I know the thought that Republicans will probably win the presidency for the 6th time in 8 elections has got the Democrats worried, but they are beginning to take their response a little far.

Jacob Weisberg has a piece in Slate and in the Financial Times about Mitt Romney in which he posits that his religion disqualifies him for office. It seems that Romney has the Democrats particularly worried, and even though he’s still officially unannounced as a presidential candidate, we’ve already seen him attacked for his change of stance on abortion, a perceived change of stance on gay rights, his hiring of a lawn care company that hires illegal immigrants and his underwear.

Weisberg’s column takes this a step further and is arguably more honest about what really gives the Democrats the heebie-jeebies about Romney – his faith and his religiosity. Democrats are always uncomfortable about religious people holding office, because they feel that religiosity is inherently irrational. However, they’re willing to suspend this distaste for faith when it comes to their own candidates (Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy…) or when the religion in question is Islam rather than Christianity.

Weisberg’s central argument appears to be that the central tenets of Mormonism are particularly unbelievable and that anyone who subscribes to them must be inherently off their rocker. He does his level best to make these beliefs sound as ridiculous as possible – case in point: “Smith was able to dictate his “translation” of the Book of Mormon first by looking through diamond-encrusted decoder glasses and then by burying his face in a hat with a brown rock at the bottom of it.” While this clearly has some basis in Smith’s actual claims, it uses language intended to mock and degrade rather than to enlighten. He concludes with the rather strong statement, “He [Smith] was an obvious conman.” Weisberg dismisses all who hold such religious beliefs with the assertion: “By holding them, someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is.”

However, he appears to have realised that most major religions have beliefs which those of a strictly scientific bent would find hard to swallow – Catholicism has transubstantiation and the infallibility of the Pope, Judaism has the parting of the Red Sea and the predicted return of Elijah, Islam believes that conversion through force is acceptable, Hindus believe in reincarnation etc. etc. He dismisses this strongest of counter-arguments with a lame comment about the fact that Mormonism’s “fraud” is more “transparent” and “recent”. Apparently, one is only tainted by holding beliefs in the supernatural if the events in question occurred less than 200 years ago… His assertion that the “greater religions” have had time to “splinter, moderate, and turn their myths into metaphor” – i.e. that they have been victims of in-fighting and disagreement over doctrine, have changed some of those doctrines over time and have distanced themselves from some core precepts by describing them as metaphors rather than reality. If these conditions are supposed to recommend these religions to us, Weisberg’s views are strange indeed.

Let’s return though to Weisberg’s assertion that someone who holds such beliefs will fail to “think for himself or see the world as it is”. Where is the evidence of this in Mitt Romney’s career to date. Where, when he ran Bain & Company or later Bain Capital, when he turned around the Salt Lake Olympics, or during his time as governor of Massachusetts, were the signs that this man could not think for himself or see the world as it is? Where is such evidence in the career of Harry Reid (now Senate Majority Leader and also a Mormon), Orrin Hatch, Michael Leavitt or other members of the LDS Church currently prominent in politics?

The fact remains that the best possible measure of someone’s fitness for presidential office is his or her past performance and achievements, not proxies for their state of mind, whether religious, sexual or racial. Weisberg again pays lip service to the fact that religious tests are constitutionally prohibited but then uses his whole article to propose such a test. Religious tests are banned precisely because they attempt to replace a judgment about an individual’s fitness for office with a judgment about their religion – exactly the mistake Weisberg makes in this piece. There is no analysis of his record or of how his religious views will shape his policy stances – which is a legitimate subject for discussion.

Still, this is all just another sign that Mitt Romney along with the raft of other strong candidates for president from the Republican side, are scaring the living daylights out of Democrats staring the stark choice between Hillary Clinton (all the baggage of the Clintons without the charisma) and Barack Obama (untested junior Senator with left-wing views) in the face.

From an article in the Sacramento Bee this past week comes this quote from George Washington’s farewell address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.

This makes the important but subtle point that religious motives should certainly inform and guide political behaviour, even if no particular religion may be officially endorsed by the state. In the context of Mitt Romney’s campaign, this suggests that he should make clear the ways in which his faith will inform and guide his policies while at the same time making clear that he will “render unto God that which is God’s, and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”.

It’s been some time since I’ve posted here and there’s been quite a gap since my last post. However, I hope to post more regularly in future. There will probably be more emphasis on Mitt Romney’s campaign for the presidency going forward as well as I’ve taken a personal interest in this campaign.

Jan

It’s been an interesting couple of weeks with all the commentary on the death of the Pope. It’s been especially interesting to compare the reaction of those who honour what the Pope stood for and those who struggle to understand his role in today’s world.

Among the best pieces of commentary were those from Mark Steyn and Peggy Noonan.

Mark Steyn insightfully points out that progressives (liberals) can’t cope with the idea of absolute values and a refusal to compromise. Peggy Noonan (as she often does) recounts very movingly how the Pope helped bring about the fall of Communism in Poland.

Meanwhile, there was plenty of trash too. The American media focused disproportionately on the opinions of liberal American Catholics on the Pope, and their view of him as a reactionary and an authoritarian, and barely covered the growth of the Church outside of the US and the love Catholics outside the US had for the Pope.

And there was plenty of commentary from those who believed that the Pope should have been more responsive to demands for changes in policy. Much of this came from those who were self-described lapsed or semi-active Catholics. Isn’t it interesting how those who are not willing to put themselves in a position to commune with God presume to lecture a man whom they claim to believe speaks for God?

Whatever our religious beliefs, those who honour God should honour John Paul II.

Enjoy the honeymoon while it lasts. The liberals won’t give the President credit for long. This short-term quasi-endorsement of President Bush’s Middle East policy will crack up within weeks.

Democracy will not be achieved overnight in the Middle East, and the President has never claimed that it will. But count on it that the liberals – whose motto might well be “no-one will ever call me on it if I change my tune” – will quickly return to their strategy of calling his policy “an impossible dream” etc. Having briefly accepted the blindingly obvious because not to do so would smack of stupidity, they will quickly return to the negativist attitude which characterises all liberal foreign policy – “nothing ever changes, especially when America tries to bring about the change.”

How long will this about-face take? I predict a matter of weeks from now.

It seems that President Bush’s hopes for democracy in the Middle East are already beginning to bear fruit, despite the skepticism of many on both sides of the political divide.

Just a few examples of the spread of democracy and reform in the Middle East in recent months:

• the collapse of the Lebanese government in the face of huge protests
• hints by President Assad of Syria that he might consider reforms both at home and in the Lebanon
• moves towards democracy by President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt
• the extension of suffrage to women and municipal elections in Saudi Arabia

All of these since the President’s inaugural and state of the union addresses, in which he emphasised the need to spread democracy and freedom throughout the world. And of course, all of them come on top of the elections in Iraq at the end of January and the Palestinian elections which followed the death of Yasser Arafat. A nice summary of the current state of democracy in the Middle East is available on the BBC website.

It now seems that we may be witnessing a Ronald Reagan-like vindication of a much-ridiculed Republican president’s policies, despite the assertions of the foreign policy intelligentsia. Of course, we know from experience that none of those who ridiculed President Bush’s plans will ever acknowledge that they were wrong.

It seems Hollywood just can’t help itself. Once again, the major Oscars go to a picture which ruffled feathers everywhere from Disabled Rights Groups to conservative and pro-life groups. This was, in a sense, predicted, by Entertainment Weekly’s Dave Karger, when he said a couple of weeks ago:

“All the conservative outcry [about the shocking twist at the end of Clint Eastwood’s best-picture nominee Million Dollar Baby] is going to steel Oscar voters in favor of this movie. It already has the most emotional power of any of the [best-picture] nominees, and this is going to intensify that sentiment. … You’re never a true Oscar contender until you’ve angered a group.”

The interesting thing about Kruger’s comment, of course, is that it’s not just any old group the Oscar voters want to anger – it’s only ever conservative groups. This behaviour is usually justified on the basis of breaking down stereotypes, or breaking new ground, or “asking difficult questions”, but we all know that the Oscars will only ever do this with liberal causes celebres. Imagine the Oscar for best-picture going to a show which tacitly endorsed gay-bashing (as Million Dollar Baby endorses assisted suicide), or even taking a pro-life stance on abortion. You can’t – it’s simply unimaginable. And so, once again, the Oscars are true to form, going to pictures which endorse or glorify euthanasia, drug abuse and sexual immorality. But if we’re still surprised at this, we’re just not paying attention. It’s been this way for years.

The US administration (and previous US administrations, including that of Ronald Reagan) has expressed its support in recent weeks for the institution of the European Union, the multinational body which acts increasingly as a federal state superimposed upon the nation-states of Europe. Interestingly, some of the most enthusiastic comments come today from Colin Powell in a post-resignation interview with the UK’s Telegraph newspaper.

From a US perspective, this makes solid strategic sense – endorsing the EU as a valid body for representing the interests of European powers has several advantages:

• it allows Europe to pull something like its own weight in defence matters – each individual European country’s defence spending and capabilities are dwarfed by that of the US, and joining 25 countries’ capabilities together allows these countries to present something like an equivalent to the US’s immense military power. Since the US has been trying for the last thirty years to get European nations to pull their own weight militarily, this at least seems like a step in the right direction
  
• it also allows European nations to speak with one voice – something which would be beneficial if it allowed the US to speak to “Europe” as a single coherent entity rather than as 25 separate nations, each with their own views and needs. The creation of the post of EU Foreign Minister under the proposed new EU Constitution would be a large step in this direction
  
• it allows Europe to solve the problems in its own backyard directly without reference to Nato, the UN or other supranational bodies, thus excluding the US from situations which would best be handled locally.

For all of these reasons, US administrations have endorsed the creation and strengthening of the EU and the extending of its powers into the military sphere in particular over the last thirty to forty years. However, in a greater sense, this endorsement of the EU is not in the US’s best interests.

An obvious example is the recent war in Iraq, where a number of European nations endorsed and supported the stance of the US, while the two most powerful EU nations – France and Germany – and others did not. Under the proposed changes to the EU, the 25 countries would either have to speak with one voice, in which case they would not have supported the war in Iraq, or the creation of the post of EU Foreign Minister will be simply a hollow gesture, in which case it does not actually benefit the US at all. In Colin Powell’s interview in the Telegraph, he says, “I’ve always viewed [Javier] Solana as something like the EU foreign minister, anyway.” In which case, why bother to create the position formally?

Another problem with this approach, especially with Republican administrations, is that their ideological counterparts in the UK especially but also in the rest of Europe are actually the least enthusiastic about expansion of the EU’s powers. Thus, when Reagan endorsed the EU during the 80s, he actually was going against the grain as far as his closest ally in Europe, Margaret Thatcher, was concerned, since she was vehemently against any expansion of the EU’s powers.

This is more readily seen when one imagines US Republicans’ response to proposals to give the UN much broader powers, to regulate all industries at a supranational level, give it its own military force to be used as the broad membership wished, to over-ride the decisions of individual nation states within it, etc. If the UN tried to take on these powers there would be outrage in the US, and yet this is exactly the role the EU plays in Europe.

So, it would be far better if the US were to take a more moderate stance on the EU, not endorsing its expansion nor advocating its dismantling, while bolstering support for Nato, an institution which truly serves the needs of both the US and European nations militarily, without the headaches that a strengthened EU creates.

As ever, the State of the Union speech has been picked over ad nauseam by the press, and commentators both pro and con allowed to share their views on TV and in the press. Those who enjoyed the speech were primarily those who supported President Bush’s re-election campaign, while those who denigrated it were primarily those who supported Kerry in the recent election. In other words, it won over none of those commentators on either side of the spectrum – no surprise there.

But according to polls conducted by CNN and others with ordinary people throughout the country, those who listened to the speech responded much more favourably to questions about President Bush after the speech than before it – by about 15%, apparently. This is worth looking at. What was it about this speech that had such a powerful impact? Wasn’t President Bush just reiterating many of the same policies that he outlined during the election campaign? He was, but now that the “ra ra ra” aspects of campaigning have been dispensed with, President Bush is able to articulate his policies in a more measured fashion, explaining his stance and providing the supporting evidence on subjects such as social security.

This, along with last week’s inaugural address, also marks the first time since the Republican Convention that a substantial speech has been shown in full on national TV. During the campaign, the positions of both the President and Senator Kerry were reduced to soundbites, as is customary, so that the Social Security debate was reduced to “Social Security is almost bankrupt” versus “Bush wants to take away your benefits.” In the State of the Union speech, Bush was able to explain the real situation, which is more nuanced than soundbites are able to convey. The fact is that Social Security will not fall apart tomorrow, or even next year, if nothing is done to reform it. But, at the same time, if nothing is done over the longer term, it will run out of funding, which will lead to either a need for increased taxes or a cut in benefits. Ironically, it is the “do nothing” position which would put future benefits at risk, not the reformers’ position.

President Bush used the customary terminology to describe this situation, saying that Social Security faces bankruptcy unless the system is reformed. Nancy Pelosi and others rejected this terminology as alarmist, but conceded that the system faces a funding shortfall if it is not reformed. In a business, a chronic inability to fund obligations would lead to just that – bankruptcy – but apparently this standard terminology is unacceptable when used to describe the Social Security quandary. Why should this be? It’s simple – bankruptcy is a concept most ordinary people can relate to – it withdraws the cloak of complexity the opponents of reform want to use to convince people that the problem is not simple to define, and therefore not simple to solve. Allow people to see how simple the problem is, and President Bush’s desire to reform the system is much more compelling. Hence the Democrats’ unwillingness to submit to the logical clarifying terminology.

On other issues, too, the President explained his policies in his trademark, straightforward style, and viewers responded positively to that too. On healthcare, foreign policy, immigration and other policy areas the President discussed in his speech, he was rightly applauded for setting an overall framework and calling on the combined legislators of the House and Senate to prepare bills to bring these policies into effect.

And, of course, there were the non-verbal sections of the speech – the introduction of invited guests from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the parents of a soldier killed in Iraq. The image of those parents embracing and being embraced by the Iraqi pro-democracy activist was a fitting confirmation of the rightness of the war in Iraq, regardless of the presence or absence of weapons of mass destruction.

In all, the speech set a solid foundation for the second Bush administration. He made it clear that he was serious about his campaign promises, as those who know him and his style could have told us, and does not intend to conform with the supposed precedent of lame-duck second-term presidents. Assuming there are no real or imagined scandals, and assuming the Democrats don’t follow through on their anti-democratic filibuster plans, President Bush should be able to get a great deal done in his second term.

It is conceivable that by the end of that second term, we could have significant progress towards peace in Israel and Palestine, fledgling democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, reform underway in Social Security and the tax system, and many other positive changes. The world in 2008 could look very different indeed from today’s world, and this would set things up nicely for President Bush’s heir, whoever that may be.

It has now been announced that the search for weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq has ended, without finding the weapons being searched for. This has naturally re-ignited the debate about the reasons for going to war in Iraq and the justification used at the time that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and might use them against his enemies in the Middle East and beyond. Since the war has always been unpopular with a (sometimes very vocal) minority and there have always been those who suggested WMDs were not to be found in Iraq, this is reasonable. But the fact remains that (a) the Bush administration genuinely believed that there were WMDs in Iraq and (b) even if there were no WMDs, the war was still justified. It is worth taking each of these points in turn.

(a) The Bush administration genuinely believed there were WMDs in Iraq

This point has been so belaboured by all involved that it does not justify an exhaustive treatment here. The facts, however, are these: not only President Bush and his team, but also the UK government, the UN, previous US president Bill Clinton and many others believed that there were WMDs in Iraq. This belief was reinforced by several facts: Saddam had previously had WMDs and these were not accounted for, Iraqi dissidents and sources within Iraq continued to tell western intelligence agencies that they did exist, there was some photographic evidence of programs still going in Iraq. In addition, in the category of circumstantial evidence, Saddam and his government continued to resist the efforts of the UN weapons inspectors to certify that his previously-held WMDs had been destroyed, behaviour that is difficult to explain unless there really was something to hide.

The question then becomes, how did our intelligence services get it wrong? And why did Saddam Hussein act as if he did have WMDs and fail to comply with the UN ultimatum that would have prevented war? Several explanations present themselves:
(1) WMDs really did exist in pre-war Iraq, but they were destroyed and/or moved to neighbouring countries such as Syria before the war began. Thus, all the evidence was accurate, but the WMDs were no longer in Iraq when the search began post-war.
(2) Saddam Hussein genuinely believed he possessed WMDs, because the culture of fear he had created made his minions mislead him into believing they still existed even when they didn’t. Thus, it is not surprising that the evidence suggested there were still WMDs in Iraq because the leader of the administration himself still believed there were WMDs
(3) Saddam Hussein knew he did not possess WMDs but had to resist the advances of the UN to maintain the respect (if that is the right word) of his people. He could not be seen to be bowing to outside pressure when his whole regime was based on a show of power and intimidation. This does not explain the evidence suggesting that WMDs existed in Iraq pre-war, but does explain his resistance against inspections.

Whichever of these scenarios is correct, it does not change the fact that the Bush administration and many others genuinely believed that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and that this posed a threat at least to Iraq’s neighbours and possibly also countries further afield including the US and the UK.

(b) Even if there were no WMDs, war in Iraq was still justified

The official justification for the war in Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and that he therefore posed a threat to Iraq’s neighbours and others. This justification was necessary because for many citizens of the US, the UK and other countries involved in the war, the only legitimate reason to go to war was to neutralise a threat against those countries. However, there were several reasons for going to war, and this was only emphasised because it was the most compelling and because there was a need to focus on a single justification to provide simplicity and clarity for the people of the countries involved to rally around.. This justification has subsequently turned out to be less compelling than it seemed at the time, but the other justifications still hold.

Arguably the best reason for going to war was simply that the international community had issued a number of ultimata to Saddam Hussein, with which he had refused to comply, and at some stage the UN and its members were going to have to back up their threats with action to maintain any kind of credibility with dictators such as Hussein. Although the US has been accused ever since of attempting to bypass the UN, the action of the “coalition of the willing” has actually bolstered the position of the UN and its leading members in that it prevented this loss of credibility. An interesting side-effect of going to war in Iraq has been the compliance of Libya with the demands of the US and UK to dismantle its own weapons programs. Regardless of whether WMDs were found in Iraq or not, the need to maintain the credibility of the international community in meeting threats posed by rogue threats remains a compelling reason for the war in Iraq after the fact.

Among the other reasons for going to war were:

• the need to remove a cruel dictator from power – the “regime change” argument. This argument is shaky on its own, because it is easily argued that other countries have their own dictators, which are at least as worthy of removal as was Saddam, but it adds weight to the other justifications for war when taken collectively
• the need to establish democracy in the Middle East as an example to the rest of the region. With elections in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, the argument that Muslim countries are incapable of embracing democracy will slowly be exposed as the myth it is, just as the same myth about Asian cultures was debunked fifty years ago
• the need to dismantle havens for terrorists across the world. Iraq has long been a safe haven for terrorists. Although some of the attempts to link the 9/11 attacks with Saddam’s regime have stretched the truth, it is the case that terrorists have been safe in Iraq for far too long. The war in Iraq may therefore also be considered a part of the Bush Doctrine that those who harbour and aid terrorists are to be treated like the terrorists themselves.

Therefore, even when the WMD justification has fallen flat, these other justifications, paramount among them the need to maintain credibility for the leading democratic nations in their international efforts, still make the war in Iraq justifiable. All of these arguments will be that much more powerful when the effort in Iraq is finished, when power is handed fully back to the Iraqis and when the insurgency is crushed. But they still hold considerable weight now and help neutralise the argument that the absence of WMDs in Iraq removes any justification for the war.