The Bosque Boys

The Okie Gardener points us to this story in the Washington Post : "Religion Looms Large Over 2008 Race" (read here).

The article attempts to make two basic points:

1. Religion plays a much more important role in electing a president than it did four decades ago. All candidates (both GOP and Dems) feel that they need a religious public persona.

In essence, this is correct. However, there is a bit of journalistic leger demain in there. The story pivots on the Election of 1968, in which Mitt Romney's father, George, a practicing Mormon like his son, did not face much animosity or even curiosity about his religious beliefs in his unsuccessful run for the Republican nomination.

What changed? The Post calls on pollster Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, who avers that "between the late 1960s, when Romney's father ran, and now there has been one of the great transformations of our era."

Kohut asserts: "There is more mixing of religion and politics than there was then."

The attention to 1968 seems to imply that there is an unprecedented concern for religion in politics today, which perpetuates the modern myth of an American electorate historically dedicated to preserving a strict separation of religious culture and political culture. As we have discussed time after time on this blog, such a "wall of separation" was never the reality in the American tradition.

Although the Post assumes the importance of JFK and his Catholicism in 1960 as precedent, they don't seem to make the logical connection to an electorate concerned with religion in 1960 (not to mention 1928). Nor does the Post ask the perfectly reasonable question: if religion were not a factor in selecting national leaders, why has a Mormon candidate not won the presidency over the past 150 years? A Jewish candidate? The truth is that 1968 is the aberration (for a lot of reasons that I will not go into here). No matter, by neglecting to mention the context of 1968, the Post is sloppy (at best).

UPDATE: Something for another time: I agree with the Post that we are in the midst of a religious revival in that faith is increasingly essential for candidates; on the other hand, our corporate religious personality has become so diverse that minority religionists today have more viability than ever before. More at some later date on this paradox.

The other theme of the Post article:

2. The Religious Right and their prejudice against Mormonism still presents Mitt Romney with a formidable obstacle to overcome in winning the Republican nomination.

This one strikes me as based on a false assumption at worst, and a bit overblown at best.

The power of the Christian Right in the GOP is limited

It is a mistake to assume that the Christian Right plays the ultimate "kingmaker" role in GOP primaries. Just ask Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, Sam Brownback, and a myriad other failed aspirants who built campaigns around appealing to the tastes of religious conservatives. Since the advent of the so-called Religious Right, the GOP has nominated Ronald Reagan, George Bush (41), Bob Dole and George Bush (43). None of those candidates were anathema to religious people--but, with the possible exception of the latter George Bush, neither were they simpatico with conservative evangelicals.

An aside: the continued success of Rudy puts the lie to the notion that a candidate offensive to the Southern Evangelical power structure is not viable within the Republican Party.

Evangelicals can be quite ecumenical when the situation dictates

More importantly, the continued speculation centering on Romney's Mormonism ignores the propensity of the evangelicals to compromise and coalesce. Regardless of how powerful the Christian Right may be within the party, there is no doubt that evangelicals have been more than willing to join hands with other like-minded people of differing faiths. Part of the strength of modern religious voters is that they transcend denominations. Conservative Jews, Catholics and Protestants are now quick to make common cause. As for the General Election: faced with a big-name opponent whom they don't like very much (Hillary Clinton), religious conservatives will be happy to support Mitt Romney, a person of faith who enunciates shared conservative values.

My hunch is that Romney does not need to overcome a religious hurdle. Romney needs to prove himself a stimulating candidate with a message and a good chance to win in November. Once he does that (and I must admit that he is even making some headway with me in that regard), he will be plenty palatable to the Richard Lands of the political world.

From the Washington Post this story.

I try not to do a lot of "I told you so" on this blog; such egocentric triumphalism is boring and boorish. On the other hand, the buzz concerning Newt's prediction that Clinton and Obama will form the Democratic ticket for 2008 makes this late post newly relevant.

From last week:

A Likely Scenario

Right now Mrs. Clinton holds a comfortable lead. Most likely, Obama will continue to rise in the polls until he is even with Clinton, possibly even surpass Clinton, and then peak. These will be tense moments. Both camps will develop a deep dislike for the other. Then Mrs. Clinton's experience and superior organization will take over, the adults in the Democratic Party will exert their influence, Clinton will pull back ahead of Obama, and then pull away from him down the stretch. Then Mrs. Clinton will extend a gracious hand of friendship to Obama and offer him the VP. Obama will seize the opportunity to further his political education and prepare for his ultimate elevation to the Chief Executive. And they both shall live happily ever after.

You may review the entire post here.

A very quick thought:

Perhaps the thing I love most about George Bush is his peace.

Politicians and campaign managers have always admired (or coveted) his ability to be "comfortable in his own skin."

The familiar questions that have generally accompanied that cliché:

Who would you rather have a beer with? Bush, Gore, or Kerry?

Who seems more genuine? Who connects better with the heartland? Who has more core convictions? Who actually means what he says? Who is less likely to set policy based on transient public opinion polling?

Bush always wins those questions.

Granted, those are not the end-all, be-alls to attaining greatness (or perhaps even competence) as President of the United States.

However, I admire our President for his placidity in the midst of the sound of the fury of low approval ratings, a hostile Congress, and a media deliriously in pursuit of a weakened Chief Executive.

Amazingly, President Bush has not made any excuses. Can you imagine if you or I (or Bill Clinton) were in this mess? Can you imagine the tortured explanations and protestations we would have heard by now? Think about the elaborate public demonstrations of intrinsic goodness that we would have been subject to by this point to convince us the man in the Oval Office really was a good-hearted fellow.

Thankfully, President Bush has spared us all that dramatic emotional unburdening. He just goes on. He continues to show up, doing his job, smiling at us, encouraging us and not once complaining about the raw deal he is getting.

Remarkable.

Very thoughtful essays well worth reading from Commonweal. Here.

The Episcopal Church's actions continue to trouble the rest of the world-wide Anglican communion. As posted earlier, the Lambeth conference is coming up. Some English bishops may boycott if their American cousins, the Episcopalians, have not met the demands of the Dar es Salaam Primates' Meeting. The troubles began when the Episcopalians ordained a practicing gay bishop. Story here.

Important Caveat: The following paragraph is not offered as a veiled prediction.

I remember distinctly watching the Today Show at some point during the early stages of the Republican primary in 1980 when Tom Pettit of NBC News pronounced the political career of Ronald Reagan officially dead. Not too long after that, Reagan fired John Sears as his campaign manager, went back to being Reagan, and won the nomination easily.

Even before his latest troubles, I had counted out John McCain with sincere regret. I would not be at all surprised if he bowed out of the race in the very near future (hours not days; days not weeks). On the other hand, it would not surprise me if McCain persevered through Iowa and New Hampshire. After all, he is tough as nails. It would SHOCK me, however, if McCain re-emerged as a viable candidate a la RR.

Here are a few reasons why McCain is not Ronald Reagan:

1. Charisma. McCain lacks the movie star good looks and stage presence, not to mention the Reagan gift for communication. Of all the candidates for president, McCain is the most ardent and spot-on regarding the war. No matter, he seems incapable of delivering that message to a wider audience.

2. True-blue believers. I know a lot of people who like McCain, but I cannot think of anyone who worships him. Back in 1976 and 1980, a whole host of us saw RR as a political messiah.

3. The Kitchen Cabinet. In addition to an army of awestruck admirers out in the heartland, Reagan enjoyed an intensely loyal coterie of really smart and sophisticated political operatives who believed in him completely. McCain had the best staff money could buy. Now he has no money and no staff.

4. The Base. Reagan always had his detractors--but they were on the other side of the political divide. The most virulent hatred for McCain comes from within the GOP.

5. The Message. Reagan articulated core convictions he had rehearsed and perfected over the course of three decades. Even when adopting a new position (right to life, for example), Reagan hammered it home like a lesson he learned in Sunday School back in Dixon, Illinois. McCain, exceedingly principled and full of core convictions, ironically, strikes voters as an opportunist. Too often GOP loyalists see McCain as prone to adopting trendy positions to impress the Washington intelligentsia.

Much of this is unfair--but sometimes the ball bounces that way.

Is this a race to be the Adlai Stevenson of 2008?

I have said often that there are no precedents or models for the 2008 primary races; they are completely unlike anything that has ever come before.

On the other hand, the general election seems to be pretty standard fare. It occurs to me that we have plenty of historical resources upon which to draw. The two most compelling parallels are 1952 and 1968. Both modern contests transpired in the wake of extended, frustratingly expensive and unsuccessful wars of choice. Both elections featured surrogates for severely distressed sitting presidents. And both canvasses netted an out-party victory.

Contrary to the popular misapprehension, history never repeats itself. Sometimes, however, general patterns of human behavior, which can be deduced from a careful study of the past, exert great influence on current events, especially when present exigencies resemble past situations.

Here is the present political landscape. The United States is engaged in a military action, which a vast majority of Americans either believe was a mistake from the outset or egregiously mishandled at some point. These dissatisfied American political consumers are mad, dispirited, and they blame the President. Americans want a pound of flesh. How to exact revenge on a lame-duck President? Public opinion ratings. Vitriolic calumny as a new pastime. Derision. The mid-term election of 2006. The Election of 2008?

Unlike George Bush, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, the sitting presidents in 1952 and 1968, did not face constitutional barriers to reelection. That is, under the law, they were more than welcome to seek a second elected term. However, as commanders-in-chief of failing wars, Korea and Vietnam respectively, Truman and Johnson found that vehement public disapproval blocked their path to another four years at the helm of the United States government. For all practical purposes, we are in a similar situation this cycle.

The Democrats, the party of Harry Truman, desperate for a David-like champion to face the American hero, Dwight Eisenhower, selected Adlai Stevenson in 1952. Stevenson was an erudite candidate who thrilled loyal Democrats with his urbanity. Nevertheless, he lacked broad appeal, and he went down to ignominious defeat.

In 1968, the Democrats, once again in dire straits, chose President Johnson's VP, Hubert Humphrey, to carry the standard against a resurrected Richard Nixon. That election, despite the myriad disadvantages associated with the Johnson administration, proved extremely close--but, nevertheless, once again a loss for the candidate saddled with the war and the accompanying aura of incompetence and impotence.

Is the GOP primary the race to be the contemporary Adlai Stevenson? Actually, I expect this election to more closely resemble the 1968 model. I expect the challenger (no matter who she is) to emerge from the Democratic convention with a thirty-point lead. The Republican nominee will get some of that back at his own convention--and then struggle mightily to close the gap by the first Tuesday in November 2008, which he will do, either squeaking by with a razor-thin victory--or falling a few million votes short.

Does it matter who is running? A little. But not too much. Although there are undoubtedly some Americans out there who are up for grabs and can be swayed by personality, performance, and/or momentum (although probably not by ideas at this point).

Now a few random thoughts in re the Republican Canvass:

» Read More

My Mantra?

Nobody Knows Anything.

What does that mean?

This is a campaign like no other. Already, we have had more debates than I can count; the candidates have raised hundreds of millions of dollars, political fortunes have risen and fallen and risen again, and we are still fifteen months out from the election. We have never seen a canvass such as this; therefore, no one can predict what will happen between now and November 2008.

Having said that, here are a few more half-baked thoughts concerning where we are right now.

Clinton clearly on top; Obama still a threat

I don't say I coined "Clinton-44," but I started referring to Hillary in that fashion well over a year ago. For a long time, I have seen Mrs. Clinton as the odds-on-favorite to be the forty-fourth president of the United States. This week as the conventional wisdom seemed to gel around that idea, however, I began to get a case of cold feet on that prediction. I am the ultimate contrarian. And, sure enough, Barack Obama seems to suddenly "connect" in the You-Tube debate.

While the insiders scored one for Hillary and her mature foreign policy statement, the focus groups went wild over Obama's sincerity, authenticity, and "freshness." Go figure.

Some perspective: as sure as I am that Hillary has a nearly insurmountable organizational advantage at this juncture, I must admit that at the same point four years ago I was equally positive that Howard Dean had the Democratic nomination in the bag. Of course, I was in good company, as Karl Rove reportedly thought the same thing. But so much can go wrong.

To repeat, for a number of reasons, I see this as a Democratic year. Almost any Democratic candidate can and should win in November. That doesn't mean that a Democratic win is a sure thing. Villanova beat Georgetown in 1985. Baylor beat USC in the Coliseum later the same year. Hickory beat South Bend Central in Hossiers. Jets and Colts, Super Bowl III. We'll play the game. But we'll go into the contest as big underdogs.

For years now, Mrs. Clinton has been laying the foundation for a run for president as a moderate. But life is funny, and so much can go wrong. For Mrs. Clinton Iraq went wrong. With the possible exception of President Bush, no one was more surprised that there were no weapons of mass destruction. With the possible exception of President Bush, no one should be more frustrated with the unforeseen protracted and bloody campaign to pacify Iraq. These developments have proven extremely inconvenient for Mrs. Clinton.

Because things are so dreadful in Iraq, and the American people are so frustrated, angry, and sour, political rookie Obama emerged as a surprisingly viable alternative. Having said all that, none of this is unrelentingly terrible news from Mrs. Clinton's point of view. Someone had to emerge. The political laws of the universe dictate that a candidate on the way to the nomination must face some resistance.

A Likely Scenario

Right now Mrs. Clinton holds a comfortable lead. Most likely, Obama will continue to rise in the polls until he is even with Clinton, possibly even surpass Clinton, and then peak. These will be tense moments. Both camps will develop a deep dislike for the other. Then Mrs. Clinton's experience and superior organization will take over, the adults in the Democratic Party will exert their influence, Clinton will pull back ahead of Obama, and then pull away from him down the stretch. Then Mrs. Clinton will extend a gracious hand of friendship to Obama and offer him the VP. Obama will seize the opportunity to further his political education and prepare for his ultimate elevation to the Chief Executive. And they both shall live happily ever after.

On the other hand, so much can go wrong. If Obama catches fire, and wins the nomination (still an entirely plausible potential outcome), all bets are off. Obama is the one viable candidate of inexperience. As we saw the other night, inexperience means promises to meet with Castro and crazy Middle Eastern dictators. More importantly, an inexperienced candidate of the people means a firm commitment to rapid withdrawal from Iraq and the Middle East.

An Important but often Overlooked Point

Faced with the actual prospect of "retreat and defeat" and "cut and run" (and I use those terms because they will be plentiful in the fall of 2008, if Obama is running for president), I am convinced that the American people will hesitate. It is one thing to tell a pollster you are dissatisfied with the war. It is another thing entirely to actually have the responsibility of determining the future of American foreign relations in a national election.

Such a momentous decision will be hard fought and closely contested. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, he will be locked into a position extremely difficult to defend in a logical way. In such a situation any Republican candidate has a decent chance at knocking off the inexperienced Obama.

Today RCP links to a Nicholas Lemann essay in the New Yorker, which condemns a recent Supreme Court ruling as "a complete departure from more than a half a century of jurisprudence on race."

Professor Lemann, dean of the Journalism School at Columbia University, asserts that President "Bush’s legacy" includes "one wholesale change that will likely endure for a generation: the construction of a distinctly right-wing Supreme Court."

Specifically, on race, the right-wing Court wrought by Bush has "abandoned the twin goals of black advancement and racial harmony."

Such hyperbole is embarrassing.

No matter, similarly exaggerated accounts warning of a return to Jim-Crow America have been ubiquitous since the Court released its holding in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 this June (2007).

The case revolved around the practice of school districts deciding admission to popular schools based on race--in order to achieve integration and diversity.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote for the majority in a five-four decision to strike down the practice, famously declared:

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

This all makes Mr. Lemann and a host of other concerned citizens very unhappy.

Lemann again: "The Court would do well to contemplate the landscape of the Administration’s wreckage before it considers any other radical solutions, and sweeps away an accumulated body of law and experience."

Reality Check:

Wreckage? Radical? Sweeping Change?

All of this hand-wringing flows from the assumption that only court-ordered integration and other forms of coerced civil rights enforcement stands in the way of a return to our egregious racial past. More importantly, these gloomy scenarios ignore the dramatic transformation of American life between 1954 and the present.

Much has changed since Brown v. Board. While it is true that every African American citizen of the United States does not have total equality, black Americans of 2007 have great opportunity.

Who can deny that race is more often than not a significant advantage (not a disadvantage) for African Americans seeking employment in academia, corporate America, or even the presidency of the United States? That is, all things being equal, who among us would not prefer to check a favored-minority box when applying for admission or seeking employment at the finest institutions of higher learning or the best jobs in this country?

An aside: We are irreversibly pointed toward a re-evaluation of racial politics in America. In the simplest terms, our current cultural standard rests on according preferences to descendants of victims of past racial discrimination and abominations at the expense of other Americans increasingly less different from the protected class and more and more unconnected to the sins of the fathers. Such a system cannot survive the coming reconciliation with basic principles of American justice and equality.

The other outlandish assumption on the part of Lemann concerns the transformation of the Supreme Court into a disciplined, powerful, and permanent arm of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Reality Check #2:

After nearly four decades during which Republican presidents appointed eleven Supreme Court justices, while Democratic presidents nominated only two, the high court may have finally achieved a tenuous 5-4 majority that depends on the frighteningly fragile conservative vessel, Anthony Kennedy. I emphasize may, for only a fool completely ignorant of history and politics (any nominations?) would pronounce this current configuration, admittedly leaning right for the moment, a permanent institution. One stiff wind, many conservatives fear, and Kennedy is gone.

Another side note: More on this in the coming days--but Kennedy is under assault on one hand (“Scalia-like conservative cretin”) and intense friendly pressure on the other ("Kennedy is evolving; Kennedy is now the swing vote"). This good-cop, bad-cop routine is designed to flip Kennedy into the liberal camp.

But, even if Kennedy holds to his life-long judicial leanings in the face of Beltway celebrity, there is no indication that the conservatives are likely to gain another seat on the Court in the near term. Barring an unforeseen and untimely demise, the older liberals are intent on waiting out the Bush administration to retire. And it seems more than likely that a Democratic president will have an opportunity to appoint at least two nominees during her next term.

Shame on Nicholas Lemann and his fellow travelers for their disingenuous diatribes designed to scare the uninformed and whip up partisan fervor.