SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (7577)12/14/2003 8:07:03 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
abcnews.go.com

townhall.com



To: calgal who wrote (7577)12/14/2003 8:07:10 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 10965
 
Change isn't quick
George Will (archive)

December 14, 2003 | Print | Send

WASHINGTON -- On Europe's western edge, in Ulster, democracy is producing unlovely results. On Europe's eastern edge, in Russia, the results are even more unsavory. Those whose mission is to finish regime change in Iraq by constructing democracy can sense how long their task may take by noting the difficulties in Europe, which is more politically mature than the Middle East.

When did the troubles in Northern Ireland begin? The Battle of the Boyne is a convenient marker. That victory of the armies of King William III, a Protestant, over those of King James II, a Catholic, is still celebrated by Ulster Protestants, largely to lacerate the feelings of Catholics, every July 12. It occurred in 1690.

Thirty-five years ago, Northern Ireland boiled into violence that in three decades claimed 3,000 lives. Five years ago, the Good Friday agreement, brokered by the United States and endorsed by 71 percent of Ulster voters, supposedly brought peace by bringing paramilitary forces into politics.

Concerning another country, the Los Angeles Times reports that U.S. and other diplomats ``have met commanders of an Afghan faction that is attacking the U.S.-led troops, urging the militants to dump their leader, disarm and form democratic parties.'' Sudden conversions to civility would solve most of the world's problems -- and would be especially helpful in Ulster. There the ``power sharing'' under the 1998 agreement, which was supposed to marginalize or moderate the extremes, has marginalized the moderates.

The party of Ian Paisley, the 77-year-old Protestant fanatic who says the pope is the ``anti-Christ,'' has become the largest party in the province's assembly, which has been suspended for more than a year, since allegations of Irish Republican Army spying. Paisley refuses to deal with Sinn Fein, the political arm of the IRA, a paramilitary force that probably will now refuse to continue the ``decommissioning'' -- disarmament -- that it has committed to, but has done only partially and grudgingly. For the first time, Sinn Fein has surpassed more moderate parties to become the dominant voice of those who reject British rule in Ulster.

In Russia, a bastardized mockery of democracy has produced the marginalization -- actually, the annihilation -- of the moderates. After the elections to the Duma, Russia's parliament, a senior adviser to the real winner, President Vladimir Putin, used a familiar Marxist trope in reading out of history the two pro-Western parties that failed to win any seats. They should, he said, ``be calm about it and realize that their historical mission has been completed.''

One reason they have been, in Trotsky's words, consigned to the dustbin of history is that Putin, who trained for democracy in the Soviet KGB, is using ``managed democracy'' to concoct a meretricious legitimacy for lawless authoritarianism. In a post-election statement, Putin blandly promised to correct ``shortcomings'' in the election. They include his measures suffocating independent media, controlling political communication from urban billboards to broadcasting, and jailing the richest Russian on the eve of the election. Optimists are construing his statement that Russia's constitution is ``the basis of stability'' as a promise not to repeal the two-term limit on the presidency. Do not bet on that.

Putinism is uprooting the shallow seedlings of democracy across Russia's 11 time zones. Putinism is becoming a toxic brew of nationalism directed against neighboring nations, and populist envy, backed by assaults of state power, directed against private wealth. Putinism is a national socialism without the demonic element of its pioneer who, 70 years ago this year, used plebiscitary democracy to acquire the power to extinguish German democracy. There probably are not enough Jews remaining in Russia to make anti-Semitism a useful component of Putinism. But do not bet on that either.

Responding to another act of anti-Semitic violence, an attack on a Jewish school, Rabbi Joseph Sitruk has suggested that Jewish men wear baseball caps rather than skullcaps in public and ``avoid walking alone'' lest they become ``targets for potential assailants.'' This is in France, birthplace of the Enlightenment, where Sitruk is chief rabbi.

Anti-Semitism in post-Holocaust Europe, where Jews are few, is a reminder -- especially to France, where Marxism was a long time dying -- of just how wrong Marx was. He said modernity -- industrialism and the attendant demystification of the world -- would drain the history-making power from premodern forces, such as religion and ethnicity.

Those forces will drive developments in Iraq for years. The durability of those forces, around the world, is the big news -- although there is nothing really new about it -- of 2003.



To: calgal who wrote (7577)12/14/2003 8:07:21 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 10965
 
Gephardt's Last Stand
From the December 22, 2003 issue: The Iowa showdown.
by David Tell
12/22/2003, Volume 009, Issue 15

South Central Iowa, December 7

THE CAMPAIGN CALENDAR is against you. Already the camera crews and stage-prop crowds are beginning to take over, and the rope lines are going up, and soon enough it'll become pretty much physically impossible to form a personal impression of the Democratic party's likely nominee for president next year. None of the men who still have a realistic hope for that prize will any longer be within reach of even the most determined civilian--certainly not where more-than-momentary, relatively unscripted, and intimate conversational encounters are concerned. In that sense, at least, our current election cycle is operating like any other in the modern, television age.

But we're not quite there yet. The window hasn't closed for good, and a man can still watch a real-life presidential candidate talking to real-life voters, up close and in the flesh, for hours on end, especially if he's willing to wake up at 4 A.M. for a predawn flight to Des Moines on a Sunday. I have taken such a flight today, in order to watch Richard Gephardt campaign among the Iowans he hopes will vote for him in next month's caucuses. And I have spent my time on the mostly empty plane trying to read my way to a provisional conclusion about why our current election cycle, in every essential respect, camera crews and rope lines notwithstanding, is very much not operating on a conventional schedule, or by conventional logic. Put another way: How come it's Howard Dean, of all people, and
not someone like . . . well, Gephardt, who appears, weeks and weeks before the first official ballot has been cast, to be running away with the race?

A new polling analysis by the Pew Research Center confirms the anomaly. And rather deepens the mystery, in fact. The ordinary rule of thumb is that people are disposed to "vote their hearts" in early-state presidential primaries. Which is thought to mean that hard-boiled general-election imperatives remain a relatively distant concern in these contests: Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats will be less likely preoccupied with identifying the candidate best equipped to unseat President Bush in November, and more likely, instead, simply to choose the guy whose views most closely match their own. Or so it's expected.

But over the past three weeks, no fewer than seven different reputable and well-known polling outfits have released data indicating that Howard Dean is thoroughly dominating the once-heavily-favored John Kerry in New Hampshire--by a 24-percentage-point average margin. And Pew's research suggests that neither man's views have much to do with it: "Supporters of Dean and Kerry exhibit few issue differences." If anything, on the domestic policy front, which both candidates ritually contend ought to be paramount, a significant number of New Hampshire Democrats, whether they realize it or not, are making up their minds despite the issues; a plurality of Dean supporters, for example, actually disagree with Dean--and agree with Kerry--about the need to preserve some portion of the Bush tax cuts. New Hampshire, then, is not tilting hard toward Howard Dean because people are "voting their hearts," as that phrase is traditionally understood.

weeklystandard.com