What Coakley's Loss Means

The Democrats still enjoy a super-majority in Congress. The big question is, will they continue to be timid, or will they use that majority to pass the legislation promised in the 2008 election. It is amazing that Bush did whatever he wanted to do, with a smaller majority, whenever he wanted to do so (Iraq, for example).
So, for a party still in the majority, Coakley's sorry defeat should mean nothing.

Shared Sacrifice

One of the elements that identified the GREATEST GENERATION was its capacity to forfeit immediate gratification for a greater purpose. This carried over into great endeavors, such as the Space Race and staunch opposition to the Soviet Union. It had its low moments, too, such as the Vietnam War. But on balance, I admire the shared sense of sacrifice that animated its policy-making.

We lack that sense today, despite great opportunities for shared sacrifice. We send our treasure (in the form of deficit spending) and a small proportion of our youth to fight two stupid and unnecessary wars. Where is the sense of mission that characterized this political culture for much of our history, and where are the leaders who can articulate a unifying purpose? The GOP offers tax cuts as the great hope for the future, the very antithesis of shared sacrifice, as they prefer to reward those at the top. The Dems appear capable of offering nothing more than "GOP light" proposals (witness the broken campaign promises regarding health care).

A fault-line in the clash of cultures

A belief in free speech is a characteristic of modernity. With all its faults (environmental degradation, to name the worst), it trumps the pre-industrial world preferred by fundamentalist Islamic jihadists . This can be seen in the long-running saga of the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie, a book published in 1988. Because we so prize free speech and free inquiry, Westerners, especially secular westerners, view such a anti-modern view with contempt. However, this fault line between two worlds is not so neat a cleavage. I was thinking about the free speech angle the other day, when it occurred to me that an avowed terrorist somehow managed to smuggle an incendiary device onto a flight to Detroit. Despite his father's warnings to the State Department, the son's name was never registered in the "no fly" data base. Contrast this with the treatment of the singer formerly known as Cat Stevens, who was denied entry to the United States for his views on Salman Rushdie.

Consider the on-going tale of the Danish cartoonist who depicted the Prophet with a turban shaped like a bomb. It is depressing to realize that this probably will not be the last attempt on the artist's life. We applaud his courage, as we celebrate his right to free speech. But what of the rights of Yusuf Islam? In the clash of cultures, free speech for whom?