Being careful of what we wish for

Michael Gerson has an excellent reminder for us, today, in the Washington Post, of the terrible tragedy that awaits an effort to take the easy way out of Iraq.

An Exit to Disaster

It is the most tragic fact of all in this terrible, terrible period of action and reaction, without regard to vision or deeper thought about our actions.

We invade a country with very little thought or discussion or debate given and with much pressure for Americans to shut up and get with the bandwagon.

Then, when things don't go as planned, we clamor and pressure to abandon the security responsibilities of a country that didn't ask for the security nightmare that we created for it, again with very little seriously and honestly engaged thought or discussion or debate.

It is the single most important reminder for me for why popular moments and popular reactions are not the same thing as good, decent, and thoughtful choices in my lifetime. There have been many times in my life when I have made choices that were not popular that would only show fruits years later and would involve some sacrafices of immediate gratification in the moment.

But I have never faced a time when it has been so clear to me that Americans are persistently choosing and pressuring for options that address their immediate fears and frustrations, but which do not give enough thought to the longer term consequences of those actions.

I have made similar choices in my own life. So I know what it's like to act foolishly without enough thought.

But we will be responsible for the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, at this point, whether we want to face those consequences or not.

We seem to have become a nation that wants and will pressure for what it wants when it wants it, consequences be damned. We are facing the likelihood of the most dangerous consequences we have risked yet: the inexplicable tragedy of plunging a country into a civil war and then attempting to wash our hands clean of that responsibility by abandoning our subsequent security responsibilities in that country before the governing authorities are ready to take over those responsibilities.

Doing so would not satisfy the Iraqis, nor the activists clamoring for such a withdrawal, nor the American people reacting to the political moment. It will only make the tragedy all that more inexplicable.

And the only good that will come of it, in the face of so many unnecessary deaths that America will have on her hands, will be the opportunity for Americans, all Americans, rich and poor, liberal and conservative, intellectuals and average citizens, to face our hubris and the failures wrought by our self-righteous ideological power struggles and our belief that we, finally and always, know what is best for others enough to force them into submission.

It is a tragedy too great to ignore. I can only hope that we will find courage, which, up till now, we have confused with our cowardice.

Surely we can be worthy of more faith than that.

Love,
Ben

Thank goodness

President Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence

And fuck the Huffington Post and Democrats in Washington for their bloodlust in this case.

I can't stomach this godforesaken political era anymore. Is cynicism and revenge the only prevailing values in Washington and America these days?

And if so, why in the world would Washington and America think that they have earned the right to lead the world? And why would Washington believe that Americans would or should look to Washington for leadership?

Perhaps our lust for power has so blinded us to decency that we can't tell the difference anymore.

One thing is for sure. Cynicism does not grow anything. So eventually Americans and the world will have to look to where they can find ideas with which they can lead their lives as they discover that they cannot count on Washington to lead their lives.

Thankfully, there are too many signs that they are looking beyond Washington to lead their own lives to ignore. Those close to power may miss those signs in their efforts to rationalize it. But its pretty clear that this last gasp for force and power to rationalize itself as decency and better ideas for living will not outlive the next generation.

The great part about working with young people is having an ear to how they think about the world. And one thing is for sure: force will not be the governing philosophy of Americans for very long. Ideas about governing and the use of force will be necessary. But force as a blunt tool has lost much serious support among average people, in my experience, especially young people, during this period. Which is to their credit. George Orwell would be proud.

And the most hopeful fact that arises out of that trend is that people may then begin to try to do what they have needed to do all along: to lead their own lives, independently and together, without looking to Washington, government, or anyone beyond their own developing judgments and consciences, independently and together.

And that is a future that might transcend the moral and intellectual bankrupcy of power and its obsession in Washington D.C., which this convinction was a function of much more than anything good or decent.

We can only hope that it signals a better, more honest and genuine liberal democratic future for America. But, in the meantime, it means something almost as meaningful. It means that a decent man doesn't lose his freedom.

Love,
Ben

The tragic consequence of our romanticism of the law

Radley Balko writes in Reason magazine about the most tragic consequence of both our romanticism of the law and the most recent moral panic we've experienced around sex and sex crimes.

Blinded by the Law

A 17-year-old boy, Genarlow Wilson, is sentenced to 10 years in prison for oral sex with a 15-year-old girl at a New Year's Eve party. The sentence was overturned. But the prosecutor will appeal arguing, "It is my responsibility to follow the laws of Georgia as they are written, not how some may wish they were written."

As Balko argues:

"In other words, as the Charles Dickens character Mr. Bumble famously proclaimed in "Oliver Twist," "the law is a ass." And it's Thurbert Baker's job to slavishly follow that ass wherever it may lead.

That, unfortunately, is an increasingly common sentiment among many prosecutors-"I don't make the laws, I just enforce them." It's also not entirely honest.

Prosecutors have enormous discretion in when and how and against whom they bring charges. They can overcharge and pressure the defendant to plea bargain. They can undercharge if they feel there are mitigating circumstances associated with the crime. Or they can determine that despite the fact that a crime has been committed, in the interest of justice, charges ought not be brought at all.

What's more, every prosecutor's office battles with limited resources. A prosecutor can't possibly enforce each law against each person who breaks it. So prosecutors set priorities. And in choosing which laws they will enforce vigorously and which laws they will let slide, they make public policy.

It's entirely appropriate, then, for citizens to question those policies.

So why were the charges against Wilson brought in the first place? Why would Wilson's prosecutors choose to pursue a charge of "aggravated child molestation"-a law clearly aimed at pedophiles-against a teenage boy who had consensual oral sex with a teenage girl? And why would Georgia's attorney general continue to expend taxpayer resources to ensure that Wilson stays in prison?

Part of the answer may lie in the crime's sexual nature. Whether because of latent Puritanism, moral panic or the media's infatuation with them, prosecutors seem particularly aggressive in prosecuting sex crimes. This, of course, is what we want when talking about actual sexual predators. But that clearly is not the case here. And there has been a rash of stories of late about similar overreaches.

In one of the more egregious examples, in February, the tech news site CNET reported a case in Florida in which a 16-year-old girl and 17-year-old boy were prosecuted for producing and distributing photographs depicting the sexual exploitation of a child. The two had photographed themselves having sex. The distribution charge came when the two e-mailed the photos from the girl's computer to the boy's. Inexplicably, a state appeals court upheld the conviction.

From silly anti-sodomy laws, to prostitution stings, to prosecutions of consenting minors, sex seems particularly adept at clouding a prosecutor's judgment.

More generally, after 40 years of "get tough on crime" rhetoric, many prosecutors and politicians have unfortunately come to measure success in our criminal justice system by the number of people they put in jail. Criminal laws-particularly those pertaining to drug and sex crimes-are increasingly written with extraordinary breadth and reach. Police officers typically are rewarded for arrests, not for preventing crimes. Prosecutors tend to be promoted or re-elected based on their ability to win convictions, not their fairness or sense of justice. Appeals courts, meanwhile, generally focus on constitutional and procedural issues. Only in extreme cases will an appellate court review the appropriateness of a verdict.

From the writing of laws to their enforcement and prosecution, our system has evolved to the point where justice, mercy and fairness often go overlooked. It's no surprise that the U.S. leads the world in its rate of incarceration, and by a wide margin.

Polls show that most Americans think our criminal justice system usually gets things right. Yet we're finding through the use of DNA evidence just how alarmingly often it doesn't. Sometimes the culprit is incompetence. Sometimes it's malfeasance or corruption among forensics experts, police officers, DNA lab technicians and other criminal justice gatekeepers.

But as the Wilson case shows, even when there is no corruption, no lying and no shortcuts taken-even when everything is done by the book-you can still get a result that's far from just.

Traditionally, that is why we grant executives the power to issue pardons and clemency. It's why the Founders gave those powers to the president. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 74, "The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel."

Unfortunately, we've drifted from that notion. Today, governors (and the president), loath to appear soft on crime, tend to be stingy with their pardon power, using it more for political patronage or to bestow mercy and forgiveness on repentant lawbreakers than to seek out and correct real injustices. (Georgia's pardons are granted by an appointed pardons board, not the governor.)

That makes it essential that prosecutors choose cases in which there is a clear demonstration of guilt, where the crime caused real harm to another person and where the potential punishment is proportional to the crime. The ability to secure a conviction isn't enough.

In the Genarlow Wilson case, there was no question of the teen's guilt. Yet the jury's forewoman shed tears as she read the verdict. Other jurors expressed regret after the trial, outraged that they weren't told their verdict would result in a 10-year sentence. The point here is that the prosecutors should have shown the good judgment never to have brought the molestation charge in the first place.

Prosecutors need to be more than inveterate slaves to the (often poorly written) law. And more broadly, we need to stop gauging our criminal justice system's effectiveness by how many people it puts in jail. We need to measure it by how well it metes out justice."

That's been my favorite part of this whole period. Noone is responsible. No matter how ugly and wrong the consequences, noone is responsible. Because, as in Nazi Germany, everyone is afraid of the consequences they will face if they do not mete out the consequences that they believe that everyone else wants.

That is one of the most tragic consequences of our romaticism of the law. That it makes cowards of us all, and unwilling to face our own cowardice.

But it is not the most tragic consequence of this godforesaken political period. The most tragic consequence is 16-year-old and 17-year-old kids going to jail for our pride and cowardice and unwillingness to acknowledge our failure to do much good at all with all of this fear and prosecution and bullying in the name of doing good in the world.

The saddest tragedy of the old Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was that so many Russians and Germans cheered and actively supported or said nothing and followed orders towards the ugly ends of those regimes.

And the saddest tragedy of the 21st century is that we are repeating their mistakes out of our own fear and ignorance and cynicism and cowardice.

We have seen the enemy and he is us.

The question is whether we will summon the courage to face our cowardice and the tragedy that it has produced.

Love,
Ben

Dick Lugar and the war

I respect Dick Lugar a lot. As someone who grew up very liberal, in a family of peace activists and poverty lobbyists, Dick Lugar - like Ben Gillam and Mark Hatfield - was a Republican I could trust.

As I get older, and my politics becomes more thoughtful, less ideologically narrow, and more independent, I have more reason to respect Dick Lugar. Because that's the kind of politics he practices. And that's why everyone respects Dick Lugar so much. That and because he's one of the keenest minds on international policy issues on the Hill. And since I'm someone who opposed this war, up front, publicly and with plenty of thoughtful and vocal opposition, you would think that I would welcomeDick Lugar's comments that the President needed to start looking towards a draw-down.

I have to admit, Dick's speech was very smart. Far more thoughtful than the typical boilerplate that fills the halls of Congress. This is a speech you should read, not just read me bragging on it. It is a thoughtful assessment of the risks and benefits, the various interests, a long-term diplomatic and security strategy for the Middle East and Iraq, and a brilliant assessment of so many overlapping and complicated issues related to this war.

I agree with Dick about the constraints on policy that we face and about the need to use diplomacy more assertively and more readily and with more long-term dialogue forums and opportunities more readily available and established. I also agree with him that the most serious and underdeveloped work in the Middle East is more diplomatic efforts that have much more likelihood of earning friends and allies and moderating more the more radical, murderous tendencies of many terrorist groups and winning friends to coordinate military and law enforcement efforts to arrest or, when arrest is not possible, kill terrorists who murder innocent civilians. I wholeheartedly agree with Dick and with the findings of the Baker report and the support from folks like Henry Kissinger and others for a more established, long-term dialogue with Middle East governments and political players around future Mideast policy, especially Arab-Israeli peace.

But I do think that on one major policy issue that Dick is mistaken. I don’t dismiss the Baker report or the need for diplomacy like too many conservatives I read dismiss such efforts for fear that they are too weak to resolve all of our problems associated with terrorism. It is true, as many conservatives argue, that there are many terrorist groups with him negotiation is not likely to be fruitful unless and until they show indications of genuine commitment to laying down their arms. And for many terrorists and terrorist groups, that is not a risk that we should take lightly or pretend that the likes of Al Queda or Hamas or Hezbollah will do so without the risk that military personell or innocent civilians will be used as pawns in game of cynical pressure politics that terrorism is meant to reinforce. Neither, of course, should we take lightly the risk associated with continuing down a road of more militarism that has clearly increased our risks associated with terrorist violence, which has spiked substantially during this period. Nor should be dismiss, lightly, the success of efforts in Northern Ireland to end terrorist campaigns through diplomatic means and the much more substantial steps toward success in Spain and Palestine to do the same, even as those efforts have not ended violence in those areas.

Military and law enforcement efforts will be needed in situations like dealing with Al Queda and Hamas, in all likelihood, and might be needed in dealing with Hezbollah in Lebanon (though there are differences in those situations which make me more hopeful for political and diplomatic efforts to be more fruitful and make military efforts less necessary in Lebanon than, say, with our dealings with Al Queda) as well as diplomacy. Efforts by the Israelis to win support from moderates associated with or responsible for governing in countries that are home to terrorist groups to initiate home-grown efforts to use military and law enforcement in efforts those countries, that respect the sovereign jurisdiction of states and which support the self-determined efforts of populations that live in state-less terrorities like Palestine are a good model of how such efforts might look. Such efforts should operate under the highest integrity – meaning they should seek to arrest and try those who murder for political ends, with truth and reconciliation efforts between populations and within those criminal justice efforts, as much as possible, as a part of that strategy, and kill only as is needed in genuine self-defense in carrying out such law enforcement measures – and should serve as a model of the practical security details that will be necessary to make such diplomacy and negotiations workable.

So, around the broad vision of diplomacy playing a more assertive and necessary role in resolving matters around much terrorism and otherwise potentially violent conflicts between states, Dick and I are in full agreement.

Where I think Dick is mistaken is getting the politics backwards with the substance of this godforesaken situation in Iraq. Dick's explanation for the need for a drawdown was that the country would not support the war into perpetuity, and that the President needed to accept that reality. Meaning, Dick's explanation puts the domestic politics of how long Americans want to support this effort in Iraq above the substantial operational and security needs of Iraqis and a democratically-elected government in Iraq who have made clear that they still need American support, who did not ask for this war and who, all of a sudden, have been thrust into a situation where they have the most serious security emergency that a government can face, without the developed capacity, at this point, to maintain that security, and an American people and government who have basically said, "Sorry we fucked up your country. But we didn't anticipate what a fuck-up this would become when our people supported with huge majorities as we went into this thing. And now that same majority of Americans whose only and most important concern is the security of the Iraqi people that they have stuck with this situation have decided that we just don't want this responsibility on our plates any more. In other words, 'Sorry. Our bad.'"

It's so noble, that sentiment, isn't it? We're such noble defenders of democracy aren't we? And I don't mean President Bush. I mean us. I mean Americans. It's just all so noble, I could cry.

What Dick Lugar said today was, essentially, "I don't have any confidence in this effort anymore. The American people don't have any confidence in this effort, anymore. And we're not going to support it for forever."

Which would be fair enough, except...

Except that Iraqis didn't initiate this thing. We did. And I don't mean President Bush. I mean the robust majority of Americans who supported this war, up front, when it was really difficult for folks like me to oppose it publicly without looking like the biggest pusses in the world and virtually in league with Osama Bin Laden.

And that same mass of noble Americans has now decided, "Sorry bout that. We didn't realize it would be this hard. I know we risk plunging your country into sectarian warfare and genocide - the kind that the very same people who are begging for a pullout are simultaneously and with a straight face begging our government to engage in to intervene in the civil war in Sudan - but we just didn't realize it would be this hard. And while we'd like to help, and we're sorry about the mess, we've got other things to do."

It's all so noble, isn't it? It just inspires the soul, doesn't it?

And Dick essentially argued, today, that this terribly noble - if utterly logically inconsistent - sentiment was more important than the express wish of the Iraqi executive branch (who are clearly in better faith than the Al Sadr-led sectarian Shiite parliamentary majority who voted for an American pull-out for obvious reasons) to have Americans stay until they can handle this situation on their own.

If that government - who is clearly in better faith than any of the other representatitives we've seen in Iraq and represent less than ideal but more noble concerns than Al Sadr or his sectarian Shia representatives in parliament - says, "Americans, we're ready for you to leave," I'm all for it.

But if Americans leave, after plunging Iraq into this insane situation, before the Iraqi government has established substantial enough security that a political solution has enough safety and psychological space to negotiate a workable democratic settlement, and this situation devolves into more serious sectarian warfare and whatever brutal, ugly consequences might come from that, then the Iraqi people and the Muslim world will have reason in the world to look at America and say, "Those are the assholes who threw our country - that Muslim country, for other Arabs and Muslims - into chaos and then bailed and let things devolve into a blackhole of destruction, and wiped their hands clean. Because they stopped feeling like helping us. Oh, and then they moved onto Sudan."

Nothing in this godforesaken political period makes any sense to me at all, is the truth.

FUBAR.

If you haven't seen Saving Private Ryan, in awhile, I recommend it. This whole godforesaken political period. FUBAR. Fucked up beyond all recognition. Doesn't make any goddamn sense.

I don't know if I've ever lived through any political period where I had less respect for the American people. I love 'em. But I've lost a lot of respect for them, right now. Because at every point when they can lame out and choose cowardice over more genuine courage, they take the easy way out. Because it's easier, of course. I've been that kind of coward in my life. I know what it's like to not want to admit when you've fucked up. But as someone who regularly takes the hard route, sometimes the too hard route, I can't respect when people are always taking the easy way out instead of doing the right thing.

And Americans have the gall, right now, to look at the Iraqis and the Muslim world and say, "I know we were all too cowardly to dissent from this war when it needed dissent and we invaded your country because it was the popular sentiment after our country was attacked by people who kind of looked like you, but, really, ideologically, are very different from you and for which there is no substantial evidence (that I've seen, at least) that they were alligned with the asshole who ran your country. And, now, today, I know we are all too cowardly to take responsibility for that mistake and ante up when we created this godforesaken mess for your country."

"But, despite all that. You should follow us. Because all we care about is you and your interests. Oh, and by the way. We're going to force you to follow us, even if you don't want to. Because you've got to agree that we've done a pretty fuckin' marvelous job of leading you up to this point."

It's all so noble, isn't it? Doesn't your soul just sing with all the nobility in America's leadership and the American people, right now.

Dick is trying to address a political reality in domestic American politics, right now. He's trying to acknowledge a reality so we can forge better policy.

But what we need Dick Lugar - above anyone in the U.S. Senate that I can think of, at this moment - to do is not just to acknowledge the reality. We need Dick to lead.

We don't elect leaders so they can pander to our every prejudice and impulse, in the moment. Especially on the big things. We elect leaders to lead.

That's why I don't trust Hillary Clinton. Because at every chance that she has to lead, she panders. At every point that she might show some genuine courage - which involves risk - she hedges and does whatever she thinks the American people want. Hillary Clinton plays consumer politics. What the American people want, the American people get.

And that's why I don't trust her. And that is why I typically trust Dick Lugar. Because he doesn't typically play that kind of politics.

And, these days, what America needs more than anything elss is a leader.

Dick is our best possibility for that in Washington, right now, I think, of the people I am familiar with in positions of leadership.

What we need from our political leaders so desperately, right now, is not people who will do what we demand from them, pressure them, and otherwise bully then into doing.

What America needs, right now, is leadership. We need leaders on this war who will be guided by the most noble concern for the Iraqi people and American forces that we all plunged into this bloody mess and not by more cowardly impulses to do whatever our finicky, whiny, self-centered, child-like, popular moods dictate.

I have confidence that David Petraeus is that kind of leader. I have confidence that Robert Gates is that kind of leader. I have confidence that Frederick Kagan is that kind of leader. I have confidence that John McCain is that kind of leader. And I have confidence that every Republican candidate in the primary will stick with this situation in Iraq, even as they scare the shit out of me with their get tough attitudes on every other question.

I better start feeling some confidence that some Democrats are committed to making sure that we take care of our own mess, here. Because if I don't, I will likely be casting my first vote for a Republican for President in 16 years, 4 elections after my fatal and foolish first vote in my life for President George H.W. Bush over a stronger, if somewhat self-centered President in William Jefferson Clinton.

If we want to do the right thing in Iraq, what we need to do is ask ourselves, "Who in Iraq do we trust most to lead this country out of this mess? And what do they tell us they need from us to make sure that this thing doesn't go more sour than it has already gone?"

To my mind, that is the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki. And I haven't heard them give word that they are ready to take over security without American help yet.

So my vote, and I think the right thing, is that we stay. Even if it is hard. Even if we're not sure, at this point, where this thing is headed. Even if it means a leap of faith that we're having a hard time mustering, right now.

As far as I'm concerned, every American soldier who doesn't want to do this duty should be able to stand down with no shame or dishonor. They should be able to follow their consciences and thanked with deep appreciation for the service they've give their country.

But every man and woman who wants to make sure that the most trustworthy and democratic folks, here, don't get overrun by those with less noble, more power-hungry, and more sectarian and murderous motivations should be supported by the American people until this job is done, which is when the Iraqi government tells the Americans, "We've got it. We'll handle it from here."

Read Frederick Kagan if you want to understand the military and political situation, better, in Iraq, and the specific political realities that American support for the security situation in Iraq will support: a workable negotiating environment for a democratic future in Iraq, a reconciliation process that will be needed to move Iraq beyond the ugly mess that is has devolved into today, and an environment that is more genuinely open for legitimate and honest discussion of what a more ideal democratic government and society in Iraq might look like rather than a democratic compromise manipulated by the military maneuvers of various sectarian militias, insurgents, and terrorist groups for more narrow political advantage. Those are the best reasons for sticking around until the Iraq government says that this situation is under control.

But my reason is a more personal one. For me, it's a matter of owning our fuck-up. As Colin Powell has remarked, these are Pottery Barn rules. You break it, you own it. And we need to own this thing until the Iraqis responsible for the security of their country say they don't need our help anymore.

I didn't favor this war going in. But it's our mess now. It's an American mess, now, no matter how much we may try to pretend that the Iraqi people invaded their own country and just won't get their shit together after all the brilliant and selfless and noble leadership from the American government.

This is our mess. And if we leave, it's still our mess, whether we want to take responsibility for that fact of life or not.

And no amount of domestic political reality will make that larger and much more important reality reality go away. No matter how much we might wish that it would.

Dick Lugar is right to acknowledge the political realities that we face in this war. But we still have work to do. I think every day about joining up in a military capacity in this war, if only to put my money where my mouth is. But I certainly hope that we aren't going to walk away from this thing with me losing respect for the American people because they just can't own up and do the right thing on this one. Because I've faced quite enough FUBAR to last me a lifetime on this war, as it is.

Love,
Ben

A sign of hope

David Broder reaffirms for me that, perhaps, some liberals might have some humility to acknowledge that perhaps, just perhaps, liberals sometimes have illiberal insticts too.

A Victory for Free Speech

The Roberts Supreme Court decision validating Wisconsin Right To Life's right to engage in public discourse about a policy issue they care about was a fine decision and an important rebuke to the illiberal instincts of liberals, these days, when it comes to speech from people they don't like or from sources they find tainted with money or influence they are unduly afraid of.

I don't know if I trust, yet, or not, that liberals or conservatives in established or non-established circles will ever acknowledge their hypocrisies on so many such issues of free speech and issues of freedom, generally.

I do have faith they will do so long after I'm dead. Because it's obvious to anyone not trying to defend those hypocrisies that most political folks have people they identify with whose freedoms they often defend to the ends of the earth and others who they don't identify with for whom they will advocate incursions on their freedoms often seemingly without end.

And it's pretty plain to me, at this point, that the only consistent way out of both this mess of hypocrisy and authority that people have trouble trusting because of the hypocrisy and the many lines of rationalization that it offers illiberal folks - terrorists, despots, secular or religious autocrats, those with theocratic impulses here or abroad - for their illiberal ways - the single most important rationalization for terrorism is that it is a more "committed" - read: stubbornly homocidal - form of political pressure that folks in liberal societies are just too pussy and cowardly to engage in.

And, sadly, many cowardly people in liberal societies think this about themselves, so they romanticize the "courage" of radicals of all stripes who act out murderous plans in the name of political ends. It's all fairly sordid, really, since those who claim the strongest religious or ideologically pure affiliations also often give the strongest support to radicals of various stripes - socialist radicals, pro-life activists who murder abortion doctors, militant environmentalists, Islamic radicals, radicals and militants of every shape and color.

How people who rationalize murder could ever consider themselves moral or right or decent in any way, shape, or form is completely beyond me. But, sadly, it happens all over the political spectrum, in the name of so many different causes.

But the source of so many of their rationalizations is that their more moderate brethren in more established circles are persistently rationalizing more illiberal efforts to deal with difficult issues - pressure politics, the ugliest of political attacks and cynical power politics, the use of radical pressure to warrant "moderate" ends, hyperventalating rhetoric that shuts out more reasonable debate and discussion. Radicals reason that they just have the balls to do what moderates don't have the balls to do. And, too often, moderates will hang their heads in shame at what cowards they are afraid that they are for not joining their more illiberal brethren.

It is the most important dynamic that drives Middle East terrorism, I believe. And it is the explanation for terrorism that is the most overlooked, I think: power. Terrorists want power. Such an explanation would have all of us looking at ourselves in the mirror, which might be why we are so late coming to it.

I've been a more conventional liberal in my life. I've never really rationalized radicalism, because I was quite aware and disgusted with all of the violence and ugliness and murder it wrought in the 1960's and 1970's in America (and long after; the 1992 L.A. riots were a symptom of similar sympathies for revolution and mayhem running under the surface of political life in Los Angeles, I think). But I've known the frustration of wanting a political end so badly - even one that may turn out to be a case of "be careful of what you wish for," since many of the ends in my more conventionally liberal days I am far from enamoured of today, knowing better the limitations of those ideas and liberalism and conservativism and any ideology).

So I know what it's like to rationalize just about anything in the name of being the right ideology with all of the right thinking on any particular issue. And I know what it's like to root for my guys at every point and to root against the other guys at ever point.

I just know from much experience and reflection and thought and engagement with others, today, that it's bullshit, largely because it avoids difficult, thoughtful, engaged discussion of important issues that might resolve problems with more integrity to all people involved. And I want nothing to do with that self-righteous bullshit except to encourage people to come down from their high horses and take some time to take an honest look at so much of the destruction that it has wrought today and over the centuries.

I want us to stop.

And little signs like David's column, today, give me heart that perhaps, one day, it will.

I wonder aloud, all the time, why I still choose to do work that has not really lined my pockets and created plenty of problems for me when I feel so unsure of how quickly people in liberal cultures, nevertheless people in illiberal cultures, will give up all this nonsense.

And the answer I always come back to is that if I had to choose a life where I was rich and famous and had all kind of luxury and celebrity-hob-knobbing available to me and a life where maybe I could contribute some thinking that might help end so much if not all of the needless violence and bloodshed and murder and even the needless incursions on peoples' freedoms, which I think offer all of us the best hope of being responsible for our lives, not because we will do so without making mistakes but because freedom is, in my study and experience, the much more likely route by which people will take responsibility for their lives, and, in doing so, open up visions and opportunities and dreams that can become realities for themselves that could make this world that much better for everyone, well then, I'd rather have a life where, perhaps, we could lessen and maybe remove altogether the sources of the most dangerous and bloody and illiberal rationalizations in the world.

I need financial and personal security in my life, as well, obviously. We all do, when we're not taking for granted what we have available to us.

But my strongest commitment is to a world where my children and my grandchildren will ask me, more, "Why did we all behave like that?" rather than "Why do people continue to behave like that?"

I'm tired of radicalism and the violence and bloodshed and illiberal impositions on the lives of good people that go with it getting truck in Western societies. I'm tired of terrorism and illiberal revolution having supporters that give it political oxygen. I'm tired of self-righteous politics, religion, even philosophy under the auspices of scholarship, dominating and being destructive of so much that is good and needs our appreciation and support rather than our ugly impositions in the liberal democratic world.

And freedom is the most important of these values, because it makes all of the rest of our values available to us, for real, and not just abstractions that we rationalize our basest instincts in the name of. Freedom and liberal values allow us to be more honest with one another, and, more importantly, more honest with ourselves, about who are and who we've been. And, out of that, to acknowledge our failures in our efforts to be better people. And our ability to acknowledge those failures is critical to working toward doing and being better.

Perhaps we will inch forward towards a world where that will be more possible.

Love,
Ben