Master of your own fate

Andrew Sullivan continues to be peeved at President Obama and Democrats for their lack of action on issues of true equality for gays, instead focusing on what he perceives as pointless hate crimes laws. Much of his critique focus on the Human Rights Campaign, and what he sees as a perverse alliance with Democrats who claim to want change but don't really want to do anything to recognize equality.

Andrew isn't entirely wrong on this. But I think his critique with respect to President Obama and much of the Democratic party gets it all a bit backward. This may be a reflection of my own bias, but I don't think the issue is the President or Democratic leadership. Not that they are taking the right approach - they're clearly not, and they need to learn to be more aggressive in repealing DOMA and DADT and moving our society toward greater equality. (Just imagine if the President had pushed aggressively on repeal of DOMA and DADT, rather than health care. He couldn't have created more ire on the right, but he'd almost certainly have had success by now, and fulfilled an important goal.)

But, as I said, Sullivan has his causation backwards. The fundamental problem is the recognition of HRC as the "gay establishment" by those who don't know any better. That is, the problem is those who are in the position in the gay establishment to tell the President and elected Democrats what the right approach is, those who have played the political game and are now in positions of influence to set the gay rights agenda. Two related dynamics are at play. First, Democrats want the support of the HRC, and so they approach the issues of gay rights in a manner that appeals to the HRC and its hapless, overly cautious, manner. Second, they've been told that the HRC is the legitimate representative of gays, and they accordingly believe that the HRC's viewpoint is correct and its approach reasonable. If you're a elected Democrat and you are being told that aggressively addressing gay rights issues is risky, counterproductive and could lose you votes, and you're being told that in smoky rooms with HRC big-wigs, well, what do you expect? HRC may think that their approach is currying favor with the Administration, but what they're really doing is influencing their approach.

It's basically the same dynamic that has been playing out in the Jewish community and Congress with respect to Israel. For as long as we can remember, AIPAC has been the pro-Israel lobby. I went to Washington as a teenager almost 30 years ago with several other of my Hebrew school classmates to learn about issues affecting Jews; we met for a half-hour with our local Congressman, who was Jewish, and spent the rest of the trip with AIPAC. Still today, despite the backlash (and in some ways because of it - Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer provide an invaluable foil for AIPAC to mobilize against), AIPAC continues to pack its meetings, both nationally and locally, and fills the coffers. The funds come, in no small part, from pro-peace Jewish liberals who support a two state solution, are deeply troubled by settlements, and were horrified by some of the events in the Gaza offensive, yet who nevertheless finance AIPAC as a proxy for their love for Israel. AIPAC can somewhat legitimately claim to speak for most Jews because, other than those who are really paying attention, most Jews think AIPAC represents their views. If you're pro-Israel and you can financially afford it, you are expected to go to the annual AIPAC dinner in your town, and most do. When I expressed anger at my local Republican Jewish Coalition members back in 2004 for the RJC's dishonest attacks on John Kerry and Howard Dean on Israel issues - as the RJC misrepresented statements of both to imply that they were soft on Palestinians and would endanger Israel's safety - I was informed that if I cared so much about Israel, I should become active with AIPAC. Which of course gets it all wrong, but that's not what we're here to talk about at this moment. Is J Street the answer to breaking the perception that AIPAC represents the viewpoint of all Jews? Maybe, maybe not - to do so, J Street probably needs to find its own coherent message in a positive way that will allow it to be an effective voice in favor of a strong and safe Israel living in some form of peace (or lack of war) with Palestinians and its neighbors, rather than just being (perceived as) the anti-AIPAC.

Similarly, gays needs to find a way to break the HRC's perceived monopoly on addressing gay policy goals. While most of my gay friends want strong movement on the same issues that concern Sullivan - equality, the right to live their lives just like anyone else - almost all of them financially support HRC. And so, just like AIPAC can lay claim to being the voice of American Jewry on Israel, HRC can make a claim to being the "gay establishment" because a significant portion of the gay community enables that claim. Gays who want to encourage our leaders to take a different approach than HRC need to mobilize for that purpose, create their own J Street, or G Street. While HRC members at a local level may want a more aggressive approach, the message doesn't reach the HRC leadership. As long as the message to the President and the Democratic leadership is that HRC, which sure seems to represent the "gay establishment", wants slow, cautious movement on those issues, that's what you're going to get from a meticulous, cautious president.

Which doesn't mean that Andrew should stop knocking the President for that approach. The only thing that will create movement on issues of equality is continued pressure on President Obama and the Democrats, both because that's part of breaking the monopoly, and also because it's the right thing to do.

Celebrate every Halloween

Here it is, what you've all been waiting for. The Paul Lynde Halloween Special! With rock and roll explosion, KISS!

The 1970s were amazing.

He ain't worth a damn

Can anyone be surprised that the principled Senator from the Great State of Aetna who joined with John McCain and his other Gang of 14 Senate pals to keep Democrats from filibustering George Bush's judicial candidates is now threatening to filibuster the Democrats' health care plan if it includes an "opt out" public option? This is exactly the way I anticipated Joe Lieberman would show his gratitude for being allowed to retain his seniority in spite of his behavior during the Presidential campaign.

Of course, what's going on here is a power play. Lieberman doesn't want health insurance reform, we already know that, and he was never going to be one of the 50 Senators to vote to pass the bill itself, but he knows that something is coming. Now that Olympia Snow isn't going to tip the balance and vote for a bill containing an opt-out, Lieberman doesn't have the so-called "bipartisan" pressure of Snowe voting for cloture to give him the cover to vote for cloture himself and then against the bill; he is now in position to dictate terms, or at least be perceived by his owners at the insurance companies as doing that. Lieberman and his ego are not going to miss the opportunity to play that part, and in public rather than in a productive discussion behind closed doors, party loyalty (come on) be damned.

And President Obama has known this, too, which is why he won't commit to the opt-out plan. He can count, too.

Ice cream cake

Happy birthday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

(The picture anticipates the FoxNews observance of the birthday.)

Listen to the banjo

Andrew Sullivan has been reacting to Pat Buchanan's sorry lamentation that white Christians are losing their country, not so much in response to Buchanan's racist paranoia and fear, but instead to the fact that Buchanan is just wrong. America is not, and has rarely been since it's foundation, a white country. Blackness has always been core to the American story, and American culture. If white Europeans somehow managed to push Native Americans aside, it has always needed black America, whether in the process of securing American independence or battling tyranny or building the foundations of America's capital.

Today, one of Andrew's readers hit on the banjo as a metaphor - and more than a metaphor - for American multiculturalism. Perceived (mistakenly) by some as a fundamentally culturally white instrument at the heart of bluegrass music, it is only a white instrument because it was adopted from slaves who brought the banjo with them from Africa. Reading this during lunch today, I was impacted by the truth of the post, but also by its incompleteness, for the banjo is currently undergoing a revival as a traditionally African and American instrument.

So I quickly (though not quickly enough, but more on that in a moment) prepared the following email to Andrew:

If you want to complete the circle on the post about the banjo as an African instrument, you really need to check out the Carolina Chocolate Drops, a wonderful Durham-based African-American band recapturing the black (pre-Bluegrass) tradition in banjo. It's fantastic and fun and playful and simultaneously black and country and multicultural and as American as you can possibly get. I can't hear it without a smile and pride in being an American. And tapping my feet.

I've been enjoying CCD for a couple of years now, one of the highlights of my time as a member of eMusic.com (which was, for a while, filled with great discoveries like CCD, but those discoveries became harder and harder for me to find, until I gave up my membership). And so I also sought out a few links to youtube videos of CCD to include in my email, including performances at UNC and Duke, and a short, Emmy-award winning biographical film about the group.







Which was all well and good, but while I bounced my head and danced in my seat, listening to CCD on my iPod and playing various youtubes, someone else was beating me to the punch. I sent my email about CCD to Sullivan around two o'clock. Well, I popped on The Dish around 3pm and noticed that Andrew had now posted about CCD - but someone else's email, not mine, around 2:30 in the afternoon, likely before he would have seen my email!

But I could outdo Andrew, and vowed that when I got home I would fire up the Mac, sitting inspired next to my banjo, and write up something that talked about the even broader multicultural nature of the banjo - from Alison Brown's jazz-inspired banjo to Abigail Washburn and the Sparrow Quartet's mingling of American folk banjo with Chinese cultural music, to banjo wiz (and sometime Sparrow Quartet member) Bela Fleck and his exploration of various musical genres and the role of the banjo in those worlds, including his recent foray (yes, I heard it on NPR) into bringing the banjo back to Africa.

You know what's coming, right? In the interim, Andrew had already posted about the documentary on Bela Fleck bringing the banjo back to Africa.

At some point, I will sit down and really address the multicultural aspects of the instrument, with more about how Abby has made the banjo not just a metaphor for multiculturalism but also an ambassador for American culture to other parts of the world. The Sparrow Quartet were, in fact, the first U.S. musicians to ever officially tour Tibet on a government-sponsored cultural mission. Pat Robertson would find Abigail Washburn's words about breaking down cultural walls horrifying; I find them an extraordinarily beautiful statement of what it really means to be an American.



I would post about that (although, as you know, I have already in the past), that is, if Andrew - through his prolific reader mail - hasn't beaten me to it by then.

It must be nice having Andrew's massive audience to keep him ahead of me, and to do it full time.

Carry your water

Jeffrey Goldberg, discussing the ongoing controversies over the right's desire to delegitimize J Street and narrowly define in political terms what is required to be "pro-Israel," again today (despite often frustrating me) showing that he gets it:

I have very serious doubts about the willingness of Arabs to make peace with the Jewish state, but I also know that certain Israeli policies make the cause of compromise even more difficult. It's not self-hatred to acknowledge the obvious: That the settlement movement, and its supporters, overemphasize the sanctity of land in Jewish theology, and neglect other aspects of Judaism. Land, love, social justice, an intolerance of idolatry, the law as a whole, abhorrence of cruelty -- all these things together make up Judaism. (This is why a balanced Jewish life is so hard to master.) It is unfair to call a Jew a self-hater simply because he'd rather see Hebron under Arab rule than an Israel that, in keeping Hebron under Jewish rule, betrays other Jewish values.

Separately, Goldberg also points out something that I have long believed but never had the great saying to back up, until now: "Philo-Semites are anti-Semites who like Jews."

Nice fun with you all

George Bush the Elder blames the lack of civility in politics on those "sick puppies," Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

My ears ringing

Some choice quotes from John Kenneth Galbraith, who would have turned 101 today.

“Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.”

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

I wish I knew

It is fascinating to me how conservatives can simultaneously look at President Obama's failure to secure the Olympics for Chicago as evidence that he isn't respected by the world, and the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama this week as an affirmation of the GOP critique of his "star power" or, as John McCain's advertising asked, "He's the biggest celebrity in the world, but is he ready to lead?"

Keep the peace

If you can have preemptive war, why isn't it ok to have a premature peace (prize)?

Storm clouds

Sullivan and Goldberg make an important point. Sully's up first:

It is also to ask beleaguered Israel to get some perspective and to see, for a moment, how things might look from the outside. I can see why they may feel encircled and alone. But they're not. Even those of us who have been made angry by their recent actions and seeming unconcern for the needs of their most powerful friend, want to help. God knows I love Israel and its people; and I understand that some of the extremism among neocons is really an excess of passion and love rather than mere belligerence and orneriness. But, seriously guys, get a grip. Help the US help you. And try to see the wider picture....

Now it is a completely fair point that many other nations are in no position to criticize, including the US. Israel has to survive on a tiny strip of land which is surrounded by enemies. The Jews have achieved there such a miraculous, inventive, dynamic state it puts most other countries to shame. And its moral standards and its internal airing of debate have no peer in its own region. In some respects, the US has recently had lower standards....

But that doesn't make either war just. As Matt points out, even if you believe the Israeli attack on Gaza was justified, that doesn't exclude the possibility of war crimes in its execution. Is this so hard to understand? Jews of all people - the victims of war crimes of unimaginable evil - should know this. And exchange anger and paranoia for the integrity they once had.

And Goldberg follows up:

But while the world has an obligation to understand Israel and its motivations (or, at least, an abiding interest in gaining such an understanding) Israel has an interest in understanding why the world might see some of its actions as excessive. I'm not referring here to Israel's reaction to the Goldstone report, which was a pre-cooked travesty, but to more legitimate criticism about its settlements and its actions in Gaza. I'm not arguing that Israel must agree with every criticism, but I am arguing that not every single criticism of Israel is motivated by a desire to exterminate the Jewish state.

Living in the shadow of the hot house ball

Jeffrey Goldberg states the obvious.

Of course, those of us who have been saying the same thing for a long time were still self-hating appeasers, or something like that.

P.S. Following up on yesterday's post, today we learn - big shock - that Ahmadinejad isn't Jewish, after all. What a disappointment to the theory of the self-hating Jew being the worst anti-Semites.

Join the chosen few

Here's Jeffrey Goldberg, commenting on his indifference to the ridiculous assertion by The Daily Telegraph that Ahmadinejad is Jewish, laying out his perspective on Jewish self-hatred:

Jewish self-hatred is an entirely predictable phenomenon. It ain't easy being Jewish.... Some Jews, the weaker ones, adopt the culture and outlook of their oppressors. Some do it sincerely, because they have internalized the anti-Semitic calumnies hurled at them, and others do it for cynical reasons, such as career advancement. Others do it because they are scared, and so assume that associating themselves with anti-Semites will afford them some kind of protection.

Which really only makes me wonder - which of these explains the concept of the RJC? Not that the reasons need to be exclusive.

Great Divide

Alan Grayson has come under attack for these comments a few days ago:

It's a very simple plan. Here it is. The Republican health care plan for America: Don't get sick. That's right, don't get sick. If you have insurance, don't get sick. If you don't have insurance, don't get sick. If you're sick, don't get sick.... If you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: die quickly. That's right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.

Sullivan was disappointed, in both the comment and in Grayson's refusal to apologize, saying "It's impossible to watch the vast ignorance, hate and extremism in this country right now and not almost despair. At a time of extraordinary challenges, the center is not holding."

I think there is some truth in his post in general, and on Alan Grayson in particular. If there is an essential truth to Grayson, he's a bit of a grandstander. He likes to mock fools, often by exaggeration and outrageous commentary. In just his first couple of months in Congress, he built himself into a bit of a hero on the outraged left, after his mocking questioning of AIG chief Edward Liddy back in March; his clear, almost delightful, questioning of whistleblower Harry Markopolis about the Madoff fiasco and the SEC's utter incompetence in regulating the industry; and then there was this quote in the midst of Republican groveling at the feet of Rush Limbaugh: "I’m sorry Limbaugh called for harsh sentences for drug addicts while he was a drug addict. I’m also sorry that he’s bent on seeing America fail. And I’m sorry that Limbaugh is one sorry excuse for a human being."

Suffice it to say that Grayson clearly sees his role as using mockery to pull the "center" back to the left, instead of its general perch in the center of the right. Whether name calling is a legitimate way to do that, well, that's a sad commentary on public life today. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that.

And I'm with Andrew and Eric Trager, referring to the positive fundraising and attention even off of stupid and offensive political commentary (case in point, Joe Wilson) all the way up to those sentences by Andrew that I quoted above. But it's there that I think some perspective is in order.

Let's be serious here. While Grayson's comment is mean spirited and a distortion, it is clearly intended as sarcasm, and nobody listening to it could mistake it for anything else. It's the comment of a preening smart ass, a freshman Congressman who spent longer campaigning for office than actually holding office and whose inexperience leads him to confusing the meaning of politic with politics, a man who hasn't learned how to properly deal with the frustration of an opposition party that doesn't act in good faith. Does it really fit into the same category as those who accuse the President of creeping Nazism or of concocting a government policy to euthanize the elderly, who have convinced a sizable portion of the country that the President is not just an illegitimate president but an illegitimate American, who encourage discussion of a military coup?

In many ways I admire Andrew Sullivan, but sometimes he gets it dead wrong, too, and unapologetically. Let's compare Grayson's comment to this: "The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead—and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column." That wasn't sarcasm, remember, but a clear, unambiguous charge that those Americans who disagreed with a march to war were, effectively, traitors. And while Sullivan walked back the meaning, it is my recollection that he, too, expressly refused to retract.

And so, in a way, I agree with his conclusion. "It's impossible to watch the vast ignorance, hate and extremism in this country right now and not almost despair. At a time of extraordinary challenges, the center is not holding."

Sometimes, those facing ridiculousness and extremism respond in kind, and sometimes in ways that don't reflect their best, or even better, instincts. And everyone is guilty at times. It's just that all of that is as true now as it was eight years ago.

And sometimes the center isn't what you think it is at the time, and sometimes what presents itself as the reasonable center just isn't right, either.