In a speech on Friday, Tony Blair set out to defend the Iraq War and, more importantly, to put forward a new vision of the international community. In doing so, he rejects the principle, going back to the Treaty of Westphalia, that states are sovereign within their own borders. Instead, he argues that regimes that brutalize their own people forfeit such sovereign rights, not only for human rights reasons, but also because such regimes ultimately threaten the rest of the world. Here's the key point:

It may well be that under international law as presently constituted, a regime can systematically brutalise and oppress its people  and there is nothing anyone can do, when dialogue, diplomacy and even sanctions fail, unless it comes within the definition of a humanitarian catastrophe (though the 300,000 remains in mass graves already found in Iraq might be thought by some to be something of a catastrophe).  This may be the law, but should it be?

We know now, if we didn't before, that our own self interest is ultimately bound up with the fate of other nations.  The doctrine of international community is no longer a vision of idealism.  It is a practical recognition that just as within a country, citizens who are free, well educated and prosperous tend to be responsible, to feel solidarity with a society in which they have a stake; so do nations that are free, democratic and benefiting from economic progress, tend to be stable and solid partners in the advance of humankind.  The best defence of our security lies in the spread of our values. 

But we cannot advance these values except within a framework that recognises their universality.  If it is a global threat, it needs a global response, based on global rules.

The essence of a community is common rights and responsibilities.  We have obligations in relation to each other.  If we are threatened, we have a right to act. And we do not accept in a community that others have a right to oppress and brutalise their people.   We value the freedom and dignity of the human race and each individual in it.

I'll flatter myself by pointing out that I made a similar argument back in January, but Blair's speech is far more thorough and eloquent. Please read it.

The editors at the National Review have come out in favor of the following constitutional amendment on gay marriage being sponsored by Orrin Hatch:

"Civil marriage shall be defined in each state by the legislature or the citizens thereof. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require that marriage or its benefits be extended to any union other than that of a man and a woman."

Am I wrong in thinking that such an amendment would overrule Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned state bans on interracial marriage? The second sentence ("Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require that marriage or its benefits be extended to any union other than that of a man and a woman.") is clearly intended to prevent courts from using the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to strike down gay marriage bans. But the first sentence ("Civil marriage shall be defined in each state by the legislature or the citizens thereof.") is much broader. Say, for example that the state legislature in Alabama decides to reimpose its ban on interracial marriage. Under this amendment, courts would have not constitutional basis for striking down such a ban since state legislatures are given unlimited power in this area.

I can think of two objections to this reasoning. Some would say that the second sentence, in addition to the first, shows that the authors of the amendment intended only to allow legislatures to bar gay marriage. But that seems a thin reed since, as conservatives have long pointed out, courts have a habit of reading things in or out of the Constitution.

Other would say that in this day and age, it's impossible that a state legislature or the people of a state would ban interracial marriage. Perhaps, but in 2000, Alabama held a statewide referendum to remove the ban on interracial marriage in their state constitution. This ban was, of course, null and void because of Loving but the referendum carried only by a margin of 60%-40% and 50% of white Alabamans still voted against the repeal (the data for this conclusion are forthcoming in a paper I'm writing). Given these figures, I'm not so sanguine about the impossibility of a state banning interracial marriage.

A wonderful Hitchens piece on the value of gay marriage:

When I become bored or irritated by the gay marriage battle--and I do, I sometimes do--I like to picture the writhing faces and hoarse yells of the mullahs and the fanatics. Godless hedonistic America, not content with allowing divorce and pornography, has taken from us our holy Taliban and our upright Saddam. It sends Jews and unveiled female soldiers to our lands, and soon unnatural brotherhood will be in the armed forces of the infidels. And now the godless have an election where all they discuss is the weddings of men to men and women to women! And then I relax, and smile, and ask my neighbors over, to repay the many drinks and kind gestures that I owe them.

Perhaps a bumper sticker is in order. Something like, "Gay Marriage: It's Our Patriotic Duty!"

Fascinating factoid from tonight's exit polls: among Democratic primary voters under the age of 30, 61% support gay marriage. The fight over the FMA is a race against time. Conservatives want to lock in their opposition to gay marriage before the demographic tide overwhelms them. Given that the FMA appears to be going nowhere in Congress, it looks like the Republicans have lost the race.

Victor Davis Hanson is one of the most thought-provoking people writing on military and foreign policy. In addition to his weekly column at National Review Online, he's started his own blog. I highly recommend it.

James Taranto makes a good point in today's WSJ--those who argue against the FMA by claiming that it interferes with states' rights are on dangerous ground. Even if the FMA fails, few states will enact gay marriage. In order to overcome that hurdle, the only argument is that, despite states' rights in this area, bans on gay marriage violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The better position is that the FMA is discriminatory, not that it violates states' rights.

Andrew Sullivan posts the following letter:

FROM A SOLDIER IN SPECIAL OPS: "Well ... And so it now begins. My more liberal friends told me a day like this would come, and now I am forced to eat crow. Words cannot express the hurt and anger I feel for the man's blatant constitutional and moral attack on a segment of our population. And for the still wobbly among us, make no mistake ... this is an attack... I realized long ago I am (was) a Republican solely for foreign affairs. But that's not good enough anymore. I've helped feed the Kurds in Northern Iraq, I've slept in the mud and rain to enforce peace treaties in eastern Europe, seated in 100 percent humidity in southeast Asia, and I dodged too many bullets and remote controlled bombs in and around Mosul to count. But I gladly did this (and will do it again) to protect the rights and liberties of ALL Americans, not just those of my family.
I voted for this man ... despite what my family said, despite how many times I was smeared because I am African American and (was) a Republican, despite his joy in being an anti-intellectual ... they warned me, they warned me and I didn't listen ... and now I am ashamed of myself. By all that I hold Holy it will never happen again!"

Many of those who support the FMA claim that they are doing so only to prevent unelected judges from foisting unpopular decisions on democratic majorities. "It's not that we oppose gay marriage," amendment proponents seem to be saying, "it's just that we don't like this particular method of achieving them." I've written elsewhere about the problems associated with judicial activism ("Dwarfing the Political Capacity of the People?: The Relationship Between Judicial Activism and Voter Turnout," 1840-1988. Polity 25 (Summer 1993): 633-646), so I would have much less of a complaint if they were offering an amendment to scale back the power that courts have to excercise judicial review.

But that's not what's going on here. The FMA seeks to limit the judicial activism in only one instance--when courts interpret constitutional equal protection provisions in favor of gay and lesbian couples. That's not principle, that's prejudice.

Bush's support for an amendment to ban gay marriages is truly appalling. I've generally been a strong supporter of Bush's foreign policy, but you can't fight oppression abroad when you endorse it at home. It's as if FDR in 1944 had come out for amending the Constitution to prohibit racial integration at the same time that we were fighting the Nazis.

Here's a recent piece I co-authored on the politics of patriotism. As always, comments are welcome.

This interesting note from Truthout:

As many of you may know, William Rivers Pitt recently took a break from Truthout to lend his hand to the Dennis Kucinich For President campaign as a National Press Advisor. We apologize for the limited amount of information we provided at the time. Truthout is a non-profit, and we had to maintain a bright line between Will's work with TO and his
efforts on behalf of the Kucinich campaign. Will now returns to TO as Managing Editor, and has finished his work for Kucinich. You can look forward to his clear, resonant voice of reason in the wilderness. -- TO Executive Director, Marc Ash.

Looking for an example of a distinction without a difference? Check out Josh Marshall's comments on gay marriage. He says that while he doesn't oppose gay marriage, he doesn't support them. Huh? Here's the full quote:

My reason for not supporting gay marriage -- and I think there's a difference between opposing and not supporting, in this case -- is that it seems like a step that would trigger a backlash that would a) quite possibly prevent the adoption even of civil unions and b) provide a tool for conservatives to win elections and thus prevent or turn back various other progressive reforms that are no less important than this one. (Of course, this hybrid reasoning has all manner of uncomfortable echoes from the middle decades of the 20th century.)

And what exactly are those uncomfortable echoes? Civil rights, perhaps? In fact, Marshall sounds exactly like the supposed "pragmatic" liberals, north and south, who opposed civil rights, arguing that they didn't oppose black rights, it's just that they thought the timing was bad and that by pushing too fast on the issue, they were inviting a reaction that might put previous and future gains at risk.

Such reasoning, then and now, strikes me as utterly condescending. Marshall is putting his own interests ahead of others, even though he's not the one being denied his rights. Moreover, the earlier example of this reasoning proved utterly wrong. And in many cases, it was not just wrong--in many cases it was merely a cover for bigots who lacked the courage of their convictions.

Perhaps Marshall should read Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail, in which King responds to those earlier voices of pragmatism. In particular, this passage comes to mind:

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

Speaking of Derbyshire's police dogs . . .

The sky seems to be falling over the issue of gay marriages at NRO's The Corner. I particularly like this comment by John Derbyshire:

"Can't someone do a citizen's arrest of these law-breaking registrars in San Francisco? Where on earth are the state authorities? Where is the Governor?"

Quick Derb, let loose the police dogs and turn on the firehoses before another pair of lesbians in a 50-year relationship gets a civil marriage! If we let this happen, what's next? Blacks sitting in at lunch counters?

If the Derb and other NRO'ers would stop hyperventilating for a moment and listen to the stories of those couples getting married in SF, they would realize that these people aren't trying to destroy marriage. In fact, they hold marriage in great regard, so great that they want what every heterosexual couple can have--legal recognition of their love and commitment to one another. I was particularly struck by one recently married man intereviewed on NPR who said, "This is what my parents did." It didn't sound to me like he wanted to destroy what his parents did, but rather that he wanted to be just as equal and just as normal as his parents. If people can't see this, then they are blinded by their own bigotry.

Mickey Kaus has this to say about John Edwards:

"And am I the only one who finds Edwards' award-winning spiel--about unemployed workers with "that vacant look, 'What do I do now?'" because "this is what they have done their entire lives and they know nothing else"--a bit condescending? Are these people or sheep? I mean, most Americans these days know there is a risk of unemployment and recession as the economy stumbles forward and that they need to be prepared to switch jobs. This isn't 1955.

Well, that's easy for Kaus to say. Imagine if suddenly he were out of a job. Moreover, that all of the jobs for neo-liberal writers were being outsourced to Mexico or India for a fraction of the cost. Finally, the only available jobs were dismal, low-paying McJobs, or those requiring specialized skills or capabilities, such as the ability to run a machine tool or a strong back and callused hands, that Kaus had little hope of acquiring at his age.

I'd guess he'd have a bit of a vacant look in his eyes.

Amendment Politics

Andrew Sullivan , citing a recent Annenberg Center poll claims that there is limited support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage. I agree with him that such an amendment is an abomination, but I'm not as sanguine about it not passing. First, he's right that when asked "Would you favor/oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution saying that NO state can allow two men to marry each other or two women to marry each other?", the split is only 42 percent in favor and 49 percent opposed. But that's a very long and convoluted question. Notice the double negative--oppose an amendment saying no state can allow. My guess is that a fair number of people were confused by the question. You can see some evidence for this in the age breakdown of support and opposition:

18-29 Years: 35% favor, 58% oppose
30-44 Years: 48% favor, 42% oppose
45-64 Years: 44% favor, 47% oppose
65+ Years: 38% favor, 53% oppose

I just can't believe that people over the age of 65 are that opposed to this amendment, almost as much as those under the age of 30. In every other poll I've seen on this issue, the 65+ age group is consistently the most conservative towards gay rights issues. Indeed, in the same poll they asked people "Do you favor/oppose a law in your state that would allow gays and lesbians to marry a partner of the same sex?" Here's the age breakdown on that question:

18-29 Years: 50% favor, 43% oppose
30-44 Years: 34% favor, 57% oppose
45-64 Years: 25% favor, 67% oppose
65+ Years: 12% favor, 75% oppose

I doubt very much that people over the age of 65 are that likely to such a constitutionally nuanced position of wanting to ban gay marriage in their state, but not wanting to amend the U.S. Constitution to do likewise. My guess is that since this group tends to have the lowest education levels, they were the ones most confused by the wording of the first question.

Furthermore, in January, Annenberg asked a much simpler version of the question, "Would you favor or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow marriage ONLY between a man and a woman?" With that simpler wording, 59 percent approved and 33 percent opposed--quite a different result from the more complicated wording of the first question.

Second, Sullivan also seems to think that you need an overwhelming majority to pass an amendment to the Constitution, but he's overlooking two factors. The first is intensity of support. It seems to me that those who want to amend the Constitution are motivated, at least at this point, with an intensity far outstripping the anti-amendment forces. Elected officials always pay more attention to those who are intensely committed to an issue.

Finally, when it comes to the amendment process, popular support is not equally weighted. For example, while you need a two-thirds vote to pass an amendment in the Senate, the 68 Senators from the 34 smallest states make up just over 31 percent of the population. Once past Congress, you need the approval of three-fourths--38-- of the state legislatures. The 38 smallest states only constitute 40 percent of the population. Furthermore, Republicans and conservatives are disproportionately represented in these smaller states, making them more likely to favor such an amendment.

But what about the House of Representatives? Yes, the House is apportioned by population, but given the incredible discipline of the Republican majority, the intensity of those supporting the amendment, and the divisions among Democrats on this issue, it's not inconceivable that you could get a two-thirds of the House in favor of such an amendment.

Needless to say, I don't think passing such an amendment with say 60 percent popular support would be easy or even likely, but it is possible and those who oppose such an amendment will need to organize to stop it.

Bush's WMD Panel

Hey, if Chuck Robb can have a position in national politics again, then maybe Iraq did have WMDs.

New Hampshire . . . or Chicago?

The story of the NH GOP primary continues. I went to the NH Secretary of State's website. On the page where they breakdown the votes by candidate, the total votes ads up to 67,833. But, on the page where they give the votes cast in each primary, the votes total up to 69,379. That's a difference of approximately 1,500 votes. Where did they go?

NH GOP Primary Again

Mickey Kaus points out that the revised figures for the NH GOP primary show Bush with 79% of the vote, not 87%. Actually, by my math, he got 80%. (Check for yourself here.)

I'm still not convinced that this shows a serious weakness for Bush. 80% is pretty good even if it's lower than Reagan, who sets the gold standard for measuring Republican support.

More worrisome for Bush is that in SC, he's only leading a generic Democrat by a margin of 45 to 43. I'm skeptical about the exact numbers--Bush won the state by 16 points (57-41)--but it is clearly well below where you would expect him to be. Furthermore, this is on top of several polls showing his approval rating in the low 50s or below and running behind John Kerry.

Why the lagging polls? Several things come to mind. First, the focus on the Democratic nomination has given the Democrats a clear field for the last month--lots of Democratic criticisms and very little Republican response. I'd be interested to see Reagan's approval and reelect numbers in the first few months of 1984 and Clinton's in 1996. Second, despite some relatively good GDP numbers, the economy, and jobs in particular, don't seem to be improving very rapidly. Third, the revelations about no WMDs in Iraq clearly have to be hurting Bush's credibility.

A reunited Dramarama covers the Dead Kennedy's to make the perfect comment on the Governator! Give it a listen.