Stu's Views

Has anyone else noticed that the Rehnquist court has become the most liberal of the three branches of government? Truthfully that says more about the executive and legislative branches than the judiciary but the Supreme Court has provided a nice check on the worst excessess of our elected officials.

This week was a prime, but by no means isolated example (see last week's decision on the sentencing guidelines and last year's affirmative action decisions for other examples). By convincing majorities, the Supremes gave access to the courts to Yaser Hamdi and the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Granted that this is more a libertarian decision than a liberal one but clearly it is a stinging rebuke to the Bush Administration.

I was very relieved to see the decision and the more I read about, the more I like it. The detention of individuals without access to basic constitutional rights has been one of the most appalling actions of the Administration. It harkens back to the worst moments in our history, including the detention of the Japanese citizens during World War II, and the Jim Crow legal system.

One of the reasons this is the greatest country in the world is our protection of civil liberties such as the right to confront your accuser in court and the right to a trial. If the individuals in Guantanamo are prisoners of war then treat them according to the Geneva Convention. If not, then let them go. If Hamdi and Padilla are (as Justice Scalia opined) guilty of treason, then try them for treason or let them go.

If allowed to stand, the Administration policy would give rise to the realistic fear that our government could take anyone prisoner at any time and hold them without a trial. This is something that should strike fear into gun toting NRA members and World Bank protesting anarchists alike. The consensus on the court recognized that (with the exception of that legal star, Clarence Thomas).

It probably wasn't the first choice of bombs he'd like to drop but he did acknowledge that cursing at Senator Leahy on the Senate floor made him feel better. Well, isn't that special. In case anyone missed it, Cheney told Leahy to "f*** off" because apparently Leahy has been asking too many questions about Haliburton.

Like many others, I want to believe that this is a sign that the Administration is feeling the pressure of repeated failures in this election year. I doubt that is the case however. I think instead, like his famous "Big Time" utterance during the 2000 campaign, this is merely a reflection of Cheney's true personality.

It certainly comports with the picture of Cheney in all of the recent tell-all memoirs. Paul O'Neill talked about how angry he got when challenged about the tax cut and Richard Clarke painted a picture of an arrogant and driven man who led the push to war in Iraq.

The relationship between Cheney and Bush is one that has been the subject of much speculation. Is Cheney really the President, pulling the President's strings? Is he instead the most trusted advisor, the man Bush turns to for counsel ahead of his father or his Cabinet? Or are they a pair of like-minded ideologues whose policy preference complement each other perfectly?

We don't know and we may never know and increasingly it doesn't matter. More than anything else, Cheney's cursing on the Senate floor is emblematic of the administration as a whole. They are convinced in the certainty of their actions, hateful toward anyone who questions them, hypocritical on questions of morality, and arrogant beyond belief. The Republicans have tried to frame these characteristics as strength in the face of terrorist threats. Americans are beginning to understand that this is not the case. If character is an issue in this election, it has become increasingly clear that it is one that Kerry can use to his advantage.

Tonight is the NBA draft and since I haven't blogged on basketball since well before the stunning championship series, I thought I would jot down a few thoughts.

-- The result of the finals was fantastic. It was the kind of upset that makes people sports fans. A team loaded with stars, already having vanquished the teams everyone thinks could beat them, comes into the championship expecting a coronation. They are beaten by a team devoid of superstars that plays a good fundamental game and believes it can win. Nobody expected it. And that made it all the better.

-- The Lakers are gambling big time by kowtowing to Kobe, dumping Jackson and shopping Shaq. I haven't followed the judicial proceedings closely (I avoid celebrity trials like the plague) but it seems like there is at least a chance he will be found guilty. If that's the case, where does that leave the Lakers (I know there are more socially pressing questions regarding the Kobe trial regarding race and gender but this is a basketball column)? If they trade Shaq without knowing the outcome on Kobe, and Kobe is guilty, the franchise will take a decade to recover.

-- This will be the weakest draft in years. After last year's bonanza (one of the best ever), I guess it is natural to have a down year. If healthy, Okafor will win rookie of the year and will have a strong career with numerous all star performances. The high school kids (Livingston, and Howard particularly) may become great or may not. There will be about 5-7 good players beyond that. Pretty slim pickings.

-- If Shaq goes to Dallas as is rumored, they are the favorites to win it all next year. If T-Mac goes to Houston as was rumored (and now seems less likely), they will be an NBA power for five to ten years. If Indiana gets either without giving up Jermaine O'Neal then get ready for the balance of power to start to shift eastward (Detroit has already proven itself and Cleveland and LeBron are on the rise).

I watched the "60 Minutes" interview with Bill Clinton last night and for an hour was transported back in time and reminded of all of the gifts and failings of our 42nd President. I will not read his new book (who has time for 957 pages?) but between the interview and the various news stories, I feel like I've heard most of the interesting details.

We now get a week or two of focused attention on Clinton after the two weeks of focus on Reagan (poor Bush Sr. is confined, as he will be by the history books, to a foonote). Unlike the liberal reaction to Reagan which was largely respectful, conservatives have not mollified their hatred of Clinton. It is easy to take that reaction and say "those of us on the left are simply better people."

It is of course, not that simple. Part of the difference is the mirror image of the reaction above. Conservatives adore Reagan while most liberals are at least somewhat ambivalent toward Clinton. Another difference is that Reagan has the advantage of time and ten years of a debilitating illness that has softened his image in the minds of his opponents. Clinton will surely be viewed differently sixteen years after he leaves office than he is now, only four years after his departure.

I always thought the conservative hatred of Clinton was grounded far more in personality than in policy. After all Clinton signed welfare reform and declared "The era of big government is over." The wealthy thrived in the Clinton years, probably to an even greater degree than they did under his Republican predecessors. I have to hope that as time passes, the hatred of Clinton the person will fade and be replaced by an honest evaluation of Clinton the President. (If Hillary runs for President, this process will take much longer).

When that time comes, I think we will look back on the passionate partisan battles of the Clinton years with a bit of curiosity. It was not a time of major changes in the direciton of US policy. Instead it was, to some degree an affirmation but a softening of the changes that took place under Reagan. There were many good and important things that the Clinton administration did but besides welfare reform, very few historical ones. I think that history will be kind to Clinton in the sense that his personal foibles will seem trivial but will be cruel in the sense that his accomplishments will seem smaller than his memoirs would indicate.

The 9-11 Commission draft report, released this week, has reinvigorated debate over the second weakest justification (and second most prominent justification) that the Administration gave for going to war in Iraq. The Commission report effectively washed away the myth that Iraq had anything to do with the September 11 attacks on the US.

The repercussions have been echoing through the media ever since. The New York Times, among other newspapers, blared headlines about there being no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Cheney blasted the Times, basically accusing them of libel for distorting the findings of the commission. Cheney said that the commission's conclusions were restricted to Iraq's connection to 9-11, not whether Al Qaeda and Iraq cooperated, which the veep continued to insist that they did.

Viewed most narrowly, Cheney is correct. But to be so literal misses the point of the Times coverage and the growing disenchantment with the Bush Administration. When we attacked Iraq, polls showed the half of the American public believe Iraq was involved in 9-11. And while the Administration never said that such involvement existed, it did everything in its power to encourage this notion. By emphasizing flimsy evidence that some members of Al Qaeda had met with some members of the Iraqi regime, the Administration led the public to believe that the war on Iraq was part of the retaliation for September 11.

Now Cheney and Bush argue that they never said Iraq was involved with 9-11, all they said was there was a relationship between the two. If this is a criteria for going to war, when are we invading any of the other countries that Al Qaeda may have contacted for support? The levels of deception that the Administration used to convince the American public to support the war in Iraq are becoming more and more obvious. If Cheney wants to blast the media, he should scream at them for not exposing the deception earlier, when it may not have cost the Bushies their reelection.

When Kissinger told Nixon that historians would judge his presidency highly, Nixon famously responded that it depended on who wrote the history. Nixon survived long enough to attempt to write much history himself but while opinions of his Administration have improved with time, nothing has removed the stain of Watergate.

My wife and I were in the car yesterday and chanced upon Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh was haranguing Bush's critics, saying that because Reagan had been proven correct "the left" (as he likes to call all those who disagree with him) now was praising Reagan. He then went on to say that "the left" would eventually praise Bush as well, once his actions in the War on Terror were proven justified.

There is so much wrong with this argument that it is easier to start with what is right about it. Yes, many former critics of Reagan (myself included) now think more highly of him as a result of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union. This is called admitting you made a mistake. Admitting mistakes is something that "the right" (or more accurately the Administration and its hacks on Fox News and talk radio) appears to be incapable of.

Admitting that Reagan was right about communism and was not a bad person is also different than agreeing with all of his policies and reevaluating his Presidency. His domestic policy was deeply misguided and the Iran-contra scandal was far deeper and more insidious than the offenses that led to Clinton's impeachment.

So yes, some of us who criticized Reagan in the 1980s now take a more nuanced view of his Presidency. Nuance is not possible for Limbaugh (his ratings would not be as high if it were). However the Bush Administration might want to look into the idea of nuance and admit it has made some mistakes in Iraq and in the War on Terror. Ironically, Reagan was very good at both admitting mistakes and reversing policies when the need arose. Bush would be in much better shape if, like "the left" he studied Reagan's actions rather than merely the myth surrounding his years as President.

The New York Times had a front page articleyesterday about how both the Kerry and Bush campaigns were focusing on the small portion of undecided voters, a group perhaps as small as five percent of the electorate. This is in contrast to previous statements that turnout of partisan voters was going to be the key to this election. To anyone who follows politics over the long term, the reaction to his had to be, "well duh."

Elections between two candidates are always decided by who appeals to the median voters. Whether we call these voters Reagan Democrats, soccer moms, or Nascar Dads, campaigns cannot afford to ignore them. All of the earlier hullabaloo about turning out your base was either a charade or ignorance. Yes, turnout is important but if you are turning out your supporters at the expense of turning those in the middle of the electorate toward your opponent, you will lose. Bush Sr. lost enough of these voters with the 1992 Republican convention (Bush also lost many of them to lost jobs and Ross Perot) and Bush Jr. gained enough of them by promising to be a compassionate conservative to determine the outcomes of their elections.

Winning the votes of those in the middle of the ideological spectrum is particularly important, given the shape of the electoral map. Much of Bush's base is in states in the middle of the country that are safely red and much of of Kerry's are in coastal states that are safely blue. So the focus is not just on undecided voters but on those in the 18 so called tossup states.

Narrowing the field even further is the fact that so many voters are already soundly committed to their candidate. The unquestioning support for Bush among forty percent of the electorate and the Nixon/Clinton like antipathy for him by another forty percent is unusual this early in a campaign. As a result,look for both candidates to emphasize programs that will appeal to this group, no matter what they may have said so far. Bush will return to his 2000 strategy touting "No Child Left Behind" and the prescription drug benefit (programs conservatives hate) and Kerry will emphasize deficit reduction and his ability to win the War on Terror (an emphasis anathema to liberals). This move to the middle happens every four years, yet somehow it is always news.

I managed to catch ESPN's 25th Anniversary special show yesterday reviewing the past 25 years in sports. The show was entertaining and highlighted a number of the key trends in sports over the past 25 years. These included, the culture of the highlight, the younger athletes, the bigger athletes, the growth of women's sports, and the pervasive media coverage. Obviously ESPN had a role in each of these.

With the exception of the growth of women's sports, all of these were portrayed as being of questionable merit. This set up a debate as old as sports itself. Were things better in the old days? ESPN didn't answer the question but I think the answer is unambiguous.

Things are better now. It is very tempting to look back to when we were innocent kids and see that as the best era in sports. Hopefully in doing so, we remember our frustration when our parents and grandparents told us how much better things were when they were growing up. Things are better now for sports fans for three simple reasons. Athletes are better now because training techniques are improved. More people participate in sports now meaning that the level of play has improved. Finally, there are more opportunities for us to watch the games we love.

I'm not saying that Barry Bonds is better than Babe Ruth. Well, I am in a way. If the Barry Bonds of 2003 and the Babe Ruth of 1921 played in the same game, Bonds would do much better. If Babe Ruth were alive today, how would he do? We can't know the answer to that question but I suspect that he would still be the best player in baseball history. Today's athletes are superior to their predecessors because there are more resources devoted to making them superior.

Also, there is more competition for them. Bill Russell didn't have to play against Yao Ming. Ted Williams didn't have to hit against Pedro Martinez. And Chris Evert certainly never saw Serena Williams on the other side of the net. The gradual opening up of American sports to, first minorities in this country, and now to people worldwide, has made the level of play much higher. And the sports fans are the winners.

Finally, the internet and cable allows us to see sports 24 hours a day. I will take this item as a self explanatory improvement for fans, if not the athletes.

Has such progress come with a price? Of course, particularly for the athletes who do not enjoy the privacy of their forefathers. The motivation to cheat is greater because the rewards for success are greater. But that motivation has always been a problem for sports, and always will be. Young athletes playing professionally is a concern, but in my mind only when it gets to the point of exploiting children should we be concerned (and yes, the sneaker companies signing three year olds crosses that line, Lebron does not). These costs do not come close to outweighing the improvements in sports over the past 25 years. I can't wait to see what the next 25 will bring.

Former President Ronald Reagan passed away yesterday and the week ahead will be filled with retrospectives. Before being overwhelmed by them, I figured I would offer my thoughts. Growing up in NYC during the Reagan years, I was taught and believed that he was evil personified. His conservative philosophy (by those who thought he was smart enough to have a philosophy) was undoing the sacred covenants of the New Deal.

In recent years the view of Reagan has been improved even by some of those on the left. A number of historical studies have demonstrated that he did have a deep understanding of conservative principles. Most importantly, in any comparison to the current president Reagan comes out way ahead, forcing the historical view of him upwards.

Last fall I argued that Presidents are generally remembered for a small number of accomplishments. It says something about Reagan that his legacy carries at least four important items, more than many presidents in my view. First, his optimistic outlook was important for America at a time when malaise gripped the country in the wake of Vietnam, Watergate, and the hostage crisis.

The second key aspect of his legacy, and also a positive one, is the starkly anti-communist rhetoric and his role in the downfall of the Soviet Union. We cringed at the term "Evil Empire" as unnecessarily provocative but it was not inaccurate. The Soviet Union would have likely fallen eventually without Reagan but it happened faster because of him and that is unambiguously a good thing.

The Reagan economic record is another story. Reagan began the era of crusading against Big Government. While his actual record is one of limited success in this regard (see the article in Washington Monthly on Reagan's liberal legacy), his record deficits and his successful crusade against the idea that the most fortunate in society owe a greater debt to their country have had lasting disastrous effect on the country. The growth in income inequality and the difficulty in enacting any tax increase on the wealthy are horrible legacies of the Reagan era.

Finally there is Reagan's position on social/moral issues. Reagan made Christian conservatives a key component of the Republican party. While he did very little to advance their agenda, the Christian Coalition and similar organizations have had a profound influence on the Republican party and the government as a whole as a result of this alliance. I believe some of the polarization of the two parties has occured as a result of the Republican Party seeing much of its agenda as a moral crusade.

The four legacies listed above are profound. Reagan was one of the most important presidents of the 20th century. As such his passing deserves much of the attention it will get over the next week. In the eulogies sure to swamp us in the week ahead however we should not forget the very large negative aspects of his presidency including perhaps most importantly that he made the current Administration possible.