From the Neighborhood E-Mail Chain
Our purple neighborhood has been debating the financial meltdown. Here's my contribution.
I think it is pretty silly to look for a single explanation (or party) responsible for inflating the housing market and the current mess on Wall Street. Who's to blame? Just about everyone. Greenspan, trying to find his way through the post-9/11period, held rates too low for too long and that's the main cause of the bubble. Both parties pursued home ownership as way to promote family and social stability without asking whether low-income families would be able to keep up with no-money-down, adjustable-rate mortgages. Clinton pushed homeownership and so did Bush, if anything, even more aggressively. Who benefited from low rates and loose lending practices? Just about everyone. I know we did. Our house on Capitol Hill tripled in value in three years allowing us to sell and move to the idyll of Northern Virginia where the public schools, fed by massive, bubble-driven increases in property tax revenues, are doing amazing things with special needs children like our son.
And when I look around the neighborhood, it's large, beautiful new houses and renovations as far as the eye can see. Where did the money for that come from? The Bubble.
My point (and I do have one) is that the problem of greed and wishful thinking isn't "out there" (the Republicans, the Democrats, the poor, the rich) it lies with hundreds of millions of people each pursuing what he or she thought was in their own interests and being aided and abetted by both major political parties. We have met the enemy, and he is us.
One final thought: I've been in the public policy biz for over 20 years. The debate on Friday evening was just about the best presidential debate I have ever seen with two serious, earnestly committed candidates of great (if very different) experience. Each, in his own way, was wrestling with how to talk about serious problems and significant differences in philosophy and approach while remaining civil. I think we best honor these two men and the incredible sacrifices they and their families are making on our behalf by trying to do the same. It has been a rough 20 years. Time to learn again how to disagree without being disagreeable with one another.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Martin Hutchinson lays it all out here, in much greater detail.
An investment bubble is created, with too much money chasing too many bad investments (and too few good ones). It pops and the market radically dips. First, the air comes out of unhealthily inflated stocks, companies with share prices far away from an actual measure of their earnings. But people/brokerages are so leveraged, they sell off the healthy stocks and liquidate their portfolios. And another crash occurs, this time hurting the good businesses.
Pain spreads, and President X convenes leading industrialists and employers at the White House and gets them to agree not to lay off workers. Wages must be kept high and employment cannot dip, advises the president. We need those workers to spend their paychecks. Businesses consent for a while, until earnings dip so far they break their word and massive layoffs occur.
Government debt increases as spending remains high (and goes higher as the feds try to "prime the pump") and tax receipts decline precipitously. Congress gets spooked by red ink on the books and passes massive tax increases, which the president signs. With less money in private pockets -- less private money for spending, saving, investing, which is always more efficiently allocated than public money -- the economy slows further.
Populists in Congress call for tariff increases to protect suffering American industry from witheringly cheap foreign competition, and a massive protectionist bill is passed, rolling back the expansion of international trade and global markets that has been progressing for decades. Tough times are exported.
People can't pay their mortgages and banks foreclose. Congress steps in to prevent foreclosures. Banks are unable to recoup their losses and fail by the droves, taking deposits with them. Those who can take their money out of banks and put it into hard assets like gold. Gold is safe as compared to the uncertainty of equities, but in the wider context of investment, gold buying is akin to burying your money in a Mason jar in the backyard.
The Dow loses 80%+ of its value in four years.
That was 1929-1932. Or was it?
An investment bubble is created, with too much money chasing too many bad investments (and too few good ones). It pops and the market radically dips. First, the air comes out of unhealthily inflated stocks, companies with share prices far away from an actual measure of their earnings. But people/brokerages are so leveraged, they sell off the healthy stocks and liquidate their portfolios. And another crash occurs, this time hurting the good businesses.
Pain spreads, and President X convenes leading industrialists and employers at the White House and gets them to agree not to lay off workers. Wages must be kept high and employment cannot dip, advises the president. We need those workers to spend their paychecks. Businesses consent for a while, until earnings dip so far they break their word and massive layoffs occur.
Government debt increases as spending remains high (and goes higher as the feds try to "prime the pump") and tax receipts decline precipitously. Congress gets spooked by red ink on the books and passes massive tax increases, which the president signs. With less money in private pockets -- less private money for spending, saving, investing, which is always more efficiently allocated than public money -- the economy slows further.
Populists in Congress call for tariff increases to protect suffering American industry from witheringly cheap foreign competition, and a massive protectionist bill is passed, rolling back the expansion of international trade and global markets that has been progressing for decades. Tough times are exported.
People can't pay their mortgages and banks foreclose. Congress steps in to prevent foreclosures. Banks are unable to recoup their losses and fail by the droves, taking deposits with them. Those who can take their money out of banks and put it into hard assets like gold. Gold is safe as compared to the uncertainty of equities, but in the wider context of investment, gold buying is akin to burying your money in a Mason jar in the backyard.
The Dow loses 80%+ of its value in four years.
That was 1929-1932. Or was it?
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Bad News. Traveling Fast.
This is one strange fall. The Europeans, who spent last week smuggly suggesting that only Americans have a problem in their banking sector, appear about to be about to get a taste. Hope folks on the Hill are paying attention to the pitter-patter of threatening economic news from across the sea.
This is one strange fall. The Europeans, who spent last week smuggly suggesting that only Americans have a problem in their banking sector, appear about to be about to get a taste. Hope folks on the Hill are paying attention to the pitter-patter of threatening economic news from across the sea.
One Morninng-After Thought
The Obama team seems a little to content to jump to the conclusion that the debate was a tie and that tie's go to the one who is currently leading in the polls. Like it or not, Obama has some hurdles to clear to persuade the public that he's ready. If you accept the premise that last night was a tie (I don't -- McCain won by demonstrating that as a 72-year-old man he has the judgment, experience and ferocious energy required to be president RIGHT NOW) it wouldn't be enough to put a very close race to bed. He hasn't closed the deal yet (same problem as in the primary) and his performance last night left those nagging doubts about temperment and experience unanswered.
The question is: how can McCain regain his momentum?
The Obama team seems a little to content to jump to the conclusion that the debate was a tie and that tie's go to the one who is currently leading in the polls. Like it or not, Obama has some hurdles to clear to persuade the public that he's ready. If you accept the premise that last night was a tie (I don't -- McCain won by demonstrating that as a 72-year-old man he has the judgment, experience and ferocious energy required to be president RIGHT NOW) it wouldn't be enough to put a very close race to bed. He hasn't closed the deal yet (same problem as in the primary) and his performance last night left those nagging doubts about temperment and experience unanswered.
The question is: how can McCain regain his momentum?
No-Spin Zone
The partisans are out trying to tell you who won. This is the best summary from the most objective source I have found thus far.
The partisans are out trying to tell you who won. This is the best summary from the most objective source I have found thus far.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Best Presidential Debate -- Ever
This is a very substantive exchange. In depth, clarifying and vigorous. I never could stand watching Bush debate because it was always like a circus: would the guy fall off the high-wire? This debate is between the old bull champion and the nimble challenger.
Like I said. The best. We are a fortunate nation to have men of this calibur running.
This is a very substantive exchange. In depth, clarifying and vigorous. I never could stand watching Bush debate because it was always like a circus: would the guy fall off the high-wire? This debate is between the old bull champion and the nimble challenger.
Like I said. The best. We are a fortunate nation to have men of this calibur running.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
True Patriotism
Careful readers will remember that when Senator Obama was asked why he didn't wear a flag pin (BTW, does he or doesn't he?) he talked about how true patriotism didn't involve anything prosaic as sporting the nation's colors on his lapel. Real patriotism, he said, was "speaking out on issues."
So, I guess doing the job you are being paid to do as a Senator from Illinois is not real patriotism. Neither is weighing in on a trillion dollar bailout of the financial system. These, I'm afraid, are mere "distractions" (Senator Obama LOVES that word and applies it quite discriminately: it means any idea or argument he finds inconvenient) from the real patriotism of "speaking out on the issues" through campaign appearances and 30-second attack ads.
Has anyone broken the news to Senator Obama that the presidency and public responsibilities involves something other than writing memoirs? And, that if you want to write memoirs that other people want to read, you have to do interesting and important things like doing some of the hard intellectual and leadership work involved in teasing out whether we are on the precipice of a new Great Depression and if so what can we do to prevent it?
I've got just the title for him, "Dreams From My Candidate".
Careful readers will remember that when Senator Obama was asked why he didn't wear a flag pin (BTW, does he or doesn't he?) he talked about how true patriotism didn't involve anything prosaic as sporting the nation's colors on his lapel. Real patriotism, he said, was "speaking out on issues."
So, I guess doing the job you are being paid to do as a Senator from Illinois is not real patriotism. Neither is weighing in on a trillion dollar bailout of the financial system. These, I'm afraid, are mere "distractions" (Senator Obama LOVES that word and applies it quite discriminately: it means any idea or argument he finds inconvenient) from the real patriotism of "speaking out on the issues" through campaign appearances and 30-second attack ads.
Has anyone broken the news to Senator Obama that the presidency and public responsibilities involves something other than writing memoirs? And, that if you want to write memoirs that other people want to read, you have to do interesting and important things like doing some of the hard intellectual and leadership work involved in teasing out whether we are on the precipice of a new Great Depression and if so what can we do to prevent it?
I've got just the title for him, "Dreams From My Candidate".
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
US History according to Joe Biden:
"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed," Biden told Couric. "He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"
Um, no. The television was yet a dream in the eye of American consumers, and Herbert Hoover had been elected less than a year before. But hell, Al Gore invented the internet and John McCain invented Blackberries, why couldn't FDR have invented TV?
I hear Abe Lincoln sent out the Emancipation Proclamation by text message too.
"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed," Biden told Couric. "He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"
Um, no. The television was yet a dream in the eye of American consumers, and Herbert Hoover had been elected less than a year before. But hell, Al Gore invented the internet and John McCain invented Blackberries, why couldn't FDR have invented TV?
I hear Abe Lincoln sent out the Emancipation Proclamation by text message too.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Six of the top ten most wealthy members of Congress are Democrats, with John Kerry leading the way. Feinstein, Kennedy, Lautenberg, and Rockefeller right behind.
Party of the People.
Party of the People.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
I actually prefer Doc's version; "There's a Wildness in God's Mercy" sounds theologically right-on to me.
Tonight I had a related disconcerting song experience: three or four kids sang their pre-meal prayers, something like "We thank you God! For our food!" to the tune of the Indiana Jones theme. Innovative, I guess.
Tonight I had a related disconcerting song experience: three or four kids sang their pre-meal prayers, something like "We thank you God! For our food!" to the tune of the Indiana Jones theme. Innovative, I guess.
Have you ever noticed that "Lift High the Cross" sounds remarkably like "Oh Canada?"
Lift high the cross, the love of Christ proclaim...
Oh Canada, our home and native land...
And I always thought "There's a Wideness in God's Mercy" was actually "There's a Wildness in God's Mercy."
Whoah! Look Out! Here it comes!
Lift high the cross, the love of Christ proclaim...
Oh Canada, our home and native land...
And I always thought "There's a Wideness in God's Mercy" was actually "There's a Wildness in God's Mercy."
Whoah! Look Out! Here it comes!
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Hoping for the Worst
In the valley-of-the-shadow-of-death days of the Iraq war Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (always good for a laugh) rather famously said the Iraq war was lost. In fact, it was disconcerting during the bad old days to wake up to headlines in which the Reid, Pelosi and others felt compelled to point out just how badly things were going and how our paramount need was for a hasty withdrawal from the Iraq quagmire. In spite of the improved situation in Iraq, this particular Democratic meme even today hasn't quite dried up. As one pithy commentator put it, the Democrats are "objectively pro-Al Qaeda" in rooting for the country's enemies.
This week, with a thousand point drop in the stock market and massive federal intervention to prop up the financial architecture of the world's greatest economy, I been wondering whether the Democratic Party and its nominee are "objectively pro-Great Depression." One senses that Obama's team is enjoying the spectacle of the meltdown a bit too much. Savings are being wiped out, after all, companies destroyed and the livelihoods of millions put at risk. Is it really just a political issue? Give me lipstick on a pig any day (inflating the trivial) compared to seeking political advantage over the collapse of the world's largest insurance company and one the world's most important brokerage houses (trivializing the critical.) Is there any price, the loss of a war or economic catastrophe, for instance, that would be excessive to win this election? I guess that's why The Onion calls their election page, "War for the White House."
Of course, this tendency to hope for the worst underlines a key problem Democrats have in the country at large, namely, the sinking feeling that when they add up the debits and credits of America, things don't quite reach a positive balance. In fact, among Democrats, one suspects that there's quite a different concept of America and its place in the world. A 200-year constitutional order, 100-fold increases in living standards every 100 years, the rule of law, expanding civil rights for women and minorities, the liberation of the world periodically from assorted tyrants and would-be tyrants these seem to be invisible or at least obscured substantially by the nation's failings. The nation has failings, no doubt. I keep a list in my back pocket although the items on my list probably aren't the same items on your average Democrat's. But I also know that to fix these problems would be to press toward perfection, and perfection is one of those qualities (in people or countries) that always recedes.
In the valley-of-the-shadow-of-death days of the Iraq war Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (always good for a laugh) rather famously said the Iraq war was lost. In fact, it was disconcerting during the bad old days to wake up to headlines in which the Reid, Pelosi and others felt compelled to point out just how badly things were going and how our paramount need was for a hasty withdrawal from the Iraq quagmire. In spite of the improved situation in Iraq, this particular Democratic meme even today hasn't quite dried up. As one pithy commentator put it, the Democrats are "objectively pro-Al Qaeda" in rooting for the country's enemies.
This week, with a thousand point drop in the stock market and massive federal intervention to prop up the financial architecture of the world's greatest economy, I been wondering whether the Democratic Party and its nominee are "objectively pro-Great Depression." One senses that Obama's team is enjoying the spectacle of the meltdown a bit too much. Savings are being wiped out, after all, companies destroyed and the livelihoods of millions put at risk. Is it really just a political issue? Give me lipstick on a pig any day (inflating the trivial) compared to seeking political advantage over the collapse of the world's largest insurance company and one the world's most important brokerage houses (trivializing the critical.) Is there any price, the loss of a war or economic catastrophe, for instance, that would be excessive to win this election? I guess that's why The Onion calls their election page, "War for the White House."
Of course, this tendency to hope for the worst underlines a key problem Democrats have in the country at large, namely, the sinking feeling that when they add up the debits and credits of America, things don't quite reach a positive balance. In fact, among Democrats, one suspects that there's quite a different concept of America and its place in the world. A 200-year constitutional order, 100-fold increases in living standards every 100 years, the rule of law, expanding civil rights for women and minorities, the liberation of the world periodically from assorted tyrants and would-be tyrants these seem to be invisible or at least obscured substantially by the nation's failings. The nation has failings, no doubt. I keep a list in my back pocket although the items on my list probably aren't the same items on your average Democrat's. But I also know that to fix these problems would be to press toward perfection, and perfection is one of those qualities (in people or countries) that always recedes.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
How to Defuse the Blackberry Mess
Very simple. McCain goes on Letterman and while he's joshing and answering questions with the host he keeps looking down at his watch. Letterman asks whether he has somewhere else he needs to be and McCain says, "I have an appointment with Al Gore in a few minutes. We need to fix the Internet." Laughs all around, McCain gets points for a sense of humor about himself Gore could never demonstrate because he doesn't have.
They can thank me later.
Very simple. McCain goes on Letterman and while he's joshing and answering questions with the host he keeps looking down at his watch. Letterman asks whether he has somewhere else he needs to be and McCain says, "I have an appointment with Al Gore in a few minutes. We need to fix the Internet." Laughs all around, McCain gets points for a sense of humor about himself Gore could never demonstrate because he doesn't have.
They can thank me later.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
A Breath of Fresh Air
Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children's Zone appeared yesterday with Terri Gross on the always annoying, Fresh Air. Canada's group serves about 8,000 kids in a 97-block catchment in Harlem with a pre-K-through-high school program that is integrated with a wide-range of support services that kids in poverty typically need. At one point in the interview, Gross began to weigh-in on the question of whether HCZ's kids were being subjected to that boogeyman of the professional education lobby, the standardized test. In her breathy and breathless way, Gross bemoaned the way these tests stifle teacher and student creativity and get in the way of "real" learning. Don't you think it's awful, she asked, that teachers must "teach to the test?"
Canada paused and then said words to the effect, "I only wish they were teaching to the test. Right now, they don't seem be teaching much of anything." He then went on to make the case for standards and how the tests re-inject some rigor into urban public education. Marvelous. Hear it all here.
Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children's Zone appeared yesterday with Terri Gross on the always annoying, Fresh Air. Canada's group serves about 8,000 kids in a 97-block catchment in Harlem with a pre-K-through-high school program that is integrated with a wide-range of support services that kids in poverty typically need. At one point in the interview, Gross began to weigh-in on the question of whether HCZ's kids were being subjected to that boogeyman of the professional education lobby, the standardized test. In her breathy and breathless way, Gross bemoaned the way these tests stifle teacher and student creativity and get in the way of "real" learning. Don't you think it's awful, she asked, that teachers must "teach to the test?"
Canada paused and then said words to the effect, "I only wish they were teaching to the test. Right now, they don't seem be teaching much of anything." He then went on to make the case for standards and how the tests re-inject some rigor into urban public education. Marvelous. Hear it all here.
Two Days, Two Mistakes, The Race Is On
It is amazing the difference 36 hours can make in a presidential contest. The Obama team has definitely shown resliency by cleverly taking advantage of McCain missteps on the economy and his staff's overreaching on technology issues. Of course, McCain is right about the economic fundamentals: the melting of the Wall Street wax-works bears little immediate relationship to Main Street business and the underlying assets of the American economy (particularly its human capital and infrastructure) are in place. But when the market loses 500 points? Let's just say the messaging was off.
More inexplicable is the "McCain's the inventor of the Blackberry comment." Yeah, just like He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wrote the specs for the Internet. Why did they feel like they needed to respond to accusation that McCain can't write his own emails? I liked their first answer: because his broken fingers and hands, leftovers from Hanoi, make it laborious to do so. He wishes he could write emails. He forwent that skill in service to his country.
Presidential races are like two teams pushing against the same door. These mistakes moved the door a couple inches Obama's way. Too bad.
It is amazing the difference 36 hours can make in a presidential contest. The Obama team has definitely shown resliency by cleverly taking advantage of McCain missteps on the economy and his staff's overreaching on technology issues. Of course, McCain is right about the economic fundamentals: the melting of the Wall Street wax-works bears little immediate relationship to Main Street business and the underlying assets of the American economy (particularly its human capital and infrastructure) are in place. But when the market loses 500 points? Let's just say the messaging was off.
More inexplicable is the "McCain's the inventor of the Blackberry comment." Yeah, just like He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wrote the specs for the Internet. Why did they feel like they needed to respond to accusation that McCain can't write his own emails? I liked their first answer: because his broken fingers and hands, leftovers from Hanoi, make it laborious to do so. He wishes he could write emails. He forwent that skill in service to his country.
Presidential races are like two teams pushing against the same door. These mistakes moved the door a couple inches Obama's way. Too bad.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Why the Swift Boats Won't Sink McCain
It is amazing how clumsy liberals can be in attempting adapt conservative campaign tactics. A new independent ad out has someone who knew McCain during the war saying that being a POW is no qualification to be president and that McCain's temper is a disqualification. Cue the sound of speeding Swift Boats coming in for a kill.
Here's what they don't understand: it wasn't what John Kerry did during the war that made him vulnerable to the Swift Boat ads. He was a decorated war veteran with citations for valor under fire. All to the good. It was what John Kerry did after the war -- undermining the war effort, protesting the war, lying about returning his medals -- that fatally undermined the appeal of his service to the country. What made the charges of his contemporaries from the 1960s so compelling is that they were consistent with the Kerry the country came to know in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Nothing that happened to Kerry justified in the public mind his actions that a lot of voters regarded as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. So John McCain was tortured and partially disabled by his captors and that made him...cranky? Rather than undermining the public's admiration of McCain, this actually might help reinforce it.
It is amazing how clumsy liberals can be in attempting adapt conservative campaign tactics. A new independent ad out has someone who knew McCain during the war saying that being a POW is no qualification to be president and that McCain's temper is a disqualification. Cue the sound of speeding Swift Boats coming in for a kill.
Here's what they don't understand: it wasn't what John Kerry did during the war that made him vulnerable to the Swift Boat ads. He was a decorated war veteran with citations for valor under fire. All to the good. It was what John Kerry did after the war -- undermining the war effort, protesting the war, lying about returning his medals -- that fatally undermined the appeal of his service to the country. What made the charges of his contemporaries from the 1960s so compelling is that they were consistent with the Kerry the country came to know in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Nothing that happened to Kerry justified in the public mind his actions that a lot of voters regarded as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. So John McCain was tortured and partially disabled by his captors and that made him...cranky? Rather than undermining the public's admiration of McCain, this actually might help reinforce it.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Minnesota Swings
A new poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates International (PSRAI) released this morning shows McCain and Obama all tied up in Minnesota at 45 percent each among likely voters. The previous poll, by the thoroughly unreliable Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota, had Obama up by 12. PSRAI polled over a thousand adults which is a very large sample for a state survey. Of further interest is the fact that in the context of McCain's growth, the undecideds are basically unchanged meaning that McCain is effectively stealing Obama votes.
Read more here.
A new poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates International (PSRAI) released this morning shows McCain and Obama all tied up in Minnesota at 45 percent each among likely voters. The previous poll, by the thoroughly unreliable Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota, had Obama up by 12. PSRAI polled over a thousand adults which is a very large sample for a state survey. Of further interest is the fact that in the context of McCain's growth, the undecideds are basically unchanged meaning that McCain is effectively stealing Obama votes.
Read more here.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The Importance of Hating Earmarks
Gail Collins is in high tut-tut mode over the earmark question. She makes the quite correct point that earmarked projects account for an infintessimal amount of the federal budget and are therefore very much below the concern of anyone who's "serious" about dealing with the real federal spending problems, Social Security, Medicare and the rest of the entitlement state.
Not quite, actually. Earmarks are the "broken windows" of the federal budget process. Their proliferation in recent years has been a product of, and a prod to, a general lack of seriousness about bringing the federal budget back into balance. Does anyone believe that a Congress and Administration incapable of saying no to trivialities of individual member projects will somehow acquire the career-threatening virtue necessary to reign-in the entitlement hydra? Talk about not serious. Seems to me that just as arresting turnstile jumpers and squeegee men were Guiliani's first steps toward restoring order on the streets of New York, so putting a big dent in earmarking might be the very tonic needed to reinject a modicum of seriousness in the federal budget-making process.
McCain has put his finger on a very important principle in his war against earmarks. They are a symptom and symbol of a much deeper problem in the Republic: a dwindling in the self-restraint that makes self-government possible. This is an excellent place for reform to begin.
Respond to drpotomac@gmail.com
Gail Collins is in high tut-tut mode over the earmark question. She makes the quite correct point that earmarked projects account for an infintessimal amount of the federal budget and are therefore very much below the concern of anyone who's "serious" about dealing with the real federal spending problems, Social Security, Medicare and the rest of the entitlement state.
Not quite, actually. Earmarks are the "broken windows" of the federal budget process. Their proliferation in recent years has been a product of, and a prod to, a general lack of seriousness about bringing the federal budget back into balance. Does anyone believe that a Congress and Administration incapable of saying no to trivialities of individual member projects will somehow acquire the career-threatening virtue necessary to reign-in the entitlement hydra? Talk about not serious. Seems to me that just as arresting turnstile jumpers and squeegee men were Guiliani's first steps toward restoring order on the streets of New York, so putting a big dent in earmarking might be the very tonic needed to reinject a modicum of seriousness in the federal budget-making process.
McCain has put his finger on a very important principle in his war against earmarks. They are a symptom and symbol of a much deeper problem in the Republic: a dwindling in the self-restraint that makes self-government possible. This is an excellent place for reform to begin.
Respond to drpotomac@gmail.com
Judith Warner, The Haidt Research, etc.
I must say I found the Judith Warner piece that Dr. Potomac mentions below to be somewhat bizarre. As an academic with, uh, very different metaphysical and political opinions than most of my colleagues, I am used to not just meeting but being with very different types of people. Ms. Warner, on the other hand, obviously felt way outside that ol' comfort zone.
An article by Haidt featuring his research was linked to by the all-powerful Arts & Letters Daily, which if you like ideas, you should make your home page. The Chief Crunchy Con, our friend Rod Dreher (well, not really friend, but the Doc and once chatted with him, though we were surrounded by two hundred of our closest friends at the time) had an interesting post on it, and led me to an online test you can take that will provide Haidt with some more datapoints, and perhaps provide you with some self-awareness. So far I have taken only two of the tests, and am proving to be a really bizarre outlier.
I should also note that Rod seems to be in the midst of a great deal of conflict over Our Sarah, stemming from her interviews with Charlie Gibson, or Uncle Sourpuss as I shall now think of him (myself, I can't wait to get some half-moon reading classes so I can stare with pursed lips at my erring undergrads; maybe I can get a pair with clear glass). This is, I imagine, not so much as the interview was disastrous qua interview, as that Rod finds the interview disastrous because Our Sarah actually said things that John McCain would say as well; reminding Rod that he does believe that John McCain is a dangerous Neo-conservative looking for a chance to throw the legions into battle, or something.
Thus does the beautiful glow of torrid love-affair die. Sigh. Well, he'll always have Dayton.
For those of us who like Our Sarah and who haven't stopped talking about Iraq since an actual counterinsurgency policy with a possibility of victory was implemented, well, we can feel uncomfortable with Sarah's awkwardness, but that's about it.
I must say I found the Judith Warner piece that Dr. Potomac mentions below to be somewhat bizarre. As an academic with, uh, very different metaphysical and political opinions than most of my colleagues, I am used to not just meeting but being with very different types of people. Ms. Warner, on the other hand, obviously felt way outside that ol' comfort zone.
An article by Haidt featuring his research was linked to by the all-powerful Arts & Letters Daily, which if you like ideas, you should make your home page. The Chief Crunchy Con, our friend Rod Dreher (well, not really friend, but the Doc and once chatted with him, though we were surrounded by two hundred of our closest friends at the time) had an interesting post on it, and led me to an online test you can take that will provide Haidt with some more datapoints, and perhaps provide you with some self-awareness. So far I have taken only two of the tests, and am proving to be a really bizarre outlier.
I should also note that Rod seems to be in the midst of a great deal of conflict over Our Sarah, stemming from her interviews with Charlie Gibson, or Uncle Sourpuss as I shall now think of him (myself, I can't wait to get some half-moon reading classes so I can stare with pursed lips at my erring undergrads; maybe I can get a pair with clear glass). This is, I imagine, not so much as the interview was disastrous qua interview, as that Rod finds the interview disastrous because Our Sarah actually said things that John McCain would say as well; reminding Rod that he does believe that John McCain is a dangerous Neo-conservative looking for a chance to throw the legions into battle, or something.
Thus does the beautiful glow of torrid love-affair die. Sigh. Well, he'll always have Dayton.
For those of us who like Our Sarah and who haven't stopped talking about Iraq since an actual counterinsurgency policy with a possibility of victory was implemented, well, we can feel uncomfortable with Sarah's awkwardness, but that's about it.
From Whence the Anger Comes
More on the theme of who-gets-whom between liberals and conservatives.
For those of us who can’t tap into those yearnings, it seems the Palin faithful are blind – to the contradictions between her stated positions and the truth of the policies she espouses, to the contradictions between her ideology and their interests. But Jonathan Haidt, an associate professor of moral psychology at the University of Virginia, argues in an essay this month, “What Makes People Vote Republican?”, that it’s liberals, in fact, who are dangerously blind.
Haidt has conducted research in which liberals and conservatives were asked to project themselves into the minds of their opponents and answer questions about their moral reasoning. Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view. “Liberals feel contempt for the conservative moral view, and that is very, very angering. Republicans are good at exploiting that anger,” he told me in a phone interview.
Perhaps that’s why the conservatives can so successfully get under liberals’ skin. And why liberals need to start working harder at breaking through the empathy barrier.
Read the whole piece here.
More on the theme of who-gets-whom between liberals and conservatives.
For those of us who can’t tap into those yearnings, it seems the Palin faithful are blind – to the contradictions between her stated positions and the truth of the policies she espouses, to the contradictions between her ideology and their interests. But Jonathan Haidt, an associate professor of moral psychology at the University of Virginia, argues in an essay this month, “What Makes People Vote Republican?”, that it’s liberals, in fact, who are dangerously blind.
Haidt has conducted research in which liberals and conservatives were asked to project themselves into the minds of their opponents and answer questions about their moral reasoning. Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view. “Liberals feel contempt for the conservative moral view, and that is very, very angering. Republicans are good at exploiting that anger,” he told me in a phone interview.
Perhaps that’s why the conservatives can so successfully get under liberals’ skin. And why liberals need to start working harder at breaking through the empathy barrier.
Read the whole piece here.
Just What is a "Likely Voter"?
Gallup issued some interesting details on its polling methodology yesterday. "Registered voters," they say, are those who give a positive repsonse to the question of whether they are "registered to vote in their presinct or election district." This is the number that Gallup most frequently reports which split 50 percent for Mcain to 46 percent for Obama in the most recent report.
Gallup went on to say that it has spent decades refining its "likely voter" model. Respondents are asked a battery of questions about "past voting, current interest in the election, and self-reported interest in voting." The questions are extensive and detailed. Among these voters, McCain led 54 percent to 44 percent. That would be a landslide of Reagnesque proportions.
In the run-up to the 2004 election, Gallup's likely voter model was quite predictive. In the final poll before balloting, Gallup found Bush behind Kerry by 2 percent, 48 percent to 46 percent among registered voters. Among likely voters, Bush led by 2 percent, 49 percent to 47 percent. Bush won by 2.5 percent which would seem to indicate that Gallup's models have fairly strong predictive value.
Gallup notes that one thing it's poll might have difficulty picking up is rapid expansion of the voting public, and they further note the Obama campaign is promising to turn young people out in droves. Maybe. But as James Carville says, there's a name for candidates who rely on the youth vote: loser.
Bottom line: keep an eye on the Gallup Poll.
Gallup issued some interesting details on its polling methodology yesterday. "Registered voters," they say, are those who give a positive repsonse to the question of whether they are "registered to vote in their presinct or election district." This is the number that Gallup most frequently reports which split 50 percent for Mcain to 46 percent for Obama in the most recent report.
Gallup went on to say that it has spent decades refining its "likely voter" model. Respondents are asked a battery of questions about "past voting, current interest in the election, and self-reported interest in voting." The questions are extensive and detailed. Among these voters, McCain led 54 percent to 44 percent. That would be a landslide of Reagnesque proportions.
In the run-up to the 2004 election, Gallup's likely voter model was quite predictive. In the final poll before balloting, Gallup found Bush behind Kerry by 2 percent, 48 percent to 46 percent among registered voters. Among likely voters, Bush led by 2 percent, 49 percent to 47 percent. Bush won by 2.5 percent which would seem to indicate that Gallup's models have fairly strong predictive value.
Gallup notes that one thing it's poll might have difficulty picking up is rapid expansion of the voting public, and they further note the Obama campaign is promising to turn young people out in droves. Maybe. But as James Carville says, there's a name for candidates who rely on the youth vote: loser.
Bottom line: keep an eye on the Gallup Poll.
The Ohio Poll
The University of Cincinnati issued its poll yesterday showing McCain with a 48 to 44percent lead over Obama. Two significant sub-findings bear noting. First, 23 percent of respondents indicated that they could change their minds before election day, which is a fairly big number in a Palin-polarized electorate and a measure of how cross-pressured the electorate is due to the struggling Ohio economy. Second, in an indication that Obama's white working class and women issues are far from behind him, the poll found that over twice as many Democrats (11 percent) are crossing over to support McCain as Republicans (5 percent)are ready to vote for Obama.
The University of Cincinnati issued its poll yesterday showing McCain with a 48 to 44percent lead over Obama. Two significant sub-findings bear noting. First, 23 percent of respondents indicated that they could change their minds before election day, which is a fairly big number in a Palin-polarized electorate and a measure of how cross-pressured the electorate is due to the struggling Ohio economy. Second, in an indication that Obama's white working class and women issues are far from behind him, the poll found that over twice as many Democrats (11 percent) are crossing over to support McCain as Republicans (5 percent)are ready to vote for Obama.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Peter Robinson with Andrew Klavan
Uncommon Knowledge, the webisodes in which Peter Robinson speaks with some notable is always interesting, but this current series of interviews with Andrew Klavan is particularly fascinating to me. Why? Well, for one, I know about Tom Wolfe, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, etc., etc., but Klavan is a new face and a new mind, and it's a delight to be introduced to him. For another, I agree with him, and find him very provocative. All of the webisodes are good, but especially this one, which in many ways I believe harmonizes with the foundational ideas behind all the members of this blog. Watch, to paraphrase, them all.
Uncommon Knowledge, the webisodes in which Peter Robinson speaks with some notable is always interesting, but this current series of interviews with Andrew Klavan is particularly fascinating to me. Why? Well, for one, I know about Tom Wolfe, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, etc., etc., but Klavan is a new face and a new mind, and it's a delight to be introduced to him. For another, I agree with him, and find him very provocative. All of the webisodes are good, but especially this one, which in many ways I believe harmonizes with the foundational ideas behind all the members of this blog. Watch, to paraphrase, them all.
A Tasty Tid-Bit From Our Friends at Gallup
The positive impact of the GOP convention on polling indicators of Republican strength is further seen in the operation of Gallup's "likely voter" model in this survey. Republicans, who are now much more enthused about the 2008 election than they were prior to the convention, show heightened interest in voting, and thus outscore Democrats in apparent likelihood to vote in November. As a result, Republican candidates now lead Democratic candidates among likely voters by 5 percentage points, 50% to 45%.
Gallup goes on to note that this lead among likely voters, if sustained, would be sufficient to allow the GOP to recapture the House in November and is consistent with shifts in partisan control in 1994 and 2006.
The positive impact of the GOP convention on polling indicators of Republican strength is further seen in the operation of Gallup's "likely voter" model in this survey. Republicans, who are now much more enthused about the 2008 election than they were prior to the convention, show heightened interest in voting, and thus outscore Democrats in apparent likelihood to vote in November. As a result, Republican candidates now lead Democratic candidates among likely voters by 5 percentage points, 50% to 45%.
Gallup goes on to note that this lead among likely voters, if sustained, would be sufficient to allow the GOP to recapture the House in November and is consistent with shifts in partisan control in 1994 and 2006.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The Race Today
In a word: close. Much closer than it was two weeks ago but no breakout thus far by the McCain-Palin team.
The biggest development is the way that the Republican convention bounce has probably moved several states that Obama had hoped to compete in out of reach. Florida ($5 million in media spent so far) and North Carolina ($1.6 million) are probably gone for good. Obama has abandoned the fools-gold of Georgia but not before dropping $1.8 million in TV advertising alone along with the cost of 100 staff and 30 offices. (All of this adds up to the kind of waste you can regret the Wednesday after a close election.) Virginia, still close, has firmed up considerably (that happens with 23,000 people show up in Fairfax for a rally). I trust the Ombudsman is correct in thinking that Indiana was never really in reach for Obama to start with. Nevada feels as thought it is moving slowly back toward McCain.
On Obama's side, I don't think New Hampshire (Boston ex-pats) and Pennsylvania (Philly + Pittsburg + factory closings - second worst in the nation - equals Democrat) are truly competitive. Michigan's going to break McCain's heart before this is all over by soaking up a lot of resources and then going to Obama by 2points. Likewise, my instinct is that New Mexico ultimately falls to Obama based on its artsy weirdness (think San Francisco in the desert.)
It basically comes down to one large state (Ohio) and a medium-sized state (Colorado). McCain has to have Ohio, period. There's no path to victory without it. In the meantime the layoffs from factory closings there are absolutely bone-chilling and the state Republican party is a shadow of its 2004 self. I don't know what the plan is but it better be good. In Colorado, I wouldn't try booking any flights to Denver between now and November since it will be nothing but plane loads of operatives from both parties going in for trench warfare. Obama has pretty consistently maintained a 3 to 5 point lead there all spring and summer while his media expendtures have been relatively modest at just $800,000 (not counting, of course, the Democrats convention expenditures in the state.) Assuming the other calls, like New Mexico, Michigan and New Hampshire are right, Colorado is another must-win for McCain. The question is, how?
I've enjoyed the past two weeks as much as any good Republican can. It has been gratifying to see Obama and his team so up to honoring the long tradition of the "Fall Fold". But this race isn't over. Not even close.
In a word: close. Much closer than it was two weeks ago but no breakout thus far by the McCain-Palin team.
The biggest development is the way that the Republican convention bounce has probably moved several states that Obama had hoped to compete in out of reach. Florida ($5 million in media spent so far) and North Carolina ($1.6 million) are probably gone for good. Obama has abandoned the fools-gold of Georgia but not before dropping $1.8 million in TV advertising alone along with the cost of 100 staff and 30 offices. (All of this adds up to the kind of waste you can regret the Wednesday after a close election.) Virginia, still close, has firmed up considerably (that happens with 23,000 people show up in Fairfax for a rally). I trust the Ombudsman is correct in thinking that Indiana was never really in reach for Obama to start with. Nevada feels as thought it is moving slowly back toward McCain.
On Obama's side, I don't think New Hampshire (Boston ex-pats) and Pennsylvania (Philly + Pittsburg + factory closings - second worst in the nation - equals Democrat) are truly competitive. Michigan's going to break McCain's heart before this is all over by soaking up a lot of resources and then going to Obama by 2points. Likewise, my instinct is that New Mexico ultimately falls to Obama based on its artsy weirdness (think San Francisco in the desert.)
It basically comes down to one large state (Ohio) and a medium-sized state (Colorado). McCain has to have Ohio, period. There's no path to victory without it. In the meantime the layoffs from factory closings there are absolutely bone-chilling and the state Republican party is a shadow of its 2004 self. I don't know what the plan is but it better be good. In Colorado, I wouldn't try booking any flights to Denver between now and November since it will be nothing but plane loads of operatives from both parties going in for trench warfare. Obama has pretty consistently maintained a 3 to 5 point lead there all spring and summer while his media expendtures have been relatively modest at just $800,000 (not counting, of course, the Democrats convention expenditures in the state.) Assuming the other calls, like New Mexico, Michigan and New Hampshire are right, Colorado is another must-win for McCain. The question is, how?
I've enjoyed the past two weeks as much as any good Republican can. It has been gratifying to see Obama and his team so up to honoring the long tradition of the "Fall Fold". But this race isn't over. Not even close.
That Didn't Go Well
It pains me to say it, but based on the early footage ABC has released of the Palin interview with Charles Gibson, our girl Sarah appears to be not quite so agile without a teleprompter.
The truly odd thing is that she seemed low in the interview where she was high at the convention: on delivery. The chair she was sitting in was bad, she was slouching a bit and it appeared that she was somewhat shrunken compared to the robust presence we saw in St. Paul and on platforms with McCain across the country. The phrasing was off, too, and she sounded flat and as if her depth of knowledge didn't lend itself to robust, confident answers. Disappointing, I'd say, after a week of Palinmania.
Another not too comforting sign: a lot of the traffic over at The Corner sounds overly defensive. This is one case where attacking the media for anti-Palin bias might not sell quite as well.
Too bad.
It pains me to say it, but based on the early footage ABC has released of the Palin interview with Charles Gibson, our girl Sarah appears to be not quite so agile without a teleprompter.
The truly odd thing is that she seemed low in the interview where she was high at the convention: on delivery. The chair she was sitting in was bad, she was slouching a bit and it appeared that she was somewhat shrunken compared to the robust presence we saw in St. Paul and on platforms with McCain across the country. The phrasing was off, too, and she sounded flat and as if her depth of knowledge didn't lend itself to robust, confident answers. Disappointing, I'd say, after a week of Palinmania.
Another not too comforting sign: a lot of the traffic over at The Corner sounds overly defensive. This is one case where attacking the media for anti-Palin bias might not sell quite as well.
Too bad.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
BTW: This Can't Last
Having just had the most enjoyable week in Republican politics is the last three years or so, I feel I would be letting down my reader (there is at least one person out there reading what I write besides me. Hello?) if I failed to point out that it is extremely unlikely this smooth, fast stretch of good-times is going to last much longer. A brief survey of what could go wrong, and probably will, includes: Sarah Palin's emails to her husband; the family vendetta against the child-tasering ex-brother-in-law; inexplicable claims on State of Alaska per diem; the legislative commission investigating the family vendetta; John McCain's blood pressure, skin cancer or other malady of advancing age; the debates.
What keeps a presidential candidate awake at night? Events, my dear fellow, events.
Having just had the most enjoyable week in Republican politics is the last three years or so, I feel I would be letting down my reader (there is at least one person out there reading what I write besides me. Hello?) if I failed to point out that it is extremely unlikely this smooth, fast stretch of good-times is going to last much longer. A brief survey of what could go wrong, and probably will, includes: Sarah Palin's emails to her husband; the family vendetta against the child-tasering ex-brother-in-law; inexplicable claims on State of Alaska per diem; the legislative commission investigating the family vendetta; John McCain's blood pressure, skin cancer or other malady of advancing age; the debates.
What keeps a presidential candidate awake at night? Events, my dear fellow, events.
More on Obama's First Race
Mark Cunningham looks up all the facts on how Obama has been a winner -- but only among Democrats.
Mark Cunningham looks up all the facts on how Obama has been a winner -- but only among Democrats.
Hollandaise, Anyone?
Mrs. Potomac hit another one out of the park at the dinner table tonight. She has a rather acute ear, my wife, and she noticed that Maureen Dowd, et. al., were having a hard time with the notion that Sarah Palin was not toeing the feminist line but in Dowd's view was benefiting greatly from the sacrifices made by her sisters. Given the screeching from Gloria Steinem and others, it would be hard not to notice this unhappiness, right?
But being Mrs. Potomac, she was all about the value-added proposition. She noted that it wasn't entirely consistent for a man, whom others (not Dr. Potomac, course. He would never utter such a politically incorrect thought) had suggested had benefited just a teensy-weensy bit from his multi-culti origins despite the backdrop of a very thin resume. It is worth asking: Has Barack really paid all his dues or was he chosen by voters, in part, for what he represented through his race?
Interesting, isn't it? There really are some uncanny parallels about the concerns being expressed about the top of the Democratic ticket and the bottom of the Republican. In fact, it seems just about impossible to get through a single thought about this race without bumping up against the fact that the Democrats nominated for president of the United States a man whose credentials compare, in some ways, unfavorably, with a first-term governor of ALASKA.
And now, a message from the Obama Campaign: Please stop using "Obama" and "Palin" in the same sentence either mentally or outloud. Thank you.
Mrs. Potomac hit another one out of the park at the dinner table tonight. She has a rather acute ear, my wife, and she noticed that Maureen Dowd, et. al., were having a hard time with the notion that Sarah Palin was not toeing the feminist line but in Dowd's view was benefiting greatly from the sacrifices made by her sisters. Given the screeching from Gloria Steinem and others, it would be hard not to notice this unhappiness, right?
But being Mrs. Potomac, she was all about the value-added proposition. She noted that it wasn't entirely consistent for a man, whom others (not Dr. Potomac, course. He would never utter such a politically incorrect thought) had suggested had benefited just a teensy-weensy bit from his multi-culti origins despite the backdrop of a very thin resume. It is worth asking: Has Barack really paid all his dues or was he chosen by voters, in part, for what he represented through his race?
Interesting, isn't it? There really are some uncanny parallels about the concerns being expressed about the top of the Democratic ticket and the bottom of the Republican. In fact, it seems just about impossible to get through a single thought about this race without bumping up against the fact that the Democrats nominated for president of the United States a man whose credentials compare, in some ways, unfavorably, with a first-term governor of ALASKA.
And now, a message from the Obama Campaign: Please stop using "Obama" and "Palin" in the same sentence either mentally or outloud. Thank you.
Obama's Supporters Pile On
The Obama campaign's downward spiral has reached that point where ostensible allies begin to criticize - and not in gentle way.
There's a lot of going on right now. Richard Cohen yesterday. And, that purveyor of the most conventional of conventional wisdom, Tom Friedman today. Both of these keyboard debaters slap Obama around for being too "cool."
Of course, some of the criticism doesn't make a lot of sense, like this from Friedman:
Somebody needs to tell Obama that if he wants the chance to calmly answer the phone at 3 a.m. in the White House, he is going to need to start slamming down some phones at 3 p.m. along the campaign trail.
How, one might ask, is mishandling telephonic equipment going convince the American public that a President Obama is a good idea? Will he hang up in a snit when Medvedev or Putin misbehave? Will the firmly replaced receiver be called upon to replace missiles in silos or F-15s on the hanger deck? Will the steaming silence on the other end of the line convince the Iranians to beat centrifuges into Pan flutes?
It must surely be one of the most difficult aspects of political life that people who have never held office, run for office or exercised any public responsibilities that didn't involve a check by the editor prior to publication should be handing out innanities like this. Yet another reason you'll not find my name on a ballot; I might be tempted to become very curt with my critics.
The Obama campaign's downward spiral has reached that point where ostensible allies begin to criticize - and not in gentle way.
There's a lot of going on right now. Richard Cohen yesterday. And, that purveyor of the most conventional of conventional wisdom, Tom Friedman today. Both of these keyboard debaters slap Obama around for being too "cool."
Of course, some of the criticism doesn't make a lot of sense, like this from Friedman:
Somebody needs to tell Obama that if he wants the chance to calmly answer the phone at 3 a.m. in the White House, he is going to need to start slamming down some phones at 3 p.m. along the campaign trail.
How, one might ask, is mishandling telephonic equipment going convince the American public that a President Obama is a good idea? Will he hang up in a snit when Medvedev or Putin misbehave? Will the firmly replaced receiver be called upon to replace missiles in silos or F-15s on the hanger deck? Will the steaming silence on the other end of the line convince the Iranians to beat centrifuges into Pan flutes?
It must surely be one of the most difficult aspects of political life that people who have never held office, run for office or exercised any public responsibilities that didn't involve a check by the editor prior to publication should be handing out innanities like this. Yet another reason you'll not find my name on a ballot; I might be tempted to become very curt with my critics.
Obama's First Race
As I was drifting off to sleep last night, the thought came to me: no wonder he's having such trouble. This is his first real election.
When you think about it, Obama is completely a creature of the Democratic party. It isn't that he hasn't had tough contests. His rise into the Illinois State Senate was marked by some crafty maneuvering. But it was all in the context of intra-party politics. Ditto the U.S. Senate campaign when he was up against Alan Keyes (insert derisive laughter here.) Ditto the primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. The key in all these races was to either maneuver tactically to solidify the support of the machine, ignore an inept, underfinanced opponent, or, most recently, simply move left until your chief opponent couldn't compete for an votes in angry and energized primary electorate.
The terrain in the general election is as different as the moon is from Mars. It requires figuring out how to bridge from your base to the center which, so far as I can tell, Obama has never been required to do in the past. He's had the luxury of running to represent safe Democratic seats and had his positions ratified in an echo chamber. This makes it easier to understand how he could have muffed the Rick Warren question on abortion so badly. He'd never been in a forum where the question could be posed in a way and before an audience that didn't lend itself to a stock Democrat answer. He simply hadn't thought it through.
This is an interesting contrast to John McCain. Johnny Mac has spent the better part of his career becoming a professional at triangulating between party orthodoxies and the political center. He's had to come to grips with where conservative ideas were right and where he (and many others in the center) found them lacking. He's from a state that is largely, but not exclusively, Republican and in which competitive races between the parties occasionally happen.
Experience counts. In more than one way.
As I was drifting off to sleep last night, the thought came to me: no wonder he's having such trouble. This is his first real election.
When you think about it, Obama is completely a creature of the Democratic party. It isn't that he hasn't had tough contests. His rise into the Illinois State Senate was marked by some crafty maneuvering. But it was all in the context of intra-party politics. Ditto the U.S. Senate campaign when he was up against Alan Keyes (insert derisive laughter here.) Ditto the primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. The key in all these races was to either maneuver tactically to solidify the support of the machine, ignore an inept, underfinanced opponent, or, most recently, simply move left until your chief opponent couldn't compete for an votes in angry and energized primary electorate.
The terrain in the general election is as different as the moon is from Mars. It requires figuring out how to bridge from your base to the center which, so far as I can tell, Obama has never been required to do in the past. He's had the luxury of running to represent safe Democratic seats and had his positions ratified in an echo chamber. This makes it easier to understand how he could have muffed the Rick Warren question on abortion so badly. He'd never been in a forum where the question could be posed in a way and before an audience that didn't lend itself to a stock Democrat answer. He simply hadn't thought it through.
This is an interesting contrast to John McCain. Johnny Mac has spent the better part of his career becoming a professional at triangulating between party orthodoxies and the political center. He's had to come to grips with where conservative ideas were right and where he (and many others in the center) found them lacking. He's from a state that is largely, but not exclusively, Republican and in which competitive races between the parties occasionally happen.
Experience counts. In more than one way.
Why Barack Can't Get Sarah Off His Mind
There are two reasons why Senator Obama can't lay off talking about The Sarah. The first is driven by the cross-tabs: she's eating his lunch among white, working-class women according to the Washington Post/ABC poll out yesterday. There's been a 15 point shift toward McCain since the convention, and, with all due respect to the top of the GOP ticket, I don't think that's because John McCain suddenly made these ladies' hearts go pitter-pat. The look at Sarah and see themselves. Humans nature being what it is, they want to vote for someone like them.
The second is just sheer outrage of the type I mentioned on Sunday. Liberals see interests as being soley economic in nature. If the working class is suffering under the burden of high gas prices, growing unemployment and rising health care costs, why, in Heavens' name, don't they join Obama to usher in the political millenium? What liberals are unable to see is that interests often extend beyond economics into "mere" values. Obama and his campaign are trying to say, "Snap out of it!" to a public that doesn't want to snap.
P.S. The "lipstick on a pig" comment is going to hurt for a few days.
There are two reasons why Senator Obama can't lay off talking about The Sarah. The first is driven by the cross-tabs: she's eating his lunch among white, working-class women according to the Washington Post/ABC poll out yesterday. There's been a 15 point shift toward McCain since the convention, and, with all due respect to the top of the GOP ticket, I don't think that's because John McCain suddenly made these ladies' hearts go pitter-pat. The look at Sarah and see themselves. Humans nature being what it is, they want to vote for someone like them.
The second is just sheer outrage of the type I mentioned on Sunday. Liberals see interests as being soley economic in nature. If the working class is suffering under the burden of high gas prices, growing unemployment and rising health care costs, why, in Heavens' name, don't they join Obama to usher in the political millenium? What liberals are unable to see is that interests often extend beyond economics into "mere" values. Obama and his campaign are trying to say, "Snap out of it!" to a public that doesn't want to snap.
P.S. The "lipstick on a pig" comment is going to hurt for a few days.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
I'm just another MacFanboy, enjoying the Kool Aid.
Mmmmmmm, goood. Yes, Your Steveness, I'd love another cup, thanks so much!
Mmmmmmm, goood. Yes, Your Steveness, I'd love another cup, thanks so much!
I need the ruthless political brain of Dr. Potomac to explain this for me....
Why in the heck does Obama keep going after Palin? Doesn't that just keep bringing up the fact that she's as experienced as him (except for running a campaign that is now bleeding cash)? I mean, what's the upside?
Fogged. Confused. And where the hell is the Style Editor?
Why in the heck does Obama keep going after Palin? Doesn't that just keep bringing up the fact that she's as experienced as him (except for running a campaign that is now bleeding cash)? I mean, what's the upside?
Fogged. Confused. And where the hell is the Style Editor?
Monday, September 08, 2008
Clive Crook Agrees with Me
Democrats must learn some respect
By Clive Crook
Published: September 7 2008 19:03 | Last updated: September 7 2008 19:03
The Financial Times
This article is not the first to note the cultural contradiction in American liberalism, but just now the point bears restating. The election may turn on it.
Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.
Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.
It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share. The country has conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) as well as liberal media (most of the rest). Curiously, whereas the conservative media know they are conservative, much of the liberal media believe themselves to be neutral.
Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything. The result is the same: for much of the media, the fact that Republicans keep winning can only be due to the backwardness of much of the country.
Because it was so unexpected, Sarah Palin’s nomination for the vice-presidency jolted these attitudes to the surface. Ms Palin is a small-town American. It is said that she has only recently acquired a passport. Her husband is a fisherman and production worker. She represents a great slice of the country that the Democrats say they care about – yet her selection induced an apoplectic fit.
For days, the derision poured down from Democratic party talking heads and much of the media too. The idea that “this woman” might be vice-president or even president was literally incomprehensible. The popular liberal comedian Bill Maher, whose act is an endless sneer at the Republican party, noted that John McCain’s case for the presidency was that only he was capable of standing between the US and its enemies, but that should he die he had chosen “this stewardess” to take over. This joke was not – or not only – a complaint about lack of experience. It was also an expression of class disgust. I give Mr Maher credit for daring to say what many Democrats would only insinuate.
Little was known about Ms Palin, but it sufficed for her nomination to be regarded as a kind of insult. Even after her triumph at the Republican convention in St Paul last week, the put-downs continued. Yes, the delivery was all right, but the speech was written by somebody else – as though that is unusual, as though the speechwriter is not the junior partner in the preparation of a speech, and as though just anybody could have raised the roof with that text. Voters in small towns and suburbs, forever mocked and condescended to by metropolitan liberals, are attuned to this disdain. Every four years, many take their revenge.
The irony in 2008 is that the Democratic candidate, despite Republican claims to the contrary, is not an elitist. Barack Obama is an intellectual, but he remembers his history. He can and does connect with ordinary people. His courteous reaction to the Palin nomination was telling. Mrs Palin (and others) found it irresistible to skewer him in St Paul for “saying one thing about [working Americans] in Scranton, and another in San Francisco”. Mr Obama made a bad mistake when he talked about clinging to God and guns, but I am inclined to make allowances: he was speaking to his own political tribe in the native idiom.
The problem in my view is less Mr Obama and more the attitudes of the claque of official and unofficial supporters that surrounds him. The prevailing liberal mindset is what makes the criticisms of Mr Obama’s distance from working Americans stick.
If only the Democrats could contain their sense of entitlement to govern in a rational world, and their consequent distaste for wide swathes of the US electorate, they might gain the unshakeable grip on power they feel they deserve. Winning elections would certainly be easier – and Republicans would have to address themselves more seriously to economic insecurity. But the fathomless cultural complacency of the metropolitan liberal rules this out.
The attitude that expressed itself in response to the Palin nomination is the best weapon in the Republican armoury. Rely on the Democrats to keep it primed. You just have to laugh.
The Palin nomination could still misfire for Mr McCain, but the liberal reaction has made it a huge success so far. To avoid endlessly repeating this mistake, Democrats need to learn some respect.
It will be hard. They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.
Democrats must learn some respect
By Clive Crook
Published: September 7 2008 19:03 | Last updated: September 7 2008 19:03
The Financial Times
This article is not the first to note the cultural contradiction in American liberalism, but just now the point bears restating. The election may turn on it.
Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.
Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.
It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share. The country has conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) as well as liberal media (most of the rest). Curiously, whereas the conservative media know they are conservative, much of the liberal media believe themselves to be neutral.
Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything. The result is the same: for much of the media, the fact that Republicans keep winning can only be due to the backwardness of much of the country.
Because it was so unexpected, Sarah Palin’s nomination for the vice-presidency jolted these attitudes to the surface. Ms Palin is a small-town American. It is said that she has only recently acquired a passport. Her husband is a fisherman and production worker. She represents a great slice of the country that the Democrats say they care about – yet her selection induced an apoplectic fit.
For days, the derision poured down from Democratic party talking heads and much of the media too. The idea that “this woman” might be vice-president or even president was literally incomprehensible. The popular liberal comedian Bill Maher, whose act is an endless sneer at the Republican party, noted that John McCain’s case for the presidency was that only he was capable of standing between the US and its enemies, but that should he die he had chosen “this stewardess” to take over. This joke was not – or not only – a complaint about lack of experience. It was also an expression of class disgust. I give Mr Maher credit for daring to say what many Democrats would only insinuate.
Little was known about Ms Palin, but it sufficed for her nomination to be regarded as a kind of insult. Even after her triumph at the Republican convention in St Paul last week, the put-downs continued. Yes, the delivery was all right, but the speech was written by somebody else – as though that is unusual, as though the speechwriter is not the junior partner in the preparation of a speech, and as though just anybody could have raised the roof with that text. Voters in small towns and suburbs, forever mocked and condescended to by metropolitan liberals, are attuned to this disdain. Every four years, many take their revenge.
The irony in 2008 is that the Democratic candidate, despite Republican claims to the contrary, is not an elitist. Barack Obama is an intellectual, but he remembers his history. He can and does connect with ordinary people. His courteous reaction to the Palin nomination was telling. Mrs Palin (and others) found it irresistible to skewer him in St Paul for “saying one thing about [working Americans] in Scranton, and another in San Francisco”. Mr Obama made a bad mistake when he talked about clinging to God and guns, but I am inclined to make allowances: he was speaking to his own political tribe in the native idiom.
The problem in my view is less Mr Obama and more the attitudes of the claque of official and unofficial supporters that surrounds him. The prevailing liberal mindset is what makes the criticisms of Mr Obama’s distance from working Americans stick.
If only the Democrats could contain their sense of entitlement to govern in a rational world, and their consequent distaste for wide swathes of the US electorate, they might gain the unshakeable grip on power they feel they deserve. Winning elections would certainly be easier – and Republicans would have to address themselves more seriously to economic insecurity. But the fathomless cultural complacency of the metropolitan liberal rules this out.
The attitude that expressed itself in response to the Palin nomination is the best weapon in the Republican armoury. Rely on the Democrats to keep it primed. You just have to laugh.
The Palin nomination could still misfire for Mr McCain, but the liberal reaction has made it a huge success so far. To avoid endlessly repeating this mistake, Democrats need to learn some respect.
It will be hard. They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
This Just In: American Voters Are Stupid
Continuing on with today's theme of the ignorance of the American electorate, Dr. Robert Schenkman of George Mason University presents all of the appalling data about just how uninformed and disengaged American voters are. To wit:
--Six in 10 Americans aged 16 to 24 couldn't locate Iraq on a map
--Two in five can name all three branches of government
--Fewer than half know who Karl Marx was or which war saw the Battle of Bunker Hill
etc., etc., etc.
Yes, Americans don't know much about politics, history, economics, government, and so on and so forth. (Funny how they just go on being the most successful country in the fossil record.) And admittedly, I am pretty sure that I would find dinner with those six in ten Iraq ignoramuses pretty dull.
But how about trying this on as an answer: being an American entails, in large part, the right to ignore politics most of the time. Our elites place such value on the glib, superficial, pseudo-knowledge that constitutes being "informed" it is impossible for them to appreciate how for most Americans all this stuff coastal dwellers between Boston and Washington, D.C. find so interesting does nothing but induce a ferocious bout of yawning everywhere else. And the ones who are yawning are they who have correctly grasped the intention of the Founders and appreciate the beauty of the constitutional order which both point in the same direction: enjoy your life, raise your family, engage in commercial activities and tune into the national debate only if and when you absolutely must. I do not regard American indifference to, and ignorance of, politics and government as a sickness but as a sign of social health. Let the Europeans fixate on these things. They deserve it.
Continuing on with today's theme of the ignorance of the American electorate, Dr. Robert Schenkman of George Mason University presents all of the appalling data about just how uninformed and disengaged American voters are. To wit:
--Six in 10 Americans aged 16 to 24 couldn't locate Iraq on a map
--Two in five can name all three branches of government
--Fewer than half know who Karl Marx was or which war saw the Battle of Bunker Hill
etc., etc., etc.
Yes, Americans don't know much about politics, history, economics, government, and so on and so forth. (Funny how they just go on being the most successful country in the fossil record.) And admittedly, I am pretty sure that I would find dinner with those six in ten Iraq ignoramuses pretty dull.
But how about trying this on as an answer: being an American entails, in large part, the right to ignore politics most of the time. Our elites place such value on the glib, superficial, pseudo-knowledge that constitutes being "informed" it is impossible for them to appreciate how for most Americans all this stuff coastal dwellers between Boston and Washington, D.C. find so interesting does nothing but induce a ferocious bout of yawning everywhere else. And the ones who are yawning are they who have correctly grasped the intention of the Founders and appreciate the beauty of the constitutional order which both point in the same direction: enjoy your life, raise your family, engage in commercial activities and tune into the national debate only if and when you absolutely must. I do not regard American indifference to, and ignorance of, politics and government as a sickness but as a sign of social health. Let the Europeans fixate on these things. They deserve it.
Why Democrats Lose
John Heilemann's thumb-sucker in New York Magazine is a study in contrasts. For the first six pages of the article (how many words is this thing, anyway? Is newsprint free at the NYMAG?) he does a workman-like (or is that workperson? I forget) job of bringing the reader all the way from the primaries through to the conclusion of the Republican convention. So far so good, although the following excerpted paragraphs are foreshadowed by the Northern lights of a Democratic theology which holds that Republicans are bad at government but boy do those guys know how to campaign.
At the end, though, Heilemann can't restrain himself and plunges into the deep water of Democratic denialism:
For all the jabber about Palin’s gender, the more relevant political fact about her may be her working-class appeal, and the working class has never exactly been Obama’s sweet spot. And though part of that may be owed to the dexterity of Schmidt et al. in branding him a celebrelitist, a bigger part can be put down to his consistent, maddening failure to conjure a compelling economic narrative on which to hang his policy proposals. And that in turn has handed the Republicans an opportunity: to highlight culture over economics.
Or, put more bluntly, to restart the culture wars [emphasis mine]. It required no great perspicacity to see this was what the Republicans were up to last week in St. Paul. The signposts were everywhere and garish. Here was Fred Thompson, essentially accusing Obama of being in favor of infanticide. Here was Rudy Giuliani at his feral, bloodlusty, sarcasmagoric worst. “I’m sorry that Barack Obama feels that [Palin’s] hometown isn’t cosmopolitan enough,” snarled the mayor. “Maybe they cling to religion there.” And here was Palin, rhetorically attaching sandals to Obama’s feet, draping beads around his neck, and placing an ACLU membership card in his back pocket. “Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America,” she said, “and he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights.”
The script was old, the act was tried, the performances ludicrous to the point of being comical. And the whole ugly circus was made all the more ridiculous by the performance of McCain calling for unity amid the howling hyenas, grinding his way through a speech text whose archaic cadences, if read by someone remotely capable, would sound like something from the mouth of Henry Clay or John Calhoun. A performance, that is, so at odds with the others at the convention, and with Palin’s in particular, that if you actually tried to reconcile them in your mind, the titanic degree of cognitive dissonance would make your head explode.
But there is a reason the Republicans keep falling back, again and again, on such hoary tropes. The reason is that, from the age of Nixon to the era of Lee Atwater to our current (yes, apparently, it’s not dead yet) epoch of Rove, they have all too often worked. Us versus them is a potent message—and one tailor-made to a candidate with the name Barack Hussein Obama. Who, need it really be pointed out, is plainly not like you.
This isn't reporting or even journalism. It is either full-blown partisanship or, more likely, a deep draught of what Democrats really believe about politics, Republicans, and, most importantly, the American people themselves. You can almost hear the enraged confusion, "Why do these rubes (aka, the voters) keep falling for this stuff? Don't they understand that they are trading their real interests (real in this instance meaning economic) for a mess of potage ("mere" values issues like abortion, religion, patriotism and national security)?
What Mr. Heilman and the Democratic Party can't bring themselves to acknowledge or admit is that for tens of millions of Americans, what the elites regard as potage unworthy of notice is actually a birthright. The the reason that these themes have had and continue to have such resonance and political potency is that they are symbols of fundamental realities (like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness beyond the nanny-state) that the highly-educated urban dwellers, in their unrelenting and impenetrable self-regard, long ago downgraded to mere kindergarten sing-song.
Of course, we don't want to wake them from their slumber too soon. The alarm clock is set for November 4 and there will be plenty of time for self-examination and mutual recrimination then.
John Heilemann's thumb-sucker in New York Magazine is a study in contrasts. For the first six pages of the article (how many words is this thing, anyway? Is newsprint free at the NYMAG?) he does a workman-like (or is that workperson? I forget) job of bringing the reader all the way from the primaries through to the conclusion of the Republican convention. So far so good, although the following excerpted paragraphs are foreshadowed by the Northern lights of a Democratic theology which holds that Republicans are bad at government but boy do those guys know how to campaign.
At the end, though, Heilemann can't restrain himself and plunges into the deep water of Democratic denialism:
For all the jabber about Palin’s gender, the more relevant political fact about her may be her working-class appeal, and the working class has never exactly been Obama’s sweet spot. And though part of that may be owed to the dexterity of Schmidt et al. in branding him a celebrelitist, a bigger part can be put down to his consistent, maddening failure to conjure a compelling economic narrative on which to hang his policy proposals. And that in turn has handed the Republicans an opportunity: to highlight culture over economics.
Or, put more bluntly, to restart the culture wars [emphasis mine]. It required no great perspicacity to see this was what the Republicans were up to last week in St. Paul. The signposts were everywhere and garish. Here was Fred Thompson, essentially accusing Obama of being in favor of infanticide. Here was Rudy Giuliani at his feral, bloodlusty, sarcasmagoric worst. “I’m sorry that Barack Obama feels that [Palin’s] hometown isn’t cosmopolitan enough,” snarled the mayor. “Maybe they cling to religion there.” And here was Palin, rhetorically attaching sandals to Obama’s feet, draping beads around his neck, and placing an ACLU membership card in his back pocket. “Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America,” she said, “and he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights.”
The script was old, the act was tried, the performances ludicrous to the point of being comical. And the whole ugly circus was made all the more ridiculous by the performance of McCain calling for unity amid the howling hyenas, grinding his way through a speech text whose archaic cadences, if read by someone remotely capable, would sound like something from the mouth of Henry Clay or John Calhoun. A performance, that is, so at odds with the others at the convention, and with Palin’s in particular, that if you actually tried to reconcile them in your mind, the titanic degree of cognitive dissonance would make your head explode.
But there is a reason the Republicans keep falling back, again and again, on such hoary tropes. The reason is that, from the age of Nixon to the era of Lee Atwater to our current (yes, apparently, it’s not dead yet) epoch of Rove, they have all too often worked. Us versus them is a potent message—and one tailor-made to a candidate with the name Barack Hussein Obama. Who, need it really be pointed out, is plainly not like you.
This isn't reporting or even journalism. It is either full-blown partisanship or, more likely, a deep draught of what Democrats really believe about politics, Republicans, and, most importantly, the American people themselves. You can almost hear the enraged confusion, "Why do these rubes (aka, the voters) keep falling for this stuff? Don't they understand that they are trading their real interests (real in this instance meaning economic) for a mess of potage ("mere" values issues like abortion, religion, patriotism and national security)?
What Mr. Heilman and the Democratic Party can't bring themselves to acknowledge or admit is that for tens of millions of Americans, what the elites regard as potage unworthy of notice is actually a birthright. The the reason that these themes have had and continue to have such resonance and political potency is that they are symbols of fundamental realities (like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness beyond the nanny-state) that the highly-educated urban dwellers, in their unrelenting and impenetrable self-regard, long ago downgraded to mere kindergarten sing-song.
Of course, we don't want to wake them from their slumber too soon. The alarm clock is set for November 4 and there will be plenty of time for self-examination and mutual recrimination then.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
A Proposed Settlement in the War Over Evolution
To take just a momentary break from all-things presidential politics, I wanted to set down a few thoughts on how we might bring an end to the debate over the teaching of evolutionary biology in the nation's public school classrooms.
This idea came to me a few months ago as I was listen to Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Edward Larson's Teaching Company lecture on the history of evolution. There are some, including relatives of mine, who take the hardest possible line on teaching macro-evolutionary theory in schools. For folks like these, a visit to the Smithsonian Institution Museum of Natural History is an occasion to speculate on who buried the dinosaur bones and used them to cook-up the idea of evolution. Call it the conspiracy theory of evolution.
On the other side are those who, for reasons quite apart from any scientific evidence presented by the fossil record, are bent on using macro-evolutionary theory to do the impossible: prove the negative that God doesn't exist, and that, in the words of Carl Sagan, the universe is all there ever was, is, or will be. Call this science as ideology.
The genius of Larson's approach is that he lifts concerns about evolution -- usually characterized as its overreaching into the metaphyiscs of human orgins (chance v. design) and the impact that those metaphysics have on our attitudes and behaviors -- out of the science classroom and puts them where they properly belong, in the humanities. Helping students understand how evolutionary theory "evolves" and interacts with philosopy, politics and culture would go very far toward addressing concerns about biology classrooms being used for propaganda purposes on either side of the debate. It would also substantially strengthen the place of the humanities in helping students begin to develop a balanced framework for interpreting the world around them. It is fool-hardy for conservatives to try to undermine confidence in science when the method has yielded such fabulous results in terms of improved well-being. By addressing evolutionary theory's historical development, and helping students understand how macro-evolution, as a worldview, shapes our understanding of human origins, purpose and destiny, along with teaching on alternative worldviews and interpretive frameworks, students will be better equipped for finding answers to the questions posed by their own lives.
To take just a momentary break from all-things presidential politics, I wanted to set down a few thoughts on how we might bring an end to the debate over the teaching of evolutionary biology in the nation's public school classrooms.
This idea came to me a few months ago as I was listen to Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Edward Larson's Teaching Company lecture on the history of evolution. There are some, including relatives of mine, who take the hardest possible line on teaching macro-evolutionary theory in schools. For folks like these, a visit to the Smithsonian Institution Museum of Natural History is an occasion to speculate on who buried the dinosaur bones and used them to cook-up the idea of evolution. Call it the conspiracy theory of evolution.
On the other side are those who, for reasons quite apart from any scientific evidence presented by the fossil record, are bent on using macro-evolutionary theory to do the impossible: prove the negative that God doesn't exist, and that, in the words of Carl Sagan, the universe is all there ever was, is, or will be. Call this science as ideology.
The genius of Larson's approach is that he lifts concerns about evolution -- usually characterized as its overreaching into the metaphyiscs of human orgins (chance v. design) and the impact that those metaphysics have on our attitudes and behaviors -- out of the science classroom and puts them where they properly belong, in the humanities. Helping students understand how evolutionary theory "evolves" and interacts with philosopy, politics and culture would go very far toward addressing concerns about biology classrooms being used for propaganda purposes on either side of the debate. It would also substantially strengthen the place of the humanities in helping students begin to develop a balanced framework for interpreting the world around them. It is fool-hardy for conservatives to try to undermine confidence in science when the method has yielded such fabulous results in terms of improved well-being. By addressing evolutionary theory's historical development, and helping students understand how macro-evolution, as a worldview, shapes our understanding of human origins, purpose and destiny, along with teaching on alternative worldviews and interpretive frameworks, students will be better equipped for finding answers to the questions posed by their own lives.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Michael Barone is so good when he writes about politics that he makes my teeth ache. Admittedly a wrote a fairly bad book about the "Revolution of 1688", but I am prepared to forgive him for casual blogasides like this.
Way back in April, Barone summarized the Democratic primary by saying it was "Academics vs. Jacksonians". At the time I didn't think it was the most accurate summary of the primary, but a potential preview of the election to come. With Sarah Palin's emergence onto the Republican ticket, I know it is.
Way back in April, Barone summarized the Democratic primary by saying it was "Academics vs. Jacksonians". At the time I didn't think it was the most accurate summary of the primary, but a potential preview of the election to come. With Sarah Palin's emergence onto the Republican ticket, I know it is.
Not to be overly enthusiastic, or anything, but this could be The Election, right here:
As found at Contentions, the Commentary blog.
Wouldn't J-Pod's response be a kick-ass debate takedown? Just askin'.
“Where Have You Been for 26 Years?”
John Podhoretz - 09.05.2008 - 4:11 PM
This was the question asked by Barack Obama today of John McCain, directly attacking McCain’s claim to be an agent of change. I don’t really understand why he’s going down this road, since McCain can answer, quite easily, “Here’s where I have been. I changed campaign-finance law. I changed telecommunications law. I took on the tobacco companies when other Republicans wouldn’t. I took on the cable companies when they wouldn’t let people choose what channels they might want to watch. I saw a standoff in the Senate on confirming judges and I changed a standoff into a bipartisan agreement. I took on the earmarks and the Bridge to Nowhere and the breaks for oil companies you, Obama, voted for in 2005. And I helped change the war in Iraq from a defeat into what appears to be a victory. Where have you been for 26 years?”
I am not endorsing any of McCain’s potential answers here; his campaign finance law was awful, his approach on tobacco in 1997 disturbingly statist. But it makes no sense for Obama to pretend McCain hasn’t worked for reform, because it keeps the subject of McCain’s reformist accomplishments at the forefront of the campaign conversation. And that isn’t good for Obama.
As found at Contentions, the Commentary blog.
Wouldn't J-Pod's response be a kick-ass debate takedown? Just askin'.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
I Laughed, I Cried, She Became a Part of Me!
As someone said the other day, "Sarah Palin is one of those extraordinary common people American society throws up at irregular intervals." Yes, the speech was short on policy -- that's what the veep does. Keep it light, focus on delivery and don't leave any bark on the other guy. "Being a mayor is kind of like being a community organizer -- except that a mayor has responsibilities." "The American presidency shouldn't be a journey of self-discovery." That crack about Obama's styrofoam Greek columns was pricless. What's that sound you say? Hot air gushing out of Obama's balloon.
I think I'm in love. Politically, that is.
As someone said the other day, "Sarah Palin is one of those extraordinary common people American society throws up at irregular intervals." Yes, the speech was short on policy -- that's what the veep does. Keep it light, focus on delivery and don't leave any bark on the other guy. "Being a mayor is kind of like being a community organizer -- except that a mayor has responsibilities." "The American presidency shouldn't be a journey of self-discovery." That crack about Obama's styrofoam Greek columns was pricless. What's that sound you say? Hot air gushing out of Obama's balloon.
I think I'm in love. Politically, that is.
Some conservatives will pan me, but I don't care. Mike Huckabee must have a prominent role in the future of the Republican Party. His gift of gab is remarkable. He is, by a mile, the best public speaker in Repub politics.
Romney's speech fell pretty flat I thought. Huck's, for all its apparent reused parts, did far more to enthuse watchers than Mitt's shots at liberals.
Romney's speech fell pretty flat I thought. Huck's, for all its apparent reused parts, did far more to enthuse watchers than Mitt's shots at liberals.
Government by Media
Jay Nordlinger over at the Corner says that the ghost of Spiro Agnew is in the air. Somehow, I don't feel all that bad about his return. Conservatives, spitting mad over the cable news and tabloid devouring of Sarah Palin, have turned on the media. And, true to form, the media smiles and rolls out the usual cliches about "attacking the messenger" and "we're just doing our jobs." Governments have constitutions to govern them. What self-government does the media have to control their excesses?
Vice President Agnew pushed back:
A raised eyebrow, an inflection of the voice, a caustic remark dropped in the middle of a broadcast can raise doubts in a million minds about the veracity of a public official or the wisdom of a Government policy. One Federal Communications Commissioner considers the powers of the networks equal to that of local, state, and Federal Governments all combined. Certainly it represents a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history ...
Of the commentators, most Americans know little other than that they reflect an urbane and assured presence seemingly well-informed on every important matter. We do know that to a man these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C., or New York City, the latter of which James Reston terms the most unrepresentative community in the entire United States.
Both communities bask in their own provincialism, their own parochialism...
Gresham’s Law seems to be operating in the network news. Bad news drives out good news. The irrational is more controversial than the rational. Concurrence can no longer compete with dissent...
Peggy Noonan is right -- Bubbleheads all!
Jay Nordlinger over at the Corner says that the ghost of Spiro Agnew is in the air. Somehow, I don't feel all that bad about his return. Conservatives, spitting mad over the cable news and tabloid devouring of Sarah Palin, have turned on the media. And, true to form, the media smiles and rolls out the usual cliches about "attacking the messenger" and "we're just doing our jobs." Governments have constitutions to govern them. What self-government does the media have to control their excesses?
Vice President Agnew pushed back:
A raised eyebrow, an inflection of the voice, a caustic remark dropped in the middle of a broadcast can raise doubts in a million minds about the veracity of a public official or the wisdom of a Government policy. One Federal Communications Commissioner considers the powers of the networks equal to that of local, state, and Federal Governments all combined. Certainly it represents a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history ...
Of the commentators, most Americans know little other than that they reflect an urbane and assured presence seemingly well-informed on every important matter. We do know that to a man these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C., or New York City, the latter of which James Reston terms the most unrepresentative community in the entire United States.
Both communities bask in their own provincialism, their own parochialism...
Gresham’s Law seems to be operating in the network news. Bad news drives out good news. The irrational is more controversial than the rational. Concurrence can no longer compete with dissent...
Peggy Noonan is right -- Bubbleheads all!
TV kills the daydream! Not much of a surprise there, really...but an interesting article, especially for all you Michael Polanyi enthusiasts out there.
A Penny Drops
I was pleased and perplexed yesterday morning when I heard Senator Obama scolding the media over their intense interest in Bristol Palin. "Families are off limits. Children are especially off limits," and "You should stop covering this story."
My first thought was, That's the most sensible thing I've heard come out of his mouth. And it was, and it speaks highly of the man's instincts and character that he would say it. But as with everything in politics, there's usually more than one reason for a firm, clear, authoritative statement like that. The other reason, I think, is that Obama knows that the media firestorm over Palin is hurting him. First and foremost, it is doing for McCain what McCain would have had trouble doing for himself: uniting conservatives behind his ticket. It is hurting him with those God- and gun-clinging, small-town, white-working-class voters (my goodness, how many of them have had teen pregnancies in their families) that Joe Biden's nomination was supposedly going to help with. And, the controversy continues to drown out any other message when Obama has work to do persuading voters.
So, please, media hounds, keep baying. You're moving McCain closer to the White House every day.
I was pleased and perplexed yesterday morning when I heard Senator Obama scolding the media over their intense interest in Bristol Palin. "Families are off limits. Children are especially off limits," and "You should stop covering this story."
My first thought was, That's the most sensible thing I've heard come out of his mouth. And it was, and it speaks highly of the man's instincts and character that he would say it. But as with everything in politics, there's usually more than one reason for a firm, clear, authoritative statement like that. The other reason, I think, is that Obama knows that the media firestorm over Palin is hurting him. First and foremost, it is doing for McCain what McCain would have had trouble doing for himself: uniting conservatives behind his ticket. It is hurting him with those God- and gun-clinging, small-town, white-working-class voters (my goodness, how many of them have had teen pregnancies in their families) that Joe Biden's nomination was supposedly going to help with. And, the controversy continues to drown out any other message when Obama has work to do persuading voters.
So, please, media hounds, keep baying. You're moving McCain closer to the White House every day.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Liberals Discover that Evangelicals Know About S-E-X
My spouse made a very good observation this evening: liberals are trying to exploit Bristol Palin's pregnancy because they think Christian conservatives will somehow be disillusioned by the idea of teenagers having sex. It will no doubt come as a surprise to the commentariat that religious conservatives know all about sex and even enjoy having it from time to time. Moreover, they know that children develop their own sexuality and will, from time to time, allow nature to get the better of their Sunday school lessons. As the wife said, "there's nothing new under the sun."
Of course she grew up in the northern Bible belt on a farm, where she learned early where the babies came from. She also saw a fair number of surprise pregnancies among teenagers and families of all kinds, including the local Old Order Mennonites. You know, the ones who drive buggies and eschew telephones. And in all these cases there was a regular order for handling the unexpected babies: the young people got married and raised them, and their families rallied to help hold the marriage together. If the father tried to skip out on his obligation, it usually resulted in some sort of public shaming. It's simple, really, in a world in which basic morality is upheld even when it isn't lived out perfectly.
My wife's other keen observation is how puritanical, even sexist, the Left's attacks on Sarah Palin have been. She shouldn't be running for office with a baby in-tow. Her daughter got pregnant because her mother was busy running the State of Alaska. Doesn't she know that a woman's place is in the home? This is what's really irksome about the modern feminist movement: if the shoe were on the other foot, there would not be a word of criticism over Palin's motherhood or her daughter's pregnancy. Anyone raising qualms on the subject would be beaten to a pulp with the media chanting from the sidelines with much tut-tutting about sex discrmination in American society. It just isn't fair. But as any good conservative will tell you, life isn't fair.
My spouse made a very good observation this evening: liberals are trying to exploit Bristol Palin's pregnancy because they think Christian conservatives will somehow be disillusioned by the idea of teenagers having sex. It will no doubt come as a surprise to the commentariat that religious conservatives know all about sex and even enjoy having it from time to time. Moreover, they know that children develop their own sexuality and will, from time to time, allow nature to get the better of their Sunday school lessons. As the wife said, "there's nothing new under the sun."
Of course she grew up in the northern Bible belt on a farm, where she learned early where the babies came from. She also saw a fair number of surprise pregnancies among teenagers and families of all kinds, including the local Old Order Mennonites. You know, the ones who drive buggies and eschew telephones. And in all these cases there was a regular order for handling the unexpected babies: the young people got married and raised them, and their families rallied to help hold the marriage together. If the father tried to skip out on his obligation, it usually resulted in some sort of public shaming. It's simple, really, in a world in which basic morality is upheld even when it isn't lived out perfectly.
My wife's other keen observation is how puritanical, even sexist, the Left's attacks on Sarah Palin have been. She shouldn't be running for office with a baby in-tow. Her daughter got pregnant because her mother was busy running the State of Alaska. Doesn't she know that a woman's place is in the home? This is what's really irksome about the modern feminist movement: if the shoe were on the other foot, there would not be a word of criticism over Palin's motherhood or her daughter's pregnancy. Anyone raising qualms on the subject would be beaten to a pulp with the media chanting from the sidelines with much tut-tutting about sex discrmination in American society. It just isn't fair. But as any good conservative will tell you, life isn't fair.
Culture 11 is a great new site, the first web magazine I have seen worth reading for...gosh, years at least. It's what Dr. Curmudgeon & Co. would be like, I'm sure, if we had more wit, intelligence, style-sense, contacts, and maybe a million or so in venture capital.
Among the good stuff they have is a three-way commentary on Our Sarah, with the great Peter Augustine Lawler weighing in along with a New Republic editor and a paleo-con (who, quite frankly, scares me so much that I reach for my Second Amendment rights and make sure a round is chambered).
Here is what Lawler has to say in entirety:
The choice was based, in part, on a sober calculation about what's required to win the election. But only in part. McCain seems to have been more moved by his perception that she, too, is anti-establishment, incorruptible maverick. He was also convinced that her capabilities soared far above her level of experience—or that she's sort of the opposite of Biden. He clearly thinks of Sarah as the same sort of choice as Joe Lieberman.
What unites Mac and Sarah is that they're anti-bobo (bourgeois bohemian) candidates. Because they have admirable, demanding lives, they don't need to have "lifestyles." Because they're not lost in the "virtual realities" of intellectual fashion or cyberspace, they're able to have real lives. Sarah energizes the "faith and family" vote because of WHO she is, just as honorable Mac energizes the nationalist or national security vote because of WHO he is. The ticket unites the two wings of the Republican party that regard people as much more than just beings with preferences or interest.
McCain picked even better than he knew. His party is in rapid decline because of the aging, decadent, tottering, and corrupt character of its leadership. And it's just as easy to criticize its followership—increasingly old white men with creepy Reagan nostalgia and who still to take their cues from the likes of Rush and O'Reilly.
But Palin represents real, young people with real marriages, real jobs, real families, a real enjoyment for sports, the outdoors, and all the good things of life, real religion, and a real sense of personal responsibility. She sold me when she explained that she was in politics for all the right reasons. Of course a mom joins the PTA, does her best to clean up local government, accepts the call to lead her state, and doesn't hesitate for a moment if her party's presidential candidate needs her help. This remarkable woman, even the mainstream media is admitting, is charming, even charismatic, fearless, and unflappable. Let's hope the experts don't screw her up, that she's ready to lead them, and not the other way around.
Among the good stuff they have is a three-way commentary on Our Sarah, with the great Peter Augustine Lawler weighing in along with a New Republic editor and a paleo-con (who, quite frankly, scares me so much that I reach for my Second Amendment rights and make sure a round is chambered).
Here is what Lawler has to say in entirety:
The choice was based, in part, on a sober calculation about what's required to win the election. But only in part. McCain seems to have been more moved by his perception that she, too, is anti-establishment, incorruptible maverick. He was also convinced that her capabilities soared far above her level of experience—or that she's sort of the opposite of Biden. He clearly thinks of Sarah as the same sort of choice as Joe Lieberman.
What unites Mac and Sarah is that they're anti-bobo (bourgeois bohemian) candidates. Because they have admirable, demanding lives, they don't need to have "lifestyles." Because they're not lost in the "virtual realities" of intellectual fashion or cyberspace, they're able to have real lives. Sarah energizes the "faith and family" vote because of WHO she is, just as honorable Mac energizes the nationalist or national security vote because of WHO he is. The ticket unites the two wings of the Republican party that regard people as much more than just beings with preferences or interest.
McCain picked even better than he knew. His party is in rapid decline because of the aging, decadent, tottering, and corrupt character of its leadership. And it's just as easy to criticize its followership—increasingly old white men with creepy Reagan nostalgia and who still to take their cues from the likes of Rush and O'Reilly.
But Palin represents real, young people with real marriages, real jobs, real families, a real enjoyment for sports, the outdoors, and all the good things of life, real religion, and a real sense of personal responsibility. She sold me when she explained that she was in politics for all the right reasons. Of course a mom joins the PTA, does her best to clean up local government, accepts the call to lead her state, and doesn't hesitate for a moment if her party's presidential candidate needs her help. This remarkable woman, even the mainstream media is admitting, is charming, even charismatic, fearless, and unflappable. Let's hope the experts don't screw her up, that she's ready to lead them, and not the other way around.
Do you want to see something really sad, silly, and altogether unfortunate? Then you want to take a quick look at Brainstorm, the Chronicle of Higher Education's blogsite. When you do, you will see a pile of professors talk about things they really don't know about. But when has that ever stopped us!
Then go over and read "I Hate You Sarah Palin" at NRO, and then check out the blog post "Is Sarah Palin really a woman?" at The American Thinker.
Assignment: Can you tell the difference between real-life and satire? No, I didn't think so. Unbeknownst to itself, the professoriate generally walks around with an enormous "KICK ME" sign taped to its back. But no-one bothers, because few really know them. Or care, much.
Then go over and read "I Hate You Sarah Palin" at NRO, and then check out the blog post "Is Sarah Palin really a woman?" at The American Thinker.
Assignment: Can you tell the difference between real-life and satire? No, I didn't think so. Unbeknownst to itself, the professoriate generally walks around with an enormous "KICK ME" sign taped to its back. But no-one bothers, because few really know them. Or care, much.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Gustav
If you guys haven't discovered the curiously addictive Weather Nerd, you should. Also, the WaPo has the Coolest. Weather Map. Ever.
If you guys haven't discovered the curiously addictive Weather Nerd, you should. Also, the WaPo has the Coolest. Weather Map. Ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)