting time. “They're not doing real work. They're making political statements," he said, in his June remarks, referring to a long string of actions which, among other things, repeatedly placed ideology above rationality.

Like Armey, a lot of us find it bizarre that the GOP are so far off track, but in fact, he may be wrong about what it takes for them to win elections. I had the occasion to ask a major beltway Republican operative (call him "Tony") whether there was any chance the GOP could return to its more cosmopolitan, internationalist roots, and he shrugged. "Look, it took us 50 years to figure out how to put together a winning coalition, and we're not going to change course now." That was three months ago. Now, that coalition is showing signs of cracking. Truthfully, we should have seen this coming, and some did (but were dismissed). However, it has taken a month of really bad news to expose the contradictions within the GOP.

The two major components of the Republican coalition, namely Wall Street and the social conservatives, have nothing in common except a shared hatred of an empty box labelled “liberalism”. The irony is that the world the Wall Streeters want is awfully cold and frightening for the typical heartland Christian conservative. It is a world of free-agency, free capital flows, unfettered economic competition, and unchecked vulgarity in the media. It is a world that would eat most fundamentalist Christians alive (an image of the Colisseum comes to mind). Most important, it is a world in which we must teach science in schools, or our shiny new industries will vanish.

And the world of the Christians is certainly not one the Wall Streeters would like. Picture Afghanistan under the Taliban: Lots of religious indoctrination. No fun, no dates, no laughing. Nothing to do with all your money except wait for martyrdom (ie., the Rapture), unless you own your own island. It was, in one sense, the genius of the Republican leadership over the past 20 years, that they were able to convince the Christian conservatives to blame the increasing pornification of the world on liberalism, rather than seeing it as a natural consequence of free-market policies, exploding media and greatly increased mobility.

Now that there in dissension in the ranks, an old debate is taking on new significance: which wing of the Republican coalition is using which? Some say the Wall Steeters have been using the Christians to win votes, in the service of policies that strictly benefit the money guys. This is an obvious implication of the just-published book “Tempting Faith”, by a former Bush Administration insider, David Kuo (link?). With the common folk under control, the money guys can clean up as they never have before, goes the theory. There is certainly some soul-searching within the ranks of the social conservatives, who are finally wondering if they have been had.

Others say the Christians are using the infrastructure of the old GOP to take over the country, after which women will have to wear burkas, our schools will become like the Madrassas, and we may become a third-world country. This has been my fear since the day I was told by a fourth-grade classmate that I would go to hell for thinking we “came from monkeys”. Even with the tide turning against the GOP, and, in fact, perhaps because of this reversal, the threat of a fundamentalist takeover of the party seems only to loom larger. After all, party leadership has responded to its stress by pandering even more to the Christian right, not less. Hence, Dick Armey’s comments from earlier this year.

If the Republicans lose big in November, the party is going to change radically. The few remaining moderates have been targeted by the Democrats (which is unfortunate), and infighting will eliminate those who survive. Even reduced to a minority in one or both houses, the prospect of the Republican party as a party of theocracy should frighten all of us who value human progress. It is essential that we find and support Republicans who will stand up for education, science and reason-based decision-making, before it is too late for the party and for all of us.

Christian values and the Amish

Even as various self-professed "Christian" organizations ratchet up their messages of hate, we have all been given an opportunity to see real Christian values in action. In Pennsylvania the Amish community endure unthinkable tragedy in full view of the world, and have given us a heart-rending embodiment of the core Christian values of grace and forgiveness. They have asked that the family of the killer share in any funds raised to support victims. Can we imagine any of Pat Robertson's or Tony Perkins' flock exhibiting such courage? To the contrary, Robertson and Perkins have inculcated a spirit of vengeance that forgives nothing and no-one. In their fear and desparation they pray nihilistically for the End of Times, when all including the Amish, whom they despise, will perish in flames.

We can be sure that the Amish never asked to be in the national spotlight, or to become role models, yet there they are, bearing up with such fortitude as to put the rest of us to shame. I never understood them, in part because I could not imagine forgoing the pleasures and conveniences of modern life, but I have only respect and admiration for the way they have lived their values out under such unbearable pain. It is time for our leaders, religious and secular, to re-examine what we mean by "values". We now have an example for all to see, and it would be tragic if we didn't get the message.

Religious Right vs. Hollywood

On any given day, we can hear, if we wish, right-wing spokesmen (and women) railing against the "media". According to them, the "Media" is a giant conspiracy, run by jews, gays and other subversives, to destroy America by undermining American "Values". No one gets the religious right more twisted up in their undies than Hollywood. And they hate no one more than Disney, though that is mainly for giving gay employees full benefits, not because of Disney's cloying and culturally illiterate pap. Christian organizations regularly call for a boycott of Hollywood movies. Around Academy Awards time, we are assaulted by right-wing talkers insisting that the Oscars are really not that big a deal, that they are not watched by that many people, blah blah.

Now, there is no desire here to defend Oscar night. It is really hard to imagine something less interesting. That so many people DO watch it, is inexplicable. But my reasons for saying that have nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with boredom. Meanwhile, it is actually weird that the religious right are so suspicious of Hollywood--is there any more effective purveyor of the kind of cathartic mayhem and Stalinist kitsch that warms the hearts of fundamentalists? If you visit any country outside the U.S., you will find they are surprised and puzzled that conservatives hate Hollywood. After all, other than Coke, what is a more powerful symbol of American cultural dominion than our movie industry?

For one who has time for neither religious zealots nor for Hollywood, it is almost fun to see them at each other's throats. Too bad neither camp show any sign of climbing out of the gutter.

Why is democracy more important to Iraqis than to Americans?

From the UN to the campaign trail, the President never misses a chance to talk about supporting democracy in the Middle East. We are bankrupting our Treasury and sacrificing our young soldiers, ostensibly in the name of this idea. Unfortunately, we are not protecting this idea here at home. Our government and its partisans do not seem to believe that the opposition have the right to a voice. We have been threatened, suppressed, and told we are unpatriotic. We have been told we are siding with the enemy.

It does seem ironic that this president, so convinced of the value of democracy that he will shove it down middle-eastern throats at the point of a gun, sees no reason to protect democratic principles at home. His operatives have orchestrated the removal of the very term "democratic" from our political lexicon, substituting the word "democrat", as in "the Democrat party". The major media networks have gone along, just the first step in erasing our consciousness of the concept for which the word "democracy" stands. You don't have to be a member of the party to care about the devaluation of the word "democratic".

It is clear that what the Bush Administration wants for the Middle East is not democracy at all, but merely pliability. That is a critical distinction, because it means no one should assume we will act on principle. Saddam was a good friend, deserving of billions of dollars in military aid, until he became inconvenient for us. He wasn't the first dictator to find that out, and probably won't be the last. But before we dump the likes of Musharraf, should the day arrive when he, too, becomes inconvenient, we should not forget that the people waiting to take over from him hate us even more than the Iraqis do. Unlike the Iraqis, however, the Pakistanis do in fact have WMD.

Conservatives are finally getting it

From Chris Buckley, second-generation conservative pundit:

"Today one has no sense, aside from a slight lowering of the swagger-mometer, that the president or the Republican Congress is in the least bit chastened by their debacles. George Tenet's WMD 'slam-dunk,' Vice President Cheney's 'we will be greeted as liberators,' Don Rumsfeld's avidity to promulgate a minimalist military doctrine, together with the tidy theories of a group who call themselves 'neo-conservative' (not one of whom, to my knowledge, has ever worn a military uniform), have thus far: de-stabilized the Middle East; alienated the world community from the United States; empowered North Korea, Iran, and Syria; unleashed sectarian carnage in Iraq among tribes who have been cutting each others' throats for over a thousand years; cost the lives of 2,600 Americans, and the limbs, eyes, organs, spinal cords of another 15,000 -- with no end in sight. But not to worry: Democracy is on the march in the Middle East. . . "

Why Lieberman deserved to lose

An interesting race is shaping up in Connecticut, with Joe Lieberman recovering from his initial stunning loss to Ned Lamont, and now leading in the race to keep his seat, as an independent. Lieberman lost the Democratic primary to Lamont, and all the pundits made this out to be a single-issue loss, ie., a referendum on the war in Iraq. Whether it is Dick Cheney, claiming that the Democrats didn't “get” 9/11, or Lamont, campaigning almost entirely against the policy in Iraq, everyone focused on Lieberman's support of the war as his defining issue. For someone with his longevity in politics, that seems almost sad, but has it turned into his political reality.

That is too bad. Iraq is not, and should not be, the defining issue for anyone, not even for George Bush, though he seems determined to make it so. Ultimately, history will judge it as a tragic mistake, but it will also be seen as only one of many important mistakes, by many presidents, along the way to wherever it is we are headed. Yes, Lieberman's fate does seem to ride on this one issue, but, unfortunately, that has distracted us from the real reasons he no longer deserves our votes.

Of far more long-term importance than Iraq, is the fact that Lieberman also took sides with the regressive wing of the Christian "right" regarding the role of religiosity in politics. He began doing this during his run as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, and he continues to throw bones to the fundamentalists. No one minds that he takes his religion very seriously, but unfortunately, he debased himself, with his staged photo-ops at various Jewish holidays, and his obsequious pontificating about the role of religion in his political life. It was a blatant attempt to appease religious conservatives, and there is no indication he persuaded a single person to vote for him because of it.

The only thing most people remember about Lieberman is his cozying up to the President’s Iraq policy, and that is a problem, because in the long term it is the war between reason and unreason that is going to determine what becomes of us, not a pointless war in Iraq. Lieberman got a well deserved slap from the voters in Connecticut, but will probably win in November. He did at one time have a reasonable record as a centrist. The question is whether he is going to have the courage to stand up to his friends in the Administration on the really important issues, such as global climate change and science education in our schools. Don’t count on it.

Medical Care

There was a time when the VA was the dregs of our healthcare system. It seems that is no longer the case. According to the above study, the VA is now one of the best places in the country to get healthcare, and it is also one of the most cost effective.

We are so used to hearing extreme viewpoints on what makes for good healthcare, that we are unlikely to do anything with this new information. That would be unfortunate, because the VA seems to offer us a template for how to do it right without bankrupting us. The question remains why we let ourselves stay in the crossfire.

Threatening China? Begging is more like it...

The Axis of Evil was Iran, Iraq and North Korea, as I recall. So we went after the weakest and most irrelevant of the three. How smart is that? Actually, maybe smarter than it looks, since the other two options might have led to nuclear war. Unfortunately, now that we have exposed ourselves as far weaker and less competant than anyone could have expected (short of nuking people), we really do seem to have run out of options with the two remaining members of the AofE.

The U.S. is suddenly playing the diplomacy game with Iran. How many people think it is because the White House actually learned from its mistakes? Let's not delude ourselves. Condi is talking either because we have no choice, or because we need cover for when we nuke Iran. And then we have North Korea. Lindsay Graham, a Republican senator, threatened China today with "hanging by a thread, diplomatically" if they don't do something, now, about North Korea.

Huh? Just what leverage does he think we have over China? It's time to get real. We pissed on, and pissed off, our allies, and now we have to turn to China to bail us out of a sticky situation. There are those who could say "I told you so...", but who would listen?

Religion of Peace?

Americans and Europeans alike have been tied in knots over how to deal with Islam in their own societies. Our liberal norms say we must be tolerant. President Bush himself says "Islam is a peaceful religion!", while many of the preachers who make up his political base stir up hatred and fear. Bush's actual policies have undeniably fanned the flames of Islamic extremism the world over. When home-grown thugs murder in Holland and in the subways of London and Madrid, we tie ourselves in knots over whether they represent the true spirit of their religion, or have hijacked it for perverse ends. We argue over whether the legacy of Euro-American imperialism has come home to roost. Meanwhile, we have to decide whether racial profiling is an acceptable means of self defense. And the fact is, that if we succumb to the temptation to hate and fear, we lose what we are, and so we lose, period.

All this said, we are in trouble. Whatever the historical causes, the fact is that Islam around the world is being radicalized, and the process has a momentum all its own. For anyone, progressive or not, who wants to hide his head in the sand about this, I give you the following pictures. They were taken at "Religion of Peace" rallies by muslims in London.

The Do-Nothing-est rep finally gets going

Representative Lynn Westmoreland has finally sponsored his first legislation: an amendment to the Voting Rights Act that would basically gut its enforceability. Now, there are some provisions in the VRA that probably go too far, especially those requiring multilingual ballots without any end in sight. But most of the provisions address genuine threats to the rights of minority and disadvantaged voters. It is telling that the only issue that could rouse the Congressman from his stupor was one where he could stand up for the right of officials to disenfanchise their citizens.

For those unfamiliar with Mr. Westmoreland, this link is all the introduction you need. Take the five minutes to watch the interview. It would be funny if it were not so sad.

(Note: Since this was first posted, the Westmoreland and other amendments were voted down.)

The Fat Scam

(This is a copy of my letter published in USA Today on June 30):

We owe Barbara D’Souza thanks for her courage in writing about the ordeal of being obese. We have no more right to abuse fat people than we do to abuse anyone else. Still, she has bought into a dangerous and self-defeating myth, namely that that obesity is beyond our control, and is essentially a genetic disability. As a biotechnology executive, I am part of the community that has created and perpetuated that myth. I understand the desperate need people have to feel that they are not at fault, but the truth is, the modern epidemic of obesity is not genetic in origin.

The gene pool has not mysteriously changed since the time of our grandparents. Therefore, genes cannot explain the increase in obesity from their generation to ours. The true explanation is that we have changed our environment and our behavior. The only guaranteed solution to the problem would be to undo some of those changes. There is, however, a whole industry focused on diverting our attention from the truth, and people like Ms. D’Souza are all too vulnerable to the deception.

My industry has aided and abetted this hoax. We stand to make billions, selling pills that can treat obesity. The food industry has an even bigger incentive, because it wants to avoid being held responsible for the toxic environment it has created. It would rather keep people addicted to super-sized meals. Those of us in the food and pharmaceutical industries have a duty to tell the truth: that if we behaved more like our grandparents (eat less, walk more, make and sell better food), fewer of us would be fat. I’m not worried that this truth will harm my business. Since lots of people won’t heed the warning, we will always have a gigantic profit opportunity in treating the consequences--but at least we will have a clear conscience. As they say, the truth can set you free.

Was Ken Lay Assassinated?

Some have suggested so. It seems a stretch, but stranger things have happened. The unfortunate thing is that his sudden death lays a patina of sympathy over a man who cavalierly allowed thousands of people to lose their lives' savings, largely because they trusted him. And we have to wonder what other inconvenient facts go to the grave with him.

The problem with the ideologically pure version of capitalism is that it strips away any notion of responsibility, as merely a form of weakness. In the wake of the fall of Stalinism, and the run of success by the Chicago economists, and fuelled by the heady pseudo-populism of the Reagan era, we have adopted unfettered capitalism as a cult. The result is that we have steadily eroded even the basic notions of trust and truthfullness, as unwanted impediments to the maximization of wealth.

As a person whose job description includes the word "Capitalist", I remain unpersuaded by the notion that all we need in order to reach the best outcome is to let greed run rampant. The reality is that we need ethics as well, if not from within, then through other instruments. Ken Lay should have had the opportunity to understand what he did. He professed to a great religiosity, so perhaps he is being judged by his maker. I hold out no such optimism.

In the Net

We had a certain kind of peace before the internet and the web came along. I miss the days when doing research meant going to a quiet library somewhere, thumbing through old books in a room full of sunlight, occasional dust-motes dancing in the air. I miss hand-writing a letter, mailing it, anticipating the reply, which might take days or weeks to arrive, knowing that both I and my correspondent would have put a lot of thought into what we had to say. I suppose this is what people from a prior era felt, when air travel displaced ocean liners as the preferred way to travel long distances: a sense of having lost the moments of contemplation along the way.

My good friend Mike says that we idealize the past, and that it was never as good as we remember it to be. Yet I have a whole filing cabinet full of old correspondence, and few things give me more pleasure than to read through old letters, and remember. Yes, I could still write the old-fashioned way, but with everything so accelerated, it seems the opportunities to do so are vanishing. I am always waiting, in vain, for that moment of solitude. And, of course, the internet offers us the exhilarating feeling of being able to reach somebody right away in a moment of inspiration (or aggravation). How easy!

The internet, the web, also offer the seduction of having much of the world’s knowledge (albeit leavened with misinformation) right there for the grabbing. Being of the net is like being at an ever-expanding buffet, served up in an infinite warren of rooms, some of them big and bright and bustling, and others dark, dusty, obscure, with the food going stale. I eagerly explore. I can cope with the minor annoyances along the way: As I sample, I dodge the constant stream of touts trying to lure me into their dens of iniquity. And, like many of us, I have learned that some of the delicacies on the tables, even in the brightly lit rooms, are poisoned.

We are bees, in an enormous hive, just emerging from the larval stage. We were, until now, cozy and comfortable, knowing only our own little hexagonal cells, perhaps sensing the vibrations from nearby cells. We were occasionally fed by workers who came from somewhere and went we knew not where. Now we must adjust to the light and the noise and the frenetic hum of the hive. And we must learn to navigate the deluge of new information. I find myself wondering if we have been freed by all this information, or are ruled by it, running ever harder to keep up with the torrent. We run about on our appointed tasks, following the strands of the Web, unaware that perhaps we have been caught in it.

Now that I am willingly and eagerly wireless, I am aware that the internet transcends the very notion of a web, a warren, or even a hive. It is a presence, an ethereal organism, like one of those alien life forms in old Star Trek reruns, enveloping me, talking to me, feeding me, spying on me, collecting little bits of me, depositing little bits of itself on me. Even when I am logged off, I am permeated by it, by the multiplying halos of 802-dot-11, passing through me. Invisible pipes, carrying urgent emails, web porn searches, blogs from the lonely or paranoid, today’s news and non-news…marinating me in a dense drizzle of bits of which I am largely oblivious, until I am reminded of it.

I know I could disconnect, but I am not ready or willing to do so. I can proudly say I have managed to draw the line at hand-held devices such as Blackberries. My old firm issued them to us, and I gave mine back after a few weeks. Carrying a Blackberry around, I did not feel connected, I only felt caught. The organism had wrapped itself around me, constricting me and at the same time blasting me with a relentless stream of nonsense. It was like being strapped into an interrogator’s chair with a light shining in my face. I watched as my addicted colleagues spent whole meetings frantically sending and receiving messages, after which they had to ask what had happened during the discussion at hand. It was not for me.

Still, I connect several times a day. I suppose it is like being in a co-dependent relationship. It’s funny - television, the original icon of electronic co-dependency, never did this to me. I haven’t had a TV in 27 years, and I’ve rarely missed it. The internet is different. It responds, it hears, and then it talks back. It has a mind of its own, a composite mind composed of billions of smaller minds. All of them have their own theories of their place in the organism, or no theories at all. Some of them are human, others electronic. I have never felt so connected to so many, yet I wonder if the depth of those connections will ever approximate that of the old kind, the kind that were hard to plant and long in growing, but lasted.