Now back to the main program…

I also hope that, if all this really is implemented and that control of the ports concerned is handed over to various firms in the UAE, then people’s trust and good faith in them does ultimately turn out to be justified and that the fears many people currently have turn out to be unwarranted.

Otherwise, the following quote by Charlie Sheen’s character in Two and a Half Men comes to mind:

“You’re like an Alzheimers patient in a [brothel]. You’re constantly surprised you’ve been screwed…..And you don’t want to pay for it.”

I have no doubt that this what we are seeing with some of these people. Perhaps where we differ is that I don’t think it’s true across the board — I think there are principled ways in which people can be concerned about this issue, and in trying to understand the extent to which one or the that is going on, I think that the broader political/policy context in which these issues are arising matters a great deal.

I feel like I serve the interests of liberals and progressives in America better if I can use my voice to point out hypocrisy so that we maintain the moral highground…. I don’t want to see the Dems take the cheap shot when there are plenty of real shots to take which just take a bit more work.

No disagreement from me on any of this. The question is whether we should automatically assume that everyone raising concerns about the ports in this context is leveling a cheap shot, or whether it is possible that some people actually have principled concerns that shouldn’t necessarily be lumped in with the xenophobes. I tend to think the latter more than you do, it seems, but again, I don’t at all fault you for raising an issue that should legitimately cause all of us to stop and consider, for example, whether unconscious bias might lie behind some of our reactions. But even reaching that conclusion is different from reaching the conclusion that someone is consciously a xenophobe, and the true answer might also be that there is no bias involved at all in some cases.

Let me put it this way. If I was the Democratic Party Leader I would tell my “troops” to hit Bush hard on the port issue. But…I would go after the fact that port security in America (which falls under the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard) is incredibly weak. This is the single biggest national security concern I have. When they eventually hit us with a smuggled nuke, I can bet you it will be through a port. What I find offensive is any Congress-person (R or D)who plays on Xenaphobia to score political points. Some may consider me cynical but I believe this is exactly what we are seeing play out. I am a huge critic of the way that Republicans get people to vote for them by using fear and hate (as I’m sure are you). I have always voted Democrat. Therefore, I feel as a Democrat it is my duty to criticize my own party if I see them falling to the dark side. When I cast a vote in the next election I want it to be for a party that I believe in and not just a better alternative to the Republicans that use the same tactics as them. Let me give you an example of what I mean. Slate.com had a great article about conservative thinkers that have turned on Bush in order to guard what they think are true conservative principles (which have given way to rightwing nutjob principles). Similarly, I feel like I serve the interests of liberals and progressives in America better if I can use my voice to point out hypocrisy so that we maintain the moral highground. Far from being cynical I think I may be too idealistic in this case but I want to try. I don’t want to see the Dems take the cheap shot when there are plenty of real shots to take which just take a bit more work.

The Democrats are willing to throw principle out the window in order to use this issue to nail Bush and also win votes by appearing tough on terrorism.

Like Cicatrix, I love you and almost always find myself agreeing with you. But this statement seems more than a bit unfair and needlessly cynical. Plenty of Democrats/liberals have been concerned about the state of security at the ports, as a matter of principle, for a long time. And plenty of them, as a matter of principle, oppose both outsourcing and foreign ownership in the context of security issues more generally. In 2001-02, it was the Democrats who insisted that the TSA screeners be federal employees, rather vigorously, in the face of Republican proposals to let them remain privatized as they had been before 9/11. Since then, Democrats have raised questions about the use of private contractors — American contractors — for detention, interrogation, and combat operations, as I noted in one of the earlier posts in this thread. The fact that it hasn’t become a political issue until the prospect of UAE ownership entered the picture is worth noting and talking about, so I certainly don’t criticize your raising the issue at all — to the contrary, I think you do a great service by making everyone pause and think about what motivates their reactions, and this post is a good example of why I have so much respect for this space that you all have created. But I don’t think that the mere fact that people are raising concerns automatically signals xenophobia, a lack of principle, or a crass desire to win votes.

There are legitimate questions to discuss about private and foreign ownership in this context, including legitimate questions about foreign ownership by a UAE-controlled corporation — maybe not questions with foreordained answers, but legitimate questions nonetheless. And those concerns intersect with legitimate concerns about the Bush administration simply saying “trust us” (at best) and “you don’t care about security” (at worst) in response to efforts to engage critically in public deliberation about just about every serious issue of policy since 9/11, which they have done time and time and time again. Many Democrats have been resisting this all along, in all of the contexts I have noted and many others. Not everyone, and even those who have tried usually have failed to gain political/media traction, often miserably. But the fact that those issues have political salience right now in a way that they haven’t before doesn’t automatically mean that everyone has abandoned principle along the way.

At the end of the day, if more information gets shared and discussed about port management and security outside of executive branch, maybe the right answer will indeed be that we shouldn’t be concerned about DPW ownership — I’m willing to reserve judgment on that, and in an environment in which the administration actually had faith in public deliberation, I think many more of the people raising concerns right now would as well. But especially when national security policy is being made in tremendous secrecy by a coterie of Bush/Cheney administration officials — who have proven their lack of competence day after day after day for several years now — it is neither shocking nor inexorably a sign of xenophobia that lots and lots of people would get outraged and want to know more information. And for a good number of them, that they would do so as a matter of principle.

xoxo- ak

Well, there is the free trade angle….