Social Security -- More

UPDATE: Here's a link to the social security "TrusteesReport". It is neither as long nor as dense as I expected, and it's worth reading in its entirety.

Note to WMP: This, from section II.D of the Report:

Under the intermediate assumptions, the OASDI cost rate [i.e. benefits to be paid] is projected to decline slightly between 2004 and 2007 and then increase up to the current level within the next 3 years. It then begins to increase rapidly and first exceeds the income rate [i.e. SS taxes collected] in 2018, producing cash-flow deficits thereafter. Despite these cash-flow deficits, beginning in 2018, redemption of trust fund assets will allow continuation of full benefit payments on a timely basis until 2042, when the trust funds will become exhausted. This redemption process will require a flow of cash from the General Fund of the Treasury. [Therefore,] Pressures on the Federal Budget will thus emerge well before 2042.

Emphasis added.

In short, all the Trust Fund has is a set of promises by the government to repay the money that Trust Fund has lent it due to the current suplus of taxes collected over benefits paid. After 2018 (under the intermediate assumptions), the Trustees will start asking that this debt be re-paid, at an ever accelerating rate. Since the government has no "savings", making good on those promises will require it to do one or more of the following: refinance the debt (i.e. borrow more), increase in the money supply (i.e. print more money), increase government income (i.e. raise taxes); or obtain an extension (i.e. reduce benfits so that it has longer to repay the debts).

For a (somewhat cynical) review of the history of the "Trust Fund" see "The Illusory Trust Fund" article refrred to below.

On the Privatization of Social Security

It's funny how things come in threes. There was an interesting post a week ago at Washington Monthly that got me thinking (again) about social security: "The Illusory Trust Fund". Then, on Monday night, I had a long telephone discussion with one of my sons on the same issue. Then, that same night, I read the following comment TGM posted on an earlier thread here:

"I don't see the dismantling of New Deal programs, such as the privatization of Social Security, as a good thing. The safety nets for the average citizen are being undermined, IMO, by this new brand of "Borrow and Spend" GOPers. I fear the least capable economically will pay a high price. The Ownership Society may be a small but wealthy club of Owners."

Someone up there obviously wants me to write about Social Security! (LMAO).

I was all set to do so. In fact, I had it all written. Then, I read the following additional comment from TGM, posted this morning:

On Social Security, Mr. Drum has an interesting Smoke & Mirrors post describing what he calls free lunch proposals:A free lunch proposal is one that - when carefully examined - essentially proposes that we can fix Social Security without any tax increases or benefit cuts. All of these proposals rely on at least one heroic assumption, and in the case of privatization the assumption is that the average return on private accounts will be about 7% per year. Is this reasonable? Over at MaxSpeak, Dean Baker is properly skeptical.A second post entitled, Smoke & Mirrors, Part 2, goes more deeply into future projections.

Feeling duty bound to follow the links provided by my only regular reader, I did so. You should too; especially "Part 2".

The argument in favor of privatization rests on two key premises: first, that social security, as presently structured, will go "bankrupt" by 2040 or so, and second, that private accounts will provide a greater level of benefits than social security for the same dollar contribution. The second of these premises has been widely debated, but, to my considerable surprise, the "Smoke and Mirrors, Part 2" article directly challenges the first premise. That was the one point in this whole debate on which I had assumed there was universal agreement. Silly me. I should have known there would not be universal agreement on anything related to social security. Obviously, I need to do some more reading about the first premise for privatization.

Uncertainty over the bankruptcy premise does not by itself drive a stake in the heart of privatization, of course. But, what it does do is put enormous pressure on the second premise: that private accounts will provide a greater level of benefits than social security for the same dollar contribution. If social security won't go bankrupt and will provide "returns" to retirees comparable to private accounts, what is left of the case for privatization? There are my dearly beloved libertarian arguments: that people, not government, should own their own money; that social security is patronizing and gives the government too much control over our lives; etc., etc. But, it does not seem, even to me, that those sorts of normative arguments are sufficient, by themselves, to justify the wrenching political and fiscal struggle that would be required to completely overhaul social security. I wish we had done social security differently from the outset. But, since we didn't, there has to be a better reason than political theory to change it.

I am inclined to believe that private accounts will provide better benefits per dollar invested than social security even if investment risk is minimized. In part, this is based on confidence in the ability of the American economy to continue to grow through continued better-than-expected growth in productivity. For example, I do not think we have even scratched the surface of what digital technology can do in this regard. Also, though, I believe that future returns on money "invested" in social security are likely to fall, perhaps significantly, from current levels as the government trims benefits through increases in the retirement age, increased taxation of benefits, lower cost of living increases and, ultimately "means-testing."

But, I am less confident about all of this than I was last night, so maybe I'll go do a little research before I make a complete idiot of myself.

TGM: Thanks for the tip.

Not that this is "news" to anyone paying attention, but . . .

Here (courtesy of Jose) is the latest from the CIA on Iraq:

"Report: CIA paints bleak Iraq picture"

Why is it that I think THIS intelligence assessment is probably a lot better than the pre-war assesments on WMDs? If only it were otherwise.

Anyone got any thoughts on how we are ever going to get out of this mess?

Why Bush [Should Have] Lost

It doesn't look like I am going to have time to do an original post today, so I am going to post instead something I wrote nine months ago in a vain (in both senses) attempt to get on the NYT's Op-Ed page. (BTW: The futility of that effort is in some ways the genesis of my interest in blogging).

The basic premise of the essay -- that Bush would lose the election because he had alienated even old, "rich" heterosexual, white guys like me -- turned out to be spectacularly wrong, of course. Either he didn't alienate enough of us, or there aren't enough of us to matter. Nevertheless, I have included the whole piece in the interests of candor regarding my political perspicacity. Despite the failure of prediction, this does do a pretty good job of explaining why I believe Bush should have lost. And, it explains the thinking that led me to "go Democratic" after two+ decades of voting for Republicans.

In addition, though, this piece also provides something of an indirect response to Peter Beinart's Article -- "A Fighting Faith" in the current issue of The New Republic -- an article which, along with Kevin Drum's critique (See Drum 1), generated a spectacularly partisan and vituperative exchange of posts and comments spreading across a dozen or more blogs. See Drum 2, Drum 3, and Drum 4, and the links/trackbacks/and comments in each.

In arguing that the threat of current-day terrorism is comparable to the threat posed by Germany/Japan in the '30s and '40s and by the Soviet Union in the '50s-70's, Beinart seriously exaggerates the danger posed by terrorism. The struggles with both the Axis in WWII and the Soviet Union in the Cold War were struggles for the survival of the West. To suggest that terrorism poses a similar threat devalues the importance of the previous struggles and wildly exaggerates the current risks. The destruction that terrorist groups could wreak on America and Europe if they were to obtain WMDs -- particularly nuclear WMDs -- would be truly horrific. Yet even in that absolutely worst case scenario, there would be no threat to our survival as a nation.

The analogy to WWII and the Cold War is so overblown that one is tempted to ignore the rest of Beinart's argument as well. But that would be a mistake, because I think he has put his finger on something important: "liberals" DO need to take the fight against terrorism more seriously. In part this is because the threat is real. But, equally important, this is because the threat is perceived to be real by the vast majority of Americans, and a political movement that ignores or belittles what is the single most important issue for much of the electorate is doomed to be marginalized. The rest of the liberal agenda is, at this point at least, a hostage to the concerns the electorate has regarding terrorism and ("moral values", of course).

But what I found most surprising about the debate on on Beinart article was how little attention was paid the question of how. Beinart contents himself with addressing the question of whether liberals should get fully engaged in the"war on terrorism". Drum raises (but does not try to answer) the antecedent question of why liberals should do this. But neither of them moves on the critical question of how liberals should do this. That is, assuming liberals heed Beinart's call to arms, what is it that they should advocate -- and if ever they come to power again -- do.

My thoughts on that issue are also embedded in what follows.

Why George Bush Will Lose

I think George Bush is going to lose the election.

This belief has nothing to do with Mr. Kerry. What, pray tell, does that man believe in besides getting elected? Nor does it have anything to do with Mr. Bush’s national guard service (the silliest issue since Gennifer Flowers), or his supposed simple-mindedness (Reagan was no rocket scientist, but he won twice), or with his willingness to play fast and loose with the truth (Clinton was a master at this but he won twice too). Nor does it have much to do with the economy. We give Presidents way too much credit and blame for business cycles that are largely beyond their or anyone else’s control. Nor, finally, does it have much to do with Iraq. I do believe invading Iraq was a mistake, but I do not claim to have been duped. No one who paid any attention to Colin Powell's presentation at the UN could possibly have believed Iraq’s chemical or biological weapons posed any imminent threat to the United States, even if they existed. Going to war in Iraq was and always has been about preventing a threat from becoming imminent. I have never been comfortable with that as a rationale for war. But then again, neither can I reject the principle out of hand. Why do we have to wait to for a threat to become imminent before we can move? Would anyone today argue that the Israelis acted irresponsibly when they bombed Iraq's Osiriq nuclear reactor in 1981, ten years before Desert Storm? If they had not done this, where would the Kuwait and Saudi oil fields be today?

In short, my belief that Bush will lose is not based on any of the issues that have so completely consumed the Democrats and the media. Rather, I think Bush will lose because even people like me -- old, "rich", heterosexual, secular, mainstream conservative, white guys who have voted Republican for years -- consider Bush a genuine threat to things we value even more than tax cuts: civil rights and liberties; long-term security; and the separation of Church and State.

Civil Rights and Liberties

What happened on 9/11 was horrible. But the uses to which the Bush Administration is putting those events are far worse. The Administration’s rhetoric would have us believe that 9/11 was an attack on freedom and liberty. It was not. It was an attack on symbolic buildings and people. The attack on liberty and freedom (and all of the other values we associate with America like fairness, due process, a presumption of innocence, rights of privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches) came later and was perpetrated by the Administration (with a big assist from Congress).

September 11th has become the Bush Administration's Reichstag fire: a pretext for a relentless expansion of the perceived right and actual ability of the federal government to control peoples’ lives. Three years ago, it would have unthinkable for the federal government to claim the right to imprison thousands of people indefinitely, without charges or trial, without access to counsel, and in many cases without even having to reveal who is being held. Now, it not only claims those rights, it is actually doing all of those things. Three years ago, it would have been unthinkable for the federal government to claim the power to monitor and record and investigate the thoughts, ideas, expressions, affiliations and movements of American citizens without warrant or notice and without any basis beyond some vague "national security" claim. Now it is the accepted practice. In the name of defending freedom, the Bush administration is in the process of destroying it.

Long-Term Security

My second issue is security. Not national security, mind you. There is no individual, group or nation that poses any meaningful threat to the viability of the nation. There is, however, a threat to people and places, and this threat does need to be dealt with as aggressively as possible consistent with our other, even more important values Yet, for all the President's rhetoric, his actions are better designed to perpetuate the security threat than to diminish it. Indeed, I have come to believe that the Administration may actually want to perpetuate the threat because of the political leverage it provides.

Force of arms does have a role in reducing the threat of terrorism. But force of arms alone does not eliminate terrorism; it perpetuates it. The Israeli experience in Palestine, the British experience in both Palestine and Northern Ireland, the Russian experience in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and our own experience in Viet Nam prove this beyond any reasonable doubt.

If we are to deal with the threat posed by terrorism, we have to deal with the causes. And the cause of terrorism is not "evildoers". Yes, the leaders of some of these groups may be evil. And, yes, these leaders need to be hunted down. But we are deluding ourselves -- and condemning ourselves to an endless cycle of violence -- if we believe that the battle against terrorism is a battle between good and evil.
Even the label "terrorism" is an exercise in self-delusion. At bottom, the actions of Al Queda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other such groups are not so very different from the actions of French, Yugoslav and Greek resistance movements in World War II and are indistinguishable from the actions of the Israeli Hagganah, and especially the Irgun, in 1948.

Although what these people do may well be evil, it is not evil that motivates them; it is a cause that they believe is worth fighting, killing and dying for. Because they are much weaker militarily than those against whom they are fighting, they fight with the only means they have at their disposal: stealth, trickery, rocket propelled grenades, small arms and now suicide bombs. But it is the cause that drives them. Unless and until we begin to address that cause, we will be no more successful in defeating Islamic terrorism than the Israelis have been.

I am not so naïve to think that there is any single cause of terrorism. However, there is one cause that stands head and shoulders above all the rest: the plight of the Palestinians. The Palestinians do have legitimate grievances. They were dispossessed of their homes and lives, and, at least since 1967, they have been living under a brutal, oppressive and humiliating occupation. Yes, this oppression is perpetrated by our ally, and yes, that ally has legitimate grievances of its own. But that does not alter the fact that the Palestinian people are being subjected to political and economic deprivation, humiliation, and indiscriminate death and destruction of property. Nor does it change the fact that the threat of terrorism in America will not abate unless that situation changes.

Addressing the legitimate grievances of the Palestinians will not alone be enough to end the threat of terrorism from the Middle East. It might have been enough 10 or 20 years ago, but there are now far too many additional causes for fighting (and dying) to expect that even a perfect solution to the Palestinian question would put an end to Middle Eastern terrorism disappear. Moreover, in the near term at least, a perfect solution to the Palestinian issue is nothing more than a pipe dream.

But, I do know this much: while American commitment to the Palestinian cause may not be sufficient to abate the threat Middle Eastern terrorism poses to America, it clearly is necessary to that end. Yes, the Israelis are entitled to well-defined, independent, territorially contiguous state that is reasonably free from the threat of violence by their neighbors. But, the Israelis have no greater entitlement to these things than do the Palestinians. And, unless and until the Palestinian people perceive that America is as committed to guaranteeing those rights to Palestinians as it is to securing them for the Israelis, then there is no hope of ever reducing the threat terrorism poses to America.

The Israelis and Palestinians are no more capable of solving their differences themselves than were the Serbs and the Kosovars, and speeches, exhortations, peace plans, negotiations, "road maps", incentives and sanctions will be no more effective in stopping that conflict that they were in stopping the Balkan wars. At this point, the only way to bring the conflict to an end is the same method used so successfully to bring an end to the Serb-Kosovar conflict: build and deploy a NATO-led, UN-sanctioned coalition of forces that, whether by invitation or not, intervenes to physically separate the combatants; to end the Israeli occupation of the West Bank; to set up a free, independent and geographically contiguous Palestinian State there; and to thereafter provide the citizens of each State with protection from the other. That would be a far better use of the 82nd Airborne than what Mr. Bush has them doing today.

America As Theocracy

The third and most important reason I will not vote for Mr. Bush is that -- whether out of conviction or expedience, I cannot tell -- this Administration has self-consciously identified itself with, and has become politically dependent on, our own version of Islamic fundamentalism: the evangelical Christian right. To some degree, this dependence explains why Mr. Bush cannot ever be expected to do -- or even attempt -- anything that might actually be effective in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the Christian Right believes that the establishment of a Jewish State in the whole of biblical Palestine is essential to the Second Coming. As a result, they will not tolerate anything that might actually result in the formation of a Palestinian State on a part of biblical Israel.

Christian fundamentalism also lies at the heart of the assault on civil rights and liberties. The differences between the Christian Right and the Taliban are differences of plumage not principal. No less than the Islamic fundamentalists, the Christian fundamentalists believe they have a (literally) God-given right to impose on the rest of us a narrow-minded, utterly intolerant, religiously-based code of beliefs and conduct; to tell people what to do, what to think, what to believe, how to act, and even what to be.

The Christian Right claims that government is hostile to religion, that the atheists and agnostics are driving religion from public life, that the country has established humanism as the State religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Republican Party has become the dominant political party in this country, and the Christian Right is by far the most dominant faction within that party. As a consequence, it is not religion but humanism, rationalism and tolerance that are in full retreat.

This is a trend that has been emerging for some time now, of course. I did not like it, but I continued to vote Republican anyway because I was able to convince myself that the religious zealots were simply a fringe group that I could use to help me get may taxes cut. Now, though, I see a President who is fully in their thrall and utterly dependent upon them for his political survival. Fool me once, shame on him; fool me twice, shame on me. I will not vote for him again.

"Traditional Values" (cont'd)

Took the day off. Not that it matters much, since I seem to be talking to myself so far.

I did get an "answer" (of sorts) to my question about why people believe homosexuality is a choice. Here it is (edited a bit for content):

OMG! EVERYONE is born HETEROSEXUAL . . . . That's why sexual orientation cannot be changed - this has been an ACCEPTED FACT for thousands of years! The CHOICE to deviate from one's sexual orientation is always a CHOICE! What is so hard to understand about the theory at least?!

Posted by: Charlie on December 4, 2004 at 3:30 PM PERMALINK

Obviously, the claim that "everyone is born heterosexual" is simply an statement of faith, not fact. Even if it were true (which it is not), the assertion that "this has been an accepted fact for thousands of years" would add nothing. A flat earth and a geocentric universe were also accepted facts for thousands of years. But, like any statement of faith, this one is hard to respond to rationally, so I won't try.

Back to the Democrats and "traditional values."

In my last post, I identified two problems that the Democrats have with "people of faith": (1) a massive communication gap and (2) a failure to make "Christian Values" work for them.

I think that a possible answer to the second of these problems may have been well summed up by a friend, who observed that: "The values of the Republicans are those of the Old Testament, while those of the Democrats are those of the New." (If this observation was not original with my friend I apologize. It's the only place I have heard it).

To illustrate the truth of this, has anyone read Joshua recently? If not, here's and excerpt courtesy of http://bible.gospelcom.net.

Joshua 8

Ai Destroyed

1 Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. 2 You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city." . . . . 22 The men of the ambush also came out of the city against them, so that they were caught in the middle, with Israelites on both sides. Israel cut them down, leaving them neither survivors nor fugitives. 23 But they took the king of Ai alive and brought him to Joshua. 24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day-all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua. 28 So Joshua burned Ai and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day. 29 He hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take his body from the tree and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate. And they raised a large pile of rocks over it, which remains to this day.

It goes on and on like this. Does this sound like the Bushites or what?

Contrast that with, say, the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5

The Beatitudes

1 Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2 and he began to teach them saying: 3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

I am not a religious person, and am no expert on the Bible by any means, but it does seem to me that the contrast between these excerpts does capture the core difference between the present-day Republican Party and its opponents. This will not convince the 'theofascists', of course. But I do not think they are really all that big a bloc anyway. The battle is for the hearts and minds of the people of goodwill -- my brothers-in-law. (See Previous post). And, the contrast between these excerpts does have the potential to provide such people with the link that is currently missing between their faith and their politics.

I also think that this may help with the communication problem. I am NOT suggesting here that the Democrats should wear their faith on their sleeves. But I am suggesting that they can and should couch their arguments in terms of principles that resonate with New Testament ideals: "I am in favor of tolerance and acceptance. That leads me to believe that we should accept people whose life styles are different from mine and yours and to assure that they are afforded the same basic civil rights as are enjoyed by people like me. I am in favor of peace. That leads me to believe that we must do everything we can to finding an alternative to war. I am in favor of individual liberty, freedom of religion and freedom of expression. That is why I will fight to protect the right of people to express themselves, even when the choose to do do in a way that I find unpleasant, even offensive." And, so on.

I am no "spin-meister", and I am sure there are a lot of people out there who could implement this approach far better than I can. But I do believe that there is, in this approach, at least the possibility of clarifying the core message of the Democrats (or more properly of those against the Bushites) so that it resonates with, rather than alienates people of faith.

The Battle Over Gay Marriage/Civil Unions

OK. Second day of blogging. Now that I have solved the Israeli-Palestinian issue, I think I'll move on to "family values".

Kevin Drum aka Political Animal referenced an article in today's Flint Journal about Michigan Governor Granholm's decision to suspend same-sex benefits for state employees. The impetus for this, of course, was the recently passed constitutional amendment regarding marriage. As reported by Drum, that amendment reads:

To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

The most problematic part of this amendment is the part that provides that a marriage between one man and one woman "shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." The intent -- and perhaps the effect -- of the reference to "similar union[s]" is to bar legal recognition of marriage-like arrangements (i.e. civil unions) other than those between one man and one woman.

Drum himself read this article as evidence that even politicos like Governor Granholm -- a fairly liberal Democrat -- are "rolling over" on this issue. Some of his readers responded that they believed it was tactical decision on her part: since the domestic partnership benefits being suspended would not become effective until next October anyway, as a part of a new labor agreement, Granholm was giving people the opportunity to take the issue to court to try to get the meaning (and perhaps legality) of the marriage amendment settled before anyone actually got hurt by it.

I hope that's right, and, if it is, I hope it is a successful strategy. It'll be interesting to see where the State Attorney General (who does not work for the Governor and is an independent actor) comes out on this once the litigation is filed.

But that is all by way of introduction to what I really want to write about.

As you will see if you review the comments to the Drum post, the discussion about Granholm's legal strategy and intentions got pretty much got buried in an avalanche of vituperation generated by the following "comment":

Equating race, and slavery in particular, with an abnormal sexual CHOICE is
laughable. Posted by: Charlie on December 3,
2004 at 2:06 PM PERMALINK

This discussion thread triggered a couple of thoughts.

First, where do people get this idea that sexual orientation is a "choice"? Do heterosexuals choose to be heterosexuals? If so, does that mean that they could choose to be homosexual? I don't know if I am atypical, but heterosexuality was never something I "chose," any more than I chose my big ears, brown hair, or poor eyesight. Am I alone out there in being a "hard-wired hetero?" I don't think so. My guess is that all or at least the vast majority of heterosexuals could no more choose to be homosexuals than they could choose to be taller. If that's the case for heterosexuals, then why would anyone suppose it is different for homosexuals, or bi-sexuals or any other type of sexuals?

(Let me anticipate one common objection to this point: "Child molesters probably don't choose to be child molesters, but we make child molestation illegal. What's the difference?" The difference, of course, is the victim. We outlaw heterosexual rape too for the same reason. We do not criminalize people, we criminals acts. And the thing that makes heterosexual sex acceptable is not that it is heterosexual but that it is between two people who can and do give their consent. The criminal act is not the sex, it is the victimization. In the absence of victimization, there is no crime. And that's as true of homosexuals as it is of heterosexuals.)

And, another thing on the choice question. If it were really a matter of choice, who today, in this country, would choose to be homosexual? Who would choose to subject themselves to the discrimination, the limitations, ostracism, even the very real threat of physical danger that goes along with being a homosexual in this country? Does anyone really think Newt Gingrich's sister and Dick Cheney's daughter chose to be gay given the families they grew up in and the attitudes those families have toward "traditional family values"? How about the Rev. Irene Elizabeth Stroud, who was "defrocked" as a Methodist minister for being a "self-avowed, practicing homosexual". 12/3/04 NY Times story here. Does it make sense to suppose that Rev. Stroud "chose" to be gay? Yes, she did chose not to hide the fact (and that was really her "crime" here), but do we really suppose she chose to be who she is? I find that whole notion to be utterly preposterous.

My theory about why so many people cling to this idea despite all logic and the lack of any evidence is that they need it. Precisely because sexual orientation is so deeply ingrained -- hard-wired -- into who we are, we heterosexuals have a very, very hard time understanding how anyone could be homosexual. At some primitive, gut level, it feels so, so -- unnatural! Some people, of course, get no farther than that: "Its weird, different, disgusting and I hate them." These are the honest ones. But for many, there is a need to rationalize. They recognize that it's wrong to hate someone for what he is, but it is OK to hate him for what he chooses to do. So, rather than give up the hatred, they convince themselves that homosexuality must be a matter of choice. That conclusion is so divorced from reality as to be nearly delusional, but, after all, that's the principal psychological function of delusion: to protect us from our own cognitive dissonance.

The other train of thought triggered by Drum post and discussion related to a discussion I had with my brothers-in-law in early November sitting around a campfire in far northern Minnesota in early November, right after the election. Northern Minnesota used to be rock-solid Democratic -- devoted followers of Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale. Over the last dozen years or so, that has changed and, with a few exceptions, most of the northern Minnesota counties are now pretty solidly "red". Like rural counties nearly everywhere, the people there can no longer bring themselves to vote for the Democrats, despite the fact that they recognize that it would be in their own economic best interests to do so.

The reason, of course, is "values". For these people, the Democrats have become the party of licentiousness. The "gay" issue was a big part of this of course in this election, but it goes much deeper than that. Abortion (particularly partial birth abortion), pornography, bans on prayer and Christmas plays in school, feminism, flag-burning, and a host of other similar factors contribute to these things. The simple fact is that rural people have come to believe that the Democrats are in favor of all of these things and the Republicans are against them. I spent a long time trying to explain that the Democrats weren't "for" partial birth abortion. Who could possibly be "for" something like that? Rather, the Democrats rather are against making these sorts of things illegal. But the point just didn't take. Yes, it was in some ways a frustrating discussion. But I came away with three impressions that affected me profoundly.

First, I was deeply impressed by how sincerely these people are struggling with the issues that we all assume are matters of dogma for the Christian Right. These are not bigots. They are not "theofacists". They believe deeply in the importance of the separation of church and state. But for them individually their faith is not something they can ignore in deciding how to vote. They are, in short, sincere people of good will who are struggling to reconcile their politics with their faith. Take gays, for instance. They have the same visceral problems with homosexuality that most heterosexuals do. Plus, for them, that visceral reaction is reinforced by a perceived Biblical condemnation. Yet, these are also people who believe deeply in tolerance and acceptance and who detest discrimination and bigotry. And it was obvious as we talked that they themselves are deeply uncertain about how to reconcile these apparently competing moral dictates.

This first realization gave me great hope. True, it was the loss of the kinds of people that cost the Democrats the election. But they display none of the religious zealotry displayed by the talking heads of the religious right. Bob Jones, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson do not speak for these people. As a result, I think, it is going to be a lot easier to turn these people around than I thought it would be. In this regard, I came back from this trip far happier than I was when I left. Lincoln was right: you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of them all the time. This conversation did much to restore my long-held faith in the basic good sense and fairness of the American people.

The other realizations that came out of this conversation related to what needs to be done to effect this conversion. Basically it comes down to this.

First, there is an enormous communication gap that needs to be bridged. It was incredible to me how profoundly misinformed my brothers-in-laws were about matters critical to the formation of their views on the election. I noted above the impression they had that the Democratic Party was "for" abortion, homosexuality, pornography, feminism, etc. But an even more compelling example is this one: One of my brothers in law told me twice that he just couldn't bring himself to vote for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing gays the right to
marry! We can belittle all we want the failure of these people to inform themselves. But that's not going to help. That's just more of the"coastal-urban condescension" that has contributed mightily to driving these people into the arms of the Bushites. And besides, what is the obligation of a candidate and a political part if not to communicate with the voters in such a way as to allow them to understand what you are saying. We have seen the enemy, and it is not
them, it's us.

Second, the Democrats must find a way to make these peoples' religious values work for the Democrats rather than against them. It's simple, really. If you want someone to vote for you, you have to convince them that the things you stand for are consistent with their own values.

I have some thoughts on how we might be able to do both of these before 2008. But those will have to wait until tomorrow.

My Current Obsession -- Israel and the Palestinians

Another blogger. Just what the world needs, right? Bear with me folks as I try to get a handle on all of this.

Right now, I am obsessed with the Middle East -- more specifically the Israeli-Palestinian question. Tony Blair is right. It is the single most important foreign policy issue faced by the West today. There was an interesting discussion thread on of this issue on Laura Rozen's site a few days ago. I wish I could find it again. (I haven't mastered permalinks yet and now it has scrolled off the site.) But my sense is that an important point is being missed in all the sturm and drang.

Today's lead article in Ha'aretz raises that point yet again. Ha'aretz reports that "Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Thursday described Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as the Palestinians' best chance for peace." That seems hard to believe, but maybe it's an "only Nixon could go to China" sort of thing. But that's not really my point.

The thing that disturbs me about this, and about much of the reporting and commentary around the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, is that so much of it is focused on a search for "Peace" as if peace was something that could be achieved independent of the substance of changes that will be necessary to achieve peace. One change that I think all agree will be necessary for peace is a Palestinian state. Yet, does Mubarak (or anyone) really think that Sharon is the Palestinians' best chance for something that actually looks and feels like a real, sovereign "state"? And, if not, is Mubarak really saying that the Palestinians' best hope for peace is to abandon the goal of having a real sovereign state?

Arafat is widely excoriated for "lacking the courage" to make peace in 2001. His death is resulting in a "regime change" that I suspect the Israelis hope will lead the Palestinians to accept what Arafat did not. I question whether that 2001 Israeli offer is still on the table in any event. But, assume it is. Should the Palestinians accept it?

I would love it if they would, of course. But I can also see why they would not. And, I do not think it has anything much to do with a lack of courage or a preference for violence or a desire to eradicate Israel. It has to do with the fact that what Barak offered, even with the enhancements contemplated by the "Clinton Parameters" had few -- if any -- of the attributes one would associate with a "state". Certainly, it lacked territorial integrity. Even after full implementation -- which would have taken years and would have been subject to the vagaries of internal Israeli politics much like the Oslo "redeployments" were -- there would have remained within the Palestinian "state" a veritable melanoma of linked Israeli settlements that would remain a part of Israel. Would Israel have accepted a proposal which gave the Palestinians a comparable salient within Israel? The idea is laughable, of course. But, I do not think that a refusal by Israel to accept such an outcome would be nearly portrayed as a failure of courage or an unwillingness to be a "partner" in peace.

But beyond the territorial issues, the Palestinian "state" proposed by Israel and Clinton would have had nothing that even approaches what anyone would consider true sovereignty. The Palestinians would not have been allowed to have an army. The Israelis would have maintained unfettered rights over Palestinian air space. And Israel would have retained the right to send its forces into Palestine any time it felt "threatened". This is not a "state" in any meaningful sense of the word. It is, at best, a protectorate. Except that, the people being protected, of course, are not the Palestinians but the Israelis.

The "road to peace" here seems so simple to me: Full sovereignty for the Palestinian people over all of the land occupied by Israel in the '67 war; a capital in East Jerusalem; control over and access to the Muslim holy sites on the Temple Mount; and compensation (financed by the West and the Arab oil oligarchies) to the refugees for the property they fled from or were driven from (depending on who you believe). What is it about this outcome that is so unthinkable to Israelis? More important, what is it about this outcome that makes to West unwilling to insist on it?

The continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian war -- and that is what it is -- no longer something we can watch from the sidelines, satisfied with sincere, even heroic, efforts at mediation. That war is now posing a serious and worsening threat to vital American and European interests: we have no hope of ending our own war on terrorism until the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved. Since it seems entirely improbable that the Israelis and Palestinians will be able to resolve this conflict themselves, is it time for the West to begin to think about imposing a settlement in much the same way it did in the Balkans?