In the wake of the devastating tsunami that killed thousands and threatens hundreds of thousands more across Asia, much of the coverage and debate in the United States has centered around whether or not the initial U.S. $35 million aid package is, in the words of U.N emergency coordinator Jan Egeland, "stingy." Lost in the petty bickering and wounded American pride is a unique opportunity for the United States to change its badly weakened global image by leading and funding a massive relief package. Ushering in a new era of altruistic and on-going foreign aid to rival the post-war Marshall Plan, the U.S. can start winning back the hearts and minds worldwide lost over the past four years.

Unfortunately, and as usual, the Bush administration has been reflexively defensive and disingenous in its response to Egeland's "stingy" comment. Rather than merely treat the U.N. official's comments as unfortunately worded call to action for the international community, the Bush team launched a full PR counter-offensive to show the generosity of the United States.

Starting Monday, USAID head Andrew Natsios defended his agency and the U.S., citing America's disproportionate 40% contribution of all 2004 humanitarian relief. He repeated the claim that the United States is the world's largest provider of foreign aid. Natsios also boasted that foreign assistance for development and emergency relief rose from $10 billion in President Clinton's last year to $24 billion under President Bush in 2003. By Tuesday, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that over time, American aid to the tsunami-devastated Asian nations would over time approach $1 billion. And on Wednesday, President Bush, no doubt stung by the "stingy" comment, announced the U.S. would lead a "coalition of the billing" with Japan, Australia and India to coordinate relief aid.

As USAID's own data shows (updated by the Congressional Research Service in April, 2004), however, these numbers are both deceptive and largely besides the point. For example:

(All charts above and more can be found in the April 15, 2004 CRS report "Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and Policy.")

To highlight the staggering myopia of the Bush administration in the aftermath of the Christmas tsunami, compare its performance in the wake of the four Florida hurricanes. President Bush asked for, and Congress appropriated, $13 billion for Florida. The Florida death toll was measured in the dozens and not hundreds of thousands. Of course, 2004 was an election year and the Florida governor, Jeb Bush, the President's brother (and now would-be Asian disaster envoy).

The decades-long dismal performance with foreign aid is not uniquely a Democratic or Republican failing. There is simply no constituency for foreign aid in the United States and such funding is consistently unpopular and a low priority for the American people.

It should not and cannot remain that way. In the midst of the global war against Al Qaeda and in the wake of a regional disaster of world-historical proportions, American aid, altruism and selflessness are key tools in making friends, reassuring allies, and changing opinions. In the aftermath of the Iraq debacle and the U.S. scorn for popular international agreements such as Kyoto, land mines, and the criminal court, a massive American-led aid program to the tsunami-ravaged nations of Asia could go a long in rebuilding global esteem for the United States. That the recipients in countries like Indonesia are overwhelmingly Muslim would not go unnoticed.

The American response to the Asian tidal waves cannot be incremental dollars or knee-jerk defensiveness about being "stingy." It must differ in degree and kind from the U.S. foreign aid regime of the last generation. And as with the Marshall Plan, the U.S. will do well by doing good.

As President Bush ramps up his campaign for Social Security privatization, it looks like Democrats will once again win the battle of facts while losing the war of ideas.

While his proposals are widely viewed as bad public policy and enjoy only lukewarm public support, regardless of its outcome Bush's crusade for Social Security reform will likely cement the positive image of the Republicans as the "party of choice." And apparently unaware of the largers stakes, it looks like the Democrats once again will do nothing to prevent it.

First, a little background. As is typically the case with Bush proposals, the public and the facts support the Democrats. Recent polls shows the public split over the proposed reforms to allow individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security funds in private accounts. Social Security reform, in any case, is seen as a much lower priority for Americans than terrorism, Iraq, jobs, health care and a gamut of other issues.

As for the Bush proposal itself, analysts and commentators have already done a thorough job destroying the theory behind Bush's Social Security privatization plan and the dubious numbers behind it. Over at the Washington Monthly, Political Animal Kevin Drum has put together a solid series of pieces highlighting the absence of a real Social Security crisis, the surprising health and longevity of the Trust Fund, the regressive impact of Bush's shell game in borrowing $2 trillion to finance his plans, as well as the obvious risks to millions of American investors. On the merits, the Bush plan should be a non-starter.

The Republicans and the Facade of Choice

All of which is besides the point. As a political matter, though, the Bush proposal has already succeeded for the GOP. The Social Security privatization plan reinforces the Republican message of the GOP as the Party of Choice across the policy spectrum. That is, the reform plan gives Americans choices in planning for their retirement security. Similarly, Bush's tax cut program "trusts the people" on how to best spend "your money." The 2003 Medicare reform theoretically lets seniors choose prescription plans and, over time, insurers. "School Choice" (read "vouchers") lets parents decide where they will send their children to school. Medical savings accounts (MSAs) and association health plans (AHPs) let individuals and groups decide how to plan for and finance their health care. The choice, they say, is yours. (The cynical use of language by the GOP to brand and sell these programs is another topic; one which we've discussed elsewhere at length.)

These programs, all central to the President's supposed "Ownership Society", in reality are chimerical and offer only the facade of choice. Medical savings accounts in essence allow the healthy, wealthy and young to opt out, raising premiums for everyone else. The Bush tax cuts have by design generated a massive upward redistribution of wealth while spawning staggering budget deficits that our children will have no choice but to pay down. And Social Security privatization creates an unfunded $2 trillion hole while putting Americans' retirement security in the hands of the same folks who brought you Enron, Tyco, Adelphia, and Worldcom.

The Bush program, in a nutshell, lets those best off do better by opting out, while increasing the burden, risk and uncertainty for everyone else. As we've discussed before, Bush and the Republicans are creating not an "Ownership Society" but an "Opt Out Society" that poses an existential threat to national unity and the American social contract:

The American people...are being divided and splintered by a Republican public philosophy of market worship, the privatization or abandonment of traditional government roles and services, and a radical individualism. The Bush philosophy represents an all-out assault on common national purpose in the United States. Government not only can't solve problems, it has no moral claim on its citizens' participation in a shared national effort to try. At the end of the day, you're on your own in a Hobbesian struggle of each against all; the government's role is to stand aside and let you fight it out.

This Republican program seeks to undermine the traditional American social contract and create what can be called an "Opt Out Society." That is, the GOP will abrogate the unwritten agreements that have defined the national bargain for three generations, such as hard work in exchange for social mobility, commitment to public institutions in exchange for growing personal freedoms, and those disproportionately benefiting from the American system disproportionately contributing to its maintenance. Instead, conservatives push to privatize social services like education, health care, and retirement, while rewarding Americans for withdrawing their support from their country, their government, their communities, their schools - and each other.

The Democrats and Universal Choice

But while the Republicans (dangerously misguided though they are) proceed to entrench the public's percerption of the GOP as the party of reform, new ideas and "choice", the Democrats are largely silent. More than merely seeking to block the conservative plan to create an Opt Out Society, Democrats need to offer their own vision of choice that harnesses the information technology and service personalization of the 21st century for the health care, retirement security, education and training of all Americans. Call it "Universal Choice."

Universal Choice has four simple principles that starkly contrast with the GOP's "you're on your own" program:

Some Democratic voices can be heard above the din, articulating a positive, new "choice-based" program. Former Clinton and Kerry speech writer Andrei Cherny in his book "The Next Deal", The New Republic ("Pro Choice") and New York Times described a Democratic politics of custom, personalized accounts and social insurance for Americans. A cornerstone to Cherny's new bargain: everyone participates and everyone performs national service. And at an operational level, the New Democrat Network has aggressively been providing a "new playbook" to Democratic candidates around the country.

Similarly, some of the team at the New America Foundation have described a radical rethinking of social insurance in "The Real State of the Union". The range of proposals includes mandatory health and retirement "insurance" (not unlike auto insurance), new child investment accounts (each child gets a taxpayer funded $6000 account at birth), taxing inheritance benefits as income, extensions of the Earned Income Tax Credit to other areas of social insurance, and more.

Of course, many of these ideas face serious political roadblocks and no doubt require raising taxes during the interim periods as new programs are phased in, requirements tightened, and benefits changed. But if Democrats don't aggressively articulate a program for reform, the GOP may for a generation be seen as the party of new ideas, the party of the future, and the party of choice.

So during the Social Security battle, Democrats can't be timid. They have no choice.

The good news keeps on coming for President Bush. Fresh off receiving the Time 2004 Man of the Year award, rumors abound that Bush will also be recognized by Himmler Fancy magazine in its end of the year issue.

Himmler Fancy, with its motto of "dedicated to advancing the age-old art of persuasion", is a niche publication. Targeting the interrogation professional community, recent issues have included features such as "Zyklon B: It's a Gas!", "The Hood: Never Out of Fashion", "101 Uses for Toenails", "It's Lampshade Time", "Fun and Frolic with Electrodes" and "Dogs Are a Man's Best Friend."

The Bush award follows closely on the heels of documents released by the ACLU showing that FBI agents believed interrogators were operating under an Executive Order from President Bush. Also supposedly recognized by the editors are Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for Leadership by Example ("I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing [by prisoners] limited to 4 hours?") and incoming Department of Justic head Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales was honored for Best of Work of Fiction for his memo stating that the Geneva Convention had been "rendered quaint."

Every once in a while, you realize that the apparently pointless concepts you learned back in math class were not completely without value. Or in the case of the Time selection of George W. Bush as its "2004 Man of the Year", absolute value.

Bush's second crowning as Man O' Year reminds us of the notion of Absolute Value. As you'll recall, the expression |x| meant the positive value of x, regardless of whether x had a positive or negative value. Wiping away the cobwebs, |-3| = 3.

So it is with the Time Man of the Year. The Time award does not recognize the goodness or merits of one's contributin to society and the world, just its absolute impact. In 1938, for example, Adolf Hitler got the nod for Munich, the Austrian Anschluss and Krystallnacht. In 1939, Josef Stalin was recognized for the Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler, as well as a lifetime achievement award for eliminating Kulaks, purging opponents and hosting entertaining show trials. Stalin earned a second title in 1942 for resisting the Nazi invasion of the USSR.

In their day, neither Hitler nor Stalin had a "likeability advantage": far from contributing the greater good of mankind, they wrought horror, death and devastation. It was the shocking magnitude of their crimes and their staggering impact on the world that earned them each the recognition of Time. Again, the criterion for Man of the Year selection is absolute value, not absolute good. Put another way, size, not performance, matters.

And so it is with George W. Bush. Honored in 2000 for debasing American politics and the chaos in Florida, W joins the ranks of repeat winners in 2004. And for what? His accomplishments include the American disaster in Iraq, ruinous federal deficits, an unprecedented intertwining of religion and government that will work to the lasting detriment of both, secrecy and dishonesty in White House, and the further pollution of our civic and political culture. Not bad for a year's work.

George W. Bush: Time Man of the Year for 2004. What he lacked in quality, he made up for in volume.

For many Americans, the holiday season can be a difficult one. While most enjoy festive celebrations, share time with family and reaffirm their faith, for growing numbers of people the holidays are a season of sadness, alienation, depression and despair. Taking their annual inventory of loneliness, the passage of time, their personal disappointments and unmet expectations, and the realities of family gatherings, the seasonally-affected may reach for Prozac – or worse.

For Democrats, liberals, and progressives of all stripes, Christmas 2004 will be especially difficult, the Winter of Our Discontent. The reelection of George W. Bush, the Republican control of Congress, and the tenuousness of the Supreme Court have created an air of gloom and portend the likelihood of darker days ahead. Taking no joy in the virgin birth, many are questioning the mysterious ways of an apparently angry and vengeful God.

For Democrats in despair, Perrspectives has just the right prescription. It’s not Prozac – it’s the Perrspectives Holiday Reading List. This selection of titles provides progressives with comic relief, new policies and strategies, insights into the other side and good old-fashioned American inspiration. Remember during these times that try men’s souls that, ultimately, our victory will be complete and their defeat total.

So smile, fight and win. And enjoy!

Laughter is the Best Medicine

The Once and Future Majority

The Old Time Religion

Know Your Enemy

Some of My Best Friends are Republicans

Well, actually, just Abraham Lincoln. These books are stirring and inspirational stories of the last Republican who spoke poetically of national healing and the unity of all Americans (including, as Bush the Elder would say, "the brown ones").

Visit the Perrspectives Resource Center to see the complete Perrspectives Reading List.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's comments to U.S. troops last week highlight once again the need for new leadership at the Pentagon. But while some Republicans are finally beginning to raise doubts about Rumsfeld, they have yet to hold him to the GOP's "Les Aspin Standard." That is, decisions that needlessly cost American lives in battle cost defense secretaries their jobs, but apparently only if Bill Clinton is president.

John McCain, who sold his soul to George Bush in order to boost his own 2008 presidential bid, has in essence called for Rumsfeld's ouster. Asked about his confidence in the secretary's leadership, McCain snapped:

"I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence. I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq...There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue."

Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel added his voice to the chorus of reason, noting:

"That soldier and those men and women [in uniform] deserved a far better answer from their secretary of defense than a flippant comment. I wonder what the parents of the men and women over there, sons and daughters who are fighting, I do not think that they appreciated that answer."

There should, of course, be no doubt about the need Rumsfeld's departure. His arrogant, flippant responses to the troops ("you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time") are just the tip of the iceberg. His Pentagon mangled the Iraq reconstruction, turning its back on the State Department (which happened to have the only plan in town) and turning instead to Ahmed Chalabi. The Abu Ghraib scandal and Rumsfeld's complicity in setting interrogation practices stained America around the world. Worse still, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz refused Army requests for more troops prior to the Iraq invasion, ridiculing as "far off the mark" General Eric Shinseki's February 2003 Congressional testimony about the occupation's need for "several hundreds of thousands" of troops.

18 months and 1,200 American dead later, troops still lack body armor and hardened vehicles, units are being rotated back to Iraq, and stop-loss orders and the call-up of retired servicemen show an American military stretched beyond the breaking point. Flawed strategy, a lack of planning and a refusal to provide needed equipment to save the lives of U.S. troops on the ground should be more than sufficient for Rumsfeld's resignation or sacking.

In 1993, of course, it took much less for Republicans to drive out the Secretary of Defense. Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense Les Aspin assumed ownership of George H.W. Bush's December 1992 Somalia intervention . But it was Aspin who came under withering assault for the disasterous Black Hawk Down episode in Mogadishu, Somalia in October 1993 that left 18 Rangers dead and 84 wounded. That September, Aspin turned down General Thomas Montgomery's request for armored reinforcements to protect U.S. troops from growing attacks by the forces of Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid. (Note that Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell reportedly also refused to provide additional AC-130 gunships.)

Aspin's refusal to provide the armor led to an all-out GOP assault. New York Senator Alphonse D'Amato led the way, stating that, "he should be fired now, he should resign now, and if he doesn't resign, then the president should remove him." Congressional Republicans called for Aspin's resignation, and Newt Gingrich called for hearings to determine if field commanders are given "the support they need."

Events moved rapidly from there. On October 7, 1993, President Clinton called for a U.S. withdrawal by March 31, 1994. In December, Les Aspin resigned. A year and a half later, Les Aspin died from a stroke.

Which brings us back to 2004. Donald Rumsfeld obviously fails the Aspin Test. Where is Alphonse D'Amato when you need him?

In the latest example of what Perrspectives has called a "Faux National Tragedy", Scott Peterson was sentenced to death for the murder of his wife Laci.

As we described in 1997 after the Heaven's Gate cult mass suicide, a Faux National Tragedy has four identifiable traits:

The media's obvious fixation with the tragedies of predictably white, often blond, and usually well-to-do girls continues unabated. Laci Peterson joins BYU student Brooke Wilsberger, Dru, Elizabeth, Jon Benet, Samantha, and Danielle in the pantheon of 24/7 coverage from CNN, Fox, MSNBC et al.  These admittedly sad tales, of course,  have no real national import.  None that is, except that it apparently helps to be white, wealthy and attractive, if at all possible.

The only real national tragedy in the Peterson case? The passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act ("Laci and Connor's Law"), which with the acquiescence of some Democrats, only serves to increase the "Slippery Slope" undermining the reproductive rights of American women.

The race to succeed Terry McAuliffe as DNC chair is heating up and is getting very crowded. On December 8th, "front-runner" Howard Dean made his pitch. Today, Simon Rosenberg, president and founder of the New Democrat Network, will preview his case for leadership at the ASDC conference in Orlando. A Rosenberg candidacy to lead the Democratic National Committee is one we at Perrspectives strongly endorse.

By way of background, Perrspectives has made the argument (both before and after the electoral disaster of 2004) that Democratic weakness stems primarily from (a) the absence of a coherent worldview; (b) a corresponding lack of a policy program with new ideas for reform; and (c) an inability to articulate Democratic "brand" messages for a 21st century "infotainment" media.

With the GOP dominant and the country risking a generation of conservative dominance, Rosenberg is the right person at the right time to renew the Democratic vision, redefine its agenda, and rebuild the party's ability to compete in any race anywhere in the country.

Unlike Dean, Rosenberg is just what the doctor ordered for Democrats:

That record, however, goes far beyond money and organization. It extends to creating a "Democratic playbook" of policies, programs and messages that candidates can consistently offer voters nationwide. As the New York Times noted:

Progressives needed more than a single think tank, like Podesta's group, to counter 30 years of well-targeted conservative philanthropy, Rosenberg argued. The same kind of donors who were willing to shell out millions for political 527's could have a greater impact if they also threw their dollars at nonprofit foundations or institutes. "If you're a 32-year-old state legislator and you're a conservative, you get to go through all these philosophical trainings," Rosenberg said. "You get all these organizations that are trying to put you through their leadership institutes. You get all these groups sending you their materials.

"Now, you're a 32-year-old Democratic state legislator, and what you do is you learn how to check boxes," he continued. "You learn how to become pro-choice. You learn how to become pro-labor. You learn how to become pro-trial lawyer. You learn how to become pro-environment. And you end up, in that process, with no broad philosophical basis. You end up with no ideas about national security. You end up with no ideas about American history and political theory. You end up, frankly, with no ideas about macroeconomics and economic policy, other than that it's scary."

With an extremely fractured set of Democratic constituencies, Rosenberg is one of the few unifying, healing voices across the center and left-of-center. While Al From's DLC and Howard Dean's insurgent campaign waged a destructive war of Democratic fratricide in May 2003, Rosenberg was a voice of reason. The centrist NDN embraced (though did not endorse) the Dean candidacy, especially its innovative use of Internet techniques like blogging and Meetup to build a party of "$100 donors." As he noted then, "NDN has not endorsed Dean or embraced him, but we have given our opinion that this is a serious campaign that is going to change the party."

Rosenberg is the one figure that can unite and bring consensus to the cacophony of Democratic interests, from teachers and unions, centrists and liberals, urban minorities and suburban professionals. He can make sense out of the alphabet soup of DLC, NDN, MoveOn, NEA, NAACP, SEIU and such.

Rosenberg himself used a simple Hollywood analogy to describe the task ahead for Democrats:

"We will only succeed if we build an entrepreneurial culture in Democratic politics. What we are is this beleaguered group of badly funded, nonscalable nonprofits. You know, Luke Skywalker was able to kill the Death Star with his beleaguered band of warriors, but I'm not sure that that's the model we should shoot for -- shoot the thing down the middle of the tube and hope it blows up the Death Star. We need to build our own answer to the Death Star."

In our Democratic version of this epic, we all know which party is the Empire. And we certainly know who Darth Vadar is. It's time to pick a DNC chair who make the Democrats into a Force.

Update: For those of you who missed it, here is Simon Rosenberg's address to the Association of State Democratic Chairs. Also, his post-election assessment ("Where We Are") of the Democratic Party and the path forward is available on the NDN web site.

At George Washington University, Howard Dean on December 8th used a major address to make his claim for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. Seeing a very ill, deeply depressed Democratic patient with a weak pulse and failing heart, Doctor Dean offered his usual combustible mix of rage and righteous indignation as a balm.

Just as in 2003, the Good Doctor showed he is passionately committed to saving the life of his patient, with words that make the patient feel better in the short term:

Here in Washington, it seems that after every losing election, there's a consensus reached among decision-makers in the Democratic Party is that the way to win is to be more like Republicans.

I suppose you could call that philosophy: if you didn't beat 'em, join them.

I'm not one for making predictions -- but if we accept that philosophy this time around, another Democrat will be standing here in four years giving this same speech. we cannot win by being "Republican-lite." We've tried it; it doesn't work.

We have to learn to punch our way off the ropes...We need to be able to say strongly, firmly, and proudly what we believe...Because we are what we believe.

But just as in 2003, Dr. Dean has once again made the wrong diagnosis.

Of course, Democrats should fight for what they believe and "punch their way" off the ropes. In 2003, Dean did a good "rope a dope" himself, but it was Kerry that got off the matt.

Of course, Democrats should compete in every state and leverage their new found grassroots fundraising capability.

Of course, Democrats should stay true to their values and not become "Republican lite."

But towards what end?

Dean is focused on the symptoms, and not the disease itself. Democrats must be more than the Party of No. Democrats must say what they stand for and articulate a positive policy program for change, all in a way that is easily communicated.

Democrats need to take a deep breath, look in the mirror, and who we're speaking to and what are our priorities. For all of the energy, outrage and intellectual horsepower being expended, what is the "meta-story", the unifying theme for groups like MoveOn and America Coming Together (ACT) on the left and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the New Democrat Network (NDN) in the center? When John Kerry lost every income group over $50,000 a year, was mauled both among white men (62-37%) and white women (55%-44%), and saw George Bush gets 42% of the Hispanic vote, who are we speaking to? Suburban voters (like "Office Park Dads", "Soccer Moms", or "Security Moms") or the mythical "ideopolis" of "creative class" professionals and urban minority voters? Have we created accidentally a de facto left-wing cacophony that obscures issues and confuses Americans as much as the right-wing noise machine we loathe?

Perrspectives has already written at length on these issues, including:

No, Doctor Howard Dean is not the prescription for Democrats. The cure for what ails us is a new voice of reform combining strategic vision and a track record of success for Democrats nationwide, Simon Rosenberg of the New Democrat Network. More on that to come...

Speaking of cognitive dissonance, the Bush administration continues to merrily amble forward as the situation in Iraq degrades and the stench of American abuse of prisoners grows.

Earlier today, President Bush blandly stated that "free elections will proceed as planned." . At the same time he was issuing this pablum, the New York Times and The Guardian reported that a cable from the departing CIA station chief in Baghdad alerted Washington to the rapidly deteriorating situation on the ground in Iraq. In addition, a September Pentagon report stated that the U.S. is clearly losing the battle for hearts and minds. To make matters worse, Bush ally King Abdullah of Jordan openly questioned whether the January 30, 2005 target date for elections can be met. Compounding matters further, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf flatly stated that Bush's Iraq gamble had made the world "less safe."

The administration's head in the sand attitude extends to the festering prisoner abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Memos released by the ACLU today showed that witnesses reported abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo in June. This revelation, added to the latest prisoner pictures inadvertently made available over the Internet by a Navy SEAL, only exacerbates American shame worldwide.

For more background on Iraq, Abu Ghraib and the rest of the sad tale of Bush's denial, see the complete "Bush Document Library."

After much grandstanding by members of its Republican majority, the House of Representatives passed the intelligence reform bill on Tuesday. The Senate's OK and President Bush's signature should be forthcoming in short order.

With many of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations soon to be law, Americans will now rightly ask if reform will really help prevent another major terrorist attack here at home.

The short answer is "yes, but only if."

The long answer is that the revamped National Intelligence Directorate can help make the United States less vulnerable to attack, but only if Americans in general, and the American national security establishment in particular, learn the lessons of 9/11 and the nature of the conflict and enemy we face.

The work of the 9/11 Commission pointed to a wide array of factors that led to the calamity of September 11. These spanned multiple administrations and included bureaucratic stove piping across FBI, CIA, the Pentagon and other agencies, lack of information sharing, analysis and consolidation, the wall between foreign and domestic intelligence functions, and undermanned and underfunded intelligence services. For many Americans, 9/11 was the result of crossed signals, missed opportunities, and bad luck.

There is a strong argument to be made, however, that the massive national security disaster of September 11, 2001 was not primarily a failure of planning, bureaucratic coordination, or vigilance by either the Clinton or Bush administrations. Instead, the root cause of the American failure on 9/11 was psychological, or as the 9/11 Commission put it, "a failure of imagination." That is, the American national security establishment simply could not absorb, process, and filter data regarding threats so fundamentally at odds with its post-Cold War mind set and conceptual framework. Perhaps more than anything else, the U.S. disaster of September 11 can be attributed to cognitive dissonance.

For much more on this, see "Cognitive Dissonance, Terrorism and 9/11."

On this, the 63rd anniversary of the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, comparisons with 9/11 and its aftermath are inescapable. From the nature of the war itself to the identity of the attacks' casualties, the differences are stark.

The contrast between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 could not be greater when it comes to presidential wartime leadership. President Bush has tried to claim FDR's mantle of "war president":

"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind. And again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they've got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them."

There’s only one problem for Bush: true wartime leaders call on their citizens to sacrifice. From Lincoln (“until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword”) to Churchill (“I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat”) and JFK (“ask not what your country can do for you”, “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship”), true war leaders call on their people to sacrifice lives, livelihoods, personal freedom, and national treasure to bring ultimate victory in a long, painful struggle over the enemy. America's yawning budget deficits, irresponsible tax cuts, and its grotesquely over-stretched military show that George W. Bush is no war president.

For more, see: "The War President."

On Thursday, the United Methodist Church defrocked a lesbian minister, the Reverend Elizabeth Stroud of Germantown, Pennsylvania. This was the first such step by the Church in 17 years, reflecting its law that bars ""self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" from ministry. Convicted by a 12-1 vote and defrocked by a 7-6 majority, Stroud may still perform other duties for her congregation.

Leaving aside the fundamental issues of fairness, homophobia and church doctrine for church members themselves to debate, today's developments do raise an interesting question:

What does President Bush, the nation's number one Methodist, think of all this?

Despite frequently chillin' with his evangelical homeboys and his other American Taliban peeps, Bush himself is a member of the United Methodists, as PBS noted before his first inauguration. Given his vocal support for the Federal Marriage Amendment, one would think he would be outspoken in defense of his Church.

It is more likely, though, that Bush will play duck and cover. After all, Bush is apparently not a regular church-goer himself and certainly does not pontificate (pun intended) on the meaning of his faith. Unlike his cynical courting of the Vatican in pursuit of Catholic votes, Bush in this case will probably avoid ruffling the feathers of his own flock.

UPDATE: On Friday, April 29th, the United Methodist Church reversed itself and reinstated Reverend Stroud.