World War II and Iraq -- the inevitable yet pointless comparisons

So, it has been made known that the Iraq war has now lasted as long as World War II, thus inviting the inevitable comparisons between this war and WWII. Before addressing those comparisons, I want to say that these really are pointless comparisons -- the wars are vastly different in many, many ways. I much prefer the Vietnam comparisons because at least the types of fighting in Vietnam and Iraq are similar, though obviously there are differences between Iraq and Vietnam as well.

The Washington Post ran an interesting article in which WWII vets explained WWII in relation to the Iraq war. Many vets, including rather famous ones, gave their points of view on the issue in their own words. Many of the same themes appeared throughout the vets' paragraphs. WWII had a clear moral purpose with clear goals, whereas Iraq, from the beginning, has been messy both on purpose and goals. WWII had tremendous unity across the country, whereas support for the war in Iraq has always been fractured and tenuous. WWII required sacrifice on everyone's part, whereas Iraq has required sacrifice from the very few.

Despite the mostly apolitical nature of the vets' comparisons, a couple of them made implicitly political arguments, which would not bother me so much if they weren't wrong. Bob Dole, who I generally respect as a WWII generation Republican (very different from today's breed), said: "In WWII, the media coverage was far less intense, while heavy coverage of the war in Iraq contributes to the loss of American support." This statement is an implicit criticism of the media, in that Dole places the cause of the loss of support on the media coverage of the war, at least in part. Again, this would be his prerogative to make such an argument, if it weren't wrong. To say that the media coverage of WWII was "far less intense" is simply FALSE. The newspapers covered the war every single day, in as much detail as they could fit into the articles. Granted, the war was a much vaster undertaking, thus stretching journalistic resources thin. Nonetheless, the coverage, as indicated by any newspaper front pages from the time or by radio broadcasts at the time or by the newsreels they would show at movie theaters before the main feature began, was far MORE intense (I mean, how many of us have seen newsreels about Iraq at the beginning of a movie?). There is a difference in that TV was not around then, but that's hardly the fault of the media -- plus, the movie reels made up for that. Moreover, as acknowledged by the other vets, WWII consumed the homefront, from rationing to buying bonds to the fact that everyone knew many, many people who were off the fighting the war -- it is impossible to imagine that people during WWII were less aware of the war, as implicitly suggested by Dole's comments.

The other political commentary that bothered me was not so much wrong as hypocritical and, ultimately, lacking in conviction. Ted Stevens (a U.S. senator) complained that, in WWII, "Everybody did something to help. No one's doing anything like that now." He is quite correct that there are vast differences in the way the homefront is operating in WWII compared to now. In WWII, though, people sacrificed because they were asked to. They were told what to do to help the war effort and the president made appeals to all Americans to do everything they can to aid the effort. This was total war. Taxes were raised to pay for the war and it was considered your patriotic duty to pay them (can you imagine Bush doing that?). Bonds were issued and Americans bought them up. All money and effort had to go to the war (deficit financing was not in fashion then). Instead, now, taxes on the rich are cut (supported by Ted Stevens), while American troops were not given the proper armor for them or their vehicles at the start of this war. Despite these money problems, Stevens himself was working the system in Washington to bring pork home to his state. He is the one, now famous, for creating the earmark to spend tens of millions of dollars to build the "Bridge to Nowhere". Apparently, he doesn't see any hypocrisy in continuing pork-barrel politics and the vast wasting of money while troops aren't given all they need to fight the war in Iraq.

Overall, though, I enjoyed reading the vets' commentaries and I began to think about why there is such a difference on the homefront. Obviously, the size and scope of the wars make a dramatic difference. The fact that we have an all-volunteer military that, despite Bush's feigned hurt at Kerry's idiotic comments, disporportionately comes from the lower socioeconomic strata of society also affects us -- the pain of having friends and family in Iraq, of having them be injured or having them die, is not distributed evenly across society. Some people know lots of people there, while others know very few. I have known only one person who has served in Iraq and he is no longer in the military.

Perhaps the biggest reason for the difference is the attitude of our leaders. The American people have not been asked to sacrifice -- we've been asked to spend more. We are not encouraged to save or decrease consumption -- instead, our leaders worry about keeping people flush with cheap oil. Ultimately, the blame rests squarely with Bush and his administration. They have never encouraged such thinking and, in fact, have tried to finance this war with little cost to the country. They get upset when the media show pictures of caskets (though the media did that in all previous wars -- the Civil War has far more gruesome photos than I've ever seen for this war) or when the lists of those who have died in Iraq are read in public (commonplace during WWII). Essentially, they have treated the American people as the Roman leaders treated their citizens -- keep the people happy with their bread and circuses and don't ever let them feel pain. It is stupid, absurd, and insulting to the American public. Clearly, this country can handle sacrifice. This country is strong and proud and has ideals that carry much weight with its citizens. However, its citizens must be convinced of the importance and necessity of the war. When leaders try to get the people to follow blindly, people may follow at first, but eventually their feelings change. Americans can handle great sacrifice -- but only when the circumstances are appropriate. That Bush et al. do not believe the country could handle the sacrifice of war or even being reminded that we have troops fighting and dying in Iraq is very telling about their own beliefs about the circumstances of this war.

Black Republicans: Why they barely exist

I was reading Nate's blog about stereotypes for Black Republicans (you can find it on November 10, 2006). That post got me thinking along related lines as to why the Republican Party does so poorly among Black Americans. The Republicans, of course, are the party of Lincoln, whereas the Democratic Party was long associated with the South and oppression of blacks.

Obviously, one can cite recent history for the strong association between blacks and the Democratic Party. Beginning with FDR, the Democratic Party began reaching out to blacks simply by helping the poor and unemployed around the country during the Depression. With FDR, blacks across the North switched their allegiance. Truman continued the new tone of the Democratic Party by desegregating the military. And, finally, of course, it was the Democrats during the 1960s and 70s who led the way for passing civil rights laws. Concurrently, the Republican Party opposed many civil rights efforts due to a strong respect for "states' rights". Of course, the history of that term "states' rights" is one loaded with racial undertones. It was originally used in defense of slavery. Nonetheless, for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the proportion of Republican senators voting for the bill was greater than the proportion of Democratic senators voting for the bill, indicating that the long history of racial tolerance in the Republican Party going back to the Radical Republicans during and after the Civil War was still present.

Still, the Democratic Party was clearly wrenching itself over to the side of civil rights for blacks, whereas the Republican Party was wrenching itself over to the side of "states' rights". It is no surprise that, beginning with Strom Thurmond's break with the Democratic Party in 1948 over the desegregation of the military and his run for president as a Dixiecrat, many Southern Democrats began to switch parties from 1948 through the 1990s. This represented the expunging of the racist elements of the Democratic Party and the similar accruing of those elements into the Republican Party. This process was essentially complete in 1994, with the final demolition of the Democratic stronghold in the South, making it now the Solid Republican

How did the Republican Party accomplish this takeover of the South? Was it through a combination of winning over Southern blacks (who are socially conservative and religious) AND Southern whites, thereby creating a grand coalition? Hardly. No, the Republican Party used something called the Southern Strategy, beginning with Nixon's election in 1968. This strategy consisted of using "race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters" (quote from here). You can see the effectiveness of this strategy by comparing presidential electoral maps from before '68 with those after. Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, who has recently announced he is stepping down, told the NAACP that the Republican Party was wrong to use this strategy of dividing people in the South (same article). Of course, after you've already taken over a region, it's easy to apologize for how you did it. Sorry, Ken, but too little, too late.

So, even assuming that Mehlman's implication that the Republican Party is beyond its race-baiting past is right, why can't Republicans pick up more black votes? Surely, it is not purely socioeconomic, as the number of blacks who have moved into the middle and even upper classes has increased dramatically since the 60s. Such blacks continue to vote for the Democratic Party (see Prince George's County, MD). Certainly, whatever appeal the Republican Party has for socially conservative, rural, poor whites in the South should have the same appeal for socially conservative, rural, poor blacks in the South, right? The answer is, quite obviously, no.

First off, that line of thinking assumes that Black Americans have no memory whatsoever. For 350 years, Black Americans suffered entrenched and legal slavery (250 years) followed by entrenched and legal segregation and oppression (100 years). The past 40 years have been a slow, uneven march away from that, but that does not mean blacks have forgotten this past. Moreover, blacks are well aware of the Southern Strategy, of hearing "states' rights" praised by Republican politicians in the South, over the past 40 years and know that this comes from the Republican Party. Many of these old-timer politicians may have once been Democrats, but blacks are clearly well aware that the same faces have just switched parties. For Black Americans, this history is the defining feature of what it means to be a "Black American". It explains why recent African immigrants find little in common with Black Americans. Similar levels of melanin mean nothing beyond that. So, why should blacks suddenly jump from the party that has pushed for them and their causes and NOT used race against them in the past 40 years (i.e. the Democratic Party) and jump to the party that has done the opposite (i.e. the Republican Party)?

Mehlman would, most likely, argue that the Republican Party has changed and that their economic message should mean something to Black Americans and should capture a portion of their vote. However, before any message of economic prosperity or social conservatism reaches them, Black Americans are surely going to determine whether the message-bearers are not racist throwbacks. It is in that realm that the Republican Party fails utterly, regardless of whether blacks like the other messages from the Republican Party.

Here are two examples of how the Republican Party still doesn't get it. First, in 2002, Sen. Trent Lott (R- Miss.) made the following remarks:
South.

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president [in 1948 as a Dixiecrat], we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

Although Lott (a Democrat who turned Republican in the 1970s; coincidence? I think not) apologized, it is simply not clear from the remarks what Lott could have meant by "all these problems" except the "problems" of integration and civil rights. It was, to many Americans, a brief moment when they could see that the inner racist, who had been hiding due to the fact that it was no longer acceptable to say such things, was always there. At this point, Lott was forced to step down as the new Majority Leader for the Senate. One might say that at least the Republican Party punished him for the remarks (but he's still a senator, right?). However, that would be incorrect. For the new incoming Congress, Lott was recently elected Minority Whip by the Republican Caucus in the Senate. Now, what kind of message does the Republican Party think it is sending to Black Americans when they re-elect this guy to a leadership position?

The second example comes from the recent campaign season. Despite Mehlman's apology for the Southern Strategy, his own RNC appeared not to get the message and ran an ad in the Senate race in Tennessee that smacked of racism. The Democratic candidate Harold Ford was black, and the Republican was white. The RNC ran an ad in which a white woman appeared to be suggesting that she and Harold were having a sexual relationship. Although this ad could appear to be ambiguous in its racial overtones to someone unfamiliar with American history, the fact is that race-baiting has often taken the form of suggesting that black men will steal white women, rape them, impregnate them, etc. At a minimum, race-baiting has often been used to remind racist whites in the South of the possibility of racial mixing, a great fear among such people. This ad smacked of all the implicit racism used in the Southern Strategy and outraged Black Americans (even Republican former Senator William Cohen called it a "very serious appeal to a racist sentiment"). The Republican candidate Bob Corker, of course, denounced the ad, but the RNC refused to pull it.

Out of the 9 competitive Senate races in 2006, the Democrats won all of them, EXCEPT for Ford's race in Tennessee. The ad proved decisive, as Corker's poll numbers improved following the ad and he never lost his lead. Once again, Mehlman could apologize for the Southern Strategy, but as I said before, it's easy to apologize for how you run a race AFTER you win. It's also easy with our compartmentalized system for the candidate himself to appear as a good guy (denouncing the ad) while simultaneously benefiting from the racist sentiments.

So, what can we conclude from all this? The Republican Party will NEVER appeal to a significant number of Black Americans, regardless of their platform's message, so long as they continue electing racists or using race-baiting as part of their campaigns. I could list more examples of the Republican Party's racist undertones, but this post is long enough and the examples given should suffice to show what I mean. I believe that, essentially, the Republican Party consists of three elements with regard to race. First, you have the closet racists -- their true feelings slip out every now and then (Trent Lott, George Allen). Second, you have the apologists -- they defend the closet racists by saying they were just innocent mistakes (and do things like make Lott part of the leadership again) and they claim not to see racism in the all the apparently racist symbols around (the ad against Harold Ford, the Confederate flag). This second part also doesn't mind benefiting from racial undertones in elections (Ken Mehlman). Third, you have the true non-racists. This third part used to be a much larger part of the Republican Party but has significantly diminished and, as shown by Lott's selection as whip, does not have the clout to force down the other elements.

Pelosi's first mistake

Before the Democrats have even officially taken over Congress, Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has already shown a tremendous lack of political acumen. In 2001, Pelosi beat out Steny Hoyer to be minority leader. Hoyer had been around longer, but apparently Pelosi had accumulated more chits. Since then, Hoyer has been minority whip and, following the elections of 2006, planned to run for Majority Leader, second-in-command to Speaker.

However, Pelosi decided to write a letter of support for John Murtha and, more than that, apparently tried to strong-arm various Democrats to support Murtha. Today, thankfully, Murtha lost in a landslide to Hoyer and Hoyer will be the new Majority Leader.

So, what's the problem with all this? Well, let's see. Hoyer has put in the time and service and served a faithful fellow Democrat in the leadership. He's polished and a relative moderate in the Democratic caucus. In other words, he would be an excellent Majority Leader. Murtha, in contrast, has not been in the leadership, has been to the left on Iraq, and has a rather unsavory past stemming from the Abscam scandals of the early 80s. Moreover, he has opposed important bills that have tried to stem the tide of corruption in Congress. If the Democrats are trying to look like the clean uncorrupt party, nothing would look worse than electing someone like Murtha to be Majority Leader -- he would smell an awful lot like Tom Delay.

However, Pelosi believes that loyalty to her matters far more than anything else and, therefore, was willing to go to great lengths to have Murtha elected because Murtha served as her campaign chief when she ran against Hoyer in 2001 for minority leader. While loyalty deserves a certain amount of respect, it is truly awful that Pelosi couldn't see the damage that Murtha's election would cause to the perception of the Democratic Party and, therefore, to their chances in 2008. Instead, she operated quite a bit like President Bush, who has also shown that he values loyalty above all else, often to his own detriment.

Thankfully, the Democratic Caucus saved Pelosi from her own stupidity and elected Hoyer, leaving Murtha without a major post. I have no misgivings about Pelosi's ethical status (currently), but I'm baffled as to why she can't see the ethics issues with those around her. For some reason, she thinks that personal loyalty to her will somehow overcome the clouds hanging over others. Nancy, what were you thinking? PLEASE consult with those outside your little circle and try not to embarrass the Democrats in Congress before 2008. Otherwise, I'm going to have to suggest that we get a new Speaker ASAP.

Politics and Christianity

I read a rather interesting blog post here. In it, Balmer points out that many of the right-wing "Christian" organizations have become political to the point that, in fact, they have clearly lost their sense of Christianity. For his example, he looks at the issue of torture and tries to get several right-wing Christian groups to state their position on torture. Of the groups he contacted for their position statements, only two replied -- both defending the Bush administration's position on torture. Clearly, regardless of one's position on torture, it would seem that torture is at odds with the basic fundamental principles of Christianity. Or, at least, one would think, but obviously these organizations disagree.

I could not agree more with his assessment of Christianity and politics. In particular, what concerns me is that such marriages between "Christian" groups (when they aren't even really Christian) and political power only encourage those in this country who are adamantly anti-religion. I have met such people and heard their viewpoints, which typically include some sort of statement about how religions (particularly Christianity, but often all religions) are the root causes of all sorts of problems, including wars. In fact, one person, whom I otherwise admire, stated that religion is responsible for more killings and wars than anything else. It seemed futile to point out that, for the most part, 20th century wars have been secular in nature and have also led to far more deaths than wars in any preceding centuries (probably combined, though it's impossible to say). It would also seem silly to point out that avowed anti-religion atheists in Communist countries (think Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China) have killed roughly 30-40 million of their own citizens. But, obviously, the truth can be such an inconvenience.

Nonetheless, these anti-religion people are not coming up with their ideas from thin air. In fact, they perceive the hypocrisy of the outspoken Christian Right correctly and are appalled by them. What they do not see is that this is not the fault of Christianity but the fault of politics and power. For three centuries after the death of Christ, Christianity was an ignored (at best) or persecuted (at worst) religion. Christians were routinely killed for their beliefs, leading to the term "martyr" for them. (Note: Such martyrdom in which the martyrs are killed simply for holding to their beliefs is rather different from the current vogue of labeling Islamic suicide bombers and others as "martyrs". Frankly, I'm offended by the use of "martyrs" for people who try to kill others and die doing it.) Early Christians followed the teachings of Jesus regarding love, peace, and "turning the other cheek".

It was not until politics and power began to wear the mantle of Christianity (beginning with Emperor Constantine) that people began to use the name of Christianity to commit un-Christian acts. Slowly, over time, "Christianity" became the reason for many horrible crimes such as the massacres of Jews, Muslims, or anyone whose beliefs differed from one's own. However, it must be stated unequivocally that Christianity is not the problem. Rather, it is the intrinsic desires (in this case, bad desires) of human beings, particularly those with power, that lead them to commit horrible things in the name of "Christianity". Such desires exist within all people -- regardless of the popular religion in their society. Nonetheless, the use of Christianity in justifying doing wrong is an embarrassment to all Christians and tarnishes Christians worldwide. It encourages anti-religionists with their own developing prejudices and, as seen in the world, makes the "Christian" U.S. look bad.

To bring it back around to torture and imprisonment, Andrew Cohen has written two posts about horrible torture cases here in the U.S. (here and here). To summarize, Cohen reports on court cases involving two prisoners (just regular prisoners -- not even terrorist suspects) who were treated like dogs in prison. Chained to the floor, sleeping on bare slab, given little to eat, forced to endure horrendous temperatures. You get the picture. Many people in this country, however, countenance such treatment by saying that these are horrible people who don't deserve the "easy life", as if being in prison with the basic necessities and not being treated badly were a walk in the park.

However, Cohen makes the perfect argument about this. How we treat prisoners says NOTHING about the prisoners and their moral state -- no, rather it says who WE are as a people, as a country. To which, I must add that, if most Americans believe they are Christians (which, according to polls, most do), they should be ashamed of how these prisoners were treated because it says everything about them as being anything but Christian.