The Storyteller

The new Minnesota Historical Society Press Book Club held a meeting this evening at Micawber's Bookstore [define: Micawber] in St. Paul. Cathy Wurzer is the guest author--she's just come out with Tales of the Road: Highway 61, a companion book to a similar Wurzer-created television documentary set to air on TPT at 8 PM on March 23, 2009--and thereafter entice sustaining memberships in DVD form. Wurzer is the person talking in your car in the morning on the way to work; she's often on public television--she's everywhere--as upbeat and contented as a concert choir member, radiating her chipper, rated-G persona. I meet her before her informal presentation; she's wearing an English riding outfit and appears sociable and relaxed.

Wurzer is adored by the MPR/TPT crowd; she plays an underappreciated, outsize role in forming middle class Minnesota's identity. With her adventurous attitude and prom-queen on-air savoir faire, she models consciousness for her audience. MPR frequently runs a promo for Wurzer's Morning Edition: 'There's a lot going on in the world, and it's Cathy Wurzer's job to make sense of it all for you.'

Wurzer tells the audience of twenty how the book idea got started. And she's very happy with how the book turned out; she mentions it's now 'a regional best-seller'. Embracing a copy, she tells of her rush of emotion on first seeing the printed opus. Several times she mentions her hope that the television program and book will stimulate young people's interest in history. She reads aloud a bloodless, formulaic passage from the book's introduction. She tells of traveling Highway 61 in her 2002 Subaru, with several stories along the way.

I write down a few of her sentences: 'I'm kind of a quirky person anyway.' 'I hate it when people make up words: webisodes.' '[In writing the book] I probably could have gotten really political.' 'History should have been my second major.' 'It's amazing what Mother Nature does; she really heals herself.' '[We drove Highway 61] in a black '46 Cadillac. She's a pretty car.' '...because Highway 61 is such an iconic Minnesota roadway.'

Wurzer appears to enjoy life in the media fishbowl, daily telling her implicitly autobiographical tale. And if she's providing consciousness to her audience, their love appears important and confirming to her. The author mentions she's donating her entire earnings from the book to various Minnesota historical societies. (She's selfless too!)

The appreciative audience blows the predictable interrogative air-kisses: 'How did you find the time to write the book?' etc. Someone asks 'How did the project change you?' And for all Wurzer's on-air aplomb in modeling a plausibly happy/sane consciousness, one is struck by the complacency of her self-analysis. 'I've expanded myself,' 'I found myself documenting the history of a different era,' 'I want people to be more cognizant...', 'We're so quick to rip things down.'

I recently criticized Eric Eskola and Cathy Wurzer for their false suggestion that their interviewing Erik Paulsen constitutes some kind of legitimately critical probing of the new congressman's political identity. Might her book exemplify similar disappointments both in reach and grasp? (I'll find out around Christmastime--I'm number seventy-four in the HCL queue.)

If the project was in fact mind-expanding for her, Wurzer must not have started out with much. And a historical investigation committed from the outset to Wurzer's North Star--apoliticism--is an anti-intellectual project. No matter how nice its creator is.

Another Boring ARRA-2009 Post

[Note: I just {9:25 AM on 1/29/09} received an email from Jeff Shell: The Erik Paulsen interview is now available on KKMS' website.]

**

The debate over the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009--passed by the House today along party lines--might be divided into two subsections:

Question #1: Should the federal government run up the debt in order to stimulate the economy?

Question #2: Should our economic stimulus consist mostly of infrastructural spending, or should it focus primarily on temporary tax cuts?

The first question divides the reasonable and neanderthal right wing--and many local righty bloggers would appear to favor driving the economy over a cliff as a means of achieving ideological purity. But it's not a seriously-debated question among the masses, given the dire straits we're now in.

The second question might lead to an interesting debate--one in which honest conservatives could make economically-sound arguments about the greater efficiency and speed associated with temporary tax cuts, combined with additional massive federal borrowing. But that pesky 'honest' entry requirement would of course impede Erik Paulsen.

Rep. Erik Paulsen would enter such a debate having already painted himself into a corner. Paulsen is committed to the principle that all federal borrowing should be forever prohibited. So Paulsen is in a difficult position to argue on behalf of deficit-ballooning tax cuts as an alternative to ARRA-2009--unless he comes clean on his rookie economic error.

Erik Paulsen ran for Congress on an unsophisticated, self-contradictory economic message: cut taxes, permanently prohibit federal borrowing but allow a huge exception now.

Paulsen was interviewed today on KKMS--the tiny local Religious Right station at AM980--just before Ann Coulter, Dinesh D'Souza and a creationist Moonie. [Note to self: Prejudiced.] Before the Paulsen interview, the hosts promised to have the interview available on the station's website within an hour. And the Ann Coulter interview--that came just after Paulsen's--is available online. So I'd like to learn why the Erik Paulsen interview isn't there. Might Paulsen have disallowed the posting?

Eskola, Wurzer and Paulsen 'Visit'

At least four local journalists have interviewed Rep. Erik Paulsen since Israel's Gaza assault; none has pressed him on the issue. Nor has any sought clarification on his support for the Balanced Budget Amendment [alongside his calls for continued deficit spending and further stimulus measures]. In refusing to acknowledge inquiries from constituents, real journalists should also be pressing Paulsen on the civility and openness issues. So a journalist not interested in sucking up to Paulsen has at least three obvious areas upon which to grill the Congressman.

Our community's central forum for journalists and congressional representatives is Almanac--TPT's Friday-evening public affairs program--where Erik Paulsen appeared on January 23, 2009. The Almanac website forthrightly informs viewers: We've been checking in with members of Congress this month. This week we visit with our state's newest member in the House of Representatives. In other words, hosts [and consorts] Cathy Wurzer and Eric Eskola promise--right from the start--not to ask any hard questions or press for answers on any controversial issues.

Wurzer and Eskola are true to their word: The interview is a series of softballs, agreements and cutesy, staged/scripted 'personal' questions, with no mention of Gaza, the BBA or civility.

Why do Cathy Wurzer, Eric Eskola, Esme Murphy and the entire Twin Cities journalistic establishment abase themselves in this manner? How did we end up with this vain, supine bunch? A number of possible explanations occur:

1) You can't criticize a saint: Cathy Wurzer is Minnesota's dream daughter, ever-present on Minnesota Public Radio; many middle-aged, middle-class Minnesotans view her as the paragon of Minnesota Nice respectability, as she daily admixes the news with allusions to her personal foibles and love of fly-fishing--with her humanizing, recurring linguistic idiosyncrasy ['in five minutes from now']. The local journalistic pantheon are viewed as exemplars of community pride; to criticize Eric Eskola, Esme Murphy etc. is to reject the local culture as a whole.

2) Laziness: Journalists allowed a public audience with Erik Paulsen know their prestige will increase whether or not they question him aggressively. They notice, over the years, that they're admired whether or not they do their jobs. Slowly, they intuit the course of least resistance--'to visit with Erik Paulsen' rather than to engage in legitimate journalism across from him.

3) Fear: The big names of Twin Cities journalism fear backlash from the community, should they persistently question a politician. Local righties have become adept at guilt-tripping any media inquiry perceived as coming from a left sensibility. And they're afraid of losing future access to the politician, should he conclude that they're something other than his publicity flacks. (Witness the slightly pleading tone, as Eskola begs Paulsen to return for future interviews.)

Faking It: Erik Paulsen on Twitter

Stepping into the political arena, one must tell an autobiographical tale and project some 'attractive' personality. You don't have to be perfect, but somehow you have to appear preferable to the competition. As social primates, we're acutely sensitive to the feedback we perceive from others. So there's a constant paradox: The politician is attempting to project genuineness and authenticity but is doing so with calculation. Since politics is a constant within human social interaction, we're all politicians: We tailor our appearances, opinions and autobiographies to maximize our own magnetism, status and advancement. (Other motivational forces are also surely in play--but naked self-interest does not lie outside the top five, I'm quite sure.)

That said, we can't help but draw a gut conclusion concerning the authenticity of others. (Our own elevated authenticity is happily self-evident.) And our evaluations of others' authenticity are not infrequently unfair, or swayed by our own self-interest.

But still--I find Erik Paulsen's public presentation quite unengaging and charmless. I've been in his presence a half-dozen or so times, and I've never momentarily felt him thinking 'I'm going to surprise that fucker!' I've never heard him say anything funny, nor has he ever startled me with a flash of wit. Nor have I ever heard him say anything interesting. Have you?

In this vlogpost, Gary Vaynerchuk taught me something about social media--and Twitter. I'd like to point a similar criticism at Erik Paulsen.

Paulsen has been Twittering for a month or two now; you can view his most recent month's tweets by clicking the image above. Notice anything?

Paulsen's tweets have a harshly inauthentic quality; I don't believe he wrote them. The sentences have the aura--and the subjectlessness--of the self-loathing, sycophantic ghostwriter:

Visiting small businesses around the 3rd District

On the House Floor! CSPAN Clip: http://tinyurl.com/aswrqt

and

Erik Paulsen on Fox Business News: http://tinyurl.com/c75clv

That last tweet is the real giveaway. As Vaynerchuk observes, social media is all about authenticity. To detached ironists, that means: When entering the social media world, one must at least be willing to pretend to be authentic. After reading 10-20 of your tweets, I should have some confidence that you are the person behind the veil--and that I'm not being tweeted to by Stacy Johnson or some intern.

So Paulsen has entered the world of social media without having a clue what it is--handing responsibility for his tweeting off to some cubicle-slave. He might as well flush his brand down the toilet. If I'm correct, Paulsen--for his own good--should never again allow anyone other than himself to tweet under his account. (He shouldn't even allow another person to type it in--it will show.) And if I'm wrong--and that actually is your voice, Erik--then you really are hopeless.

Esme Murphy Congratulates Erik Paulsen

Send yours here

Esme Murphy briefly 'interviews' Erik Paulsen here. As in previous MSM encounters with Paulsen, no adversarial questioning occurs. When a controversial topic is raised, the question is phrased with open-ended 'how do you feel?' servility.

Paulsen was elected to Congress without ever having responded to (or interacted with) skeptics. He does not acknowledge inquiries from unembedded media; he didn't hold any event in the last year which would allow questions--even as he had videographers following his opponents' every move. Paulsen's predecessors maintained a decades-long tradition of holding regular town hall forums around the district--but Paulsen won't deign to acknowledge a blogger's inquiry on whether he will continue that tradition. Murphy already has access to the Congressman--so why ask?

On the upcoming stimulus package, Paulsen has thought up a set of politically-salable talking points: [My paraphrase] 'We need a big stimulus, but the deficit-spending seems excessive. It's not transparent enough, so I'll oppose it.' Murphy calls him on it, getting Paulsen to verify that any stimulus will involve deficit spending--which he acknowledges and accepts. Murphy fails to remind Paulsen that--having campaigned strongly supporting the Balanced Budget Amendment--his official position is that all federal borrowing ought to be unconstitutional. Has his position reversed?

When speaking with Paulsen, the Minnesota MSM adopts a high-sounding hyper-non-oppositional tone. Murphy asks Paulsen what he thinks about President Obama's reversal of the Bush policy on overseas US abortion/family planning aid. Paulsen responds expressing opposition, saying that overseas abortions could receive US taxpayer funding as a result. By framing the question in the softball 'what do you think' manner, Paulsen is allowed to maintain considerable vagueness. Murphy had a perfect opportunity to really get to the bottom of Paulsen's views on abortion; she could have pressed him to state precisely what his favored legal outcome would be, and how it should inform US aid to overseas family planning.

Since being elected, Israel has laid waste to Gaza, killing 700-940 civilians in the process--and unleashing intense international contempt for the US. Paulsen enthusiastically congratulated Israel for its assault by voting for H. Res 34, which tells an incredulous world that Israel bears no responsibility whatsoever for the 700-940 dead civilians. Murphy doesn't ask Paulsen a single question on Gaza.

Among a fairly large portion of the public, a conventional wisdom prevails distinguishing serious journalists from bloggers: Serious journalists intently study the issues and candidates and ask hard-hitting, studiously-neutral questions. (Real journalists don't care one way or the other about anything.) That's why earnest, high-ranking politicians like Erik Paulsen will speak with the Cathy Wurzers, Kevin Diazes and Esme Murphys--while not giving the time of day to silly hobbyists such as Gavin Sullivan. And as obvious as this is to the well-informed, it bears repeating: The conventional wisdom is bass-ackwards: Paulsen will speak with Wurzer and Murphy precisely because he knows they won't ask him any difficult questions--and that they will make no effort to pin him down on anything. And even the MSM's secondary lights [i.e. The Eden Prairie News] understand the game--and play exclusively by the Wurzer/Diaz/Murphy rules.

Stickers of Note - January 2009

Fox Business' Lapse

Dear Dagen McDowell and Brian Sullivan:

I saw your recent interview with my congressman--Rep. Erik Paulsen.

In the interview, Paulsen expresses skepticism about an upcoming new $350 billion bailout.

As the interviewer, I think you overlooked a rather obvious line of inquiry:

Paulsen campaigned for Congress advocating the Balanced Budget Amendment--so his goal is to make all federal borrowing unconstitutional.

As such, it makes no sense to discuss the pros and cons of any proposed bailout with him--does it? I mean, why not just ask him to confirm that he wants all federal borrowing to be prohibited by the US Constitution? If he were to answer 'no'--then you should ask him to confirm that--less than a month into his first term--he's already jettisoned his bedrock political/economic 'principle'.

Why didn't you pursue this? Were I to announce to the world that I hate all seafood--it would just seem weird for Fox Business to then interview me about the differences between lobster and shrimp. Why give Paulsen a free pass on this?

All the best,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie, MN

Not Slaughter Palestinians - That's My Answer

On Gaza, a commenter weighed in. (Thanks commenter!) I'd like to respond:

The per capita GDP in the West Bank and Gaza is $1,100, according to the CIA. In Israel, per capita GDP is $26,600. Per capita GDP in the US is 3.7 times that of Mexico; per capita GDP in Israel is 24.1 times that of Gaza. If you think of Mexico as a somewhat impoverished country, you can't begin to imagine the chasm separating daily life in Israel and Gaza. During the six-year period when Hamas was launching rockets into Israel, fifteen Israelis were killed. In its recent massive attack on Gaza, 1,330 Gazans were killed--of whom some 700-940 were civilians [Wikipedia]. The difficulties of living in Gaza are compounded by the partial Israeli blockade of Gaza and severe restrictions on the movement of persons--the checkpoints. Given the hell in which Gazans live, it is not surprising they elected an extremist government.

Whenever a country commits a cross-border attack, it readies a story explaining why the attack ought to be perceived as defensive. Israel and the United States have tried hard to make the case that Operation Cast Lead was defensive. But the world isn't buying this narrative--and it's only too easy to see why. When you go in and flatten a country where average people are living on 4% of your average income--and in the process, kill sixty-five times more people than their illegal means have cost you, there's no way intelligent international public opinion is going to buy into some Newspeak narrative describing the assault as defensive. You're going to be viewed in an extremely unfavorable light if you support that dishonest labeling. And make no mistake--we pay huge costs for being perceived as encouraging Israeli intransigence.

Has Hamas made itself look bad for putting its civilians in human shield positions? Most non-US observers don't fault Hamas much for this extreme measure; we flatter ourselves when we think our saying this might make it so. People outside the US view the Gaza assault as so disgustingly unjust that Hamas' use of human shields counts rather minimally to its disfavor. People in Israel and the US think 'any ethical Hamas leadership ought to see the wisdom in locating their paltry weaponry far from civilians, so that Israel can pulverize it easily and cleanly'. But this intuition does not seem obvious to people predisposed to viewing Israel's cross-border assault as an offensive military action.

There are some American observers who don't care what other countries think about our blank-check policy with Israel. But that kind of thinking is exceedingly dangerous in foreign affairs. You don't get to choose the definitions of everything. Entering a new political era, the US must exercise more concern for the opinions of others; in doing so, the US will be pursuing a safer course for our own national security. George Bush allowed us to become highly isolated diplomatically, at immense cost. Barack Obama has the opportunity to chart a new course.

An important element in that new course ought to be a renewed frankness with Israel--in which we inform that country that we will not stand idly by if it views its ongoing security challenges as being indefinitely resolvable with massive attacks on its neighbors. That doesn't buy Israel the long term peace it needs--and it apportions too much of Israel's defense bill onto the USA. Israel's leadership must be informed that its security challenges are its problem--and the US should withhold foreign aid to Israel if cross-border assaults recur, or if illegal settlements aren't dismantled with deliberate speed.

In your comment you say that Hamas desires ever greater conflict with Israel. But how do you think Israel's intentions look, from street level in Gaza City? When Hamas kills fifteen Israelis in six years and Israel kills 700-940 Gazan civilians in three weeks, do you think international public opinion thanks Israel for its diligence in keeping civilian deaths low? Playing the intentions game is a fool's errand--as it is simply a rationalization for seeing the conflict entirely from 'our side's' perspective.

You ask what other action Israel might take, in order to stop Hamas' rocket attacks. But coming up with a reasonable resolution to the immediate and underlying problem is for Israel to deal with. I'd just like them to know that solutions involving flattening their neighbors with large civilian death tolls won't be accepted in the future--as it's morally indefensible and it imposes excessive diplomatic costs on the US.

Ann Althouse asked:

If an American city were being repeatedly attacked over a long period of time, would we just accept it? Would we just say, ‘We’re so powerful that we can’t respond?’

Glenn Loury answered:

I think that question is also part of this Orwellian discourse. What would I have Israel do? as if, to object to this slaughter requires me to put forward a foreign policy. As if it was self-evident that there are only two alternatives—supine Israel accepting missiles falling on its cities, or this slaughter. I don’t accept that for a moment. Moreover, the analogy comes completely out of context. Would Americans accept missiles lobbed from Tijuana into San Diego? is completely absurd. We wouldn’t be in the situation in the first place. That’s a refugee camp there in Gaza that’s been there for six decades. Maybe the right analogy would be: Millions of Native Americans, hemmed into a reservation that was ten km by twenty-five km, engaged in a three-generation-long war, in which a few missiles were landing on San Diego...and we decided to go in and mop the floor with them. If there’s going to be an analogy it ought to be something like that. No—I don’t think the moral calculus is resolved by the question, ‘What would I have Israel do?’ Not slaughter Palestinians—that’s my answer to that question.

Is There One Thinking Republican Blogger in CD3?

'A real American that believes in our constitution, our way of life, and America in general will never agree with MoveOn.' The Admiral -- anonymous blogger at Lake Minnetonka Liberty

Dear Admiral @ Lake Minnetonka Liberty:

I just found your blog and wanted to comment briefly.

I see that in your header it says Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes--a quotation of whose generosity you make such liberal use. You attribute the words to Mahatma Gandhi. The quotation does not appear on Gandhi's Wikiquote page, nor does it appear anywhere in Gandhi An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments With Truth, The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of His Writings on His Life, Work, and Ideas or in Peace: The Words and Inspiration of Mahatma Gandhi. Where did you find the quotation? Can you provide a verifiable source?

And ponder for a moment just how inane that quotation is. What if you were entirely free--though not free to make mistakes? (Pretty hard to picture, no?) Would that type of freedom not be worth having? (I suppose it would depend on for how long they'd have you in the gulag.) And since no such reality could ever conceivably exist within human society--and since our reflection on the hypothetical has thus far produced not one mildly interesting speculation--of what interest is the thought experiment? I mustn't let 2009 pass me by without re-printing Immanuel Kant's fine words: 'Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.'

As a conservative, why do you like Mohandas Gandhi [as I prefer to call him, dispensing with the spiritualist honorific] anyway? I mean, Gandhi was not unsympathetic to socialism, right? And didn't he oppose free trade? (Wikipedia: 'Although Gandhi desired a total focus on the task of winning independence and not speculation about India's future, he did not restrain the Congress from adopting socialism as its goal.')

In your current blogpost you 'openly call on' Erik Paulsen to vote nay on the next gigantic economic stimulus bill. (Brave! I'd so feared you might 'secretly' call for same.) And isn't there something just a tiny bit un-Buford Pusserish about 'openly calling for' stuff in an anonymous blog? But let's leave specifics aside for a moment and discuss general principles. Erik Paulsen campaigned claiming to support making governmental borrowing permanently illegal--that's what it means to support 'the' Balanced Budget Amendment. If Paulsen is seriously committed to banning federal borrowing, then we don't need to get into a complicated discussion of the stimulus bill's merits. In that case Paulsen must oppose any bill not paid for by revenues coming in this year. No one who believes economic stimulus measures are sometimes needed would ever seek to permanently ban federal borrowing, right? Either Paulsen opposes every single stimulus measure, or he's jello.

If Paulsen is still committed to his central political and economic principle--the Balanced Budget Amendment--then our future discussions are tremendously simplified. We'll then merely need to find out when he will begin voting his principles--or when his supporters will start noticing his incoherence.

Erik Paulsen supports the BBA and you support the BBA. Why do you think Erik Paulsen is so unwilling to say this out loud? (Could it be because it's an incredibly unpopular position?) And--if Paulsen honestly wants the Constitution to ban borrowing, how could he support the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 [as in fact he did]--a law which authorizes gargantuan federal borrowing to rescue the nation's financial system? Why--on the House floor last week--did Paulsen attack the 110th Congress for passing a bill he himself supported? Does Rep. Paulsen think his colleagues are too stupid to look up his publicly-stated position on this issue?

Re: Your attack on Bill Weir (a local MoveOn.org activist), in which--without a speck of evidence--you call him a Marxist and a Communist. Is that a claim you're proud of? I believe that McCarthyism oozes from many a Republican pore--but I had little inkling it was of such a semiliterate and unhidden variety. Do your co-bloggers stand by your idiotic, sleazy attack on Weir?

**

**

I was saddened to learn yesterday of the [November 8, 2008] passing of Dick Kroeger. Dick was an activist and a gentleman--and will be much missed. A very cool guy who looked you in the eye and always served it straight up. During a free moment before the Wayzata parade, Dick and I discussed the astounding stupidity of John Kline's--and John McCain's--public positions on the Vietnam War. And I could tell that Kroeger was one sixty-six year old who was never able to seriously entertain the idea that Vietnamese lives were not human lives.

He Will Bury You

On Bloggingheads today, National Review's Byron York expressed disgust that Team Obama would allow the crinkly, unapologetic old Stalinist Pete Seeger to perform at the We Are One rally on Sunday. (In fact, Seeger has recanted some, to his credit.) And I must admit I love the old leftist songs--and like to keep the ostensibly-horrifying old Commie verses in This Land is Your Land--particularly:

There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
Sign was painted, it said 'Private Property';
But on the back side it didn't say nothing;
That side was made for you and me.

The song paints a picture of what it feels like to be an American. Any such image must include a spirit of rebelliousness, a jauntiness, a love of beating one's own path, a hatred for airs. To the stick-in-the-mud, the verse says FU. The verse belongs in the song. An American vocabulary needs those two words.

God I want that haircut

Pete Seeger--a great American musician and songwriter [Turn, Turn, Turn, If I Had a Hammer and Where Have All the Flowers Gone?]--sacrificed much for his beliefs. And at 89, he maintains a twinkle in the eye one seldom sees in people one-quarter his age. Everybody knows Pete Seeger was a Communist. So friggin' what--it's 2009 now; might we not consider allowing the internecine feuds of the 1950s to dissipate? Woody Guthrie--who died in 1967 but left the public stage a decade earlier--was born seven years before Seeger. Seeger has outlived most of his critics; let's pardon the old Red and give thanks for having him around still.

**

It's a beautiful day.

Next Time: A JCRC-SJAC Candidates Debate

It's Your Silence that's Disgraceful

I've called attention to the weirdly one-sided perspective on the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict on display among our political leaders. I felt that in CD3 we hadn't sufficiently discussed what we'd consider acceptable, as regards an Israeli response to Hamas' rocket attacks. So this evening I re-listened to the first half hour of the JCRC debate. [Abridged audio / Unabridged audio / Full Video] It turns out Erik Paulsen was quite clear about his sight-unseen, blank-check allegiance to Israel. More on that in a bit.

The debate's sponsor is the Jewish Community Relations Council--a group that is entirely on one side of the Israeli-Palestinian debate. Yet the district has many Muslim residents who care passionately about the same topic--and generally take a pro-Palestinian position. We should really learn from this imperfection in our democracy: In situating the debate at a synagogue [synagogues are great, of course--but we shouldn't reflexively hold such debates at synagogues], under the auspices of a strongly pro-war group, even allowing the debate's first six questions to be drafted by the JCRC--the biased atmosphere was inevitable. During the next political cycle, public-spirited citizens should demand that the Middle-East-focused debate include equal representation for pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli pressure groups. A great resolution of the current imbalance would be for the Somali Justice Advocacy Center and the JCRC to jointly host a Middle East & Horn of Africa Issues Debate.

At the beginning of the Bet Shalom debate, Paulsen's central attack against Madia: Quoting the DFLer out-of-context, Paulsen tells the assembled that Madia recently said, 'Iran is not a threat.' Those words did in fact come out of Madia's mouth, but within a rather hawkish statement, and with intonation clearly emphasizing that while Iran is not a threat, it is very bad--and US policy must address it. So Paulsen's phony attack should have been exposed--but wasn't.

Click above for video

Instead of attacking Paulsen's dishonesty, Madia chose to defend the statement. 'As a Marine, when someone says threat that means you attack. I'm not there yet. I don't think it's time to attack Iran.' Madia's response didn't quite smash Paulsen's attack--and should have included a credible, harsh counterattack, trying to get Paulsen to defend bombing Iran.

Both Paulsen and Madia implicitly suggested that threat has an unalterable meaning--when in fact the word can be used in many contexts to convey widely varying severity. And so if you disagree with someone on whether or not something is 'a threat', further discussion is called for--it would be stupid to allow such a distinction to be assumed to have unequivocal, extra-semantic meaning.

Paulsen's attack illustrates a central feature of our new Congressman's psychic universe--his dogmatism and anti-intellectualism. Madia--being neither dogmatic nor anti-intellectual--should have called attention to the elasticity of language. The distinction concerning labels really doesn't matter if both parties agree that Iran is a menace that needs to be contained.

During the first third of the debate, both viable candidates made clear they were strongly 'pro-Israel'. Madia told the audience that Israel ought to make its own decision as to whether it will attack Iran, without US interference: 'We need to defer to Israel as it defends itself.' '...as it takes measures in its own defense. As it takes calculated risks for peace.' (Madia used this phrasing twice during the early part of the debate; clearly the lines were in his talking points.) Calculated risk for peace could only mean operations such as the 2006 Lebanon War, the later Gaza assault or an attack on Iran. So Madia was using AIPACish Newspeak himself, if not quite to Paulsen's degree. The pervasive climate of McCarthyism surrounding this topic predated Operation Cast Lead, of course.

Paulsen's pro-Israel fanaticism would be difficult to overstate:

'My policy begins with the proposition that Israel is a democratically-elected country [sic] just like the United States--and we should not force the government or people to do something they don't want to do.' (Abolish the Department of State, then.)

A casual observer might note a distinction or two between the United States and Israel. We're not indefinitely, illegally occupying heavily-populated expanses inhabited by people who exist in walled-off slums who we require to go through checkpoints, nor are we periodically mounting cross-border attacks on neighbors and killing large numbers of civilians in the process. Israel's claim to be a democracy is in fact not as strong as ours--and saying so ought not communicate any insult. I would like Israel's democracy strengthened; Paulsen views it as already-perfect.

**

The emerging political philosophy of Erik Paulsen: If someone disagrees with you, never speak with her. Hamas must be blown to smithereens; we can avert our eyes from the children's suffering. America's budget woes can be resolved by a rigid Constitutional amendment that will forever end discussion--just as we'll end the gay marriage debate. The Israelis are 100% angels; the Palestinians are fit only for bantustans. One is struck by Paulsen's mama's-boy essentialism: He doesn't believe in human malleability. You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists.

**

In resolving the underlying Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the US ought to play a mediating role, occasionally pressuring Israel to accept moves that it doesn't want--just as we will with regard to the other parties. Paulsen's belief--that the conflict's resolution lies in pressuring one side only--ought to embarrass every St. Olaf graduate: It's utterly stupid. Paulsen entirely sides with Israel, viewing the entire conflict in dualistic terms. So the Palestinians must simply be pummeled into submission.

As the debate went on, Paulsen makes clear his blank check for Israel is not implicit: 'As a member of Congress I will support and respect the decisions of a democratically elected Israeli government.' His meaning could not have been clearer--as Congressman, Paulsen will never criticize Israel and will support its every decision.

You get brittle, uninformed dogmas such as these when you arrange debates such as these.

Let's do better next time--and make our democracy more democratic.

Our Day for Joy

I stopped by Edina's Edinborough Park yesterday to do the survey I mentioned several days ago. A little backstory:

I backed the Iraq War in 2003 and have since come to rue that support. And so before supporting any new cross-border military attacks, I go through a checklist making sure the proposed action passes muster. Before launching a military assault, we ought to engage in democratic deliberation in which the pros and cons are assessed. If the people supporting military action refuse to seriously acknowledge easily-foreseen negative consequences, that ought to put us on guard.

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict came out of the blue. We were aware of the problem of Hamas' illegal launching of Qassams aimed at civilians in southern Israel, but I don't recall any public deliberation on what a reasonable Israeli response might look like. Once Israel started its Gaza attack, public discourse in the US resembled a loyalty test. Few supporters of Operation Cast Lead (as the Israelis call it) felt it important to analyse the predictable negative consequences and engage in reasoned discussion as to whether it made sense. No one was putting forward a morally-serious rationale for the attack and easily-foreseen, undisputed negative consequences weren't even being discussed--so I opposed the action.

The local and national response has had a strong McCarthyite odor. Minnesotans seeking to congratulate Israel for its assault held (on January 12) what might fairly be described as a '100% Loyalty Rally' at the Sabes Jewish Community Center. As the bombs fell on Gaza, Michele Bachmann told the crowd, 'This is our day for joy, our day for rejoicing--because we join together with the great freedom-seekers and peace-seekers of Sderot and of southern Israel, who have said "Here I stand for peace and for freedom". And now we stand with them also. That's where freedom begins--when we stand together.'

Similarly craven 'pro-Israel' statements and mutual congratulations were issued by Mark Dayton, John Kline, Norm Coleman, Tim Pawlenty and Al Franken too--though we might note that Franken showed some concern for the people on the receiving end of Israel's bombs. Given the clearly McCarthyite ideological environment, the rally intended to inform Minnesotans there can be no such thing as legitimate discussion on whether or not you support Operation Cast Lead. You either strongly support it, or you're disloyal. Hence, no discussion of the predictable negative consequences was necessary. Discussing the negative consequences would legitimize thinking--and our political class agreed that thought had to be banished. It was a particularly disgraceful moment in our public life.

On the national stage, Congress passed a resolution apportioning blame for the conflict: 100% of the blame ought to be borne by Hamas, Erik Paulsen et al advised a scoffing world.

Prior to December 27, 2008, over six years Hamas had killed fewer than twenty Israelis with the Qassams. During the 22-day Operation Cast Lead, Israel killed around 700 civilians in Gaza, not to mention the additional 500 paramilitary and military Gazans who were killed--many of whom likely had very little say in their own participation. So it should surprise no thinking person that our political class' 100%-0% box score did not appear obvious to observers viewing the matter from outside their McCarthyite biosphere.

So I went to the indoor jungle gym park in Edina and asked at the front desk if surveying was allowed. Cool, I was told. (The First Amendment kicks in again when you leave Eden Prairie, I learned.)

And there (at the play area) I found dozens of moms, dads and grandparents waiting while their kids climbed--and I gave them my survey. The survey provides a brief statement of the conflict and asks respondents to apportion blame for the recent violence between Israel and Hamas. The survey is of course unscientific. Perhaps five people refused to take the survey--and four people who accepted the sheet returned it to me blank. But I got 22 of them back completed. Here are the results:

Hamas' blame - Israel's blame

80 - 20

70 - 30

60 - 40

50 - 50

70 - 30

75 - 25

50 - 50

50 - 50

60 - 40

50 - 50

50 - 50

50 - 50

99 - 1

100 - 0

98 - 2

75 - 25

50 - 50

100 - 0

60 - 40

45 - 55

70 - 30

80 - 20

Average:

68% - 32%

**

In my blogging on Gaza, a few people have strongly criticized me. So I thought I'd ask someone who actually knows what he's talking about--and knows the history of the region. I emailed Carleton College [my alma mater] History Prof. Adeeb Khalid--a published expert who knows much more about the Middle East than Mitch Berg or I do, asking for a reaction to my Gaza posts. Here's Adeeb's response:

I agree with you completely. The situation in Gaza is appalling. The violence is completely asymmetrical, out of all proportion to the alleged cause (Qassam rockets being fired into Israel) and will do nothing to enhance the security of Israel or to win it (or the US) any friends. The usual arguments, that the Israelis are doing it to defend themselves, etc., are premised on a completely false notion of any symmetry or equivalence between the two sides. Israel is a rich, militarily powerful, nuclear-armed state with powerful friends all over the world. Gaza is an overpopulated slum which is penned in with checkpoints and completely at the mercy of Israel. Also the fact of military occupation is absolutely central to how you look at the situation, but is seldom mentioned by those who would defend Israel 110% of the way.

And I publish Adeeb's response--with permission--not to pat myself on the shoulder, but to remind folks that this is the obvious moral intuition of the vast majority of non-US observers. To people looking at the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict from outside of our ideological vortex, it just doesn't look very defensive. And my survey results were somewhat interesting, because they show that even within our unusually 'pro-Israel' environment, lots of middle class parents and grandparents appear resistant to the 100% - 0% scoring that Erik Paulsen--and sadly, Al Franken--want us to accept without discussion.

Paulsen Proves a One-Minute Speech Can Be Boring

Video here

Mr. Speaker, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Three months ago, Congress rushed to spend 350 billion dollars of taxpayer dollars [sic] without adequate hearings and deliberation. The result was a lack of transparency and accountability, disappointment in how the massive funds were spent and a bloated federal budget deficit. But here we go again. This Congress is now proposing to do the exact same thing. Well another $350 billion bailout is not the answer my constituents are looking for. The people in my district in Minnesota are struggling to make ends meet, and they’re worried about the future. We must take concrete steps to jumpstart our economy and put people back to work. It’s time to stop exposing taxpayers to any more undue risk and saddling them with unnecessary debt. Mr. Speaker, Congress should reject another $350 billion bailout and instead focus on preserving, protecting and creating jobs to get our economy going again.

A Very Brief Interview

Assistant Prof. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer

(Justice and Peace Studies) UST

Gavin Sullivan:

Had you known everything we now know about the various results of Israel's Gaza assault--even adding the beneficial ones--and Ehud Olmert asked you, on Dec. 26, 2008, 'Should we go forward with this plan, or not?'

Would you say yes or no?

Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer:

I would have said no even without knowing the disastrous consequences--because they were all too predictable.

[January 15, 2009]

Hero Slays Librarian

Headline from yesterday's Novosibirsk Gazette--above:

"Warm air moves in from Minnesota--prepare swimwear."

**

After work yesterday I decided to do a little unscientific-but-bloggable public opinion research. I would ask twenty-five adults at the Eden Prairie Library to write down two numbers, in response to this:

For six years, Hamas had been firing rockets aimed at civilians in Israel. These illegal rockets killed almost twenty Israelis and wounded about 440, damaging property and causing great anxiety in Israel during that six-year period.

The Israel-Palestine conflict dramatically escalated on December 27, 2008; fighting has continued since then between Israel and Hamas, in Gaza.

Who is to blame for the escalation that started in late December? Using your best judgment, please assign a percentage of the blame for the recent escalation to each party. So you're going to write down 2 numbers. The 2 numbers must add up to 100.

Hamas is _____% to blame.

Israel is _____% to blame.

In dashing off the questionnaire, I tried to word the thing so that--if anything--it slants a bit pro-Israel, to my ear at least. (I didn't want Mitch Berg to accuse me of shilling for Osama.)

Why the library, you ask? I'd likely get a different demographic at the food court at Eden Prairie Center or at a coffee shop--and perhaps I could have completed the project there before getting thrown out by mall security. It was -6°F outside as I recall, and I felt like getting the grunt work finished and in my backpack so that I could go home and type it up for y'all.

The library had a key advantage, I thought: As a public place, I'd not even be breaking any silly rules. Needless to say, anybody who didn't want to participate would be entirely free to say no; even if they accepted my form, they'd still be free to opt out at any time. Their cooperation would be entirely voluntary--that's what I was thinking as I walked into the Eden Prairie Library at around 5 PM. I found a chair and left my backpack and jacket there.

I marched up to the librarians' help desk and set upon the only available librarian--a twentysomething tot--and explained my errand to him, hoping he'd say cool. Instead, he said he'd have to go clear it with Senior Librarian Ali Turner--and asked for a copy of my survey, to show her.

Some minutes later, Turner emerged from the mystery room where the librarians do their magical deeds. And she had bad news for me--informing me that Hennepin County Library has a policy against this kind of thing.

I told Turner that--the library being a public place--I would be breaking no law to say hello to a stranger, right? What's the difference? (Was I drugged, kidnapped and shunted off to Pyongyang this morning?) (Bummer trip!)

Here's when the bureucratic mentality really kicked in. Turner then--looking me in the eye--said, 'The library is not a public place.' (Yes she did!)

'Say what? It is too a public place, isn't it?'

'We refer to it as "a public setting,"' she ad-libbed. (Serious as cancer--that's what she said.)

Turner explained that I could conduct my survey outside--and gestured toward the lobby, but I knew she meant out in Siberia, under the ample porte cochère in front. This she confirmed.

So I told Turner I'd like to get that HCL policy statement in writing. I couldn't believe that folks are forbidden from learning what other people think about the Israel-Gaza conflict while at the library. (They should be free to hand out any survey they like--in the opinion of this wild-eyed libertarian.)

Turner agreed to provide me with the document. We would exchange calling cards and she would then contact me on Friday with the library's anti-surveying policy in writing. So we walked to our respective lairs, I donned jacket and backpack and returned to where we had been somewhat confrontationally speaking. As we exchanged cards, it occurred to me to ask her:

'Is the library a public place? Yes or no?'

'Well--when you put it that way...I suppose, yes,' she allowed.

'So earlier, when you told me "The library is not a public place"...you and I now agree that you were diametrically incorrect when you said that. Right?'

'Yes, that's right' she said.

Customer Satisfaction Survey on Gaza

Glenn Loury and Ann Althouse discuss Gaza on January 6, 2009

Yesterday Eric Black published on the Gaza conflict, informing readers he feels multidirectional sadness about the violence. It's a heartbreak--and Black has 'more questions than answers', and points blame at no one in specific. So I've asked him:

Let's turn the clock back to the day before Israel launched its Gaza campaign. I describe to you the essential contours of what actually has subsequently taken place [in 3-5 sentences, say] since then, and ask you:

Good idea, or dumb idea? Beneficial to Israel's long-term security, or not? Helpful to America, or damaging? Full speed ahead or whoa, Nellie?

**

"Civility, Paulsen-style"

**

Black responded with his own hypotheticals--and no response to mine--asking how I would respond to the Qassams, were I Ehud Olmert. He then asked hypotheticals about what I would do at various historical points during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Black's article implies he does not think Israel's ongoing assault on Gaza wrong. And when I put the question to him directly, no clear answer comes back.

So I rephrased my hypothetical today, asking Eric Black:

Had you known everything we now know about the various results of Israel's Gaza assault [even adding the beneficial ones] and Ehud Olmert asked you, on Dec. 26, 2008, 'Should we go forward with this plan, or not?'

Would you say yes or no?

Black won't answer. So Black would be equally satisfied whether or not Olmert chose to go ahead with the assault. [Admittedly, that's my reading of the runes--I can't get Black to give a clear answer.]

Being indifferent on whether or not this attack ought to go forward makes me a bit nauseous. If one were less than strongly confident the assault would be beneficial--carefully acknowledging the many known costs and risks--how could one feel indifferent about taking such an enormous gamble?

I rephrased Black's non-answer to my "Dec. 26, 2008 hypothetical"--saying that Black would advise the Israeli Prime Minister to flip a coin. Black dislikes my rephrasing of his position--but won't explain how (substantively) my paraphrase of his view is wrong.

In attempting to speak with people who don't share my view [that the Israeli assault on Gaza was a very bad idea], I've repeatedly tried to get their response to my "December 26, 2008 hypothetical". And two people (Mr. Black among them) have responded with the 'what would you do about the Qassams?' response. In all honesty, I don't know. But I wouldn't mount an all-out aerial bombing and invasion--of that you can be sure. The negative effects and enormous risks of such an action would entail far more suffering and damage--physical and reputational--than I would be willing to bear. In addition--were I Ehud Olmert--I would feel grave trepidation about foisting such enormous costs onto the United States of America. (A horrible way to treat a friend.) An ethical Ehud Olmert would have the honor to take that into consideration.

So I am happy to answer Eric Black's hypothetical: Doing nothing would be better than to doing this.

The world's outrage is now focused on the US and Israel, for Israel's assault on Gaza--and the US blank check that enables it. So the question I am asking is the relevant one--as it is the question being asked on the outside of our sound-proof booth. How could Israel have done this? How could the US acquiesce in the face of this?