- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- Jan 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Feb 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–29
- Mar 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Apr 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- May 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Jun 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- Jul 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Aug 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Sep 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Oct 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Nov 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Dec 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Dear Dick . . .
Posted by on 11.15.08 @ 5:52PM
Dear Dick Cavett:
Like you, I value the power of language and appreciate the importance of grammar, and wish that our political leaders were more articulate However, I do not mistake eloquence for intelligence, knowledge or wisdom. It is possible to be both glib and wrong, as your vicious putdown of Sarah Palin demonstrates.
When confronted with a question she does not wish to answer or relating to a subject with which she is insufficiently familiar, Palin resorts to the same sort of rambling evasions that we've come to expect from politicians in such circumstances. But have you ever really paid close attention to Barack Obama when he's off the TelePrompter? Demosthenes, he ain't.
You ask:
Has there been a poll to see if the Sarah-ites are numbered among that baffling 26 percent of our population who, despite everything, still maintain that President George has done a heckuva job?
First, the preferred term is Palinistas, not "Sarah-ites." Second -- in case you missed it, Dick -- Palin herself is not among that 26 percent. Of course, I don't expect you to read provincial journals like the Anchorage Daily News, but neither do I interpret your reliance on Maureen Dowd's reporting as evidence of your superiority.
-- RSM
Obama and Weekly Youtube Addresses
Posted by on 11.15.08 @ 1:27PM
Here's the latest spin on fireside chats: Youtube addresses. And before one even takes office!
Man. That flag's got to be pretty annoying when he has to get out of his chair. Or when he reaches for those books by John F. Kennedy. Which he refers to a lot. Just so you know. Despite the flag sometimes getting in the way.
Crazy in California
Posted by on 11.15.08 @ 1:53AM
If you tell people that they are being oppressed, that they are the victims of gross injustice and bigotry, that their "rights" have been violated, it tends to inspire a sense of self-righteous, antinomian rage:
Via Hot Air, which links to Diana West's account of how gay-rights thugs tried to intimidate the elderly Mormon co-owner of a famous Mexican restaurant, El Coyote, who gave $100 to the "Yes on 8" campaign.
UPDATE: Brownshirt tactics explained:
"My goal was to make it socially unacceptable to give huge amounts of money to take away the rights of one particular group, a minority group," says Fred Karger, a retired political consultant and founder of Californians Against Hate.
Irony? Did somebody say "irony"?
Friday, November 14, 2008
Democrats: Party of the Rich
Posted by on 11.14.08 @ 11:13PM
Barack Obama's campaign raised somewhere north of $640 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The latest available figures are only through Oct. 15, and it's likely the final total will be nearly $700 million. By comparison, John McCain's campaign raised $370 million, and as the CRP notes:
Because McCain opted into the public financing system during the general election, he faced an $84 million limit on what he could spend, putting him at a huge disadvantage compared to Obama, who raised $66 million more than that in September alone.
Just in case you're wondering, the Republican National Committee's expenditures could not have possibly made up the gap between McCain's $84 million and Obama's fundraising, which was about $150 million in September alone. The RNC raised only $336 million in the entire 2-year cycle.
If you think about it, the Obama campaign was the biggest growth industry in America over the past two years. Not all of the campaign's expenditures have been fully itemized, but they spent more than $160 million on TV ads.
In discussions of "what went wrong" for the GOP this year, the Democrats' massive financial advantage in the 2008 cycle has to be taken into account.
(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
Obama Wins One in Nebraska
Posted by on 11.14.08 @ 9:15PM
Barack Obama has won one of Nebraska's electorate votes, carrying the Omaha-centered congressional district. John McCain won the others and the state as a whole, taking the other four electoral votes.
Re: Lungren
Posted by on 11.14.08 @ 6:20PM
There will be plenty of time to comment in the coming days on the Lungren candidacy. And let this comment right now be no indication of opposition to (or support for) John Boehner, who on some things has fought the good fight for years. But let it be said that Lungren is an underappreciated hero of the conservative cause. Yes, he ran a bad campaign for governor of California in 1998, but other than that he has been one of the best of the best. He was one of five co-founders (Gingrich, the pre-beltwayed Lott, Kemp, and I forget the fifth, maybe Bob Walker) of the Conservative Opportunity Society in the early 1980s, which was one of the most important (and too often forgotten now) groups in the development of the conservative movement's long march to congressional ascension that finally culminated in the four years of the Gingrich speakership. Lungren is a good, good man. It is a good thing that he is engaged in the leadership process.
Lungren Challenges Boehner
Posted by on 11.14.08 @ 4:54PM
Congressman Dan Lungren of California has announced he is challenging John Boehner for the top leadership spot in the House Republican Conference.
Hillary as Diplomat
Posted by on 11.14.08 @ 4:46PM
Huffington Post reports that Hillary was offered a position as secretary of state. The press office notes:
"She had meetings with some Prime Ministers and Presidents where she had to deliver some blunt messages for us."
Which blunt messages were those, and why, exactly, was she doing this as First Lady? And if she was doing it as part of the Senate, let's hear it.
Michael Steele's Glass is Half Full
Posted by on 11.14.08 @ 4:29PM
I just got off a bloggers' conference call for Michael Steele, who is running for chairman of the Republican National Committee. Steele held himself up as an effective conservative messenger, someone who would stand up for the party's core values but be able to communicate them in non-threatening ways to audiences that have traditionally been unreceptive to Republicans.
Steele criticized the McCain campaign and the GOP more generally for letting the Obama campaign "play the race card" with impunity. Steele pointed to Obama's effectiveness against the Clintons in the primaries and also McCain's fear of raising the Reverend Wright issue in the general election. Steel argued that it would be difficult to play the race card against him. Yet he also disavowed the idea that his color (Steele, like Obama, is black) was a reason to elect him chairman of the RNC.
Steele contended that Republicans need to find ways to make their arguments on Social Security reform, immigration, and cutting goverrnment without making it easy for Democrats to cariacture their positions. In those cases, as well as on the energy issue, Steele felt the GOP was taking the right stand but making it too easy at times for Democrats to launch attacks against the Republicans as racist, xenophopic, etc. He said he would make it clearer that Republicans understood the real people involved in these issues. He didn't provide detailed examples of how he'd vary the arguments or better utilize technology, but he did vow to be a positive face for the Republican Party.
I asked him if he thought the fact he wasn't a current member of the Republican National Committee was a liability, since it's been reported that RNC members prefer to pick from within. He more or less said no. I wrote about Steele's 2006 Senate race in an American Conservative piece about the "year of the black Republican" at the time.
Physician, uh TREAT Thyself
Posted by on 11.14.08 @ 3:56PM
The thug Putin apparently made quite a vivid threat against Georgia's leader Saakashvilli. Frankly, that's what somebody ought to do to Putin.
What I've Been Saying for Weeks
Posted by on 11.14.08 @ 2:50PM
Whenever I try to make this point, my more intellectual friends sneer that I'm just being a know-nothing populist, but here is University of Maryland professor James G. Gimpel:
For 50 years now, survey research has suggested just that: It is, in fact, wrong, because there is no coherent center. There are no fixed, well-considered policy positions in the center to which voters there adhere.
The research suggests that those who at various times occupy this center, often described as moderates or independents, are not very knowledgeable about or interested in politics. They do not follow campaign coverage closely, are inconsistent in their policy views, and are often not able to identify what positions are liberal or conservative.
What characterizes the centrist voter is not some peculiar set of policy positions, but rather ignorance of policy issues in general, coupled with vague impressions of the "goodness" or "badness" of the times. So-called centrist or moderate voters can't even be counted on to vote.
This relates to the Samuel Popkin "low-information rationality" theory I referenced yesterday. Making an ideological or policy-specific interpretation of election results ignores the fact that independent voters decide elections and these voters are generally the least-informed members of the electorate.
It's like the $700 billion bailout. The Ordinary American doesn't know the intricate details of the financial crisis, but he can figure out that the government is giving a fat wad of cash to a bunch of high rollers who've already screwed up big-time, and he doesn't like it. It is not lowbrow populism to tell this voter, "Yeah, you're right," because there are plenty of respectable economists who say the bailout was a lousy idea. But if you incorrectly assume that the independent voter is a "centrist," you're going to miss the chance to make the libertarian populist argument.
RNC Challenging McCain-Feingold
Posted by on 11.14.08 @ 2:29PM
Yesterday Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan held a conference call to announce that the RNC is suing in Louisiana and the District of Columbia to challenge the constitutionality of parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Finanance Reform Act. At issue is whether the RNC can raise and spend money on behalf of non-federal candidates (particularly governors) and also coordinated expenditure limits. These two issues become especically important as redistricting fights loom in 2010 and statewide races become critical comeback opportunities for the GOP.
Duncan repeatedly defended the RNC's position on grounds of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of association." But it's also clear that the RNC is trying to defend its position as a national, and not merely federal, party. At the national level, the RNC was the only Republican entity to outraise its Democratic counterpart during the 2008 election cycle.
Republicans and the Rahm Emanuel Strategy
Posted by on 11.14.08 @ 1:30PM
I don't think anyone who looks at the platforms of Republicans running in the Northeast or even the Pacific West can say that the GOP generally refuses to run candidates who deviate from the party line on certain issues. In some respects, Rahm Emanuel is doing for Democrats what his party used to do and the Republicans have done for years in recognizing geographical and ideological diversity. Throughout the 1990s, Republicans like Rudy Giuliani and Bill Weld won in Democratic areas taking center-right positions on taxes, spending, welfare, and crime but reflecting the region's liberalism on abortion, gay rights, and the environment. They'd have a hard time repeating that today. Democrats are now doing something similar in reddish areas of the country, putting places in play that otherwise wouldn't be.
Trouble is, when the Republican Party's national image is poor it is the candidates in these more liberal areas of the country who are going to suffer first no matter what positions they take on the issues. So Chris Shays and Lincoln Chafee lose their seats, just as the 1994 election saw a lot of conservative Democrats lose theirs. Rahm Emanuel's more conservative recruits will be among the first Democrats to lose in the next Republican cycle. Sure, the occasional Susan Collins in Maine and Gene Taylor in Mississippi can buck the trend. But they'll be outliers.
'Paranoia and Vitriol'
Posted by on 11.14.08 @ 12:50PM
Jennifer Rubin suggests that I've misrepresented her arguments, and perhaps so. She calls to my attention her two final paragraphs:
So perhaps Republicans can take their cue not just from Haley Barbour, but also from Rahm Emanuel. If the former provides a guide to policy - pragmatic, relevant, a mix of fiscal sanity with effective middle-class services - the latter gives the clue on candidates. It was Emanuel, who as head of the Democratic Congressional Committee teamed up with Sen. Chuck Schumer to recruit candidates around the country to fit constituents in diverse locales. The result was two successive Congressional cycles in which attractive Democratic candidates, well-matched ideologically to their districts and states, made substantial gains, and thereby lifted the Democrats to comfortable majorities in the House and Senate.
So the Republicans have their work cut out for them, just as the Democrats did following their losses in 2000 and 2004. Devise center-right policies on bread-and-butter issues to woo back swing voters. Look to the governors for policy innovation. But politics does not operate in a vacuum or in the newpaper columns of pundits. Ultimately the GOP must find candidates who may diverge from the party "line" but can win over voters outside conservative strongholds. It is not an impossible task but it will be that much more difficult if Republicans maintain a tone of class resentment, paranoia, and vitriol and adhere to policy positions which are either extraneous or offensive to large segments of the electorate. The choice is up to them: become the Dixiecrats of the 21st century or forge a new Republican majority.
With the first bolded section, I have no quarrel. It's the second section that is troubling. Democrats have certainly never shied away from class resentment (that eeeevilll top 5 percent!) and while there are indeed some paranoid, vitriolic Republicans, we shouldn't blame the entire party for Sean Hannity's shortcomings.
As to conservatism being "offensive to large segments of the electorate" -- well, yes, those segments are called "liberals."
Vindicated
Posted by on 11.14.08 @ 11:21AM
Not that it matters anymore, but Bill Ayers's appearance on Good Morning America today confirmed more or less every claim the McCain campaign made about his relationship with Obama.
Is he an unrepentant terrorist? Yes:
"I've been quoted again and again as saying, 'I don't regret it,' and saying, 'I don't think we did enough.' And I don't think we did enough," Ayers said.
Did Barack Obama pal around with him? Yes:
"I was asked by the state senator to have a coffee for Barack Obama when he first ran for office," Ayers said. "We had him in our home, and I think he was probably in 20 homes that day."
So... Barack Obama palled around with an unrepentant terrorist! Straight from the horse's mouth.
But Ayers defends his guy, of course:
"This idea that we need to know more, like there's some dark hidden secret, some secret link, is just a myth, and it's a myth thrown up by people that wanted to exploit the politics of fear," Ayers said.
Bill Ayers hates people who exploit fear for political gain. He can't stand it when people hint at shady associations for political gain, and he's not afraid to call them out on TV for the despicable fear-mongerers they are. So you can only imagine the towering righteous anger boiling in his breast for the kind of Rovian masters of fear who would -- and I'm just picking examples at random here -- set off explosives in the Pentagon or the Capitol for political purposes.
But no, there is no reason to be alarmed at our incoming president's associations with this character.
How to Destroy the GOP
Posted by on 11.14.08 @ 10:34AM
Christine Todd Whitman, who pretty much destroyed what was left of the Republican Party in New Jersey, now wants the national GOP to follow suit. Notice that this kind of advice from these kind of people is the only "conservative" advice you're going to get in the pages of the Washington Post, New York Times, etc.
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey has a more thorough fisking of Whitman, in case you want it. I don't consider her worth the time to refute in detail. Conservatives have recognized her as a bad joke for at least 15 years (which kind of explains why she so easily got a job in the Bush administration, I guess).
Daily Must Reads
Posted by on 11.14.08 @ 10:31AM
Megan McArdle justifies the human costs of losing the Big Three (Asymetrical Information)
Fiscal stimulus fails for a very simple reason (WSJ)
Economically conservative and socially liberal voters are jackalopes (NRO)
Individual liberty is very much at risk (Forbes)
Wanton debauchery is bad, but not Jihad-bad (Pajamas Media)
Would the Catholic Church shut down hospitals -- that serve 83 million people -- if FOCA passes? (Hot Air)
Finding the middle way on CDS regulation (Economist)
Campaign denouement (Weekly Standard)
Clues About the Anti-Palin Leakers
Posted by on 11.14.08 @ 1:35AM
Between Rich Lowry's reporting and Allahpundit's deductive reasoning, it is possible to get some pretty firm ideas of who on the McCain campaign has been scapegoating Sarah Palin. Hope the folks at Red State are paying attention.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Jennifer Rubin Goes Brooksian?
Posted by on 11.13.08 @ 11:10PM
If she is to be believed, Republicans may have suffered low turnout on Election Day because their "base" voters were too busy slopping the hogs and tending their moonshine stills:
In a recent interview [Virginia Republican Rep. Tom Davis] said, "We've become a regional party, basically become a white, rural, regional party, and not a national party. And we're going to have to retool ourselves."
That poses an acute problem considering that rural whites are an ever-shrinking proportion of the electorate.
We have heard this refrain before -- 10 years ago, from Christopher Caldwell, as Jim Antle recently noted. And, considering her assertion that neither limited government nor social conservatism are effective issues for Republicans, Rubin's complaint bears a close resemblance to what David Brooks argued 11 years ago in urging "national greatness" as a GOP objective.
This panic-struck reaction to the debacle of 11/4 is what I sought to forestall in my columns of Nov. 5 and Nov. 12. First, there is the normal tendency of partisans to take political defeat as a personal rejection: "We are unworthy!" Second, there is a tendency of intellectuals to believe that political defeat is the result of one set of ideas defeating another, requiring that the losers must come up with "new ideas." So Rubin looks at the results, exit polls and an Electoral College map that looks very much like the 1996 map and comes to conclusions very similar to those that Brooks and Caldwell drew from Bob Dole's defeat.
Candidates win or lose elections. Other factors being equal, good candidates win, and bad candidates lose. This is a political truism that ideologues and partisans ignore at their peril. Elections are decided by independent "swing" voters who are neither ideologues nor partisans. Independents tend to be disconnected from and ill-informed about the political process. The political scientist Samuel Popkin coined the term "low-information rationality" in an effort to explain how such people make political choices, but it is clear that these voters act on general perceptions of candidates and parties -- perceptions that are sometimes at odds with political reality.
Is the GOP too Southern, too white and too rural? Might that have something to do with the inarticulate Texas drawler who has been the face of the Republican Party for the past eight years? And if the party notably failed this year to connect with younger voters, might that have something to do with the 72-year-old presidential nominee?
This is not to minimize either policy failures or the tone and content of political messages as part of the Republican Party's problem. But to urge that the GOP abandon both limited government and social conservatism (jettisoning both Grover Norquist and James Dobson, as it were) doesn't exactly strike me as a winning formula. Minus both social and fiscal issues, what do Republicans have left -- invading foreign countries to promote global democracy? That's really worked well so far, hasn't it?
Republicans should try to learn a lesson from the Democrats. In terms of basic political philosophy and policy, Barack Obama is indistinguishable from Howard Dean. But Obama is charismatic in a way that Dean was not, and voters in 2008 were sick to death of Republicans in a way they were not in 2004. After successive defeats in 2002 and 2004, Democrats kept their powder dry, improved their game, and were ready to score victories in 2006 and 2008.
Finally, as Jim Antle pointed out yesterday, Republican "Reformists" -- I prefer the term "Young Turks," since it is broader and less ideological -- do themselves no favors by offering criticisms that sound suspiciously like RINO mating calls. We've already got one pro-gay-marriage, pro-abortion party, and we've already got two pro-amnesty parties, so those aren't exactly "new ideas." Soi-dissant "Reformists" who couch their criticism in such terms might get published at the New York Times, but they're unlikely to gain much influence among the rank-and-file of the GOP.
Deflationary Expectations
Posted by on 11.13.08 @ 12:15PM
Two days ago on the main site, I reviewed Robert Samuelson's new book "The Great Inflation," in which he concludes that the US of 2008 faces the same threat of inflation that it did in the period he chronicles in the 60s and 70s. More recently, many prominent economists have prognosticated that in fact deflation is the looming threat. In my article, I assess those claims and argue in favor of Samuelson's position. To sum up quickly: the government is writing all kinds of checks it can't cash -- the financial industry bailout in the short term, and unfunded entitlement debt in the long (but not so long) term. Although Nouriel Roubini, among others, is right to think that aggregate supply far outstrips aggregate demand right now, as reflected in commodity prices and the TIPS spread, he is ignoring the role government intervention has played in almost every instance in modern economic history. Samuelson shows that Reagan administration is the exception that proves the rule.
I was surprised, then, to see Samuelson turn around and argue that deflation is now the pressing issue, and even endorse Obama's fiscal stimulus. He doesn't go into depth, but merely notes that indeed commodity prices are falling rapidly and financial institutions aren't lending to one another. Deflation is such a down-side risk that action must be taken to prevent it.
I will defend his book even if he won't. First of all, one concern policymakers have is that in the event of deflation we might fall into a liquidity trap, in which the central bank cannot effectively lower interest rates any further to stimulate lending and increase consumption. This is true only of responsible policymakers, which we no longer have.
James Hamilton points out (h/t Bryan Caplan) that there is one readily available tool in the situation of a liquidity trap: massive inflation, through a variety of channels. A responsible Fed would never use this, because the "Great Inflation" attests to the malaise inflation expectations bring about. But, as I argue in my review, the Fed is hardly independent right now, and political expedience calls for a quick and easy solution. Only a politician of Reagan's character can resist the temptation; I don't think either the outgoing or incoming administrations measure up.
Samuelson ends his article with:
"A "stimulus package" of more spending increases and tax cuts would provide extra insurance against an economic free-fall. The trick for Obama and other leaders is to ensure that new commitments are temporary -- and don't worsen grim long-term budget outlooks."
"The trick" isn't realistic. No reasonable observer of government activity would believe that it would engage in temporary interventionism. We saw this play out with the bailout: they asked for the power to do implement one very specificly defined measure, and ended up doing whatever they wanted. Why trust those same characters with any more policy tools, and why think they wouldn't let the inflation genie out of the bottle?
Farewell, Filibusters
Posted by on 11.13.08 @ 12:04PM
On Election Day, the Democrats failed to achieve a literal filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats. Of course, a 57 to 43 Democratic Senate still makes filibusters extremely difficult and any gains from there only make it more so. Since then, Norm Coleman has seen his lead shrink -- however questionably -- in Minnesota and Ted Stevens has seen his vanish in Alaska. It will be very difficult to mount filibusters if the Democrats control 58 to 59 seats. Unless the Democrats take away Joe Lieberman's committee chairmanship and prompt him to caucus with Republicans (not a done deal now that Chris Dodd and several moderates are coming to Lieberman's defense), Saxby Chambliss is the only man in the way of the Democrats actually getting to 60.
Daily Must Reads
Posted by on 11.13.08 @ 9:59AM
- A little strategery for Iran (WSJ)
- Mitch is the man for the job (Washington Post)
- Sell the West! (Marginal Revolution)
- Leadership elections will show whether the Republicans have learned (NRO)
- The conservatives' Winston Churchill is out there, somewhere (TCS Daily)
- Faithful Catholics Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi still cool with their bishops, apparently (American Papist)
- Paulson's been called "King," Emperor," and now "Magician" (Economist)
- Mr. Obama: you took the words right out of my mouth (Miami Herald)
Move Right AND Center
Posted by on 11.13.08 @ 9:08AM
My friend Chuck Conconi kindly keeps putting me on the "Focus Washington" web cast, even though when I'm tired my speech gets a bit halting. But I think I got the message right: Move right AND center, simultaneously, by emphasizing the issues tht unite right and center together. I also managed to get a plug in for about ten of our rising conservative stars.
God Says Don't
Posted by on 11.13.08 @ 7:33AM
WASILLA, Alaska (AP) — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says she wouldn't hesitate to run for the presidency in four years if it's God's will...
Like Me. Except Blonde. And Funny.
Posted by on 11.13.08 @ 6:04AM
Who could possibly match my contempt for David Brooks? Who else?
About the same time Brooks was touting McCain's uncanny ability to attract independents, I was writing, accurately: "John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth."
True story: The first time I was introduced to Ann Coulter, she said, "A most unfortunate name."
Ted Nugent on a Rampage
Posted by on 11.13.08 @ 4:58AM
He's got you a stranglehold, baby:
Conservative leaders and thinkers such as Newt Gingrich, Jed Babbin, Governor Jindal of Louisiana, Thomas Sowell, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Governor Sarah Palin and others need to turn up the heat and bring this less government, more individual freedom and strong national defense revolution to a boil. It is time.
My specialty is making Fedzilla punks squirm and turn into a puddle of sweat and drool. Therefore, in the spirit of famous butt kickers Generals Chesty Puller and George Patton, I say we launch an attack on all fronts. Uncle Ted hereby declares it is open season on RINOs. No bag limits or permits required. Conservative ideas, arguments and votes are the weapons we will use. Hunt them down and shine a blazing light on these RINO turncoat cockroaches. Zero in the "we the people" crosshairs of your voting assault weapon and aim for the RINO pumpstation. Double tap center mass. Whack em and stack em, track em and hack em, pack em and give em no slack. Let's do to the RINO beasts what we did to the passenger pigeon.
Pssst, Ted: Ever hear of a guy named David Brooks?
Stevens Less Than Even?
Posted by on 11.13.08 @ 2:12AM
As I post this, Ted Stevens has fallen slightly behind now that the early votes are being counted in Alaska's Senate race.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Anuzis Won't Run For State Party Chair
Posted by on 11.12.08 @ 6:30PM
To the Michiganers who are curious, Saul Anuzis will not be running again for state party chair, instead focusing exclusively on his run for national party chair. I had been told it wasn't clear yet whether he had made that decision.
How the Kennedys Elected Obama
Posted by on 11.12.08 @ 2:34PM
Through their endorsements -- and through the Immigration Act of 1965. The Boston Globe has the story.
Daily Must-Reads, Afternoon Edition
Posted by on 11.12.08 @ 2:18PM
- Jeff Jacoby obliterates Andrew Sullivan and others playing the race card on Prop. 8 (Boston Globe)
- Detroit is going to force Obama to consider hard choices long before he wants to (WSJ)
- Paglia on Palin and Ayers (Salon)
- From the Dept. of Tough Legal Decisions (Wired)
- What is wrong with Chapter 11, Mr. Paulson? (Robert Reich)
- Obama faces tradeoff between discrediting Bush and actually helping the economy (Bloomberg)
- Biden overestimated how long it would take for Obama to be tested by months (Washington Times)
Re: It Won't Be Steele
Posted by on 11.12.08 @ 2:11PM
J.P., that's great reporting. I'll add one thing: I've known Roger Villere, the Louisiana chairman, for nearly 20 years. He's a solid conservative, and an incredibly hard worker. I have no idea how much sway he has on other members of the RNC, but I do know that he has a sense of what grassroots organizing requires. His interest in such a Yob/Thompson arrangement is an important development.
It Won't Be Steele
Posted by on 11.12.08 @ 1:20PM
After speaking with people involved with the RNC Chairman race, it's becoming clear that the contours of the race have to do with two things: Is the candidate a conservative, and is the candidate willing to do the work. But there's also a third point: Is the candidate a committeeman in the RNC?
Michael Steele has problems here. For one thing, he's not a committeeman. Another, he didn't even want to run as a real Republican in his Maryland race. And lastly, his work at GOPAC has been lackluster (as Quin has said).
According to my sources (and I'll be updating this post continually as I get more) Fred Thompson is in talks with Chuck Yob, a party veteran. Thompson would play the role of General Chair (the role that typically serves as figurehead), and Yob would be the RNC Chair, taking on the administrative tasks and the day-to-day operations of recruiting candidates.
Thompson plays well in the south, and would get a lot of support from what would otherwise be South Carolina RNC chair Katon Dawson's backyard. It would also allow a better-known voice to speak for the party.
UPDATE:
Roger Villere, chairman of Louisiana's GOP, tells me that the only reason Newt and Steele appear to be frontrunners are that they have good public relations people and they have big names. But among committee members, that's hardly a qualification.
"A lot of RNC members have been left out. A lot of people don't feel like they've been used. Or even taken seriously. That's one of the problems we've had with the RNC. They need more input from the state chairman."
Asked about the rumors regarding Thompson and Yob, Villere's interest was clearly piqued. "For me that's very intriguing. You'd have somebody with committee experience -- Chuck's been with us more than 20 years. He's gone around the country and reached out to us. Then you have somebody who's like Fred Thompson who's a good spokesman, and he does a great job on TV."
He hasn't talked to Thompson personally, but thinks it would be a very "interesting" arrangement. The fact that a southern Republican chairman like Villere seemed so enthusiastic about such a prospect is informative, particularly considering that this is Katon Dawson's backyard. This doesn't necessarily speak to a lack of support for Dawson, but it does show that he doesn't have it in the bag.
UPDATE 2 (2:29):
Saul Anuzis's website announcing his bid for campaign chair is here. Leveraging the Internet, ESPECIALLY web 2.0 apps is a step in the right direction. This is a defining area for the RNC chair, because it reflects the attention to lessons learned from Obama. Other potential candidates would be wise to follow his lead. Though Thompson is arguably the first one to do it (if he actually announces his bid) -- he announced his presidential campaign on the web.
UPDATE 3 (2:55):
I've obtained a copy of an invitation to a meeting hosted by Dawson in South Carolina. Needless to say, despite having not properly announced his candidacy, he certainly is lining up the ducks.
GOPAC's 527
Posted by on 11.12.08 @ 12:23PM
As an addendum to my earlier post on GOPAC, I am informed that GOPAC has a 527 component that did do a little more campaign activity than GOPAC itself id. Still, it's expenditures are heavily weighted toward its own fundraising. But others can judge the overall effectiveness better than I. See here.
Thinking About Policy
Posted by on 11.12.08 @ 11:52AM
When in doubt, politicians will usually support policies that are popular, even if those policies are wrong. Political courage is required to support a policy that is right, but unpopular. Let us say that any given policy may be categorized in four ways:
- Popular and right.
- Popular but wrong.
- Unpopular but right.
- Unpopular and wrong.
How many of John McCain's key policy stances fell into category 4?
Is Steel a Better Talker Than Doer?
Posted by on 11.12.08 @ 11:50AM
I join almost every other conservative in hailing Michael Steel's
principles, personality, and eloquence. But does he actually have
much of a record getting things done? Look back in Maryland, and
it's a seriously iffy answer. And now, I am informed (and the
info is available at the FEC site here),
that GOPAC, which Steele has headed for the past two (?) years,
has been a mere shadow of its former self while under Steele's
leadeship.(Trusting to somebody e;se's math:) As of October 15,
they had raised $77,135 this year, which combined with the
$33,541 they had on hand at the beginning of the year, put them
at $110,676 total.
The total disbursements for the year are $76,543. They currently
have (as of October 15), $34,132 on hand.
In terms of candidates, it looks like GoPAC only gave $29,250 to
candidates the entire year, $5000 of which went to Steele’s own
campaign in Maryland.
By comparison, Fred Thompson’s PAC gave $41,900 to candidates and
PACs in the first half of the month of October alone.
If Steele wants to be RNC chairman, he needs to explain this poor
performance at GOPAC.
'To Blame the Media Is a Cop Out . . .'
Posted by on 11.12.08 @ 9:40AM
". . . and ridiculous," says Shepard Smith of Fox News:
(Via Hot Air.)
Saving Reformist Conservatism from the Reformist Conservatives
Posted by on 11.12.08 @ 9:06AM
It seems to me that the self-styled reformist conservatives have made some tactical errors that make it less likely that their project will succeed. The first and most obvious is allowing their least conservative members to serve as their most prominent spokesman, though I suppose Uval Levin or Ross Douthat can't help the fact that the New York Times op-ed page is still a bigger platform than even National Review or a blog hosted by the Atlantic. Relatedly, they have allowed reformist conservatism to be set in opposition to most actual conservatives, which may well doom its prospects for gaining any adherents on the right. Condescension seldom wins converts.
The biggest blunder in this area, in my view, was suggesting that reformist conservatism was an improvement over Reaganism. If it is actually conservatism and not a revived Rockefeller Republicanism or David Cameron-style Toryism (or David Brooksism), then Reaganism ought to be the best example of what these reformists are trying to accomplish: taking conservatism away from the realm of abstraction or Goldwaterite exhortations to eat your vegetables and applying it to the pressing concerns of the electorate. Reagan wasn't as pure a small-government man as Goldwater, but neither did he completely abandon limited government while trying to serve middle-class economic interests. Instead, he won policy victories on behalf of limited government in certain areas by tying those principles to the real needs of the American people.
That is, if the reformist conservatives want to succeed they need to formulate a Reaganism for our times. I say this not because I'm sympathetic to the big-government conservatism of many reformists. But I do believe that conservative principles have to be applied to issues like health care or economic anxieties in intelligent ways if the country is to stop electing Obamas. The key is to come up with policies that are both solutions and conservative in some meaningful sense.
First He Called Out Rip Van Shuster
Posted by on 11.12.08 @ 7:02AM
Now Joe drops the F-bomb on MSNBC. When talking about Rahm Emanuel. Good for him.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Ace Nails Sagerism
Posted by on 11.11.08 @ 11:26PM
Ace of Spades, Conservative Blogger of the Year, on the repeated assertions that social conservatives are a net political liability to the GOP:
Libertarians/social liberals sometimes insist that all we need to do is ditch the values program of the conservative agenda and then we start winning. This is asserted time and time again, even when, say, Prop 8 wins in socially-liberal California. Oddly, it is asserted that running on a plank that commands 53% support even in a socially-liberal state is a losing proposition.<
I'm going to single out Ryan Sager as Johnny Nonsensical One-Note on this point, because he keeps writing the same column over and over, with the same massive hole in logic that is never filled.
It's clear that Ryan Sager is a libertarian/social liberal -- he never tires of informing us so -- and it is therefore quite clear that he'd prefer a dream party that perfectly tracked his own policy impulses. What he always seeks to prove, however, and always fails at so doing, is that it is electorally plausible to follow his prescriptions.
This goes back more than 40 years to Phyllis Schlafly urging Republicans to offer America "a choice, not an echo." If the Democratic Party is liberal (and it is) and if liberalism results in bad policy (and it does), then clearly opposing liberalism is the GOP's best long-term strategy even if such opposition is unpopular in the short term.
Elsewhere, Ace points to a new poll on immigration -- showing a 3-to-1 preference for enforcement over amnesty -- and sarcastically observes:
But by all means let's keep ignoring a winning issue because some "moderates" want the NYT to like them. I mean, we have so many winning issues at the moment, we can afford to be choosy.
As Casey Stengel said, can't anybody here play this game?
Obama: Don't Expel Lieberman
Posted by on 11.11.08 @ 7:45PM
Barack Obama has reportedly told Harry Reid that Senate Democrats should keep Joe Lieberman among their ranks:
Obama told Reid in a phone conversation last week that expelling Lieberman from the Democratic caucus would hurt the message of bipartisanship and unity that he wants for his new administration, a Senate Democratic aide said Tuesday. This aide spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were confidential....
Obama says he won't get involved in the fight on Capitol Hill over whether Democrats should take away Lieberman's chairmanship of a key committee to punish him for backing his close friend McCain for president.
"We aren't going to referee decisions about who should or should not be a committee chair," Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said in a statement Tuesday. "President-elect Obama looks forward to working with anyone to move the country forward. We'd be happy to have Sen. Lieberman caucus with the Democrats. We don't hold any grudges."
That seems like a convenient way of offering to do the statesman-like, bipartisan thing while avoiding any responsibility if the Democrats strip Lieberman of his Senate Government Affairs Committee chairmanship. Next year the Democrats will control at least 57 Senate seats instead of the current 51-49 split and Dick Cheney will no longer be president of the Senate. That makes Lieberman a lot less useful to Reid & company.
In case things don't work out with Reid, Lieberman is now said to be in talks with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell about caucusing with the Republicans. But it's hard to see how that would be particularly useful unless Lieberman changes his position on some domestic issues or agrees to sustain GOP filibusters regardless of his personal position. With the economy looming larger than Iraq, Lieberman's voting record seems likely to return to the Democratic fold even if the Connecticut senator himself is expelled from it.
Get Your Impeach Obama Gear
Posted by on 11.11.08 @ 5:50PM
Just in time for Veterans Day.
There's something for every member of the family in here! Say your infant doesn't really dig Obama's policy on taxes: in there! What about if your daughter, who is stripping to get through university, doesn't think his foreign policy is strong enough to stabilize an amicable working relationship with Venezuela? Also in there! So, if you don't agree with Google or the rest of the liberal-minded brainwashing media you, too can always join in on the fun and make anyone uncomfortable by your mere presence in one of these bad boys!
Get yours here.
No Frog Marches
Posted by on 11.11.08 @ 5:37PM
My Examiner column today stands as a rebuke to Henry Waxman, and a rebuke to overzealous prosecutors who seek to criminalize bad business decisions. Feedback is welcome.
Georgia Senate Race, Round 2
Posted by on 11.11.08 @ 4:47PM
I just got off a conference call held by Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the Georgia Republican who is heading into a a runoff against Democrat Jim Martin after falling about 8,000 votes short of an absolute majority. Georgia requires that the winning candidate receive at least 50 percent plus one. "We were having so much fun we decided to extend [the campaign] about four more weeks."
Chambliss said he was not surprise his re-election fight turned out to be competitive. "When this race was pegged to be a 20-point race, I kept saying it was not a 20-point race. All Senate races in Georgia tend to be close," he said. "We anticipated a close race. What we did not anticipate is the economic crisis." They also wer not sure of the extent of the "Obama factor": "His folks did a good job." Chambliss acknowledged that the Libertarian Party candidate was a factor, pointing out that the LP's senatorial nominee finished 100,000 votes ahead of former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, the LP's presidential candidate. Chambliss further acknowledged that a lot of the Libertarian's supporters "were upset with me because of my vote on the rescue package." AKA, the bailout. He also remarked that it's "very rewarding to see these people come back."
Chambliss described Martin as "the most liberal member of the state house," "a very pro-choice" candidate who "supports partial-birth abortion, supports gun control, voted against making English the official language of Georgia, he voted against toughening laws against child prostitution." Chambliss concluded that Martin had "nothing in common" with the people who voted Libertarian.
Since Chambliss finished 100,000 votes ahead of Martin, John McCain carried Georgia, the Libertarian didn't make the runoff, and this will be the first red-state election after Barack Obama's victory, the Republicans should hold this seat. But they are concerned about money and turnout. Former Obama campaign workers from Florida are now assisting Martin in about 25 of his offices across Georgia. This will help get-out-the-vote operations for the Democrats. Chambliss also noted that the race is likely to be expensive, costing $7 to $10 million on both sides.
Early voting starts next Monday, "election day" is Dec. 2. Republicans are hoping for a replay of Paul Coverdell's runoff victory over Wyche Fowler in 1992, after Bill Clinton was elected. Democrats are hoping to get closer to 60 Senate seats.
Rampant Brooksism
Posted by on 11.11.08 @ 4:29PM
David Brooks now informs us that "the battle lines have already been drawn in the fight over the future of conservatism," with the Traditionalists vs. the Reformers in rival camps. He quotes our own esteemed helmsman R. Emmett Tyrrell as a spokesman for the Traditionalists who (this being a David Brooks column) are portrayed as analogous to a mammoth sinking slowly into the La Brea tarpit.
Brooks overlooks the existence of a third camp -- admittedly a small camp, but growing steadily -- in this conservative cage match: Those who think that the problems afflicting the Republican Party are caused mainly by David Brooks.
No word from Mr. Tyrrell whether he'd be willing to join this camp.
The Bailout Twins
Posted by on 11.11.08 @ 3:22PM
John McCain and Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss have some things in common. They both voted for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, and they each got less than 50% of the vote on Election Day. Now, McCain is going to Cobb County to campaign for his fellow bailout backer. Why am I so skeptical that McCain's support is going to help a Republican who is facing a runoff because the Libertarian candidate got 128,000 votes Nov. 4?
A Republican Party Reptile No More
Posted by on 11.11.08 @ 2:45PM
There is a lot of nonsense in this PJ O'Rourke piece in the current Weekly Standard (it's always sad to see a funny guy become a scold), but he's dead on when it comes to taxes and spending (Hat tip: Dan McCarthy):
Anyway, a low tax rate is not--never mind the rhetoric of every conservative politician--a bedrock principle of conservatism. The principle is fiscal responsibility.
Conservatives should never say to voters, "We can lower your taxes." Conservatives should say to voters, "You can raise spending. You, the electorate, can, if you choose, have an infinite number of elaborate and expensive government programs. But we, the government, will have to pay for those programs. We have three ways to pay.
"We can inflate the currency, destroying your ability to plan for the future, wrecking the nation's culture of thrift and common sense, and giving free rein to scallywags to borrow money for worthless scams and pay it back 10 cents on the dollar.
"We can raise taxes. If the taxes are levied across the board, money will be taken from everyone's pocket, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and least advantaged will be harmed the most. If the taxes are levied only on the wealthy, money will be taken from wealthy people's pockets, hampering their capacity to make loans and investments, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and the least advantaged will be harmed the most.
"And we can borrow, building up a massive national debt. This will cause all of the above things to happen plus it will fund Red Chinese nuclear submarines that will be popping up in San Francisco Bay to get some decent Szechwan take-out."
It was bad enough to run deficits in the 1980s when we had to fight stagflation and the Cold War at the same. Back then, however, we needed to peel back 70 percent tax rates while simultaneously repairing our defense capabilities. Unfortunately, everyone took the wrong lessons from the Reagan-era deficits. Those who noticed the red ink decided that tax cuts cause deficits and that tax hikes are the best way to balance the budget. Those who noticed the phenomenal economic growth decided that deficits don't matter and that Republicans could fight tax-and-spend with borrow-and-spend. Repeat after me: big spending is the enemy of low taxes.
Note to Readers (Browser Suggestion)
Posted by on 11.11.08 @ 1:04PM
This is a bit of a public service announcement. Many of our readers are still using Internet Explorer -- and while I admire your steadfastness, I can't emphasize enough that Firefox is the safer browser. Click here to grab it.
Franken Watch
Posted by on 11.11.08 @ 12:45PM
A new website is up looking at what's going on in up-and-down Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. Check in to see where the Democratic votes pop up next.
Hillsdale in DC
Posted by on 11.11.08 @ 12:11PM
Lots of good things go unnoticed during election weeks. Here is one good thing that should not go without notice: Last week, Hillsdale College established the Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship, and acquired a 16,000 foot building on Massachusetts Ave. NE, right near the Heritage Foundation. In temporary quarters right now, the Center will move into its new building (after renovations) in September of 2010.
Allow me to be lazy and quote from the press release, which really does cover the subject well:
"This represents an extension of Hillsdale’s historic commitment to liberal arts education and to civil and religious liberty. The primary work of the Center will be teaching Hillsdale College students who are in Washington as interns or on fellowships. It will also offer seminars on American history and political thought, economics, literature, and other topics to interested citizens in the Washington area.... Hillsdale College President Larry P. Arnn stated: 'Hillsdale College was founded 164 years ago on the idea that learning is the surest support of liberty. Our College has a long history of serving the nation on the basis of this idea. So while opening a Washington campus is something new, our mission remains unchanged.'
"Unlike other colleges or universities with campuses in Washington, Hillsdale College operates independent of either federal or state taxpayer support, even indirectly in the form of student grants and loans.
"Virginia Thomas, formerly the director of executive branch relations at the Heritage Foundation, joined Hillsdale College as associate vice president of Washington operations effective October 1. Together with David J. Bobb, director of the newly-established Center, Thomas will oversee the development and operation of Hillsdale’s Washington campus."
(Quin writing again:) Before her job at Heritage, Thomas did a superb job on the staff of then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey. Her roots in the conservative movement are deep. And, of course, she also happens to be the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, which means that by sheer osmosis alone she is well versed in the deep regard for constitutionalism that the new Hillsdale Center will promote.
As the conservative movement struggles to claw its way out of the doldrums, look for Hillsdale's new center to provide intellectual heft and, through its interns, youthful energy to the effort. This is great stuff, and I know other conservatives join me in applauding.
Howard Dean, We Hardly Knew Ye
Posted by on 11.11.08 @ 12:04PM
Yesterday's news that Howard Dean is stepping aside as Democratic National Committee chairman to make way for an Obama loyalist means the screamer will enter into a new phase of his political career. Beloved by grassroots liberals for his failed 2004 presidential campaign, more seasoned Democratic hands take a dimmer view of his DNC tenure. Dean has gotten more credit for the 2006 and 2008 elections than he probably deserves. He heads the only major Democratic committee that was outraised by its Republican counterpart and didn't have much to do with recruiting the candidates who helped the Democrats retake Congress -- or with Barack Obama's campaign to win back the White House.
But Can Steele Beat Newt?
Posted by on 11.11.08 @ 11:15AM
The same report Stacy highlights says the former House speaker also has designs on the RNC's top job. Both Newt Gingrich and Michael Steele have obvious upsides: telegenic, popular with the base, energy instead of GOP establishment staleness. But Steele lost his 2006 race for Senate in Maryland and Gingrich had to hand up the speaker's gavel after Republican losses in 1998. Can they overcome past defeats to lead a battered party out of the wilderness?
The Man of Steele
Posted by on 11.11.08 @ 10:56AM
Ralph Z. Hallow reports in The Washington Times that GOPAC Chairman and former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele "definitely" wants the RNC top job:
A behind-the-scenes battle to take the reins of the Republican National Committee is taking off between former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele.
Neither man will acknowledge his interest in the post, but Republicans close to each are burning up the phone lines and firing off e-mails to fellow party members in an effort to oust RNC Chairman Mike Duncan in the wake of the second consecutive drubbing of Republican candidates at the polls.
I was among those who felt that Steele should have gotten the RNC job after the 2006 election, when instead the Bush White House insisted on Florida Sen. Mel Martinez.
Thanks for Getting Us Elected -- Now Scram
Posted by on 11.11.08 @ 10:41AM
Another Washington Post item shows it is not all sweetness and light between the open Obama team and their erstwhile pals in the media. Al Kamen reproduces the following e-mail:From: Larry Strickling
Date: November 6, 2008 6:58:14 PM EST
To: [policy groups]
Cc: Priya Singh
Subject: . . . Reminder -- Decline All Reporter Interviews and Speaking Requests.
This is a reminder that our communications department has directed all of you, as policy committee members, to decline all requests from reporters and all speaking invitations regarding the transition, the Administration's priorities and related issues. If you are contacted by a reporter to discuss these matters, please refer the reporter to Priya Singh. . . . If you receive an invitation to speak on these issues at a conference or meeting, please decline the request. At this point in time, there is no one to whom to refer the request and do not offer to do so on behalf of the organization extending you the invitation. We realize these requirements may appear Draconian but so soon after the election, with the transition effort just being organized, it is important that no one who was involved with the campaign and the policy committees be speculating in public on these sensitive matters.
These are very sensitive matters.
Obama and the Permanent Campaign
Posted by on 11.11.08 @ 10:11AM
The new website for the "Office of the President-Elect" sure looks a lot like a campaign website, despite its .gov domain. As others have noticed, it is replete with campaign slogans and even has a section for collecting e-mail addresses, presumably to build that Obama volunteer base. Ed Morrisey has more on this highly unusual, if not totally unprecedented, move. Keep in mind that it's supposedly been scrubbed of its most campaign-y elements since Morrisey's post, which means the site was even more over the top at that time. He calls it "change you can give you personal information for."
Erick Erickson points to a Washington Post story about more change you can give your personal information for: as part of their new media strategy, Team Obama is going to bring its e-mail lists into the White House so they can reach beyond the mainstream media to their supporters. (I don't know why, given the substantial overlap between these two groups of people.) Under federal law, all this intermingling of the campaign and the government of the United States is a no-no. Don't expect the Obama administration to be above politics, folks. They'll make the Clintonistas seem apolitical by comparison.
Daily Must Reads
Posted by on 11.11.08 @ 9:59AM
- David Brooks, quoting Phil Klein, wants centrism (NY Times)
- Honorable McCain should dispel ugly Palin rumors tonight (WSJ)
- Reminder: fiscal stimulus didn't end the Great Depression (Marginal Revolution)
- "Green job revolution" is at the edge of madness (Economist)
- It's discouraging to see Clinton's high priests of finance in Obama's retinue (Guardian)
- Michael Lewis reflects on Wall Street 20 years after Liar's Poker (Portfolio)
- More on the Permanent Things (Mere Comments)
- Drudge's demise overstated (Slate)
Minnesota Mischief
Posted by on 11.11.08 @ 6:03AM
John Lott finds Al Franken's odd vote gains in Minnesota -- before any recount -- statistically implausible. He filed his column before incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman's lead dwindled to 204 votes. Matthew Vadum reported on the main site on the ACORN allying overseeing the vote-tallying process. Are the Democrats not done trying to get to 60 seats in the Senate?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Permanent Things
Posted by on 11.10.08 @ 9:47PM
Russell Kirk bequeathed us a succinct definition of a conservative:
"In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy 'change is the means of our preservation.')"
Last Thursday, the Notre Dame philosopher Ralph McInerny reminded conservatives that the permanent things are in fact permanent, and cannot ever be undone, much less be undone in one election. His lecture, hosted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) and the John W. Pope Center, in Charlotte, North Carolina, was titled, "Do the Great Books Matter Anymore?" a question that Prof. McInerny answered in the affirmative.
I've always been taught that the genius of Bill Buckley, among other conservatives following Goldwater, was to unite social conservatives, national defense conservatives, limited government conservatives, and others under a single banner. The trick was that Buckley understood the 'permanent things' and the Great Books, and thus commanded respect as a conservative on an intellectual level.
ISI, of which Bill Buckley was the first president, aims to show that the conservative movement is formed by the thinkers whose work has endured throughout ages and across vastly different societies and circumstances. The Great Books, McInerny argued before a few hundred people, reveal the immutable truths of human nature.
"When you think of authors like Jane Austen, or Joseph Conrad, or Mark Twain, they all are novelists, but they all have their own voice," McInerny mused. "...And what that voice conveys is a vision of the mystery of human existence. The writer gives an intimation of what it is to be a human being."
He explained how the Great Books present morally compelling stories. "Someone gets in trouble and tries to solve it. The character finds it very difficult, and might not do the right thing." From the characters' dilemmas, the reader learns that "we are answerable for what we do."
McInerny's conclusions were sure to resonate with those from a religious background. He noted that classically the liberal arts were divided into the 'Trivium' and the 'Quadrivium,' which translate to 'the three ways' and 'the four ways.' "Ways to what?" he asked rhetorically. "Ways to understanding Scripture. The idea of the university is that it all adds up to something massively unified. The whole point is to aim at theology."
Of course, conservatives don't have to be Christian, and not all Great Books have Christian authors. McInerny explained that Plato, Aristotle, and other non-Christians in the Western canon believed that a sort of Providence or over-arching narrative guided human action, and wrote with that concept in mind.
A member of the audience challenged him on this point, asking what conditions, other than the scriptural inclination, could inspire the creation of literature in McInerny's system. The dramatic dimension to any story, McInerny answered, consists of the spiritual consequences that follow any of the character's actions. Even without that scriptural basis, though, we follow the character because "he faces a problem of importance for who he is. We respond to that, because that's us. It's us too."
Does this mean that Plato, Aristotle, Austen, and Conrad are all conservatives? Yes, insofar as they articulate the permanent things that make us human, and believe that there are overarching principles that cannot be traduced for merely incidental purposes.
The conservative movement and the Republican Party are about to undergo a reconfiguring. Will the result be something Kirk -- or Bll Buckley -- would sign on to?
Fred for General Chairman, Perhaps
Posted by on 11.10.08 @ 4:58PM
As we at the Washington Examiner report today, Fred Thompson is feeling out a possible run for "General Chairman" of the Republican National Committee. But there is more detail to the story. First, note the distinction between "General Chairman" and "Chairman." The potential Thompson run envisions a two-tiered system like the one that worked under Reagan with Paul Laxalt as General Chairman (but that didn't work so well recently with Mel Martinez as General Chairman). The General Chairman usually provides overall direction and philosophical moorings, and acts as the public face of the party doing media and speeches, etc., and also is available probably for big-money phone calls and events -- but the Chairman, with an Executive Director under him, is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the RNC. Think Chairman of the Board vs. CEO, perhaps.
Anyway, here are a host of other quotes from the "close Thompson advisor" who is quoted briefly in the Examiner story:
"We are hearing some interest from various sectors of the RNC that there is some interest in having Fred considered for general chairman. Two tiered…. His strong suit is in communications and reinforcing the foundational principles of the party. He’s really the only guy right now who can communicate in a way with the grass roots that nobody else can. He also is one of the few guys who understand the role technology can play. There needs to be a day to day chairman who is raising money, organizing, continue to build, but doing this as a team might be the most constructive way to do this."
"Fred isn’t looking to run for national office again. He is
looking to rebuild the party and help elevate the movement and
its principles . When conservatives run on conservative
principles they win. We know that. He would be an honest broker
because he is not seeking national office again; he doesn’t have
a dog in this fight. Everybody else who seems to be running seems
to have an eye on helping a presidential candidate."
"Katon Dawson for Mark Sanford."
"Jim Greer for Charlie Crist."
"David Norcross and Saul Anuzis with an eye toward Romney."
"These guys are stalking horses for others."
"Why are we essentially handing over the keys to the party to
individuals who have an agenda for a particular person?
It’s important for the grassroots to have a voice in this. We
needs honest brokers concerned about the party and the movement
rather than a particular candidate. That’s how we will be best
served."
"There is some interest in some quarters in the RNC in the party for Fred to consider the job. But it’s very early in the process… It’s fair to say that he and his people are looking at the lay of the land. If there is an indication of a wellspring of support, he will get in quickly."
"We’ve all learned some lessons from all this. Any job he takes
would be number one for the good of the party. It would be a job
to play to his strengths."
"He would participate in fundraising. He would want an impact on technology and the way the RNC does campaigns and recruits. He would want to recruit real conservatives and encourage them to run. He helped Pete Olson win in Texas. He also helped Beatty in Massachusetts. He knows you have to have a conservative voice in campaigns even in uphill battles…."
Now, this is Quin talking again: I have subsequently learned that Chuck Yob of Michigan is one of (but not necessarily the only) the guys who might be paired with Thompson, with Yob as regular Chairman. Yob supposedly is testing the waters. Again, this is not (the last I heard) a ticket, but an example of one possibility. I also note that I am reporting here, not endorsing. I do not know enough abut the other potential candidates. I did speak at some length not too long ago with Katon Dawson, and came away convinced that he knows how to get things done politically. My regard for Thompson, though, as a communicator and as a person well grounded in winning conservative principles, is very high. His potential candidacy is quite intriguing, to say the least.....
Palin vs. Bush
Posted by on 11.10.08 @ 2:42PM
Conservative critics of the Bush administration get an echo from Alaska:
Q. Why do you think your campaign lost?
A. I think the Republican ticket represented too much of the status quo, too much of what had gone on in these last eight years, that Americans were kind of shaking their heads like going, wait a minute, how did we run up a 10 trillion dollar debt in a Republican administration? How have there been blunders with war strategy under a Republican administration? If we're talking change, we want to get far away from what it was that the present administration represented and that is to a great degree what the Republican Party at the time had been representing. So people desiring change I think went as far from the administration that is presently seated as they could. It's amazing that we did as well as we did.
There's lots more. I'm betting anti-Bush conservatives like Bruce Bartlett and Doug Bandow might like what they're hearing now.
David Brooks, Wrong Again
Posted by on 11.10.08 @ 1:38PM
From "Face the Nation" yesterday:
Brooks was less optimistic about the Republican Party, following their losses on Tuesday.
"World of pain," Brooks said. "A generation of pain. 1964, it was so much better than now. In '64, they had a coherent belief system. They lost, they didn't persuade the American people about it, but they understood where they wanted to take the country.
"Now it's just a circular firing squad, with everybody attacking each other, and no coherent belief system, no leaders. You've got half the party waiting for Sarah Palin to come and rescue them. The other half is waiting for Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor, to come rescue them. But no set of beliefs. Really a decayed conservative infrastructure. It's just a world of pain." . . .
Brooks was not convinced that Sarah Palin could be taken seriously as the GOP's next Ronald Reagan.
"Well, the 'hell, no' group is rallying around her," he said. "And this past week, I don't think, has been particularly flattering to her, the McCain people - and the whole thing has been a complete disaster. They've attacked her for her lack of human capital and for being a diva.
"I'm not sure it's all fair, but one would not say she has spent her life preparing for an intellectual revolution to lead the party out of the wilderness. Let's put it that way."
Brooks declared himself a part of the "yes, but" wing. "You know, this is where the American people are," he said. "And, fundamentally, the conservative movement failed (and I've been in it my entire life) because it hasn't addressed the problems of today, the rise of China and Russia, the rise of inequality, energy, health care. It's great to worry about Reagan. I loved Reagan, but those days are over."
To begin with, I've talked to more than a few veterans of the '64 Goldwater debacle (including William Middendorf) and it was certainly not clear to the AuH20 crew in the wake of that drubbing what a wonderful future lay ahead for conservatism. And Brooks has been one of the chief marksmen of the "circular firing squad" ever since he conjured up "National Greatness," a complete repudiation of the limited-government ideas that motivated conservatives from Goldwater to Reagan to Gingrich. And David Brooks most certainly has not been in the conservative movement his "entire life," having made his bones as a precocious college liberal by mocking Bill Buckley and contradicting Milton Friedman.
The Trouble with Doug Kmiec
Posted by on 11.10.08 @ 12:58PM
Daniel Larison offers a qualified defense of Doug Kmiec: however unpersuasive Kmiec's pro-Obama arguments on abortion might be, there are plenty of Catholics and conservatives who take just war theory seriously and therefore find their colleagues' pro-McCain (or pro-Bush) arguments on foreign policy and torture equally appalling. In light of this, Larison finds it difficult to understand why Kmiec has "been summarily dismissed and belittled over the last several months."
The trouble with this argument is that, unlike Andrew Bacevich -- who opened his Obama endorsement with the line "Barack Obama is no conservative" -- Kmiec has not made the war or any other proportionate issue central to his case for Obama. He has spent much of his time and gotten most of his attention as an apologist for Obama's position on abortion. This has required him to repeatedly say things that are untrue. Perhaps Kmiec's critics are wrong or judging him too harshly, but it is very difficult to see how someone as informed about these issues as Kmiec could make some of these arguments in good faith.
This is especially true since Kmiec basically argues that Republicans have to overturn Roe v. Wade to prove their seriousness on abortion while Obama can be viewed favorably for supporting economic and welfare policies that might conceivably reduce abortions. One need not be naive about the Republicans' commitment to the pro-life cause or social consevatism generally -- I am certainly not -- to realize they have enacted some policies that have in fact reduced abortions. Obama favors oveturning nearly all of these policies, either directly or through the Freedom of Choice Act, and has not embraced the abortion-reduction strategy of pro-life Democrats. Even if he offers economic support to pregnant mothers, he also would like to offer them taxpayer funding to have abortions.
Obama hasn't even taken office yet and he is already working to reverse the Bush adminstration's Mexico City policy and restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research. (In fairness, McCain is also to the left of Bush on conducting embryo-destructive research at taxpayer expense.) Again, if Kmiec was going to argue that he was supporting Obama in spite of these facts, that would be one thing. He has instead misrepresented Obama as an improvement over past Democrats on life issues.
Imagine that I favored John McCain based on tax cuts and abortion but told antiwar conservatives they should support him on antiwar grounds. Yes, on paper his position is more pro-war than Obama's. But the Democrats haven't really done anything about the war since retaking Congress in 2006. McCain can be tolerant of the antiwar view, and even opposed U.S. military interventions in Lebanon and Somalia. Just as only Nixon can go to China, only McCain has the credibility to end the Iraq war. He learned in Vietnam that war is horrible and capacity problems will prevent him from expanding the war to Iran.
How many takers would I have among antiwar conservatives? Not many, I'd presume. But I would at that point be their Doug Kmiec.
'Outright Hostility'?
Posted by on 11.10.08 @ 12:20PM
A colloquy of sorts is developing between myself and fellow Jacksonville (Ala.) State University alumnus James Joyner at Outside the Beltway:
A movement built on know-nothingism - indeed, outright hostility to higher education - is bound to fail.
The Republican Party will be consigned to permanent minority status if it continues down its present course. It is increasingly becoming a white, Southern party. Even though I'm both white and Southern, it's obvious to me that we have to expand our appeal beyond hard-core Evangelicals and anti-elitists that to get back Virginia, North Carolina, the Midwest, and West.
Is Sarah Palin an emblem of "outright hostility to higher education"? How so? Because Palin, a graduate of the University of Idaho, fared poorly in an interview with Katie Couric, a graduate of the University of Virginia?
And let's talk about all those Southern states the McCain-Palin ticket carried -- Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Utah. My friend James seems to have internalized the transparently bogus liberal propaganda that if it weren't for wool-hats and banjo-picking moonshiners, there wouldn't be a Republican Party. (News flash: Obama won 63% among high-school dropouts.)
James doesn't want the Republican Party identified with redneck opponents of illegal immigration (like that illiterate hillbilly Mark Krikorian) and he doesn't want the GOP identified with dimwitted foes of abortion (like that inbred peckerwood Pope Benedict XVI). And heaven forbid any Republican should side with a knuckle-dragging homophobe like Antonin "Bubba" Scalia in dissenting against the gay-rights agenda.
Krikorian, Scalia, the Pope -- they're all a bunch of disreputable know-nothings in league with that Wasilla hockey mom in a demagogic crusade to destroy the intellectual credibility of the conservative cause.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.10.08 @ 8:50AM
- Duran case means clear evidence of Chavez's meddling (WSJ)
- Specter of deflation rears its ugly head (Washington Post)
- Alex Tabarrok, smiting New Deal fans (Marginal Revolution)
- ...And Amity Shlaes, piling on (NY Post)
- Wil we suddenly realize that Obama's not so brilliant and articulate? (Washington Post)
- Some conservative hope from deep, deep blue Massachusetts (Boston Globe)
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Bipartisan Soil?
Posted by on 11.9.08 @ 11:03PM
James Rainey, media writer for the Los Angeles Times, accuses Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and unnamed others of being "intent on poisoning the soil before bipartisanship can take root."
One may peruse an online catalog of Mr. Rainey's recent writings to see what contributions he has made to bipartisanship lately, and a quick perusal indicates these consist chiefly of cheerleading for the Democratic campaign and mocking the Republicans.
Given that his specialty is media and not government, Rainey may not fully realize that after Jan. 20, Republicans will have virtually no ability to obstruct Obama, Reid and Pelosi in their policies, and little ability even to influence the debate. This, of course, is exactly the sort of soil in which Mr. Rainey's brand of "bipartisanship" thrives. We shall see what fruits are produced, and we will be certain who is responsible.
Mr. Rainey will no longer be able to blame every sundry nuisance in the world on Republican malice, and he will have to find some new scapegoat onto which to project his numerous hatreds. This should provide an interesting spectacle, and Mr. Rainey's writing will doubtless become an even richer source of amusement to Mr. Limbaugh and his 20 million listeners during the Obama era.
Ford v. GM
Posted by on 11.9.08 @ 5:12PM
I'd like to hear from TAS auto columnist Eric Peters about this, but I don't really understand why Ford seems to be losing money every bit as rapidly as GM. I've driven a few different models from each automaker during the past few years and have found the Fords to be much tighter and more rewarding to drive. The GM's have simply made me yearn for my 2000 Honda Accord.
What gives? Why can't Ford get ahead?
Standing Ovations in the Bunker
Posted by on 11.9.08 @ 5:52AM
Last month, McCain staffer Michael Goldfarb made an appearance on CNN in which he accused Barack Obama of having "a long track record being around anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, anti-American rhetoric." But, under repeated questioning, Goldfarb refused to "name names," because John McCain had forbidden bringing up Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The effect of the interview was to make Goldfarb look ridiculous as he repeated, "I think we all know who we're talking about."
Now, in a Weekly Standard article by Stephen Hayes, we learn that when Goldfarb returned to the McCain campaign headquarters, his colleagues gave him a standing ovation.
Such is the psychology of politics that Goldfarb's "gotcha" with a CNN anchor -- in effect taunting the network for refusing to report on Obama's ties to characters like Wright and Bill Ayers -- was applauded by his campaign colleagues, even though to most viewers at home, Goldfarb looked like an idiot making accusations he couldn't support. Because everyone inside the McCain campaign bunker knew that Goldfarb was referring to Wright, they assumed others did, too. But most undecided "swing" voters knew very little or nothing about Jeremiah Wright, and still don't.
Palin the Assassin?
Posted by on 11.9.08 @ 5:34AM
Tim Shipman's secondhand reporting twists a nothing of a story into a scary headline:
Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service over death threats against Barack Obama
But you read down into the story and there's nothing to support the lede except:
The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks. . . . The revelations, contained in a Newsweek history of the campaign, are likely to further damage Mrs Palin's credentials as a future presidential candidate. She is already a frontrunner, with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, to take on Mr Obama in four years time.
"Revelations," eh? Let's take a look at what that Newsweek story actually says, shall we?
"I'm worried," Gregory Craig said to a NEWSWEEK reporter in mid-October. He was concerned that the frenzied atmosphere at the Palin rallies would encourage someone to do something violent toward Obama. He was not the only one in the Obama campaign thinking the unthinkable. The campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and very disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October. Michelle was shaken by the vituperative crowds and the hot rhetoric from the GOP candidates. "Why would they try to make people hate us?" she asked Valerie Jarrett.
Except for the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, there is no reason to connect (a) Sarah Palin with (b) assassination threats against Obama. You've got Democratic operative Craig (whom we remember from the Clinton impeachment) who's worried about the "atmosphere" at Palin rallies. Then you've got a post-Labor Day increase in threats against Obama. And . . . that's it?
That all death threats are made by subnormal mouth-breathers, I take as a given. (If you really want to assassinate somebody, you don't make threats. Sirhan Sirhan -- to whom Bill Ayers dedicated a book -- didn't make threats.) The only threat against Obama that actually led to arrests was made by a couple 0f teenage losers in Memphis, Tenn., a place where Sarah Palin never campaigned. There was nothing Sarah Palin said or did that was responsible for threats against Obama. If the threats spiked up after Labor Day, it was only because subnormal mouth-breathers don't pay attention to elections until after Labor Day.
Newsweek clearly is trying to peddle a disgusting smear by the Obama camp, and in the process take out a potential future rival. Tim Shipman merely makes explicit what Newsweek implied, but it's like Oakland -- there's no "there" there. The Secret Service did not -- repeat, did not -- blame Sarah Palin for threats against Obama, and Shipman's story is thus a lie.
(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
