O Say Can You See
Since the appalling Yale a capella incident in San Francisco, I have been waiting for some conservative blowhard to make the obvious connection that the singers were beaten up because they sang "The Star Spangled Banner" which, as we all know, is completely unacceptable in these parts.
My wait is over! SFist watches Hannity & Colmes so we don't have to:
But here’s the thing-- no matter what anybody would say, Hannity
would harp on the fact that the group sang the National Anthem as to
him, the reason why the kids were assaulted was because it's San
Francisco and we hate America. We guess he must think the term "fag"
means "freedom loving patriot." We know we often get that confused too.When we watched a later run of the show, we couldn't but help notice
that the story was promoted throughout the show, usually with the tag
"Yale Choir Beaten Up for Singing the National Anthem." One tag even
mentioned it happened in Nancy Pelosi's city. We're just wondering, but
would anybody care about this story if the Bakers Dozen sang "Auld Lang
Syne" instead of the National Anthem? Or then would the story be we
hate old traditional songs?
Shhh. Don't tell Hannity that we hold lynchings of individuals who dare sing the national anthem at our sporting events!
Political Quiz Fun
Here's a quiz called The Political Compass, junking the traditional left-right continuum for a more nuanced Cartesian analysis. The x-axis shows economic belief from the far left (communism) to the far right (which the quiz rather dubiously labels neo-liberalism). The y-axis shows social policy from the very top (fascism) to the bottom (anarchism). My results? On the x-axis, I essentially was placed at the origin, only slightly tilted to the right (toward neo-liberalism). On the y-axis, I was decidedly more libertarian than authoritarian. Does that make me a right-leaning libertarian? I certainly hope not. I think of myself as a libertarian-leaning liberal (or liberaltarian in the parlance of our times).
Now, about neo-liberalism. Neo-liberals, if I understand the term correctly, support free trade and markets but aren't necessarily laissez-faire. Think Thomas Friedman.
But 'tis an interesting quiz. I think had there been more questions about fiscal policy (i.e., support of nationalized health care) I would have tilted a bit further to the left.
Great Internet Time Waster- Political Quiz
I have come to describe myself as a libertarian-leaning liberal (or liberaltarian, in the parlance of our times) and this political quiz confirms that. Is it accurate for everyone else? Take the quiz and see...
Also, here's a quiz following the traditional left-right continuum. It dates back to 1994, so some of its questions are outdated and others are downright ridiculous. But it is what it is, and I scored a 14, placing me between Clintons Bill and Hillary.
Pelosi Ascendant!
I'm not at all sure how well Nancy Pelosi will do as Speaker of the House, but it was difficult not to feel a twinge of pride at her ascendancy to the Speakership because:
a) she represents San Francisco
b) she's Italian-American
and
c) she's a woman, who if nothing else will encourage other women that achieving positions of political power in the United States is within their reach.
Why Third Parties Make Little Sense
In arguing that the Libertarian Party ill serves small-l libertarian interests, Ilya Somin makes a cogent point about our political system:
If we had a proportional representation electoral system, like many
European countries and Israel, a separate libertarian party would make
excellent strategic sense. The party (if better run than the
dysfunctional LP) could command 10-15% of the vote, thereby winning
roughly that percentage of legislative seats, and would be a potential
part of a ruling political coalition. A libertarian party might also
make sense if one of the major political parties were on the brink of
collapses and the libertarian party stood a chance of taking its place
(as the Republican Party displaced the Whig Party in the 1850s).
However, in the real world, the US is unlikely to move toward
proportional representation, and neither major political party is
likely to collapse anytime soon. Therefore, the cause of libertarianism
will be better off without a separate Libertarian Party
This argument is exactly correct and a useful rejoinder to idealistic Americans (including some friends of mine) who tend to support fringe parties.
In effect, the Democratic and Republican parties are de facto coalitions of several different interest groups that might form parties of their own in a proportional representation system of government. Within the Democratic Party itself, there are blue-collar laborers who oppose free trade yet are socially moderate, Clinton-style New Democrats who are fiscally moderate and decidedly upper-middle class, African Americans, Latinos, and so on. Each group works within the confines of the party to influence policy and promote their goals. The Republican Party, similarly comprised of several disparate interest groups, functions in the same manner.
Now I personally prefer the PR model over the American one. But, given that no major politicians in my lifetime have ever proposed junking our Presidentialist system, the possibility of change is very remote. In the meantime, voters wishing not to marginalize themselves completely ought to pick either the Democrats or the Republicans, as distasteful a choice as that can be.
Iraq If-Onlys
Was the Iraq War a good idea botched by the President? Or was it a bad idea botched by the President? By now, it should be clear, the idea that the Iraq War hasn't been botched by the President is laughable.
As Josh Marshall notes, more people are coming around to the latter position, which for the record has been mine since late 2002. Just about all of the arguments for how Bush could have executed the war better seem insufficient to me- I struggle to see how, in the long term, the invasion of Iraq would have increased US Security. (And that was the whole point, right?)
That being said, it is true that had Bush managed the occupation better, the situation in Iraq wouldn't be quite as dire. And that is where Tristero's critique of Marshall falls apart:
Tristero writes:
And there I probably should leave it. But I won't. Not when Josh insists that "For what it's worth, I think substantially more troops would have made a big difference earlier on." They wouldn't have.
Bush/Iraq was a stupid, immoral idea with no chance - except in the technical, mathematical sense - of success.
More troops wouldn't have made a bigger difference? Really? Great problems in Iraq stem from the inability of the American forces to maintain basic security in the days, weeks, and months immediately following the fall of Saddam's government. Half a million troops would have made an enormous difference. For one thing, a lot more Iraqis would be alive today. Iraq's cultural treasures may not have been looted. Iraqis would have been better able to conduct their normal lives. Whole cities would not have been in control of murderous thugs. And on, and on.
The problem, of course, was that sending half a million troops to Iraq was never in the cards. The war architects did not feel they were necessary. The American public would unlikely have supported the war had it been accurately appraised by the White House. Support for the war stemmed from the simplistic assumption that simply removing Saddam Hussein would solve a lot of our problems. That, of course, turned out not to be the case.
I take issue with Tristero's implication that because the war was a bad idea, the botched occupation didn't make a difference. The war was certainly was a bad idea, but the botched occupation exacerbated the situation further.
And Now, the Elephants…
How do the likely Republican candidates stack up? I'm going to dismiss the junior varsity elements right now: Sorry Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, and of course George Allen. To me, the Republicans have four viable possibilities: former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Arizona Senator John McCain, former George Rep. Newt Gingrich, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Here are some pros and cons for each:
Giuliani:
Pro: Giuliani's gutsy and brave leadership in the days immediately following September 11 endeared him to nearly all Americans. He's charismatic and likable and a good speaker. Also, under his watch New York became one of the safest big cities in the US, and the Mayor certainly deserves a lot of credit for his innovative police strategies and his cleansing of Times Square. He would be a pragmatic leader, a welcome change from the Bush Administration's detachment from reality.
Con: Could conservatives support a candidate who is pro-choice and tolerant of gay culture? Many on the right use abortion as a litmus test and barring a last-minute flip-flop, Giuliani's position on the matter would make him instantly unacceptable. It's difficult to see him winning a Republican Party primary notwithstanding his electability in the general election. Plus, he's never held high office before, and his infidelities and nasty divorce would further alienate a lot of the button-down right-wing crowd.
McCain:
Pro: Popular because of his straight-talking style, McCain is viewed as among America's most honest politicians. His compelling personal story appeals to Americans and he is respected if not supported by his opponents. His "maverick" reputation, whether justified or not, would charm independent voters. Plus, his social conservatism would make the Christian right comfortable with his candidacy.
Con: McCain alienates a lot of libertarian-minded Republicans with his sponsorship of campaign-finance reform and his nanny-statism. He still has a frosty relationship with the Christian right despite recent attempts to mend fences. Plus, could a man whose popularity and fame rests on his straight-talking style thrive in a modern Presidential campaign? An opponent could easily smear him, just as Karl Rove did with his whisper-campaign in the South Carolina primary in 2000. Also, his age (nearing 70) could be a factor.
Gingrich
Pro: Gingrich was the architect of the Republican congressional sweeps of 1994, the last time many Republicans felt proud of their party. His small government preferences would tickle conservatives aghast at Bush's outrageous spending. Also, his de facto resignation from public life leaves him untainted by the stench of current Washington corruption. More than any other candidate, he is seen as a traditional conservative that would restore a sense of ideological integrity to the Party.
Con: Voters likely haven't forgotten Gingrich's equally meteoric fall from power, due partially to his loss in the government-shutdown standoff with President Clinton in 1995. His performance as leader failed to impede Clinton's re-election in 1996 and subsequent popularity with voters. Also, his aggressive prosecution of the Lewinsky scandal cost the Republicans seats in the 1998 mid-terms, a no-no for the opposition party in the sixth year of a Presidential administration. Plus, is Gingrich a good campaigner? He's never held office higher than his House seat. Could he charm a broader electorate?
Romney:
Pro: The handsome, popular former Governor of Massachusetts is the most socially conservative of the major candidates and thus could be very popular with the Christian Right. His success as a very red governor of a very blue state attest to his ability to reach across the aisle. He has youth and none of the baggage that burdens McCain, Giuliani, or Gingrich.
Con: Romney is a Mormon. Would Americans be comfortable with a Mormon President? The Church of LDS is the fastest-growing religion in the US, but still represents only 2% of the population. Many people (fairly or unfairly) feel LDS is cultish and object to some of its practices. Also, Romney's popularity couldn't ensure victory for Republican Kerry Healey in the Massachusetts Gubernatorial race this year. She lost to Democrat Deval Patrick in a landslide, and her loss may raise eyebrows over Romney's stewardship of the Massachusetts Republican Party.
I obviously am not a Republican, but if I had to choose one of these men to be President, I'd go with Giuliani. McCain is too hawkish, Romney too Christian, and Gingrich too imbued with poor judgment.
Of course, as a Democrat, I'd love to see Alan Keyes get the nod but of course that's unlikely to happen 
Gore Train
The next Presidential election is two years away, and he hasn't even decided to run yet, but I'm ready to jump on the Al Gore for President bandwagon. Of all the likely contenders in '08, he to me is not only the candidate that would make the best President but also the one likeliest to win a general election against a Republican. Here's why:
1. The illusion of victory. Gore, recall, won the popular vote over current Pres. George W. Bush in 2000 and came within a single vote on the Supreme Court of winning the electoral college. Most Democrats regarded him as the rightful winner of the election and are especially regretful now that his opponent has conducted a failed presidency. I'm sure many Demos over the years have uttered, "if only Gore had won" and in 2008 they may yet have their chance to see what he could do.
2. Good foreign policy instincts. As Tennessee Senator, Gore broke ranks with the Democratic Party by supporting the Gulf War. He's no reflexive dove. Yet Gore had the good sense to oppose the Iraq War from the beginning, something that could not be said about Clinton, Kerry, or Edwards. With every passing day, Gore's position is vindicated further.
3. Environmental bona fides. Gore's pet domestic issue is the environment, of course, and with a majority of Americans unhappy with Bush's hear-no-evil, see-no-evil approach, Gore could exploit a significant wedge issue here.
4. Clinton era nostalgia. As time passes, many Americans recall the 1990s as a decade of peace and prosperity as America took its position as the world's sole superpower and the economy grew into the information age. Recall, President Clinton's popularity never sagged even during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Gore could capitalize on this in 2008, even if he failed to do so in 2000. I doubt he'd make the same mistake twice.
And now, for the concerns:
1. A nasty primary. The last thing Gore would want to do would be to enter into a nasty primary fight with Hillary Clinton, who will have the backing of her husband and a significant warchest at her disposal. Should Hillary opt not to run, both she and Bill Clinton would assuredly back his former deputy.
2. His less-than-electrifying manner. One of Gore's principal problems in 2000 was his stiff manner, standing in stark contrast to Bush's jocularity. Gore's performances in the first two debates did not endear him to the American public and left him in a hole in the polls. He must improve his public speaking style and attitude, especially if he faces a talented and charismatic Republican (like Giuliani, for example) in the general election.
3. Questionable political judgment. Gore infamously endorsed Howard Dean just weeks before Dean's flame-out in Iowa. He failed to see the Kerry train coming, but then again so did nearly everyone else. Then again, his decision not to back former running mate Joseph Lieberman has paid off given the latter's unpopularity within his own party.
4. His high negativity rating. Like Hillary Clinton, Gore is simply disliked by a lot of voters. Unlike lesser-known candidates, he doesn't have the advantage of anonymity. To win, he'd have to change a lot of people's impressions of him.
To me, his positives outweigh his negatives. I like that he isn't afraid to project American power abroad yet still made the right call on Iraq. I like that he's a centrist, pro-trade Democrat in an era when philistine economic nationalism is making a comeback. He seems well suited to bridge the gap between the party's liberal and moderate wings, and he possesses the experience and gravitas for the office.
I believe Hillary would make a fine President, but a poor candidate. This isn't sexist- her negative ratings exceed Gore's and a lot of liberals are uncomfortable with her right-ward lurch of the past few years. I simply do not see swing voters, an essential constituent to any Democratic victory, pulling the lever for Hillary. I hope I'm wrong, because if Gore doesn't run, Hillary is almost certainly going to be the nominee.
Anti-Trade Democrats- A Worry
Are the new Senatorial Democrats economic reactionaries? Jacob Weisberg fears so.
(via Virginia Postrel)
Rumsfeld and Politics
I hardly need to say that I'm pleased Donald Rumsfeld will no longer be the Secretary of Defense. Rummy was an umitigated disaster and was responsible for a series of decisions that turned a risky invasion of Iraq into a catastrophic occupation. His public statements before, during, and after the war enforced the image of America as an arrogant power uninterested in the consequences of its actions.
I'm also not surprised, given Rumsfeld's increasing unpopularity among both war supporters and detractors. Why, then, did Bush not get rid of Rumsfeld before the election, when doing so could very well have helped Republican candidates win elections?
Here are some possibilities:
1. Bush, our most cocooned President, was unaware how deeply the Republicans were in trouble before the election and so felt removing Rumsfeld wasn't necessary.
2. Rove told Bush to keep Rumsfeld as a way of solidifying the base, members of which would remain confident in the management of the war so long as Bush appeared to be.
3. Bush, as he said during his press conference today, didn't want to make his decision on Rumsfeld public because he didn't want to politicize the event.
I don't buy Number One. Bush was traveling around the country visiting embattled Republican Congressmen and Senators and clearly had to know that his party would sustain some losses yesterday. In fact, he said as much today. Number one is out.
Number three is pure bullshit. Bush said this in a clumsy attempt to explain why he gave Rumsfeld a vote of confidence the week before the election and then canned him the day after.
Number Two seems the most plausible to me. Could this, then, be a repudiation of Karl Rove's base strategy? Were there simply too few Republicans in the White House corner on Iraq? Were there more independents than Rove, despite his much ballyhooed research, expected?
David Brooks, appearing on PBS' Jim Lehrer Newshour today, said as much: yesterday's elections mark the end of the Rove era.
We'll see if others reach the same conclusion.