Category: Politics

Largely because of this post, I’ve been thinking about Bush’s faith-based initiatives some more. Bunch of aspects to this. Let’s break ‘em down.

First off, yes, this is advantageous to Bush politicially. As NPR pointed out a few nights ago, this will demonstrably and directly benefit some portions of society which have tended to vote Democratic in the past. I’m sure Bush knows that. I also don’t think it’s relevant to whether or not the initiatives are a good idea.

Second, there’s a question as to whether or not Bush had the right to issue this executive order. That’s the one that says religious groups can receive federal grants even if they display religious symbols in their facilities or discriminate in hiring on religious grounds. As Daily KOS pointed out earlier this month, this may be more rightfully a Congressional decision. In fact, discussion of this topic stalled in Congress last year. I dislike the idea that something devolves to Presidential decision simply because Congress is stuck on the issue.

Third, is it a good idea? I think yes, with caveats. Bush specifically called out some continuing and unaffected requirements for faith-based groups recieving funds. First, they can’t discriminate in who they help. Second, they can’t use the grant to proselytize. Those are key points, and he’s got ‘em covered.

The handbook (PDF) providing guidance to faith-based groups on these issues is worth reading, to get an idea of how careful Bush is being. Example question: “If someone asks me about my faith, can I share it with them?” “If someone asks you about your personal faith while you are providing a government-funded service, you may answer briefly. But if you wish to have a longer discussion on matters of faith, you should set up a time to speak with that person later.” I think that’s a fairly good balance between the right of a volunteer to free speech and the necessity to distinguish between church and state.

OK. So that’s the good. Now, the bad.

Critics who say that this could erode the separation between church and state are correct — they’re only wrong if they claim such erosion is inevitable. The biggest danger is that Bush will find his administration in the position of determining which religions are acceptable. It is utterly essential that Bush makes sure that the grants aren’t slanted towards any one brand of religion. It would be unfortunate (that’s dry sarcasm, there) if we looked up a year into this and discovered that no Islamic organization had gotten any grants. For that matter, the Church of Satan better be able to get a grant if it wants one. (It doesn’t; Satanists of that stripe are devout individualists. But you get the idea.)

Mind you, in one sense, this problem is no different than the question of which non-faith-based groups get grants; favoritism is favoritism. However, we ought to acknowledge that religious groups do occupy a special place in their ability to sway minds. That means we need to take more care with them. Fact of life; not an insult to religion by any means, but a recognition of the special role it plays in our society.

Withholding federal grants from religions isn’t a way to discriminate against religions; it’s a way to avoid favoring one over another. Characterizing it as the former (and Bush did that) is a disservice to the real danger.

Virginia Postrel commented on Bob Jones University last year. Good stuff, and an interesting postulate which makes a lot of sense. I found the link in a recent post of hers regarding the nature of the Southern Christian right. No perma-link, alas. She says there that “the South-based Christian right is not a racist movement. Billy Graham won that debate. Bob Jones lost it.” I tend to agree with that, but I would add the caveat that if Bob Jones University is the sort of place that’s producing Southern Republican political candidates (which is her assertion in the earlier piece), then the nature of the Southern Christian right is not entirely relevant to the nature of Christian right-wing politicians.

Some further thoughts on assumptions; I continue to blame Mike. And of course Trent Lott, who has provoked a furor of discussion which could be useful but will no doubt turn to partisan bickering — oh wait, it already has.

Trent Lott is, in my eyes, most likely a racist. While his most recent statement could be construed as flattery to an old man and nothing more, we have other evidence. We have similar statements he’s made in the past, one of them off the record (if it’s confirmed) and thus unlikely to have been scripted to win over the crowd. We have his appearance at rallies to raise funds for all-white private schools. We have his voting record. We have a preponderance of evidence.

On the other hand, we have George Bush. Bush spoke at Bob Jones University. There’s no doubt that Bob Jones University has a racist administration; they forbid interracial dating. Does that make Bush racist? Nope. It means, at the worst, that he’s willing to seek the support of racists in order to get elected. You can decide for yourself how bad that is. I think it’s pretty bad, but it’s not as bad as /being/ a racist. There are, in this world, shades of grey.

Now, you can get two kinds of bad spin out of this, interestingly. One way to misrepresent this is to accuse Bush of being a racist. That’s unfair, I think. Another way to misrepresent this is to claim that I’m calling Bush a racist when I’m just saying he’s willing to associate with racist individuals to get votes. That’s also unfair.

Both pretty effective debate tactics, though.

Cold Fury clarifies his earlier statements, and I believe I thus owe him an apology. I can’t hold being closed-minded against him, either; I think that people on the left are just as likely to be closed-minded in exactly the same sort of a way. You think (say) Atrios believes a word Bush says without some sort of evidence? Nope.

Nor should he, any more than Cold Fury should believe Democratic politicos. Hidden agendas are the nature of the beast. The Republicans accused Max Cleland of being a pacifist! Pointing your finger at the left as the only people who do this is simply silly. “Did you know John McCain has an illegitimate black child?”

Now, I think Trent Lott’s comments were pretty clear, and I remembered his involvement with Bob Jones University, and so forth. Still, I can understand holding off a little. On the other hand, I would hope that people will remember this, and the next time a Democrat says “This guy’s support of Bob Jones makes him suspect,” they’ll listen. It’s not always crying wolf.

Nonetheless: my apologies for the mischaracterization.

Conventional wisdom in the blogosphere is that everyone’s up in arms about Trent Lott, with harmonious accord. At the worst, there’s some confusion about which bloggers broke the story first. Well… I gotta kick that one around a little, and shed some light on the warblogger world.

Mischa says, “Listen, folks: If you wanna get rid of Trent, it’s no skin off of my nose, I couldn’t care less. I never liked the guy to begin with. But would you please, please, PLEASE try to come up with a reason that’s even half-way intelligent?”

Cold Fury says, “I don’t really think the man is a raving racist; I think he was merely spouting a little half-baked fluff to pump up Sperm Thurmond at his party, that’s all. But the truth is, he simply has to know that he’s under a media microscope, and as the Republican standard-bearer in Congress, our useful-idiot mainstream journalists are just waiting for him to make any stupid move at all that they can pounce on. If he doesn’t know this, then it necessarily follows that he’s too damned stupid to be allowed to speak in public, much less speak for the Republican Party on anything more pivotal than whether to have the fries or the baked potato with lunch.” I.e., he needs to quit because he makes Republicans look bad. But he’s a nice guy at heart. Sure.

So do a few quotes mean anything about warbloggers as a whole? Nope, not even close. The vast majority of bloggers on all sides of this issue think Lott should resign because he’s an unrepentant racist. However, I’m trusting the rest of the warbloggers will remember that some of their comrades are on the side of the segregationists.

There are more reports that Bush has sanctioned assassinations. Except they’re not assassinations, because the targets are enemy combatants and thus legitimate targets for lethal force. Well, OK, but I really don’t want to see any complaints about atrocities if Colin Powell or Bush gets assassinated by Al Qaeda. If it’s OK to target leaders on the other side of a war, and we’re in a war, then it’s gotta be OK for both sides.

Saddam’s still not off the hook for his attempt to assassinate Bush Senior, though, since Bush wasn’t an enemy commander at that time. Even from Iraq’s perspective.

The January 2003 issue of Esquire contains an interesting article about Bush’s White House. I’m not entirely certain what to make of it, but it’s certainly good reading. The meat of the article is a fairly scathing portrayal of a White House where policy is set by Karl Rove, whose main concern is political advantage. As a sidebar, Esquire presents the primary source material: a letter from John DiIulio, detailing his concerns about the current administration.

You’ve got to wonder if this sort of thing is simply a trench war between branches of the Republican Party, in which one branch is using the press to good advantage. Actually, you don’t have to wonder that — it’s fairly obvious. The catch is that it’s not an ideological battle per se. It’s a battle between the concept of politics as a means towards advancing an ideology, and the concept of politics as an end in itself. In other words, are you trying to win so you can make the country better, or are you trying to win because winning is important?

To a certain degree, even that’s an oversimplification. I think that Bush does want to make the country a better place. I just think that he feels ideology is secondary to that effort. He believes in governance of the well-intentioned. This means that he can’t see the necessity for controls; since he would never abuse near-dictatorial powers, he should receive those powers so that he can do a better job.

Daily Kos recommends that Democrats “back off Lott, and for heaven’s sake, don’t call for his resignation. He’s more valuable to us alive than dead.” I think this is allowing the thrill of the competition to distract one from the destination. Politics are, in ever-glorious and rather deeply flawed theory, a tool for governing the country well. Putting aside the goal of doing good by the country for the sake of political victories is, well, the sort of thinking that reminds me why I’m an anarchist. It’s too damned easy to slip into tactical thought when considering politics: “What would be best for the Republibertariocratic Green Party?:

I have just a little more on the Ninth Circuit gun control decision, to start off the morning. How Appealing pretty much sums it up here, here, and here. This is why he’s a practicing lawyer and I’m just an interested party.

I was particularly interested in this SF Chronicle article, which talks about Judge Reinhardt and his approach to the law. It discusses what I think is admirable about the recent decision; namely, Judge Reinhardt’s tendency to confront cutting edge issues head on.

Daily Kos has an excellent summary of Trent Lott’s recent comments on Strom Thurmond. I, of course, have Cliffs Notes:

Trent Lott is our Senate Majority Leader. Strom Thurmond is the guy who ran for President in 1948 on a segregationist platform. Senator Lott’s comments include “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”