Where, exactly, is the Democratic Base Going?

The New York Times recently suggested that the Democratic Party needs to look back and regain its base. I don’t see the crisis.

The democratic voting block wants to see the troops come home. The leadership pushed real hard. They didn’t have the votes to override Bush’s veto. Its not rocket science, most voters will understand that it simply isn’t the Democratic Party’s fault that a timetable wasn’t attached to the latest Iraq funding bill.

According to the times article, the base strongly supports the timetable that the Democrats were able to get out of congress. Score one for the leadership, no? Then Bush vetoed the bill. That seems like a strike against Bush, something likely to get the democratic base riled up for 2008, not angry at the democratic representatives and senators.

The majority of the base is also strongly opposed to cutting off all funding for the war. That means that most the base would have counseled the Democrats to do exactly what they did: let the second bill go through to fund the troops. And the Democrats got a minimum wage hike out of the deal.

So the domestic initiatives have been a little weaker than expected. So what? The headlines still show democrats challenging Bush, and the democrats pushing through a minimum wage hike. Other policy weaknesses are receiving little attention.

There is no risk that “some might simply stay home in 2008.” Likely to be another close election dependent as much on base turn out on undecided voters, the base will be riled up to campaign and vote. In fact, the NYT article even predicts how the war issue will continue to hurt Republicans more than Democrats over time:

Either Republicans will follow through on their threats to reassess their support for the war by September, or they will keep voting with Bush and doom themselves in 2008.

Most the anti-war voters will have seen the Democrats fighting to bring the troops home and not blame them for the ultimate failure to do so. Even if the democrats could have eaten more fire over the war, the anti-war vote sure won’t vote republican. And these political savvy voters sure won’t sit out an election or vote third party when an election is coming down to the wire, featuring hot button issues they care about.

The Democrats haven’t lost much ground with their base, and when the Democratic voting block sees their other options, they will definitely jump back in line in the voting booth.

Religious Right Bogeyman? Convince me otherwise

The religious right is polarizing opinion in this country and heavily affecting our political system. Perhaps the Christian right does not fundamentally threaten the nation, but it clearly represents a central stress point between the social and fiscal conservatives within the GOP. And, the alternate reality “Christian Nationalism” has created for it’s some of its followers, as Michelle Goldberg chronicles in her book, Kingdom Coming, is more than a little bit scary.

Admitting that the religious right may not be the downfall of America, the defense of the movement by Star Parker is as ridiculous as it is hypocritical. Her central thesis seems to be: of course the Christian community frowns on single parent families; it’s the most effective way to fight poverty. What?

The “breakdown” in families may be on the rise, strongly correlating to poverty, and quite depressing, but Parker misses the question of causality. You do not become instantly poor by having a child out of wedlock, or living in a single parent family. However, if you are poor, those family structures are significantly more likely to be your own. Single-parent-families may add to poverty, but they don’t make a person poor. Rather poverty is a cause of the “family breakdown.” Shaming people into marrying and staying married will not magically solve the poverty crisis in America, as Parker suggests:

There is no correlation that fits closer to the incidence of poverty than family breakdown.
Yet, we hear about the intolerance and mean-spiritedness of the Christian right because of its unwillingness to embrace single parenthood as a norm or sexual lifestyles and family arrangements outside of what is traditional as a norm.

How can you claim to fight single parenthood and at the same time strongly lobby for abstinence only sex education, which studies have proven have no effect on teen pregnancy? Maybe the Christian right is, just a little bit, obsessed with “abortion and sexual behavior.”

Parker blasts our government for giving away billions in poverty aid to no real effect, in the same article she defends the political groups lobbying heavily for ever greater funding for faith based initiatives. These programs are designed to, among other things, fight poverty. So aid is only effective when given to the religious right? I’m dubious.

Christian organizations, including far right political groups, do tremendous good in America. Their social programs help millions, and their lobbying efforts keep the citizenry politically engaged. However, the religious right has the downside of advocating (often without a willingness to compromise or negotiate) positions which polarize and divide the country, and sometimes even lead to ineffective policies (example: sex education.) The Christian right isn’t all good or all bad, but it clearly isn’t the only effective anti-teen pregnancy, anti-poverty machine that Parker portrays it as.

Why, Again, Does Bad Press Not Matter?

Clinton, her aids, and recently the Washington Post, have shrugged off the impact of the two upcoming books which paint Senator Clinton in a bad light. Everyone seems to believe that stories featuring Hillary and Bill’s rocky past will have no impact on the upcoming election. I beg to differ.

Aids rejoiced because at none of Clinton’s recent events was she asked about the upcoming books. Does it not bother the campaign handlers then, that despite these successful events, the top news stories concerning Hillary are in regards to the upcoming books and not her issue centered interviews? For now Clinton may be able to stay on message with reporters, but the media isn’t following her lead at press time.

And it’s only going to get worse; the two new books aren’t even out yet. When they are released to the public, “both will be backed by major publicity tours and advertising.” That means more publicity for Hillary’s infamous past.

According to the Post article, strategists from both isles admit that references to the past are no help for Clinton. Voters are looking for inspiration for the future, and the more Hillary seems mired in the past, the worse off her campaign for President.

Plus consider undecided voters. This shrinking segment of the population is often considered the critical votes in Presidential elections, with the country almost equally split in party loyalty. The months leading up to the primaries, and the final election (if Hillary is still in the hunt,) will be full of press references to these books. Even articles on other subjects will throw in a token reference to the “unflattering books,” or the rocky marriage, the affairs, the failure to read all the Iraq reports, or the Clinton control conspiracy theories. None of these constant references will help Hillary gain yardage with the crucial undecided voter.

As confident as the Clinton campaign is that these books “don't have any impact on the race,” at some point bad press has to be, well, bad. Instead of dismissing these claims categorically as irrelevant or preposterous, the Clinton campaign needs to develop a more nuanced strategy to deal with her image.

Why Still Hold the Party Line? Why Hasn’t the Line Changed?

It’s now no stretch to assert the Iraq has not been the stunning success the optimists had hoped for, and may even be nearing the disaster the pessimists predicted. It’s easy to accept that reconstruction of Iraq was not well planned for and not well executed. Somewhere, at some level, mistakes were probably made.

A recent Senate Intelligence Subcommittee report suggests that the American intelligence community accurately predicted some of the troubles. The report does not go so far even as to assign blame, so why are some republicans protesting the report? Why does it not provide a glimmer of hope that our analysts were able to understand the Middle East well enough to asses the impacts of American intervention?

The senators complain that it’s inappropriate for the report to disclose names. Why can’t the intelligence agencies make it known which policy makers received their (correct) predictions? In assessing where Iraq went wrong it seems appropriate to know who knew what when.

The only reason to suppress this information is to prevent blame from falling on Bush administration officials who presumably saw these reports but failed to act on them. Why exactly are republican senators still protecting the Bush administration? Bush’s popularity has and continues to plummet, most republican candidates are trying to distances themselves form him, especially on Iraq. For the success of the party and the good of the nation, republicans need to move beyond Bush. Does admitting that reconstruction was botched invalidate any of the President’s successes?

Blind party loyalty continues to slowly grind apart our congress. Legislation continues to stall or disappear in the partisan scuffles (for example the Iraq funding bill which took a month to negotiate into working form.) In such a closely divided congress, compromise will be necessary to effectively operate. Snowe and Rangle should be congratulated for coming across the isle to support the subcommittee report.

The other republicans who chose not to support need to evaluate what exactly they are fighting for. Closing rank around the Bush Administration’s prewar decisions will not help the Republican Party or the war in Iraq. The party should support transparency in an attempt to promote good decision making and to not repeat mistakes.

Our intelligence community has gotten a bad rap, and maybe most of it is deserved. However, this bright spot should be celebrated not hidden away in an attempt to protect those who had good information but failed to act on it.

A Not That Dangerous Percentage

Pundit Diana West recently jumped on the train of those up in arms about the “26 percent” of young Muslim Americans who support suicide bombings in defense of Islam. First, a fact check. Overall, 78% of those surveyed in the Pew study say suicide bombing is never justified, and after factoring in those who “didn’t know” (didn’t answer the question) only 8% actually accepted suicide bombing at all. Even among those thirty and under, only 15% actually came out and supported suicide bombing “rarely” or “sometimes.”

Consider: thinking attacks are sometimes justified does not make a person a security risk or even necessarily a bad citizen. While thinking suicide bombing can be justified may be radical, it’s a far cry from the mindset of being willing to strap oneself to a bomb. Some people consider Palestinians justified in suicide attacking Israel, meaning that a segment of the broader population believes that suicide bombings are “sometimes justifiable.”

They pew survey asked respondents if they believed bombings in defense of Islam could be justified. As long as the core value of religious freedom is respected and upheld in this nation, very few of those respondents should ever feel that murdering civilians is justified in this country. Antagonizing an entire religion as “qualitatively” lesser than our western beliefs is exactly the type of friction which could exacerbate tensions to the point of violence.

That said, 15% is alarmingly, even shamefully high. Nobody is to blame for suicide attacks except the bombers, and an attitude of acceptance is ridiculous. However, the way West addresses that disappointment is as inappropriate as it is damaging. The globe is shrinking and will continue to do so at ever fast paces. Travel, communication and military technology, as well as the ever present process of globalization will bring the corners of the earth closer together. Islam is a major world religion, one that we cannot ignore but instead must come to terms with.

Rather than write off the entire Muslim American population, or even just condemn those that currently support suicide bombing in some form, America must work to change minds. Blindly adhering to political correctness and multiculturalism serves no purpose, but accepting that Islam is here to stay is an absolute necessity.

Islam cannot be vied as un-American, because Muslim Americans are here to stay, and make up a crucial component of our society. Islam is not qualitatively lesser than western culture, nor are Muslims inherently more violent. If it is true that our American society is worth preserving, that is just all them more reason to find a way to work with Muslim leaders to make the two cultures coincide. Rather than dismiss those who support terrorism, and the religion from which they come, and doom ourselves to a loosing war in a clash of civilizations, America must step up and reassert the values of tolerance and mediation.

The Glass is Mostly Full, Let’s See it That Way

A recent Pew Research nationwide survey found that Muslim Americans are “largely assimilated, happy with their lives, and moderate with respect to many of the issues that have divided Muslims and Westerners around the world.” I for one find this news upbeat and reassuring, but columnist Kathleen Parker feels otherwise.

Parker views the minority results, those Muslim Americans who aren’t especially assimilated or happy, as a security threat and a reason to be pessimistic and guarded. She is wrong.

Sixty percent of Muslim Americans think of themselves as Muslim first, American second. This statistic is a lot scarier than it seems, first consider that 63% see no conflict “between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.” Now let’s reflect how unfair the question truly is. If we asked a sample of Christian Americans to pick which came first, their faith or their nationality, you better believe a large part would say ‘Christian first, American second.’

Parker works herself into a frenzy because 26% percent of young Muslims believe suicide bombings are sometimes justifies. Consider: 78% percent of Muslim Americans believe suicide bombings are never justifies, and only one percent believe the tactic is often justified in the defense of Islam. Even among younger Muslims, which Parker considers more dangerous for some reason, only 2% think attacks are often justified, and 69% believe they are never justified.

Also consider: thinking attacks are sometimes justified does not make a person a security risk or even necessarily a bad citizen. While thinking suicide bombing can be justified may be radical, it’s a far cry from the mindset of being willing to strap oneself to a bomb. Some people consider Palestinians justified in suicide attacking Israel, meaning that a segment of the broader population believes that suicide bombings are “sometimes justifiable.”

Parker also expresses concern that only 58% of Muslim Americans would strongly denounce Al-Qaeda. The pew report is clear that “just 5% of Muslims in the U.S. have a very (1%) or somewhat (4%) favorable view of al Qaeda.” That’s not bad at all.

Parker also assumes that the segments of the population that “didn’t know” or “chose not to answer” fell within the more anti-American viewpoint. Again she is wrong in her assumptions. Firstly, the people just chose not to answer the question, we shouldn’t put words in their mouth. Secondly, if a person has anti-American beliefs but is too embarrassed to admit them in an anonymous survey, I’m not to worried about their potential for political or radical activism.

While not every Muslim American is a model citizen, its time to recognize that overall the population is extremely peaceful and supportive of American values and policies. And while of the minority that expresses more violent views a few may actually be security risks, let’s remember there are risks everywhere. History so far proves that Caucasian Americans represent a far greater risk for domestic terrorism than Muslim Americans. Domestic hate groups are in my mind far scarier than Parker’s ominous generation of young Muslim Americans. We need to admit that no section of society is perfect, but that Muslim Americans are doing no worse than the rest of us.

Relax Romney, ABC is the good guy

Mitt Romney recently scolded the media and ABC specifically for publishing stories potentially detrimental to national security. On May 22 ABC published a story exposing the information that President Bush had authorized the CIA to take non lethal action to destabilize the current regime in Iran. The plan includes “a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions” according to the article.

Echoing Romney’s thoughts, columnist Hugh Hewitt categorized the story as “self-serving, and clueless or treacherous dangers to the national interest.” (view his article here) Apparently some consider this story the very ammunition Ahmadinejad needs to stay in power, develop nuclear weapons and take down western civilization

Although some news stories should be withheld in the name of national security, its time to step back and admit that on this particular story, ABC got it right. Bush is a president known both for pre-emotively engaging nations he views as dangerous, and for operating secretively outside the view of the American public.

If our President is planning operations to destabilize a foreign country, the public deserves to know about it. Bush doesn’t have the right to secretly invade, so why is he allowed to secretly use our intelligence agencies to take down a regime. Media silence on presidential actions creates a dangerous environment conducive to foreign policy blunders and a collapse of democratic accountability.

Is Bush’s plan a bad one? Not necessarily. Should it be done in secret? Heck no!

And exactly what damage did ABC do? America uses propaganda constantly; Iran is no stranger to the subject. The game of information and counter information would have continued regardless of ABC’s decision to go to press. We were planning to secretly manipulate Iran’s currency? Did we think Iran wouldn’t notice shifts in their monetary situation large enough to destabilize its government?

If an American operation to overthrow Iran were to take place successfully, it would not occur beneath the radar but would be noticeable to Iranian policy makers. Cluing in the American people is not a security risk but an important effort to keep tabs on our President’s actions. We need to learn to distinguish between genuine needs for secrecy and the overused “national security” battle cry behind which hides every questionable government policy

Hewitt sarcastically asks “is there anything that Brian Ross and ABC News wouldn’t run?” The answer is one those of us outside the news room cannot know for sure. The reason is simple: news outlets receive no viewers, subscribers or add money for the stories they don’t run. If information is a security risk, the military and intelligence agencies should work to plug their leaks, they are the ones who get paid to control information. News outlets are not responsible for in any way hampering the spread of information. In all but the most extreme circumstances the media must go to press with the information it receives in order to stay in business. And once in a while a story should be withheld for the good of the nation, but clearly this story not only was able to run, but needed to be seen.