Rep. Steve King is against recognizing slavery because it somehow minimizes the role of God in America's history. Seriously. This is obviously insane, but it made me wonder: why do the fundies place so much emphasis on symbolic measures of their virtue? I mean, do they even care whether anyone looks at the Ten Commandments that they put in schools, or listens to the mandatory abstinence-only material that they put in classrooms? I rarely hear religious right figures talk about what goals they want to reach, what sort of stats they want to hit, etc. Why is it always about some sort of monument? As a religious person myself, I couldn't care less if the Ten Commandments stand in front of the U.S. Congress. I'm much more concerned about whether people actually follow them, especially people who claim to be Christians.
I guess this is just a reminder that the religious right isn't really all that interested in making America a more truly Christian nation (even according to their conception), so much as making us appear to be a Christian nation. I'm tempted to make the argument that this relates to the right's valuing of symbols over all else, and a view that influencing culture is more important than influencing politics. But even if government solutions are disdained among these folks it just doesn't seem like they're all that interested in, you know, results. I'm kind of at a loss to explain this phenomenon.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Contrarians
Yglesias tackles the MSM's contrarian tendencies:
But there's obviously a lot of ego and status stuff too. I think that most MSM figures see it as important as being seen as impartial, but one can be impartial while actually observing facts and forming reasonable conclusions. One need not be partial to reject Sarah Palin, for example. As a matter of fact, going easy on her is very much a form of partiality, it seems to me. My sense is that the MSM would rather be seen as being partial to the right rather than partial to the left in order to defuse the "liberal media" tag, though this seems to lean very closely to classic cases of spousal abuse, in which the wife feels that taking enough abuse will somehow make the husband realize just how much she really loves him. It's nonsense, it's enabling, and usually it's because the husband is a master manipulator preying on someone who requires validation--sounds like the press corps, no? See also: Anonymous Liberal.
"My strong sense is that contrarianness reached its apogee in the 1990s when a general sense took over that politics was basically silly and that punditry should be seen as basically akin to the college debate circuit wherein the idea is to construct the most clever possible argument rather than to actually hit on the truth."I think there's clearly something to this. But I think it's also difficult to stand out in the media by offering sober, reasoned analysis. But offering crazy interpretations of things can do that. Back when Mickey Kaus was a regular journalist during the 90s he was largely unknown. And then he becomes Mr. Contrarian and suddenly he's one of the most famous bloggers there is, with a large readership within the media and the ability to push memes with ease. It doesn't matter that those memes are completely wrong. Kaus is merely reacting to incentives here. He's entertaining to read, but you actually get dumber reading strained metaphors and far-fetched arguments, supported by anemic evidence. Basically, he's the blog version of Transformers: entertaining perhaps, but he will make you dumber.
But there's obviously a lot of ego and status stuff too. I think that most MSM figures see it as important as being seen as impartial, but one can be impartial while actually observing facts and forming reasonable conclusions. One need not be partial to reject Sarah Palin, for example. As a matter of fact, going easy on her is very much a form of partiality, it seems to me. My sense is that the MSM would rather be seen as being partial to the right rather than partial to the left in order to defuse the "liberal media" tag, though this seems to lean very closely to classic cases of spousal abuse, in which the wife feels that taking enough abuse will somehow make the husband realize just how much she really loves him. It's nonsense, it's enabling, and usually it's because the husband is a master manipulator preying on someone who requires validation--sounds like the press corps, no? See also: Anonymous Liberal.
Meritocratic vs. Democratic, ctd.
Ta-Nehisi weighs in with an interesting take on Ross Douthat's idea that Barack Obama represents the meritocratic ideal and Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal. It's a good look at the racial implications of Ross's formulation.
Personally, I don't think that Douthat has a leg to stand on. Palin isn't the democratic ideal--she's the democratic nightmare. Palin might well represent the idea that anyone could become president, but I mean that not in the sense of this being something that we should be proud of, but rather in the sense that this is a bad thing. I think it was Clarence Darrow who said, "When I was growing up, people told me that anyone could get elected president. Now, I'm starting to believe it." He might have been talking about Harding, I don't remember. But the point is that one of the reasons that the Founding Fathers set up such a ridiculously cumbersome system of government was that they were deeply worried about mob rule--of the sort of whimsical, ignorant rabble of which Palin is the tribune. I think those fears are overstated (and I favor a rather extensive reworking of the federal government, which I feel inhibits good government by diffusing responsibility to too great an extent), but I do feel that Palin is exactly the sort that the framers were worried about. Palin's more extreme followers are people who, deep down, despise so much of our liberal inheritance, from the judicial system to the free press to freedom of speech. She's basically said variants of all of these things, and it's not like you have to go far to find similar sentiments among prominent movement conservatives (i.e. just visit The Corner). They'd give it all up immediately, just for the chance to adore Queen Sarah up on high, because then all the confusion of modern life would go away. We'd be back to the premodern, to royalism, to the divine right of kings. This scares the hell out of me, and I know that there are lots of conservatives who either don't agree with this vision, or haven't thought it through to its natural conclusion. Probably most of them. But, nevertheless, here we are. As Lyndon Johnson said, these are the stakes.
I don't personally think that Palin's an evil person, but rather a flawed person with some pretty deep character flaws--pride, narcissism, and an abiding will to power. Something that the neocons never get (perhaps because they avoid Niebuhr like the plague) is that good and evil aren't separable commodities. Nietzsche made this point, of course, in Beyond Good And Evil and Niebuhr expands on it. Not only can we be defeated by our flaws, but it's interesting how our flaws, despite our admirable components, can often be the channel through which evil flows. The only way out of this is some combination of deep self-knowledge and humility. Palin has the opposite, as did McCain, as did Bush. Hell, as did Clinton, for that matter. It's not like this is only a Republican thing. Only Obama and Reagan strike me as modern people who were even close to recognizing these problems, and the fact that we keep electing exceptionally arrogant and ignorant people to office suggests something really wrong about our political situation.
Personally, I don't think that Douthat has a leg to stand on. Palin isn't the democratic ideal--she's the democratic nightmare. Palin might well represent the idea that anyone could become president, but I mean that not in the sense of this being something that we should be proud of, but rather in the sense that this is a bad thing. I think it was Clarence Darrow who said, "When I was growing up, people told me that anyone could get elected president. Now, I'm starting to believe it." He might have been talking about Harding, I don't remember. But the point is that one of the reasons that the Founding Fathers set up such a ridiculously cumbersome system of government was that they were deeply worried about mob rule--of the sort of whimsical, ignorant rabble of which Palin is the tribune. I think those fears are overstated (and I favor a rather extensive reworking of the federal government, which I feel inhibits good government by diffusing responsibility to too great an extent), but I do feel that Palin is exactly the sort that the framers were worried about. Palin's more extreme followers are people who, deep down, despise so much of our liberal inheritance, from the judicial system to the free press to freedom of speech. She's basically said variants of all of these things, and it's not like you have to go far to find similar sentiments among prominent movement conservatives (i.e. just visit The Corner). They'd give it all up immediately, just for the chance to adore Queen Sarah up on high, because then all the confusion of modern life would go away. We'd be back to the premodern, to royalism, to the divine right of kings. This scares the hell out of me, and I know that there are lots of conservatives who either don't agree with this vision, or haven't thought it through to its natural conclusion. Probably most of them. But, nevertheless, here we are. As Lyndon Johnson said, these are the stakes.
I don't personally think that Palin's an evil person, but rather a flawed person with some pretty deep character flaws--pride, narcissism, and an abiding will to power. Something that the neocons never get (perhaps because they avoid Niebuhr like the plague) is that good and evil aren't separable commodities. Nietzsche made this point, of course, in Beyond Good And Evil and Niebuhr expands on it. Not only can we be defeated by our flaws, but it's interesting how our flaws, despite our admirable components, can often be the channel through which evil flows. The only way out of this is some combination of deep self-knowledge and humility. Palin has the opposite, as did McCain, as did Bush. Hell, as did Clinton, for that matter. It's not like this is only a Republican thing. Only Obama and Reagan strike me as modern people who were even close to recognizing these problems, and the fact that we keep electing exceptionally arrogant and ignorant people to office suggests something really wrong about our political situation.
A quick thought on Sen. Smalley
For a while, I was wondering why conservatives were so angry at Al Franken finally winning the Minnesota Senate election. I mean, it always sucks to lose, and this gives Democrats 60, which is worse, but I haven't heard of libs freaking out when Fred Thompson won a Senate seat. At some point, though, I realized that it's because Franken is outspoken and passionate, which are two qualities that conservatives really loathe in anyone who isn't a conservative (though they're highly prized amongst conservatives). It's the same reason why the right is so obsessed with minor, tinpot dictator wannabes like Ahmadinejad and Chavez. The former has little actual power, while the latter does have power over a country that is only significant for having some oil. But the right's hatred of these figures--including Franken, who has been hilariously compared to them by the right--only proves my longtime point that modern-day movement conservatism is basically based off of deep insecurity about our global standing and about the right's place in the country in particular. Going after the loudmouths that don't pose a real threat to you is a sure sign that your position is weaker than you let on. A lot of rightist activists simply don't believe that anyone could be a good-faith opponent of your policies, like Franken (but not so much Ahmadi and Chavez, admittedly).
In any event, here's an interesting article about Franken. I get a sort of Prince Hal/Henry V feel from him, as if he played up some of the silliness in his act in order to make the transformation to serious figure all the more compelling. I understand the right's attacks on him, but I hope for their sake that they aren't underestimating him. They tried that with Obama last year, I seem to recall.
In any event, here's an interesting article about Franken. I get a sort of Prince Hal/Henry V feel from him, as if he played up some of the silliness in his act in order to make the transformation to serious figure all the more compelling. I understand the right's attacks on him, but I hope for their sake that they aren't underestimating him. They tried that with Obama last year, I seem to recall.
Horsetrading for arms control
Lindsey Graham is one of those frustrating right-of-center figures--not unlike Peggy Noonan, to name the first that comes to mind--who alternate between saying entirely sensible things and entirely stupid things, often at the same time. This falls into the latter category:
It's pretty simple. Less nuclear weapons in the world = less possibility of a nuclear war + less of a chance of nukes falling into the hands of terrorists. Russia and America get exactly the same benefit from this arrangement--essentially, more peace of mind. Granted, the Russians have gotten stronger in recent years, and while it is often treated as some sort of disaster that they are looking after their own self-interest instead of ours I think that a stronger Russia means less chance of loose nukes floating about. Sadly, it looks like the right is going to come out against reducing nuclear weapons, for reasons that make absolutely no sense.
Still, this whole horsetrading thing is deeply silly. I've come to accept that Republicans are never going to give up the ghost on missile defense. It's been a bigger waste of money than the drug war in terms of achieving its objectives, and almost a textbook case of the sort of thing the government can't do. Directing scientific research in this fashion is simply not something that the government does well. But Reagan wanted it (though he also wanted disarmament, but that can't be put in purely nationalistic terms, so screw it), and there are a few broken-down cold warriors who probably still want a first strike option against Moscow, which is, by the way, the only real reason why this is on anyone's radar screens. It's why this idea came from the hard right. It comes from a place that says that we should be able to do anything we want, and the rest of the world can suck it. There's the whole argument about "making nuclear weapons irrelevant" that I find more acceptable, but if that were the case, surely sharing this research with everyone would be better, in order to pool resources and try to stop this threat? Then it wouldn't look so much like the other thing. If you ever wonder why Russia hates this stuff so much, well, this is the reason why. They don't want to be nuked with impunity! Of course, for a lot of Respectable People, making Russia mad is the goal of Russia policy. John McCain clearly thinks this, and it seems that his mini-me Graham does too.
New McCain motto: personal pique first!
The Hill reports that Senate Republicans have a rare opportunity exercise leverage on President Obama's new agreements on arms reduction with Russia, which will require a two-thirds majority in the Senate in order to be ratified. Republicans are likely to apply pressure on missile defense, as explained by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): "I don't want the Russians to get something and we get nothing. I don't know what we're getting out of this."
It's pretty simple. Less nuclear weapons in the world = less possibility of a nuclear war + less of a chance of nukes falling into the hands of terrorists. Russia and America get exactly the same benefit from this arrangement--essentially, more peace of mind. Granted, the Russians have gotten stronger in recent years, and while it is often treated as some sort of disaster that they are looking after their own self-interest instead of ours I think that a stronger Russia means less chance of loose nukes floating about. Sadly, it looks like the right is going to come out against reducing nuclear weapons, for reasons that make absolutely no sense.
Still, this whole horsetrading thing is deeply silly. I've come to accept that Republicans are never going to give up the ghost on missile defense. It's been a bigger waste of money than the drug war in terms of achieving its objectives, and almost a textbook case of the sort of thing the government can't do. Directing scientific research in this fashion is simply not something that the government does well. But Reagan wanted it (though he also wanted disarmament, but that can't be put in purely nationalistic terms, so screw it), and there are a few broken-down cold warriors who probably still want a first strike option against Moscow, which is, by the way, the only real reason why this is on anyone's radar screens. It's why this idea came from the hard right. It comes from a place that says that we should be able to do anything we want, and the rest of the world can suck it. There's the whole argument about "making nuclear weapons irrelevant" that I find more acceptable, but if that were the case, surely sharing this research with everyone would be better, in order to pool resources and try to stop this threat? Then it wouldn't look so much like the other thing. If you ever wonder why Russia hates this stuff so much, well, this is the reason why. They don't want to be nuked with impunity! Of course, for a lot of Respectable People, making Russia mad is the goal of Russia policy. John McCain clearly thinks this, and it seems that his mini-me Graham does too.
New McCain motto: personal pique first!
Monday, July 6, 2009
A liberal semi-defense of Vietnam
Doug over at Balloon Juice makes the inevitable comparison between McNamara and Rumsfeld. I recommend reading some of the comments at the site. And I decided to weigh in.
I've always been annoyed by the Iraq=Vietnam trope that lefties have used to view the Iraq War through, because I feel that the comparison between Vietnam and Iraq is too kind to Iraq. I think both were wrong, stupid, pointless wars, but Vietnam was different in numerous ways, not the least of which were that (1) Vietnam was launched under the banner of communist containment, a long-lived and durable policy consensus that had been fully articulated and fleshed out, and (2) Johnson feared political damage if he "lost" Vietnam in the same way that Truman "lost" China, a development which, along with firing MacArthur, ended any plans of a third Truman term. The Democrats paid dearly for the China debacle and LBJ wanted no part of it. Now, let's face it, these are poor arguments for entering a war, but they are arguments. Johnson could have done a whole lot better, but at least one can find some logic deep down in history's innards. Not enough to explain the essential insanity completely, but something.
Iraq looks much worse by comparison. There was no political need for Bush to take us into Iraq--after 9/11 and Afghanistan, Bush was a national hero and the notion that Democrats would have attacked him for not liberating Iraq--hell, the notion that Democrats back then would have criticized him on any foreign policy decision--is ridiculous. Additionally, Iraq wasn't part of any grand theory of foreign relations that Bush offered. Admittedly, there was that Clinton-era congressional resolution that set the policy of the United States as favoring regime change in Iraq, but it was largely symbolic. In fact, Bush had little in the way of foreign policy ideas going into office, aside from running a "humbler" foreign policy. Both Bush and Johnson allowed themselves to be manipulated, to some extent, by wily operators in their administration, but Vietnam ate away at both Johnson and McNamara, to the extent that they both left their jobs early and felt the weight of it for the rest of their lives. Johnson would be dead within four years of leaving office. Meanwhile, there are few stories about Bush agonizing or second-guessing his decisions, let alone making them right, as Johnson tried to do by convening peace talks in October 1968 (which were stymied by Republican Presidential candidate Richard Nixon, of course).
Once again, I tend to think that both wars were bad wars. But one can at least see the reasons why Johnson made his decision, and while there was lots of arrogance and ignorance and willful delusion in both cases I still think that the comparison between the two goes little further than that, and also that they were both unnecessary.
I've always been annoyed by the Iraq=Vietnam trope that lefties have used to view the Iraq War through, because I feel that the comparison between Vietnam and Iraq is too kind to Iraq. I think both were wrong, stupid, pointless wars, but Vietnam was different in numerous ways, not the least of which were that (1) Vietnam was launched under the banner of communist containment, a long-lived and durable policy consensus that had been fully articulated and fleshed out, and (2) Johnson feared political damage if he "lost" Vietnam in the same way that Truman "lost" China, a development which, along with firing MacArthur, ended any plans of a third Truman term. The Democrats paid dearly for the China debacle and LBJ wanted no part of it. Now, let's face it, these are poor arguments for entering a war, but they are arguments. Johnson could have done a whole lot better, but at least one can find some logic deep down in history's innards. Not enough to explain the essential insanity completely, but something.
Iraq looks much worse by comparison. There was no political need for Bush to take us into Iraq--after 9/11 and Afghanistan, Bush was a national hero and the notion that Democrats would have attacked him for not liberating Iraq--hell, the notion that Democrats back then would have criticized him on any foreign policy decision--is ridiculous. Additionally, Iraq wasn't part of any grand theory of foreign relations that Bush offered. Admittedly, there was that Clinton-era congressional resolution that set the policy of the United States as favoring regime change in Iraq, but it was largely symbolic. In fact, Bush had little in the way of foreign policy ideas going into office, aside from running a "humbler" foreign policy. Both Bush and Johnson allowed themselves to be manipulated, to some extent, by wily operators in their administration, but Vietnam ate away at both Johnson and McNamara, to the extent that they both left their jobs early and felt the weight of it for the rest of their lives. Johnson would be dead within four years of leaving office. Meanwhile, there are few stories about Bush agonizing or second-guessing his decisions, let alone making them right, as Johnson tried to do by convening peace talks in October 1968 (which were stymied by Republican Presidential candidate Richard Nixon, of course).
Once again, I tend to think that both wars were bad wars. But one can at least see the reasons why Johnson made his decision, and while there was lots of arrogance and ignorance and willful delusion in both cases I still think that the comparison between the two goes little further than that, and also that they were both unnecessary.
Obligatory post on La Palin
I feel like I have to address the Palin resignation, but I think the emerging consensus is largely correct: it's an inscrutable move by a borderline deranged woman who thinks that she can do literally anything to advance her ambitions, and that the resignation torpedoes any chance she has of actually beating Barack Obama in 2012. Okay, maybe others aren't being this blunt. Still, I have at times made several predictions about the next few years of politics, and I feel that they're still good ones (click on the tag below for more):
This being said, I don't think it's impossible that she'd get the nomination. Her acolytes simply don't care about such considerations as electability, and the grassroots support means lots of activists and a potentially strong grassroots network similar to Obama's in 2008. There was never a point where Obama led Clinton by more than a few points in the polls after the campaign reached its terminal stage, but from March on there was no way he could lose. This was because he and his supporters outhustled Clinton, plain and simple. Of course, Obama also had a top-notch team of logicians, which I don't think Palin will have (I basically agree with Mike Tomasky here). It seems to me that the biggest fight for 2012 will be between Palin and Huckabee. Romney is a natural target for Palin's resentments, but even if he gets out of the race it seems doubtful that Romney's country-club supporters will flock to Palin, while Huckabee's might. All three were roughly even in the polling the last time I checked, but it seems as though Huckabee and Palin have roughly similar profiles and attract roughly similar types of voters, and with both of them splitting those voters it's possible that Romney might squeak through.
And, on a related topic, I basically agree with these guys on Ross Douthat's latest column. You'd think that an upper-middle class, Harvard undergrad, New York Times op-ed columnist would avoid hackery about cultural signifiers about class, but you'd be wrong. It's not that I don't believe that there is cultural elitism, or that it's a bad thing, but I just don't think that (a) Palin's class or sex had much to do with her failure--if that were it, her facility at playing the reverse snobbery and sexist cards would have pulled her through, and (b) I simply don't think that Douthat has all that much insight into what "Middle America" thinks when he thinks Palin is huge over there, while President Obama won every state in the Midwest except for Missouri (and that was defeat by a razor-thin margin). Reminds me of Geraldine Ferraro's pitch about only Clinton being able to win Reagan Democrats--because who better to know how to do that than the person who lost them in the first place, right? It's not a completely bad column--it's sure as hell better than Kristol's usual sludge--but it sure seems like Douthat's hedging a lot these days, pretty much ever since he went from being a fairly obscure Atlantic blogger to being a prominent Times writer. He's gone from being an observer to being a player, basically. And I totally, totally understand this transformation, and Douthat at least has some scruples and principles, but I guess I feel that something's been lost in the transition between blog and column. He's establishment now.
- Sarah Palin will be the 2012 nominee.
- At some point during the process of getting there, she will have a full-on breakdown (I think we've just seen one, but there may be more in the future). She cannot handle the pressure.
- This will cause the remaining reasonable conservatives to abandon Palin, and vast chunks of the center-right apparatus will abandon the race rather than be associated with Palin, essentially mirroring the circumstances of the 1972 presidential election. I suspect that the GOP's division after the election will be roughly analogous to the Democrats' back then.
- Charlie Crist gets the GOP nomination in 2016.
This being said, I don't think it's impossible that she'd get the nomination. Her acolytes simply don't care about such considerations as electability, and the grassroots support means lots of activists and a potentially strong grassroots network similar to Obama's in 2008. There was never a point where Obama led Clinton by more than a few points in the polls after the campaign reached its terminal stage, but from March on there was no way he could lose. This was because he and his supporters outhustled Clinton, plain and simple. Of course, Obama also had a top-notch team of logicians, which I don't think Palin will have (I basically agree with Mike Tomasky here). It seems to me that the biggest fight for 2012 will be between Palin and Huckabee. Romney is a natural target for Palin's resentments, but even if he gets out of the race it seems doubtful that Romney's country-club supporters will flock to Palin, while Huckabee's might. All three were roughly even in the polling the last time I checked, but it seems as though Huckabee and Palin have roughly similar profiles and attract roughly similar types of voters, and with both of them splitting those voters it's possible that Romney might squeak through.
And, on a related topic, I basically agree with these guys on Ross Douthat's latest column. You'd think that an upper-middle class, Harvard undergrad, New York Times op-ed columnist would avoid hackery about cultural signifiers about class, but you'd be wrong. It's not that I don't believe that there is cultural elitism, or that it's a bad thing, but I just don't think that (a) Palin's class or sex had much to do with her failure--if that were it, her facility at playing the reverse snobbery and sexist cards would have pulled her through, and (b) I simply don't think that Douthat has all that much insight into what "Middle America" thinks when he thinks Palin is huge over there, while President Obama won every state in the Midwest except for Missouri (and that was defeat by a razor-thin margin). Reminds me of Geraldine Ferraro's pitch about only Clinton being able to win Reagan Democrats--because who better to know how to do that than the person who lost them in the first place, right? It's not a completely bad column--it's sure as hell better than Kristol's usual sludge--but it sure seems like Douthat's hedging a lot these days, pretty much ever since he went from being a fairly obscure Atlantic blogger to being a prominent Times writer. He's gone from being an observer to being a player, basically. And I totally, totally understand this transformation, and Douthat at least has some scruples and principles, but I guess I feel that something's been lost in the transition between blog and column. He's establishment now.
The GOP's going to need a bigger boat...
Because Newt is going to sink them. This strikes me as dubious:
This seems to be just as much wishful thinking and delusion as the Democrats' recent strategy has been realistic and clear-headed. Democrats ran socially and sometimes even economically conservative Democrats in districts where anyone further to the left than Ben Nelson couldn't win. As much as Dems loathe Ben Nelson, when the alternative is another Mike Johanns it's easy to see that things could be much worse. In all fairness, Ben Nelson should find himself in the conservative coalition, as should his ilk, but such is life. Nelson's too sane and too actually conservative to fit into the Republican caucus at this point in time. (And, of course, Nelson has been around much longer than a few years, but I'm just using him as an example of a Democrat who fits his conservative state reasonably well--I could easily have said Bobby Bright (D-AL) instead, who was just elected last year and is highly conservative.) But I think this strategy has been good in general--it's helped the Democrats to find new voters in the Rust Belt by conceding some issues, like guns, and deemphasizing other cultural issues in favor of a popular, economically-centered message.
The GOP counterpoint to this strategy would be--assuming that they intend also to make economic issues the centerpiece of their agenda--to recruit candidates who are socially liberal and perhaps more realist on foreign policy, while being essentially libertarian on economic issues. Employing this strategy could reap the GOP some benefits--there are some states like Maine and New Hampshire that would seem like the natural targets of this message, as well as much of the territory they've lost in the Southwest, which is much more libertarian than liberal. This strategy wouldn't be without risk, and I suspect that it would only help Democrats cement the Midwest in the immediate future. But it could work. Actually, there's a name for this sort of activity--it's called fucking politics and it's not exactly new. The GOP seems to labor under the illusion that not only must issue positions never change, but their relative emphases must never change. As we've seen, this has not exactly been rewarding for them.
But Newt's idea here is simply silly. It's unclear to me what effect Republican support of a more conservative Democrat in a more liberal Democratic area would help, as they are intentionally not involved in the process of selecting nominees (aside from the case of open primaries, I suppose, though registered Republicans cannot vote in Democratic primaries in California, his example). It's unclear to me how trying to turn presumably the most liberal voters into conservatives is a good strategy. The liberal equivalent would have been for Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean to try to promote liberal Republicans in the Deep South in 2006, something that would have dispirited the local Democratic infrastructure, wouldn't have worked and would have baffled the political mainstream. The notion that Newt Gingrich's opinions--or those of Republican leaders in general--would hold any sway among staunch Democrats is weird enough, but I think this says more about the state of Republicanism than it does about anything else--Newt seems to be operating under the notion that Democrats in deep blue areas only care about the Democratic Party qua Democratic Party and not about progressive principles. I realize that the Republican Party has become even more partisan than they were just a few years ago--no mean feat, by the way--but Newt seems to think that liberals are essentially yokels who will vote for anyone with a D beside his (or her) name. This strikes me as wildly unlikely. I suspect that the Bay Area would go third party if the Democratic Party started looking like Ben Nelson, and this is indeed what seemed to happen in 2000, when the DLC-oriented Democratic Party was deemed too moderate by many left-wing activists and Ralph Nader won ~3% of the vote. Admittedly, this was before Al Gore became a left-wing hero for his Bush-era statements on Iraq and his work on global warming. But even the perception that the Democrats were too close to the right (one which turned out to be largely untrue, and which took the wind out of Nader's sails after 2000) led to an historically large defection from the left. Even then Gore was well to the left of the Nelsons of the party. Imagine what would happen if Nelson were to become the bellweather of the Democratic Party. The Democrats would be finished, plain and simple. There's also the example of prominent bloggers on the left critiquing President Obama for his perceived inaction on most every issue, something that did not really happen with President Bush, even though Bush did things that were rather more heterodox than Obama has done (Medicare Part D comes to mind). Simply put, the GOP on a grassroots and elite level is more hierarchical, deferential and partisan than the Democrats. And that's truer now than it ever was.
But, then again, we all know that Gingrich is a pseudointellectual conman whose greatest accomplishment was to win an election that the Republicans were almost certain to win, and to introduce a series of policies--the Contract With America--that were irrelevant, mostly unimplemented, and are now largely forgotten and unmourned. His "plan" really is Newt in a nutshell--all wishful thinking that doesn't make any sense upon further inspection, but it's "bold" and unique and therefore deserving of reams of discussion and digital ink. Of course, Republicans could work on a better strategy for gaining congressional seats in 2010, but developing a good electoral strategy would involve pesky little things like "gauging voters' concerns" and "formulating good policy" and "selecting priorities" and not just going onto cable chat shows where the hosts gush about what a man of ideas you are. And that's really all that Newt can do at this point.
The Gingrich comeback strategy "includes building a center-right majority in Congress and the state legislatures -- regardless of party identification -- even if that means the heretical idea of Republicans actively promoting and backing conservative Democratic candidates in selected races where a GOP candidate would have little chance of winning."I'll admit that there is an actual actionable idea here--which is more than can be said for most of Newt's schemes. But I think this is entirely backward, and it is solipsistic in the extreme. The reason why Democrats win in heavily Democratic areas isn't because people in these areas are in love with the Democratic Party, it's because these people are liberal. Running a conservative Democrat against Pete Stark isn't going to make much difference in the grand scheme of things. I guess I don't completely understand Newt's assumptions, but I doubt he does either, so away we go.
Said the former House Speaker: "I would urge conservatives in California to find a Democrat to run in every Assembly and Senate seat in California that can't be contested by Republicans, and then to run a Republican in every seat they could possibly win, and then have an overt goal of creating a bipartisan conservative coalition. I'd do the same thing nationally."
This seems to be just as much wishful thinking and delusion as the Democrats' recent strategy has been realistic and clear-headed. Democrats ran socially and sometimes even economically conservative Democrats in districts where anyone further to the left than Ben Nelson couldn't win. As much as Dems loathe Ben Nelson, when the alternative is another Mike Johanns it's easy to see that things could be much worse. In all fairness, Ben Nelson should find himself in the conservative coalition, as should his ilk, but such is life. Nelson's too sane and too actually conservative to fit into the Republican caucus at this point in time. (And, of course, Nelson has been around much longer than a few years, but I'm just using him as an example of a Democrat who fits his conservative state reasonably well--I could easily have said Bobby Bright (D-AL) instead, who was just elected last year and is highly conservative.) But I think this strategy has been good in general--it's helped the Democrats to find new voters in the Rust Belt by conceding some issues, like guns, and deemphasizing other cultural issues in favor of a popular, economically-centered message.
The GOP counterpoint to this strategy would be--assuming that they intend also to make economic issues the centerpiece of their agenda--to recruit candidates who are socially liberal and perhaps more realist on foreign policy, while being essentially libertarian on economic issues. Employing this strategy could reap the GOP some benefits--there are some states like Maine and New Hampshire that would seem like the natural targets of this message, as well as much of the territory they've lost in the Southwest, which is much more libertarian than liberal. This strategy wouldn't be without risk, and I suspect that it would only help Democrats cement the Midwest in the immediate future. But it could work. Actually, there's a name for this sort of activity--it's called fucking politics and it's not exactly new. The GOP seems to labor under the illusion that not only must issue positions never change, but their relative emphases must never change. As we've seen, this has not exactly been rewarding for them.
But Newt's idea here is simply silly. It's unclear to me what effect Republican support of a more conservative Democrat in a more liberal Democratic area would help, as they are intentionally not involved in the process of selecting nominees (aside from the case of open primaries, I suppose, though registered Republicans cannot vote in Democratic primaries in California, his example). It's unclear to me how trying to turn presumably the most liberal voters into conservatives is a good strategy. The liberal equivalent would have been for Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean to try to promote liberal Republicans in the Deep South in 2006, something that would have dispirited the local Democratic infrastructure, wouldn't have worked and would have baffled the political mainstream. The notion that Newt Gingrich's opinions--or those of Republican leaders in general--would hold any sway among staunch Democrats is weird enough, but I think this says more about the state of Republicanism than it does about anything else--Newt seems to be operating under the notion that Democrats in deep blue areas only care about the Democratic Party qua Democratic Party and not about progressive principles. I realize that the Republican Party has become even more partisan than they were just a few years ago--no mean feat, by the way--but Newt seems to think that liberals are essentially yokels who will vote for anyone with a D beside his (or her) name. This strikes me as wildly unlikely. I suspect that the Bay Area would go third party if the Democratic Party started looking like Ben Nelson, and this is indeed what seemed to happen in 2000, when the DLC-oriented Democratic Party was deemed too moderate by many left-wing activists and Ralph Nader won ~3% of the vote. Admittedly, this was before Al Gore became a left-wing hero for his Bush-era statements on Iraq and his work on global warming. But even the perception that the Democrats were too close to the right (one which turned out to be largely untrue, and which took the wind out of Nader's sails after 2000) led to an historically large defection from the left. Even then Gore was well to the left of the Nelsons of the party. Imagine what would happen if Nelson were to become the bellweather of the Democratic Party. The Democrats would be finished, plain and simple. There's also the example of prominent bloggers on the left critiquing President Obama for his perceived inaction on most every issue, something that did not really happen with President Bush, even though Bush did things that were rather more heterodox than Obama has done (Medicare Part D comes to mind). Simply put, the GOP on a grassroots and elite level is more hierarchical, deferential and partisan than the Democrats. And that's truer now than it ever was.
But, then again, we all know that Gingrich is a pseudointellectual conman whose greatest accomplishment was to win an election that the Republicans were almost certain to win, and to introduce a series of policies--the Contract With America--that were irrelevant, mostly unimplemented, and are now largely forgotten and unmourned. His "plan" really is Newt in a nutshell--all wishful thinking that doesn't make any sense upon further inspection, but it's "bold" and unique and therefore deserving of reams of discussion and digital ink. Of course, Republicans could work on a better strategy for gaining congressional seats in 2010, but developing a good electoral strategy would involve pesky little things like "gauging voters' concerns" and "formulating good policy" and "selecting priorities" and not just going onto cable chat shows where the hosts gush about what a man of ideas you are. And that's really all that Newt can do at this point.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Why the libs hate Palin
Via Weigel, two right-wing pundits opine on the subject:
If these guys' theories were to hold, though, then liberals should have hated Huckabee far more than Bush, which isn't true even now. But it is a self-serving explanation that makes liberals the bad guys, so it's unsurprising that the Hugh Hewitts of the world have embraced it so thoroughly. My theory on Palinophobia is pretty simple: Sarah Palin encapsulates everything that liberals dislike about conservatism, but it goes even deeper than that. Liberals have watched helplessly as movement conservatives have eroded away the very foundations of our enlightenment-based society, as everything from science to academia to journalism to the very idea of an objective truth have come within the crosshairs of right-wingers, along with their unwitting pals in the Washington press corps, among others. There's nothing conservative about any of this, of course, but it's rather an attempt by the conservative movement to entrench its power and delegitimize any opposition to its precepts. Of course it's a movement that is corrupt to its core, and honest conservatives have begun to realize just how bad it's gotten (and some, like myself once upon a time, have bolted the team altogether). I'm not of the Rick Perlstein camp that believes that it's always been this way, but it is this way now. And Palin is merely the culmination of this tradition--someone who lies easily and ridiculously, to whom truth is simply passe. The notion that this woman might hold high office is a truly horrifying concept to liberals. We could give a damn about her looks. We care about her twisted worldview and what she says about our culture. Palin isn't the absence of the enlightenment tradition, she is the end of the enlightenment tradition, and that's why she must be stopped.
Perhaps this is a little too melodramatic, and I'll be the first to admit that she drew some really unfair media coverage at various times during the campaign. But I don't think that bad coverage is enough to explain the colossal trainwreck that was Palin-McCain 2008, nor is it enough to explain her polarizing effect. I think the best analogy I can draw is with the right's hatred of Bill Clinton, who more or less embodied everything the right hated about the left. Of course, Clinton was largely benign, and I suspect that Palin being elected wouldn't be the end of the universe, either. But at least Clinton had the qualifications for the job. Palin doesn't. And the Clinton antipathy was driven largely by hysteria rather than purely evidence-based concerns. (Okay, I won't claim that there's no hysteria about Palin on the left, but there's not just smoke there. I see it as being more justified than the Clinton stuff.)
I think this reveals more about these particular men than it does about liberal attitudes. None of my liberal friends give a damn about her appearance or personality, and my guess is that most would find her decision to have a Down's Syndrome child a commendable one, an act of integrity at the very least. I wonder if the right really believes that liberals merely dislike Palin for her image or symbolic qualities, and if so, that merely reaffirms the right's obsession with these qualities as a substitute for substance. This is not a new thing, either. Palin, Michael Steele, George W. Bush--these were all conservatives whose symbolism was supposedly the thing that made liberals hate them and try to destroy them, when in reality liberals wouldn't have hated Bush nearly as much had he not demonized them and enacted such disastrous hard-right policies. For example, before he started talking about rewriting the constitution to be more biblical, Mike Huckabee had a number of liberal admirers due to his more progressive stands on the environment, poverty, and scope of government relative to the Republican Party in general, despite being even more conservative than Bush on social issues, and also being roughly cut from the same cultural cloth (though Huckabee was both less stupid and more authentically evangelical). I can tell you that I certainly liked the guy despite his hard-line social conservatism because he seemed somewhat sane and he seemed to actually cared about regular people. I've revised my opinion of him sharply downward since that business with rewriting the constitution, and his USSA speech was sort of the final straw, but I'm not exactly atypical of the liberals I talk to (which includes, coincidentally, a few Hollywood lefty types).My first thought was that it tied heavily to her appearance; in liberals’ minds, conservatives are supposed to look like the couple from the painting American Gothic: Dour and joyless, aged, spartan and frail. Political leaders aren’t supposed to be young, really good looking women, full of energy, smiles and winks.
Hugh suggested it tied to the contrast between her lifestyle and her critics: “She is the embodiment of the anti-choice, the opposite of every choice that lefty elites have ever made — as to going back home instead of moving to the west coast, having children, having a child with Downs, staying married to one man the whole time, choosing rural or suburban over urban and living a generally conservative lifestyle, working with her hands… That everything she is is the antithesis of everything that liberal urban elites are, so it’s not just enough to say, ‘I disagree with you,’; she has to be repudiated and crushed.”
If these guys' theories were to hold, though, then liberals should have hated Huckabee far more than Bush, which isn't true even now. But it is a self-serving explanation that makes liberals the bad guys, so it's unsurprising that the Hugh Hewitts of the world have embraced it so thoroughly. My theory on Palinophobia is pretty simple: Sarah Palin encapsulates everything that liberals dislike about conservatism, but it goes even deeper than that. Liberals have watched helplessly as movement conservatives have eroded away the very foundations of our enlightenment-based society, as everything from science to academia to journalism to the very idea of an objective truth have come within the crosshairs of right-wingers, along with their unwitting pals in the Washington press corps, among others. There's nothing conservative about any of this, of course, but it's rather an attempt by the conservative movement to entrench its power and delegitimize any opposition to its precepts. Of course it's a movement that is corrupt to its core, and honest conservatives have begun to realize just how bad it's gotten (and some, like myself once upon a time, have bolted the team altogether). I'm not of the Rick Perlstein camp that believes that it's always been this way, but it is this way now. And Palin is merely the culmination of this tradition--someone who lies easily and ridiculously, to whom truth is simply passe. The notion that this woman might hold high office is a truly horrifying concept to liberals. We could give a damn about her looks. We care about her twisted worldview and what she says about our culture. Palin isn't the absence of the enlightenment tradition, she is the end of the enlightenment tradition, and that's why she must be stopped.
Perhaps this is a little too melodramatic, and I'll be the first to admit that she drew some really unfair media coverage at various times during the campaign. But I don't think that bad coverage is enough to explain the colossal trainwreck that was Palin-McCain 2008, nor is it enough to explain her polarizing effect. I think the best analogy I can draw is with the right's hatred of Bill Clinton, who more or less embodied everything the right hated about the left. Of course, Clinton was largely benign, and I suspect that Palin being elected wouldn't be the end of the universe, either. But at least Clinton had the qualifications for the job. Palin doesn't. And the Clinton antipathy was driven largely by hysteria rather than purely evidence-based concerns. (Okay, I won't claim that there's no hysteria about Palin on the left, but there's not just smoke there. I see it as being more justified than the Clinton stuff.)
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
The state of compassionate conservatism today
Via Benen: "The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama Bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States." That would be a quote from a guest on Glenn Beck's show. Just imagine if a liberal had said something similar during the Bush years with respect to Iraq. Where, oh where, is the vaunted liberal media on this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)