ACLU and Communists

So a few weeks ago, Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy had a series of posts (one, two, three, and four) about the ACLU's famous decision to expel Communists from the organization. What struck me in particular about these posts is that they mirror an argument we once had in my family regarding that decision.

Both of my parents had worked at the ACLU, and one day on a long car ride we somehow came around to the topic of the expulsion of Communists from the organization. My mom maintained that it was hypocritical of a civil liberties organization to expel members based on political beliefs - the equivalence of McCarthyism. My dad and I both argued that it was perfectly proper to remove people who didn't, after all, believe in civil liberties.

Volokh's first post makes much the same point as my dad and I did (and it should be noted that Volokh was born in the Soviet Union, so he certainly has more first-hand experience with Communism in the actual, rather than theoretical, form).

However, reading further, I learned a number of things about the ACLU and it's Communist ties that I had not been aware of at the time of our initial argument (and perhaps not my parents, either).

First, the ACLU decision came in 1940, when the Soviet Union (and, by extension, all Communist Parties and their card-carrying members) was allied with Nazi Germany. This was also just a few years removed from the bloodiest purges in Soviet history. In other words, the danger of Communism, so often exaggerated, was very real at the time of this decision.

Second, the ACLU expulsion of Communists also extended to anyone who believed in a "totalitarian" ideology (i.e., Nazis and Klansmen, as well as Communists). So this was not just an internal purge aimed at left-wingers, it was an attempt to make clear that the organization was firmly opposed to totalitarian suppression of civil liberties, no matter what the rationale.

Third, Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, was himself an admirer of Communism and the Soviet Union, and even went as far as to defend the suppression of civil liberties in the Soviet Union in the name of expanding and nuturing Communism.

I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties.

In other words, the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union did not (at least in 1934) believe in the good of civil liberties for their own sake, but only as a means to an end. And that end was the triumph of "workers rule." Only after the Nazi-Soviet alliance did Baldwin turn against the Communists.

Given this, I have to say that not only was the ACLU's decision to expel Communists correct, it probably saved the organization as we know it. Had the ACLU continued to be dominated by Communists, it likely would have been utterly discredited by switching to pro-fascism in 1939 and then anti-fascism in 1941 (as all loyal Communists did). The coming of the Cold War would likely have been the death knell of the organization.

But instead, it decided in 1940 to reaffirm civil liberties as its primary goal (and as an end unto themselves) and has thus been an important defender of the Bill of Rights for the last several decades (despite the slings and arrows of many conservatives, such as the first President Bush).

Soccer

So, I'm curious, why is it that Americans are often depicted as unsophisticated and provincial because they don't like soccer? Because, the way I see it, soccer is a remarkably unsophisticated and provincial sport.

The sport itself is probably the least complicated major team sport out there - essentially two teams kicking a ball back and forth, each trying to get the ball in the other's goal while defending their own. Now, I know there are a bunch of rules, but the fact is that an alien (of the little green variety) could probably sit down at a soccer match and figure out the basics of the game pretty swiftly. Compared to baseball or American football, which are ridiculously complicated, understanding soccer is child's play. Which, after all, is a big reason why the sport is so popular - anyone can play it, you can play it anywhere, and there's little learning curve. But that doesn't explain why Americans are unsophisticated for not liking it. If anything, it's the rest of the world that's unsophisticated for not loving baseball (or cricket).

But I think the real argument is just that Americans stubbornly refuse to embrace a sport that everyone else likes, and this is taken as further evidence of our arrogant nature (right up there with vetoing the Kyoto Accords). This, however, ignores that fact that soccer is hardly a sport that brings the world together. If anything, it tears people apart - soccer fans are notoriously nationalistic and provincial, not to mention thuggish. Are American sports fans terribly civilized? No, but at least we rarely see riots between fans from different places. "Hooligan" is thankfully not a word often associated with baseball fans.

I Rove You

So the President has appointed Karl Rove to head reconstruction of the the Gulf Coast?

Huh?

Has this President learned literally nothing from the past couple weeks? Karl Rove is a political operative, advisor, and fixer. He is not (repeat - not) an expert in reconstruction. And as we learned from the Michael Brown debacle, having your crony in charge of something reeeeeaaaaaly important is a terrible idea.

This administration never fails to impress me with the massive disconnect between its rhetoric and it's actions. High oratory mixed with stunning incompetence.

Definition of the Day

codify (cohd' i fie), -ied, -ing, -ies, tr.v. 1. to turn someone or something into a fish; Bob has lived in a fish tank since he was codified

Intelligently Designed Film

So now some conservatives are arguing that March of the Penguins is, at it's heart, a conservative film that demonstrates the validity of Intelligent Design.

Let me pause for a second while I cry "Bullshit!"

Yes, the film does demonstrate the wonders of penguin monogomy, which allows for the division-of-labor necessary to allow their young to survive. But to claim that this is relevant to human relationships is ridiculous, unless you also believe that we have something to learn from elephant seals, who manage to reproduce through violent polygamy - they engage in brutal combat to win the right to copulate with the entire harem of females in the group.

These conservatives also claim that the fact they these penguins manage to survive in the one of the harshest environments on Earth is proof that they must have been designed by a creator. But as the (conservative) columnist George Will points out:

If an Intelligent Designer designed nature, why did it decide to make breeding so tedious for those penguins?

Their success at breeding in such a seeming impossible environment is much better explained by evolution. The Antarctic was an open niche which these penguins evolved to exploit.

Finally, shouldn't it bother these conservatives that they are noticing such similarities between people and penguins? Doesn't a large portion of the resistance to evolutionary theory come from the fact that people are disgusted by the implication that people evolved from "lower" animals, thus violating the idea of man being created in God's image? If people and penguins are so similar as to invite comparisons, doesn't that show a good likelihood that we share a common descent or at least a common mechanism for the creation of our species?

Bring Me the Head of Michael Brown!

Andrew Sullivan has called on bloggers to try to bring about the resignation or firing of Michael Brown, the head of FEMA, and so I am here to do my part. In my previous post, I said that we should wait until the crisis passed to start pointing fingers, but the more I read, and the more I think about it, people need to be fired now, if only to reassure the public that the administration is aware of just how colossal of a failure this is. I say "people need to be fired," because I'm seeing Sullivan and raising him one - Michael Chertoff ought to go to. True, the mess at DHS isn't entirely his fault, but he's the leader and so he has to go. And, after further investigation, I'm sure there are a number of mid-level people at FEMA and DHS who ought to be removed as well.

In addition, I think that George Bush owes the people of Louisiana and Mississippi (and indeed all of the American people) an apology for the poor showing of the government. Why? Because he's the President, and so the buck stops with him. He's the one who appointed Brown and Chertoff. He's the one who presided over the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. So it's his job to find out what went wrong, to fix it, and to hold those responsible accountable for their failures.

Now, some people might object that this is all just partisan politics at it's worst, capitalizing on a national tragedy. No, defending the administration at this point is the partisan thing to do. Calling for the resignation of incompentent bureaucrats is simply demanding accountability from government - the only way we can possibility expect things to be better next time. We have to change the institutional culture at FEMA, and we need to do it immediately.

Finally, please check out Andrew Sullivan, John Marshall, Slate, Constructive Interference, CNN, and any number of other websites that are doing an excellent job covering this crisis.

Katrina

Sorry I haven't posted in a couple weeks. Last week we were on vacation, and this week I've been consumed by trying to keep up with the coverage of the unfolding disaster in New Orleans.

A lot has been said already by people a lot smarter and more knowledgeable than me, so I'd suggest reading your favorite news sites and political blogs if you're looking for in-depth analysis.

Meanwhile, a few thoughts:

1) The most important lesson from this catastrophe is that, in the four years since 9/11, we have not learned anything about dealing with urban disasters. We are unable to completely evacuate a city and maintain order, despite the fact that we had several days warning of this hurricane, and despite the fact that scenarios of this sort had been predicted for years. If, god forbid, an earthquake or nuclear/chemical/biological attack were to strike a major U.S. city without warning, we would likely see the New Orleans disaster unfold again, except on larger scale.

2) A lot of attention has been paid to the looting and disorder, but I think far more serious is simply the lack of basic necessities of life - water, food, ice, basic medical supplies, etc. It is unconscionable that the children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the infirm should have to go without water or necessary medication for days at a time. People should not die of thirst in this country, ever.

3) A few people have implied or stated that if the people of New Orleans had been more prepared - with emergency supplies - or had just followed orders and evacuated when the call went out, this could have all been avoided. This completely misses the point that the people still in the city are those in poverty, who did not have the means to escape or prepare in advance. An emergency kit full of water, food, batteries, etc. which have to be kept fresh is a luxury poor people cannot afford. It's also of little practical use when your entire house is underwater. As for evacuation, these are people without cars or without money for gas. Believe it or not, some people actually rely on public transportation to get around.

The lesson is that government, whether local, state, or federal, has to step in and help those who cannot help themselves. This is not simply a matter of individual sacrifice and bravery by police, firefighters, doctors, nurses, and soldiers. Someone at the top has to plan this in advance. The free market can't evacuate a city - the government has to do that. Disaster planning and preparation is right up there with maintaining law & order as one of the very most basic functions of government. And this week in New Orleans, government on all levels has failed at both of those basic tasks.

4) Finally, I'm not looking to blame anyone in particular. This is a profound problem that cuts across both parties and all levels of government. But right now, the Republicans control the Federal Government, so they have to accept that they will get a lot of heat, and that the proper response is to fix the problem rather than making excuses or deflecting blame. None of the Federal officials involved have come across looking good. Once this passes, heads should roll.

Anyway, at this point I'm just not hopeful that anyone really has a handle on this situation and knows how to move ahead. For the residents of New Orleans, your nation has failed you in your time of need, and I only hope that things can somehow be made right.