SUNDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2010 KATHLEENPARKER
America needs to toughen up
T
hanks to WikiLeaks, even Vlad the Putin can raise an eyebrow and presume to know more
about founding American principles, democracy and free speech. It is convenient to blame poor little
Julian Assange, the cyberkind who published the leaks that someone stole. He is now a martyr to the brat brigades who occupy basements and attics, keeping the company of others similarly occupied with virtual life. Assange is the king brat, but onlydu
jour.He will be displaced soon enough by more ambitious hacks whose delin- quent and, worse, sinister inclinations are enabled by technology. Alas, we are at the mercy of giddy, power-hun- gry nerds operating beyond the bur- den of responsibility or accountability. Do I want to hunt down Assange as
wedoal-Qaeda, asonefamouscaribou hunter suggested? Uh, no. Assange, who is in custody awaiting extradition on (dubious) rape charges, may be a naughty boy. But he isanirresponsible publisher, a conduit, not the perpetra- tor of the originating offense.Whatev- er culpability we may assign to him ultimately will have to be determined in the way that we (but not so much the Russians and those who can see Russia on a clear day) prefer: due process. In the meantime, a few observa-
tions are worth considering as we ponder the larger picture. It is human nature to turn on the
weak, and we apparently are today’s feast. The world delights in our recoil from the release of classified docu- ments because the big dog has a limp, a weak spine and a soft belly. Our president, though likable, is perceived as weak no matter how many raids we perform in Afghani- stan. South Korea, who at least owes us an in-kind favor, at first declined our kind trade
offer.China,Russiaand others have criticized our monetary policy. Meanwhile, the world sees our ca- cophonous Congress unable to move forward with measures to save our
economy.The worldwatches our over- fed populace stampeding to buy more junk made with cheap labor in un- friendly countries. China holds our debt while we can’t
agree on how to stop the hemorrhag- ing. At thesametime,China’s students are kicking our kids’ tushies around the schoolyard. From reading tomath, they’re so far ahead we inhale their dust. That is to say, the world sees weak-
ness. This is a stunning recognition for
most Americans who have grown up amid relative plenty, a sunny national disposition and mantra of good inten- tions. We’ve always known that we’re the good guys, as even some of our defenders have noted in the wake of WikiLeaks revelations. Writing for the center-rightLe Figa-
ro, French journalist Renaud Girard said: “What is most fascinating is that we see no cynicism in U.S. diplomacy. They really believe in human rights in Africa and China andRussia andAsia. They really believe in democracy and human rights.” Yes, we really do. If Americans are guilty of anything,
he said, it is being a little naive. Let’s plead guilty as charged and get on with it. With gratitude, we even find a
friend on the left. Another French journalist, Laurent Joffrin, editor of the leftist Liberation, conceded that we should not necessarily accept a “demand for transparency at any price.” It would seem that we face several
imperatives at this juncture: First, remain calm. Hysteria is not helpful. Second, accept that our world has changed in terms of what can be expected as “private” and behave ac- cordingly. Third, all hands on deck as we work to reconcile our better angels with our fallen selves. With the exception of our military,
we are a flabby lot, and I’m not just talking about girth. We are merely disgusting in that department. I’m talking about our self-discipline, our individual will, our self-respect, our voluntary order. Note the operative words: self, indi-
vidual and voluntary. Wedon’tneedbureaucratsandpoli-
ticians to dictate how to behave; how to spend (or save); what and how to eat.We need to be the people we were meant to be: strong, resilient, disci- plined, entrepreneurial, focused, wise, playful, humorous, humble, thought- ful and, please, self-deprecating. We have all the tools and opportunities a planet can confer. It’s still a jungle out there, however,
and the weak lose every time. The lack of respect from other countries, the ridiculefromthugsandtheWikiLeaks celebration are part of the same cloth. We can do what’s necessary—tighten our belts, get tough, grab our shovels. To do less is to surrender to victim- hood and the fates that befall those who decline to govern themselves.
kathleenparker@washpost.com
An American face on American aid BY ANNMARLOWE “I have some gifts for your village.
I’d like to give them to you to distribute to the people.”
Air Force Lt. Col. Andy Veres, com-
mander of the Provincial Reconstruc- tion Team (PRT) in Zabul province, was addressingHaji Sayeed, the headmanof a small village. We were sitting in the courtyard of Sayeed’s mud-brick house, a few hours’ drive from the provincial capital, Qalat. Veres has forged a friend- ship with Sayeed over the course of two deployments here, and Sayeed is old enough — perhaps 75 — to speak more frankly than the average Afghan would to an American commander. Sayeed answered, “I would prefer if
youdistribute the
gifts.This will prevent rumors. If I give the gifts, people will say you gavememore than this amount and I kept some for myself. I know you Americans have given millions to our people. So this will be good for you that the people know you are their friend.” He also urged Veres to distribute half of the goods to a village nearby. This simple exchange, which I wit-
nessed lastmonthas a journalistembed- ded with the Zabul PRT, underscores critical issues in the U.S. relationship with Afghanistan that play out on a grander scale here every day, all the way up to our relations with President Hamid Karzai. First, there is the question of “putting
an Afghan face” on the good things the United States does here, vs. making the American origins of aid crystal clear. What Veres suggested is the official American policy — and it’s a terrible idea. Pretending to Afghans that their usually dysfunctional government is providing for them hurts all concerned. Last month, an Asia Foundation survey found that 74 percent of Afghans agree with the statement “I don’t think the government cares much about what people like me think,” with 30 percent agreeing “strongly.” American efforts to cover for Afghan incompetence relieve the Afghan government of pressure from the people to perform; they rein- force the beliefs of some Afghans that the United States is in league with corrupt power brokers; and they keep in the dark the many Afghans who are unaware of just how much the United States is doing for their country and its citizens.
Recent polling by the International
Council on Security and Development, a private group funded by foundations in
PAULA BRONSTEIN/GETTY IMAGES
Hospital Corpsman andMarine Shannon Crowley hands out jelly beans to Afghan boys while on patrol inMusa Qala, Afghanistan, onNov. 17.
Europe, found that 72 percent of 1,000 southern Afghan men surveyed believe that foreigners are disrespectful of their religion and culture. Reinforcing that belief are examples such as this case from Zabul: Last month, for theMuslim religious holiday of Eid al-Adha, when gifts of clothing are tradition- al, the Zabul PRT gave 1,700 shawls to local men. That is, the PRT paid for the shawls but didn’t hand them out direct- ly; they were given first to the provincial ministry of Haj and Religious Affairs, which distributed them. A win for the Afghan government? Maybe — depend- ing on the reputation of this ministry and complex local political factors. (Af- ghan politics obeys the cliche about academic politics—that the smaller the stakes, the more bitterly they are con- tested.) But it was certainly a lost chance to show American solidarity with Af- ghan traditions. Second, when we put an Afghan
facade on American aid, local officials are given more power than they would otherwise accrue on their own. Some local figures owe their influence to violence and crime, others to having proved themselves effective servants of their people. Even in the best cases — and Haji
Sayeed is probably one of those — our acts amplify power brokers’ influence, concentrating power in the hands of a few. In a society prone to conspiracy theories, such actions, though well-in- tentioned, risk swaying many Afghans to believe that the honest are corrupt. Further empowering those known to be corrupt, of course, inflicts a different
Kicking a bipartisan habit I
BY TOM BROKAW
n Washington and across the country there’s understandably a great deal of speculation on whether President
Obama and the incoming speaker of the House, John Boehner, can work together and on what issues. Here’s a suggestion on where to start. Stop. Stop smoking. The congressman from Ohio acknowl-
edges that he is addicted to cigarettes. While there have been reports the past few days that the president has stopped smok- ing, what we know for certain is that in his last physicalObamawas advised to end his habit of sneaking a smoke from time to time. It’s not clear that he has. Press secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that hehasn’t seen the boss withacigarette fora while. The latest surgeon general’s report on
the effects of smoking on America’s health- care costs and general well-being is one more stark reminder of the damage that smoking does. Surgeon General Regina Benjamin says,
“Tobacco smoke damages almost every organ in your body.Onecigarette can cause a heart attack” in smokers with underlying
kind of damage. Finally, we risk undermining U.S.
efforts to bring the rule of law and democracy to Afghanistan.Washington is seeking to create a country of lawsand systems. In some ways, the fallout from these American missteps can be seen in the rule of Karzai, where far too much power and influence have been central- ized in one office. Even if Karzai had been George Washington, the scenario might have worked out poorly. Back in Shahr-e-Shafa,Veres, a highly
intelligent and adaptable leader, took Sayeed’s advice. The gifts his team dis- tributed wouldn’t have drawn attention in the poorest American slum — cheap Chinese children’s socks and gloves, polyester sweaters for the girls and women, blankets for adult men — but they were eagerly received here, where many children are barefoot and there is no electricity or running water. Sayeed watched and then hobbled off toward his house. Later, Veres told me, “He taught me a valuable lesson.” In this village, Afghans know that Americans are people of good will. But American policy of putting an Afghan face on our taxpayers’ generosity is to blame for the attitudes in other, similar places, where rural Afghans whose sup- port we are trying to gather believe that we disrespect their traditions or are the dupes of their worst elements.
Ann Marlowe, a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute, travels often to Afghanistan and has been embedded with American forces there seven times. She blogs at
WorldAffairsJournal.org.
KLMNO
EZ RE
A25 GEORGEF.WILL
A decade after Bush v. Gore
T
he passions that swirled around Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case that ended 10 years ago
Sunday, dissipated quickly. And re- markably littledamagewasdone by the institutional collisions that resulted when control of the nation’s supreme political office turned on 537 votes out of 5,963,110 cast in Florida. Many controversies concerned
whether particular votes could be said to have been cast properly. Chads are those bits of paper that,whena ballot is properly cast by puncturing spots next to candidates’ names, are separated from the ballot. In Florida, there were “dimpled” chads that were merely dented and “hanging” chads not sepa- rated from the ballots. Furthermore, there were undervotes (ballots with no vote for president) and overvotes (votes for two presidential candidates) and ill-designed (by a Democrat) butterfly ballots. The post-election lunacy could have
been substantially mitigated by adher- ing to a principle of personal responsi- bility:Voterswhocast ballots incompe- tently are not entitled to have election officials toil to divine these voters’ intentions. Al Gore got certain Demo- cratic-dominated canvassing boards to turn their recounts into unfettered speculations and hunches about the intentions of voters who submitted inscrutable ballots. Before this, Palm Beach County had forbidden counting dimpled chads. OnceGore initiated the intervention
of courts, the U.S. Constitution was implicated. On Nov. 7, Gore finished second in Florida’s Election Day vote count. A few days later, after the state’s mandatory (in close elections)machine recount, he again finished second. Flor- ida law required counties to certify their results in seven days, byNov. 14. But three of the four (of Florida’s 67) counties — each heavily Democratic — where Gore was contesting the count were not finished deciphering voters’ intentions. So Gore’s lawyers persuad- ed the easily persuadable state Su- preme Court — with a majority of Democratic appointees — to rewrite the law. It turned the seven-day period into 19 days. Many liberals underwent instant
heart disease. John Mendelsohn, head of MD Anderson, the highly regarded Hous- ton cancer clinic, says that if he could do onething to dramatically cut cancer deaths in the country he would outlawsmoking. Tobacco kills more than 443,000 Ameri-
cans a year,morethan 10 times thenumber who die in traffic accidents. Yet for all the warnings on cigarette packages, in public- service ads and in news stories about the acute dangers of smoking, an estimated 40 million Americans still smoke. The inventory of costs is staggering:
$193 billion annually in health-care ex- pensesandlost productivity attributable to tobacco-related illnesses. A few years ago Duke University health economists con- ducted a detailed study on the costs of smoking. They found that a 24-year-old male smoker would cost himself and soci- ety $220,000 in his lifetime of lighting up. A 24-year-old woman, smoking less than her male counterpart, nonetheless would run up a tab of $106,000 over her lifetime. The professors concluded that the average cost of a package of smokes for a male worked out to around $40. These numbers, of course, do not in-
clude the pain and the emotional toll of watching a friend or a family member die of tobacco-related diseases. I’ve lost seven friends to smoking-related lung cancer.
Each death was a long, agonizing experi- ence. After 50 years of smoking unfiltered cigarettes, my father died, too young, of a massive heart attack.He was 69. It’s almost certain that all those years of nicotine inhalation were a major contributor to his clogged arteries. WhenCBS’s Bob Schieffer pressed Boeh-
ner on “Face the Nation” in September, Boehner said, “Tobacco is a legal product in America, and people have a right to decide for themselves whether to partake. Smok- ing is something I choose to do; maybe at some point I’ll decide I’ve had enough.” Now is the time,Mr. Speaker-elect. You,
too,
Mr.President.Makeajointappearance on the steps of the National Institutes of Health and say to the nation you’re both leading: “We have decided together thatwe can’t ask the American people to make sacrifices in the year ahead unlesswemake some sacrifices of our own for the sake of our health, our families and the nation. “We’re quitting smoking and we ask
others to join us in this critical step in restoring America’s health.” I promise you, it would be a welcome
step in clearing the air over the nation’s capital.
Tom Brokaw is a special correspondent and former “Nightly News” anchor for NBC.
RIGHT TURN Excerpts fromJenniferRubin’s commentary on politics and policy:
voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn
A change to foreign affairs?
As we saw during the Bush administra-
tion, even a president whose popularity is skidding enjoys wide latitude in the con- duct of foreign policy. When domestic issues are paramount, fewRepublicans are willing to devote time and energy to foreign policy. But there is a big exception: Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), who was named incoming chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week. To say that critics of President Obama’s
foreign policy are thrilled to have her on the scene would be an understatement. She has drawn praise fromCuba democra- cy advocates, friends of Israel, human rights activists and some who support Georgia against Russian aggression. After being named chair, Ros-Lehtinen
demonstrated why she may become the darling of conservatives and the bane of the Obama administration. She issued a multi-pronged attack, promising “a num- ber of cuts to the State Department and foreign aid budgets,” which she said have “much fat. . . which makes some cuts
obvious.” She said: “We must shift our foreign aid focus from failed strategies rooted in an archaic post-World War II approach that, in some instances, perpetu- ates corrupt governments, to one that reflects current realities and challenges and empowers grassroots and civil soci- ety.”
Describingwhat amounts to anideolog-
ical offensive against the administration, she announced plans to use “U.S. contribu- tions to international organizations as leverage to press for real reform of those organizations, such as the United Nations, and . . . to call for withdrawal of U.S. funds to failed entities like the discredited Hu- man Rights Council if improvements are notmade.” Ros-Lehtinen speaks in terms rarely
heard from the White House. It is the language of American exceptionalism and a forward-leaning foreign policy. Her worldview is clear: “Isolate and hold our enemies accountable, while supporting and strengthening our allies. I support strong sanctions and other penalties against those who aid violent extremists, brutalize their own people, and have time and time again rejected calls to behave as responsible nations. Rogue regimes never
respond to anything less than hardball.” Using the power of the purse and
oversight hearings, Ros-Lehtinen is ex- pected to scrutinize the gap between rhetoric and results.What have we gained from “reset”? Why are we giving $1.5 bil- lion to Hosni Mubarak when Egypt’s re- cent parliamentary elections featured rampant fraud? Why aren’t we more ro- bustly supporting Iran’sGreenMovement? Democrats may have been reluctant to query administration officials, but Ros- Lehtinen will not be shy. Of course, oversight hearings and bud-
getary control do not guarantee that the Obama administrationwill shift course on Russia, Cuba or any other country. But Ros-Lehtinen can, and I predictwill,make a difference. Nations that have been ne- glected or undercut by this administration will have a chance to be heard. She, aswell as the 2012 presidential candidates, can begin to lay out the case against Obama foreign policy and describe an alternative vision—robust on human rights, support- ive of our allies, candid in the description of the war against Islamic jihadism and assertive in advancingU.S. interests rather than the nebulous goal of “engagement.” That is no small thing.
conversions of convenience: They be- came champions of states’ rights when the U.S. Supreme Court (seven of nine were Republican appointees) unani- mously overturned that extension. But the U.S. high court reminded Florida’s court to respect the real “states’ rights” at issue — the rights of state legisla- tures: The Constitution gives them plenary power to establish procedures for presidential elections. Florida’s Supreme Court felt emanci-
patedfromlaw.Whenrewriting the law to extend the deadline for certification of results by the four counties, the court said: “The will of the people, not a hyper-technical reliance upon statuto- ry provisions, should be our guiding principle.” But under representative government, the will of the people is expressed in statutes. Adherence to statutes—even adherence stigmatized as “hyper-technical”—is known as the rule of law. In the end, seven of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices (and three of the seven Florida justices) agreed on this: The standardless recount ordered by the Florida court—different rules in different counties regarding different kinds of chads and different ways of discerning voter intent — violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Twoof the sevenU.S. justices favored ordering Florida’s court to devise stan- dards that could pass constitutional muster and allowing the recount to continue for six more days. Five jus- tices, believing that the recounting had become irredeemably lawless, ended it. OnceGore summoned judicial inter-
vention, and Florida’s Supreme Court began to revise state election law, it probably was inevitable that posses- sion of the nation’s highest political office was going to be determined by a state’s highest court or the nation’
s.The U.S. Supreme Court was duty-bound not to defer to a state court that was patently misinterpreting — disregard- ing, actually—state lawpertaining to a matter assigned by the U.S. Constitu- tion to state legislatures. Suppose that, after Nov. 7, Florida’s
Legislature had made by statute the sort of changes — new deadlines for recounting and certifying votes, selec- tive recounts, etc. — that Florida’s Supreme Court made by fiat. This would obviously have violated the fed- eral lawthat requires presidential elec- tions to be conducted by rules in place prior to Election Day. Hard cases, it is said, make bad law.
But this difficult case seems to have madelittle discernible
law.That is good because it means no comparable elec- toral crisis has occurred. What the Supreme Court majority said on Dec. 12, 2000 — “our consideration is limit- ed to the present circumstances”—has proved true. And may remain true, at least until the next time possession of the presidency turns on less than one ten-thousandth of a state’s vote.
georgewill@washpost.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176