why I am not a Republican

The Texas GOP is not the Party of Reagan.



It is, however, the Party of Tom Delay. Those who register and vote Republican are fellow travelers of the ideology above, and their refusal to denounce it and take their political party back from teh extremists - including the party leader - is a failure of priorities. As Kevin Drum observes with an equivalent hypothetical:

Consider this. Suppose that very serious, very miltant communists took over the New York State Democratic party and wrote a platform advocating, say, nationalization of key industries and confiscatory taxation of all income over $50,000. And suppose that one of these New York Democrats had enough support in the party to become House majority leader. And then, finally, suppose that as communist influence spread throughout New England and beyond, Democrats pretended that nothing was amiss. A few communists here and there are harmless. Most of them don't really believe that stuff anyway, and we're just compromising with them on a few minor issues. Honest.



Republicans would � rightly � be aghast and would refuse to accept bland assurances that nothing serious was going on. And what I want is for the vast majority of decent mainstream Republicans to understand that something very similar is happening to them, and to insist that their party marginalize and repudiate the Texas strain of social destruction currently growing like a cancer on their right wing.

Bottom Line: America cannot eradicate oppression and tyranny abroad, and be a beacon of liberty to the world for our sake and theirs, if at home we lose those same freedoms.

Soviet spending was flat during the 1980s

Give Reagan his due, but the claim that he outspent the Russians (or that SDI caused an economic race the Soviets could not match) are overblown:

The Soviet Union's defense spending did not rise or fall in response to American military expenditures. Revised estimates by the Central Intelligence Agency indicate that Soviet expenditures on defense remained more or less constant throughout the 1980s. Neither the military buildup under Jimmy Carter and Reagan nor SDI had any real impact on gross spending levels in the USSR. At most SDI shifted the marginal allocation of defense rubles as some funds were allotted for developing countermeasures to ballistic defense.



If American defense spending had bankrupted the Soviet economy, forcing an end to the Cold War, Soviet defense spending should have declined as East-West relations improved. CIA estimates show that it remained relatively constant as a proportion of the Soviet gross national product during the 1980s, including Gorbachev's first four years in office. Soviet defense spending was not reduced until 1989 and did not decline nearly as rapidly as the overall economy.



To be sure, defense spending was an extraordinary burden on the Soviet economy. As early as the 1970s some officials warned Leonid Brezhnev that the economy would stagnate if the military continued to consume such a disproportionate share of resources. The General Secretary ignored their warnings, in large part because his authority depended on the support of a coalition in which defense and heavy industry were well represented. Brezhnev was also extraordinarily loyal to the Soviet military and fiercely proud of its performance. Soviet defense spending under Brezhnev and Gorbachev was primarily a response to internal political imperatives--to pressures from the Soviet version of the military-industrial complex. The Cold War and the high levels of American defense spending provided at most an opportunity for leaders of the Soviet military-industrial complex to justify their claims to preferential treatment. Even though the Cold War has ended and the United States is no longer considered a threat by the current Russian leadership, Russian defense spending now consumes roughly as great a percentage of GNP as it did in the Brezhnev years.

it's possible to argue a factual point that Reagan helped win the Cold War without invoking mythos. The real manner in which Reagan was critical was in trusting Gorbachev as a partner to peace - the Soviets were on the brink of collapse, and had Reagan been a cowboy the hard-liners might have opted to go out with a bang.

where did the GOP of Reagan vanish to?

because sometimes I feel like I'd vote for it if it were around. With Reagan's passing, perhaps it's gone forever too.

President Reagan dies at age 93

Rest in peace. He deserves kudos for his role in bringing about the fall of Communism and for being a leader that actually did unite our nation rather than the division that GOP candidates have sown since. His foreign and fiscal policies would be welcome by liberals today, in comparison to the extremism of the present Administration. But if his greatest legacy is that his example furthers the cause of research into Alzheimer's disease, with stem-cell technology, against the policy of the present Administration and the right-wing zealots who have dominated the GOP, then that will be a far greater acclaim than any other judgement history may provide.



If you read one speech by Reagan, make it two. The speech after the Challenger, and the speech where he dared Gorbachev to "tear down this wall."



UPDATE: beware the GOP attempts at revisionist history. Much of Reagan's success as President owed to some of his decidely non-conservative policies:

Reagan is, to be sure, one of the most conservative presidents in U.S. history and will certainly be remembered as such. His record on the environment, defense, and economic policy is very much in line with its portrayal. But he entered office as an ideologue who promised a conservative revolution, vowing to slash the size of government, radically scale back entitlements, and deploy the powers of the presidency in pursuit of socially and culturally conservative goals. That he essentially failed in this mission hasn't stopped partisan biographers from pretending otherwise. (Noonan writes of his 1980 campaign pledges: "Done, done, done, done, done, done, and done. Every bit of it.")

A sober review of Reagan's presidency doesn't yield the seamlessly conservative record being peddled today. Federal government expanded on his watch. The conservative desire to outlaw abortion was never seriously pursued. Reagan broke with the hardliners in his administration and compromised with the Soviets on arms control. His assault on entitlements never materialized; instead he saved Social Security in 1983. And he repeatedly ignored the fundamental conservative dogma that taxes should never be raised.

All of this has been airbrushed from the new literature of Reagan.

UPDATE: an excellent point which is also in danger of being papered over by modern GOP revisionists as an inconvenient fact, even though it is actually critical and profound:

So tonight, as we live in a world where the danger of nuclear war is much lower than it was in 1985, when Reagan and Gorbachev first met, let us praise Reagan for ignoring the advice of those who said bargaining with Gorbachev would endanger the safety of the free world, especially then-Defense Department official Richard Perle and then-Wyoming Congressman Dick Cheney.

UPDATE: Kerry's statement on the death of Ronald Reagan. It's a noble gesture of respect which all Democrats would be wise to heed.

the fruits of govt spending: an educated middle class

via Phil Carter, this story in the Washington Post that touches on the legacy of the GI Bill and the impact it had upon America:

Since it was signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, about $77 billion in benefits authorized under the bill have flowed to 7.8 million veterans of World War II and 2.4 million of the Korean War, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs. An additional 1.4 million post-Korean veterans and 6 million Vietnam-era veterans have used the GI Bill for education and training.



That snapshot, however, does not begin to explain how one law has touched generations of Americans. "It built a modern middle class. It propelled a generation of leaders," said Anthony J. Principi, the secretary of veterans affairs.

Phil isn't one to just link to a good story, though - he always has some interesting insight of his own to add. He comments:

The GI Bill is what enabled the veterans of WWII to flood America's colleges and universities -- previously bastions of privilege -- and subsequently become the scientists, engineers, lawyers, teachers, salesmen, managers and leaders of the 20th Century. The GI Bill touched off the greatest educational boom in this country, which according to many studies, is as much responsible for our economic boom during this period as anything. And today, the GI Bill remains the most important benefit for new soldiers choosing to enlist; it has given millions of Americans the chance to earn a post-secondary education that would not have otherwise had it.

It's worth noting that the educational legacy of the GI Bill also lay at the foundation of the civil rights movement and the women's rights movement. To that end, imagine the transformnative effect that a similar investment in education might make for Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. In fact such a proposal has been made as part of a lengthy report on winning the War on Terror by Congressman Jim Turner - and at a fraction of the cost of the war on Iraq itself:

Most interesting, however, is part three, concerning what Turned describes as "the greatest challenge and most neglected problem we face": preventing the rise of future generations of terrorists. The centerpiece of this strategy is the welcome twofold proposition that the country, in conjunction with allies, commit substantial resources toward improving living conditions in the Islamic world.



In the first instance, this means improving education by directing $10 billion over 10 years "directly for operation of primary and secondary secular schools in Arab states that commit to doubling their investment in public education over the course of ten years." The goal here is to wean students away from the radical indoctrination of the madrasas, traditional schools where Islam is taught. But unless we want to be running Arab school systems forever, sustainable secular education is going to require local economic development, so Turner's second proposal is a Marshall Plan-like effort to provide $100 billion in aid over 10 years (to be matched by allies) that would be conditioned on recipient countries adopting a broad range of internal economic reforms.



Relative to the scale of the challenge, these proposals are actually rather modest. The invasion of Iraq has cost more than $100 billion so far, with $25 billion more requested in early May and no end in sight. (The $1 billion a year Turner wants for schools, by contrast, is less than the Pentagon's budget for a single day, though stopping terrorist ideology from spreading is clearly preferable to trying to combat its adherents later with cruise missiles.) The real Marshall Plan, undertaken by America alone, cost $200 billion per year relative to the present size of the economy, not $200 billion over 10 years with half the money coming from Europe and Japan.

This is a grand Neo-wilsonian policy of projecting American soft-power to achieve a mutually beneficial end. It's a compelling case and I am trying to track down a full copy of the report to study it in more detail at leisure. There is much food for thought here, but we only have to look at the fruits of investing in education and infrastructure after World War II in our home country to get a sense for the transformative power of ideas and knowledge upon society, and the potential such a course followed in the Middle East would have for Arab liberty and American security.

democracy vs Jewishness in Israel

The fundamental paradox at the heart of Israel's civil society is its desire to be both a democratic state and a Jewish one. I strongly support the right of Jews to have a homeland, but I think that abandonment of the concept of the separation of church and state is a step backwards. The supermajority of Judaism amongst Israel's population exacerbates rather than mitigates the need for Synagouge-state separation there, because the rights of the minorities are even more at risk, and because the superficial homogeneity of the majority is broken by the internal divisions - especially secular vs Orthodox.



Cases in point: voices calling to end the Orthodox rabbinical monopoly over legal marriage in Israel face a chilly reception:

Speaking at a rabbinical conference in Jerusalem, Bakshi-Doron urged the repeal of the law stating that marriages in Israel must be conducted according to religious law.

[...]

The other rabbis at the conference greeted Bakshi-Doron's statement with silence, but later, many described it as a "bombshell."



In his speech, Bakshi-Doron gave several reasons why he thought the rabbinate's monopoly on marriages must end. First, he said, the law has become irrelevant, as growing numbers of Israelis are choosing to marry in civil ceremonies either abroad or in Israel (the state recognizes civil marriages conducted overseas, but not those conducted locally). Second, he said, the law encourages hatred of the rabbinate, since it is seen as the primary expression of religious coercion in Israel.

[...]

"I know this is a taboo, because the law is perceived as one of the symbols of the state," he said. "But unfortunately, it's a symbol without content."



Tsohar, an organization of young religious Zionist rabbis that hosted the conference, stressed that Bakshi-Doron's views did not represent those of the organization.

Meanwhile, baby steps towards misogynistic social customs are being taken in Orthodox strongholds:

Last week notices were posted on Admor Mevishna Street in Bnei Brak announcing that men and women, boys and girls, must now walk on opposite sides of the street, regardless of the direction in which they are walking.



The signs declare that rabbis of the Vishnitz Hasidic court had decided on the new arrangement because the crowded, narrow street led to immodest contact between the sexes.



The street is located in a neighborhood where most residents are members of the Vishnitz community.

The comments on that Maariv article are revealing - a general sense of "well, if the women don't complain, then who are we to judge?" That's almost pathological in its refusal to accept the universality of human rights and the very meaning of liberty. I had considered Diana's comments about the docility of Israeli women (sorry, permalinks broken) to be hyperbole, but the women in Bnei Brek are proving her right.



Note that Israel has an advantage of a democratic structure, which should theoretically allow for the secular voices to exert influence over the direction of their nation. The influx of non-Jewish immigrants, primarily laborers, also adds to balancig societal pressure (though not much political capital). However, the fact that Israel's very definition rests on a Jewish identity means that the Orthodox will wield disproportionate power over the process. And their birthrates are higher.



This is not a problem unique to Jews, the same sectarian dynamics are at work within the United States (by the conservative, evangelical non-majority of Christians, esp in the South) who are waging a culture war against homosexuals and women's rights, and in Islam with the struggle between moderates and fanatics (and the latter get all the press, of course, while the former suffer the consequences).



Ultimately, the problem arises from allowing religion into the political sphere. Religion cannot accept compromise (and nor should it), and therefore it is forced almost by default down the road of extremism once it tastes electoral power, by sheer inexorable logic of what is right and wrong. The act that God's law transcends man's law is acadeimic; rather, religion seeks to mirror God's laws in the mortal realm, and the invariable result is a dramatic reduction in the freedom to excercise reason that lies at teh heart of any honest religious belief.

save Yglesias

Matthew Yglesias was unfairly harassed by The Man on Memorial Day. Read all about it - and don't miss the funniest comment thread since Bush was selected. Damn these big-government conservatives! (if only the Libertarian party wasn't so lame...)