"Where the action is..."

Oh my...something I read tonight written by a Georgetown professor laid another few pounds on top of an issue that already weighs heavy on my mind.

Today, I was just thinking this thought: Ultimately, at the political level of life, the greatest potential for affecting some sort of desired change -- "where the action is," so to speak -- is in two places:

1) At the "highest" level of national government: in foreign affairs, diplomacy, national security, defense and war -- and

2) at the "lowest" (or "most fundamental") level of government: the school board, the county commission, the city council, the mayor's office and perhaps even the state capitol (depending on the state and the policy issue).

Much of what lies between these two poles -- Congress, much of the Executive Branch, the scores and scores of regulatory agencies -- seem to me, at the present time, the embodiment of "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."

p.s. Don't despair -- I really do like my job quite a lot, for this season of life -- ok that's enough ruminating for the night. ;)

BC

DHE - Dept. of the Heavens & the Earth

Via the Crunchy Conservative, here is a blog devoted to "green conservatives" (with Robert Cizik, government affairs guru at the National Association of Evangelicals, as one of the blog's contributors).

As EC knows, I hate the term "environment." Why? It's stale, boring and abstract. How about "the heavens and the earth"? It's worked for millenia -- why now do we refer to our natural world as "the environment"? Would Genesis 1 have the same poetic rhythm with "In the beginning, God created...the environment"?

How about it, GAO? From now on, the Division of Natural Resources & Environment (NRE) will be called the Division of the Heavens & the Earth (DHE)?

For a very intriguing, self-critical report from within the environmental movement, check out "The Death of Environmentalism." It's a fascinating case study on how public policy goals cannot be achieved in the long-term without a spiritual vision, moral imagination, or some kind of broad cultural narrative. Wonkish, technical policy/legal/budgetary proposals aren't enough -- you need the so-called "myth-makers" as well.

BC

A Shadowy Third Candidate?

At the beginning of the day today, this story was barely a blip on the news ticker -- but by about mid-afternoon, the blogs (and major news outlets) were buzzing over a secretive conference held last weekend in Salt Lake City by the Council for National Policy, a small group of influential Christian conservatives including the likes of Jim Dobson and the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins. The fruit of the conference was a bit startling, and could have major political ramificatons:

"If the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate, we will consider running a third-party candidate."

Read: if Guiliani is the GOP nominee, we will draft our own candidate.

Who that candidate could be remains to be seen -- what also remains to be seen is if social conservatives are only raising a political storm now but will acquiese in support of a Guliani candidacy when push (i.e. "Hillary") comes to shove.

Interestingly, the drive for a third-party candidate came primarily from "a South Dakota businessman named Robert S. Fischer "was the driving force" behind the resolution." The Politico article notes he is based in Rapid City and owns a furniture business. Anybody have an idea who this gentleman is (any of our West River readers, perhaps)?

I've been saying (as well as others) for a little while now that a schism is coming in the Republican party -- primarily between traditional (crunchy?) conservatives and libertarians/classical liberals.

To be sure, the Dobson crowd represents an older school conservative -- a God, Guns 'n' Gays agenda, one might say. The latest iteration of traditional conservatism might be better represented by politicians like Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback and Christopher Smith, and commentators like Rod Dreher, or perhaps even David Brooks.

But Guliani doesn't quite fit either mold. He is bullish on security, economically and socially liberal, and restricive on Second Amendment issues.

In other news, Newt is out -- but both he and Bill Clinton think Mike Huckabee could be the GOP's dark horse candidate.

I like Mike. Who do you like?

BC

Snakker du Norsk?

Last night EC and I finally got to watch Sweet Land (given to us by a Sweet Nanny). I won't say much here other than I highly recommend the movie, especially to those who grew up in the Upper Midwest -- Sweet Land is the anti-Fargo. Fargo was hilarious precisely because it took every stereotype of the Upper Midwest and multiplied by 100. Sweet Land portrays the region and its history with dignity, humor and beauty - as it is.

BC

"Out of balance."

Talking about the war in Iraq is an inevitable powder keg for conversation. Certainly lessons can be learned by studying the lead up to the war, if done so by honestly assessing the complexity of the last 5-7 years, and of course without partisan slant. At the moment, Congress (and Washington in general) is strategizing, posturing and maneuvering like mad about how to proceed in Iraq.

In a hearing during last week's House Armed Services committee meeting, Army Chief of Staff George Casey and Army Secretary Pete Geren gave a sobering testimony, summarized here by Congress Daily. A few crucial words from Casey:

"the next several decades will be ones of persistent conflict" and the Army cannot accurately predict when and where the next war will occur, Casey said, "we are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."

and this, which the original Congress Daily story included:

"We could not, at the present time, respond to a full-spectrum conflict."

It was indeed a sobering testimony, especially given current buzz regarding Iran (would ground troops be necessary to ensure a strike on Revolutionary Guard headquarters and nuclear facilities was thorough?) and an increasingly widespread belief that the U.S. is on an inevitable collision course with China in the coming decades of the 21st century.

Some suggest Iran (and their Syrian allies) are, in fact, shaking in their shoes at the moment - especially given Israel recent strike DEEP in Syrian territory, which took out...what? No one really knows but speculation is all over the map. How deep and veiled was this strike? It sounds like the Israeli Air Force fighter pilots could've landed in Damascus, grabbed a coffee at Starbucks and kept rolling to their target without any Syrian taking notice.

BC

Sanctuary from Downtown

Today for the first time I went to daily Mass at St. Mary's.
As it turns out, the little church changed the shape of the GAO.

According to GAO history, in 1941 after Congress had authorized $9,850,000 for the acquisition of a GAO headquarters building, the government purchased plots from individual property owners on the block and began to raze the structures. But St. Mary’s was so well established in the neighborhood that planning officials did not hold out much hope for buying the church property. In the end “the Commissioners of the District of Columbia closed and vacated G Place up to the point where the St. Mary's church property began. They designed the GAO building around the church.” Overhead pictures show the irregular shape this forced the building to become.

The church sits on the northwest corner of 5th and H Streets and is just around the block. As I turned the corner this afternoon to enter, I saw several other crisp and serious professionals striding to the front doors, entering quickly. Outside the D.C. world buzzed with traffic and panhandlers, with clicking high-heeled shoes and jostling crowds of people hurrying past with their heads down. Upon entering the church, that busy world was gone. The dark suits were kneeling, the clicking shoes silent. The service was quick – just 30 minutes of prayer, Scripture and fellowship. Soon I was back outside again, my high heels clicking. I was thankful for that church today as I slipped back into my chair, and I’m still laughing at God’s irony. In a building full of perfectionists the corners don’t quite line up….

EC

Taking bets on the next 50 years...

I got this brief interview from my brother a couple of weeks ago, and I need to blog about something after a long absence, so here goes. The subject of the interview is Jeremy Rifkin, who claims the titles "economist, philosopher and professor," and more generally, "social critic."

There is no shortage of people making predictions about the coming decades, and I try to pay some attention to these people -- and yes, that includes a near-religious devotion to reading anonymous "Spengler" every week. (sidenote -- Spengler is expanding his reach, writing an essay in next month's First Things titled "Christian, Muslim, Jew.")

Rifkin is certainly of a different stripe than Spengler. He addresses three general issues here, from a futurist's perspective: 1) Urban life, 2) The transformation of work, and 3) Europe.

1) Rifkin states,

"For the first time in history, a majority of human beings will be living in vast urban areas, many in megacities and suburban extensions with populations of 10 million or more, according to the United Nations."

This is certainly true. Megacities will get bigger and bigger, but many (including Joel Kotkin) see the most rapid relative growth occuring in smaller and mid-sized cities, with populations between 25,000 and 800,000. If you live in one of these cities in the next fifty years, get ready for a growth spurt, according to Kotkin. (For a couple of sobering, dystopian commentaries on the explosive growth of megacities, especially in the developing world, see John Robb's "The Coming Urban Terror," from last month's City Journal and a 1994 Robert Kaplan essay in the Atlantic, "The Coming Anarchy"). Rifkin also states:

"It’s no accident that as we celebrate urbanization of the world, we are quickly approaching another historic watershed: the disappearance of the wild."

This is a popular view, but I'm not sure it's based in reality. Much of continental Europe is returning to wilderness, where wolves sometimes outnumber humans. Central Africa is becoming increasingly wild, as wars and horrific natural conditions drive thousands to coastal cities. It's maybe more accurate to say that the wilderness around these new megacities, like Lagos, Nigeria, is being completely and irrevocably destroyed.

2) Rifkin has faith in technology to give the world a European-like 30 hour work week. In fact, Europe should be the model for the U.S. , according to Rifkin. Rifkin is an economist. He should know the nations of Europe are struggling and striving to keep up with (especially) U.S. and East Asian economic growth. They don't impose absurd mandatory 35 hour (maximum) work weeks either, a la our neighbors in France -- but Sarko might change this -- GO SARKO, GO).

3) Ok, I delved into Europe on number 2, and will again here. Again, Rifkin likes the European model. What he doesn't mention are plummeting birthrates, aging populations, and bloated bureacracies that make D.C. look like a well-oiled machine. Rifkin also makes this nebulous statement:

"The dream that’s emerging is the first attempt, as feeble as it is, to create something akin to global consciousness."

"The dream" he's talking about is the European Union, the same one that offered French and Dutch voters a 300-page constitution, only to have it soundly rejected.

Finally, Rifkin comments on Islam in Europe:

"I think the dream will succeed or fail based on the ability of Europe to integrate Islam. Europe’s dream is to be a global public square, with unity in diversity, where people of the world can live together with a common dream of inclusivity, sustainable development, human rights and building peace. However, to accomplish this, Europe must effectively integrate North Africa and the Middle East, and especially Islam. If it fails, the world is going to take a step back, and we may not achieve that kind of global consciousness. Then the question is who else can develop this dream, if it isn’t Europe?"

Rifkin is living in a cocoon of wishful thinking (or maybe I'm just cranky tonight, who knows).

Europe is facing an existential crisis, and will continue to do so for the next 50 years - it would face the crisis with or without radical strains of Islam within its borders.

And "integrate North Africa and the Middle East"? Europe? Really?

If this is your benchmark for success, Mr. Rifkin, I can predict the future for you: the world is most definitely going to "take a step back" in the next 50 years. Read the Kaplan article for the goods.

BC