Letters to the Editor
Amity
Published Letters: 1110 Editor's Choice: 106
-
It's your party, so cry if you want to, but ...
[Read the article: Schumer: Arrogance or impotence?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It may be that Chuck Schumer feels some antiquated obligation to the old Senate tradition that you, if no one else, vote for the guy you sponsor. It may be that he was hoping, like a barroom bully, that someone would "hold him back" and thereby prevent him from having to walk the walk implied by his talk. None of these seem implausible, but I don't know Schumer very well. Maybe people who have followed him more closely can say.
What I do know is that California progressives have been complaining about Feinstein for longer than I've been one of her constituents, and yet nobody has been willing to leverage that discontent to chase her out of office. Part of that may be pragmatism — she may be the most liberal Democrat to whom California Republicans are willing to tacitly accede, and this sort of thing is just the inevitable fallout of such compromises.
But if so, what other outcome can one reasonably expect if one agrees to making deals like that? I'm disturbed by the convenient amnesia of American liberals who are acting as though their elected representatives' lack of inspiration and imagination have only suddenly become apparent, or at least salient.
I suspect what's happened in New York is similar to California. It's not like we're talking about North Dakota — there's a superabundance of progressive political talent and resources in both states, despite the heavy counterweight of up-country suburban conservatism. You all pretty much had the party you wanted, and now you want a different one.
Now you want a different one.
Okay, that's great, change is good and it won't come too soon, but let's not go crazy trying to figure out whether Schumer or Feinstein or anyone else is cloistered or lame or both or something else altogether. We ought to already know — we've had all the time in the world to find out.
Perhaps what Joan Walsh ought to be asking is how all those irresponsible hippie beatnik types ("unserious" as Glenn Greenwald likes to put it) among her fellow Californians, who have openly voiced their distaste for Feinstein for so long, could have been right and yet remained invisible.
That, Editor, is a question I would love to see your magazine explore in depth. Salon has the talent and the means to do so — what it may lack is the courage to accept the initial premise of any such investigation, which is that despite its attachment to the moderate, "informed" stance of the past decade, Salon (and the liberal mainstream) ought to have known better.
-
They don't need him, and neither do we
[Read the article: Bush and Musharraf's grand illusion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... Bush needs Musharraf more than Musharraf needs the United States.
Juan Cole may be literally correct here — it's not the United States that needs Musharraf but Bush and his adminstration particularly. Musharraf has done little, except passively, to support American interests in Afghanistan (a place where, for once, American interest coincides closely with regional interest — Pakistan has suffered greatly over the past 15 years from proximity to such a deep power vacuum). While it may be true that Musharraf has in (some limited sense) been doing everything possible given the realities of the powerful Muslim factions that run the north, in the larger sense he has caused much of difficulty he faces.
But exposing all of that, and the naked ineffectuality of Pakistani-American efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and defeat the wahabists, would critically harm the Bush regime at a time when it can't afford much more damage to its credibility.
Aside from the cancellation of some ineffectual debates [ ... ] nothing will change.
Cole's analysis is, as usual, concise and well-informed, but I disagree with his concluding statement in a small but important way. Nothing will change based on outside influence. What gives hope for Pakistan is that the judicial establishment there has shown remarkable solidarity and incredible courage in openly standing up to Musharraf, and they show no sign of being intimidated by Chaudhry's arrest.
As Cole documents, this isn't the first time in the past year that judicial and legal professionals have stood up for Pakistan in the face of dictatorship, but it's the most striking. Bush can only hope that the courage they continue to show isn't catching.