Nation-Building

WFB Jr. has passed away at the age of 82.

Mr. Buckley’s greatest achievement was making conservatism — not just electoral Republicanism, but conservatism as a system of ideas — respectable in liberal post-World War II America. He mobilized the young enthusiasts who helped nominate Barry Goldwater in 1964, and saw his dreams fulfilled when Reagan and the Bushes captured the Oval Office.

To Mr. Buckley’s enormous delight, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., the historian, termed him “the scourge of liberalism.”

In remarks at National Review’s 30th anniversary in 1985, President Reagan joked that he picked up his first issue of the magazine in a plain brown wrapper and still anxiously awaited his biweekly edition — “without the wrapper.”

“You didn’t just part the Red Sea — you rolled it back, dried it up and left exposed, for all the world to see, the naked desert that is statism,” Mr. Reagan said.

“And then, as if that weren’t enough,” the president continued, “you gave the world something different, something in its weariness it desperately needed, the sound of laughter and the sight of the rich, green uplands of freedom.”

I think that Buckley was almost single-handedly responsible for marshaling the threads of nascent conservatism into a true movement. That the movement has faltered, and supplanted by an increasingly authoritarian Republican party that rejected the small-government, fiscal discipline, and foreign policy pragmatism foundations of conservatis thought, is almost surely because the GOP drifted away from Buckley's anchor. Of his generation, only Derbyshire remains at The National Review.

Labels: conservatism

Continue reading/discuss William F. Buckley Jr. ...

On May 17th, 2003, Joe Trippi posted a blog entry at the unofficial Dean Nation weblog entitled simply, The Perfect Storm. In that post, since reprinted many times elsewhere, he wrote like the prophet he is:

never -- until now -- would there ever have been any hope of 1 million Americans contributing $100 each to take back their country and promote a common vision for the future of the nation. Maybe it will be 2 million who contribute $50. But the Internet makes that possible. Or maybe it will be 5 million Americans contributing $20. The tools, energy, leadership and the right candidate, are all in place to create the Perfect Storm of Presidential politics -- where millions of Americans act together and organize their communities, their neighborhoods and their precincts. It is ironic I think that the Perfect Storm may indeed be made possible by the internet -- but in the end the real storm it may create is the largest grassroots/election day get-out-the-vote -- shoe leather/door knocking organization in the history of American politics.

I have said before that it sounds audacious.

And audacious it was. But Hope is, after all, audacious. The Dean campaign promised 5 years ago that We the People, not they the consultants and the elites and the lobbyists and the punditocracy, would own the campaign. Now, 5 years later, the seeds planted back then have borne fruit, and People-Powered Politics is a reality. One Million Strong for Barack Obama!

Can we identify the reasons for the success of 2008 vs the failure of 2004? Part of it is the love affair for Obama vs the antipathy towards Dean (though of course that could change overnight, capriciously). But I think that another part of it is technology itself. One of the greatest failures of the dean campaign was to avoid Scoop and settle on Moveable Type for its platform; the My Barack Obama site in contrast is essentially a complete blogsphere unto itself. You can even have your own customized real-time baseball bat. I mean, thermometer.

There are also the non-blogsphere components, such as mySpace and Facebook (which I have argued, the liberal netroots have spectacularly failed to capitalize on). There is a rift between the blog elite and the youth vote, and it grows wider, but the Obama campaign has bridged the gap.

But I think that we also have to acknowledge that the man himself brings more to the table than an empty suit and blank screen. Howard Dean never had the charisma of Barack Obama. Whereas Dean was undisciplined, Obama is always on message. Dean fumbled his lines (confederate flags and pickup trucks, anyone?) while Obama scores a touchdown (the audacity of hope. One America instead of Two).

Ultimately, though, there is a synergy between the man and the movement, and the latter is why the campaign has succeeded. 1 million people, literally true. The Perfect Storm, of technology, candidate, and grassroots.

Hillary, you would have made a great President. But Obama is the heir to Howard Dean's legacy, and I cannot subdue my love for the process of democracy, of that soaring rhetoric that Obama merely borrows from the original source document of our freedom.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

That is the ethos of the People-Powered movement, the reason we are crashing the Gates. That is why we believe in the 50-state strategy. Because we love this country, and believe that our values are indeed universal ones. That is why we fight. And that is why we will WIN.

And now, not only are we going to Texas and Ohio, Mrs. Clinton, we're going to Rhode Island and Vermont and Wyoming and Mississippi and Pennsylvania, and we're going to Indiana and North Carolina and West Virginia. And we're going to Kentucky and Oregon and Montana and South Dakota, and then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! YEEEAAARGGGH!



We are taking our country back. And this time you can't stop us.

Labels: democracy, netroots, trippi

Continue reading/discuss The Perfect Storm: 2008 ...

Ralph Nader is back!

Ralph Nader goes on NBC’s Meet the Press tomorrow morning, stoking speculation that the consumer advocate is gearing up for another presidential bid.
[...]
An email to supporters from Nader’s presidential exploratory committee ticked off a list of issues that have been “pulled off the table by the corporatized political machines in this momentous election year,” including defense budget cuts, opposition to nuclear power, and a single-payer national health insurance system.

well, single-payer would be great, but opposition to nuclear power? defense budget cuts? It's like he's stuck in 1962. He's the candidate for Counterpunch, and exhibit A of why I think the Progressive movement is fundamentally conservative (and stands apart from the liberal mainstream).

As I argued previously, in one sense Nader's run will benefit the Democratic nominee, because it will permit them to distance themselves from the ultraleft fringe and make a more compelling case for the independent vote in the general election.

Most of the people who would vote for Nader are the ones for whom even Edwards was too conservative. The turnout from these types is going to be miniscule. The only reason Nader had an impact in 2000 was because he drew enough independent voters to him. This year with Obama (likely) and McCain fighting over the independent vote, Nader wont get any oxygen. Nader can't improve on his 2004 performance and will likely do even worse this time around. So let the Progressive Left choo-choo-choose Ralph as they please. This election is the Liberal Moment, and it's our turn. We won't be denied.

Labels: nader

Continue reading/discuss Nader's Nadir ...

Today's Day by Day cartoon by Chris Muir:



It didn't take long, did it? This just goes to show how terrified of the Obamenon the right wing has become.

(Obviously, Obama has never proposed that Americans be forced to labor in camps. The context was about taking action, about giving something to your country, about being more than just a passive observer in your nation's affairs. This is the sort of definition of patriotism that conservatives used to value highly).

Labels: 2008, Obama, Rethuglicans

Continue reading/discuss now, Michelle Obama is Hitler ...

now they're calling Obama a commie jew bastard. Or more specifically, a "half black/half Jewish, red diaper baby"

and yet, all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics. (During the Clinton Administration we were all introduced to then U. of Pennsylvania Professor Lani Guinier -- also a half black/half Jewish, red diaper baby.)

Freeperland? nutpicking from the fevered swamps of RedState? Nope. The Corner at National Review Online, flagship publication of conservatism in America.

glad to see the level of political discourse rise to a higher plane of muck its better than the lower plane of muck, anyway.

They've even got the pseudo-McCarthyism angle ready:

Time for some investigative journalism about the Obama family's background, now that his chances of being president have increased so much.

Oh, but Michelle Obama said something vacuous, so it's all fair game.

Labels: 2008, conservatism, Obama

Continue reading/discuss the muslim smear was so last month ...

I was forwarded this by a reliably leftist progressive acquaintance.

Do you think that Barack Obama is going to fight for the common man, or will he - like every other candidate in the race - be beholden to corporate interests? Well, guess who is the number one recipient of campaign funds from the following industries: computer and Internet companies, commercial banks, health professionals, health services and HMOs, hospitals and nursing homes, lawyers and law firms, miscellaneous health care interests, pharmaceutical and health product producers, securities and investment interests (groups with serious cash), and television, movie, and music companies?

If you guessed Hillary Clinton, you're right! Guess who's in second place? A man by the name of Barack Obama.

If you think that BO is going to work for the common good of the common man, you may be a moron.

I assume the text above is excerpted from the counterpunch link appended, though I've no stomach to really click over.

I think that a lot of self-styled progressives in the mainstream left are really ordinary liberals. The attitude on display above, however, is representative of what the actual progressives today are on about. Given a choice between a term for my political philosophy like liberal, which has a century of honest and storied tradition and heritage, and an ever-moving target like "progressive" which is alwys pegged to the leading edge of the leftwarde wave, I choose liberal. The conservatives did their best to malign the term, but we can reclaim it.

I take the critique seriously that progressives at the turn of the century were who brought us so much liberal reform. But the progressives of that era have a tenuous connection at best to the Counterpunch types of today. We mainstream liberals are those original Progressives true intellectual heirs. Interestingly, Progressivism as a movement may actually have this in common with conservatism, which also is a victim of its own success, as Fareed Zakaria explains:

Conservatism grew powerful in the 1970s and 1980s because it proposed solutions appropriate to the problems of the age—a time when socialism was still a serious economic idea, when marginal tax rates reached 70 percent, and when the government regulated the price of oil and natural gas, interest rates on checking accounts and the number of television channels. The culture seemed under attack by a radical fringe. It was an age of stagflation and crime at home, as well as defeat and retreat abroad. Into this landscape came Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, bearing a set of ideas about how to fix the world. Over the next three decades, most of their policies were tried. Many worked. Others didn't, but in any event, time passed and the world changed profoundly. Today, as Frum writes, "after three decades of tax cutting, most Americans no longer pay very much income tax." Inflation has been tamed, the economy does not seem overregulated to most, and crime is not at the forefront of people's consciousness. The culture has proved robust, and has in fact been enriched and broadened by its diversity. Abroad, the cold war is won and America sits atop an increasingly capitalist world. Whatever our problems, an even bigger military and more unilateralism are not seen as the solution.

Today's world has a different set of problems. A robust economy has not lifted the median wages of Americans by much. Most workers are insecure about health care, and most corporations are unnerved by its rising costs. Globalization is seen as a threat, bringing fierce competition from dozens of countries. The danger of Islamic militancy remains real and lasting, but few Americans believe they understand the phenomenon or know how best to combat it. They see our addiction to oil and the degradation of the environment as real dangers to a stable and successful future. Most crucially, Americans' views of the state are shifting. They don't want bigger government—a poll last year found that a majority (57 percent) still believe that government makes it harder for people to get ahead in life—but they do want a smarter government, one that can help them be safe, secure and well prepared for political and economic challenges. In this context, conservative slogans sound weirdly anachronistic, like watching an old TV show from ... well, from the 1970s.

I have the same anachronistic sense listening to the Counterpunch types, who seem forever stuck in the 60s. There's an inherent cynicism and pessimism prevalent among the Progressive mindset which strikes me as at odds with wanting to move things forward.

Fundamentally, a liberal must be an optimist about the power of government to effect change for the common good, and believe that a man can make a difference. Modern progressives believe that no one is good enough, ever, and that no matter how far we have come, it still fails miserably and falls short. Like conservatism, progressivism is cynical and pessimistic, a relic of an earlier time. The future belongs to us.

Labels: conservatism, liberal, progressives

Continue reading/discuss progressives are conservatives ...

It's a tight race in Wisconsin but I think Obama will eke out a win here. Given the way the primary mechanics work in Texas, I also think that Obama is going to win there, largely because Clinton's campaign didn't seem to be paying attention (and truthfully never expected to have to fight beyond Super Tuesday).

In Ohio, even though the polls show Obama slightly ahead, I still think Hillary has an advantage. Let's see how it all pans out. The chips begin to fall tomorrow.

Labels: 2008, Hillary, Obama, Texas, Wisconsin

Continue reading/discuss prediction: Obama takes Wisconsin, Texas ...

A Bizarro World article in The New Republic by Brad Plumer argues inexplicably that the netroots favor Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. The article appears to have been written prior to Edwards' dropping out, even though it was just published last week. As such it is hopelessly out of date, even if it's central premise were true, which Plumer strains mightily to prove with quotes from various netroots chiefs like Stoller, Markos, Hamsher etc. It's true that Obama has been heavily critiqued by the left for pursuing an inclusive, post-partisan theme rather than a transformativem hyper-partisan theme, but to conclude that there's some kind of rift from this is really letting the thesis drive the story.

Well, it made RedState happy, at least. Let them take whatever solace they can.

Labels: 2008, netroots, Obama

Continue reading/discuss news flash: liberal blogsphere doesn't like Obama ...

More from Colin:

"I will vote for the candidate I think can do the best job in America. Whether that candidate is a Republican or Democrat or an independent," Powell told CNN's "Late Edition."

"Frankly, we lost a lot in recent years," Powell added in a swipe at the administration of President George W. Bush, under whom he served as secretary of state from 2001 to 2005.

Powell, a top general and former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said he would vote for the candidate with a vision "that starts to restore confidence in America. That starts to restore favorable ratings to America."

"I am going to be looking for the candidate that seems to me to be leading a party that is fully in sync with the candidate and a party that will also reflect America's goodness and America's vision."

As others have pointed out, though, it's more likely that Powell will simply endorse McCain and play it safe. Betting on Colin Powell to make a splash is a fools' errand nowadays.

Labels: Colin Powell

Continue reading/discuss More from Colin ...

I usually don't pay much attention to my Starbucks TWISIs (though I do occasionally document the ones I receive on my twitter). Today's triple venti latte, though, had quite an interesting TWISI on it, which I found highly relevant to the political drama of the times. The author? George F. Will, "Pulitzer-Prize winning author and columnist" (the cup reminds us helpfully). The topic? "true" conservatives. (and, of course, liberals, because how else do they define themselves?).

Here's what TWISI #258 says:

Because true conservatives are pessimists, they are happier than liberals, for three reasons. First, pessimists are rarely surprised. Second, when they are wrong they are delighted to be so. Third, pessimists do not put their faith in princes - in government. They understand that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. Happiness is an activity; it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.

Deep thoughts indeed. I am fascinated by the compulsion that conservatives have to define "true" conservatism. It's impossible to deny that (at least for the present) liberals have a bigger "tent" than conservatives do; our tent spans the range from deep-blue to purple - and if Obama wins the nomination, might even creep towards a tinge of red. Meanwhile, conservatives are factionalized, with the warring clans of theocons, fiscons, and neocons all succeeding in taking each others' princes out via attrition, leaving only one candidate, whose only claim to concensus is that everyone hates him about equally.

But more to the point, does Will's definition have any relevance to today's politics? Consider the points in turn. First, are conservatives (sorry, true conservatives, or TCs for short) really pessimists? Even if we grant them this, arguing that they are happier than liberals is pretty obviously nonsense. Being an unhappy sourpuss is practically the definitive mark of modern conservatism, because for them everything sucks and it's the liberals' fault (I note that Will didn't list taking responsibility for one's own actions as a fundamental TC tenet).

Second, are conservatives delighted to be wrong? This requires that conservatives ever admit to being wrong. George Will comes close to admitting being wrong in his (to his credit) numerous critiques of the Bush Administration, but these are lukewarm ("the rhetoric of unreality"?). Will was effusively pro-Bush at the outset (I assume, without citation, though I invite fact-checking and will indeed be delighted to be proven wrong) and yet has to state how wrong he was. Is he delighted at how wrong he and the rest of the conservative class was about Bush? Is he delighted about how, in his own words, "all three components of the 'axis of evil' -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- [are] more dangerous than they were when that phrase was coined in 2002." ? It seems to me that conservatives are wrong quite often, with far greater negative impact (usually because a war is involved). Presumably, then, conservatives should be delighted all the time?

As for faith in princes, well I have three letters in rebuttal: F. D. T. 'nuff said.

Though I can't let rest unchallenged Will's implication that liberals (and false conservatives) put their faith in government. Two words in rebuttal: Hurricane Katrina. Again, 'nuff said.

Incidentally, I am quite glad that conservatives like Will and Jonah Goldberg (TWISI #22) are participating in the Coffee Cup Debate. For one thing, transparency of their ideas is the best route to delegitimization.

One final (unintended) irony, Goldberg's TWISI includes this comment:

Clichés begin arguments, they don’t settle them.

True indeed. We may safely relegate any comment a conservative has about a liberal to this category.

Labels: conservatism, liberal

Continue reading/discuss Starbucks TWISI #258: George F. Will ...

I've been arguing that McCain is probably going to pick Fred Thompson as his running mate, mainly because I've bought into the conventional wisdom that he needs to pick a conservative to solidify the base and encourage turnout. However there is an alternate theory out there that no matter what McCain does, he will never placate the core conservatives. So, the argument goes, McCain will pick a liberal veep to try and compete for the independents against Obama:

Barack Obama has become his party's front-runner because he has expanded the Democratic Party. His big rallies draw crowds of nearly 20,000, unheard of for a primary campaign.

In 2004, President Bush beat John Kerry by expanding the GOP base in conservative areas.

This is a strategy that simply won't work for McCain because there is a certain bloc of core, loyal and principled conservatives who will never vote for him no matter what he says now, who he picks to run with, or who the Democratic nominee might be.

Those conservatives will never forgive him for the immigration bill he wrote with Ted Kennedy and for opposing Bush's tax cuts.

Bush's 2004 strategy was enough to edge out a boring stiff like Kerry, but it would hardly match the mania for Obama.

So, McCain's only option is to run hard for the middle and hope that his centrist ticket can beat the soaring rhetoric and high promises of a likeable guy like Obama with little experience and a liberal voting record.

The irony of this would be that the conservative anitpathy towards McCain (which by and large is quite remarkable given that George W. Bush has been just as liberal as the Senator has, but gets a free pass from the same angry conservative factions) actually diminished their influence over the Republican nomination rather than enhanced it. McCain giving up on conservatives would be sweet turnaround indeed.

The problem with this is that it assumes that Obama will be the nominee, even though the reality is that unless Obama beats Hillary soundly in Ohio and Texas, the outcome of the Democratic nomination will probably be determined by how the superdelegates swing and by how the Florida and Michigan issues are resolved.

Conservatives, particular the social/evangelical/values voters, do have their "dissent" option of voting for Huckabee in the primary. Huckabee can't win the nomination but he might be able to deny McCain an easy coronation. That could assuage them somewhat to allow them to support McCain in the general against (from their perspective) the greater of two evils. The recent Romney endorsement of McCain might also make McCain more palatable. It should also be noted that Republicans are closing ranks around McCain, even at highly anti-McCain venues like RedState.

Then again, McCain does fancy himself a maverick. Who knows?

Labels: 2008, McCain

Continue reading/discuss Which way will McCain swing? ...

Since ten blogs isn't enough, I decided to put all my Wisconsin-centric blogging under the aegis of Citizen Wausau. My new blog there, Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Howard Dean, will be part politics and part life in Wisconsin from the perspective of an ex-Texan. Stop by or subscribe to the feed!

Labels: Wisconsin

Continue reading/discuss a new Citizen Wausau ...

Even though Obama seems to be bypassing us, Hillary will not be:

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has announced which cities she will visit on her Saturday night-through-Tuesday morning tour of the Badger State, though no details on times or dates.

Her campaign will take her to: Milwaukee, Green Bay, Madison, Eau Claire, Wausau and Oshkosh.

Depending on when she will be here, I might well bundle the baby up and go to Wausau to hear her speak. Who knows, without Obama to make his case in person, maybe Hillary can seal the deal :)

Labels: 2008, Hillary

Continue reading/discuss Hillary coming to Wausau ...

Having spent 9 years in Texas, I am unused to the idea that my vote will actually count for much. But now that I live in Wisconsin, which votes next Tuesday, it seems that my vote has real power - practically every candidate running for President is here this week:

With less than a week to go before Wisconsin's primary on Tuesday, candidates from both parties were on the ground Wednesday. The Republican field made its first stop in Wisconsin, with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee asking a crowd in Waukesha to help boost his bid for the presidency and saying he would maintain the party's core principles in a way front-runner John McCain, a U.S. senator from Arizona, could not. For his part, McCain will campaign in Wisconsin on Friday.

Meanwhile, Democratic U.S. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois visited Janesville, Waukesha and Racine, talking about inequality in the global economy and his plan to address it. In Racine, Obama's campaign pumped some dollars into the local economy, the Racine Journal Times reports, although some local African-American political leaders were upset about being left out of planning for the event. His Democratic opponent, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, was campaigning in Texas and will come to Wisconsin this weekend, although she's running an ad to push Obama to debate her here.

Now, if only Marshfield was closer to the beaten track. Would be nice if the candidates tried going north on I-39 for a change. It's not like they couldn't fly in and out of CWA, and hit Wausau and Stevens Point at least. Or maybe do the Green Bay to Eau Claire circuit.

UPDATE: Obama hears, Obama delivers!

Democrat Barak Obama will hold a rally at UW-Eau Claire's Zorn Arena Saturday, his campaign announced. Doors open at 11 a.m.

Obama has three rallies scheduled for tomorrow. For the Milwaukee rally, at the Midwest Airlines Center, doors open at 8:30 a.m. He has stops later Friday in Oshkosh and Green Bay.

You know, Stevens Point is on the way from Green Bay to Eau Claire...

Labels: Hillary, Huckabee, McCain, Obama, Wisconsin

Continue reading/discuss ah, my vote matters! ...

At RedState, Pejman takes Andrew Sullivan to task for an assertion that McCain would withdraw troops from Iraq. I am not defending Andrew's assertion (if anything, the opposite seems more likely, that Obama will not withdaw from Iraq, nor would any Democratic president). However, Pejman makes the following statement in the course of his argument:

al Qaeda will consolidate itself in an anarchic Iraq and use it as a staging ground for the next terrifying attack on the United States and on American interests--think Afghanistan in the run-up to 9/11

is simply misinformed. No one who reads Michael Yon or Michael Totten on a regular basis will believe that Al Qaeda will ever be able to reconstitute itself in Iraq, not with the infrastructure (weak and fledgling though it remains at present) of the Iraqi forces and the tribes. Whatever leverage AQ-Iraq had in the past has been squandered and they are hated fiercely.

Afghanistan is another matter, and there is where the true danger of a reconstituted AQ indeed lies, which is why our losing the war there in slow motion (as Yon has powerfully argued) is now our more pressing concern. The mainstream media has been dutifully reporting the truth about how dangerous and unstable Afghanistan is as well. On that score, I think Obama does indeed outperform McCain (who is too Iraq-centric).

Labels: Afghanistan, Iran, Obama

Continue reading/discuss Al-Qaeda in Iraq is not the issue ...

not exactly a surprise:

Fred Thompson, the one-time Republican presidential candidate, endorsed Sen. John McCain Friday, calling on the party to "close ranks" behind the presumed nominee.

"This is no longer about past preferences or differences. It is about what is best for our country and for me that means that Republican should close ranks behind John McCain," Thompson said in a statement reported by the Associated Press.

I dont know if FDT is angling for veep or not (though it's hard to see his limp and brief candidacy as anything other than a vanity run). But the advantages he'd bring to McCain are undeniable - including the South:

The endorsement now may help McCain to coalesce the factions of the party around him. Thompson, who represented Tennessee in the Senate for eight years, is thought of well in the South, an area that McCain has not done well in.

Paradoxically, declaring Thompson the VP might help McCain in the general with his base rather than against the Democrats. The enthusiasm gap continues and only Fred! seems to be the candidate who can bring some of that back.

Labels: 2008, McCain, Thompson

Continue reading/discuss McCain-Thompson '08 ...

Josh Trevino makes an impassioned plea against the inevitable, ie the pending declaration of independence by the province of Kosovo from Serbia. The following nugget of argument is in a sense the real heart of his argument:

The old Wilsonian idea that a geographically-bounded majority population deserves its own sovereignty dies hard. In this decade, with American foreign policy predicated more than ever on quasi-Wilsonian principles, it is especially formidable. It is also a recipe for disaster: with the United States engaged in two wars in multiethnic states, to explicitly affirm this precedent in Kosovo invites more serious problems and bloodshed elsewhere. With Kosovo independent, what grounds do we have for dissuading the independence aspirations of the Kurds, the Pashtuns, the Baluchis, the Assyrians, the Arab Shi’a, et al.? Furthermore, what prevents Russia from seizing upon this precedent to cause trouble in the Caucasus and Moldova? (They say they won’t — for now — but why give them the leverage?) Contra the rhetoric of some neoconservatives, we ought not be in the business of redrawing borders, nor sponsoring particular ethnic groups for their own sake.

This gets into an issue that interests me. Why do we feel that borders as they are now - often spanning ethnic and linguistic boundaries - are any "better" than ones that would be drawn taking them into account? Why not - in principle - have states for Pahstuns, Baluchis, Assyrians, et al?

I understand that in the post-Westphalian, post-WWII era today, the borders we have now represent a kind of stability from the horrific world-wide convulsions of the past. But now the convulsions are more localized instead, and no less horrific. Bosnia, Darfur, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine... the list goes on.

It should be noted that a conservative assessment of nationality must and does take ethnicity into account. Is this not the centerpiece of the argument against unfeterred immigration to the US?

My feeling is that multi-ethnic societies are a stage III society, and only work if everyone is on equal footing (in other words, if everyone is an immigrant). This is why the US works so well as a melting pot/salad bar of culture today (aside from some messiness at the outset, ahem). But most everywhere else, this is not the case. Even the UK is roughly partitioned into ethnic provinces, grouped under a federalist umbrella. Perhaps it's time to embrace a post-post-Westphalian approach and stop drawing lines in the sand.

Labels: PLI, VSP

Continue reading/discuss borders by language and culture ...

After Huckabee's rout of McCain yesterday, the GOP delegate totals are:

(1,191 needed to win)
McCain: 714
Romney: 286
Huckabee: 217

Clearly, the social-conservative base is rebelling against the coronation of McCain as the nominee. Josh Trevino argues that these results are more indicative of the general election outcome than the primary:

what we see this evening is only partly a preview of a Huckabee surge from conservatives. That surge is yet to fully materialize; it has long odds against it due to the establishment’s scorched-earth campaign against Huckabee of one month past; and even if it comes to pass, it is unlikely to deny McCain the nomination. This evening’s results are a preview of something else: the root of a McCain defeat in November.

In other words, for Huckabee to prevail over McCain, he'd still have to succeed in improbable math. However, others speculate what would happen if Romney threw his support to Huck instead:

If Romney were to join forces with Huckabee, that would Huckabee within striking distance of McCain. And he proved today in Washington that he can win states without heavy evangelical support.

I think this is unlikely because it would spell doom for Romney's longer-term ambitions. Romney's speech to CPAC was a martyr's tirade, sacrificing himself for the good of the Party (ie, the Nation) to forestall the barbarian advance. Why would he throw that away and propel Huckabee to the fore, a candidate who was reviled so thoroughly by the party elites that he made John McCain palatable as the conservative nominee?

The reverse scenario, however, bears consideration. Consider that Romney "suspended" his campaign. That permits Romney to lay low and conserve resources, while Huckabee consolidates the social conservative/anyone-but-McCain vote (a evolving trend that will be more clear over the next two Tuesdays). What if Romney were to step in around March and April, say he is resuming his campaign, and offers Veep to Huckabee? A joint ticket would probably have far better turnout in the general than McCain could inspire, and Romney's earlier status as the establishment's pick would shield him from blowback for embracing the Arkansas governor. The appeal of a dual executive ticket running against a field of Senators would also be pretty stark a contrast, especially since both men are telegenic and charming.

If Huckabee proves himself capable of drawing the votes throughout February and stays close in McCain's rearview, then such a scenario might well play out in March or April.

Labels: 2008, Huckabee, McCain, Romney

Continue reading/discuss the delegate game: Romney and Huck ...

Interesting comments by Colin Powell:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican who served under President Bush, said Friday he may not back the GOP presidential nominee in November, telling CNN that "I am keeping my options open at the moment."

Powell also offered praise for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, calling him an "exciting person on the political stage.

"He has energized a lot of people in America," said Powell, who briefly weighed his own run for the White House in the mid-1990s. "He has energized a lot of people around the world. And so I think he is worth listening to and seeing what he stands for."

One of the singular themes in Obama's run has been the unifying message he brings to close the partisan divide - something he rightly acknowledged Reagan was able to do (and got slammed for it by Clinton, let it be noted).

Now here comes Colin Powell, who almost ran against Bill Clinton but then bowed out (leaving the GOP with Bob Dole). Powell might well have been Obama had he run. It's a shame that he's destroyed his reputation by association with the Bush Administration and the Iraq war, but I think he still commands a residual of respect, and if he were to endorse Obama that would I think be massively significant.

It's worth noting how Powell distanced himself from endorsing the GOP nominee as well. Where Colin goes, others will follow.

Labels: 2008, Colin Powell, Obama

Continue reading/discuss Colin Powell: an Obama Republican? ...

Only one conclusion can be drawn from Super Tuesday, as far as the Democratic nomination goes: it was super-inconclusive. Obama and Hillary did not win decisively, but rather are now in a true horserace. Clinton's strategy was to go for the big prizes like California and Texas, whereas Obama's was more to aim for the smaller caucuses and primaries, competing everywhere. The parallel to the dispute between party establishment Clintonites like Rahm Emanuel and DNC Chairman Howard Dean over the 50-state strategy is not accidental. There's a deep rift inside the Democratic Party and Clinton stands firmly on one side, Obama (and Dean, and Al Gore) on the other. In fact the nomination process itself is a proxy battle for this civil war; consider the factors that will determine the outcome:

• a distributed small-donor base versus big-name backers and bundling
• a "compete everywhere" strategy vs. a "maximized return" strategy
• the brewing battle over the delegates from Michigan and Florida
• the actual delegate count vs. the "superdelegates"

on all of these issues, the fundamental rift is whether the Party is a top-down or a bottom-up construct. Until now, the former has held sway, and while the challenge began with Howard Dean's campaign and matured under his tenure as DNC Chair, it is Obama who has finally capitalized on it successfully. Look at how far people-power has come since 2004!

So what will the outcome be? It's possible that the contest will ultimately be solely in the hands of the superdelegates, who are not bound by the outcomes of the primary process as per present DNC rules. However, this is a worst-case scenario (with respect to winning the general election), since it would draw the nomination out until late august and leave only three months for the candidate to fight McCain. The same problem applies to a fight over delegates from MI and FL. This is Hillary's preferred strategy, for obvious reasons (and again, it puts her in opposition to Obama and Dean).

However, there's one way for Obama to avoid that route, and that is to amass a lead greater than 100 delegates over Clinton (which will nullify the FL/MI issue and give him leverage over the superdelegates). How can Obama achieve this? One is to court - and court aggressively - the endorsements of John Edwards and Al Gore. The former has 25 delegates, and the latter would probably tilt a air number of delegates from the Clinton column (though the exact number is impossible to estimate). But the most important piece of the puzzle? 55 delegates from Puerto Rico. PR has a caucus on June 7th, which is still pretty late but leaves the summer open.

Hillary has a disadvantage in caucus states, but she polls better with the Hispanic vote. It isn't winner-take-all, so Obama will have his work cut out for him. If he can't seal the deal in PR, then it's brokered convention time.

Labels: 2008, Hillary, McCain, Obama

Continue reading/discuss The road to Puerto Rico ...

The Obama-Clinton horserace on the left seems headed towards fabled "brokered convention" status which has long been the holy grail of preesidential punditry (though in practice, is hardly worth cheering for its anti-democratic nature). But in many ways the dynamic on the right is more important, since the very future of the Republican Party itself is at stake.

The main issue is whether "conservatives" are truly a movement or just another faction within the GOP coalition. Prior to Romney's dropping out of the race, the view among the party elite was that McCain's ascendancy represented raw political expediency over genuinely conservative ideals - witness this roundtable between contributors at RedState.com where despite a few voices to the contrary, the mainstream answers affirmatively he question, "did the primary process fail conservatives?". However, Josh Trevino's comments after Romney's withdrawal strikes rather deeply at the pretension implicit in the very question. Josh writes,

Beyond the breaking of trust between the social conservatives and the right-wing media — which is now, unfortunately, exposed as the largely coastal, largely urban, largely fiscally-oriented complex it is — there is the simple matter of judgment. The average Republican voter never could quite figure why we should take Romney at his word, and the average Republican voter was quite right: and so it was mystifying, for example, to see Hugh Hewitt proclaim “Romney Rising” dozens of times unto the end; and it was baffling as to just why National Review believed “he is now on our side — and we trust him to stay there.” The common sense that informs ordinary personal judgments was wholly absent in these things — why believe a man who has ignored you all his life, but is now asking you for $100 and proclaims his heartfelt friendship? Rightly or not, the impression thus generated is of a conservative media establishment that is too easily duped or bought by a wealthy candidate with sufficient charm.

The Editors at RedState - itself a wholly-owned subsidiary of that same right-wing media to which Josh refers - have been second to none in their utter disdain for McCain (they do quote a portion of Josh's essay approvingly, but tellingly, not the part I quoted above). And yet, within hours of Romney's withdrawal, the troops are exhorted to fall in line:

John McCain is the nominee and he sounded both Presidential and conservative.

Conservatives may not have gotten the whole loaf of bread they wanted, but they know where McCain stands, and he's willing to fight on grounds the Democrats would abdicate to the socialists within and terrorists without.

I find this turnaround really quite extraordinary, though other bloggers have used more colorful terms. The irony here is that McCain is indeed an authentic conservative, with a conservative voting record not all that divergent from (by way of example) that of Fred Thompson. And yet it was the latter - christened FDT in an attempt to heighten his gravitas to Roosevelt/Kennedy statesmen levels - who was hailed as the second coming of Reagan.

So if a conservative establishment Republican cannot satisfy the conservative base, then what does that say about the base, rather than the candidate? An insightful diary at RedState provides the answer:

Conservatism isn't going deeper into the abyss of Hell while McCain makes kissy face with the Democrats. In fact, if he does HALF of what he promised at CPAC, he'll only help buy we purists some time to resist the relentless reshaping of what Conservatism means over the next 4 years. If a Democrat is in the White House, that whole conversation becomes a joke...yawned at and ignored by the media who already THINK Conservatism is dead.

Conservatism is therefore not a core set of ideals, but an ongoing war, one in which self-professed purists seek to mold to their liking (and accept that other factions seek to mold to theirs). In all of this, there is no single accepted definition of what being a conservative actually means, apart from the simple argument that conservatives are everything that liberals are not (this requires a definition of liberalism, which is the only thing more elusive than a definition of conservatism, as far as the conservative purist is concerned).

Whither conservatism after 2008? Is there even a conservatism left worth fighting for?

Labels: 2008, conservatism, McCain, Republicans

Continue reading/discuss The McCain Mutiny ...

You just have to admire this for its brilliance. Huckabee zings Romney, and zings him hard:

"Why doesn't he drop out? Look at how much money he spent to get the same market share that I've got," the former Arkansas governor told a public affairs forum in San Francisco, the Commonwealth Club. "My message is obviously selling a lot better than his because look at how much he's had to put behind it to market it, and it's barely sold. I have fewer resources, but I've sold as much of the product as he has."

Mr. Huckabee said Mr. Romney, who founded a business consulting firm, Bain Capital, should be able to recognize the trend lines. "He's an MBA and a smart business guy. If he were applying the same kind of business standard that he applied at Bain Capital, he'd be saying Huckabee's got a more efficient operation. They're getting a better market share than me for less money. Let's invest in him," the former Arkansas governor said.

To be honest, Huckabee would probably make the two-way race for the GOP nomination a lot more competitive, and Huckabee would probably be a tougher opponent than McCain in the general, too.

Labels: 2008, Huckabee, Romney

Continue reading/discuss Huckabee: Romney should drop out ...