Political capital and the Ground Zero mosque

The proposal to erect a mosque near Ground Zero poses something of a quandary for Democrats and the president. President Obama has defended the rights of the people involved to build the mosque, which is, of course, the right thing to do. The protection of religious minorities is an important part of the American experiment, certainly. But is it the most strategic move?

With 62% of Americans opposing the construction of the mosque (a number most likely inflated because most people don't seem to realize that the mosque and Islamic center wouldn't be on the actual Ground Zero property, just near it), Democrats and Obama are spending some serious political capital and assuming a modicum of risk in an election year. Of course, the most admirably idealistic among us may say strategy be damned in the face of ethics, but I think weighing the cost is worth discussing. Is this a big enough issue to swing a few close races in the midterms? It seems as such, at least in New York, where a number of Democratic congressional nominees are opposing the project. What cost will a few more losses in the midterms have on the Obama agenda going forward? Will this resurface in 2012 (I'm thinking of heinous right-wing attack ads in Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, etc.)? At what point do we consider the greater good of a more successful Obama agenda vis-a-vis taking a stand on this particular issue?

This is an interesting battle for the President to weigh in on-- I'm wondering if "no comment" would have been a better play. Obama isn't totally innocent of this kind of Clintonian hedging-- look at the situation with "Don't Ask-Don't Tell" (the repeal of which has far more popular support in the nation than the proposed mosque project).

This is an interesting issue to me because I don't have much of an answer to these questions. But I can't shake the feeling that the left is involved in a bit of a gamble here; the ethics of possibly hindering progress on the economy, the environment, and a host of other far more important (in the sense of the number of, and degree to which, people are affected) issues is certainly worth thinking about.

I'm totally rooting for Harvard this year in the Yale-Harvard football game

Here's why.

It seems the venerable Yale University Press has made an editorial decision to censor the Danish cartoon depictions of Mohamed that caused the big brouhaha in 2006 in a forthcoming book. Bad, yes. What's worse? The book, by Jytte Klausen, is about those same cartoons. The book is entitled The Cartoons that Shook the World. Except you don't actually get to see the cartoons-- taking it a step further, not only did Yale UP ban the inflammatory cartoons from 2006, but all depictions of Mohamed in the entire book. I hadn't realized that sharia law was in effect in New Haven.

Fear was the only reason, it seems. A Yale UP official is quoted in the linked article saying that "when it came between that [printing the cartoons] and blood on my hands, there was no question”. Thus, one of the world's great academic presses has been bullied by a bunch of unabashed idiots who hurt people and destroy things over mean-spirited drawings of their magical being. Giving into fears of extremist reprisal makes for really bad policy. Remember, say, most of this decade? Still, the argument went as such: the cartoons are available on the 'Tubes and can be described in words, thus including them would be an unnecessary affront (or, "gratuitous"). This seems fairly shallow to me; after all, the author of the book, an expert on the controversy, wanted them included. Putting them on the cover might have been gratuitous; omitting them completely is cowardice of the worst kind. I would wager that one would be hard pressed to find a single academic book about political cartoons that didn't reprint cartoons.

Go Harvard*! Boo Yale!

* pending my becoming aware of some objectionable act of cowardice and supplication of stupid people on the part of Harvard

Race and Immigration

I have said repeatedly that anti-immigration activists don't care one whit about the legality of immigrants. They care strictly about their race.

To replace deported Mexicans and Central Americans in meatpacking plants, employers have turned to legal African immigrants, particularly Somalis.

Via Rick Perlstein, the response is predictably racist, at least in Shelbyville, Tennessee.

The Tyson plant where the Somalis and other Muslims work decided to give the workers a Muslim religious holiday off instead of Labor Day. People in central Tennessee went berserk. Quite ironic given the anti-union attitude so prevalent in that part of the South.

If you really want to see how race trumps legal status in immigration debates, read the comment thread to the original newspaper story. But I warn you, the extreme racism is vomit-inducing.

Historical Image of the Day

Alexander Russell Webb, late 19th century American diplomat and convert to Islam