Best of the Web Today - June 12, 2006
By JAMES TARANTO
Role Reversal
E.J. Dionne, a liberal Washington Post columnist, is unhappy about last week's California election results. No, not the Republican victory in the special House election (though he's none too pleased with that), but the defeat of a pair of ballot measures (emphasis his):
The truly sobering news for liberals was in the statewide voting. Proposition 82, the ballot measure that would have guaranteed access to preschool for all of California's 4-year-olds, went down to resounding defeat, 61 to 39 percent.
Not only that, voters also rejected a $600 million bond measure for the state's libraries. A vote against libraries? Yes, the bonds went down 53 to 47 percent.
And bear in mind that these spending measures appeared on a primary ballot at a time when Democrats were holding a fierce contest for their gubernatorial nomination, while Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger faced only token Republican opposition. There were roughly 500,000 more Democratic than Republican primary votes--meaning that a significant number of Democrats voted against both propositions.
Progressives can find plenty of alibis. Instead they need to deal with the sources of voter skepticism about public spending.
Dionne goes on to discuss some specific problems with Proposition 82, making a very strong case against it, though he still says he wishes it had passed. But the column got us to thinking about broader trends that may be feeding public skepticism about government.
It has been widely noted that congressional Republicans have failed to live up to their billing as the party of small government, especially since George W. Bush became president. There are exceptions, to be sure, but the allure of spending other people's money has proved so great that voters have not gotten the spending restraint they expected when they elected a Republican Congress in 1994. About all that Republicans can say in defense of this record is that Democrats have been worse.
Yet what is less widely noted is that the Democrats, in opposition, have presented themselves to a large extent as an antigovernment party. One of their main themes has been that the Bush administration is "incompetent"--that, at least for now, the government can't do anything right. As we noted in September, former Enron adviser Paul Krugman blamed the allegedly poor response to Hurricane Katrina on Ronald Reagan's "ideological hostility to the very idea of using government to serve the public good."
This attitude betrays a fundamental lack of faith in government. Its implication is that the institutions of government are too frail to withstand the pressures of American democratic politics. It is also a remarkably self-serving position. Liberal Democrats take credit for creating an enormous government, which, according to them, doesn't work--but would work just fine if only the populace were smart enough to elect liberal Democrats.
In sum: Republicans favor small government but embrace big government when they have the power to control it. Democrats favor big government but insist that it can work only when they have the power to control it. Politicians in both parties, then, seem to see government as a means to the same end: their own political power. Little wonder that voters are suspicious of government.
Can We Surrender Yet?
Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin is using the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to reiterate his proposal from last August that America flee Iraq. In a Puffington Host post, he outlines his rationale:
Al-Zarqawi's death . . . will not end the insurgency that has pushed Iraq into a violent downward spiral. . . . As long as large numbers of U.S. troops remain indefinitely in Iraq, that tragic death toll will continue to rise, because Iraq will remain a crucible for the recruitment and development of a wide range of terrorist networks determined to fight so-called American "occupiers."
The first step in creating a strong national security policy is recognizing that our massive presence in Iraq weakens our national security. Our Iraq-centric policies are diverting resources and attention from other places around the world where terrorist networks that threaten the U.S. are operating. . . .
It's time to return to our true national security mission in the wake of 9/11 by crafting a comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism. . . . This strategy must focus on developing strong partnerships with countries like Indonesia, the Philippines, and Mali, focused not only on security assistance, but on the development of a strong rule of law, respect for human rights, and fighting corruption.
A comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism must also address countries like Somalia. Failed states like Somalia are the breeding grounds for terrorism and instability.
To put this more concisely, Feingold makes two arguments against the U.S. presence in Iraq:
o It makes Iraq "a crucible for the recruitment and development of a wide range of terrorist networks determined to fight so-called American 'occupiers.' "
o It is "diverting resources and attention from other places around the world," such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Mali and Somalia.
If the first premise is true--that would-be terrorists are motivated by resentment over the U.S. presence in Iraq--why should we think that they would not likewise be inflamed by an expanded U.S. presence in Indonesia, the Philippines, Mali, Somalia, etc.? Feingold doesn't say.
It seems likely that Feingold is simply engaging in what one perceptive commentator calls "vicarious terrorism"--that is, projecting his own policy preferences onto America's enemies and asserting that the enemies will be appeased if only those preferences become policy.
'This Hot Potato Otherwise Known as the U.S.'
Benjamin Bright-Fishbein is lucky Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead. On Saturday Bright-Fishbein, an American student at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, ventured into Nablus, an Arab city in the disputed West Bank, where he was kidnapped by terrorists from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, described by the Jerusalem Post as "an offshoot of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party."
Abbas's predecessor, Yasser Arafat, won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.
But the terrorist released Bright-Fishbein after realizing he was American:
An IDF [Israel Defense Forces] source said that Fishbein's US citizenship had saved his life since the "last thing the Palestinians want is to open a new front against the Americans." Had the kidnappers succeeded in abducting an Israeli national the outcome, the source said, would have been very different. "Their decision to release him was because they didn't want to deal with the hot potato otherwise known as the US," the source added.
Ha'aretz quotes an unnamed "defense official": "Apparently, the kidnappers did not want to end up like Zarqawi."
Terrorist Product Placement
"According to wire reports, soldiers [at the house where Zarqawi was killed] found a few weapons, a skimpy leopard-print nightie, possibly belonging to one of Zarqawi's three wives, and the May 2 issue of the Arabic edition of Newsweek (which featured a cover story on the Iraq war entitled 'No Exit')."--Newsweek, June 19 issue
What Would We Do Without Autopsies?
"Zarqawi Was Killed by Blast, Autopsy Says"--headline, New York Times, June 12
Counting His Chickens
"Rep. John Murtha, an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq, unexpectedly announced on Friday he will run for the No. 2 leadership post in the U.S. House of Representatives if Democrats regain control of that chamber in elections this fall," Reuters reports:
"If we prevail as I hope and know we will and return to the majority this next Congress, I have decided to run for the open seat of the majority leader," Murtha, a Pennsylvanian, said in a letter sent to House Democrats.
Murtha voted for the war in 2002; urged "immediate redeployment"--i.e., withdrawal from Iraq, in November 2005; and then opposed his own plan when clever Republicans put it up for a vote. Sounds like the perfect guy to run for "majority leader" of the minority party.
The World's Smallest Violin
Three enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay committed suicide last week, and the New York Times reports that the Pentagon has identified them:
o Mani bin Shaman bin Turki al-Habardi, "a member of a terrorist group that recruits for Al Qaeda, and had been recommended for transfer to another country, presumably Saudi Arabia," where he would also be detained.
o Yasser Talal Abdulah Yahya al-Zahrani, " 'a frontline fighter for the Taliban' and had participated in the prison uprising in 2001 at Mazar-i-Sharif in Afghanistan that resulted in the death of Johnny Micheal Spann, a C.I.A. operative."
o Ali Abdullah Ahmed, "a 'mid to high-level Al Qaeda operative' who was close to Abu al-Zubaydah, a senior figure for Al Qaeda who has since been captured."
The Times editorial page bemoans the plight of these poor innocent terrorists:
[Their suicides were] the inevitable result of creating a netherworld of despair beyond the laws of civilized nations, where men were to be held without any hope of decent treatment, impartial justice or, in so many cases, even eventual release.
It is a place where secret tribunals sat in judgment of men whose identities they barely knew and who were not permitted to see the evidence against them. Inmates were abused, humiliated, tormented and sometimes tortured.
The Times thinks "Guantanamo Bay should be closed"--which presumably means that any terrorist who can't be convicted of a crime should be returned to the battlefield.
The Times' news story reports that in response to the suicides, "Democrats in the United States said little, apparently concerned about appearing to be sympathizing with detainees who could turn out to have significant terrorist connections."
Interesting that the Times reporters think they can read Democrats' minds. But couldn't it just be that even Democratic politicians retain some instinct for protecting their country, even if that instinct apparently eludes the editorialists at the Times?
We Blame Global Warming
"Saudi Lawyer Blames US for Guantanamo Suicides"--headline, Reuters, June 11
Scapegoating the Grandchildren
He's at it again, the Cincinnati Enquirer reports:
Sen. George Voinovich cast a key vote last week against repealing the estate tax, calling the proposal "incredibly irresponsible and intellectually dishonest" at a time when the nation is dealing with a massive federal budget deficit.
"I am thinking not only about the present but about our children and grandchildren and the legacy--or burden--we will leave them," said Voinovich, a Cleveland Republican who was one of just two Republicans in the Senate to against a procedural motion that would have allowed the bill to come up for a final vote.
Although there's no report of Voinovich blubbering this time around, a year ago he similarly blamed "my kids and my grandchildren" for his opposition to John Bolton's confirmation as U.N. ambassador. Voinovich will be 70 years old next month; isn't it about time he learned to take responsibility for his own actions?
The Early Byrd
Robert Byrd of West Virginia became a U.S. senator Jan. 3, 1959, and he still is one. As of today he is the longest-serving U.S. senator in history, surpassing the late Strom Thurmond, reports the Associated Press:
"I can speak with fire because my convictions run deep," Byrd said in an hourlong interview in his Capitol office. "I'm not just an ordinary senator. I know it and you know it."
That uncharacteristic bit of immodesty came shortly after Byrd was asked whether he will be able to complete a full six-year term that would end when he is 95. When asked about his age and his stamina, Byrd bristles.
"Age has nothing to do with it except as it might affect one's strength, endurance and stamina. Age does not affect me except in my legs," Byrd said. "And I've got a head up here that hasn't changed one iota in the last 25 years."
One might argue that that is the problem--though it's good that his head has changed since the 1940s, when he joined the Ku Klux Klan, and since 1964, when he tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act.
Thurmond, who died at 100 in June 2003, had passed the century mark before leaving office and was the oldest-ever U.S. senator. Byrd, 88, won't surpass that record unless he wins two more terms and remains in the Senate until Dec. 20, 2017.
Whatever You Do, Don't Tell Anyone!
"World's Who's Who Hold Secret Talks in Ottawa"--headline, Agence France-Presse, June 9
El Kamino Real?
"Harvard Scientists Join Human Cloning Race"--headline, MSNBC.com, June 6
Bottom Story of the Day
"Election Seems Headed Toward Yawn"--headline, St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, June 11
Licked Again
In a Puffington Host post, John Kerry* endorses Jim Webb, a Vietnam veteran and former Republican, in tomorrow's Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Virginia. It takes Kerry four paragraphs to mention that he himself served in Vietnam.
In other news, scientists still have not determined how many licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop.
* "They gave me a hat. I have the hat to this day. I have the hat." |
