Mark,

I guess my point about the supposed immorality of torture in the context of war is that it ignores the realities of what war is. While there have been some wars where the fighting only stopped when the opposing forces were annhilated and one side was left firmly in control of the landscape, there have been many other wars that were more psychological in nature. I'm thinking specifically of the aerial wars favored by Clinton with regards to Bosnia and Iraq but also even a medieval seige of some fortress city in Europe. In both scenarios the goal was not to obliterate the opposing forces but instead it was to inflict a lot of psychological damage on the them so as to bend their will to the goals of the attackers. It could be argued pretty effectively that a member of the Republican Guard who had to spend several sleepless nights in a bunker while American planes bombed the holy heck out of Baghdad was subject to a sort of psychological torture. Likewise the residents of Paris in 886 who watched the bodies of dead prisoners flung over the walls of their city by Viking invaders were subject to a sort of psychological torture as well.

While there is a physical component to techniques like waterboarding, it seems the psychological torment is the real by-product. I wonder if it is really so different than the experience of someone who experiences the general horrors of war. Do we put torture on a forbidden shelf because of its solo nature? Where is the line?

As I've mentioned here before, I think we are starting to see people move away from people-oriented political labels towards issue-oriented political labels. That way you can be a Lefty on immigration and conservative on abortion....or whatever.

As a self-styled progressive conservative in the Teddy Roosevelt/Disraeli model I like that most of the debate on labels seems to be happening in conservative circles. I think that exploring intellectual pedigrees is very important. Liberals tend to love the 'big tent' idea of a wide diversity of people but I remain convinced that coalition is fragile because they don't address the very real disagreements between, for example, gay marriage proponents and black communities. Or between environmentalists (Greenpeace) and conservationists (union members who hunt). They don't want to rock the boat by exploring the nuances of political ideology because that would expose their weaknesses.

I remain very proud that the broadly-dfined 'Right' seems more willing to air our ideological differences and search for compromise than what I perceive on the Left.

From Mark:

The trouble is that for the vast majority of people, the issue isn’t whether torture is moral or immoral, but whether the results it provides warrant the breach of morality. For some of us (and I include myself in that group), the morality breach is never or almost never worth it.

I think ultimately you are right. This will not be a conversation about whether or not certain techniques are torture, but instead it will be about whether or not torture is okay. Otherwise the govt can just keep inventing new methods to stay one step ahead of the people who define various techniques (personally i find sleep deprivation to be a-ok, but suprisingly i'm less okay with zapping someone's testicles with a cattle prod.)

As for the statement of morality, I find it hard to reconcile the immorality of torture with the morality of war in general. If we accept that sometimes the only way to deal with some people is to blow people up with precision-guided bombs, why do we draw another line in opposition to making them think they are drowning even though they really aren't?

But then again, I've never really understood the 'rules of war' mentality. As Stonewall Jackson said, "If it were up to me, it would be the black flag. That is the quickest way to bring wars to a conclusion."

From E.D:

Why have they conceded defeat there - in the arts, in literature, in music - trading it instead for trash television and cheap rhetoric?

I don't know what's more troubling. The notion that most conservatives behave like O'Reilly and Beck or that liberals believe it. I generally assume most liberals aren't clones of Kieth Olbermann (O'Reilly's liberal twin) or Bill Maher. I just wish intelligent conservatives could get the same from the Left.

Mark,

I don't so much resent the size, lack of foucs and the hangers-on at these things so much as the co-option of the libertarian cause. While I am definitely not a libertarian, I appreciate their honest opinion on economic policy, which I view as mostly free of partisan baggage. That message needs to be heard and these protests obscure it or make it be taken less seriously. That's what ticks me off the most. The other potential negative side-effect is that it may push libertarians further towards the Democratic fold, which is the last thing the GOP needs.

I have to echo what Ross Douthat said today. Protests bring out all sorts of crazies. Just watch a protest of the G20 or the G8 or the World Bank meetings. You will see a wide-spectrum of grievances. Where's the rule that protests have to be laser-beam focused? I thought the issues-shotgun approach was a halmark of the Left. That makes me wonder: is the frustration with the Tea Parties at least partially because we expect conservatives to be more organized?

E.D.,

You know my thoughts on putting progressive in a whole new light. I see it as a corollary to our discussion yesterday about the pace of change or progress. I would agree with you that you can uphold traditional values while still moving forward and the Church certainly did that with Vatican II.
I would also love to see a Vatican III if for no other reason than historical significance (as a Catholic I was entranced during the days surrounding the death of John Paul and Pope Benedicts election). The problem is that if they stick to their normal schedule, we won't see one again until around 2060. I think they resist the urge to hold them more often so they can allow the passage of time and not just sway in the wind of public opinion.

As a Catholic with a non-Catholic wife and children, my simple wish is that they be allowed to share in Communion, the way I am allowed in my wife's Methodist church.

From E.D. :

These are good things, to be sure, but I would argue that a liberty devoid of morality is a shallow creature, flighty, easily dispersed. 

I really liked that line. I know the old saw that God is not needed for people to have good morals, but  would also argue that it helps. Pope John Paul said, "Liberalism without Catholicism is thinly disguised totalitarianism.”  His point was that we need the non-secular to humanize liberal ideals sometimes.
There's also the notion that right or wrong,  people's religious beliefs can be strong motivating factors. That was the basis for the entire social gospel movement during the Progressive Era.

I'm with E.D. on this one. I've never understood how a private system would work. Would people be forced to contribute the money or would it be completely optional? Would they be allowed to invest in risky stocks or would they be forced to diversify to mitigate risk? What if a person saves and invests dillegently for years and just before they retire the stock market tanks and now their retirement savings have been cut in half?

In all of these 'what if' scenarios, we assume the government will be forced to step in and help because we aren't inclined to let older citizens become homeless or fall become homeless. In the end, the government will always feel compelled to offer citizens a safety net. That's why I wish we would just acknowledge that SS is here to stay and we just need to keep it well-finded.

Interesting discussion..

At some point I think 'personhood' is obviously going to have to be more clearly defined by the government. There is already a real contradiction in the law when you consider that the murder of a pregnant mother results in two counts, not one. It seems a bit hypocritical that Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering a fetus that an abortion provider could have legally killed the day before.

For me personally, being pro-life, I will acknowledge that scientifically defining 'personhood' is near-impossible. I am quite certain that 'personhood' occurs before birth but when I cannot say. In that lack of certainty I choose to err on the side of caution. What if we arbitrarily said personhood started at the beginning of the third trimester? Then 10 years later through some miracle of science we determine it was really the start of the 2nd trimester. That's why I prefer to take the more cautious approach.

I could write a great big comment here explaining all the flaws in the EFCA but I'll keep it simple: It is one of the worst pieces of legislation written in the last half century. If passed it is going to completely change the face of labor in the US and hurt a lot of good companies. And once the damage is done...there's not much hope of fixing it.

My family has lived in or around Louisville since the 1850's. My wife's family are spread to the four corners . I say my family has roots...my wife says we are boring.

I often think one of the best ways to be happy is to love the town you live in. I am in love with my home town and i hope it always feels that way.

I just discovered ths one today as well. Looks cool.

I know the example of the agricultural protections gets a lot of people up in arms, but I truly fear the day when America becomes dependent not only on foreign manufactured goods but food as well. It’s important for every nation that can produce their own food, to produce their own food, and I believe the same about manufacturing. This is, ironically, every bit a matter of national security, just as finding ways to produce our own energy is.

I have been arguing this same point for a long time. The capitalist in me says protectionism is bad, but when it comes to food, we have to be able to feed ourselves and I agree 100% that this is a national security issue.

If I can quote myself here:

"A heavy dependence on foreign-produced crops creates two major security concerns. The first is obvious. Foreign produced food can be tampered with and at a high quantity of importation the likelihood that some would slip through our quality controls increases with each ton of food. This food is also subject to disease or a dramatic loss of production due to the inferiority of foreign production methods. In both cases our people risk exposure to health concerns and/or a loss of a major food source.

The second security risk is the potential for unfair trade pressures to be placed on the U.S. by countries supplying major amounts of our food. One need only look at the concessions we have had to make to our oil suppliers to realize the potential for even greater pressure when the alternative is starvation."

http://progressconservative.com/2009/01/09/protecting-our-food/

...it is hard to take seriously anyone who says that the Republican party has “abandoned” conservative principles

Are those the principles of Goldwater, Reagan, Gingrich or George W? I think part of the problem is that the Right, much more than the Left, seems to gel around people instead of ideals. When they set a weird or confusing agenda, we feel compelled to follow blindly, or at least refrain from asking tough questions. The Left, to their credit sometimes, gel around ideas. I remember seeing a panel interview with all the candidates for the RNC spot and when asked who their favorite republican president was, all answered Reagan. That actually kind of scared me.

In many ways, President Obama will set the tone for the GOP, just as Bush did for the Left for eight years, at least in the short term. At some point, there's reason to believe that a clear line of attack will present itself. Democrats spent 2000-2003 mostly flailing around for direction. After Iraq they began to gel around intelligence failures and then expanded that into FISA, Guantanamo, Abu Garib, water-boarding, etc. Basically a complete trashing of everything Bush did with the war on terror. The economic recovery is the Left's Iraq. The inevitable blunders will most likely give the Right a signal as to how to proceed.

Mark, I agree that 80/20 is really hard right now given the political environment ( the search for relevance on the Right and the sense of mandate on the Left). I also think big legislation often breeds partisanship.

I had hoped back in November that Obama would roll out elements of the stimulus / economic recovery in several accelerated phases. Give them all catchy names like Recovery 1, Recovery 2, etc (although that kind of sounds like space probes). That way we could debate each phase separately and then I think 80/20 moments are more possible. Lumping it all into one huge bill almost guarantees we come down along party lines.

Mark, ED,

Speaking to the Gingrich verses Reagan notion.... I think where Gingrich excelled was that, at least intially, he wasn't leading an opposition movement, he was leading a alternative movement. The Contract with America was a master stroke because it spelled out precise alternatives to the current policies and made specific promises. Reagan was very good at speaking to the abstract (which is why the Obama comparisons). As the opposition that wants to be a viable alternative, we have to offer clear policy proposals. We aren't currently doing that. Selecting '80%' issues is a great way to start building a successful alternative platform.

Re: How to pay for all this spending.

I might be completely wrong, but I think if Democrats are half as successful with their plans as they hope to be, they might be able to persuade Americans to accept a modest tax hike as payback for new jobs, keeping their home, etc. They will argue that it's about not passing on the burden to our kids (and they would be right) and consider it sort of a 'pay it forwards' scenario (no pun in tended).

There's a reason that foreign policy only makes tiny changes from president to president (intl crisis notwithstanding) ....it's a very sobering responsibilities. Plus, as I have written about myself, once you start getting those top secret briefings, suddenly you have a whole new perspective on world affairs. It's also why i predict we will never see a 'trugh commission'.

I'm giving up sodas this year...and I'm terrified. I better get a good place in heaven for this!

This is an interesting notion. Currently there is a real obsession with intellect on the Left. They believe that having a clearly articulate and well-educated President and a team of similarly acredited administration officials, not to mention a few Nobel winners as advisers, is the way to go. History may prove them right. Unfortunately this means the GOP defaults to a sort of low brow, intellect-bashing mentality.

I think what we have to be careful of is proving liberals right by moving 'small-town' populism towards 'anti-intellectual' populism. Things like pushing for ID in public schools doesn't help us there.

A 'middle-brow' conservatism is a good idea in that it would put us at a happy medium. We wouldn't look like the dumb football player who pushes nerds into their lockers....but we would also remind voters that theory doesn't always trump practical experience. Goldberg refered to the tendency of intellectually-obessesed liberals to 'pass up a good solution for a brilliant one'. I think we could see a real overreach on the part of the administration but we can't just occupy the other extreme and wait for it. We need to go back to the Reagan playbook and create an agenda that is common-sense and easy to digest, but grounded in solid reasoning. I also with we did a better job of getting our sides bright thinkers heard. Easier said than done.

While I am sympathetic to Jindal having to follow-up Obama's speech...his was really, really bad. During the first couple of minutes I was fighting the urge to switch channels. I gave up right after the story about boats and the sherriff (his point was good, but the delivery was awful).

I quit paying attention to Jindal when he came out in favor of ID. I refuse to support any GOP politician that takes that stance. I really think all they hype is about his skin color and that just isn't enough.

I agree - but then you are arguing for long-term, habitual use. In this age of lung cancer, addition medicine, etc it's hard to sell marijuana on the premise that, "If you smoke lots of it, the buzz won't be too bad." As stated, I know from experience that it's pretty harmless, but I also know that driving stoned left me often arriving at places and not remembering parts of the drive. I'd be curious to hear some realistic proposals on associated laws. Do we use the alcohol framework, or something else?

I think we could get into logistical arguements about duration of the 'buzz' etc. You have a beer in a bar and wait the legally-recomended hour and you can drive home with no real worries. Given the potency of today's marijuana, if you smoke a bowl at your buddy's house, he might as well make up the guest room.

This may raise a completely ancillary issue: If we legalize marijuana, we may have better case for mass transit. I picture special friday and saturday night 'stoner' rates on the subway in our big cities, while buses and taxis see a big increase in ridership in others. Or maybe we just create bike lanes with padded walls on both sides?

I consider marijuana fairly harmless. I have real reservations though about legalizing a product that, when used correctly, guarantees some form of impairment 100% of the time. It's a nightmare scenario for police and for potential accidents (to all: please spare me anecdotes about how pot makes you drive better - been there, done that, don't agree).

I think the Amsterdam model has got to be the only way to go here. It still provides for profit, it gives the govt tax revenues, etc but it isn't completely legalizing it. It's also working very quietly in California.