Obama and Iran

During the campaign, when McCain proposed they suspend the campaign and go to Washington to solve the financial crisis, Obama's cool response was a deft blow: "I think the American people expect us to be able to do more than one thing at the time."

The list of things he's been handling as president is staggering. And now, as if to prove he can tackle anything, he makes what is being called a gracious and brilliant, sophisticated and diplomatic overture to Iran that is a complete about-face from bush's bluster.

Farideh Farhi, an Iranian scholar affiliated with the University of Hawaii, was "stunned by the tone and content of President Obama's message . . . because the message was great, and on matters related to Iran I am not used to hearing what I like from Washington. So here are some quick thoughts."

Aside from being his gracious self, President Obama did several things that are significant. First and foremost was the fact that, unlike his predecessor, he did not attempt to drive a wedge between the people and government of Iran. He spoke explicitly to both the “people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” acknowledging their common history and culture. No more 'we love the people of Iran but hate their government' taunt repeatedly brandished by the Bush Administration.

Second, he did not try to drive a wedge between the leaders of Iran. He addressed them all and in one brilliant move put to rest all the useless chatter about who the Obama administration should talk to. His focus was not on which Iranians the US wishes to talk to ("moderates" or "pragmatists") or should talk to (the ones who “really” wield power) but the fact that the two countries should talk on matters of mutual interest as well as about their differences.

Third, stating his commitment to meaningful diplomacy and avoiding demonizing rhetoric and peremptory demands, he simply stated the basic truth that the two long-time foes now face a chance for “engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect” and addresses concerns of both. The process, he said in no uncertain terms, “will not be advanced by threats.”

Farhi also noted one paragraph that seems somewhat patronizing in which Obama speaks about Iran "taking its rightful place in the community of nations" but reminding them of their responsibilities to reach that place through peaceful actions rather than through terror or arms.

The official Iranian response from the leading cleric, Khamenei, challenged Obama to back up his words with actions. "If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change? Make it clear for us what has changed."

This is typical Iranian tough talk as the initial response, but Khamenei left the door open to better ties with America, saying "should you change, our behavior will change too."

What is clear is that Obama is sending a very different message than bush did. But he needs to be careful, and to have the courage to avoid arrogance in dealing with an avowed enemy. With regard to Iran, our own hands are not entirely clean.

One person posting a comment on Farhi's blog on Informed Comment: Global Affairs said:

So... if Iran takes it's place in the community of nations without resorting to terror or arms, does that mean the United States will consider trying the same thing?

I happen to agree that we have much to answer for in our history with Iran, including our covert participation in the 1953 military coup that overthrew their duly elected government, headed by Mohammed Mosaddeq, in response to his nationalizing the British-owned oil industry. We then helped reinstall the Shah and his corrupt regime, which was then subsequently overthrown by the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

They held U.S. Embassy hostages during that revolution, leading to a break in diplomatic relations that has lasted 30 years. Iran did express solidarity with us and offered help after 9/11, only to be rebuffed and insulted by bush. Initially promising contacts when Iran cooperated with us in late 2001 and 2002 in Afghanistan fizzled when bush branded them as "Axis of Evil."

Khamenei has a long list of grievances, including provoking ethnic tension and interfering in their internal affairs, oppressive sanctions, accusations of seeking nuclear weapons, and unconditional support for Israel.

I am not saying Iran is not a dangerous force in the Middle East, or that it has not interfered with our position in Iraq; nor am I saying that we should not worry about them acquiring nuclear weapons.

But it is counterproductive for us anywhere, anytime, to pretend that we are the saviors of the world who have never wronged another country. And there is much mistrust left from eight years of bush/cheney.

Obama's overture may not be perfect, but it is light years more advanced than bush's cowboy antics.

Ralph

The Pope and HIV

I suppose it really does come down to a basic difference in a future-in-heaven perspective and a current-life-on-earth perspective.

The Pope obviously takes the former; I take the latter. But it does seem to me his is an unconscionable position, given the authoritative influence he has on such a large percentage of the world's people.

I could even make the case that the Pope is guilty of aiding and abetting genocide -- because, from his position as the ultimate religious authority to billions of people, he is telling his followers not to use a simple means of protecting their wives and unborn children from a deadly disease.

What I'm referring to is the Pope's statement that relying on the use of condoms INCREASES the risk of HIV transmission. And to say this, as he embarks on his historic tour of Africa where HIV/AIDS is decimating the population, further marks him as out of touch with the world we live in.

The Pope's point: the most effective way to prevent HIV spread is through sexual abstinence or monogamous sexuality with an uninfected partner. And remember, masturbation is also condemned; so he means unless you are married, you should have no sex life whatsoever, forever.

But he goes further and says using condoms actually increases the risk. It's true that condoms are not 100% effective -- largely because they are often not properly or consistently used. The solution to that is education, however, not condemnation. Statistics show that, properly used, condoms are effective against HIV spread in the 97% range.

The Pope is correct then -- IF the only two options are abstinence and monogamy.

But people are not going to stop having sex outside marriage. History has tried everything from public shaming to public stoning, and sex just keeps on happening. So the correct use of condoms can make the difference between an epidemic of HIV/AIDs that has left millions of orphans, many of them HIV positive themselves, in some African nations -- and a very effective program that has greatly reduced the spread of HIV, as in Uganda.

I can even accept the A-B-C approach that some religious groups advocate: Abstinence, Be faithful, or use Condoms. This extols the abstinent-if-single/faithful-if-married approach but also recognizes that many will not comply -- and they should use condoms.

The Pope's plan might get you into heaven -- after you die from AIDS.

I'd rather save your life, and that of your children here on earth.

Ralph

W. in Canada

It's traditional for a new U.S. president to make his first official trip outside the U.S. to Canada. Barak Obama made his visit in the second month of his presidency.

Instead, george bush went south, making Mexico his first visit; and it wasn't until years later that he visited our great neighbor to the north.

So now it seemed a bit odd that he would choose to make his first post-president speech, where? In Canada. Well, in Calgary, which is in Canada. My friend who grew up in the wonderful city of Montreal and now lives in the paradise of Vancouver, explained to me that Calgary, in the province of Alberta, is the ultra-conservative part of Canada.

Now maybe it wasn't such an odd choice after all. Maybe he went there because no one else invited him.

Here are some comments on his visit from Canadians themselves:

"While Canadians are generally thought of as peace loving, polite and hospitable, following Bush's first speech since leaving the White House 56 days ago, several people went home without shoes. An Iraqi tradition to demonstrate utter contempt now appears to be adopted in Canada."

"I am glad that former U.S. president George W. Bush has not lost his flair for unintentionally hilarious and absurd one-liners ('Risk-Takers' Will Fix Economy, Bush Says In Calgary - March 18). His latest belief that "it's the risk-takers, not the government, that is going to pull us out of this recession" made me laugh."

Calgary -- "George W. Bush hurts the Calgary image? Quite the contrary.
"There's no more appropriate place for a Bush speaking engagement than Calgary (There He Was, In Perhaps The Only City In Canada That Would Have Him - March 18). For starters, you need to understand that when you live in Calgary, you may as well be living in Texas. Really, we're more Texan than the Texans."

"I would go so far as to suggest that Mr. Bush actually embodies the values that many Calgarians hold. There's a shared sense of entitlement. Somebody has something you want? Grab it. Economic considerations have priority over environmental or social considerations. Faith and patriotism trump reason. Government should be absolutely minimal, yet accountability of government to its citizens is unnecessary, regardless of competency."

As my friend says, Calgary, Alberta is the "republican" part of an otherwise wonderful country.

Ralph

Gall to end all gall

Can Republicans sink any lower? -- specifically those in Congress who have decided that, since they can't "legislate" (meaning, in their lexicon, "control the process"), they are going to obstruct the Democrats in every way they can.

Well, this comes close to taking the prize for gall and chutzpah, both:

They're outraged !!! outraged, you hear? about the AIG bonuses. And they are passing around talking points painting Senator Chris Dodd and the Democratic Party as "stooges of big business."

A few facts: the bonuses in question were contracted last summer while Bush and his Treasury Secretary Paulsen were still in charge of managing the crisis.

There is a legitimate question of whether the Obama team could have prevented the bonuses from being paid. And the point of their going after Dodd is that he first introduced an amendment that would have taxed bonuses over $100,000 and then watered it down at the request of Treasury to exclude bonuses under prior contract. Plus the fact that Dodd has received more campaign money from AIG than any other politician. Not surprising, given that he is the chair of the Senate Banking Committee and, I believe, it's headquarters are in his state. But disturbing in the general way that lobbying money influence is disturbing. It doesn't mean he simply does their bidding -- as evidenced by his trying to tax their bonuses.

I do see a problem in Summers and Geithner both having Wall St. DNA and I would be happier with Obama's team if those offices had been filled with people from a different background.

But for Republicans to ever, in our life time, try to claim that the other party is the stooge of big business is awesome in its audacity.

They're just playing politics and, seeing a parade of outrage, are rushing to get out in front and pretend to lead it.

Ralph

A sea change?

Michael Hiltzik, writing in The Los Angeles Times, suggests that we may be seeing the beginning of a sea change in how we regard the rich and the economic inequality that has been increasing since Reagen.

The notion that the poor always will be with us has been ingrained in our culture ever since the sermons of Moses were set down by the anonymous author of Deuteronomy.

The financial crisis of the present day raises a rather different issue, however: What should we do about the rich?

That the point is even open for discussion suggests that a sea change is taking place on the American political scene. For decades, the wealthy have been held up as people to be admired, victors in the Darwinian economic struggle by virtue of their personal ingenuity and hard work.

Americans consistently supported fiscal policies that undermined middle- and working-class interests partially because they saw themselves as rich-people-in-waiting: Given time, toil and the magic of compound interest, anyone could retire a millionaire.

That mind-set has all but been eradicated by the damage sustained by the average worker's nest egg, combined with the spectacle of bankers and financial engineers maintaining their lifestyles with multimillion-dollar bonuses while the submerged 99% struggle for oxygen.
------
How much does our economy depend on the rich, anyway, and why shouldn't we soak them good? . . . The original case for a progressive income tax -- that is, one levied disproportionately on larger incomes -- was based less on raising revenue for the state than breaking up concentrations of wealth, inherited and otherwise. The nation's Founding Fathers considered these to be undemocratic -- markers of "an aristocratic society, not a free and virtuous republic," as the tax-law expert Dennis Ventry has written.
------
There's also a social value in suppressing income inequality. In a country with only a slightly less ingrained tradition of civility than the United States, the AIG affair would provoke rioting in the streets.

Let's hope we don't come to rioting in the streets, but the outrage over AIG bonuses, and then today's headlines that Citi Group, another bailout biggie, plans a $10 million executive suite renovation, may come close to fueling the demand for more fundamental change in our whole approach to money and people.

Ralph

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik19-2009mar19,0,351773.column

Who killed the amendment?

Arianna Huffington writes:

The mystery over who killed a provision in the stimulus package that would have curtailed bonuses at bailed out companies is a disturbing D.C. whodunit. But even more disturbing is what it reveals about how our government is run.

"It is the ultimate indictment of what Washington has become," Sen. Ron Wyden, co-sponsor of the eliminated provision, told me. "It's a place where, again and again, the public interest is deep-sixed behind closed doors and without any fingerprints."

Building on public outrage and presidential denunciations of executives at bailed out companies getting bonuses, Wyden and his Republican colleague, Sen. Olympia Snowe, crafted a provision in the stimulus bill that would have forced bailout recipients to cap their bonuses at $100,000 (any amount above that would be taxed at 35 percent).

According to Wyden, he "spent hours on the Senate floor," working to get the bipartisan amendment passed. He succeeded -- not a single Senator voted against the provision. "But," says Wyden, "it died in conference."

So who killed it? Wyden doesn't know.

Think about that for a second. We live in a country where one of the 100 most powerful people in government, the cosponsor of the amendment in question, has no clue how it got removed in the Senate-House conference committee -- or if it was taken out of the legislation even before it made it into conference.

------

"I pulled out all the stops," Wyden told me, "to convince the president's economic team that this amendment was vital to the White House . . . But no one inside the president's economic team was in favor of it. As Wyden put it: "If the White House economic team had made it clear that this was important, this provision would never have been removed. I don't believe the president has been well-served on the bonus issue by his economic team."

So who asked for the amendment to be removed? Jason Furman? Peter Orzack? Tim Geithner? Larry Summers?

Such a move would certainly be consistent with the positions put forth by Summers who, as late as yesterday -- even contradicting the president -- continued to argue that attempting to stop the AIG bonuses would have "put the whole economy at risk."

Have you noticed how, whenever there is a serious effort to put an end to business-as-usual, we are warned by insiders like Paulson and Summers that the result will be the end of civilization?

"This lack of transparency -- and the lack of accountability that results -- is one of the most significant threats to our democracy," Wyden told me. "This is not at all how the civics books tell us the system is suppose to work. What we have here is a prime example of Washington deny, defer, delay."

He's right. We deserve better. Let's make this D.C. mystery the cause célèbre it deserves to be. Let's demand that the White House live up to its vows of transparency.

This is very disturbing and ups my growing concern about the Summers/Geithner team. They may be very smart, but they have Wall St. DNA and it affects their thinking and our policy.

And this whole debacle is a threat, not only to fixing the economy but to Obama's whole social agenda. It's bleeding away his political capital, and you can be sure the Republicans will exploit it to the nth degree.

Ralph

Contracts and bonuses

We're all in an uproar over the obscene $165 million in bonuses paid to AIG executives for driving the company over the cliff, only to be rescued with tax payer money. And now the focus is on the contracts that were written long before the Obama administration was in charge, and there's plenty of fighting to go around on what's to be done and who's to blame.

But here's a side-light. In our outrage, we should stop and think: why did we expect them to do anything different? It was in their financial DNA. Here's Barney Frank, who has been studying the contracts:

Frank translated the language. "It means that if in fact they have a net loss for the year, they still get the bonuses. This is the problem. This is the problem with the contracts," he said. "So they give themselves contracts that effectively insulate them from losses."

Well, duh ! That's the business they were in with their credit default swaps and derivatives and hedge funds:

They were in the business of making money out of other people losing money.

Why would we think that they would think any other way when it came to their own compensation?

Ralph

Bush-think

Interviewed in Canada, where he gave his first post-presidency speech yesterday, george bush was asked about his future and had this to say:

Bush said that he doesn't know what he will do in the long term but that he will write a book that will ask people to consider what they would do if they had to protect the United States as president.

He said it will be fun to write and that "it's going to be (about) the 12 toughest decisions I had to make."

"I'm going to put people in my place, so when the history of this administration is written at least there's an authoritarian voice saying exactly what happened," Bush said.

"I want people to understand what it was like to sit in the Oval Office and have them come in and say we have captured Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, the alleged killer of a guy named Danny Pearl because he was simply Jewish, and we think we have information on further attacks on the United States," Bush said.

Actually, this approach should be the most useful thing he could write about his presidency: presenting for the reader what he faced and what his thinking was that led to his decisions. Useful, that is, if we could expect him to write it with even a smidgen of intellectual honesty.

But it's an interesting choice of words. I'm guessing what he thought he was conveying was "authoritative," not "authoritarian." But actually "authoritarian" is exactly what it will be, what his attitude has always been: bush-think is (among other things) authoritarian.

Webster's definitions:

authoritarian: "believing in, relating to, or characterized by unquestioning obedience to authority rather than individual freedom of judgment and action. A person who believes in, advocates, practices, or enforces such obedience."

authoritative: "having due authority, official. Based on competent authority; reliable because coming from recognized experts."

I don't want to reduce all of bush's failings to semantics, but this does capture the problem. It was always: "I know what's right; faith-based, rather than reality-based realm; I'm the decider; the Constitution's just a g-d-damned piece of paper; my way or the highway."

So, while I think he intended to say it would be "official," in the sense that he is the one who can say what went on in his office and in his own mind, the thinking behind it is betrayed by his actually believing that there is no other version of the truth.

Of course there are other perspectives on what happened. First, who will trust him to report it fully, candidly, and honestly even as he himself perceived it? Second, what about all the evidence, the warnings, the dissident reports that he ignored at the time? I doubt he'll include them. And, third, any account of anything is always filtered through the subjectivity of the person reporting.

This same thinking seems to be built into the policy center that is to be part of his presidential library at SMU. Unlike all other presidential libraries connected with universities, where academic freedom and scholarship are foremost, this policy center will report to the Foundation Board, not to the university. It's shaping up to be a history-revising, public relations project rather than a scholarly think tank.

And it will perfectly reflect the mentality of 43.

Ralph

Barney Frank

Barney Frank is the one Congressman who can manage to pierce hypocrisy, sometimes with biting wit.

In his committee's hearing with CEO's he pushed for an answer to the question: what are the bonuses for? And they really couldn't give a good answer.

Barney questioned why someone should get a reward for simply doing the right thing. The bonuses obviously weren't tied to productivity or profit for the company.

So he asked: would you have done anything differently if there was no bonus? And they reluctantly agreed that maybe the whole system needs to be rethought.

Ralph

AIG bonuses

The outrage continues.

Obama has directed Treasury to pursue any legal means for retrieving the money. One way would be to deduct it from the next AIG bailout payment of $30 billion.

Meanwhile, the New York Times' expert on the subject, Andrew Ross Sorkin, outlines "The Case for Bonuses at A.I.G." He says that everyone agrees that it is an outrage, but maybe we have to "swallow hard and pay up, partly for our own good."

He makes two arguments, one is about the "sanctity of contracts" and what it would do to other entities the government has contracts with, if it starts breaking them. I think others would argue that the government renegotiates contracts all the time -- but maybe only when it's written into the contract. I just don't know about that.

And then there's the argument, compelling to me, that if we hadn't bailed them out, their contracts would have been worthless. But that's a moral argument, not a legal one.

Sorkin's other, more novel, argument is the much discredited "retention of talent" one.

Here is the second, perhaps more sobering thought: A.I.G. built this bomb, and it may be the only outfit that really knows how to defuse it.

A.I.G. employees concocted complex derivatives that then wormed their way through the global financial system. If they leave — the buzz on Wall Street is that some have, and more are ready to — they might simply turn around and trade against A.I.G.’s book. Why not? They know how bad it is. They built it.

So as unpalatable as it seems, taxpayers need to keep some of these brainiacs in their seats, if only to prevent them from turning against the company. In the end, we may actually be better off if they can figure out how to unwind these tricky investments.

And he adds that word on the street is that AIG execs are being heavily recruited by other financial institutions.

I guess it makes a certain kind of sense; but it would be hard to swallow.

Ralph

Troglodytes and Luddites #3

Here's a new wrinkle on the stem cell debate that, according to this view, puts the Republicans in a pickle: having to choose between their allegiance to right-to-lifers and to business.

Obama's overturning the Bush restrictions on stem cell research has posed a problem for Republicans, especially here in Georgia. Within days of Obama's action, the Georgia State Senate passed SB 169, pushed by the Georgia Right to Life group, which would prohibit stem cells from being used for therapeutic cloning, ie using an ill person's own genetic material to create stem cells that will have a therapeutic effect for that person. Left-over embryos from in vitro clinics are not useful for this, since it requires the sick person's own genetic material.

Their objection is that you are deliberately "creating life" in order to destroy it. The restrictive legislation is strongly opposed by the state university system, which is developing a major biotechnology and biomedical research center. Thus the dilemma for business and development oriented Republicans, who are also beholden to the religious right.

Governor Perdue has been noncommital on the bill but has been quoted as saying the legislation would not pose a threat to the biotech industry.

It's hard to see how that could be true, since it bans the very essence of a major technique for creating new treatments for a variety of diseases. Recruitment both of research funds and researchers would be seriously affected. Even if the bill is defeated in the House, or is vetoed by Perdue, damage has already been done. Why would a top scientist or a grant funding entity take a risk on coming to Georgia?

An amusing sidelight: the even more draconian House bill, which died in committee, would have declared every human embryo, whether in the womb or in a petri dish, to be a child "in the eyes of God."

Everywhere, that is, except in the state revenue department. The bill contained a specific provision that said embryos that had not experienced birth could not be considered dependents for the purpose of income tax deductions.

What a tangle they twist themselves into. It's ok to be super moralistic -- until it runs into business or tax interests. Just think how many potential tax deductions there are lying around in those in vitro clinics' deep freezes.

Ralph

More AIG outrage

This from Robert Reich, Sec. of Labor in the Clinton administration:

The administration is said to have been outraged when it heard of the bonus plan last week. Apparently Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner told AIG's chairman, Edward Liddy (who was installed at the insistence of the Treasury, in the first place) that the bonuses should not be paid. But most will be paid anyway, because, according to AIG, the firm is legally obligated to do so. The bonuses are part of employee contracts negotiated before the bailouts. And, in any event, Liddy explained, AIG needed to be able to retain talent.

AIG's arguments are absurd on their face. Had AIG gone into chapter 11 bankruptcy or been liquidated, as it would have without government aid, no bonuses would ever be paid; indeed, AIG's executives would have long ago been on the street. And any mention of the word "talent" in the same sentence as "AIG" or "credit default swaps" would be laughable if laughing weren't already so expensive.

Apart from AIG's sophistry is a much larger point. This sordid story of government helplessness in the face of massive taxpayer commitments illustrates better than anything to date why the government should take over any institution that's "too big to fail" and which has cost taxpayers dearly. Such institutions are no longer within the capitalist system because they are no longer accountable to the market. So to whom should they be accountable? When taxpayers have put up, and essentially own, a large portion of their assets, AIG and other behemoths should be accountable to taxpayers. When our very own Secretary of the Treasury cannot make stick his decision that AIG's bonuses should not be paid, only one conclusion can be drawn: AIG is accountable to no one. Our democracy is seriously broken.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-real-scandal-of-aig_b_175105.html

Now that's some thinking I can endorse.

Ralph

AIG outrage

We may finally be seeing the tipping point when the public takes to the streets shouting: "We're mad, and we're not going to take it anymore."

That's the kind of 'final straw' feeling stirred by the announcement that AIG has paid out $165 million in bonuses with tax payer money to executives who ran the company onto the public dole. You could argue that this is less than 1% of the $170 billion bailout AGI received, or you could argue that a $170 million dollar reward for ruining people's retirement funds is outrageous.

Never mind all the fine-tuned legalisms about retention bonus contracts that have to be met and about the fungibility of the money. None of that is going to fly with an outraged populace, 83% of whom favor a cap in exective compensation. It's the sort of thing that Marie Antoinette triggered with her supposed "Let them eat cake" and paved the way to the guillotine for her.

This is a risky moment for Obama too. Although the supposed ironclad contracts date back before he took office, his administration is hurt by claiming that its hands are tied and it is powerless to do anything about it. It makes him look ineffectual and his experts look like part of the whole financial system mess.

When things are about to blow up, you find a way to do something. If the US government now owns 80% of AIG, why do we not have control of what they do?

The administration has suggested that the uproar over this will make it more difficult to go back to Congress to get more necessary bailout money. I suggest instead that, if they try to paper over this explosive issue, Congress will get such a backlash from their constituents that it will become, not difficult, but impossible to get another dime for Wall Street bailouts.

This will be another test of Obama's steady hand and political skill.

Ralph

Frank Rich

I always look forward to Frank Rich's opinion column in the Sunday New York Times. Today, instead of some crusading journalism, he's in a quiet mode of examining the decline in political influence of Republicans and specifically of the religious right.

He points out that:

When Barack Obama ended the Bush stem-cell policy last week, there were no such overheated theatrics. No oversold prime-time address. [As when Bush announced his policy in 2001] No hysteria from politicians, the news media or the public. The family-values dinosaurs that once stalked the earth -- Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and Reed — are now either dead, retired or disgraced. Their less-famous successors pumped out their pro forma e-mail blasts, but to little avail.
------
Not only was Obama’s stem-cell decree an anticlimactic blip in the news, but so was his earlier reversal of Bush restrictions on the use of federal money by organizations offering abortions overseas. When the administration tardily ends “don’t ask, don’t tell,” you can bet that this action, too, will be greeted by more yawns than howls.

Rich goes on to compare our present times with the shift from the moralism of prohibition and the Scopes trial in the 1920s to the lessening of such concerns in the 1930s when the great depression became everyone's concern.

In our own hard times, the former moral “majority” has been downsized to more of a minority than ever. Polling shows that nearly 60 percent of Americans agree with ending Bush restrictions on stem-cell research (a Washington Post/ABC News survey in January); that 55 percent endorse either gay civil unions or same-sex marriage (Newsweek, December 2008); and that 75 percent believe openly gay Americans should serve in the military (Post/ABC, July 2008). Even the old indecency wars have subsided. When a federal court last year struck down the F.C.C. fine against CBS for Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” at the 2004 Super Bowl, few Americans either noticed or cared about the latest twist in what had once been a national cause célèbre.
------
Even were the public still in the mood for fiery invective about family values, the G.O.P. has long since lost any authority to lead the charge. The current Democratic president and his family are exemplars of precisely the Eisenhower-era squareness — albeit refurbished by feminism — that the Republicans often preached but rarely practiced. Obama actually walks the walk.
------
Indeed, the two top candidates for leader of the post-Bush G.O.P, Rush and Newt, have six marriages between them. The party that once declared war on unmarried welfare moms, homosexual “recruiters” and Bill Clinton’s private life has been rebranded by Mark Foley, Larry Craig, David Vitter and the irrepressible Palins.
------
The new American faith [in the 1930s] Allen wrote, was the “secular religion of social consciousness.” It took the form of campaigns for economic and social justice — as exemplified by the New Deal and those movements that challenged it from both the left and the right. It’s too early in our crisis and too early in the new administration to know whether this decade will so closely replicate the 1930s, but so far Obama has far more moral authority than any religious leader in America with the possible exception of his sometime ally, the Rev. Rick Warren.

History is cyclical, and it would be foolhardy to assume that the culture wars will never return. But after the humiliations of the Scopes trial and the repeal of Prohibition, it did take a good four decades for the religious right to begin its comeback in the 1970s. In our tough times, when any happy news can be counted as a miracle, a 40-year exodus for these ayatollahs can pass for an answer to America’s prayers.

Ralph

George Will

I disagree with George Will's political philosophy (he's conservative) and often find him insufferably pompous. But occasionally he says some wise things and often has a pungent way of expressing them.

Just now on This Week With GS he cracked me up with this warning to people about not taking investment advice from TV business shows like Jim Cramer's Hot Money on CNBC: "Never play poker with someone named Slim; never buy a Rolex watch from someone who is out of breath; and never take financial advice from someone who is shouting at you."

Ralph