Conservatism has lost her way, is adrift, has found no authentic home. The need for conservatism is real. People are stressed. Why is the government everywhere? People correctly perceive that their lifestyle is in danger, that they individually have too little power to sustain it. People are whelmed: Too much data. Can't we just slow down for a minute? Homer assures me the Gods may have a sympathetic heart, a sense of humor and divine rage. For which shall I pray?
Nostalgia. Preservation. Culture. Community. Privacy. Freedom. Self interest. These are acceptable ideas. But Conservatism hasn't been well represented at the lectern or at the pulpit. For the past forty years, her supposed servants have fought to politicize conservatism in one failed attempt after another, and each follows the prior, like so much dishwater, down the drain. The promulgation of windmills like death tax - a rendition that helps no one. Most recently holding the country and economy hostage on the debt ceiling. Politicians , of all classes of people, telling others they love their country more. It is perfectly lousy as representation goes. It is self interest expressed at a level not frequently long tolerated, even in highly tolerant societies.. Those who claim to represent conservatism are more opportunistic than altruistic and more ideological than theoretical. They do not practice a recognizable variant. And, they are a lie. She, the truth.
Liberalism is just as lost. The band of individuals faced down by giants, only in union can they prevail. The face of the giant changes. The need for cooperation is immutable. Great foils are a fixture of history. Individuals organize and governments grow exponentially in response. We don't trust any other institution to protect us more than the government. That may not always be what we tell polling firms, but all other evidence confirms it.
Who would besmirch his reputation to claim this design? Could you even count the number of government programs? Enough with the government programs already. How is that model different from a peasant asking an advance wage from the lord? How is that better? More predictable? Thank a Prussian. Bureaucracy as the chief instrument of social welfare? Is that really how liberalism advances its agenda in the twenty-first century? This is not liberalism.
If I could get a conservative liberal, I think I'd have exactly what I want.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Saturday, November 7, 2009
The Democrat's Ex-Spouse
Joe Lieberman is like the Democrat's really destructive and venomous ex-spouse.
He stays in their house, and in fact, refuses to move from the all-glass master suite where he publicly trysts with friends and opponents alike, and with all possible fanfare. He demands ever increasing alimony payments. He attends all their important parties and functions, where his public behavior creates ever escalating embarrassment.
This marriage is very obviously over. You would think someone would make it stop. One would surmise the Democratic Party lawyers could finalize the divorce papers already. There is no evidence to suggest as much.
At least it is entertaining.
He stays in their house, and in fact, refuses to move from the all-glass master suite where he publicly trysts with friends and opponents alike, and with all possible fanfare. He demands ever increasing alimony payments. He attends all their important parties and functions, where his public behavior creates ever escalating embarrassment.
This marriage is very obviously over. You would think someone would make it stop. One would surmise the Democratic Party lawyers could finalize the divorce papers already. There is no evidence to suggest as much.
At least it is entertaining.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
NPR - National Dramatic Radio
National Public Radio is trying everything possible not simply to become a dreadful place. It is not having much success. The news of the economy is almost never positive.
NPR is not in decline simply because of the economy, though. It is helping with its own brand of drama - terrible journalism. The recent story on college students with ADD sharing their Adderall was both devoid of any real utility and suffered from a complete dearth factual underpinning. Does such anecdotal fluff really constitute world news?
The dramatic crisis language used to conclude the Adderall story caused me nearly to be flung from my treadmill. A breathy voice invoked the fearful consequences of inaction regarding a complete non-problem. In a word, the piece was completely terrible!
A few college students sometimes take amphetamines! That's a story?
I hear more of this type of story on NPR than in earlier years. Maybe the frequency is the same, and I am more attuned.
I am going to stop listening to these stories. I hope I stop listening because NPR stops broadcasting these stories. The alternative is my iPod. It's a dangerous weapon, but I am willing to use it.
NPR is not in decline simply because of the economy, though. It is helping with its own brand of drama - terrible journalism. The recent story on college students with ADD sharing their Adderall was both devoid of any real utility and suffered from a complete dearth factual underpinning. Does such anecdotal fluff really constitute world news?
The dramatic crisis language used to conclude the Adderall story caused me nearly to be flung from my treadmill. A breathy voice invoked the fearful consequences of inaction regarding a complete non-problem. In a word, the piece was completely terrible!
A few college students sometimes take amphetamines! That's a story?
I hear more of this type of story on NPR than in earlier years. Maybe the frequency is the same, and I am more attuned.
I am going to stop listening to these stories. I hope I stop listening because NPR stops broadcasting these stories. The alternative is my iPod. It's a dangerous weapon, but I am willing to use it.
On Economic Predictions
I must say that I am very impressed with the ability of various economists and other prognosticators to accurately diagnose the month, day and hour that the recovery will take hold. Seriously, how can they even show their faces? Their understanding and prediction of the crisis itself is matched only by the CIA's success predicting the dissolution of the Soviet Union at end of the cold war. Yet they spew their pithy opinion as though it were knowledge -- and I hear them parroted by family, friends and colleagues alike -- all day long, every day of the week. Of course we are depressed. The world isn't as horrible as the news.
Here is my prediction. The economic crisis will be over when we trust it is over. It will be followed by an economic recovery. Early trusters will cause it. Later trusters will engage later. Business trusters will need to believe it, because they will drive it.
The bailout may help.
A much greater help would be for all of us to turn off NPR and CNN. It will help tremendously if we all completely abandon the news for a few months: Total news blackout. I predict that, if we completely ignore the media for three to six months, we will return in late summer or fall to find the world in much better shape than we thought possible. Otherwise, the media output will continue to put pressure on the availability and price of cheap wine.
I should admit that, once the blackout starts, I may continue occasionally to read David Brooks' column, and sneak a secret peek at Gail Collins. We all have our addictions.
So let's all go out together and buy something today, and every day.
Regarding the economic turn-around, I hope it is not long.
Here is my prediction. The economic crisis will be over when we trust it is over. It will be followed by an economic recovery. Early trusters will cause it. Later trusters will engage later. Business trusters will need to believe it, because they will drive it.
The bailout may help.
A much greater help would be for all of us to turn off NPR and CNN. It will help tremendously if we all completely abandon the news for a few months: Total news blackout. I predict that, if we completely ignore the media for three to six months, we will return in late summer or fall to find the world in much better shape than we thought possible. Otherwise, the media output will continue to put pressure on the availability and price of cheap wine.
I should admit that, once the blackout starts, I may continue occasionally to read David Brooks' column, and sneak a secret peek at Gail Collins. We all have our addictions.
So let's all go out together and buy something today, and every day.
Regarding the economic turn-around, I hope it is not long.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Government Transformation at $800 Billion
What do we know about transformation?
What have we learned about growth?
Is living through just dumb luck?
Can we hit the targets?
I watched a motorcyclist jump onto a large trailer.
Rather, I watched him miss, and crash under it.
His was a transformative experience.
He was transformed into a saline sack of shattered fragments.
He survived to cameo a bit part in the movie.
There was more concrete data available to plan that motorcycle jump than the federal bailout.
We do not know the speed required to succeed at this jump.
State and federal government stimulus packages are largely ahistorical.
There is no known or tested or even secret formula available to propel the economy onto that distant ramp.
There is no precedent.
We have never been here.
We have never succeeded in this space before, and never failed.
We must all be great fiction writers.
The goal of such fiction is the biography of Garcia-Marquez:
Living to Tell the Tale.
I have transformed small things with that specific goal in mind.
Houses. Land. Organizations. Kids.
I can point to a few successes.
I learn more from the failures.
I have learned three lessons.
First: Praxis.
Doing nothing yields an equivalent result.
Theory must be indistinguishable from action.
Every hypothesis, every thought, must result in some perceptible pressure on the rudder.
A thousand tiny points comprise a smoother arc than one grand theory.
Second, abort failure as early as possible.
Early failure is better than late failure.
Isolated failure is better than total failure.
A course correction is preferable to any of them.
Third, transformation is positivistic.
It must be realized to be real.
A Kuhnian paradigm shift replaces more than the skin it sheds.
I have never guided the type of transformation that involves filtering hundreds of billions of dollars through the bitter and opaque filters of state and federal bureaucracies.
My credentials are the exactly same as everyone else on the planet in this regard.
I would be capable...
Of failing,
Of succeeding,
Of some interpretable outcome.
I trust myself as much as I trust those in charge.
Equally.
Good luck to them and to us.
Perhaps, in the worst case, we will all survive to cameo a bit part in the movie.
What have we learned about growth?
Is living through just dumb luck?
Can we hit the targets?
I watched a motorcyclist jump onto a large trailer.
Rather, I watched him miss, and crash under it.
His was a transformative experience.
He was transformed into a saline sack of shattered fragments.
He survived to cameo a bit part in the movie.
There was more concrete data available to plan that motorcycle jump than the federal bailout.
We do not know the speed required to succeed at this jump.
State and federal government stimulus packages are largely ahistorical.
There is no known or tested or even secret formula available to propel the economy onto that distant ramp.
There is no precedent.
We have never been here.
We have never succeeded in this space before, and never failed.
We must all be great fiction writers.
The goal of such fiction is the biography of Garcia-Marquez:
Living to Tell the Tale.
I have transformed small things with that specific goal in mind.
Houses. Land. Organizations. Kids.
I can point to a few successes.
I learn more from the failures.
I have learned three lessons.
First: Praxis.
Doing nothing yields an equivalent result.
Theory must be indistinguishable from action.
Every hypothesis, every thought, must result in some perceptible pressure on the rudder.
A thousand tiny points comprise a smoother arc than one grand theory.
Second, abort failure as early as possible.
Early failure is better than late failure.
Isolated failure is better than total failure.
A course correction is preferable to any of them.
Third, transformation is positivistic.
It must be realized to be real.
A Kuhnian paradigm shift replaces more than the skin it sheds.
I have never guided the type of transformation that involves filtering hundreds of billions of dollars through the bitter and opaque filters of state and federal bureaucracies.
My credentials are the exactly same as everyone else on the planet in this regard.
I would be capable...
Of failing,
Of succeeding,
Of some interpretable outcome.
I trust myself as much as I trust those in charge.
Equally.
Good luck to them and to us.
Perhaps, in the worst case, we will all survive to cameo a bit part in the movie.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
President Bush is Fun At Parties
The thing you have to love about President Bush is that he has insisted on having a good time as President, despite the state of the country. You have to give him that. At no time has he allowed actual problems to interfere with his clear intention to have a good-time on his turn at POTUS. You can see that he is having a good time. He wants you to see it. Credit for him. He has nailed it. I like that about him. I really do.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Let begin the General Election Primary!
Democratic primary candidates should now campaign against the Republican Party turning this period into the General Election Primary. For the remainder of the Democratic primary campaign, starting right now, both Democratic candidates should turn and immediately train their fire on the presumptive Republican nominee.
In addition to the essential brilliance of such a plan, the General Election Primary resolves a number of practical problems, and may provide a blueprint for future primary contests.
How would this work?
Starting immediately, both Clinton and Obama should begin to contest the general election. Each Democratic candidate will ignore the other Democratic candidate, and each will campaign solely against the Republican platform, that party's presumptive nominee, his positions and ideas, and his legislative and oratorical history.
There are scores of benefits for Democrats from a General Election Primary.
Democrats can stop the internecine struggles. The Democratic candidates will stop sniping at each other. This change alone will lift the entire party. New cause for compromise may even be birthed here. The growing ire between the two camps has caused one camp to question the other campaign's legitimacy, with reciprocity in the question the of fitness of the first. Both are false questions. Democrats can move on, so they must.
The two campaigns will cease to provide made to order sound bites for the opposition general election commercials. Enough snapshots have been produced already to be sure. I do not take this issue terribly seriously. Most pundits agree, however, that it is a pretty common practice, and this year will be no different. Democrats can do better, so they must.
The Republican nominee is currently basically getting a free ride. Many pundits think that candidate is fairly squandering an opportunity by closely linking himself with the evangelical right and the neo-cons. Maybe. But this period is equally an opportunity squandered for Democrats, inasmuch as the overwhelming majority of voters from all political stripes have rejected the approaches of both of those groups as guiding principles. Highlighting the policy linkages of the presumptive Republican nominee and keeping him off-balance would be an incalculably much better use of the Democratic candidates' time and money than a continued discussion of the nearly non-existent policy differences between them. Democrats can be more effective, so they must.
Very importantly, the General Election Primary provides the voracious and bored -- and thus dangerous - media with something more substantive and interesting to cover.
One of the main problems in the current Democratic primary -- illustrated on The Daily Show's nightly video collage -- is that the 24 hour media cycle is bored. NOTHING happens all day. The OReilly-Olberman Twins are more dangerous when they are bored, if that is possible. The O-Twins actively misinterpret everything and NOTHING when they are not bored. They fabricate outright about NOTHING when they are bored. I like Keith Olberman and his Miami Vice-style "news" production much better when he is not also engaged in his dramatic teary-eyed Sally Struthers "The Children!" imitation, or his hollow and hallowed "How Could You?" euro-indigation.
Currently, a bored but ambitious reporter somewhere gleans and actively strips from its context some trivial one-phrase quotation about NOTHING from the news-free black hole. The MSNBC-NYT-CNN-WP-FOX-LAT-NBC-ABC-PBS ©Newsglomerate then reports slash repeats that context-free NOTHING ad nauseum over the next 48 hours, or until the next too-clever columnist diverts their ferret-sized attention span to the next phrase. A General Election Primary will provide the media a surfeit of appropriate material. As an editorial note, I love watching talking heads. I do not find it productive for the Democrats right now. Democrats can provide more substance, so they must.
Most importantly, the entire electorate will get to experience and evaluate the strategies and approaches, the inventiveness, the creativeness, and the effectiveness each Democratic candidate can muster against the Republican candidate. What an invaluable bit of data to have! Consider the General Election Primary an internship, with real on-the-campaign-trail training for the general election. All hiring-managers would revel to review a potential employee's work for three months before hiring him, but the factors arrayed against that option in business are many. In this case, however, the candidates will be doing exactly the same job as they are now for the same pay, but facing a new, more salient, and more legitimate target. Consider further the fantastic positive impact of two big guns pounding incessantly on the opposing machine. Democrats can innovate, so they must.
It is my observation that Obama is a great speaker on great issues. He is relatively less effective with wonk-speak. Clinton, on the other hand, does not inspire in the same manner with grand themes of hope and inspiration, but she is very effective at wonk-speak. Democrats should look forward to an experience mixing these ingredients in a simultaneous general race with the presumptive Republican nominee. Democrats can evaluate, so they must.
Begin the General Election Primary!
Democrats
can
compete
with
the opposition,
so
they must.
In addition to the essential brilliance of such a plan, the General Election Primary resolves a number of practical problems, and may provide a blueprint for future primary contests.
How would this work?
Starting immediately, both Clinton and Obama should begin to contest the general election. Each Democratic candidate will ignore the other Democratic candidate, and each will campaign solely against the Republican platform, that party's presumptive nominee, his positions and ideas, and his legislative and oratorical history.
There are scores of benefits for Democrats from a General Election Primary.
Democrats can stop the internecine struggles. The Democratic candidates will stop sniping at each other. This change alone will lift the entire party. New cause for compromise may even be birthed here. The growing ire between the two camps has caused one camp to question the other campaign's legitimacy, with reciprocity in the question the of fitness of the first. Both are false questions. Democrats can move on, so they must.
The two campaigns will cease to provide made to order sound bites for the opposition general election commercials. Enough snapshots have been produced already to be sure. I do not take this issue terribly seriously. Most pundits agree, however, that it is a pretty common practice, and this year will be no different. Democrats can do better, so they must.
The Republican nominee is currently basically getting a free ride. Many pundits think that candidate is fairly squandering an opportunity by closely linking himself with the evangelical right and the neo-cons. Maybe. But this period is equally an opportunity squandered for Democrats, inasmuch as the overwhelming majority of voters from all political stripes have rejected the approaches of both of those groups as guiding principles. Highlighting the policy linkages of the presumptive Republican nominee and keeping him off-balance would be an incalculably much better use of the Democratic candidates' time and money than a continued discussion of the nearly non-existent policy differences between them. Democrats can be more effective, so they must.
Very importantly, the General Election Primary provides the voracious and bored -- and thus dangerous - media with something more substantive and interesting to cover.
One of the main problems in the current Democratic primary -- illustrated on The Daily Show's nightly video collage -- is that the 24 hour media cycle is bored. NOTHING happens all day. The OReilly-Olberman Twins are more dangerous when they are bored, if that is possible. The O-Twins actively misinterpret everything and NOTHING when they are not bored. They fabricate outright about NOTHING when they are bored. I like Keith Olberman and his Miami Vice-style "news" production much better when he is not also engaged in his dramatic teary-eyed Sally Struthers "The Children!" imitation, or his hollow and hallowed "How Could You?" euro-indigation.
Currently, a bored but ambitious reporter somewhere gleans and actively strips from its context some trivial one-phrase quotation about NOTHING from the news-free black hole. The MSNBC-NYT-CNN-WP-FOX-LAT-NBC-ABC-PBS ©Newsglomerate then reports slash repeats that context-free NOTHING ad nauseum over the next 48 hours, or until the next too-clever columnist diverts their ferret-sized attention span to the next phrase. A General Election Primary will provide the media a surfeit of appropriate material. As an editorial note, I love watching talking heads. I do not find it productive for the Democrats right now. Democrats can provide more substance, so they must.
Most importantly, the entire electorate will get to experience and evaluate the strategies and approaches, the inventiveness, the creativeness, and the effectiveness each Democratic candidate can muster against the Republican candidate. What an invaluable bit of data to have! Consider the General Election Primary an internship, with real on-the-campaign-trail training for the general election. All hiring-managers would revel to review a potential employee's work for three months before hiring him, but the factors arrayed against that option in business are many. In this case, however, the candidates will be doing exactly the same job as they are now for the same pay, but facing a new, more salient, and more legitimate target. Consider further the fantastic positive impact of two big guns pounding incessantly on the opposing machine. Democrats can innovate, so they must.
It is my observation that Obama is a great speaker on great issues. He is relatively less effective with wonk-speak. Clinton, on the other hand, does not inspire in the same manner with grand themes of hope and inspiration, but she is very effective at wonk-speak. Democrats should look forward to an experience mixing these ingredients in a simultaneous general race with the presumptive Republican nominee. Democrats can evaluate, so they must.
Begin the General Election Primary!
Democrats
can
compete
with
the opposition,
so
they must.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Do the Michigan and Florida Primaries...
merely constitute those bumps in the road one so often encounters?
Is the absence of action in Michigan and Florida in fact paralysis? Is it simply doing nothing when doing almost anything would be better? Or is it some sort of strategy?
Is this situation an illness to which one randomly succumbs the day before vacation? Or self-sabotage?
Obama has not favored any particular resolution; pundits suggest he may enjoy at least short term benefit from the status quo. Clinton would appear to benefit from a re-vote, and seems to favors one.
It is hard to believe that this lapse will be consequence free for either candidate.
Democrats have to wonder why Howard Dean is the chair of anything. He either favors Obama or has no stature. Certainly the latter is true. Maybe both. What happened to his "fifty state" strategy? Democrats should hope they do not pay dearly in the general election for his many glaring inadequacies.
The argument in favor of a required "democratic" distribution of super delegates has proved to be specious and hollow. There can be no mandate for super delegates to adhere to the popular vote if Democrats cannot craft a solution to allow a popular vote in Michigan and Florida.
The Democratic Party would benefit greatly from a rapid resolution to the stalemate inherent in this primary: The stalemate that is become this primary. Near-term closure would be widely welcomed, regardless of the candidate chosen. This episode does not bring closure any closer.
Democrats will not benefit from the status quo in Michigan and Florida. They should try not to post their own eviction notice in those states before the general election.
Is the absence of action in Michigan and Florida in fact paralysis? Is it simply doing nothing when doing almost anything would be better? Or is it some sort of strategy?
Is this situation an illness to which one randomly succumbs the day before vacation? Or self-sabotage?
Obama has not favored any particular resolution; pundits suggest he may enjoy at least short term benefit from the status quo. Clinton would appear to benefit from a re-vote, and seems to favors one.
It is hard to believe that this lapse will be consequence free for either candidate.
Democrats have to wonder why Howard Dean is the chair of anything. He either favors Obama or has no stature. Certainly the latter is true. Maybe both. What happened to his "fifty state" strategy? Democrats should hope they do not pay dearly in the general election for his many glaring inadequacies.
The argument in favor of a required "democratic" distribution of super delegates has proved to be specious and hollow. There can be no mandate for super delegates to adhere to the popular vote if Democrats cannot craft a solution to allow a popular vote in Michigan and Florida.
The Democratic Party would benefit greatly from a rapid resolution to the stalemate inherent in this primary: The stalemate that is become this primary. Near-term closure would be widely welcomed, regardless of the candidate chosen. This episode does not bring closure any closer.
Democrats will not benefit from the status quo in Michigan and Florida. They should try not to post their own eviction notice in those states before the general election.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Joey stepped up, ...
...and he raised his hand and said, "We're not those kind of men
It's peace and quiet that we need to go back to work again".
Bob Dylan, Joey
I seem to have really angered some "Obama supporter" friends of mine because I argue in favor of Hillary. One has halted correspondence. Apparently the alienation of friends is becoming the rule in this contest.
According to exit polling in the Texas primary, 91 percent of Clinton supporters said they would be dissatisfied with Obama as the nominee; 87 percent of Obama fans said they would be dissatisfied with Clinton. Nationally, a quarter of those who back Clinton say they'd vote for John McCain if Obama won the nomination (while just 10 percent of Obama supporters would do the same if he lost).
Newsweek
I am shamed.
What is the real underlying cause of this fracture between two camps with policy differences so minor that they require a thorough reading of footnotes, appendixes and columnists even to understand them. The lamest explanations begin with "everybody knows...", but that phrase prefaces every diagnosis I encounter regarding the apparent antipathy between the Clinton and Obama camps.
Here is my message to Obama supporters: Get over yourselves.
Here is my message to Clinton supporters: Get over yourselves.
Here is my message to Democrats: One of the candidates will win. Maybe yours. Maybe not. One of the candidates will get second place and lose. Maybe yours. Maybe not. We will probably know before the convention. Maybe not.
Either way -- if your candidate wins or if yours does not win -- Democrats will be represented by a solid and fully vetted candidate in the general election. The Democratic candidate will win the election in November if average Democrats do not act like children, spiteful jilted lovers, or third world petty dictators.
Or like OReilly and Olberman.
This competition is not over. Neither candidate has won. Neither has lost. When that moment comes, electoral success will depend on average Democrats to follow the example of Joey, when he stepped up,
and he raised his hand and said, "We're not those kind of men
It's peace and quiet that we need to go back to work again".
What if, eight years later...
We were facing a different choice?
What if, eight years ago, Karl Rove and Co. had used their considerable talent to steer the Republicans toward a candidate who was engaged, competent, clear thinking, hard working and, to be concise, George W. Bush's complete opposite?
What if Karl and the Republicans had fostered an era wherein the creative names they assigned to their legislative efforts reflected the actual content?
What if Karl and the Republicans had selected a candidate capable of understanding that content, let alone discussing or actually contributing to it?
What if Karl and the Republicans had been able to decouple their policy goals from the trademark slash and burn incompetence of the Bush-II Administration.
Is there an alternate universe wherein the Iraq war was competently executed, even more so the choice whether to enter it at all? Is there an alternate universe wherein Republicans effectively managed the economy for families of all socio-economic strata? Is there an alternate universe wherein all domestic and foreign policy was basically competently managed with only the occasional blunder, instead of blunderously managed with only the rarest example of competence - usually expressed as a resignation?
There is an enormous contradiction in the fact that the ueber competent Karl Rove and Co. ended up with such an incompetent standard bearer to lead the implementation of their ideas. Is there an alternate universe wherein the potential value of the Republican platform is successfully transformed into policy? I do not agree with many of their ideas, but an honest and competently orchestrated implementation would have been a fairer test.
Is overcoming this history the primary challenge for McCain? Or is its continuation his promise?
In fact, what does a successful implementation of the modern Republican ideal look like? Bush-II? Bush-I? Reagan? Nixon?
On second thought,
never mind.
What if, eight years ago, Karl Rove and Co. had used their considerable talent to steer the Republicans toward a candidate who was engaged, competent, clear thinking, hard working and, to be concise, George W. Bush's complete opposite?
What if Karl and the Republicans had fostered an era wherein the creative names they assigned to their legislative efforts reflected the actual content?
What if Karl and the Republicans had selected a candidate capable of understanding that content, let alone discussing or actually contributing to it?
What if Karl and the Republicans had been able to decouple their policy goals from the trademark slash and burn incompetence of the Bush-II Administration.
Is there an alternate universe wherein the Iraq war was competently executed, even more so the choice whether to enter it at all? Is there an alternate universe wherein Republicans effectively managed the economy for families of all socio-economic strata? Is there an alternate universe wherein all domestic and foreign policy was basically competently managed with only the occasional blunder, instead of blunderously managed with only the rarest example of competence - usually expressed as a resignation?
There is an enormous contradiction in the fact that the ueber competent Karl Rove and Co. ended up with such an incompetent standard bearer to lead the implementation of their ideas. Is there an alternate universe wherein the potential value of the Republican platform is successfully transformed into policy? I do not agree with many of their ideas, but an honest and competently orchestrated implementation would have been a fairer test.
Is overcoming this history the primary challenge for McCain? Or is its continuation his promise?
In fact, what does a successful implementation of the modern Republican ideal look like? Bush-II? Bush-I? Reagan? Nixon?
On second thought,
never mind.
Friday, March 7, 2008
I Learned Something about Myself 3.0
Recent conversations with friends have caused me to realize something that I could not earlier have so clearly articulated.
I want Hillary Clinton to win.
I want her to beat Obama.
I want her to become the next President, Madam POTUS.
But I do not want you Obama fans to be mad at me because I want that.
You know, when we race, we race to win, and we race to the finish line. We do not stop before.
One does not race for some greater good against someone who is running for himself. It is not a good bet. Sometimes it works, though.
I do not think she should quit.
If you quit, you lose. It is a fact.
I have won a lot of races from much further behind.
You know I have. You have seen it.
We Hillary fans are still in this.
I don't want you to be angry with me about that, either.
If Obama wins, then he is my guy. Absolutely, man, all the way. It will be more fun than we have had in years kickin' these guys' butts out of Washington. Like a fantastical and wonderful dream that is in all the papers. O-BA-MA! Yes. If he wins.
We must strive always to have a civil discussion, but it sometimes becomes uncivil.
Even so, we choose not to quit.
I would not choose that. You know I would not choose that.
Mostly, I do not want you to be mad at me about my choice to race all the way to the finish line for something I believe. You know I do not have another choice inside me.
Go Hillary!
I want Hillary Clinton to win.
I want her to beat Obama.
I want her to become the next President, Madam POTUS.
But I do not want you Obama fans to be mad at me because I want that.
You know, when we race, we race to win, and we race to the finish line. We do not stop before.
One does not race for some greater good against someone who is running for himself. It is not a good bet. Sometimes it works, though.
I do not think she should quit.
If you quit, you lose. It is a fact.
I have won a lot of races from much further behind.
You know I have. You have seen it.
We Hillary fans are still in this.
I don't want you to be angry with me about that, either.
If Obama wins, then he is my guy. Absolutely, man, all the way. It will be more fun than we have had in years kickin' these guys' butts out of Washington. Like a fantastical and wonderful dream that is in all the papers. O-BA-MA! Yes. If he wins.
We must strive always to have a civil discussion, but it sometimes becomes uncivil.
Even so, we choose not to quit.
I would not choose that. You know I would not choose that.
Mostly, I do not want you to be mad at me about my choice to race all the way to the finish line for something I believe. You know I do not have another choice inside me.
Go Hillary!
Saturday, February 23, 2008
My so-called friends...
have fallen under a spell.
They look me squarely in the eye and they say, "All is well."
Can they imagine the darkness that will fall from on high
When men will beg God to kill them and they won't be able to die?
Bob Dylan, Precious Angel
A few weeks ago I wrote that it would be an error for Democrats to expect to benefit from any pre-convention split among the Republicans.
Since then, the so-called "mainstream media" and the conservative talking heads have provided an exciting confirmation (see this - thanks KC; and my earlier musings here).
Today, Karl Rove re-initiated himself into the discussion with an Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. He affirms that the political contest to be waged by Republicans will become very unpleasant, very soon. He is also trying to deflect some the attention to stories on McCain's relationships with lobbyists. There are layers, and there are layers.
I am told in discussions with really smart friends, the really well-informed ones, that John Cougar Mellencamp was right. "Nothing matters and what if it did."
"...I hardly think Karl Rove is a source I want to devote much time toward."
"...it's just more of Karl Rove's diarrhea of the mouth..."
Perhaps I err.
Maybe this Obama-mania and the surrounding aura will be enough. Maybe his rhetorical flourish, intellectual armor and political instinct are so fantastic that they will protect him against his personal and political short-comings throughout the campaign.
Maybe this really is the year of the Democrats. Maybe Bush and his criminal regime have dragged down the Republicans to such an underwhelming state of disrepute that, as a national political force, they have already exhausted any realistic opportunity to win the Presidential contest in November.
And maybe, just maybe, none of us has never squandered an opportunity that was ours to squander.
Hope is not a strategy.
History shows that an opposing candidate underestimates the Rush Limbaughs, the Karl Roves and their oozing, beguiling ilk at his own great peril. These guys act as a forward area scout for an army of 300 million camped just beyond the hill.
So maybe,
just maybe,
we
should
prepare
for
what is
to come.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Super Delegates...
should be proportionally allocated.
Why is this confusing?
Why does an allocation of Super Delegates according to the proportion of the vote constitute something other than the simple proportional representation used in the Democratic Party?
Any
other
allocation scheme
is
less fair
to voters.
Why is this confusing?
Why does an allocation of Super Delegates according to the proportion of the vote constitute something other than the simple proportional representation used in the Democratic Party?
Any
other
allocation scheme
is
less fair
to voters.
Even Fox News...
loves Obama, in their "Fair and Balanced" manner.
Last night they "interviewed" a representative from each of the campaigns.
Question to Clinton Campaign: You just had a campaign shake-up. The new advisor is a black woman. Was that an effort to improve sagging relations with black voters, with whom you are struggling?
Question to Obama Campaign: Your candidate gave a great speech last night. Tell us about it.
Something
strange
is
in the air.
Something
very
very
strange.
Last night they "interviewed" a representative from each of the campaigns.
Question to Clinton Campaign: You just had a campaign shake-up. The new advisor is a black woman. Was that an effort to improve sagging relations with black voters, with whom you are struggling?
Question to Obama Campaign: Your candidate gave a great speech last night. Tell us about it.
Something
strange
is
in the air.
Something
very
very
strange.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Democrats would be wrong...
to assume that they can benefit during the November general election from the apparent disagreement among Republican factions during the primaries.
Civil competition during a primary helps a party in the general election -- as long as the money holds out. (This premise holds true for the current Democratic race as well.)
While Dobson, Limbaugh and Colter may lead a band of socially conservative ideological purists into the desert, no one in that wing has any reticence about changing directions. They will compete in full force at the Republican convention. They will exuberantly exert the absolute extent of their influence on their constituency during the general election. Their oxygen is derived from the game. They will support McCain.
Limbaugh and Dobson do not need to explain, or even acknowledge really, radical shifts in their positions, or dramatic changes in direction. Their flock do not evaluate or critique the logic used to develop their conclusions. Their particular constituency accept their conclusions on faith, not evidence. The assertion that "they forced" McCain to select Huckabee or Thompson as his running mate will drive their Volte face. They will support McCain.
The defection of Limbaugh's Lemmings is ephemeral.
The negotiations between the wings of the Republican party are well underway. History suggests they will come to a satisfactory - and competitive - resolution.
Democrats,
it
would
be
an error
to interpret
these events
as favorable.
Civil competition during a primary helps a party in the general election -- as long as the money holds out. (This premise holds true for the current Democratic race as well.)
While Dobson, Limbaugh and Colter may lead a band of socially conservative ideological purists into the desert, no one in that wing has any reticence about changing directions. They will compete in full force at the Republican convention. They will exuberantly exert the absolute extent of their influence on their constituency during the general election. Their oxygen is derived from the game. They will support McCain.
Limbaugh and Dobson do not need to explain, or even acknowledge really, radical shifts in their positions, or dramatic changes in direction. Their flock do not evaluate or critique the logic used to develop their conclusions. Their particular constituency accept their conclusions on faith, not evidence. The assertion that "they forced" McCain to select Huckabee or Thompson as his running mate will drive their Volte face. They will support McCain.
The defection of Limbaugh's Lemmings is ephemeral.
The negotiations between the wings of the Republican party are well underway. History suggests they will come to a satisfactory - and competitive - resolution.
Democrats,
it
would
be
an error
to interpret
these events
as favorable.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Huckabee is right...
about one important issue.
The American People have embraced civility in this election to a greater extent than any election since before Reagan.
Every state primary and caucus has reacted negatively to negative campaigning. Candidates are not allowed to be seen trying to make another candidate look bad as a person.
On both sides, Republicans and Democrats.
Edwards picked on Hillary, saying he and Obama were the guys. He was wrong.
Romney hammered on McCain. That turned out badly for him.
There is a competition between both Clinton and Obama, and Huckabee and McCain, to be seen as the nicest guy, resulting in a conversation among gentle-persons, a very aristocratic affair.
I wonder whether this trait will or can be extended into the general election.
Would
that
be
a great
change,
or
what?
The American People have embraced civility in this election to a greater extent than any election since before Reagan.
Every state primary and caucus has reacted negatively to negative campaigning. Candidates are not allowed to be seen trying to make another candidate look bad as a person.
On both sides, Republicans and Democrats.
Edwards picked on Hillary, saying he and Obama were the guys. He was wrong.
Romney hammered on McCain. That turned out badly for him.
There is a competition between both Clinton and Obama, and Huckabee and McCain, to be seen as the nicest guy, resulting in a conversation among gentle-persons, a very aristocratic affair.
I wonder whether this trait will or can be extended into the general election.
Would
that
be
a great
change,
or
what?
Thursday, February 7, 2008
The issue of change...
may be a bit of red herring if you have Ted Kennedy stumping for you. One of the great fossils of the Democratic party is for change?
There is a further contradiction in a "change candidate" supported by half of Washington.
There may be an even bigger contradiction in a "change candidate" surrounded by guys like Tom Dashle and others who were run out of Washington as the old guard a few years ago.
I like Obama. I will happily support him in the election. I also like Kennedy and Dashle. I really like them a lot.
I
do not
like
hypocrisy.
There is a further contradiction in a "change candidate" supported by half of Washington.
There may be an even bigger contradiction in a "change candidate" surrounded by guys like Tom Dashle and others who were run out of Washington as the old guard a few years ago.
I like Obama. I will happily support him in the election. I also like Kennedy and Dashle. I really like them a lot.
I
do not
like
hypocrisy.
Monday, February 4, 2008
I like politics because I like..
To know candidates' stands on various issues. So what do I want to know? What bores me? What makes me mad?
Positions of interest
There are issues I care about. I want to know whether these issues matter at all to a candidate (a primacy of focus) or did he just create a policy to run; I want to know his or her apparent level of talent and experience in each area. Finally, I want to know the candidates level of tolerance for competing positions, and willingness to adapt to new information. I am interested in the following major and minor policy areas.
-International Relations
-Homeland Security
-Military Policy
-Immigration Policy
-Iraq Policy
-Energy Policy
-Environmental Policy
-Fiscal Security
-Social Equality
-An approximate budget for the US for their first year
-View of the role of the government in society
-Number of lies I know about
-Do I like them
-Able to incorporate new information into world views
[[Editor's Note: my mother correctly points out that I omitted education, which is a very important issue to me. Thank you, Mom!]]
-Education
I can vote for someone who does not make me want to have dinner with them. I will always vote for effectiveness over affability. I want to vote for a candidate I like, but it is not absolutely essential.
I think every candidate should be required to deliver an initial budget during the primary, and a revised budget during the general election. This budget will allow me to judge many of a candidate's issue positions.
I do not care
There are a number of things I do not care much about.
-Opportunism, unless it makes me not like them.
-Megalomania, unless it makes me not like them.
-God complex, unless it makes me not like them.
-Whoring around. Why do I care? I do not care.
I assume each of these unfortunate characteristics is significantly abundant in anyone motivated to run for office. I do not like to hear candidates accuse other candidates of these things. That is redundant and not useful.
Make me mad
There are a few things politicians do that absolutely make me mad.
-Ignores new information. This is listed twice because it is important.
-Party switching - these people are disloyal users, and should both be immediately forced to return all campaign contributions, and be unceremoniously forced from office and required to stand again.
-Lying - every lie requires a public admission apology. Flogging would be good, too.
-Confounding their particular perspective, platform or policy with patriotism. Grrr!
Now
you know
what
to expect
if I
ever become
master
of the universe.
Positions of interest
There are issues I care about. I want to know whether these issues matter at all to a candidate (a primacy of focus) or did he just create a policy to run; I want to know his or her apparent level of talent and experience in each area. Finally, I want to know the candidates level of tolerance for competing positions, and willingness to adapt to new information. I am interested in the following major and minor policy areas.
-International Relations
-Homeland Security
-Military Policy
-Immigration Policy
-Iraq Policy
-Energy Policy
-Environmental Policy
-Fiscal Security
-Social Equality
-An approximate budget for the US for their first year
-View of the role of the government in society
-Number of lies I know about
-Do I like them
-Able to incorporate new information into world views
[[Editor's Note: my mother correctly points out that I omitted education, which is a very important issue to me. Thank you, Mom!]]
-Education
I can vote for someone who does not make me want to have dinner with them. I will always vote for effectiveness over affability. I want to vote for a candidate I like, but it is not absolutely essential.
I think every candidate should be required to deliver an initial budget during the primary, and a revised budget during the general election. This budget will allow me to judge many of a candidate's issue positions.
I do not care
There are a number of things I do not care much about.
-Opportunism, unless it makes me not like them.
-Megalomania, unless it makes me not like them.
-God complex, unless it makes me not like them.
-Whoring around. Why do I care? I do not care.
I assume each of these unfortunate characteristics is significantly abundant in anyone motivated to run for office. I do not like to hear candidates accuse other candidates of these things. That is redundant and not useful.
Make me mad
There are a few things politicians do that absolutely make me mad.
-Ignores new information. This is listed twice because it is important.
-Party switching - these people are disloyal users, and should both be immediately forced to return all campaign contributions, and be unceremoniously forced from office and required to stand again.
-Lying - every lie requires a public admission apology. Flogging would be good, too.
-Confounding their particular perspective, platform or policy with patriotism. Grrr!
Now
you know
what
to expect
if I
ever become
master
of the universe.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Demand a Grand Compromise by Voting for Second Place...
in the primary. Why should anyone vote for the person he wants in second place?
The Bush years have taught us a significant and valuable lesson. We now know that the entire country can be run from the vice president's office. Pretty effectively, in fact, if measured against their stated intentions. No administration in history provides a clearer example than the Bush-Cheney regime that the country can be completely managed by someone other than the president. Simultaneously, Bush has taught us that being a likable figurehead can get one a four year contract renewal. We should sincerely thank President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for this valuable lesson.
What additional insight might be gained should we compare this configuration of the American political system to states with different positions for head of state and head of government? Could we parlay our system into one with a cordial, likable, spirited head of state, and a competent manager running the government? A Royal and a COO?
Is anybody thinking Clinton - Obama - Clinton - Obama - Clinton?
I will wage a fiver that a much larger majority of Americans would campaign for, vote for and enthusiastically support a ticket containing the two together in any combination - The Grand Compromise - than either could garner alone.
The primary variable for all Americans and all Democrats interested in a Grand Compromise is our inclination to give sufficient power to the candidate holding the second place ribbon at the convention. More is better. Even so, ordinary democrats may need to articulately, and yet forcefully, demand the Grand Compromise at the convention regardless of what happens beforehand.
Vote in the primary for the person you want second on the ticket. Vote for the Grand Compromise.
The Bush years have taught us a significant and valuable lesson. We now know that the entire country can be run from the vice president's office. Pretty effectively, in fact, if measured against their stated intentions. No administration in history provides a clearer example than the Bush-Cheney regime that the country can be completely managed by someone other than the president. Simultaneously, Bush has taught us that being a likable figurehead can get one a four year contract renewal. We should sincerely thank President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for this valuable lesson.
What additional insight might be gained should we compare this configuration of the American political system to states with different positions for head of state and head of government? Could we parlay our system into one with a cordial, likable, spirited head of state, and a competent manager running the government? A Royal and a COO?
Is anybody thinking Clinton - Obama - Clinton - Obama - Clinton?
I will wage a fiver that a much larger majority of Americans would campaign for, vote for and enthusiastically support a ticket containing the two together in any combination - The Grand Compromise - than either could garner alone.
The primary variable for all Americans and all Democrats interested in a Grand Compromise is our inclination to give sufficient power to the candidate holding the second place ribbon at the convention. More is better. Even so, ordinary democrats may need to articulately, and yet forcefully, demand the Grand Compromise at the convention regardless of what happens beforehand.
Vote in the primary for the person you want second on the ticket. Vote for the Grand Compromise.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
I am trying to decide...
... who to vote for in the primary.
I like Ron Paul. I mostly like how he highlights the schizophrenia inherent in the coalition structure of the Republican party. His Honor, the good Guiliani, also illustrates the prostitution of the evangelical vote to her wealthy capitalist-Republican spouse. I wish them both the best in that endeavor.
On the Democratic side, there are a couple of principled choices, and a couple of strategic options. Kucinich, Richardson and Dodd are good, principled policy choices. Richardson could do the veep thing. None of them are likely contenders.
The real choices are Clinton, Obama and Edwards. I could live with any of them in a general election.
I voted for Edwards in the last primary. His message is solid. I still like him.
I like Hilary well enough, but she has allowed herself to be coopted by big money. She is also forced to appear a little too hawkish on national security issues to counter the "woman as soft" criticism. She has moved a little beyond my comfort zone in these two spaces. I still think she is clear thinker when she is allowed to think.
Obama is a refreshing change and he seems honorable. He has about as much experience as Edwards. He has pizazz. I think he is "for real."
Gore-Edwards? I like the sound of that. Alas, no comfort there. Al has just joined some venture capital firm. I wish he had invested in the election instead.
We have pretty good choices this election cycle.
I
wish
more
of the choices
were
real.
I like Ron Paul. I mostly like how he highlights the schizophrenia inherent in the coalition structure of the Republican party. His Honor, the good Guiliani, also illustrates the prostitution of the evangelical vote to her wealthy capitalist-Republican spouse. I wish them both the best in that endeavor.
On the Democratic side, there are a couple of principled choices, and a couple of strategic options. Kucinich, Richardson and Dodd are good, principled policy choices. Richardson could do the veep thing. None of them are likely contenders.
The real choices are Clinton, Obama and Edwards. I could live with any of them in a general election.
I voted for Edwards in the last primary. His message is solid. I still like him.
I like Hilary well enough, but she has allowed herself to be coopted by big money. She is also forced to appear a little too hawkish on national security issues to counter the "woman as soft" criticism. She has moved a little beyond my comfort zone in these two spaces. I still think she is clear thinker when she is allowed to think.
Obama is a refreshing change and he seems honorable. He has about as much experience as Edwards. He has pizazz. I think he is "for real."
Gore-Edwards? I like the sound of that. Alas, no comfort there. Al has just joined some venture capital firm. I wish he had invested in the election instead.
We have pretty good choices this election cycle.
I
wish
more
of the choices
were
real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
