Published for The Washington Post, September 3rd, 2010:

Achurch in Florida is poised to commemorate an act of violence committed in the name of Islam, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, with an act of stupidity committed in the name of Christianity, the public burning of the Koran.

This threatened libricide proves little more than the existence of a few attention-seeking crackpots in a continental country — the natural resource that makes cable news possible. But the Manhattan mosque controversy has exposed a broader, conservative Christian suspicion of mosques and Muslims. Protests against the construction of mosques in California, Tennessee and Wisconsin have often included Christian pastors. Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group, recently wrote: “Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America, let alone the monstrosity planned for Ground Zero. This is for one simple reason: Each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government.”

In this debate, grace is in short supply but irony abounds. The Christian fundamentalist view of Islam bears a striking resemblance to the New York Times’ view of Christian fundamentalism — a simplistic emphasis on the worst elements of a complex religious tradition. Both create a caricature, then assert that the Constitution is under assault by an army of straw men. The debates within Islam on the nature and application of sharia law, for example, are at least as complex as the debates among Christian theologians on the nature of social justice. And the political application of Islam differs so greatly — from Saudi Arabia to Mali to Morocco to Bosnia to Tanzania to Detroit — that it defies easy summary.

Full article here

Published for The Washington Post’s Post Partisan, September 1st, 2010:

Before offering an assessment of last night’s speech, it is worth recognizing the historic nature of the moment. A little over three years ago, it was possible, even likely, that America would suffer a major military defeat at the center of its interests in the Middle East – a defeat of greater practical and psychological impact than the American loss in Vietnam. Iraq was descending into civil war, perhaps into genocide. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was gaining control over whole regions of the country. Six years after Sept. 11, terrorists and insurgents were on the verge of a victory against the United States.

Given this context, President Obama’s announcement of the end of combat operations is a tremendous national accomplishment. The outcome in Iraq, though far from ideal or settled, has demonstrated the resilience and adaptability of the American military, the patience of our country in a difficult cause, and the importance of determined wartime leadership.

This achievement deserved a historical marker, at least a modest rhetorical monument. But Obama’s effort – employing tired metaphors, culminating in a call to improve America’s “manufacturing base” and “long-term competitiveness” – was forgettable.

Returning to the standards of judgment I set out last night before the speech, the results were mixed.

• First, it should have a Lincolnian purpose – to heal the domestic divisions caused by the Iraq War, instead of laying claim to political credit for the fulfillment of a campaign pledge.

Full post here

Published for The Washington Post, September 1st, 2010:

After a first year mainly focused on health reform, and a bleak December 2009 employment report, the Obama administration was finally ready to talk, in Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s words, about “jobs, jobs, jobs.” Strategist David Axelrod admitted the Obama team was recalibrating to focus on the economy. President Obama said, “We have to continue to work every single day to get our economy moving again. For most Americans, and for me, that means jobs.”

Six months later, following additional health-reform drama, arcane financial reform, a national immigration debate and a sluggish oil spill response, 67 percent of Americans said the president had not focused enough on job creation.

July’s jobs report was again dreary, with 181,000 discouraged workers dropping out of the labor force entirely. Advice for the president from Democratic strategists and nervous Democratic legislators was nearly uniform: Focus on jobs. The president proceeded to enter the Manhattan mosque controversy, mark the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, and address the nation on Iraq and Afghanistan. During an interview with Brian Williams last weekend, Obama made news commenting on his religious faith, on Glenn Beck’s rally in Washington and on the “birther” movement.

This is a president who has lost control of his public message. It wanders unleashed from park to alley, stopping to sniff every cable news story along the way. Some blame a political and communications team that is reactive and undisciplined. But there is another possibility. Perhaps the president doesn’t talk about job creation because he doesn’t have much to say.

Full article here

Published for The Washington Post, August 27th, 2010:

Scott Simon — the sonorous voice of NPR’s “Weekend Edition” — has written a short, tender book about the two most important people in the world. At least to him. “Baby, We Were Meant for Each Other” recounts the arrival of his two daughters, Elise and Lina, from China, while telling the stories of other families changed by adoption.

Simon describes himself as skeptical of transcendence but as taking part in a miracle. “My wife and I,” he says, “knew that Elise and Lina were our babies from the moment we received their postage-stamp portraits. Logically, I know that’s not possible. But I also know that’s how my heart, mind and body . . . reacted to their pictures. . . . I would take the photo out of my wallet in the weeks before we left to get each of our girls and hold it against my lips to whisper, ‘We’re coming, baby.’ ”

It is an unexpected form of human affection — meeting an unrelated stranger and, within moments, being willing to care for her, even to die for her. The relationship results from a broken bond but creates ties as strong as genetics, stronger than race or tribe. It is a particularly generous kind of parental love that embraces a life one did not give.

International adoption has its critics, who allege a kind of imperialism that robs children of their identity. Simon responds, “We have adopted real, modern little girls, not mere vessels of a culture.” Ethnicity is an abstraction — often an admirable abstraction, but not comparable to the needs of a child living in an orphanage or begging in roving bands. Adopted Chinese girls are refugees from a terrible oppression — a one-child policy that Simon calls “one of the great crimes of history.” Every culture or race is outweighed when the life of a child is placed on the other side of the balance.

Full article here

Published for The Washington Post, August 25th, 2010:

So the “summer of recovery” swelters on, with Democrats sun-blistered, pestered by bottle flies, sand in their swimsuits, water in their ears. Jobless claims increase, Republicans lead the generic congressional ballot, and George W. Bush is six points more popular than President Obama in “front-line” Democratic districts that are most vulnerable to a Republican takeover. Still, Democrats hug the hope that Obama is really the liberal Ronald Reagan — but without wit, humor, an explainable ideology or an effective economic plan. Other than that, the resemblance is uncanny.

Yet the Republican Party suffers its own difficulty — an untested ideology at the core of its appeal.

In the normal course of events, political movements begin as intellectual arguments, often conducted for years in serious books and journals. To study the Tea Party movement, future scholars will sift through the collected tweets of Sarah Palin. Without a history of clarifying, refining debates, Republicans need to ask three questions of candidates rising on the Tea Party wave:

First, do you believe that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional? This seems to be the unguarded view of Colorado Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck and other Tea Party advocates of “constitutionalism.” It reflects a conviction that the federal government has only those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution — which doesn’t mention retirement insurance or health care.

This view is logically consistent — as well as historically uninformed, morally irresponsible and politically disastrous. The Constitution, in contrast to the Articles of Confederation, granted broad power to the federal government to impose taxes and spend funds to “provide for . . . the general welfare” — at least if Alexander Hamilton and a number of Supreme Court rulings are to be believed. In practice, Social Security abolition would push perhaps 13 million elderly Americans into destitution, blurring the line between conservative idealism and Social Darwinism.

Full article here

Published for The Washington Post, August 20th, 2010:

The most destructive gap for President Obama is not the Republican lead on the generic congressional ballot or even a job disapproval that has surpassed approval — it is the gap between aspiration and reality.

The Manhattan mosque controversy showed the problem in compressed form. First came the Obama of high-toned principle (largely the right principle, in my view). Then a politically motivated recalibration. Then a scrambling staff explanation. Then an embarrassed silence, since it is difficult to clarify the clarification of a clarification. Then the president’s regretful assertion of “no regrets.”

It was more than a lapse. From the firing of Shirley Sherrod to the obsession with Fox News to lashing the “professional left,” the Obama administration engages in a daily hypocrisy. It attacks the sound and fury of the cable news cycle while being entirely captive to its rhythms. In the process, it often appears reactive, windblown and unprincipled.

This gap between ideals and practice is becoming a defining narrative of the administration. Obama once promised, for example, to end the “divisive food fight in Washington.” Apparently there is an exception for sugary, frozen beverages. In his new stump speech, he says: “We’re slipping and sliding and sweating, and the other side, the Republicans, they’re standing there with their Slurpees watching us.” In Seattle, the president of the United States pantomimed drinking a Slurpee to mock his opponents. A campaigner such as Ronald Reagan could draw political blood with a wink and a smile. Obama’s partisan rhetoric manages to be prickly, mean-spirited and unfunny. On the campaign trail, he taunts and whines. He does not charm.

Full article here

Published for The Washington Post, August 16th, 2010:

President Obama has a peculiar talent for enraging his critics while deflating the enthusiasm of his friends, on full display in the Manhattan mosque controversy.

His first intervention, at a White House dinner for Ramadan on Friday, was an unqualified defense of both religious liberty and religious tolerance, implying that opposition to a mosque near Ground Zero violated both. In his second intervention, in an unplanned exchange with a reporter on Saturday, he insisted that he was not commenting “on the wisdom” of building the mosque, merely affirming the right to a construction permit. It was not a contradiction, but it was a marked change in tone. Obama managed to collect all the political damage for taking an unpopular stand without gaining credit for political courage.

But being hapless does not make the president wrong.

Though columnists are loath to admit it, there is a difference between being a commentator and being president. Pundits have every right to raise questions about the construction of an Islamic center near Ground Zero. Where is the funding coming from? What are the motives of its supporters? Is the symbolism insensitive?

But the view from the Oval Office differs from the view from a keyboard. A president does not merely have opinions; he has duties to the Constitution and to the citizens he serves — including millions of Muslim citizens. His primary concern is not the sifting of sensitivities but the protection of the American people and the vindication of their rights.

Full article here

Published for The Washington Post, August 13th, 2010:

The final state to ratify the 14th Amendment was Ohio — in September 2003. The Ohio Legislature had passed the amendment in 1867 but rescinded its approval a year later, claiming it was “contrary to the best interests of the white race.” When Ohio finally rectified this embarrassing bit of history, just one legislator — Republican state Rep. Tom Brinkman from Cincinnati – voted against it. His opposition was viewed as an isolated curiosity.

Now another Ohio politician, Rep. John Boehner, the House minority leader, questions the centerpiece commitment of the 14th Amendment: birthright citizenship. He is joined by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), along with Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

The amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This is not the only place in the Constitution where birth is decisive. Any “natural born citizen” who meets age and residency requirements can be elected president.

Critics of birthright citizenship are in revolt against the plain meaning of words. They sometimes assert that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” must exclude illegal immigrants. It doesn’t. Undocumented immigrants and their children are fully subject to American laws. The idea of “jurisdiction” had a specific meaning in the congressional debate surrounding approval of the 14th Amendment. “The language was designed,” says historian Garrett Epps, “to exclude two and only two groups: (1) children of diplomats accredited to the United States and (2) members of Indian tribes who maintained quasi-sovereign status under federal Indian law.”

Read the full article here

Published for The Washington Post, August 11th, 2010:

In 1980, Bill Clinton was defeated for reelection as Arkansas governor, making him the youngest ex-governor in America. According to one account, “Clinton sank into a deep funk. Wandering the streets of Little Rock, he’d stop to question strangers: ‘Why do you think I lost?’ ”

Taking the advice of his campaign consultant Dick Morris, Clinton apologized for past mistakes and transitioned to the political center. He was reelected governor two years later.

Clinton’s most astute biographer, David Maraniss, says “the central theme of Clinton’s life is the repetitive cycle of loss and recovery.” After his midterm electoral thumping in 1994, President Clinton, again advised by Morris, scaled back his ambitions, narrowly focused on middle-class tax cuts, education and the environment, and gradually restored his political fortunes.

With President Obama probably facing a political setback in November, what can we expect his response to be?

It is hard to tell, because Obama has only the thinnest history of loss. In 2004, he represented the 13th District in the Illinois Senate. Within five years, he was president of the United States, Time’s Person of the Year and a Nobel laureate.

But Obama did lose one election. In 2000, he unwisely attempted to unseat Bobby Rush for a seat in the House of Representatives, receiving only 31 percent of the primary vote. A reporter who covered the race, Edward McClelland, says that Obama was “wooden and condescending,” characterized by “braininess,” “haughtiness” and a “sense of entitlement.”

“He was the elitist Ivy League Democrat to top them all,” McClelland wrote in an article for Salon. Obama’s manner did not play very well on Chicago’s South Side.

Full article here

Published for The Washington Post, August 6th, 2010:

Politicians under stress tend to confirm, not refute, the criticisms that got them into trouble in the first place. Vacillating politicians vacillate. Thin-skinned politicians explode.

Democrats are now feeling enormous political stress. Independents have fled the Obama coalition, largely out of concern about debt, deficits and spending. Intensity is all on the Republican and conservative side. A recent Gallup poll found that the percentage of Republican voters who say they are “very enthusiastic” about voting in 2010 is twice the percentage of Democrats who say the same (44 percent to 22 percent). President Obama’s job approval rating now flirts with 40 percent, with solid majorities disapproving of his handling of the economy, deficits and health care.

On this trajectory, Democrats see the House slipping away, their Senate majority threatened and a president now too divisive to profitably appear in many districts.

So how have national Democrats decided to respond? With a series of tactics that make their worst problems worse.

First is the depiction of Republicans as the “party of no,” populated by obstructionists blocking needed measures to create jobs and improve the economy. Vice President Biden recently applied this critique to the stimulus package. “There’s a lot of people [who] at the time argued it was too small,” he said. If it had not been for Republican opposition, “I think it would have been bigger.” No doubt it would have been.

Full article here