What You Should Think About Fairness

July 28, 2008

“Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration, and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace.”

–Dwight D. Eisenhower

Do men like Bill Gates make this country great?  Does this country make men like Bill Gates great?  Is Bill Gates a great man?  Hopefully even the Microsoft founder himself has matured to the point of understanding these are not at all simple questions.  Yet for many Americans, the analysis is painfully simple, “Bill Gates received a tremendous amount of personal income.  He has not been convicted of a major crime or implicated in a breach of traditional values.  Therefore, Bill Gates is a great man.”

The self-made tycoon is a popular American archetype.  It is so deeply woven into our culture that The Pursuit of Happiness was never questioned as the title for a biographical tale about the pursuit of riches.  It is so deeply woven into our public policy that few debates are not clouded by the assumption that investors are the alpha and omega of American economic activity.  The consequences for entrepreneurs and shareholders are weighed carefully in all matters, while the consequences for working families with no substantial investments are often dismissed as a distraction from the vital business of lowering taxes, promoting trade, subsidizing industry, etc.

It is fair to argue that the United States has experienced generally good economic progress in the last thirty years.  It is also fair to argue that a position of such eminence could have and should have been parleyed into much greater national gains.  However, the immensity of the global economy prevents any of these opinions from rising above the level of pontification.  I suppose the most honest assertion that approaches the level of fact would be to look at our history of growth and conclude, “it could have been worse, and it could have been better.”

Yet it does not seem at all fair to argue that entrepreneurs and investors were exclusively responsible for these gains.  Even with contemporary Wall Street flimflam — the argument that widespread participation in mutual funds imparts universal status on the special interests of investors — it remains the case that many hard-working Americans carry debts far larger than the value of any investment portfolio they may have accumulated.  Of those prepared for a comfortable retirement, many still find the best decades of their lives shaped much more by levels of earned income than by investment outcomes.

Thus it is that, for more than thirty years, four out of five Americans have been effectively shut out from participation in economic growth.  The theory of trickle down economics is soundly repudiated by the profound failure of any real wealth to actually trickle down.  Some might argue that this is because corrupt public officials have not really put these ideals to a true test.  How is that any different from the argument that human beings are “too greedy” to sustain an economic commune the size of a large nation?*  I dispute the idea that trickle down economics was a good thing in principle.  Yet even those who romanticize it must face the cold hard fact that it does not produce the intended results in practice.

Of course, this assumes the intended results did not involve confining economic growth so narrowly as to promote the emergence of a new American aristocracy.  Hereditary titles, uselessly large personal fortunes, social climbers jockeying for appointments — only a feudal tradition is lacking.  Perhaps that is actually a bad thing, considering the role noblesse oblige played in feudal life.  Our economic elites can purchase a different standard of justice, exert extraordinary political influence, and still have time to accumulate vast amounts of real estate for personal use while the nation’s homeless rate continues along an alarming increase.

If only 20% of our citizenry were actually involved in pushing the economy forward, the fact that the other 80% are prevented from enjoying the progress might be fair.  Yet that conclusion can only be reached by starting with the absurd assumption that labor, training, management, research, art, and so much more are irrelevant.  It credits executive leaders, financiers, and the idle rich with exclusive participation in the economic achievements of the past three decades.  Personal incomes in those areas have ballooned to a downright insane extent.

Rational evaluation forbids any conclusion about a failure of industry on the part of the American worker.  Employees are laboring more hours and making larger sacrifices for the very same economic rewards analogous jobs would provide a generation earlier.  The reality of the working American has changed for the worse.  Degradation of opportunity is ongoing.  The labor force continues to become more and more productive, yet it is the corporate elite and old money that continue to receive more and more rewards.

An optimist might view this through the lens of Twain.  Wall Street institutions play the part of Tom Sawyer, reaping the rewards of hard work that others are induced to perform for a pittance.  A darker perspective might be seen through Orwell’s eyes.  There the metaphor of the working class as Boxer remains apt.  Had the President’s plan to significantly privatize Social Security been implemented promptly after it was proposed, would the surge of geriatric poverty suggest the approach of the knacker’s wagon?  Perhaps being frozen out of an entire generation of economic progress is not that dramatic, but surely it is no joke either.

Most ironic in all of this is presence of low points where pinnacles were thought to be built up by trickle down policies.  With decades of growth concentrated in the hands of an economic elite, amazing achievements ought to have emerged from those beneficiaries.  Instead of solutions to energy problems clearly understood in the 1970s, we find parasitism Enron-style.  Philanthropy to promote science, education, and general welfare was expected to blossom from the fortunes supply-side tax cuts would create.  Statistically, this mechanism has also failed to ameliorate the ongoing concentration of American wealth.

Of couse, symbolically it has done much more.  Rare confluences of vision and kindess create a false impression regarding the extent to which this nation’s most fortunate citizens actually give back to the society that facilitated their success.  Just as the self-made tycoon archetype promotes the blatant misconception that America enjoys greater socioeconomic mobility than the societies of Western Europe (some of which actually have feudal traditions,) the high profile philanthropy of Microsoft’s tycoons whitewashes over both the destructive business practices that forged said enterprise and the relatively rare nature of non-token generosity amongst living American tycoons.

Perhaps Bill Gates is a great man.  Perhaps the chef who prepared his dinner the last time he ate out is a great man.  Perhaps the dishwasher who cleaned his plate after the meal is a great man.  Perhaps all three are great.  Whether your definition of greatness involves hard work or loyalty or ambition or talent, who would presume to judge the character, or foretell the destiny, of the dishwasher?  Yet one thing is for sure — decades economic dialogue dominated by supply-side thinking recognize only the worthiness of men like Bill Gates.  Those who work hard without either being born into great wealth or thriving in a cutthroat business environment have labored for thousands upon thousands of days without earning any real gains.

The premise that proposed reforms like universal health care or expanded educational grant programs are somehow unfair to people already able to pay their own way is absurd.  This absurdity comes from the childlike assumption that present conditions were the product of a fair process.  We can continue to practice politics like children, crossing our fingers and hoping that, starting now, there will be no more significant corruption in political life.  Alternatively, we can face the reality we inhabit like adults.  We can recognize what has been unfair in the past.  We can take action to shape a future that brings us closer to fairness.

Of course, progressive economic reforms are not just about promoting the fairness of social justice.  Millions upon millions of Americans would enjoy a real improvement to the quality of their lives as a result of policies that duly consider the merits of demand-side interests.  Everyone would be able to wake up in a society with improved public health and improved public morale.  Even investments would be uplifted as a heavily strained labor force is given greater opportunity for financial security and professional development.  The fundamental fairness of correcting for decades in which four out of five Americans were excluded from any real reward for their part in achieving real growth — consider that icing on the proverbial cake.

*For clarity’s sake, I continue to believe the “communism has never been given a fair shake” argument is legitimate.  The crucial difference between the chance trickle down actually had and any historical regimes employing the term “communism” is the matter of open vs. closed societies.  With free speech, a free press, and a political system that has at times been the envy of the world, our nation still was unable to make supply-side economics work for anyone without personal control over an abundant supply of capital.  When a similarly open society attempts true communism, then it can be said to have been put to a test comparable to the one trickle down economics has clearly failed.

What You Should Think About Progress

July 21, 2008

“The greatest thing in the world is not so much where we are, but in what direction we are moving.”

–Oliver Wendell Holmes

In dialogue about the war in Iraq, so many terms have been robbed of consensus meaning.  Never mind “mission accomplished.” “Victory,” “success,” “defeat,” and even “war” are officially applied in completely inappropriate contexts.  The pathological abuse of language even extends to the point where demilitarization plans are shaped by “time horizons” and a major diplomatic meeting cannot be labelled as a “negotiation.”

This Orwellian approach to misleading the public can never serve any worthwhile purpose . . . at least, not as well as clear honest communications would.  However, it can prove effective to the degree that confusing the general public is its intent.  “Progress” provides a platform from which to observe this phenomenon.  After years and years, slaughter upon slaughter, there has been a meaningful reduction in the level of violence inside Iraq.  No doubt in some sense this is progress.  Yet it is fair to ask if this is the progression of strategy adapting to achieve improved results or the progression of a fire that is running low on fuel.

Had powerful outsiders equipped with invincible military power occupied the United States of America, a radical and violent insurgency seems like one inevitable consequence.  To some degree there is an rational case to be made for freedom fighters.  The idea that many of us would not simply capitulate and take orders from an invading force may even be a legitimate source of pride.  Yet for how many years would we struggle against the occupying power before the highest levels of violent resistance could no longer be sustained?

Unlike religious fanaticism, the principle of self-government provides an ethical basis for resisting outside invaders.  With that in mind, is it likely that an insurgency containing elements of Al Qaeda would run out of proverbial steam even sooner?  The reduction in violence, like the reduction of polar ice, is a fact established by credible evidence put through extensive scrutiny.  Yet the case for a kinder gentler Iraq caused by the “troop surge” rests on hot air of the figurative variety, whereas a trend of atmospheric warming is subject to measurement and verification.

There is some underlying reality to consider.  For one, the actual escalation in troop numbers went a little beyond a token gesture.  From even before the invasion began, informed experts openly criticized Secretary Rumsfeld’s “lighter, faster, cheaper*” paradigm that saw U.S. forces putting roughly one third as many boots on the ground as would be required for effective control.  The surge of this year was an order of magnitude below what would be required to pursue pacification over such a large and diverse area.  However, something is better than nothing, and it was only one order of magnitude shy of a full-fledged military solution.

Then again, just what about this continued to be a military problem after Saddam Hussein was apprehended?  Even accepting the proposition that regime change in Iraq was a sensible goal to pursue at the time of the invasion, there is no excuse for a total failure to push for demilitarization of U.S.-Iraqi relations after the old Baghdad regime was effectively neutralized and a fledgling state established in its place.  Instead of preparing Iraq to stand on its own, the Coalition Provisional Authority fired everyone in the army and most security services.  If there were ever a case of criminal stupidity, surely adding legions of desperately poor young men with guns to an already unstable and violent mix would be that case.

To what degree this dip in Iraqi violence was inevitable and to what degree it was a result of American policy is not at all clear.  Thus it becomes clear when someone proclaims “the surge is working” that the vocal individual is eager to pass off opinions as facts.  It is hard to imagine the level of gullibility required to take those individuals seriously.  They laud the cleverness of the current Presidency based on this argument after countless evasions of responsibility for nearly everything that went wrong in foreign affairs, counterterrorism policy, and military operations since the first moments “shock and awe” was unleashed on Baghdad.

Even a broken clock is right twice per day.  Pundits who constantly predict economic boom times get it right when there is a boom.  Something parallel is true of more bearish prognosticators.  Official statements regarding the war have taken the concept of rose colored glasses to a much more extreme and much more disturbing place than ever before.  At any point in the years and years this bloodbath has been perpetuated, President Bush and his administration remained poised to take credit for any dip in violence.  As determined as insurgents and terrorists were to drive off the invaders, it appears that even their desire to kill was no match for that of our political right-wing.

Now as the debate about Iraq looks to the future, one candidate will argue that the other “wanted America to lose” and “was wrong about Iraq” regarding the effectiveness of the escalation and new tactics.  Yet this all goes back to the Orwellian trick.  Insofar as winning and losing are applicable concepts, a “win” was extremely unlikely based on the initial plan and not at all possible after Paul Bremmer demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that the 21st century is no place for viceroys.  Is it really a “win” to partially rebuild a nation devastated by an invasion and occupation that were predicated on abominable intelligence analysis and perpetuated by even worse executive leadership?

Manipulating language to confuse asymmetrical warfare with conventional warfare may rally support for violence, but only to the extent that violence is misguided.  A straightforward explanation of terrorism and the means of neutralizing terrorist threats can promote support for wise policies and create a kind of genuine strength propaganda never can.  Likewise, those who would trivialize and spin this incredibly complex situation in Iraq by phrasing things in terms of “winning” or “losing” promote a false strength that is really a weakness.  This national weakness has left our nation politically and intellectually hobbled for at least as long as this war has been underway.

Demilitarization of Iraq policy is a measure that is long overdue.  The blood and treasure squandered during years of unjustifiable delay is staggering.  Yet those losses only continue to grow until the time comes that real power is used to rally the kind of real strength that can only come from real progress toward concluding this obscenely long military occupation.

If we are to be constructive in all of this, perhaps the term “progress” can be reclaimed from those who insist American policy in Iraq is the cause of said phenomenon.  Whatever the true cause(s), less violence in Iraq is some form of progress.  More and more people conceiving of a day when that land is not subject to U.S. military occupation is progress as well.  If we as a nation can find common ground about realizing a vision like that, then we can continue to make progress.  Call them “time tables” or “time horizons,” but by all means keep such talk alive.

*Of all the ironies, the notion that a joint Pentagon-Haliburton venture would be part of a “cheaper” approach to war may be the most extreme.  Of all the tragedies, the earnest belief that privatization of the commisary did in fact generate savings for taxpayers is nowhere near the most extreme . . . but it is nonetheless a tragic failure of basic competence.

What You Should Think About Experience

July 2, 2008

“The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war.  Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin.  But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.”

–Ernest Hemingway

The past few days have seen interesting public debate about the role of military experience in national leadership.  Since long before this Presidential bid, Senator John McCain upheld his military service as a credential applicable to political leadership.  In doing this he perpetuates a long-standing tradition linking military service to political leadership.

Dozens upon dozens of generations ago, civic-minded Romans were inspired by tales of Cincinnatus.  Perhaps the ultimate citizen-soldier, the man discovered he had been selected to serve as dictator in time of crisis when a VIP delegation arrived unexpectedly at his humble farm.  Bold leadership turned into legend as he was credited with preserving and strengthening early Rome while it was under attack by rival factions on the Italian peninsula.

Ever since, Western civilization has placed a premium on military service as a credential for political leadership.  In brutal primitive times, with ordinary citizens constantly facing threats from nature and warmongers alike, there was some sense in this.  Orienting governance around security policy was often necessary and appropriate.  Ancient peoples really did inhabit a world where quality of life could not be sustained without regional military supremacy.  Fortunately for us, the 21st century is not a world fraught with turf wars and pillaging hordes.

Yet it seems not all of us are mentally up to the challenges of inhabiting more enlightened times.  For some Americans, the aggression of nineteen men with boxcutters justifies a perpetual siege mentality every bit as extreme as the militarism of the Roman Empire.  Our quality of life in the modern United States is more gravely undermined by the expenses of militaristic governance than any plausible consequences of ending a unilateral arms race.  That is not to say we should leave our nation defenseless or even abandon plans to expand the numbers of active duty troops in our armed forces.  However, it is to say that an entire society deeply dedicated to military supremacy is a society that fails to engage adequately on a wide range of issues each more crucial to quality of life than new high tech weapons systems conceivably could be.

Still, the citizen-soldier archetype resonates in Presidential politics.  On one level perhaps it should.  Honorable military service reveals character traits that many voters legitimately demand of their leaders.  It is foolish to contend that military service is the only way to become a good person.  However, the crucible of war is a meaningful test.  Integrity, loyalty, and determination are difficult to fake on the battlefield.  Courage and selflessness may also be evident (though history is thick with tales of courage and selflessness that ultimately turn out to be propaganda pieces rather than events that actually occurred.)

There is no doubt that Senator McCain served honorably in wartime, endured much abuse as a prisoner of war, and went on to fulfill command responsibility.  The value and dignity of his service is only questioned by those setting up straw men — no significant critic of McCain has characterized his military record as less than honorable.  His supporters raise the specter of that criticism because it galvanizes their movement to believe he has been “attacked” in this way.

The worst of what has actually been said by anyone of consequence was a remark General Wesley Clarke made in response to a question about this link between military service and political leadership.  In a moment Senator Obama accurately characterized as artless, the general said, “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”  The response from McCain’s supporters has been intense.  Yet what precisely is their concern?  Did John McCain never ride in a fighter plane?  Did he never get shot down?  Did General Clarke overlook something in the Constitution about military service as a credential for the Presidency?

While that remark was crude, it seems insane to reject a crude truth in favor of elegant spin.  In reviewing the documentary Carrier, I was struck by the apolitical nature of life among naval aviators.  Whenever the subject of justification arose, an overwhelming majority of pilots (as with the ship’s crew) took an agnostic view.  Rightly, military personnel in time of war do not agonize over the nuances of foreign policy.  They do their duty because it is their duty, not because the majority of them have strong opinions about which flavor of foreigners deserves to be bombed under order of the current regime. The order alone is all that is needed to act.

Provided that orders are not sadistic or inhumane (like running an extermination camp or a torture chamber,) the morality of military service demands fulfillment of duty.  Military culture frowns upon questioning orders, though questions and discussion that do not interfere with diligent and prompt fulfillment of orders do no harm (and sometimes quite a bit of good.)  Still, my broader point is that a history of being a good soldier only proves that one may retain characteristics of a good soldier.  When Senator Jim Webb attempted to clarify a crucial distinction between executive leadership and front line combat, he too was denounced for attacks on McCain’s service that Webb did not actually make.

The only real attack here, an attack entirely justified, is an attempt to change thinking about the relationship between being an effective warrior and being an effective national leader.  The very issues that naval aviators habitually avoid deliberating are those that merit tremendous time and attention from a U.S. President.  If anything, the “my country, right or wrong” attitude that helps combatants stay strong while pursuing nebulous objectives or dealing with incompetence spilling down the chain of command is an attitude that weakens one’s ability to exercise sound judgement in an executive role.  I believe even the most jingoistic Americans would, all other things being equal, rather see U.S. policy in the right than in the wrong.  A dutiful President must agonize over nuances of political decisions in precisely the ways a dutiful combatant must not.

One aspect of legitimacy in the tale of Cincinnatus is that he was a patrician with a history of political activism.  Though he was virtually conscripted to serve as head of state, his selection was not a consequence of skill with sword and spear.  It was because he had demonstrated thoughtful judgement and sound leadership in previous efforts to shape Roman policy.  His service was noble and selfless, but it was informed far more by his past political life than his past military activities.  It was the strength of his wisdom, not the strength of his belligerence, that preserved Rome during a time of great troubles.

Perhaps the closest analogs in American political life would be John Fitzgerald Kennedy and John Kerry.  They both seemed influenced by the perception, especially common among young men, that miltiary service builds reputations useful in later pursuit of public office.  That perception remains valid even today.  However, at its heart is a prejudice like the belief that tall men make the wisest leaders — an archaic misconception that resembles racism without race.  It is a prejudice that allows ignorance to be substituted where enlightenment belongs.  Still, both men risked life and limb, sustaining injuries that would cause lifelong pain, to make good on a promise to serve this nation in time of war.  That merits honor to be sure, but does it have anything at all to do with positions on security policy and foreign affairs?

The disturbing aspect of the experience debate is not that someone dared to raise such questions.  It is that the very idea of suggesting military service does not equate with executive excellence was so easily mischaracterized as a personal attack.  It is a question most civilized nations have long since asked and answered, liberating them from perpetual militarism for its own sake.

In assessing the character of a candidate, performance under fire is certainly a legitimate factor.  In assessing the quality of a candidate’s politics, performance under fire is entirely irrelevant.  So long as a contrary view remains popular, voices in the public square do well to attack it.  Real men do not cower behind the ad hominem defense when it is so clearly their opinions, not their persons, that are subjected to withering critique.  To employ that unresponsive evasion fails to address the attack even as it reveals something else — the poor character of the man who would employ such a tactic.


What You Should Think About Fear

July 1, 2008

“Fear is not the natural state of a civilized people.”

–Aung San Suu Kyi

Senator Joe Lieberman is a fascinating study in missing the point.  I first became aware of this when he embarked on a campaign to censor violence in video games.  Here was a grown man, well-educated, commanding a large capable staff, and placed in a position of moral obligation to be astute on a wide range of issues.  Yet he was convinced of a strong causal link between an entertainment medium and the worst sorts of human behavior.  In joining that misguided crusade, he fell in line with a shameful tradition of cultural conservatives ignoring substance in order to attack music or films or books or even plays.  The same buffoonery has been going on in public squares since the Agora of Athens was established.

Still, this particular Senator never fails to disappoint.  Forget about failing to deliver Florida in the 2000 election (after all, Vice President Gore’s organization bungled Tennessee even worse.)  Senator Lieberman’s misadventures go well beyond an ineffective run for his own Vice Presidency.  Whenever presented with a chance to display some insight into international relations, security issues, and counterterrorism policy; the man displays a natural gift for apparently sincere obliviousness.

Either that, or he is truly a coward.  If this is the case, then he is not merely cowering in fear for himself, but coweing in fear for the entire nation.  After all, less than eight years ago, this great nation was attacked by nineteen men with small knives.  Of course that means we must escalate warfare throughout the Middle East until both Iran and Iraq are merely parking lots for the great shopping malls of Dubai and Saudi Arabia, right?

This is the thing to keep clearly in mind as the security debate unfolds.  Armed only with a clever plan and a few inches of sharpened steel, nineteen men brought the United States of America to tears.  Perhaps because of one subject that is still taboo — the extraordinary weakness that enabled such a modest effort to produce such horrific results — we made a collective choice to fight first and think later.

Thus this choice was made without regard for little matters like target selection, means of engagement, post-invasion planning, etc.  Rather than fight back against those who had bloodied, terrorized, and (dare I say it) shamed us; this nation chose to fight for fighting’s sake.  We did not reform transportation safety to bring about real security upgrades.  We reformed it to satisfy the political desire to make people feel as if action were being taken.  We did not deploy armies to neutralize the actual threat to our safety.  We deployed them to satisfy a convoluted mix of political goals, with greater emphasis on acts that would predictably strengthen Al Qaeda than those that would be likely to weaken or eliminate the group.

For people acquainted with relevant facts, it seems hard to imagine such a stupid response to such an important issue.  In the coarsest levels of political dialogue, many conclude that this is because people like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and even Senator Lieberman are all evil men intent on bringing the nation to ruin.  I suppose there is some possibility that apocalyptic delusions of grandeur influence the sitting President’s worldview, and Dick Cheney is disturbingly comfortable in the role of a latter day Darth Vader.  However, I believe that it is nonsense to suggest either of them actually hates America or desires ruin befall our people.

They are simply terrorized.  The goal of the terrorist is to strike fear into the hearts of many people.  Even with the stunningly lethal outcomes of the 9/11 hijackings, American security was not significantly changed.  Rare is the month our driving habits fail to kill more people than died in those terrorist attacks.  A perfectly rational response would be to pursue the perpetrators and their accomplices, implement a sensible transportation safety plan, and go on about routine business.  An understandably irrational response would be to dwell on a mix of anger or sadness for a time, then go forward with the rational response.  Given national leadership that was adequate or better, recent history would have played out along understandable lines.

It did no such thing in large part because a particularly twisted and corrupt subset of politicians happily exploit the fact that fear is power.  Making the absurd leap from Saudi men with boxcutters to an Axis of Evil intent on nuking our homeland was only possible because a traumatized people are vulnerable to the absurd.  It was all made much worse still by political hate media — the sort that continues to draw enormous audiences no matter how profoundly wrong its content has been in the past.  Perhaps there are still some sensible voices on the American political right wing, but they are largely drowned out by other voices that cunningly exploit negative emotions — fear, anger, and hatred — to galvanize resistance against constructive political change.

When Senator John McCain’s campaign recently floated the “we put the nation first, the other candidate puts his left wing agenda ahead of the nation” campaign theme, it seems as if it could only have emerged from a circle of terrorized political advisors.  Like Senator Lieberman, it seems Senator McCain and most of his inner circle are still deathly afraid that the United States of America will prove no match for the next band of fanatics to arm themselves with innocuous tools and a cunning plan.  To hear them speak of strength and experience, to hear them criticize the opposition as weak or soft — the irony that such craven jellyfish would take that tone should be lost on no one.  Alas, it is lost on virtually everyone, including many of their critics.

It would have been a great thing for the world if cooler heads had prevailed in late 2001 and beyond.  Heck, it probably would have been great for the world if cooler heads had taken charge in 2004.  This fall, another opportunity presents itself to let cooler heads prevail.  John McCain may not be more quick-tempered or loud-mouthed than Barack Obama.  However, his continued embrace of bloodshed justified by only the most absurd and implausible of political narratives is a shameful misjudgement that threatens to pile misery atop misery, slaughter atop slaughter, all in one of the most oppressed parts of the modern world.

We should fear terrorists . . . we should fear them even more than we fear lightning strikes, but certainly much less than we fear smog.  All these risks are real, yet they are also all no reason whatsoever for a routine day to be uncomfortable.  The more our behavior reflects a terrorized mindset, the less keenly we will be able to focus efforts on neutralizing actual terrorism.  Even worse, the blundering and slaughtering will continue, perhaps even escalate, while decisions are made based on this terrorized mindset.

It is long past time to overcome this insipid fear, spawned by nineteen suicidal fanatics and nursed into a behemoth by years of carefully calculated political misinformation.  The best security credential anyone could bring to a bid for the Presidency in 2008 is a clear history of opposing misguided military aggression in a climate when such opposition was boldly unpopular.  If we truly want to be strong as a nation, then the time has come for us to show the world no fear.  Endorsing the views and candidacies of leaders still clearly and deeply terrorized by the events of September 11th, 2001 is showing plenty of fear — the very fear by which our true enemies define their own successes.