Don't Bring The Boys Back Home

Jim Henley nicely nicely summarizes why I have little patience with those who advocate unconditional withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.  What’s particularly demoralizing about this is that was depressingly obvious before the war, yet no one in either the pro- or anti-war camps wanted to consider it at the time.

King Of The Shaggy Dogs

Eric reads all three volumes of Neal Stephenson’s The Baroque Cycle, and then proceeds to spoil it.

The Bomber Always Gets Through

It took less than 24 hours after the London bombings last week for me to get so tired of Edward R. Murrow impersonations that I was ready to report the next violator to Gregg Easterbrook.  Then on Sunday I was listening to NPR’s Weekend Edition interviewing Charles Wheeler, a BBC correspondent who lived through the Blitz, and I decided that we could learn something from the comparison after all:

Well, I was very young—I was about seventeen, eighteen—and to be honest with you, I quite enjoyed it.  It was exciting.  The main thing about it was we expected bombing; we’d been told for years that the bomber always gets through.

What was true for easily-identified Luftwaffe planes is as least as true for domestic terrorists, as the British population learned in the 1970s.  Andrew Sullivan waxed Churchillian in his praise of the British response to the recent attacks, but (perhaps it would sound flat coming on the heels of his annual Independence Day bathos) he stopped short of judging the British attitude toward terrorism superior to that of Americans.  Such restraint is polite but misplaced.

It has been nearly four years since 9/11, and the American government has shown much more interest in keeping its population in a state of paranoid narcissism than in instilling public resolve.  We’ve added two hours to everyone’s air travel time and confiscated a landfill of nail-clippers, even though it’s an open secret that baggage screeners are under-trained and over-worked.  We’ve declared open season on harassing, detaining, and extraordinarily rendering immigrants and foreign students, despite the fact that welcoming such pilgrims has always the best way to spread the modernity meme/virus that so threatens the jihadists.  We’ve made it politically feasible to discuss extra-Constitutional incarceration of U.S. citizens, as if this weren’t the gravest possible insult to every serviceman who gave his life defending "The Land of the Free."  And we’re conditioning ourselves to accept an ever greater level of militarization and fear-mongering in every area of our lives, even though it in no way decreases the likelihood of a terrorist attack.  This is not how you win a war.  It is, apparently, how you win elections.

At the end of this month, I’m taking my three-year-old son for a weekend trip from Seattle to Portland via Amtrak.  As an urban resident in the 21st century, I fully expect to observe plenty of unattended packages and suspicious behavior, but I do not expect to notify the authorities of anything more threatening than an unsanitary restroom.  I owe my son what we as a free society owe ourselves: the dignity to live our lives unbowed and unfettered by either the solipsistic fantasies of our enemies or the paternalistic bullying of our government.

Kulturkampf

In the weeks before the election, I would ask supporters of Bush or Kerry a question intended to reveal the degree of irrationality with which their support was held.  My question was: "If you alone could decide the outcome of the election, what would you accept in exchange for voting for the other guy?"  I placed no limits on demands; if you would give the election to the other guy for a lifetime of daily massages from Jude Law, well, I thought that was rather revealing.  I would always offer my answer: I would have easily countenanced a Bush victory if it meant that we could get rid of the Electoral College and go to a straight national popular vote in presidential elections.  Sometimes I would modify this with a pitch for Instant Runoff Voting, but only if my listener had shown a willingness to look at the election from a larger perspective.

In trying to come up with an answer to the corollary question, "What would you not accept in exchange for guaranteeing the election of your candidate?" it would probably have been helpful to have some suggestions, but I have no doubt I would have rejected a guaranteed Kerry victory had the price been that Kerry would have had, as Bill Clinton allegedly advised, to endorse the 11 state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.  As dreadful as this election result is (generations will weep at what is about to happen to the Supreme Court), for Kerry to have endorsed these amendments would have amounted to a national rejection of the celebration of human dignity and common sense we witnessed last spring in Massachusetts.  Not only would this have been a soul-compromising betrayal of the first order, it would also have been a political failure; as Harry Truman said, "Give the people a choice between a Republican and a Republican and they will choose the Republican every time."

The outcome of the 2004 election was determined by many factors, some of which we cannot know.  Much has been made of reports that Bush supporters cited "moral issues" as a primary motivation for their vote, and I don’t doubt that these reports are more-or-less accurate.  I take issue, however, with the notion that Democrats should somehow accommodate such narrow-minded bigotry; trying to ape the manners of zealotry comes across as condescending at best and "flip-flopping" at worst.  If one needs further convincing of the folly "reaching out" to the Fundies, ask whether, had the election had the opposite outcome, the religious right would subject themselves to self-doubt, recrimination, and calls to accommodate their opponents.

But we don’t have to ask; this precise scenario occurred just six years ago, when this electorate—currently being reviled by the Dems as hopelessly intolerant—rejected the inquisition impeachment proceedings led by Tom DeLay and Ken Starr (and funded by Richard Mellon Scaife) and added to the Democrats’ number in Congress.  Did the Fundies ask themselves, How did we so misjudge the American people?  Indeed not; they were reinvigorated for the struggle ahead and persisted in fund-raising and organizing, often below the radar of the national media.

After Pat Buchanan gave his infamous "cultural war" speech at the 1992 Republican convention and Bush-41 went down to defeat, many on the left assumed that there was no longer a need to fight.  The Cold War was over and soon the Internet Boom was upon us; getting exercised over and becoming politically active in opposition to the Blue Meanies seemed so, well, Eighties.  My wake-up call came during the Starr investigations, when I read that Linda Tripp was motivated to assist the hunting of President Clinton not (primarily) because she thought capital gains taxes were too high, but because she was offended by White House staffers wearing jeans.  That’s when I realized how dangerous it was to ignore the Bluenose Right.

More important than refusing to pander to the Fundies is reclaiming the language of morality.  By accepting this "morality gap" at face value, the left surrenders perhaps the most revolutionary idea of the American experience: that we are a pluralistic society that tolerates, respects, and even celebrates diversity of values.  From the Bill of Rights to the principle of checks and balances, the U.S. Constitution is animated by the belief that no one value system should hold enduring sway over the national conversation.  Americans who demand that all branches of government agree with their positions on not only taxation and foreign policy but also private morality and religious affectation are disregarding our basic civic traditions.  These traditions are best exercised by remaining brazen, loud, and unembarrassed about our support for stem cell research, contraception education, and weddings for homos.

Regarding conspiracy theories of (another) stolen election, of course claims supported by evidence should be vigorously investigated.  The element of gravest concern to me has to be the widespread adoption of electronic voting machines that—for very suspicious reasons—were designed not to leave a paper trail for auditing in case of controversy.  Nevertheless, if one sincerely believes that such unaccountability endangers the integrity of the election, the only proper response is enjoin the election beforehand; permitting one’s candidacy to appear on the ballot forfeits one’s claims to a priori election fraud.  Of course, I have no objection to the scandal and litigation growing so noxious as to create an environment where the controversial voting machines are more likely to be banned, but that’s a different goal from trying to prove, without evidence, that Diebold stole the election for Bush.

Keep in mind that Bush’s margin of victory in 2004 was the second smallest in history (no guesses as to the first) and there’s an argument to be made that Rove & Co. wanted it that way.  Maps like this one flatter the religious right’s position in the culture wars and denigrate that of the left (both secular and religious).  On 12 December 2000, it was impossible to imagine the number and variety of catastrophes George W. Bush would wreak on the nation, but on 11 September 2001, it was obvious before the first World Trade Center tower fell how he would obscure them.  If one is looking for a name to assign to the region (of the spirit as well as the country) that preferred to validate the leadership of a calamitously incompetent executive and unabashedly supra-Constitutional bully, go with the simplest:  Cowardland.

Marching Orders

Shortly before the polls close, I plan to retreat to an undisclosed location, and I will likely be incommunicado for an indefinite period.  I have therefore compiled the following list of instructions to follow in the event of ElectoRupture:

• Keys to the cabin are cached within the torso of our Halloween scarecrow, now returned to the back porch.  Avoid the ruts for the first five turns on Spur 12; the anti-tank mines have been armed.  If you’re approaching the lake by air, set your IFF transponder to CA41823.
• Monitor aluminum prices.  If it rises above $1.15/pound, cease drinking anything other than bottled water (or Bushmills).
• Credit no report of my death absent first-hand observation of DNA cross-matching with registered samples, including scanning for serial numbers to eliminate cloned tissue.
• In the event of my verified death, I assign all authority and responsibility to Kevin Hamilton Bruce of Frederick, Maryland; he alone possesses the wisdom and resources necessary to prevail in the coming dark days.
• Tell him "yes" on #1 and "no" on #2.
• Under no circumstances summon intervention from Great Cthulhu.  It turns out that, when one factors in the impact on Pacific Rim trade, ushering in the Age of the Old Ones would actually be worse than a second Bush Administration.

Fall Colors

I haven’t been contacted lately by the local Democrats, probably because the 32nd District is very safe.  Nevertheless, I have already been the (relatively) unwilling recipient of KE04 bumper stickers and yard signs, which languish—undisplayed—in my closet.  Now, I don’t question the marketing doctrine which shows that such advertising has a positive effect; I’m quite sure it does.  But it does so in a completely irrational manner; many people (consciously or not) simply want to vote for the popular candidate, whomever they perceive that to be.  This is basic marketing, and I would hope that any competent campaign targeting an electorate any larger than that of a local precinct would exploit it.  I cannot bring myself to participate in it, however, for reasons that approximate personal ethics.  You see, my reaction to simple bumper stickers and yard signs is to raise my hackles; how dare you imply that I should vote for someone just because a forest of colorful bunting confronts me every day as I commute to and from work.  There’s no argument, no persuasion; just, "Vote with us because we’re a big mob."  It offends my sense of civic duty.  So while I hope the swing states are carpeted in KE04 blue, our yard will devote its space to more seasonally appropriate displays and my car’s bumper will reserve its blind alliegance for a more deserving cause.

Do As I Say

Here they are: Eric’s endorsements for the general election on Tuesday 02 November 2004.  Note that not every ballot selection carries an explicit endorsement; some choices were made less than rigorously.

We live in a republic, not a democracy.  We elect representatives to make our laws for us so we can get on with more immediate issues, such as following professional sports.  As a general rule, therefore, initiatives should be considered attempts by special interest groups to hijack the legislature, and referenda should be considered attempts by craven legislators to delegate their job duties to amateurs, all at the taxpayers’ expense.  I don’t know what the fuck an "Advisory Measure" is, but it sounds like a publicly-financed opinion poll.  Absent extreme overriding concerns, therefore, the dutiful citizen should vote NO on all initiatives, referenda, and ballot measures.

Initiative 872:  Yes This initiative, born of an infantile reaction to the elimination of the Washington’s First-Amendment-violating blanket primary, is the worst of all the primary election options yet proposed.  Nevertheless, I hope it passes because I believe the major parties when they say that if I-872 passes, they’ll pull out of primaries altogether and nominate their candidates in conventions, which is how it should be. Initiative 884:  No This initiative is endorsed by all the right people and opposed by all the right people, and I very rarely say no to increased public school funding.  However, it also makes use of two of the worst blights upon Washington politics: sales tax and dedicated funding.  Sales tax is horribly regressive and Washington’s is already the highest in the nation.  I am sympathetic to the Leninist argument that "the worse, the better," i.e, that we should make the system worse so that the people will support revolutionary change; therefore, we should increase sales tax in order to improve the climate for the obvious solution: dumping sales tax altogether and adopting a state income tax.  Such sympathy, however, does not exceed that I extend to those in lower tax brackets whose disposable income will be eroded over the years until the Glorious Revolution.  Dedicated funding is just as benighted.  What’s next, submitting the state budget to referenda? Initiative 892:  No Lower property taxes, more slot machines, Tim Eyman completes his political comeback; no thanks. Referendum 55:  No I ♥ Public School Bureaucrats. Initiative 297:  Yes What’s the worst that could happen—all our nuke waste jobs are outsourced to Nevada? King County Charter Amendment, Question 1:  No Gridlock good, Tim Eyman bad. King County Charter Amendment, Question 2:  1B King County Advisory Measure 1:  Don’t ask me. King County Advisory Measure 2:  Dock the pay of whoever let this crap get on the ballot. President/Vice-President of the United States:  Treebeard/Pippin United States Senator:  It’s Pat. Patty Murray is as dumb as a post and her voting record is undistingushed.  Doesn’t matter a damn; this is about blocking Evil judicial appointments and restoring gridlock to Congress, and Murray is a loyal Democratic lickspittle. Congressional District No. 7 U.S. Representative:  Baghdad Jim I voted for Joe Szwaja in 2000 out of pure anti-incumbency pique.  McDermott’s got one of the safest Democratic seats in the House, and four years ago I thought he might be in danger of becoming too lazy and comfortable.  Whether his trip to Baghdad in the Winter of 2003 was a luxury that only a politician with a safe seat could indulge or a genuine response to the relatively strong showing by Szwaja, I think it was a tactical error.  Nevertheless, McDermott was one of the very few people in (the other) Washington who clearly, forcefully, and timely spoke out against the Administration’s fear-mongering after 9/11 (even if he should have done so from the Capitol steps rather than the Baghdad Sheraton). Governor of Washington:  Sherbie With a divided and spineless state legislature, a visionary governor might be able make major improvements.  Unfortunately, Locke has done little but ape the worst of Clintonism’s pro-corporate centrism, surrendering the initiative (pun unfortunately intended) for statewide reform to the likes of Tim Eyman.  On the major state-level issues that motivate my vote (tax reform, gay marriage) Locke’s administration has been a whistling void of leadership.  I have seen nothing from the State Democrats to challenge the impression that Gregoire will be more of the same.  I even have philosophical reservations about Gregoire’s one signature achievement, her participation in the tobacco settlement; it was a terribly paternalistic precedent to set, everything that I hate about contemporary liberalism.  I’ve been searching high and low for something about Rossi that is so vile that I would be compelled to vote for Gregoire, but I haven’t found it.  So I’m going with Sherbie. Lieutenant Governor:  Take This Job And Abolish It Jocelyn Langlois promises to do away with this bucket-of-warm-piss job, and I concur. Secretary of State:  Sam the Eagle Sam Reed fought to keep the puerile blanket primary, but there’s no question that when he did so he was following the will of his constituents.  On the other hand, he understands the need for ballot paper trails. State Treasurer:  Sherbie State Auditor:  Sherbie Attorney General:  The Owl Lady Deborah Senn sees through the cant that passes under the name "tort reform" and recognizes if for the corporate payoff that it is.  More importantly, she has the right enemies. Commissioner of Public Lands:  The Tree Hugger Superintendent of Public Instruction:  Dump the WASL Judith Billings is agin’ the WASL, Terry Bergeson is fer it.  Vote for Judy. Insurance Commissioner:  Deborah Senn II State Legislative District No. 32, Representative Position 1:  Eric Emme I never vote for unopposed candidates, unless I know them personally, which is the case with Emme. State Legislative District No. 32, Representative Position 2:  Eric Emme State Supreme Court, Position 1:  Not Jim Johnson State Supreme Court, Position 5:  Sherbie State Supreme Court, Position 6:  Not Richard Sanders Some people say Sanders "energizes" the judiciary.  I used to think the same thing about Antonin Scalia. State Court of Appeals, Divsion No. 1, District No. 1:  Sherbie King County Superior Court, Position 23:  Andrea Darvis King County Superior Court, Position 42:  Catherine Moore

Black As The Devil, Sweet As A Stolen Kiss

A long walk for a short Americano.

Margin of Litigation, cont'd

Mark asks for a clarification:

What is your actual prediction on this topic?  That the networks won't announce a winner?  That there will be enough uncertainty that a significant number of people expect the election-night results to be overturned?  Or just that some lawsuits will be filed and a few will hem and haw a bit?  Or are you talking about just non-specific further disillusionment with the electoral college? The last two seem likely, the first two not so much.

While some networks might be more hesitant than they have in the past, I’m sure they’ll all declare a winner; there’s no ratings in agnosticism.  I’m convinced that a "significant" number of people will expect election-night results to be overturned; Bush v. Gore exposed too many previously-unexamined flaws in our election regularity, and every report since then has indicated that it’s just gotten worse.  Add this to widespread perception of both parties engaging in "dirty tricks," and you’ve got an electorate ready to (dis)believe anything.  More than a few suits will certainly be filed; I’m sure both parties targeted likely districts long ago (Any Democrats hiring paralegals/legal assistants in King/Snohomish Counties?).  Further disillusionment with the Electoral College will just be a bonus.

The systematic obstacle to litigating as many results as possible is that there is a financial cost.  And some amount of public ridicule, which will vary with perceptions of legitimacy.  I think the cost of doing so twice in a row will be high enough that it's unlikely for the Dems to do it again unless they're pretty sure they'll win.  The Patricians may try it, hoping the "turnabout's fair play" defense outweighs the hypocrisy of doing so after screaming about losers who try to l[itig]ate elections.

Of course the cost of litigation limits its employment, but I’m sure the parties have come to consider it a "cost of doing business" and will spend the money where it will have the greatest effect.  What has changed is the public perception of the propriety of post-election litigation.  I’m a bit startled by the version of events of the 2000 election implied by the characterization, "the Dems … do[ing] it again."  It takes a pretty blinkered perspective to conclude that the 2000 election would have acceptably sorted itself out had the Democrats not committed the breach of submitting it to litigation.  I’m not aware of anyone outside the Republican base who believes that, and I’m not aware of anyone inside the Republican base who would let (the perception of) hypocrisy prevent them from engaging in similar litigation where they thought they would benefit from it.  As lamentable as it may be, we have "defined [electoral] deviancy down."

I think it'll (continue to) be fairly uncommon for there to be a serious amount of uncertainty regarding the next president beyond election night.  If I were to wager, I'd go as high as 5:1 against, if we could come up with some working definition of "serious uncertainty".

Sounds like whistling past the graveyard (vote) to me.