Just so you know...

My blogging frequency probably won't be great for the next week and a half or so. Thesis, final papers...you get the idea.

No More Mr. Nice Guy

Today I am thankful that Tom Friedman's finally getting pissed.

Corrections Department

I got this email concerning my column today:

All opinions should be respected at WSN.
But in today's op-ed about israeli-palestinian conflict, Shaun Mchelenny, among other lies, writes that Israel was invaded in 1967. Is this some kind of joke?
From the Israeli Defence Forces website: "The Six-Day [1967] War started with a far-reaching air attack, code named ?Moked?, to shatter the Arab air forces while their aircraft were still on the ground."

Ok, slight error on my part. It slipped my mind that 1967 was an Israeli pre-emption of an Arab invasion that was sure to come. In the grand scheme, though, recapturing land that belonged to Israel in a war against an invading force, as opposed to recapturing land that belonged to Israel in a war against a to-be-invading force, doesn't make much of a difference.

I guess there have been so many attempts to eliminate Israel, I can't help but get them confused...

Trouble in paradise?

For me at least, one of the bigger questions towards Bush's second term is how his relationship with the Congress will change. The conventional wisdom has been that with the Congress under even stronger Republican control, Congress and the White House will enjoy even closer collaboration.

However, second-term presidents traditionally have more trouble with Congress than they do in the first term. Logically, this makes sense because Congress has less reason to be pliant: they're not thinking about re-electing a President anymore. And in Bush's case particularly, the historical trend stands to hold. Bush's big ticket spending legislation must not have sat well with Congressional GOP conservatives, true conservatives who believe in fiscal responsibility.

The fault lines could be opening already. This article is a fairly bland piece on inter-camera wrangling over immigration provisions in the intelligence reform bill, but when you read between the lines, this statement stands out:

"Republican leaders were caught between angry conservatives, who threatened to vote against the bill, and President Bush, who insisted it should be passed."

There was some bluster between Bush and hardline conservatives in the first term, but it never really stopped anything from getting done. This is something to keep an eye on.

The Meaning of Insanity

If Kerry showed this sense of humor of his during the campaign, he might just be President-elect right now.

Seriously, though, does Theresa go through the paper before he gets to it and cut out all the articles about him being the embodiment of the aloofness and inconsistency that the Democrats need to overcome? That's the only explanation I can think of.

Easy Answer

Bush's choice for Powell's successor is revealing on a few levels.

First, it couldn't be more clear that it's a political choice. Immediately replacing the foremost prominent African-American on the national security team with the secondmost prominent is more than a little transparent. I thought maybe the election would change this, but once again Bush and Co. places politics before good government.

Secondly, it says a lot about the administration's approach to foreign policy when it comes to weighing militaristic versus diplomatic options. National Security Advisor is a mostly military gig, and the Secretary of State is at least supposed to be diplomatic. Moving the former into the job of the latter definitely shows how little regard this administration holds for diplomacy.

Timaeus and Critias Reloaded

I hope that this isn't for real. Atlantis' value is as a mythical icon of an idyllic past and a utopian state, not as an archaeological site.

The archaeologist who is claiming it's legitimate is pointing out that the ruins sync with Plato's descriptions, saying that if this isn't the real thing, it's "the world's greatest coincidence." It's probably not as great a coincidence as he thinks. The acropolis of any city-state of the time would tend to fit a certain pattern.

Furthermore, bringing up Plato could actually undermine the argument that this site is Atlantis, rather than enforce it. First of all, Plato places Atlantis in "the western sea," but the Mediterranean off of Cyprus is about as far East as the Greeks conceived of. Also, Plato was no stranger to imagining utopian communities, so if he's the authoritative source on Atlantis, its very existence is more likely fiction than fact, especially since a society as advanced as Atlantis supposedly was would contain more solid historical records.

What's funny is that at the end of the article, it's kind of snuck in that the expedition was partially funded by the Cypriot Tourist Organization, making the archaeologist's enthusiasm suspect. I don't think there should be a rush to lay claim that this site is the legendary city. If Atlantis becomes something tangible, what's the fun in that?

Mayor Mike

In the wake of the 2004 Presidential defeat, talk among New York Democrats is refocusing on dislodging Republican Mayor Mike Bloomberg. It's a little difficult to partake in this, since I really don't have anything against Bloomberg. In fact, I think his mayoralty, while not sweepingly ambitious, is altogether refreshing when it comes to NYC politics.

To begin with, I'll address the party issue. Bloomberg's a lifelong Democrat, he only switched his registration because billionaire tycoons don't stand much chance in NYC Democratic primaries. And even after switching, he hasn't been the GOP lackey that some make him out to be. Unlike erstwhile New Yorkers like Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki who are nursing presidential ambitions by sucking up to Bush, Bloomberg has been a consistent advocate for the city when it comes to getting our share from a Republican congress whose constituencies lie elsewhere.

Also, Bloomberg's cuts to the city budget have been cited as evidence that he's out of touch. It's not Bloomberg, but the City Charter, that is out of touch with New York's needs. The Charter's balanced budget amendment ties government's hands during a recession. Any mayor, Bloomberg included, is forced during hard times to raise taxes and/or cut programs, the two things you're not supposed to do. To his credit, Bloomberg struck a balance of both.

In general, I think Bloomberg's mayoralty is valuable because of its style. The worst thing about NYC politics is politicians playing constituencies off of each other for their own gain: neighborhoods, races, interest groups, etc. Bloomberg doesn't do this. One gets the impression that he is attempting to serve as everyone's mayor, and this is good to see. Also, Bloomberg exhibits a type of candor and commitment to good government that isn't usually practiced by today's ultra-handled, win-at-all-costs politicians. If he has a tough decision, such as those concerning the budget, he says it was a tough decision and he made his choice for such-and-such reason. No excuses, no spinning, and no blame game.

Oh, and who could forget the smoking ban? You can say all you want about rights, but if you ask me, 20% of the population doesn't have much right to poison the rest. Bloomberg's right to be proud of this measure.

My vote isn't etched in stone, but I'm not going to immediately vote for whomever the Democratic primary produces. Actually, if anyone currently being talked about, other than Ferrer, wins the Dem nomination, Bloomberg has a good chance at being the first time I've ever crossed party lines.

Do Californians not remember "Junior"?

This is a surprisingly thorough evaluation of the Governator's first year, considering it's coming from CNN. At the end, it mentions that support for an amendment allowing non-native-born Presidents is low, and I can't help but project that the most immediate reason for this is that the question immediately makes people think of the prospect of President Schwarzenegger.

Horse Latitudes

I'm realizing now that I haven't posted in a few days, which is both good and bad. On the good side, this means that I'm actually working on my thesis...for real. On the bad side, it's made me realize how thoroughly we're trapped in a speculative news cycle. I hate it when these sort of items fill the media: storylines that everyone tries to predict, but can't possibly have any real idea. All that can be done is to game out the possibilities and take shots in the dark as to what's going to happen, which I don't particularly care to partake in.

First, a post-Arafat Palestine. The succession process is shady enough to have been run by me, so there's really no telling who is going to step up and how they're going to act. Is this a step towards peace or just more of the same? I don't know, let's wait and see.

Second, Alberto Gonzales replaces John Aschcroft. There are competing views over his predilictions in that he has both moderate and conservative tendencies. Which will come through in his tenure as Attorney General? I don't know, let's wait and see.

Third, Scott Peterson is found guilty. Do I agree with the verdict? No clue. I haven't followed this thing at all, and anyone who hasn't watched every second of the trial has no right to weigh in.

So that's what's out there right now. This news cycle, together with a freezing, rainy weekend, couldn't serve better as thesis-writing encouragement.

Minor party, major possibilities

The Working Families Party had a big showing in the past election, which I'm glad to see. I like the WFP, and in fact I voted on their line for everything except for judges, whom they didn't endorse. It's a model organization when it comes to taking advantage of New York's cross-endorsement rules to do what a third-party ought to do: push issues into the mainstream dialogue without harming the existing parties. And the way they keep things simple and tackle economic issues by giving them a moral imperative could become a model for the national Democratic party.

How Tron's Livin'

Gotham Gazette's comprehensive breakdown of the potential for Bush's second term, from a uniquely New York perspective.

Dukes and pinkies up

This Slate article comes pretty close to what I've been thinking but haven't been able to articulate in the wake of the election: that perhaps Bush's appeal has roots not so much in issues, morality, etc., but in the way his agenda fits into a kind of public psychology, including a short attention span and visceral tendencies. Bush's message, if nothing else, is certainly easier to comprehend, and appeals to baser instincts of vengeance, xenophobia, and fear.

There, I said it. Let the Northeastern liberal elite-bashing commence. Oh wait, should I say "commence"? Is that too elitist?

Could we all become Deanocrats?

When I first heard Howard Dean is flirting with seeking the DNC chair, it seemed like a bad idea, but I was thinking from an electoral perspective, i.e. as if Dean was taking another shot at the nomination. But that's not the nature of this job. The DNC chair is there to energize the party, raise money, and draw the contrasts between the Dems and the GOP, and who does those things better than Howard Dean?

And besides, it's not like I'm biased or anything...

Code Red

Recently, I've been scaling back my post-election thinking to consider that perhaps 2004 was not the grandiose cultural battle it's being made out to be and that maybe we just lost an election. It was close enough, after all. It was decided by 4 million votes nationally out of 114 million cast, or you could even say it was decided by 150 thousand votes in Ohio out of over 5 million cast. Therefore, maybe the issues at hand were smaller than we thought. Maybe it was something about the candidate, or the issues, or the campaign's execution.

Today's David Brooks column would reinforce this thinking. He argues that the large percentage of exit poll respondents who say they voted based on "moral values" was skewed since this was an option in the poll's multiple choice format. Under this hypothesis, respondents said they were voting based on moral values, but took a subjective view of the subject and were voting on anything they considered moral, not necessarily abortion or gay marriage.

There are a few problems with this idea. First of all, a look at all of the poll's options for "most important issue" shows that abortion and gay marriage are not among them, so voters who were voting on this basis had no option other than to place it under "moral values."

Secondly, and more gravely, there is the matter of political code. Codes are nothing new to the GOP. Just as 40 years ago "states rights" was code for racism and "law and order" was code for...well...racism, "moral values" today has come to signify anti-abortion and anti-gay attitudes that are almost explicit in the term.

So maybe Bush and Kerry were the culture warriors they're being made out to be. I keep going back and forth on this...check back with me later.

Nobody Doesn't Like Harry Reid

This doesn't make much sense to me. To be fair, I'm not an expert on Harry Reid, maybe there's more than meets the eye. But even if there is, the fact that you have to look hard at all is the problem. For a party just relegated to an even shallower minority and searching for its voice, what is the sense in choosing an inconspicuous inside-ballplayer as our foremost elected official? Would it not be better to nominate someone who is more of a national figure? Someone who can impose discipline? Someone who has an agenda to articulate? Someone who can inspire? I guess that would make too much sense.

I Tiresias

Don't say I didn't warn you.

"VOTE RED. THE PEOPLE ARE GOOFY."

In the interest of sanity, and for the relief of returning to some kind of normalcy, I've been trying to avoid in taking in or giving out postgame analysis, but I suppose I have a certain obligation to the Blogger community now, so I'll just say a few preliminary things.

First and foremost, this was a close race. It doesn't feel like it because of all that we had invested, but any objective evaluation would say this race was incredibly tight. For this reason, any attempt to explain the outcome with a singular reason is pointless. A million things could have made it turn out differently, so it is folly to say it was any one thing.

On the question of where we go from here, it's going to be more fundamental than most of the premature solutions that are being thrown out there. After a campaign as well financed and energetic as the one the party just had, the answer can't be as easy as a slight shift to incorporate this segment of the population or the other (i.e. move to the left, move to the right, build larger majorities among women, Hispanics, etc.)

Rather, the change must be more fundamental. We did everything that can be done on the campaign front, but it didn't get through.

To redress this, primary voters will need to rethink the way they make decisions. Rather than play campaign advisor, primary voters just need to vote for someone that they actually want to be president, so the victor will have similar appeal in the general.

Also, there'll need to be a change in the way we communicate. Even after this campaign to end all Democratic campaigns, it didn't work. It's not about getting the word out, it's what we say and how we say it. More later...as I said, I'm taking it easy.

By the way, a hearty congratulations to the NYU College Democrats for carrying Pennsylvania. We did our part.

"...and you still break stone."

On the eve of the election, my main man George Will is bringing everyone back down to earth (or at least everyone who reads George Will, who were probably fairly earth-bound to begin with).

He has two main points. The first is that either president-elect is going to have conflicts with the Congress upon being sworn in for next term. The second is that government, while important, will not change the "basic conditions of life," at least not on the turn of a dime.

I agree. It's true that while we shouldn't be devaluing elections, particularly this one, we should always remember that the real work gets done between elections. Also, while the mood and direction of government would be drastically different under these two candidates, the water will run, the sun will shine, and the birds will sing on November 3 no matter who the victor is (or if there's none at all).

This isn't backpedaling; I'm still optimistic about Kerry. It's just that good ol' George Will has a way of putting things in perspective.

My Presidential Endorsement

Kerry.

...whew, just barely got that in.