STEVE NOVICK DEMOCRATS

Lately, I’ve been writing a lot on this page about my efforts to wrestle with conservatism. I’d like to think that my mind is open to conservative principles, and yet whenever I applaud myself for being open, one simple fact re-emerges to nag at my pride: I have never, ever voted in a contested two-party election for anyone other than the Democratic candidate.

Yes, it does bother me. It’s one thing to have a center of gravity. It’s another thing to be a blind partisan.

Well ... my track record is not likely to change for me in congressional elections, at least not for a while. I like my Representative, and I like my Senators. But we have a Presidential election coming up in 2008, and if the Democratic Party isn’t careful, I might not be able to make the above statement much longer.

In case you can’t tell, I’ve been alluding to the possibility that my party will nominate the putative front runner: Hillary Rodham Clinton. It pains me to write those words because Hillary is a woman, and for that reason alone I’d like to support her. I’d like to support her because we’ve never had a woman POTUS and it’s about time we did, particularly since “her kind” represents the majority of the population. I’d doubly like to support her because I’m sick and tired of strong women being painted as evil bitches. Nancy Pelosi, for example, did nothing prior to this past election to warrant all the vitriol that was heaped upon her by the GOP. Nevertheless, she committed the sin of sins – she’s a woman who didn’t act like a den mother or an ambassador’s wife – and that, combined with her being from “Sodom,” I mean San Francisco, caused the GOP-attack machine to speak about her like a character in the Crucible. You’re darned right that pissed me off, and the fact that Hillary is the target of the same kind of sexist nonsense makes me want to support her too.

And yet … and yet.

My basic problem with Hillary is that I’m a Steve Novick Democrat. Novick is a political activist who lives in Portland, Oregon. He moved out to his native Oregon after working for years as a trial attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice, where be handled superfund and clean air cases. In Oregon, he has worked on multiple political campaigns, practiced law on behalf of labor unions, and would surely have been one of the leading contenders for Portland’s Congressional district in 2004 had the incumbent decided against running for re-election. Novick appears frequently on local radio stations, and he is no stranger to column-writing. He was also profiled as the “Oregonian of the Week” in the state’s leading newspaper.

In the name of full-disclosure, I would add that Novick is also one of my best friends. I met him when he was a first year law student at Harvard. He called himself “pound for pound, the youngest ever at Harvard Law School,” and I didn’t doubt the claim for a second. He was 18 years of age, 4’ 8” tall, and relatively slender. If there was someone smaller and younger who attended that law school, I’d like to see him!

Just as Hillary has her fans, so does Novick. At a 40^th birthday bash that was thrown for him a few years back in Washington, D.C., some Oregonians treated me and other of Novick’s law school friends like royalty just because we had known the guy for over 20 years. I learned what it must have been like to have known the Beatles in Liverpool, when they were just John, Paul, George and Ringo, and not the Fab Four. But the truth is that everyone who knew Novick in law school realized then that he was special. That’s why we called him The Lord, which was short for Lord Novick The Young. He was a character then, and someday, he’ll be a character who’s also a candidate.

Novick is nobody’s idea of a conservative. He’s unabashedly liberal. But he’s a guy that even conservatives respect, and they respect him for the same reason they respected another famous diminutive liberal, Paul Wellstone. In both cases, these men have staked out a vision, have spoken plainly in support of that vision, and haven’t cared a whit whether their view was popular or shocking. Conservatives respect that. They also respect political animals who don’t take themselves too seriously. Back in law school, Novick said that he would run for office someday as “the only candidate with a legitimate left hook” – a reference to the fact that he has no left hand but wears a metal hook instead. More recently, Novick has jokingly referred to himself as “America’s leading amateur pundit on soaking the rich.” But he is no amateur when it comes to thinking clearly about how to support the economy. He’s not looking to screw the rich, but merely to reduce inequality. And he cares deeply about the working class. Believe me, many conservatives do too.

Novick doesn’t have an ounce of hypocrisy. If he preaches it, he practices it. He’s also a man of his word. About 15 years ago, when he was still in D.C., he began a tradition of organizing a tribute every year for Robert F. Kennedy on the anniversary of his birth. The event was held at the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice building (otherwise known as the headquarters of the U.S.D.O.J.). When Novick announced that he was moving back to Oregon, one of his friends said “So Novick, are you going to come back every year and hold this event on RFK’s birthday?” Novick said yes, and being a man of his word, every year, like clockwork, he comes back and hosts that function. I don’t even know if Novick can “afford” to do it – he didn’t come from money and doesn’t have much now. But that doesn’t matter much to Novick. He’s concerned with how much money other people have – particularly, regular working people.

Surely you can tell by now why I’m a Steve Novick Democrat. But you may also be able to tell why I’m so troubled by a Hillary candidacy. To begin, I have no idea what this woman stands for. Seriously, why did she introduce a bill in support of flag burning? Who was she sucking up to then? And while we’re talking about political expediency, why did this “liberal” support the Iraq War? Obama sure didn’t, and neither did Gore. Frankly, she comes across as someone who thinks first about which way the wind is blowing and only secondarily about the path of truth and justice. Novick, she’s not.

I’m also troubled by all that’s been said about Hillary the “executive.” I’ve heard so many rumors about her alleged acts of arrogance to her subordinates that I’m beginning to wonder if she’d be more comfortable running a monarchy than a democracy. Moreover, far from having a Novickean sense of humor, Hillary exudes humorlessness and the lack of humility. Perhaps I’m reading her wrong; then again, I don’t think I’m alone in having this reaction.

The GOP has seen over the past few months how unpopular a party can get if they win the Presidency and then things go south. The Dems saw this for themselves when Jimmy Carter was President. Those who talk about how brilliant Hillary is might be wise to remember that Carter’s IQ is none too shabby. But there’s more to politics than IQ. You also have to have a winning personality. Carter came across as sanctimonious. Hillary might come across as imperious. I don’t think this country is ready for an imperious President right now, and I know we’re not ready for an imperious female President who doesn’t appear to have the courage of her own convictions.

For all these reasons, I’m concerned that if Hillary gets the nod in the summer of 2008, I might just write in Steve Novick for the job. Not a Republican, mind you, but not Hillary either.

Would I be alone in taking that stand? Again, I doubt it. I know, for example – because I heard it from Novick himself – that former House Democratic Whip David Bonior once said that he didn’t mind other people knowing that if Hillary ever got the nomination, Bonior wouldn’t vote for her. Novick himself is unsure if whether he’d vote for Hillary, particularly if she runs against Giuliani. The only thing I can say for sure is that, unlike me, Novick definitely won’t vote for Novick … at least not for President.

I think back to the movie 1776 and the adopted home state of Madame Senator herself. “New York abstains, courteously,” the representative of that state repeatedly said, when it was time to vote for independence from Great Britain. Well, if his descendent gets the nomination, a whole bunch of us Democrats might just say “Madame New Yorker, we abstain, courteously.” Folks might not go all the way and vote for the GOP, and I’m not suggesting they’ll vote en masse for Novick. But there are a lot of Steve Novick Democrats in this country whether they know it themselves or not. And if their party wants to win the White House, they had better get all the Steve Novick Democrats on board. It’s really that simple.

ON CONSERVATIVISM

This past week, I’ve been thinking a lot about what it means to be a conservative. First, I posted a blog entry on Governor Schwarzenegger and ex-Governor Bush, essentially standing up for the job they did as Republican-moderates (which is, after all, another term for a “conservative,” as opposed to a “reactionary” – a/k/a a whack-job).

Next, the attorney in my office furthest to the right – and we have 70 attorneys – repeatedly walked into my office and said “you’re no liberal.” This was prompted by the fact that he recently read The Creed Room and discovered that on a number of issues the philosophy expressed in that book didn’t fit with his stereotype of liberalism. I responded that I wasn’t a knee-jerk liberal, but that I was a liberal – at least my center of gravity was four-square in support of civil libertarianism and the principle that government is often needed to address market failures, and particularly inequities. But that didn’t convince him. “You’re no liberal,” he repeated, meaning that liberals don’t respect the free-enterprise system and they have no use for religion.

Well, maybe I don’t fit everyone’s liberal stereotype, but I sure don’t want to fit the conservative stereotype either – at least not if “conservative” is illustrated by Conservative Judaism’s latest gem.

Did you all catch what the Conservatives accomplished this week? They concluded years of debate within the movement and decided (a) to allow gay rabbis, (b) to celebrate gay commitment ceremonies (i.e., unions), and (c) that gay male sex should continue to be viewed as prohibited sodomy. Talk about loving the sinner but not the sin.

Was this a step in the right direction? Absolutely. The movement is extending new rights to gay people, and I’m all for that. But how can the movement possibly justify such an incongruous set of positions? The answer, of course, is that they want to treat gay people with dignity, but their commitment to “the law” requires them not to dignify gay sex. To me, it’s one more reason why the term “religious law” is an oxymoron.

Before coming down too hard on the Conservatives for continuing to condemn “sodomy,” think about the fact that this movement prides itself on following “Jewish law.” Given that fact, how can they not look askance at homosexual conduct, at least between males? Leviticus is as plain as day: “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.” Blunt. To the point. Unambiguous.

So then why allow those who regularly engage in such “abominations” lead Conservative communities? That is certainly how many Conservative rabbis felt. The willingness of their comrades to ordain gay rabbis has, in fact, led some Conservative leaders to leave the movement, no doubt pushing them off the cliff and into the arms of the Orthodox. There, they will find a receptive audience for the idea that religion is all about discerning the original intent of the Torah, which was inspired (if not written) by God. And who can deny that the original intent of “the law” wasn’t to prohibit homosexuality, or that the term abomination wasn’t the strongest possible rebuke for an action?

You’ll forgive rabbis who take the words of the Torah as God’s own for making the following point: if homosexuality has been condemned as an “abomination” worthy of Sodom, how can we permit homosexuals to preach to our children about morality?

I would agree with them – if I ascribed the Torah to God, as the Conservative movement purports to do. To me, the Torah, like all other “scriptures,” should be ascribed instead to human beings. We wrote the book, and we wrote it 2 ½ millennia ago, when our understanding of matters like sexuality was rudimentary in the extreme. Did God not inspire the book, you ask? I’m willing to say yes. Then again, I could say the same thing about all books, from Mein Kampf on up. You see, I attribute all human conduct – and all animal conduct, for that matter – to God, for my God is that of Spinoza, not Michelangelo.

This week, in Conservative Jewish dinner tables across the country, thoughtful teenagers have been asking their parents to square the above positions. One answer is that the movement wanted to be as liberal as they possibly could without violating the letter of the law, which is aimed at prohibiting homosexual actions, not dishonoring homosexuals as individuals. Another answer is that the movement was torn and wanted to strike a compromise; the compromise it reached was skewed to the liberal side, since from a practical standpoint the prohibition against sodomy can’t be enforced, but the decisions to ordain gay rabbis and allow civil unions have obvious public ramifications.

Both of those answers are helpful. Helpful, but not satisfying. If I could answer that thoughtful teenager, I would say a bit more: “Conservative Judaism prides itself on straddling a fence between two fields. In one field we have tradition! By that, I mean a rigorous commitment to the letter of the law such that the specific prohibitions are given more weight than ‘fuzzy’ concepts like ‘love thy neighbor as yourself.’ In the other field we have modernity. That is illustrated by a morality based on a relatively liberal inner voice that can always override scripture whenever the voice of reason so dictates. Conservative Jews find value in wrestling with both of those approaches, much like Jacob wrestled with God. To a Conservative Jew, that straddling, that wrestling, is precisely the essence of Judaism, both as a religion and a culture.”

I can appreciate that response, to a point – but only to a point. At the risk of sounding overly modern, or – gasp – secular, I’m simply not willing to walk up to a homosexual friend and say that he is “sinning” or committing “sodomy.” Similarly, I’m not willing to walk up to a kosher-keeping, Sabbath-observing son of a Jewish father and gentile mother and declare that he is not really a Jew.

Tradition? Shmadition. Yes, it pulls weight, but should we allow it to undermine the fundamentally inclusive and loving spirit of ethical monotheism? I sure hope not.

Frankly, I won’t let the severity of certain Jewish laws disturb one iota my commitment to Empathic Rationalism. If that means that I’m not “wrestling” enough with God or my faith … so be it.

CHUTES AND LADDERS

Chutes and Ladders was always one of my favorite board games as a kid. Since it required absolutely no skill, it was right in my wheelhouse. Truly, my affection for that game foreshadowed that, as an adult, whenever I went to Vegas, I would also head for the slot machines and never play anything else. Three cheers for blind luck!

In the game of life, however, Chutes and Ladders involves a lot more than luck. Just look at the trajectories of the political careers of our nation’s two leading Chief Executives. I’m talking about “The Decider,” President George W. Bush, and the “Governator,” Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Many liberals like to claim that George W. Bush has failed at everything he’s done, whether it involves attending school or running a business. But it’s difficult to deny that as Governor of Texas, the man was anything but a failure. W hitched his wagon to a man named Bob Bullock, the state’s Lieutenant Governor. With the Republican Bush and the Democrat Bullock working together, they were able to build successful coalitions on many issues. At times, they failed, but not for the reasons you might think. Consider the following comments by liberal writer Molly Ivins, one of Bush’s most persistent critics:

“In 1997 [Bush] fought like a Trojan for what was actually a Democratic plan to make taxes fairer, specifically in an effort to pay for public schools. He lost. Bush couldn't deliver his own party on that one. But anyone who wants to write him off as a disengaged part-timer should know he was so fully involved in that fight, he could have been a floor manager the way he was twisting arms, calling in favors, busting balls, the entire panoply of power plays.”

Recognize that person-stage? I wouldn’t think so. He was around when Bush was going up the ladder, when he truly could style himself a “uniter, not a divider.” Bush prided himself in being the Governor of the entire state of Texas – Democrats as well as Republicans – rather than a power politician whose partisanship arrives with him everywhere he travels.

I’m less comfortable here commenting on Bush as a President, but suffice it to say that his poll numbers aren’t quite the same as his numbers in Texas, when he won re-election in a landslide. Suffice it also to say that the “chute” in which he finds himself has nothing to do with Democrats, because they are invisible in his Administration. The idea of him trying today to ram through “a Democratic plan to make taxes fairer,” doesn’t pass the laugh test. This is an era of one party ruling, the other party whining, and the country … well … suffering. Even the President admits publicly that these aren’t halcyon days for America.

On the other coast, you can hardly blame Ahnald from trying the bicep flaring, power-politician approach when he came into office. He had promised to stand up to the establishment politicians – liberals, mostly – who had been running Sacramento. And why not stand up to them with the force of Hercules? This, after all, was the same man who arrived in liberal Hollywood and sacked it like a Roman General. Talk about the victor netting the spoils -- at the top of his Hollywood ladder, he even nabbed himself a Kennedy for a bride. Why not come into the Governor’s mansion and show some of the same macho self-confidence that worked so magically in So-Cal?

The flexing act worked for a little while in the Central Valley, but in 2005, it came crashing down on our hero, and his chute became as steep as his former ladder. Pectoral Man called for a Special Election in which the electorate would vote on several initiatives. One would have limited state spending and given our hero greater power to slash the budget, one would have allowed for the redrawing of congressional and state legislative districts, another would have made teachers have to work longer to attain tenure, still another would have limited political spending by unions of government employees. Strangely enough, the people finally body-slammed Arnold. So here he was, alone and red-faced in his mansion, surrounded by a sea of California blue.

It must have dawned on The Governator that if California keeps voting Democrat every time there’s a contest for the Presidency, maybe, just maybe, there’s more to the state than fat cats from Orange County. You’d think he could have figured that out prior to November of 2005, but at least he eventually figured it out. It’s now 2006, and we’re witnessing a new Arnold. He’s no longer opposed to raises in the minimum wage. He’s proposed lots of spending on education specifically, and public works generally. And he’s the toast of the New York Times for his plan to “terminate” greenhouse gases.

The new Arnold is working with state legislators across the aisle much like Governor Bush once did. He is creating the impression of being a political moderate. And guess what? He ascended the ladder once again in public opinion polls.

Who could have predicted it? Well, actually, just about anyone. Americans tend to like politicians who show their ability and willingness to build bi-partisan support and aren’t so easily pigeon-holed as either “right wingers” or “left wingers.” There are exceptions – another California Governor comes to mind -- but Mr. Reagan was beloved because he held a strong, positive vision for America and communicated that vision clearly and openly. Whether or not you liked that vision, you had to respect the gravitas of the man who held it.

Men like Reagan – or his liberal counterpart, FDR – don’t come around that often. Others try to replicate their successes by being equally extreme, but generally end up looking like children, rather than adults. We have two years left in the Bush Administration. My recommendation is that if the powers that be want to get anything done – and I mean anything – they might want to find the ghost of the late Bob Bullock and listen to what he has to say. He’d start by arguing that without widespread Democratic support, the only place for the Administration to go is further downward. Given all the problems we face internationally, environmentally, and otherwise, we simply can’t afford that outcome, no matter how much the pundits on Comedy Central might enjoy the ride.

A REDEEMABLE VICE?

Some people are Ginger people, others like Mary Anne. Some are Elvis people, others like the Beatles. Some of us love ping pong, others shoot pool. Some do crossword puzzles, others …

Well that’s the problem, isn’t it? Until recently, there was no real alternative to crossword puzzles, or at least the major newspapers never tried to present one. For those of us who never got on the crossword-puzzle train when it came around during our childhood, that left a gnawing void.

Like anything else, crossword puzzles can be had, but you’ve got to put in the time in order to pick up the knack. I never did. Consequently, here I am with my Harvard Law degree, and I wouldn’t stand a chance if I went mano-a-mano against some pimple faced 15 year old geek who happened to start doing these puzzles regularly from the age of 12. That same kid someday could get Alzheimer’s, and he’d still out perform me when I was in my prime. Did that fact ever rankle me? You bet.

I forget when I saw my first Sudoku puzzle, but almost immediately I was intrigued. Finally, we crossword-puzzle rejects found ourselves an alternative, and we didn’t have to buy “Loser Weekly” magazine in order to pick it up. We could find a Sudoku puzzle every day in our morning paper. Strike that. Here in D.C., many of us routinely are provided two each day: one in the Washington Post, and one in the Post Express that is distributed for free at each Metro (subway) stop. Talk about ubiquitous.

Immediately, I liked the Sudoku concept because it involves numbers. As the former captain of my high school math team, I’ve always loved numbers. Even when I went through adolescence and was way too hyper to read, I enjoyed solving math problems. When I started playing Sudoku, however, I realized that it didn’t permit us to really play with numbers. The digits on the Sudoku board are mere symbols, and the letters A-I could have easily taken the place of the numbers 1-9 without changing these puzzles in any way. Nevertheless, that didn’t deter me from taking up this new hobby. The fact is that I’ve always loved logic puzzles almost as much as math, and that’s precisely what Sudoku is – a puzzle that tests your logic skills and your ability to visualize and remember symbols. I decided to give it a try.

My first reaction was surprise at my incompetence. I’d heard a few people indicate that when they started playing Sudoku, they found all the “easy” problems and many of the “medium” puzzles to be a breeze. But I had trouble even with the easy puzzles, and boy did that tick me off. In my frustration, I went to the Internet and learned a couple of tricks. That was the jump start I needed. Day after day I’d complete these puzzles. Sometimes one, other days two. Then, my wife bought me a Sudoku calendar for Hanukah, and rather than doing one puzzle each day, I would do them at a clip of four or five at a time. Eventually, I got to the point where I felt invisible. Sudoku had become like Tic-Tac-Tough: a game I couldn’t lose.

This went on for a couple of months, and I enjoyed the ride. It was kind of a Zen experience – pick up a newspaper, turn to the puzzle, and complete it without fail. It became a routine, much like a morning stroll. After a while, though, the challenge began to disappear, so I spent a few days here and there putting aside the puzzles altogether. Then one day, the unspeakable happened: a puzzle stumped me. And a couple of weeks later, it happened again. The Zen experience was over. I realized that some of these puzzles required time and effort., and that I was putting in more than enough effort in other walks of life – I hardly needed to struggle with a stupid puzzle in the newspaper.

At around that time I spoke about Sudoku to a friend who owns his own business. His response was succinct: “I don’t have the time to waste on puzzles. I always thought puzzles were for losers.” It wounded me, but I couldn’t really argue with the sentiment. If I had been in my Zen stage as a Sudoku player, he might have gotten a counter. But that stage was gone, and I found myself picking up Sudoku not because it was fun but because I needed to confirm that I was indeed invincible, despite the blip or two in the previous few weeks.

So there I was, morning after morning, walking to the Metro so that I can go to work. I could have benefited from spending my 20 minute ride writing, reading a book, or for that matter meditating. But instead, I picked up the Express and did another puzzle. If it were marked “easy,” I could do it in just a few minutes, but if it were marked “medium” or “hard” it would take most or all of the subway ride, and I might even not be able to finish it until later. I thought that I was acting like an idiot but simply couldn’t stop. My ego wouldn’t let me. I was addicted.

When I reflect on this ridiculous pastime, a couple of statements from college spring to mind. The first was a statement made by my psychology professor: gambling halls never forget that the best way to hook in a player is with intermittent reinforcement. And indeed that was true in my case: my addiction was at its peak when I had no idea if I could solve the puzzle or not.

The second was a statement that my roommate made – a quotation he attributed to Oscar Wilde: “I don’t like a man without one good redeemable vice.” Being in college at the time, my reaction was “just one?” But seriously, I always saw a lot of wisdom in that quotation. People without any vices seem incapable of relating to the rest of us. They’re too perfect. They don’t know what it’s like to battle with demons. For example, my mother would bemoan the fact that her father gambled away much of her family’s money during the Depression, but the thought of the old man losing at the pinochle table always humanized him in my eyes. And what about the vice of drinking? Look what’s it done for Mel Gibson – it’s outed him as a schmuck, maybe even in his own eyes. Now, long after he made “The Passion of the Anti-Semite,” he might sincerely be seeking help.

“In vino veritas,” they say. Sometimes, a little veritas is in order.

But what about Sudoku? Is there any redemptive value in it? Or is my friend right in suggesting that puzzles are for people who waste time that could be better spent getting something accomplished (or at least clearing the mind for more productive uses)?

I’ve heard all about the justification for Sudoku that it fights Alzheimer’s. But I figured I have a few decades before that becomes an issue, so I can’t use that excuse. What about the idea of being humanized – is there anything about sticking your head in a newspaper and placing little dots and numbers on a sheet of paper that humanizes us?

Perhaps the answer to that is yes. Consider it a protest against living life in a pressure cooker. Consider it a protest against the idea that there’s nothing more precious to a human life than time. Isn’t all this supposed to be a journey, not a destination? And if that old saw is true, why shouldn’t we make a little time for a wide variety of things – including silly things, like puzzles? If we’re so busy that we can’t spare a few minutes a day for a puzzle, perhaps there’s a problem with our lifestyle .. and it’s not the puzzle.

…

But all that said, I have had enough sense to stay away from the Sudoku Samurai games (the games with five Sudoku puzzles in one). I completed the first one that I saw and immediately realized that this was too crazy even for me. It’s kind of like realizing that you may be a coke addict, but at least you've had the marbles to stay off the heroin.

IF YOU’RE IN A HOLE, STOP DIGGING!

The title of this blog-post states a principle that I had thought was universally understood. Obviously, the Iraq War has proven me wrong.

One case in point is the fact that we’re still fighting that horrid war, more than three years after all our arguments for fighting turned out to be wrong. Another example is the latest bit of Orwellian-speak by the war’s proponents. Sure, Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other by the thousands … but it’s not a “Civil War.” Obviously, we can’t call it that, because these same people told us originally that the one thing that would constitute a “loss” in Iraq is to cause the nation to go into a “Civil War.” So now we’re just changing the meaning of the terms – a Civil War involves fighting in which the parties slaughter each other in the thousands, but do so in a manner that is polite and respectful. You know, civil.

While our nation’s government keeps digging our Iraqi hole deeper and deeper, we can all thank God for our luminaries in the press who report the truth and provide wisdom. In that regard, there’s no luminary who burns brighter – at least in his own mind – than Thomas Friedman.

Friedman, for those of you who’ve been living in a bubble for the last twenty years, is a Pulitzer Prize winning author and a columnist with the New York Times. I remember as a young adult reading his book, From Beirut to Jerusalem, and being extremely impressed with both the quality of his writing and the even-handedness of his analysis. Later, I began regularly reading his columns in the Times and I found them sensible and insightful. He always conveyed the impression of knowing thousands of people on the streets of every Middle Eastern city and wanting everyone to get along and live in peace.

What a swell guy, I thought.

Then, one day, my love affair for Mr. Friedman ended. He started writing about the need to fight a war in Iraq. And I started finding it increasingly difficult to digest my breakfast when reading my morning paper.

The world’s most omniscient columnist told us that we needed an outpost in that savage part of the world known as the non-Jewish Middle East. Without such an outpost, he claimed, that region would be taken over by the jihadist crazies like the types who blew up the Twin Towers. But with such an outpost, the rest of the “Arab street” (as he likes to call the Muslim hoi polloi) would see for themselves that liberal, democracies are the best kinds of countries. So soon enough, they’ll want their own countries to become liberal democracies. And we’ll all live happier ever after.

Friedman wanted to invade regardless of the existence of weapons of mass destruction. If I recall his argument, he said that since Saddam Hussein was a terrible guy who had done some terrible things, we were more than justified in invading his country. As for the issue of whether we can go in without international support, Friedman argued that we really, really want to get international support … but if we can’t get it, we’d better go in anyway. After all, the opportunity to create a shining city on the hill in the middle of the Arab world would be simply too great to pass up.

That was the argument I picked up from reading Friedman during the months leading to the war. I can’t tell you how sickened it made me. Call me crazy, but it didn’t seem right that innocent Iraqis were going to get killed by the thousands simply because we wanted to create a pro-American outpost in the Arab world. Saddam posed no current threat – or so it seemed. So what right did we have to take all those innocent lives and destabilize a region? Reading between the lines, Friedman seemed to say that we have a right to invade because it would be useful to invade … and “the good” is always “the right.” He would never say that in as many words, but he hardly had to.

Now fast forward 3 ½ years, and Mr. Friedman is still writing about Iraq and still, apparently, proud of his prescience on the topic. In his column this week, he is telling his readers that we will have to choose between the ten months option (phase out our presence over the next ten months and then take off) and the ten years option (spend the next ten years building up the country from scratch). Sounds reasonable, right? Sure. But to demonstrate his point, he couldn’t simply state his opinion. He had to explain his bona fides. “On February 12, 2003, before the war, I wrote a column offering what I called my ‘pottery store’ rule for Iraq: ‘You break it, you own it.’ It was not an argument against the war, but rather a cautionary note about the need to do it with allies, because transforming Iraq would be such a huge undertaking. (Colin Powell later picked up on this and used the phrase to try to get President Bush to act with more caution, but Mr. Bush did not heed Mr. Powell’s advice.)”

Are you kidding me? Mr. Omniscient – the man who purports to know the Middle East better than a Presidential candidate knows Iowa – cheered on this insane invasion for months on end. And now that everything has fallen apart, he’s bragging about his pre-war columns? Man, that’s some really impressive chutzpah!

Let me say to Mr. Friedman that I’m hardly impressed that he came up with that pottery barn analogy. I suspect hundreds if not thousands of people were thinking the same thing. And I’m also not impressed that he realized that international support would have been a swell thing for the U.S. to have. Again – that was obvious. This is what’s impressive: how do you advocate an unnecessary war that predictably turns into a disaster, and then credit yourself for warning about the dangers of the war? And what’s really impressive is that here’s a guy who apparently didn’t realize that the Iraqi people would revolt in response to an American invasion (imagine that – Middle Easterners not wanting to be colonized, who knew?), and yet he still tries to come across as all-knowing about the Muslim “street.”

Stop, Mr. Friedman. Just stop. How can we possibly take you seriously on this topic any more? If you want to write any more columns about war, let me suggest writing one entitled “The End Doesn’t Justify the Means.” It can be about a decorated columnist who knows a heck of a lot less than he claims to know – about moral philosophy, that is. And if you still feel the need to write about the word on “the street,” please go back to your native Minneapolis and start interviewing people at taverns and coffee shops about whether the Vikings are going to beat the Bears this Sunday. Stick with topics like that. Leave the topics of war to people who are serious about not taking innocent life without a damned good reason.