Andrew Hagen

Omer Bartov has an important essay in the New Republic. Initially, in reviewing Hitler’s chilling second book, Bartov writes:

[W]e still do not seem to have learned a simple crucial lesson that Hitler taught us more definitively than anyone else in history: some people, some regimes, some ideologies, some political programs, and, yes, some religious groups, must be taken at their word. Some people mean what they say, and say what they will do, and do what they said.

Most liberal-minded, optimistic, well-meaning people are loath to believe this. They would rather think that fanaticism is merely an “epiphenomenal” façade for politics, that opinions can be changed, that everyone can be corrected and improved. In many cases, this is true—but not in all cases, and not in the most dangerous ones. There are those who practice what they preach and are proud of it. They view those who act otherwise, who compromise and pull back from ultimate conclusions, as opportunists, as weaklings, as targets to be easily conquered and subdued by their own greater determination, hardness, and ruthlessness. When they say they will kill you, they will kill you—if you do not kill them first.

(*) If we progressives fail to thoroughly learn this lesson, progressive reforms where planned will not be implemented and where implemented will be revoked.

Bartov covers more ground. He links the present epidemic of anti-Semitism to the decaying corpse of Hitlerism that haunts us even now. He notes that the charter statement of the terrorist group Hamas, for example, calls for the violent destruction of the State of Israel. He notes that Mohammed Atta and the Hamburg cell of Al Qaeda considered their motivation for the 9/11 attacks on the US to be anti-Semitism. They wanted to fight Jews by fighting the US.

A quibble is in order. Bartov notes disapprovingly that a recent survey finds “70 percent of Germans resent being blamed for the Holocaust.” Assuming that someone has indeed blamed “the German people as a people” for the Holocaust their reaction would not be unexpected. Most Germans alive today were not even born until after the Holocaust. To blame a people for a crime of their ancestors is not in accord with basic principles of justice. (†) If Bartov had more finely tuned his argument to eliminate the bashing of Germans for being German and focused more clearly on the atrocious wave of anti-Semitism washing over Germany and Europe, Bartov’s argument would have improved.

Those of us who defend Israel should not waste time trying, for example, to blame people born after the Holocaust for the Holocaust. Instead, we should blame Europeans, including Germans, for what they do wrong today. That includes the EU’s support for Palestinian Arab terrorism. (‡) (§)

Bartov bogs down his essay by ironically stating in the context of an event at Rutgers University, “So some may think that destroying Israel is legitimate and some may think otherwise.” Would Bartov really suggest that academic freedom is not wide enough for such an opinion, assuming the “destruction” is not violent or involved a redefinition of the state? Of course academic freedom must be that wide, and apparently Bartov wishes to constrict it.

Bartov would have done better to criticize the event as pro-terrorism. The point is not that a few students would dare to criticize Israel or even suggest it should not exist as a Jewish state. I believe Israel should continue as a Jewish state, but I also support the right to hold other opinions on the subject. Theoretically the State of Israel could legally redefine itself in the context of peace with its neighbors. That may be a bad idea or unrealistic but it is not an illegitimate point of view. The problem was not, as Bartov seems to suggest, that the event took academic freedom too far. The problem was that it was not really an exercise of academic freedom. They advocated murder, violence, and terrorism against innocent people. It was a group of reprobates, not a group of scholars.

Unfortunately, Bartov’s advocacy for the State of Israel is not effective enough. He overstates his claims and thereby limits his ability to persuade an unsympathetic audience. Doubly unfortunately, amidst the current global wave of Jew-hatred, the State of Israel needs her advocates to be at their peak effectiveness right now.

Three terribly underused words in America today are obliquity (*), wanton (†), and palter. (‡)

How can we “cut the occurrence of chronic diseases by half within a decade?”

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman has made an interesting health policy proposal: the creation of an “American Center for Cures.” (*) By investing $150 billion (over several years) the federal government can spur science and innovation and entice to market cures that private industry alone does not have the profit motive to develop. (†)

What a great new idea.

Joe Trippi is out and Roy Neel is in as Howard Dean’s campaign manager. Down to the presidential campaign’s last few million dollars, Neel has mapped a new strategy for the insurgent former governor of Vermont. (*) Rather than focus on “mini-Tuesday” on February 3rd, when seven states hold primaries, Dean will direct a significant portion of his campaign resources to Wisconsin’s primary of Feburary 17th. A schedule of all the Democratic primaries makes it clearer why. (†) On Super Tuesday, March 2nd, an enormous number of delegates are at stake. On that day ten states hold primaries, including both Dean’s home state, where he will poll strongly, and only two Southern states, where Dean expects little support.

I usually refrain from making predictions of how human beings will act in the future, because human beings have free will and the outcome of free will is inherently unpredictable. Instead of making wild guesses, my analytical method attempts to determine under what conditions something will happen. This is far more profitable than slinging around wild guesses.

Neel’s strategic vision greatly impresses me in its technical merit. Dean’s two biggest liabilities are the “I have a scream” speech and his sudden lack of funds. By writing off the earliest primaries now, Dean can avoid criticism that he is a loser, let time intervene in the public mood to blunt the edge of the scream speech, and make the most of his precious few remaining dollars.

Dean has renewed his negative campaigning, blasting rival John Kerry as the “handmaiden of special interests.” (‡) Negative campaigning against fellow Democrat Dick Gephardt backfired on Dean in Iowa, relegating him to third place after he enjoyed a significant lead in the polls. Now, however, Dean’s ratings among Democrats are already so low that perhaps he believes they cannot go lower. He might as well try to drag the others down to his level. Making the primary contest a mudfight may also work to Dean’s advantage. He has a pugilistic personality and his youthful core supporters are primed and ready for an ugly scrap. If Dean wins in Wisconsin, he will proclaim himself “Comeback Dean,” hoping it translates to a big victory on Super Tuesday, and then the nomination.

Neel’s plan is the best strategy for getting out of the deep hole Dean has dug for himself with his gaffes, his screams, and his anger.

Will it work? My best guess is that at this point John Kerry can coast to victory but only if he makes no major mistakes. As a person who has desired the presidency for many years, John F Kerry knows how to avoid common pitfalls. Kerry will weather attacks on his Botox injections, his legislative record, and his liberal stands. (§) If he does something foolish, though, Dean and the others will be ready to take his place as the front-runner.

Dean needs outside help to win. Either John Kerry making a large mistake or some kind of news event working in Dean’s favor could propel Dean back to his front-runner role. Roy Neel’s Wisconsin strategy gives Dean a chance to rebound if fortune favors him. At this point nothing Dean can do on his own, however, could reestablish the governor as the leading candidate for Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

Update: Michael Totten reports on the bloggers deserting the Dean campaign. (**) I don’t see how this will hurt him. Dean needs to take his message to Americans who haven’t heard it before. The last thing he needs is to retain his previous focus on inward-directed blogs.

Update: 9 February 2004. The Federal Election Commission has a complete list of dates for the primary elections. (††)

CNN offers a handy scorecard of the delegate count. (*)

These delegates to the Democratic National Convention will determine the party’s nominee for President. Currently, Howard Dean leads due to loose delegates. John Kerry is set to take the lead away from him in the days ahead.

As the New Hampshire primary results roll in, several news organizations predict a John Kerry victory. CNN has called the race for John Kerry by 10 points over Howard Dean. (*) If preliminary indications hold up, Dean will improve from his third place finish in Iowa to second place in New Hampshire.

John Kerry has all of the intangibles. He has a lot of the money. He looks like a sure thing for the Democratic nomination. The question becomes: can John Kerry close the deal?

As I predicted (†), Dean has shrugged off his disappointing showing in Iowa and picked up the pace in New Hampshire. The former Vermont governor will attempt to declare a comeback victory. Nevertheless, Dean held a huge lead in New Hampshire just last month. (‡) His inability to win his neighboring state can only devastate his campaign. With his deep pockets, Dean can soldier on for a long time. Dean’s likely inability to win even a single state, however, will doom his chances.

Edwards and Clark vie for third tonight. Edwards’s support grew strongly from last week in the single digits to today in the double digits. Edwards has enticed the interest of lot of Democrats, moderate, hard-core, and otherwise. Now he needs a fundraising boost, a victory in South Carolina, and some major endorsements.

Clark fell in the New Hampshire polls. Democrats want to hear more about the former general than just his background and accomplishments. They want to hear his specific policy proposals. Clark’s political inexperience hurts him because it takes time to develop a number of rigorous, serious policy proposals. Clark desperately needs a major policy announcement. May I suggest opposing Bush’s immigration proposal as too liberal? Surveys find that eighty percent of Americans want illegal immigration stopped, and roughly that number want reduced the raw number of legal immigrants per year. By taking the lead in a critical issue like immigration, Clark can gain the political prestige he still lacks.

Lieberman faces a grim fifth place finish. As the only conservative Democrat in the race, Lieberman now aims for a victory in Delaware, hoping that will carry him into a contest for Southern states.

Al Sharpton will continue his quest at least to South Carolina, where he now polls strongly. His ability to stay in the race augurs well for future minority candidates. Imagine a Harold Ford or Colin Powell or a minority candidate without Sharpton’s negative reputation in the race. That person would have done well. Sharpton’s candidacy proves it can be done.

Dennis Kucinich persists in his quixotic quest for a minor cabinet position.

Meanwhile, George W Bush appears more beatable than ever. He has given his conservative base little reason to vote for him on November 2nd. Bush unwisely relies on rank and file Republicans who will vote for the moderately conservative, fiscally irresponsible Bush just to keep the Democrat out of office. On critical issues from affirmative action to abortion to immigration to vouchers to reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy, George W Bush fails to deliver what his base wants. Bush’s efforts to woo moderate, independent, and Hispanic voters do not hold great promise for him. In the end, the central issue is still the economy. The only President since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss in jobs ought to fret over his reelection chances.

I created a chart that details the backgrounds of the major presidential candidates. (*)

Every candidate but marginal hopeful Al Sharpton has a graduate degree. In prior campaigns, many major candidates did not. Examples of candidates without graduate degrees include Al Gore, Bob Dole, Ronald Reagan, and George HW Bush.

Updated 31 January 2004.

MSNBC and other news sources report heavy voter turnout in New Hampshire’s presidential primary today. (*) The weather is cooperating.

Wilfred M McClay’s altogether brilliant piece in the Wilson Quarterly on ideas in America should not be missed. (*)

Jennifer Nelson writes of feeling unwelcome as a mother, or “breeder,” in San Francisco. (*) (†) It’s sickening what some people have said and done to Nelson.

Updated 31 January 2004 for clarity.

With panache and humor, Exit Mundi collects, describes, and illustrates the many horrific ways in which the world may cease to exist. (*)

A few years ago, the BBC did a program on the world’s largest volcanoes. It termed them “supervolcanoes.” (*) One of its subjects was the volcanic system at Yellowstone National Park, USA. Since then, a number of alternative news sources have played up the possibility that the Yellowstone supervolcano could go at off any time, killing millions. (†) This dovetails nicely with apocalyptic prophecy and the “America has it coming” line of argument. Among their claims is that Yellowstone has recently seen a higher than normal level of volcanic activity. (‡)

The US Geological Survey, however, actively studies volcanic activity at Yellowstone (§), and reports that there is nothing unusual going on. (**)

We have no reason to believe that the Yellowstone volcano (††) will go off any time soon.

Update: 24 March 2004. The bulge in the lake has earned a special section on the USGS web site. The diagnosis is that it is “very unlikely” that this is an indication of a volcanic eruption . (‡‡)

Update: 12 June 2005. The USGS Yellowstone volcano site is online. (§§) Two separate (***) interviews with scientists (†††) are available.

Case closed. No need to panic.

The web log Boomer Deathwatch takes a conservative and cynical look at the Baby Boom generation. (*) (†) There are serious questions about whether supporting Baby Boomers into their senior years at present benefit levels will cost too much for younger generations. (‡) These concerns feed a sense of cynicism, outrage, and exploitation among us under 40. The demand for generational equity is just, but the castigation of Baby Boomers as a class of entirely bad people goes too far.

Several years ago, researchers devised a new diagnosis called “Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy” (MSBP). According to the diagnosis, parents harmed their children in order to draw attention to themselves. By advocating medical care for their children, parents could come under suspicion of MSBP. The diagnosis resulted in hundreds of British parents and thousands of parents worldwide losing custody of their children. Now controversy rages over whether the diagnosis has validity. (*)

Newsmax reports on a former US Customs agent, Diane Kleiman, who says illegal aliens and other persons without background checks work at US airlines where they have positions of unsupervised access to airplanes. (*) Authorities recently uncovered a massive drug ring operating through such a network. Kleiman’s question is apt: if they can smuggle drugs, what or who else?

Hiring illegal aliens is against the law. We should enforce the law. This law is especially pertinent to the airline industry. All airline employees who will have access to aircraft should undergo background checks prior to employment.

Insight crows about one if its stories finally making the rounds of the wire services. (*) An Iranian defector, Hamid Reza Zaker has claimed that Iran was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Now he gets more attention thanks to his testimony in the 9/11 trials in Germany.

There is no independent corroboration for his story.

Robert H Schultz, Jr has a good article on Special Operations Forces. Though they specialize in fighting terrorism, they were never used in that role until after 9/11. (*)

This seems to relate to President Clinton’s idea for “black ninjas” to jump out of helicopters and attack Al Qaeda. (†) It’s easy to mock Clinton’s fascination with ninjas, but the basic idea of covert operations proved itself with devastating effectiveness in Afghanistan.

Responding to the international crisis created in 1979 when the Khomeini revolution in Iran took over the US embassy in Tehran and took scores of Americans hostage, President Carter ordered US Special Operations Forces into action. Unfortunately, disaster struck Operation Eagle Claw at a location in Iran codenamed Desert One. There an accident killed eight American troops and wounded several others. The mission came to a premature end.

The community web site Kuro5hin hosts a series of informative articles on the ill-fated mission. In light of recent events in Iran, it is useful to look back on the recent history.

Part I (*)
Part II (†)
Part III (‡)
Part IV (§)
Part V (**)

Jay Reding dispenses justice to the Patriot Act’s detractors. (*) He is of course right to defend that legislation so badly needed by prosecutors in their efforts to punish and deter terrorism in the homeland.

Sadly, many bloggers take a knee-jerk response to the Patriot Act. It sounds bad, and thus must be bad. Some understand the Patriot Act, but oppose it anyway. Perhaps they don’t understand why it is needed.

We need the Patriot Act to stop Islamofascists from blowing up more buildings. If you want to oppose the Patriot Act, please consider providing a concrete, feasible alternative that will actually stop terrorism in the real world. I would prefer a less intrusive solution. The problem is I don’t know of any.

The New York Times has another lifestyle piece on gay-marriage. (*) The advent of judicially instaurated gay-marriage will lead to a gay-wedding rush in a town in Massachusetts. The caterers will be busy and so on.

It’s a lifestyle piece. Like most of what the Times prints on gay-marriage, it does not address the debate that is ongoing. It ignores what is really important. The Times write-up is all too typical of mainstream press coverage of the critical social problem of gay-marriage. The press is blind to the actual issues created by this historical, wrenching, premeditated societal alteration. The media just do soft stories and lifestyle pieces. They take the easy road. It’s gutless reporting. This gutlessness greatly aids gay-marriage advocates, because it lets them do what they prefer: continue to avoid the issue of gay-marriage. All they want to talk about is love. No one is against love. Gay-marriage concerns more than love, however. It concerns the architecture of society, and particularly how we raise children.

No revolutionary social change, not even gay-marriage, should get a free pass. We ought to have a debate. So long as the media ignores the debate, they do a disservice to the country.

Where is the hard-hitting journalism that will actually address the many controversial issues raised by gay-marriage? What courageous journalist will file that report?

Update: 12 June 2005. The then-ombudsman of the New York Times later agreed with me that his paper’s coverage of gay marriage as a lifestyle was a biased practice. (†)