Police state

This must be what a police state looks like: uniformed officers hovering over a majority of subway entrances and intersections, making their presence felt. Guards standing outside banks, access blocked to public areas. Not what I'd call security.

Allow me to state the obvious: security is a state of mind, not a state of being. Americans were more "secure" prior to the September 11 attacks because we thought we were. It's sick that I can't walk past one of the city's landmarks, the Empire State Building, every day without plotting an escape route in my head. I'm ashamed for this country when I field fear-motivated phone calls from family members. I feel like a ridiculous slave to procedure as I flash my badge at my office building's entrance to the same security guys I've seen there for the past year and a half. And it's downright depressing to read that "[t]he Manhattan district attorney has predicted 1,000 arrests per day, with a strong start on Sunday" ("Protesters' big day arrives," Aug. 28) -- particularly when today I read that only about 250 people wound up in jail.*

I don't deny, in the simplistic terms of a presidential sound bite, that there are bad guys out to get us. I'm just disgusted by our cowboy response. Because the truth is, rather than search for long-term solutions to problems such as these, we embark on short-sighted and -- dare I impugn the motives of our elected officials -- cheaper methods for making us somewhat safer for at least the next four years. I'm not suggesting that "terrorists" -- to use the meaningless label we apply to any group who, in the face of overwhelming Western military strength, ditches the Geneva war conventions -- should be appeased or bought off. But anyone who thinks the past few administrations' interest in the middle east have nothing whatsoever to do with oil, and have entirely to do with promoting Democracy, need only look at the poor, angry third world areas that don't have the same natural resources. Surely, investing in alternative energy technologies would take western capital away from the repressive regimes that help stir anti-American sentiments. Maybe growing a trust in international law might dissuade suicide bombers from thinking their desperation is the only way. This tossing aside of laws as they run counter to our so-called national interests is not a long-term plan, no matter what Lincoln did or no matter what Supreme Court justice said what. Perhaps investing in improved exchange programs, diplomatic initiatives, educational opportunities, and greater incentives for countries that move toward democratic rule (as opposed simply to capitalism -- this means you, China) might do more to foster understanding of America and our way of life than occupation or stationing military bases throughout sovereign nations. Maybe our demonstrated unwillingness to support democracies because we don't like who's been elected is sending the wrong message to the world. None of these things excuse the horrific acts of violent extremists, but instead of pinning the hopes for security on keeping evil-doers from getting us, it's long since time for us to examine how our own policies allow those who hate us to gain their strength.

*For those curious, that's less than 1 of every 1000 protestors (depending on which estimates you use, it could be one of 1 of every 2000) -- compare that to 1 out of every 32 adults in America in prison or on parole. I'd say that's pretty peaceful.

Vietnam surprise?

Geez, I'm posting a lot today. (I posted earlier but I think there's some sort of problem because it never made it here.) Making up for lost time.

Michael Tackett writes:

It is not surprising that this presidential campaign is consumed by a raging debate over a war. It is stunning that the war in question ended in Vietnam 30 years ago. (from "War of credibility in White House bid," Newsday, August 24)

Why the surprise? Conservatives still defend the war. Liberals still deride it. History has never put it to bed. And looking at the Vietnam vets paraded across the modern political scene (Kerry, McCain, Cleland, and the entire cast and crew of Swift Boats: The Musical), what's surprising? Modern American national politics is the story of grudges, money, and slander.

Well, it's surprised me how few of these vets in the public sphere applied the lessons of that war leading up to this one. And it should be even more surprising that Kerry, from the beginning, has been taking the emphasis off of his postwar protest (what got him into office in the first place) and putting it on his combat decorations. Kerry clearly has the ability to learn from his mistakes, or at least did as a young man -- meanwhile, he defends his vote granting presidential authority to Bush to begin the Iraq war.

I don't think Kerry is flip-flopping on this; he thinks the lead-up, war, and aftermath has been executed poorly. He thinks if he were president, he'd want that same authority (as William Saletan pointed out), that if he were president, we wouldn't be in the situation. These things aren't contradictory, and I'm confident most voters can handle the "nuance," but something tells me that people who now believe the war was a mistake aren't wishing that someone had done it right, they're wishing we hadn't gotten involved at all. Kerry points to his vote giving the president the authority to screw things up, then accepting no blame for the current situation. (If he didn't trust Bush to do it right, he shouldn't have voted yes, he should've erred on the side of caution and said that any president could potentially misuse that power. But he didn't, either because he believed in Bush against all evidence or because his views on separation of powers was wrong, either of which makes the vote a mistake. Just come out and say it, John, I'll respect you more.) His future plans sound remarkably like the Bush's, but still he insists that he's the guy to lead us back in the correct direction.

There's a huge problem with Kerry's logic: he wasn't running for president in 2000. He wasn't a choice because Democrats weren't concerned about running a guy with military credentials then, because nobody had wrongfully led us into war yet. Even aside from the unverifiability of what he claims, his whole point is moot. But it does call my mind to this question: Why did a guy who denigrated the leaders who were "sending the last man to die for a lie" 30 years ago vote to give the president the authority to go to war, even just as leverage (as he claims)? One of the lessons you'd expect a Yankee liberal Vietnam vet to understand is that there were very good reasons that Congress alone holds the power to go to war. The posturing that went on was amazing to watch, and whether he approves of the outcome or not, Kerry's vote was unquestionably a vote for that game.

Kerry's biggest problem, which he shares with Bush, is lack of foresight. Bush's tunnel vision seems to see about 4 years into the future, sometimes less when convenient. In some ways, Kerry hasn't even shown that much yet. This is the appeal of Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, and David Cobb. I don't even think you need to put up an out-and-out liberal to win stronger support from independents and non-voters, you've just got to have some long-term visions. The issues that many unaffected by the sway of the two-party song and dance worry about are things like safety, the environment, health, prosperity... The question is not, "Are you better off now than four years ago?" It's, "What's going to happen for the next 30 years?" And there's little beyond rhetoric from either Bush or Kerry there right now.

Pig in shit

NYC next week is like my first erection: simultaneously embarrassing and exciting. The last two days have filled my inbox with emails about all sorts of cool stuff offsetting the Republican PR campaign invading New York. First, I heard that one of my favorite bands, Q and Not U, playing as part of the RNC protest, will be at the Knitting Factory on Wednesday the 1st for $10. (More on rock shows later.) Then I read that the Nader/Camejo is swinging into town as well, on what they're billing as the Nader/Camejo 2004 Counter Convention. I'm not going to be able to see Peter Camejo speak on Saturday, which sucks because I don't know a whole lot about him, but maybe I will Monday night. I'll probably miss the march Sunday as well. I have other plans, but to be honest, I'm also concerned about being in the wrong place at the wrong time with those protests. Some of the organizers are refusing to publicly denounce violence and/or property damage, which is probably thinly-veiled code for "go ahead, break stuff, I'll show you how." This tugs my pacifist tendencies in all the wrong ways. I think, given this ABB climate, I'd be avoiding that march regardless. As mentioned, I may check out the Monday night speakers, but for me the main event is Tuesday, the Anti-War Counter-Convention Hyphen-o-thon. Among others, John Conyers and Ralph Nader will be speaking (hopefully cursing at one another), and as I understand, Michael Moore is a supposed maybe (although the event is not listed on his schedule on his web site). Now, about the rock shows: it seems to me this summer more or less sucked for music. True, I was spending my money on things like a trip to Las Vegas (see folders 2004-08-08 through 2004-08-12), thus skipping Q and Not U's show last New York show, and Franz Ferdinand and They Might Be Giants as well. And true, I did pick up TMBG's new record, which is pretty damn good, and their EP, which might be even better. OK, now I'm realizing that most of what I'm complaining about was my own fault. But compare that to the next five weeks: Q and Not U next week, TMBG playing Irving Plaza in the beginning of October, new records from Q and Cake on October 5... then you've got the Pixies reunion tour coming through the area in November... just seems to me that this fall will be way better than this summer was, an atypical year, I'd say. That Springsteen/R.E.M. show would've been good for like $50 less a ticket, too. Next thing you know, we'll hear Dave's ditching the Foo's recent pop format for the good old noise of their first two albums... eh, maybe not.

Don't you love it when the press assumes a controversial point to be fact?

Response to ("Ralph Nader's Shadow Still Hanging Over Democrats" by Martin Seiff, Insight, July 27, 2004)

I would like to object to the implication that Mr. Seiff makes regarding Ralph Nader's 2000 candidacy and, by extension, his effect in 2004. Seiff presents as incontrovertible fact that Nader "cost [Democrats] the presidency… four years ago." But even repeating this ad nauseum in every major press account will not make it true. To begin with, the belief that one candidate can "cost" another an election depends on voters predisposed to "owing" votes to a particular candidate who may or may not best represent his or her positions. Outside of systems of government with pseudo-elections, like Saddam Hussein-era Iraq, this statement is unacceptably presumptuous – and if it's a political reality in the United States, it's not something to boast about.

But even without examining the offensive semantics, Seiff's assertion is questionable at best. Nader's fraction of the vote certainly affected the outcome of the 2000 election – indeed, Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council cited Democratic exit polls (Blueprint Magazine, 1/24/01) showing that Nader's absence from the race would have resulted in a wider margin of victory for Bush (even gaining the popular vote). So even the claim that Nader negatively impacted Gore's vote in just the right places is a questionable assertion. But it also neglects any number of Gore tactical campaign mistakes, Gore's neglect of Nader supporters (and the 50% of registered voters who stayed home), complaints of disenfranchisement in key regions, and many things left completely to chance (like hanging chads).

To be fair, why ought Democrats have engaged in any serious self-examination (of their party or our voting system) to eliminate these potential problems when they could just spend time and money on the campaign trail demonizing an opponent not for his positions or his accomplishments, but for advocating them? Indeed, Seiff's belief that "Nader can still make ALL the difference -- and he knows it" (emphasis added) is a character assassination of the same stripe. It seems the Nader tar-and-feather act is more a scare tactic to pressure Nader supporters, many of whom would not have voted at all in 2000 if not for Nader, into voting for candidates they don't believe in.

Or perhaps it is more aimed at keeping the Democratic rank-and-file in line as the "big tent" drifts rightward in the wind. Now this would have been a real strident but substantive angle for Seiff to tackle: many Democratic voters, unconvinced by Nader's attacks on the duopoly in 2000, are registering their growing displeasure with politics-as-usual through dissent in 2004. Not a "still-hanging" Nader shadow, but a growing Nader shadow.

It begins...

I've been meaning to do this for a while -- "this" being some sort of organized posting of my occasional minutiae. I sometimes have random thoughts, usually political ones, and sometimes I send letters to the editors of vartious papers. They don't always get printed (apparently it's easier for a straight guy to get published on planetout.com than a liberal in New York Times, for those who are keeping track), so perhaps at some point I'll post the older ones.

Today I saw a bunch of articles focusing on the campaign to keep Ralph Nader off of the ballot in swing states. All along this has struck me as undemocractic but I think it just dawned on my how downright immoral it is. And while I'm not the sort of guy to resort to throwing this word around lightly, I dare say it's downright undemmocratic. In fact, in my response to the New York Times article An Ad Campaign Asserts a Bush-Nader Alliance by Mark Glassman, I do:

The Democratic operatives at TheNaderFactor.com ought to be ashamed of their anti-American push to keep Ralph Nader off certain ballots. It's one thing to disagree with a person's politics, but what does it say about the state of this country when strategic differences inspire mudslinging – and the slander is aimed not to elect a candidate, but to remove a ballot option?

This further demonstrates that democracy does not top Democrats' agenda. In an age where they have been complicit in siphoning the vigor of our government (for evidence, see the high number of uncontested local primaries, bipartisan redistricting ploys, term extension legislation, and other power grabs), perhaps I am foolish to be surprised by their disrespect for voters.

The electorate can see very clearly that Democrats and their surrogates will do anything to woo potential Nader voters, save one: address the reasons we can't stand the two major parties.