INTERNATIONAL COURT OF "JUSTICE"


Following today's massacre of Israeli civilians in Jerusalem, the ICJ started an immediate prosecution against Palestinian organizations responsible for suicide bombings as crimes against humanity...oh, wait that would be what a International Court of Justice would do. Of course, our ICJ is busiest itself with outlawing a fence built to keep the genocidal jihadis out. Coming soon at the ICJ, prosecutions against Jews who wear bullet-proof vests.

IS THIS ANY WAY TO PICK A PRESIDENT?


The post-NH punditry is of course filled with eulogies. Lieberman is "dead", Edwards and Clark are "on life support," and Dean's "best chance to win has passed." Taking a step back, however, is the reality that all of this wisdom is based on 2 elections which combined to select a whopping total of 67 out of 4,322 Democratic delegates. Why on earth should the voters in states with say, cities, or racial minorities or decent Thai resteraunts let the voters of IA & NH pick the field they can vote for?


The reason of course is 1) the media parcels out airtime according to the results, 2) the party machers funnel money according to these results, and 3) voters in the other states lazily go along as well. None of these things is ordained from above - the lemming-like behavior can be stopped if there is the will. If not, that the least we can hope for is that a real state, with a significant population that represents a cross-section of America (like for example my native state of Pennsylvania) takes on the self-appointed guardians of American democracy and moves its primary to the the front of the line.

NOTWITHSTANDING THAT PRIOR POST, DEAN IS PRETTY MUCH FINISHED


Dean canned Joe Trippi, the genius who effectively created the Deaniac phenomenem by unlocking the potential of the 'Net for a former Gore staffer. So Dean is going to beat Kerry as a outsider by running like an insider? That has about as much chance of working as the Panthers winning the SuperBowl by airing it out 40 plus time this coming Sunday. Unlike the senator from their home state, the Patriots most likely will actually have to win, and not simply wait for the opponent to self-destruct.

A CAUSE OR A CAMPAIGN ?


Lieberman's 5th place finish, in a primary in which half the voters were Independents demonstrates that he is not going to win the nomination. But as Lieberman noted in his non-concession speech tonight, he is not just running a campaign, but is leading a cause. As Joe characterizes it, his cause is "for a Democratic party that fights as hard to defend our nation’s security as it does to does to advance the causes of social justice and equal rights." I would phrase this point somewhat differently - that only Lieberman stands for a Democatic party that pursues social justice both at home and abroad. It is however the same point - because only through the pursuit of justice for those living in the Islamic world can we defend out nation's security from Islamic terror. So, as long as Joe is able he should make his case to the Democratic party, and hopefully rack up enough delegates to force a platform fight at the convention.


However much I am behind Joe in his cause, however, there is still the matter of this campaign. And the way things currently stand the Democrats are running headlong towards nominating John Kerry on the "rich veteran who'll stand up for the poor and give peace a chance" platform. And it is irresponsible to stand by and let that happen while waiting for the Dem voters to have an epiphany and finally embrace Liebermanism (if not Liberman himself). Ruling out Dean (who at least is honest, genuine and a creative thinker) because of his irresponsible embrace of the party's Jeffersonian pacifists, that leaves me with two candidates, Edwards and Clark, that emerge from NH with limited momentum.


Clark is an enigmatic mess of a candidate, but in his more sober moments he is the only Dem other than Lieberman that has anything useful to say on foreign policy. I'll save the premature autopsy of the Clark campaign for some other point, but to needless to say I believe that Clark's "dovish general" routine is not going to get any traction against Kerry's revitalized "dovish veteran" schtick.


That leaves Edwards, the candidate with the best political skills, sharpest message and most thorough domestic agenda. I have serious doubts about Edwards on foreign policy. (His couplet on the "2 Americas" in the world is the weakness part of his stump speech). However, his lack of a track record is an improvement over Kerry's clear dovish vision. Can Edwards stay alive long enough to overtake Kerry? We'll find out next week in South Carolina. Anyone who wishes to see the Dems regain the White House should be rooting for an Edwards victory. I know I will.

NEW HAMPSHIRE GIVES US...KERRY


So in the warped world that is presidential primary politics, the sitting senator from Massachusets convinces 38% of his next-door neighbors to vote for him and has won a "decisive" victory that according to some pundits "all but assures him of the nomination." It is particularly interesting to watch the 5 speeches tonight, and to see the enthusiasm that still burns hot in all of the losers. Even Lieberman, who is supposed to have suffered a knock-out blow tonight with a 5th-place finish sounded a defiant call to arms.


I believe that this race which has stumped the pundits so far, still has some twists and turns ahead. Dean has put the "Scream" behind him and is going to come hard at Kerry. He certainly is the more dynamic candidate. The best hope for the Dems is that from out of that scrum, one of the candidates who finished in the second-tier tonight emerges with a shot at the nomination.

THE UNILATERAL WITHDRAWAL FROM LEBANON: DELAYED GRATIFICATION


The Jerusalem Post's Arieh O'Sullivan (not be confused with other great Irish-Israeli journalists such as Yitzie Flanagan, Moishe Shaughnessy and Dorit O'Connor) has an interesting anlaysis of the recent Israel-Hezbollah prisoner exchange, in which he cites Professor Eyal Zisser of the Dayan Center's position that the Hezbollah is increasingly acting from a position of weakness.

"While the prisoner deal will be a feather in his cap, in the end Hizbullah has a problem," he said. "It actually pulls the rug out from under them and the reason for the organization's existence. Until now, he could say he exists because of the Lebanese prisoners. What is Nasrallah going to say now to those who say the time has come to put an end to it all?"

Zisser said that there is a rising number of Lebanese who are questioning Hizbullah's necessity. Newspaper editorials are saying that there are other, more important matters than the Shaba farms, like the economy.
Furthermore, the flowering of southern Lebanon has also restrained Hizbullah from heating up the border, where even the slightest action draws the IDF's wrath

If Zisser is correct, Israel may finally reap the full benefits of Barak's decision to unilaterally withdrawal from South Lebanon. Up until this point, the decision has had mixed results. The withdrawal sucessfully reduced Israel's casulties along the northern border, and dramatically reduced Syria's leverage in any negotiations involving the Golan. On the other hand, the impact of the withdrawal on the Palestinian front has been calamitous, as it led to a mistaken Palestinian view that the "Hezbollah" approach could have equal success in the West Bank and Gaza, obtaining an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders without the Palestinians having to make the concessions required by the Camp David proposals.


The lessons of Lebanon are important to consider in the light of steady slide of Israeli policy towards a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. Mostly, as this article by Dennis Ross notes, because there are no real alternatives.) There is clearly a serious short-term risk that such a withdrawal will be misinterpreted as a reward for Palestinian terror. However, in the longer term, separation may weaken the terrorist by udnercutting their domestic and international legitimacy.


The real lesson from Lebanon might be that how the withdrawal is executed is critical. The circumstances surrounding the IDF's withdrawal gave it the appearence (if not the reality) of a panicked retreat. In contrast, if Israel is able to fully construct a border fence on its terms, methodically remove the isolated settlements, and maintain the capacity to strike back after any terror attacks, it might be able to execute the withdrawal in a way that minimizes the ability of Palestinian militants to claim victory. If that is the case, the withdrawal creates the context for Palestinian pragmatists to step forward to take advantage of the opportunities for peace that separation brings.

THE MYTH OF ELECTABLE KERRY


Kerry's now fading Iowa bounce seemed based on the myth that the he was the most electable Dem.
There's a pretty strong TNR article to the contrary on this point.


Bush is never going to win a campaign on domestic issues, but he counters with three major strenghts: national security, cultural wedge issues, and affability. Any Dem candidate has to neutralize these strenghts sufficiently to win. On all three areas, John Kerry is a poor choice. Despite his decorated record, Kerry dovish record and hyper-multilateralism will let Bush effectively play the national security card. On cultural issues, Kerry is almost out of GOP central casting with his NE upscale liberal background. And on the 3rd issue, Kerry is going to be easily brushed aside as a dour, liberal pessimist when trying to point out Bush's fibs on education, taxes and healthcare.


The convential wisdom on Dean that he is even more unelectable is probably right - although as the past week has shown he is far more agile a politician than Kerry, and therefore would probably do a better job hammering Bush on domestic issues despite the "angry" label. The other three major candidates all have their weaknesses, Clark strikes me as very likely to appear angry and strident when faced with Bush's bobbing and weaving with the truth. Edwards does not have the track record, nor the policy agenda so far, to cut down Bush's advantage on national security, and for all of Lieberman's wonderful qualities, you would not describe the man as "sunny". Still, any of them stand a better chance than former and current frontrunners. I'm happy to hear that Dem voters in NH are concerned about elctability. I just wish they had a clue about who was electable.

NO, IT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE DEMOCRATS


Tapped completely misreads the findings of the latest AJC study and concludes that the Dems have not lost any ground with Jewish voters. As wrote recently, the numbers say precisely the opposite. Tapped's error stems from not actually reading the findings itself, but instead recylcing second-hand a brutally spun analysis from the Israel Policy Forum., America's premier Pro-Peace-Process think tank. IPF spins the figures by 1) ignoring the rise in GOP affiliation, 2) failing to note the drop in support from Gore to non-Lieberman Dem candidates, and 3) thrusting forward data that shows American Jews remain solidly liberal on cultural issues. (Although, even in the figures given, you can see the 15-18% gap between opposition to Bush on cultural issues and the War on Terror).


The IPF is unreliable on this issue because its agenda is to convince the US to impose an enlightened Beilinesque peace accord on the unwilling parties. Therefore, the idea that by pressuring Israel to make concessions (for its own good in the IPF view) the Dems might lose some votes is problematic for IPF. Unfortuately for the Dems and the IPF, it looks like this is precisely what has and will continue to happen.

KERRY v. LIEBERMAN


(The following is not verbatim, but in essence what they said)
Q: Senator Kerry why were you for the war in Iraq?
A: Sure I voted for the war, that does't mean I was for the war. Bush promised me he'd do it the right way, but he didn't. What I voted for was a war in which Bush used force after the inspectors caught Hussein red-handed and the UN told us to act. Since we didn't do this war the right way, we shouldn't have done it all.
Q: Senator Lieberman?
A: It was a just war. Bush's fibs and incompetence doesn't change that fundamental fact.


If we had had President Kerry, Hussein's sons would still be raping Iraqi brides, Hussein's scientists would still be working on setting up WMD production to start up the moment France suceeded in getting the sanctions removed, and Hussein himself would still be funnelling oil money to terrorists. If we had President Lieberman, we would have a liberated Iraq and would be precious months further along to rebuilding Iraq's economy and developing its democracy.


There is no doubting John Kerry's personal courage. I have serious doubts about his political courage. I have no doubts about Joe Liberman's.

WHAT THE DEMS MUST UNDERSTAND TO CHALLENGE BUSH ON FOREIGN POLICY"


Thomas Friedman has provided a useful service to the Democratic party by setting up the ground rules for what the Dems must understand in order to effectively critique Bush on foreign policy.

Without a serious Democratic critique of the war ? and I define "serious" as one that connects with the gut middle-American feeling that the Islamist threat had to be confronted, but one that lays out a smarter approach than the Bush team's ? Mr. Bush has gotten away with being sloppy and unprepared for postwar Iraq.

...To be successful, Democrats will need a candidate who understands three things...:

First, this notion, put forward by Mr. Dean and Al Gore, that the war in Iraq has diverted us from the real war on "terrorists" is just wrong. There is no war on "terrorism" that does not address the misgovernance and pervasive sense of humiliation in the Muslim world. Sure, Al Qaeda and Saddam pose different threats, Mr. Marshall notes, "but they emerge from the same pathology of widespread repression, economic stagnation and fear of cultural decline." Building a decent Iraq is very much part of the war on terrorism.

Second, sometimes smashing someone in the face is necessary to signal others that they will be held accountable for the intolerance they incubate. Removing the Taliban and Saddam sent that message to every government in the area.

Third, the Iraq war may have created more hatred of the U.S., but it has also triggered a hugely important dialogue among Arabs and Muslims about the necessity of reform.

However, Friedman crosses over into wishful thinking when we he claims that only Dean doesn't get these principles, while "Kerry, Lieberman, Clark and Edwards do." The grimmer reality is that the mainstream Dem opinion is precisely the other way on all three points, and only Lieberman (who barring a miracle comeback in NH seems on his way out of this race) has clearly expressed views that line up with Friedman's principles.

Clark's central critique of Bush's Iraq policy is the very "diversion" nonsense that Lieberman takes Gore & Dean to task for. Kerry, who opposed the 1st Gulf War, is not exactly an ardent supporter of the 2nd principle. And the #1 concern I have about Edwards is precisely that he hasn't said anything that demonstrates he's onboard with these principles either (his brief references to foreign policy in his stump speech suggest otherwise).


It's true that in rejecting Dean for Kerry, the average Dem is making the point that it doesn't object to the use of force per se; but contrary to Friedman's (and my own) hopes this does not signify that they have shifted from opposing Bush's Wilsonian goals to focusing solely on Bush's flawed policies that undermine these goals.

THE DEMS FOREIGN POLICY MYTHS


If want a snapshot into the myths that underlie the Dem's incohernet foreign policy, here is a key snippet of Pelosi's response to Bush's foreign policy.

Instead of alienating our allies, let us work with them and international institutions so that together we can prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and keep them out of the hands of terrorists.

Myth#1: The alienated ally (which one are we talking about here anyway - the French who went out the way to spring Saddam from sanctions, or the Saudis who were real helpful before the Iraq invasion). The only evidence we have of "alienated" allies is that the same countries who didn't want to deal with the Iraq problem before the war didn't want to help out afterwards.


Myth#2: That we have international institutions capable of address WMD proliferation. A serious critique is that Bush is doing nothing to build such institutions. To say he should have counted on the IAEA to handle Iraq is nonsense.

Instead of billions of dollars in no-bid contracts for politically connected firms like Halliburton, and an insistence on American dominance in Iraq, let us share the burden and responsibility with others, so that together we can end the sense of American occupation and bring troops home safely when their mission is completed.

Myth#3: The U.S. insists on American dominance in Iraq to funnel money to Bush's cronies. First, Bush would love to end "the sense of American occupation," but wants to ensure that the building of Iraqi democracy is actually done right. Speeding along towards elections before the other essential institutions are in place is madness. And up until now, the rest of the world is pushing for just that. (The fact that Bush can dole out a little pork to his cronies is a side benefit).


Myth#4: There are somehow additional foreign troops willing to serve in Iraq if we just asked nicely, and once we do, we can bring the troops home quickly. Not even Chris Lehane believes this one.

Instead of the diplomatic disengagement that almost destroyed the Middle East peace process and aggravated the danger posed by North Korea, let us seek to forge agreements and coalitions; so that, together with others, we can address challenges before they threaten the security of the world.

Myth#5: Bush's disengagement destroyed the Middle East peace process. This is the most dangerous myth being trotted out by the Democrats. It is dangerous because it fails to recognize that 1) the process was destroyed by Arafat before Clinton ever left office, and that 2) All of Clinton's engagement at the end of the day left the parties worse off than before. The fact is that Bush's engagement (the Road Map) has been better than his non-engagement, but both were better than the Clinton's photo-op driven diplomacy.


Truth#1: Bush has screwed up pretty royally in North Korea, mostly because he his policy has been stalled by ongoing Neocon-Hamiltonian turf wars. Which of course leads to the best critique never made of Bush - that he has time and time again failed to step in when his "wise men" (and Condi) don't agree on the right course of action.

BUSH'S NATIONAL SECURITY AGENDA


While the rambling second half of the SOTU drifted off into election-year pandering and incoherence, in the first half Bush painted a clear picture of his national security policy.


Continuing to turn to Aschcroft, not Ridge: On the domestic front we got a plug for a renewed Patriot Act, and not much else. Considering the continued gaps in domestic security funding (and the political way that funding is doled out - shafting NYC isn't going to cost Bush the election), it appears Bush will continue to rely on the Justice Department to catch and hold (idefinitely) the right people.


Speak Loudly and Carry a Big Stick: Line of the night most misunderstood by liberals was the following: "for diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible..." Liberals immediately linked the term credible to the Iraq WMD debate on which the Bushies have a serious credibility problem. But that's not what Bush was talking about at all. He meant credibility as to whether or not America would back up its threats with the use of military force. On that point, the toppling of the Saddam regime speaks for itself, and as Bush rightly noted, spoke quite loudly to Gaddafi.

Islamic Terrorism is a Military, not a Legal Problem Yes, some Democrats actually do want to "serve our enemies with legal papers" (The latest example being General Clark's latest comment on Saddam Hussein). I'm not sure what it is precisely that attracts liberals to approach terrorism from the same perspective as narcotics control, but two guesses are (1) the unwillingness to accept the ideological aspect to the conflict - that the violence is not in the name of profit, but power; and (2) the standard globalist fallacy of confusing the relative decline of state actors in an increasingly global world with their irrelevance.


Rejection of Multilateralism for Its Own Sake: The "permission quip" while cute was a bit of unfair caricature of the Dems actual position. Unfortunately, in their anit-Bush zealousness, the Dems are moving steadily towards such a ideological embrace of multilateralism. This is particularly ironic in that the central critique of Bush is that he embraces ideologically-driven unilateralism. However, for better or worse, the pragamatism of the Powell Hamiltonians has tempered the passion of the Neocons & Jacksonians. Bush is right therefore to trumpet working through the U.N. on America's terms over working through the U.N. on France and Germany's terms.


Democratization:
Bush rightly placed democratization of the Islamic World as a centerpiece of anti-terrorism strategy. The silence of the Democrats (outside of Lieberman) on this issue is deafening.



So, there we have it. Bush will fight Islamic terror by coercing the direct sponsors by force or the threat of force to cease their support, and by drying up its roots by promoting democracy in the region. Given that much of the international community does not see Islamic terror as an ideological issue (but rather as a law-and-order concern), the U.S. has not and will not wait to get everyone on board before acting. So far this strategy has kept the enemy off-balance and unable to strike. Bush is clearly counting on that to continue, because the Patriot Act and color-coded signs isn't exactly a comprehensive back-up plan.

BUSH'S DOMESTIC AGENDA


Fiscal Policy : The main plank of Bush's domestic agenda remains massive tax cuts for the wealthy, in this case making these tax cuts - in this case removing the disingenuous sunset provisions from the cuts in the first term. As for the deficit, Bush plans to address it with rhetoric.


Cultural Issues : The second main plank of Bush's domestic agenda is to promote a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage. Its not that Bush really plans to spend any political capital on the issue, but rather it makes a wonderful election-year sideshow to mobilize the religious right and to distract blue-collar culturally right-of-center voters from the rest of Bush's domestic agenda or lack thereof. Bush also proposed micro-initiatives such as money for abstitence programs, public school drug testing (sorry kids, we can't afford chalk...but we do have plenty of vials for urine samples), and the serious issue of steroid abuse in professional sports (camera pan to Tom Brady).


Socioeconomic Issues : Here Bush put forward two initiatives, his recent Temporary Worker Program on the issue of immigration reform, and his plan to partially privatize Social Security. In addition, Bush played defense on Education and Health Care. With regard to Education, Bush put forward a fantastically unambitious selection of meaningless micro-initatives (for example inviting Math and Science professionals to teach part time in high schools) under the grandiose title of "Jobs for the 21st Century." On Health Care, Bush proposed a series of shopworn proposals that merely tinker around the edges. No doubt, the centerpiece (especially against Edwards should he take the nomination) will be tort reform.

Faith-Based Social Service : This issue actually straddles both cultural issues - in that it serves as a wedge issue along cultural lines, but in fact is a plan to address social needs. Under a truly Compassionate Conservative agenda, this issue would be the centerpiece. (However, somehow in the GOP's version of the Gospels, Jesus comes out for deep tax cuts for the rich.) That being said, in this area, Bush 1) pushed for the codification of his executive action removing barriers to government funding for faith-based social service providers, and 2) offerred a 4-year $300 million Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative, which appears to have the fingerprints of evangelical prisoner advocate, Charles Colson, all over it.




All in all, a pretty uninspiring agenda that fails to address the yawning deficit, the growing disparity between rich and poor, the antiquated and incomplete health-care system, environmental concerns, and our underfunded education system. All of the Democratic candidates will propose a radically better blueprint for how to adress all of these issues. The question is who will be able to convince the American people 1) that this is true, and 2) that they should choose their president accordingly.

STATE OF THE UNION


Quick take on Bush was that he plans to hold fast on foreign policy, tax cuts, and opposition to gay marriage. On just about everything else - education, health care, even prisoner rehabilitation he plans to return to the 2000 strategy of Compassionate Co-option. The big difference now is 1) he's doing it in the face of massive deficits, 2) he's trying to fool moderates on domestic issues for the second time. So the challenge for the Dems is to do what Al Gore could not - uncover Bush's lies without getting tagged as negative, pompous or strident. I can't think of a Dem politician worse than John Kerry for this job except for...Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle. In their anemic response they pretty much encapsulated why the Democrats are currently the minority party in both houses.

GUEST BLOGGER - JILL ON THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY


And now, a special guest blog, from Jill "I can't believe I'm blogging on my fiance's stupid blog" Goldenziel

For me, the Democratic primary is becoming a process of elimination.  I can’t vote for Dick Gephardt because he changes his positions more often than I do in yoga class, and for reasons that are even more self-involved (ed. note: since this was written, Gephardt has changed his vote on whether he was running - he's not anymore).  I can’t vote for Howard Dean, as much as his grassroots candidacy appeals to me, because I supported the Iraq war and would continue to support less-botched attempts to root out terror.  And now, I can’t vote for John Kerry because he is anti-woman.  His implicit jab at Dr. Deborah Steinberg Dean tonight, by informing Iowans, out of the blue, that you just can’t win a race without the support of your family, absolutely flies in the face of the liberal principles Kerry supposedly supports.  Maybe it’s true, though: John Kerry certainly couldn’t win any office without the support of his family, since he needed his wife to bankroll him every step of the way.  But Howard Dean seemed to be doing just fine without his wife, and Dr. Deborah Steinberg Dean seemed to be doing just fine without him, keeping her patients healthy, keeping their children sheltered from the race, and opening a new door for women as she showed that a politician’s wife need not only cater to his ambitions.  Howard Dean should be commended for not asking his family to make their lives revolve around him, and he should be judged on his own merits as a candidate, not the choices of his family members.  John Kerry, on the other hand, should be morally disqualified for his backward, antifeminist remark, and for his backhanded tactics.  So who’s left?  Hmm . . . Clark and Edwards haven’t really pissed me off yet . . . .

The preceding has been a guest blog. These views do not necessarily reflect the views of Off the Pine. However, I agree John Kerry is a tool.

AFTER IOWA


In an absolute stunner, John Kerry wins the Iowa caucuses, with John Edwards finishing a strong second, Dean a distant third, and Gephardt eliminated with a poor 4th place showing. This showing completely scrambles the race going into New Hampshire. For the life of me, I can not understand the appeal of Kerry. Personal heroism does not substitute for a coherent foreign policy. He offers nothing original on domestic issues, and lacks the charisma to compete with Bush.

The good news out of Iowa is the rise of Edwards. While along with every other Democrat not named Lieberman, he lacks a coherent foreign policy he at least has some good instincts (voting for the war). The real strength of Edwards however is that he is both the most innovative candidate with respect to domestic policy, and has the communication skills to put Bush on the defensive in the general election. If Lieberman doesn't make it to New York (which considering the self-destructive interests of this party is a likely possibility) hopefully John Edwards will. If the Dems can't put their best message forward against Bush, then at least they can but forward their best messenger.

MCNABB HEADING FOR ELWAY'S FATE?


My beloved Eagles have now reached their 3rd straight NFC championship, and for the second year in a row at home. On the plus side from last year is that the Eagles have a healthy McNabb, playing at the top of his game. On the minus side, they also enter the game without their gamebreaking scatback (Westbrook), top linebacker (Emmons), half their defensive line rotation, and with their best corner (Vincent) banged up.


Which means in a odd way they currently resemble a late-80s Broncos team, one with a do-everything QB with a so-so supporting cast on offense (substitute Staley, Pinkston et al. for Gerald Wilhite, Vance Johnson and co.) and a good, but not great defense led by a hard-hitting safety (substitute Dawkins for Steve Atwater) who because the front 7 isn't dominant has to make more than his share of tackles. The result I believe will be quite similar. McNabb will heroically lift the Eagles over the hump to the Super Bowl, only for them to get soundly beat by a more-complete team led by a stingy defense (the Patriots, with Tom Brady playing the role of Phil Simms). I hope I am right this Sunday and wrong SuperBowl Sunday. After all, the long suffering fans of Philadelphia are long overdue.

JEWS FOR W.


The AJC has released a study showing Bush getting more than 31% of the Jewish vote in a potential race with Howard Dean. (Dean 60%, Bush 31%, undecided 9%). The same poll showed similar numbers for Kerry (59-31), Gephardt (60-31) and Clark (59-29), but a higher margin for Lieberman (71-24). To put these numbers in perspective, in the 2000 election, Gore thumped Bush 79-19.


Unlike, say soccer moms or Nascar dad, American Jews are neither sizable (approximately 2.2% of the population), nor generally swing voters. Still, they vote disproportionately (some estimates suggest the Jewish percentage of the electorate is as much as twice the size of the population) and are concentrated almost entirely in the following large states: New York (8.7%), California (2.9%), Florida (3.9%), Illinois (2.2%), Pennsylvania (2.3%), New Jersey (5.7%), Maryland (4.0%) and Massachusetts (4.3%). (Together those states comprise over 3/4 of the American Jewish population while only 2/5 of the total American population).


Since the New Deal, American Jews have been and continue to be one of the most reliably Democratic constituencies in the nation. According to the findings of sociologist Charles Liebman, assimilation and/or prosperity have effectively minimized the gaps between Jews and rest of America on economic issues (although I happen to dispute this, given the fact that Liebman is comparing the relatively well-off Jewish community to the American public at-large, and not others with similar income), but with respect to cultural issues, stand out as left-of-center.


So, given the profile of American Jewry as economic moderates and cultural liberals, its not surprising to see the last two major shifts in Jewish voting patterns, 1) the decline of Democratic dominance in the 70s & 80s with the Republican capture of the suburbs (with Nixon '72, Reagan '80,'84 & Bush '88 getting from 31-39% of the Jewish vote) and the revival of Democratic dominance under in the 90s as part of the coastal professional exodus from the GOP (Bush '92, Dole '96, Bush '00 getting less than 20% of the Jewish vote).


What then to make of the current trend, which shows not only Bush erasing the Democratic gains of the past decade among a group that should be continuing to trend Democrat (after, we're not talking about a group that overlaps too much with NASCAR dads), as well as the jump from 9 to 16% of Jews who identify as Republicans since 2000 (Democratic identification fell from 58% to 51%)?


In the past, Jewish Republicans were pretty much confined to three groups, the first being the Orthodox (especially the Ultra-Orthodox) who rather than being repelled by the cultural conservatism of the GOP, were drawn to it. In addition, Ultra-Orthodox communities resemble groups such as the Mormons to the extent that their own extensive communal social welfare net makes them prefer on the whole lower taxes and less government services. The second group is less affiliated affluent Jews who vote Republican based on pocketbook issues. The third, and historically smallest group were the single-issue Israel hawks who voted with the Republicans out of a belief that the GOP's hard-line in the Cold War would translate into more support for hawkish Israeli policies.


So where is the additional support for Bush coming from? Demographics suggests that the first group is growing, but only by a percent or two. The reality of assimilation is slowly driving an increase in the second group as well, but only marginally. So, the most likely explanation is that the push is coming from the third group - those who base their vote on Israel.


It should be noted that the real hard-liners were already in the GOP camp, either as part the core GOP hawks or as part of the religious camp. So what we are dealing with is the GOP opening up an edge among American Jews with more intense connection to Israel, but whose views are still in the mainstream. There are multiple for this gap, ranging from Bush's clean break from Oslo to Bush's approach to the War on Terror (and the Dems denial that it is a war) which all interlink. More on what this means for Israel, American Jews, and the Democratic party at a later point.

[note: unfortunately, this is not the complete original post, which somehow got garbled when posted to the archive, I've tried to reconstruct it the best I could]

THE CLEAR CONSCIENCES OF LIBERAL HAWKS


Slate is currently running a roundtable discussion by a group of eminent liberal hawks on reassessing their support for the Iraq war, with the benefit of the experience of the past year. In particular, we now know that: 1) all of the evidence found so far indicates that Iraq's WMD program was signficantly less developed then thought; 2) that the Bush administration was deliberately misleading in its selling of the war, 3) our relations with Europe and other allies remain strained; and 4) the rosiet post-war scenarios have not come to pass.


So far, its been interesting to note the gap between the Wilsonian idealists (Friedman, Berman, and Hitchens) who supported the war primarily as a strategic response to the challenges of Islamic terror (and linked moral response to the tyranny of Hussein) and those of more Hamiltonian/globalist bent (Pollack, Packer, and Fred Kaplan) for whom the more concrete, direct threats posed by Hussein's regime took precedence.


For the first group, whom I happen to belong to, there are no regrets. None of the errors made by the Bushies in their pre-war diplomacy or blinkered post-war planning, nor the dishonesty evidenced in their selling of the war, changes the fundamental correctness of the decision to liberate Iraq. For the second group, it is a more difficult question. Some like Kaplan (and Joshua Micah Marshall who is not included in this dicussion) dropped their support for the war when it became clear how the Bushies were going to conduct it. For others, like Packer and Pollard, it is a harder assessment, given that the immediate threat of WMD was not the only justification for the war.


The issues raised in this discussion are important ones. For the Wilsonians that believe that Bush's macro-policy on the war on terror is right, can the manipulative selling of the war to the American public be dismissed? For the liberal Hamiltonians that saw Iraq primarily as an issue of rogue states and WMD, what is was and is their alternative plan to pop as Friedman calls it, the "terror" bubble? Certaintly they have something more in mind than a manhunt in the mountains of the Pakistani-Afghani border.


Unfortunately, you won't be hearing these issues discussed any time soon in the most important of liberal circles, the Democratic primaries. Instead you'll hear and endless stream of arguments from Dean and Clark on why the voters should replace an administration that gets the big picture right and mismanages the details with one that promises to get the details right but hasn't got a clue about the big picture.

TNR ENDORSES JOE


Not exactly a shocker here . But this section of the endorsement bears close reading.

Most Democratic strategists seem to view Lieberman's brave, consistent foreign policy record as less valuable against Bush than the military experience of John Kerry or Wesley Clark. But the assumption that the Democratic Party can make itself credible on defense through the personal heroism of its leaders trivializes its problem--much as the Republican Party does when it finds black and Hispanic spokesmen to sell its urban policies. The Democrats' national security problem stems from the public perception that its leaders lack a clear, aggressive strategy for defending the country at a dangerous time. Neither Kerry nor Clark--who have taken contradictory positions on the war in Iraq and opportunistically opposed the $87 billion for Iraqi reconstruction--have addressed this crisis of ideas. Lieberman has.

I would go further. The Dem's national security problem stems from the reality that its leaders lack a clear, agressive strategy for defending the country. The Dean wing, embracing the worst of the party's Jeffersonian instincts makes the argument that such a strategy is not necessary and in fact counterproductive. The centrist/Clinton wing (at first embracing Kerry, now rallying around Clark) fundamentally treats national security as a political, and not an ideological problem to be solved by putting a military hero in front of a muddy mix of consensus Hamiltonian-globalist ideas. The stark reality is that for Wilsonian Dems, who believe that the best way to ensure American freedom is to export it throughout the world, Lieberman is not just the best address, but the only address.

E-A-G-L-E-S


For the 3rd straight year, one game from the Super Bowl after McNabb's fantastic performance (and the not-so-fantastic performance of the Pack's coaching staff) in the clutch.

BUSH SEEKS TO CUT OFF THE EL NORTE OPTION


With the recently announced immigration initiative, Bush has once more demonstrated the political savvy that makes him such a formidable opponent for even a competent Dem challenge in 2004. As any astute observer of the electoral map realizes, the Dems have three possibilities for victory – 1) to pry away Florida or a few other swing states in the South (Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee); 2) to sweep the entire Rust Belt, which in effect requires them to not only hold Michigan, Pennsylvania and Illinois, but also to end decades of Republican dominance in Ohio; or 3) to ride the rising tide of Latino voters to victory in the Southwest (Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado). It is painfully obvious that a Dean candidacy, with its unabashed embrace of the cultural left, has no chance of employing the first strategy, and little likelihood of succeeding on the second. On the other hand, the Southwest Gambit was a least a decent gamble. If Bush’s courting of the Latino vote can close the gap 10%, Dr. Dean’s campaign’s is pretty much DOA, no matter how high he stokes the flames of the Dem base.

POLITICIANS DON'T PANDER


Perhaps the greatest example as wishful thinking as the title of a book, at least one politician - Howard Dean - doesn't pander on the issue of religion (or at least can't be bothered to pander properly). First, there's his revelation that he swapped denominations over a dispute about a bike path. Then, there his quotes about how he'll talk about Jesus (but he'd really rather be talking about more important things) when he campaign down South, because the public religiosity is, after all, an integral part of the Southern milleu. Finally, there's his response to the question about his favorite book in the bible (which happens to be Job), in which he can't help but put in a plug for biblical criticism. A refreshing candid embrace of his secularist-WASP roots, yes. A recipe for diasater outside of Latte America? Yes, again.

FAREWELL, TUGGER


A moment of silence for the late, great Tug McGraw, who provided me with my greatest sports memory - his leap of joy off the mound at the end of Phillies one and only World Series championship in 1980, which as a giddy 7-year old, I watched from the right-field bleachers of the late, not-so-great Vet. He live forever in the hearts of Phillies (and even Met) fans everywhere.

THE FOUR AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY TRADITIONS TODAY


As soon as I have a significant bloc of free time, I plan on writing a full-length essay utilizing the competing traditions of American Foreign Policy framework developed by Walter Russel Mead in Special Providence to analyze the current policy disputes and their impact on partisan politics. However, because I consider these terms indispensible in understanding issues such as the Dems inability to shake the wimp label (as addressed in particularly unoriginal NY Times Magazine cover article this weekend), I will lay the four traditions out in shorthand for future reference.


Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian tradition is named after Alexander Hamilton's vision of America as a great power of international commerce. The Hamiltonian school is multilateralist in that it believes in the forging of strategic alliances to craft a global order that is conducive to America's national interests. It is realist in that it views America's national interest largely through a material lens (access to national resources, free trade) and advocate pragmatic means at achieving this. The Hamiltonian tradition is the most aligned with international foreign policy traditions and the dominant tradition among the bipartisan foreign policy elite.

Jeffersonian: The Jeffersonian tradition is named after Thomas Jefferson's vision of America as an ideal (yeoman farmers, small government, social equality) democracy. It is isolationist in that it believes that foreign interventions are corrupting (alliances with un-democratic governments) and are impediments to America's domestic goals (through the buildup of a large military etc.). Jeffersonians are idealist in that they believe that America's foreign policy means should be consistent with America's liberal and democratic values. Jeffersonians tend to advocate a minimalist/humble approach to American foreign policy.

Wilsonian. The Wilsonian tradition is named after Woodrow Wilson's vision of America as the global champion for liberty and democracy. Wilsonians are idealist and interventionist in that they believe that the central tenet of American foreign policy should be the promotion of democracy. Wilsonians are the most likely to advocate for interventions based on moralistic, as opposed to traditional national interest, jusitifications.

Jacksonian. The Jacksonian tradition is named after Andrew Jackson's frontier populism, and code of martial honor. Jacksonians are unilateralists who embrace views of American exceptionalism (inclduing notions of America as the true bastion of liberty) and are opposed to any long-term international commitments. Jacksonians are realists to the extent that they do not believe in limiting the use of force (or other policy measures) necessary to promote America's interests.


There are obvious divisions within each group, and certain policy-makers straddle the lines between traditions. In the context of current American foreign policy, two such groups are particularly important.



Neocons The Neocons straddle the Wilsonian and Jacksonian traditions. As Wilsonians, Neocons are committed to promotion of the American ideals of liberty and democracy as the central principle of American foreign policy. As Jacksonians, the Neocons are hostile towards international institutions and multilateral policy solutions, believing that they act to unduly constrain American power in favor of the status-quo



Globalists Globalists straddle the Hamiltonian and Wilsonian traditions. As Hamiltonians, Globalists are committed to the expansion and strenghtening of global security and trade organizations. As Wilsonians, Globalists seek to promote human rights through alliances and international institutions.




The political problem for the Dems, is that Jeffersonians make up a major part of their base, while the far more numerous Jacksonians not only make up a major part of the GOP base, but also predominate among swing voters in the South and parts up the Midwest. Dean, despite all efforts to demonstrate that he is in fact a mainstream Hamiltonian/Globalist Dem, has surged to his front-runner status by playing off Jeffersonian anger at the war in Iraq. The odds of him successfully pivoting in the general election to erase the first impression of him as a Jeffersonian dove (a la McGovern) are slim. Meanwhile, as the NY Times article notes, with the exception of Lieberman (and to some extent Gephardt), the rest of the candidates, Clark included, have drifted towards the path Dean has blazed.


The policy problem for the Dems is more disconcerting, however. In an effort to distance themselves from the hated Neocons without adopting the knee-jerk pacifism of their Jeffersonian grass roots, the Dem foreign policy elite has latched on to the Hamiltonian critique of Bush's Iraq policy: the lack of international consensus, and the absence of a "real" national interest" implicated in the mission. In doing so, the globalist Dems (Albright, Clark, etc.) who fought so bravely for humanitarian intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo are standing shoulder to shoulder with those missions harshest critics and parroting the same lines. The failure to support the uprooting of a genocidal tyrant who did pose at least a medium-term security problem with his WMD aspirations will not only cost the Dems votes by appearing soft in swing states with Jacksonians, it will cost the Dems their Wilsonian heritage, leaving that vision to be rashly pursued by Neocons, or not at all. If that is the final result of the Dems response to Iraq, they will have lost not just an election, but in terms of foreign policy, their soul.