Comparing Bush and Obama

In a new piece over at National Review Online, John J. Pitney Jr. questions the characterization by Obama supporters of the young senator as the "anti-Bush." While many Democrats have pointed to Bush's divisive character and partisanship, Pitney finds many similarities between Obama's rhetoric, which centers around transcending partisanship and "working together," and the main points of Bush's 2000 presidential campaign.

While Pitney is certainly right in pointing out that many of these themes are the same, this does not necessarily contradict the characterization of Obama as the "anti-Bush." The reason for this is simple. While Bush promised to be "a uniter, not a divider" and spoke of a new kind of non-partisan politics, these themes were abandoned and even totally reversed once Bush was in office. The few themes along these lines that Bush had shown a real intent to pursue were thrown out following 9/11, which we are constantly reminded "changed everything."

The reality is that Obama has the potential to be either an "anti-Bush" or to follow in Bush's footsteps. If he is elected, his identity will be decided by whether he makes good on his campaign rhetoric, or checks it at the door to the White House, as Bush did.

William Gibson in Denial

I just heard a very pathetic segment from Fox News anchor William Gibson's talk radio show that does a good job of demonstrating how ridiculous some war supporters are willing to be to make the war look popular. In response to a statement by Washington Post columnist William Arkin that a majority of Americans do not support the war in Iraq, Gibson touted the results of a new poll as showing that Americans are behind the president on Iraq. The poll question? "Does what happened in Iraq matter to your security in the United States?" Gibson touted that 77 percent of those polled had responded "Yes." Exactly how desperate and in denial does one have to be to claim that the results of that poll even vaguely suggest that a majority of Americans support the war?

"Deserving" Freedom and the Role of the Military

The uproar surrounding William Arkin's writing questioning the role of the troops in political discourse at home continues, with hordes of conservatives, hawks, servicemen and veterans attacking Arkin as "anti-American," a "traitor," and virtually every other political insult in the book. Arkin has offered two responses, one directly to his critics here and another more widely addressing the role of the troops.

What is most interesting -- and most disturbing -- has been the way in which Arkin's admittedly incendiary words about the troops have drawn enraged responses that, ironically enough, display the exact attitudes Arkin was worried about in his original writing. The most common of such demonstrations were found in the countless replies from both servicemen and conservative pundits that sent the clear message that it was totally unacceptable for Arkin to disagree with the wisdom or viability of the war, or to question the untouchability of the troops and their opinions. Coming after Arkin's stated concern regarding attempts by military men to stifle civilian debate, these enraged responses showed that our military-worshipping culture does in fact have a problem with free and open debate.

Another, even more disturbing instance of this sort of display can be found in numerous responses from troops not only to Arkin's comments, but to critics of the war in Iraq in various venues. One reader calling himself "Stu," commenting on Arkin's second reply, said the following:

This whole "we can't win the war, but I support the troops" crap has made me realize that none of you deserve freedom or are worthy of those that serve or served to guarantee it. I served my country proudly, in war. Now I have realized you didn't deserve my sacrifices or those I served with.

This sort of sentiment, seen frequently throughout the conservative/military blogosphere, perfectly exemplifies the sort of superiority-complex about which Arkin expressed concern. The idea that the troops are not only the sole guarantors of Americans' freedom, but that they also are the only ones "deserving" of that freedom -- as if freedom was theirs to give or withhold -- reveals a very dangerous tendency in our society which has completely lost contact with its classical liberal roots.

To those who established these freedoms at the founding of the nation, the idea that freedom is given and maintained by military force was completely unacceptable. In fact, the architects of these freedoms were clear that only in a nation protected from military influence could real liberty be sustained. Numerous founders warned of the danger of a standing military force -- one can only imagine what they would think of our massive modern military-industrial complex and all the power it wields.

While Arkin's initial comments may have been somewhat more incendiary than thoughtful at times, the heated debate that has resulted has offered a rare honest glimpse into the dangerous attitudes of many in the military and the hawkish civilians who seem to worship them. As our constitutional liberties atrophy in the face of executive onslaught and our culture remains caught up in a fever of militarism, it is more important than ever that Americans realize that their liberties are not granted at the mercy of government or military, but are theirs to keep as free citizens. The day any people abandon a jealous hold on their freedom, that freedom is lost -- we can only hope that the American people have not already let go.

Muslim Mistrust and Islamophobia

In a new article at TimesOnline.co.uk entitled "Plots and paranoia are mainstream views for Muslims of Sparkbrook," interviews with British Muslims reveal a deep-seated mistrust for a government they view as increasingly hostile to Muslims. Many of those interviewed stated that they believed the recent arrests of British Muslims -- due to allegations of a kidnapping plot in the making -- were unjust and meant to breed mistrust and hatred for Muslims.

Conservative blogs like Little Green Footballs have seized on this article as proof of the danger posed by Muslims in the West. If such far-out conspiracy theories of government misconduct are widespread in the mainstream Muslim community, they seem to reason, these Muslims can hardly be expected to become productive, peaceful members of society.

The unstated assumption behind such a reaction -- an assumption all too common in conservative circles -- is that there is no way such "paranoia" could be justified. In fact, such theories are no more unreasonable than the automatic demonization of Arab Muslims and the assumption of guilt that comes with any charge of ties to terrorism. As numerous cases in the U.S. and U.K. have demonstrated (such as Jose Padilla, Maher Arar, etc), those accused of terrorist ties are quite often wrongly accused. In light of the constantly growing Islamophobia that has seized much of the West, it is not hard to understand why these people see the government as hostile.

The article also points out that the vast majority of Muslims that the interviewers came across were moderate and strongly opposed to terrorism. Needless to say, the segment of the article quoted by lgf included no mention that these people remain committed to peace and moderation, despite the growing hostility to Muslims of both the British people and the British government. Even the loud anti-Muslim voices in the U.S. who constantly portray Muslims as violent extremists fail to recognize the depth of Islamophobic sentiment that has grown within the West.

What is most surprising is that more Muslims do not become radicalized by the constant deluge of anti-Muslim propaganda and hostility. The same conservatives who constantly warn of the threat presented by "homegrown" terrorism seem oblivious to the role their vitriol plays in motivating violent acts. From the military tantrum unleashed by the U.S. in the wake of 9/11 to the growing prejudice against Muslims gripping much of the country, hawkish and intolerant Americans seem intent on acting the role of "Great Satan" -- a role that emboldens (to use a favorite term of the Bush administration) radical extremists and swells the ranks of terrorist groups more than anything else.

Idiotic Oppression in Boston

Boston Officials Can't Tell a Lite-Brite from a Bomb

In what is without a doubt the most ridiculous national security-related story in quite some time, the mayor of Boston has "vowed to throw the book at" two marketing workers whose advertisements were somehow mistaken by authorities for bombs, sparking a massive city-wide crisis. After a million dollars worth of police overtime, the closing of several major thoroughfares, and a city-wide panic sparked by police warnings, it became clear that the electric signs were in fact advertisements and posed no threat.

In the aftermath of the crisis, it became increasingly clear that the signs should not have been mistaken for anything threatening by any reasonable person. The advertisements, which resembled Lite-Brite signs and depicted a cartoon character from the Cartoon Network show Aqua Teen Hunger Force, were revealed to be utterly nonthreatening, and questions began to emerge as to why authorities had sparked a major panic by warning of a probable city-wide bomb threat.

The "furious" mayor of the city, faced with the bill from a hugely wasteful display of incompetence, quickly decided to make the advertisers into scapegoats. Instead of admitting that a major mistake had been made in wrongly identifying the signs as bomb threats (and subsequently feeding a media frenzy of baseless fear), the incensed mayor and police officials sought to cover their own failures by leveling felony charges of perpetrating a "terrorist hoax" against the advertisers. While city officials have somehow likened the signs to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, August Pollak captures the truth in saying that the situation is, at worst, more akin to a security guard screaming "fire!" in response to someone taping a picture of a fire to the wall of a theater. That the advertisers obviously did not intend any harm, and that there was no reason they should have expected the advertisements to spark such a response, has apparently been insufficient to keep the powers-that-be in Boston from making far-fetched claims targeting the advertisers.

To their credit, the advertisers have met these laughable charges with a large degree of levity, as have many residents of Boston. At the initial hearing for the charges brought against the advertisers, there was snickering from both the defendants and numerous attendants. At a comedic "press conference" (video) following the hearing, the advertisers failed to answer any questions regarding the charges against them and repeatedly diverted the topic to a discussion of the defendant's hair and hairstyles in general.

That the mayor and police department have thus far gotten away with such an abuse of power -- attempting to cover for their own incompetence by ruining the lives of innocent people -- is very tragic, and tinges this absurd event with a strong sense of injustice. One can only hope that the courts will show more common sense than the power-drunk fools in charge of Boston, and the advertisers will have their names cleared. While it is probably too much to ask in the current climate of fear and growing police-state acceptance, justice truly will not be done unless the incompetent government officials responsible for this crisis are held responsible.

Hat tip to The Agitator