Trying, Let Alone Incarcerating, Bowe Bergdahl Is Beyond Immoral

I should read The Nation more often. Why the cry for Bowe Bergdahl's blood?

“I am shocked at the concerted effort led by pro-war elements to pillory this guy, rather than offer serious compassion,” Robert Musil, who wrote an article on Vietnam deserters for The Nation in 1973, told me last year. “Where is all that rhetoric about ‘we support our troops’? He has suffered a lot, as have others. Where is the understanding, the compassion, the humanity? I frankly think that’s the proper response to an American kid stranded in the middle of Afghanistan who feels he has no choice but to go away from his unit.”

I'm reminded of General George Patton, in a field hospital during World War II, slapping a pair of shell-shocked soldiers, an act that led to his being relieved of his command. Now America as a nation is slapping one of its own in a collective convulsive jerk. Bowe Bergdahl, after being held by the Taliban for 5 1/2 years, should be court-martialed? For what? To satisy our national honor?

We've long lost our national honor. That's the crime.

With Iran, All Options Don't Need to Be on the Table

The Ayatollah Khamanei: More dangerous than Lindsey Graham? Not to us.

It's funny how phrases get stuck on automatic. One such is "all options are on the table." American politicians -- and even diplomats who don't prefer war -- use it, but only with foreign powers that can't existentially harm our interests. There are bizarre exceptions. All options are not on the table with North Korea, for example. Are we even vaguely ready to go to war with Kim Jong Un? Hardly. His bark is worse than his bite. It gets weird when we talk of bombing Iran when a tin-hat dictator north of the 54th parallel is the one with the nukes.

It's possible that Kim would go off the rails and try to start WWIII, but it's more likely that his bodyguards would put a cap in him than let him move ahead with such a national suicide. Of course that's just my opinion, but please run the thought experiments through your own brain and decide how many inner-circle North Koreans want to wake up south of Kim's desire to take on the U.S. in any ultimate way.

The same goes for Iran with a major exception: Iran, in its current political configuration, can work a terrific amount of mischief in the region without directly challenging the U.S. existentially. Iran causes no end of headaches for Israel, which it has managed to live with, as Hamas and Hezbollah are more gadflies than existential threats. And heaven knows Israel has caused much death and destruction in Gaza and Lebanon as a result. Nobody looks good over there.

But Iran will never directly threaten Israel in any concrete way, even if it had ten nuclear bombs on missiles ready to fire in ten minutes, for the simple reason that it would no longer exist with any of its aspirations intact. It would be decimated within hours, full stop.

Our goal with Iran is to manage the long-term benefits of upholding the nuclear non-proliferation regime that stabilizes the world short of widespread nuclear disaster more than it is to keep Iran from getting the bomb. It's bad enough we lost India, Pakistan, and North Korea for what are complex and varied reasons. Iran is one too many, and serious dominoes might and probably would fall. And please recall that we "allowed" Israel to gain nuclear-weapons capability because it suited our purposes. Other regimes notice this kind of American duplicity and don't forget.

But would we take that last option, military attack, simply to preemptively stop an Iranian nuclear-weapons capability? I doubt it. There is an exception, and that's if Israel started the attack, and we came in to help finish it if for no other reason than to maintain stability in the attack's aftermath.

Only maniacs would welcome that broader and more dangerous war. It's John McCain, Lindsey Graham and the rest of the bellicose subset of American politicians, quite nearly to a person members of the Republican Party, who call out the loudest, who demand ever more defense spending, and whose friends in the defense industry would welcome yet another conflagration. Do they deserve to be called maniacs. Yes, they do.

Back on planet Earth, there is a way to reign in Iran. It's through painstaking negotiations that bring Iran slowly back into the community of non-bellicose nations who understand their economic self-interests lie in peaceful pursuits and not endless war. Iran is a nation that, while threatening our interests in the past, is developed enough to see its interests intersecting with ours.

Forget the warmongers. Barack Obama and the rest of the rationalists are on to something. It's diplomacy, and it should be used to the fullest. With Iran, it's actually our only sensible option, irrespective of the flapping gums of America's gunslingers and their Israeli counterparts.

A two-man war caucus. One a JAG officer and the other a specialist in crashing planes.

Note. Fine, John McCain deserved his war-hero status, in spite of the crashed planes. But does that mean he gets to call for endless war over and over again? Should America continue its series of crashed wars? After all, we didn't win in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Our adventures in Lebanon, Libya, Syria, and other Arab Spring fiascoes aren't going so well, either. The only thing that has gone well is the health of the defense industry. (See Eisenhower, Dwight D. for his impressions of why that is.) And don't forget, our Iraq misadventure birthed ISIS, without question.

Consensus Builds: Ted Cruz Pushes the Field to the Right

The unusual suspects: OMG x WTF...

I knew the second Cruz said he would announce that, regardless of his chances, he'd be in it long enough to make the field move to the right or at least try to move to the right of Cruz. After all, which candidate -- maybe even Jeb! -- wants to be thought of as "not conservative enough"?

Here comes TPM with its acknowledgement of the Cruz Effect:

LYNCHBURG, Va. — Ted Cruz's widely anticipated announcement here on Monday that he'll run for president is guaranteed to spook his fellow Republican hopefuls.

Not because he's necessarily better positioned to win the 2016 nomination than others such as Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. Rather, he has a unique appeal to the hard-core conservative base that produces ample votes in GOP primaries, and he has a knack for portraying solidly conservative Republicans as establishment hacks and squishes.

Where Cruz stands out is not his ideological principles — he shares common beliefs with many of his rivals — but his scorched-earth tactics in service of those principles, and his proclivity for painting fellow Republicans with tactical disagreements as capitulators.

How many of us can envision Jeb Bush saying, "I'm not a capitulator, and I'm not batshit crazy!"? Frankly, I can't imagine it, so the best Jeb can hope for, assuming he wants to cling to the rational center of conservatism, whatever that might be, is to rope-a-dope until Cruz is gone, taking those who tried to out-tea-party Cruz with him.

Adding fuel to the fire is the LA Times' chiming in on Cruz Control:

But in addition to raising his political profile, Cruz’s candidacy is certain to play a role in the GOP primaries as he becomes a spoiler and potential kingmaker, forcing establishment favorites — such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — to confront tea party preferences on immigration, same-sex marriage and social welfare programs.

Cruz's zeal for small government and a muscular national defense reflects the views of many Republicans. But GOP strategists acknowledge the divisive firebrand may drive the debate too far to the right for mainstream political tastes — just as many party leaders say he has done during his short time in Congress. He could force his 2016 opponents to embrace positions in the primary that they might regret when facing the Democratic nominee.

Ted Cruz, Specter of Political Death. Holy Decimated GOP field, Batman!

American Fissures: Conservatism Is at War with Itself

Why is conservation at odds with conservatism? Hint: Drill, baby, drill...

I've always wondered why conservatism was at war with its own core values, but I'm beginning to understand: Conservatism has been hijacked by moneyed and religious forces, as well as the defense establishment. Recall the irony that it was Republican president and war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower that warned against a "military-industrial complex." And yet, as business interests began to dominate the Republican Party, ostensibly the conservatives' home, business and its libertarian underpinnings have overwhelmed conservatism's connection to collective action: The individual must be at war with his/her community. Don't act for mutual benefit! Again, remember that it was Eisenhower who drove the development of our national interstate-highway system and Republican Teddy Roosevelt, also a war hero, who pressed for the establishment of national parks to protect our wilderness areas.

(There's a parallel on the left. Clinton's Democratic Leadership Council leanings -- and Tony Blair's rebranding of "New Labour" -- signaled Wall Street and London's equivalent, The City, that financial interests would be safe from collectivist onslaughts. But that's another, albeit worthy, story.)

Moderate -- or centrist -- conservatism is the endangered species these days as the extremism of the Tea Party overwhelmed the hitherto establishment hold on the Republican base. It's this dynamic, combined with the prior religious turn of the GOP, driven by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, and Tony Perkins' Family Research Council, that has shaped American conservatism as an authoritarian force.

There's a deep irony, or disconnect, at play here. Religion, especially Christianity, should be a communitarian force that would drive communitarian action. Members of a church would work together to spread Christian values. Unfortunately, its the authoritarian nature of religion -- God the Father as the model -- that leads it to deprive individuals of their rights. If there is a Republican war on women, for example, it's because the authoritarian father figure dictates that women do their husband's bidding, giving into sex, avoiding birth control and abortion, and having more Christian babies.

Men, then, are free to demand that their women aren't free. Is this modern conservatism? Yes, to a great extent, in the current American version. If you don't agree, consider the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision, in which five Christian white men decided that the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby, under the U.S. Constitution, had the authority to dictate that its employees not receive birth control under its provided insurance. Is this not authoritarians dictating reproductive policy, supported by U.S. law? And isn't this driven by American conservatism?

This authoritarian streak extends to both child-rearing and education. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming all allow corporal punishment -- the legalized beating of children. How many are red states? All, with the exception of purple Colorado, which is shaped by its mountain-west culture.

Yes, today's conservative is likely -- at least more likely -- to demand sex and babies from his woman, and then beat the children that result. Is it any wonder that it's the red states that are bolting from the Common Core standards, with its emphasis on critical thinking and the questioning of authority?

I wonder if William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, and even Ronald Reagan would have welcomed this turn of events with the conservatism they espoused. Is it any wonder that the GOP's only viable candidate that can appeal to moderates, Jeb Bush, is in danger of being accused of not being conservative enough?

In the coming GOP 2016 primary season, open warfare is likely to break out, and the deep fissures in the GOP and its conservative base will be on open display. It should be interesting. And bruising.

As an American liberal, I find all of this deeply disturbing and depressing, not simply because I think it's harmful to America but also because my own political party, the Democrats, have become, in recent years, a centrist party. Oh, for the days of FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter (okay, Clinton was all right). No wonder liberals long for a world in which an Elizabeth Warren or a Bernie Sanders could run, and win.

Warren is NOT a conservative and IS a at war with the centrist Democratic Party. Good.

The GOP 2016 Quandary: How to Get to the Right of Ted Cruz

Fine, maybe Jindal. Go ahead, say it: President Bobby Jindal. Ewww...

That's right: The only person in the 2016 GOP clown car with a worse chance of becoming president than Ted Cruz is Bobby Jindal, one of the ones who actually could fit in that dark-matter/anti-gravity space to the right of young Ted. (Yeah, I don't include the Donald because, well, he's the Donald. Don't humor him.) (And Giuliani? He reduced himself to something stuck to the bottom of my shoe.)

Okay, I should include Santorum, but I'm trying not to include things you should never google.

The funny thing (did I say funny!?) is that we'll get to see them try. Okay, Jeb Bush has already signaled he's going to avoid an Etch-A-Sketch moment by not going "there," meaning the place from which Mitt Romney, that Severe Conservative, could not come back from. Move to the center and stay there, sez Jeb. Good luck with that. I see Jeb venturing into CruzLand just to snare the non-crazies and getting dirty with the deed. He thinks he can look reasonable and then go to CrazyLand (er, Teapartyville) without getting wet. Nice try. Shouldn't have done it.

We'll see. Anyway, in keeping with bringing out the long knives, GOPers, here's what I warned about earlier, and, yes, the press is pressing up against the IMPlications of the far-right-wing Cruz-O-Matic machine. Here's Dan Balz:

Announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination Monday at Liberty University, the first-term senator from Texas offered himself as the pure essence of conservatism and challenged the tea party and evangelical wings of the Republican Party to rise up behind one of their own and take control of the party and the country.

His candidacy is a test of a proposition, one that he has carried across the country for many months. He has argued that the party failed to win the White House not because it has become too conservative but because Republicans have nominated politicians who were not conservative enough, who could not carry the message of today’s conservatism with energy, optimism and authenticity.

Yep, Cruz done that alright, drew the line beyond lies the Lost World.

Next, same Wapo, comes the more reportage-style coverage entitled, "With Cruz in, race for White House heats up." Read it if you want, but basically the title tells it: The 2016 race heats up because Ted Cruz is white-hot, in the same way that the Sun is. Sure, it's bright, but don't stare at it for very long. You'll pay a price.

Anyway, for the thought experiment I promised, here it is: 1) A certain number of potential (and real) GOP candidates will at least attempt to get to the right of Cruz, and 2) It won't be pretty. So while you're trying on the sound of President Ted Cruz and going ewww!, remember that beyond the grift (these boys, including Cruz, are in it for the money and the racket even a faux candidacy sets up) is the ego satisfaction that a number of his rivals crapped themselves doing tea-party cartwheels, to which Ted Cruz smiled and said, "Okay, I'm going down, but so are we all!"

Heckuva job, Teddy.

The Long Knives Are Out for Ted Cruz

GOP Clown Car 2016: First in, first out?

Ted Cruz announced today that he is running for president in 2016, prompting scores of liberal bloggers to cheer "Run, Ted, Run!" with near-simultaneity. About the same time, the knives came out on the GOP side.

Example one: Ed Rogers in the WaPo:

It isn’t clear whether Cruz particularly cares about how he is viewed or whether he thinks he needs to soften his image, if not modify some of his positions, in his campaign for president. At times, it seems that Cruz wants to wear his lack of support from the Republican Party “establishment” as a badge of honor. But if he defines the “establishment” as just about anyone who has ever won an election, well, he may need to rethink his approach. One bad sign for Cruz is that he doesn’t appear to have many elected officials supporting his candidacy at this stage. That’s a red light flashing on the dashboard of any campaign. It says something when others who have “run for sheriff” are not willing to associate themselves with your campaign.

If Cruz overplays the role of a courageous, persecuted martyr, the act will grow tiresome quickly. Maybe the problem is Cruz and not the ideological backsliding of others or the wishy-washyness [sic] of the seasoned Republicans who have been around longer than him. Maybe Cruz is just too half-cocked for his own good. His vigor and volume and intensity have gotten him here, but right now he only has a narrow foothold in the party, not a firm position with a lot of growth potential.

With friends like that, who needs enemies? Rogers, BTW, is an old GOP campaign hand.

Next up, The Donald decides his voice is important, as he turns all birther on young Ted:

"He's got a hurdle that nobody else seems to have at this moment. It's a hurdle and somebody could certainly look at it very seriously. He was born in Canada," Trump said in an interview with myfoxny.com, adding that "you're supposed to be born in this country."

Trump, who claims to be considering a run for president himself, said he "didn't know how the courts would rule on it. It's an additional hurdle that he has that nobody else seems to have."

Trump led the charge on the debunked view that President Barack Obama wasn't actually born in the United States and had a fake birth certificate saying he was born in Hawaii.

Cruz has maintained that he is eligible to be president since he was born to an American mother, despite having been born in Calgary, Alberta. He was a dual citizen until 2014 when he renounced his Canadian citizenship.

Yes, Cruz is qualified to run for president, despite Trump's claim. But we all knew that.

So, thought experiment I'll ponder in a later post: What will the rest of the GOP contenders have trouble doing because of the Cruz candidacy? (Okay, a hint: figure out how to get to the right of Cruz! Good luck on that.)

Fun, and games. Did I say fun?

Hey, Conservatives. The Poor Don't Need Advice. They Need Money.

This moral degenerate has a TV, fer chrissake!

We've been subjected to a number of articles by conservative pundits, quoting their favorite expert on the reasons for poverty. The latest kick is same as the old kick: It's the poors' fault. The moral degenerates don't have the common sense to emulate the elites' mores.

The latest comes from Ross Douthat, who channels David Brooks and Charles Murray. His thesis can be summed up thus: The poor were ruined by the 60s and 70s. Yep, the hippies came with their sex and living together and disco and everything and now look at the poor. They should have listened to their betters, you know, the rich folks who have better values.

Douthat links to an article I'd already read by Jeff Spross in The Week, claiming it showed that conservatives views on poverty and morals "make some people on the left angry." Whaa? If we don't agree with the conservative approach to poverty -- don't give them any money, just tell them to behave better -- then we're angry? Wow, he's got us on the left all figured out!

Spross nailed the conservatives on this one. The thing they have in common is they don't want to give the poor any money. That would be too easy on them, the losers.

As I usually do, I read the comments thread, at least until I got the measure of reader response, and here's one that's pretty typical and right to the point. Here's gemli's note to Ross:

Only someone with no understanding of his fellow humans could write such a column. To think that millions of people decided to change their culture in the span of a generation is to attribute far too much malevolent intent to the powerless. If a quarter of the U.S. population suddenly twitches, it's more likely the result of a jolt from the outside rather than a coordinated upswell of anarchic behavior.

Whole swaths of society didn't decide to abandon their families, their children, stable homes and the comforts of community so they could watch Internet porn. It makes me wonder instead why sexual issues loom so large for some that they must project their fevered imaginings and religiously-motivated guilt on others.

As James Carville might say: it's the economy, stupid. The economics are devastating for the poor and middle class. A $4,000 increase in income over 30 years does not being [sic] to cover the $100,000 increase in housing prices. Of course antipoverty spending shot up over this time period, because cost increases far outstripped income for food, clothing, housing, education and medical care.

People have had sex in good times and bad, whether they could afford kids or not, even when they were likely to die in childbirth, or from starvation. They're not going to stop because the money's tight. But money promotes family stability because it ensures the future. That's what the wealthy really take from the poor, and the poor respond in the only way they can.

Ouch. You had it coming, Ross. Awhile back I Wikipediaed you, and you came from affluence and no doubt never spent a day in your life lacking for anything. No wonder you're the expert on poverty. Of course, here's what the research says, beyond proving you're a nit-wit.

But with great values! And a Christian. Suffer the little children. No, really. Suffer.

The poor have their hovels, and the wealthy have these
because they're better people! Why didn't I think of that?