Michael Smerconish's Weird Pervez Musharraf Column

This column is weird, even for Michael Smerconish. Pervez Musharraf is in town, so Smerconish takes him to vote:

"We discussed apathy, and I described voter turnout patterns in the U.S., explaining that in 2008, only 63 percent of those eligible came out to vote.

'In Pakistan, it's the opposite.

'It's the educated class which does not vote. You said you've always voted. Let me shock you by saying that I have never voted - except in the last eight years.

'Yes, in this, I did go to vote. Otherwise, before that, when I was not the president, I never voted,' he told me.

Why not?

'Because I thought it was useless going to vote like that,' he answered.

What Smerconish never says -- and this seems really relevant if we're going to lump discussions of democracy and Pakistan together -- is that Musharraf didn't need to vote because he had a bigger vote than the whole rest of Pakistan combined: He took power through a military coup! In fact, he still advocates the Army be given a formal veto power over democracy there!

None of this makes it into Smerconish's column. Instead, we're supposed to value American democracy a little more because, heck, a former Pakistani president seems to think it's kind of cool. Smerconish had the chance to interview somebody influential and important about a part of the world that's critical to current U.S. interests ... and he pulled a radio DJ stunt. Disappointing.

Say, Aren't Tasers Supposed To Be 'Non-Lethal'?

Because this is the second Philly-area man to die after a Tasering in recent months. Is anybody having second thoughts?

Serwer: Majorities Don't Last Forever

Adam Serwer pushes back against Dem despair:

"Democrats were slaughtered at the polls regardless of how subservient they were to the larger Democratic agenda -- maverick Sen. Russ Feingold was true to his liberaltarian character in opposing both TARP and the PATRIOT Act, and he lost to an empty suit with an R next to his name. Voting against the Affordable Care Act didn't make conservadems any safer -- more than half of Democrats who voted against the ACA lost their seats. The America that went to the polls in 2010 isn't any more 'real' than the one that handed Democrats the White House and the biggest majority in decades in 2008, but it was older, whiter, and more Republican. And even this far more conservative electorate balked at electing many of the most rightward Republican candidates in statewide races where their radical beliefs faced greater scrutiny from the press."

One More Thought About Bush and Kanye

I've got to admit, there's something a little weird -- and possibly post-adult -- about a world in which the former president of the United States says his "lowest moment" was being dissed by a rapper. George W. Bush clearly doesn't understand that the proper response is not to whine, but to compose his own diss track! Somehow, I have a hard time imagining LBJ being kept up nights because the Temptations were angry about Vietnam.

Tony Blair's Sister-in-Law Converts to Islam

Well. That's certainly provocative.

The picture of the blonde-haired Lauren Booth wearing a head scarf is certainly striking, but it's also striking to me that she seems determined not to buy into the dominant narrative about Islam as a religion that subdues women:

Women who are being abused by male relatives are being abused by men, not God. Much of the practices and laws in "Islamic" countries have deviated from (or are totally unrelated) to the origins of Islam. Instead practices are based on cultural or traditional (and yes, male-orientated) customs that have been injected into these societies. For example, in Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive by law. This rule is an invention of the Saudi monarchy, our government's close ally in the arms and oil trade.

This probably too easily discounts the negative aspects of any religion -- but, of course, it's always the sinful people who distort a religion, not the religion itself that's at fault. But Booth is a very new convert, seeing Islam as a lens through which to criticize her society. It'll be interesting to watch her journey, and to try to figure out what -- if anything -- it means for the rest of us Westerners.

About Those Postwar Tax Rates

Will Bunch re-tweets:

"Top marginal tax rate for the entire 1950s was 91%. Yet the U.S. economy expanded 79%. Overall tax burden today is lowest in 6 decades"

This tidbit is actually pretty commonly repeated among liberals -- I think I've even used it myself in a Scripps Howard column -- and yet it feels slightly dishonest not to acknowledge that the world economy was vastly different during the 1950s than it is today. Britain and Western Europe were slowly recovering from the devastation of World War II; same for Japan. The Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China had more or less withdrawn from global trade. The United States was so vigorous during this time not because of high marginal tax rates, but because it was basically the last man standing. That's no longer the case: Other countries are more competitive with our own economy, so we need to be more competitive too.

This isn't an argument against returning to Clinton-era marginal tax rates. I think that could safely be done without harming the economy to any great extent. But dropping the Ike-bomb on the tax discussion often omits the ways the world has changed, and liberals do themselves no great service when they make that omission.

Can Anybody Save Us? Emaw Isn't Sure.

Emaw*, who comes around here to keep me honest in my pro-Dem hackery, doesn't sound so optimistic about the results of the election:

"Of course, the problem with campaigning FOR something these days is that in order to really solve our most pressing national problems, you have to be an advocate of doing stuff that nobody wants to do. Nobody wants drastic, Grecian Formula spending cuts, but that's what we need. Nobody wants major tax and fee increases (certainly not me), but that's what it will take to balance our budget even if we cut spending.

So you get what we have now (which interestingly is frighteningly similar to what the Romans had near the end of their republic). Politicians make promises that, while popular, have little hope of coming to fruition without bankrupting the country. Political expedience makes meaningful reform impossible."

We get after each other, but I think Emaw and I basically agree that there's something unsustainable about the governance of our country. Question is: If Democrats can't do the right thing and Republicans won't -- I'm not sure Emaw would agree with the framing -- what can we do? Where's Ross Perot when you really need him?

*For you non-Kansans, "Emaw" is short for "Every Man A Wildcat." It's a K-State thing.