What Torture Was For Bush, Drone Strikes Are For Obama.

Conor Friedersdorf has gotten me thinking again about Obama and drone strikes. In the Atlantic he writes forcefully on the utter horror we're causing in Pakistan and on the way the strikes are not “surgical” at all. The report he quotes from shows that about 1 in 5 people killed is likely innocent:

The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.

Not surprisingly, he’s come out against voting for Obama.

He does have a point. I’m still a supporter of the president, still think on domestic policy he’s made good progress especially given the intransigence of the Republican party. But his record on national security and executive power is a separate thing; it’s incredibly disturbing, especially given the way he talked about these issues before he became president. He has kept indefinite detentions, gone to war in Libya without Congressional authorization, aggressively prosecuted whistleblowers and, worst of all, made drone assassinations a routine part of national security. The program is secret and without due process. He has even taken for himself the power to kill US citizens if his administration, and only his administration, considers the person a national security threat. He’s a Constitutional lawyer! He should know better!

Tom Junod wrote a great article on this a few months ago. It does a great job of getting into the head of Obama as commander-in-chief, of showing the ways Obama has tried to maintain control of the program, to stay moral and also the ways he may be fooling himself into thinking he IS moral. Junod’s ultimate point is that the kind of control Obama thinks he has is an illusion:

the danger of the Lethal Presidency is that the precedent you establish is hardly ever the precedent you think you are establishing, and whenever you seem to be describing a program that is limited and temporary, you are really describing a program that is expansive and permanent.

You start using something in only limited, extreme cases, but eventually it’s used all the time and becomes a standard tool you take for granted. In an exchange with Andrew Sullivan, who I think is instinctively too hawkish on this issue, he gets at the heart of why this bothers me so much: it’s the equivalent for Obama of what torture was for Bush.

... the moral risk of torture is not so different from the moral risk of targeted killing. Indeed, the moral risk of torture provides a template for the moral risk of targeted killing. What was introduced as an option of last resort becomes the option of first resort, then the only option. Sullivan always understood that torture was a temptation, and that the day would come when it was applied not in emergency, “ticking-clock” situations, but as a matter of routine. Well, that day has come, only now with targeted killing, where the option of first resort meets the court of no appeal.

It’s going to be Obama’s most horrible legacy and, sadly, one of his most important.

Impression: The Dark Knight Rises.

(What follows are some impressions of the movie. Part review, part analysis. Not wholly either. Also, spoilers ahead!)

The Dark Knight Rises is an enormous movie. Enormous in scale, in stakes, in action, music and themes. It’s big from the very first scene, where a CIA plane is assaulted in mid-air by commandos from outside the plane, through Batman’s brutal defeat and the occupation of Gotham, reaching maximum massiveness in the climax, a battle for the city’s very existence between seemingly every cop and criminal in the city. Throughout, it explores the power of symbols and masks, the motivating power of fear and the contrast of vengeance versus justice. And as if that’s not enough, it throws in some references to Occupy Wall Street and the One Percent. This thing is big. 

This size is not just spectacle. It builds not just scale, but drama and intensity. It’s an aggressive, propulsive force, the main force that engages the audience. Many times, it works: The feeling of Batman’s eclipse, and of a powerful evil readying itself to destroy him -- and the city -- is present from the beginning. When the story reaches its climactic battle, the moment has the grandeur and terror of a civilization fighting for its life. And yet, this size is sometimes not just propulsive, but overwhelming. The scenarios, the music, the themes can be so relentless that at times it's hard to use critical judgement, as if the movie is fighting a war for your interest and all you can do is acquiesce, I'm hurled through the story without being able to really consider or absorb all that this ambition has created.

Now with some time to reflect, I wish there was more to the movie than just the world-hangs-in-the-balance scale, more clarity, charm, and human emotion. Thinking back to Memento, Inception, and The Prestige, Christopher Nolan is a fairly cold, charmless director, he has a talent for portentous scale and ideas, but not wit, humor or delicacy, and that comes through here. On top of that, The Dark Knight Rises is particularly hampered by its characters. There is no equivalent to The Joker or Harvey Dent from The Dark Knight. They did manage to bring some humanity and humor to that movie in a way that doesn’t happen here.

In this movie, the Bruce Wayne/Batman character has to provide all the human feeling, but this is hard for him to do by his very nature. Always serious, somber, even grim, he’s a difficult character to play, even going back to the Tim Burton movies. He’s so contained that he can’t explode like a Harvey Dent or be fun, like The Joker. And Christian Bale has never been able to really crack him, I think, staying within the realm of somewhat vacant somberness. Though, I do think he comes closest in this movie. There’s a touching sadness in Bruce’s confrontation with Alfred over Rachel and when he has a secret meeting with Commissioner Gordon in his hospital bedroom, there’s real delicacy and sensitivity. It's Bale's best work of the trilogy.

Thankfully, there is Selina Kyle, easily the best female character in the entire trilogy. Charming, smart and lethal, she’s the first woman to be an equal to the Bruce Wayne/Batman character. I was an Anne Hathaway doubter, but she really convinced me. She doesn’t play her as a Michelle Pfeiffer or Julie Newmar -- as a sexbomb. She’s more cynical, grittier, with less patience for sexual flirtation -- which is why the attraction she and Bruce are supposed to feel didn't work for me. (Interestingly, she has a female friend that has made some people wonder if the character is a lesbian. It would have been a great direction to go in.)

Ultimately, though, Selina Kyle can only bring so much warmth and humor to such a massive, imposing project. And even if she did, she might get in the way of what Nolan seems most interested in: The Dark Knight Rises themes, its possible politics and ideology.

Around the web, there has been a lot of wrestling, and over-wrestling, with the movie's political meaning. The Dark Knight Rises is fascist, it’s moderately conservative, it’s anti-Occupy Wall Street. There are suggestions of all these ideas, but unfortunately they don't add up to anything that makes total sense; the script is weaker than the first two movies, lacking sufficient dramatic expression in some places and creating confusion in others: What does Bane represent? When he exhorts “the people” to rise up against the city’s elites, we can’t really take that too seriously -- it’s all just a ruse for the ultimate annihilation of Gotham, where everyone, elites and the lower classes, will be killed. But then why create a nebulous connection to Occupy Wall Street and paint Gotham as so corrupt? And who are the disenfranchised “people” anyway? Sometimes it seems to be the poor, as when the orphan boy talking to John Blake implies there’s no work above ground. Other times, as when Bane blows up Blackgate prison, it seems to be only criminals. Gotham’s social character is never clarified.

Still, there are meanings we can take from the movie, especially when we look at it together with the first two. The best analysis, I think, is from Zack Beauchamp and Jeff Spross, who come to the less sensational, but more accurate conclusion that The Dark Knight Rises isn't really liberal or conservative or fascist, that it doesn’t take sides in our political debate and is really just a defense of our basic political system of liberal democracy. It certainly has elements of conservatism and fascism -- Batman takes a very hard line on criminals, going so far as to kidnap a Mob accountant from Hong Kong and later drop a Mob boss from a building to break his legs (both in The Dark Knight). But its clearest meaning is actually boringly mainstream. Batman fights for the preservation of Gotham City, corrupt and dysfunctional as he knows it is. He doesn’t believe, as Ra’s al Ghul and his daughter Talia do, that it should be wiped from the planet. His hope is that through his example the city will eventually rise up and fix itself, to the point where it will no longer need him.

For the most part, I agree with this. But there is an interesting nuance to this analysis. Batman hopes the political system will one day be strong enough to heal itself and make him irrelevant. But, as is clear from The Dark Knight Rises, this is unlikely to ever happen: the city escapes destruction only because Batman is there to save it, not because of anything its government does. In fact, it's the government’s complacency that allows Bane to take over the city.

And the reason for this seems to be the nature of society (or at least the nature of Gotham’s society): anything good that happens in Gotham creates an escalating backlash. Batman’s attempt to inspire its citizens in the first movie leads, in the second, to copy-cat Batmans and the creation of the Joker. Batman’s attempt to turn the protection of the city over to Harvey Dent leads to Dent’s death, the city’s extended period of peace leads to complacency and to its occupation by Bane, Ra’s al Ghul’s death leads to Talia’s attempt at revenge. Each good deed leads to a bad one in a never-ending cycle. And the one good result, the end of organized crime in Gotham, is really a tainted result; it’s brought about by a lie that Commissioner Gordon tells the city, a lie which is eventually undone, to the city’s detriment.

In every case, only Batman saves the city. He’s essential to Gotham’s survival -- so essential that in the end Bruce Wayne ensures that he will never be gone when he gets John Blake to take his place. Batman has become what Bruce Wayne wanted him to be from the very beginning: more than any one man, an idea, a legend.

It seems to me that Nolan is somewhat skeptical of social institutions to deal with the modern world. There’s always a Joker or a Bane out there waiting to turn everything to chaos or just destroy it all. The modern world is one absurd, corrupt event after another. But there are, unfortunately, even worse things out there, and society can’t ever deal with these things completely according to its own principles. You need someone to operate on the edge of society, an outcast, someone who can bend the rules and “make the choice no one else can”, as Alfred says in The Dark Knight.

As social analysis, this is interesting, but only up to a point. It's kind of silly to say, but there is no Batman in the real world, not just in terms of his abilities, but in terms of his ethics: For all his bending of the rules -- his use of kidnapping, intimidation, even torture -- Batman has one iron-clad principle: he never kills, not even when faced with a group of armed thugs. He is an ideal outcast, “truly incorruptible” as the Joker says of him. Though he never fully trusts society and its institutions to do the right thing, he never loses hope that one day they will.

If this person seems like an impossible ideal, if you think that anyone who is willing to bend the rules and break his legs just to get him to talk would, given the right circumstances, be willing to kill... well you're right. Of course this doesn't really cohere with the world as it really is. Batman is a comic book character and The Dark Knight trilogy is made in Hollywood, where our fantasies are fulfilled, and the true, dark nature of life is ignored.

I have returned.

It's been a long time since I've been active on this blog; the last post was written in May of last year. Even at that time, I wasn't writing much -- there are only a few posts in 2011 and the post previous to those is from 2009. When I started "My Evolution", in the summer of 2008, it was easy and exciting to write. The most historic, and one of the most exciting, elections in decades was under way. Coming up with things to say was fun and simple: in that kind of heated environment, opinions -- whether it's awe, pride, sarcasm, or mockery -- came easily.

But then the election was over and the more boring business of governing started... and it became harder to write the blog. I still wanted to write, but I wanted something genuinely informed, with nuance and depth. I wasn't about to talk about complicated subjects without knowing something about them, so I had to do more research. But obviously, that's a lot more time-consuming and laborious than just spouting off about a candidate; I found I was spending too much time on most posts and even then could barely keep up with current events. Eventually, I lost the rhythm, then some of the interest.

But never all of it. I have always wanted to return, to write on the issues that move me and to do it with some substance. And by doing so, to learn more and more deeply about them, to command them and understand them inside and out.

So now, I have taken a break from job to do just that. My goal is to write weekly, if not daily posts, and imbue each one with something more than just a quick impulsive blast of opinion. I already have the first post written. It's still just an opinion, and requires little research, but it's a considered one, not an impulsive one. I hope you enjoy it (whoever might read this in the future!) and I hope to be able to give you more like it from now on.

Axuve

Huntsman: Secret Liberal

Right after Obama was inaugurated in Feb of 09, Jon Huntsman Jr., governor of Utah, struck me as a totally reasonable conservative. It still seems true:

Obama's Speech.

It wasn't enough. It was too vague and didn't answer any of the specific questions I had -- I don't know that it actually said anything new that hasn't been said by other administration officials in the last few days. Maybe, I just now realize, this is because the administration itself doesn't HAVE any more specifics to give. If so this is really worrying. Lets hope it isn't.

To start. Some of the specific questions I have for Obama:

- What are the military's specific orders/goals?

- What happens if things go bad and the coalition or the opposition asks for a renewed American military involvement?

--

Going through the speech, my impressions:

First, it seems that the U.S. has taken sides in this civil war. It's not just a humanitarian mission:

- Obama says Clinton will meet with opposition leaders. We're not recognizing them yet, but is this a step in that direction? Clinton isn't meeting with Gaddafi representatives, I imagine.

- We will "assist" the opposition. What does that mean? Financially? Will we arm them? Political support?

- The coalition forces will keep the pressure on Gaddafi and protect civilians. But I wonder, when insurgents are not part of an organized army, how can we tell the difference between insurgent soldiers and civilians? Aren't insurgents just everyday people who are fed up and pick up guns agains Gaddafi's actual professional forces?

Second, the main reason in Obama's mind seems to be classic American exceptionalism:

To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and - more profoundly - our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

This is the crux of the problem, it seems to me. I want to avoid mass slaughter, but am I prepared to act put my country reputation, finances, and lives and risk unexpected, murky results and possible getting trapped all for -- very noble -- altruistic reasons? Right now I think the answer is "no."

One reason that does give me pause is that doing this will help the gains in Egypt and Tunisia, and maybe even across all of the Middle East. We certainly DO want peaceful democracies to grow in those countries, and probably a Libyan nightmare would certainly hurt that.

Finally, one other reason why I think Obama did this: This is an example of how he thinks America should act militarily.

... [In cases like Libya] we should not be afraid to act - but the burden of action should not be America's alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.

We LEAD we don't dictate. We work with others to keep an international peace. We expect others to help out however they can. This is the anti-Iraq war.

Ok, some things that are ok. BUT still, there are big unanswered questions:
- what's the involvement of troops going forward?
- if there's more violence will we intervene? What happens if the opposition or coalition asks us to use our military again?
- we will "assist the opposition" HOW???

Why I Love Bob Gates.

On Meet the Press this morning:

DAVID GREGORY: Secretary Gates, is Libya in our vital interest as a country?

SECRETARY GATES: No. I don't think it's a vital interest for the United States...

It's always a bit of a shock to hear a government official say something so simply and directly.

In Egypt, Not The Army I Expected

The most striking thing about the amazing events in Egypt has to be the behavior of the army. I'm so used to armies, especially in autocratic countries, being reactionary, tools of the government, instantly seeking to impose martial law, etc. Yet in Egypt right now the army, while not actually fighting for the public, is providing cover for them and even advancing on the police, on occasion. It's quite an amazing thing to contemplate and to me makes it much more likely for Mubarak to resign -- how can he remain president with so little power over his country?

Obama: A Human Being.

A very quick thought on Obama and the Jared Loughner shooting. My impression is that the speech Obama gave on the shooting, besides consoling the country, can have some positive effect for Obama himself. Because it is so civil, so non-partisan, so full of intelligence and genuinely tries to wrestle with the tragedy the way many people are wrestling with it, the speech can remind the public, conservatives included, that Obama is not some far-left inhuman monster. That he is a human being like them and that maybe the picture that has been painted of him these last two years is just wrong. Going forward, the image of the president as reasonable leader, who is liberal, but not out to ruin the country, will hopefully re-emerge. Actually, now that I think about it. With these last two months of accomplishment, this has already begun.

Meaning vs. Experience

A nice explanation (from an astrophysicist of all people) of a Joseph Campbell quote I read long ago: "People don't want the meaning of life, they want the experience of life." This has always been one of the central truths in life that I can see. From the article:

Spirituality, at its best, points us away from easy codifications when it shows us how to immerse ourselves in the simple, inescapable act of being. Science at its root is also an expression of reverence and awe for the endless varied, resonantly beautiful experience we can find ourselves immersed in. So knowing the meaning of life as encoded in a religious creed on a page or an equation on a blackboard is not the issue. A deeper, richer experience of this one life: that is the issue!

So, can we stop thinking that discussions about science and religion have to focus on who has the best set of facts?

The Campbell quote is in the article. It's nice to see somebody mention him. He doesn't get enough recognition, in my opinion.